The Afterlife (or lack there of)

[NinjaGeek]

Sorry if this has been debated to death, I don't do a lot of philosophical discussions but this has been on my mind recently and I want to talk about it. The thought of nothing after death terrifies me. I don't know if it terrifies anyone else, but for me the idea that once you die you stop being able to think is the worst fate imaginable. It's not even being trapped in darkness left to your thoughts, but the idea that you stop existing when you die, and the rest of the universe just continues on for eternity without you just seems like an absolutely abysmal future.

I've been worried a lot recently because so far there's been no idea of an afterlife that has made any logical sense to me. The idea that our soul gets sucked off somewhere like an alternate plane of existence, or into another body (reincarnation) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If we did have a soul it makes no sense with anything else we've observed in the universe that it would magically teleport somewhere after our body ceases functioning.

After watching the film Waking Life, they proposed that when you die the rest of your life is basically an ongoing dream that never ends. This also makes no sense to me because your mind is still functioning and thinking when your dream, and when your mind ceases to work, why would you be able to dream?

So basically what are your views on the afterlife? I realize it's a hard thing to discuss since no one really has experiences with it, but what things point at the existence of a soul or what things point at there being no soul? Since really it comes down to if we have an eternal soul then it goes on in some form after death (can a soul think without a brain?). If there is no soul, then are bodies are simply complex machines that are useless after they can no longer function.

It would be really nice if someone proposed an idea on the afterlife that made logical sense, it doesn't need to be provable it would just be nice to know that there's a potential life after death that doesn't fly in the face of what we currently know about the universe. If it basically looks like from everything we've seen that there is no life after death, then so be it, I've basically concluded this from my own thoughts anyways.

And if anyone comes in here preaching to have faith in god and that he will take care of my soul, you're wasting your time. Though if you can logically debate the existence of heaven and hell, go ahead.

 

[Seditious]

it's probably safe to say of the 10 people who use this board frequently that 90% of us are naturalists (i.e., we don't see any reason to think the memories, identity, senses, and other things we value about 'ourselves' are stored anywhere other than the brain)

 

[waif]

When you die, you are dead. No more. You cease to exist. You do not come back. It's the end. It's a scary concept, which is why for thousands of years humans have come up with rather inventive ways to get around it - see ancient Egypt for some truly elaborate attempts to live on after death. However, there's no logical reason to think that anything else happens. The best way to deal with it is just not to think about it.

Keep in mind that once you die you wouldn't exactly be in pain - you just wouldn't exist. It's impossible to imagine what that would feel like, but I don't think it would be that bad.

As for souls, I think science has explained almost everything our bodies do, to the point where you have to wonder what a soul would do, if we had one.

 

[ArneZ]

Infinity rebirth until doomsday!

 

[judas69]

The thought of discontinuity (non-existence) shouldn't frighten you as much in contrast to the process of your already passing life, one happening with full, conscious knowledge of this persistent, unrelenting force called time.

If you've anything to fear, fear time itself for death completely relieves you of your faculty to fear albeit, at a rather hefty price.

 

[Blind Guardian]

I´ve always thought that it´s a comforting thought that our bodies return to the earth,we´re all still part of the world,even if our minds doesn´t exist.
I dont know exactly why that thought is comforting,but it is to me.

 

[matgvox1342]

I agree with WeAreInFlames. Though ask yourself, if you completely cease to exist you won't have any past memories nor any consciousness to be horrified by your nonexistence. It would be nothing and it's really hard to explain what I mean by saying you and don't exist in the same sentence cause they're very contradictory put together.

 

[Vimana]

I don't know if an afterlife exists. I believe in God, I don't believe God exists in time and space. So I don't believe there is a place where God is. I don't believe in Hell either. I'm not sure about this, and I will never find out whether there is one or not 100%, neither will anyone else so I don't think this should be debated.

 

[tagradh]

I don't know if an afterlife exists. I believe in God, I don't believe God exists in time and space. So I don't believe there is a place where God is. I don't believe in Hell either. I'm not sure about this, and I will never find out whether there is one or not 100%, neither will anyone else so I don't think this should be debated.

If he doesn't exist in time or space, where exactly is he?

 

[waif]

He's hiding

 

[Vimana]

If IT doesn't exist in time and space then it's nowhere.

 

[cholo11]

Those last post seem stupid to me
But yeah, the thought of when you die everything ends, you wont exist any more etc. makes you feel something is wrong that it cannot end that way. It would make it pointless to live like that but we don't make the rules(if there are any). This may sound stupid but yeah its kinda disturbing to know you die and everything ends for you but the best thing to do its not think about it and keep your daily life for when you die even if you disappear of reality you will be remembered by what you did while living even if you won't know if this happens.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

Well, it's not as if any of us have any fucking clue or foundation for speculation...

 

[Norsemaiden]

All the ideas of afterlives seem to be dependent upon us behaving ourselves, or punishment for being bad (except in the case of Valhalla). Doesn't this suggest that these ideas are designed to motivate people to adopt the particular morality inherent in a particular religion?

 

[Vimana]

Yup. From what I learned in Church history, the whole thing about going to heaven if you're good and hell if you're bad was started by the church about 1,000 years ago. They never said anything about that stuff in the bible. I went to a Catholic school, I should know. But I don't believe the bible, I believe the original word was true, but the translation obscured it.

 

[waif]

(except in the case of Valhalla)

How? Going to Valhalla is still a good thing. You go if you do what's expected (dying gloriously in battle). The concept is the same. Only the values are different.

 

[judas69]

But I don't believe the bible, I believe the original word was true, but the translation obscured it.

There's an important point here, which is that "divine inspiration" is not "divine dictation" so as far as an obscured translation goes, the whole thing was obscure to start.

 

[Norsemaiden]

How? Going to Valhalla is still a good thing. You go if you do what's expected (dying gloriously in battle). The concept is the same. Only the values are different.

Of course Vikings consdidered that going to Valhalla is a good thing - but all that's required is that you die with your sword in your hand (or in battle generally) - so it doesn't dictate any moral requirements on how you live your life. You wouldn't call that a "moral" requirement exactly imo.
It seems a bit vague but those who were particularly nasty may perhaps still end up in Nifelheim - where any Viking man who died a "straw death" (not in a battle) would go no matter how "good" he was.

 

[waif]

Of course Vikings consdidered that going to Valhalla is a good thing - but all that's required is that you die with your sword in your hand (or in battle generally) - so it doesn't dictate any moral requirements on how you live your life. You wouldn't call that a "moral" requirement exactly imo.
It seems a bit vague but those who were particularly nasty may perhaps still end up in Nifelheim - where any Viking man who died a "straw death" (not in a battle) would go no matter how "good" he was.

...because Norse society placed value on strength, courage, and fighting skill rather than what we today consider to be "moral" values. Because society places value on whatever is needed for the survival of society. And in a place where it is cold and dangerous and food is relatively scarce and there are fierce warriors everywhere, morals are useless but a strong sword arm is everything. And not being afraid to die in battle is useful beyond words - hence the concept of a glorious death. You see the same thing with the suicide bomber "martyrs" - their society leads them to believe they are doing what is right, because it is necessary for them to sacrifice their lives for their society.

 

[OldScratch]

...because Norse society placed value on strength, courage, and fighting skill rather than what we today consider to be "moral" values. Because society places value on whatever is needed for the survival of society. And in a place where it is cold and dangerous and food is relatively scarce and there are fierce warriors everywhere, morals are useless but a strong sword arm is everything. And not being afraid to die in battle is useful beyond words - hence the concept of a glorious death. You see the same thing with the suicide bomber "martyrs" - their society leads them to believe they are doing what is right, because it is necessary for them to sacrifice their lives for their society.

The critical difference between anything you have noted and Judeo-Christian morality, is that their morality is ultimately predicated on one's devotion, not their deeds per se - "moral" or not. While a moral code(golden rule, decalouge, etc.) does dictate what one should do to remain "holy," their salvation, or trip to Heaven, is not necessarily dependent upon it.

Of course what is "valued" will be held up by any society. The question of why what is valued is valuable is the proverbial $64,000 question. Much of the rejection of Christianity I see through the ages stems from conflict with what this faith has deemed valuable(moral)and why. For instance, challenging that morality and faith/conviction made-up a significant portion of Nietzsche's mid-later period philosophy - no small body of work.