I've been thinking about this a lot recently, because I used to just assume that I am a carbon-based life form that will eventually expire and turn into a big pile of decaying matter. I always thought that people who believed in an afterlife are just afraid of their own end. Now I'm not so positive anymore. I don't think that our spirit will rise up to heaven or hell or some bullshit like that, but I can't shake the feeling that there's something else to us that I'm missing.

Feel free to bash me for my stupid beliefs, this topic was made on a whim and I don't expect too much support.

THIS BOARD BURSTS FORTH WITH ACTIVITY

Honestly, I haven't a clue, but I'm one of those people that believes in God and I think that when we die we become one with him. None of that floating around with harps and shit. We just become everlasting peace and love.

Wow, that really sounds hippy-ish doesn't it?

Reincarnation. I really do get the feeling that i've known people before. I also believe in the whole "You have an old soul" type thing. I think thats why some people are very wise, even when they're really young.

I personally think something similar to reincarnation happens.

First off, let me say this, I believe that each living thing has more than one "soul" and each of them work together/against each other to produce personality if applicable for that lifeform.

When the creature dies, all of the souls go in a queue somewhere, maybe for 10 minutes, maybe for the duration of 3 universes, who knows? Anyway, after that, the souls are randomly grouped together again.

Your conciousness ends. You don't realize it.

The end.

I have no idea.

I like to think there's something more. But I don't know if I do.

Why believe in spirits if you don't believe in the rest of the mythos?

So, BlackCobra's wording is kind of interesting. What's more important, our identity or our ability to perceive our identity? Our consciousness isn't who we are, but it is the sensory reflection of ourselves. It's not very four-dimensional, now, is it.

Whatver happens, I dont think you "realize" it. Even through reincarnation, no one would really "realize" they're being reborn, or remember details of their past lives.

I dunno. I just refuse to believe that its over just like that, like a light switch turning on and off.

I believe there is some form of Heaven, Purgatory and Hell after death, and that the way I live my life on Earth will determine where I'll spend eternity. It kind of scares me, because I know I'm not living a life that God would smile at. I ask for forgiveness at night before I fall asleep.

Sometimes though, I start thinking about planets and life on other planets. Do they have the same God? Is there a God per planet? Does God have a God? Science really throws me off.

Also I wonder, what if there is no God and the time we have on Earth is all we get. If that was the case, I'd want to live it up, do everything awesome and forbidden by the Catholic religion without guilt. I'd take out a huge loan, spend it and have the time of my life, then end my life without consequence. Unfortunately I feel in my heart that there is a God, and most decisions that I make reflect that belief.


I also worry about other people who don't believe in God or believe in other Gods. Will their Gods have mercy on me for not believing if my God doesn't exist. Will my God have mercy on them? I worry when I shun other religion because what if they are The Religion? Religion scares me. Its soo.. i don't know. I just get really worked up and worried I don't know what to believe to guarantee me an enjoyable afterlife.

You shit and piss yourself, you existence as a concious thinking being is over and you start to decompose. There is no real hard evidence pointing to an afterlife or reincarnation so it is safe to assume it isnt or anything else beyond that for that matter, of course most people are to egotistical to accept that.

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. Just because no one can prove that something happens doesnt mean that nothing happens.

I also have my opinion on what happens because of my actual experiences in life; meeting someone who i feel i've met before, deja vu... for me, i wouldnt say it has anything to do with ego.

burden of proof is on your hands in this matter then

I concede this but retort with Occam's razor; where there is no evidence to the existence of a supernatural phenomenon, why invent it?

Ockham postulated was that the only necessary entity was God.

This is interesting... I dont really feel that im inventing a supernatural phenomenon.. it just seems to me, with the things that have happened to me, like thats what happens. So i guess i cant really "prove" it to you guys.

But hey, Im not here to convince you guys one way or the other. That'd be fuckin' impossible.

The way I see it is...

There isn't any proof of any 'heaven/hell' or an afterlife, but there isn't any way to know that it's not there either. So there's only one way to find out.
But personally, I lean more towards nothing happening.

The rationale behind his argument stands perfectly on its own. I figured people would realize I wasn't literally calling for people to adopt the mindset of 14th century monks but hey, what do I know


This is interesting... I dont really feel that im inventing a supernatural phenomenon.. it just seems to me, with the things that have happened to me, like thats what happens. So i guess i cant really "prove" it to you guys.
"(something invovling an afterlife or reincarnation) happens after you die" is supernatural because we have no evidence of any natural phenomenon occuring to dead bodies except decomposition. Merely postulating that something could happen is perfectly reasonable, however. It's the people who take it to the next step - something DOES happen - that will eternally fail to meet the burden of proof.

