On the lunacy of free will

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Even without full knowledge/understanding of what happens after death, it still makes more sense to consider the afterlife as opposed to not considering it, because it it turns out there's no afterlife, you lose nothing, whereas if there is an afterlife, you might possibly be in a better position to get what you want out of it, because you might be more prepared for it.

So you think it makes more sense to "consider an afterlife as opposed to not".

The problem is that the religion-inspired alternatives you consider are black / white. Ie. either Christianity is correct, and a soul is "created by God" at time of conception and then evolves / grows in your body until time of death at which point it goes into the afterlife (either the rat infested sewer or penthouse suite with 24/7 view of the nudist colony), or Christianity isn't correct and there may not be an afterlife. 

So let me introduce this: Do you think it also makes more sense to consider a "before life" as opposed to not? And if not, why? I know the magic book doesn't mention it, but to anyone who doesn't believe in the magic book's relevance, this train of thought is just as valid a consideration for me as Atheist when "hedging my bets" :-) 

For example - death does not scare me. I fear death only for the worldly experiences that I may miss out on, however I fully expect that if I am fortunate enough to grow to a reasonable age, I will be quite happy to shuffle of the coil knowing that I have experienced everything there is to experience. In the words of Mark Twain: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

---

Sorry to be a noodge   "----there is probably no afterlife" 

 To say "there is no afterlife" is to make an affirming claim. That attracts the burden of proof just as much as claiming there is an after life.  This is a hard row to hoe.  As far as I'm aware, all claims about god(s) and an afterlife (at least) remain unfalsifiable. IE so far no one in recorded history no one has managed to demonstrate that any claims are true.

As for the lottery, I stopped buying lottery tickets when I realised the kind of odds needed to win a huge amount. Have always thought gambling is mug's game and that includes all kinds of lotteries.  Imo, multi million dollar lotteries are just a sneaky way of taxing the poor.

 These days I have no need for more money. I'm perfectly content with my standard of living. If I won a lot of money I'd just give it away, perhaps after buying a Beemer and a Porsche Boxster.

However, I'd buy tickets if first prize was my body as it was at 21 (army, thin and buff) with my brain at say age 50.  Now those are worth winning!

So, would you write that "there probably isn't a real Santa Claus" or would you write that "there is no Santa Claus". There is equal evidence for both Santa and an afterlife (actually i would argue the proof of Santa's existence is much greater, actually), however you believe that somehow because enough people wish for it and they are told by a magic book that it is so, that an afterlife requires more consideration?

The facts are that there is exactly zero evidence for a claim of an afterlife. In fact, all material evidence points to the fact that thoughts, memory and consciousness exist as pure electrical currents within synapses of your brain which require a physical body vessel to function. To probability that at your time of death, somehow the physical construct which has faithfully (excuse pun) enabled and supported all of these functions in their entirety throughout your life can be completely removed, but the entire gig can continue with your thoughts, emotions, memory continuing seamlessly uninterrupted, is infinitesimally unlikely and has a HUGE burden of proof, not an inkling of which exists.

 
   I actually say I'm about as certain as I can be there is no Santa. This conclusion arrived when I was five and saw mummy and daddy putting out our presents. they didn't see me)  When I was six mummy explained that I needed to be modest with things I asked for because mummy and daddy had to pay for them. I continued to pretend to believe in Santa fort several more years, lest the presents stop arriving .

A sceptic, I try to avoid claims of certitude.

The argument that there's no proof of a thing means it doesn't exist won't cut it, as I tried to explain in my last post.  Put simpler, an absence of evidence implies (suggests) an actual absence . What it does not do is infer (conclude) and actual absence. See Russell's teapot, linked below.


"Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

As for before or not.  I will consider either one if there is a demonstration of truth either way. So far there isn't, so I'm unable to believe either. I admit to leaning toward 'not' because of a very short conversation I once had with an actual astro physicist I know socially.  I asked : "What was there before the Big Bang?"   His reply was; "There was no before"  IE time and space came into being at that time.  He continued, but lost me after about 30 seconds.