Is there life after death?

BenedrylPete

Theres no life without death.

So if theres life after death, you can still die in the afterlife.

Its all very confusing and scary.

Just numb the pain with lolcats and chocolate in the meantime.
Questions bad youtube good.

kowloon

In a past life I was an accountant from Leeds. No historical heroes or royalty for me.

Why do humans need to believe in life after death that is a much more interesting question?

Despite the fact that organised religion has largely fallen away in a lot of western society it has reappeared in a different form, all sorts of new age beliefs, myths, other ways of knowing and so on.

Human consciousness must have a need for belief as a way of coping with our consciousness of our finite existence.

ThinkProgress

Kev W wrote: »

I feel that people have such a hard time dealing with the idea of no life after death because it's literally impossible to imagine.

You can't truly imagine a void because anything you imagine is inherently something that is perceivable by you, it requires your point of view to imagine it.

The closest we can get to imagining our own non-existence is to imagine an infinite empty darkness, which is quite frightening. Hence the need to imagine an afterlife, perhaps.

So in your opinion, the predominant motivation is fear?

So belief is a coping mechanism rather than genuine working theory...

Hagar7 wrote: »

That's a few good points there tbh,but in all honesty I'm in no way desperate to find an answer,they only time we will have an answer is when we are all dead and gone,perhaps to a spiritual home,who knows?

So where does your belief come from? What is your underlying motivation?

The fact you opened this thread would seem to suggest that your belief is closer to hope rather than belief in the true sense of the term.

MPFGLB wrote: »

Setting aside how the OP did not do himself any favours with his written English I feel that discussing beliefs (and that is what they are) with out arrogance that assumes that because you are making a jump in faith that somehow you do not deserve the same respect as those who only rely on as yet unknown or unproven scientific explanations is in of itself an arrogant assumption and encompasses no more authenticity.

If we don't know we don't know and reincarnation is as likely to be an explanation as any other. And surely ruling anything out at this stage or chasing people from the boards for no other issue than they cannot defend what they belief against logic is not something to be celebrated

I can respect people who entertain the idea of a higher power/deity etc... being open to the potential of it is perfectly fine imo.

But what I find difficult to respect, is someone being arrogant enough to tell me that they know something unknowable with absolute certainty. These kind of people are highly frustrating individuals...

"There is a god, this is his/her name, this is their official spoken word"... etc etc... Absolutely no time for that stance!!

I also have the same problem with those who are closed minded in the opposite regard. Those who say with absolute certainty that there is no god, no nothing... we vanish into nothingness and cease to exist.

Both are absolutes and both are a form of extremism. The latter is quite often a reaction to the former, which makes it just as bad.

Closed-mindedness is not just the preserve of the "faithful"... oh no!

mariaalice wrote: »

Why do humans need to believe in life after death that is a much more interesting question?

Despite the fact that organised religion has largely fallen away in a lot of western society it has reappeared in a different form, all sorts of new age beliefs, myths, other ways of knowing and so on.

Human consciousness must have a need for belief as a way of coping with our consciousness of our finite existence.

These are the questions that fascinate me just as much too.

Understanding ourselves, our motivations etc might lead to greater understanding of why we're here and what it's all about... (or even just a happier, less fearful existence)

Then maybe after we've got a better grasp of that, we can move on to the big question mark in the sky! lol

nozzferrahhtoo

mariaalice wrote: »

Why do humans need to believe in life after death that is a much more interesting question?

The comedy writer Terry Pratchett once suggested that "Homo Sapien" meaning "The Wise Ape" was a bad choice of name for our species. He suggested instead it should have been "Pan narrans" meaning "Storytelling Chimpanzee"

He was suggesting that we are a species that, possibly due to the evolution of things like language and imagery in our mental capabilities, is driven by a narrative. We are a meme machine, and we need memes and we produce memes.

So it is possible that an after life, especially one maintained by a designer with some ultimate plan, merely feeds into that need for a narrative.

Sam Harris also did a talk you might find interesting on the role of Death and an After Life in humans and in religion.

osarusan

I can understand why the idea of another afterlife of some kind appeals to people, but no, I don't believe there is life after death.

Life, such as the lives of those who knew me, will simply continue, but I will just be dead.

Why isn't the idea that you are part of the circle of life and will fertilize the earth there will be new growth and eventually your atoms will be released to mingle with all the other atoms, enough for people.

A bit new age but works for me and if there is an afterlife thats cool as well.

