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 -
UM-Bot

John Cleese on life after death

100 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

One person's smart is another person's stupid. Ideas dont have to be evidenced to be interesting, or worthy of discussion. 

And some things are just pretty stupid. 

I can't see mind brain dualism as 'smart' when it has failed so miserably. And it's not like it's a new idea. What's the definition of repetition expecting different results?

Quote

Why would you expect Cleese to be better educated then that? Are you presupposing him being "educated" because he is famous, a good actor and funny?

He was well educated, and taught science, English, geography, history, and Latin. He studied law too I'm pretty sure. I have actually been lazily flicking through his biography for the last few months. this is from his teaching days:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSegh2Fcbt_W54HOC9XnqY

Quote

I dont believe education combats religion. It is comfort that is undermining religion. The vast mass of the worlds athiests, agnostics and non-religious, arent terribly smarter, or more educated. They simply live where all needs are easily supplied, and thus the desire for a God that can intervene is not a strong variable.

Well, that's not entirely true. The mass of atheists are actually better educated as they are predominantly found in academic institutions. Statically speaking, I'd say your wrong there. But I don't think Cleese is specifically regarding religion there, more the other poster who regurgitated cultural ideas as fact. As I said, in loathe to waste an hour and forty minutes on more anecdotes and those impressed by them. Would you say there is more to this than that? Did you watch the whole thing? 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And some things are just pretty stupid. 

I can't see mind brain dualism as 'smart' when it has failed so miserably. And it's not like it's a new idea. What's the definition of repetition expecting different results?

I would agree, in so far as it is a failed mechanic. No evidence supports it. However, I believe even discussing a disproven theory can lead to new insights and new paths of exploration. In that way, Cleelse's idea is interesting to me.

Quote

He was well educated, and taught science, English, geography, history, and Latin. He studied law too I'm pretty sure. I have actually been lazily flicking through his biography for the last few months. this is from his teaching days:

I had not looked into his background. Ill take your word for it, if youve been studying up on him.

Quote

Well, that's not entirely true. The mass of atheists are actually better educated as they are predominantly found in academic institutions. Statically speaking, I'd say your wrong there. ole thing?

Well, I know your definition of atheist. And if we use that, we're looking at a very low percentage of world population. "Convinced Atehiests" are estimated at about 500 million world wide. And I would be hard to convince that all of them fit your definition.

Just under half live in China. Many live in Japan, and Eastern Europe. I cant refute if these people are better educated, or not. I would assume though that not all those people, or even most of them are academics.

I did find this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education#United_States

Quote

According to the General Social Survey, which has collected data on Americans since 1972, people who are educated often are more religious by various measures. For instance, as of 2010 sociologist Philip Schwadel found that, with each additional year of education, the likelihood of attending religious services increased 15%, the likelihood of reading the Bible at least occasionally increased by 9%. The likelihood of switching to a mainline Protestant denomination increased by 13%.[15] Schwadel said, “With more years of education, you aren’t relatively more likely to say, ‘I don’t believe in God. But you are relatively more likely to say, ‘I believe in a higher power.’”[15]

Sociologist Bradley Wright reviewed results from the 2008 Pew US Religious Landscape Survey and noted that religious groups normally have significant levels of education compared to those who are non-religious. "The irony" he states "is that some of the religiously unaffiliated explain their rejection of religion in terms of superior learning, but several religious groups have much higher levels of education."

He found that Hindus, Jews, Episcopalians,[17][18] Presbyterians, Buddhists, and Orthodox Christians[19] have the highest levels of education. Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims are at about the national average. Jehovah's Witnesses have by far the lowest education. Evangelicals are somewhat below the national average. The religiously unaffiliated are just slightly above average in levels of college education.[20] Sociological research by Patricia Snell and Christian Smith on many dimensions of general American youth have noted that older research on baby boomers showed correlations where higher education undermined religiosity, however, studies on today's youth have consistently shown that this has disappeared and now students in college are more likely religious than people who do not go to college.[4]

According to the Gallup's 2002 Index of Leading Religious Indicators for the US, the relationship between education and religiosity are complex. For instance, there are slight differences in belief in God and membership in a congregation: 88% of those with postgraduate degrees believe in God or a universal spirit, compared to 97% of those with a high school education or less; 70% of postgraduate degree holders say they are members of a congregation, compared to 64% of those with a high school education or less.[21]

Quote

Research by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons done on more than 1,400 professors from 20 disciplinary fields and religiosity found that the majority of professors, even at "elite" universities were religious believers. As a whole, university professors were less religious than the general US population, but it is hardly the case that the professorial landscape is characterized by an absence of religion. In the study, 9.8% were atheists, 13.1% were agnostic, 19.2% believe in a higher power, 4.3% believe in God some of the time, 16.6% had doubts but believed in God, 34.9% believed in God and had no doubts.

