Support NeoGAF

["God's Beard!"]

Being an atheist is equally stupid as being a theist.

Qualify "equally".

 

[Count Dookkake]

Qualify "equally".

I think this is one of those cases where one is more equal than the other.

 

[Kurtofan]

The belief in the afterlife has nothing to do with "theism" or "atheism".
You can believe in the afterlife without believing in the existence of gods.

 

[Zaptruder]

Cannot access youtube now. If you cannot even consider things that are not yet proven then you have already failed and you really did enter this conversation with a closed mind. I'm not saying this is true, I'm only saying that I don't know and I will read through whatever new information I get my hands on with an open mind. Most is BS and thats very understandable as I said before. The boy who cried wolf etc. You get hardened and by default deny any new research on the subject. That's what I usually do. I just get tired of people claiming to know the truth, on both sides.

Having an 'open mind'... or rather been a free thinker is not about letting bullshit pollute your mind.

It is instead about applying a principled method of thinking to allow us to assess and reassess assumptions that have been made culturally implicit. It's about using a methodology of thinking to filter the vast array of information, and to best capture truthiness, while rejecting falsehood.

And it is a method that allows us to reject 'known' assumptions, in favour of better information... but only if it first proves to be indeed, 'better information'.

 

[Government-man]

Qualify "equally".

Meaning that one is equally, or identically, just as, as much, having the same level of, being as stupid as each other.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Meaning that one is equally, or identically, just as, as much, having the same level of, being as stupid as each other.

You have a stupid avatar.

 

[Stinkles]

I hate the talk of relatives and the idea that they watch after you in the afterlife. It's such a "me me me" view of the universe.

If I were dead and able to travel the universe in my ghost form, I'd be way the fuck out in another galaxy seeing some crazy shit, not hanging around watching you eat blocks of cheese while you watch Leno.

look at all dat cheese!


haha jay's chin is huge.


oh no he's touchin himself

 

[racerx]

So does my dog have a soul too?

Are there going to be spiders in the afterlife? Because I hate spiders.

From a reading by Cayce, pets/animals don't have souls, but they do have spirit.

Souls = are aspects or pinpoint of consciousness of God

soul = drops of water, God = lake of water.

 

[ronito]

Apparently this Oncologist can't tell the difference between afterlife and a near death experience.

 

[Kinitari]

Meaning that one is equally, or identically, just as, as much, having the same level of, being as stupid as each other.

Without me sounding too snarky, I want to ask, can you elaborate? Why is the disbelief in a God equally as 'stupid' as believing in a God?

 

[Ducarmel]

It may sound kind of hippie like

Since matter and energy cant be destroyed only converted into other forms of matter and energy. I just think when we die whatever matter and energy that makes us beings will just be converted to other forms.

Will we be conscious and independent, or just parts things of millions of different matter/energy as a whole, or something else? I don't know!

 

[Vinci]

I believe it's possible. Although consciousness as we understand it is linked to the physical and chemical functions of the brain I don't personally think they alone sum up the phenomenon in its entirety. We measure the part that's measurable as best we know how, but there are dimensions to even our own existence which are immeasurable by our standards. That some aspect of us could persist independent of our bodies doesn't strike me as wholly unreasonable, even if we don't yet have a way of quantifying it. Unfortunately it's such a loaded subject that there's bound to be people on the one hand reading all sorts of specifics into it and on the other dismissing it outright. I guess we'll all find out one day, or not.

My view on this as well. I think either potential side of this argument - those aggressively for or against the notion of an afterlife - will argue for the sake of arguing, but in the end... We really don't know. I'd like to read some of the reports coming from children though; those, to me, would seem the most intriguing - particularly if they're describing relatives they had never known.

 

[Tobor]

/Reads OP

So...no evidence of an afterlife, whatsoever.

I see plenty of evidence of an Oncologist looking for a book deal, though.

 

[GDGF]

Meaning that one is equally, or identically, just as, as much, having the same level of, being as stupid as each other.

Ohhhh. This thread is going to be exciting

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Well I guess if nothing else it's support for the Buddhist idea of the bardo after death. I may be a bit biased, but it's almost unbelievable how many things Buddhism seems to have been 'right' about in terms of human neurofunction.

edit: I've always kind of entertained the idea in the back of my head that our brains/bodies are just a biological 'interface' and that spirit or consciousness is actually projected onto it like a film onto a screen. Basically the conditions are optimal to support this event, the body acts as a medium through which to 'conduct' the spirit, but they may not be entirely dependant upon each other.

