Oh there is an Afterlife! It is one of my drives in life to see it. How cool it is to one day talk to some of the greatest folks in history like Jesus, Jefferson, Reagan, and Octavian(presumably there is a universal language).
Poll: Do you believe in the afterlife?
- Thread starter 4RM3D
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This belong in religion and politics since it is heavily tied to religion.
I believe in an afterlife because of my religion. I also don't think anyone can prove wither or not their is an afterlife as its not an issue of science.
I believe in an afterlife because of my religion. I also don't think anyone can prove wither or not their is an afterlife as its not an issue of science.
Well, I neither believe, nor disbelieve.4RM3D said:
The problem lies when you try to envision, how or why an afterlife would exist, you immediately also face the question as to what life is.
Or rather, it's not a question about life, but it's a question about consciousness.
Why do I experience anything at all? What relation does my experience of the world have to anything going on in the world?
To ask what happens when you die is to ask where the subjective experience of existing comes from.
And that's a very tricky question, and ironically, also one which science is very badly equipped to handle.
Ask yourself exactly how you are supposed to find an objective answer to a question whose very nature depends on personal subjective experience.
I can infer that you are a conscious being. But how do I know this is true? My only viable point of reference is my own conscious experiences, and that you have measurable qualities and behaviours which are quite similar to qualities and behaviours of my own. (which I associate with my conciousness.)
I can't even prove conclusively that there is an actual correlation between any physical processes going on in my body (or that my body actually exists), in relation to my experience of the world.
Put it like this:
The scientific worldview leads roughly to the following ideas:
1. The world around me exists
2. I can measure this world, and reach consistent conclusions about how it works.
3. My experiences correlate with certain measurable phenomena in the world around me.
4. Therefore, my experiences must be causally related to those phenomena.
But... The only fact which anyone can actually be certain of is this:
1. I am aware of existing.
To me, the afterlife isn't something I'm concerned about with as such. Heaven and hell are amusing concepts, but they aren't significant to me.
The question that occupies my mind is consciousness itself. Where does my internal sense of 'existing' come from, and how is this related to all the sensory inputs that tell me for instance that there is a world around me, that I have a body, and that there are other people (who presumably are also aware of their own existence. - though I can't prove this in any way.)
I suppose I can't wrap my head around the idea that you can go from a state of existence to a state of non-existence, because my consciousness doesn't work that way.
I'm never unconscious.
Now, I know that sounds really odd, but think about it carefully.
In your own experience, have you ever been aware of not being aware of something? Of course not!
Consciousness, in from your own point of reference is unbroken, and continuous.
However, once you start to compare it against your sensory inputs, and this world that supposedly exists, that's when you start to question this idea.
After all, every time I fall asleep and wake up again, there seems to be a discontinuity in the world around me.
Now, as it happens, this discontinuity seems explainable as the world having continued in a consistent unbroken manner, but me having lost awareness of it for several hours.
But... From my own purely subjective viewpoint, what actually seemed to happen was not that I lost awareness for a few hours, but rather that there was a discontinuity in the world I was perceiving.
That, to me is the question that this all revolves around.
Ceasing to exist is a very odd idea to me. But... So is the idea that I would go on forever.
But then again, this becomes a question of time. According to objective external measures, the time I was asleep passed without my awareness.
According to my own internal sense of time, this period just didn't happen at all.
Which is the correct viewpoint?
And with regards to death, what would that mean, say, if I die 20 years from now, but then due to some unexplainable quirk of the universe, I exist again 3 million years from now?
On the basis of logic that seems unlikely. But... Sheer probability means it's not completely out of the question.
The thing is, what does that mean for my personal experience? If I cease to exist in the meantime, then to someone who exists continuously within this universe for that entire period, I would appear to have been dead for 3 million years, then suddenly have come back to life.
Yet from my own perspective, the most likely way for that to seem from my point of view, is simply that the intervening 3 million years just didn't happen.
However, this question as a whole becomes much more interesting if you reverse it.
Instead of asking 'what happens after you die', try the thought experiment of asking 'what happened before I was born?'
Because under the conventional understanding of how time works, you've already experienced that;
And since by that same conventional sense of logic, you didn't exist before you were born in much the same way you won't exist after you die, it is a very useful tool to help answer this question.
And it leads to some very interesting answers.