So, academics are only about twice as likely to be atheist, or agnostic.

Quote

But I don't think Cleese is specifically regarding religion there, more the other poster who regurgitated cultural ideas as fact. As I said, in loathe to waste an hour and forty minutes on more anecdotes and those impressed by them. Would you say there is more to this than that? Did you watch the whole video?

I have to admit I did not watch the whole thing. Is it worth watching to better discuss?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 8/13/2020 at 11:22 AM, razman said:

You sound so certain. How do you know that what we currently understand about physics is not just a drop of water in an ocean ? Like the earth is to the universe.

Could it be because we understand the chemistry of water, right down to quark levels, that we do understand the vast majority of the physics of it, where it all came from, how the tides work, etc, and we are progressively documenting the huge amount and diversity of life that dwells in it.  All that despite despite being a creature that can't, without assistance, go down very deep...  Amazing how much we do know abiout that drop of water *and* the oceans....  Same in most disciplines.  We're quite God-damned smart.  (see what I did there?)

And we also understand how the brain works, and how perceptions work, and how anecdotes and personal perceptions are often flawed, or imaginary.

Things is science is VERY, very good at finding explanations and documenting ALL things that materially affect reality.  It doesn't bother with reports of one-off experiences or anecdotes, or things easily explained by knowns...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 8/14/2020 at 8:51 AM, DieChecker said:

I would agree, in so far as it is a failed mechanic. No evidence supports it. However, I believe even discussing a disproven theory can lead to new insights and new paths of exploration. In that way, Cleelse's idea is interesting to me.

I'm just not sure that's the case here. Mind body dualism is a fail. I find phlogiston interesting as a historical aspect, a mistake we learn from. When this idea begins with a complete failure, where could this possibly be going other than to undermine science? 

Quote

I had not looked into his background. Ill take your word for it, if youve been studying up on him.

Study is a strong word. I picked up his biography in a 2nd hand bookstore and thought, well that's probably worth $10.00 :lol:. Ive been lazily flicking through it for the past 6 months it so. 

Quote

Well, I know your definition of atheist. And if we use that, we're looking at a very low percentage of world population. "Convinced Atehiests" are estimated at about 500 million world wide. And I would be hard to convince that all of them fit your definition.

Just under half live in China. Many live in Japan, and Eastern Europe. I cant refute if these people are better educated, or not. I would assume though that not all those people, or even most of them are academics.

I did find this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education#United_States

So, academics are only about twice as likely to be atheist, or agnostic.

That link also states:

The parameters of the two components are diverse: the "level of religiosity" remains a concept which is difficult to differentiate scientifically, while the "level of education" is easier to compile,

When I look at real world examples, I'm seeing more defined models, the leaders who are actually making progress like Dawkins, Krauss, Greene, all are outwardly identified atheists.

According to them above criteria, what is an 'academic' ? Doesn't that ambiguous reference leave itself open to interpretation? I strongly suspect that idiots like Deepak Chopra and Ken Ham consider themselves academic and would happily partake in such studies, and when they are so widely ranged, quality control can't possibly be applied. It also doesn't differentiate between scientists who don't believe in a higher power but user religion as a moral compass. 

Even with all that contamination, one is still twice as likely to academically  consider religion superseded. I'd say that's significant.

Quote

I have to admit I did not watch the whole thing. Is it worth watching to better discuss?

I don't think anyone did. Papageorge commented 12 minutes after the OP, so even with his childish blind support, not even that woo warrior watched it. I have to wonder if anyone did. 

That's why I asked. I'm loathe to waste an hour and forty minutes on a rehash of old anecdotes when I could be out enjoying my motorbike. Nobody seem to be willing, or able to answer that one. I guess only the concept is compelling to most, not any actual information used to arrive at such a conclusion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

if there is life after death then how long does it last for? does this life end at some point?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83
On 8/13/2020 at 1:43 AM, psyche101 said:

Sure it can. People sell it every day

 

It is a factual opinion, the one I have proposed is based on facts and can be supported, unlike the old ideas John Cleese has regurgitated. It's not like I'm making stuff up, or it is something that cannot be shown. All one has to do to understand why life after death won't happen is read up. Physics explains it through thermodynamics and atomic structure, 2 subjects that aren't that hard to grasp with a little effort.

