Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why do many ‘nones’ believe in an afterlife?


markdohle

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, AVirginSpecialToGod said:

yes i believe in it because i had a experience in the spiritual world that i cant explain 

Well try, i'd be interested in hearing your story.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 7/17/2016 at 7:00 AM, markdohle said:

(RNS) Since atheist blogger Martin Hughes left Christianity, he hasn’t missed believing in God or in hell.

But he does miss heaven.

“I wish that there was one to go to, and that’s the truth,” Hughes wrote in a blog post, adding that his view is probably not “atheistically correct.” In Hughes’ version of heaven, he would “understand everything.” There would be “deep, rich happiness that feels like Mom’s sweet potato pie on Thanksgiving.”

Continue  http://religionnews.com/2016/07/15/why-do-many-nones-believe-in-life-after-death/

As an atheist, although I identify as "Tooth Fairy Agnostic" to remain true to science, I can say, sure, I miss the idea of seeing my Father when I pass, my Dog Harry, my best Friend Jeff from school, but I have come to accept that it is just wishful thinking.

Apart from what I see as deep flaws in religious instruction, to me, the big one is evidence. We have been looking at the world for some time now, and we have figured a reasonable amount out. And that is where the aversion to the term "Supernatural" comes in, at least for me, it means "an enemy of reason" as all "alternate" claims and theories are just claims that have failed the claims they make, if not, they would be mainstream items and not alternatives. 

When all is said and done, put simply, what we do know is:

The Mind is the brain

The brain is made of atoms

we know how atoms work

as such, there is no way for what is "you" to survive death. 

Sure there are claims of "forces and energies" and Deepak Chopra will tell you the mild forces in QM fill fill the God gaps, but that is nit true, we know what these forces do, we measure them, they do not interact with us in any way, and if there was a force that we have not seen, the effect on other items would betray it. It does not exist. The brain is central, and simply we can see this via brain damage, or things like lobotomies. Thing is, this is not a field of guesswork anymore, we just act like it is to compensate for our own fears and desires. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at it, naming scheme aside, call the next state whatever you will but - physics. Human electromagnetic field can be observed and measured, this is created by the energy of the body while alive. As we've established, energy doesn't just cease to exist, it changes its state, transitions from one state to another, kinetic energy into thermal, electric into kinetic and so on... when we die, I presume that whether you subscribe to any religion or not, your energy won't care, it will transition regardless... what's on the other side that transition? is the 'you' still YOU? do you retain some or all of your awareness and memories, or are you absorbed back into some great pool of energy? I don't know, maybe it's lights-out and that's it? Maybe what they see as your electromagnetic footprint fading away is akin to some residual current, as seen in say chargers - unplug it but that little light stays on for a while after that - just slowly fading away, not moving to some next level but just... fading?

 

Some of the biggest names in science, religious or not, all agree that while the body dies, your 'energy', soul, spirit or whatever else its called for you, likely persists in some way. Or maybe it's human to wish for some way to continue on. I'd like to think that there is something more at the end of the line.

 

Religion has little to do with it, it just tries to take the credit for what's essentially human nature, to want to live on.

Edited by Marcin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Some of the biggest names in science, religious or not, all agree that while the body dies, your 'energy', soul, spirit or whatever else its called for you, likely persists in some way. Or maybe it's human to wish for some way to continue on. I'd like to think that there is something more at the end of the line.

Energy as you're using it has very little to do with any "soul". This energy isn't some unique energy you've created, it's energy that has been converted from your environment and diet by your body.

When you lose body heat to the environment, would you still call that heat 'you'?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Energy as you're using it has very little to do with any "soul". This energy isn't some unique energy you've created, it's energy that has been converted from your environment and diet by your body.

When you lose body heat to the environment, would you still call that heat 'you'?

