Nobody in DU believes in anything after this life? That's cool, but I just

[Mike 03]

want to know, for my own sanity.

There is nothing after this?

Something?

Is this as good as it is going to get?

What think you?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I believe. I'll go one step further. I'm sure of it.

[grannie4peace]

5. me, too :)

[Kajsa]

11. Count me in, too.

:)

[Marr]

25. Of course, you can be certain and wrong.

[jgraz]

88. And one more step: we already know what it will be like

Think of what you were doing around, say, 1793. It's going to be just like that.

[BlueJazz]

2. If there wasn't a DU in the after-life then it wouldn't be worth it.

[MineralMan]

3. I don't think so.

I can't see any reason for there to be. Life is a biological thing. It ends. I don't see any signs that there is anything beyond that. That sort of makes our time here rather precious.

[azmouse]

4. I firmly believe in God.

We have something wonderful waiting for us. This is not all there is.

[aquart]

16. What has the immortality or existence of God to do with this question?

Were we not expelled from Eden explicitly to keep us, in our new knowledge, from eating from the Tree of Immortality? Were we not expelled to prevent us from living forever, like gods?

People keep forgetting there were TWO trees. WE are creatures, not gods.

[azmouse]

22. I'm not sure I understand your point.

I believe in an afterlife because of what the Son of God has promised. If there is a Son, there is a God.

[Silent3]

38. Well, you've got vigorous assertion going for you. n/t

[ChazII]

84. Agreed. n/t

[New Dawn]

95. Atheists can believe in afterlives too.

Being an atheist only means that one does not believe in a deity or deities. An atheist can still believe in any other supernatural concept.

[jobycom]

6. I'm not even sure I believe in this life. Certainly not an afterlife.

But I doubt the majority of DU denies an afterlife, from what I've seen.

[OmahaBlueDog]

7. I know that I don't want to test this theory just yet

[Xipe Totec]

8. I have three tickets to immortality

Two that I sired, and one that I adopted.

Yes, there is something after life.

[MercutioATC]

9. Well, decay is technically "something"...

[KoKo]

10. Keep faith and hope...this is just the "cleaning up."

It's going to go on...and if you are young enough...you will reap what is being sown out here in this great "PUSH BACK" with the sewer lids lifting over the filth bubbling out.

One must never give up.

[Wapsie B]

12. There are many here who believe in an afterlife.

I believe there's a universal energy that joins us all. We're much more than just flesh and bones. A soul makes us who we are as individuals. Some call that energy God, Allah, etc.....I don't know what it is but I believe it's there.

[Silent3]

37. I believe the word "energy" gets terribly abused on DU. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

44. Not much to choose from to express the intent ..

Thesaurus: energy

noun

Capacity or power for work or vigorous activity: animation, force, might, potency, power, puissance, sprightliness, steam, strength. Informal get-up-and-go, go, pep, peppiness, zip. See action/inaction.

[Silent3]

51. The abuse is typically to assume that a casual or non-scientific...

...use of the word nevertheless possess qualities derived from science, and that the imprimatur of scientific authority regarding the subject of energy carries over to non-scientific uses of the word -- hence the very popular meme that conservation of energy is a sound scientific basis for believing in immortality.

[Vidar]

13. I believe in some kind of reincarnation & a fairly nebulous higher power.

[cbc5g]

14. It's interesting to think about..but believe? No, I require proof

And I also won't say that I believe there isn't a life after death. How can any of us know? For all we know this is a constant loop, as the universe IS deterministic, and we will live the same life over and over again, birth and rebirth.

[armyowalgreens]

15. I'm a loathing agnostic.

I see no evidence to believe in a God, but I cannot prove with certainty that a God does not exist. So I'm just one step shy of full blown atheist.

If there is in fact a god, that god can only fall into a few categories.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus "

[Boojatta]

65. If you are able to prevent someone from performing some small evil act...

then are you always willing to devote your time and effort to prevent it? If you are able but not willing, then are you malevolent?

Where do you draw the line on evildoing to separate significant from insignificant evildoing?

"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent."

[armyowalgreens]

66. If God is all knowing and all capable than God can do all things at once.

God could prevent all evil at once for all eternity.

To a being that is all capable and all knowing, any evil is preventable. There is no such thing as insignificant evil. Evil is among the most extreme wrongs capable. But God should be able to prevent all wrongs as well.

[BeFree]

17. Spirit

Reincarnation. "Before David was I."

I believe we are here in this human form because it is the best vehicle to experience all that life has to offer. That this body is meant to enrich the spirit in ways that the spirit can not otherwise be enriched, and to learn lessons.

Several times in this life I have been visited by loved ones who had passed and they gave me wisdom to understand what to do next. They came like a flash and in dreams.

[Mojambo]

18. I think it's extremely unlikely

And I find the prospect far from unsettling. I find it relaxing.

