The "afterlife"

[Olly1990]

Just thought I would try this from an atheists point-of-view as this has always perplexed me!
When I was young, I was bought up as a christian and was quite happy till I realised some big truths. Do these guys in robes really know what happens when we die? On from this, I started thinking about how eternal afterlife would work. As functional human beings, we are programmed to expect everything to have a beginning and an end (hence why we came up with theories like the big bang etc) yet can you actually think of something not ending? I know it can be summed up from an atheist point of view by saying there is no such thing as an afterlife but I am doing this as an observation on how Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. view and explain our lives and deaths. ;)
In the words of the Simpsons, "Wouldn't eternal life get boring after a while??!!" :blink:

Any comments??

[Connolly]

Olly, trust me, I would love if there was an afterlife.

However - to believe in it is to leave yourself open to every single supernatural possibility.

Do you believe cats can talk english?........cause I cant prove they cant.

Do you believe pencils can walk.....cause I cant prove they cant.

Do you believe everything around you exists, including me typing the post?........cause you cant prove I do,or that anything exists.

You see what im saying?

Being materialists (Marxist), we must only believe in what we can prove or assume logically is true.

The after life is not only illogical, but without a shred of evidence.

Therefore - banish such ideas from your head.

If you dont, your emotions and wants are clouding your logical understanding of anything. And during hard times, (a death), you will turn towards Gods and afterlifes and whatever else to comfort yourself.

Turning to things that are not logical, can leave you anywhere.

[Dyst]

Being materialists (Marxist), we must only believe in what we can prove or assume logically is true.

That is, unless you are also interested in philosophy. Then, your definition of marxism is clearly contradicting with the act of philosophizing at all.

Eternal time means never ending. So I guess you can see it as the same as believing in an infinite universe. Infinity is everything.

[loveme4whoiam]

I find it hard to understand people who accept having a shitty life while they are living in order to have a better one in the "afterlife". For example, there was an episode of ER (my sister watches it, don't start :P) in which a 15 year old was raped, and her highly Catholic parents were going to force her to keep it because "it was against God's Will". So, they are going to sacrifice her entire future and life in order to please a being that hasn't been proven to exist, in order to make sure they are happy in a life that hasn't been proven to follow this one. A logical person ensures that their life they are living niw is as good as possible, because you can't predict what comes after, if anything.

[Connolly]

That is, unless you are also interested in philosophy. Then, your definition of marxism is clearly contradicting with the act of philosophizing at all.

Please, 'enlighten' me as to how the PHILOSOPHICAL assumtion of materialism contradicts the PHILOSOPHICAL assumtion as to the correctness of Marxism.

Other than this - I fail to understand whats being said.

[Dyst]

Your definition of what materialism is, contradicts with one being able to philosophize.

It does not allow one to think behind things, see if there could be other ways to define what we already know as "obvious" for example.

And being a materialist does not automatically make you a marxist.

You said:

Being materialists (Marxist), we must only believe in what we can prove or assume logically is true.

[Connolly]

It does not allow one to think behind things, see if there could be other ways to define what we already know as "obvious" for example.

From my understanding, what I said does not contradict our ability to understanding the unknown - but, to believe in what we assume to be most logical.

I assume cats cannot talk english, based on observation, history and modern science (not that im an expert on all, or any).

I cannot prove this however, and if there is some scientific discovery that says that cats are infact capable of speaking english - my logical assumtion will change.

My philosophic, logical assumtion, is that nothing but matter exists. I maintain my interest of philosophy, of all types, allowing me to see other logical assumtions that may arise.

Its not logical to accept something without any basis, so I will go on observation and senses.

How is this contradictory?


aAnd being materialist does not automatically make you a marxist.

Very Very true.........it was rather to point out my own position.

But you are right :D

[Comrade J]

Any belief in a 'perfect' or better existence after death obviously hinders any form of revolution, it simply causes people to accept that there oppressed lives are merely a stepping stone on the way to eternal happiness.

