3 ms·

> My lack of belief in an afterlife (or afterlives) is a functional assumption based on available evidence rather than an assertion of fact. There’s as much ev

> My lack of belief in an afterlife (or afterlives) is a functional assumption based on available evidence rather than an assertion of fact. There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. Both are willful imaginations of what happens after death. One difference between theists and atheists is that atheists think science is on their side in this debate (the whole ‘lack of evidence’ argument), when it’s not, because physics is meant to measure this world[•], not “the next one”. Furthermore a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary. In fact if anything, some theistic notions of heaven and hell seem to be closer approximations, given the end of life DMT flood and seeing your family in your fleeting moments, and anecdotal accounts of white lights, etc. How does one even experience a final moment? Can you ever truly die? These are all super metaphysical/philosophical questions. Of course, if we all die in nuclear hellfire, there are no pineal glands around to dump the DMT, and so reality is you may be right: the majority of our consciousnesses will literally just cease to exist. No pretty light show, just purgatorial nonbeing for all of nontime. Agnosticism gets it right by saying “the truth is I don’t have the answer and I’m smart enough to acknowledge that. I’ll know when I get there, I’m not trying to sell you anything.” Atheism is like like picking only the worst squares in Pascal’s wager, while agnosticism is telling Pascal to politely shove off altogether. Also, separate but related, Newton was trying to be closer to God when he invented/discovered mechanics. [•] Theist beliefs in mystical forces having physical interactions in this universe is a completely separate discussion, which I highly doubt, but then again we don’t have an answer for how to measure dark matter, and String theorists are allowed to pedal their observationless theories.

Nursie 4y ago
> There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. I agree, but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon seriously. > a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary, but there is as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for fire-breathing dragons, yet I am not required to declare agnosticism or a fence-sitting position on that front. Instead I am permitted to say “I don’t believe in those absent evidence, and I will happily change my mind when some is found” > Agnosticism gets it right ... As an agnostic atheist, I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. Agnosticism and atheism are two separate axes. One is a declaration of knowledge (there's no evidence, so I am agnostic) the other of belief (there's no evidence so I have no belief either).
- raydiatian 4y ago
  > but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon. This is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty. If you don’t know how far you have to go to know definitively, this is a dangerous assumption. The history of physics is littered with false assumptions of “finally having complete knowledge” only to find out the model was incomplete: geocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, Ultraviolet catastrophe leading to modern QM, Standard model. How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes, to confirm that we know how big the search space is and that it is empty? No thanks, not for me, not yet at least. > I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife, you are arguing the lack of evidence of an afterlife supports your belief that there is no afterlife. Although frankly, you can have this one, I don’t particularly care. > agnostic atheist This is by definition, an oxymoron Atheists believe there are no gods. [1] Agnostics believe that there’s no telling whether god exists or not. [2] > I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. There’s no need to be condescending, especially if you’re going to get definitions wrong. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism I didn’t write these definitions, so just keep in mind it’s more than just me disagreeing with you.
  - Nursie 4y ago
    > his is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty Only if you're making definite proclamations, which I'm not. I'm not claiming complete knowledge here, simply that there's been no evidence presented that supports the belief in such a thing, so I don't hold belief in one. There's no assumption there. To dip into physics as you seem so keen on bringing it up - there's no evidence that dark matter is really the corpses of ancient aliens, so that's not a working hypothesis for me either. I don't know what it is, I'm not sure anyone does, until we hold evidence I am a-it's-the-corpses-of-ancient-aliens-ist. I don't hold that positive belief, and I would find it weird if people came along and told me that I was making strong claims in the other direction if I said I didn't believe it. > How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes Most appear to be unfalsifiable propositions, and as such it seems a pointless quest. But I don't need to go looking in an exhaustive fashion to hold the position that I don't believe in one, given current evidence, because I'm not making an assertion that there is definitely not an afterlife, or that there cannot be one. It is sufficient that there's no evidence for one, so I don't hold the positive belief that there is one. Could there be some sort of afterlife? Sure, conceptually, but so far there's no reason to think there is one, any more than there's reason to believe in fire-breathing dragons or invisible unicorns. > By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife I don't have "a belief that there's no afterlife". There's the flaw in your thinking. Thought experiment - I claim that that I can travel to another planet, instantaneously, and live a year of my life there because time works differently, and then travel back, all in the time of a blink of the eye. I just did it now! Anyone can do it, in fact lot's of people do! Do you believe me? No? How do you know I didn't do that? You're making a positive assertion about the nature of the universe there! Your belief that I can't do that is unevidenced! Or... you can say that since there's no evidence, that seems pretty weird and unlikely, I'm going to go with the working assumption that humans can't do that until such time as some sort of evidence is presented. This is atheism, to me. > This is by definition, an oxymoron First line of the wikipedia link on atheism - "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities" First line from the one on agnosticism - "Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." These do not contradict one another. I don't claim concrete knowledge, so in the absence of evidence I hold no positive religious beliefs. If the existence of the divine is either unknown or unknowable then there's no reason to give it much thought. I don't believe in it. Which is distinct from "I believe it is impossible" or "I believe it is definitely not present", positions that you seem to want to force on me. > There’s no need to be condescending I'm not convinced - when someone is busy labouring to create a straw man and to tell you what you mean by your own words, I think it's probably an apposite response.

