There is nothing after death

As assumption is not synonymous with fact I have little use for it and as such take a neutral position pending new evidence.

 

But not all claims are equal. If I claim that there's unicorn poop on the moon, would you take a "neutral" position? There only reason people even wonder about an afterlife is because religion tells them to. You might as well wonder if Hogwarts is real because it's mentioned in the Harry Potter books.

 

Define 'always existed.'

It's all unknowable.

 

One should be open minded but not to the point where the brain falls out.

A silly position to take as the author has never said that the book is based in reality nor is the book sold in the non fiction section of book stores.

 

If you're going to take credit for a quote, don't pick one so famous.

So what you're saying is that, if Rowling had claimed that her books were based on fact, you would give her books equal consideration? Um, most sane people would just call her wacky.

Then again, people believe the Bible for no other reason than because its authors and believers claim it's true.

 

Probably so, but we don't know everything under the sun. I tend towards your view in any case.

 

I don't believe in nothingness. There is no such thing. Describe nothingness.

 

Moot point as I do not take credit for it. I got the saying from my daughter and where she came by it I do not know but knowing my daughter I am betting it was Carl Sagan.

Yes and the equal consideration would be to say prove it.

Moot point as correct vs incorrect is not based upon popular opinion. One either has evidnce to back their claim or they do not. On the flip side a lack of evidence is not proof that a claim is false. I personally challange those who make absolute claims to the positive or the negative based upon what I perceive as incomplete evidence. Facts should be based upon absolutes and none of us knows for sure what happens upon death though many claim to.

Perhaps one day Houdini will contact us and set the matter to rest.

Indeed and as I have no proof one way or another I take a neutral position pending new evidence. Do you have an issue with my not taking sides nor making an absolute claim? If so why?

 

James Randi, actually.

No, you implied that you're "neutral" about the question of the afterlife. My argument is that certain questions, like the question of whether or not there is an afterlife, are unworthy of consideration because nothing in nature demands us to even consider these kinds of questions. In other words, the only reason we ask is because religion, which is nothing but fairy tales, inspires us to. We wouldn't think to ask the question were it not for religion.

The person making a negative claim doesn't have the burden of proof. Nobody has the burden of disproving another's claim.

Why do you assume the possibility of an afterlife? Does anything in nature imply that such a thing exists? No. You only ask the question because religion inspires you to ask it. If you had never heard of religion, you would have no reason to even consider such a nonsensical question anymore than you would to consider if there is, in fact, a Hogwarts if you'd never heard of Harry Potter. The question is not inspired by any observable phenomenon and therefore merits no investigation.

But not all positions are equal. Neutrality erroneously assumes that all claims are worthy of consideration. Before you investigate a claim, you must first decide if the claim is worth investigating.

Yes. As I've said several times, not all claims merit investigation. No observable phenomenon requires us to postulate an afterlife. If you'd never known of religion, you would accept that the consciousness is a product of the brain and ceases to exist upon death. You would have zero reason to ask if the consciousness "survives" death anymore than you would to ask if, say, a computer program can exist the destruction of the hardware it exists on.

 

Prove what?

And precisely what assertion would that be, pray tell?

You've got me confused with someone else.

Then providing a verbatim quote and link won't be a problem, so get it done.

On the contrary, since you're the one who made the affirmative claim, if anyone is obligated to prove anything, it's obviously you.

 

I have never made any claims about things that can't be studied. Do you have any observable evidence for a creator that can't be explained by something else? What phenomena lead you to believe that there must be a god, let alone the one described in Christian texts? I am taking the minimalist approach, which is probably the same approach you take to determining the validity of various claims in your day-to-day life. If your belief in god is predicated on some other standard, please explain it so I can explore that line of reasoning.

 

Ya I have been asking that...so far no reply.

 

Waddya want, a medal?

I'm not about to be dragged off topic by someone who has shown such steadfast antipathy for honest dialogue.

 

Are you kidding me? I am always willing to engage in honest debate with others, and I think my posting history on this forum suggests as much. I may say all kinds of crazy (*)(*)(*)(*) and (*)(*)(*)(*) a few people off, but I am always willing to drop the insults and engage in substantive debate if the party agrees to one. If I am wrong about something, I want you to challenge me. As I've said before, I have genuinely tried to become religious and failed to find enough justification to do so. Contrary to what you keep suggesting, I would rather believe in an afterlife and god, but I require good reasons for doing so. For instance, I'm currently crossing my fingers and hoping that Sheldrake's research bears some fruit and can be replicated, but that has not happened, as much as I may want it to.

Now, what am I missing here? Do you have any links or resources that would lead me down a path toward religious faith?

 

No, you're kidding yourself.

Of course you did. That's what trying to be religious gets you.

Your own dishonesty, as manifested by your numerous attempts to get me to defend statements I haven't made.

 

Why do you ever bother commenting on threads if you aren't willing to debate people? Are you just trolling?

 

similar evidence as is available that there is "something" after death
Which in my experience is a much more commonly, and intrusively argued position
I seldom---never, encounter evangelistic atheists knocking at my door
Or accosting me on the street to inform me that my soul is condemned to hell
If i do not change my life according to their ideas

 

If you feel the need to think so, no skin off my ass.

 

Precisely.

For example, if Rupert Sheldrake proved that the mind was not confined to the brain and projected itself outward, then it would be far more reasonable to entertain the idea of an afterlife, or to at least be agnostic on the subject. So far, no one has provided any credible evidence to suggest that anything like this happens. As of right now, nothing suggests that consciousness, as we know it, survives the death of the brain.

 

Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed ergo it has always existed in some form or another.

Science proves otherwise, we know the elements of the universe and the laws of physics therefore it cannot be "all unknowable".

 

Theists believe in nothingness. Are you a theist?

 

So now you are agreeing with the OP that there is nothing after death?

When did that epiphany occur?

 

Those who play stupid would do well to consider Vonnegut's admonition that one ought to be careful about what he pretends to be, lest he awaken one day to discover that the pretense has become reality.

 

"No observable phenomenon requires us to postulate an afterlife." Well said!!

"Does the afterlife exist" differs "from do gods exist", in that gods could explain life and the universe. The "afterlife" explains nothing.

 

Since all you have left are spurious ad homs you have effectively disqualified yourself from any further meaningful participation on this topic.

Have a nice day.