[NRaleighLiberal]

19. Yes, I believe there is something next...and open minded about what it may be.

It is a question that everyone will find the answer to eventually....no escaping it!

[armyowalgreens]

23. That's not true. If there is an afterlife we will know. If there isn't, no one will ever know.

When we die, our brain ceases to function. We are no longer conscious or even intelligent. So if we die and there is no afterlife, we will never know.

[Marr]

20. You imply that mortality darkens your world view somehow.

I think it's quite the opposite. When you know that you and all the people around you will someday cease to be, you can really understand how precious life is. If I thought I had an eternity to look forward to in heaven, I'd probably put less of a premium on my time here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Probably the same as it was before this life, only later.

Personally, I can recall no particular inconvenience before I was born.

(With apologies to Mark Twain for a little embezzlement of his thoughts on death).

[pokerfan]

85. perhaps inspired by Epicurus

"Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not."

[InvisibleTouch]

24. There's a whole spectrum of opinions on the topic on DU.

There are plenty of atheists and plenty of believers of many different stripes.

Myself, while I divested myself of the stilted notion of an individual god who sits in judgment, and of a Christian-style "heaven" and "hell" around age 6 or so, I've come to think that the entire Universe is consciousness, so that when our physical forms die, our personalities meld back into that overall intelligence and consciousness. How much of our individual selves we retain, I have no idea. I think the whole point is that our individual life experiences, and the experiences of every single living thing, from the smallest single cell to the greatest whale, serve to add to the overall collective experience of the Universe. I think of the millions upon millions of invertebrates and other animals that are eaten the moment they hatch; they were alive for only a few seconds, but each one has had a unique experience unlike the experience of any other being, and it all goes into the collective.

I also think aspects of our individual selves reincarnate through the spectrum of every imaginable species - so that, while our egos and personalities may not survive death, some aspect of our consciousness does continue.

BUT I certainly couldn't swear to the truth of any of this, not only because there's no possible way to prove it, but also because I have no way of knowing, myself. I think it's true, or I'd like to think it's true, but I certainly don't KNOW. I'm okay with that, at this point.

[H2O Man]

26. Yes.

This is not the end. It's a garden. More follows.

[Warpy]

27. Nobody knows what happens

beyond floating away on a tide of happy hormones for those people who have been resuscitated to tell about it. Although there are some commonalities--the drifting away, the tunnel and bright light and sense of total peace--the rest of it depends on what they expected to see.

We only know one thing for sure, that it's a one way trip.

There are afterlife stories I find laughably preposterous although I'm sure they give a lot of people a great deal of comfort. I know if all I find is a naked Santa Claus sitting on a cloud surrounded by harpists and grumbling about my every peccadillo, I'll be very disappointed in the cosmos.

I've been close enough to remember the sense of peace as everything that occupied my living thoughts slipped away. Whatever else awaits, I'm hoping it is an adventure--or a trip to oblivion.

[Speck Tater]

28. Reincarnation is a fact.

And you don't have to take my word for it. If you don't believe it right now, eventually, in some future lifetime, you will come to realize its truth. And the best part is, it remains true whether you believe it or not. Even the most hardened skeptic WILL reincarnate eventually. (So don't ask me to prove it to you. I don't need to prove it. You'll prove it to yourself eventually.)

[armyowalgreens]

29. Wow...that was so stupid it made my head hurt.

In order for a claim to be true, it must be rational and proven through observation. If I cannot observe your claims, your claims are not true. Sorry, but hope for observation in the future does not make a claim true at this time. So right now, your claim is simply belief and irrational based on modern science.

[Speck Tater]

41. "If I cannot observe your claims, your claims are not true."

That's ridiculous!

I cannot observe your dreams. Therefore you do not dream.
When you hammer your thumb, since I cannot observe your pain, hammering your thumb does not cause you pain. (You may act "as if" you are in pain, but for me to observe your behavior is not for me to observe your pain.)

The correct statement is: "If I cannot observe your claims, then I cannot decide whether your claims are true or not." Anything stronger than that is not logically sound. Failure to observe a thing is NOT proof that that thing does not exist. If I stand outside for half and hour looking up at the sky and see no meteors I have not, contrary to your claim, proven that meteors do not exist.

[MorningGlow]

42. LOL my husband says

"I've never been to Australia. Therefore it must not exist."

Videos? Faked. First-hand accounts by people who say they've been there? All lying. And those accents--come ON!
:rofl:

[Speck Tater]

43. Don't even get me started on that big fraud

called the Eiffel Tower. Like such a stupid-looking thing could actually exist. Ha! Not a chance.

[armyowalgreens]

46. Actually we can observe the act of someone dreaming.

Through sleep studies. I've been through one. They know when you begin dreaming and when you stop dreaming. They simply don't know what you dream. So in that situation, you telling me that you dreamed about a boat can't be proven true with the current technology that we have. I have to assume you are telling the truth.

