Everybody faces their own death. It’s the ultimate moment of Truth which gets closer each day.

Atheists and theists alike BOTH have coping mechanisms - one says it doesn’t matter, death is NOT the end. The other says it doesn’t matter death IS the end. Both are voluntarily held views about death.

But what if life after death was simply a matter of “believing” in the soul? Your own personal continuation of a journey of existence in a reality which your “soul” can either keep traveling through or, if it is tired, simply give up the journey.

What if the afterlife is a placebo effect and the only thing your soul needs to survive the physical death of the body is conscious exercising of your soul - psyche, ego, chi, free will, mind, anima/animus, etc, call it whatever you like - by doing things which atheists would say are a waste of time (Praying, believing God and the afterlife.) What if the strong soul did not "die" and the sickly weak one did? The ne plus ultra of placebo effects.

There is ample evidence of psycho-cybernetics, where people who, for no other apparent reason, were able to achieve feats of endurance simply because they “believed” they could. Mind over matter.

What if the ability of the soul to continue conscious existence outside the body really was optional? What if the ONE THING needed for your soul to survive an illness called "death" was a strong immune system called "belief".

If you don’t think you have a soul then it doesn’t really matter whether your soul has a weak immune response to the process we “call” dying. But what if the physical/material transformation known as death (as a trauma,) impacts conscious awareness of "reality" differently depending on the individual souls "immune system"? What if atheism is an idea which, if embraced, is to the soul, what smoking is to the lungs? Or to use a different analogy, what if the soul is an entity/energy which can either be concentrated (strengthened) by the vaccine called theism or diluted (weakened) by the sickness called atheism which literally sees the patient embracing no hope of a cure or antidote that can surpass death – no placebo is offered.

Psychoanalysis is sometimes called the talking cure. Words making a person well. Words curing a persons (mental) illness. Think about that for a second. Words (from the mind) curing someone’s sickness.

The connection between mind and body is ....how shall we say..."complex". (Don’t want to say anything which sounds like "woo") But there wouldn’t be too much objection to the claim that your health and immune system are related to mental attitude and the idea of DIS-EASE caused by stress is widely accepted by mainstream medicine.

Well, what if you can strengthen your soul’s immune system like some chi gung exercise to the point where death, when it comes, is not the dissolving of your conscious awareness of reality but a release of concentrated energy – a “big bang” new beginning if you like.

If you insist on believing that there is no God and no soul and no parallel universe called the afterlife, then maybe there doesn’t have to be. You simply get what you expect. Nothing. And on the other hand, maybe you really do reap what you sow when it comes to belief and faith in afterlife reality – even if it is just a holograph...part of some weird quantum "woo" metaphysics.

BTW – The placebo afterlife and spiritual immune system is just an idea about death, the soul and the afterlife for consideration of atheists and agnostics. It’s a thought experiment. Nothing more. Make of it what you will. I wont be debating theology or religious doctrines in this thread. I will read any further comments or responses with interest but don’t bother fisking me or trying to “crash test” my Christian comfort zone. I'm alright Jack! Stress free thank God.

Lion (IRC)

I get the feeling that after my death it's going to be the same as the billions and billions of years of nonexistence prior to my conception that I can't seem to recall. "A small crack of light between two eternities" was the way Nabokov described life, if I'm remembering his words correctly.

PS Lion, psychoanalysis has been pretty much discredited as a cure for mental illness. Drugs work much better than words.

Lion IRC wrote:
BTW – The placebo afterlife and spiritual immune system is just an idea about death, the soul and the afterlife for consideration of atheists and agnostics. It’s a thought experiment. Nothing more. Make of it what you will. I wont be debating theology or religious doctrines in this thread. I will read any further comments or responses with interest but don’t bother fisking me or trying to “crash test” my Christian comfort zone. I'm alright Jack! Stress free thank God.

So we have another list of "possibilities"; ideas which really cannot be tested. No proposed mechanism for HOW it could work, just an assertion that it is POSSIBLE.

darwin2 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:

darwin2 wrote:....

Sir, you are stating your own personal subjective beliefs on this issue. Your belief on this issue is not a scientific fact. Any rational scientist will tell you that you are wrong. Subjectively they may believe you are correct. However objectively they will tell you your statement is incorrect.

Which statement ? Be precise. Your Emmental of an OP has so many holes in it we wouldn't want something important falling through the gaps.

Here are the precise statements you asked for.

To me when that information is destroyed then your are dead and there is no mechanism in this universe that can recover that information. Same as erasing a hard disk. The information is gone forever. Objectively speaking, this is false unless he knows everything about the universe.

Face facts - you're going to die and you will cease to exist. Objectively speaking this statement is also false. Yes my physical body is going to die but it is possible my consciousness may continue. Even Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens would agree with me.