MPFGLB

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would hope that not many people here are operating that way at all. There are of course _some_ who do, but so far it seems pretty cordial. The recommendation I would give, like you do, is that people talking well proven concepts should be afforded every bit the same quantity of respect as those talking unsubstantiated tosh.

Their beliefs should not however. Respect people, not beliefs I would say.

Beliefs deserve, nor require, respect. And do not make the mistake so many make of conflating the merciless unpacking of someone else's truth claims as being an attack on the person who holds those ideas. It is not, despite many people wishing to pretend otherwise.



I am not so sure that statement tells the whole story. It makes it sound like we are all starting from some zero point, and the claim is just 50:50 as to whether it is true or not.

The reality is however that while we do not fully understand things like human consciousness, we can still safely say that 100% of the things we DO know about it at this stage point to an inextricable link to the brain. While 0% of anything we know at this time is even remotely suggestive of any kind of disconnect between the two. So concepts like reincarnation or some "Collective Consciousness" that you suggested, are simply unsubstantiated at this time.

So I would never say it is just as likely, as not. Because... while it may turn out to be real or true... it certainly goes against everything we know and everything we have observed in controlled conditions.

So it is just another one of the MILLIONS of things we can categorize under "Possible I suppose, but not at all likely, credible or remotely substantiated in reality", which I feel tells a much more honest and accurate story than "as likely as any other".



I do not think anyone was chased away, so much as they removed themselves due to their OWN shame when they were asked if they could substantiate anything they said, and were shown to be doing little better than making it up as they went along.

And while there is nothing to celebrate per se in chasing people off a forum, there certainly is something to celebrate in our discourse as a whole when unsubstantiated nonsense raises its head, is confronted intelligently and cordially, and it ends up running for the hills.

Our species has long since matured to the point where we can stop molly coddling beliefs like babies, and we can stand up and directly ask people who make fantastical claims "How do you know that?" or "Have you any reason to think this is true at all?". While personal "idea space" is free and people have every right to their beliefs..... public or species level "idea space" I do not believe should be and we can certainly say without any qualms "No sorry, that move in this space is not one we are warranted to make at this time".

Why should anyone have SHAME in their beliefs which you say are "unsubstantiated nonsense" which "raises its head " on these boards. You chose to put that connotation on their actions and even their beliefs. By the same token everyone going to say mass on Sunday should feel the same way

Sure they cannot be substantiated but I say you cannot 100% dispute either and while I do not support any none 50/50 (other otherwise) theory of likelihood I do not dismiss other beliefs as easily as you seem to do
In fact saying it is not a 50/50 likelihood of any belief like reincarnation which is so far unsubstantiated theory is in its self a 'belief' that I chose not to molly coddle.

In fairness your brand of the truth is every bit as oppressive as any
There is plenty in the language of your post that dismisses people and seems to have full confidence in your ability to dismiss what other believe as if you are part of some debating society where only logic prevails...

in fact saying "Our species has long since matured to the point where we can stop molly coddling beliefs like babies" would suggest a strange and myopic view of what is going on now in the world with fundamental religions

Most religions are based on the belief in life after death. It is a reality that needs debate not dismissing as 'molly coddling"

Lockheed

I was perfectly fine for the millions of years before I was born, and I of course don't remember any of it, so I think the same for the millions of years that will come after my death. I don't believe in a life after death.

Rippington

mariaalice wrote: »

Why isn't the idea that you are part of the circle of life and will fertilize the earth there will be new growth and eventually your atoms will be released to mingle with all the other atoms, enough for people.

A bit new age but works for me and if there is an afterlife thats cool as well.

This make sense to me to .We don't remember life before birth and chances are we wont remember when we die and nothing to say we wont come back as a leaf on a tree , a flower or a weed .

Lux23

I don't think so. My Dad died last December and before that I might have kept an open mind about these things but I just don't feel him any more. That might be hard to understand!

Hyzepher

As humans we find the thought of not existing very hard to understand. We feel that there should be something tangible after we die as everything we do is taken from our own point of view and how can we understand what it is to be dead if we can't experience it.

Well, we experience it every day. Each night you fall asleep and wake up in the morning. You sleep for hours yet it is merely seconds from our perspective. You don't experience sleep and have no idea what it is like to be asleep.

You will have the same experience of death.

Rippington

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't think so. My Dad died last December and before that I might have kept an open mind about these things but I just don't feel him any more. That might be hard to understand!

I can relate to this . We lost our elderly mother last year to and while I keep expecting to feel her presence when I am at home or out it might just be as much about hope as anything but it hasn't happened yet .I also tend to have dreams about friends or complete strangers than family members alive or dead

MPFGLB

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't think so. My Dad died last December and before that I might have kept an open mind about these things but I just don't feel him any more. That might be hard to understand!

