After you leave this world, would you want to be part of an amorphous, nebulous, celestial, sentient presence; an energy that somehow conveys knowledge to other beings.
I'm agnostic about an afterlife, but then I can't prove that there's no psychotropic sauce in my beans on toast and whether or not the sauce, the beans, the toast or I exist.
So glad I don't ponder such things.
I do not suffer from any kind of existential angst.
Holding no belief in an afterlife, if any do exist, I guess I'll just be surprised.
You should visit nature more often and try hugging a Grizzly Bear, or petting a Rattlesnake to see if they really exist and if the pain and suffering can be quantified.
You sound more pseudo religious than agnostic, to me. There is a type I've come to recognise who call themselves agnostic, but just a little digging and the religion flame is still burning, often pseudo religion or new age type. It's all still hogwash, of course. Judging from your posts you seem to lean in that direction.
I’d rather be a clearly formed material MFr who sucks information out of other people’s brains while I’m alive.
@DangerDave
So far I can report 100% success, plus perks.
After 12 years living in a relationship with a High dependency unit head nurse. Of the dozens of sentient beings , many religious, many desperate to believe in something omnipotent. Who were diagnosed as clinically dead. Then luckily brought back to life by modern medical machine's & technology. Never , ever had anyone had an honest experience to convey of anything observable while dead . A time of death announced , then four minutes later . A treless medics refusal to quit. & Bip...bip...bip...bip.. Thank you Jesus.... Back from the dead.
Once dead , it's the same as you experienced before birth.. But that wasn't too bad was it.
I agree completely but please change your words before birth to before conception. Babies do have experiences before birth after a certain time in their gestation. I am definitely pro-choice but my experience tells me both of my children had deep-seated memories at least during the 7th 8th and 9th month of my pregnancy. For example, my son would almost jump out of his bed when I cleared my throat when he was a newborn. I finally realized this was because of the turbulence created by my belly rattling cough during the 8th month of my pregnancy. Both of my children are jazz fans despite the fact their friends made fun of them in grade school for liking the old music. I always felt they liked jazz because I am sure that's all they ever heard during my pregnancy.
@Lorajay Fair enough , semantics these days are more important than ever.
I have no idea if there is anything after this life. The evidence as far as I know doesn't support it. Having recently lost a loved one, I can understand how someone could want there to be something better than this life after we die. But as DenoPenno said earlier, it doesn't make much sense to believe something simply because we like the idea of it.
Have you stuck your hands in the mouth of a crocodile or a great white shark?
Your problem seems to be trying to "prove" things that your own imagination or others have invented.
Relax, just because you believe something doesn't make it true, and just because you hear something doesn't mean that you have to prove it is true or false.
The person making an assertion must prove the assertions that they make.
You seem to be trying to validate an agnostic stance or opinion which just comes across as being desperate.
@DangerDave Em the Elf claims that there are no gods.
Atheists do NOT make the claim that no gods exist or that they "know there are no gods," an atheist does not care, because no evidence has been established for a god's existence.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods, not the assertion that gods don't exist. The person making an assertion must prove that assertion.
Labeling or defining atheists to try to win arguments is ignorant.
@DangerDave You have not corrected anything. You are simply misconstruing the meaning of words to fit your ignorance.
Agnostic: a = without; gnostic = knowledge
Atheist: a = without; theist = belief in god
I'm sure Em the Elf would not be pleased.
@DangerDave What knowledge have I claimed?
There are people who have never even heard the word god or about a god, they are inadvertently atheists but they are not inherently stupid.
I've already explained that here: "Imagine for a moment that the concept of god never existed, that no one had ever heard of such an ..."/
Also, if you are going to quote Sagan at least have the decency to quote him accurately: "By some definitions atheism is very stupid"
@DangerDave You cannot be that ignorant, it is inaccurate BECAUSE it is incomplete. You are so dishonest and disingenuous you easily spout nonsense like a believer. Em the Elf is disappointed.
"The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self. We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves." - Eric Hoffer - Author of The True Believer
@DangerDave Just more "wall of word" nonsense to delude yourself into believing you know what you are talking about. You don't.
Em the Elf thinks you are very naughty.
@DangerDave Blah, Blah, Blah
Em the Elf says you are just believing in unbelief.
@DangerDave I'm not the child who created "Em the Elf", you are. You also told me that "she" was "real", that you "met" her, and that you could delve into her psyche.
That is not only childish, it is delusional.
Why did you delete your comments on the fairy post where you stated that there is evidence for fairies and Bigfoot? Don't worry, I've been saving your comments.
@DangerDave : Everyone, if they are intellectually honest, is agnostic when it comes to the existence of a god, or gods as NO ONE can KNOW whether one (or more) exists, or not.
The honest theist will say, "I cannot know but I BELIEVE there is a god."
The honest atheist will say "I cannot know but I DO NOT BELIEVE there is a god."
Atheism by definition is the LACK OF BELIEF not a statement of knowledge.
I, by definition, am an ATHEIST because I do NOT BELIEVE any gods exists. This is NOT a claim of knowledge, but of lack of belief.
Most people tend to think ALL atheists claim to KNOW there is no god; therein lies the problem... and THIS is why NGT stays away from that label--because it is MISUNDERSTOOD by most people.
I will take on an atheist who claims to KNOW there is no god because that claim is BEYOND the definition of atheism.
I will also take on someone who claims that because someone identifies as an atheist they are making the definitive claim that there is no god when it is the definitive claim that a person absolutely does not believe that any kind of god exists.