And as for a cat speaking English, based on the shape of the cat's tongue muscle and the structure of the cat's larynx, can we not state as a fact that cats do NOT speak English? Then again, I suppose someone (and they'd have to be crazy) would argue that cats in fact possess magical powers, and their soul speaks English. :D

[Eleutherios]

Well, if God exists, he can do anything, even make cats speak English when we're not around. This is the fundamental incompatibility between faith in God and science. If you believe in God, then the laws of physics can be broken whenever and wherever God wants, so any observation can be attributed to the hand of God. You never know if he interfered with your observations or not, since "the Lord works in mysterious ways" and since all gods for some reason never come out and show themselves when they do stuff.

"With God, all things are possible" indeed. Even the ridiculously absurd like talking cats (or talking evil snakes for that matter).

[Comrade J]

"With God, all things are possible" indeed. Even the ridiculously absurd like talking cats (or talking evil snakes for that matter).

Aaah but to be fair, it wasn't actually a real talking snake. It was in fact a fallen angel cast from heaven, posing as an evil talking snake.
Obviously much more logical :D

[Dyst]

Interestingly enough to think about:

If the universe is infinitely large, everything exists within it.

Including cats talking english. And cats talking swedish with an accent of german. :D

[red team]

Incidentally when your brain slowly dies your neurons fire chaotically which makes you experience seizures. This is the origin of the white tunnel of light effect and going through all your memories. just so you know you're not reaching heaven or anything like that. But, you can still enjoy the experience while it lasts.

[Eleutherios]

It's true. The same effects are observed when they subject fighter pilots to high G-forces in centrifuge testing, even though there's no chance of death.

[Olly1990]

So, if there is generally a view of undecidedness, why do I or anyone else ask the question? We have the consiousness that we will not be here forever but what drives this feeling? We cannot either reject or employ the ideas of an afterlife because both cannot be proven. I agree with living in the now and sorting out our worlds problems without thinking of the eternal, I just get very brainfogged when the idea of the eternal is debated! The idea of neverending bliss or hell in the semetic views (primarily) is hard to accept so why do people accept it? Are they scared of the future? Do they need reassurance that the life of "preparation" is all for a sacred goal?

Any views? :blink:

[Ele'ill]

The science vs religion debate is always a good one. But often the two are too polarized with no effort made to connect the dots. We still experience the unexplainable, is it super natural or is it science? Ghosts, alien life, egyptian technology, worm holes and time travel. The scientific proof is being gathered slowly. For all we know, 'Area51' and other secret military/science facilities are used to study these sciences. I don't like following mainstream religion, or mainstream anything really. We refuse to believe in afterlife because there is no proof, yet there is no proof that it does not exist. There may be a large twist coming into play in the near future. It will be science, not religion, that will finally show us the unimaginable exists.

[Eleutherios]

Ghosts, alien life, egyptian technology, worm holes and time travel. The scientific proof is being gathered slowly.
You have scientific proof that ghosts and aliens exist?! Please do share.

EDIT: FYI, if you can present scientific proof of ghosts, James Randi will give you $1,000,000: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html


We refuse to believe in afterlife because there is no proof, yet there is no proof that it does not exist.
There's also no proof of a "before-life", and there's no proof of reincarnation, and there's no proof that we don't live our lives on repeat (so that when we die we go back in time to our births).

But the idea of an afterlife seems to me extremely implausible. Think about it. All the scientific evidence suggests that the phenomena of consciousness and awareness originate in the brain. When somebody loses some brain cells, they lose some of their memory and personality. When somebody loses a lot of brain cells, they lose a lot of their memory and personality. When somebody loses all their brain cells (i.e. they die), suddenly the person's memories and personalities come back and they're transformed into an undetectable parallel universe of "soul stuff"? It seems much more plausible that they simply lose all their memory and personality. Awareness and consciousness can't outlive the brain any more than heartbeat can outlive the heart.