No, I doubt that "Any rational scientist" would tell me that I am wrong in my approach.

I think you wish your consciousness survives. This is your coping mechanism for non-existence. That's OK but I doubt that these 3 out of the 4 horsemen would agree with your presentation of their point of view in this fallacy of an argument from authority that you seem to be constructing.

Lion IRC wrote:Everybody faces their own death. It’s the ultimate moment of Truth which gets closer each day.

Atheists and theists alike BOTH have coping mechanisms - one says it doesn’t matter, death is NOT the end. The other says it doesn’t matter death IS the end. Both are voluntarily held views about death.

But what if life after death was simply a matter of “believing” in the soul? Your own personal continuation of a journey of existence in a reality which your “soul” can either keep traveling through or, if it is tired, simply give up the journey.

.....

Well yes and if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

You didn't explain which was which. As a materialist who doesn't think that matter can be created nor destroyed then death is not the end of the matter. It is only the irreversible damage to the information that the matter in your body stores that matters. Small changes from day to day are OK, large changes from brain damage through trauma and strokes and, obviously death, are less recoverable.

Oddly enough death does matter to a number of theists. An example of this is that in the US the more evangelical Christian you are then the greater the use of the medical industry to delay death. They will prevaricate and say that they are "prolonging life" but I suspect that they fear death and want to delay this no matter what the cost (and the cost for this kind of palliative style care is huge).

Lion IRC wrote:
But what if...

What if... What if...

What if... What if...

But what if... What if...

Well, what if...

Theology in a nutshell.

ChasM wrote:... PS Lion, psychoanalysis has been pretty much discredited as a cure for mental illness. Drugs work much better than words.

Not necessarily so. In fact, for most neuroses, counselling is at least as good as medication, without the side-effects.

Lion IRC wrote:Everybody faces their own death. It’s the ultimate moment of Truth which gets closer each day.

And some of us have faced it on more than one occasion.

Lion IRC wrote:Atheists and theists alike BOTH have coping mechanisms - one says it doesn’t matter, death is NOT the end. The other says it doesn’t matter death IS the end. Both are voluntarily held views about death.

Well, I've always felt it mattered. Whether the thought of those I'd be leaving behind, wife & kids trying to cope without husband/dad, or simply the thought that I wasn't going to be around to see my kids grow up etc. I thought it mattered a great deal. I don't know how many dead bodies you've seen, but I've seen quite a few. The thought that I might be one of them was a fairly disturbing thought. It mattered. Death might have been the end of me, and it might have been pretty grisly, but the main reason it mattered is because it isn't the end; someone is left picking up the pieces, either literally, (and) or metaphorically. My lack of belief in any kind of afterlife isn't a coping mechanism; it just is. I have no reason to think that death is anything but the end of individuality.

Lion IRC wrote:But what if life after death was simply a matter of “believing” in the soul? Your own personal continuation of a journey of existence in a reality which your “soul” can either keep traveling through or, if it is tired, simply give up the journey.

Or what if life after death was simply a matter of not believing in a soul? What if your continuation after bodily death was based on a lack of positive expectation? Those expecting something after death, never quite sure whether it'll be heaven or hell for them, in their deathly terror might find that their soul dies too. Those expecting nothing, pure oblivion, might be surprised when they look around the Happy Hunting Grounds, or Elysium Fields or The Summerlands. Yeah, what if?

Lion IRC wrote:What if the afterlife is a placebo effect and the only thing your soul needs to survive the physical death of the body is conscious exercising of your soul - psyche, ego, chi, free will, mind, anima/animus, etc, call it whatever you like - by doing things which atheists would say are a waste of time (Praying, believing God and the afterlife.) What if the strong soul did not "die" and the sickly weak one did? The ne plus ultra of placebo effects.

What if, what if ... Well, what if exercising your soul tires it out? What if not praying & associated mumbo-jumbo nonsense left the soul rested & able to enter the next step in its life-course. What if praying to God was a big fucking mistake, 'cos Zeus got pissed off with people who got his name wrong? What if ...

Lion IRC wrote:There is ample evidence of psycho-cybernetics, where people who, for no other apparent reason, were able to achieve feats of endurance simply because they “believed” they could. Mind over matter.

This isn't about simply believing. This is about a material process (thinking) engaging with a material process (overt bodily action). Forget the nonsense duality of mind & body. These are all one system. That the brain can over-ride normal limits on bodily actions, usually involving exceeding the limits that pain otherwise imposes, is nothing mysterious. It is not evidence for a soul.

CookieJon wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:
But what if...

What if... What if...

What if... What if...

But what if... What if...

Well, what if...

Theology in a nutshell.

