• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

happy or athiest

No, God and the afterlife fall within the same broad category of metaphysics. There is no disputing this. The categories and arguments which disqualifies God disqualify the afterlife. To say that an atheists can somehow make these two positions (belief in the afterlife but not believing in God) consistent and logical is impossible. By invalidating one, you invalidates the other. These positions are not solitary. They do not exist in a vacuum. They come with support, secondary beliefs, arguments, premises, assumptions, and suppositions just to name a few. That is why if an atheist believes in the afterlife, then they are not an atheists. The atheists believing in metaphysics makes that atheists a theists. And they are theists no matter what they categories themselves as. Eventually, the cognitive dissidence in the person will fracture and the person will eventually turn away from one of these two positions unless they turn to a theistic belief structure which corrects for this dissidence.
Buddhists can be theists or atheists. People believe illogical and incompatible ideas all the time. Atheism is not incompatible with a belief in an afterlife. What if consciousness is a thing that is created by certain organizational patterns that exists in the observable dimensions, and once the patterns cease the thing that is the consciousness itself continues to exist, but is forced into non-observable dimensions? You are just using a different definition from me. My definition of atheist is "not a theist". My definition of theist is "one who believes that a god exists". All that said, it is true that people who identify as atheist tend to be less likely to believe in an afterlife.
 
Atheism is not incompatible with a belief in an afterlife.

Atheism is built on the assumption that things that have no scientific evidence to support them are unworthy of belief. Since such evidence for the existence of afterlife is as non-existent as such evidence for Gods' existence, it would seem incompatible for an atheist to believe in an afterlife

What if consciousness is a thing that is created by certain organizational patterns that exists in the observable dimensions, and once the patterns cease the thing that is the consciousness itself continues to exist, but is forced into non-observable dimensions? You are just using a different definition from me. My definition of atheist is "not a theist". My definition of theist is "one who believes that a god exists". All that said, it is true that people who identify as atheist tend to be less likely to believe in an afterlife.
[/QUOTE]

But *why* don't you, or any atheist, believe that God exists?
 
Buddhists can be theists or atheists. People believe illogical and incompatible ideas all the time. Atheism is not incompatible with a belief in an afterlife. What if consciousness is a thing that is created by certain organizational patterns that exists in the observable dimensions, and once the patterns cease the thing that is the consciousness itself continues to exist, but is forced into non-observable dimensions? You are just using a different definition from me. My definition of atheist is "not a theist". My definition of theist is "one who believes that a god exists". All that said, it is true that people who identify as atheist tend to be less likely to believe in an afterlife.

Look at what you have to say to make this work. You are saying that an atheist has to believe in something that's incompatible to hold both of these positions. That alone should get you to stop and think about what you are saying. Again, if these beliefs were in a vacuum you may have a point but they are not. There are several things which lead into any position we hold to be true. All I am saying is that if an someone calls themselves an atheists and lays out a completely compatible rationale for disbelieving in God but belief in an afterlife, then a minor miracle has occurred and five hundred years of Atheistic/theistic conflict will be resolved (I am being a little sarcastic here).

All that about "once the patterns cease the thing that is the consciousness itself continues to exist, but is forced into non-observable dimensions" can just as easily be a rationale for God. The leap is not that far. Star Trek did it. This changes the definition of afterlife btw.

I do have a bone to pick with one thing though. I am in no way changing the definition of atheism here. Atheists are still those who are (to use your words) "not theists". I am just saying that the mental structures and subsidiary positions a person has to take to be come an "atheists" negates every current argument and negates every current thinking about what we consider the afterlife to be. I am saying that the view points are incompatible. In order to get this to work you have to change the definition of afterlife or call your fellow "atheist" unintelligent/inconsistent/stupd to do it. You have to rely on exceptions. But the rule remains.
 
Atheism is built on the assumption that things that have no scientific evidence to support them are unworthy of belief. Since such evidence for the existence of afterlife is as non-existent as such evidence for Gods' existence, it would seem incompatible for an atheist to believe in an afterlife
Atheism means the "absence of a belief in a god".

But *why* don't you, or any atheist, believe that God exists?
Why should I?
 
You are saying that an atheist has to believe in something that's incompatible to hold both of these positions.
Whether the positions are compatible or not is irrelevant.

Again, if these beliefs were in a vacuum you may have a point but they are not.
Beliefs are not in a vacuum, and my point still stands.

There are several things which lead into any position we hold to be true.
For example, one can believe that there are no gods and that an afterlife exists, both based on those beliefs "just feeling right".

All I am saying is that if an someone calls themselves an atheists and lays out a completely compatible rationale for disbelieving in God but belief in an afterlife, then a minor miracle has occurred and five hundred years of Atheistic/theistic conflict will be resolved (I am being a little sarcastic here).
Is it possible for God(s) to exist and for an afterlife not to?