[anomaly]

I highly doubt any after life exists. But it one does, I'll be sure to tell everyone when I'm gone. :lol:

[Olly1990]

That is the irony!! We can only know for sure what exists after we die, by then of course, we cannot tell anyone! It is a paradox that to have concious understanding of the afterlife, we need to die first! So how can science or religion explain an afterlife? :unsure:

[Eleutherios]

Religion can't give us the answer because it's founded on faith, the belief in things for which there is no evidence.

Science, however, can shed some light on the issue. We can't know for sure, because it's science and in science you can never claim absolute truth. We're always dealing with relative probabilities. Nothing is known for certain. But sometimes the evidence is so strongly in favor of a theory that the alternatives can simply be ignored. Like the round earth theory for example.

So what does the wealth of scientific evidence have to say about the possibility of our consciousness surviving death? Well, from what we can tell, consciousness is the result of the chemicals and neurons of the brain acting according to the laws of physics. We can correlate certain states of consciousness and thought patterns with certain patterns of measured brain activity. From this data we can map the brain out and show specifically what areas of the brain handle what aspects of consciousness and thinking. And when we observe people getting damaged in a part of the brain, they lose the capability to perform the tasks associated with it. When children are born with brain abnormalities, these are associated with abnormalities in personality and cognition.

All this evidence points to the idea that consciousness is solely the product of brain activity, and nothing more. When the brain dies, consciousness seems to die too. As with all things we can never be absolutely certain, but the soul theory of consciousness is so ridiculously implausible that it can be ignored for all practical purposes.

[Olly1990]

I agree with the fact that science can give solid, proven facts but it cannot say what is actually beyond existence-no one can which is why religion can be misleading on the subject. The paradox of existence is what interests me most. How can we try to explain with solid evidence that heaven exists or does not exist?
:huh:

[Dyst]

There exists nothing other than objective material reality (obviously).

Therefore we can use sciences that apply everywhere, such as physics and mathematics, to try and explain even that which might at first seem unexplainable.

Note that all I am saying is that something that is not objective, material reality is in fact nothing.

[Eleutherios]

Exactly. What does it mean to say something exists if it has no measurable impact on the objective, observable universe? As Thomas Jefferson put it:

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise."

[Ele'ill]

There's also no proof of a "before-life", and there's no proof of reincarnation, and there's no proof that we don't live our lives on repeat (so that when we die we go back in time to our births).

There is no proof that these places in time do not exist. We consider certain things to be ridiculous or implausible today. Think of the technology we have today and the scientific understanding we have today, and how it would have been viewed fifty years ago, three hundred years ago. As I said, I dislike believing in anything with blind faith however to disregard the unexplainable is to deny ourselves further learning and understanding of our universe. Space time, worm holes and other neat stuff that science has only begun to touch on (that we know of). Technically, through science, we could create the unimaginable. We could create a heaven and a hell, we could create aliens and everything else. Maybe we already have, I don't know.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is no proof that these places in time do not exist.

Do you know how silly it is to try to prove a negative? One can provide endless rationalisations as to why one cannot prove something doesn't exist. Negatives are not falsifiable. When you posit something, it is up to you to prove it exists, not the other guy to prove it doesn't.


We consider certain things to be ridiculous or implausible today. Think of the technology we have today and the scientific understanding we have today, and how it would have been viewed fifty years ago, three hundred years ago.

That's an appeal to the ignorance of the past.


As I said, I dislike believing in anything with blind faith however to disregard the unexplainable is to deny ourselves further learning and understanding of our universe.

If it can't be reliably explained, it's existance is dubious at best.


Space time, worm holes and other neat stuff that science has only begun to touch on (that we know of).

We know that spacetime exists because we can observe it and it behaves in a predictable manner. Wormholes have yet to be proven to exist.


Technically, through science, we could create the unimaginable.

If we can't imagine it, how can we create except through accident?


We could create a heaven and a hell, we could create aliens and everything else.

Even if we could, why would we want to?


Maybe we already have, I don't know.

I very much doubt it.