No my statement was quite accurate. If there is no way for anyone to observe this "reincarnation" you speak of, then it is not true. It's irrational.

You could stand outside for half an hour and see no meteors. But the fact is that if you were to stand outside for an indefinite amount of time, you would see a meteor eventually. We have video evidence, physical evidence through scientific study that proves the existence of meteors. There is no observable evidence for "reincarnation". There is no way to observe it. To even suggest that reincarnation exists, with no evidence to suggest existence at all, is an illogical assumption. There is no point in even hinting at it. I could suggest that God is a unicorn that lives in the 85th dimension. But being that I have no evidence to even suggest that my claim may be correct, my claim is absolutely illogical and there is no point in arguing for or against it.

Your comparisons are hysterical at best and hopelessly dumb at worse.

[Speck Tater]

52. If there is no way for anyone to observe this "reincarnation" you speak of, then it is not true.

However, if anyone claims to have observed this "reincarnation" will you take that claimed observation seriously? I doubt it. So what you are saying is "I have not observed it, therefore anyone who claims to have observed it is delusional, and all such claims can be safely ignored." In other words, observations that contradict your preconceptions are ignored, after which you can make the claim that there are no such observations.

However, what if, in spite of your denial of their existence, such observations DO exist?

Start here: http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/

--quote--
The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS), formerly the Division of Personality Studies , is a unit of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia. Utilizing scientific methods, we investigate apparent paranormal phenomena, especially:

* Children Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives (reincarnation)
* Near-Death Experiences
* Out of Body Experiences
* Apparitions and After-Death Communications
* Deathbed Visions
--/quote--
more at link

I think you will find the methods used at the University of Virginia Medical School to be quite rigorous, and not in the least fanciful. Of course their observations do not constitute proof, but they do constitute a significant body of evidence suggestive of reincarnation. One can, at the very least, conclude that a belief in reincarnation is not irrational, and not without evidential justification.

Further, for people who themselves have experienced childhood recall of specific and verifiable past lives, that experience constitutes for that person alone sufficient proof of the reality of reincarnation. Thus I can claim that for me, personally, I have sufficient proof of a personal nature that I can can accept reincarnation as a fact. Yet, as you point out, I cannot prove it to anyone else who does not share my personal experiences. And that is why I can both state that I accept reincarnation as a fact, and that I won't bother to try to prove it to anyone else since any such effort must be futile.

[armyowalgreens]

60. While I agree in the concept of subjective reality...

I also understand that there is generally an objective view of reality amongst humans. That is how we can maintain things like science. Otherwise I could say that evolution is wrong because I have witnessed said evidence in a dream or something like that.

It's a statement that does not have the possibility of being proven wrong and therefore is illogical to propose in the first place. Subjective truths are anything but truths. They are beliefs. That doesn't necessarily make them incorrect, but it means that you cannot call them facts because you have no way of proving to me that they are facts.

Near death experiences, childhood memories of past lives, etc... Those will all be proven wrong by simply studying the brain. Not to long ago seizures were considered demonic possessions.

Which seems more logical? The idea that misfires in the brain at the time of death produce the illusion of a near death experience? Or that the soul somehow is independent of the body? There isn't even any evidence that a "soul" exists.

I will admit, there are circumstances that are hard to explain. But 4000 years ago it was hard to explain why water fell from the sky. It was hard to even understand the concept of water. And because of the absence of knowledge, the ignorant turned towards illogical religious answers instead of scientific research. You don't fill intellectual voids with blind guesses. And that is what you are doing. 1000 years from now when we have figured out the reason for those experiences described above, through scientific research, people who had religious beliefs will be looked at as fools.

[Speck Tater]

62. There is a difference between making a statement based solely on faith,

and stating a personal observation that cannot be verified.

Your statement: "Near death experiences, childhood memories of past lives, etc... Those will all be proven wrong by simply studying the brain." Is a statement made on faith. In fact, it is such an extraordinary claim that I feel compelled to ask for extraordinary evidence that it might be true. You could, of course, claim to have traveled to the future in a time machine and personally observed that to be a fact; a claim that would leave me unable to either verify or refute what you say. Baring time travel, however, you have utterly no justification for that claim except your preference for believing that your claim is true.

You could also attempt to demonstrate that there is some well-established scientific principle that is violated by reincarnation. The weakness with that approach is that in order to do so you must first formulate some theory as to how reincarnation works, and then falsify that theory. Having done so, however, you have not falsified all possible explanation for how reincarnation might work, you have falsified only the single theory that you set up as your straw man. Creationists use this approach to ridicule evolution. Surely you will not stoop to their level!