@DangerDave : I understand that, but when you go after "atheists" here, where most of us don't understand that word as it is largely understood (misunderstood) it feels like an attack on those of us who identify as atheist and who wish to educate those who misuse/misunderstand the word.
@DangerDave You claim that atheists assert there is no god while at the same time you assert that there is evidence of god, fairies, and Bigfoot. When I asked for the evidence for these, you claimed the Shroud of Turin as evidence, a YouTube video as evidence, and that there is "lots of evidence on the internet." Not only that, you believe in an elf of your own creation that you interact with.
You are delusional.
I have already explained atheism to you here: "If I declare that my god is real and that it's scriptures are infallible."
@nogod4me Imo, @DangerDave sees himself as, possibly, the Prophet of All things Magical, Mystical and Imaginary that are beyond the realms of Reality and as such MUST be the Messiah who shall bring all and sundry to such beliefs.
@DangerDave A theist who makes a statement of fact that a god exists must have proof for that statement. An atheist who makes a statement of fact that a god does not exist must have proof for that statement. There will always be people who assert something without proof and define themselves however they choose. An atheist does not make the assertion that a god does not exist, they do not need to, believers have not provided evidence to prove a god’s existence. The lack of evidence nullifies the believer’s statement. Why would someone waste their time on baseless conjecture? When someone offers evidence that would justify looking at that evidence.
By “gnostic atheist,”, I assume you are referring to someone who believes they KNOW that a god does not exist, which would be ridiculous since the believer has not provided the evidence to have knowledge of, if the believer makes a statement of fact, they must have proof. An atheist does not make the assertion that a god does not exist, those who do must have proof. The confusion lies in individuals who define themselves as an atheist but state they have definitive proof and asserting as fact there is no god. Just as a theist states there is definitive proof and asserting as fact there is a god. You are trying to label all atheists as those who state definitively there is no god.
I have rarely found any atheist who makes the assertion that a god or gods do not exist. It is usually ex-theists who do not completely understand what "atheist" means, and are still internalizing the labels that theists have imposed on atheists. Some are trying to purge themselves of lingering fears and beliefs and make assertions that they have no proof of.
An atheist does not believe in the existence of a god or gods, it's that simple. Atheism is not a religion, nor does it have faith there is no god. Does not believe = non-belief, it is the absence of belief, not the belief in the absence of something. An atheist does not make the assertion that a god does not exist, for then the burden of proof falls on them, just as it would if you asserted that a god does exist. Religion has asserted for centuries that a god exists, they have produced no evidence, so there is no reason to TRY to prove or disprove a baseless fabrication.
@DangerDave You are just being willfully ignorant. I am not saying that it is false because believers have no proof, I'm saying that it is irrelevant, who cares what people believe, some people believe in fairies and even elves of their own making. Just because believers believe something doesn't make it true. Show me the body of Em the Elf, and once we have her dissected then we can know something about her. Without evidence all we would have is just believers words, which is irrelevant, proof has substance.
@DangerDave What are you talking about? Who has said "they know gods don't exist?"
I have never seen photos of Em the Elf. Now you are saying that she is human and not an elf, you have serious problems.
@DangerDave "Getting the site shut down," you sound like Trump. You told me Em was an elf, now you are saying that she is a human "playing" an elf. Make up your mind, is she an elf or is she human?
@DangerDave You are just spewing nonsense, what is wrong with you?
@DangerDave Actually, I did not, you are a liar. I said we could have Em the Elf's body dissected, not a human.
I have never heard of Em the Human.
You have never stated she was a human, that is why I have been making fun of you.
@DangerDave You are very unstable.
@nogod4me
“The person who thinks he has found the ultimate truth is wrong. There is an often quoted verse, in Sanskrit which appears in the Chinese Tao-te Ching as well ’He who thinks he knows doesn’t know. He who knows he doesn’t know, knows. For in this context, to know is not to know. And not to know is to know.” Joseph Campbell
"Extreme claims require extreme proof." Carl Sagan
I do not see DD's posts, here, but it maybe worth mentioning that different people have different definitions of "proof," some of which are utterly vacuous. A "proof" needs to be based on empirical evidence, which can be found in repeated tests thereof, by a variety of legitimate researchers. And, it must be capable of being falsified. If it can not be tested in this manner, it is unverifiable, and hence, no proof. This is, directly, why the existence, or lack thereof, of a god, can not be proved.
This is why physicists continue to test Einstein's claims, as scientific technology advances. Gravity waves have been found; black holes have been found; the bending of light by massive objects has been verified, and on, and on. The same is true of Evolution.
'amorphous, nebulous, celestial, sentient presence'
I may have read about something like this . . .
I don’t want any kind of afterlife, except perhaps in bacterial form. I full expect - nay, demand - that death be death, as advertised: complete and final extinction. Only through my complete and utter demise will the life that came before have any meaning.
I used to believe that existence of radio waves actually proved the invisible world and supernatural things. Once I got older I stopped believing things simply because I like the idea. Once you are dead it is unlikely that you will have any knowledge or energy.
What kind of toast?
15 grain, but it's all relative; did I actually type this, or is this site in my head...oh well back to more LSD and mushrooms on my toast.
I think Ray Kurweil predictes this: when technology advances enough we would be able to simulate the neurons in our brain, and we would ve able to up load a 3D map of our synapses and run a virtual model of our brain. Basically we would exist as an amorphous nebulous sentient presense. A brain in a box, that can connect to other brains in a box, and create virtual worlds that input whatever sensory information we would want to live our best after lives. Death is still possible if the box is destroyed. But it would be the closest thing to a real afterlife.