My condolences on the loss of your Dad

However just because you can't feel him doesn't mean he doesn't exist in another plane. I myself tend to feel that when you die that is it and the only way we live on is in our genetic material being passed on to our children and their children and so on...

But then every so often I feel that there is a God and there is a higher power (without any evidence) and even find myself taking to him ...madness I know ... And these moments I am sure he is there and I can't explain it..and they are not always when I am in trouble or in need

Many would say it is my need to believe but millions believe and have done independently for centuries. Some great brains & great men have believed. Can they all be wrong

ThinkProgress

osarusan wrote: »

but I will just be dead.

I understand not believing in the possibilities others suggest... but you appear to be very certain yourself of what is/isn't coming next. (just like the believers in "god")

mariaalice wrote: »

Why isn't the idea that you are part of the circle of life and will fertilize the earth there will be new growth and eventually your atoms will be released to mingle with all the other atoms, enough for people.

A bit new age but works for me and if there is an afterlife thats cool as well.

Just the same as any other theory, it must be proven. Or taken on faith.

It's a nice idea, but just an idea... no better or worse than any religion.

Lockheed wrote: »

I was perfectly fine for the millions of years before I was born, and I of course don't remember any of it, so I think the same for the millions of years that will come after my death. I don't believe in a life after death.

How do you know you were perfectly fine before birth? Just because you can't remember it?

That's an assumption requiring a leap of faith. As is your belief of what's coming next.

Hyzepher wrote: »

You will have the same experience of death.

You seem very certain. Do you have proof to back up this belief?

Nice idea though... I have given this some thought myself.

nozzferrahhtoo

MPFGLB wrote: »

Why should anyone have SHAME in their beliefs which you say are "unsubstantiated nonsense" which "raises its head " on these boards.

I do not recall saying they "should". I merely recall saying that in some cases they do.

I see no reason to be shameful of my positions for example, and I celebrate being shown where I am wrong rather than lament it like many do, or see it as a personal affront like many others do. But alas many people genuinely do view being shown their errors as a direct personal affront or attack.

Certainly however the quantity of shame one "should" feel at espousing unsubstantiated nonsense should scale with the impact of what they have espoused.

If I spread the idea that eating small oranges when you have the common cold gives you Vitamin C to help treat and cure the cold, that is unsubstantiated and there is no reason at this time to think it true. But what is the actual impact of my having spread it? Minimal I would say, and possibly positive in that eating fruit in general is good.

If however I am spreading the idea there is a Christian God who is planning to bring about the end of days, possibly within our generation but otherwise only one or two generations afterwards.... and as such investing ANY time or concern into combating, say, Climate Change is entirely a waste.... there is genuine impact to this.

So yes I would strongly advocate in general a form of conversational intolerance towards those who are making claims that do not scale in any way with the evidence they can offer for them. But how stringently to apply that intolerance clearly must scale with the impact of the claims being made.

So when you say something like.....

MPFGLB wrote: »

By the same token everyone going to say mass on Sunday should feel the same way

.... I hope this clarification of my position shows that my "token" says no such thing at all. Especially given that most people who attend mass are not espousing anything. They are the ones being espoused TO. So my "token" is not even that applicable to them in the first place. But even where it is, this clarification should assist you in understanding how and why.

MPFGLB wrote: »

I do not dismiss other beliefs as easily as you seem to do

I would not call my dismissal of beliefs "easy". It is not even that I dismiss beliefs. As I keep saying, I really do not care what peoples beliefs ARE most of the time. It is only when those beliefs become relevant at a public level that I would demand substantiation, and demand the beliefs be left off the table if they can not be substantiated.

Take a simple analogy. Imagine you are sitting in a political hall of power debating some relevant big issue, and what the political response to that issue should be.

Someone at that table suddenly produces a page and starts reading it to themselves. Fine, they are allowed do this, why not. Not harming anyone.

However THEN they start reading it out loud. It is a page of statistics which appear relevant to the topic at hand. And based on this page of statistics they are offering opinions on how we should proceed with the issue politically.

So clearly you are going to know the source of this page, who made the statistics, how were they compiled, are they correct, what methodologies were used and followed.

However the person says no. You can not have ANY of this information. JUST what the statistics say.

Now would you accept this? Or would you say "No thanks, until the basis and source of these statistics can be shown, you can remove it from this table of discourse".