Nursie 4y ago

> There’s as much evidence supporting the theist’s belief in their afterlife as there is evidence supporting the atheist’s belief in a lack of an afterlife: none. I agree, but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon seriously. > a lack of evidence is the weakest form of evidence to the contrary I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary, but there is as much evidence for an afterlife as there is for fire-breathing dragons, yet I am not required to declare agnosticism or a fence-sitting position on that front. Instead I am permitted to say “I don’t believe in those absent evidence, and I will happily change my mind when some is found” > Agnosticism gets it right ... As an agnostic atheist, I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. Agnosticism and atheism are two separate axes. One is a declaration of knowledge (there's no evidence, so I am agnostic) the other of belief (there's no evidence so I have no belief either).

raydiatian 4y ago
> but in general, no positive evidence means no reason to consider the existence of such a phenomenon. This is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty. If you don’t know how far you have to go to know definitively, this is a dangerous assumption. The history of physics is littered with false assumptions of “finally having complete knowledge” only to find out the model was incomplete: geocentrism, Newtonian mechanics, Ultraviolet catastrophe leading to modern QM, Standard model. How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes, to confirm that we know how big the search space is and that it is empty? No thanks, not for me, not yet at least. > I'm not asserting that there is evidence to contrary By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife, you are arguing the lack of evidence of an afterlife supports your belief that there is no afterlife. Although frankly, you can have this one, I don’t particularly care. > agnostic atheist This is by definition, an oxymoron Atheists believe there are no gods. [1] Agnostics believe that there’s no telling whether god exists or not. [2] > I find your caricature very funny and entirely misguided. There’s no need to be condescending, especially if you’re going to get definitions wrong. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism I didn’t write these definitions, so just keep in mind it’s more than just me disagreeing with you.
- Nursie 4y ago
  > his is really only true if you have a firm grasp on the space you would need to search to find evidence, and that you’ve done the work looking and come up empty Only if you're making definite proclamations, which I'm not. I'm not claiming complete knowledge here, simply that there's been no evidence presented that supports the belief in such a thing, so I don't hold belief in one. There's no assumption there. To dip into physics as you seem so keen on bringing it up - there's no evidence that dark matter is really the corpses of ancient aliens, so that's not a working hypothesis for me either. I don't know what it is, I'm not sure anyone does, until we hold evidence I am a-it's-the-corpses-of-ancient-aliens-ist. I don't hold that positive belief, and I would find it weird if people came along and told me that I was making strong claims in the other direction if I said I didn't believe it. > How would you propose we go looking for afterlifes Most appear to be unfalsifiable propositions, and as such it seems a pointless quest. But I don't need to go looking in an exhaustive fashion to hold the position that I don't believe in one, given current evidence, because I'm not making an assertion that there is definitely not an afterlife, or that there cannot be one. It is sufficient that there's no evidence for one, so I don't hold the positive belief that there is one. Could there be some sort of afterlife? Sure, conceptually, but so far there's no reason to think there is one, any more than there's reason to believe in fire-breathing dragons or invisible unicorns. > By claiming that “available evidence” (ie none) informs your belief that there’s no afterlife I don't have "a belief that there's no afterlife". There's the flaw in your thinking. Thought experiment - I claim that that I can travel to another planet, instantaneously, and live a year of my life there because time works differently, and then travel back, all in the time of a blink of the eye. I just did it now! Anyone can do it, in fact lot's of people do! Do you believe me? No? How do you know I didn't do that? You're making a positive assertion about the nature of the universe there! Your belief that I can't do that is unevidenced! Or... you can say that since there's no evidence, that seems pretty weird and unlikely, I'm going to go with the working assumption that humans can't do that until such time as some sort of evidence is presented. This is atheism, to me. > This is by definition, an oxymoron First line of the wikipedia link on atheism - "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities" First line from the one on agnosticism - "Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." These do not contradict one another. I don't claim concrete knowledge, so in the absence of evidence I hold no positive religious beliefs. If the existence of the divine is either unknown or unknowable then there's no reason to give it much thought. I don't believe in it. Which is distinct from "I believe it is impossible" or "I believe it is definitely not present", positions that you seem to want to force on me. > There’s no need to be condescending I'm not convinced - when someone is busy labouring to create a straw man and to tell you what you mean by your own words, I think it's probably an apposite response.