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.

darwin2 wrote:

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.

It is possible that in the afterdeath world the laws of physics may be radically different from ours. But the Scientific Method helped us to learn the laws of physics in this world and I have confidence it would help us learn the laws of physics in the next world if such a world exists.

Steve wrote:

The Egg
By: Andy Weir

You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And that’s when you met me.
“What… what happened?” You asked. “Where am I?”
“You died,” I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.

more

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.

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)

byofrcs wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:

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.

darwin2 wrote:

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.

It is possible that in the afterdeath world the laws of physics may be radically different from ours. But the Scientific Method helped us to learn the laws of physics in this world and I have confidence it would help us learn the laws of physics in the next world if such a world exists.

darwin2 wrote:....

I have seen Richard Dawkins answer that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death even though he qualified his answer by saying in his opinion he finds this possibility unlikely.

Wuffy wrote:

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.

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

darwin2 wrote:

Rubicon wrote: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.

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.

Weaver wrote:So what? Richard Dawkins isn't some sort of idol for us - we don't kowtow to his opinion.

Besides, his opinion doesn't support yours - your contention that the odds are 50:50, for example.

darwin2 wrote:

Weaver wrote:So what? Richard Dawkins isn't some sort of idol for us - we don't kowtow to his opinion.

Besides, his opinion doesn't support yours - your contention that the odds are 50:50, for example.

I am going to make a confession here. I ask all of you who have been offended by this action to have mercy on me as I beg your forgiveness for this almost unforgiveable action. I have made an egregious error in stating my subjective opinion that the odds are 50:50. I am not a mathematician and I apologize for my mathematic deficiencies.

darwin2 wrote:However I stand by my contention that it is possible for consciousness to survive death.

byofrcs wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

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.

It is possible that in the afterdeath world the laws of physics may be radically different from ours. But the Scientific Method helped us to learn the laws of physics in this world and I have confidence it would help us learn the laws of physics in the next world if such a world exists.

Your whole premise is utter bullshit. If we hit the afterlife then all bets are off. The Methodical Naturalism is a process for this materialistic and natural world. The method has had a few centuries of success and has pushed the utter crap of theology and the supernatural into the gaps occupied by the deluded and the tabloids.



In all probability this approach of methodical naturalism will be around for the rest of the existence of humanity. Now if there is an afterlife i.e. if there is a supernatural realm then why the heck would a process we use in this natural world ever work in the supernatural realm which the whole process of methodical naturalism doesn't even suggest exists ?

That sounds utterly deluded.

So screw science in the afterlife. Numerous repeated experiments, tedious documentation with references, grant applications, peer reviews and god know what else - I'm after my 72 virgins or my turn in Valhalla drinking mead and meat or whatever it is we're supposed to do.

byofrcs wrote:

darwin2 wrote:....

I have seen Richard Dawkins answer that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death even though he qualified his answer by saying in his opinion he finds this possibility unlikely.

Reference please.

darwin2 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:

darwin2 wrote:....

I have seen Richard Dawkins answer that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death even though he qualified his answer by saying in his opinion he finds this possibility unlikely.

Reference please.

Don't be silly. He has been on numerous TV talk shows where this question has been asked of him and his answer was exactly as I described in that post. You can email him if you wish and ask him if what I said is true.

Dawkins can’t say categorically that there is no life after death, but it’s implausible. “Everything we know about how minds work shows that they are bound up with brains, and brains don’t survive death.” Human consciousness evolved by degrees over millions of years. The claim that conscious survives the death of the body “does not ring plausible.”

darwin2 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

darwin2 wrote:

That's a silly, immature and unscientific comment. This is a scientific website. Please be scientific in your responses.

No more silly and immature than the assertions of theists about the afterlife. Unscientific it may be, perhaps at this stage it's worth noting that I am not a scientist. This is not a scientific website, it is a rational scepticism site.
You seem to think atheist = scientist, while this is true in many cases, it is certainly not generally true.

Believing in an after-life is only silly and immature if there is no afterlife. Believing there is no afterlife is only silly and immature if there is an aftrerlife.