The Concept of No Afterlife

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many [b]Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.

I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.

However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.

This is why:

Matter and Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. All States are Temporary, and the only constant is Change.

Ask yourself: If you do not beleive in a Soul or Spirit, or cosmic signature, etc....take a look at yourself. Are you static? Are you Unchanging? Is there any part of yourself which Does not change?

Clearly, the answer is No.

You are EVER CHANGING. Your body, your mind, your thoughts, mentality, emotions, size, skin color, features, shape, etc. Everything changes. As you grow, you change.

IN FACT: Every Six Months every cell in your body is replace by a new cell, through the process of Mitosis.

So, there is nothing about you that is permanent (other than your name, but even that can change). You are not the same person when you die as you were when you were born.

Note This: The atoms that make up your body are billions of years old. They have existed far before you came into being. And when you die, those atoms will still exist forever on. The energy you consist of always existed before you did, and will still exist even after you die.

After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms. You don't simply CEASE TO BE. Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how the hell can you possibly stop existing?.

There is no stop in the course of nature. Everything continues, and all states are temporary. All states change.

Life may very well be one of those states. Many beleive Death is just a part of the Life Cycle, and we all know that death contributes to allowing new life to continue.

Your body and mind continue existance in different forms. Remember that. You will STILL EXIST after death, but in other form(s). Whether you experience new life or not, is another question. Whatever the "Afterlife" is, we may not know.

But we do know, that you don't just delete from existance. You don't just cease to be. It's scientifically impossible to just stop existing. Saying that nothing happens after death defies the Laws of Physics.

Change is the Only Constant. Everything in the Universe doesn't just begin or end. It always changes. Why would we be any different ? [/B]

Originally posted by debbiejo
paperbag3

I never stated anyhting about my own opinoin. I never stated anything conlcusive. I stated that supernatural theories are not scientific and they are not acceptable answers to scientific questions. I said science is the best way to be factual.

What you have simply done is taken my statements, made them the extremes of what I actually said, and then criticiesed me for fallacious claims that I never made.

Originally posted by debbiejo
He's just stating generalized opinions without using unbiased facts to back them up.

Which of my facts are "unbiased." Please point them out.

And what's wrong with generalized opinions? They tend to be more factual.

Even if your claims were true, its better than stating narrow opinions with no facts to back them up..something that happens all to frequently.

Plus Alliance has angst.

angst about what? 😂

Science and the public. Don't lie I know the truth. 😖hifty:

He posted my bag head..cry

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Sadly, that still does not prove an afterlife, there is no actual proof that we still retain consiousness after death, I personally believe in one.

There's only one way to know if there's an afterlife or not. Get crackin!

On the "usually" or the "economics"?

No new story? Like the fields of molecular physiology, neurochemisty, and genetics? Now new disciplines like molecular-cellular cognition? No new techniques like neuroimaging?

no, i meant no new scientific explanation for the PHENOMENON IN QUESTION. the only one proposed is a holographic brain but u dont consider that science. and again, how do any of the fields you mentioned account for the phenomenon i described in the confines of science????? please elaborate.

And lol at your "most extreme" comments. Those tell us as much about brain function as cutting off your arm tells you about blood flow. "Extreme" is hardly ever good for scientific experiments. Again, its like trying to cut a diamond with a sledgehammer.

lol, thats like saying smashing up particles in hedron colliders and particle acceleraters tells us as much about the particle in question or the nature of the universe as cutting of an arm tells us about blood flow. how can you be so narrow minded. the experiment in question tells us that the two hemispheres can chare information and refrain from becoming individual entities{which in all physical likelyhood they should} even when they are completely disconnected from each other and have their own phenomenology /memory and perception seperate physically fromt each others.

Basically, you need to update your knowledge. I'm no authority in the field, but you're way behind the modern science.

Seeing as your model is so outdated, its no wonder you hold this position.

no alternate explanation based in physics exists currently in psychology. if you find one please let me know{good luck on that cause its a well known fact that another doesnt exist}. your dismissing things without even looking them up. i thinkthat is close minded. the seperation of hemishperes is still practiced.

People are. Just don't confuse being "broad minded" with accepting irrational explanations. Regardless of what you think the evidence suggests, jumping to conclusions is just bad form. Your repeated comment that "there is more to the brain than just the physical makeup" is not theory, its not based on fact, its based on your, at least, partially uninformed opinion.

i didnt jump to conclusions, unlike sum people. i just said, physics as it stands cant explain it. and a purely MASS/MATTER based interacting system of bodies can not account for such phenomenon. similar to how matter based physics could not account for the double slit diffraction experimets which roved quantum theory. {and no, purely coincidential quantum phenomenon can not explain the collective results and random tendencies in the things i described either}. be my guest and look it up if u think im lying. i dont think im uninformed on the subject, but again, ur welcome to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Sadly, that still does not prove an afterlife, there is no actual proof that we still retain consiousness after death, I personally believe in one.

