5 ms·

So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out the

So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out there that could do the brain-cloning”? Because sure, I agree with that statement. In your original comment you were referring to a generic afterlife. Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective, but also we’re on a website that is primarily western.

lisper 8y ago
> your proof that the afterlife can’t exist I didn't say that it can't exist, I said that it doesn't exist. Very important distinction. Fusion reactors can exist, but don't. > Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Again: why on earth would you assume that? People talk about warp drive too, but that doesn't license you to assume that it exists.
klibertp 8y ago
> Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective I'd say it's more of a deist[1] perspective, which certainly is firmly rooted in Western culture and philosophical tradition. While it's not that surprising to have it invoked even on HN, assuming it as a given is a bit much. Especially in the context of hard-core empiricism[2] and materialism[3] - which are the other, but also significant philosophical traditions in the West - applied by lisper. Personally, I agree with lisper - it is possible that the afterlife exists, but we have no theory which would explain how it could exist while also matching the observed reality, which leads to the conclusion that, to the best of our current knowledge, it's extremely unlikely that it exists. The same can be said for any other belief not grounded in scientific facts, including flat-earth theory, chemtrails, moon-landing hoax, anti-vaccine guys and so on, which is the point lisper is making. Once you leave the realm of sound theories with valid evidence, you're in a dream-land where you can meet James Bond, God, Donald Duck, Thetans and Xanu, chakra and Aang and Naruto, aliens running the White House and round-earth conspiracy - while different in many respects, they all lie outside of strictly defined empiric reality. But, at this point - as noted in the first paragraph - we're rehashing the centuries-old discussion, and we're bound to this in a much less convincing and refined way than the famous philosophers, so maybe let's give it a rest? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
- gbear605 8y ago
  For clarity on my thought process: I had interpreted lisper’s original comment as “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists.” After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” The claim about no deity existing had been assumed implicitly in their original post. I hadn’t thought that it would be taken as a given, since we were discussing the truth value of religion. I’m now satisfied with the chain of logic now being strong; it just requires assuming the given that no deity exists.
  - lisper 8y ago
    > After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” No, that is not my argument. My argument is that it is just as easy to disprove religion as it is to disprove a flat earth, which is to say, very easy if your target audience is already on board and nearly impossible otherwise.
    - gbear605 8y ago
      I agree with that argument 100%.

lisper 8y ago

> your proof that the afterlife can’t exist I didn't say that it can't exist, I said that it doesn't exist. Very important distinction. Fusion reactors can exist, but don't. > Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Again: why on earth would you assume that? People talk about warp drive too, but that doesn't license you to assume that it exists.

klibertp 8y ago

> Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective I'd say it's more of a deist[1] perspective, which certainly is firmly rooted in Western culture and philosophical tradition. While it's not that surprising to have it invoked even on HN, assuming it as a given is a bit much. Especially in the context of hard-core empiricism[2] and materialism[3] - which are the other, but also significant philosophical traditions in the West - applied by lisper. Personally, I agree with lisper - it is possible that the afterlife exists, but we have no theory which would explain how it could exist while also matching the observed reality, which leads to the conclusion that, to the best of our current knowledge, it's extremely unlikely that it exists. The same can be said for any other belief not grounded in scientific facts, including flat-earth theory, chemtrails, moon-landing hoax, anti-vaccine guys and so on, which is the point lisper is making. Once you leave the realm of sound theories with valid evidence, you're in a dream-land where you can meet James Bond, God, Donald Duck, Thetans and Xanu, chakra and Aang and Naruto, aliens running the White House and round-earth conspiracy - while different in many respects, they all lie outside of strictly defined empiric reality. But, at this point - as noted in the first paragraph - we're rehashing the centuries-old discussion, and we're bound to this in a much less convincing and refined way than the famous philosophers, so maybe let's give it a rest? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

gbear605 8y ago
For clarity on my thought process: I had interpreted lisper’s original comment as “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists.” After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” The claim about no deity existing had been assumed implicitly in their original post. I hadn’t thought that it would be taken as a given, since we were discussing the truth value of religion. I’m now satisfied with the chain of logic now being strong; it just requires assuming the given that no deity exists.
- lisper 8y ago
  > After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” No, that is not my argument. My argument is that it is just as easy to disprove religion as it is to disprove a flat earth, which is to say, very easy if your target audience is already on board and nearly impossible otherwise.
  - gbear605 8y ago
    I agree with that argument 100%.