Certainly not ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Marcin said:

The way I look at it, naming scheme aside, call the next state whatever you will but - physics. Human electromagnetic field can be observed and measured, this is created by the energy of the body while alive. As we've established, energy doesn't just cease to exist, it changes its state, transitions from one state to another, kinetic energy into thermal, electric into kinetic and so on... when we die, I presume that whether you subscribe to any religion or not, your energy won't care, it will transition regardless... what's on the other side that transition? is the 'you' still YOU? do you retain some or all of your awareness and memories, or are you absorbed back into some great pool of energy? I don't know, maybe it's lights-out and that's it? Maybe what they see as your electromagnetic footprint fading away is akin to some residual current, as seen in say chargers - unplug it but that little light stays on for a while after that - just slowly fading away, not moving to some next level but just... fading?

But we are not "batteries" we are "Generators"

We produce energy constantly, and it is used constantly, it burns calories, it drives chemical releases, it tells muscles to work, it heats our bodies all of which also burn energy. The energy we create is no different to other energy, all of which breaks down into heat. When you turn on a light for instance, a generator way back in a switchyard is making the electricity that will flow through your light bulb, and that will produce heat. Our bodies have a "switchyard" in our nervous system, it has tiny ion pumps that create the energy our bodies use. When you die, no oxygen gets the the system, and the "internal switchyard" those little ion pumps, turn off, and energy is no longer produced what is left dissipated quickly, which is why determining when death actually occurs is a bit tricky. It does however, occur, that much we do know. 

13 hours ago, Marcin said:

Some of the biggest names in science, religious or not, all agree that while the body dies, your 'energy', soul, spirit or whatever else its called for you, likely persists in some way. Or maybe it's human to wish for some way to continue on. I'd like to think that there is something more at the end of the line.

The best ones at the cutting edge do not, here Sean Carroll who is one  the best physicists today In My Opinion, will indeed tell you that death is final.

If you can spare 45 minutes, this guy is brilliant and worth watching, otherwise, skip to the 5:00 minute mark, and hang onto til the 12:30 minute mark. That should cover the specifics.

13 hours ago, Marcin said:

Religion has little to do with it, it just tries to take the credit for what's essentially human nature, to want to live on.

Indeed, what religion does well, but like so many aspects of Culture, it seems to have become the custodian of this belief system. We all want to find the fountain of youth. The only real chance we do have is science.

LINK - "Curiosity" Can You Live Forever?

http://dai.ly/x14ob1y

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2016 at 7:54 AM, Atheist Pope said:

Believe it or not, not all atheists are rational creatures.

"New Atheism" is an emerging term which tends to sort the rational from the irrational. New Atheism is based on evidence, and to the best of my knowledge, the only group to legitimise their position with real world findings. 

On 8/22/2016 at 7:54 AM, Atheist Pope said:

Sure, most default to this position after critically evaluating the inherent flaws of religion. However, some were never religious to begin with and grew up in households which believed UFOs were our alien overlords or they could have grew up in a New Age hippy family believing 'we're all one consciousness, dude'.

Personally, I feel people who buck religion "for the heck of it" are not what I would consider anything at all like a New Atheist, but more an "anti-religious" person. 

On 8/22/2016 at 7:54 AM, Atheist Pope said:

Admittedly, there are a plethora of possibilities for an afterlife e.g. quantum consciousness, immaterial souls, simulation theory, eternal recurrence and dozens of other philisophical arguments.

I would not call a philosophical musing a "possibility" in any real sense. Particularly so given the knowledge we do have concerning death. More an imagining. The afterlife is based on imagination not evidence. 

On 8/22/2016 at 7:54 AM, Atheist Pope said:

However, most atheists will be nihilistic materialists who believe mind = brain and that we live in a meaningless, deterministic universe.

The mind does equal the brain, that is becoming more evident every day as we begin to understand the evolution of consciousness. Lobotomies, brain damage, all insist that "the mind is the brain" it is not reductionist to accept fact, it is overreaching the data to see more in it than there is. Evidence to the contrary would be welcomed, we do not see that, we see angry little people wandering about insisting they are important to the Universe, and with all due respect, that seems a great deal more insane than simply stating what the evidence illustrates. 