I would do the latter. The analogy here is clear. What your personal beliefs are, what pages you read quietly to yourself, are irrelevant to me. The moment you make your beliefs relevant however.... they require a basis.

MPFGLB wrote: »

In fact saying it is not a 50/50 likelihood of any belief like reincarnation which is so far unsubstantiated theory is in its self a 'belief'

Except I was capable of giving you the basis of my belief. The simple fact is that the concept of consciousness existing independent or distinct from the brain is one that is not only unsubstantiated, but it goes AGAIN what substantiation we do have.

That is a statement of fact not belief. It simply is a fact that 100% of our current knowledge about the brain and human consciousness points in one direction. And while you may be entitled to your own beliefs, you certainly are not entitled to your own facts.

The distinction there between this and the beliefs of the religious is clear. The offer no basis. Ever. There simply is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer.... least of all from you.... to suggest there is an after life, or a god, or a "collective consciousness" to which we all return.

MPFGLB wrote: »

Most religions are based on the belief in life after death. It is a reality that needs debate not dismissing as 'molly coddling"

Then let them bring something to the debate. I am unaware how to debate someone who offers not just very little.... but quite literally NO.... substantiation or evidence or basis for their claim(s). Unless we resort to some form of school yard "Yes there is" "No there is not" "Yes there is" form of discourse.... there simply is no debate to be HAD when people are offering that level of non-speak.

ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I understand not believing in the possibilities others suggest... but you appear to be very certain yourself of what is/isn't coming next. (just like the believers in "god")



Just the same as any other theory, it must be proven. Or taken on faith.

It's a nice idea, but just an idea... no better or worse than any religion.



How do you know you were perfectly fine before birth? Just because you can't remember it?

That's an assumption requiring a leap of faith. As is your belief of what's coming next.



You seem very certain. Do you have proof to back up this belief?

Nice idea though... I have given this some thought myself.

The fact that our atoms are released after death( a long time after our death) is a proven scientific fact.

MPFGLB

nozzferrahhtoo I have to bow out as off to work but I can say no one spoke of shame till you brought it up and clearly said that the reason someone left the forum was because of their SHAME when debating with you

as for having facts ....like "concept of consciousness existing independent or distinct from the brain is one that is not only unsubstantiated, but it goes AGAIN what substantiation we do have" hardly shows evidence nor does it prove anything....So the brain ceases to exist at death and therefore consciousness as we know it which has not been fully proven ceases to exits proves nothing about life after death

Maybe consciousness moves to another plane/host ....its possible ....we don't know
Maybe a soul moves on and keeps some or none of that consciousness

Your proof is as arbitrary as anyone's in defining the limits of a soul nor do we know the limits of consciousness

and also you are completing missing the point if you dismiss people that offer no 'substantiation' of their beliefs to the debate. Its is not a issue that can be debated by logic as logic also has no answers and as such by insisting only in logic you are missing the whole point of beliefs and make no bones you are dismissing beliefs whatever way you dress it up

c_man

Is there life after death?

Kinda. In the next few centuries we'll have the ability to build up a model of your mind based on your boards posts. The resulting mind shall be placed into a lab grown clone.

The clone shall be placed into a facility with other resurrected boardsies, all arguing and talking sh!te. No end in sight, each time one of us dies they'll repeat the process. It'll be cruel but presumably yield some tangible results after a few millenia.

Something to look forward to, keep posting!

Rippington

c_man wrote: »

Kinda. .

The clone shall be placed into a facility with other resurrected boardsies, all arguing and talking sh!te. No end in sight.

Kinda like the flu ...no cure in sight

ScumLord

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The comedy writer Terry Pratchett once suggested that "Homo Sapien" meaning "The Wise Ape" was a bad choice of name for our species. He suggested instead it should have been "Pan narrans" meaning "Storytelling Chimpanzee"

I think a better description would be river ape. We spread throughout the world by following rivers and in a lot of cases we live beside a river.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I understand not believing in the possibilities others suggest... but you appear to be very certain yourself of what is/isn't coming next. (just like the believers in "god")



Just the same as any other theory, it must be proven. Or taken on faith.

The fact we live, die and turn into fertilizer is a fact. It's what we can see happening and we've no evidence anything other than that happens.


I don't think people's beliefs should just be accepted and given as much weight as any scientific theories. Religious beliefs were literally made up, borrowed, designed and misinterpreted. The only reason people believe in god is because it was introduced to them at an early age. If the Juda religion was introduced today it would be dismissed without a second thought, because it's mostly ridiculous now that science has explained things like the weather system, bacteria, the universe, etc, etc..

