The Afterlife

[bonder]

This thread was inspired by the Mortality thread. In discussing our mortality and human fears of death, the topic of the afterlife naturally came up. There's a lot to be said on the topic of the afterlife that doesn't necessarily fit in the aforementioned Mortality thread.

Personally, I don't believe in an afterlife, but for the purpose of this discussion, I will take the afterlife as a given and go from there. I ask you to do the same.

Some questions that occur to me about the afterlife:
-Is the afterlife eternal? If not, can we assume there is an after-afterlife?
-In our lives, we age and change. We are not the same person at 60 that we were at 20. In the afterlife, which of our selves are we: young and virile, as we are the moment of death, or do we get a choice? Getting at the heart of the question: what exactly is it in us that survives to the afterlife?
-Is there one place everyone goes or a dichotomy a la Christianity? Could there perhaps be more possible places to go after we die?
-It seems to me unlikely that those in the afterlife can communicate with the living, but can those in the afterlife observe the living?

[VannA]

er.

I'm afraid I can't sit and in good conscious really respond to this :p

Its going to be an 'I don't know' and an 'I can't estimate' for all answers.

[bonder]

Its going to be an 'I don't know' and an 'I can't estimate' for all answers.

Of course we can't know the answers, but I was hoping people would respond with their beliefs/intuitions about an afterlife and ask their own questions that they have. I'll try to get the ball rolling by answering my own questions.

1. afterlife eternal? I think yes, either that or an infinite number of finite afterlives. The whole point of the afterlife is that some part of us survives death, so what's the point if that part eventually dies too?

2. who are we in the afterlife? I say we get a choice. I have a hard time thinking it's worth having part of your self survive exactly as you are the moment you died, think about people with alzheimer's or brain damage.

3. how many destinations? I am inclined to say there's either only one place everyone goes or everyone goes to his or her own separate afterlife. In the case of a heaven and hell dichotomy, it seems to me that if one person is in heaven and he or she has a best friend (soul mate, if you will) in hell, then heaven probably isn't paradise for him or her.

4. can the dead observe the living? I'm going to say no as it would remind you of the differences between yourself and the living, possibly leading to the dead envying the living. On the timescale of eternity, waiting a few years for your friends and family to join you is nothing, plus you get something to talk about since you don't know what's happened since you died.

[TheTankengine]

This probably won't add much to the discussion-for-discussion-purposes, but to be honest, I see absolutely no reason to assume there is anything after life except for decay and the reorganization of the molecules contained within the body to assimilate into the universe.

[ehiunno]

certainly thetankengine has a good point there. I would actually also be interested in knowing who feels we do have an afterlife, or who feels we do not, in addition to the varying opinions on what it might entail.

Also, did anyone see that Dateline or 20/20 or whatever it was that aired on Friday the 13th? It was interesting. There was a segment about a Christian pastor that believed everyone was going to heaven, because hel is actually on earth, not in heaven. He got his idea from a purely rhetorical look at the bible, that every story was only an image for the people of that time to understand, that didn't necessarily have any basis in how it actually happens, or that there is some sort of isomorphism between the stories and reality. He may be right, though it does go against everything I have ever been taught. He did say "look at all the people going through "hell on earth," many of them are Muslem's and non-believers" at which point I kind of lost faith in what he was saying, as though he dismissed the millions of Christians in the holocaust who went through hell.

that was kind of OT, but I dont know. While I do believe in the dichotomy or some form of it, the idea may certainly originate in the moral human's need to feel as though he will be rewarded somewhere were it is more tangible, and the immoral human punished somewhere.

Also, I doubt we would have the ability to look down at either the earth or hell, because it would certainly cause a tremendous amount of suffering in heaven to see your friends in hell or going through a bad time on earth. That wouldn't be allowed. Now, if there was only one afterplane, then it would be more plausible, but still unlikely. Although i do think it would be cool.

[sebbeklang]

I'd like to believe in an afterlife, but until I have convinced myself I will also just assume there is one.
I believe that afterlife would be an eternal dream, or maybe just like one. Like the moment you die you dream and it just seems eternal or something.