1) Proving an afterlife was not my intention.

2) You can believe whatever you wish, and talk about whatever you believe. This is the Religion forum. 😉

The problem is however, that our thinking tends to be too linear, which concept of afterlife cannot be understood as such.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The problem is however, that our thinking tends to be too linear, which concept of afterlife cannot be understood as such.

But since we don't understand it, how can we claim there is or isn't one ?

I think Atheism/Materialism is just as invalid as Christian/Judeo/Muslim perspective of Death, because neither can be supported.

Atheists and Materialists assume that after we die nothing happens, because they can find no other answers.

It's impossible for "nothing" to happen, since many numerous processes occur after death to our bodies. I personally think the problem is that we think of ourselves as independent individual lives disconnected and separate from everything else.

The Identity of one persona is what's at question. Does one person go to Heaven or Hell after they die, or does one person become another person afterward?

I beleive All Life is One. Sounds cliche, but I don't beleive our identities continue after death. This life, in my perspective, is temporary and who we are now lasts until death (or atleast until all memory of us is gone).

Our bodies decompose and go on to create all other life. Death is a part of life, death serves to make space for new life. We all know this.

Our bodies continue existing in other forms, the energy we borrow and use is also borrowed and used by other life forms, and has always been and will always be. In that sense, one can say that we do continue existing..but as other things other than what we are now.

The problem this idea poses is that it forces people to think of other people they do now know as relative to them. It's hard to hate someone else, realizing that we all come from the same source, and that we are, in fact, related.

To go even further, the problem Reincarnation poses is that people are then pushed to beleive that in every new life, they will have a new family, and the old one will be gone. That forces you see and treat other people as you would your family.

Not a lot of people are willing to do that. Our individual identities are too precious for us to see others in equal value to ourselves and loved ones.

It's easier to just not care.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Atheists and Materialists assume that after we die nothing happens, because they can find no other answers.

I'm getting tired of the generalizations. Materialists usually think they can justify their claims of believing in nothing, they don't assume anything.

Also, most of the atheists (those who go the extra step beyond murky agnosticism) will never tell you they can prove there is no God/afterlife/etc. Hell, the world's most outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins) doesn't call himself a "100% atheist"...someone who can say "I know there is no God". It's just extremely improbable.

Now, apply this to the afterlife, or anything. We have probable hypotheses, or improbable ones (most of religion's ideas of the afterlife) but all they ask for is evidence before they believe.

It's not assuming anything, and it's not tacitly stating that there definitely isn't any afterlife. It's only believing what there can be credible evidence for, while searching for the empirical answers that you accuse them of not being able to find. Big difference.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm getting tired of the generalizations. Materialists usually think they can justify their claims of believing in nothing, they don't assume anything.

Also, most of the atheists (those who go the extra step beyond murky agnosticism) will never tell you they can prove there is no God/afterlife/etc. Hell, the world's most outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins) doesn't call himself a "100% atheist"...someone who can say "I [b]know there is no God". It's just extremely improbable.

Now, apply this to the afterlife, or anything. We have probable hypotheses, or improbable ones (most of religion's ideas of the afterlife) but all they ask for is evidence before they believe.

It's not assuming anything, and it's not tacitly stating that there definitely isn't any afterlife. It's only believing what there can be credible evidence for, while searching for the empirical answers that you accuse them of not being able to find. Big difference. [/B]

Atheists still make the assumption that there is no afterlife, based on what they experience.

It's their personal conclusion. I think you got offended by the term "assumption", and I meant no offense by it.

I didn't say they are wrong for that, nor do I ask any Atheist or Materialist to prove it. I just don't beleive the same thing.

Materialism doesn't make sense to me, and I explained why. I don't expect you to think the same way.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Atheists still make the assumption that there is no afterlife, based on what they experience.

It's their personal conclusion. I think you got offended by the term "assumption", and I meant no offense by it.

I didn't say they are wrong for that, nor do I ask any Atheist or Materialist to prove it. I just don't beleive the same thing.

Materialism doesn't make sense to me, and I explained why. I don't expect you to think the same way.

Fair enough, none taken. I just still think it's the wrong word to use, because treating something as a probable hypothesis (in this case, no afterlife) is a lot different than assuming no afterlife based on lack of evidence. Because we can't prove no afterlife doesn't mean the opposite should be assumed. On the contrary, the burden of proof would be elsewhere than the materialists because they work with what we can know.

To use my personal example, I'm "open" to the idea of an afterlife, I would just need to see a valid reason to put aside my disbelief. Dr. Ian Stephenson's research on reincarnation has actually come the closest, and I hold it as a definite possibility (though still not terribly likely). But that's the kind of thing I'm talking about that is needed before belief should be established.

