# is there an afterlife?



## rfiguero

This thread is not argumental, this is simply for you to post your theory of what you believe will happen when you die. Feel free to explain why you think your theory is more likely or reasonable. if anyone disagrees with anyone there is no need to say so. Simply ignore it.


----------



## littlepickles

I don't think there is. I really wish that I could believe there was something to look forward to, but I think we're all just going to rot in the ground.


----------



## Godless1

As soon as there is no neural activity in my brain, "I" will cease to exist.


----------



## OpiodArmor

I think it will be like before you were born. IE: Nothingness.

(Of course I do love the idea of a afterlife! I mean anything is possible, right? *CROSSES FINGERS!*)


----------



## CoreyX

I don't believe so. It's a nice and poetic thought, but in reality, I don't think that's possible. Once the electrical currents cease in my brain, all is lost. Sadly.


----------



## alte

Nope. We have no evidence for it. The idea that it exists is so widespread because people are afraid of dying and find it hard to believe that they will, at one point, stop existing. Thinking that an afterlife exists is the mind's way to cope with this stressful reality.


----------



## rfiguero

but you have to think in the metaphysical, because it exists, just as the concept of infinity exists but is unfathomable, yet it exists. This is an example of the many things we cannot fathom, but are real, in a form that cannot be understood by our way of thinking and what we understand of the physical. So, this being said, there is more than the "physical" that we will never be able to understand or study. 
just like we do not know why we are even here, we do not know of our beginning, so the possibilities are multiple, to disclude the existence of something that u cannot study, is to be ignorant and limited. of course we will not "know" what happens, i stated to post your "theory" or what you think is possible, such as there are theories of near death experiences revealing the possibility of a neurological continuation in another form, possibly another dimension, and by logic, other dimensions do exist.


----------



## OpiodArmor

Haha you just sound like you didn't like what you heard. You also said no need to disagree but you basically called us all ignorant. 

And near-death experiences are simply the brains way of copping with dying. IE: You're brain makes up a nice, comforting story for you in it's last act of desperation to make sense of what is going on.

Oh and I think we should talk about the green goblins of Norway. Their is no evidence to disprove my theory; Don't be ignorant and ignore my claim.


----------



## alte

rfiguero said:


> i stated to post your "theory" or what you think is possible, such as there are theories of near death experiences revealing the possibility of a neurological continuation in another form, possibly another dimension, and by logic, other dimensions do exist.


I think near death experiences with the blinding lights and other visualizations are the result of the dying, oxygen starved brain and its cells firing erratically.

I wish there was an afterlife but it is hard to believe.


----------



## rfiguero

I stated "to to disclude the existence of something that u cannot study, is to be ignorant and limited." there is no direction towards anyone, and it is being limited in your thinking. and yes what you stated is only a "theory" and is not fact. besides that does not explain out of the body experiences. And ur little attempt with trying to create an analogy with a green goblin, false analogy  green goblin would be physical right . and theories on an afterlife are perfectly reasonable since there is no limitation in to what exists in the metaphysical, which includes dimensions and the existence of infinity. Do me a favor and dong post on this thread again if you're going to insult theories with your limited subjectivity (only returning u a favor, u insulted me ). you're done


----------



## rfiguero

^ to OpiodArmor


----------



## Mr Blue

Godless1 said:


> As soon as there is no neural activity in my brain, "I" will cease to exist.


My thoughts exactly, an after life theory just doesn't seem rational to me, but convenient to some people.


----------



## GunsnRoses

well theres this whole thing on near death experiences, many many people have 
"died" (in the sense that their heart stopped beating) and came back to life and all have extremley similar accounts of what happened when they were dead. People from different religions, different cultures, children, old men, everyone has nearly the same. there are thousands of these and you can google them if you want. so yes, i totally think theres an afterlife.


----------



## LoneWolf24

Nope I don't believe it either. Evolution proved any religion wrong for this "after life".


----------



## jimity

This is what I have learned and if I remember correctly.

Once your silver cord is cut, your etheric body along with the rest of your subtle bodies is cast out. Once the etheric body is out of subtle energy which is recieves from the physical body, it will no longer be able to function. During that period of time you will be roaming around the etheric plane which is an exact copy of the physical world. Think of it like a powerful and vivid dream. Once the energy runs out for the etheric body, your astral body will function and you will move into an area of the astral plane according to your vibrations. If you are a person of the flesh with corrupt thoughts and beastly desires, you will move to the 1st astral level plane, the lowest plane. The place is filled with the sort of things that brought the people there in the first place. The people there try to fulfill their fleshly desires for sex and drugs and food and drink but cannot because they have no body to experience it. Until you realize that it is in vain to lust after things like that you will not move higher up. If you have killed someone you will suffer the same type of pain and death yourself again and again and again. The second plane is more like our earth, and most people will end up there. There are 4 other higher astral planes and you will only move up to them if you are evolved enough. Once the mental body becomes active you will find yourself in the mental plane. It is completely different from the astral plane in that you have no emotions there. It is the plane of thoughts. There are 7 levels and you will end up in one of them according to your vibrations. Then we have the buddhic and atmic planes and 2 others, I can't remember the names. 

The karma you have built up from previous lives will be there to determine where you will be born and how your next life will turn out. Evil thoughts and intentions will affect character, therefore we should only think good thoughts to improve our character. Evil deeds will cause us "bad luck" and being in the wrong time and wrong place type of thing.


----------



## rfiguero

evolution does not "prove" anything, evolution is only a theory (macro evolution that is). difference between mico and macro, the theory of macro includes a random stimulation to add information to DNA, 10 to the power of 50 for information to be randomly stimulated by chance into a simple stem cell. 10 to the power of 10 is widely considered impossible since the chance is so highly unlikely it is unreasonable to accept it. Micro evolution is fact and possible because there is no random order stimulized by chance, because micro is only the elimination of information, the elimination of what already exists. Anyways im not going to get in to that this thread isnt for that (personally i think this big bang theory and macro evolution is laughable) I would find the theory of a god or supernatural existence beyond our realm to be more plausible, since it is something that we wouldnt be able to understand by physical thinking, just as infinity exists but cannot be understood. Macro evolution and the big bang attempt to explain the existence of metaphysical anomalies suck as the unfathomable concept of infinitive existence through a physical stand point, which will not work. It must simply be accepted that we will never know everything. But to have a more open minded and reasonable you would have to include the metaphysical as a reality.


----------



## Godless1

rfiguero said:


> evolution does not "prove" anything, evolution is only a theory (*macro evolution that is*). difference between mico and macro, the theory of macro includes a random stimulation to add information to DNA, 10 to the power of 50 for information to be randomly stimulated by chance into a simple stem cell. 10 to the power of 10 is widely considered impossible since the chance is so highly unlikely it is unreasonable to accept it. Micro evolution is fact and possible because there is no random order stimulized by chance, because micro is only the elimination of information, the elimination of what already exists. Anyways im not going to get in to that this thread isnt for that (personally i think this big bang theory and macro evolution is laughable) I would find the theory of a god or supernatural existence beyond our realm to be more plausible, since it is something that we wouldnt be able to understand by physical thinking, just as infinity exists but cannot be understood. Macro evolution and the big bang attempt to explain the existence of metaphysical anomalies suck as the unfathomable concept of infinitive existence through a physical stand point, which will not work. It must simply be accepted that we will never know everything. But to have a more open minded and reasonable you would have to include the metaphysical as a reality.


FUUUUUUUUUU! *Macro evolution is just a series of micro evolutionary events. If you agree that micro evolution exists, you agree that macro evolution exists.

*Sorry that always gets me riled up.


----------



## Emanresu

I die, the end.


----------



## rfiguero

Godless1 said:


> FUUUUUUUUUU! *Macro evolution is just a series of micro evolutionary events. If you agree that micro evolution exists, you agree that macro evolution exists.
> 
> *Sorry that always gets me riled up.


so u deny micro is the elimination of DNA or a DNA assortment? then u deny fact, you are living in a delusion, and im not gonna repeat what i said about Macro evolution, i only stated fact. do not post here if you're gonna say "FUUUUUUUUUU!"


----------



## Godless1

rfiguero said:


> so u deny micro is the elimination of DNA or a DNA assortment? then u deny fact, you are living in a delusion, and im not gonna repeat what i said about Macro evolution, i only stated fact. do not post here if you're gonna say "FUUUUUUUUUU!"


The idea that mircro evolution is not proof of macro evolution is nothing but Christian "science" propaganda. I honestly don't know what you are talking about, elimination of DNA, what?


----------



## johnson8681

I believe there is an after life I dont know how or why I just have a feeling theres more than this life. I have losed loved ones and I know there gone once you die thats it your physical body is gone, but there memory lives inside of me a piece of there soul and I know theres a place where all our souls will go I can't see it I just know theres more to it then this.


----------



## OpiodArmor

Evolution and the Big Bang are less likely then God? How so?


----------



## Godless1

Here Rfiguero, do you trust Berkley. 
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01_

*"Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change..."*_


----------



## AussiePea

I do not believe there is an afterlife. I believe when you die, that is it.


----------



## Mr Blue

From what I've gathered the memories, thoughts, identity even emotions absolutely everything is in the brain so if you physically die and you're "brain-dead" you most certainty cease to exist. Any other theory involves metaphysics/magic and religion theories that were created hundreds of years ago when anything that wasn't understood or feared was given a divine explanation just my two cents.


----------



## Dr Hobo Scratch MD

afterlife??? hmmm i believe it to be another form of consciousness.is it like the brainwashing cult like hell fire bathed fairytales that organized religion beats us in the head with ??? NO.


----------



## TheStrangeOnes

*Afterlife*



OpiodArmor said:


> Haha you just sound like you didn't like what you heard. You also said no need to disagree but you basically called us all ignorant.
> 
> And near-death experiences are simply the brains way of copping with dying. IE: You're brain makes up a nice, comforting story for you in it's last act of desperation to make sense of what is going on.
> 
> Oh and I think we should talk about the green goblins of Norway. Their is no evidence to disprove my theory; Don't be ignorant and ignore my claim.


The brain's way of coping with dying? If the body's about to die why would the brain bother making up "comforting stories"? That makes no sense. It certainly doesn't explain out-of-body experiences for a start. There's a wealth of evidence to show the afterlife exists. You just need to do more research with an open mind.


----------



## BluButterfly

I'm a Christian, so yes, I believe there is an afterlife. I believe that when one dies, their soul lives on, either reconciled with God (in Heaven) or separated from God (in Hell)


----------



## Makaveli

We don't know for sure. If life ends into complete nothingness then what's the point of existence?

Anyone can believe what they wish but we will never know till it's our time to go. 

Im conflicted in regards to religion. Whilst I believe in a higher entity, I don't believe in all these differences in religion. Humanity was around long before the advent of many of them. But then I wonder will I "burn in hell" for not believing/following the religion I was born into.

I believe in God. What happens at the end, I'll see when I get there.


----------



## Godless1

Makaveli said:


> We don't know for sure. *If life ends into complete nothingness then what's the point of existence?*
> 
> Anyone can believe what they wish but we will never know till it's our time to go.
> 
> Im conflicted in regards to religion. Whilst I believe in a higher entity, I don't believe in all these differences in religion. Humanity was around long before the advent of many of them. But then I wonder will I "burn in hell" for not believing/following my religion at birth...
> 
> I believe in God. What happens at the end, I'll see when I get there.


If I've learned anything during my life, it's that there is no inherent point of existence.


----------



## luffy

jimity said:


> This is what I have learned and if I remember correctly.
> 
> Once your silver cord is cut, your etheric body along with the rest of your subtle bodies is cast out. Once the etheric body is out of subtle energy which is recieves from the physical body, it will no longer be able to function. During that period of time you will be roaming around the etheric plane which is an exact copy of the physical world. Think of it like a powerful and vivid dream. Once the energy runs out for the etheric body, your astral body will function and you will move into an area of the astral plane according to your vibrations. If you are a person of the flesh with corrupt thoughts and beastly desires, you will move to the 1st astral level plane, the lowest plane. The place is filled with the sort of things that brought the people there in the first place. The people there try to fulfill their fleshly desires for sex and drugs and food and drink but cannot because they have no body to experience it. Until you realize that it is in vain to lust after things like that you will not move higher up. If you have killed someone you will suffer the same type of pain and death yourself again and again and again. The second plane is more like our earth, and most people will end up there. There are 4 other higher astral planes and you will only move up to them if you are evolved enough. Once the mental body becomes active you will find yourself in the mental plane. It is completely different from the astral plane in that you have no emotions there. It is the plane of thoughts. There are 7 levels and you will end up in one of them according to your vibrations. Then we have the buddhic and atmic planes and 2 others, I can't remember the names.
> 
> The karma you have built up from previous lives will be there to determine where you will be born and how your next life will turn out. Evil thoughts and intentions will affect character, therefore we should only think good thoughts to improve our character. Evil deeds will cause us "bad luck" and being in the wrong time and wrong place type of thing.


now here's a theory that makes sense. :yes


----------



## Skinart

Do I believe in after life? No, but it would be nice ...

Let me ask you this ... do you wonder if we are like the matrix? Plugged into some massive computer system..... Or maybe we are all game characters in a game that was created by some technology that we could never comprehend?


----------



## SuperSky

Nope. You die, that's it. Maybe someone remembers you, maybe not, but anything that's actually "you" in any sense of consciousness is gone.


----------



## someguy8

Id say there's atleast a 50/50 chance of their being an "afterlife". Could be how its portrayed by many religions or it could be(most likely imo) something else perhaps beyond human comprehension. If you wonder the question don't automatically believe everything you hear and dont automatically disbelieve everything either. Open up a logical mind, Apply logic to an open mind. Si. si.


----------



## Spindrift

TheStrangeOnes said:


> There's a wealth of evidence to show the afterlife exists. You just need to do more research *with an open mind.*


The oft-used euphemism for "_you're going to read a lot of silly bull****, but you should try believing in it anyway_".


----------



## Ametime

Yes there is an afterlife but when you die you don't take your natural self with you. Your body and mind all cease to exist. But you have access to a spirit because Jesus died for you to have everlasting life. If you accept Jesus as your Savior then you will go on to heaven where you will be rewarded based on your acts here on earth. If you choose not to accept Jesus as your Savior I believe you keep getting sent back to this earth in spirit for another chance to accept him until the end of the world. (this last part is my theory, I really don't have any way to know for sure)


----------



## alte

joinmartin said:


> Evolution does not prove the absence of an after life. Technically speaking, it doesn't prove the absence of a God force either.
> 
> And we're quite clearly not all in the brain. Take my heart out of my body and, unless you do something blooming quickly, I'm dead. Brain still there but with the heart gone I'm still dead. Take my lungs out and unless you do something quick, I'll lose the ability to breathe. Cut my throat and unless I get some serious help, I'm dead. A human being is more than the sum of his or her brain cells. Indeed, science is currently split over whether the neurons in the gut and the heart are enough to count them as alternate brains.
> 
> Some near death experiences may well be caused by activity in the brain. But perhaps that's kinda the point. That the human being has the potential to evolve enough to set up some sort of continued living where the soul or essence can use the brain cells to create some sort of bridge to another place. Who knows?
> 
> Point is, there's still a rational way of looking at this which doesn't dismiss it.
> 
> I mean, we all have the ability to hallucinate and create our own worlds. Our pocket worlds. Is it so much of a leap that the power of the human mind could be enough to create a world where the spirit (if such a thing exists) can out last the body.
> 
> And when we interact with others and touch their lives, they carry around a piece of us anyway in their memory and their hearts etc. So even when we die there's bits of us being interpreted by other people on many levels. Kind of like thought clones which are not one hundred percent us because the other person interpreted us through their own senses but still enough of us to be classed as a continued form of the deceased existence.
> 
> Obviously, there's no requirement or obligation for anyone to believe in this and we're all going to have our own viewpoints. And there's more things in this world then are dreamed of in my head. But worth going beyond what you normally accept as real to you sometimes.


That's an interesting viewpoint that I hadn't thought of before. Thinking similarly, a person can become immortal by having kids since technically a son or a daughter will have 50% of their genetic material. Then their son or daughter have children, who now have 25% of the original person's/grandparent's genes. This goes on and on, with the genetic share decreasing by half each generation. By the 7th generation (about 200 years, assuming everyone has kids at approx. 30 years of age) it becomes less than 1 percent.

The number decreases quickly but it will always be >0, as long as people keep having children.


----------



## Space Ghost

Maybe the we return to what we were before we were born. 

I kind of doubt that there is any kind of afterlife. It always sounded like a fantasy by people afraid of death. I do however hold on to the hope that we have an essence. One independent of our brain and body, and that this essence recycles.


----------



## UltraShy

Upon death you cease to exist, putting *you* in the same non-existent position as you were in prior to conception.

Note how I have to awkwardly say "you" even though there is no "you" after death, except in the past tense. And I guess after death does differ slightly in that prior to conception there was at least a potential you who existed as an egg.

I think this view is the most likely because I've simply never seen any evidence at all that would lead me to think that anything supernatural exists. All I have found in 38 years is the physical world, including a great many physical people who desperately hope there is more.

If Jesus or something of that nature comes to my door, I'll reconsider my position.


----------



## SMOOZIE

Hell yes, I'm looking forward to that! (Or shall I say, heaven yes):dead:yay


----------



## PickleNose

Anything I could say one way or another would be useless, pointless speculation. And not only that but since we're all going to die sooner or later anyway, there's no need to dwell upon it.


----------



## 390

Godless1 said:


> As soon as there is no neural activity in my brain, "I" will cease to exist.


^This. I feel that believing in a metaphysical spirit makes about as much sense as believing that there's an invisible floating elephant in your room. You can't prove that he doesn't exist but no one would say that it's statistically likely.

I feel pain, I have a subjective sense of awareness, I'm not a biological automaton, but still my conscious states are linked directly to my neural activity. I had no sense of my existence before I was born, therefore I should have no sense of my existence after I die.


----------



## Makaveli

luffy said:


> now here's a theory that makes sense. :yes


Sure does. I read briefly about a decade ago about the whole 7 skies thing. It was over my head at the time. Still is but your summary was very concise and easy to read.

It's very interesting.


----------



## stranger25




----------



## Godless1

Spindrift said:


> The oft-used euphemism for "_you're going to read a lot of silly bull****, but you should try believing in it anyway_".


I laughed pretty hard.



390 said:


> ^This. I feel that believing in a metaphysical spirit makes about as much sense as believing that there's an invisible floating elephant in your room. You can't prove that he doesn't exist but no one would say that it's statistically likely.
> 
> I feel pain, I have a subjective sense of awareness, I'm not a biological automaton, but still my conscious states are linked directly to my neural activity. *I had no sense of my existence before I was born, therefore I should have no sense of my existence after I die.*


Exactly, and, to me, that's more comforting than the idea of an afterlife.

By no means do I want to die, not yet anyway, but the fear of being dead makes no sense to me. People talk about non-existence as if it's going to be an uncomfortable state. Trust me, it won't be. You only exist in the window of your life, outside of that is completely irrelevant to your subjective consciousness, so there is absolutely no reason to worry about it.


----------



## Jessie203

I believe more in science than fairy tales.
When we die, we cease to exhist in anyway completely.
We are not special.
We're animals.


----------



## Godless1

kathy903 said:


> I believe more in science than fairy tales.
> When we die, we cease to exhist in anyway completely.
> We are not special.
> We're animals.


ZOMG, are you trying to say my goldfish isn't in heaven?


----------



## Albert11

The reason I believe there is an afterlife is because a man named Jesus rose from the dead. To dismiss the great possibility that there are different dimensional planes of existence is (I think-Narrow minded). Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by a multitude of people. And the event was recorded by many corroborating individuals. Well, not only that, but I have personally experienced confirmation of God innumerable times.


----------



## Mr Blue

I'm glad to finally see a true discussion on the subject, if I asked this anywhere where I lived there would be no contest everyone would jump me with christian beliefs and act like I'm the dumb one for not automatically believing without question what I was taught as a kid.


----------



## Godless1

Albert11 said:


> The reason I believe there is an afterlife is because a man named Jesus rose from the dead. To dismiss the great possibility that there are different dimensional planes of existence is (I think-Narrow minded).* Jesus's resurrection was witnessed by a multitude of people. And the event was recorded by many corroborating individuals.* Well, not only that, but I have personally experienced confirmation of God innumerable times.


Technically, no one witnessed it. There are actually no writings of Jesus from the time in which he supposedly lived. No one wrote about him for at least several decades, when the apostles wrote about him existing in a mythical realm.

But hey, don't let my facts get in the way of your religion.


----------



## artandis

littlepickles said:


> I don't think there is. I really wish that I could believe there was something to look forward to, but I think we're all just going to rot in the ground.


Took the exact words out of my mouth.


----------



## Jessie203

Godless1 said:


> ZOMG, are you trying to say my goldfish isn't in heaven?


:hide Hahaha uh ... noo0oooo......... He's uh.... he's fine


----------



## Godless1

kathy903 said:


> :hide Hahaha uh ... noo0oooo......... He's uh.... he's fine


LOL. That actually raises an interesting question though. If fish don't go to heaven, but humans do, at what point in our lineage did human's evolve the ability to make it to the afterlife?


----------



## Mr Blue

Godless1 said:


> LOL. That actually raises an interesting question though. If fish don't go to heaven, but humans do, at what point in our lineage did human's evolve the ability to make it to the afterlife?


If we're playing by Christianity's rules, we're the "superior" specie made in God's image and thus gave us souls, animals not so lucky lol.


----------



## 390

Godless1 said:


> By no means do I want to die, not yet anyway, but the fear of being dead makes no sense to me. People talk about non-existence as if it's going to be an uncomfortable state. Trust me, it won't be. You only exist in the window of your life, outside of that is completely irrelevant to your subjective consciousness, so there is absolutely no reason to worry about it.


I want to keep myself going as long as possible. It would be nice if Aubrey de Grey's mob succeeds in instigating the discovery of a way to reverse ageing because I'd like to see where technology and civilisation goes. I imagine death would be something like reading a 500 page book and stopping once you get to page 312. Though I can never make it through to the end it'd be cool to be able to forsee the future, i.e. witness the extinction of humans, see the destruction of the earth, the heat death of the universe etcetera.


----------



## Godless1

Mr Blue said:


> If we're playing by Christianity's rules, we're the "superior" specie made in God's image and thus gave us souls, animals not so lucky lol.


Of course, but there are those who believe in evolution and an afterlife. Thus, they must believe that we evolved souls at some point. Either that, or they believe that all animals go to heaven.


----------



## Jessie203

Godless1 said:


> LOL. That actually raises an interesting question though. If fish don't go to heaven, but humans do, at what point in our lineage did human's evolve the ability to make it to the afterlife?


Religion.. back in the Bible writing days.
Makes people feel better.
Sort of like Santa Claus. And magic.
Makes people behave and conform.
Sort of like so nobody is running around having sex and killing people.
Control + Wishful Thinking.


----------



## Godless1

390 said:


> I want to keep myself going as long as possible. It would be nice if Aubrey de Grey's mob succeeds in instigating the discovery of a way to reverse ageing because I'd like to see where technology and civilisation goes. I imagine death would be something like reading a 500 page book and stopping once you get to page 312. Though I can never make it through to the end it'd be cool to be able to forsee the future, i.e. witness the extinction of humans, see the destruction of the earth, the heat death of the universe etcetera.


