Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    You haven't provided evidence for your claim that the spirit exists in the first place so why on earth am I expected to provide evidence for its death? How can you not understand the proof/disproof dichotomy or the burden of proof principle and yet claim to be a scientist?

    There's only so long I can keep hearing "but you can't disprove it" every time your logic is shown to be not twisted but completely absent. It's like talking to a child who can't understand how the presents appear under the tree if not for the flying reindeers. And yes, I can't disprove them either.
    Ok, I may have taken this topic to a different extremity(due mixing up spirit with spirituality). As we are already here, I have hypothesised using the light bulb analogy that the spirit/spirituality can be eternal and you can't dismiss it to be illogical without saying why. Aren't there any atheists in the world who would like to investigate this hypothesis on scientific grounds. I am not saying atheists to do this alone. I also personally would be content on joining atheist scientists to see the truth behind this hypothesis(wouldn't we want to claim this to be a fact). But I am not that knowledgeable enough to investigate this phenomenal hypothesis. The heterogeneous science community both theist and atheists can investigate this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    You haven't provided evidence for your claim that the spirit exists in the first place so why on earth am I expected to provide evidence for its death? How can you not understand the proof/disproof dichotomy or the burden of proof principle and yet claim to be a scientist?

    There's only so long I can keep hearing "but you can't disprove it" every time your logic is shown to be not twisted but completely absent. It's like talking to a child who can't understand how the presents appear under the tree if not for the flying reindeers. And yes, I can't disprove them either.
    You also reasoned spirituality dies due to the death of the neurons in the brain. So even you claim indirectly that it is to do with electrical impulses(the same electricity in my analogy).

    If everything in this universe is recycled(matter, energy etc.) likewise spirit/spirituality must follow the same principles(I am hypothesising not claiming this to be fact yet).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archives/NDERF_NDEs.htm

    http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html

    Well just something because hasn't been proved yet, doesn't mean it won't ever be (I am not specifically talking about a higher deity, but this goes anything really. This planet has billions and billions of years to go yet, there will me many new discoveries in the future) and because NDE's are a personal experience doesn't take anything away from it being an experience that could be scientifically proven.

    I don't see how NDE's being a personal anecdote equates to them not being any use for proving anything later on. Well, really, what I am saying is, who are you to say that? As I said, the earth has been around 4.5 billion years and it's got a way to go yet so you don't know what will be proved in the future.
    Both of those are very clearly junk articles just by their appearance and cannot be considered rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

    Saying "they might one day be proven" is a meaningless argument as that can be applied to virtually every imaginary being one could come up with. The point is that there is currently no widely respected evidence to demonstrate the existence of the soul.

    Personal anecdotes in and of themselves cannot be constituted as evidence, it's how basic burden of proof works and our entire justice system is built on this concept. If someone makes an accusation they must provide evidence. We are not required to take their word for it and it's even more absurd for the person doing the accusing to say "well you can't prove that what I'm saying didn't happen!" as if that's meant to be a strong argument.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    whipping in the cell i think im gordon ramsey
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    >2k16 and not believing in reincarnation


    The biggest case against the near death experience argument is the fact brain damaged patients experience altered consciousness if they do recover, implying that our perceptions of the world are internal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Personal anecdotes in and of themselves cannot be constituted as evidence, it's how basic burden of proof works and our entire justice system is built on this concept. If someone makes an accusation they must provide evidence. We are not required to take their word for it and it's even more absurd for the person doing the accusing to say "well you can't prove that what I'm saying didn't happen!" as if that's meant to be a strong argument.
    While anecdotal evidence is not sufficient when it comes to investigations within the natural sciences, I don't think the emboldened is strictly true in other areas of research, or even the judiciary. It depends on the subject and case.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Both of those are very clearly junk articles just by their appearance and cannot be considered rigorous, peer-reviewed evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

    Saying "they might one day be proven" is a meaningless argument as that can be applied to virtually every imaginary being one could come up with. The point is that there is currently no widely respected evidence to demonstrate the existence of the soul.

    Personal anecdotes in and of themselves cannot be constituted as evidence, it's how basic burden of proof works and our entire justice system is built on this concept. If someone makes an accusation they must provide evidence. We are not required to take their word for it and it's even more absurd for the person doing the accusing to say "well you can't prove that what I'm saying didn't happen!" as if that's meant to be a strong argument.
    I didn't claim to hand you any rigorous evidence, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

    I said that they might be proven in the future which I don't see as a meaningless argument, a lot of things have yet to be discovered, defined and proved. There were days people didn't understand why fire went up and water went down, but we have that knowledge now.

    "The point is that there is currently no widely respected evidence to demonstrate the existence of the soul"- This is my point exactly, currently there is no evidence, does that mean there never will be? To believe you have enough knowledge to disprove absolutely everything to do with the idea of a higher being/souls etc being is simply ridiculous, even our brains haven't completely been figured out yet. What I dislike a lot about strong atheists is that they try and show you the cold hard hitting truth about a personal experiences, they all show this theme of "it just can't be, it has to be this...or it could simply be explained by this...." but since their claim hasn't been proved, nor has the theists, essentially neither is right or wrong. One may seem more rational, but it doesn't mean it's correct.