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

DMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grcqs9cDuN8

"There's an alien communicating with me, there's a dude who looks like a Thai Buddha except hes made entirely of energy and there's no outline to him; he's one thing. And he's telling me not to give into astonishment... Just relax and experience this. I'm like you got to be shitting me."

 

[thesoapster]

/Reads OP

So...no evidence of an afterlife, whatsoever.

I see plenty of evidence of an Oncologist looking for a book deal, though.

Pretty much. Heightened senses when you're about to die? REALLY?! That's part of his big discovery? Shit. I've glimpsed the afterlife at least five times, then...

 

[Masaki_]

You have a stupid avatar.

NeoGAF: where words gain new meanings.

It seems as though you are not aware of the fact that our consciousness is very narrow, picking up far from the information that we can measure, not to mention what we can't measure.

We can only assess what we can't obviously measure through.. what we have actually measured using science. That doesn't mean we have to accept a ridiculous claim because "we're just not advanced enough to comprehend it, but it's there, I'm sure!"

If you cannot even consider things that are not yet proven then you have already failed and you really did enter this conversation with a closed mind. I'm not saying this is true, I'm only saying that I don't know and I will read through whatever new information I get my hands on with an open mind. Most is BS and thats very understandable as I said before. The boy who cried wolf etc. You get hardened and by default deny any new research on the subject. That's what I usually do. I just get tired of people claiming to know the truth, on both sides.

The video explains exactly this:

Having an 'open mind'... or rather been a free thinker is not about letting bullshit pollute your mind.

It is instead about applying a principled method of thinking to allow us to assess and reassess assumptions that have been made culturally implicit. It's about using a methodology of thinking to filter the vast array of information, and to best capture truthiness, while rejecting falsehood.

And it is a method that allows us to reject 'known' assumptions, in favour of better information... but only if it first proves to be indeed, 'better information'.

And you obviously haven't been "hardened" enough if you believe anecdotes are reliable evidence.

 

[Zaptruder]

Just a quick check... how many people that believe in an after life... or a duality of mind and body, have studied or are acquainted with cognitive-neuroscience?

 

[agrajag]

Meaning that one is equally, or identically, just as, as much, having the same level of, being as stupid as each other.

I can tell you're going to be a fun junior.

 

[captive]

I don't understand opinions like this. We have absolutely no idea what happens when people die. Everybody makes a lot of theories, and some may have more basis in science than others, but at the end of the day there's a whole lot about this universe that humans don't even come close to understanding yet.

there's a WHOLE lot about our own bodies we dont understand, let alone getting into the brain, we haven't even scratched the surface of understanding the brain.
And then theres a whole lot we dont understand about our own planet and even the oceans.

 

[Government-man]

Without me sounding too snarky, I want to ask, can you elaborate? Why is the disbelief in a God equally as 'stupid' as believing in a God?

Because the atheist as well as the theist by definition know that there either is no god or vice versa. Now, as far as I know the concept of a god has neither been proven nor disproved - do you know something I don't? I get that people use the label atheist rather carefree without really reflecting on both the definition of the term and what it really means to know that there is no god, which I think is sad. People who perhaps really are agnostic are just confusing the terms and mistakingly calling themselves an atheist - or, whats worse, they haven't even thought about it.

I'm using god as a metaphor here, you could say that the abrahamitic god has been "disproved", much as you can disprove creatures of fairy tales - but that's just a question of where you'd like to draw the line of what is considered proven.

 

[SmokyDave]

It may sound kind of hippie like

Since matter and energy cant be destroyed only converted into other forms of matter and energy. I just think when we die whatever matter and energy that makes us beings will just be converted to other forms.

Will we be conscious and independent, or just parts things of millions of different matter/energy as a whole, or something else? I don't know!

This is pretty much my take on the matter (if you'll pardon the expression).

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Pretty much. Heightened senses when you're about to die? REALLY?! That's part of his big discovery? Shit. I've glimpsed the afterlife at least five times, then...

I actually have experienced a NDE and I'd have to say it was the singular event that turned me on to spirituality and eventually made me curious about experimenting with psychedelic drugs in my late teen-early adult years, and now interested in self-refinement through spiritual contemplation free of drugs using classical knowledge of meditation and other disciplined practices.