Yeah, I would love to see how the rest of history plays out, and learn all the scientific discoveries that are yet to come. I probably wouldn't want to live more than a few more centuries or so, though.


----------



## fredbloggs02

Ars longa vita brevis! Wether there is or not, what sort of life would that be knowing of it in detail before careered off the edge of a cliff? There are strong answers for an afterlife, strong in every respect, but that doesn't matter to me. What would it matter however ingeniously I crafted it before, being able to tell anyone yes or no after them!? How worthless an answer would that be? I bought a silver Christian pendant today, to replace the vial I smashed, but the symbol in itself is worthless. Do I believe, do I not? Is meaningless. The bounded, tinkered, innocent life is the contestion with or without a belief of after. Some emphatically limit us through disbelief. The disbelieving interpretation of now resides in this one as it does the next. Neither definitively substract from anyone-both depends on us!

To me, contrary to popular belief, the responsibility and savage beauty of an afterlife in this one would be vastest, the life would be worth more because meaning in this one should they find it would derive itself from limitlessness, not simply responsibility to the next man's pinnacle most possessed, safety and impermanence. You'd have to find the limited within limitlessness, nothing spared. Something to live for more than our life in this last breath, instead of something to live for inside our future life. Responsibility to his final breaths unleashed tempest's laceration. An afterlife's stolen breathless gasps when lived in simple shades, in monotone, that is the evil. There are some instances where it matters not where you crash or fall to death, something lingers longer than that plummet before mountain sides, and that's how I'd live. A piercing tempest's ears inherit the wind, the deepest draught of air from cliff face plunges, all of this for that one instant because this is life as far as the next and living this one even ending as a flake of snow as it lands before our eyes, vanishing final moments, never the endless moments, that impetus suffused outside ourselves, neither draws up from our hearts stulted, searing gasp no insisted, stifled moans. I live for the first. There might be moments outside considerations where our heart erupts before the final beat. We taste them in things we see, we hear, in reading a book, the protagnoist pursued by an island of people and it's animals, their dogs jaws lapping at his heels, stumbling over oneanother hastens to fly. He is so innocent, yet so guilty of himself. Both chase him as fast as eachother over the envied, pouted, cliff face. A chase outside our lives within. Parted frozen eyes. Those are what I life for. Noone distrusts an afterlife, we distrust the sophistication of the interpreter. An afterlife in itself degrades nothing, it heightens it. These popular atheist debaters who draped it through the dirt. who misunderstood, who purposefully inveighed to manipulate bedlam of others. Their arms did so creeping, weighted arms, without the soul to appeciate how tearing convulsed claws inspire, or who they spare.


----------



## Monroee

I tend to believe it's possible. The origin of life itself is a mystery. There are a lot of things we don't understand. I don't see how it makes an afterlife totally impossible.


----------



## Cody88

Being that I've had paranormal experiences throughout my life and caught EVPs saying relevant things or repeating an exact word I said meaning they aren't just radio signals, I believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in a heaven though and sometimes I wonder if part of our consciousness gets passed down through non-coding DNA and we can "reincarnate" our consciousness further down a family line. Never know.


----------



## justpassinby

Well, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just transformed, doesn't that mean we will be transformed somehow? Our consciousness that is (spirit, personality soul)? If you are around people, you feel a certain energy about them. So if that energy cannot be destroyed, it has to undergo some kind of transformation, as it is no longer present in the body form, because the body dies. This is where that transformed energy enters eternity maybe?


----------



## OpiodArmor

justpassinby said:


> Well, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just transformed, doesn't that mean we will be transformed somehow? Our consciousness that is (spirit, personality soul)? If you are around people, you feel a certain energy about them. So if that energy cannot be destroyed, it has to undergo some kind of transformation, as it is no longer present in the body form, because the body dies. This is where that transformed energy enters eternity maybe?


What if the energy just went into the surrounding atmosphere / the ground. IE: Heat.


----------



## jkquatre

Why would physical laws of conservation of energy apply something thats meta-physical/supernatural like a 'spirit'?


----------



## Chris16

justpassinby said:


> Well, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just transformed, doesn't that mean we will be transformed somehow? Our consciousness that is (spirit, personality soul)? If you are around people, you feel a certain energy about them. So if that energy cannot be destroyed, it has to undergo some kind of transformation, as it is no longer present in the body form, because the body dies. This is where that transformed energy enters eternity maybe?


Well, we've already been transformed countless times. The stuff that is us has _been_ transforming since the universe began, and during all of those previous forms we were never conscious (seemingly) except for our time in this one form.

In my opinion life is just a result of our molecules being arranged in a certain way. You mess up that arrangement, the effect disappears, like the illusion of a card-house vanishing if you kick one of the cards. Shoot someone in the head? You've messed up the arrangement, and the effect is gone. Sperm and egg? The "life" effect hasn't kicked in yet because the molecules aren't in the right form yet. If someone gets vaporized and then a claim is made that they are still somehow "thinking", well, that's sentient gas you're talking about. They used to be gas and other inanimate things before, right? Everyone was. Were they thinking then too? It seems more reasonable to admit that they still technically "exist," but are now in a form that does not produce the process of thought.


----------



## OpiodArmor

jkquatre said:


> Why would physical laws of conservation of energy apply something thats meta-physical/supernatural like a 'spirit'?


We'll he was talking about actual scientific laws; I figured he would try to apply it in a scientific way. Otherwise what's the point of even mentioning said laws?

Might as well have just said "No I think we have a spirit."


----------



## boredandtired

rfiguero said:


> This thread is not argumental, this is simply for you to post your theory of what you believe will happen when you die. Feel free to explain why you think your theory is more likely or reasonable. if anyone disagrees with anyone there is no need to say so. Simply ignore it.


I wish I knew because I would be there already.


----------



## ImWeird

Ground, dirt, nothing.


----------



## Fantas Eyes

I'm too lazy to go into detail, but I believe in an afterlife.


----------



## OpiodArmor

Bonzu said:


> I just want to say that for those that believe in the afterlife. (if i play along with your beliefs) Taking ones own life would result in "eternal punishment" no matter the religion because how could there be a reward for killing yourself?


The belief of a afterlife does not immediatly mean in a religous sense. As far as we know if their was a afterlife everyone's afterlife could be exactly the same regardless of their actions on Earth.

You're putting your own belief onto everyone else.


----------



## justpassinby

OpiodArmor said:


> What if the energy just went into the surrounding atmosphere / the ground. IE: Heat.


Because our personalities, soul, spirit are not physical properties so would not evaporate or rearrange as one poster put it, into another physical property existence such as heat.

My personal belief is that God "breathed life into man" which is our personality, soul, spirit, and coming from God, is outside of the physical and cannot be measured, yet it exists. Like I said, we can feel people's energy and we are born with certain personalities, of course further shaped by life events, and a soul and spirit, which discerns right from wrong. How do you measure these things with physical instruments?

The laws of physics applies to supernatural in a way because the origin of life is said to have started from nonphysical properties according to science, or "antimatter" and even science believes there is an eternity outside of time, etc. Seems like the two could go hand in hand.


----------



## OpiodArmor

justpassinby said:


> Because our personalities, soul, spirit are not physical properties so would not evaporate or rearrange as one poster put it, into another physical property existence such as heat.
> 
> My personal belief is that God "breathed life into man" which is our personality, soul, spirit, and coming from God, is outside of the physical and cannot be measured, yet it exists. Like I said, we can feel people's energy and we are born with certain personalities, of course further shaped by life events, and a soul and spirit, which discerns right from wrong. How do you measure these things with physical instruments?
> 
> The laws of physics applies to supernatural in a way because the origin of life is said to have started from nonphysical properties according to science, or "antimatter" and even science believes there is an eternity outside of time, etc. Seems like the two could go hand in hand.


Possibly but at the same time these things can be measured by electrical currents that are going off in our brains. (Personality.) Spirit / soul are not scientific facts since their is nothing to support their existence (As in they are just as real as Santa Claus is from a scientific standpoint) so I personally would not consider using a scientific tool to measure weather they exist or not, however we have different opinions and yours is just as valid as mine.

Also the ability to tell right from wrong is a matter of our natural evolution (Brain) combined with social upbringing. If you took a group of people and somehow seperated them from the rest of society upon birth that group of people would end up (potentially) with a completely different set of values and beliefs.


----------



## MagusAnima

My consciousness will just be gone, but the atoms in my body will go on to become part of something new, this makes me feel better about it. Some of those atoms might even become part of something else that does have a consciousness.


----------



## SMOOZIE

Bonzu said:


> I just want to say that for those that believe in the afterlife. (if i play along with your beliefs) Taking ones own life would result in "eternal punishment" no matter the religion because how could there be a reward for killing yourself?


Punishment, reward = human made concepts. What if there is a consequence that is beyond what our little human minds are accustomed to understanding?


----------



## Lonelyguy

I don't believe in an afterlife. When I die its game over.


----------



## MagusAnima

Bonzu said:


> this is what i look forward to.


When you think about it... lots of people who are long dead might be part of our own bodies now, as well as animals, plants, rocks and even stars. I suppose it's like very efficient recycling, since atoms can survive for trillions of years (if not forever?)


----------



## Nefury

What happens after death is beyond our knowledge, humans cannot imagine 'nothing', you can try, but all you will think of is a blank canvas.


----------



## lazy calm

was there beforelife?

i don't believe there's an actual "life" after real life. all of our souls just wandering around.


----------



## PeakOfTheMountain

I don't think there is.


----------



## successful

Yes, but you have to buy an afterlife. Very few people know about it, but i can get you an afterlife. All you to do is bring me a chicken foot, your signature, a sample of your hair, 6 black candles, and blood from a black cat and i can do it for you. 

I usually charge $40,000 for it but since this SAS ill only charge you all $19,000. Namsayin?

Serious buyers only.:twisted


----------



## CoyoteNature

What's forever, what's eternity, I tend not to believe in a eternal afterlife, or eternal soul, or a eternal me.

If you went on forever, life would kill you as surely as death, with all the sequences of life of existence changing you until you are no longer you, until you no longer remember who you are.

I don't believe in the concept of a eternal hell or heaven, because people are finite, they change and evolve a great deal in only a hundred years on this planet, in a heaven a saint would become a monster, and in hell a monster would become a saint, people really don't have any idea of what eternity is, its longer then a trillion, trillion times the age of the universe.

I think what I believe in is that creation allows for all possibilities given enough time and space for it to occur. 

I mean entropy to take a example, tends toward a maxiumum and the probability that it would ever reach a low entropic state is longer then the age of the universe, so the universe dies proton death, perhaps going back into the vacuum, eventually entropy will reverse, at least over a long enough span of time(whatever time means given such longness).

So why not the universe, why not me, why not causality itself, or the natural laws of the universe, I already know I can exist, that means I will exist later much later perhaps very much later times eternity.

I have a problem with trying to apply limits to things when the universe is so bloody old and large, you can do it in the now, and span of space we have observed, but realistically why not a afterlife, or a God, or thor or odin or shiva, eventually it will all occur if it hasn't already in the past in the future in the now.

I guess I believe creation is bigger then our beliefs or lack of make them out to be.


----------



## Albert11

Godless1 said:


> Technically, no one witnessed it. There are actually no writings of Jesus from the time in which he supposedly lived. No one wrote about him for at least several decades, when the apostles wrote about him existing in a mythical realm.
> 
> But hey, don't let my facts get in the way of your religion.


Are you out of your mind? Where the heck did you get your information? Technically---- Jesus walked, talked and ate with his 
Disciples for 40 days until he ascended into heaven. I've been studying scripture for 30 years. The only deciple that wasn't with Jesus was Paul, -formerly named Saul who was persecuting the Christians until he was struck blind on the on the road to Damascus. I'm sure you know the rest of that event. Paul wrote many of the New Testament Books. But he didn't write Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, who were with Jesus through out his ministry until death. 
I'm guessing you know so very little about the events recorded. Have you ever heard of the dead sea scrolls? Um they really exist. Oringinal Greek text. But, one thing I've learned is that there are people who just choose not to beleive regardless of the available evidence. And they certainly aren't going to spend any real time doing fair research.


----------



## skygazer

it doesn't matter


----------



## zookeeper

I Konami-coded, so I don't have to worry about it for a long time.


But seriously, the afterlife if you've been bad? Mimes. Lots of mimes.

You'd better shape up.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster

I was born once, therefore it could happen again.


----------



## millenniumman75

rfiguero said:


> but you have to think in the metaphysical, because it exists, just as the concept of infinity exists but is unfathomable, yet it exists. This is an example of the many things we cannot fathom, but are real, in a form that cannot be understood by our way of thinking and what we understand of the physical. So, this being said, there is more than the "physical" that we will never be able to understand or study.
> just like we do not know why we are even here, we do not know of our beginning, so the possibilities are multiple, to disclude the existence of something that u cannot study, is to be ignorant and limited. of course we will not "know" what happens, i stated to post your "theory" or what you think is possible, such as there are theories of near death experiences revealing the possibility of a neurological continuation in another form, possibly another dimension, and by logic, other dimensions do exist.


Do I believe it exists, Figaro? Yep.

The thing is that it is too much for all our little brains to handle. Yet, when we do go, our spirit leaves our bodies and we can do lots of things that we can't do as humans. :lol Like an invisible blob that eventually knows all about the world and everything. It would make our brains explode.

I would like to be one of them Touched by an Angel dudes that come down, help people, and get that cool glow when I do that big angel reveal toward the end of the show :lol.


----------



## Albert11

BluButterfly said:


> I'm a Christian, so yes, I believe there is an afterlife. I believe that when one dies, their soul lives on, either reconciled with God (in Heaven) or separated from God (in Hell)


Thank you!


----------



## KennethJones

metacomet said:


> *This is what happens when you dream, and when you die* :
> 
> The spirit body exits the physical container in this reality by raising it's vibration beyond the physical and assumes form in the 4th dimension, where it's thoughts, emotions, and deep seeded fears assume actual form and shape. This materialization of thought is used against the dreamer in his daze, as he does not realize that his dreams are actual events in 'the astral' or 4th dimension.
> 
> When speaking of the 4th dimension, I am referring to a non-physical dimension outside of our perception, and outside of 'spacetime' as we know it. In quantum physics the 4th dimension is accounted for as the origin of 'Time' and it overlays our dimension, which we experience quite obviously as movement, differences, distances, etc. ... time is a dimensional phenomena, it is not local to the 3rd dimension, but is instead a 4th dimension. All 3rd dimensional beings have a 4th dimensional self which becomes aware 1/3 of their life in order to familiarize them with their next highest dimension.
> 
> In other words, all of us dream, and are sleeping (or should sleep) 1/3 of our life, because our 4th dimensional self must experience itself 1/3 of our lives, in order to prepare us for the Big Transition of full awareness and existence in the 4th dimension...
> 
> What is that 'Big Transition'called for us? Death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The act of dreaming is the act of reconnecting with the 4th dimensional 'higher self' of a human being (which is also contained by 5th-7th(?) or perhaps infinite higher selves, which is a topic I will hold for now). This aspect of ourself creates objects, places, people, and even realities with thought alone. This is called 'dreaming' if the person is unaware.
> 
> Dreaming is dimensional travel, and so is the afterlife. But when a human being, incarnated in the 3rd dimension has a dream, he is left dazed, confused, and unaware, subject to all sorts of abuse... and this is how he is fed upon by 4th dimensional beings. This is why he must be easily controlled and is genetically programmed. This is also why he is bombarded by negative or 'dark' imagery, encouraged to feel guilt, jealousy, anger, shame, or other lower dimensional emotions, as well as endless thoughts which cause him pain. He is being fed on by the 4th dimension.
> 
> Without time, there is no possibility of injury or pain or suffering or guilt, anger, jealousy, or any negative feeling. Time is experienced here in the 3rd and lower dimensions... when we ascend to the 4th or 5th dimensions which are irrespective of time, we are free of all suffering and despair.
> 
> This is because lower dimensional feelings, based in time and separation (space), cannot be carried into 'heaven' which is outside of time and space.


http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=94076


----------



## OpiodArmor

bluedragon said:


> you cant even fathom your immense ignorance


Because he does not believe in your fairy tale?

This is why nobody respects religous people. Instead of being able to contain themselves and talk like adults / use facts they resort to throwing around insults.

I can't really blame them in dead honesty. I mean they have no facts to back up their arguement in the first place. Still it is very annoying. I bet deep down you realize how unlikely it is your own person religon is right and that scares you. It's okay though, I was the same way, I can feel your pain. ;(


----------



## stranger25

Did anybody watch the video I posted? What he experienced is what alot of people like that see. The tunnel, the white light, the life review, etc.


----------



## OpiodArmor

stranger25 said:


> Did anybody watch the video I posted? What he experienced is what alot of people like that see. The tunnel, the white light, the life review, etc.


The human mind is capable of insane acts of self-creation and imagination. I'm not sure if you really realize exactly what it's capable of; I've tripped on many different substances and have had out of body experiences comparable to the whole near death experience deals. I don't see why the brain releasing huge amounts of chemicals and being put into a situation it has never been in (death) could not be a similar situation.

I mean think about it. What is more likely: You're brain is hallucinating / creating this all (And, for the sake of arguement, lets say all human brains are similar (And they are) and ergo experience a similar hallucination)) or their is another plane of existence that we can somehow not detect in any possible manner where God is basically giving you a *High five* and you and the rest of humanity party for eternity?


----------



## Godless1

Albert11 said:


> Are you out of your mind? Where the heck did you get your information? Technically---- Jesus walked, talked and ate with his
> Disciples for 40 days until he ascended into heaven. I've been studying scripture for 30 years. The only deciple that wasn't with Jesus was Paul, -formerly named Saul who was persecuting the Christians until he was struck blind on the on the road to Damascus. I'm sure you know the rest of that event. Paul wrote many of the New Testament Books. But he didn't write *Matthew, Mark, Luke or John,* who were with Jesus through out his ministry until death.
> I'm guessing you know so very little about the events recorded. Have you ever heard of the *dead sea scrolls*? Um they really exist. Oringinal Greek text. But, one thing I've learned is that there are people who just choose not to beleive regardless of the available evidence. And they certainly aren't going to spend any real time doing fair research.


Okay, Mark, the first of those gospels, wasn't written until after 70 AD, and Jesus purportedly died around 33 AD. It also was written in a popular allegorical style of that time.

The Dead Sea Scrolls? Yes, I'm familiar with them, I even saw them on exhibit in Chicago. From my understanding they make no mention of Jesus whatsoever.

I wonder if you're familiar with the many other savior figures from which the story of Jesus drew inspiration. Many of these Gods (Mithra, Dyonisis, Osiris, etc) were also born of a virgin birth, died on a cross, were crucified, resurrected, and ascended to heaven. I see no reason to believe that, while all of those characters are clearly mythological, Jesus really existed.


----------



## Deathinmusic

There's no good reason to believe that there is. Unless you think wishful thinking is a good reason.


----------



## stats girl

*something*

A friend of mine was murdered a while back and another died of a drug overdose. Both had kind hearts and were good people. And so I now have to believe that good people must go somewhere. I will never know where but there just has to be something that comes after death


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Technically, it's not really an "afterlife" since there really is no "after"...it's just life, period.
You've always existed and when I say "you", I don't mean your body. I mean that little voice in your head that you identify as you. Your "self". It's impossible for us to prove, since it's not possible for us to accurately imagine an existence outside the dimension of "time" and then the 3 spatial dimensions we "see". There are other dimensions that are so small, we just can't see them. I believe the "afterlife" exists somewhere in those dimensions.


----------



## CrimsonTrigger

If so, I only wonder what is after the afterlife.


----------



## xTKsaucex

I like to think there is. But, if I'm dead there's no need to drink / eat and I couldn't cope without a Cigarette and a cup of tea every now and then :b


----------



## Somali

Hello everyone. I would like to share with you my beliefs. As a muslim, I believe that this life is a trial in preparation for the next realm of existence. The question of whether there is life after death does not fall under the jurisdiction of science, as science is concerned only with classification and analysis of sense data. Moreover, man has been busy with scientific inquiries and research, in the modern sense of the term, only for the last few centuries, while he has been familiar with the concept of life after death since time immemorial.
All the Prophets of God called their people to worship God and to believe in life after death. They laid so much emphasis on the belief in life after death that even a slight doubt in it meant denying God and made all other beliefs meaningless.

The very fact that all the Prophets of God have dealt with this metaphysical question of life after death so confidently and so uniformly - the gap between their ages in some cases, being thousands of years - goes to prove that the source of their knowledge of life after death as proclaimed by them all, was the same, i.e. Divine revelation. We also know that these Prophets of God were greatly opposed by their people, mainly on the issue of life after death, as their people thought it impossible. But in spite of opposition, the Prophets won many sincere followers.

The question arises: what made those followers forsake the established beliefs, traditions and customs of their forefathers, notwithstanding the risk of being totally alienated from their own community? The simple answer is: they made use of their faculties of mind and heart and realized the truth.

Did they realize the truth through perceptual consciousness? They couldn't, as perceptual experience of life after death is impossible. God has given man besides perceptual consciousness, rational, aesthetic and moral consciousness too. It is this consciousness that guides man regarding realities that cannot be verified through sensory data. That is why all the Prophets of God while calling people to believe in God and life after death, appeal to the aesthetic, moral and rational consciousness of man.For example, when the idolaters of Makkah denied even the possibility of life after death, the Quran exposed the weakness of their stand by advancing very logical and rational arguments in support of it:

And he (i.e. man) presents for Us an example (i.e. attempting to establish the finality of death) and forgets his [own] creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?" Say, "He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing." [It is] He who made for you from the green tree, fire, and then from it you ignite. Is not He who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the likes of them? Yes, [it is so]; and He is the Knowing Creator. (Quran, 36:78-81)

On another occasion, the Quran very clearly says that the disbelievers have no sound basis for their denial of life after death. It is based on pure conjecture:

And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and live (i.e. some people die and others live, replacing them) and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful." Say, "God causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt," but most of the people do not know. (Quran, 45:24-26)

Surely God will raise all the dead. But God has His own plan of things. A day will come when the whole universe will be destroyed and then the dead will be resurrected to stand before God. That day will be the beginning of a life that will never end, and on that day every person will be rewarded by God according to his or her good or evil deeds.

The explanation that the Quran gives about the necessity of life after death is what the moral consciousness of man demands. Actually, if there is no life after death, the very belief in God becomes meaningless or even if one believes in God, it would be n unjust and indifferent God, having once created man and now not being concerned with his fate.