Atheists realise they have to make their own meaning, and that we should be leaving this place better than we found it, I would say that makes this existence all the more important and respected more by atheists than religious people. As far as we are concerned, this is it, we only get one shot at this. Make the best of it. 

On 8/22/2016 at 7:54 AM, Atheist Pope said:

I myself would be happy with any afterlife; however, I'm also at peace with eternal oblivion as that means no more pain, suffering or having to strive to pay bills. Either way, most atheists will be satisfied with what happens at death.

It is an eventuality, no point in denying it. I have taught the same many times, no more bills, no more stress, no more worry, it won't be so bad to go to sleep and not be disturbed. I sure enjoy a good night's rest. I think of it these days as eternal rest. We just have to make sure that our lives are filled up first, sleep when we are dead, life is for living. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2016 at 10:56 AM, psyche101 said:

The best ones at the cutting edge do not, here Sean Carroll who is one  the best physicists today In My Opinion, will indeed tell you that death is final.

If you can spare 45 minutes, this guy is brilliant and worth watching, otherwise, skip to the 5:00 minute mark, and hang onto til the 12:30 minute mark. That should cover the specifics.

Indeed, what religion does well, but like so many aspects of Culture, it seems to have become the custodian of this belief system. We all want to find the fountain of youth. The only real chance we do have is science.

LINK - "Curiosity" Can You Live Forever?

http://dai.ly/x14ob1y

Thanks for the link mate, I do enjoy informative videos and casts.

Personally I'm open and ready to entertain either thought pattern, in the of the day, we'll find out ourselves what's at the end of the road, until that day, it's good fun to be able to exchange ideas with like-minded people, be it in serious matter or just to chew on one for a while :)

 

" It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this post by saying I am a staunch skeptic (and sometimes cynic) to anything which defies logic. Psyche, even though you analyzed my comment, I mostly agree with you. Where I disagree is with your ardent confidence in being certain that your arguments are 100% correct. You don't even consider the possibility that we atheists could be wrong, nor do you accept that our limited human intelligence might never be able to comprehend the universe's fundamentals. Unlike you, I *do* find philisophical musings intellectually satisfying and apt to the innate questions all humans have.

Sure, physics and neuroscinece are the best methods for understanding the physical world today, but I accept that our collective knowledge is malleable. Throughout time, we humans always thought we had all the answers until a new age dawned and shined a light onto the gaps in our knowledge. Even though I am an absurdist atheist I realise nobody, including me, can be sure they're right and every other viewpoint is wrong. I don't believe in an afterlife or God, but they are just my opinions, not empirical facts. For all I know, the universe may not be a purposeless accident as there are varying counterarguments to the question, 'why is there something rather than nothing?' My view is not more or less valid than anyone else's.

Yes, you may say I'm downplaying the human condition and intellect, but let's be clear, we're just slightly more evolved primates with a few pounds of grey matter. We're not the bastions of all cosmic knowledge like some people think -- far from it. Scientists don't even know what dark matter is, and you're telling me we can be certain there's no divine creator or any form of afterlife? We're centuries/millenia away from truly comprehending this universe we inhabit, and I am fine with that. Until we have everything mapped out, I will continue to doubt myself and others with their unwarranted arrogance. I am a rational thinker and materialist, but I can at least entertain contrary theories without letting my ego get in the way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetical proof of an afterlife does not equate to the Bible being true.

 

leaving-room-for-the-holy-spirit.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16 July 2016 at 10:00 PM, markdohle said:

(RNS) Since atheist blogger Martin Hughes left Christianity, he hasn’t missed believing in God or in hell.

But he does miss heaven.

“I wish that there was one to go to, and that’s the truth,” Hughes wrote in a blog post, adding that his view is probably not “atheistically correct.” In Hughes’ version of heaven, he would “understand everything.” There would be “deep, rich happiness that feels like Mom’s sweet potato pie on Thanksgiving.”