For instance, I have pictures of myself when I was little. Based on the accounts of others, I know it's me. And I even have stories of what I supposedly did when I was around that age.
Yet, I don't remember it at all. So, to my own understanding, it didn't actually happen.
For that matter, there are aspects of what happened yesterday which I can't remember.
Did they even happen at all?
And my experience of the here and now is quite different from any of the memories I can remember...
Are my memories real? Who or what experienced those memories, since it doesn't as such seem to be 'me', in the sense of how I experience the current moment in time.
When you start asking questions like that reality can seem to start to unravel in front of your eyes.
So... To answer anything about 'after death', you must first answer what it means to be concious. Because that in itself is a very strange thing.
4RM3D said:
People. People. Please watch what you say carefully with statements like these.Woodsey said:
There's 3 statements being used here, and at least two of them are getting very muddled up.
Now, pay close attention.
Statement 1: I believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 2: I don't believe there is an afterlife.
Statement 3: I don't have a belief about the afterlife.
Statements 1 and 2 are what lunncal is referring to. 4RM3D and Woodsey are both referring to statement 3.
Ergo, you are talking past each-other, not to each-other
Now, I know people get confused when Atheism is brought up, because Atheism can be defined both as "I don't believe in god", and "I don't have a belief about god", which are not the same thing.
And one person will assume it means one statement while the other will assume other is meant.
But please try and think about this before you chew someone about about something like this hmm?
It's starting to get very irritating.
The only form of afterlife that I even remotely think could possibly be available is reincarnation. The possibility that we are simply a continuing form of increasing intelligence speaks to me more than disappearing into the vapor and becoming god knows what. I'm not sure if there is anything though and considering I'll be dead I think that worrying is going to have no effect, you cannot stop it, so why fear it.
The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.loc978 said:
A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)
I don't know about that. Are you a different person? Yes and no. The thing is, my memories don't have the same character to them as my immediate experiences.Bvenged said:
This means I can't deduce meaningfully if my memories happened to 'me', or some other entity.
My consciousness is something I experience as something wholly detached from my physical being. It clearly has some relation to it, but it isn't experientially speaking a product of my body.
The other thing of note here, is I literally am not aware of any moment during which I didn't exist.
I can infer those moments based on external evidence, but since I can't verify the validity of that evidence in any way, all I can say is there is that there is existence... And that's it.
Non-existence is not an understandable concept, which is where the problem comes from.
Ask yourself what it was like before your first memory and you don't come up with anything that you can in any way relate to what you are currently experiencing.
So... To say what it was like before I am aware of existing is like asking what was before time. - It's not a question that makes any kind of sense.
That's also why ceasing to exist is such a difficult problem to wrap your head around.
If you cease to exist when you die... That's incompatible with any known experience I've ever had.
I literally have never not existed as far as my own subjective view of reality goes.
The only way in which I can envision this, is by trying to reverse my view of the world, and assume the external sensory inputs I experience somehow have an independent existence.
Now, I know that is the very definition of objective measurement, but it is an alien perspective to use when trying to understand your own conciousness.
You're basically trying to answer the question:
What happens to my awareness when I stop being aware of my awareness.
Well, I'd have to say, awareness can't stop, because it never started.
Yes, in terms of the 'objective universe', there's a starting point and an end point. But that has no direct relation to what my subjective awareness tells me about my own existence.
I don't have any experience of not existing. And I never will, because it's a logical contradiction to have experience of not having experience of something.
It's... All a matter of perspective, and the answer 'you cease to exist', depends on you using an external reference point which bears no relation to how you actually experience the world to begin with.
Or something. There's so many logical contradictions inherent in this question that it's very difficult to describe in a rational manner.
I believe their is a heaven but people don't go their. I beleve everyone will be reborn during the Resurrection.
Not at all. The only reason afterlife myths came about is because people, now that they're conscious and alive, have no clue what it's like to be not so, and thus conclude that you never aren't.
After death is exactly like before you were born. There's less than nothing; your brain does not work, and you don't have a soul. You rot in the ground, and I'm okay with that.
The only opposition I face when proposing the absence of an afterlife is people saying "But... that's depressing." Which is a stupid thing to say. A lot about life is depressing. You either get over it, or die early. Belief in the supernatural does nothing but convince people that life is fair somehow, which is just setting yourself up for a boatload of disappointment and halted growth.