So regardless of the strength of your faith that science will eventually prove reincarnation to be false, to make that statement without any justification beyond blind faith is very unscientific.

RE: "You don't fill intellectual voids with blind guesses. And that is what you are doing."
You really didn't read my claim, did you?

Let's try it by way of allegory: if I was strolling, all by myself, on the shores of Loch Ness one moonlit evening, and if the famed Loch Ness monster were to paddle ashore and nibble waterlilies from my hand, while it let me pet in on the head, there would follow three inevitable results:

1. I would know the Loch Ness monster to be real, and no amount of clever sophistry on the part of knowledgeable zoologists could prove to me that I was wrong.

2. No matter how passionately I argued my case before those same knowledgeable zoologists, not one of them would accept that I had proven the existence of the Loch Ness monster, because, in point of fact, I would not be able to prove anything to anybody.

3. Among themselves, those knowledgeable zoologists would pat each other on the back while they preached to the choir, assuring each each other that they alone were in possession of the truth while a few deluded fools who thought they had had a personal experiences of Loch Ness were only "filling intellectual voids with blind guesses" and "will all be proven wrong by simply studying the brain."

So the zoologists are doing the best they can, and they come to their conclusions in good faith. But they are wrong. That's the difference between making a claim based on faith and making a claim based on personal experience. Their claims are faith-based (or at best, inductive, generalizing from the particular to the universal), my claim is empirical.

So let me state my position again: You have faith (unsupported except by historical precedent) that science will eventually prove reincarnation false. I have personal knowledge that it is factual. For me my personal experience trumps your faith. for you your faith trumps my claimed experience. In other words, all is as it should be: Given your standards of evidence, you must reject my claim of personal knowledge since it contradicts your articles of faith, and given my personal experience, I have no choice but to reject your articles of faith without hesitation since they contradict my personal experience.

For me, empiricism trumps faith every time. That my experience cannot be proven to an independent observer is, to me, a minor inconvenience. I, personally, already know what I need to know, and since I am now a retired scientist, I have no need to prove anything to anybody. I leave Theists and Arch-Skeptics to their respective articles of faith. Their beliefs are not only none of my concern, but look positively silly from the perspective of my personal experience. I chuckle in their general direction.

(Disclaimer: I DO NOT believe in the Loch Ness monster. That story was for illustrative purposes only.)

[armyowalgreens]

67. I don't think you know what "faith" is...actually clearly you don't know...

Faith is believing something to be true without rational evidence.

I have rational evidence to believe that science will progress and eventually explain near death experiences.

You however have no rational evidence to support your claims of reincarnation. You have no rational argument at all. Talk about projection... Everything you have said I've done wrong is exactly what you've done wrong.


So it is you who is relying on faith and I am relying on historical evidence, which is rational evidence none the less. That is anything but blind faith on my part and 100% blind faith on yours.

Seriously how much further do you want to go on this? Every point you make backfires horribly. I suggest that if you truly believe the empiricism trumps faith, that you stop making such ridiculously stupid statements.

[Speck Tater]

69. Fundamentalists really only hear what they want to hear, don't they? Whatever. nt

[patriotvoice]

63. If claims cannot be independently measured, they are unprovable.

Would be less existential.

[armyowalgreens]

68. Thanks that is a bit easier to understand.

[MercutioATC]

34. Right on!

So is the Easter Bunny.

...and no, I'm not going to provide proof.

[Odin2005]

50. Unfalsifiable Statement. Epic Fail.

[Speck Tater]

54. I dreamt of walking in the woods last night. Unfalsifiable statement. Epic Fail.

What exactly are you trying to say? Are you saying that every non-falsifiable statement is necessarily false? That seems a rather broad and unjustifiable generality. What about a statement that is non-falsifiable because it is universally true? What about a statement that is non-falsifiable within a given axiomatic system yet remains true both within that system and within the metasystem of which that axiomatic system is a proper subset? (Check out Gödel) What about statements that are non-falsifiable due to quantum indeterminacy?

What you should be saying is that any statement which is not falsifiable within a given axiomatic system is not a valid statement in the science of that axiomatic system. That I will grant you. But it's a very long, and completely unjustified leap of faith to go from "a valid statement in science" to "a true statement of reality." Science is a model of a proper subset of reality. Correctly applied, science does not claim to correspond, one-to-one with reality. It only claims to model or describe those limited aspects of reality which lend themselves to reductionistic analysis based on the assumption (on faith) of the validity of Naive Materialism as the only possible metaphysical basis of reality.

Given that Naive Materialism is accepted by you, axiomatically (i.e. without proof, or on faith) then your claim of "epic fail" presupposes that your underlying metaphysical beliefs are the only correct beliefs, and that I share those beliefs with you. Both of those assumptions are false, and your underlying metaphysics remains an article of faith for you.


