belief in an afterlife

[Fire]

Even If there is no after life now, which is contrary to several circumstancial evidence

What circumstancial evidence is there for an afterlife?

we scientists may be able to invent psychic brain inplants that could render people to an afterlife of their choice just minutes before and after the big kick of the bucket.

Even if such a hypothetical technology would arise, people who signed up for it would probably find their eternal illusion hellish. If the technology accurately transporting all emotions to this fantasy land, you'd quickly become severely depressed and bored before you get half way to a thousand years let alone eternity.

It doesn't make it more or less real. Just a thought. However, we christians are hoping you may not need it.

I'd be interested to hear from a believer in the afterlife (who has given some serious thought on the matter), why they would want to exist for eternity. It's easy to say that you would never feel any negative emotions in an eternal afterlife, but if you say that, then how can you be sure you feel any positive emotions... or anything at all. The afterlife is just a totally meaningless concept.

 

[Chatha]

Even if such a hypothetical technology would arise, people who signed up for it would probably find their eternal illusion hellish. If the technology accurately transporting all emotions to this fantasy land, you'd quickly become severely depressed and bored before you get half way to a thousand years let alone eternity.

Its not going to be forever, there is obviously not enough efficient energy for that, not even electricity. Its just for the brief period before and after passing away, say for about 15 minutes. Anything after that fifteen minutes is...well...who knows?

 

[lightgigantic]

Because you can post braindead speculation as feel good absolutes, you're somehow right?

It was more along the lines that it s not logical to deride something on the grounds of it being a speculation simply for the means of establishing another speculation that is more compatable with one's needs, interests and concerns - in debate that is called bad argument.

The same attitude is reflected in your own response

 

[Roman]

It was more along the lines that it s not logical to deride something on the grounds of it being a speculation simply for the means of establishing another speculation that is more compatable with one's needs, interests and concerns - in debate that is called bad argument.

The same attitude is reflected in your own response

Life doesn't fall conviently into syllogisms.

Enter probability and likelihood.

 

[SkinWalker]

The difference is, my "speculations" aren't speculations at all. They're hypotheses with evidence to support them. I'm not in a position to dig out a bunch of resources today, but I can if the need is here. There is sufficient reason to suggest that prehistoric humans dwelled on the afterlife based on funerary items found in graves. There is also sufficient reason to correlate the setting of the Sun to the west with a belief that the west is the "place of the dead" in more than one society. Mostly because they wrote this fact down! These are things we can say about humanity based on physical evidence and are thus hypotheses.

LightG., I'm afraid, is being nonsensical in his criticism that I'm being as speculative as he. Poppycock, is the technical term. There simply is no physical evidence to suggest an afterlife, thus it is pure speculation.

Also, LightG. makes a failed attempt to accuse me of "tautology." One would think that the tautological king would understand the term well enough, but this is, perhaps, evidence of his poor grasp of the world to begin with. There is nothing tautological about desiring a quality of life for humanity during the time humanity has. LightG. suggests through a MASSIVE logical fallacy, that because one doesn't believe in a god (remember, this is the same guy that said they're all, conveniently, the same), they shouldn't give a rat's ass about living. This is because, according to LightG., the scientific consensus is that the universe will end some day. What balderdash (another technical term).

Clearly LightG. is tired of having his own bullshit described as tautology, so he is trying, without much success, in applying the same criticism to freethinkers. Sorry, old chum. It doesn't wash.

 

[Cris]

Belief in an afterlife is an anachronism leftover from the many millenia before we knew that the brain accounts for all the functions attributed to the fantasy known as a soul. The brain is clearly mortal and when the brain dies or is damaged so do you. There is nothing left that can exist in an afterlife.

With no such things as souls then an afterlife has no meaning and from there it is not difficult to see that gods are an additional fantasy contrivance since without souls they'd have nothing to torment or reward.

 

[lightgigantic]

SkinWalker

The difference is, my "speculations" aren't speculations at all. They're hypotheses with evidence to support them.

Obviosuly thats what a speculation is - you look at a body of work or evidences and then go off on a tangent

I'm not in a position to dig out a bunch of resources today, but I can if the need is here.

To establish exactly what an evidence suggests by speculation is an on going struggle with other speculations

There is sufficient reason to suggest that prehistoric humans dwelled on the afterlife based on funerary items found in graves.

Correction - there is evidence that primitive people performed funeral rites - whether these were the original predecessors of theistic thought is debatable, especially since most mainstream religions have clear historical evidence of enlightened personalities who reform or re-establish an elevated standard of theistic practice

There is also sufficient reason to correlate the setting of the Sun to the west with a belief that the west is the "place of the dead" in more than one society. Mostly because they wrote this fact down! These are things we can say about humanity based on physical evidence and are thus hypotheses.

whether they established such a thought because they were perplexed by a dead persons body going cold and assumed that because the sun goes to the west the person does is not based on physical evidence - rather it is your speculation based on physical evidence - do you see the distinction?

LightG., I'm afraid, is being nonsensical in his criticism that I'm being as speculative as he.

Actually I claimed that you were being equally, if not more, speculative that the advocators of theism that you were dismissing simple because they (apparently) speculated.

Poppycock, is the technical term. There simply is no physical evidence to suggest an afterlife, thus it is pure speculation.

You create an equal amount of poppycock when you speculate on what you perceive is the basis for their statements

Also, LightG. makes a failed attempt to accuse me of "tautology." One would think that the tautological king would understand the term well enough, but this is, perhaps, evidence of his poor grasp of the world to begin with.