After death is exactly like before you were born. There's less than nothing; your brain does not work, and you don't have a soul. You rot in the ground, and I'm okay with that.
The only opposition I face when proposing the absence of an afterlife is people saying "But... that's depressing." Which is a stupid thing to say. A lot about life is depressing. You either get over it, or die early. Belief in the supernatural does nothing but convince people that life is fair somehow, which is just setting yourself up for a boatload of disappointment and halted growth.
You really don't see it? Or are you being facetious?Woodsey said:
It really shouldn't be that complicated.
When faced with a question for which there is basically no identifiable evidence, you can take one of 3 positions.
1. - There's no evidence, but I think it's true.
2. - There's no evidence, but I think it's false.
3. - There's no evidence, so I don't think it's appropriate to try and give you an answer.
If you think cases 2 and 3 are identical, then you're confusing yourself, because it's self-evidently cases 1 and 2 which are identical.
(Eg. Believing something without evidence.)
The inverse of believing in god's existence, is believing in god's non-existence.
But both cases are equivalent, because asserting something's non-existence is merely the logical inverse of asserting it's existence.
case 3 is admitting that it's pointless to give an answer to something which has no evidence either way.
Note that this is easy to get confused when arguing about religion because for instance religions frequently make assertions about the world which contradict science (amongst others).
But all that tells you with any certainty, is that one of the statements that are in direct conflict must be wrong.
It doesn't prove anything either way about any other statements made.
Consider some examples:
I believe the sky is blue
I don't believe the sky is blue
I don't know if the sky is blue
I believe there's an invisible, intangible dog sitting in my room
I don't believe there is an invisible, intangible dog sitting in my room.
I don't know if there is an invisible, intangible dog sitting in my room.
Do you get it yet, or do I need to continue with this?
Two out of these 3 statements make unsubstantiated claims. One doesn't actually make any claim whatsoever.
You however, seem to be implying that making the unsubstantiated claim that (to stick with the original statement), NOT believing in the existence of an afterlife, is equivalent to not making any claim about it's existence or non-existence whatsoever.
While the person you were responding to, was pointing out (maybe not for quite the most appropriate of reasons), that making the unsubstantiated claim that there is an afterlife, is more or less equivalent to making the unsubstantiated claim that there isn't.
The key point being unsubstantiated
If there is some meaningful evidence one way or the other, then of course it's not equivalent. But this is rarely the case with most such arguments.
I don't believe in either. Rather, I believe that the soul is just a notion for the hopeful to not be afraid of death. I find that there is no soul, but rather just our brains and conscious. I believe that when people die, the brain simply shuts down and all we experience is... nothing. Eternal blackness. Sounds like we'd get bored real quick, right? I believe this to not be the case because if the brain is dead, *everything* will be gone. We won't feel, we won't think, we won't *care*. Interesting to think that... What is the purpose of human life if all we are reduced to in the end is nothingness? Simple fact is, humans are animals, no different from any other animal out there. They have their own brains and lives, and when they die the same probably happens to them. But like animals, our actual purpose is the same as theirs: survive. We weren't created by an all powerful being to accomplish some task, we are just a form of life that became dominant on our planet. Our lives mean nothing more than that of a dog. We live, we reproduce, we die. Continuation of a species. That's *all* we are, that's *all* we were ever meant to do. Survive. Seems bleak, right? If that's the case, then what's the point? There is no point. And that's why a bunch of people, thousands of years ago, thought up the afterlife. Life after death so it seems like living actually has meaning, that people are special. But we're not special, we're just lucky. Lucky that we're smart and have ideal bodies to do whatever. Other than that, we're just another form of life trying to survive. Call me pessimistic if you will, but I call it being realistic and looking at the fucking facts. Existence is existence. The universe exists, but it doesn't give a shit about what happens in it. But here's some more food for thought. I'm pretty fucking sure we're not the only form of intelligent life in the universe. With all the stars out there, to say that there isn't another system or planet similar to ours that has life on it is really fucking stupid. The odds are staggering. Now think of this... How many of those alien civilizations have grown and decayed out there in the universe? How much longer until it happens to us? We don't know yet, but I do know this... God won't be there for us then, because he never was there for us in the past, no matter what you may think. All I have to say is that machines will be all that's left of us in the end, and that I pity the religious and the Amish.
Holy shit I wrote a lot...
TL;DR No, I don't believe in the afterlife.
