I wish that there was a hella cool heaven that was an exact replica of my childhood because it doesn't get any better than that.

-------
I REP THE BAY AREA

where real hip hop lyricism is real music.

---

i don't believe there is life after death because there is no reasonable proof.

---

I don't particularly agree that there is a life after death, in the way most people see it. I have my own ideas [not beliefs] but that is something beside the point of my post.

Lack of proof should be accepted as a given for this topic... As afterlife is something gotten, after life. I don't see how one could gather much evidence to support, or negate the idea without actually dieing and sending some sort of paranormal message to someone alive.

That being said, I think the only logical reason to not believe in an afterlife would be one of personal reason. [ie. Our brain is physical, when we die, it dies and does not continue to function. Or: There are no such things as spirits, there are no evidence to support their existence, so the idea that our spirit lives on is a silly one]

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Quote: from iinsurgent at 1:47 pm on June 17, 2008

---

i don't believe there is life after death because there is no reasonable proof.

---

I don't particularly agree that there is a life after death, in the way most people see it. I have my own ideas [not beliefs] but that is something beside the point of my post.

Lack of proof should be accepted as a given for this topic... As afterlife is something gotten, after life. I don't see how one could gather much evidence to support, or negate the idea without actually dieing and sending some sort of paranormal message to someone alive.

---

No. Lack of evidence is NOT in and of itself evidence against something, especially when the evidence needed CAN not be attained.

Like i said, I do not really believe in such an afterlife as you are arguing against, however the reasons you are against it are not quite logical [if you are against the idea, I don't debate that, I only think that if you are going to argue that "Afterlife does not exist" then you should have logical, founded reasons; otherwise, I think you should keep it as a personal opinion]

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

So we're talking about the existence of some unreachable imaginary land that dead people go to?  I guess that it is impossible to have evidence for/against THAT, but I assumed that we were still talking about something within the universe as we know it.

Post edited at 2:27 pm on June 18, 2008 by matto

-------
I REP THE BAY AREA

where real hip hop lyricism is real music.

The idea of an afterlife --when intellectually investigated--usually lies somewhere within a few ideals/realms.
1. Energy. Some hold the belief that energy, being the core/basis for everything, makes everyone and everything interconnected. Many believe that after you die physically, your energy continues to exist on its own.

2. Dimensions. There are also some who believe that we exist in many dimensions [note. not that we exist in multiple universes]. To an extent this is already true. We exist in 3 spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension. There are also the 7 or 8 others that are included in the mathematics/theory in M-theory. Some believe that as we exist in these 4 dimensions, parts of us also exist in the others [some say soul, some say energy, some don't know what, only that in order to exist we must exist everywhere that we are capable of existing, and so part of us must also exist in these extra dimensions.

They believe that when you die in these 4 dimensions, your "life" continues, not physically, but in whatever form it has in these other dimensions.

3. Planar ascension. Some then believe that when you die, your "spirit" ascends into some alternate plane of existence [where physical is your nature in this plane, spiritual is most likely the existence of the other] This is the theory behind ghosts and other supernatural things. It assumes that at all times you exist physically in this plane and spiritually in the other. When your physical body dies, your spiritual part lives on in its own way.

None of these are really testable, and NONE exist in the 4D spacial and temporal universe that we "exist" in and so none can be objectively tested. The idea of implying that one could find evidence for or against an afterlife while one is still alive is pretty silly... not to sound patronizing.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

I make no absolute claims as to the non/existence of an afterlife.


Though absolute certainty is hardly justified, abject uncertainty is not the reasonable or practical alternative.

I do not contest that it is logically impossible to prove a carefully defined claim to be false.

I do contest the notion that the inability to disprove such a claim puts the likelihood of its truth or falsehood on equal footing.

The burden of proof is on whoever is making the claim. The more extreme the claim, the more evidence it necessitates.

While a lack of evidence does not disprove a claim, it does mean that there is no good reason to believe it.


I do not accept the claim that an afterlife exists. And so, I do not believe in one.

I would like to persist much as I do now.

Post edited at 1:08 am on June 19, 2008 by Whuppee

-------
Unbelievably awesomesauce to the absurd degree that I wet myself.
Who else has created a LW/magnets
so explicit the mods deleted a screencap of it? =P

If A tries to get B to change his mind about the idea of an afterlife,  then I would say you have a point, but otherwise, the person denying the other's beliefs is the one who has the burden.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

Burden of Proof, (Un)Falsifiability, and Irrationality

I believe that there is a completely undetectable unicorn standing next to you.  You think not.

Who should substantiate this claim?  You, for your disbelief?  No.

It's also entirely possible that a fairy created the entire universe Last Thursday.  Anything seemingly contrary to this isn't.  Any contradictory evidence is a mischievous trick or a test of faith.

All else may be illusory: solipsism.

---


All of these things have something in common:

They are definitionally unfalsifiable.

We cannot prove them to be false, as we cannot prove a great many things to be false.

Should we believe them, then?


If so, by what method are we to determine what we should not believe?

Once the door to irrationality is opened, by what criteria is it closed?

To accept a claim is to positively assert a belief in it.

A lack of belief does not constitute a belief; an oppositional claim does.


A claim that 'there is an afterlife' necessitates evidence.

A claim that 'there is no afterlife' necessitates evidence.

