Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Atheists and the afterlife,
78 Answers
Guy I work with is a dyed in the wool atheist,hardcore. Having one of our many discussions on the subject he admitted to me that he believes in life after death.I told him he couldn`t have it both ways but he insists there is no conflict with his beliefs. Do any ABers feel the same way?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
He cannot truly describe himself as an atheist, because he cannot have it both ways. Perhaps he should say agnostic. As an instance, I say I am not a Christian, because a basic concept of Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the son of God. I do not believe, and therefore I am not a Christian. And yet I think that Jesus existed and that he was a great teacher - a rabbi - and I live by what he preached because what he preached was the right way to live and for it to have come down through all these years there has to be something. Discuss this - my father said once that Jesus was a Communist. He told his disciples to share everything they had with the poor.
Why can't someone have it both ways? Just because you believe in life after death...doesn't mean you have to believe that we were created by God. Most Atheists I've spoken to believe in Jesus. Just not that he's the son of God because they don't believe God exists.
Like I said...maybe Claymores friend has seen a ghost.
Like I said...maybe Claymores friend has seen a ghost.
As far as I'm aware an atheist is someone who has no beliefs in any kind of God so yes, it does sound like your friend can have their cake and eat it.
As an atheist myself, no, I don't feel that way. I don't believe that when you die any part of you lives on other than in the memory of other people. (Whenever I do think of an after life, I end up imagining a scene from How the Dead Live by Will Self which is just too horrible to contimplate!)
As an atheist myself, no, I don't feel that way. I don't believe that when you die any part of you lives on other than in the memory of other people. (Whenever I do think of an after life, I end up imagining a scene from How the Dead Live by Will Self which is just too horrible to contimplate!)
This is a terminilogical issue.
In the same way there is a difference between Huxley's original definition of an agnostic as one who says it's impossible to know whether God exists and the more common definition as one who says that they personally are undecided.
Strictly an Atheist is one who holds God doesn't exist - now does that make a Budhist an atheist? perhaps.
Then there are those like Einstein who hold to Spinoza's God which is abstract and impersonal.
I think most Atheists are what you might call "rationalist atheists" who don't hold with any supernatural concepts like ghosts or spirits or souls but if some want to take the strict definintion I guess that's OK
In the same way there is a difference between Huxley's original definition of an agnostic as one who says it's impossible to know whether God exists and the more common definition as one who says that they personally are undecided.
Strictly an Atheist is one who holds God doesn't exist - now does that make a Budhist an atheist? perhaps.
Then there are those like Einstein who hold to Spinoza's God which is abstract and impersonal.
I think most Atheists are what you might call "rationalist atheists" who don't hold with any supernatural concepts like ghosts or spirits or souls but if some want to take the strict definintion I guess that's OK
A rationalist atheist might consider souls, ghosts, etc, to be 'supernatural', but if they don't actually know, which they don't, then it isn't rational to claim they do and therefore they are not the rational atheists they like to think they are.
Having said that, perhaps rather than do down that road again, we ought to stick to the question.
Having said that, perhaps rather than do down that road again, we ought to stick to the question.
In as much as I do not think religions have a monopoly on the concept of afterlife in some form then, yes, an atheist postulating/formulating continuity of existence of the sort that necessitates (or makes possible) afterlife seems to me legitimate without contradicting his/her exclusion of a god from a view of existence in the universe.
Something is rational if it is "agreeable to reason"
Ghosts and spirits and souls do not fit within the framework of known science nor is there good hard evidence for their existance.
Therefore there is no basis to reason their existance which is why I use the term irrational.
There are a few, quite small number, of things that were irrational that turned out to be true but that didn't stop them from being irrational when there was no good evidence for them.
Ghosts and spirits and souls do not fit within the framework of known science nor is there good hard evidence for their existance.
Therefore there is no basis to reason their existance which is why I use the term irrational.
There are a few, quite small number, of things that were irrational that turned out to be true but that didn't stop them from being irrational when there was no good evidence for them.
Why does it belong to religous belief?
Because it involves the notion of a soul.
For me that is the defining characteristic of a religious belief. Without the concept of a soul God becomes some super intelligent alien.
There are plenty of religions that circle about the notion of Ghosts and afterlife Shinto for example
Because it involves the notion of a soul.
For me that is the defining characteristic of a religious belief. Without the concept of a soul God becomes some super intelligent alien.
There are plenty of religions that circle about the notion of Ghosts and afterlife Shinto for example
