Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://lifeafterdeath.info/index.htm

Long read, but VERY interesting. I'm actually a sceptic of LAD and found this page to be a VERY entertaining read.

the Philosophical chapter is what 'hooked' me.

If you like pursuing possibility of LAD, or generally look at life differently i recommend this book.

http://www.amazon.ca/Many-Lives-Masters-Prominent-Psychiatrist/dp/0671657860

I guess we'll all find out eventually

Thanks, it's been a while since I've seen so much nonsense in one place.

lord_blackfang wrote:Thanks, it's been a while since I've seen so much nonsense in one place.

I like your avatar and siggy. geez i might feel offended if i havnt seen your sig

lord_blackfang wrote:Thanks, it's been a while since I've seen so much nonsense in one place.

Thanks, it's been a while since I've seen such a useless contribution to what could be an interesting discussion.


I on the other hand enjoyed that read.

I take issue with the very opening line:

What if we cease to exist at physical death? Being mortal with no soul and there is no afterlife. It is the same as never existing in the first place.

As far as I can tell, I did not exist before I existed. Doesn't seem too impossible to not exist after existing?

Athiests won't read that...

legoburner wrote:I take issue with the very opening line:

What if we cease to exist at physical death? Being mortal with no soul and there is no afterlife. It is the same as never existing in the first place.

As far as I can tell, I did not exist before I existed. Doesn't seem too impossible to not exist after existing?

If you read the article in its etirety...it explains this.

Deadshane1 wrote:If you read the article in its etirety...it explains this.

I read the entire philosophy section, but there are just too many presumptions which all kept coming back to the author's fear of not existing that I only mentioned that one point. Most of the rest of the points can be offset with some natural selection. The article is basically describing some of the beliefs of buddhism but without the concepts of nibbana or karma (touched upon).

I briefly read this over. To be honest what I read was, as far as I'm concerned, basically wishful thinking.

Regardless of how one philosophises about this, I see no logical reason to even suspect the existence of an afterlife. I read no logical argument here to convince me that existence after death will be any different to life pre birth (non existant).

Incidentally in physical terms I don'ts believe in the existence of a soul, it’s a philosophical and romantic concept but its in no way a real thing. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, humans are incredibly complex chemical engines, but there is no supernatural essence which makes our existence in any way divine or special.

I've always been a big believer in the principles of occums razor and I've never read, seen or experienced anything where I've concluded the most simple and logical explanation for it is supernatural, this is regardless of whether we are discussing the soul, god, karma, angel sightings, ghosts or whatever else. I've no wish to offend anyone and if that’s what you want to believe more power to you, but personally I find such concepts utterly ludicrous.

LuciusAR wrote:Incidentally in physical terms I don't believe in the existence of a soul, it’s a philosophical and romantic concept but its in no way a real thing. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, humans are incredibly complex chemical engines, but there is no supernatural essence which makes our existence in any way divine or special.

Yes, you are right about this.

That is, unless you are wrong.

Yeah what if I am. But what if your wrong? or the Buddhists are wrong? Or the ancient Greeks?

In fact, there have been thousands of philosophies concerning the nature of the 'soul' and the possibility and nature of the 'afterlife' over the course of human history and realistically the absolute maximum amount that possibly can be correct is 1. In fact its far more likely to be 0.

I've never seen anything that has convinces me of the existence of an essence existing at the centre of each human that is totally separate from the physical body. A 'Soul' just seems to me to be a concept invented to describe the totality of the complex series of emotions that the average human goes through.

Why do you think that the absolute maximum that could possibly be correct is one, or that it's more likely to be zero? Does that include your ideas too?

Well if I am wrong, both you and I cease to exist and who cares.

If you are wrong, I get to go to paradise and you get red-hot pokers in your bum.

Hedging my bets...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:Well if I am wrong, both you and I cease to exist and who cares.

If you are wrong, I get to go to paradise and you get red-hot pokers in your bum.

Hedging my bets...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Or you're wrong and any other number of religions that you don't belong to are right and you suffer their version of hell.

And remember kids logic and religion don't mix

Supergeek wrote:And remember kids logic and religion don't mix

A bit trollish there, keep it civil. The scientific breakthroughs of early Islam and some chap called Isaac Newton might disagree with you there.

Edit: Posted wrong image...


There we go.

Not to mention Copernicus, Mendel, Pasteur, Max Planck, and Einstein.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:Well if I am wrong, both you and I cease to exist and who cares.

If you are wrong, I get to go to paradise and you get red-hot pokers in your bum.

Hedging my bets...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ah, Pascals wager!

Well for a start its only an argument for feigning belief, I can't pretend to believe something if I really don't. Surely any Omnipotent being would see through this in heartbeat?

Seconds, assuming if it turns out that there is an afterlife are you seriously telling me that someone who feigned belief to avoid possible repercussions would stand in better stead than a cynic who at least had the courage of his convictions? Because if the answers yes I want no part of such an afterlife, thanks.