I agree it's no proof of life after death, it really just presents death as more of a puzzle than ever. In any case, NDE's can be exceedingly 'spiritual' experiences, and many Buddhist practices emphasize this as a way of using the experience of death as a means of reaching enlightenment or nirvana. Ultimately all this proves is that death is neurologically an exceedingly fascinating event to anyone interested in the study of consciousness or holistic and dynamic neurological interactions and resting state networks.

 

[Masaki_]

And here's a video for those who stubbornly defend the legitimacy of any supernatural phenomenon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=channel

 

[Odrion]

look at all dat cheese!


haha jay's chin is huge.


oh no he's touchin himself

this post validates this stupid whole topic

 

[Deku]

I'm prepared to believe there's a dimensional element to conciousness living on. There is afterall a fourth dimension we know exists in theory but cannot see. But it may just be a repository of conciousness and not really anything more than that.

But the mechanics of it remains unexplained and the study (without reading all of it) seems to border that of psuedo science.

I'm just not ready to accept the monotheistic religious implications of anything related to the afterlife. Granted eastern philosopy has often accepted the afterlife, it's realy more philosophical and less about going to hell to meet satan or to heaven to see st. peter.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Because the atheist as well as the theist by definition know that there either is no god or vice versa. Now, as far as I know the concept of a god has neither been proven nor disproved - do you know something I don't? I get that people use the label atheist rather carefree without really reflecting on both the definition of the term and what it really means to know that there is no god, which I think is sad. People who perhaps really are agnostic are just confusing the terms and mistakingly calling themselves an atheist - or, whats worse, they haven't even thought about it.

I'm using god as a metaphor here, you could say that the abrahamitic god has been "disproved", much as you can disprove creatures of fairy tales - but that's just a question of where you'd like to draw the line of what is considered proven.

Well, from what I gather, the general athiest viewpoint is that that is no god because there is no evidence of a god. That really seems like the most logical choice when faced with a lack of evidence. I'm sure if proof of a god suddenly existed, all those deniers would suddenly repent.

I, however, am open to the existence of anything. I believe that as long as someone can think of it, it has a greater than zero chance of existing. I would never let anything without evidence affect how I live though.

 

[ChoklitReign]

It's going to take a hell of a lot of evidence to convince the skeptics, but this is interesting nonetheless.

 

[agrajag]

Because the atheist as well as the theist by definition know that there either is no god or vice versa. Now, as far as I know the concept of a god has neither been proven nor disproved - do you know something I don't? I get that people use the label atheist rather carefree without really reflecting on both the definition of the term and what it really means to know that there is no god, which I think is sad. People who perhaps really are agnostic are just confusing the terms and mistakingly calling themselves an atheist - or, whats worse, they haven't even thought about it.

I'm using god as a metaphor here, you could say that the abrahamitic god has been "disproved", much as you can disprove creatures of fairy tales - but that's just a question of where you'd like to draw the line of what is considered proven.

I don't believe in gods but I don't know that they don't exist. I just blew your mind, didn't I?

Spoiler

the underlined, you don't know the definition of the term, but apparently you like to go on forums spewing bullshit about it

 

[crazy monkey]

The belief in the afterlife has nothing to do with "theism" or "atheism".
You can believe in the afterlife without believing in the existence of gods.

afterlife is big part of religion.

 

[Kinitari]

Because the atheist as well as the theist by definition know that there either is no god or vice versa. Now, as far as I know the concept of a god has neither been proven nor disproved - do you know something I don't? I get that people use the label atheist rather carefree without really reflecting on both the definition of the term and what it really means to know that there is no god, which I think is sad. People who perhaps really are agnostic are just confusing the terms and mistakingly calling themselves an atheist - or, whats worse, they haven't even thought about it.

I'm using god as a metaphor here, you could say that the abrahamitic god has been "disproved", much as you can disprove creatures of fairy tales - but that's just a question of where you'd like to draw the line of what is considered proven.

I knew you were going to get into semantics AND Deism.

When I say "There isn't an Easter Bunny" - I would call myself an AEbunnyist, and someone holding your position would say:

"How do you know that there isn't a giant rabbit laying eggs out there somewhere in this Galaxy? Some sort of alien creature we just haven't come across yet?"

And

"How can you know ANYTHING for certain? Our limited understanding of our galaxy prevents us from even knowing if our day to day reality is what we believe it to be, we are not infallible creatures!"

But I would STILL say "There isn't an Easter Bunny" - because you know damn well what I mean.

 

[Masaki_]

Because the atheist as well as the theist by definition know that there either is no god or vice versa.

