hi, i am a new member to this site and have some questions about after life.

it all started  a year a ago and accumilited over time and lots of thinking. over the time of a year my grandfater had part of his right ear cut off, found meloma in his lungs, colon cancer and also 7 brain turmors. one night really stood out, when he said " well at least i know that when i die i will go to heave with my brother who was killed in an airplane accedent and to see my parents again. its helpfull in times of pain that we(the faimly being catholic) will be in a better body with god." i know that sounds dumb but i think christianity does offer comfort to people but i still dont know what to believe. my life isnt that great and i gues thinking that one day when you die youl go to this great place called heaven, then i think it is all BS so i just dont know what to think anymore. i am raised (17 and living with my parents) catholic and we always have to go to church every sunday and i did receve the confermation in which "the holly spirit will come into your life" and when that happened the archbishop did the ritual and i didnt feel anything and i just looked at him with comfusion and steped down. well i gues this is just a a post about me but if anyone wants to give advice on what to believe in when it comes to this after life or no after life thanks

Views: 431

Tags: after, death, god, heaven, life

Comment by Simon Paynton on May 10, 2012 at 3:17pm

* So, you do believe that visits and abductions by flying saucers is plausible. I suppose you are just being consistent in that regard. How sure are you that, taken in the aggregate, stories about afterlife experiences are consistent? Not just a few for if you a thousand US coins in the air, mixed denominations, you're going to find a few head-up nickles. By ignoring all the other possibilities, though, you're missing the point that in the aggregate, it's chaos.

This is a very good point.  I find that stories about afterlife experiences fall into several well-defined categories, for example:
Sleep paralysis / half-asleep dreams
Cold-reading by fraudulent mediums
"Near-death" experiences
Utter nonsense spouted by people like Derek Acorah

Psychics making unprompted, true predictions and possessing secret, specific, detailed information which could not be found through ordinary means
Alleged eye-witness accounts of seeing spirits
Alleged eye-witness accounts of conversing with spirits, and video or audio recordings of these conversations
Alleged eye-witness accounts of reality behaving in some crazy way, in conjunction with an alleged haunting.
Single cases are highly consistent within their categories, and each category as a whole is highly consistent with either: known truth and reality; or falsehood and rubbish; or an ordinary explanation.
who is this punisher you're talking about?
Our own consciences.
I think it's better to promote the idea that whatever you do, good or bad, you only have this one chance, defined by your death, to do it.

I think it's better to look for an accurate picture of reality, and since certainty on this matter is hard to come by, then to identify reasonable possibilities.
It impedes communication to be using an idiosyncratic definition, especially when you wait until pressed on the matter to explain it.

But then, if we're talking about life after death, it's obviously not the same kind of life that we're all used to, so if it exists, it has a different definition.
But I don't believe there can be an afterlife because spirits are nonsensical notions, and quite unnecessary ones to believe in
That's a circular argument, because it's a circular argument.
* And your mind seems under no obligation to conform to what is rational, provable, and most likely to be true.

That's just your opinion.  On what grounds do you say this?  I try my best to be rational.
The "what" is there as it is in much of nonsense. Where it breaks down is in the "how." HOW do you think there might be an afterlife? There's delusion, hysteria, and even mass hysteria, but until one explains how something could be, you haven't really demonstrated much.

This is the basic fallacy I keep talking about.  Why do you think that the only things which can exist, are those you can explain?  How does that connection work?  Why does reality have to ask you first whether you can understand it, before it is allowed to go ahead and exist?  This means that human minds control the universe, which I don't believe is true.
if drawing a conclusion indicates a closed mind, then science would never have progressed.
But science doesn't draw conclusions.  Only mathematics and logic can prove their theorems perfectly.  Real-life sciences always treat their theories as working models, not final answers.  Scientists expect that every answer just throws up a load of new questions.
when you state that drawing a conclusion is to have a closed mind, do you make that statement in a state of open-mindedness, or have you drawn a conclusion?

I think I was being forceful to prove a point.  But I do think that to draw a conclusion, to close a matter, is always a mistake.
If we claim to be seeking knowledge, then we can't simultaneously claim that we already know the answer to our question before we've started investigating.
Many people who want to believe in nonsense will roll out the old "You have a closed mind" argument when people point out that what they believe is almost totally lacking in any support that would pass even minimal scientific scrutiny.

One person's nonsense is another person's free enquiry.

Comment by Unseen on May 10, 2012 at 7:40pm

I simply don't have time to answer all that. However,...

"But then, if we're talking about life after death, it's obviously not the same kind of life that we're all used to, so if it exists, it has a different definition." Which you didn't bother to explain until pressed.

The word conclusion has two meanings and I think we are arguing across purposes. You seem to be accusing me of drawing a conclusion in the sense of "Case closed, lights out, we'll never reconsider this again." But then there's the kind of conclusions science draws, provisional conclusions based on what it knows. Given indisputable evidence, science regularly opens up inquiries and tosses out or modifies theories." That's the kind of conclusions I draw. You simply haven't provided me with an overwhelming reason to reconsider my conclusions. However, I'm agnostic about the existence of God, spirits, the afterlife, etc. At this point, I've concluded (in the second sense) that it's all nonsense.

Comment by Simon Paynton on May 12, 2012 at 2:20pm

Which you didn't bother to explain until pressed.]

wtf?  Fuck you! 

Apart from that, your reply sounds reasonable to me. 

Comment by Unseen on May 12, 2012 at 6:41pm

You can't talk like that in here.

Comment by Simon Paynton on May 13, 2012 at 3:14pm

Unseen, you're passive-aggressive, and you have a talent for pissing people off.  You say rude things to people and then pretend to wonder why they get upset - like a child. 

Comment by John Kelly on May 13, 2012 at 3:34pm

I am unsure of what is meant by "didn't bother to explain".  It seems self-explanatory as non-biological life.  The comment though seemed within an acceptable level of expression of frustration that is common in arguments..  But since personal attacks aren't allowed here, it would be better to just call out whatever feels like offensive behavior in a more polite way.  If they end up just being taken the wrong way, or with the wrong tone, or if they just weren't worded right and intent wasn't clear, it ends up making things a bit of a mess.  

In this case, it concerns how much emphasis was intended for the word "bother" if it was terribly de-emphasized and it could just be an elongated expression meaning "explain".  Those kind of things get into spoken language and don't seem much different, but in writing they look rather odd.

Comment by Simon Paynton on May 13, 2012 at 3:37pm

Uh-uh, he said it twice, and it was rude to say it even once.  He does this a lot.  This is what passive-aggressive people do - wind someone up quietly, then stand back while they go off like a Roman Candle, and say "look everyone how bad he is".  Deliberately insulting.  He needs to grow up. 

Comment by Simon Paynton on May 13, 2012 at 3:38pm

Called out. 

Comment by Unseen on May 13, 2012 at 7:59pm

@Simon Paynton   No, I seem to have a "talent" (as you call it) for pissing you and Atheist Exile off, and I don't even have to try.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin



A fun test for all you ex-Christians

Started by Emperor Milos in Music. Last reply by Gallup's Mirror 34 minutes ago. 3 Replies


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service