    "Personal anecdotes in and of themselves cannot be constituted as evidence"- agreed, but there is a reason why personal anecdotes are taken into account in our judicial system. You don't disregard a personal anecdote for it's lack of proof, that would be very naive. Personal anecdotes provide a basis for further investigation, they should be picked a part and looked at critically.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes)
    I didn't claim to hand you any rigorous evidence, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

    I said that they might be proven in the future which I don't see as a meaningless argument, a lot of things have yet to be discovered, defined and proved. There were days people didn't understand why fire went up and water went down, but we have that knowledge now.
    But once again, that is a meaningless argument. Virtually anything that can be conceived can be said to be possibly proven in the future, it's not an argument worth considering as it is baseless speculation. Similarly, it may not ever be proven.

    "The point is that there is currently no widely respected evidence to demonstrate the existence of the soul"- This is my point exactly, currently there is no evidence, does that mean there never will be? To believe you have enough knowledge to disprove absolutely everything to do with the idea of a higher being/souls etc being is simply ridiculous, even our brains haven't completely been figured out yet. What I dislike a lot about strong atheists is that they try and show you the cold hard hitting truth about a personal experiences, they all show this theme of "it just can't be, it has to be this...or it could simply be explained by this...." but since their claim hasn't been proved, nor has the theists, essentially neither is right or wrong. One may seem more rational, but it doesn't mean it's correct.
    But the burden rests on the person making the claim, not the sceptic. If no evidence can be produced then the claim can be dismissed and considered not to have happened for all intents and purposes.

    "Personal anecdotes in and of themselves cannot be constituted as evidence"- agreed, but there is a reason why personal anecdotes are taken into account in our judicial system. You don't disregard a personal anecdote for it's lack of proof, that would be very naive. Personal anecdotes provide a basis for further investigation, they should be picked a part and looked at critically.
    Which is why I said they're not proof "in and of themselves". They must be used in conjunction with actual, objective evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Fair enough, at least you're consistent and intellectually honest in your reasoning and admitting that there's no evidence for God and thus your faith. I do actually know what it's like to have faith as I used to be a Christian myself and quite a fervent one at some stage believe it or not!
    I still struggle, and I can only hope it works out. Life's full of possibilities, isn't it? Maybe one day you'll find faith again. Maybe one day I'll change my mind. Anyway, thanks for the discussion - it's good food for thought for me too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mhopkins)
    I'm taking my GCSE religious education exam this year so I thought I'd get a bit of exam inspiration on here! Thank you
    Good luck! So cool you guys have such exams in Great Britain We in Republic of Georgia don't study such topics It makes me sad. I love studying such sciences as Theology.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Ironically, what you are describing here is the skeptic who bases his views on evidence-based research.

    It is the religionist who calims certainty and refuses to be swayed by evidence and reason.
    No, some believers are fundamentalist, and some atheists are fundamentalist. Think about Aldous Huxley and the reason he gave for being an atheist; 'liberation, sexual and political'. I admire your commitment to the evidence, but unfortunately atheists and theists are too different for one mindset to apply to all.

    Also, if all religionists had blind faith, it would be impossible to account for changes in belief. Think about Bart Ehrman, who changed from being an evangelical to being a critical New Testament scholar. Or even people like John Stott, who will change the views on doctrine in the light of reason and argument. Open-mindedness is not an exclusively atheistic mindset.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would've thought never seeing as your claims are as impossible to prove as theirs. There's no real experiment you can run to make any empirical observation about such things and that's where p much all objective truth comes from, aside from logical bs like "A triangle has three sides", but you can't really make 100% true claims about things outside the universe using those such methods. Were that possible philosophy as a discipline would be completely dead nowadays.

    In short: No that's not how it works.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I think there are 2 definitions here:
    + Spiritualism is about believing in a person's own life experience.
    + Religion is about believing in the life experience of other people, for example, in Buddhism people believe in Buddha, in Christian people believe in Jesus, .etc...

    The purpose of these two is to make people feel better in life, to make people feel safer, to define a person's value in society. So whether believing in afterlife or not is based on their belief. If this belief makes a person feels better in life then it's fine as long as he/she does not try to persuade, or disturb other people just because of his/her belief.

    And for the last part, I don't mean to be offensive or anything but I think it is necessary to mention this: If we say "When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?", then I want to ask in return: "Why religious people have to realize that there is NO afterlife?", or "Is it wrong for religious people to believe in afterlife?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    20 pages of discussion and apparently it still isn't clear whether it is about challanging the right of "religious people" to have a belief in life after death .. Or is it about proving scientifically and logically that there is ACTUALLY no life after death??
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hariex)
    No, some believers are fundamentalist, and some atheists are fundamentalist. Think about Aldous Huxley and the reason he gave for being an atheist; 'liberation, sexual and political'. I admire your commitment to the evidence, but unfortunately atheists and theists are too different for one mindset to apply to all.

