Can an atheist believe in an afterlife? I am asking the question because I don't know the answer.
Sure you can. I believe I'm going to come back as Brad Pitt lookalike and wow all the ladies. Either that or picking up dog poop for eternity because all dogs go to heaven.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 07, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
Can an atheist believe in an afterlife? I am asking the question because I don't know the answer.
Sure ... metaphysics doesn't imply theism ... it implies the whole range of ideas from anti-theism thru non-theism to theism. And no, you don't have to believe in reincarnation to be metaphysical. I think that some Buddhists and some Hindus are effectively non-theist, and not in an agnostic sort of way.
So do you accept Friedrich Nietzsche as your lord and savior? (just kidding Joe).
My early influence was Bucky Fuller. A systems theorist, futurist and an inventor. He was a Unitarian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Other_beliefs
Something I have not seen discussed on here. So you can have your heaven without Jesus and a different set of ideas: big on free will, for example. I actually don't want an afterilfe. I've worked the shit out of this one and continue to do so.
I was in a discussion about atheism and said atheism means not believing in gods and didn't exclude belief in an afterlife but another atheist disagreed, that belief in an afterlife was incompatible with atheism. I wanted to get some other input.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 07, 2016, 11:50:29 PM
I was in a discussion about atheism and said atheism means not believing in gods and didn't exclude belief in an afterlife but another atheist disagreed, that belief in an afterlife was incompatible with atheism. I wanted to get some other input.
Atheism to me has never been a fixed set of rules like religion. I consider myself spiritual in some ways because I am uplifted by the beauty of nature, but others have poo poohed that. Whatever. Believe what you want. A-theism just means non belief in god.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 07, 2016, 10:24:43 PM
Can an atheist believe in an afterlife? I am asking the question because I don't know the answer.
I think that if you're consistent with your atheistic position, the logical next step would be to ask: where's the evidence for an afterlife? If you have reasoned that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, then that question answers itself.
One of the main reasons that I'm athiest is because there is no verifiable evidence that god exists. Likewise, there is no verifiable evidence that any sort of afterlife exists. Therefore I personally could not be an athiest and also believe in an afterlife without feeling like a hypocrite. But that's me. Other people may feel they are atheist for completely different reasons and may therefore be perfectly comfortable accepting that an afterlife exists.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 07, 2016, 11:50:29 PM
I was in a discussion about atheism and said atheism means not believing in gods and didn't exclude belief in an afterlife but another atheist disagreed, that belief in an afterlife was incompatible with atheism. I wanted to get some other input.
This has been discussed before, over the last 7 months I have been posting here. Basically "atheist, agnostic, materialist, physicalist and secularist" these all overlap, and don't exactly match each other either. People fight over this, like in the recent atheist/agnostic fight. Joe speaks of evidence, and this is a classic English Empiricist position (maybe also Scottish Common Sense position). But the world isn't all English and Scottish. A materialist position, and perhaps a physicalist position isn't compatible with an afterlife. Ancient/medieval physics was materialist ... but it moved on to include "fields" and so became woo woo (just joking) and became physicalist (material plus fields). For some modern English Empiricism implies modern physicalist science. A secularist would be someone who doesn't want religious influence or dominance in his society or family or person. Unless you have an extended conversation with someone, and are clear on your own understanding, it is hard to figure out what someone is saying. Of course that is assuming that you care to.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 08, 2016, 12:27:27 AM
I think that if you're consistent with your atheistic position, the logical next step would be to ask: where's the evidence for an afterlife? If you have reasoned that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, then that question answers itself.
My atheism isn't based in lack of evidence but because God as a concept makes no sense to me. I don't need evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe to believe it exists because the concept of how life evolves makes sense. An afterlife as a concept makes more sense to me than a god.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 08, 2016, 01:53:59 AM
My atheism isn't based in lack of evidence but because God as a concept makes no sense to me. I don't need evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe to believe it exists because the concept of how life evolves makes sense. An afterlife as a concept makes more sense to me than a god.
An eternal, happy life makes more sense than a suffering life that ends in death. Why would I believe in the former? To many QM doesn't make sense, yet it's closer to explain reality than what was there before, classical physics. There are plenty of concepts that make sense, but does not mean they are real or should give me reasons to believe in them. I'm not sure whether a concept that makes sense or not is reason enough to believe in it. Just my two cents, ;-)
Okay, they say I'm schizophrenic, but I can hear voices that seem to be of the living, but could just as easily be the dead. They seem to be observing my life. I can't present this as evidence, for anyone else to believe, but it gives me a grounds for curiosity.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 08, 2016, 02:04:55 AM
An eternal, happy life makes more sense than a suffering life that ends in death. Why would I believe in the former? To many QM doesn't make sense, yet it's closer to explain reality than what was there before, classical physics. There are plenty of concepts that make sense, but does not mean they are real or should give me reasons to believe in them. I'm not sure whether a concept that makes sense or not is reason enough to believe in it. Just my two cents, ;-)
There is no evidence that a god exists and the concept makes no sense. I know that "I" exist. It makes sense to me that the conditions that lead to the creation of "I" could happen again. Because "I" has existed once it makes more likely that "I" could exist again, as opposed to a god which has never existed. The fact that intelligent life has evolved once in the universe makes it more likely that it could evolve again as opposed to a universe where intelligent life has never existed. I'm not confident "I" will exist again but it seems more likely than a god.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 08, 2016, 08:27:47 AM
There is no evidence that a god exists and the concept makes no sense. I know that "I" exist. It makes sense to me that the conditions that lead to the creation of "I" could happen again. Because "I" has existed once it makes more likely that "I" could exist again, as opposed to a god which has never existed. The fact that intelligent life has evolved once in the universe makes it more likely that it could evolve again as opposed to a universe where intelligent life has never existed. I'm not confident "I" will exist again but it seems more likely than a god.
I agree to the proposition that life exists on this planet, it can exist somewhere else in the universe. As a scientist, I believe in natural laws, so if life begins and evolves according to certain natural laws, it certainly can do this on another planet. That is not much of a stretch. OTOH, you believe that you exist once, you can exist again - in the realm of all possibilities, you can say that but it's not based on any natural laws. Like believing in God, it's more like wishful thinking.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 08, 2016, 08:38:35 AM
I agree to the proposition that life exists on this planet, it can exist somewhere else in the universe. As a scientist, I believe in natural laws, so if life begins and evolves according to certain natural laws, it certainly can do this on another planet. That is not much of a stretch. OTOH, you believe that you exist once, you can exist again - in the realm of all possibilities, you can say that but it's not based on any natural laws. Like believing in God, it's more like wishful thinking.
Yes, it is a fantastical notion. I wouldn't call it something I would wish for though.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 08, 2016, 08:27:47 AM
There is no evidence that a god exists and the concept makes no sense. I know that "I" exist. It makes sense to me that the conditions that lead to the creation of "I" could happen again.
I've wondered about this exact same thing. Is there a chance that all the atoms and molecules will realign themselves to recreate my sentience again in the future? Would I remember my old self from the previous alignment? Why not have two identical alignments coexisting, so that two of me exist at the same time? However, I don't think there are any observable conditions that support these speculations.
I've heard chemists make a claim that everything in us is chemical, including our thoughts and memories, but I think that is somewhat of an over reaching claim. To be sure, thoughts and memories depend on chemicals (atoms and molecules), but the little we know about sentience doesn't go so far as to claim that a specific alignment of atoms and molecules always results in a specific memory. We just don't know how this works.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 08, 2016, 08:27:47 AM
Because "I" has existed once it makes more likely that "I" could exist again, as opposed to a god which has never existed. The fact that intelligent life has evolved once in the universe makes it more likely that it could evolve again as opposed to a universe where intelligent life has never existed. I'm not confident "I" will exist again but it seems more likely than a god.
It might be possible, although infinitely unlikely, that your exact body, including all of your DNA, could be accidently reproduced to produce a remarkable duplicate. In fact, this alignment would certainly include the capability of sentience, but it can't be the same sentience that makes the "you" that you are aware of.
Your sentience is dependent on DNA, but DNA or special alignments of things don't represent all the thoughts and memories accumulated from your personal lifetime experiences, none of which have anything to do with the makeup of your DNA. Your DNA can get passed on. Identical DNA chains could even remutate in a separate line of DNA from another human branch, but your experiences aren't stored in your DNA, only the ability to have experiences.
The most important part of the "you" that makes you "you" (experiences) are formed and stored in ways we don't yet understand, but you won't find them in your DNA or some specific alignment of atoms and molecules.
For me, I don't see that a realignment resulting in an afterlife makes more sense than the existence of a god. Both are beyond our reach of knowing.
SGOS, it is similar to the classic teleporter thought experiment:
Suppose there exists a teleportation device such that when you enter it, it simultaneously destroys the atoms composing your body and recreates them at some other location. You can enter a teleporter here on Earth, for example, and from your viewpoint you will instantly be on Mars if you chose to have your body reconstituted there. Let us accept this premise for the purposes of this thought experiment.