Continue  http://religionnews.com/2016/07/15/why-do-many-nones-believe-in-life-after-death/

I truly believe that heaven is what you believe it to be.

Having said that, you must be a good chap/chapess, otherwise those Purley Gates are gonna be closed unto you.

Cause and Effect. 

Karma.

As you sow, so you reap..

Isnt it about time we all took responsibility for our past, present, and future actions.....?

If we want a better world that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Marcin said:

Thanks for the link mate, I do enjoy informative videos and casts.

You are most welcome, Sean Carroll has a few on Youtube and Google Play, I really like his approach. 

That Adam Savage one is heavy speculation based on emerging technologies, but since it was made, I have seen one or two of those methods realised, fascinating video of where we might go with all this technology. A fair bit seems quite plausible, but I have no doubt there is also quite some poetic license deployed on that one ;) Still a fascinating watch al the same I thought. 

16 hours ago, Marcin said:

Personally I'm open and ready to entertain either thought pattern, in the of the day, we'll find out ourselves what's at the end of the road, until that day, it's good fun to be able to exchange ideas with like-minded people, be it in serious matter or just to chew on one for a while :)

I love riding the cutting edge. Today's science people like Sean Carroll or Lawrence Krauss do these fascinating lectures that bring all that high end tech stuff down to a laymans level where I can grasp it. That seems a really nice thing of them to do, they could just remain arrogant and know they resolved things so many of us are still guessing at, but they share that knowledge at our level, often for free out of the goodness inside them. I find these leaders in their fields very inspirational. 

They have always been there, Julius Sumner Miller remains in my childhood memories, but with more people involved in more things, we get more people like this bending over backwards to share in the public space, for me, it just keeps getting better. 

16 hours ago, Marcin said:

" It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Indeed, but there are quite some fundamentals that we do know that can resolve surprisingly common mysteries like "Is there an afterlife" I think many do not want to know one does not exist, and we made it up ourselves for our own reasons, (manipulation of others, personal comfort, value of life etc.) but we did such a good job, we came to believe our own stories. Now science is unravelling that tangled mess, and reality is emerging, dispelling erroneous conclusions. Some, like removing the afterlife, come at a cost, as many invest much comfort in that thought, but I find the benefits of greater knowledge well outweigh the costs of comfort and in the long term, provide greater comfort. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
11 hours ago, Atheist Pope said:

Let me preface this post by saying I am a staunch skeptic (and sometimes cynic) to anything which defies logic. Psyche, even though you analyzed my comment, I mostly agree with you. Where I disagree is with your ardent confidence in being certain that your arguments are 100% correct. You don't even consider the possibility that we atheists could be wrong, nor do you accept that our limited human intelligence might never be able to comprehend the universe's fundamentals. Unlike you, I *do* find philisophical musings intellectually satisfying and apt to the innate questions all humans have.

Like many others, you mistake confidence for arrogance. It is a very common mistake, no biggie.

The possibility that we are wrong with regards to science precedes the possibility that "we" are right. It is the first thing we do, we try to break any discovery, or new understanding, if we cannot, it becomes "The Most Likely Option" Not 100% Correct. 

A result of that exercise is that competing theories, or established theories have to show how they exceed the likelihood of the new evidence. That new evidence can be expanded, overturned or re-written, like Phlogiston was, newer information that overwrote Phlogiston remains today "The Most Likely Option" and predictions secure that likelihood, like the periodic table, we know what to look for, we can "predict" an element based on the elements around it in the periodic table, and their properties, we searched for the Higgs for decades, and did not give up because the standard model insisted it was there, we just had to find it.

Science gives us "The Most Likely Option" which has a proportional effect on competing theories. As "The Most Likely Option" we can have confidence that his understanding is to the best of our abilities as a species. 