Surely, God is just. He will punish the tyrants, whose crimes are beyond count - having tortured and killed hundreds or thousands of innocent people, created great corruption in society, enslaved numerous persons to serve their whims, etc., because man has a very short life span in this world and because numerous individuals are affected by one's actions, adequate punishments and rewards are not possible in this life. The Quran very emphatically states that the Day of Judgment must come and that God will decide the fate of each soul according to his or her record of deeds:

But those who disbelieve say, "The Hour (i.e. the Day of Judgment) will not come to us." Say, "Yes, by my Lord, it will surely come to you. [God is] the Knower of the unseen." Not absent from Him is an atom's weight within the heavens or within the earth or [what is] smaller than that or greater, except that it is in a clear register - That He may reward those who believe and do righteous deeds. Those will have forgiveness and noble provision. But those who strive against Our verses [seeking] to cause failure (i.e. to undermine their credibility) - for them will be a painful punishment of foul nature. (Quran, 34:3-5)

The Day of Resurrection will be the Day when God's attributes of Justice and Mercy will be in full manifestation. God will shower His mercy on those who suffered for His sake in the worldly life, believing that an eternal bliss was awaiting them. But those who abused the bounties of God, caring nothing for the life to come, will be in the most miserable state. Drawing a comparison between them, the Quran says:

Then is he whom We have promised a good promise which he will meet [i.e. obtain] like he for whom We provided enjoyment of worldly life [but] then he is, on the Day of Resurrection, among those presented [for punishment in Hell]? (Quran, 28:61)

The Quran also states that this worldly life is a preparation for the eternal life after death. But those who deny it become slaves of their passions and desires, making fun of virtuous and God-conscious persons.

Such persons realize their folly only at the time of their death and wish to be given a further chance in the world but in vain. Their miserable state at the time of death, and the horror of the Day of Judgment, and the eternal bliss guaranteed to the sincere believers are very clearly and beautifully mentioned in the following verses of the Quran:

[For such is the state of the disbelievers], until, when death comes to one of them, he says, "My Lord, send me back that I might do righteousness in that which I left behind (i.e. in that which I neglected)." No! It is only a word he is saying; and behind them is a barrier until the Day they are resurrected. So when the Horn is blown, no relationship will there be among them that Day, nor will they ask about one another. And those whose scales are heavy [with good deeds] - it is they who are the successful. But those whose scales are light - those are the ones who have lost their souls, [being] in Hell, abiding eternally. The Fire will sear their faces, and they therein will have taut smiles (i.e. their lips having been contracted by scorching until the teeth are exposed). (Quran, 23:99-104)

The belief in life after death not only guarantees success in the Hereafter but also makes this world full of peace and happiness by making individuals most responsible and dutiful in their activities.

Think of the people of Arabia before the arrival of the Prophet Muhammad . Gambling, wine, tribal feuds, plundering and murdering were their main traits when they had no belief in life after death. But as soon as they accepted the belief in the One God and life after death they became the most disciplined nation of the world. They gave up their vices, helped each other in hours of need, and settled all their disputes on the basis of justice and equality. Similarly the denial of life after death has its consequences not only in the Hereafter but also in this world. When a nation as a whole denies it, all kinds of evils and corruption become rampant in that society and ultimately it is destroyed.

The Quran mentions the terrible end of Aad, Thamud and the Pharaoh in some detail:

[The tribes of] Thamud and Aad denied the Striking Calamity [i.e. the Resurrection]. So as for Thamud, they were destroyed by the overpowering [blast]. And as for Aad, they were destroyed by a screaming, violent wind which He [i.e. God] imposed upon them for seven nights and eight days in succession, so you would see the people therein fallen as if they were hollow trunks of palm trees. Then do you see of them any remains? And there came Pharaoh and those before him and the overturned cities (i.e. those to which Lot was sent) with sin. And they disobeyed the messenger of their Lord, so He seized them with a seizure exceeding [in severity]. Indeed, when the water overflowed, We carried you [i.e. your ancestors] in the sailing ship (i.e. which was constructed by Noah). That We might make it for you a reminder and [that] a conscious ear would be conscious of it. (Quran, 69:4-12)


----------



## Godless1

the cheat said:


> Technically, it's not really an "afterlife" since there really is no "after"...it's just life, period.
> You've always existed and when I say "you", I don't mean your body. I mean that little voice in your head that you identify as you. Your "self". It's impossible for us to prove, since it's not possible for us to accurately imagine an existence outside the dimension of "time" and then the 3 spatial dimensions we "see". There are other dimensions that are so small, we just can't see them. I believe the "afterlife" exists somewhere in those dimensions.


The extra dimensions proposed by string theory and M-theory have nothing to do with the metaphysical. You have the right to believe what you want, but don't please don't *******ize science.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Godless1 said:


> The extra dimensions proposed by string theory and M-theory have nothing to do with the metaphysical. You have the right to believe what you want, but don't please don't *******ize science.


...science? That's not science. It's never even been tested, how can it be science? It's an idea...and so I don't think you can say what it is or isn't.


----------



## stranger25

OpiodArmor said:


> The human mind is capable of insane acts of self-creation and imagination. I'm not sure if you really realize exactly what it's capable of; I've tripped on many different substances and have had out of body experiences comparable to the whole near death experience deals. I don't see why the brain releasing huge amounts of chemicals and being put into a situation it has never been in (death) could not be a similar situation.
> 
> I mean think about it. What is more likely: You're brain is hallucinating / creating this all (And, for the sake of arguement, lets say all human brains are similar (And they are) and ergo experience a similar hallucination)) or their is another plane of existence that we can somehow not detect in any possible manner where God is basically giving you a *High five* and you and the rest of humanity party for eternity?


Regardless, nobody knows truly. Nobody on this earth. Just speculation!


----------



## Chris16

the cheat said:


> ...science? That's not science. It's never even been tested, how can it be science? It's an idea...and *so I don't think you can say what it is or isn't.*


Then why bother forming concrete beliefs based on it?


----------



## Godless1

the cheat said:


> ...science? That's not science. It's never even been tested, how can it be science? It's an idea...and so I don't think you can say what it is or isn't.


Sure it's been tested. It hasn't been proven, but it is definitely science. True, most of the evidence for string theory is purely mathematical, but quantum mechanics as a whole supports string theory. Also this: http://www.universetoday.com/72531/scientists-say-they-can-now-test-string-theory/


----------



## Godless1

Chris16 said:


> Then why bother forming concrete beliefs based on it?


Presumably, because he is talking about a matter of faith.


----------



## Chris16

the cheat said:


> Technically, it's not really an "afterlife" since there really is no "after"...it's just life, period.
> You've always existed and when I say "you", I don't mean your body. *I mean that little voice in your head that you identify as you. *Your "self". It's impossible for us to prove, since it's not possible for us to accurately imagine an existence outside the dimension of "time" and then the 3 spatial dimensions we "see". There are other dimensions that are so small, we just can't see them. I believe the "afterlife" exists somewhere in those dimensions.


But that voice can be directly affected and altered by changes and injuries to your _physical_ brain. What reason would you have to assume it's completely independent of our bodies and our neurons?


----------



## OpiodArmor

It's pretty shocking so many people don't believe in a afterlife. When I was younger (Maybe it was because everyone else was young as well) almost everyone believed in a God or something. 

Maybe it's because of the anonymousness of the internet? Or is it because people are getting more intelligent with time? It's sort of depressing in a way, usually their would be a huge debate about this... but it's pretty one sided, lol.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Chris16 said:


> Then why bother forming concrete beliefs based on it?


Yeah, I'd never say my beliefs on such a matter are concrete. All you can do is find what makes sense to you.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Chris16 said:


> But that voice can be directly affected and altered by changes and injuries to your _physical_ brain. What reason would you have to assume it's completely independent of our bodies and our neurons?


None of my reasons could satisfy you, on this topic. They aren't based on 'facts', so I know you'll pick them apart.


----------



## 390

bluedragon said:


> 390 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^This. I feel that believing in a metaphysical spirit makes about as much sense as believing that there's an invisible floating elephant in your room. You can't prove that he doesn't exist but no one would say that it's statistically likely.
> 
> I feel pain, I have a subjective sense of awareness, I'm not a biological automaton, but still my conscious states are linked directly to my neural activity. I had no sense of my existence before I was born, therefore I should have no sense of my existence after I die.
> 
> 
> 
> you cant even fathom your immense ignorance
Click to expand...

To quote an unnamed atheist, sometimes I feel like the only sober person in a car full of drunks. Not on this thread however, what I've noticed is that most of the people on this forum have the ability to think critically about their life experiences and about the information that they're fed. That's one of the things I love about these forums.

I can't fathom my own ignorance? If you knew anything about me I take comments like that very seriously, I'm well aware of my own ignorance, I have all the ****ing hallmarks of a learning disability and I'm sick to death of taking **** from intellectual elitists like yourself because of it. You can't fathom your arrogance, rudeness and disrespectfulness.

You suggest that God has revealed himself to you? Where is your solid empirical evidence for that? Most of the people who have commented here, I am sure, will be able to provide you with plenty of such evidence for the correlation between neural states and subjective emotional experiences. Million dollar prizes are being offered to anyone who can provide some good empirical evidence in favour of metaphysical phenomena. If you're so sure that I'm an ignoramus for believing in what I do then why don't you go and stick it to me and become the first person ever to win the million (or to prove the competition is rigged for that matter)?


----------



## Recipe For Disaster

Chris16 said:


> But that voice can be directly affected and altered by changes and injuries to your _physical_ brain. What reason would you have to assume it's completely independent of our bodies and our neurons?


It's actually not the voice that is us, we are pure awareness. And awareness cannot be altered, not by brain injury, not by drugs. Both of these things can alter the contents of awareness, but not the essence of awareness itself.


----------



## Chris16

Recipe For Disaster said:


> It's actually not the voice that is us, *we are pure awareness.* And awareness cannot be altered, not by brain injury, not by drugs. Both of these things can alter the contents of awareness, but not the essence of awareness itself.


I understand what you mean by that (after all, the awareness still exists for someone who doesn't know any language at all), but I don't think consciousness and awareness and all other things in that category are understood well enough for us to make statements like that bold one.

Whenever someone makes a blanket statement about what our so called spirit is it's always mumbo jumbo based on nothing but their personal intuition, or that warm feeling in their chest they had when they saw a pretty sunset.


----------



## OpiodArmor

Recipe For Disaster said:


> It's actually not the voice that is us, we are pure awareness. And awareness cannot be altered, not by brain injury, not by drugs. Both of these things can alter the contents of awareness, but not the essence of awareness itself.


Are you sure your not talking about the insular cortex because apparently (Google) that is the part of your brain that controls "perception, motor control, self-awareness, cognitive functioning, and interpersonal experience"?


----------



## viv

I sure hope not.


----------



## finch

Well considering my family and its roots, yes. I've seen too much "afterlife" to say there isn't one, though its kinda weird. My Mom can see angels, hear God sometimes... just the type of person, I don't argue with it since I and my siblings tend to see the darker side...and I'll tell you what... its scary.

So yes, personally, there's an afterlife that ca kick my ***.


----------



## Godless1

finch said:


> Well considering my family and its roots, yes. I've seen too much "afterlife" to say there isn't one, though its kinda weird. My Mom can see angels, hear God sometimes... just the type of person, I don't argue with it since I and my siblings tend to see the darker side...and I'll tell you what... its scary.
> 
> So yes, personally, there's an afterlife that ca kick my ***.


Am I the only one who sees the irony of this post coming from someone with a finch bird avatar?


----------



## finch

finches keep me sane.


----------



## Kennnie

No


----------



## burn the witch

I hope not. Life is exhausting enough. I want eternal rest.


----------



## shadow cougar

I don't believe there is an afterlife in the sense of transcending our physical forms and going to Heaven or Hell or some other such place.

However, what I do believe is simply that energy is neither created nor destroyed but merely transitions from one state to another. Therefore, the energy within the physical structure of our bodies will go on as it rejoins the universe while our bodies die.


----------



## rymo

Of course there's no afterlife. Where's the proof? Oh, but how can I prove it doesn't exist, you say? Well guess what, I don't have to. You religious freaks are the ones that are taking the leaps of faith, not me. I believe in reality...we are biological beings that are born and die, our general purpose is just to reproduce and keep us going. Just bc we evolved to be more intelligent than other species doesn't mean we get an afterlife - I don't think amoebas get one, why should we?


----------



## OpiodArmor

bluedragon said:


> it was an experience that i had, that you didnt. it was otherworldly. you can't literally prove the supernatural world that's why it's supernatural, but you still lean towards it being there, because for people who are acutely aware and not too ignorant, the truth has basically been slapped into your face, and spoon fed to you by the hands of god...in a non physical way, but you are not spiritually evolved, questioning and seeking enough to come to realize that, unfortunately


lol, typical religous non-sense. "I cant talk in a reasonable way because my beliefs are completely unreasonable. I was brainwashed from the age of a child to think this way and am both frightened and angry that people would not agree with this belief. I've always been this ignorant and many people have pointed this out but it's okay because I quickly lash out at anyone going against these beliefs to make myself feel like not a completely brainwashed fool."

And yeah, this truth is obvious to everyone but yourself, but your not mentally evolved enough to realize that.


----------



## Mr Blue

bluedragon said:


> it was an experience that i had, that you didnt. that's why it's personal. you can't literally prove the supernatural world that's why it's supernatural, but you still lean towards it being there, because for people who are acutely aware and not too ignorant, the truth has basically been slapped into your face, and spoon fed to you by the hands of god...


So basically people need to be spiritual involved before they can experience something supernatural?. You know back in the days people were really spiritually/religiously involved and they thought epileptic seizures were spirit possession, they tried exorcisms as treatment and failed until people not so spiritual involved and more down to earth tried to look for rational explanations and found out its abnormal excessive neural activity in the brain and then started looking for real treatments.



> but you are not spiritually evolved, questioning and seeking enough to come to realize that, unfortunately


I've also wondered how come the majority of people who get more "possessed" and have supernatural encounters are the one that are open to thee idea?. The mind is very powerful if you're looking and believe something is real it'll be real in your personal reality. Reality is what you perceive as real, truth can be backed up by physical evidence.


----------



## Spindrift

I think people need to be careful when they describe their mystical experiences, and not start making unwarranted claims about the true nature of the universe. A distinction needs to be made between the characteristics of one's personal spiritual experiences and the mechanics of the 'real' world. If you don't, you start stumbling into the realms of pseudoscience and pseudomysticism, and you then lose whatever legitimacy you may have once possessed. 

Your experience and the way you feel about that experience is legitimate, but you need to be aware of when you're blowing it up into something that it isn't.


----------



## 390

bluedragon said:


> it was an experience that i had, that you didnt. that's why it's personal. you can't literally prove the supernatural world that's why it's supernatural, but you still lean towards it being there, because for people who are acutely aware and not too ignorant, the truth has basically been slapped into your face, and spoon fed to you by the hands of god...in a non physical way, but you are not spiritually evolved, questioning and seeking enough to come to realize that, unfortunately


Well how you want to interpret that experience is up to you. I've had some rather strange, out of this world experiences myself but I choose not to accept them at face value. I believe that most, if not all the phenomena that we personally experience are amenable to scientific scrutiny. The human mind is easily capable of fooling itself, as optical illusions show - an argument frequently put forward by Daniel Dennett in his speeches. I like to consider myself to be evolved, questioning and seeking enough not to draw overly simplistic conclusions from some of my more unworldly experiences.

Anyway, tell us more about your personal experience. Whether or not we agree on the nature of your experience I'd be interested to hear more about it.



bluedragon said:


> it's not believers that act like that, it's atheists who should be doing something useful instead of caring about things that dont exist in their eyes


You yourself are an example of a believer who has acted like that. My first post was not intended to be an attack on the religious and spiritual, it was merely an attack on the idea of metaphysicalism. I respect your right to hold your own beliefs and I respect the value of your beliefs, I just vehemently disagree with them and was simply putting forth my own thoughts on the matter. If you want to provide us with a rebuttal that's fine but there was no need to resort to ad hominem insults.


----------



## Durzo

Fig loool I really didnt think this would be posted by you.

Anyway I believe when you die... your dead. No afterlife, no rebirth, no second chances. Death.


----------



## Gary

I believe there is.


----------



## cafune

I don't believe so. For me, it's just a question of how that would be possible. It just doesn't seem like anything could come after death. I guess it's a matter of what you believe in because we can't _know_ anything for certain.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Live Laugh Love said:


> I don't believe so. For me, it's just a question of how that would be possible. It just doesn't seem like anything could come after death. I guess it's a matter of what you believe in because we can't _know_ anything for certain.


Something after 'death' really does seem absurd. But when matched against other absurdities, like the Universe having "always been", or that there was "nothing", a "Big Bang" and then "everything", it's really not _that_ absurd.
The Universe is a strange place.


----------



## Deathinmusic

the cheat said:


> But when matched against other absurdities, like the Universe having "always been", or that there was "nothing", a "Big Bang" and then "everything", it's really not _that_ absurd.


The big bang theory doesn't say that everything came out of nothing. It says that all the matter in the universe existed in a singularity which expanded.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Deathinmusic said:


> The big bang theory doesn't say that everything came out of nothing. It says that all the matter in the universe existed in a singularity which expanded.


That's kinda why I used quotation marks, I didn't mean literally nothing. Of course a scientific theory wouldn't say there was actually nothing, because that is physically impossible, according to us.
All the matter currently in the Universe was once contained within a "singularity" though and if that doesn't seem absurd to you, then I dunno what else to say.


----------



## Monroee

I surely hope there is. Would be nice.


----------



## Alduriam

The mere fact that words can convey meaning and that I can sit in front of another human being on this planet, which is located at one point in an universe we ignore the limits of, astonishes me enough to prove that there is something beyond the material world.

I believe there is an afterlife.


----------



## Snow Bunny

I believe that when we are dead we're dead and no longer exist. But hey I didn't exist before 1990 and all was good so I guess not existing again will be ok haha.

Anyway yes I think it's a rather lovely idea that helps people sleep at night, and I wished I believed in it but sadly not.
I think we only get like 80 or so years to live and in the many billions of years the universe has existed, it really is just a small pin prick of time we get.
We should make the most of every second. I just wish I knew how.


----------



## Anomalies

I don't think there's an afterlife, but it's a possibility, however improbable.


----------



## Nightwing

I believe that when a person dies, his/her soul will go to heaven or hell. A person's soul will continue to live on even after their physical body dies.


----------



## Lone Raccoon

I think that is not an afterlife but some sort of buffer period. Like at the end of gamemshow, "'thanks for playing" here's were your going next... Matrix was a good ideology and I believe that something closest to that is happening here. I refuse to connect life with either evolution or religion. Both leave many questions. Of course I am much more believing in the former, but still I have problems with the big bang.


----------



## crystaltears

I don't believe in an afterlife. I think heaven/hell is just a fantasy.


----------



## Rosedubh

Yeah I believe in an afterlife. No heaven or Hell, just one place, like Hell for the Greeks was considered to be for both good and bad people, that there were just two different parts they would go to. For me it's something like that. I don't think you go around floating on clouds or anything. That you're just light, a warm light, at peace, you're just a soul.


----------



## Cornerstone

i don't see what the evolutionary benefit of an afterlife could be, so no.


----------



## Geronimo2006

I doubt it on scientific grounds. Where is the evidence? But I sure hope there is so I can be compensated for the terrible cards I have been dealt in life in terms of being stigmatised and ostracised for my appearance. I think the Bible says something about the first being the last and the last being the first. I hope then that in an afterlife, I will have a nice appearance.


----------



## Endorphin buzz

I read some near death experiences which made me think . There was a whole website about it which I thought was interesting just google it if u wana see. I believe in god too , don't know why really I just feel like there is a higher power .


----------



## Jcgrey

I really just don't know. I want to believe there is _something_. But being science minded, I am always looking for proof of things.


----------



## Kon

> Is there an afterlife?!?


Just as much as there was a "beforelife".


----------



## The Lost Boy

Best you just focus on your current life an do your best to enjoy it.


----------



## Selbbin

No. It's wishful thinking by a society scared of death.


----------



## Ashley1990

thats really interesting topic....i m curious to know if there is life after death n whats happens after death..


----------



## hoddesdon

Yes. Consciousness can not be explained by science. Some people have had spiritual experiences. Life itself can not be explained by science either. How can a small pile of chemicals plus water produce something so vastly greater than the dead ingredients of which it is made?


----------



## ugh1979

TrcyMcgrdy1 said:


> it just irks me that we have the ability to make friends, create memories, and enjoy life, and that when we die, it seems like it will abruptly end.


That's life.

I so no reason why there should or would be life after death. There are too many humans with inflated egos thinking there must be life after death as their ego is too important to ever disappear.

They should realise their arrogance and accept that everything comes to an end and they won't have an eternal afterlife.


----------



## ugh1979

Selbbin said:


> No. It's wishful thinking by a society scared of death.


Indeed. Plus greedy humans wanting more than they deserve.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Yes. Consciousness can not be explained by science. Some people have had spiritual experiences. Life itself can not be explained by science either. How can a small pile of chemicals plus water produce something so vastly greater than the dead ingredients of which it is made?


Conciousness may not be fully explained by science yet, but in time it will.

What part of life don't you think science has explained?

There is nothing to suggest there is an afterlife apart from foolish anecdotal delusions.

As for creating something greater than the sum of its parts, we do this all the time. A computer is greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Conciousness may not be fully explained by science yet, but in time it will.
> 
> What part of life don't you think science has explained?
> 
> There is nothing to suggest there is an afterlife apart from foolish anecdotal delusions.
> 
> As for creating something greater than the sum of its parts, we do this all the time. A computer is greater than the sum of its parts.


 How a computer is greater than the sum of its parts can be explained by science. In my example, it can not explain how the parts can create something qualitatively different from themselves. The parts are dead, but living creatures are alive. Dead is the opposite of alive. As for woolly claims that science will explain consciousness, there is no evidence for that. Atheists do not live up to their own expectations of others when it comes to evidence. As for the reference to "foolish anecdotal delusions", this is just rudeness that can only be expected from you.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> How a computer is greater than the sum of its parts can be explained by science. In my example, it can not explain how the parts can create something qualitatively different from themselves. The parts are dead, but living creatures are alive. Dead is the opposite of alive.


You seem to have misunderstood the analogy. Just because we don't *yet *exactly in full know how animals component parts create the living creature doesn't mean we will never. Just as for example 200 years ago nobody would have been able to understand how a modern robots component parts makes it seem alive and very much something different from its parts.



> As for woolly claims that science will explain consciousness, there is no evidence for that. Atheists do not live up to their own expectations of others when it comes to evidence.


Given enough time and enough study, it's highly probable. It might be in 50 years time, it might be in 500 years time, but you can bet it's coming. Science will never stop progressing unless we stop existing. That's all the evidence I need in reply to this point.



> As for the reference to "foolish anecdotal delusions", this is just rudeness that can only be expected from you.


You may consider it rude, but millions other don't.


----------



## Selbbin

hoddesdon said:


> Yes. Consciousness can not be explained by science. Some people have had spiritual experiences. Life itself can not be explained by science either. How can a small pile of chemicals plus water produce something so vastly greater than the dead ingredients of which it is made?


Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean that any ludicrous idea will do to fill the gap of information. How about we just say we don't know, but from our observations and understanding of reality it isn't likely. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate life after death other than wishful thinking. All 'spiritual experiences' can be explained, scientifically, by the actions and workings of the brain. After all, every single thing we experience is through the brain, from feelings to 'seeing the light'.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> You seem to have misunderstood the analogy. Just because we don't *yet *exactly in full know how animals component parts create the living creature doesn't mean we will never. Given enough time and enough study, it's highly probable. It might be in 50 years time, it might be in 500 years time, but you can bet it's coming. Science will never stop progressing unless we stop existing. That's all the evidence I need in reply to this point.