All that about "once the patterns cease the thing that is the consciousness itself continues to exist, but is forced into non-observable dimensions" can just as easily be a rationale for God. The leap is not that far. Star Trek did it. This changes the definition of afterlife btw.
Maybe it can be, but it doesn't demand it. What is your definition of "afterlife"?

I do have a bone to pick with one thing though. I am in no way changing the definition of atheism here. Atheists are still those who are (to use your words) "not theists".
Then you are changing the definition of "theist".

I am just saying that the mental structures and subsidiary positions a person has to take to be come an "atheists" negates every current argument and negates every current thinking about what we consider the afterlife to be.
What if a person doesn't believe in a god because his culture never taught him the concept, but he does believe in an afterlife.

I am saying that the view points are incompatible.
Maybe, but that's irrelevant.

In order to get this to work you have to change the definition of afterlife or call your fellow "atheist" unintelligent/inconsistent/stupd to do it.
Oh no! I can't possibly call a fellow member of the Atheist Order inconsistent!

You have to rely on exceptions. But the rule remains.
If there are exceptions then the rule is just a tendency, not a rule.
 
I have a theory I’d like to run by you people. Unhappy people are atheist, they want life to be over and hope that when you die that’s it; you just go to sleep forever. Happy people tend to look for someone to thank and turn to god; they like life and want more of it.

What the ****?
Listen, I'm an atheist ever since I was 19 (my family was Catholic). I'm happy I don't have to spend half my Sunday listening to ways how to go to hell now.
 
Whether the positions are compatible or not is irrelevant.

Beliefs are not in a vacuum, and my point still stands.

For example, one can believe that there are no gods and that an afterlife exists, both based on those beliefs "just feeling right".

Is it possible for God(s) to exist and for an afterlife not to?

Maybe it can be, but it doesn't demand it. What is your definition of "afterlife"?

Then you are changing the definition of "theist".

What if a person doesn't believe in a god because his culture never taught him the concept, but he does believe in an afterlife.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant.

Oh no! I can't possibly call a fellow member of the Atheist Order inconsistent!

If there are exceptions then the rule is just a tendency, not a rule.

You seem to have lost the thread of this discussion. It is not what people can or are allowed to think. People can think whatever they want. They can even believe they are atheists while also believing that God does exist.

The issue is whether being an atheist is logically compatible with believing in an afterlife. If you are arguing that an atheist can hold irrational and illogical beliefs, then you're not saying much.
 
Then why should an atheist believe in an afterlife?

If an atheist has no reason to believe in God, what reason do they have for believing in an afterlife?

Reincarnation.
Don't actually need a deity for that.
Plenty of Buddhists and Taoists believe in reincarnation without believing in a deity.

Afterlife means somewhere the "soul" or "spirit" goes after the body dies

And reincarnation doesn't necessarily have to happen in this universe.

So unless you believe that, lets say, the Christian Heaven,The Norse Asgard,or the Hellenic Paganism's Elysium Fields can be reached by a rocket ship,it stands to reason that those places are in their own alternate/parallel universes.

Believe in one parallel/alternate universe and there is really no reason not to believe in an infinite amount of universes (a multiverse).
 
Last edited:
Reincarnation.
Don't actually need a deity for that.
Plenty of Buddhists and Taoists believe in reincarnation without believing in a deity.

why should an atheist believe in an afterlife?

If an atheist has no reason to believe in God, what reason do they have for believing in an afterlife?

Pointing out that there are people who believe in something does not prove the rationality of their beliefs.
 
You seem to have lost the thread of this discussion. It is not what people can or are allowed to think. People can think whatever they want. They can even believe they are atheists while also believing that God does exist.

The issue is whether being an atheist is logically compatible with believing in an afterlife. If you are arguing that an atheist can hold irrational and illogical beliefs, then you're not saying much.
What are you talking about? How am I saying anything about what people are allowed to think? I am responding to the claim that a person who believes in an afterlife can't be an atheist.
 
Then why should an atheist believe in an afterlife?
If an atheist has no reason to believe in God, what reason do they have for believing in an afterlife?
I'm not saying an atheist should believe in an afterlife. I'm saying it is possible for an atheist to believe in an afterlife. An atheist could believe in an afterlife because of (for example) a near-death out-of-body experience.
 
why should an atheist believe in an afterlife?
Because they feel like it.
Because they want to.
Because it makes them happy.

Any of those reasons are good enough for me.
Is there a law that I am not aware of that says they cannot?
If an atheist want to believe in an afterlife that is his business,not mine.


If an atheist has no reason to believe in God, what reason do they have for believing in an afterlife?
Because they feel like it.
Because they want to.
Because it makes them happy.

Any of those reasons are good enough for me.
Is there a law that I am not aware of that says they cannot?
If an atheist want to believe in an afterlife that is his business,not mine.


That's why I love living in America.
You can believe in anything you want without being forced to explain it.

Pointing out that there are people who believe in something does not prove the rationality of their beliefs.

That is true.

