Let's Talk About Death

[Tahuti]

3) Do you believe in an afterlife?

No, I've seen no reason to believe that one might exist. I am open to the idea, but nobody's ever been able to budge me from my "There's no reason to think that an afterlife exists" position.

I'll give it a shot to convert you to agnosticism: No one was ever able to measure what happened after death so far scientific consensus is concerned. We are able to conceptualise an afterlife, yet there is no physical evidence to prove it does or doesn't exist, so that leaves both existence and non-existence open as a possibility.

 

[Traitorfish]

"It's possible" and "there's no reason to think it exists" are not mutually exclusive positions.

 

[Kyriakos]

9) If you somehow knew that you were to die on a desert island and nobody would ever find your remains, would that bother you?

10) If you had a memorial or tombstone with a message for the following generations, what would it say?

9) In a way i think that almost all do already.

10) I tried. You know what i mean if you are reading this.

 

[Kyriakos]

And on a different note, i agree with Kaiserguard re agnosticism being a better basis for this.
That one "sees no reason why an afterlife/X exists, therefore doesn't think it does" is not really logical at all; it merely is a poor attempt to brush aside the logical conclusion that you cannot know either way. I mean we do not know what exists past the furthest supertelescopically reached horizons we can have data of. If one argued that therefore there likely exists nothing there, it would be false. If one extends the powers of the telescope and still sees 'nothing' after massive distances, it once more is not at all scientific to claim that there is nothing past those titanic distances which yielded no image for us by now.

So, in the issue of an "afterlife", where clearly we are not dealing with any set and potentially expanded horizon, we have even less reason to say that nothing exists, cause here we are not like someone watching from a powerful telescope, cause we are not like someone watching from a weak telescope either, nor- in the end- someone who even has eyes so as to watch. And a blind person should not indulge in speaking about what objects exist past his known routes and walks

 

[El_Machinae]

It's amusing, because when I read Warpus's answer, I see it as an agnostic position.

 

[Millman]

^Targeting all appropriate responses-Injecting too much philosophy can dimish the meaning.

In any case when I think of Death I recall a stinky foot in Bill and Ted's face. Considering I'm a gamer, hopefully I could take on Death as well as they did.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's amusing, because when I read Warpus's answer, I see it as an agnostic position.

^Let's just say that if somehow god was the honesty of the claim by you that the statement by Warpus was seen as agnostic, then i would be an atheist

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's amusing, because when I read Warpus's answer, I see it as an agnostic position.

Very much so.

I'd like those who disagree to piont out the gnostic aspect of his answer.

 

[Kyriakos]

Very much so.

I'd like those who disagree to piont out the gnostic aspect of his answer.

Post #44

Gnostic in the context of an afterlife/god/etc, is about what you think you know (cause either way no one knows the truth due to inherent limitations of the observer in regards to the object theorised upon). So atheist= doesn't believe in god. It is at least wrong to try to claim that atheist= knows that god does not exist, while if one just thinks god does not exist he is agnostic. Agnostic means that you have the view that neither thinking x exists or does not exist can be supportable as positions.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"It's possible" and "there's no reason to think it exists" are not mutually exclusive positions.

On the other hand it is probably false that there ever is really no reason to think something exists. After all, there is always the general acknowledgment that one can't really know anything, which is at least one reason right there for everything to assume it exists. Albeit not a very strong one. And for anything other than gray theory a totally useless one. But ey - it is one

But yeah it is funny how many people stumble over this really not very high logical hurdle so badly. Like a poor sailor to rum they leach themselves onto this weakest of justifications to assume something exists, the justification of its general possibility.
It is logic's metaphor for desperation.

 

[Traitorfish]

On the other hand it is probably false that there ever is really no reason to think something exists. After all, there is always the general acknowledgment that one can't really know anything, which is at least one reason right there for everything to assume it exists.

I'm not so sure, because acknowledging ignorance is acknowledging something about your own condition, not about the condition of the external universe. If an afterlife exists, it exists regardless of what I think, and if it does not exists, it does not exist regardless of what I think. If that makes sense.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm not so sure, because acknowledging ignorance is acknowledging something about your own condition, not about the condition of the external universe. If an afterlife exists, it exists regardless of what I think, and if it does not exists, it does not exist regardless of what I think. If that makes sense.

That is true, of course*. But to be of the view it is true would render you agnostic anyway, cause it is not very logical to claim that you think a god does not exist as long as you can know if he exists or not, but still argue that he may exist provided that you would be able to know if he did. The verbs think and know have far too big a difference to allow this sort of free-flow from one statement to the next.

So agnostic, atheist and religious, are three options (or categories) which already exist in the specific (despite that being conscious or not in an individual thinker) context that we only can know what by our nature we can know.

(moreover, in my view, the above is not a limit, cause i firmly suspect that the realms of human potential knowledge are infinitely larger than anything we may ever reach or set down as a system).

*

Spoiler :

Although some theologies support the position that the existence or not of an afterlife-or qualities of it- is also set by the individual views of the person. Christianity is by and large one of them, or so it would seem).

 

[Tahuti]

"It's possible" and "there's no reason to think it exists" are not mutually exclusive positions.

I feel really dumb.