Indeed, what-if's are the only thing darwin2 has given us after 8 pages of discussion. So far he has wrongly assumed that simply because consciousness might persist after death, that his claim is somehow a scientific statement worthy of scientific inquiry. Apparently he missed the part in science class where it is explained that science only deals with reality and not fantasies and wishful thinking. Science goes where the evidence leads it. Darwin2 has repeatedly admitted that he has none whatsoever.

His most profound failure is that he apparently thinks scientists erect blind assertions and then go looking for evidence to fit said assertion. This is utter FAIL. Scientists base their conclusions upon the available evidence, not the other way around. Darwin2 is assuming the conclusion ("consciousness may persist after death") and then suggests scientists should go looking for evidence for his fabrication. This is simply not how science works. So his persisting in claiming that his assertions are in any way scientific, are laughable at best, for the simple fact that he admittedly has no evidence whatsoever for said assertions.

Furthermore, even though he has been asked several times, he has failed to answer the question why his claim should be considered less absurd than claims about invisible pink unicorns, aliens in my backyard, purple fig leaves the size of Wales and orbiting teapots and should therefore be considered more worthy of scientific inquiry. He has not provided any arguments, only his personal opinion and a seemingly emotional attachment to his fantasy.

"What if" and utter failure to understand the scientific method is all we have so far.

chairman bill wrote:

ChasM wrote:... PS Lion, psychoanalysis has been pretty much discredited as a cure for mental illness. Drugs work much better than words.

Not necessarily so. In fact, for most neuroses, counselling is at least as good as medication, without the side-effects.

Noted. I was talking more about classic psychoanalysis and severe mental illness/disorder. Will PM.

Rubicon wrote:
Indeed, what-if's are the only thing darwin2 has given us after 8 pages of discussion. So far he has wrongly assumed that simply because consciousness might persist after death, that his claim is somehow a scientific statement worthy of scientific inquiry. Apparently he missed the part in science class where it is explained that science only deals with reality and not fantasies and wishful thinking. Science goes where the evidence leads it. Darwin2 has repeatedly admitted that he has none whatsoever.

His most profound failure is that he apparently thinks scientists erect blind assertions and then go looking for evidence to fit said assertion. This is utter FAIL. Scientists base their conclusions upon the available evidence, not the other way around. Darwin2 is assuming the conclusion ("consciousness may persist after death") and then suggests scientists should go looking for evidence for his fabrication. This is simply not how science works. So his persisting in claiming that his assertions are in any way scientific, are laughable at best, for the simple fact that he admittedly has no evidence whatsoever for said assertions.

Furthermore, even though he has been asked several times, he has failed to answer the question why his claim should be considered less absurd than claims about invisible pink unicorns, aliens in my backyard, purple fig leaves the size of Wales and orbiting teapots and should therefore be considered more worthy of scientific inquiry. He has not provided any arguments, only his personal opinion and a seemingly emotional attachment to his fantasy.

"What if" and utter failure to understand the scientific method is all we have so far.

While I disagree with his premise and idea's you do him a disservice by getting his question wrong.

What Darwin2 asked was if one were to be found in the afterlife, should we use the scientific method.
Now, if we do, well it would be interesting, but telling oneself to apply logic and critical thought should come naturally, now if a big magic man turns up and says. "Booga, you should have believed." Well I'll be sure to tell him to send down more evidence.

Now, to Darwin2... What in the world were you expecting when coming up with a hugely odd following and line of supposition then as us to be logical and rational about how we should be logical and rational after death. Even though these as all evidence points to the fact those are factors from our brains.

So, like everyone else has tried to tell you. Don't put the cart before the horse. Find evidence then build theory, it might be nice to think about what if I get to keep going after I die, but there is no such evidence.

Wuffy wrote:While I disagree with his premise and idea's you do him a disservice by getting his question wrong.

With all his evasion and question dodging, I hadn't even gotten to that question yet.

What Darwin2 asked was if one were to be found in the afterlife, should we use the scientific method.

That is an utterly useless question. We cannot know if the scientific method is applicable if we don't even know what this afterlife is like. Should I eat cheesecake if I were to find myself in the afterlife? Should I rearrange my sock drawer? Should I bang my head against a brick wall? Are there actually bricks or walls in this afterlife? Do I even have a head?

No predictions, nothing to test or falsify > no science.

Yes, darwin2 has tried very hard to avoid accountability for the initial problem most of us have with his OP - and tried to do this by claiming we are misunderstanding his questions in the first place.