[Invader Zim]

The idea of a creator, I personally find to be nonsensical, however I can if I bring my self to it understand where people are coming from, even if I disagree. However when we get onto nonsense like the 'afterlife' I am sorry to say that the religious lose me utterly. I can understand why they want there to be one, to address their insecurities and fears of the unknown horizon of death, but I see no reason at all to believe it for even a second.

[Ele'ill]

Do you know how silly it is to try to prove a negative? One can provide endless rationalisations as to why one cannot prove something doesn't exist. Negatives are not falsifiable. When you posit something, it is up to you to prove it exists, not the other guy to prove it doesn't

There is very little evidence that scientific phenomenon, that we havn't discovered yet, doesn't exist, just as there is very little evidence that it does exist.


That's an appeal to the ignorance of the past

The ignorance of the past, regardless of how far back in time, is still an indicator of how much has yet to be understood in current times. We are always learning and discovering.


We know that spacetime exists because we can observe it and it behaves in a predictable manner. Wormholes have yet to be proven to exist.

There is still a lot to be discovered.


If we can't imagine it, how can we create except through accident?

Unimaginable because we dont' always know what we will uncover or learn or how we will use it. When we see the results than obviously we will know.


Even if we could, why would we want to?

I agree with you and never suggested that we would want to use what we can create.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 05:27 PM
I agree with the fact that science can give solid, proven facts but it cannot say what is actually beyond existence-no one can which is why religion can be misleading on the subject. The paradox of existence is what interests me most. How can we try to explain with solid evidence that heaven exists or does not exist?
:huh:
The truth is, we just don't know. If you want to believe in these idealistic ideas, I must ask why. There is not a scrap of evidence supporting them. So, rather than 'thinking' about such a silly thing, let us use the principle of economy: any 'afterlife' has absolutely no impact upon this life (which we are sure we have), so there is no benefit in talking about, no purpose talking about it. We just 'cut it out' of the theory. And, after you cut all idealism out, what are you left with? Material reality. This, and only this, warrants our 'belief'.

[Axel1917]

All lifeforms are made of material components. The soul is said to be immaterial. You can't have a lifeform made of nothing. All sensation is due to material components of the body. No material parts=no sensation.

Religion will die a natural death once peoples' lives are not subject to blind market forces and such, in addition to the advancement of science and the elimination of capitalsim will get rid of people like Pat Robertson manipulating religion to use it as a tool of Bourgeois dictatorship.

[red team]

This issue is quite simple to settle.

Does anybody remember the first moment after they're born?

Certainly impossible.

It's more likely that you start remember things after you realize something called a "me". If there's no "me" you can't remember anything. Personally I realize "me" at around two years old so I won't be able to remember anything past that. That only goes to show that you can only have a personality after you grow enough brain cells for self-awareness. The inverse of this means if you lose enough brain cells you lose "you", so it has absolutely nothing to do with a soul. That's just unprovable crap made up by religionists.

[Ele'ill]

That only goes to show that you can only have a personality after you grow enough brain cells for self-awareness. The inverse of this means if you lose enough brain cells you lose "you", so it has absolutely nothing to do with a soul. That's just unprovable crap made up by religionists.

The afterlife doesn't occur before you're created and we are talking about the afterlife. I'm not very religious, however there are probably sciences that we do not yet understand or even know about. If you believe in energy fields and such, which have been proven to exist, It would be fairly safe to say that baby's energy fields do not have the complex signatures that an adult's would. Maybe the 'soul' is some form of energy that simple travels and never dies. It doesn't have to be religious heaven or hell type of stuff. Maybe the afterlife is more natural than we think.

[Eleutherios]

"Energy" is one of those words that religionists and pseudoscientists like to abuse. When a scientist talks about energy, he is referring to one specific form of matter that has certain measurable properties and can be converted to mass. If there was a "soul" made of energy, it would be easily detectable. If we can't detect it, locate it and measure it, it is not made of energy in any meaningful scientific way.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:01 AM

That only goes to show that you can only have a personality after you grow enough brain cells for self-awareness. The inverse of this means if you lose enough brain cells you lose "you", so it has absolutely nothing to do with a soul. That's just unprovable crap made up by religionists.