(ed:sp)

[patriotvoice]

64. +1 EOM

[Random_Australian]

86. Lots of assertions. Nothing to back them up. At all.

Any person, with any belief, could just have easily said the same about their belief. In fact, I've seen christians say on more than one occasion:

"God is a fact.
And you don't have to take my word for it. If you don't believe it right now, eventually, in heaven, you will come to realise it is the truth. And the best part is, it remains true whether you believe it or not. Even the most hardened skeptic WILL face the Lord eventually. (So don't ask me to prove it to you. I don't need to prove it. You'll prove it to yourself eventually.)"

Do you want to know another fact?

If you want me to think that your belief is anything other than something you made up on the spot, you'll have to do a bit better than "I don't need to prove it it is a fact"

In complete honesty, maybe you have some reason for believing what you do. All I see at the moment, though, is yet another someone making claims that they have zero ability to back up.

I sincerely doubt you can claim with intellectual honesty that re-incarnation is a fact.

[Towlie]

30. You wake up and Morpheus says, "Welcome... to the REAL world."

[patrice]

31. I, the relatively unique individual I am, I affect the physical world in a manner that is

as unique, or not, as I am. Cousciousness is a product of my biological entity, when my body ends the thing I know as consciousness ends. The extent to which my consciousness has encoded itself into phenomenal reality is the extent to which my consciousness lives on . . . HERE.

Why is it necessary for there to be more than that.

[suchadeal]

32. Mark me down as a strong believer in the teachings of Christ

I think the key word is his teachings is the word "faith." The most important things in this life can't be seen. Of those,
#1 is faith.

[Booster]

33. If my dog's not going, I'm not going.

[cosmik debris]

35. Is believing without evidence a virtue? n/t

[LAGC]

36. There was no before-life...

What makes you think there will be an after-life?

The "soul" is the sum-product of our bio-electrical makeup. Once it fails, once we have nothing left to SENSE with, what are we left with to experience? Nothing.

It begs the question, if there was an after-life, what happens to those who are mentally handicapped or disabled, with dimentia/Alzheimer's/etc? Do they magically revert back to their clear-thinking state once they "pass", if not, what's the point?

I think its human-nature to WANT to believe in something greater than this, to believe in higher powers that actively sculpted us in their image, but at the end of the day all we are left with is cold, hard logic... and logic says...

[marybourg]

39. Amen. Uhh, I mean I concur. nt.

[onager]

70. Yep. You sound like another Epicurean.

:hi:

I like the story...if I'm remembering it right...that someone once asked Epicurus if we went anywhere after death.

He immediately answered: "Oblivion."

The questioner then asked if Epicurus feared that. He said no, he did not fear it--he had been in exactly the same state before he was born, in his mother's womb, and wasn't afraid of "what came after" at that time. So he didn't see any need to fear the oblivion that was coming after this life.

[MorningGlow]

40. Oh, don't say "nobody"

There are quite a few DUers who believe in an afterlife. Most of the time we lie low because of the extremely vocal contingent of "cool kids" who insist everyone has to act all jaded and cynical and declare that only the material world is real. FEH, I say.

This existence is a playground, a classroom, a theater. We help one another, express our love in various ways, and learn from one another. And we get involved in all types of drama that seems important but doesn't amount to "a hill of beans" in the overall scheme of things. When we take our place in the Otherworld, we experience our true existence, which is incredibly beautiful and pure. And then we can go around again, or stay there if we wish. It's up to us.

And for those who insist that this is a fairy tale and demand proof of an afterlife, or of consciousness, or of a higher power, I say :P :P :P -- I don't need to give you no stinkin' proof. You'll find out eventually. :hi:

[dmallind]

73. Why is materialism cyncial and jaded?

I find the real world more than full enough of wonderful and interesting things to keep me happily occupied.

[Random_Australian]

87. Wait, did you just say that I'm jaded + cynical because I don't believe what you do?

As for proof - to let you believe whatever it is you do, I demand no proof.

If you want to convince me of something, then you'll get demands for proof, if you really want them.

[azul]

45. Mike, your sanity will have to support itself with its own experiments and observations.

But, I think that this is about as good a place to rest and learn as you're going to find. A precious gift, this life, IMHO. And your guess or belief is as good as mine or anyone's as to its origins, considering the present limitations on our scientific understanding.

Science has almost as much trouble relating matter to consciousness as it does relating it to a creator. The only evidence of consciousness independent of body is anecdotal but large, and is from out of the body experience especially induced by near-death medical conditions, poisoning by puffer fish tetrodotoxin, and as a later consequence of psychedelic plant/chemical ingestion. And of course in dreams, consciousness goes where science has no solid footing either.