 You are assigning a probability to an outcome on which no progress has been made. Are you claiming to foresee the future? That is impossible under the laws of the physical universe. For that reason, if you were able to, then that would prove that God exists.


ugh1979 said:


> You may consider it rude, but millions other don't.


 Do you have evidence for this? Perhaps a poll would be in order for this question too. Of course, if that statement were to be swallowed, that would serve your self-interest.


----------



## Selbbin

As *ugh1979 *said, they ARE "foolish anecdotal delusions". If people get offended by that observation perhaps they shouldn't have these delusions.


----------



## Selbbin

hoddesdon said:


> Atheists do not live up to their own expectations of others when it comes to evidence.


They don't need to, because they don't make _clearly _ridiculous claims when they don't know. They are humble enough to say 'we don't know' but are certainly not going to make up any old random feel good crap just because they want an answer to a difficult question. That said, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support most claims, where as theists are still sitting on 0.


----------



## Selbbin

hoddesdon said:


> YFor that reason, if you were able to, then that would prove that God exists.


 What? No it wouldn't. It would just prove that time is not a constant, which it isn't.


----------



## hoddesdon

Selbbin said:


> Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean that any ludicrous idea will do to fill the gap of information. How about we just say we don't know, but from our observations and understanding of reality it isn't likely. *There is absolutely nothing to substantiate life after death other than wishful thinking.* All 'spiritual experiences' can be explained, scientifically, by the actions and workings of the brain. After all, every single thing we experience is through the brain, from feelings to 'seeing the light'.


Yes, there is actually. Therefore it is not a ludicrous idea.


near-death experiences
other spiritual experiences
the vanishingly small probability that the universe could be fine-tuned for life by chance
the low scientific probability of life coming into existence
things like colour which enhance experience - the universe could exist without colour
the fact that the future has been predicted, which is impossible under the laws of the physical universe
 Just because something falls outside your own experience does not mean it is ludicrous. A fish right at the bottom of the deepest ocean would scoff at the idea of land, air, creatures with legs etc.


----------



## hoddesdon

Selbbin said:


> What? No it wouldn't. It would just prove that time is not a constant, which it isn't.


It is interesting that time is the only property of physics that can not run backwards, and also the only one which would make the universe unworkable were it able to. What a coincidence. If it is theoretically possible that it could, but in practice never does, that emphasizes the point.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> You are assigning a probability to an outcome on which no progress has been made. Are you claiming to foresee the future? That is impossible under the laws of the physical universe. For that reason, if you were able to, then that would prove that God exists.


Are you honestly trying to say there has been no progress made in the hundreds of years of philosophy, psychology and biology fields related to conciousness?



> Do you have evidence for this? Perhaps a poll would be in order for this question too. Of course, if that statement were to be swallowed, that would serve your self-interest.


Just as I don't have to put up a poll to prove that Christian's believe in God I don't need to put up a poll to prove many atheists think believers in the afterlife are delusional. Both are obvious, unless you have very little experience of atheist opinion.


----------



## hoddesdon

Selbbin said:


> They don't need to, because they don't make _clearly _ridiculous claims when they don't know. They are humble enough to say 'we don't know' but are certainly not going to make up any old random feel good crap just because they want an answer to a difficult question. That said, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support most claims, where as theists are still sitting on 0.


The evidence is:


near-death experiences
other spiritual experiences
the vanishingly small probability that the universe could be fine-tuned for life by chance
the low scientific probability of life coming into existence
things like colour which enhance experience - the universe could exist without colour
the fact that the future has been predicted, which is impossible under the laws of the physical universe
 Just because something falls outside your own experience does not mean it is ludicrous. A fish right at the bottom of the deepest ocean would scoff at the idea of land, air, creatures with legs etc.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Yes, there is actually. Therefore it is not a ludicrous idea.
> 
> 
> near-death experiences
> other spiritual experiences
> the vanishingly small probability that the universe could be fine-tuned for life by chance
> the low scientific probability of life coming into existence
> things like colour which enhance experience - the universe could exist without colour
> the fact that the future has been predicted, which is impossible under the laws of the physical universe
> Just because something falls outside your own experience does not mean it is ludicrous. A fish right at the bottom of the deepest ocean would scoff at the idea of land, air, creatures with legs etc.












You are horribly out of touch with science. There are valid answers to all of them. I'll come back and answer them all in bit when I have time.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Are you honestly trying to say there has been no progress made in the hundreds of years of philosophy, psychology and biology fields related to conciousness?


Science can not explain consciousness, as you conceded previously.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> It is interesting that time is the only property of physics that can not run backwards, and also the only one which would make the universe unworkable were it able to. What a coincidence. If it is theoretically possible that it could, but in practice never does, that emphasizes the point.


In fact there is nothing in physics which says time can't run backwards. It works in both directions perfectly well. Why time has the direction it does is another big separate debate which needs its own thread.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Science can not explain consciousness, as you conceded previously.


That doesn't mean there hasn't been progress towards explaining it though does it?

You stated there has been no progress, which is simply wrong.

Are you totally unable to comprehend the concept of partial answers to the questions mankind has about life and the universe?

Does it have to be either no answer or the full answer your religion gives you?


----------



## Kon

hoddesdon said:


> How can a small pile of chemicals plus water produce something so vastly greater than the dead ingredients of which it is made?


That's the mistake right there. We don't know what the "small pile of chemicals" (e.g. matter) really is, on some level. This is the "ignorance" hypothesis (see quote below) that argues that we are in fact, so ignorant of the nature of the the "physical"/matter, that we have no basis to formulate the mind-body problem (e.g. Hard problem of consciousness) in any meaningful way. As Strawson puts it:



> It may be added, with Russell and others, that although physics appears to tell us a great deal about certain of the general structural or mathematical characteristics of the physical, it fails to give us any real insight into the nature of whatever it is that has these characteristics-apart from making it plain that it is utterly bizarre relative to our ordinary conception of it. It is unclear exactly what this last remark amounts to (is it being suggested that physics is failing to do something it could do?) But it already amounts to something very important when it comes to what is known as the "mind-body problem." For many take this to be the problem of how mental phenomena can be physical phenomena given what we already know about the nature of the physical. *And this is the great mistake of our time. The truth is that we have no good reason to think that we know anything about the physical that gives us any reason to find any problem in the idea that mental or experiential phenomena are physical phenomena. *...
> 
> How can consciousness be physical, given what we know about what matter is like?" If one thinks this then one is, in Russell's words, "guilty, unconsciously and in spite of explicit disavowals, of a confusion in one's imaginative picture of matter". *One thinks one knows more about the nature of matter-of the non-experiential-than one does. This is the fundamental error. *


http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Strawson.html

So before one can say that it's a "miracle" how something like the mental can arise out of the brain, one has to know what the brain/neuron/atom/particle...(matter) is. And we really don't. But so what? That just hi-lites or cognitive limitations, just like all other animals.


----------



## rgrwng

i will go to that large MMO in the sky.


----------



## RenegadeReloaded

rgrwng said:


> i will go to that large MMO in the sky.


sounds fun  what is it called ?


----------



## Selbbin

hoddesdon said:


> The evidence is:
> 
> 
> near-death experiences
> other spiritual experiences
> the vanishingly small probability that the universe could be fine-tuned for life by chance
> the low scientific probability of life coming into existence
> things like colour which enhance experience - the universe could exist without colour
> the fact that the future has been predicted, which is impossible under the laws of the physical universe
> Just because something falls outside your own experience does not mean it is ludicrous. A fish right at the bottom of the deepest ocean would scoff at the idea of land, air, creatures with legs etc.


Because of the way energy works, the universe could NOT exist without colour. Colour is part of the light spectrum, which is part of the complete energy spectrum, and the only reason we see colour is because our brains interpret the energy frequency that it senses through the eyes. Same with near death experiences. Those 'experiences' are all internal to the brain and how it functions.

And is it a 'fact' that the future has been predicted? Where is this 'fact'?


----------



## Selbbin

hoddesdon said:


> It is interesting that time is the only property of physics that can not run backwards, and also the only one which would make the universe unworkable were it able to. What a coincidence. If it is theoretically possible that it could, but in practice never does, that emphasizes the point.


That's simply not true.

And a side note, there is such a thing as absolute zero. Temperature cannot run backwards from absolute zero - when an atom is completely still. That's just one example.


----------



## Selbbin

hoddesdon said:


> T A fish right at the bottom of the deepest ocean would scoff at the idea of land, air, creatures with legs etc.


That is the exact opposite of what you are claiming. An unknown reality, vs a made up reality. The perspective is the complete opposite. A fish at the bottom of the sea claiming that turtles created all new life and that there is no end to the sea, only a magical place where fish turn into the creature they get eaten by and thus the circle of life continues, and other fish believing that fish just because he said so (and they don't know any better), THAT compares to your logic.

An afterlife is only created from the perspective of the fish, not the perspective of the real land.


----------



## bsd3355

Why does there have to be one?


----------



## THEuTASTEsOFeINKd

In order for an afterlife to exist there needs to be something within you that exists after your physical being dies such as a soul. 
Here's my problem with the existence of a "soul" and the afterlife:
Why are humans the only ones who get a soul when other animals have a lot of things that humans have like brains, eyes, noses, ears, etc.
How do you get a soul from an egg and a sperm? When is the soul formed? 
If a baby dies does their soul have the intelligence of a baby for the rest of its existence or does it grow or does it suddenly gain a vast amount of knowledge?
When people get brain damage they behave and act different (not like themselves) so was their soul damaged as well and will their consciousness revert back to their "older" selves when they die? This goes for old people who become senile as well.
Also, when did humans, who clearly evolved from a more primitive species, get this ability of an afterlife? Did their line of evolution just always have the ability to have an afterlife? And if that was the case then every living thing should have a soul. 

In conclusion, an afterlife seems so highly unlikely that you'd have to be a fool to believe in it.


----------



## Selbbin

bwidger85 said:


> Why does there have to be one?


Because people fear the eternity of death.


----------



## Selbbin

THEuTASTEsOFeINKd said:


> In conclusion, an afterlife seems so highly unlikely that you'd have to be a fool to believe in it.


Yup. It's fun to think about in a romantic kind of way, but as soon as logic enters the door the debate is over.


----------



## bsd3355

Selbbin said:


> Because people fear the eternity of death.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Selbbin

hoddesdon said:


> Science can not explain consciousness, as you conceded previously.


But unlike religion, it doesn't then just 'make up' the answer.

BTW, I kinda like you Hoddesdon, you seem like a nice person. Just thought I'd mention that in case my disagreements come across as aggressive.


----------



## Kon

Selbbin said:


> Because people fear the eternity of death.


I fear dying painfully, not death, itself. I hope it comes really fast. Like a heart attack.


----------



## successful

There has to be.
I mean...once you die, That can't just be it, Doesn't seem right.

Go to heaven/hell.
Born into another human, animal,Creature, ect.
Turn into a ghost, demon,spirit,being.

something has to happen after you die.


----------



## ugh1979

successful said:


> There has to be.
> I mean...once you die, That can't just be it, Doesn't seem right.
> 
> Go to heaven/hell.
> Born into another human, animal,Creature, ect.
> Turn into a ghost, demon,spirit,being.
> 
> something has to happen after you die.


Why must all living things when they die live on in an afterlife? Or do you believe only the human species has an afterlife?

I find peoples insistence on there being an afterlife totally bizarre. It's like wondering if a tree has an afterlife.


----------



## ugh1979

THEuTASTEsOFeINKd said:


> Why are humans the only ones who get a soul when other animals have a lot of things that humans have like brains, eyes, noses, ears, etc.


Many afterlife believers have never really considered that or see the human species as 'special' and only they are allowed an afterlife. It's horribly arrogant.



> If a baby dies does their soul have the intelligence of a baby for the rest of its existence or does it grow or does it suddenly gain a vast amount of knowledge?


Good question, and one that raises many other questions which pose fatal problems for an afterlife being possible.



> When people get brain damage they behave and act different (not like themselves) so was their soul damaged as well and will their consciousness revert back to their "older" selves when they die? This goes for old people who become senile as well.


Again, same as above.



> Also, when did humans, who clearly evolved from a more primitive species, get this ability of an afterlife? Did their line of evolution just always have the ability to have an afterlife? And if that was the case then every living thing should have a soul.


Indeed. This is a killer question to ask afterlife believers and they either run a mile from it or just duck it. I've been asking it for years and never had any of them able to answer. (Unless of course they are Creationists and deny evolution, but that automatically means anything they further say is invalid as only an idiot denies evolution :lol)

Deniers of evolution are akin in my book to deniers of the Holocaust.



> In conclusion, an afterlife seems so highly unlikely that you'd have to be a fool to believe in it.


Agreed. It's so filled with fallacies and logic problems I just don't see how any believer can have given it any depth of thought.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> The evidence is:
> 
> 
> near-death experiences





The minds hallucinations when it's close to death are in no way evidence of an afterlife. Especially seeing as NDEs can be reproduced by scientists in subjects and have been studied. It's still a bit of a grey area of course as we still have so much to learn about the workings of the mind but as it is, the scientific evidence doesn't point to the validity of there being an afterlife due to NDEs.



> [*]other spiritual experiences


Humans are quick to associate certain feelings and experiences with something 'bigger' than themselves but it certainly doesn't prove there is an afterlife. I've actually had what most people would call spiritual experiences but I'm smart enough to know it's all just a product of my mind. They are quite pleasant so I can certainly understand the attraction of religion and the seeking off such experiences. As I say, that doesn't mean it's anything out with your own mind.



> [*]the vanishingly small probability that the universe could be fine-tuned for life by chance


The majority of modern physicists/cosmologists now believe in a multiverse, so the chances of one of the universes being just right for life becomes extremely likely. Lots of modern and new physics is indicating a multiverse.



> [*]the low scientific probability of life coming into existence


How can you say it's low? In fact we just don't know enough to say if it's low or high at the moment. It could well happen frequently all over the universe.



> [*]things like colour which enhance experience - the universe could exist without colour


The sense of colour is unique to every thing which has eyes/light sensors. It's not universal. The colours you see are unique to your minds interpretation. For example someone else will see slightly different colours, and animals and insects will see vastly different colours.



> [*]the fact that the future has been predicted, which is impossible under the laws of the physical universe



Total nonsense. Of course we can predict future events based on observing present ones and considering past ones. What a ludicrous point.



> A fish right at the bottom of the deepest ocean would scoff at the idea of land, air, creatures with legs etc.


Why would it? We don't scoff at the thought of another planet for example where creatures are vastly different and live in a very different environment.


----------



## ttrp

I, for one, choose to believe in life after death.

Am I absolutely certain? No.

I have my doubts.

But there is no conclusive proof on _either_ side of this debate. (Unfortunately, some questions have yet to be answered by science.)

And the hope of life after death makes my present life more tolerable. (If I believed there was no hope of the wrongs/injustices done in this world being set to right in the future, my outlook on life would be much darker.)

So, from a purely practical standpoint, belief in a future life is beneficial (at least for me).

If this life is all I got, at least my "delusional" belief in a future life improves the experience of my present existence.

"These are only hints and guesses,
Hints followed by guesses; and the rest
Is prayer, observance, discipline, thought and action." 
~T.S. Eliot


----------



## nbtac41

yes,there is.. only after the second coming of Jesus Christ,will the 'righteous dead' be resurrected and received eternal life, while those who were 'unrighteous' will be receiving the 'second death', (burned to lake of fire)


----------



## laura024

I tend to think no. Once you die, it's all over. But it'd be great to have one of course.


----------



## roses6

I'll let you know when (and if) I get there, lol.


----------



## MobiusX

My question is, Is this life even real? How real is it? I don't know if anything really does exist. I have depersonalization and, derealization 24/7.


----------



## Lasair

Ì really want to believe that the life I am living right now is not a test for another one


----------



## KevinD

No, there is not afterlife.


----------



## anthrotex

I don't believe in an afterlife. I don't believe in souls. Near-death experiences just sound like dreams, to me.


----------



## cgcooper

@ugh1979

A good number of your posts have been well thought out, but there is no scientific evidence towards the concept of a "multiverse." You committed an authoritative fallacy in even bringing it up. Scientifically speaking a multiverse is just as probable as an afterlife.

Personally, I'm not sold either way. I'm "on the fence" when it comes to the majority of these God questions.


----------



## ugh1979

cgcooper said:


> @ugh1979
> 
> A good number of your posts have been well thought out, but there is no scientific evidence towards the concept of a "multiverse." You committed an authoritative fallacy in even bringing it up. Scientifically speaking a multiverse is just as probable as an afterlife.
> 
> Personally, I'm not sold either way. I'm "on the fence" when it comes to the majority of these God questions.


I disagree. 10 years ago you would have been right, but not any more. Maybe you aren't up to speed on the latest research on the existence of a multiverse?

As I say, most physicists now believe it is fact as even though the evidence is thin at the moment, there is a lot of physics that indicates it and or requires it to be true. There's certainly a lot stronger case for it that there is for an afterlife.

Here's some of the latest ideas and evidence for the existence of a multiverse: http://ge.tt/8J0SloA?c


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> As I say, most physicists now *believe *it is fact as even though *the evidence is thin* at the moment.....http://ge.tt/8J0SloA?c


That is what cgcooper said.

In fact, there is no evidence, just speculation or inference. That proves cgcooper's second point, there is no more what science classifies as evidence for the multiverse than for the existence of God.



ugh1979 said:


> There's certainly a lot stronger case for it that there is for an afterlife.


In what way? Again, you are presenting your opinion as fact.

The multiverse idea is purely inferential. If A, then B. Interestingly, it was only dreamt up when the scientists realized that the only explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is that it was deliberately created. Science does not want to accept that. The alternative if A then C is ignored because of prejudice. The genesis of the multiverse idea is an ulterior motive.

Science says if it can not be measured, then it can not exist. Science can only measure the physical. Therefore only the physical exists. That is a circular argument.


----------



## RawrJessiRawr

Kon:1059470126 said:


> Selbbin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because people fear the eternity of death.
> 
> 
> 
> I fear dying painfully, not death, itself. I hope it comes really fast. Like a heart attack.
Click to expand...

Same here because dying painfully is awful, you cant stop that pain until your dead, you would have to suffer without any ease, ugh how dreadful lol jeez I rather die old and in my sleep so I don't know... Hmmmn maybe I fear both because now that I think about it, thinking about never being able to think, breathe, feel is kinda scary. Usually people think all the time, while sleeping we go into rem sleep, awake we have our inner thoughts 24/7 but when we die our brains slowly shut off section by section until its completely dark.... eh its an uneasy feeling for me. Hmmmn enjoy life while you can lol


----------



## cgcooper

If you expected me to rebuttal by providing evidence against string theory, keep expecting. No one is equipped to debate against string theory as it is the best concept for combining quantum physics and general relativity. However, it is still a nearly untested hypothetical theory. The very definition of scientific hypothesis. Stating otherwise, and concluding that most physicists believe in the multiverse is authoritative fallacy by definition.

Provide a link to a scholarly source providing documentation of a tested experiment and you've got room to claim fact. Then again, as a biology professor I once had liked to say, "There's no room for facts in science." As it stands, its pretty to read about, but there's little to no proof. Similar to a common Bible.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> That is what cgcooper said.
> 
> In fact, there is no evidence, just speculation or inference. That proves cgcooper's second point, there is no more what science classifies as evidence for the multiverse than for the existence of God.


There is lots of science that infers a multiverse, there is no science that infers a god. Therefore a multiverse is a lot more likely that there being a god, hence a stronger case



> In what way? Again, you are presenting your opinion as fact.


As above, or try reading the article I attached.



> The multiverse idea is purely inferential. If A, then B. Interestingly, it was only dreamt up when the scientists realized that the only explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is that it was deliberately created.


You clearly know very little about the physics that indicate a multiverse. :roll



> Science does not want to accept that. The alternative if A then C is ignored because of prejudice. The genesis of the multiverse idea is an ulterior motive.


Oh dear, you honestly think it's a conspiracy against your religion? Get a grip. These physicists and cosmologists don't care about your fantasy world enough to make up theories to prove it wrong. Plus. it's not like there is one regulated group of physicists who can even do such a thing. Independent physicists around the world are reporting indication that there is a multiverse.



> Science says if it can not be measured, then it can not exist. Science can only measure the physical. Therefore only the physical exists. That is a circular argument.


Science clearly isn't your strong point as that is nonsense. There is much we can not *yet *measure but is predicted to exist. Finding ways to fully prove the theoretical physics is what drives physicists work.

You are saying that if we can't measure it then it can't exist. So you surely believe your god doesn't exists then? :lol


----------



## ugh1979

cgcooper said:


> If you expected me to rebuttal by providing evidence against string theory, keep expecting. No one is equipped to debate against string theory as it is the best concept for combining quantum physics and general relativity. However, it is still a nearly untested hypothetical theory. The very definition of scientific hypothesis. Stating otherwise, and concluding that most physicists believe in the multiverse is authoritative fallacy by definition.
> 
> Provide a link to a scholarly source providing documentation of a tested experiment and you've got room to claim fact. Then again, as a biology professor I once had liked to say, "There's no room for facts in science." As it stands, its pretty to read about, but there's little to no proof. Similar to a common Bible.


I've never said there is hard evidence, just good indication. I'm happy to side with all the experts in the field rather than thinking I know better and say it doesn't exist.


----------



## Milco

The afterlife would require not only the existence of a God, but the existence of a personal God.
There's nothing to suggest that a personal God should exist, so that really rules out any chance of there being an afterlife.
Add to that that the idea of yourself as a holistic being that could be transferred to some afterlife is a mental/social construct and in direct opposition with both physics and biology and I think the answer has to be a clear "No".


----------



## Phoenix Rising

Wow I'm surprised that there isn't more variety of opinion. I believe in the afterlife. Reincarnation and heaven--not many people agree with me, but that's okay.


----------



## bsd3355

How can we have proof of an afterlife? Having read it in a book and using "faith" (guessing) isn't sufficient of real world evidence.

I have no idea if there is; like I have no idea of anything else unscientifically proven. Still, there is a part of me that instinctively likes the idea of an afterlife, but just as long as I don't burn in hell! The idea of it all is enticing! Still, religion doesn't hold physical proof of an afterlife; only he-say-she-say.


----------



## Phoenix Rising

bwidger85 said:


> How can we have proof of an afterlife? Having read it in a book and using "faith" (guessing) isn't sufficient of real world evidence.
> 
> I have no idea if there is; like I have no idea of anything else unscientifically proven. Still, there is a part of me that instinctively likes the idea of an afterlife, but just as long as I don't burn in hell! The idea of it all is enticing! Still, religion doesn't hold physical proof of an afterlife; only he-say-she-say.


If there is an afterlife, what do you think it'd be like? (going for a discussion, not a debate)


----------



## jamesjamin1986

I'm not afriad of dieing being in jail prison or any of that. It would probly be good for me. I'm no good to society. I hate my life i hate my friends i hate everything, escpally people. I do beleive in God and talk with him every night he just keeps telling me one more day. So I take it day by day. lifes a ***** then you die you decided weather you spend aterinery in heaven or hell. I wish I could of just been born in heaven so i wouldn't have to die i wish everyday somebody would kill me i absoultly hate living.