    Also, if all religionists had blind faith, it would be impossible to account for changes in belief. Think about Bart Ehrman, who changed from being an evangelical to being a critical New Testament scholar. Or even people like John Stott, who will change the views on doctrine in the light of reason and argument. Open-mindedness is not an exclusively atheistic mindset.
    Every atheist rejects the existence of gods because of evidence and reason, not simply because of a desire to be free of the constraints of religion. Do you really think that someone who believes that god (and his punishments for the disbeliever) really exists, would willingly damn their immortal soul for a few moments freedom? Pfft!

    From that same Huxley quote...
    "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption."

    When theists are open minded about evidence and analyse issues with reason and logic, rather than the need to correspond with doctrine, they can easily change their position. It's why people become atheists. Even those who lose faith after a personal traumatic event are still using evidence and logic - "The god that has been described to me in doctrine could not allow x to happen. If he was there, and if prayers are answered, x would not have happened. It doesn't make sense."
    They don't become atheists because they hate god, because if that were the case, they would still be believers (albeit unhappy ones). It is because they do not see the evidence of reality as supporting the existence of the god that they had been taught to believe in.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    20 pages of discussion and apparently it still isn't clear whether it is about challanging the right of "religious people" to have a belief in life after death .. Or is it about proving scientifically and logically that there is ACTUALLY no life after death??
    I don't think anyone has claimed that religionists do not have a right to believe in the afterlife. It is simply about challenging the validity of that belief.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Every atheist rejects the existence of gods because of evidence and reason, not simply because of a desire to be free of the constraints of religion. Do you really think that someone who believes that god (and his punishments for the disbeliever) really exists, would willingly damn their immortal soul for a few moments freedom? Pfft!

    From that same Huxley quote...
    "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption."

    When theists are open minded about evidence and analyse issues with reason and logic, rather than the need to correspond with doctrine, they can easily change their position. It's why people become atheists. Even those who lose faith after a personal traumatic event are still using evidence and logic - "The god that has been described to me in doctrine could not allow x to happen. If he was there, and if prayers are answered, x would not have happened. It doesn't make sense."
    They don't become atheists because they hate god, because if that were the case, they would still be believers (albeit unhappy ones). It is because they do not see the evidence of reality as supporting the existence of the god that they had been taught to believe in.
    If I'm right then your basic point is that by definition atheists reach their worldview on the basis of evidence and logic, whereas some theists have a tendency to rely on belief in spite of evidence.

    The point I'm trying to make is that some people become theists because of very strong philosophical and scientific reasoning, and some become theists because of very poorly reasoned arguments, or, indeed, on the basis of pure faith. I think that this is equally true of atheism and other ideological, scientific and philosophical beliefs.

    As for the Huxley quote, the crucial issue is that he assumed atheism and only then found supporting reasons. If this quote had read 'I had motives for wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had one' we would rightly denounce it as an odd way to approach the topic. Perhaps all atheists are of that belief because of evidence; my argument is that this evidence is not always strong.

    To bring it back to the main point: debating requires humility and a willingness to change one's views. This can be true for religionists as well as the sceptic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I don't think anyone has claimed that religionists do not have a right to believe in the afterlife. It is simply about challenging the validity of that belief.
    How can you validate/invalidate something that is not objective in nature ?? What kind of tools and apparatus would you use for validation ??
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shakeelraja)
    How can you validate/invalidate something that is not objective in nature ?? What kind of tools and apparatus would you use for validation ??
    There has been much scientific work done on the nature of "consciousness", and so far, all of it points to consciousness being dependent on the physical brain. If this is the case, then it would suggest that there can be no afterlife.

    As far as I am aware, there is no scientific work that suggest that consciousness is not dependent on the brain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    There has been much scientific work done on the nature of "consciousness", and so far, all of it points to consciousness being dependent on the physical brain. If this is the case, then it would suggest that there can be no afterlife.

    As far as I am aware, there is no scientific work that suggest that consciousness is not dependent on the brain.
    Consciousness according to modern theories of quantum mmechanics relate to the MIND entity, rather than brain and mind is considered to be non physical. That mind , outside the boundaries of dimensions that our physical bodies exist in, is considered to be the source of awareness and consciousness. Dr. Casey Blood has done Some excellent work on this. The mind doesn't alter the wave function of the reality we see, it only perceives the changes it is going through. And also, that as it is non physical, it doesn't die with physical death of brain. The consiousness simply "moves on"
    To another plane of existence. And I'm not quoting any religious scripture here. This theory, mathematically, is more sound than the multiverse theory but requires a challanges scientology's foundations.. Hence .. Not a popular one. But a highly probable one nonetheless
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.