I can determine the success of my arguments by the richness of your ad homs

There is nothing tautological about desiring a quality of life for humanity during the time humanity has.

Its ironic that such a desire is carried through to the sphere of eternity when you declare that the foundations for eternal life are a bogus proposition however

LightG. suggests through a MASSIVE logical fallacy, that because one doesn't believe in a god (remember, this is the same guy that said they're all, conveniently, the same),

I said that? I doubt it
- quote me.

they shouldn't give a rat's ass about living. This is because, according to LightG., the scientific consensus is that the universe will end some day. What balderdash (another technical term).

the rats ass belongs to the anatomy of your argument - you say that the notion of eternal life is meant for the weak hearted and then spin off about how your molecules are going to go off in the universe and benefit wolf cubs

How did this weakness of heart descend upon you?

Clearly LightG. is tired of having his own bullshit described as tautology, so he is trying, without much success, in applying the same criticism to freethinkers. Sorry, old chum. It doesn't wash.

But your argument is a tautology - you claim that it distinct from the weakness of heart displayed by advocaters of eternal life and then find comfort in the benefit that your molecules and words and the memories of others of your wonderful pastimes will do in the universe

 

[lightgigantic]

Life doesn't fall conviently into syllogisms.

Enter probability and likelihood.

What is the probability of you dying sometime in the future?

 

[euphrosene]

I can't possibly see any reason whatsoever for such a statement, it makes no sense at all. In fact, it clearly contradicts itself.

It does, if you read further.

 

[euphrosene]

*************
M*W: ..., this one's hard enough, .

Precisely

but I chose to get my reward in this one

Not everyone is able to achieve that unfortunately, and I do not mean me..

 

[euphrosene]

The real question is why do you feel this way? Life, for many people, is fun and interesting. Is your life so frought with misery that the only consolation is a prize waiting for you after you're dead?

Granted there are many more who suffer the daily struggle of just staying alive. But if one firmly believes in a better afterlife, why is there so much trauma and grief associated with death? Why don't suffering humans just stop eating? Like the Pak when they have no further purpose in life?

My life is not fraught. I have quite a comfortable and relatively successful one and I am healthy and loved.

However, since I believe that we are all part of the same Great Everything, I feel for those who are suffering or in need.

My comment was based on their plight (as I believe was Lord Longford's).

I also dispute the 'trauma and grief associated with death' but this may not be the thread to talk about energy, unmerging of minds and vibrations :*)

 

[euphrosene]

I say you're wrong. Every religion I can think of presents some version of an afterlife with clear implications that to get the positive reward, living in accordance with the cult's expectations is mandatory. Many of them assert that living outside the cult's expectations results in a negative reward "afterlife." Either way, it is all unfounded poppycock.

Actually mine does not. But it is rather complex to outline here. When I get to that passage in my book, I'll post it here for critiquing (if I can stand it!)

 

[euphrosene]

I don't see how that belief could actually change anything in his or anyone's life? All of the physical happenings wouldn't change, so it's all in his head only. And I've heard that just smiling can change ones attitude, so...?

No, I can't see it making any difference in the reality of ones life.

Baron Max

Not sure I can counter this comment. The only way would be to try a complete change of mind for 30 days.

Pretend to believe. Be self-aware. And be honest about recording everything that happens.

But I can probably guarantee no-one would try it.

 

[euphrosene]

... The afterlife is just a totally meaningless concept.

Like many things metaphysical, the continuance of the eternal intelligence suffers from poor linguistics.

The 'afterlife' to me is not a continuance of Euphrosene Marie Louise Labon for example. Yet the essence that formed me would continue in either another dimension or back into the 'formless potential'.

 

[euphrosene]

...The brain is clearly mortal and when the brain dies or is damaged so do you. ...

Surely making such dogmatic statements is as bad as believing with fundamental force?

In my (current) view, the brain is merely a RX/TX and therefore any damage could alter the signals or programme should that 'soul' or whatever it might be called, choose to re-create itself.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

lightgigantic: "The notion of the afterlife is not a mere means to elicit good behaviour - it is a claim about the nature of reality"

Nature of reality? There are a variety of claims regarding the afterlife depending on ones religious persuasion but that hasn't anything to do with reality. The only verifiable reality is the nitrogen cycle

 

[(Q)]

It does, if you read further.

Read what? I haven't read anything here that would make sense of that statement. It contradicts itself, plain and simple.

 

[Sarkus]

However, because I do believe in the principle of 'cosmic balance' (or karma), rather than 'heaven' per se, it makes it easier to live with the inequities and challenges of living now.

How do non-believers handle the same issues?

I don't have a belief in an "afterlife" - and I'm quite comfortable with the fact that this life is it for me.

I do think that my atoms will be recycled and might well become part of someone, or something, else over time - but that is not an afterlife - that is just physics and chemistry at work.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "The notion of the afterlife is not a mere means to elicit good behaviour - it is a claim about the nature of reality"

Nature of reality? There are a variety of claims regarding the afterlife depending on ones religious persuasion but that hasn't anything to do with reality. The only verifiable reality is the nitrogen cycle

According to such reductionist paradigms of defining reality the mind doesn't exist either - are you prepared to accept such paradigms as the final last words for determining the validity of claims about the nature of reality?

 

[spidergoat]

But, the mind does not exist. What exists are billions of calculations that go on behind the scenes to produce that perception, none of which we can actually percieve (except perhaps in certain circumstances like hallucinations).