As such, continuing to entertain a "Less likely option" that diminishes with every new discovery seem pointless it is just a PC thing for the rest of the world coming up to speed on the latest understandings. Not only is the planet big, but we have some resistance to change from traditionalists, and those with much invested and therefore much to lose. 

As such, Political Correctness with regards to failed options I feel deserves a back seat. And I just cannot see how religion/faith, or spirituality in the woo sense, is not exactly that. More than willing to listen, but I expect the evidence to be supported. Religion and faith by definition do not allow for supportive evidence. 

11 hours ago, Atheist Pope said:


Sure, physics and neuroscinece are the best methods for understanding the physical world today, but I accept that our collective knowledge is malleable.

Before we go on..... neuroscience tells us about us, not anything else. Physics, and Cosmology tell us about the Universe...... I do not care wha neurosurgeons say about the afterlife, they are as clueless as anyone else on the "supernatural" their job is keeping people in the material Universe and functioning. Anything "supernatural" can only be regarding how forces interact, and therefore very much the realm of physics and cosmology. 

Carry on. 

11 hours ago, Atheist Pope said:

Throughout time, we humans always thought we had all the answers until a new age dawned and shined a light onto the gaps in our knowledge.

God hides in the gaps of that knowledge, not an ounce of it supports the notion that leads to faith of his existence. It all indicates the very opposite, and has been mounting ever since Darwin demystified biology. 

There is no reason whatsoever to even think that this progression will change, let alone dramatically. We do know some stuff, there are certain fundamentals that just have to be correct, or we could not have got as far as we did, we are not going to find we missed an atom of water, and it contains more than H2O, it won't become H18O because we didn't look properly, or 2+2 is not going to equal 7 one day because God, or any other reason. I admit, there is oodles of things to learn about and discover, we cannot state whent sort of element dark matter is, we do not really know what is at the centre of a black hole, there are mysteries to keep us going for eons, but that does not mean what we do know is wrong, or likely to be flawed. If the fundamentals we hve were flawed, then we would not have found things like the elements in the periodic table, or the Higgs to complete the standard model. We can rely fairly well on those fundamentals to expand out knowledge as a springboard to new discovery.

None of which supports the Supernatural, God, Astrology, Anti Vaxers, or any other enemy of reason that undermines science and the progress it makes. 

As such, I think what people are really upset about is me saying "Some really smart people have worked that stuff out, and what we always guessed at with myth and tradition is wrong according to evidence" which means they are most likely wrong, and THAT is what people get upset about.

Sure, I can be wrong, but then I will point at the top physicist and say "where did this fall apart: and we can trace and recognize the error, but when that was tried with religion, we got this war, and people died to preserve faith in antiquity, when all they wanted to do was share knowledge. I think this shows that the "certainty" others object to is more a reflection of their own convictions rather than mine. I never see religion consider the existence of God as an "option" it is or it is not, and do not question faith. But that is how the answers we have came to be. "Most likely" and "Least likely" do not seem to exist in religion, that is where the misunderstanding comes in, one train of thought. If a religious outlook cannot grasp the concept of "Most Likely" then we are always going to see this protest about arrogance and "who is right".

Mate, I do not care if religion is proven 100% correct tomorrow. It would be a marvellous thing for science, it WOULD mean we DO have all the fundamentals wrong, and would provide us with new direction, and a great deal of things to learn about, and understand for a long time to come. Science is not stranger to change as Phlogiston can attest. It benefits from radical change. However, according to what we do know, that is unlikely to happen tomorrow, or ever. 

11 hours ago, Atheist Pope said:

Even though I am an absurdist atheist I realise nobody, including me, can be sure they're right and every other viewpoint is wrong. I don't believe in an afterlife or God, but they are just my opinions, not empirical facts. For all I know, the universe may not be a purposeless accident as there are varying counterarguments to the question, 'why is there something rather than nothing?' My view is not more or less valid than anyone else's.