----------



## eppe

agonized over this question for a while then realized, i'll know the answer in the end. though its too bad that, for now, we dont have the tools to get a definitive answer for this one.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Humans are quick to associate certain feelings and experiences with something 'bigger' than themselves but it certainly doesn't prove there is an afterlife. I've actually had what most people would call spiritual experiences but I'm smart enough to know it's all just a product of my mind. They are quite pleasant so I can certainly understand the attraction of religion and the seeking off such experiences. As I say, that doesn't mean it's anything out with your own mind.


Perhaps you should reveal what these experiences are.



ugh1979 said:


> The majority of modern physicists/cosmologists now believe in a multiverse, so the chances of one of the universes being just right for life becomes extremely likely. Lots of modern and new physics is indicating a multiverse.


The operative word here is "believe". This is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for the multiverse whatsoever. Almost everyone used to believe that the Sun orbitted the Earth, instead of vice versa. You are saying this mere belief makes it "extremely likely" because it fits with your own viewpoint.



ugh1979 said:


> How can you say it's low? In fact we just don't know enough to say if it's low or high at the moment. It could well happen frequently all over the universe.


As far as is known, it has only happened once in billions of years. No-one comes back from a walk saying that they saw part of a swamp or some other environment spontaneously come to life. If it were not extremely low, then there could well be recorded instances of its happening.



ugh1979 said:


> Why would it? We don't scoff at the thought of another planet for example where creatures are vastly different and live in a very different environment.


It is common for someone to say that they do not believe something because they have never seen any evidence of it themselves ("I'll believe it when I see it").


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> There is lots of science that infers a multiverse, there is no science that infers a god. Therefore a multiverse is a lot more likely that there being a god, hence a stronger case:lol


The science that infers God is the fact that the universe is so finely-tuned for life. That is the genesis for the multiverse theory - to give scientists an alternate explanation. The fact that it came into fashion only because of an ulterior motive itself makes it questionable.

Someone called Hugh Everett previously proposed the multiverse theory and he was ridiculed and ostracized. It was so bad he turned to drink etc and died when he was 51. If it was ridiculous then, it should still be ridiculous now since there is no more direct evidence for it now than there was then.


----------



## hoddesdon

Kon said:


> That's the mistake right there. We don't know what the "small pile of chemicals" (e.g. matter) really is, on some level. This is the "ignorance" hypothesis (see quote below) that argues that we are in fact, so ignorant of the nature of the the "physical"/matter, that we have no basis to formulate the mind-body problem (e.g. Hard problem of consciousness) in any meaningful way. As Strawson puts it:
> 
> http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Strawson.html
> 
> So before one can say that it's a "miracle" how something like the mental can arise out of the brain, one has to know what the brain/neuron/atom/particle...(matter) is. And we really don't. But so what? That just hi-lites or cognitive limitations, just like all other animals.


Your view that there must be something else that is not known about is a circular argument. You can explain anything away just by saying that there must be some unknown factor. Is there any evidence that there is an unknown factor in this case?


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> That doesn't mean there hasn't been progress towards explaining it though does it?
> 
> You stated there has been no progress, which is simply wrong.
> 
> Are you totally unable to comprehend the concept of partial answers to the questions mankind has about life and the universe?
> 
> Does it have to be either no answer or the full answer your religion gives you?


This is abusive.

What is this progress?


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> In fact there is nothing in physics which says time can't run backwards. It works in both directions perfectly well. Why time has the direction it does is another big separate debate which needs its own thread.


It has never run backwards, so how can you say it works perfectly well backwards?


----------



## The Silent 1

hoddesdon said:


> The science that infers God is the fact that the universe is so finely-tuned for life. That is the genesis for the multiverse theory - to give scientists an alternate explanation. The fact that it came into fashion only because of an ulterior motive itself makes it questionable.
> 
> Someone called Hugh Everett previously proposed the multiverse theory and he was ridiculed and ostracized. It was so bad he turned to drink etc and died when he was 51. If it was ridiculous then, it should still be ridiculous now since there is no more direct evidence for it now than there was then.


The multiverse idea is still a work in progress and I've heard people give different ideas on it. However these ideas are all explained in scientific terms and are backed by research. The finely tuned universe theory sounds like a fancy version of the god of the gaps. But as I've said before, stating "god" caused the universe means absolutely nothing in science. Whats a god? Theists have essentially made up a creature who they claim is unexplainable and then given it all the necessary properties to fill in the gaps in our current knowledge. I could construct the same argument only substituting "god" with "magic pixy fairies" or "the force". They are answering a real mystery with a made up one and acting as though they've found a real answer.


----------



## The Silent 1

To the OP's question I see no reason to believe the afterlife is anything, but a made up concept. Our minds are products of our brains and once our bodies shut down for good, I have no reason to believe that "I" will continue to exist in some form. People talk about people having "spirits" without even defining what that is and how they know they exist.


----------



## hoddesdon

The Silent 1 said:


> The multiverse idea is still a work in progress and I've heard people give different ideas on it. However these ideas are all explained in scientific terms and are backed by research. The finely tuned universe theory sounds like a fancy version of the god of the gaps. But as I've said before, stating "god" caused the universe means absolutely nothing in science. Whats a god? Theists have essentially made up a creature who they claim is unexplainable and then given it all the necessary properties to fill in the gaps in our current knowledge. I could construct the same argument only substituting "god" with "magic pixy fairies" or "the force". They are answering a real mystery with a made up one and acting as though they've found a real answer.


So what is the *direct* evidence for the multiverse?

That is a valid question irrespective whether the multiverse theory is still a work in progress or not. There should be some direct evidence to give rise to the idea (according to the scientific method). If the multiverse theory is backed by research then there should be direct evidence.

If there is none, then the multiverse is a creature given all the necessary properties to fill in the gaps in our current knowledge. Science has shown that the universe is strangely fine-tuned for life, and the multiverse theory arose solely in response to that fact.


----------



## Luna Sea

The Silent 1 said:


> To the OP's question I see no reason to believe the afterlife is anything, but a made up concept. Our minds are products of our brains and once our bodies shut down for good, I have no reason to believe that "I" will continue to exist in some form.


This. As much as people might want to believe it, we're very complicated, but no different than a goldfish or a fox at the end of it all.


----------



## The Silent 1

hoddesdon said:


> So what is the *direct* evidence for the multiverse?
> 
> That is a valid question irrespective whether the multiverse theory is still a work in progress or not. There should be some direct evidence to give rise to the idea (according to the scientific method). If the multiverse theory is backed by research then there should be direct evidence.


What evidence is there for it? We'll that depends on which version of the idea your talking about, but wiki is a good starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Your second sentence is false. If there was plenty of direct evidence for the multiverse theory than it would become an official scientific theory and be adopted by the scientific community like evolution. Saying its backed by research only means we have theories that are scientifically explianed, but still somewhat incomplete or not fully verified.



hoddesdon said:


> If there is none, then the multiverse is a creature given all the necessary properties to fill in the gaps in our current knowledge. Science has shown that the universe is strangely fine-tuned for life, and the multiverse theory arose solely in response to that fact.


The multiverse isn't a creature and its explained in pure scientific terms and thats the big issue here. If I ask a theist what god is, they'll give me some vague idea often filled with claims that may not be even remotely possible and fallacy after fallacy. Saying the universe is fine tuned for life is odd when you consider that we evolved within the parameters of this universe. We adapted and survived in it not the other way around. But several scientists have refuted this fine tuned argument. You say the multiverse theory arose in response to that fact as if "god" was the prevailing scientific theory before that. God is just a concept people came up with when they had no other way to explain things. It was never a scientific theory people set out to disprove.

Personally I don't prescribe to the multiverse theory. I think it is, but one of many interesting ideas. The key thing here, is that it is usually explained in clear scientific terms. It doesn't posit some creature called a "god" and start giving it properties as it pleases without giving any logical idea of what a "god" even is.


----------



## hoddesdon

The Silent 1 said:


> Your second sentence is false. If there was plenty of direct evidence for the multiverse theory than it would become an official scientific theory and be adopted by the scientific community like evolution. Saying its backed by research only means we have theories that are scientifically explianed, but still somewhat incomplete or not fully verified.


So it is just a theory.



The Silent 1 said:


> The multiverse isn't a creature and its explained in pure scientific terms and thats the big issue here. If I ask a theist what god is, they'll give me some vague idea often filled with claims that may not be even remotely possible and fallacy after fallacy. *Saying the universe is fine tuned for life is odd when you consider that we evolved within the parameters of this universe.* We adapted and survived in it not the other way around. But several scientists have refuted this fine tuned argument. You say the multiverse theory arose in response to that fact as if "god" was the prevailing scientific theory before that. God is just a concept people came up with when they had no other way to explain things. It was never a scientific theory people set out to disprove.


There are innumerable ways in which the universe is fine-tuned for life. That is also part of the point - a large number of things had to come together. For example, if the universe were expanding either slightly less slowly or slightly more quickly then life of any sort would be impossible. So it is not just a case of saying that it is fine-tuned for the life which happens to exist. If light did not exist, then life of any sort would be impossible.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Perhaps you should reveal what these experiences are.


Does it really matter what my personal experiences were? All you need to know in relation to this discussion is that they were what many people would classify as spiritual, and would make them believe in a 'higher power' or whatever. They didn't with me though, as I know they are just a product of my mind under the influence of psychedelic drugs.



> The operative word here is "believe". This is not evidence. There is no direct evidence for the multiverse whatsoever. Almost everyone used to believe that the Sun orbitted the Earth, instead of vice versa. You are saying this mere belief makes it "extremely likely" because it fits with your own viewpoint.


I'm saying it's extremely likely as much other strong evidence we do have infers it. The validity of beliefs is based on its supporting evidence.



> As far as is known, it has only happened once in billions of years. No-one comes back from a walk saying that they saw part of a swamp or some other environment spontaneously come to life. If it were not extremely low, then there could well be recorded instances of its happening.


As far is currently known yes, due to us only having looked at a tiny fraction of our surroundings, but that doesn't mean low scientific probability. In fact it's deemed high scientific probability that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Even if there is a low probability of genesis, the incredibly high numbers of chances mean that it will happen numerous times at different places.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> The science that infers God is the fact that the universe is so finely-tuned for life. That is the genesis for the multiverse theory - to give scientists an alternate explanation. The fact that it came into fashion only because of an ulterior motive itself makes it questionable.


Ulterior motive? Are you inferring that the physics community is a conspiracy against religion? :lol

New ideas and the physics the supports them emerge all the time, and provide very good valid answers to questions. If it so happens that they put more nails in the coffin of religion then so be it. It's called evolution.



> Someone called Hugh Everett previously proposed the multiverse theory and he was ridiculed and ostracized. It was so bad he turned to drink etc and died when he was 51. If it was ridiculous then, it should still be ridiculous now since there is no more direct evidence for it now than there was then.


I can assure you there is a lot more evidence that infers it now than then. Are you honestly trying to say you know better than the professional physics community general consensus on the subject?


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> It has never run backwards, so how can you say it works perfectly well backwards?


The laws of physics state it can. The reason we observe it running in one certain direction is another big topic.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> So it is just a theory.


Ultimately everything is just a theory. However different theories have different levels of credibility, with the most credible being deemed 'true'.



> There are innumerable ways in which the universe is fine-tuned for life. That is also part of the point - a large number of things had to come together. For example, if the universe were expanding either slightly less slowly or slightly more quickly then life of any sort would be impossible. So it is not just a case of saying that it is fine-tuned for the life which happens to exist. If light did not exist, then life of any sort would be impossible.


I'd say it's the other way round, life is fine tuned for this particular universe. In other universes life many never occur as they don't have the correct conditions. So, it's not a case of this universe being fined tuned by a creator, but just chance that this universe among X amount has the correct conditions.


----------



## squidlette

My magic 8 ball says, "All signs point to no."

I'm inclined to agree with it.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Does it really matter what my personal experiences were? All you need to know in relation to this discussion is that they were what many people would classify as spiritual, and would make them believe in a 'higher power' or whatever. They didn't with me though, as I know they are just a product of my mind under the influence of psychedelic drugs.


 If they were drug-induced, then no-one would classify it as a spiritual experience, or even a pseudo-spiritual one. It was not your mind fooling you, but drugs. No-one would would attribute them to a higher power when drugs are the obvious explanation. It was worthwhile to ask. Other people have spiritual experiences without the involvement of drugs.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Ulterior motive? Are you inferring that the physics community is a conspiracy against religion?


 I am saying that, like most people, they do not want to think they could have been wrong, wrongly feeling it would undercut their credibility, when, in reality, someone who is big to allow for that possibility grows in stature.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> The laws of physics state it can. The reason we observe it running in one certain direction is another big topic.


 OK then, elephants can fly under the laws of zoology too. The little matter that it has never happened is irrelevant. If it has never happened, it is at least highly likely that it can not happen.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> In other universes life many never occur as they don't have the correct conditions.


So life could have been impossible, so therefore you must admit that it is fine-tuned to that extent at least.



ugh1979 said:


> *it's not a case of this universe being fined tuned by a creator, but just chance that this universe among X amount has the correct conditions*.


That is the true motivation for the multiverse theory. It is a device so that science can reject the possibility it does not want to accept. It also implicitly accepts that there is fine-tuning - otherwise there would be no need for an alternate theory.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> If they were drug-induced, then no-one would classify it as a spiritual experience, or even a pseudo-spiritual one. It was not your mind fooling you, but drugs. No-one would would attribute them to a higher power when drugs are the obvious explanation. It was worthwhile to ask. Other people have spiritual experiences without the involvement of drugs.


Wow, you can not be serious? :lol

Mankind has been using psychedelic drugs for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years for spiritual reasons. Have you ever heard of shamanism? It was (and still is in a few places) a very important element of human culture, and often used psychedelic drugs to induce spiritual experiences.

My point though was that if I can run experiments that induce so called spiritual experiences using drugs, then other instances of spiritual experience could well be simply due to other stimuli. Similar chemical reactions and neural activity can be observed in someone having a spiritual experience in a church due to the stimuli they are receiving. (Atmosphere etc)


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> I am saying that, like most people, they do not want to think they could have been wrong, wrongly feeling it would undercut their credibility, when, in reality, someone who is big to allow for that possibility grows in stature.


Yeah because it's scientists and not theists that have the problem with admitting they are wrong. :lol

Science evolves and scientists admit they are wrong in favour of better theories based on new available evidence all the time.

The same can't be said of theists, who stick to the archaic fairy tale they were told as a child and never mature beyond it.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> OK then, elephants can fly under the laws of zoology too. The little matter that it has never happened is irrelevant. If it has never happened, it is at least highly likely that it can not happen.


You are getting confused. Those examples are not comparable. The laws of physics can be expressed as mathematical equations, and can run forward and backward in time. Zoology and elephants can't be expressed as equations.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> So life could have been impossible, so therefore you must admit that it is fine-tuned to that extent at least.


No, it's the way it is because of chance, nothing tuned it. There was no designer.



> That is the true motivation for the multiverse theory. It is a device so that science can reject the possibility it does not want to accept. It also implicitly accepts that there is fine-tuning - otherwise there would be no need for an alternate theory.


The motivation is the pursuit of the truth based on the best evidence available. It's not a case of not wanting to accept whatever theory you believe in. It's case of your theory not standing up to scrutiny and there being better theories which render your one obsolete. It's evolution in action.


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Wow, you can not be serious? :lol
> 
> Mankind has been using psychedelic drugs for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years for spiritual reasons. Have you ever heard of shamanism? It was (and still is in a few places) a very important element of human culture, and often used psychedelic drugs to induce spiritual experiences.
> 
> My point though was that if I can run experiments that induce so called spiritual experiences using drugs, then other instances of spiritual experience could well be simply due to other stimuli. Similar chemical reactions and neural activity can be observed in someone having a spiritual experience in a church due to the stimuli they are receiving. (Atmosphere etc)


Yes, I can be serious.

A spiritual experience is something involving a connection to the spiritual realm. Something involving drugs is caused by purely physical means. Therefore it does not fit the definition of a spiritual experience.

What chemical reactions take place in a church?


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> You are getting confused. Those examples are not comparable. The laws of physics can be expressed as mathematical equations, and can run forward and backward in time. Zoology and elephants can't be expressed as equations.


The point is that if something never happens in practice, that undercuts theories that it can. It would be an extraordinary coincidence, and stroke of good luck, if, by chance, the only law of physics not running backward is the same one that would create chaos if it did.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Yes, I can be serious.
> 
> A spiritual experience is something involving a connection to the spiritual realm. Something involving drugs is caused by purely physical means. Therefore it does not fit the definition of a spiritual experience.


Nonsense. For millennia people have believed that certain drugs let their minds connect with a spiritual realm. Who are you to say that they can't have had what they deemed spiritual experiences? :roll



> What chemical reactions take place in a church?


Increases in the congregations serotonin and dopamine levels for one are common. It's no wonder they feel closer to god when there. As I say, a similar, although usually much stronger mental chemical change happens when psychedelic drugs are taken, so it's no surprise people have spiritual experiences when taking them, especially if you are already open to the idea.

I appreciate the idea that psychedelics being linked to spirituality is alien and news to you, but I guess you have just never learned about it. It's not exactly something that gets taught in schools or mentioned in the media much. However there is a wealth of information on it on the web if you want to learn about it.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> The point is that if something never happens in practice, that undercuts theories that it can. It would be an extraordinary coincidence, and stroke of good luck, if, by chance, the only law of physics not running backward is the same one that would create chaos if it did.


All i'm saying is that the laws show that it *can*. Not that is actually does.

For example, imagine a train constantly going round a track in one direction, and say it is travelling in that direction for a reason we don't know. Think of that as the arrow of time and physics. There is no reason why it can't run in the opposite direction, but it just doesn't. However, it *can *travel either way.


----------



## Loveless

I want there to be an afterlife. I have a huge fear of death honestly. Everything ending, just sudden nothingness? It's a scary thought. At least for me it is. I mean I really can't see what is wrong with not wanting to die lol.


----------



## ugh1979

Loveless said:


> I mean I really can't see what is wrong with not wanting to die lol.


Not wanting to die has nothing to do with there being an afterlife or not. Almost nobody wants to die!


----------



## Loveless

ugh1979 said:


> Not wanting to die has nothing to do with there being an afterlife or not. Almost nobody wants to die!


Ha ha I just don't wanna be ripped for saying I believe there is one lol


----------



## The Silent 1

hoddesdon said:


> So it is just a theory.


A theory based in science unlike god, which is just some vague concept with nothing scientific behind it.



hoddesdon said:


> There are innumerable ways in which the universe is fine-tuned for life. That is also part of the point - a large number of things had to come together. For example, if the universe were expanding either slightly less slowly or slightly more quickly then life of any sort would be impossible. So it is not just a case of saying that it is fine-tuned for the life which happens to exist. If light did not exist, then life of any sort would be impossible.


Nothing in that paragraph refutes anything I just said. Life developed within the parameters of this universe. It adapted to it, not the other way around. Even in this universe it is quite hostile towards us and survival within was quite harsh for some time. And just how much of this universe can actually be lived in? The idea that this universe is fine tuned is absurd.

And how do you know a different type of life may not have evolved in a different type of universe? Would a universe without life somehow disprove god? Obviously we can't talk about any other universe because we're in this one. And what about the fact that most of the life that developed on this planet is now gone? The fine tuning argument just doesn't hold up at all. Theres a hole in the cement down the street from where I live. Its filled with water that matches it almost perfectly. I guess I should assume then that the hole was "created" for that water.

And I notice you answered none of my questions.


----------



## ugh1979

The Silent 1 said:


> And I notice you answered none of my questions.


He often does that. I guess there are many questions we ask him which he can't answer.


----------



## Luna Sea

Can I just ask what's meant by the universe being finely tuned for life? My physics and chemistry and whatnot aren't exactly up to degree standard. I've always thought that the universe was fairly poorly tuned for life, given its massive size and the relative scarcity of life. That's always what I wonder when people put leaflets through my door saying "Rainforests! Beautiful seas! God must exist!"; was he just practicing when he made the uninhabitable wastes that comprise the rest of our solar system?


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> He often does that. I guess there are many questions we ask him which he can't answer.


 Careful, someone might choose to consider that a personal attack. In any case, gossiping is not nice.


----------



## Selbbin

It's interesting how I never got any answers to my questions either....


----------



## The Silent 1

Heres a good video debunking the fine tuning argument:


----------



## anhedonic

What does this afterlife consist of?


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Careful, someone might choose to consider that a personal attack. In any case, gossiping is not nice.


Sincere apologies if you find that offensive. It wasn't intended. I enjoy debating with you but just noted that you don't respond to some important pressing questions.

I'm sure you can read between the lines and realise my intention for commenting on it.


----------



## ugh1979

anhedonic said:


> What does this afterlife consist of?


This is a question that I instantly asked as a child when someone first said to me that there was an afterlife.

The practicality and logistics of what was claimed the afterlife consisted of were illogical, impossible and absurd.

The Christian concept of heaven for example sounds like a shallow mindless hell to me.


----------



## BarryLyndon

I often wonder if there is one for all the bugs we mindlessly squash.


----------



## lonelyjew

hoddesdon said:


> The science that infers God is the fact that the universe is so finely-tuned for life. That is the genesis for the multiverse theory - to give scientists an alternate explanation. The fact that it came into fashion only because of an ulterior motive itself makes it questionable.


The Silent 1 beat me to it:



The Silent 1 said:


> Heres a good video debunking the fine tuning argument:


What were the odds that the laws of physics in our universe would make for universe capable of supporting life? Well, that's hard to answer because we don't have other universes to look at, but let's say small. Now what were the odds that of all of the human beings that ever lived, that there would have been the appropriate interactions/matings to specifically make you? Think about those odds for a second, because they don't merely involve a very select few of the 100 billion or so people who ever lived even merely encountering each other in the right combination in passing (exceedingly rare in itself), but each of your ancestors had to survive to reproductive age, then be successful in courting their partner, then had the particular ovum (women are born with 2,000,000) unite with a particular sperm (about 280,000,000 sperm are released in each ejaculate) then the child coming to term, getting the appropriate amount of nutrients to allow their development into the specific person that they were, and so on, for over 5,000 generations, to make you. That's even mentioning the exceedingly minimal odds of the specific mutations that your ancestors randomly got, and the odds of those happening in the specific order that allowed them to make them who they were, and their offspring who they were, and you who you are.

Hell, forgetting all else, just looking at the odds of the right egg/sperm uniting in every one of the generations would is, if my calculations are correct, something like *1/8.71*10^73,740*. Now, people have a hard time appreciating the very big, but if you took the number of all of the atoms in the universe, and squared it, then took that number and squared it again, and repeated until you had squared the number 9 times, it would still be .0000 - insert 380 more zeroes - 001% of the number above! That means that if every atom in the universe had a particular number and I was randomly picking them out through the universe, the odds of all those sperm and eggs coming together would be about the same as you predicting the first 900 random atoms I picked out, in order! In contrast, considering our universe has a volume of about 3.5*10^80 cubic meters, and it would take something like 10^31 hydrogen atoms to fill every bit of space up in a cubic meter, it would only take 3.5*10^115 hydrogen atoms to fill all the space in the universe. That means that even if you had 10 followed 73,625 more zeroes more universes the size of ours, you'd only need less than half of the number from above hydrogen atoms to fill them all completely!