FWIW, my consciousness has journeyed to/found itself in another place once that convinced me to believe that that was my natural state, from whence I came to here, and to where I shall return. That there I was like a balloon being pushed around by winds with not much to anchor me in that strange but oh-so-familiar place. I realized that this body and company here were where I take shelter to learn to reduce my balloonishness.

I don't know if this helps you or the opposite, but to me, where and if we go after this life is to a realm way different than the space-time universe that we experience here, and thus science cannot yet fathom it.

Your consciousness and sanity can be tricked and set free or lost, here in this life, by sensory deprivation or hopelessness-inducing torture. But why do that in confusion or in malice, when we are here to help each other?

peace

[struggle4progress]

47. I have moral obligations (1) to act as if this may be all there is & (2) to hope for more than this

[TreasonousBastard]

48. I don't know...

I won't know until I get there.

And, I'm not in much of a hurry to find out.

I am curious, though, with all the elaborate belief in an afterlife thrughout all of recorded history, howcum not one person has come back to tell us about it?

[raccoon]

49. This is it. There is no afterlife. I can see how it would be comforting to believe there is.

I did, for a long time, because I'd been told that all my life.

Then maybe a decade ago, I really started examining some of my lifelong beliefs, and I decided there is no afterlife.

However, if somebody else wants to believe in it...whatever gets you through the night. :-)

Just as long as you don't use it as an excuse to avoid trying to change things that need to be changed in this life.

[Critters2]

80. I use it as a reason to change things in this life.

If I don't have to fear death, I don't have to fear anything. So, there's nothing to keep me from standing up to injustice, speaking out for what's right.

Which really irritates my parishioners. :)

[ChadwickHenryWard]

53. Why on Earth would you?

I have always been baffled by the belief in an afterlife. What possible reason could there be to believe such a thing?

[BurtWorm]

55. What if it is as good as it's going to get?

Is that enough for you? Do you need more than what's here?

[gcomeau]

56. There is obviously *something* after life.

You're just not going to experience it, being dead and all.

[ZombieHorde]

57. "Is this as good as it is going to get?"

This is as bad as it is going to get as well.

[stopbush]

58. I wasn't around in some "pre-life" for the billions of years before I was born

and I won't be going to some "after-life" for billions of years once I croak.

All biological life forms die. No one imagines that trees and animals have an afterlife. Why would our species be any different?

What about Neanderthal? Did he go to an afterlife? Homo erectus - any afterlife for him? Is the afterlife reserved only for homo sapiens? Is it further reserved only for those homo sapiens who believe in god? Is it further reserved only for those homo sapiens who believe in the CORRECT god? Is it further reserved only for those homo sapiens who believe in the correct god AND worship him in the proper way while on this Earth? Is it further reserved only to those homo sapiens who believe in god, worship him properly while on Earth and belong to the one Christian sect that gets it "right" out of the 30,000+ Christian sects that infest the world?

Sounds like bullshit to me. Sounds like something we made up during the infancy of our species' existence to explain things that were terrifying to us. Sounds like wishful thinking coupled with fear and guilt to me. Sounds like abject stupidity raised to the level of "truth" simply because it's been hanging around forever. Sounds like something our species would be better off chucking out all together.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. I do, of course!

But I can't pretend to know what exactly it will be like. I rather think it won't be the way we tend to imagine it, though. More like a unifying of spirit than a country club with angels.

[Dogmudgeon]

61. Maybe, but it won't be religious

And that's a seriously intense "maybe".

The idea that an afterlife implies religion is absurd.

If, indeed, there IS an afterlife of any kind, it won't be linked to any particular religious belief. We would be able to study it once we have the necessary tools to do so, as we can do with electricity or particle physics. But in spite of the current fad, I don't think that quantum physics allows us to say anything about an afterlife at all. Nor will any kind of skin resistance meter provide any clues.

Weirdness isn't necessarily Spirituality.

On the other hand, while there is no reason to reject an afterlife, just as there is no reason to accept one. It's still terra incognita, whatever the answer might be. There are a few scraps of tentative evidence on both sides. (No lectures from either camp, please -- I'm claiming nothing.) Some day, someone may be able to actually assemble them into a scientifically studiable form. But first things first. Today, we don't have a clue about how to do this.

So, what do *I* think? I am not too convinced that there will be anything for me after I die. If I am wrong, I expect it to follow one of the Buddhist models, since they are the least complicated. But "the death of the ego and personal consciousness" sure sounds like "over and out" to me.

To put it simply -- I'm not holding out any hope. Today is all we ever really have.

--d!

[sipping radicchio]

71. I totally believe that consciousness never ends...I never was much of

a science or physics person, but they say that energy never truly disappears but just transforms. Most people who doubt the existence of the soul take that to mean that we fertilize the earth or whatever. I really and truly know that there is another dimension. And it actually is logical because most of us feel that our lives have some importance and if this was it, why would we have that inkling that it means more?