As for materialism, I think most materialists definition of their beliefs would simply be close to a definition of determinism or causality. Anything that might be considerred paranormal or outside causality wouldn't be included. So you probably aren't too at odds with materialists (though I can't say for certain...they're even more rare than atheists).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough, none taken. I just still think it's the wrong word to use, because treating something as a probable hypothesis (in this case, no afterlife) is a lot different than assuming no afterlife based on lack of evidence. Because we can't prove no afterlife doesn't mean the opposite should be assumed. On the contrary, the burden of proof would be elsewhere than the materialists because they work with what we can know.

To use my personal example, I'm "open" to the idea of an afterlife, I would just need to see a valid reason to put aside my disbelief. Dr. Ian Stephenson's research on reincarnation has actually come the closest, and I hold it as a definite possibility (though still not terribly likely). But that's the kind of thing I'm talking about that is needed before belief should be established.

As for materialism, I think most materialists definition of their beliefs would simply be close to a definition of determinism or causality. Anything that might be considerred paranormal or outside causality wouldn't be included. So you probably aren't too at odds with materialists (though I can't say for certain...they're even more rare than atheists).

To me, Agnosticism makes the most sense, because in all honesty, no one can truly know what happens after death, and to claim such a thing is ludacris. On both sides.

If Reincarnation is true, then how come I don't remember my past lives ? Will I remember this one ?

I reject the ideas of Heaven and Hell, I have already explained why.

Wiccans have a beautiful mythos about Earth as well, but it doesn't do much to explain afterlife. I think they also beleive in reincarnation of some form.

My personal beleif:

All Life Is One. Our lives and identities now are temporary, and only last in memory.

We are made of the same atoms, same structures, same designs, we just feel we are separate because we have separate conciousness. Both our bodies may have been used by the same people or animals in the past, the atoms and energy we consist of will be used/occupied in the future by other living and non-living things.

Life is far more complicated than we can imagine. Plants are alive, but are they concious ? Bacteria are also alive.

Before we existed, the Earth and Sun were just masses of gas. Imagine all that matter and energy going into a series of life cycles. Dinosaurs existed before we did, and perhaps many other animals will exist after us.

I do not beleive in a moral afterlife. Animals die too, where do they go? I beleive that when I die, my body and last remnants of energy will go into creating other life. Other people, other animals, other plants. Those lifeforms will exist using the atoms I used to exist once. Through them, I will exist.

Thus, no memory of this life now.

This pretty much forces me to respect all other life, but you know what ? I'm okay with that 😉

This is where most atheists would technically be "Tooth Fairy Agnostics". We can't disprove God (just as he can't be proven either). Atheist doesn't mean we can prove his absence. But it's so logically improbable as to be on the same level as Stana Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Thus the moniker.

Also, agnostic can mean many things, including "I believe in a deity but not those of religions".

So yes, technically maybe Tooth Fairy Agnostic is better for me and others, but "atheist" gets the point across better.

...

As for your questions about reincarnation, those are some of the issues it has to grapple with to be accepted, and also part of the reason I don't fully believe in it (among other reasons). But I can't rationally sweep away the evidence of Dr. Stephenson's findings, so I remain neutral to it for the time being, considering it a possibility but not a "belief".

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is where most atheists would technically be "Tooth Fairy Agnostics". We can't disprove God (just as he can't be proven either). Atheist doesn't mean we can prove his absence. But it's so logically improbable as to be on the same level as Stana Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Thus the moniker.

Also, agnostic can mean many things, including "I believe in a deity but not those of religions".

So yes, technically maybe Tooth Fairy Agnostic is better for me and others, but "atheist" gets the point across better.

...

As for your questions about reincarnation, those are some of the issues it has to grapple with to be accepted, and also part of the reason I don't fully believe in it (among other reasons). But I can't rationally sweep away the evidence of Dr. Stephenson's findings, so I remain neutral to it for the time being, considering it a possibility but not a "belief".

I don't beleive in a literal afterlife. I just don't beleive "nothing happens" either. That's not possible, things are always happening with or without our notice.

I beleive in a cycle of life, sort of. After one's demise, he or she does not come back as another human being, but rather as many living or non living things. My atoms, for example, will go on to create new plants, other living animals, even other people. Through them I continue.

"I" is an illusion. The "self" is temporary, atleast as far as I beleive. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate myself. I see myself as more precious, if I am temporary. Everything is more precious when temporary.

I know it's confusing, but that's how I kinda piece it together.

In reality, though, nothing is forever. All states are temporary.

The Earth will not last forever. Neither will the sun. They, will both, one day be gone. But not in a end-all-be-all kind of sense.

They will exist in other forms. The matter and energy they consist of cannot be destroyed, so they will not truly be destroyed, only change.

That's how I see life. That's how I see us.

We change, and life and death are just small processes of that eternal cycle of change.

Just ask yourself....if the planet and sun will not last forever, than what makes us think that we will ?

Question: If you have a generator that is producing energy and then it runs out of gas what happens to the energy that it was producing?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Question: If you have a generator that is producing energy and then it runs out of gas what happens to the energy that it was producing?