Why do some atheists think there's nothing after death when there is no less reason to suppose there is something than...

Fucking p-zombie faggot

On the sofa, using the computer to play on Veeky Forums.

yes, that's how the scientific method works

you discard that and yet you greentext my posts with brainlet memes?

>scientific method is for the proving or disproving of things that exist outside of the physical world

if you have no evidence to support something exists how can you insist that it does?

when did i insist that the soul exists?

There's actually plenty reason to suppose there's nothing, starting with the most obvious - no brain activity after death.
Then you think about credibility of the people offering the idea that there's something afterwards. How badly must people want "more life"? You can presume anyone who believes there is, just can't understand or handle "you only get one".

Death and nothing afterward is the default. Life afterwards is an extraordinary assertion - you need to provide evidence. The fact that it happened once at all is extraordinary, why should it continue after we've died, rotted away and become soil and such?

are you not?

What's "outside the physical world" mean?
Even your imagination is a product of physical processes.

i said you can't rely on the scientific method to disprove the existence of things that exist outside of our physical reality.

>Even your imagination is a product of physical processes.
do you have proof of this?

the firing of particular synapses when having different types of thoughts is both observable and predictable

If life continues after death - who does that life belong to? Your body rots and becomes one with the earth. Some people spread their ashes into the ocean. Where does the life go?
Either it's anchored to a soul or it belongs to everything. In which case, does it ever stop living? Then what's the significance of it beginning *after* you die or even "continuing"? It would simply "be".
And if EVERYTHING is life, then nothing is. It has no significant definition. It doesn't mean anything to say my glass cup is alive AND the moth getting confused and smacking into the window is alive.

but where is your proof that these things are causing the thoughts and not caused by the thoughts?

what do you mean?

>what do you mean?

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought#Biology
You're having a conversation with big boys, you're expected to use words.
Set up your definitions, because we're obviously not talking about the same thing. Your question doesn't make sense otherwise.
>where is your proof that the grand canyon carved the colorado river and not the other way around?

You don't have to think long to realize this universe is either the creation of some insane malevolent entity or the result of the laws of physics and natural selection. Sentience is literally torture.

the brain processes physical stimuli and sends it to the(non-physical) soul to experience. thoughts originate in the soul and are sent to the brain all at once from the soul's perspective(because the soul exists outside of time), the brain then arranges them in relation to the goings on in the physical world and sends them back to the soul in an order that makes logical sense.

What's the slightest shred of evidence (using any methodology you like other than making stuff up off the top of your head) for that?

Because maybe, just maybe, there is just plain and simple nothing. That's it.

Why do you assume there even is a "you" to continue existing?

it's just speculation on my part, but i have good reason to believe it's true. unfortunately not only is it not really provable, but my reasoning for believing it's true is also completely incommunicable so you will just have to be patient and wait for the correct physical stimuli to reach your brain and be sent back to your soul in an order that convinces you it's true.

>it's just speculation on my part, but i have good reason to believe it's true.

What are the good reasons to believe it is true?

I consider myself a rational man, and therefore live with Pascal's wager in mind along with a healthy dose of indifference towards the metaphysical. You should try it, it's great, and lets you focus your attention on things of perceivable significance.

>Blaise Pascal is accosted by a mugger who has forgotten his weapon. However, the mugger proposes a deal: the philosopher gives him his wallet, and in exchange the mugger will return twice the amount of money tomorrow. Pascal declines, pointing out that it is unlikely the deal will be honoured. The mugger then continues naming higher rewards, pointing out that even if it is just one chance in 1000 that he will be honourable, it would make sense for Pascal to make a deal for a 2000 times return. Pascal responds that the probability for that high return is even lower than one in 1000. The mugger argues back that for any low probability of being able to pay back a large amount of money (or pure utility) there exists a finite amount that makes it rational to take the bet – and given human fallibility and philosophical scepticism a rational person must admit there is at least some non-zero chance that such a deal would be possible. The mugger succeeds by promising Pascal 1,000 quadrillion happy days of life. Convinced by the argument, Pascal gives the mugger the wallet.