Do you believe in the afterlife?

[Starter Set]

Belief in an afterlife is a comfort, it seems, for many people in those times

It really is. Which is a big reason why i started questioning the whole concept of after life and religion.

It's pretty easy to see the help it can bring, why one in troubled times could need it. And that's the problem, it's a tool.

A tool the mind sometimes needs to makes sens of things, to give you the illusion that **** happens for a reason.

That's pretty convenient. A bit too much. The perfect nice place for the good guys, a nasty burning hole for the bad ones? Everything make sens but we just can't see it so we have to trust an invisible entity?

Nah. I tried but once you start to see why people need that stuff, you can't believe in it anymore.

[Comics N' Toons]

It really is. Which is a big reason why i started questioning the whole concept of after life and religion.

It's pretty easy to see the help it can bring, why one in troubled times could need it. And that's the problem, it's a tool.

A tool the mind sometimes needs to makes sens of things, to give you the illusion that **** happens for a reason.

That's pretty convenient. A bit too much. The perfect nice place for the good guys, a nasty burning hole for the bad ones? Everything make sens but we just can't see it so we have to trust an invisible entity?

Nah. I tried but once you start to see why people need that stuff, you can't believe in it anymore.

Very well said!

[Jim Kelly]

So if it's not okay to give people psychological methods for dealing with the pain of dying, is it okay to give them drugs?

[Adam Allen]

It really is. Which is a big reason why i started questioning the whole concept of after life and religion.

It's pretty easy to see the help it can bring, why one in troubled times could need it. And that's the problem, it's a tool.

A tool the mind sometimes needs to makes sens of things, to give you the illusion that **** happens for a reason.

That's pretty convenient. A bit too much. The perfect nice place for the good guys, a nasty burning hole for the bad ones? Everything make sens but we just can't see it so we have to trust an invisible entity?

Nah. I tried but once you start to see why people need that stuff, you can't believe in it anymore.

I would not assume to try and tell anyone what they should or should not believe, as far as an afterlife, but I do want to point out -- because of how often we will engage the argument that reason and logic insists there can't be a God or an afterlife, and that belief in either can only be purely emotionally based -- that concluding that faith is "the easy way" is, in fact, the easy way of looking at the entire thing.

The fact is that there have been some really, extremely smart people who have spent a lot of time thinking about these questions, who have not come down on the side of disbelief. Seriously, if you're not going to go for individuals like Malcolm X or MLK, both very intelligent men, I'd encourage reading someone like Thomas Merton, or a book like The Body of God by Sallie McFague, which attempts to reconcile environmentalism, feminism, and Christianity. Try reading The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis, and tell me this is an example of someone having faith because they are taking the easy route, and not thinking about it hard enough.

[Kirby101]

As for C S Lewis, just read his debate with Ascombe and it appears he did not think hard enough about it.

[Starter Set]

So if it's not okay to give people psychological methods for dealing with the pain of dying, is it okay to give them drugs?

Both work the same way when you think about it, to trick your brain into seeing things differently.

[Starter Set]

I would not assume to try and tell anyone what they should or should not believe

Oh trust me my friend, i couldn't possibly care less about what you or anyone else fancy to worship.

But the psychological aspect behind it is truly fascinating.

[Adam Allen]

As for C S Lewis, just read his debate with Ascombe and it appears he did not think hard enough about it.

I will have to do so, but just to point out, losing a debate does not mean one necessarily lacks for facts or knowledge of them. It may just mean you debated poorly.

[Kirby101]

I will have to do so, but just to point out, losing a debate does not mean one necessarily lacks for facts or knowledge of them. It may just mean you debated poorly.

I doubt CS Lewis ever debated poorly.

But just because smart people held on to beliefs doesn't discount the logical arguments against them.

It took a very long time for Einstein to accept Quantum Mechanics. Newton believed in alchemy.

They were both wrong.

[Jim Kelly]

Cogito, ergo sum

In some respects, cogito ergo sum might be a classic example of begging the question. Begging the question in the proper sense of the term--not as people misuse it. When one begs the question that means they haven't actually answered the question--they've simply offered a response that invites the question (begs it) to be asked again.

This happens often when one uses different words that are actually the same thing all over again. For human beings, to be and to think are the same thing. We're self aware of our being--our understanding of being relies on our consciousness of being. If thinking--cogito--and being--sum--are the same thing, then you haven't actually arrived at an answer. You've simply deluded yourself into thinking you have because language has failed you. What you've actually said is "I think therefore I think" or "I am therefore I am."

It's circular logic. A tautology.