 

[El_Machinae]

^Let's just say that if somehow god was the honesty of the claim by you that the statement by Warpus was seen as agnostic, then i would be an atheist

Wow, that was an insulting reply.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Post #44

Gnostic in the context of an afterlife/god/etc, is about what you think you know (cause either way no one knows the truth due to inherent limitations of the observer in regards to the object theorised upon).

Ok, let me rephrase.

Where does Warpus state he thinks he knows there is no afterlife? He even states he's open to idea. But so far he sees no reason to change his position.

So atheist= doesn't believe in god. It is at least wrong to try to claim that atheist= knows that god does not exist, while if one just thinks god does not exist he is agnostic. Agnostic means that you have the view that neither thinking x exists or does not exist can be supportable as positions.

Atheist = doesn't believe in God, no issues there. Agnostic atheist doesn't believe in God and reasons there is no way to know there is a God or not.

You'll find a couple of gnostic theists on this forum who know God exists.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wow, that was an insulting reply.

Sorry. I did not mean it as offensive. Pls note that i had the limited time of the ghost-edit in mind when trying to choose a main term, and "honesty" was not the best option... :\ "Correctness" would have been a far better term..

 

[Kyriakos]

Ok, let me rephrase.

Where does Warpus state he thinks he knows there is no afterlife? He even states he's open to idea. But so far he sees no reason to change his position.

Atheist = doesn't believe in God, no issues there. Agnostic atheist doesn't believe in God and reasons there is no way to know there is a God or not.

You'll find a lot of gnostic theists on this forum who know God exists.

I agree (overall) that theists tend to be "gnostic" (by which of course is meant that they think they know that a god exists; usually they argue that their personal -religious/other- experiences are proof, and so on). But the categories atheist and theist are not really antipodes of each other, due to the center not being an absolute center either. An atheist can think he knows that god does not exist (which is false), or think that god does not exist, due to arguments X. From there the atheist can be open to some degrees to examining if a god might exist. But he is still far away from having the position that he thinks there can be no evidence either way, and that there is no evidence which can set a breakthrough in a search for the existence (or lack of it) of a god.

Most atheists reason that they do not see anything that would make their stance less tenable, and so maintain a stance which already is one directed to a specific view (namely that there likely is no god anyway). An agnostic, in theory, has no set view on the issue, much like one might not have a set view on whether a billion star-systems away there is a singular or binary star in the center. It is just that religion has made the idea of a god seem to be about humans on a planet, so some humans expect that if a god exists then that god would have had to know/care about us all the same.

 

[Gucumatz]

1) Do you fear death?
Not really - Probably because I haven't ever been in a situation that I think would have brought me close to death

1a) Why do you fear death?

2) Do you feel you lived a full life if you died tomorrow?
Not yet. Certainly don't want to die tomorrow.

3) Do you believe in an afterlife?
Yes, I do. But even if there is no afterlife, it shouldn't change how I live today. And even if there is an afterlife and it is completely different to what I contemplate, it shouldn't change how we/I live life now and in whatever state I am in then.

4) If you died tomorrow what would your biggest regret be?
No historical impact

5) If you had to guess, what age will you die?
Somewhere under 9000

6) Have you ever seen someone die?
I have been close to several people dying, never seen a person the moment he/she died though.

7) Do you think modern civilizations reduction of exposure to death is a good thing? (i.e., most people die in hospitals and not at home etc)
Yes. I believe that all life plays a part in the progression of Earth. The longer we are alive, the longer we can make a positive or negative impact.

8) How do you want your body to be handled after death? (cremation, buried, etc)
Honestly, no idea. Whatever is convenient for my family.

9) If you somehow knew that you were to die on a desert island and nobody would ever find your remains, would that bother you?
Not at all. I would probably try and make some marker in case anyone came by in the future to know what had happened there though.

10) If you had a memorial or tombstone with a message for the following generations, what would it say?
You'll be dead with me one day. But for now I am with you.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I agree (overall) that theists tend to be "gnostic" (by which of course is meant that they think they know that a god exists; usually they argue that their personal -religious/other- experiences are proof, and so on). But the categories atheist and theist are not really antipodes of each other, due to the center not being an absolute center either. An atheist can think he knows that god does not exist (which is false), or think that god does not exist, due to arguments X. From there the atheist can be open to some degrees to examining if a god might exist. But he is still far away from having the position that he thinks there can be no evidence either way, and that there is no evidence which can set a breakthrough in a search for the existence (or lack of it) of a god.

Most atheists reason that they do not see anything that would make their stance less tenable, and so maintain a stance which already is one directed to a specific view (namely that there likely is no god anyway). An agnostic, in theory, has no set view on the issue, much like one might not have a set view on whether a billion star-systems away there is a singular or binary star in the center. It is just that religion has made the idea of a god seem to be about humans on a planet, so some humans expect that if a god exists then that god would have had to know/care about us all the same.

There is no center in between atheist and theist. If you're not a theist, you're an ....

And evidence for a negative "There is no God" is near impossible. So no evidence either way boils down to no evidence for the existence of God. One can base their reasoning on that to conclude, until evidence comes along why believe in God? I'm including non-scientific personal evidence here.

What evidence could there be which would prove God does not exist?

Your making the mistake of cramming 2 dimensions into 1.

 

[Millman]

^Sounds like dull hyperbole to me.