I guess I just can't imagine there is nothing after death. Nothingness is hard to imagine.

[iknoritesrsly]

I don't believe that there is any emperical evidence to suggest either way.

The afterlife could be such that there would naturally be no evidence for it on our plane of reality, or, it could not exist at all, and there really doesn't seem to be any way to know based on our reality.

edit: I guess to be more on topic, anything I or anyone else would have to say about it would be purely speculation.

[TheTankengine]

I guess I just can't imagine there is nothing after death. Nothingness is hard to imagine.

Some completely arbitrary and meaningless concept of a place where "good" people go is hard to imagine.

edit: I guess to be more on topic, anything I or anyone else would have to say about it would be purely speculation.

Exactly.

[kcr]

I guess I just can't imagine there is nothing after death. Nothingness is hard to imagine.

Some completely arbitrary and meaningless concept of a place where "good" people go is hard to imagine.

So people can pick which one they'd like to imagine. There isn't evidence or fact for either. It's what people want to believe exists, or does not exist.

Yeah, I think it's eternal at least in a really vague way because when I start to think about "eternal" my brain fries and I freak out. But yes. My idea as to what "version" of yourself is in the afterlife is that it isn't a body, everyone's souls/spirits/whatever are just kind of floating around up there and we're all instantly recognizable to the people we knew on earth. By not being limited to how we were at a specific time, we can interact with the ____things___ of all the different groups of people from life -- parents, childhood friends, older friends, spouses/significant others, children -- without a contradiction or problem. I do believe in heaven and hell but I've always thought that getting into hell isn't easy and that not many people are horrible enough to warrant it. Annd last question yes I think we can observe the living. And not communicate with them per se but by observing, give some kind of *something* to whoever is down there, if we want to.

My own personal thing about the afterlife is that I've always imagined gaining infinite knowledge once I'm there. Everything I couldn't understand during life or all the things about the world's history that are unclear, I'll be able to find out. (Also, there is a wonderful, complete library, and lots of milkshakes. That, I thought of at age eight and it still seems pretty good to me.)

[bonder]

My own personal thing about the afterlife is that I've always imagined gaining infinite knowledge once I'm there. Everything I couldn't understand during life or all the things about the world's history that are unclear, I'll be able to find out. (Also, there is a wonderful, complete library, and lots of milkshakes. That, I thought of at age eight and it still seems pretty good to me.)

If you have infinite knowledge, what good is the library? Won't you already know everything contained within the books? Or do you mean that since you have an infinite amount of time, you would be able to acquire an infinite amount of knowledge from the library? I'm with you on the milkshakes, though.

[iknoritesrsly]

If you have infinite knowledge, what good is the library?

Bunnytrail Alert!

But yeah, that's like saying once you've read a book, what good is there in owning it? Same goes for a movie or a song, etc... I don't reread favorite books now and then because I've forgotten something about them, I reread them because I like the experience of reading them.

But yeah, it would be neat if there was an afterlife in which one either instantly knew everything and or had the time and resources to know everything. That'd be pretty rockin.

[kcr]

My own personal thing about the afterlife is that I've always imagined gaining infinite knowledge once I'm there. Everything I couldn't understand during life or all the things about the world's history that are unclear, I'll be able to find out. (Also, there is a wonderful, complete library, and lots of milkshakes. That, I thought of at age eight and it still seems pretty good to me.)

If you have infinite knowledge, what good is the library? Won't you already know everything contained within the books? Or do you mean that since you have an infinite amount of time, you would be able to acquire an infinite amount of knowledge from the library? I'm with you on the milkshakes, though.

Infinite knowledge, and the library. I know it seems useless, but it's just how I picture it. And also what iknoritesrsly said. I'll be dead but I'll still like to read!

[mosc]

I'm always pleased to inform people that Jews have no set beliefs on the afterlife. Personally, I don't like any of the afterlife solutions proposed by other religions and I'm not even sure one exists. Thankfully though, my religion allows me to not worry about it.

I realize that's a total cop-out but it's one time I enjoy having no comment

[22/7]

Even though *some* people apparently don't have an opinion [cough]Tank![/cough], I'll throw my two cents in.