Finally given the vast numbers of religions which should I fake belief in? Just because Christianity has the majority following in the western world at this time doesn't give it any more a divine truth than any of the others that have existed and are yet to exist anywhere in the world. No good going to church like a good boy if it turns out that the Jews/Pagans/Vikings/Buddhists or hell even the Scientologists were right all along!

which brings us nicely to this

It looks like it's filled with huge leaps of logic.

What is the origin of electrons, protons, and all quantum matter? Where did this matter come from? How did we end up with these nice building blocks called atoms? Why are there approximately 100 unique atoms (elements) in the universe and not say millions or only one? It all seems too ordered and convenient.

Why? Why is approximately 100 too ordered and convenient?

legoburner wrote:

Supergeek wrote:And remember kids logic and religion don't mix

A bit trollish there, keep it civil. The scientific breakthroughs of early Islam and some chap called Isaac Newton might disagree with you there.

The actual religion of these people didn't create the breakthroughs, they just happened to be of that religion. The Koran certainly doesn't contain texts about the early mathematical theory or the medical advances that Islamic society made. And I don't remember seeing anything about gravity in the bible.

And I'm not saying that religious people cannot be logical, but the premises of most religions don't stand up to logical reasoning as they are the by product of centuries or millenia of interpretation and reinterpretation. Something falls over on the way, logically speaking.

For example, the bible is not consistent in its depiction of God, but apparently according to some Christians is the inspired word of God. At the beginning, God is depicted as a personal and vengeful god and by the time you get to the new testament, God is relatively remote and loving of all Mankind. So how did an omnipotent god change his mind about his personality within the space of a couple of thousand years. Even if God is real and this is how it all happened, the logic of it doesn't stand up.

Even if you believe in God nothing He does is particularly logical.

I'm not trying to argue that god is a logical concept, but I did choose those two examples specifically because religion is exactly what drove them to make jumps in science using logic. Early Islam was the cause of a lot of breakthroughs thanks to the Qu'ran's requirement to seek out as much knowledge as you can, so as a direct result of religion, educational infrastructure improved and logical thinking expanded in leaps and bounds. For Newton I meant his later works in which he spent years performing statistical analysis of the bible. He didn't find much, but it was a massive application of logic and analysis that was also directly driven by religion.

Supergeek wrote:
The actual religion of these people didn't create the breakthroughs, they just happened to be of that religion. The Koran certainly doesn't contain texts about the early mathematical theory or the medical advances that Islamic society made. And I don't remember seeing anything about gravity in the bible.

No, what caused the breakthrough was the disposition towards appreciating knowledge, which was displayed by the breakthrough. Breakthroughs are not real, as they are relative, and as such cannot be attributed qualities. We can deduce that known history shows a tendency towards favoring people who are less observant towards the faith in terms of progress, but we cannot say that religion, or a belief in god, is empirically false, or destructive. At least not more destructive, or more false, than a belief in any other illogical concept like capital 'T' truth, or capital 'C' consciousness.

Supergeek wrote:
And I'm not saying that religious people cannot be logical, but the premises of most religions don't stand up to logical reasoning as they are the by product of centuries or millenia of interpretation and reinterpretation. Something falls over on the way, logically speaking.

I think that's what angers people when they think about people like Richard Dawkins. He is throwing out this idea that religion, and science, don't mix, when in actual history they have been intimately connected through individuals. Which is amusing, because he turns his arguments on a logical appreciation of meaning, but in doing so derives what is an illogical conclusion.

Supergeek wrote:
For example, the bible is not consistent in its depiction of God, but apparently according to some Christians is the inspired word of God. At the beginning, God is depicted as a personal and vengeful god and by the time you get to the new testament, God is relatively remote and loving of all Mankind. So how did an omnipotent god change his mind about his personality within the space of a couple of thousand years. Even if God is real and this is how it all happened, the logic of it doesn't stand up.

An omnipotent being wouldn't have anything we could describe as a personality, as it would not have limitations.

Supergeek wrote:
Even if you believe in God nothing He does is particularly logical.

In many ways that's the point. By forcing people to accept an illogical concept it opens their mind to thinking in ways which are publicly acknowledged as senseless. It doesn't always do that of course, but it certainly can.

Think we need this to prevent this thread getting too heavy...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Oh man, the probability calculations are terrible.

First of all, he calculated the probability of life after death with the probabilities of a bunch of other things existing, that were just made up by him.

Second of all, he ignores the fact that the various pieces of "evidence" he has are not independent of each other; dies he really think the existence of communications with the dead has no relation to the existence of ghosts?

It's bad math even when you ignore the fact that all the numbers were made up by him in the first place.

The probability of death still remains a constant 100% though.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:The probability of death still remains a constant 100% though.

I dunno.. I think I've found out how to be immortal - so far I'm not dead!

Well, with regards to near death experiences.....

Exactly how reliable can the account of a person ripped to their tits on prescription drugs (like, oh, I dunno, anaesthesia, painkillers etc) who are quite likely experiencing oxygen starvation to the brain be held as trustworthy?

Not saying they are lying, just plain old hallucinating.