What about the people so much smarter than you and I? Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins, Brian Greene, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, all these people dedicate their entire lives to understanding these life questions. They know more than some priest making up how to interpret an ancient myth which once we realised was full of flaws suddenly became filled with metaphors. Does that sort of backpedaling not tell yo a great deal about the likelihood of the accuracy? 

I am but one man, as much as it would make my life to join these men in their pursuits, those opportunities are gone for me at my age. I do not try to do what they do, I can only hope to understand what these brilliant minds are telling us.

Any Priest pales by comparison, Cardinal George Pell made an outright fool of himself stating to Richard Dawkins that we descended from Neanderthals, yet he will tell you he knows how man came to be though God as if some authority on creation. Why do people consider such blatant nonsense as valid, or that such ignorant people can hold any real answers with regards to our existence? How are they not simply Librarians who take the fiction section as literal? 

11 hours ago, Atheist Pope said:

Yes, you may say I'm downplaying the human condition and intellect, but let's be clear, we're just slightly more evolved primates with a few pounds of grey matter. We're not the bastions of all cosmic knowledge like some people think -- far from it.

Yes, to a point you are, I am not not being condescending, but you are indeed dumping on intelligent people to give stupid people their platform and call it equal, that is not deserved and not fair. No offence intended, I hope it is not taken that way, but of you take note of the example I noted above with Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell, well.... it kinda stand out I think. 

And it is religion as a whole, Pell being an expert on "mankind" but thinks we evolved from Neanderthals, right across to Islam Imams, where we get advice such as Ayatollah Hossein Dehnavi who is a television star and celebrity in Iran and has actively taught that if a man is thinking of another woman during sex, and the sexual act results in pregnancy, “then the child will be a homosexual.”, he also claims that the improper wearing of the hijab by a woman can also cause some men to become homosexual. He also states that women have to provide sex to their men anywhere and at anytime. A Prominent religious person, with public status teaching this.

This is what we reconsider the observations and discoveries of science for?????

I think we let ourselves down even considering that such outright morons deserve to be heard because "religion" on the same level that real world discovery does. 

11 hours ago, Atheist Pope said:

Scientists don't even know what dark matter is, and you're telling me we can be certain there's no divine creator or any form of afterlife?

Yep, well, sort of, I am telling you what I have learned from people like Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss. Like I say, we have some basics down, some fundamentals. There is a great deal of room for new discovery, there is no reason to think God will form part of the discovery, or that "The Supernatural Realm" is nothing more than a tall tale. We imagined these answers explained creation at one time, We learned more. We found out we were wrong. It really is that basic. As knowledge increases, it eroded religion. There is no good reason whatsoever to consider that will turn right around. 

But if there is, I would want to know, and people like those mentioned would too. 

11 hours ago, Atheist Pope said:

We're centuries/millenia away from truly comprehending this universe we inhabit, and I am fine with that. Until we have everything mapped out, I will continue to doubt myself and others with their unwarranted arrogance. I am a rational thinker and materialist, but I can at least entertain contrary theories without letting my ego get in the way.

I honestly do not think it is rational to continue to maintain failed ideals when we have better evidence. I think that is "Politically Correct" in order to avoid offending cultures. We may never learn some secrets, we cannot even see much outside our observable sphere. Sure there is oodles to learn, but each new discovery eroded away a little more religious claim. Do you feel, or rather, can you demonstrate any good reason to consider the failed ideals of the Supernatural and religion will suddenly overwrite what we do know and become a reo likely option? 

Religion has an obvious function and that is a social one, It gave us an understanding to challenge and learn from, it gave us law, it gave us social order, it set the first benchmarks for us to overcome. It is also a literary turning point in our history. In that respect, it has a lot of value in antiquity. Why not retire it, and revere that it had a very important role in our development, and learn from it? Allow discovery to break us free from those roots and learn to move freely? Does that not sound more sensible than pretending an old fable is real, and continually interpreting flaws as metaphors to keep this archaic belief alive? 

You know, I reckon these very thoughts creep into the minds of many who are not ridiculously devout, but they do not address them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.