We'll all find out eventually.

Their consciousness no longer exists, just like it didn't exist before they were born.

Really? Because here I thought the rationale behind his argument was rooted in the context of a 14th century Western view of nature as fundamentally simple, as opposed to our modern views of simplicity as useful in a practical context, but not necessarily closer to reality.

I agree that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity' is a valid counter-point to 'absence of proof is not proof of absence,' but feel that they negate each other, adding nothing to the debate at hand.

I have two theories that I jump between;

BC's logical idea is what I believe most of the time, but sometimes I wonder if there is some sort of a reincarnation. As in you are reborn, but have no recolection of your previous life, you are just given another chance at existing.

I believe it negates the entire debate, rendering it moot. If we gain no testable hypothesis from positing the supernatural/unproven, then it is useless (at least from a scientific/inquisitive point of view) to do so as any posited entity/event would be as likely as an infinite number of other such entities/events.

I think even discussing 'proofs' in subjects like these is stupid but this is the internet but I still had to say it. No one really knows and the burden of proof doesnt lie on anyone because theres no proof to be made. Itd be really nice if for once these topics didnt deteriorate into arguments and stayed discussions.

As far as I think, anything is possible but lately I've been having these odd feelings of separation of my mind from my body, just when doing regular things (not during meditation or any of that). It's like I'm this awareness that is only somewhat attached to my body and it's just observing these phenomena that aren't even real in any objective sense and nothing even matters and all I can do is just watch and occasionally tell myself to head in this or that directon. This is really pointless so I'll stop here.

The one thing I wanted to insert into this thread was that there seems to be a dichotomy among people that goes something like either we die forever after this life, or we live forever happily or unhappily ever after. I think it's quite possible for this awareness to survive the death of the body but die permanently later for some reason or another, leave no trace whatsoever, and not be reborn. I mean why not?

And I try not to use any of these thoughts as a cop out to keep myself from facing my own, possibly permanent death and so always keep the idea open as a possibility, even as the most likely one. Though I always tend to drift towards the reincarnation side, for the same reasons as Aenima posted. Except mine are more like flashbacks of events I've never experienced before (definitely not drug related). Like once I was just sitting on my computer and I had this 'memory' of dying and going throught his universal river as this formless entity and then it just zoomed out on a scene with this giant god walking through some sort of canyon. It was all so fluid, vivid, and.. organic looking, that I couldn't get it out of my head, just thought I'd mention it.

I've actually been thinking of ways to try and face my own death without dying so I can get this burden off my chest and not have to worry about it for the rest of my life. I mean we all can say that 'yeah i'm ready to go anytime' but let's face it, when it comes down to it, we'll all be shitting our pants. I'm not really talking about putting myself in dangerous situations here so don't worry and be like OMG NICKOLAY DONT JUMP IN FRONT OF A TRAIN AND THEN JUMP OUT OF THE WAY AT THE LAST SECOND cause I'm not going to do that, I just want to find a way to induce the psychological state of death and get through it somehow. I've been reading some books and they all point to meditation but I think I'll start with salvia cause meditation takes time to get good at and I could never do it consistently, and salvia seems like a sure thing. The great thing about salvia is that (for me at least) it actually seems like everything is really happening and you're not aware of the events as being mere hallucinations until afterwards which makes for a perfect medium for an experiment like this one.

salvia would probably be a good tool, I've experienced what I think of as death on salvia

@ what happens after physical death
perhaps the ego lives on, if only as a part of a universal fabric of consciousness... i personally think that there is an emotional/mental connection between all things and that after you die the matter in your body and the energy of your "spirit" or soul or mind or whatever re-enters the life cycle. not reincarnation, but definitely a cycle of sorts.

Can't say it any better than that.

Discussions on death only degenerate further. At least a debate can give you a conclusive response you can choose either to believe or reject; what good is learning there's 1,244,535 other possibilities out there believed by as many idiots?

As I've stated before, positing that something could happen is perfectly reasonable, so don't think I'm trying to insult *you*. I just want to know what purpose a "discussion" on this would serve that a debate couldn't.

Because debates are still people posting their opinions but in an inflamed and arrogant manner. Everybody still rejects the other guy's view cause let's face it, not a single debate that involved a religious topic or a topic about the afterlife or whatever ever convinced anyone.

And when did I say that the only reason that we die is because we accept it?