I do believe in an infinite afterlife, though that could get pretty boring.

I think we get to choose how we look (like ourselves but at what age) and that it is instantaneously and continually variable depending on our whim. It is also the case that everyone you know in this afterlife (assuming you don't know everyone, which might not be true), will know exactly who you are, regardless of what you look like at the time.

I've been raised to believe in the dichotomy (although, I don't know if dichotomy is exactly the right word, unless you're saying they're the same because they're both afterlives). I don't know that I've ever given it enough thought to change that idea. The aforementioned thought that we are currently "in hell" is novel to me, and I suppose I can see why one might believe that. I have to admit that it seems unfair to dismiss what the guy is saying simply because he mentioned the muslims. Apart from the non-believers thing, if you were a Christian and believed that this was indeed hell on earth, bringing up the muslims right now would seem appropriate to me, though one would also need to bring up the christians in Ireland, as well as most everyone living in "the holy land." As for the "christians during the holocaust thing, I thought that the majority of the people killed there were Jews... maybe you're not communicating well or I'm not understanding well...

I would like to think that we can see from the afterlife to our current "reality" (well, a future reality, but you get the idea). I don't know what we'd do with that, but I'd like to think that my old CC coach got to see his daughter get married and his son run CC in college, etc. I don't know that that's how it works, but I'd like to think that's it.

[3.14159265...]

No after life, because of burden of proof.

Afterlife ==> Soul ==> spirtuality ==> faith =/= science.

I wish there was one though.

[mosc]

faith =/= science.

was that really necessary?

[22/7]

No after life, because of burden of proof.

Afterlife ==> Soul ==> spirtuality ==> faith =/= science.

I wish there was one though.

Didn't we already have this argument here?

[3.14159265...]

was that really necessary?

I guess not, I mean facts usually shouldn't be stated.

Didn't we already have this argument here?

No not really, that was about whether there was science in the bible, this is about whether there is an afterlife and what that would mean if there was.


Edit: I don't know why people don't understand this concept behind this.
"I am an agnostic, but I guess I should mention I am also an agnostic to homeric gods."

[mosc]

that's pure flamebait posting IMHO...

[22/7]

that's pure flamebait posting IMHO...

Agreed. But I'm pretty sure we covered the whole faith thing there too. So I'm checking.

Edit: Here is what was said (by 3.14). It's not exactly the same thing, but it runs along the same idea.

Point: Bible is Bull.
True for other religious 'gospels' too.

Anyway, truce on this topic, 3.14159265...?

[Dark Ragnarok]

Some questions that occur to me about the afterlife:
-Is the afterlife eternal? If not, can we assume there is an after-afterlife?
-In our lives, we age and change. We are not the same person at 60 that we were at 20. In the afterlife, which of our selves are we: young and virile, as we are the moment of death, or do we get a choice? Getting at the heart of the question: what exactly is it in us that survives to the afterlife?
-Is there one place everyone goes or a dichotomy a la Christianity? Could there perhaps be more possible places to go after we die?
-It seems to me unlikely that those in the afterlife can communicate with the living, but can those in the afterlife observe the living?

Well I'd think you'd have to determine what kind of dimension the after life is. The Christians say that we have a soul separate from the body that when the body dies the soul goes on into "the afterlife" usually between heaven, hell or purgatory. They also believe in angels which are described more or less as holy souls, but from what i understand in my theology classes, the soul has no physical limitations because it isn't physical.

So, if the soul isn't physical, then it doesn't have a body or some figure we can actually see. In the after life i would look at it as a invisible sentient being that can maneuver through time, space, and even different states of the soul that it went through while in the body.

Have you ever been able to feel the presence of people? Like when you're alone but have the feeling about people around you? I'm sure everyone has been about to feel someone's emotion or state of mind when they're near them. When someone is really angry you can almost feel that vibe. Let's say the soul can be attributed to that ability. In the afterlife that sentient being would be able to communicate virtually through that kind of connection. Since it has no body, it would probably be easy because the entire channel of the connection is not hindered by the body.

I also think that should a soul choose to reside on earth, and if the soul has a strong enough "vibe" it can perceived by people, and that sentient being can also channel his own vision onto people. Not so much by choice, but by being so in fine tune with that person's vibe it's wholly felt and perceived, and the state of soul's body is projected in the human's mind.

As far as the soul goes, it can "live" forever since it has no physical limitations, however, if it can't return to a vessel, the soul can only live in that dimension as long as it exists. Since no one knows about how that dimension's "physics" work, its possible that the soul can't last forever. So at the very least I'll say that if it can't travel between dimensions, it'll only last as long as the universe will, (assuming that only this universe contains this one specific dimension alone).

If there is a soul, then i believe it's the part of the human being that exerts though, and the personality behind that thought. The brain in my opinion takes in information like a computer and processes it, but something is feeding it thoughts. Until we can determine chemical reactions actually start it, the soul would probably be something aided by chemical reactions to function with the brain, and be the actually starting point of thoughts.

I could also say for the body to have a soul, it had to come form somewhere, so it's feasible to believe in reincarnation.

I don't think i can add more then this. I just hope to god, there isn't an afterlife. I don't t like the idea of being eternal. At least not now. And even if being with other people i love, i don't think it encompasses the true beauty of begin with people you love in person when things aren't shitty.

[arbivark]

Let's look for a minute at why there might be a belief in a non-existent afterlife. The study of how ideas propagate is memetics. An idea, meme,
propagates somewhat in proportion to its utility. generally, useful ideas are true ones - false ideas tend to be a lot less useful than true ones.
however, some false, or non-verifiable, memes have enough utility that they are able to continue replicating. see "truthiness".
What's the social function of an unverifiable belief in an afterlife?
Often, as in the "be good go to heaven" meme to the "be good be reborn in india" meme, the meme functions as an attempt to influence the behavior pattern of the (gullible). In this sense it is a vaiation of the santa clause meme "be good and a fat guy in a red suit suit will bing you presents."

Cultures which figure out a way to con most of the people into being good most of the time, can outcompete cultures with fewer restraints on anti-social behavior. this has to do with nash equilibriums.

So we tend to come from cultures which had unverifiable beliefs in an afterlife, as a mechanism of social control.
Science is an alternative way of selecting which set of memes one will buy into. The scientific world view tends to reject or downplay unverifiable propositions. This can bring up angst and existential worries, as people outgrow the superstitions of the culures they came from, without yet having some new susperstition to replace it.

That's the general idea. For more, see dawkins, or any good book on scams and grifters.

[3.14159265...]

that's pure flamebait posting IMHO...

Agreed. But I'm pretty sure we covered the whole faith thing there too. So I'm checking.

Edit: Here is what was said (by 3.14). It's not exactly the same thing, but it runs along the same idea.

Point: Bible is Bull.
True for other religious 'gospels' too.

Anyway, truce on this topic, 3.14159265...?

Its not the same thing. I realized that argument was about people defending the bible, and not objective so I stopped.

[sebbeklang]

No after life, because of burden of proof.

Afterlife ==> Soul ==> spirtuality ==> faith =/= science.

I wish there was one though.

this thread isn't about discussing whether or not there is an afterlife.

I guess I just can't imagine there is nothing after death. Nothingness is hard to imagine.

Some completely arbitrary and meaningless concept of a place where "good" people go is hard to imagine.

actually, i'd say it's pretty easy to imagine. which, i guess, is why a lot of people do so

[22/7]

Its not the same thing. I realized that argument was about people defending the bible, and not objective so I stopped.

*sigh* I guess that's a no.

Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and call shenanigans here. From the top.

er.

I'm afraid I can't sit and in good conscious really respond to this :p

Its going to be an 'I don't know' and an 'I can't estimate' for all answers.

You can't "in good conscience" respond? No one's asking you to kill a kitten (God bless you Stephen Lynch). You can certainly in good conscience say what you think something whose existence cannot be proven *might* be like.

This probably won't add much to the discussion-for-discussion-purposes, but to be honest, I see absolutely no reason to assume there is anything after life except for decay and the reorganization of the molecules contained within the body to assimilate into the universe.