The problem we have is that he made illogical assertions as a premise for his questions about using the scientific method. His assertion that it was POSSIBLE for consciousness to survive death, further compounded by his assertion that the odds are 50:50 are both totally illogical. Unless and until a mechanism by which consciousness could be posited to survive the death of a person's brain is shown, it is completely pointless to consider whether the scientific method would be the best method for dealing with the questions arising from an afterlife - it's entirely POSSIBLE, given the lack of such a mechanism, that the scientific method could well be impractical or impossible. There is absolutely no information from which to make an assessment.

As I've tried to show with a couple of loosely related examples, such questions are absurd and pointless - they have no bearing on the real world, they aren't even useful as thought experiments, because once one has gone into the realm of "it's possible", nothing is impossible - so how can one make an assessment?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

my_wan wrote:
Unfortunately darwin2 can't even explain why it's logically possible. He can only insist that we can't prove it's impossible.

I only insist it is logically possible!

I also suggest that it is logically possible that an invisible pink unicorn exists, since there is no evidence that they don't exist. She must exist or she must not. Since there is no evidence either way, then there is a 50% chance that the invisible pink unicorn exists! Thusly, let's discuss what we should do when we meet her. Should we use the scientific method? There's a high probability that she'd like that.

That is a silly and irrelevant remark and has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. That is sad if that is the best you can do. I doubt if anyone on this thread cares about the existence or non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn. But death is real and it should be a concern of everyone. Consciousness may end at death or it may continue after death of the physical body. I think it is wise to have a plan for the contingency that consciousness may continue after death. My suggestion is that if one finds oneself conscious after death they use the Scientific Method to explore this new reality. I also want to make it clear that I am not advocating that one contemplate this possibility daily but I do advocate thinking about it several times during one's lifetime.

I also want to make it clear that I am not advocating that one kill himself to find out if an afterlife truly exists. If one is thinking of such a course of action one should remember that it is also possible that death ends it all and if this happens it means that this life is the only life one will ever get. It would be a terrible waste not to enjoy it the fullest. There is too much beauty in this life to end it on a possibility that may not exist. There are beautiful sunrises and sunsets; beautiful music; beautiful sounds of nature; the awesomeness of the stars at night; our solar system our galaxy; our universe; the innocent, captivating and irresistible smile of a baby; the flagrance of beautiful flowers; the calming waters of an ocean, lake or river; the company of friends and family; the smell and taste of good food; the smell of fresh air and the treasure of having the ability to experience it; the ability to create and to experience your own creations as well as the creations of others. One should live this life to the fullest and not worry about consciousness continuing after death. If consciousness continues after death and things go well in the after death world, one will have been blessed to have had a full enjoyable life in this world with a continuation of the same in the afterlife world.

gleniedee wrote:No, I haven't read all of your posts,I wasn't aware it was mandatory.

I am only asking you to agree it is possible for consciousness to continue after death. Do you agree that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death

Of course it's logically possible.It's also possible aliens will land in the mall this afternoon,and more likely than survival of any kind after death. I base my position on the lack of evidence of so far in recorded history.

I suggest you read my reply to SafeAs Milk on page 8 of this thread made at 8:27am.

Rubicon wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

Rubicon wrote:What arguments, other than emotional attachment to the idea, do you have that your claim about the possibility that consciousness may persist after death is less absurd than the possibility of invisible blue baboons on Saturn, or purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What, other than your personal opinion on what does or what doesn't constitute an absurd claim, do you have to offer?

I stand by the post you seem to be so irritable about,

Science is using testable data that is organized so as to explain the natural world and make predictions on how it works. I also look upon science as the study of energy and matter and how they interact. If it turns out that consciousness continues after death, then science will study this after death state in the same manner it does in this physical world

Are you deliberately being obtuse here? This doesn't answer my question at all. I asked why you think your proposed claim about consciousness persisting after death is less absurd than the ones about invisible blue baboons on Saturn and purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What objective criteria do you use to determine that your claim is less absurd, and should therefore be considered more worthy as an area of scientific investigation? What do you have to offer, other than your opinion and your emotional attachment to your idea?

I suggest you read my reply to SafeAs Milk on page 8 of this thread made at 8:27am.

So you don't have an answer, then. You could just say so, you know ...

darwin2 wrote:... I suggest you read my reply to SafeAs Milk on page 8 of this thread made at 8:27am.

darwin2, any chance you might consider this post I made earlier?

chairman bill wrote:darwin2, your understanding of statistics & probability is erroneous. That said, let's entertain the vague possibility that consciousness survives death; in that case, yes, the scientific method might well be our best bet in terms of understand the new reality of survival of bodily death. But then again, it might not. The scientific method works in our material universe. In a non-material existence, who knows what laws may or may not apply? Maybe then our best guide will be some magical intution, with science leading us astray.

Exactly why I think the Lamaze Method might be preferable - well, it's POSSIBLE, right?

50:50 at least.