Are you asking millions of Buddhists and Taoists to prove the rationality of their beliefs?
I think that would use up a lot of this forums bandwidth.

Since I answered all your questions to the best of my abilities mind if I ask you a question?

What do you believe in and can you prove the rationality of your beliefs?

You have my attention.
 
Last edited:
Whether the positions are compatible or not is irrelevant.

This is as far as I read because this is the stupidest sentence I have read in a while. I am sorry if you take my statement personally and I thought long and hard about how to say but it just boggles my mind. I will allow that it was late at night; maybe you weren't really thinking straight. Or maybe you didn't like my sarcasm which was not directed against you btw? If you state that the positions are in compatible then it is very much relevant. I am not going to address the straw-man argument that I am changing a definition when I have clearly shown that I have not and you have shown nothing to support this argument other than claim it.

Why is it so hard for you to realize that "atheists" who believe in an afterlife are not atheists at all? They are have moved themselves into theism by their stated beliefs. If a person states that your soul will go to some heaven after you die (or maybe reincarnated) or says a person can live on after life, then those beliefs fall into theism and religion. If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers like a duck, then its a duck. And if the duck is anthropomorphic, then we can still call it duck even after it says its a swan.
 
Last edited:
"atheists" who believe in an afterlife are not atheists at all? They are have moved themselves into theism by their stated beliefs. If a person states that your soul will go to some heaven after you die (or maybe reincarnated) or says a person can live on after life, then those beliefs fall into theism and religion.

As explained, you define atheism/theism is some very strange way. Go ahead and define theism like that if you want but few if anyone else does which will just create communication problems in the future for you.

As presented by many dictionaries, theism/atheism says nothing about an afterlife. theism/atheism is JUST about a belief in gods. Notice NONE of the definitions say anything about an afterlife.

Theism | Define Theism at Dictionary.com
1. the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
 
As explained, you define atheism/theism is some very strange way. Go ahead and define theism like that if you want but few if anyone else does which will just create communication problems in the future for you.

As presented by many dictionaries, theism/atheism says nothing about an afterlife. theism/atheism is JUST about a belief in gods. Notice NONE of the definitions say anything about an afterlife.

Theism | Define Theism at Dictionary.com


Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

I like how you have from changed from "I am changing the definition of atheism" to now "you are changing the definition of "theism/atheism." The goal posts are moving on your argument. Just one problem, the afterlife has been incorporated into theistic teaching and has been the sole teacher of it for some time now. There is no atheistic model for the afterlife but there are very defined theistic ones. So either you can continue this semantic game or you can come to realize that atheists who believes in the afterlife is not an atheists at all.
 
I might add that theism does not require a Christian like deity. Buddhism is a theism but it has no defined concept of God.
 
I'm not saying an atheist should believe in an afterlife. I'm saying it is possible for an atheist to believe in an afterlife. An atheist could believe in an afterlife because of (for example) a near-death out-of-body experience.

Why would an atheist think an out of body experience is a sign of an afterlife when there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of an afterlife? The OOB experience may have been caused by physiological changes in the brain.
 
Because they feel like it.
Because they want to.
Because it makes them happy.

Any of those reasons are good enough for me.
Is there a law that I am not aware of that says they cannot?
If an atheist want to believe in an afterlife that is his business,not mine.

You seem to have lost the thread of this discussion. It is not what people can or are allowed to think. People can think whatever they want. They can even believe they are atheists while also believing that God does exist.

The issue is whether being an atheist is logically compatible with believing in an afterlife. If you are arguing that an atheist can hold irrational and illogical beliefs, then you're not saying much.



Because they feel like it.
Because they want to.
Because it makes them happy.

Any of those reasons are good enough for me.
Is there a law that I am not aware of that says they cannot?
If an atheist want to believe in an afterlife that is his business,not mine.


That's why I love living in America.
You can believe in anything you want without being forced to explain it.

You seem to have lost the thread of this discussion. It is not what people can or are allowed to think. People can think whatever they want. They can even believe they are atheists while also believing that God does exist.

The issue is whether being an atheist is logically compatible with believing in an afterlife. If you are arguing that an atheist can hold irrational and illogical beliefs, then you're not saying much.

That is true.

Are you asking millions of Buddhists and Taoists to prove the rationality of their beliefs?
I think that would use up a lot of this forums bandwidth.

No, I am asking for the rationalization of an atheist believing in the afterlife.

Since I answered all your questions to the best of my abilities mind if I ask you a question?

What do you believe in and can you prove the rationality of your beliefs?

You have my attention.

I can't list all the things I believe in in one internet posting. I'm not even going to try, but I will say that I believe in God and I have a logical reason for believing so, so my belief is "rational".
 
I might add that theism does not require a Christian like deity. Buddhism is a theism but it has no defined concept of God.

Buddhism is non-theistic. A Buddhist can believe in a God, or not believe. Either way, their belief can be compatible with Buddhism
 
Back
Top Bottom