Death.. Then what?

[Lingus]

Jake, great post. Kind of opened my eyes a bit. I never thought about the interplay between evidence (versus proof) and faith.

The only time in which you can express your belief in something through proof alone is if you know everything

To respond, I wanted to point out the above quote. This is exactly the way I try to view the world. None of us really know anything for certain, so we shouldn't take anything for granted. You say you have evidence that you will wake up tomorrow morning, and because this evidence is not proof, you have faith that it will be true. I say since we do not have proof we should attempt to live our lives to the fullest and assume that there is a possibility that we will not wake up tomorrow.

[ARTgames]

Well evidence is a part of proof. The evidence will always prove something it just might not be the answer your looking for or just a part. Nothing is really certain in sciences also. Its all about the conflicting theories, +-'s, and how accurate you can measure something. Im not sure about religon's thoe.

Non the less even when you have proven something that turns into faith of it always being true. I mean you have faith a^2+b^2=c^2.  So its just another value we give things.

[Jake]

Jake, great post. Kind of opened my eyes a bit. I never thought about the interplay between evidence (versus proof) and faith.

The only time in which you can express your belief in something through proof alone is if you know everything

To respond, I wanted to point out the above quote. This is exactly the way I try to view the world. None of us really know anything for certain, so we shouldn't take anything for granted. You say you have evidence that you will wake up tomorrow morning, and because this evidence is not proof, you have faith that it will be true. I say since we do not have proof we should attempt to live our lives to the fullest and assume that there is a possibility that we will not wake up tomorrow.

Rock on  ;)

Considering multiple outcomes to seemingly proven scenarios is how I live my life too. It's pretty much what I do all day long... although it takes it's toll on me, specifically because I have a hard time taking anything for granted now. Most people get used to the fact that we're humans on a world, and accept that we don't really know what is going on. All day long I consider death, why we're hear, my psychological response to my senses. I simply wish that I could go back to the days where it didn't matter why I was here, only that I was here.

[Lingus]

It's true. Having that mind set can be tiring. I think to a certain extent, in order to get along in this life you have to sort of switch it off. If you truly make decisions based on the mindset that we know nothing for certain, you would be stuck in an infinite loop of indecision. If you try to base your actions on reason, but there is no reason to be had because there is no absolute knowledge, you literally cannot make valid decisions about anything. So we do kind of have to act based on certain assumptions. The trick is to make sure those assumptions are reasonable. Like assuming that everything is not just an elaborate illusion.

[germ]

When you die, you simply cease to exist.

People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.

If anyone has had general anesthetic, they will know how it feels to 'not exist'.
When you are knocked out by G.A. you go beyond sleep and have zero sense of passing time. You could be out for 2 hours / 20 hours and not know the difference. Essentially, your consciousness doesn't exist during this time. Death can be logically extrapolated from this. I.e. Death is like being under G.A. for eternity.

[Jake]

People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.

You couldn't be farther from the truth.

There's two types of evidence that are important when discussing this subject. Circumstantial and direct evidence. Religion, ghosts, etc, all have a multitude of circumstantial evidence, or in other words, lots of people have claims to experiencing, seeing, and/or feeling these other-worldly encounters. For many people, the amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a certain belief is enough to classify it as true to them. For others, they seek more direct evidence before they will classify something as true.

Your claims that these beliefs have no evidence behind them is flat out wrong. A better expression of your beliefs would be to say "I have not personally found enough evidence of the super-natural to classify these beliefs to be true, but accept that they could be true based on the fact that I have not seen all the evidence regarding these subjects. As it stands, they seem unlikely".

I see you as no different than a narrow-minded Christian professing what he believes to be the ultimate truth. You draw inaccurate assumptions and attempt to prove a negative, which is one of the ultimate logical fallacies.

[Chaos]

People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.

You couldn't be farther from the truth.

There's two types of evidence that are important when discussing this subject. Circumstantial and direct evidence. Religion, ghosts, etc, all have a multitude of circumstantial evidence, or in other words, lots of people have claims to experiencing, seeing, and/or feeling these other-worldly encounters. For many people, the amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a certain belief is enough to classify it as true to them. For others, they seek more direct evidence before they will classify something as true.

