On the subject of the after life : not all possibilities of "afterlife" involves magical assumption

[TheStartOfEnding]

I've noticed that all debates about afterlife involve a certain dichotomy here between 1 : Materialist atheists. 2 : People who believe in magical/vaudouu stuff like reincarnation, heaven, hell, and will make the most preposterous affirmations and let their imagination roam freely to make up any shit they want.

The people in category 1 easily dismiss the claims of those in category 2 (and in my opinion, they are right to do), but they are mistaken to think that by dismissing the possibilities affirmed by them, they have disproven every possibility of an afterlife.

There is a theory of personal identity that doesn't involve any reincarnation/survival of the individual/soul or any magical stuff like that, and still affirms that nobody dies, it's also compatible with materialism.

Read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism

And this (A redditor who explains the theory quite well) : https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatali...birth_and_your_life_is_not_what_you_probably/

 

[Malice1]

I agree. I tried to approach it from a scientific standpoint, knowing that the magical stuff is outright absurd. I don't believe in wizards or warlocks, so why should i believe in a soul or anything spirtual for that matter. Anyway, there may be other theories that mankind has not even thought up yet. I just don't think the materalist atheist should be making 100% certatinties about the matter.

 

[TheStartOfEnding]

I agree. I tried to approach it from a scientific standpoint, knowing that the magical stuff is outright absurd. I don't believe in wizards or warlocks, so why should i believe in a soul or anything spirtual for that matter. Anyway, there may be other theories that mankind has not even thought up yet. I just don't think the materalist atheist should be making 100% certatinties about the matter.

I agree with you about the certainty part, that's why while i'm an atheist about religious gods, i prefer to be a skeptic about the other possibilities instead of an atheist.

What's interresting about Open Individualism is that it's not even a preposterous theory COMPARED to the alternatives (empty individualism/closed individualism) so we can't just dismiss it because it has some problems, since the alternative also have their own problems.

 

[Life sucks]

I don't think its about material atheist vs believers in magic. It is more about physical vs metaphysical point of view.

Physical views are not certain because it can't prove/disprove whats beyond physics and within itself you need to check all arguments and see if there is at least one true or all of them being false to completely prove or disprove. (however, as axioms or rules of thumb, one can say physical views are most likely disproving)

Non-physical views are there but it can't disprove or prove also. We still don't know about whats beyond physics and if there are other worlds without physics. It is something that we don't know but we can't disprove its existence.

Therefore, both sides are beliefs. This is not uncommon for unsolved or open problems. Everyone can believe in something (belief is an axiom) then try to prove it. For example, P vs NP is an unsolved mathematical problem and each side "believes" in a solution but still can't prove it.

It is better to research and know more and check your beliefs with logic rather than assuming the ultimate truth. After checking one can see if the beliefs are true or have contradictions. It is a long way and probably we won't know the solution right now. But thats how knowledge works and sadly we might not know anything because it takes time, for example past humans don't have our technology and we can't know what future humans will know.

There is nothing wrong with beliefs but don't enforce it on others as the ultimate truth. And what's the truth is but a belief/axiom that get checked and proved by smaller truths (infinite process)

Sorry if I made it complicated

 

[TheStartOfEnding]

I don't think its about material atheist vs believers in magic. It is more about physical vs metaphysical point of view.

Physical views are not certain because it can't prove/disprove whats beyond physics and within itself you need to check all arguments and see if there is at least one true or all of them being false to completely prove or disprove. (however, as axioms or rules of thumb, one can say physical views are most likely disproving)

Non-physical views are there but it can't disprove or prove also. We still don't know about whats beyond physics and if there are other worlds without physics. It is something that we don't know but we can't disprove its existence.

Therefore, both sides are beliefs. This is not uncommon for unsolved or open problems. Everyone can believe in something (belief is an axiom) then try to prove it. For example, P vs NP is an unsolved mathematical problem and each side "believes" in a solution but still can't prove it.

It is better to research and know more and check your beliefs with logic rather than assuming the ultimate truth. After checking one can see if the beliefs are true or have contradictions. It is a long way and probably we won't know the solution right now. But thats how knowledge works and sadly we might not know anything because it takes time, for example past humans don't have our technology and we can't know what future humans will know.

There is nothing wrong with beliefs but don't enforce it on others as the ultimate truth. And what's the truth is but a belief/axiom that get checked and proved by smaller truths (infinite process)

Sorry if I made it complicated

Yeah i understand what you're saying, but when it comes to the subject of identity it's not as simple as that, there is no such thing as a "physical" view about personal identity, all the competing views are metaphysical because physics have nothing to say about what makes "me" "me". Erwin Schrodinger believes in Open Individualism for instance, it's not any more metaphysical than the other views.

So Open Individualism isn't a less physical view than the alternatives.

 

[Life sucks]

Yeah i understand what you're saying, but when it comes to the subject of identity it's not as simple as that, there is no such thing as a "physical" view about personal identity, all the competing views are metaphysical because physics have nothing to say about what makes "me" "me". Erwin Schrodinger believes in Open Individualism for instance, it's not any more metaphysical than the other views.

So Open Individualism isn't a less physical view than the alternatives.

I'm not talking about identity or open individualism. I'm just showing that concepts like afterlife can be either way and none can be certain 100% (like many other things) .