Honestly though, that huge number barely even grazes it because you still have to consider that your ancestors would have had to have the proper egg and sperm unite for their siblings, and all of their children, and their friends, and everyone who even had a minor impact on them to unite properly, at the right times, to allow the specific path of events that allowed for your birth. I can't even begin to try to calculate that!

What's the point? The sum of all of the exceedingly rare events that lead up to our universe as we know it today were no less likely than the events that would have made for any other universe that couldn't have supported us. If everything didn't go perfectly, you would not exist and would not be here to make your argument. Even if the odds of our particular universe existing are unimaginably small, if they were different we wouldn't be here today to discuss this. A deity was hardly necessary, because all events and things are, in the scheme of things, all rare occurrences, but that hardly qualifies them to be miracles.


----------



## Droidsteel

Personally I believe there is an afterlife because Im christian, but I have no idea what it is like of course, only that god is there.

And I don't believe that animals have souls in the same way as we do (in genesis god breathed life into adam, whereas he spoke animals into exsistance) I do believe they have an afterlife as they are part of creation.

Say all you want about humans being 'just another animal,' but its just stupid to look at our civilization and then talk about us as if we are on exactly the same level.


----------



## The Silent 1

Droidsteel said:


> Say all you want about humans being 'just another animal,' but its just stupid to look at our civilization and then talk about us as if we are on exactly the same level.


No ones saying we are on exactly the same level. Humans beings have evolved into the most dominate creatures on this planet. We have the most highly developed brains, and the ability to create powerful tools, but we evolved just like all the other organisms on this planet. Our ancestors were once very primitive as well, we didn't become what we are over night.


----------



## ABC 123

alte said:


> Nope. We have no evidence for it. The idea that it exists is so widespread because people are afraid of dying and find it hard to believe that they will, at one point, stop existing. Thinking that an afterlife exists is the mind's way to cope with this stressful reality.


Actually, we may have some evidence for it, you know, because of near-death experiences.


----------



## The Sleeping Dragon

ABC 123 said:


> Actually, we may have some evidence for it, you know, because of near-death experiences.


Scientific Theories of the NDE
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts01.html


----------



## CantSpeak

Scary thoughts, I want to say im religious and believe in god, but sadly I think it will just end.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555

..basically I was saying in my last post, that we live in reality and if there was anything 'more real' then that's a moot point for us as humans. because we can't experience anything more real *and yet we build our meaning of life on this particular level or layer of what we think is reality*. If ants think they're a normal society which you could say they do.... ultimately it doesn't matter because ants will always live as ants and they don't need to worry about irrelevant external facts... even if ants were more intelligent, their minds would be overloaded with the complexity of reality. And that's also the capacity in which we end as a lifeform: reality is too complex for us to learn things beyond a certain capacity etc etc... and our society/way of life is an emergent reaction to this limitation of our memory and opinion/judgement/making abilities.



ABC 123 said:


> Actually, we may have some evidence for it, you know, because of near-death experiences.


Subjective experience isn't evidence; it only proves that our brains can hallucinate or experience in a perspective other than first person. Derealization is a similar thing I'd say.. but it's not evidence that some alternate reality exists. It's evidence that our human experience of the world around us isn't absolute. We can think the world's flat, also that it's round.. it only proves that neither of those things can be absolute truths but subjective/opinionated views of what's really there.

We can imagine many things. And, you'll notice near-death experiences don't have anything to do with God or religious imagery such as shapes or symbols, from any religion ever. This is because psychological function is innately human, it is driven by biology. So.. near-death experiences are in no way connected necessarily to an afterlife. It's merely that religion and God are a popular "theme" that people like to incorporate into these very human experiences we cannot explain for ourselves and for the people around us. It's repression...


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555

Geronimo2006 said:


> I doubt it on scientific grounds. Where is the evidence? But I sure hope there is so I can be compensated for the terrible cards I have been dealt in life in terms of being stigmatised and ostracised for my appearance. I think the Bible says something about the first being the last and the last being the first. I hope then that in an afterlife, I will have a nice appearance.


But you are you because of how you look which was driving how people treated you, which has driven how your personality and self esteem and social skills developed. It is simply that you would not be you without your particular face and facial muscle use... if you had a different face you wouldn't even be able to make expressions the same.

Furthermore, the afterlife turning the tables, man, that's sooo outdated. People will have to learn to be good or they'll be punished in the afterlife, FOR AN ETERNITY? What if one such person was abused by their parents and never had a stable friendship, causing them to abuse partners in their relationships? Where does God work in the "you should have learned right from wrong here and here, on this day, when you had this chance to change things!"...?

It's simply a narrow-minded philosophy from 3000 years ago, sorry. Individual evil or blame cannot exist in absolution. "We all share the same sky". I'd say we're pretty screwed as a species, since we still fight each other over mindless things.


----------



## Luka92

It's a matter of opinion.


----------



## jg43i9jghy0t4555

MagusAnima said:


> When you think about it... lots of people who are long dead might be part of our own bodies now, as well as animals, plants, rocks and even stars. I suppose it's like very efficient recycling, since atoms can survive for trillions of years (if not forever?)


I lol'd

Yeah I had that thought before. It's disturbing. But... in the future.. animagus' might exist and people might not think about such stuff from bare reality..


----------



## borntosuffer

I think part of anxiety and depression is not believing in an afterlife. I would know cuz when i thought there was no hope i was the biggest athiest ever. Like i would think all religious people were dumb. Now im different thanks to drugs, i dont think much about what happens when we die but i understand why ppl believe in these stuff. My 2 cents


----------



## Freiheit

I don't think there is one. Guess I'll see when I die.


----------



## KelseyAlena

Read the Bible...its amazing how many questions to life are answered in the book. But yes i do believe there is an afterlife..I am a Christian. How could someone not believe in some sort of higher power?


----------



## RUFB2327

No, I don't believe there is one. Would be nice if one existed, but I just believe when you die is like before you were born, you do not know you dont exist


----------



## jesica24

If afterlife is just like it is now I don't want any of it!


----------



## applesauce5482

There is a possibility.

Like right now we are organisms yet we are so intelligent and we think for ourselves. We have no idea what is out there.

I think there is.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster

I believe there is an afterlife, but I don't have proof so if you want to disagree thatgs fine. The way I look at it, I was born once right, so why couldn't it happen again?


----------



## twitchy666

*nah*

neither a prelife


----------



## c224

doubt it


----------



## Eimaj

Why is this in the science section? It does not belong here.


----------



## HollaFlower

Beliefs can be used as positive personal drives whether or not you're on either end of the spectrum. There is no scientific evidence of the after life. All we have is near death experiences in which your brain will function sporadically in your final moments causing the illusion of one. Or spirituality tied in with hallucinogenic drugs that also emit dream-like experiences due to the release of DMT in your brain. The writings of the bible and sacred texts, though as we choose to maintain that piece of our history, we as a people have the right to dismiss words or decipher them differently since we are complex beings in a constantly adapting environment. It's easy to feel that life is short when we as a race are constantly being reborn into an adaptive society. The progress we make will never stop for any individual to catch up on. This in itself can propel the illusion of how time can go by slowly or quickly. 

In my opinion, if there is an afterlife. It is not a conscious one. And that could mean absolutely anything, but I'm okay with that.


----------



## MajorGravy

Nobody knows. It's impossible at this time. Ask again later.


----------



## Pearson99

c224 said:


> doubt it


this.


----------



## AlchemyFire

I don't believe there is.


----------



## Grog

Nope , nothing , nada , death is the end as it's a dead end .


----------



## HelpfulHero

I think that if your dna and rna are replicated perfectly and you have the same approximate experiences you are clones. Is that good enough?


----------



## purechaos

The Silent 1 said:


> No ones saying we are on exactly the same level. Humans beings have evolved into the most dominate creatures on this planet. We have the most highly developed brains, and the ability to create powerful tools, but we evolved just like all the other organisms on this planet. Our ancestors were once very primitive as well, we didn't become what we are over night.


 We are actually on the same level. There are animals that can see, feel, and hear things we do not and vice versa. A bird doesn't need technology in order to fly, there are animals that can run faster than you, breathe under water without an apparatus, etc, and some if not most animals are actually more in tune with the environment than humans currently are. If your ego wishes to make a dominate living thing, that would be the earth and universe itself, because in the end the earth consumes and breathes life off all. Your human body exists in tandem with everything else. If there were no plants, trees, sunlight, or animals, you would not be here, or you would drop dead. Think about that the next time you step outside, take a breathe of fresh air, or look up at the stars. You have a connection with all of it and you're not better than any of it or dominate over it, you are simply alive and part of it.


----------



## slider

afterlife? lol ridiculous to believe in such nonsense. When i die i wont know ill be dead because ill be dead.


----------



## Nonexistence Forever

I can't walk or talk ever again, yet I'm still there? I don't respond to any stimuli ever again, yet there's still something inside the body?

Also, "there is no scientific evidence that suggests consciousness survives the death of an organism.[2][3]"


----------



## Nonexistence Forever

Everything about the mind can be lost by damaging the brain, the whole brain is damaged upon death (every neuron dies), the mind then disappears.

If the self doesn't exist when you're unconscious (such as deep sleep) because enough neurons aren't communicating, then why should the self exist after death when there's no communication at all because every neuron has died?

"An afterlife is the imaginary concept that one's disembodied consciousness will magically leave the body _post mortem_. As modern neuroscience has shown, consciousness can be reduced to neuron interactions [citation needed], so if they go, you go. *****ing about it isn't going to change anything."

"According to neuroscientific views, the mind, with the components of memories, creativity, beliefs and opinions that form a person's identity, is a component of the functioning brain.[1] During brain death, which is typically bound to occur in as few as 3 minutes after cardiac arrest,[2] all brain function halts permanently. If the soul is a part of the mind, it would cease to exist at brain death. In the scientific context, there is nothing of one's personality that can exist outside of the biological framework which could float off to some happy place, or live a new life, nothing that could live "after life.""

"As is uncontroversial in scientific circles, the mind, psyche or "soul," as well as consciousness and personality, is a component of the functioning brain.[6] During brain death, which is typically bound to occur in as few as 3 minutes after cardiac arrest,[7] all brain function halts permanently. It follows that the mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist. The implication of this is that there can be no afterlife. As a dependent variable, the impossibility of afterlife may be inferred with near absolute certainty provided that the same may be done with its aforementioned premise: the identity of mind as a component of the functioning brain. That the mind is a component of the functioning brain is beyond reasonable doubt, for it has been demonstrated empirically on countless occasions."

"Evidence points out that mental development in individual organisms is parallel to brain development. In intelligent animals, human and non-human alike, consciousness as we know it begins to appear at neonatal stages,[13] is lost and recovered sporadically in the course of their lifespan-during deep sleep, syncope and sometimes coma, as lack of communication between neurons-and is lost permanently once their brains are dead. Before the mind begins to form, the organism's consciousness does not exist, but is absent in the very same manner as it is after it dies.
The mind is the result of neural activity, which ceases at brain death due to the massive premature death (necrosis) of cerebral neurons. In the process of clinical death, the heart stops working and pumping blood to the brain, thereby cutting the brain's essential supply of oxygen and of other less urgent nutrients. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds.[14] As characteristic of all biological cells, nerve cells (neurons) die once deprived of oxygenated blood, destroying the brain."

"The belief in "eternal oblivion" stems from the hypothesis that the brain creates the mind; therefore, when the brain dies, the mind ceases to exist."

"Objections to claims of reincarnation include the facts that the vast majority of people do not remember previous lives and there is no mechanism known to modern science that would enable a personality to survive death and travel to another body"

"It is thought in some scientific circles that the mind, psyche, consciousness and personality are products of the functioning brain and that once the brain is no longer functioning, these qualities disappear.[83]"

"There's no evidence - in fact every bit of evidence that there's no afterlife"

"The concept of the soul it is not recognised by science because it is a supernatural explanation of the phenomenon of human consciousness, and as such non-falsifiable. The soul is postulated by believers to be completely immaterial. Scientists who attempt, and without exception fail, to find evidence of the soul will usually be told that they can't measure or characterise it anyway. Like most other spiritual beliefs, this makes the idea of the soul somewhat immune to scrutiny. Those who logically and scientifically argue against a "soul" would state that if something can't be measured or tested -directly or indirectly- in any way, then it can't affect the material world and therefore is, in all practicality and in all actuality, non-existent. The soul is usually described as an immaterial "thing" in a way that implies that it "contains" someone's consciousness, emotions, personality, and memories. 
Neuroscience suggests that these various aspects of the mind are almost exclusively dependent on the brain. Changes to the brain from injury or illness directly affect memories, emotions and in fact their overall character.[1][2][3][4] If those changes in actual personality can be identified within the working brain, how can the "soul" which is generally described as these aspects in collective, exist? An immaterial entity would not be expected to be affected by a giant rod ploughing right through its owner's skull."

"The afterlife is fairy story for people that are afraid of the dark"


----------



## hoddesdon

Nonexistence Forever said:


> Everything about the mind can be lost by damaging the brain, the whole brain is damaged upon death (every neuron dies), the mind then disappears.
> 
> If the self doesn't exist when you're unconscious (such as deep sleep) because enough neurons aren't communicating, then why should the self exist after death when there's no communication at all because every neuron has died?
> 
> "An afterlife is the imaginary concept that one's disembodied consciousness will magically leave the body _post mortem_. As modern neuroscience has shown, consciousness can be reduced to neuron interactions [citation needed], so if they go, you go. *****ing about it isn't going to change anything."
> 
> "According to neuroscientific views, the mind, with the components of memories, creativity, beliefs and opinions that form a person's identity, is a component of the functioning brain.[1] During brain death, which is typically bound to occur in as few as 3 minutes after cardiac arrest,[2] all brain function halts permanently. If the soul is a part of the mind, it would cease to exist at brain death. In the scientific context, there is nothing of one's personality that can exist outside of the biological framework which could float off to some happy place, or live a new life, nothing that could live "after life.""
> 
> "As is uncontroversial in scientific circles, the mind, psyche or "soul," as well as consciousness and personality, is a component of the functioning brain.[6] During brain death, which is typically bound to occur in as few as 3 minutes after cardiac arrest,[7] all brain function halts permanently. It follows that the mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist. The implication of this is that there can be no afterlife. As a dependent variable, the impossibility of afterlife may be inferred with near absolute certainty provided that the same may be done with its aforementioned premise: the identity of mind as a component of the functioning brain. That the mind is a component of the functioning brain is beyond reasonable doubt, for it has been demonstrated empirically on countless occasions."
> 
> "Evidence points out that mental development in individual organisms is parallel to brain development. In intelligent animals, human and non-human alike, consciousness as we know it begins to appear at neonatal stages,[13] is lost and recovered sporadically in the course of their lifespan-during deep sleep, syncope and sometimes coma, as lack of communication between neurons-and is lost permanently once their brains are dead. Before the mind begins to form, the organism's consciousness does not exist, but is absent in the very same manner as it is after it dies.
> The mind is the result of neural activity, which ceases at brain death due to the massive premature death (necrosis) of cerebral neurons. In the process of clinical death, the heart stops working and pumping blood to the brain, thereby cutting the brain's essential supply of oxygen and of other less urgent nutrients. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds.[14] As characteristic of all biological cells, nerve cells (neurons) die once deprived of oxygenated blood, destroying the brain."
> 
> "The belief in "eternal oblivion" stems from the hypothesis that the brain creates the mind; therefore, when the brain dies, the mind ceases to exist."
> 
> "Objections to claims of reincarnation include the facts that the vast majority of people do not remember previous lives and there is no mechanism known to modern science that would enable a personality to survive death and travel to another body"
> 
> "It is thought in some scientific circles that the mind, psyche, consciousness and personality are products of the functioning brain and that once the brain is no longer functioning, these qualities disappear.[83]"
> 
> "There's no evidence - in fact every bit of evidence that there's no afterlife"
> 
> "The concept of the soul it is not recognised by science because it is a supernatural explanation of the phenomenon of human consciousness, and as such non-falsifiable. The soul is postulated by believers to be completely immaterial. Scientists who attempt, and without exception fail, to find evidence of the soul will usually be told that they can't measure or characterise it anyway. Like most other spiritual beliefs, this makes the idea of the soul somewhat immune to scrutiny. Those who logically and scientifically argue against a "soul" would state that if something can't be measured or tested -directly or indirectly- in any way, then it can't affect the material world and therefore is, in all practicality and in all actuality, non-existent. The soul is usually described as an immaterial "thing" in a way that implies that it "contains" someone's consciousness, emotions, personality, and memories.
> Neuroscience suggests that these various aspects of the mind are almost exclusively dependent on the brain. Changes to the brain from injury or illness directly affect memories, emotions and in fact their overall character.[1][2][3][4] If those changes in actual personality can be identified within the working brain, how can the "soul" which is generally described as these aspects in collective, exist? An immaterial entity would not be expected to be affected by a giant rod ploughing right through its owner's skull."
> 
> "The afterlife is fairy story for people that are afraid of the dark"


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes


Can you cite where the author actually provides evidence in that article?

I notice his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) was fallacious. He appears to have made a common error in thinking that only conscious causation based 'observations' cause QM wave function collapse.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Not in the spiritual/religious sense, though I'd like to believe it were true.

I think potentially an advanced non biological (more likely to be a machine of some kind, most scientists seem to believe the chance of intelligent 'post-biological' life existing somewhere in the universe is greater than biological for some reason) alien life form could download the 'data' from our brains and transfer it elsewhere... 

Or just absorb it into itself, hive-mind style 8)

Of course this brings up a lot of questions about what is the self. For all intents and purposes, if all memories etc were intact this new being could potentially just be you. It would be like you'd just woken up from a nap (if you weren't now part of a conglomerate of intelligences, and your 'brain data' was 'installed' into a new body of some kind,)

Of course your old body would be dead, as would your old physical brain.. So in a way it would be a clone of your brain's contents rather than you. But if it was identical, would you not just be you philosophically speaking? All those memories and your personality could be the same, everything people argue would make you you. After all, when people are declared brain dead, they are thought of as dead. 

So I guess you could live on in some form in that situation. At least everything that makes you you or your 'soul' could.


----------



## sad vlad

The concept of afterlife only exists to make people feel a tiny bit more comfortable while contemplating death. 

Their life will not cease to exist through death, they will simply take another form, in another time, another space and maybe, just maybe, reunite with their loved ones. Suddenly, there is a fragile hope that this is not the end but the beginning of a new life. So death no longer seems so frightening and people can resign themselves.

I do not believe the soul/memories/consciousness will ever be ''rebooted'', after death, as part of the same/another person in a new life. Once the body dies, those are gone as well.

However, something will continue to exist long after we are no longer around: the atoms that are giving us a shape. That is a form of afterlife that makes more sense.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Probably not.


----------



## Sameer

Afterlife exists only in fiction.


----------



## ChaoticMess

I don't know!!! I will find out when I die, or I will just be dead.


----------



## FortuneAndFame

There is zero evidence for an afterlife. Religion people will tell you there is because they are scared of death and have been brainwashed with emotional BS.


----------



## beffa

i kind of believe in reincarnation but i don't really have a developed view on like an afterlife or anything? just kinda believe that there's another life after your own


----------



## hoddesdon

FortuneAndFame said:


> There is zero evidence for an afterlife. Religion people will tell you there is because they are scared of death and have been brainwashed with emotional BS.


There is absolutely evidence for the existence of the spiritual realm, as shown by the spiritual experiences that members of this site have had.


----------



## Priapus

I want to be reborn so I can continue living in this amazing universe


----------



## Laboratory Rat

We're all going to find out someday, and definitely not today. Why keep bothering with questions you KNOW you can't get a unique answer to?

It's better to focus on this life we have and trying to make the best out of it.


----------



## ilovejehovah777

yes there is a heaven and a hell


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> There is absolutely evidence for the existence of the spiritual realm, as shown by the spiritual experiences that members of this site have had.


Maybe a subjective self generated 'realm', but not an objective one.

As you seem to refuse to accept, much to the detriment of your arguments, personal experience is not credible evidence.

It's naive and fails to understand basic psychology.


----------



## ugh1979

Hadron said:


> Yes there is an afterlife.
> 
> Proof: Atheists can't explain how the brain works.


What a terrible argument that makes silly logical fallacies.

You need to go back and think that one through again.


----------



## purechaos

It sucks we can't study this. Can't go die then report the results


----------



## hoddesdon

ugh1979 said:


> Maybe a subjective self generated 'realm', but not an objective one.
> 
> As you seem to refuse to accept, much to the detriment of your arguments, personal experience is not credible evidence.
> 
> It's naive and fails to understand basic psychology.


Well, actually this is actually the twenty-ninth century. Now that I have just told you that, you will blithely accept that your personal experience that this is the twenty-first century is not credible evidence.

If you want to say that all perception is faulty then it is impossible to come to a definite conclusion about anything.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Well, actually this is actually the twenty-ninth century. Now that I have just told you that, you will blithely accept that your personal experience that this is the twenty-first century is not credible evidence.


No i'll just assume you are insane.



> If you want to say that all perception is faulty then it is impossible to come to a definite conclusion about anything.


It's in fact true that it's very difficult to come to absolute definite conclusions about anything. All we can hope for are varying levels of approximations of the truth, best established by intelligent cross-referencing methods.

Personal experience _can _be faulty, and often is in many areas. But that doesn't mean it always is, so it depends on the case.

For example, if someone sees a monster in the corner of the room, and three other people in the room can't see it, and have ways to show it's not there, then who do you think other people should believe has the best approximation of the truth?


----------



## BoringJim

I certainly believe in an afterlife, and always have done at least throughout my adult life.

That's not because I _want_ to. Indeed, I also feel that we are probably judged after death, and to be quite honest I dread to think how I would be judged...so, selfishly there being an afterlife would maybe not be such a good outcome for me!

But it is just a core belief, and I could never hope to explain to anyone why I believe it, any more than anyone who doesn't believe in it could ever change my mind either.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would lean more towards reincarnation than away from it as well. Again, that's just how I feel.


----------



## MrKappa

rfiguero said:


> This thread is not argumental, this is simply for you to post your theory of what you believe will happen when you die. Feel free to explain why you think your theory is more likely or reasonable. if anyone disagrees with anyone there is no need to say so. Simply ignore it.


Don't really care... not about to build myself a few tons worth of pyramids aligned with the stars in an attempt to prepare for the afterlife.

If there is something after death, bonus. If not, maybe I'll get lucky and some archaeologist will choose my corpse for some new fangled human restoration project.

Personally... I think it's more important to allow others their own freedoms of religion when fear of death is the issue.

Athiests are unfortunately way too over-aligned in the anti-theism, anti-history, book burning and ignorance realm.

That's why I don't associate myself with the bunch these days. They are truly the most ignorant and depressing of them all. Mind you the jesus freaks who thump the bible are no fun either.

Except for the Westboro Baptists. They are the quite literally the best thing to ever hit the athiest god debate. I am being serious. They are pure genius. lol... I mean they are hell raisers on every single political angle you can imagine. They are righteous puke from the bellies of hell. If anyone deserves a Nobel Laureate with peace and political science, they are the ones.

If there is any religious belief I subscribe to, it is the fact that an afterlife is unknown with me. Agnosticism.


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> Athiests are unfortunately way too over-aligned in the anti-theism, anti-history, book burning and ignorance realm.


Can you explain why 'atheists' (an incredibly diverse and varied group who by definition only share one opinion), are of the "anti-theism, anti-history, book burning and ignorance realm"?

That's a very bold statement to make without any supporting case.



> That's why I don't associate myself with the bunch these days. They are truly the most ignorant and depressing of them all.


How do are you measuring ignorance and being depressing, and relative to what demographic? Yourself?



> Except for the Westboro Baptists. They are the quite literally the best thing to ever hit the athiest god debate. I am being serious. They are pure genius. lol... I mean they are hell raisers on every single political angle you can imagine. They are righteous puke from the bellies of hell. If anyone deserves a Nobel Laureate with peace and political science, they are the ones.


Again, care to offer any kind of explanation for such an absurd claim?



> If there is any religious belief I subscribe to, it is the fact that an afterlife is unknown with me. Agnosticism.


You speak of ignorance yet you seem to fail to recognise that the vast majority of atheists are also agnostic about ideas such as god and an afterlife, since arguably no one can know.


----------



## MrKappa

ugh1979 said:


> That's a very bold statement to make without any supporting case.


They are also overreaching in their categorizations. They'll grab just about anyone and tell them that are an athiest.


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> They are also overreaching in their categorizations.


So rather than defend your statement you will just say all atheists overreach in their categorizations? I believe that's called 'ducking the question'.



> They'll grab just about anyone and tell them that are an athiest.


Oh really?

Are they going round the doors, have dedicated TV channels or standing in the street proclaiming it? Or are you just getting confused with people speaking about it on a related forum?


----------



## MrKappa

ugh1979 said:


> Are they going round the doors, have dedicated TV channels or standing in the street proclaiming it?


no... they are on the internet. Some sort of bizarre cult that goes around arguing over the existence of God. They are everywhere. They are more preachy than a Hare Krisna, and more argumentative than a Scientologist.



ugh1979 said:


> Oh really?


Yup...



ugh1979 said:


> Or are you just getting confused with people speaking about it on a related forum?


Are you suggesting that there are tens of thousands of people who are proclaiming themselves as atheists are really something else?


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> ^no... they are on the internet.


Hundreds of millions of people are, covering just about every conceivable group. Are you honestly seeing many atheists arguing about the existence of god in numbers more than many other hot topics on forums?



> Some sort of bizarre cult that goes around arguing over the existence of God.


There's nothing bizarre about debating something so important. Do you really think people shouldn't speak about it on relevant discussion forums?



> They are everywhere. They are more preachy than a Hare Krisna, and more argumentative than a Scientologist.


Maybe they just don't suffer fools gladly? If someone claims black is white, then they should expect to receive dissent. You sound like you don't think it should happen, which is bizarre.


----------



## MrKappa

They are also very aggressive compared to other people.



ugh1979 said:


> Are you honestly seeing many atheists arguing about the existence of god in numbers more than many other hot topics on forums?


They are the only ones who argue about it.


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> Yup...


In what respect? I find it hard to believe people are just randomly saying they are an atheist to any random person the encounter. :?



> Are you suggesting that there are tens of thousands of people who are proclaiming themselves as atheists are really something else?


No, I meant the people (who are atheists) are in general only vocal in related forums (as they should be), rather than the wide ranging proselytising we see Christians in the form of going round doors, having dedicated TV channels, or standing in the street proselytising.


----------



## ugh1979

MrKappa said:


> They are also very aggressive compared to other people.


All atheists are very aggressive compared to other people?

You are clearly confusing _some _atheists who engage in heated discussion with 'all'. I appreciate the probable psychological reasons you make such a mistake though, so i'll let you off.



> They are the only ones who argue about it.


Atheists are the only ones arguing about the non-existence of god? No s***! Why would non-atheists be making arguments against the existence of god? :?


----------



## TooLateForRoses

I believe when we die our existence is over, physically and spiritually. Then i imagine there being nothingness, just like before we were born.


----------



## John316C

hh


----------



## nullnaught

I am an atheist and i care about people and animals and insects and i do not even like harming plants when there is no reason to. 

Thank you all and have a nice day.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Of course there's an afterlife. I just won't be there.


----------



## 26yroldmalevirgin88

I personally do believe there is a afterlife, based on the simple fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred from one phase to another. Your thoughts, ideas, body, dreams, and very essence is energy therefor it can never be destroyed only change forms. I personally ascribe to the Biblical definition of the afterlife, but each person is divinely endowed with their own subjectivity as creations in the image of the creator.


----------



## Milco

26yroldmalevirgin88 said:


> Your thoughts, ideas, body, dreams, and very essence is energy therefor it can never be destroyed only change forms.


I don't mean to zealously push for a non-religious understanding, but this isn't what science says.
The equivalent would be that your consciousness and the essence of your being already exists in the food you have yet to eat, but I doubt many people would say that the frozen pizza in their freezer holds any part of their souls or being.
We are a collection of energies in the now. But when these energies leave our being - either secreted while we're alive or after we're dead - they will dissipate and spread, ceasing to comprise our existence and forgetting all about us.


----------



## Curmudgeon64

Interesting groundrules! 'Tis truly a pity they were not adhered to for long.

My opinion accords with most on this thread; but I also believe it is important to bear in mind that life very much goes on after one is dead. I don't believe my memories, my conciousness, or whatsoever an observer might say marks me as an individual go on; but my family goes on, my species goes on, life on earth goes on. Likewise what I've done, taught, and written may continue to have influence. To one who dares suppose a person is but the sum of material and experience, is that not more important than an individual's demise?

Thus have I attempted to reconcile my material model of reality with my need for continuity. It's not an original argument.

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric....-Sweat-Tears/7C16282E069BD1F848256DC7002E1EF0


----------



## truthinmyheart

Monroee said:


> I tend to believe it's possible. The origin of life itself is a mystery. There are a lot of things we don't understand. I don't see how it makes an afterlife totally impossible.


I agree with you. There are a lot of things that modern science doesn't know yet.

However I won't be surprised if some future science will be able to answer some of our most perplexing questions regarding the origin of life, the nature of human consciousness, life after death et cetera.

Perhaps consciousness is quantum mechanical in nature. Maybe quantum mechanics and/or quantum field theory can provide the answer as to what consciousness and subjective experience really is.

Or what about string theories, supersymmetry and quantum gravity 
theories?

Maybe fundamental physics will some day provide the answers to our questions but right now no one really has the answers.


----------



## Istachrissta

TooLateForRoses said:


> I believe when we die our existence is over, physically and spiritually. Then i imagine there being nothingness, just like before we were born.


I think that too. I really don't want to but I do. I am on a hunt for ghosts so I can prove myself wrong. Lol!


----------



## daywalkerdave

I think so, I ask myself the question, why am I human and he/she a dog, pig, tiger, ant, spider and so on, but careful so that you don't lose your sanity.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

No


----------



## ugh1979

truthinmyheart said:


> Perhaps consciousness is quantum mechanical in nature. Maybe quantum mechanics and/or quantum field theory can provide the answer as to what consciousness and subjective experience really is.
> 
> Or what about string theories, supersymmetry and quantum gravity
> theories?


You're getting dangerously close to quantum woo there.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> You're getting dangerously close to quantum woo there.


 I hated the secret! Lol watched the documentary didn't read the book. All it is spiritual materialism. I did however feel a bit "uplifted" after watching it lol.

I do think however thoughts are an important framework. Like if you constantly think you're gonna get fired you may end up setting yourself up for it because your thoughts are the driver in your actions.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> I hated the secret! Lol watched the documentary didn't read the book. All it is spiritual materialism. I did however feel a bit "uplifted" after watching it lol.


I wasn't familiar with it but i've just had a look and it sounds dodgy. Probably a mish-mash of nonsense and common sense.



> I do think however thoughts are an important framework. Like if you constantly think you're gonna get fired you may end up setting yourself up for it because your thoughts are the driver in your actions.


Indeed there is certainly something to be said for positive thinking, as long as it doesn't make you reckless.


----------



## SplendidBob

I don't think there is any afterlife unfortunately.

1) Total lack of evidence for it (which means if you believe in an afterlife you can equally believe in anything else with zero evidence, and thus you scare the crap out of me) this alone is more than enough for a semi rational mind to reject it.

2)Our minds are entirely comprised of our brains. There is no Cartesian Dualism where the mind exists somehow independently from the brain. Science has proven this beyond all doubt. When a machine stops working (albeit an extremely complicated one) it doesn't somehow continue to exist somehow elsewhere.

3) Why would evolution need it? what possible benefit would there be for allowing an entity to exist post death in some kind of non corporeal form? - how could evolution even influence things to create such a scenario (when death, or perhaps better stated, a lack of life passing on genes) is the driving force for evolution. So if you accept evolution, and somewhat understand it, it starts looking extremely absurd.


----------



## CowGoMoo

There could be.. to say that you know there is/isn't one with certainty is arrogant.


----------



## ugh1979

CowGoMoo said:


> There could be.. to say that you know there is/isn't one with certainty is arrogant.


There "could" be invisible unicorns under your bed as well.

Believing things to be true with any conviction in the absence of evidence is foolish.


----------



## CowGoMoo

splendidbob said:


> I don't think there is any afterlife unfortunately.
> .


I applaud your rational approach but the universe is SO mysterious when you really think about it, everything is such a mystery and it's likely mankind will NEVER know the answer to some questions about it. All we have are theories for the stuff we can see, not for what's really out there. 
For example your first point "there is no evidence" well that doesn't mean you should totally dismiss it. It IS possible, albeit unlikely, but anything is possible according to science. Just not in this specific universe. Maybe the afterlife transcends this universe and is part of something greater, something more mysterious, something unknown. We will never know though :/


----------



## CowGoMoo

ugh1979 said:


> There "could" be invisible unicorns under your bed as well.
> 
> Believing things to be true with any conviction in the absence of evidence is foolish.


Hey friend no need for you passive aggressive tone, I'm saying exactly what you're saying. Believing something so mysterious without proof is foolish. It's impossible for a man to answer "yes there is an afterlife" or "no there is not an afterlife" with certainty. We are an arrogant species, you are an example. You think you are better than people who believe in the afterlife. Why do you? You are just a walking talking monkey with an over-inflated sense of self importance, so relax and revel in the mystery that is the universe.


----------



## ugh1979

CowGoMoo said:


> Hey friend no need for you passive aggressive tone, I'm saying exactly what you're saying. Believing something so mysterious without proof is foolish. It's impossible for a man to answer "yes there is an afterlife" or "no there is not an afterlife" with certainty. We are an arrogant species, you are an example. You think you are better than people who believe in the afterlife. Why do you? You are just a walking talking monkey with an over-inflated sense of self importance, so relax and revel in the mystery that is the universe.


To the contrary, I see everyone as equal, and have the humility to realise my own insignificance in the universe, while I revel in its wonders and mysteries.

However, I can still and should point out fallacies and likely fallacies in claims of reality I hear. Isn't that what you were doing as well?


----------



## CowGoMoo

ugh1979 said:


> To the contrary, I see everyone as equal, and have the humility to realise my own insignificance in the universe, while I revel in its wonders and mysteries.
> 
> However, I can still and should point out fallacies and likely fallacies in claims of reality I hear. Isn't that what you were doing as well?


Hmm I guess you're right. I just misinterpreted you, sorry


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> To the contrary, I see everyone as equal, and have the humility to realise my own insignificance in the universe, while I revel in its wonders and mysteries.
> 
> However, I can still and should point out fallacies and likely fallacies in claims of reality I hear. Isn't that what you were doing as well?


 I dunno you tend to lean instead of hanging in the middle. You're more inclined to simply say "no" instead of "I don't know, but there are some theories..." .. and so on.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> I dunno you tend to lean instead of hanging in the middle. You're more inclined to simply say "no" instead of "I don't know, but there are some theories..." .. and so on.


"I don't know" and "no" can be both be held as long as the "no" is based on absence of evidence and/or counter evidence, and not a claim to 100% certainty and knowledge of it, which we can have of very little.

I don't know with 100% certainly that there aren't invisible unicorns under my bed, but I'm happy to say there are no invisible unicorns under my bed. It would be foolish to hold a middle ground on the question.

Sometimes we just need to make an educated intelligent decision on plausibility.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> "I don't know" and "no" can be both be held as long as the "no" is based on absence of evidence and/or counter evidence, and not a claim to 100% certainty and knowledge of it, which we can have of very little.
> 
> I don't know with 100% certainly that there aren't invisible unicorns under my bed, but I'm happy to say there are no invisible unicorns under my bed. It would be foolish to hold a middle ground on the question.
> 
> Sometimes we just need to make an educated intelligent decision on plausibility.


 You keep using the unicorn thing. It's cute.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> You keep using the unicorn thing. It's cute.


Due to the fact that unicorns are a widely known fantasy entity.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> Due to the fact that unicorns are a widely known fantasy entity.


 I prefer dragons and the pot of gold at the end of rainbows


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> I prefer dragons and the pot of gold at the end of rainbows


Dragons are typically 'evil' though, so I use unicorns which are typically seen as 'good', so a better analogy for belief in the likes of a god or other potentially desirable concepts.


----------



## CeilingStarer

I actually now think that there is. Highly speculative and all that, but I've seen/heard so many Dr Eben Alexander types, mixed with Dr Rupert Sheldrake types (Scole Experiment)... mixed with Michael Newton types, and David Icke types that I'll be pretty open-minded on my death bed.


----------



## ugh1979

CeilingStarer said:


> I actually now think that there is. Highly speculative and all that, but I've seen/heard so many Dr Eben Alexander types, mixed with Dr Rupert Sheldrake types (Scole Experiment)... mixed with Michael Newton types, and David Icke types that I'll be pretty open-minded on my death bed.


Hardly a whose who of people who should be trusted!

Or were you being facetious?


----------



## CeilingStarer

ugh1979 said:


> Hardly a whose who of people who should be trusted!
> 
> Or were you being facetious?


Typical close-minded reply.


----------



## ugh1979

CeilingStarer said:


> Typical close-minded reply.


It's funny how many credulous people like to say those that disagree with them are "close-minded".

I appreciate credible evidence is of no interest to certain people when it comes to what they chose to believe.

I'd love to hear you try and defend the trustworthiness of people like David Icke though. :lol Do you also believe the world it ruled by reptilian overlords?


----------



## CeilingStarer

ugh1979 said:


> It's funny how many credulous people like to say those that disagree with them are "close-minded".
> 
> I appreciate credible evidence is of no interest to certain people when it comes to what they chose to believe.
> 
> I'd love to hear you try and defend the trustworthiness of people like David Icke though. :lol Do you also believe the world it ruled by reptilian overlords?


If I didn't mention David Icke, you probably wouldn't have even replied.... but as stated, you've given me the typical programmed reply... and so begins the typical bull**** diatribe. I actually purposely mentioned David's name amongst a mainstream neurosurgeon and biologist to see if I'd get this blanket 'disregard for all names mentioned' and I did.


----------



## ugh1979

CeilingStarer said:


> If I didn't mention David Icke, you probably wouldn't have even replied.... but as stated, you've given me the typical programmed reply... and so begins the typical bull**** diatribe. I actually purposely mentioned David's name amongst a mainstream neurosurgeon and biologist to see if I'd get this blanket 'disregard for all names mentioned' and I did.


If you are going to cite such suspect and widely criticised sources you should expect people to disregard them.

If you have an actual argument to present then please do, and we can enter into a full discussion.


----------



## HenceNoStepsTaken

Ah, I hope there is no afterlife. It would be too sad to be alone there too.


----------



## free thinker

splendidbob said:


> 2)Our minds are entirely comprised of our brains. There is no Cartesian Dualism where the mind exists somehow independently from the brain. Science has proven this beyond all doubt.


If science has proven this beyond all doubt, why do I read that there is no uniform scientific view about the relationship between consciousness and the brain?

If the mind isn't independent of the brain, how can precise details of the resuscitation of a cardiac arrest patient (i.e. a patient without a heartbeat, respiration or brain activity), be "seen" by the patient having an OBE?

There have actually been several studies in which cardiac arrest patients have reported being able to "see" their own resuscitation events as a result of out-of-body experiences during NDEs. The details of the events were confirmed later by those conducting the studies. The peer-reviewed studies can be accessed through research databases like PubMed (Medline).


----------



## MylesB93

TooLateForRoses said:


> I believe when we die our existence is over, physically and spiritually. Then i imagine there being nothingness, just like before we were born.


How do you know for certain that there was nothingness before you were born? You never had a conscious or memories so it'd be impossible to be able to remember anything at that point.

I don't think there's a heaven or I don't really believe in reincarnation as such but I do think there is something after we die. Maybe we live on in some kind of ethereal state.


----------



## SplendidBob

free thinker said:


> If science has proven this beyond all doubt, why do I read that there is no uniform scientific view about the relationship between consciousness and the brain?


I cannot imagine anyone with any kind of medical knowledge who would seriously postulate that the brain isn't where consciousness is contained within the body. I am sure such people exist but they would be very much non mainstream.



free thinker said:


> If the mind isn't independent of the brain, how can precise details of the resuscitation of a cardiac arrest patient, that is a patient without a heartbeat, respiration or brain activity, be "seen" by the patient while the brain shows no activity?


They cant. You need eyes to see. A dead persons eyes won't work.



free thinker said:


> There have actually been several studies in which cardiac arrest patients have reported being able to "see" their own resuscitation events as a result of out-of-body experiences during NDEs. The details of the events were confirmed later by those conducting the studies. The peer-reviewed studies can be accessed through research databases like PubMed (Medline).


You are going to have to post some links . I find it somewhat unlikely that properly controlled studies to test for an out of body experience in this way exist. To set up such a study with any kind of scientific rigor you would need to kill patients then resuscitate them in order to test whether their eyes and brains work when they are dead.


----------



## free thinker

splendidbob said:


> I cannot imagine anyone with any kind of medical knowledge who would seriously postulate that the brain isn't where consciousness is contained within the body. If you are reading that there isn't a scientific consensus on this, you are probably reading some strange stuff indeed. Go and tell a doctor that people with alzheimers are faking it because 'the mind isn't contained in the brain' and see what they say


When I stated there aren't "uniform scientific views about the relationship between consciousness and the brain" it was pertaining to your comment that science has proven beyond all doubt that the mind doesn't exist independently from the brain. My comment was taken from an article referencing well-known consciousness researcher David Chalmers. One would think that Chalmers has a pretty good idea of what constitutes uniform thinking in the scientific community.



> They cant. You need eyes to see. A dead persons eyes won't work.


Not according to many cardiac arrest patients who didn't use their eyes to see their own resuscitation events.



> You are going to have to post some links. I find it somewhat unlikely that properly controlled studies to test for an out of body experience in this way exist. To set up such a study with any kind of scientific rigor you would need to *kill patients then resuscitate them* in order to test whether their eyes and brains work when they are dead. Might run into some ethical problems trying to get these studies off the ground


You don't need to kill patients - just have a medical team prepared to resuscitate patients back from death(according to the scientific definition of death). Have you heard of the Aware Study? One of the authors of the study, Sam Parnia, provides information of the yet-to-be peer-reviewed study in the book publication _Erasing Death. _Two patients had out-of-body experiences, with one describing in great detail the events surrounding their own resuscitation.


----------



## 0blank0

Heaven is where ill go, that's a fact!


----------



## CowGoMoo

MylesB93 said:


> How do you know for certain that there was nothingness before you were born? You never had a conscious or memories so it'd be impossible to be able to remember anything at that point.
> 
> I don't think there's a heaven or I don't really believe in reincarnation as such but I do think there is something after we die. Maybe we live on in some kind of ethereal state.


Dude I wouldn't totally dismiss your ethereal state theory. 
I don't think we live on like that but one time I was tripping so hard and felt part of a unity consciousness that transcended this universe. My ego was completely dead, I lost the sense of "I" and forgot who I even was but I felt like I had joined the universe. It's really impossible to put into words but it felt so real that I sometimes wonder if there could be some truth to that


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> It's funny how many credulous people like to say those that disagree with them are "close-minded".
> 
> I appreciate credible evidence is of no interest to certain people when it comes to what they chose to believe.
> 
> I'd love to hear you try and defend the trustworthiness of people like David Icke though. :lol Do you also believe the world it ruled by reptilian overlords?


 You're not credible evidence either.


----------



## SplendidBob

free thinker said:


> Not according to many cardiac arrest patients who didn't use their eyes to see their own resuscitation events.


And yet nonetheless for the rest of us, eyes seem to be a prerequisite for being able to see. Being able to see without using eyes is pretty much as close to an indefensible viewpoint as you can have. *That you used it as an argument to prove to me how minds are independent from the physicality of the brain* is, let us say, unlikely to convince 

If you really do believe that you don't need eyes to be able to see, continuing this discussion is going to be pointless as no amount of logic or evidence will be able to change your mind. I will bow out at this point as it will be unproductive to continue.


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> You're not credible evidence either.


Is anybody "credible evidence"? Or did you mean to say somebody who cites credible evidence to substantiate their position? Your sentence doesn't make sense as it is.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> Is anybody "credible evidence"? Or did you mean to say somebody who cites credible evidence to substantiate their position? Your sentence doesn't make sense as it is.


Sarcasm


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Sarcasm


You need to at least make sense for that to work.


----------



## twitchy666

*Yeeeaaahh!*

My afterproperlife has forced early retirement upon me at working-age by denying any employment


----------



## free thinker

splendidbob said:


> And yet nonetheless for the rest of us, eyes seem to be a prerequisite for being able to see. Being able to see without using eyes is pretty much as close to an indefensible viewpoint as you can have. *That you used it as an argument to prove to me how minds are independent from the physicality of the brain* is, let us say, unlikely to convince


Thanks for reminding me that our eyes are necessary in order to see in this world  However, in this thread, we're not talking about the physical world, are we? Yeah, I agree there's not much chance of convincing you of the mind's independence from the brain. The evidence of cardiac arrest patients recalling the events of their resuscitations will need to become better established before the skeptical segment of society begin to accept what is happening.


----------



## ugh1979

splendidbob said:


> And yet nonetheless for the rest of us, eyes seem to be a prerequisite for being able to see. Being able to see without using eyes is pretty much as close to an indefensible viewpoint as you can have. *That you used it as an argument to prove to me how minds are independent from the physicality of the brain* is, let us say, unlikely to convince
> 
> If you really do believe that you don't need eyes to be able to see, continuing this discussion is going to be pointless as no amount of logic or evidence will be able to change your mind. I will bow out at this point as it will be unproductive to continue.


Freethinker and I had a long discussion on this in another thread recently and it became clear there were various errors in his reasoning and unqualified assumptions.

See my reply to Freethinker below now that the paper he refers to has been published.


----------



## ugh1979

free thinker said:


> Have you heard of the Aware Study? One of the authors of the study, Sam Parnia, provides information of the yet-to-be peer-reviewed study in the book publication _Erasing Death. _Two patients had out-of-body experiences, with one describing in great detail the events surrounding their own resuscitation.


It's been published now.

It doesn't show that anyone could see the test images, so doesn't provide evidence that consciousness/awareness continues after death.