Organized religion has done a great job of turning many people off to a spiritual path. If you are asking these questions, chances are that you will find yourself in situations where things will just "happen to happen." As that saying goes: "when the student is ready, the teacher appears." Keep yourself open to so-called coicidences coming about in the area of metaphysics and you will learn at a pace that is comfortable for you. Everyone is ready at a different time:)

[dmallind]

72. What was it like for you before you were born?

Why would death be any different?

All experience and sensation is chemistry in the brain. When that chemistry stops what would you imagine would happen?

[deutsey]

74. I believe we are inseparable from the life energy underlying the universe

In some way or another, our bodies (in decomposing and returning to elements) and our life energy remain part of that cosmological reality and continue on in the life process.

Based on my understanding of nature's cyclical processes, that's basically what I believe. I can't get more specific than that right now, however. As the old song says, time won't let me. :-)

[raccoon]

75. If there were an afterlife, why would it apply to just humans? Why

wouldn't our cat and dog companions, as well as cockroaches, also have an afterlife?

[kay why 69]

78. Who said it only applied to humanoids? Animals have souls...

Hell, trees have souls. Everything that is alive has a soul, but it may be different. I have heard talk about 'group souls' for creatures with less consciousness.

[Critters2]

81. No reason to think it doesn't. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

76. Nope, I dont...when you die your dead...

as is with every living thing.

You get one ticket to ride, so make the most of it. Also, no one has the right to make some one else's life experience an unpleasant one, because we only get one life to live.

[Meshuga]

77. "Is this as good as it is going to get?"

Sometimes things get tough but I am satisfied with what I got. Life is short so we have to make the best of it. Living for an afterlife is a waste of time. I would rather enjoy what is here and now.

[kay why 69]

79. But in the grand scheme of things, the here and now will be there and then...

And 'enjoying' has its limitations. You can only enjoy when you have the ability (health and wealth) to enjoy and even then, it's very fleeting. Don't you ever question and explore the truest purpose for life?

[kentauros]

82. Who says that those of us that believe in an afterlife "live for an afterlife"?

I live for this life, here and now. When my times comes to go, I'll still be going "But I'm not done yet! I've still got three more stories to publish and a dozen more ideas to flesh out. I don't want some uppity writer to come along and 'finish' my unfinished works!" and so on and so on :P

[CJCRANE]

83. "Paradise is exactly like where you are right now

only much, much better".

Laurie Anderson

[Strong Atheist]

93. ...

... only it doesn't exist" -Strong Atheist

[Taverner]

89. Well, there *is*something, but I doubt its what you think it is

When you die, and your brain is not destroyed, you go into a coma-like dream state where you consciousness slowly fades away. During that time, minutes can become hours or even years. This is what causes "near death experiences" and the "white light" observations some have.

[Odin2005]

90. "Where I am Death is not, Where Death is I am not" --Epicurus

[saltpoint]

91. What's interesting is to try to navigate the differences in beliefs from

a liminal zone between folks who believe in a life beyond this one and those who don't think so, and those who are not sure.

That's an interesting place.

[MikeH]

92. Whether there is a life after this present life is very much an open question for me

My personal feeling has been that if there is anything at all to our sense of justice and fairness, and value and meaning of life, then there just has to be something after this present life. And I find very depressing the thought that after I, or anyone else, dies, that is it, there is nothing afterward, and no hope of justice for a person who receives the bad breaks in this life.

And I hate to think that all our good gifts and our experiences and our qualities of character are of value only for this short lifetime.

However I realize that my personal feelings do not prove anything, and that what I might wish to be true or strongly feel should or ought to be true, and what actually is true, are not always the same thing. And I also see that other people have strong personal feelings about the matter that are different from mine.

I myself used to be a Christian, and among other things, I liked to take comfort in the promise of life beyond the grave. However after seriously trying the Christian faith for a period of about 15 years of my life, I found that it had not been of any help to me in enabling me to better deal with any source of pain, frustration, or unhappiness in this life. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=207020&mesg_id=209530">I explain some of this here. Since Christianity for me did not live up to its promise of making a difference for me in this present life, I can no longer accept the certainty of a life hereafter based on the promise of the Christian faith, or on an account of something that supposedly happened 2000 years ago, or on what is said in any book that alleges to be some kind of revelation from God, such as the Bible. This was a disappointment for me, but something which I have had to accept.

The one hope for life after death is in the reports of near death experiences. I personally would very much like to think that these are manifestations of the life after the present life. Some accounts, such as in books and writings by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Moody">Raymond A. Moody and others, seem very convincing.

I personally have never had any near death experience (and I don't think it would be wise to wish for such an experience!), nor do I know of anybody I know personally having had such an experience. And I have never personally experienced anything else that could be considered "supernatural", or that would indicate the reality of anything "supernatural", psychic, or paranormal.