Now, suppose the teleporter is altered in the following fashion: your original body is still destroyed atom by atom, but instead of reconstituting ONE copy of your body in another location, it now instantaneously reconstitutes TWO copies in two different locations, say Mars and the Moon. You step into the Earth teleporter, and two duplicates of you walk out; one on Mars and one on the Moon. Each will claim to be you and will have the exact same memories, personalities, and body as you did. More importantly, each will have equal validity to claim to be you from an outside perspective.
But let us examine this process from the subjective perspective of your personal experience: you walk into the Earth teleporter, experiencing the sight of the incredible machine and feeling your toes move against the interior surface of your boots. But what will your subjective experience be like AFTER you press the button to teleport yourself into the two duplicate copies? Will your experience suddenly shift to Mars, leaving the Moon version of you a fraudulent impostor who merely pretends to be you? Will your experience suddenly shift to the Moon instead, and a similar imposter will instantaneously appear on the Moon? Or will your consciousness become split into two, leaving you to simultaneously experience both Moon events and Mars events? Or will something entirely different occur?
Quote from: SGOS on February 08, 2016, 09:44:08 AM
For me, I don't see that a realignment resulting in an afterlife makes more sense than the existence of a god. Both are beyond our reach of knowing.
The great thing about the question of an afterlife is everyone will eventually learn the answer.
The argument as I see it is about consciousness, not what physical body we wear. If we are a collection of molecules that defines us as alive and conscious apart from our physical bodies, we are still alive if we are aware of ourselves no matter what our shape or body is. Science fiction has long postulated the concept of inserting a human brain- more accurately our consciousness- into a computer simulation or mechanical body. We could just as well be alive in the matrix as in a genuine physical form.
the jury is still out as to whether the universe is a hologram or some form of projection. We might exist three dimensionally only in a gigantic mainframe run by godlike beings. Just as likely we might be an experiment, a panspermia of implanted living material on a planet deemed suitable for life to emerge. We could in theory be living on a microscope slide being viewed by higher beings.
Philip Jose Farmer's "Riverworld" series explored the idea that humans could be recreated in a future time from some anima that defines us (our soul) and implanted in a physical body like the one we wear now. Not my particular belief, but it would be cool to be resurrected in a slightly better body with all the knowledge we acquired in life on earth. Imagine getting to kick Hitler in the nuts in real time. :biggrin:
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 08, 2016, 12:22:39 PM
The great thing about the question of an afterlife is everyone will eventually learn the answer.
There is also another possible outcome: No one will ever learn the answer, or for that matter, be aware of the question.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 08, 2016, 12:14:39 PM
SGOS, it is similar to the classic teleporter thought experiment:
Suppose there exists a teleportation device such that when you enter it, it simultaneously destroys the atoms composing your body and recreates them at some other location....
I assume there can be no memory of any previous existence, unless thoughts can be reconstructed as well as physical qualities. Star Trek, and the Matrix tells us this is possible, and even explains the reconstruction of matter, but doesn't address concepts like the soul, if one is religious, or sentience for us soul-less atheists.
Of course just because it can't be explained does not mean it's not possible, but from where I sit, at this time, it doesn't make any more sense than the existence of a god. It's just unknowable.
I am a bit thrown by your argument, "I know I've been created once, so why not twice?" This suggests a greater likelihood of you twice, than the re-creation of a god, which unlike you, cannot be proven to have existed even once. It's still all dependent on unknowable characteristics of physical matter and sentience or perhaps the assumption that the two are similar in nature.
IF one accepts and believes that we are indeed a mere collection of atoms no different in the grand scheme of things than a tree or a mushroom, then we have to grant the "afterlife" to any living thing…..but why stop at living things? At what point do we ascertain that the universe grants one atom a "second" existence but not another?
Consciousness? Oh pray tell me you can read the "consciousness" of other living creatures or even the inanimate.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 08, 2016, 12:22:39 PM
The great thing about the question of an afterlife is everyone will eventually learn the answer.
Once your brain is dead, how can it learn anything?
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 09, 2016, 05:48:11 AM
Once your brain is dead, how can it learn anything?
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2KbRPt2R--/ym4c1yb48m2feaeseimt.jpg)
Quote from: stromboli on February 09, 2016, 05:53:43 AM
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--2KbRPt2R--/ym4c1yb48m2feaeseimt.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GPg1UR66go