A lack of belief necessitates no evidence.

---


There are not 3 positions:

1) No afterlife
2) Don't know
3) An afterlife

There are 2:

1) Unconvinced
2) Convinced (for or against)

Absent evidence, 2) is irrational.

Note that we are speaking in terms of absolutes, which brings me to.. :

I would argue that absolutes are red herrings.

Proving something to an absolute is somewhere between difficult and impossible.  Disproving carefully defined terms to an absolute is impossible.

---


There may be an undetectable unicorn watching you masturbate.  Absent evidence, should you entertain notions of being watched, or cover yourself with a blanket?

The apocalypse may occur next Thursday at 11:57am PST.  Absent evidence, should you live as though it will?

I may not exist.  I may be nothing more than an illusory figment of your imagination, deludingly positing / misleadingly suggesting that you may be an illusory figment of 'mine' =P.

There are good reasons to not live as if this is so.

---


It is practical to determine your beliefs in accordance with the evidence you are aware of.


A lack of evidence represents a very good reason to not believe in something.

Skepticism is the rational response to any unsubstantiated claim.

To not believe in something is not the same thing as to believe the opposite.

---


It is quite reasonable, practical, and logical to say: I lack a belief in an afterlife, as there is no good reason to believe in one.


I will go a step farther: I believe that no afterlife exists, for the same reason that I do not believe in fairies, leprechauns, god, and other such things.

This IS NOT an absolute claim.  It is a practical statement of the conclusions I have drawn based on my present awareness of fact (evidence).

All rational people should remain open to evidence; I do.

I simply see no practical reason to seriously entertain any unsubstantiated notions, especially insofar as acting as if they might be true.

Why waste time / effort, especially on things that are definitionally unfalsifiable?

That statement I made was "a claim" only insofar as that it stated what I believe.

It was, however, not a claim in any real sense of the word:

I was not expressing an absolute that I or others should adhere to or hold.

I was not stating a truth for which I do or do not have evidence.

I am aware of the distinctions, and I make them.

In short, I am saying that:

While a lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack,

It is practical to view it as exactly what it is: a lack of evidence.

And if there is something for which there is no evidence, and for which there can be no contrary evidence..

If there is no way to tell the difference between its existence or nonexistence..

Then it should be disbelieved, until such time as there is reason to consider it.

Why waste time, thought, effort, action, etc on something that might exist?

Especially when there is no good reason to believe that it does...

-------
Unbelievably awesomesauce to the absurd degree that I wet myself.
Who else has created a LW/magnets
so explicit the mods deleted a screencap of it? =P

Also to reply to your point " A lack of evidence represents a very good reason to not believe in something."

This is only true for things that are falsifiable. If I make the claim that there are Titans living in the forest by my house, then it would be safe to assume that a lack of evidence, in this case, shows very likely that there are NO Titans in the forest by my house.

However, when talking about the afterlife, something of which we can only philosophize and speculate as to its nature, I think that it is illogical to posit that lack of evidence proves its unlikelihood,  especially when things like the after life are, by definition, unreachable for evidence.

I don't know why you brought up the point about Absolute truths, so I will simply say that I agree with you that to claim that something necessitates an absolute truth is a red herring, and is a silly notion.

ah, I am reading from the bottom up as I respond [as I often do in my bouts of laziness, and so I now see how you come to that...amazing how things come together when you read them in order huh?] I do agree with your position, in part.
I say in part because while I agree that in a philosophical sense, yes there are only two positions, convinced and unconvinced.
However in a "physical" sense, there are two others. Afterlife/No Afterlife. Only one of these can be true, and since both cannot be false, one then, MUST be true. There either IS an afterlife, or there IS NOT an afterlife. We can only speculate as to which it is, and given that we lack ANY evidence for or against the subject we are left with the philosophical dichotomy of CONVINCED and UNCONVINCED.

both positions are unfounded. The latter is based on the idea that, since there is no evidence FOR the idea of an afterlife [of which I am not sure what evidence would convince you...] and the former is based on several things, sometimes speculation [spirits] sometimes philosophy [dualistic existence] and sometimes science [M-theory --not in and of itself, but some afterlife theories are based off of M-theory--, and others], none of which can be cross-examined with evidence.

Please, never apologize for a lengthy post. there are so few here to begin with.
In addition, I think you misunderstood my point [or simply did not take it for what it was].

I was arguing that it is not always the person who makes the claim who requires factual evidence.

example:
A believes that there is a god. This requires NO factual evidence because it is A's personal belief. Unless A claims that god exists is the only true proposition [ie. A keeps his belief as his own] then A's proposition requires zero evidence. [If one were to PROVE something to themselves it would: a) not be considered his belief, and b) Not be a belief at all, but, indeed, fact.]

B, then, makes the claim that he does not believe in an afterlife, and keeps it to himself, like his pal A. He does not require evidence either since both he and A hold their personal philosophies as their own.

C then comes around and makes the point that he believes that NO afterlife exists, claiming that A is wrong in his ideology. The burden of proof, in my opinion, now lies with C. If C is to make the claim that the belief of another person is incorrect, then he must back his claim up with factual evidence to the contrary of A's beliefs.

only if one posits that his position is the only correct one does the burden of proof lie with that person, otherwise belief does not necessitate proof.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov