What do you think happens after death?

[farmerbarleymow]

You say there is no purpose and then immediately assert that the purpose is to live a decent life.

It is two different things - there is no 'purpose' in life, in that there is no underlying reason why we are here, as we're just the result of natural forces. It's not contradictory to say that people should try to live a decent life, etc., as that's just behaving like a decent human being. In other words life doesn't have to have a purpose for you to act like a decent human being.

 

[NoXion]

Life, the universe and everything have no purposes beyond the ones that we choose them to have.

It is the ultimate freedom, and yet it seems that some people find such unbounded cosmic liberty to be so intimidating, that they end up inventing some heavenly tyrant or celestial bureaucracy as being in charge of it all.

 

[Carl Steele]

Having observed actions and results, it appears to be the case that acting like a cunt is likely the whole point of the game.

The Gnostics turn the genesis myth on its head and claim the God of the Old Testament was an evil demiurge who indeed created the universe in his own image. It's the creation story which best fits what we have, and what we are - not saying it is literally true, but it's interesting how this didn't manage to become the dominant story because the loving God idea doesn't fit anybody's day to day experience.

I cannot be 'so sure' and never reached that conclusion with any need for certainty. But it's the explanation that best fits my balance of probabilities. I can't remain 'open' to religious notions because that's just social control, and I'm not that open to 'existence' - with or without purpose - because that seems based in some sort of fear of pointlessness and nothingness and an ego desire to never die. Which is understandable. But I think it clouds the judgement.

The only point I'd make, because it runs through this entire conversation, is that "religious notions" are not the only way to think about existence beyond death. Religion sets up a dichotomy - believe in the faith or believe nothing. Many choose nothing, because the alternative is so oppressive. But maybe we don't have to make this choice.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The Gnostics turn the genesis myth on its head and claim the God of the Old Testament was an evil demiurge who indeed created the universe in his own image. It's the creation story which best fits what we have, and what we are - not saying it is literally true, but it's interesting how this didn't manage to become the dominant story because the loving God idea doesn't fit anybody's day to day experience.


The only point I'd make, because it runs through this entire conversation, is that "religious notions" are not the only way to think about existence beyond death. Religion sets up a dichotomy - believe in the faith or believe nothing. Many choose nothing, because the alternative is so oppressive. But maybe we don't have to make this choice.

You don't have to make the choice. You can ignore the whole subject area. But if you aren't going down the religious path yet still cling to any idea of survival of human consciousness after death you need to explain what is so bleeding special about humans. Or does all life go on living indefinitely?

Incidentally, a friend's uncle apparently thought that even inanimate objects had souls. Bonkers innit? Why is it any more or less bonkers than animate creatures having souls?

 

[NoXion]

The Gnostics turn the genesis myth on its head and claim the God of the Old Testament was an evil demiurge who indeed created the universe in his own image. It's the creation story which best fits what we have, and what we are - not saying it is literally true, but it's interesting how this didn't manage to become the dominant story because the loving God idea doesn't fit anybody's day to day experience.


The only point I'd make, because it runs through this entire conversation, is that "religious notions" are not the only way to think about existence beyond death. Religion sets up a dichotomy - believe in the faith or believe nothing. Many choose nothing, because the alternative is so oppressive. But maybe we don't have to make this choice.

If I'm gonna take any notion of life after death seriously, then it should have some damn solid evidence backing it up. Such things are way too important to take purely on faith.

 

[DotCommunist]

it's interesting how this didn't manage to become the dominant story because the loving God idea doesn't fit anybody's day to day experience.

there was a crusade against it. Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia.

 

[nogojones]

If you think we all to turn to ash and nothing when we die - explain to me how I can summon the undead or unborn?
I don't want to. They are not always good experiences. But I can. I can name them.

edit... Balls. Serge Forward got there first. I really must remember to read the whole thread first if I've had a couple of days off.

But ... this is the reincarnation of Serge's post

 

[nogojones]

After all, Science can't yet even explain how birds are able to migrate thousands of miles and return to the same spot. Small birds like our Robin can do this.

How do you know it's the same robin?

 

[prunus]

How do you know it's the same robin?

All robins are one. What we perceive as individual birds are just the projections into our dimensions of a pan-dimensional ur-robin which watches over us and guides us to our next incarnation.

Unfortunately as this being has an intrinsic bias towards us all coming back as worms its guidance tends towards the “behave like a cunt” variety. Hence the pain of humanity. If we could just break free from our red-breasted enablers we could all be good and happy people.

So remember - anytime you do anything of which you are ashamed - it’s not your fault, it’s the robin.

They never tell you any of this in the MSM - wake up sheeple!

 

[Clair De Lune]

I wonder how much of a shift in thinking has occurred around how long our counsciousness survives after we're declared dead, since medical advances have enabled multiple new means of resuscitation. When then, are we truly dead? Is it when a certain length of time has passed or when our current medical means of resuscitating someone is exhausted?

I worked in a residential home for the elderly when I was a teenager and I befriended and spoke to many of the residents whilst there. A few died during that time and I noticed a significant shift in their beliefs, understanding and reported experiences in the lead up to their deaths. One man in particular who had been a hermit, atheist, alcoholic before being admitted reported that he had seen his (deceased) sister in his room days before he died. This brought him great comfort. It also completely changed his long held beliefs about an afterlife.
I guess these early experiences of being around the dying have impacted how I view death and the idea of an afterlife. (extended consciousness after we are declared dead)
They've not made me certain or have complete faith* by any means. Quite the opposite. They have ensured curiosity, openess and acceptance of what I/we don't yet know or understand. I personally can't fathom how we can discount so firmly and with such certainty, that which we've yet to experience. It seems such an arrogant position to take.

*it's so hard to find the right language to express oneself without reverting to religious terminology such as faith and soul which I think muddies the waters massively.

Lots of people say that we need to be able to observe and measure something in order to believe it. But does it always have to be measured in a quantitative manner? Do qualitative methods of research not count? Such as the observations of the dying, such as interviews from people who have been 'brought back to life' and speak of their experiences in the interim? To me, it would be foolhardy to ignore those who have experienced something we have not.

I'm intrigued by studies such as Aware and now Aware II -https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/life-after-life-does-consciousness-continue-after-our-brain-dies

 

[nogojones]

Everybody who knew you will be sad for a while and your mates get all their records and stuff back.

I'm getting buried with all the lighters I've stolen

 

[krtek a houby]

After all, Science can't yet even explain how birds are able to migrate thousands of miles and return to the same spot. Small birds like our Robin can do this.

Brave small Robin

 

[Carl Steele]

Lots of people say that we need to be able to observe and measure something in order to believe it. But does it always have to be measured in a quantitative manner? Do qualitative methods of research not count? Such as the observations of the dying, such as interviews from people who have been 'brought back to life' and speak of their experiences in the interim? To me, it would be foolhardy to ignore those who have experienced something we have not.

I remember during the time of the atheists vs believer debates Richard Dawkins was asked what he would accept as evidence for the existence of a deity. He said if God rearranged the stars to spell out "I am here" he'd believe. Later he admitted that if he saw the stars being rearranged he'd assume he was suffering a breakdown and seek help. So in reality there is no evidence that could convince Dawkins, or even give him a moment of self-doubt.

 

[platinumsage]

I remember during the time of the atheists vs believer debates Richard Dawkins was asked what he would accept as evidence for the existence of a deity. He said if God rearranged the stars to spell out "I am here" he'd believe. Later he admitted that if he saw the stars being rearranged he'd assume he was suffering a breakdown and seek help. So in reality there is no evidence that could convince Dawkins, or even give him a moment of self-doubt.

 

[8ball]

I remember during the time of the atheists vs believer debates Richard Dawkins was asked what he would accept as evidence for the existence of a deity. He said if God rearranged the stars to spell out "I am here" he'd believe. Later he admitted that if he saw the stars being rearranged he'd assume he was suffering a breakdown and seek help. So in reality there is no evidence that could convince Dawkins, or even give him a moment of self-doubt.

With logic like that, would I be correct in guessing you are some stripe of believer?

 

[Badgers]

Given FreeDumb Day a lot more people will find out soon

 

[Carl Steele]

With logic like that, would I be correct in guessing you are some stripe of believer?,

I'm not an atheist and I do find Dawkins just as dogmatic (on the God issue) as those he opposes. I do think there is something beyond the material world, though I don't know what this is.

I've spent a lot of time talking to people about this (everybody from Christians to Buddhists to Peruvian Shamans) and have never met anybody who seemed to know anything. I think people get fragmentary information, experiences etc and rather than just accept the experience they try to fit it into a wider scheme, and lose the sliver of real insight they might have had. I try not to do this. I've had enough experiences to tell me what-you-see-is-not-what-you-get but nothing more than this.

 

[platinumsage]

It would be funny if your afterlife is whatever you believe it to be, so all the atheists don't get one.

 

[RainbowTown]

The beautiful and much missed Laura Nyro perhaps sums it up best for me.

(The song I want played at my funeral, when the time comes).

 

[NoXion]

I remember during the time of the atheists vs believer debates Richard Dawkins was asked what he would accept as evidence for the existence of a deity. He said if God rearranged the stars to spell out "I am here" he'd believe. Later he admitted that if he saw the stars being rearranged he'd assume he was suffering a breakdown and seek help. So in reality there is no evidence that could convince Dawkins, or even give him a moment of self-doubt.

If he alone saw the stars re-arrange themselves, then some kind of visual aberration is a viable explanation.

If all the astronomers see it too, then it would be much harder to dismiss as an illusion or fantasy.

 

[8ball]

It would be funny if your afterlife is whatever you believe it to be, so all the atheists don't get one.

Especially hilarious when you consider the fine time Jimmy Savile is having these days.

 

[Sprocket.]

I was laid in bed last night, reading through this thread and through the open window I could see Jupiter and Saturn shining brightly in the sky. I thought whatever happens to us when we die, it all just carries on, we are insignificant to the Universe. All that matters is we try to be as reasonable a human being as possible. Live as full a life as possible and tell those you love what they mean to you.

 

[Orang Utan]

It would be funny if your afterlife is whatever you believe it to be, so all the atheists don't get one.

there’s a great tv play called The Waiting Room, written by John
Mortimer: two priests, played by Mel
Smith and Griff Rhys Jones meet in a waiting room which turns out to be where you find out, after death, whether you’re going to heaven or hell. Smith’s trendy priest who drinks and fornicates, and indeed died falling of a ledge from where he was hiding from an angry cuckolded husband, feels no guilt and assumes he’s going to heaven. Jones’ priest is the opposite, a hidebound moralising uptight zealot who carries a lot of guilt for trivial transgressions and therefore thinks he’s going to hell.
it of course ends up with them getting just what they expect.

 

[weltweit]

How do you know it's the same robin?

Good post, I like it

However we have been ringing birds feet / legs for many years ..

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I'm not an atheist and I do find Dawkins just as dogmatic (on the God issue) as those he opposes. I do think there is something beyond the material world, though I don't know what this is.

Dawkins can come across as dogmatic, on the God issue, but he's not really. He simply looks at all the supposedly logical arguments for the existence of God, put forwards mainly by Christian theologians and thinkers over the centuries, and then tears apart their arguments. That's just using his intellect. When it comes down to it, all the religious beliefs in the afterlife rely completely on faith, and that's why they vary so wildly. There must be a part of some religious believers which actually finds this a bit unsatisfactory, so they try and come up with logical explanations and reasons. It can't work. Religious beliefs only became mainstream because of faith and compulsion at swordpoint.

You still haven't come up with any convincing reasons why humans are so special. Why should they get eternal life when a dandelion doesn't?

 

[8ball]

Dawkins only goes one God further than any monotheist when it comes to disbelief.

 

[mojo pixy]

You still haven't come up with any convincing reasons why humans are so special. Why should they get eternal life when a dandelion doesn't?

If dandelions want eternal life they can bloody well invent their own gods to get it from

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

If dandelions want eternal life they can bloody well invent their own gods to get it from

Maybe they have. Just because they haven't told you about it....

 

[mojo pixy]

Maybe they have. Just because they have told you about it....

See? It's an easy path to step onto. Many a true word ... as they say... is spoken in jest

...

nah just kidding gawd bless ya

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

See? It's an easy path to step onto. Many a true word ... as they say... is spoken in jest

...

nah just kidding gawd bless ya

There is no gawd.