I don't. I still don't really see the point of that in any situation. Why shouldn't they be multiplied beyond "necessity"? Who's to say when they are? Maybe the ideas of reincarnation or the afterlife, etc, were around before the idea of death being the end, even, and that's what's trying to complicate matters.

Well, no, I guess I agree that it can be seen as a valid counter-point, I just don't see the point in the whole razor jive to begin with.



And, as with the little atheist discussion thing before, I just don't see the point in thinking that nothing happens. I don't see how it's in any way more logical, I just think it's pessimistic. I'm not saying that I think something happens, I'm just saying that I don't think nothing happens any more than that.

Two reasons it's not pessimistic:

1. It's stimulating to view the world in rational and scientific ways.

2. Eternal existence is a far more depressing and sadistic concept than the finite.

About the logical:

Going to back to pessimism, how pessimistic do you haveto be in human capability to treat consciousness as some great mysterious force that can't ever be explained. The truth is that we understand the human mind and life in general to a far greater extent than most people are willing to acknowledge.

About atheism:

Vilification has always been the most common way for people to deal with atheists. Everyone can just pretend that anyone with different views are motivated by evil and not have to deal with ever questioning their views.

I'm not saying that I believe in spirits, even, I'm just saying it seems so anti-climactic that one minute you're a living being with hopes, dreams, fears and emotions, and the next minute you're decomposing matter. I know it's egotistical to think we're more than that...maybe I can't help it? Then again, the human race has always had a soft spot in our hearts and our skulls for the idea that there's something benevolent watching over us, that we're here for a reason, yadda yadda. It seems like a reaction out of fear of death than anything with substantial reasoning behind it...but hey, even false hope is hope, right? If you die and nothing happens to you, you essentially wasted a few hours every Sunday. But they weren't wasted if you were earnestly trying to better yourself.

And holy crapshit I had no idea this topic would have so many replies.

So what do you propose, exactly? A happy-go-lucky circle-jerks a la A.A. where we all go "Hi my name is XXX and I believe YYYY"? Not only does that not convince anyone, it doesn't even convince *yourself*.





Family Guy reference.

That's not what complicating unecessarily means. It's the opposite. Reducing death to it's natural components is in fact the simplest way to express it. Whether the idea came before or after another is entirely irrelevant.


It's more logical than positing the implausible,that's all. It's not more logical, period.

Making this topic here was probably a mistake, because some people can't just read another person's idea and then put forth their own, with no questioning or disproving. I didn't make this to be an "I'm right and you're wrong" topic, because that, in and of itself, will always be a completely retarded idea. None of us have changed anyone's opinions about anything, and for good reason. I just wanted to know what you think about the idea, not why you think I'm being ignorant and you're logical.

This isn't about logic, this is about a belief structure we all hold in our own heads. The only way to disprove someone's belief structure is with solid, undeniable facts, and even then it's still a toss up if they change their minds anyway.

So why are we trying to convince people that their views are childish? We all live in the same world and we all experience it differently, that's the point of this topic. There is no right or wrong, none of us really know shit. End of story.

I have not called anyone's ideas childish or even wrong, unless there were facts proving them wrong.

We all have ideas and that's fine. If you come to my face saying you believe 2+2 equals 5 you can be pretty damned sure I'm going to set your clock straight - intellectual dishonesty will only harm you in the long run.

Both of those are wrong to me>_>



Really? It seems to me like we have no idea about any of that crap, but pretend to all the time.


I'm not trying to say they're evil. I'm trying to say that the people who condemn religion religiously are worse than the religious. The whole atheism "debate" in that one topic, though, taught me that I was operating under a misconception as to what atheism is, and that not all of them are the people like that.


Even if it's simpler, why does that mean it's better?

And is it more logical than positing the implausible? Is it even implausible? I think that's too subjective.


See, that's what I think.

Occam's razor does not make a judgement of whether a proposition is superior; merely that until further evidence to the more complicated one arises, one should stick with the simplest explanation as it is the most likely to be accurate. This is due to the fact, as I've stated, that without evidence this infinite number of implausible theories are all equally likely.

If we were to discover evidence to the existence of souls, then this model of "You die. You rot" would be thrown out the window, because the possibility of a soul continuing to exist would no longer be implausible.

These two were related. When you called it pessimistic, you were (perhaps unknowingly) taking a shot at atheists as having negative motives. I just wanted to point out that it can be fairly subjective, and we consider our views to be positive.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone, and I never said I was convinced of these ideas myself, they're just the explanations I lean towards.