Wrong. Being an atheist is simply not believing in the existence of gods. Theists are the ones who making claims with no proof. Yet, if you look at it, the possibility that a god or gods exist is actually very small, i.e., it's not 50-50 like many people think (I assume you're among them).

 

[ChoklitReign]

And here's a video for those who stubbornly defend the legitimacy of any supernatural phenomenon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=channel

Except this phenomenon has decent evidence.

 

[Vinci]

Can we keep the theism vs. atheism debate out of this discussion? I'm an atheist, but I'm open to the possibility of an afterlife of some sort.

 

[Kurtofan]

afterlife is big part of religion.

That is correct but "atheism" just say that you don't believe in gods.
You can still believe in ghosts,reincarnation or other forms of afterlife.

 

[hsukardi]

The 9 pieces of "evidence" are terrible.

 

[Like the hat?]

I am almost certain that there is something after death. i'm not going to try to convince anyone else, though. Let people believe what they want to believe.

 

[crazy monkey]

That is correct but "atheism" just say that you don't believe in gods.
You can still believe in ghosts,reincarnation or other forms of afterlife.

:lol

 

[Speevy]

Is this not something you know for sure when you die, whether you like it or not?

 

[Masaki_]

Except this phenomenon has decent evidence.

Except it hasn't. Quoting cloud_sleep:

The problem with this kind of evidence is that it typically amounts to hearsay. Who documented these conversations and how did they determine they couldn't have been heard by the patients? These tales remind me of the sort of 'hits' that people who visit mediums refer to, but when they are examined are really just clever guesswork that the believer then tweaks towards the truth during the retelling. As with memories of alien abductions recovered via hypnosis, the problem of both the researcher and subject wanting to find evidence for the phenomena is a real issue with this sort of research.

They need to do properly controlled experiments in this area. I remember a BBC documentary about NDEs in which researchers were placing cards with words/number son them on a shelf close to the ceiling of a room in a hospital ward that treated heart attack victims, the idea being that only someone having a OBE, and floating above their body, would be able to read the cards. No-one did. I would be interested to see a follow-up on that one, however.

Like most people, I'd love for there to be something to this but, alas, have not yet seen anything close to convincing evidence.

 

[Vinci]

Is this not something you know for sure when you die, whether you like it or not?

Yeah, but who knows... after we're dead and know for sure, it might be difficult - due to the nature of the afterlife - to bitch and/or get our jollies off knowing how right we were.

 

[ChoklitReign]

I wish I could get my hands on some psychedelic drugs and see if I can replicate the bullet-points in his evidence. Why does it have to be so hard?

 

[Zaptruder]

Except this phenomenon has decent evidence.

If you call pseudo science, cherry picking and rewording understood phenomena, and general wish fufillment to be decent evidence... then sure, it has 'decent evidence'.

For the rest of us that look for something a little more concrete and congruent, we're not seeing anything that's too interesting here.

 

[Kurtofan]

:lol

I don't see what's funny.
Care to explain,please?

 

[crazy monkey]

I don't see what's funny.
Care to explain,please?

I did not know atheism is based on beliefs.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I am almost certain that there is something after death. i'm not going to try to convince anyone else, though. Let people believe what they want to believe.

Personally, I agree. And I formerly came from a firm atheistic position after purging myself of all my Christian programming. It's not indoctrination that causes me to believe it, rather I'm prone to disbelieving in it. But due to some intimate phenomenological 'evidence' and subjective-experiential accounts I've come to lean more towards consciousness perhaps being in some sense 'non-material' or not being bound to materiality in quite such a rigid way as materialists tend to suggest.

But I tend to follow my intuition in metaphysical problems. This probably irritates some people but I find it works rather well.

 

[ChoklitReign]

If you call pseudo science, cherry picking and rewording understood phenomena, and general wish fufillment to be decent evidence... then sure, it has 'decent evidence'.

For the rest of us that look for something a little more concrete and congruent, we're not seeing anything that's too interesting here.

I guess the idea of evidence is in the eye of the beholder then. We just need a consensus.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Zaptruder, it's a pretty fascinating subject if you're interested in neurodynamic interactions on a wide scale throughout the brain, and thus the study of consciousness...

 

[Kurtofan]

I did not know atheism is based on beliefs.

...Ok
Atheism is not based on a belief,it's based on not believing in gods.
a little etymology explanation here:"-a":without, "theism":god.
An atheist can't believe in gods, but he can believe in ANYTHING else.