I see religion like science beta, it was a good attempt, but clearly wrong. It's redundant.

captbarnacles

ScumLord wrote: »

The fact we live, die and turn into fertilizer is a fact. It's what we can see

Nothing with credible evidence has ever happened to suggest otherwise.

lawlolawl

You just go out like a light being switched off when you die.

Your body shuts down and you are just "gone" (for want of a better term).

There's as much after life as there was before life. Nothing. Oblivion. Nonexistence.

To believe anything else is silly and childish.

Smiles35

I live like John the bapist, a spiriual loner. I meet all sorts. A lot of 'spirits' conditioned by the school system to sit in school all day then run home for fun or vice versa. Eating bees and honey like John the B. Rarrrr.

ThinkProgress

mariaalice wrote: »

The fact that our atoms are released after death( a long time after our death) is a proven scientific fact.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that.

ScumLord wrote: »

The fact we live, die and turn into fertilizer is a fact. It's what we can see happening and we've no evidence anything other than that happens.


I don't think people's beliefs should just be accepted and given as much weight as any scientific theories. Religious beliefs were literally made up, borrowed, designed and misinterpreted. The only reason people believe in god is because it was introduced to them at an early age. If the Juda religion was introduced today it would be dismissed without a second thought, because it's mostly ridiculous now that science has explained things like the weather system, bacteria, the universe, etc, etc..

I see religion like science beta, it was a good attempt, but clearly wrong. It's redundant.

I'm not talking about accepting beliefs. "Believing" something you can't prove, is wrong minded.

But when people say there's definitely no god/afterlife, no doubt, categorically... etc. Are they not slightly guilty of the same leap of faith as the "god believers"?

Totally ruling something out and saying it's definitely BS... is that not unscientific?

I see all of these things as ideas. It's okay to think of them as possibilities, but that's all they are until you prove them. I try to keep my mind completely neutral and open to all possibilities. Without ruling anything out completely until we have the knowledge to do so...

darkpagandeath

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/46866889.jpg

Captain Chaos

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Totally ruling something out and saying it's definitely BS... is that not unscientific?

I see all of these things as ideas. It's okay to think of them as possibilities, but that's all they are until you prove them. I try to keep my mind completely neutral and open to all possibilities. Without ruling anything out completely until we have the knowledge to do so...

It's actually more scientific as there is little to no proof of there being an afterlife/god.

It is more realistic that there is actually nothing going by observations and theory.

There is no proof that god didn't create the universe either but the odds are he didn't and observable theory backs this up. Ala science.

Gael23

You go into a hole in the ground and get consumed by insects. That's the end of you.

Undercover Elephant

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But when people say there's definitely no god/afterlife, no doubt, categorically... etc. Are they not slightly guilty of the same leap of faith as the "god believers"?

Totally ruling something out and saying it's definitely BS... is that not unscientific?

I see all of these things as ideas. It's okay to think of them as possibilities, but that's all they are until you prove them. I try to keep my mind completely neutral and open to all possibilities. Without ruling anything out completely until we have the knowledge to do so...

Science rules out hypotheses all the time without immediately having anything to replace them. If I say that you should keep an open mind about the possibility that Pluto is made from Gorgonzola cheese because no one has been there and taken a sample, you would rightly respond that I was talking nonsense.

The god hypothesis only survives by mutating when challenged into an even more slippery form. Every reasonably well defined concept of a god is contradicted by reality. I don't see why we should acknowledge the possibility that they might still exist just because believers refuse to come up with a coherent definition.

MPFGLB

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

The god hypothesis only survives by mutating when challenged into an even more slippery form. Every reasonably well defined concept of a god is contradicted by reality. I don't see why we should acknowledge the possibility that they might still exist just because believers refuse to come up with a coherent definition.

The God hypothesis as you put it is not contradicted by reality ...only by our perception of reality which is a totally different thing entirely

As much as I am wary of those who purport the existence of God so adamantly I am just as wary of those who say he definitely (or some afterlife) does not exist. Both concepts are two sides of the same coin. One says there is God without providing evidence we can tangibly examine the other uses only tangible evidence to say he doesn't exist...thus ignoring the possibility that the evidence may not be yet available

Someone said earlier that it is greedy and egotistical to want an afterlife. By the same token it is just as egotistical to say mankind reasoning and thinking and current science is the limit of possibility

Often in Euclidean theory if a theorem was proved true it was usually done by proving the converse was false or could not possibly be true

So if the theory that God (or some divine or superior being) does not exist ...then what is the concept/purpose or intelligence behind creation and purpose of an evolving universe.