[CSTowle]

I would not assume to try and tell anyone what they should or should not believe, as far as an afterlife, but I do want to point out -- because of how often we will engage the argument that reason and logic insists there can't be a God or an afterlife, and that belief in either can only be purely emotionally based -- that concluding that faith is "the easy way" is, in fact, the easy way of looking at the entire thing.

The fact is that there have been some really, extremely smart people who have spent a lot of time thinking about these questions, who have not come down on the side of disbelief. Seriously, if you're not going to go for individuals like Malcolm X or MLK, both very intelligent men, I'd encourage reading someone like Thomas Merton, or a book like The Body of God by Sallie McFague, which attempts to reconcile environmentalism, feminism, and Christianity. Try reading The Problem of Pain by CS Lewis, and tell me this is an example of someone having faith because they are taking the easy route, and not thinking about it hard enough.

I would guess there a lot of brilliant people who don't believe in an afterlife, and a lot of people who do, and many of those in the latter category who wildly disagree with a good portion of those who believe about what that afterlife is and under what belief system. Brilliant people are often wrong about many things, even the things they devote their lives and intellect to.

Even the wisest and/or most knowledgeable people are ignorant of most everything there is to know. Some who believe in the supernatural take comfort in that because it leaves a huge gap they can easily plug their beliefs into (which, while unprovable are also impossible to disprove as even irrefutable evidence to the contrary can be taken as a test of faith).

I ask myself what seems most likely. Would a humanity that has invented fairies and dragons and giants and thousands of gods/goddesses/spirits/etc. (even assuming as believers do that at least one exists) to explain things they didn't understand or couldn't wrap their head around be right in one version of supernatural belief, or (like witches making the milk sour or gremlins causing mechanical problems) is this just one more superstition (however mostly pleasant it might seem, if you don't think about hell too much)?

Maybe cynical, but seems smart money's on pleasant superstition. Sometimes used to acquire wealth and/or control by bad folk (though no different in that way than anything else), but mostly just there to set minds at ease and maybe keep people in line. If it weren't so outdated in so many ways I might even be on board (not a believer, but OK with the idea).

[captchuck]

My knowledge of such matters is finite. I really don't think so, but then again, I use The Mighty Thor as my icon. I'll leave all options open.

But in reality, I don't think there's any afterlife out there. I don't think "belief" should give you any special ticket for eternal happiness. That would make scientific skepticism the greatest crime of all. Why would hating science be the number one concern of an almighty creator?

[Scott Taylor]

It really is. Which is a big reason why i started questioning the whole concept of after life and religion.

It's pretty easy to see the help it can bring, why one in troubled times could need it. And that's the problem, it's a tool.

A tool the mind sometimes needs to makes sens of things, to give you the illusion that **** happens for a reason.

That's pretty convenient. A bit too much. The perfect nice place for the good guys, a nasty burning hole for the bad ones? Everything make sens but we just can't see it so we have to trust an invisible entity?

Nah. I tried but once you start to see why people need that stuff, you can't believe in it anymore.

Its no different from some beliefs that turn people into Atheists, either. Belief that no evidence for something proves it to not be true. Born of either a logical fallacy or ignorance.

[Kirby101]

Its no different from some beliefs that turn people into Atheists, either. Belief that no evidence for something proves it to not be true. Born of either a logical fallacy or ignorance.

Not true. I don't believe or disbelieve, I see no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife. It is the same for a god. I just don't accept they exist.I do not believe there is no evidence,, I have not seen any. The absence of belief is not a belief. I do not disregard an afterlife on faith.
Some people believe in the Loch Ness monster. But there is scant real evidence and much evidence against one. Therefore it is not a logical falicy to not accept a monster lives in Loch Ness.

Believers often want to say atheist just have different beliefs, but this simply isn't the case.
Believers like to say that since a lack of evidence does not 100% prove something doesn't exist, it is still a 50/50 either or. This truly is the logical falicy.

[Powerboy]

It really is. Which is a big reason why i started questioning the whole concept of after life and religion.

It's pretty easy to see the help it can bring, why one in troubled times could need it. And that's the problem, it's a tool.

A tool the mind sometimes needs to makes sens of things, to give you the illusion that **** happens for a reason.

That's pretty convenient. A bit too much. The perfect nice place for the good guys, a nasty burning hole for the bad ones? Everything make sens but we just can't see it so we have to trust an invisible entity?

Nah. I tried but once you start to see why people need that stuff, you can't believe in it anymore.

To paraphrase George Carlin, I used to believe in a god and an afterlife based on zero evidence but then I reached the Age of Reason.