But statistically speaking, if there is an infinite amount of other 'implausible' (a word that can easily be rid of with the addition of some new facts previously unknown, of which I'm sure there are plenty) situations, it makes the plausible situation pretty damn unlikely considering it's chance of being true is slightly greater than 1 out of infinity.

Let's not use infinity as a number, kay.

Occam's razor has never done anything but corroborate the current 'knowledge' of the West since it was posed.It's pretty much common sense if you think about it: The explanation of a phenomenon most rooted in current beliefs about the world is the most believable. That's all it says, and though it's useful in keeping people of an era on the same page, it doesn't exactly justify anything except the status quo.

On this I must agree. It will never tend in favor of the newest explanation until the evidence supporting it clearly outweights the uncertainty, which is a crippling factor in a sense.

Your brain stops functioning, and you go into a sleep-like phase known as your brain not working AKA death. It won't be bad, since you won't know what's happening.

EDIT: I've never understood this "spirit" stuff. I mean, I don't see how you "feel" your spirit. It's pretty much your brain functioning, or at least that's what I THINK people think their spirit is.

What is "conciousness"?



You didn't know I existed before I posted here, so you wouldn't know of my status before I was born. I don't remember when I was born, so does that mean I wasn't born? How do I know? Because other people can tell me and show me pictures? Then "knowledge" is just a bunch of people looking at something that exists and agreeing on its properties.

Anyways, Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the spirit, and that has influenced me when I say I do not either. However, I do not believe death is the end. What happens to it all 1 trillion years from now? Square that number. Raise it to the trillionth power a trillion times. I will have no feeling of the passing of time between a googleplex of years, but in this universe of supposed infinity, I WILL live again in some form. Even if there is no God. I may not have memory of who I will be, or what I will be, but this innate feeling...the feeling of having a "soul" will never die. We could have lived 1 billion lives before this, and still not know it. Therefore, infinite life is not torture, as some put it.

This is what I believe. BC...I knew you would come here reeking of your atheism, but I welcome you to challenge anything I say, in hopes that you'll have an open mind for once.

What is "I"? And can this eternal 'I' really be eternal without memory?

Sentience. Self-awareness. You know, what separates us from the animals.



Yup. Existentialism distilled right down to it's core; Hell is other people.





So you'll live (in some form) through the cold death of the Universe? Interesting Just ribbing; it's only a theory at this point.




Sorry to disappoint you, but as you state only vague possibilities it would be both incredibly arrogant and,quite frankly, pointless for me to attempt to debate them.

I find it particularly interesting that every single religion has made it their business what happens to us after we stop living. It speaks volume on the fear of death we all subconsciously share. I guess it's a by-product of sentience, in the end; if we weren't aware we existed we could not possibly have qualms about said existence being terminated. It also speaks volume about how unbased this fear is; merely being told that something,somewhere,somehow allows us to live on calms us...no matter the source or its credibility.

Well, I think that's all knowledge can ever be, really. It's all limited by our perception in the end anyhow.


Theoretically yes but it won't be aware of its immortatlity. Although I guess it really depends on how you define the 'I' and there's a good chance that there isn't a universally correct definition.



So you're saying animals aren't self-aware? How do you know? Maybe they are to an extent but are just far more limited by their instincts than we are.


People will have no trouble finding a way to believe what they want to believe.

Self-Awareness? dolphins, primates, and--recently found--elephants, have been found "self-aware". I'd bet a lot of stuff is, but just in a different way. In any case, it's not what separates us from the animals. I love how you argue what I say, only to say it would be arrogant. Is it supposed to be a joke?

As for the cold end of the universe...I read about that before. Seems pretty dumb. Where did matter come from in the first place?



Credibility this and that. Until you die, you don't know where you will end up. Science can't explain that, and I bet it drives you crazy not having some hard evidence to support a belief.



These are wise, unfortunate words.

Is this a joke? If science has cleanly delineated, demarcated, and defined the 'self' then sign me the fuck up because I will worship at its heels for the rest of my days.

The most commonly known test is the mirror. Put a cat in front of a mirror. Does it recognize itself? No, it just sees another cat. MAYBE some primates are at an early stage of sentience. MAYBE. They seem to realize that the monkey in the glass is similar to them, and will sometimes make funny faces to him and such. Of course without proper avenues of communication its impossible to know fore sure they aren't self-aware...


The most commonly known test is the mirror. Put a cat in front of a mirror. Does it recognize itself? No, it just sees another cat. MAYBE some primates are at an early stage of sentience. MAYBE. They seem to realize that the monkey in the glass is similar to them, and will sometimes make funny faces to him and such. Of course without proper avenues of communication its impossible to know fore sure they aren't self-aware...