BadBadBad

You're not getting it emotional. Everyone is telling you your ideas are ridiculous. This board is a haven for skeptics. If you put out an idea like duplicate astral bodies for public scrutiny on a skeptics discussion board, what do you really expect? You're going to be doing a lot of scrolling.

Shadowy Man

I don't have a problem with you believing in life after death.

But you should just say that it is. Consider it a brute fact and leave it at that.

When you make up stuff like "exotic forms of matter" you are putting a name on it and opening it up to scrutiny and possible scientific pursuit.

It is either beyond the scope of science or it isn't. If it isn't, then you can't just willy-nilly say things like "exotic forms of matter" or "astral energy" without defining what you mean and backing up why you believe that to be so.

emotional

... so long as you don't say it's backed up by evidence. That's what atheists say to all religious believers: believe all you want, just don't say it's supported by hard facts.



I'm only hopeful (slightly) that it may have scientific backing. It would be very nice. I then wouldn't have to believe anymore.

It's either in the scope of science and hasn't been discovered yet, or it's outside the scope of science. If it's in the scope of science, then I can accept instead of believing, and I can convince others. If not, it'll stay a personal belief of mine.

I define "exotic form of matter" as "matter on a different quantum vibration than we can normally detect". That's the definition. As for backing that up, I can't; I'm not a scientist and I don't have the equipment.

All right, I made the mistake of trying to be an evidentialist. I'd better go back to my usual fideism, where I don't have to bear the strain of debate and scrutiny. I never win debates.

BadBadBad

Inside the scope of science but undiscovered. Outside the scope of science and supernatural. There's another possibility. You left out the possibility that your belief is false. As a pure figment of your imagination, in your own words, that is the most likely possibility.

triplew00t

I think the real thing that set off this explosion was emotional claiming that one day the 'exotic matter' would be discovered in quantum physics. Most people leave me to what I want to think about things because I never claim scientific backing, never think that I will have it, and try to stay away from ideas that are in direct opposition to science. Most importantly, my views have a plasticity to them. I dont really need to believe much of anything, but I like to. When hard evidence says that one of my beliefs CANNOT exist, then I dump it. But some ideas cant be attacked directly, ideas that deal singularly in the realm of the mind and the internal, subjective worlds that have no outward, empiracal verifiabity. These are the worlds in which my beliefs operate. Claims about universal truths, things that happen to everyone in the world outside ourselves, can be tested and scrutinized to the nth degree. This is where arguments arise from in these debates. People whos beliefs claim outward effects. These are the problem zones in any discussion between people who have confliting beliefs. You cant claim that I dont like red, or that I like green. Those are entirely subjective opinions. In the same way, you cant say I dont experience divine revelations. You can simply say that the revelations are created in my own mind, and as such, are mostly important to only me (not that they might not help others with similar mindsets). If, however, I say that a crow is red, you can look at that crow, and see that it is not. Then my opinion must be false, and I must drop it (barring arguments on color-perceptions and colorblindness). Internal beliefs can never be tests, therefore are infalsifiable. External beliefs can, and are falsifiable. The problem with death, is that no one has ever come back to tell us. So we can go with what science says is most likely, or hope and believe in what we want to. Ultimately, objective reality is just that: objective, and our beliefs wont change it, so what difference does it make if others believe differently.

A mediating Nero

emotional

You should have seen what happened, a few months ago, when I was a total evidentialist and tried to bring scientific proof for the afterlife. The outcries were deafening. It was "pseudoscience!" and "shoddy evidence!" and "logical fallacies!" everywhere. That's what happens when a believer tries to bring evidence for his beliefs. You can believe all you want, but don't you dare bring the atheists evidence for your beliefs, because then they'll lambaste you.

After that attack, I left the discussion boards for about a month. Then, having decided to base my beliefs on faith instead of evidence, so that it cannot be debated, I returned to the boards.

It'll take a miracle for a materialist sceptic to consider something as good evidence of God or the afterlife. They feign openness, but they're as close-minded as the Christian fundamentalists. Just take a visit to CSICOP and you'll see the same heartless, unyielding, uncompromising, fanatical attitude towards all things outside the worldview in question.

Marduk

“Ultimately, objective reality is just that: objective, and our beliefs wont change it, so what difference does it make if others believe differently.”

I have always thought one of the flaws of a purely materialistic point of view was this notion that we our objective ‘observers’ of the universe rather than an integral part of the system.
This is what meta- physicists mean when they say the world is an illusion. They don’t mean it is fake like a hallucination they mean the idea of being separate is an illusion.
FWIW

crocodile deathroll

Bali Bomber, Amrozi is quite elated about the judges decision to sentence him to death by firing squad. Because he sincerely believes he is going to paradise.
Danny Hanley, who's two daughters were killed in the attack said:
I certainly do not agree with neither view, it is just wishful thinking.
I personally stand by my weak anthropic principle and the laws of nature would treat him no differently after he dies and those events he perpetrated while he was alive would be totally irrelevant to him. No hell, no heaven, no paradise, no purgatory no punishment for bad karma either.

CDR

Shadowy Man

What does that even mean?

You might as well say that it is "flibbering glastomites". That's the definition. As for backing it up, I can't; I'm not a scriptoscentomologist and I don't have the equipment.

Relative Newcomer

I'm with you croc. Hitler is no worse (or better) off for what he did than Pope John Paul 1 or Mother Teresa. I tire hearing the age old "the crime will fit the punishment in hell" and "kicking ass for the lord to ensure a higher spot in heaven" nonsense. Consequences apply to this life, and this life only IMO.