And you think you can ask that question without implying that its farcical? .... I think you have to straighten out your thinking first.
italics mine I mean can you seriously read that and not think he is suggesting that the claims of the after life are false?
It seems he's a somewhat strong atheist, so he would think that claims of afterlife are false. But is it farcical that humans use an imagined afterlife as a defense mechanism?
sure But is it farcical for an actual after life to establish selfhood beyond mere issues of bodily designation?
if its actual, why would it be farcical? a purely imagined thing is obviously farcical I am asking about something that isn't (ie something that is actual)
no more than an imaginative cure for cancer serves a purpose an actual after life as opposed to an imagined one
An imagined afterlife would serve the purpose of calming the fear of death. To me that's a very real and helpful effect. I can understand that people would sign onto this belief to make death easier to handle. Yes but you don't know that it's actual. In case that it IS actual it wouldn't be farcical of course. I don't think you'd find anyone here saying that a real afterlife would be farcical.
Oh, those nasty humanses, they keep thinking, feeling, saying and doing things that irk honorable, decent, realistic, knowledgeable, humble people such as yourself! Yup yup, they should change! Oh yes, they should look up to you!!!
Well if he does, I would love to hear the story. I just assumed, I was talking to a living person. Silly me.
Come to the point. Answer the question, rather ask yourself this question, if you are capable of thinking, you'll be able to laugh yourself out and bravely admit it's unknown and can't be known. We all need to straighten out our thinking not just me.
Signal, No seriously, when did i say anything about 'knowledgeable people'? I'm considering humanity as a whole. Everyone should be skeptical and think for themselves.
The problem is this : You are bringing elements to your argument that effectively render discussion of the after life to farce while simultaneously advocating that you are not offering a position whether the claims are true or not. At this point I am simply asking you to present your argument with honesty
Now imagine the comparison between an imagined cure for a terminal disease and an actual one Why not? The problem is that we aren't finding anyone here saying that it isn't farcical
He is saying that he considers those specific claims to be unsubstantiated, not necessarily that the afterlife is not an actuality. He is also suggesting that the afterlife, in his opinion, is beyond substantiation, i.e. that we should at best be agnostic on the matter. If I claim that I know the sun is basically a large ball of hydrogen because my dog told me, does the actuality of the sun basically being a large ball of hydrogen mean that my dog spoke to me? Because your line of argument would suggest that it does.