Holy shit I wrote a lot...
TL;DR No, I don't believe in the afterlife.
That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?CrystalShadow said:
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.
Sorry, but this response seems like something of a nonsequitor.loc978 said:
In any event, to go with what you're saying, objective measurement being the sole and only standard of evidence is incredibly flawed as a concept as far as I'm concerned.
Prove to me objectively you are conscious. That you have any kind of experience at all.
This is precisely the kind of problem that shows up the limits of objective proofs, yet you want to argue that because it can't be measured objectively it should be disregarded in it's entirety?
So... You know your consciousness exists, but since you can't prove it you don't want to give it any further thought?
To me, it is more important than 'objective reality', because it's the only thing I can be certain of.
I can be certain that I am currently experiencing something.
I cannot be certain that what is considered 'objective reality' has any actual existence whatsoever.
The problem comes in that if I speak to another person, (such as you), the only thing we seem to be able to agree on is this 'objective reality' we both seem to share.
But since the only parts of your existence that I can verify are the ones that exist 100% within this 'objective reality', and I cannot be in any way certain this actually exists, I cannot be certain you exist.
Except insofar as you tell me you do by means of 'objective proof'.
But objective proof is the least meaningful form of proof insofar as asking what it means to exist. Because it answers any question except the one you're actually trying to work out.
I cannot perform any objective experiment on any part of myself.
Anyway, as to 'burden of proof'
I never even said consciousness exists "Outside of a human brain". I merely made the observation that it exists.
Known facts about consciousness:
1. It exists.
That's it. And that's the problem. It's quite a different problem from asking about god. God May or may not exist. Same with the afterlife. This might, or might not exist.
Consciousness does exist. Everyone who is conscious knows this. Yet precisely no-one can prove it through objective means.
That is a big problem, and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to just brush aside like that.
OK, let me say something slightly different here:
Because you mentioned burden of proof, let's look at what else you've stated incedentally.
1. Objective measurements are the only meaningful way of understanding the world. If it is impossible to measure something objectively, it's not worth knowing about.
Now, that might sound a harsh or incorrect appraisal, but that seems to be what you've said.
However, my response to this would then be:
Given a phenomena which everyone knows to be true. (The fact that they personally have 'consciousnesss' - or whatever else you want to call the actual experience of being aware of your own existence)
And the observation that there seems to be no objective way to measure this phenomena at all...
The burden of proof lies with you to show why objective measurements are a valid way of understanding existence.
(And secondly, to double-check your claims about who has the burden of proof, let me reverse your own statement: Someone comes up with the idea that "consiousness" exists solely as a product of the human brain. Other people accept this idea because...?)
There has to be SOMETHING after this life. What that could be, I have no idea, but something must exist. I can't believe that, after death, you simply rot in the ground.
Can you change the poll option 'nothing' to 'oblivion'? That's the correct term for it and, frankly, it just sounds cool.
''And at the end of fear, Oblivion'' - see?
OT: No I don't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation or anything like that.
''And at the end of fear, Oblivion'' - see?
OT: No I don't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation or anything like that.
I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.
Exactly, in fact, this denial is the very reason why religon exists at all. It's so ridiculously obvious that any and all afterlives do not exist that the fact that the concept of an afterlife even exists shows just how massive this self delusion is.Golan Trevize said:
Personally, I deeply despise the very concept of the afterlife for one reason: If the entire human race knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all they had to look forward to after their deaths was to rot in the ground, the entire human race would pool all their resources to extending life, perhaps even to the infinite point.
of course i believe in a afterlife, because whats the point of this life if their isnt? or better yet, whats the point or reason behind the universe at all?
Heaven will be awesome, sipping on tequila with great historical figures and artist like davinci would be AWESOME!!!!!
Personally i think if this is it, that after this we wouldn't even exist on any plain of existence would be my personal hell, id rather take the boiling lake and demons than have an after life of NOTHING!, at least with hell you got an answer.
Heaven will be awesome, sipping on tequila with great historical figures and artist like davinci would be AWESOME!!!!!
Personally i think if this is it, that after this we wouldn't even exist on any plain of existence would be my personal hell, id rather take the boiling lake and demons than have an after life of NOTHING!, at least with hell you got an answer.
in recent years atheist sure have made atheism a certified religion if ive ever seen one.creationis apostate said: