Poll: Do you believe in the afterlife?

[UltraXan]

I don't believe in either. Rather, I believe that the soul is just a notion for the hopeful to not be afraid of death. I find that there is no soul, but rather just our brains and conscious. I believe that when people die, the brain simply shuts down and all we experience is... nothing. Eternal blackness. Sounds like we'd get bored real quick, right? I believe this to not be the case because if the brain is dead, *everything* will be gone. We won't feel, we won't think, we won't *care*. Interesting to think that... What is the purpose of human life if all we are reduced to in the end is nothingness? Simple fact is, humans are animals, no different from any other animal out there. They have their own brains and lives, and when they die the same probably happens to them. But like animals, our actual purpose is the same as theirs: survive. We weren't created by an all powerful being to accomplish some task, we are just a form of life that became dominant on our planet. Our lives mean nothing more than that of a dog. We live, we reproduce, we die. Continuation of a species. That's *all* we are, that's *all* we were ever meant to do. Survive. Seems bleak, right? If that's the case, then what's the point? There is no point. And that's why a bunch of people, thousands of years ago, thought up the afterlife. Life after death so it seems like living actually has meaning, that people are special. But we're not special, we're just lucky. Lucky that we're smart and have ideal bodies to do whatever. Other than that, we're just another form of life trying to survive. Call me pessimistic if you will, but I call it being realistic and looking at the fucking facts. Existence is existence. The universe exists, but it doesn't give a shit about what happens in it. But here's some more food for thought. I'm pretty fucking sure we're not the only form of intelligent life in the universe. With all the stars out there, to say that there isn't another system or planet similar to ours that has life on it is really fucking stupid. The odds are staggering. Now think of this... How many of those alien civilizations have grown and decayed out there in the universe? How much longer until it happens to us? We don't know yet, but I do know this... God won't be there for us then, because he never was there for us in the past, no matter what you may think. All I have to say is that machines will be all that's left of us in the end, and that I pity the religious and the Amish.

Holy shit I wrote a lot...

TL;DR No, I don't believe in the afterlife.

 

[loc978]

Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?

The concept of the "soul" falls along the same lines as the afterlife. There's simply no solid evidence to support its existence.

I won't say there's absolutely no such thing, but evidence within the current scope of human understanding suggests that to be the case.

The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.

A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)

That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Anyhow, I would see the afterlife as a destination for our soul with our body as the vessel and our life as the journey. In the same way you use a vehicle to travel from A to B. The problem with this theory (and many others) is that I can't explain the soul. Where does it come from? We are born with a soul? How does that work?

The concept of the "soul" falls along the same lines as the afterlife. There's simply no solid evidence to support its existence.

I won't say there's absolutely no such thing, but evidence within the current scope of human understanding suggests that to be the case.

The soul is an ill-defined concept at best, so arguing about evidence for or against runs into some serious problems.

A better question would be to ask about consciousness, since that presents a far more awkward problem. There is evidence for it's existence, (everyone who is conscious knows they are), but for some reason it can't be measured by any objective means.
(Eg. I can trivially prove my own consciousness - by the ultimate in subjective means, but can't even begin to devise a method for proving the consciousness of another in any meaningful way. - Eg. A total failure of objective measurements.)

That comes back to the burden of proof. Some one comes up with the idea of "consciousness" existing as something more than or outside of a human brain, and other people accept that idea because..?
I say where there's a total lack of objective measurements involved in trying to prove something, it's best to call bullshit and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.

Sorry, but this response seems like something of a nonsequitor.

In any event, to go with what you're saying, objective measurement being the sole and only standard of evidence is incredibly flawed as a concept as far as I'm concerned.

Prove to me objectively you are conscious. That you have any kind of experience at all.

This is precisely the kind of problem that shows up the limits of objective proofs, yet you want to argue that because it can't be measured objectively it should be disregarded in it's entirety?

So... You know your consciousness exists, but since you can't prove it you don't want to give it any further thought?

To me, it is more important than 'objective reality', because it's the only thing I can be certain of.
I can be certain that I am currently experiencing something.

I cannot be certain that what is considered 'objective reality' has any actual existence whatsoever.

The problem comes in that if I speak to another person, (such as you), the only thing we seem to be able to agree on is this 'objective reality' we both seem to share.

But since the only parts of your existence that I can verify are the ones that exist 100% within this 'objective reality', and I cannot be in any way certain this actually exists, I cannot be certain you exist.
Except insofar as you tell me you do by means of 'objective proof'.

But objective proof is the least meaningful form of proof insofar as asking what it means to exist. Because it answers any question except the one you're actually trying to work out.

I cannot perform any objective experiment on any part of myself.

Anyway, as to 'burden of proof'
I never even said consciousness exists "Outside of a human brain". I merely made the observation that it exists.

Known facts about consciousness:
1. It exists.

That's it. And that's the problem. It's quite a different problem from asking about god. God May or may not exist. Same with the afterlife. This might, or might not exist.

Consciousness does exist. Everyone who is conscious knows this. Yet precisely no-one can prove it through objective means.

That is a big problem, and I don't see how you can find it acceptable to just brush aside like that.

OK, let me say something slightly different here:

Because you mentioned burden of proof, let's look at what else you've stated incedentally.

1. Objective measurements are the only meaningful way of understanding the world. If it is impossible to measure something objectively, it's not worth knowing about.

Now, that might sound a harsh or incorrect appraisal, but that seems to be what you've said.

However, my response to this would then be:
Given a phenomena which everyone knows to be true. (The fact that they personally have 'consciousnesss' - or whatever else you want to call the actual experience of being aware of your own existence)
And the observation that there seems to be no objective way to measure this phenomena at all...

The burden of proof lies with you to show why objective measurements are a valid way of understanding existence.

(And secondly, to double-check your claims about who has the burden of proof, let me reverse your own statement: Someone comes up with the idea that "consiousness" exists solely as a product of the human brain. Other people accept this idea because...?)

 

[Inglorious891]

There has to be SOMETHING after this life. What that could be, I have no idea, but something must exist. I can't believe that, after death, you simply rot in the ground.

 

[Hazy992]

Can you change the poll option 'nothing' to 'oblivion'? That's the correct term for it and, frankly, it just sounds cool.

''And at the end of fear, Oblivion'' - see?

OT: No I don't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation or anything like that.

 

[spartan231490]

I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.

 

[immortalfrieza]

The only state of consciousness we can't comprehend is non existence. The mere idea of not being around anymore scares us so much that we turn to fables and old tales to avoid the fact that once we are dead, it's over.

Exactly, in fact, this denial is the very reason why religon exists at all. It's so ridiculously obvious that any and all afterlives do not exist that the fact that the concept of an afterlife even exists shows just how massive this self delusion is.

Personally, I deeply despise the very concept of the afterlife for one reason: If the entire human race knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all they had to look forward to after their deaths was to rot in the ground, the entire human race would pool all their resources to extending life, perhaps even to the infinite point.

 

[Jegsimmons]

of course i believe in a afterlife, because whats the point of this life if their isnt? or better yet, whats the point or reason behind the universe at all?

Heaven will be awesome, sipping on tequila with great historical figures and artist like davinci would be AWESOME!!!!!

Personally i think if this is it, that after this we wouldn't even exist on any plain of existence would be my personal hell, id rather take the boiling lake and demons than have an after life of NOTHING!, at least with hell you got an answer.

 

[Jegsimmons]

... And yes, not believing in an afterlife is just as much a religious belief as believing in one.

Atheism is not a religious belief... more a lack thereof.

Nope, that's Agnosti...cism. I'm not sure of the word. Agnosticism seems right, Google Chrome seems to think it's a correct spelling at least.

Atheism is a belief that there is definitely no god.

Theism means to believe in something. A-Theism is to NOT believe something. You are talking about Gnostic-Atheism.

in recent years atheist sure have made atheism a certified religion if ive ever seen one.

 

[Jegsimmons]

This belong in religion and politics since it is heavily tied to religion.

I believe in an afterlife because of my religion. I also don't think anyone can prove wither or not their is an afterlife as its not an issue of science.

You need to be open minded, don't believe in something because your religion tells you to. I'm not going to say "STOP YOUR RELIGIONZ" because it'll never work and because free thought should be cherished, but look at these kind of things critically. Also, how isn't it a matter of science?

so DONT believe in the religion he choose because YOU told him too?

what if he DID look at things critically and found a belief that best suited him/her/it/shark/mastodon/starfish

 

[Jegsimmons]

This belong in religion and politics since it is heavily tied to religion.

I believe in an afterlife because of my religion. I also don't think anyone can prove wither or not their is an afterlife as its not an issue of science.

You need to be open minded, don't believe in something because your religion tells you to. I'm not going to say "STOP YOUR RELIGIONZ" because it'll never work and because free thought should be cherished, but look at these kind of things critically. Also, how isn't it a matter of science?

so DONT believe in the religion he choose because YOU told him too?

what if he DID look at things critically and found a belief that best suited him/her/it/shark/mastodon/starfish

I was objecting the fact that he said that he believed in an afterlife because his religion demands it, not because of any feeling, fear or evidence towards the idea.

didn't really see the part where it said his religion DEMANDED it, just the part where he said he believed it because he was part of that religion, BUT OK!!!

 

[Jegsimmons]

... And yes, not believing in an afterlife is just as much a religious belief as believing in one.

Atheism is not a religious belief... more a lack thereof.

Nope, that's Agnosti...cism. I'm not sure of the word. Agnosticism seems right, Google Chrome seems to think it's a correct spelling at least.

Atheism is a belief that there is definitely no god.

Theism means to believe in something. A-Theism is to NOT believe something. You are talking about Gnostic-Atheism.

in recent years atheist sure have made atheism a certified religion if ive ever seen one.

Oh yes, just like not smoking is a habit.

i have made a habit of not smoking

 

[CrystalShadow]

... And yes, not believing in an afterlife is just as much a religious belief as believing in one.

Atheism is not a religious belief... more a lack thereof.

Nope, that's Agnosti...cism. I'm not sure of the word. Agnosticism seems right, Google Chrome seems to think it's a correct spelling at least.

Atheism is a belief that there is definitely no god.

Theism means to believe in something. A-Theism is to NOT believe something. You are talking about Gnostic-Atheism.

That's a rather self-defeating definition though.

NOT believing something is logically equivalent to believing it's opposite.

So if theism means to believe in something. (rather than specifically meaning to believe in the existence of a god or gods), then A-theism, is a nonsensical statement.

the opposite of believing in something after all, is believing in nothing which is still defined by a belief, rather than the absence of one.

Still, what I think you mean to say here is that A-theism is meant in the same sense as a-moral (as opposed to immoral), and a-tonal, and such.

(Which is linguistically amusing when applied to some other common terms. Consider for instance, logical - something which follows logic. illogical - something which does not follow logic. but then... alogical (which I know is not a word, but bear with me) would mean something like... -> having no content to which logic applies.)

Still, if atheism is therefore the complete lack of theism, then nobody who actively asserts the non-existence of god has any business calling themselves an atheist.

I believe in an afterlife. The reason is simple, I believe that there is something more to human beings than what can be explained by science. I believe in the existance of the soul, and I believe that since this is supernatural(remember I said it can't be explained by science) then it must continue on after the death of the body. Whether this continues in the form of an afterlife or reincarnation I do not know.

If you and nobody else can explain or understand it, then how do you know about it?

You should be able to answer this one for yourself if you give it a moment's thought. I don't think the specific example given by who spartan231490 is meaningful, but you're asking a much broader question here.

is it possible to know something is true without being able to explain it to another person?

Try explaining to another person what it feels like to be you. For that matter, try something much simpler; explain what an apple tastes like without resorting to analogy with something else.
Or any other subjective experience really.
Explain what your favourite colour is. Explain why you like it better than other, similar colours. Or what it actually looks like to you, and if that's actually the same as what another is seeing or not.

Can you even describe a colour? I can't. I can describe a lot of things about colours, but not what it's actually like to see them.
It only works because the only time I communicate with anyone else about it, they apparently have can see broadly the same range of things I can. - Therefore I can use the objective qualities about what we are seeing to refer to things. But that says nothing whatsoever about what it's actually like, and if we are experiencing the same things.

If I could communicate with a bee for instance, which is capable of seeing ultraviolet light, would it be in any way possible for it to meaningfully describe what it sees?

With technology I can get a picture of the appropriate wavelengths of light. But that is something quite different.

So how can you realistically make the claim that if it can't be explained to another, then it can't be known about?

 

[DarkShadow144]

I don't believe in any kind of afterlife, but I have said that if there was one, I would prefer Reincarnation.