However that does not mean that I regard as a certainty that such things are not real, and I do not want to make any statements or judgments regarding other people's experiences.

I consider myself to be a skeptic in the sense that I do not want to accept something as being true or certain based on insufficient evidence. For me this includes both the assertion, absent any verifying personal experience, that life after death, communications with deceased loved ones, and other "supernatural", paranormal, and psychic experiences, are for real, and the assertion that such things are definitely not for real. I particularly prefer to withhold judgment about other people’s reports or accounts of near death experiences, or communications with deceased relatives, or other alleged paranormal experiences, and what they would actually indicate.

I have some philosophical reasons for being open to at least the possible reality of life after death, and perhaps other things that might be considered paranormal or “supernatural”. When I was a Christian, one of my favorite writers was the noted apologist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis">C. S. Lewis. Having at one time tried out Christianity and finding myself unhappy with it, I no longer accept his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#The_Christian_apologist">arguments regarding the person of Christ or tenets of the Christian faith (there have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#Influence_and_criticism">criticisms of his trilemma argument, for instance), but I have liked and still like his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis#Universal_morality">arguments that our sense of reason, and our sense of right and wrong, and justice, must be rooted in some intelligence higher and greater than our own, and in some reality higher and greater than ourselves and the natural universe. He particularly makes this argument in the first six chapters of his book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_(book)">Miracles. If our sense of justice is actually rooted in some reality higher and greater than ourselves, rather than being just something that we happen to think and feel, then the idea of a possible life after this life is not entirely absurd or ridiculous. (And we do have near-death experiences, or reports of then.)

Of course even if our reason might indicate a higher reality or intelligence greater than ourselves, it is quite possible that any such reality or intelligence might not be exactly like the Christian God as envisioned by Christians like C. S. Lewis.

I would say that religiously I myself am closest to being a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism">Deist, and just on the believing side of agnostic. Deists basically believe in a God or a Creator, but do not accept any alleged revelation from God (the Bible, the Koran, etc.). Deists advocate the use of reason, and a common position among Deists about life after death, seen in their http://www.deism.com/">web http://www.deistalliance.org/">sites (typically mentioned in longer articles about other things), is a hope that there might be such a thing but an acceptance of uncertainty about the matter.

Of course if there actually is a life after this present life then there are many questions that can be asked. Such as, as was asked above, do animals have a life after this present life? If so, which animals? If there is a life after this life, do we really live forever, or do we die “for good” after a (perhaps very long) period of time? What about reincarnation? And won’t we get bored after perhaps a very, very long time, after we have done everything?

One thing that is comforting to me is that whatever is true about the matter is true, and is not subject to change, and is not affected by what I or anybody else might think or believe, or hope for or wish for. (This is unlike the outcome of an election, or a public policy decision!)

[RagAss]

94. Actually, I don't believe in this life.

[I Have A Dream]

96. I believe in reincarnation, and I believe that we spend time between...

incarnations in other dimensions where we are our true selves.

[greentwiga]

97. Afterlife?

When I was a college student, I looked at life and wondered, If there is nothing after this, is the logical thing to go for the gusto, no matter how many people I hurt? This bothered me and no version of it (power, fame, women, alcohol, drugs, etc.) seemed satisfactory. with my BA in Chemistry, I began looking at various religions including Hinduism and Taoism. Nothing seemed right since my science background balked and leaps of faith. I ran across the Bible where it said, "give up your life and you will gain ..." I thought, well, I'll try it. I set of traveling, still not having met any Christians to explain it to me. My life began changing. Much later, I read the letter of 1 John which stated how your life should change, and those changes were what I experienced. I state this because we are dealing with two "Black Holes." If God is totally outside this universe like the universe was one giant black hole, we couldn't gain knowledge of him by our efforts. We would be dependent on him crossing that barrier to inform us. The second "Black Hole" is death. We have people who "died" and tell us of their experience, but that may just be what the "dying/failing brain produces. No one seems able to truly come back from the dead. Therefore, we can't really cross that barrier to get information, either. This is why the battle over whether Jesus came back from the dead is crucial to the Christians. The Bible claims that the Holy Spirit is a down payment on the Eternal Life after this life so we can trust God on the rest. Of course, He warns us not to put our faith in man. I can point to many men claiming to be Christians who do not inspire me to believe the Bible. This is also why I study inerrancy. I want to know whether the Bible is trustworthy when it talks of the future. It must be trustworthy for the present (my life) and the past. I have found that even the story of the Garden of Eden is very accurate, if you don't stick to traditional interpretations, but look in depth at what the Bible says. Therefore, Once you know that there is something better to come, you don't need to watch out for number one but are free, free to give up what you want for other peoples' sake. The Christian message can be summed up "Come, Taste and See." This is my personal answer to your theological question.