I get all that but can you prove there is a soul? I believe we are all dummies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83

:lol: oh boy. I don't see how this can be taken as fact from a serious standpoint 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83
On 8/13/2020 at 1:57 AM, psyche101 said:

And some things are just pretty stupid. 

I can't see mind brain dualism as 'smart' when it has failed so miserably. And it's not like it's a new idea. What's the definition of repetition expecting different results?

He was well educated, and taught science, English, geography, history, and Latin. He studied law too I'm pretty sure. I have actually been lazily flicking through his biography for the last few months. this is from his teaching days:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSegh2Fcbt_W54HOC9XnqY

Well, that's not entirely true. The mass of atheists are actually better educated as they are predominantly found in academic institutions. Statically speaking, I'd say your wrong there. But I don't think Cleese is specifically regarding religion there, more the other poster who regurgitated cultural ideas as fact. As I said, in loathe to waste an hour and forty minutes on more anecdotes and those impressed by them. Would you say there is more to this than that? Did you watch the whole thing? 

Your problem seems you put trust in ppl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83

No one is any smarter than yourself. I ca tell them where to stick there research:whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83
On 8/13/2020 at 11:35 PM, ChrLzs said:

Could it be because we understand the chemistry of water, right down to quark levels, that we do understand the vast majority of the physics of it, where it all came from, how the tides work, etc, and we are progressively documenting the huge amount and diversity of life that dwells in it.  All that despite despite being a creature that can't, without assistance, go down very deep...  Amazing how much we do know abiout that drop of water *and* the oceans....  Same in most disciplines.  We're quite God-damned smart.  (see what I did there?)

And we also understand how the brain works, and how perceptions work, and how anecdotes and personal perceptions are often flawed, or imaginary.

Things is science is VERY, very good at finding explanations and documenting ALL things that materially affect reality.  It doesn't bother with reports of one-off experiences or anecdotes, or things easily explained by knowns...

You don't understand anything. You just think you do so you can sleep at night 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83
On 8/12/2020 at 2:48 AM, psyche101 said:

I guess I'm proving that I'm not a clueless moron who is fascinated by very old failed ideas? Mind brain dualism was first proposed back with Plato, made more famous by Descartes about 400 years ago. 

It's about as fascinating as phlogiston. It has a history in failure. No, I don't see the need to waste an hour and forty minutes on yet another anecdote driven opinion. I can see why Cleese was a comedian and not a scientist. 

Afterlife isn't a possibility according to physics. So it's not that much of a mystery. The only real mystery left associated with the afterlife is why people still believe in human specific ideas that are refuted by the sciences for a bunch of anecdotes. That doesn't sound sensible at all to me. If there really is something to these anecdotes, it's not an afterlife. 

People don't mind listening to opinions they find comforting. I bet plenty gave this the full hour and forty minutes, but I doubt any of them would bother to listen to forty minutes of Sean Carroll explaining why physics refutes the afterlife. People don't care about what's real, just what they like. 

Why do you have to say clueless moron? So degrade your subject before you confront them...note!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83

Y'all won't play me I'm a new breed :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83

As my grandfather said opinions are like *******s some are just bigger than others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83
On 8/13/2020 at 11:35 PM, ChrLzs said:

Could it be because we understand the chemistry of water, right down to quark levels, that we do understand the vast majority of the physics of it, where it all came from, how the tides work, etc, and we are progressively documenting the huge amount and diversity of life that dwells in it.  All that despite despite being a creature that can't, without assistance, go down very deep...  Amazing how much we do know abiout that drop of water *and* the oceans....  Same in most disciplines.  We're quite God-damned smart.  (see what I did there?)

And we also understand how the brain works, and how perceptions work, and how anecdotes and personal perceptions are often flawed, or imaginary.

Things is science is VERY, very good at finding explanations and documenting ALL things that materially affect reality.  It doesn't bother with reports of one-off experiences or anecdotes, or things easily explained by knowns...

You can understand as much as you like. It doesn't make you right

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humbled Hypocrite83

I'm that guy you wished that never showed up B)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
19 hours ago, Dejarma said:

if there is life after death then how long does it last for? does this life end at some point?

From years of studying these things I think we live on as our current personality for some time in our astral/mental body on the astral/mental planes. Even astral/menta; bodies are not permanent and run their course and we then experience through our Causal Body (similar to the soul concept). In the typical case the soul body sees the growth obtainable through new experiences on the more challenging lower and physical planes and will spawn a new astral/mental and physical form (reincarnation).

