Correct me if I'm wrong, but mostly as atheists, we believe in nothingness after death, or at least I think I do. But then we have all of this stuff with mediums and spirits that maybe point to evidence to an afterlife. Some mediums have told people things that no one else has known, so that really makes me wonder.
I was really just wondering what everyone's opinions were on afterlife and spirits and stuff like that. Like, what exactly do you think happens after death?
I've seen nothing to make me think that spirits are real, or that mediums can communicate with them. "Things no one else has known"... That's a lofty claim. It'd take some pretty good evidence to convince me any of it's real.
I think brain activity ceases, personality ceases to be, and whatever energy is running our bodies is converted to heat and escapes into the surroundings.
I think I pretty much agree with that. It's all just very intriguing.
"Things no-one else could know" - yes, direct experience thereof (my nephew is pretty sensitive).
I believe in it enough that it figures in my world view. How could it happen? No idea. It's not necessary to know how something works in order for that thing to exist. I hope nobody will attempt to pull that childish fallacy.
It's important. Pascal's Wager becomes "if there's nothing, then you'll never find out. If there's something, you'll have a very long time to regret the things you did wrong in life."
I really like this BBC Radio 4 programme, Christmas Spirits. Yes, I know it's a recording, rubbish me, rubbish me, rubbish me. You know you shit yourself, even if it was just for a second.
But of course your nephew has no special powers - and you know this and choose to preserve your belief in this magic but not subjecting your claims to unbiased scrutiny.
Every bit of psychic bullshit ever fully scrutinized has turned out to be, well, psychic bullshit.
@Heather - we have to be scientific about these things. Being scientific means having a mind that is open and wants to find things out. Being conservative, dogmatic, narrow-minded means thinking you know everything already.
No, Simon. Being scientific has to do with having a deterministic methodology and actually actively trying to DISprove your theory. You don't need to be open-minded if you're simply willing to do your scientific job and accept your results. This doesn't mean you don't double-check them if the results are hard to believe, and the reason for this isn't to do it over until your prejudice is confirmed, but because good results need to be repeatable by other researchers. The first step in that direction is to repeat them yourself all the while applying new tests to make sure the result wasn't somehow dependent upon some parameter of the test.
Those bound to their delusions and desperate to uphold them always seem to tell me that I need to have an open mind. What they mean is that they wish I would ignore all known evidence, all verifiable data, just to pander to their bullshit delusion for a while. Fuck that - that's not an open mind, that's a request for an entire suspension of credulity.
@Unseen - being scientific is first and foremost about unbiased observation.
Which requires accepting the evidence, Simon - not fabricating rationalizations as to why the evidence doesn't exist.
I have evidence. I'm at least as scientific-minded as you.
No, you have anecdotal evidence that you refuse to put up to scrutiny, all the while ignoring the mountains of evidence against your bullshit claims.