For the purposes of discussion... in a forum.

edit: I guess to be more on topic, anything I or anyone else would have to say about it would be purely speculation.

That is the idea, yes.

Some completely arbitrary and meaningless concept of a place where "good" people go is hard to imagine.

Meaningless to you, maybe. Meaningless to the people who believe in it? Absolutely not. Meaningless to the other people on this forum who might be curious about one's opinion? Maybe not.

No after life, because of burden of proof.
Afterlife ==> Soul ==> spirtuality ==> faith =/= science.
I wish there was one though.

OT!!!

I guess not, I mean facts usually shouldn't be stated.

Facts most certainly should be stated. And that, my friend, was an opinion, not a fact. Unless you're saying you've died already and see that there is no afterlife?

(stuff, stuff, stuff ending with)That's the general idea. For more, see dawkins, or any good book on scams and grifters.

Also ridiculously OT. And flamebait to boot.

Its not the same thing. I realized that argument was about people defending the bible, and not objective so I stopped.

Yeah, objective is what it wasn't. Are you saying that there is no afterlife for the same reason? Because we haven't found it yet?

The few posts that have been about whether or not the afterlife exists have been totally OT and belong in a different thread altogether. If you disagree, maybe you should reread the OP. Regardless of whether or not you want to be ridiculously condescending to a huge population of the world (those that embrace an afterlife, making up a sizeable portion of those who embrace religion), this is not really the soap box for it. Since the OP asks us to start with the *assumption* that an afterlife exists, can we not threadjack this into whether or not it exists and just talk about what it would be like? The *exact* same thing happened in the "Science in the Bible" thread where certain people started arguing the merit of the Bible itself, rather than whether or not it contained any legitimate science. If you're too hung up on its existence (or lack thereof) to come up with such a conception, maybe say that?

Back to topic... I was kind of curious if we have any non-christians who would put their two cents in (even if it's an, "I have no idea").

[mosc]

I did voice my opinions but then I left when I was told my religion is incompatible with rational thought.

[TheTankengine]

This probably won't add much to the discussion-for-discussion-purposes, but to be honest, I see absolutely no reason to assume there is anything after life except for decay and the reorganization of the molecules contained within the body to assimilate into the universe.

For the purposes of discussion... in a forum.

Perhaps you missed something in that statement.

Some completely arbitrary and meaningless concept of a place where "good" people go is hard to imagine.

Meaningless to you, maybe. Meaningless to the people who believe in it? Absolutely not. Meaningless to the other people on this forum who might be curious about one's opinion? Maybe not.

There is no logic in this argument. No one here can present evidence towards one persuasion or another. All statements in this thread are personal opinion.

Clear?

[3.14159265...]

No after life, because of burden of proof.
Afterlife ==> Soul ==> spirtuality ==> faith =/= science.
I wish there was one though.

was that really necessary?

I guess not, I mean facts usually shouldn't be stated.

Facts most certainly should be stated. And that, my friend, was an opinion, not a fact. Unless you're saying you've died already and see that there is no afterlife?

You are trying to tell me that Faith=/= Science is an opinion?

[bonder]

Back to topic... I was kind of curious if we have any non-christians who would put their two cents in (even if it's an, "I have no idea").

Though I was raised Catholic, I suppose the best label(s) that fits me would be a naturalist and a strong atheist. As I mentioned in the OP, I personally don't believe in an afterlife; however, that doesn't stop me from speculating.

No after life, because of burden of proof.

Afterlife ==> Soul ==> spirtuality ==> faith =/= science.

I wish there was one though.

This is OT because as 22/7 said, in the OP, I asked you to assume that an afterlife exists. I will be the first to agree with you that the afterlife falls in the realm of faith and that "faith =/= science" but all that means is that you can't use science (in any way with which I'm familiar) to test the afterlife, but that doesn't mean you can't apply logic starting with an assumption that an afterlife exists. You admit you wish there was an afterlife, this is a great start. Now, create a hypothetical afterlife according to your design. What is it you think should be in this afterlife and why?