I'll throw out a number of like 80 Years between incarnations and some think it's getting shorter with increasing population bringing more opportunities.

 

 

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

From years of studying these things I think we live on as our current personality for some time in our astral/mental body on the astral/mental planes. Even astral/menta; bodies are not permanent and run their course and we then experience through our Causal Body (similar to the soul concept). In the typical case the soul body sees the growth obtainable through new experiences on the more challenging lower and physical planes and will spawn a new astral/mental and physical form (reincarnation).

I'll throw out a number of like 80 Years between incarnations and some think it's getting shorter with increasing population bringing more opportunities.

 

 

I'm assuming existence after death is nice...if This is all real then what's the point of being alive in the first place?

If this existence is bliss then why don't we all kill ourselves?

Maybe my friend should have killed his 4 year old little girl when she was diagnosed with Leukemia:

would have saved 9 years of extreme suffering for all involved!! I don't know- what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

I'm assuming existence after death is nice...if This is all real then what's the point of being alive in the first place?

If this existence is bliss then why don't we all kill ourselves?

One reason is that spiritual growth occurs through the challenges of human life. Our ability to enjoy the afterlife is proportional to our level of attunement with the higher feelings and our level of spiritual growth. Simply put, the purpose of life is spiritual growth. 

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

Maybe my friend should have killed his 4 year old little girl when she was diagnosed with Leukemia:

would have saved 9 years of extreme suffering for all involved!! I don't know- what do you think?

I think in some cases where quality of life is not expected to return then palliative care is enough. In your friends case I am thinking they may have been told there was real hope for life quality to be restored and maybe even a full near normal life. I don't know the particulars,

Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
20 hours ago, Dejarma said:

I'm assuming existence after death is nice...if This is all real then what's the point of being alive in the first place?

If this existence is bliss then why don't we all kill ourselves?

Maybe my friend should have killed his 4 year old little girl when she was diagnosed with Leukemia:

would have saved 9 years of extreme suffering for all involved!! I don't know- what do you think?

It's not about living or dying, or about living forever... It's about HOW you lived, and died.

Its about how you play the cards dealt to you, not about the cards, or even if you win, or lose. Murdering his daughter may have speeded her to Heaven, but your friend would have to live with it the rest of his life.

There's a reason the Catholics say suicide is a mortal sin. It's perhaps the most selfish thing a person can do in their life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 8/15/2020 at 10:09 PM, Humbled Hypocrite83 said:

You can understand as much as you like. It doesn't make you right

Why did you need to quote me twice?  Did you forget your earlier one?  Do you perhaps have a comprehension problem, related to you being a "new breed"? 

 

And I'm a bit puzzled by your continual content-free one liners....  You've been here long enough to realise that this is a discussion forum, haven't you?  Is that what counts as 'discussion', in your circle of family/acquaintances?

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
On 8/13/2020 at 7:35 AM, DieChecker said:

One person's smart is another person's stupid.

what does that mean? could you give us an example of that.

could it be:

stupid people think smart people are stupid.. it could also mean:

smart people think stupid people are stupid:unsure2:

i guess an example could be:

science & evolution is my smart but to a creationist that's stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

what does that mean? could you give us an example of that.

could it be:

stupid people think smart people are stupid.. it could also mean:

smart people think stupid people are stupid:unsure2:

i guess an example could be:

science & evolution is my smart but to a creationist that's stupid

Couple examples...

One person can think counciling is stupid, and worthless, and another think it is very worthwhile.

You might think changing your own oil is smart, but i think changing your own oil is stupid, when you can pay just $8.

Some people think cooking with salt is stupid, others cant cook without it.

Some people think religion is stupid, while others cant imagine being without it.

Some people think heavy makeup is super cool, and smart, and everyone else thinks it is stupid.

Everyone has an opinion, and everyone thinks their opinions are smart.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
On 8/15/2020 at 8:12 AM, Humbled Hypocrite83 said:

I'm that guy you wished that never showed up B)

The other guy was banned about a year or so ago. You're not the first "bad guy". 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 8/15/2020 at 7:45 PM, Humbled Hypocrite83 said:

I get all that but can you prove there is a soul? I believe we are all dummies 

The soul of a person is their character. It does with the person.

There's no energy version of you seperate to what you are right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 8/15/2020 at 8:08 PM, Humbled Hypocrite83 said:

Your problem seems you put trust in ppl

How do you come to that conclusion?

Do you mean no trust perhaps?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.