----------



## ugh1979

free thinker said:


> If science has proven this beyond all doubt, why do I read that there is no uniform scientific view about the relationship between consciousness and the brain?
> 
> If the mind isn't independent of the brain, how can precise details of the resuscitation of a cardiac arrest patient (i.e. a patient without a heartbeat, respiration or brain activity), be "seen" by the patient having an OBE?
> 
> There have actually been several studies in which cardiac arrest patients have reported being able to "see" their own resuscitation events as a result of out-of-body experiences during NDEs. The details of the events were confirmed later by those conducting the studies. The peer-reviewed studies can be accessed through research databases like PubMed (Medline).


Can you cite these peer-reviewed studies?

The Aware study you are a big fan of showed that nobody could see the test images that they could only have seen if they really had left their body.

Also, only a tiny number of people who have the experiences get details right, so they could be a combination of lucky guesses and the likes of auditory stimuli which they are still processing while unconscious.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> You need to at least make sense for that to work.


Sorry I'll dumb it down for you next time....


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> Sorry I'll dumb it down for you next time....


No you just need to make it intelligible.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> No you just need to make it intelligible.


 smh


----------



## free thinker

ugh197 said:


> Freethinker and I had a long discussion on this in another thread recently and it became clear there were various errors in his reasoning and unqualified assumptions.


 As would be expected during a lengthy debate, mistakes were made by both sides in the these areas.



ugh197 said:


> It doesn't show that anyone could see the test images, so doesn't provide evidence that consciousness/awareness continues after death.


 The two people that were potentially capable of seeing a test image during their OBE were not in rooms where a test image had been installed. However, the fact that one of the patients reported viewing events "from the top corner of the room" and was able to "accurately describe people, sounds and activities from his resuscitation" which "likely corresponded to up to 3 minutes of conscious awareness during cardiac arrest" certainly has the appearance of evidence that consciousness has left the body after clinical death.



ugh197 said:


> Can you cite these peer-reviewed studies?


 Here's one for starters.
Van Lommel, P. (2011). Near-death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not an illusion. _Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

_


ugh197 said:


> The Aware study you are a big fan of showed that nobody could see the test images that they could only have seen if they really had left their body.


 No, what I'm a fan of is the pursuit of the truth. I feel the methodology used in this study could be much improved. Individuals having OBEs aren't likely to notice some image on a shelf when they are focused on their own resuscitation event. Furthermore, they are just as likely to be located somewhere in the room that doesn't have a good view of the image as they are to be in good view of it.



ugh197 said:


> Also, only a tiny number of people who have the experiences get details right, so they could be a combination of lucky guesses and the likes of auditory stimuli which they are still processing while unconscious.


 In the other thread, didn't I ask you to provide statistics to back up this claim but you didn't provide it? Anyway, according to van Lommel (2011), "in a recent review of 93 corroborated reports of potentially verifiable out-of-body perceptions during an NDE, *about 90% were found to be completely accurate*, 8% contained some minor error, and only 2% were completely erroneous. Would you consider 90% to be a "tiny number?"


----------



## ugh1979

free thinker said:


> As would be expected during a lengthy debate, mistakes were made by both sides in the these areas.


I don't remember making any.



> The two people that were potentially capable of seeing a test image during their OBE were not in rooms where a test image had been installed. However, the fact that one of the patients reported viewing events "from the top corner of the room" and was able to "accurately describe people, sounds and activities from his resuscitation" which "likely corresponded to up to 3 minutes of conscious awareness during cardiac arrest" certainly has the appearance of evidence that consciousness has left the body after clinical death.


How convenient the two weren't in a room with a test image. With regards to the accurate recounting of the experience which one person reported, it's interesting, but there could well be rational answers as we know the brain can sometimes still process the likes of auditory stimuli while unconscious.

Just one positive (and one which is far from solid as I mention above), out of 2,060 test subjects, is no reason to suspect there is any case for the reality of life after death.

Only if a significant number of people were able to accurately recount the likes of hidden images they could only have seen if they had left their bodies would there there be a case for life after death. (Even if it's just very temporarily)



> Here's one for starters.
> Van Lommel, P. (2011). Near-death experiences: the experience of the self as real and not an illusion. _Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences._


_

I've read that but it's very light on evidence of practice, and cites dubious sources. It sounds more like a rant than scientific paper.




No, what I'm a fan of is the pursuit of the truth. I feel the methodology used in this study could be much improved. Individuals having OBEs aren't likely to notice some image on a shelf when they are focused on their own resuscitation event. Furthermore, they are just as likely to be located somewhere in the room that doesn't have a good view of the image as they are to be in good view of it.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you are desperate for a positive answer to the question of is there life after death.

The images were placed in locations where they should be able to be seen by someone who was viewing the scene from the likes of "from the top corner of the room".

I see no problem with it. Can you suggest an improved study?




In the other thread, didn't I ask you to provide statistics to back up this claim but you didn't provide it? Anyway, according to van Lommel (2011), "in a recent review of 93 corroborated reports of potentially verifiable out-of-body perceptions during an NDE, *about 90% were found to be completely accurate*, 8% contained some minor error, and only 2% were completely erroneous. Would you consider 90% to be a "tiny number?"

Click to expand...

That is cited from; Holden, J.M., B. Greyson & B. James. 2009. Veridical perception in near-death experiences. In The Handbook of Near Death Experiences. Praeger (ABC-CLIO). Santa Barbara, CA. pp. 185-211.

I don't accept that book as a credible source, and it of course directly negates the evidence shown in Parnia's study where only 1 person out of 2,060 could accurately recount events, and as I say, that account has it's issues.

Van Lommel's science appears to be rather sloppy.

Until there is a body of evidence that some people are able to see things they absolutely couldn't have while clinically dead (such as test images on high shelves), then there is no reason to believe in life after death. Even if they did, it wouldn't suggest that awareness was able to endure more that a few minutes._


----------



## mike91

I really hope there not a afterlife this life is bad right now let alone another lifetime


----------



## free thinker

ugh1979 said:


> I don't remember making any.


I'm not surprised you don't but I'll be pointing out some mistakes in your latest post so take note.



ugh1979 said:


> How convenient the two weren't in a room with a test image.


Are you suggesting the study was rigged? It amazing how people try to rationalize the results that aren't suitable to them. Considering that 78% of the rooms in which the cardiac arrest resuscitation events took place didn't have a test image, it would be expected that the two patients wouldn't have been in a room with a test image.



ugh1979 said:


> With regards to the accurate recounting of the experience which one person reported, it's interesting, but there could well be rational answers as we know the brain can sometimes still process the likes of auditory stimuli while unconscious.


You seem to be avoiding the fact that this person recalled watching the resuscitation activities plus he accurately described them. Would you inform me of the rational answers for being able to do that?



ugh1979 said:


> Just one positive (and one which is far from solid as I mention above), out of 2,060 test subjects, is no reason to suspect there is any case for the reality of life after death.


I'm beginning to wonder if you even read the study. Regardless, you are clearly misrepresenting the data of the study. How do you justify including as test subjects the 84% of the patients who officially died during the study? You should know that only those patients who were physically able to be interviewed after they recovered from their intensive care would be considered as potential subjects. There were also additional reasons noted in the paper as to why only about 5% of the original pool of test subjects were able to complete the two interview stages.



ugh1979 said:


> Only if a significant number of people were able to accurately recount the likes of hidden images they could only have seen if they had left their bodies would there there be a case for life after death. (Even if it's just very temporarily)


The decision of what constitutes sufficient evidence on this issue certainly won't be left up to you to decide. As long as one patient identifies the image then it would demonstrate that disembodied consciousness was able to identify a hidden image.



ugh1979 said:


> I've read that but it's very light on evidence of practice, and cites dubious sources. It sounds more like a rant than scientific paper.


You say you read the paper previously but yet you continued to make the claim that only "tiny numbers" of people accurately describe their events. It would be intellectually dishonest to read, but ignore, published statistics which don't suit your fancy even if you have personally assessed them as dubious. I'm glad I didn't provide any more peer-review papers for you to dismiss without valid justification. The van Lommel paper successfully passed the peer-review process which means their respective peers determined it wasn't a rant and was worthy of publication.



ugh1979 said:


> It sounds to me like you are desperate for a positive answer to the question of is there life after death.


Anyone reading your responses in this post should have little trouble determining who the desperate one is.



ugh1979 said:


> The images were placed in locations where they should be able to be seen by someone who was viewing the scene from the likes of "from the top corner of the room".


It's important to note that the test images in this study weren't a factor whatsoever since no one was able to recall a resuscitation event in a room with a test image.

Do you really think it would be easy to notice an image which isn't within one's visual focus? Research has been done regarding what people recall from important events and rarely do they remember things which are located on the periphery of vision. If you read the van Lommel paper as you claim to have done, you should have read about inattentional blindness, which is the failure to notice a fully visible object because one's attention is focused elsewhere.



ugh1979 said:


> Can you suggest an improved study?


Parnia noted the limitations of his study by stating that a "different and more refined methodology may be needed." It will be challenging to find a reliable testing methodology for this experiment.



ugh1979 said:


> I don't accept that book as a credible source, and it of course directly negates the evidence shown in Parnia's study where only 1 person out of 2,060 could accurately recount events, and as I say, that account has it's issues.


No, it doesn't "negate the evidence shown in Parnia's study" at all. You say you don't recall making mistakes in the other thread yet here's just one more example of you doing just that. Rather than comparing the accuracy percentage of verifiable accounts from the van Lommel paper with the accuracy percentage of verifiable accounts from the Parnia study, you are comparing the van Lommel accuracy percentage to the number of cardiac arrest patients in the Parnia study. Since, in the Parnia study, a single patient out of a total of one accurately recalled the resuscitation event, the accuracy percentage rate of verifiable accounts in the Parnia study is actually 100% which is comparable to the 90% claimed in the van Lommel study. For someone who plays havoc with statistics the way you do, you really do have some nerve calling the sources of information you don't like, dubious.

The resuscitation account which you claim "has it's(sic) issues" is now a documented account of a cardiac arrest patient who viewed and accurately described his resuscitation event while being part of a large scientific study. One of the consequences of this study is that people like yourself can no longer rightly claim that all such reports are anecdotal.


----------



## ugh1979

free thinker said:


> I'm not surprised you don't but I'll be pointing out some mistakes in your latest post so take note.


Which i'll correct you on, so take note.



> Are you suggesting the study was rigged? It amazing how people try to rationalize the results that aren't suitable to them. Considering that 78% of the rooms in which the cardiac arrest resuscitation events took place didn't have a test image, it would be expected that the two patients wouldn't have been in a room with a test image.


Not that it was rigged, but that it was convenient that the one subject Parnia could get anything I suspect he wanted from was someone who didn't have the test image.



> You seem to be avoiding the fact that this person recalled watching the resuscitation activities plus he accurately described them. Would you inform me of the rational answers for being able to do that?


Auditory cues, knowledge of their operation etc



> I'm beginning to wonder if you even read the study. Regardless, you are clearly misrepresenting the data of the study. How do you justify including as test subjects the 84% of the patients who officially died during the study? You should know that only those patients who were physically able to be interviewed after they recovered from their intensive care would be considered as potential subjects. There were also additional reasons noted in the paper as to why only about 5% of the original pool of test subjects were able to complete the two interview stages.


2,060 is the number of test subjects in the study, how many of them made it through to the end is just part of the data, with the end result being a paltry one person reporting anything of note, and even then it's vague. (For reasons I think are obvious)



> The decision of what constitutes sufficient evidence on this issue certainly won't be left up to you to decide. As long as one patient identifies the image then it would demonstrate that disembodied consciousness was able to identify a hidden image.


Good luck convincing many scientifically minded people that one result is gold standard evidence. Not that there even is one result. The study failed to find anyone who could identify the images.



> You say you read the paper previously but yet you continued to make the claim that only "tiny numbers" of people accurately describe their events.


Yes the numbers in Parnia's study who could accurately describe their events were tiny.



> It would be intellectually dishonest to read, but ignore, published statistics which don't suit your fancy even if you have personally assessed them as dubious. I'm glad I didn't provide any more peer-review papers for you to dismiss without valid justification. The van Lommel paper successfully passed the peer-review process which means their respective peers determined it wasn't a rant and was worthy of publication.


As I say, Van Lommel's paper was very light on evidence of practice, and those key statistics you are keen to highlight weren't his work. He just cited them from a book, which is dubious and rather sloppy science. For such key data he should have obtained it himself.



> Anyone reading your responses in this post should have little trouble determining who the desperate one is.


What is it i'm supposedly desperate for? The existence of consciousness surviving post death, even if just for a short time would be a very interesting finding. I don't accept it due to lack of evidence. Not because I don't want it to. See the thing is i'm led by evidence, not desire.



> It's important to note that the test images in this study weren't a factor whatsoever since no one was able to recall a resuscitation event in a room with a test image.
> 
> Do you really think it would be easy to notice an image which isn't within one's visual focus? Research has been done regarding what people recall from important events and rarely do they remember things which are located on the periphery of vision. If you read the van Lommel paper as you claim to have done, you should have read about inattentional blindness, which is the failure to notice a fully visible object because one's attention is focused elsewhere.


While inattentional blindness can happen, it doesn't mean it always would do. That's why it's just just a weak excuse and a pathetic attempt to explain away the possibility of obtaining the one thing that is required to provide a compelling case.



> Parnia noted the limitations of his study by stating that a "different and more refined methodology may be needed." It will be challenging to find a reliable testing methodology for this experiment.


So, that's a no then.



> No, it doesn't "negate the evidence shown in Parnia's study" at all. You say you don't recall making mistakes in the other thread yet here's just one more example of you doing just that. Rather than comparing the accuracy percentage of verifiable accounts from the van Lommel paper with the accuracy percentage of verifiable accounts from the Parnia study, you are comparing the van Lommel accuracy percentage to the number of cardiac arrest patients in the Parnia study. Since, in the Parnia study, a single patient out of a total of one accurately recalled the resuscitation event, the accuracy percentage rate of verifiable accounts in the Parnia study is actually 100% which is comparable to the 90% claimed in the van Lommel study. For someone who plays havoc with statistics the way you do, you really do have some nerve calling the sources of information you don't like, dubious.


I find Van Lommel's claims very dubious. He's an known paranormal fan, and his claims can't trusted IMO. As always with these types, they just happen to have a book to sell on the back of such claims. :roll

I think Parnia done a more honest study that has been far more transparent, but he was still very vague about the scrap of evidence he found, which is understandable as he's in the game of making money off selling books as well.



> The resuscitation account which you claim "has it's(sic) issues" is now a documented account of a cardiac arrest patient who viewed and accurately described his resuscitation event while being part of a large scientific study. One of the consequences of this study is that people like yourself can no longer rightly claim that all such reports are anecdotal.


Of course it's still anecdotal, as it can't be verified that there was no other way the person could have knowledge of what happened.


----------



## free thinker

ugh1979 said:


> Which i'll correct you on, so take note.


Yeah, but what I'm noting from your post is your ability to not directly address your mistakes. Since I'm going to be busy for the next few days, I'll have to get back to you later.


----------



## ugh1979

free thinker said:


> Yeah, but what I'm noting from your post is your ability to not directly address your mistakes. Since I'm going to be busy for the next few days, I'll have to get back to you later.


I think what you're noting is in fact a difference of opinion on what is a mistake.


----------



## purechaos

ugh1979 said:


> I think what you're noting is in fact a difference of opinion on what is a mistake.


 would you like to go for a drink, you seem to need a break from forum debate? Lol


----------



## ugh1979

purechaos said:


> would you like to go for a drink, you seem to need a break from forum debate? Lol


Only if you come with me.


----------



## free thinker

ugh1979 said:


> Not that it was rigged, but that it was convenient that the one subject Parnia could get anything I suspect he wanted from was someone who didn't have the test image.


It isn't "convenient" if the chances of a patient being in a room with a test image are only 22% ( or about 1 chance in 5). Use of the "convenient" term would, on the surface, appear applicable if the patient had the same 22% chance but just happened to be in a room with a test image and had reported it accurately.



ugh1979 said:


> 2,060 is the number of test subjects in the study, how many of them made it through to the end is just part of the data, with the end result being a paltry one person reporting anything of note, and even then it's vague. (For reasons I think are obvious)


It's considered cherry-picking the data if, rather than presenting an objective and accurate representation of the experiment's pertinent data, you only select the data which you feel best discredits it.



ugh1979 said:


> Yes the numbers in Parnia's study who could accurately describe their events were tiny.


You've misrepresented what my original point was addressing. Originally, your "tiny" numbers comment wasn't referring to the Parnia study. I'll refresh your memory. You stated "only a tiny number of people who have the experiences get details right, so they could be a combination of lucky guesses and the likes of auditory stimuli which they are still processing while unconscious." If you read in the van Lommel paper or in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences that a review of 93 corroborated reports show a 90% accuracy rate of event details from OBEs, you can't turn around and say that only a tiny number of people get the details right.



ugh1979 said:


> As I say, Van Lommel's paper was very light on evidence of practice, and those key statistics you are keen to highlight weren't his work. He just cited them from a book, which is dubious and rather sloppy science. For such key data he should have obtained it himself.


I'm not sure where you got the strange notion that a scientist should only use his own data when it is "key" information. The whole point of van Lommel citing a review of cases is to show the greater picture of this aspect of the subject to the reader. You might be interested in knowing that for some scientific papers their only purpose is to review previous studies. The rest of the scientific papers submitted by scientists are expected to provide relevant results from other studies, _*especially*_ any "key" data. And where did you get the absurd idea that a book can't contain valid data? In a debate, unless you have good evidence to support the claim of a source being "dubious" or guilty of "sloppy science," you can't dismiss it. 


ugh1979 said:


> While inattentional blindness can happen, it doesn't mean it always would do. That's why it's just just a weak excuse and a pathetic attempt to explain away the possibility of obtaining the one thing that is required to provide a compelling case.


I never said inattentional blindness would "always" prevent image identification so don't misrepresent what I stated. Inattentional blindness is just one possible reason as to why identifying hidden images on a shelf may prove difficult for researchers. For someone who is in the habit of using "possible" explanations as the crux of their argument, you sure can overreact when someone else uses it.



ugh1979 said:


> I find Van Lommel's claims very dubious. He's an known paranormal fan, and his claims can't trusted IMO. As always with these types, they just happen to have a book to sell on the back of such claims.


I see you skipped past my explanation of how you wrongly compared the two different types of data. No mistakes, eh? Anyway, it doesn't matter whether van Lommel believes in the paranormal or anything else for that matter. In a debate, you need to show WHY van Lommel's claims are dubious. 


ugh1979 said:


> I think Parnia done a more honest study that has been far more transparent, but he was still very vague about the scrap of evidence he found, which is understandable as he's in the game of making money off selling books as well.


There are an awful lot of scientists who write books these days (Dawkins, Hawking, Shubin, Carroll, etc.). Unless you have evidence revealing that Parnia wasn't being completely candid about the experiment, it isn't fair or justified to imply that he was withholding information because of the potential for future financial gain.



ugh1979 said:


> Of course it's still anecdotal, as it can't be verified that there was no other way the person could have knowledge of what happened.


Really? It appears this comment may be just another one of your opinions. I'd like to see a definition of the term which specifies this requirement. Here's the most comprehensive definition I could find.

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
"information that is not based on facts or careful study"
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" 
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically

Since Parnia's study does not meet any of the above criteria, his results would NOT be considered anecdotal.

*On a side note, I recently began a course that is keeping me very busy, so it could be quite a while before I respond to your next post.


----------



## ugh1979

free thinker said:


> It isn't "convenient" if the chances of a patient being in a room with a test image are only 22% ( or about 1 chance in 5). Use of the "convenient" term would, on the surface, appear applicable if the patient had the same 22% chance but just happened to be in a room with a test image and had reported it accurately.


Fair enough, i'm maybe being too cynical knowing Parnia's clear desire for a positive result. From what i've read the science seems sound, so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt.



> It's considered cherry-picking the data if, rather than presenting an objective and accurate representation of the experiment's pertinent data, you only select the data which you feel best discredits it.


I'm sure how noticing that that only 1 of the 2,060 had an experience of note is cherry picking. We've already discussed the one anomaly, so it's not as if i'm not ignoring that data. It should however be considered in context of the entire data set. It would be a mistake not to.



> You've misrepresented what my original point was addressing. Originally, your "tiny" numbers comment wasn't referring to the Parnia study. I'll refresh your memory. You stated "only a tiny number of people who have the experiences get details right, so they could be a combination of lucky guesses and the likes of auditory stimuli which they are still processing while unconscious." If you read in the van Lommel paper or in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences that a review of 93 corroborated reports show a 90% accuracy rate of event details from OBEs, you can't turn around and say that only a tiny number of people get the details right.


I'm highly suspicious of the Van Lommel paper.

The Parnia study seems to be on far more sound scientific ground, and of course in that study only a tiny number of people gave accurate reports.



> I'm not sure where you got the strange notion that a scientist should only use his own data when it is "key" information. The whole point of van Lommel citing a review of cases is to show the greater picture of this aspect of the subject to the reader. You might be interested in knowing that for some scientific papers their only purpose is to review previous studies. The rest of the scientific papers submitted by scientists are expected to provide relevant results from other studies, _*especially*_ any "key" data. And where did you get the absurd idea that a book can't contain valid data? In a debate, unless you have good evidence to support the claim of a source being "dubious" or guilty of "sloppy science," you can't dismiss it.


One can trawl the internet/books and find "studies" to back up anything. It's the credibility of the studies that matters. I'd like to see the credibility of Van Lommel's sources scrutinised. Until then i'm dubious of their legitimacy, especially as they are at odds with Parnia's rigorous study. (i.e. Parnia could only find 1 person out of over 2,000 in 4 years that met the standard, whereas supposedly 93 were found in the case Van Lommel cites. That's highly suspicious.)



> I never said inattentional blindness would "always" prevent image identification so don't misrepresent what I stated. Inattentional blindness is just one possible reason as to why identifying hidden images on a shelf may prove difficult for researchers. For someone who is in the habit of using "possible" explanations as the crux of their argument, you sure can overreact when someone else uses it.


OK so we are in agreement that inattentional blindness can happen but can't know that it would have happened?



> I see you skipped past my explanation of how you wrongly compared the two different types of data. No mistakes, eh?


I highly doubt the selection process was the same for both. Without full details of the case Van Lommel cites that you are referring to there is little more that can be said.



> Anyway, it doesn't matter whether van Lommel believes in the paranormal or anything else for that matter. In a debate, you need to show WHY van Lommel's claims are dubious.


Citing from what seems to be dubious sources, claims that are at odds with Parnia's far more rigorous study. Need I go on?



> There are an awful lot of scientists who write books these days (Dawkins, Hawking, Shubin, Carroll, etc.). Unless you have evidence revealing that Parnia wasn't being completely candid about the experiment, it isn't fair or justified to imply that he was withholding information because of the potential for future financial gain.


Whenever money is involved it's worth being cautious, and this case is of particular note, as a complete negative result would have ruined Parnia's chance of making any money off all his work on this study. The ambiguous conclusion is therefore open to suspicion.



> Really? It appears this comment may be just another one of your opinions. I'd like to see a definition of the term which specifies this requirement. Here's the most comprehensive definition I could find.
> 
> In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
> "information that is not based on facts or careful study"
> "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"
> "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
> "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically
> 
> Since Parnia's study does not meet any of the above criteria, his results would NOT be considered anecdotal.


I was talking about the subjects reports being anecdotal, not Parnia's study. (reports or observations of usually unscientific observers)


----------

