This girl I'm seeing is a staunch atheist and believes with certainty that there is no chance of any sort of afterlife. She also says that it's scientifically irresponsible to entertain the idea that there is any chance of it. I feel that we can't know, and just by the fact that we have such a vague understanding of consciousness (and because, to me, everything seems so god damn rigged), there is a non-negligible chance of an afterlife of some sort, be it your consciousness dispersing throughout the universe, finding out that I am actually god, whatever.

It seems like a waste of time to try to come up with the logical arguments for my position of afterlife-non-negligibleness when people smarter than I have been at it for centuries. This girl really respects Dawkins et al., so I think an appeal to their authority would carry water with her. The problem is that I can't find any condensed information on what their positions are. I even watched a debate on youtube called "Is there an afterlife," and I was frustrated to see that never does Chris or Sam explicitly say what chance they ascribe to there being an afterlife, or whether or not they believe it's knowable information.

I feel that the good people of this forum must know what these guys' thoughts on the afterlife are, so I come to you. If you can direct me to any links, much appreciated. Or if there are some other thinkers you know of with compelling arguments against the position that we just disappear forever, I would love to hear it.

You cannot assign a probability to completely unknown phenomenon. It's like asking what's the probability of a Zippertonomca existing. It's a totally meaningless question. Now, we do know something about consciousness and how the brain works, so I'll let Sam Harris summarize:

Why not just live your life the way you want? If there's an afterlife it'll take care of itself and if there isn't.....well you won't know any better.

the idea that there is an after life is wishful thinking. it would be pretty nice if we get to live again but there's no evidence it's true.

ultimately we don't know what life is. there might be more to it than meets the eye. but i think that the best attitude is to assume there is no after life. maybe people who think they will live forever don't make the most out of the one life that they really have.

Life is an after life; the world before you lived is the world after you die.

There is an afterlife, but it depends on your understanding of the word. The electricity in your brain dissipates, your body dies, and you rot away. But technically, the particles that make up you are not destroyed, they're just changed into new particles. Likewise, if we go back far enough we're all made of stardust (thank you Neil Degrasse Tyson, who got that from someone else). Either way, assuming you view the world strictly by things we know, the electricity gives function to an organ that produces what we view as ourselves. When we die the electricity dissipates, the organ deteriorates, and everything that made you eventually becomes something else.

You can't prove something that can't be tested, and the afterlife cannot be tested. But, if someone views the world through science, they would probably accept that the afterlife is the changing of our particles to sustain other creatures or create objects, etc. Through science that's what the afterlife is, and outside of that there is nothing, unless you believe that there is a immaterial thing in humans that gives them their spark of life, or a soul.

There's no epistemological basis to assume for a certainty that there is no life after death. There's every reason to believe that there isn't however, and I believe absolutely and expect nothing post death. But claiming/assuming It's impossible is unscientific and irrational.

Poker Gaming and Life. Last chapter.

I'm really curious, what videogames have you started or were playing for money? And was it just a form of betting? Also curious on what it is you said exactly, but I guess I'd have to buy the book.

Anything's possible; also arguing about being an atheist positions vs hardcore atheist positions sounds like a really tedious basis for a relationship.

That quote is from the debate that I said in the OP I watched. I'm aware of the arguments against an afterlife; I am aware there is no concrete evidence for it.

I don't agree that you cannot assign probability to unknown phenomena. It's guesswork, by definition, but you can do it. And intelligent people would agree that there is a higher probability of an afterlife than there is of whatever mythical monster that you're referring to. If someone walked up to you and held up a canvas bag and asked you if there were any grapes inside it, it's an unknown phenomenon to you, but you could hazard a guess and assign a probability using whatever analytical faculties and peripheral indicators are at your disposal.

Can anyone cite Dawkins, et al.'s positions on this? Do they have anything more substantial to say than that there is no evidence for it?

Given no other information (this includes your location in the universe) I don't think you could assign a probability to the grape question. If you are in a vineyard this of course changes. Can a mathematician chime in?

You don't anything more 'substantial'. You do the exact same thing when dismissing the existence of, lets say, unicorns. You should not accept any claim, whether its an afterlife or unicorns, until there is sufficient evidence to do so.

Been thinking a lot about relationships lately. Have even been putting things down on paper about it.

I think that our values are our atttractive assets. Not our looks, or anything else. Almost every bad relationship I have been in was a direct result of conflicting and non-compatible values.

Makes sense, no? If you are in a relationship with a woman whose career and social advancement comes first in her heirarchical system of values, and your career comes third, say, behind honesty and courage, then you have a real f'n problem. One body with two heads.

Or one flesh with two hearts. A person cannot serve two masters, Jesus said. A house divided against itself cannot stand, Jesus said.

I think you know what I'm saying.

How would you feel about an afterlife were your memory didn't take the trip so to speak. People forget things when there still "alive" what makes you think they will stick around after your brain is dust. For me my memories are a big part of what I call "living", IOW part of what I call being alive, otherwise I am just a vessel that can perceive things but not attach it to anything, and would you call that alive? even suppose this vessel had feelings, would it be alive? because that doesn't seem too impressive a task for even a computer (future computer but i digress). Hold on now, switch it around, imagine having memory but not the ability to perceive things (I should add its not just perceiving things but perceiving you perceive them.) Would that be alive? because I am pretty sure computers can already do that.

Now let me ask you another question. If humans were capable to create something that is living. Lets assume its a robot but non the less still alive by our definition. Would this machine have life after its destruction?

There is an afterlife. Die and have yourself frozen. Be contained in a safe area for a couple of thousand years. Voila.

Actually the freezing process destroys the cells. THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE!!! GOD IS DEAD! FREE TIBET!

That's just a minor technological obstacle in the space of a few thousand years. THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE AFTER ALL!!! REJOICE MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS!

By then we'll all be immortal! NO AFTERLIFE!!! ETERNITY IN AN UNDYING BODY!!!

Yeah memory has to be there, otherwise it is pointless--at least in the way most people think of the afterlife.