Your claims that these beliefs have no evidence behind them is flat out wrong. A better expression of your beliefs would be to say "I have not personally found enough evidence of the super-natural to classify these beliefs to be true, but accept that they could be true based on the fact that I have not seen all the evidence regarding these subjects. As it stands, they seem unlikely".

I see you as no different than a narrow-minded Christian professing what he believes to be the ultimate truth. You draw inaccurate assumptions and attempt to prove a negative, which is one of the ultimate logical fallacies.

Cue round of applause.

[Torch]

People can believe in resurrections, afterlifes, ghosts/spirits etc. but this is all based on speculation and to comfort those who don't wish to accept that after life there is nothing.
There is no evidence to support any of these theories and are just formulated by people with active imaginations.

You couldn't be farther from the truth.

There's two types of evidence that are important when discussing this subject. Circumstantial and direct evidence. Religion, ghosts, etc, all have a multitude of circumstantial evidence, or in other words, lots of people have claims to experiencing, seeing, and/or feeling these other-worldly encounters. For many people, the amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a certain belief is enough to classify it as true to them. For others, they seek more direct evidence before they will classify something as true.

Your claims that these beliefs have no evidence behind them is flat out wrong. A better expression of your beliefs would be to say "I have not personally found enough evidence of the super-natural to classify these beliefs to be true, but accept that they could be true based on the fact that I have not seen all the evidence regarding these subjects. As it stands, they seem unlikely".

I see you as no different than a narrow-minded Christian professing what he believes to be the ultimate truth. You draw inaccurate assumptions and attempt to prove a negative, which is one of the ultimate logical fallacies.

The evidence that you mentioned can be explained by said people misinterpreting, imagining, or straight up lying about said encounters. In my mind, this evidence doesn't count for much since it cannot be backed up.

It would also seem logical to act on the most likely possibility. In my mind, the likelyhood of a god existing is so small that it is not worth acting on unless more convincing evidence is found.

[Jake]

The evidence that you mentioned can be explained by said people misinterpreting, imagining, or straight up lying about said encounters. In my mind, this evidence doesn't count for much since it cannot be backed up.

It would also seem logical to act on the most likely possibility. In my mind, the likelyhood of a god existing is so small that it is not worth acting on unless more convincing evidence is found.

Like I said before, not everyone sees a large amount of circumstantial evidence for a belief as a sufficient reason to view it as true. You fit into this category.

[Aqua]

The Shroud of Turin is very interesting... Look it up.
~Aqua

[ARTgames]

I'm surprised this topic has not gone this direction yet.
http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth#Dawkins_Compares_Creationists_to_Holocaust_Deniers

[Lingus]

Lol. What's that law about bringing up Hitler/Nazis as an end to an argument?

But seriously. The scientific viewpoint should not stoop to that level. Yes, there is evidence that goes to prove evolution over creationism. Let that stand on its own merit. If people choose to believe otherwise, so be it. Instead this guy comes off more as a baby holding its breath to get what it wants. "You believe in Creationism? You're no better than Hitler!" How immature.

(Btw, I didn't watch the video. My comment is based solely on the title of the video.)

[ARTgames]

Well he is basically saying people who are Creationism supporters act the same way as people who are Holocaust deniers. Then he explains why he said that.

But at no point does he say "You believe in Creationism? You're no better than Hitler!" :P But i know you did not watch the vid.

[Jake]

Creationism doesn't always contradict evolution, despite common misconception.

[Lingus]

Well he is basically saying people who are Creationism supporters act the same way as people who are Holocaust deniers. Then he explains why he said that.

But at no point does he say "You believe in Creationism? You're no better than Hitler!" :P But i know you did not watch the vid.

Yea no, I was just making a point. I can kind of guess how he draws parallels, but it's the fact that he used such a shocking analogy.

Creationism doesn't always contradict evolution, despite common misconception.

Please explain. I would be interested to hear how. From my understanding the core concepts are mutually exclusive. Of course, I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.