The afterlife doesn't occur before you're created and we are talking about the afterlife. I'm not very religious, however there are probably sciences that we do not yet understand or even know about. If you believe in energy fields and such, which have been proven to exist, It would be fairly safe to say that baby's energy fields do not have the complex signatures that an adult's would. Maybe the 'soul' is some form of energy that simple travels and never dies. It doesn't have to be religious heaven or hell type of stuff. Maybe the afterlife is more natural than we think.
Energy quickly dissipates without a container so even if what you say is correct, I seriously doubt this as I think it has more to do with body chemistry for the (minimal) electrical energy observed, it would quickly dissipate into useless low-level radiation once the body dies. Energy dissipates in all directions without a container. This is true even for most powerful radar systems nevermind the puny human body.

[Ele'ill]

If we can't detect it, locate it and measure it, it is not made of energy in any meaningful scientific way.


Energy dissipates in all directions without a container. This is true even for most powerful radar systems nevermind the puny human body

I was using 'energy' as a generic term for unexplained or not very well understood matter and such. I am not a scientist.
Ok, so we know everything about science; Ever. There will be no major break throughs in this field ever again.

[Eleutherios]

There will be breakthroughs in the future, no doubt. But now is not the time to speculate about them, since they are likely far beyond our current comprehension. Who could have imagined quantum physics 100 years ago? Who could have conceived of general relativity 200 years ago? What we will find will probably be very strange and unlike anything we ever expected.

Besides, if such discoveries will be made in a scientific manner, you are essentially conceding that they are entirely natural proceses. If anything can be observed and quantified through scientific experimentation, it is by definition part of the natural world and can't be supernatural.

If we do find some kind of "unexplained or not very well understood matter" that seems to encode a person's personality and memories after their death, it would be an incredible discovery. However, the idea of an immortal soul seems to be incredibly implausible based on what we know about information theory, brain chemistry and entropy, and as long as there is not one shred of evidence for it, it will be nothing more than wishful thinking.

[chaval]

hey i dont think anyone really answered the question


As functional human beings, we are programmed to expect everything to have a beginning and an end (hence why we came up with theories like the big bang etc) yet can you actually think of something not ending?

so in an afterlife as religion puts it there is no concept of time, time does not exist cause time is a property of this world/universe not whatever the afterlife is so basically since or brains are geared for 'time' its impossible to comprehend

[Eleutherios]

Most of the theists I've met don't think that way. They think that people in the afterlife are going along a timeline parallel to our own. For example, they seem to think that dead people they knew are watching over them and following the events of their lives, and they don't think people who will die in the future are watching over them. They tell me that the afterlife is "eternal", not "without time". Things change in heaven with the passage of time, because new souls are constantly arriving.

[Disciple of Prometheus]

The concept of the afterlife came about because most people can not, will not, or don't want to except that this is all there is, there is nothing more. The afterlife gives comfort because it means that what we do here matters, that were not just here existing, and without this people feel that there life is "meaningless," and other dreary feelings. It also says that you will be able to see dear old grandma again, if your a good lil' boy, and follow god. It also give people a sense of revenge meaning that people like Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, and other modern day villains have a spot in hell, and will be punished for their wrong doings, and not just get away "scot-free," because people don't want to think that Ghandi, and Hitler both ended up in the same place (the earth). While the afterlife of the middle-eastern religions (judaism, islam, christianity, Zoroastrianism, etc.) say that the hereafter will be eternal, a lot of pre-christian pagan religions said that we will eventually fade away. I think fear drives the "eternal afterlife," theories, because people don't want this to end, it is a reaction to the mortal fear. Also for the reincarnation faiths, in a poverty stricken country, it is a lot better to think you might have been a king in the past life or next, than just the "meager peasant," that you are presently.