How do you know that there's an afterlife?

[tonyrey]

Intrinsically bound to this conception is the notion that somehow, when we die, we will actually be aware of our condition - and thus be aware of any pleasure or suffering to which we might be subject.
. Consider that when we die, our subjectivity dies also, and we simply face an eternity of being utterly unaware.

Fact or belief?

Is this really something to be feared?

That notion that is not feared but loathed and scorned by anyone who finds the quest for truth, beauty and love a far more adequate and reasonable explanation than the notion that we are purposeless, insignificant sparks in the dark…

Fair enough, I guess, if you suppose that some kind of unity with your god is ultimate and eternal fulfilment, and to be denied this is ultimate and eternal frustration - but again, this requires the belief that any form of conscious awareness survives the death of all our biological processes…

The hypothesis that we consist of no more than our biological processes needs to be substantiated…

 

[samiam1611]

The hypothesis that we consist of no more than our biological processes needs to be substantiated…

lol no it doesn’t, not in this context anyway. Besides, it’s possible for there to be “more to us than our biological processes” without believing in an afterlife. In fact, if you are going to claim that our nonbiological processes are not dependent on our body’s death, you kind of imply that conscious awareness was also present before our body existed which is just crazy. Oh look at that! Asimon’s quote is very relevant to the conversation!

I mean, seriously! If you have any concept of what life and death are, there’s no way to reasonably believe death is not the end. Well, I half take that back. I see no reason to believe death is not the end of conscious awareness, but am all ears if you can reason it out. Otherwise, you must acknowledge it’s a leap of faith/wishful thinking! I’m trying to keep an open mind but I’m going to need to hear more, not just have you voice your doubts of the apparent finality of death and shift the burden of…substantiation to those stating the obvious!

 

[tonyrey]

The hypothesis that we consist of no more than our biological processes needs to be substantiated…

Very convenient! It is merely an act of faith if it has no justification.

Besides, it’s possible for there to be “more to us than our biological processes” without believing in an afterlife.

We are not concerned with possibilities but facts…

In fact, if you are going to claim that our nonbiological processes are not dependent on our body’s death, you kind of imply that conscious awareness was also present before our body existed which is just crazy.

No such implication is intended or necessary. There is no reason why conscious awareness shouldn’t **begin **at birth and continue after death - unless you can provide one…

I mean, seriously! If you have any concept of what life and death are, there’s no way to reasonably believe death is not the end. Well, I half take that back. I see no reason to believe death is not the end of conscious awareness, but am all ears if you can reason it out. Otherwise, you must acknowledge it’s a leap of faith/wishful thinking! I’m trying to keep an open mind but I’m going to need to hear more, not just have you voice your doubts of the apparent finality of death and shift the burden of…substantiation to those stating the obvious!

In other words you are making yourself invulnerable. You have to prove nothing as if it is self-evident that physical existence is the sole form of existence - despite the fact that all our knowledge is based on our intangible thoughts, feelings and perceptions. If you didn’t have a mind you wouldn’t even know the tangible world exists! Your wishful thinking is that you have direct knowledge of ultimate reality… and take it for granted that materialism is true without needing any evidence whatsoever …

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

Actually, that was the question - one of them, at any rate. Samiam1611 asked if the afterlife was wishful thinking. I responded that I thought it was - and supported that with the idea that many people who believe in an afterlife don’t want to accept the alternative - they fear death and the resulting oblivion. Sair responded to my response asking if eternal non-awareness was something to be scared of, and I responded to his response that I didn’t think it was - with the Twain quote as support. To which Filius Prodigus dropped in, blathering that we’re somehow off-topic with my/our propaganda spam.

Not blathering. Discussing. You allegedly are here for that, aren’t you? And yes, I affirmed it is propaganda you come here for, and I sustain it still.

Belief in the afterlife is no more wishful thinking than believing in the inexistence of hell or a judgement. Either way there is no hard evidence, and either way it would be precipitated to conclude there are defense mechanisms in a person who believes in either, if one has not previously analyzed their personalities enough to make such impetuous assessment.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Is the only way to know that there is an afterlife bc of Revelation and faith? If you take religion out of the equation, is it reasonable to think that when one’s body dies, some part of their conscience still “lives” on? If yes, the reason is not apparent to me, so please explain. If no, does that mean the hope of an afterlife is just wishful thinking? If it is wishful thinking (aka hope), why do people wish for an afterlife?

Is it possible to believe in an afterlife (based on faith that one’s religion’s teachings on the existence of an afterlife is right) but not desire an afterlife? (so it’s kind of the opposite of hope - like you don’t want to believe, but you do.) Is annihilationism preferable to eternal torment?

If hell is eternal separation from God, is hell not really eternal torment to an atheist? Is eternal separation from God akin to annihilationism for an atheist?

samiam, check out Dr. Peter Kreeft’s arguments for the afterlife:

leaderu.com/truth/1truth28.html

Actually, arguing that consciousness comes to an end requires faith. All an atheist has ever known is consciousness, even in the forms of sleep, drunkenness and other states. What empirical evidence do you have that you will ever NOT have the state of consciousness?

 

[ASimon]

Not blathering. Discussing. You allegedly are here for that, aren’t you? And yes, I affirmed it is propaganda you come here for, and I sustain it still.

I was discussing. Then you horned in to tell me I was off-topic. Which I was not. So you were wrong, hence your contribution was blather.

I also think it’s sad that you view any dissenting opinion as propaganda.

Belief in the afterlife is no more wishful thinking than believing in the inexistence of hell or a judgement. Either way there is no hard evidence, and either way it would be precipitated to conclude there are defense mechanisms in a person who believes in either, if one has not previously analyzed their personalities enough to make such impetuous assessment.

Believing in something despite the lack of evidence is the definition of faith, and of wishful thinking. But it’s the lack of evidence for the afterlife that constitutes the evidence for there being no such place. So to characterize it as coin-flip proposition is incorrect.

 

[GEddie]

samiam, check out Dr. Peter Kreeft’s arguments for the afterlife:

leaderu.com/truth/1truth28.html

Actually, arguing that consciousness comes to an end requires faith. All an atheist has ever known is consciousness, even in the forms of sleep, drunkenness and other states. What empirical evidence do you have that you will ever NOT have the state of consciousness?

Well, for argument’s sake, the fact that everybody becomes a dead body, and that dead bodies exhibit no consciousness whatsoever?

FWIW, that is not my position, but it is the starting point that non-afterlifers will raise, and that afterlifers will have to meet.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well, for argument’s sake, the fact that everybody becomes a dead body, and that dead bodies exhibit no consciousness whatsoever?

FWIW, that is not my position, but it is the starting point that non-afterlifers will raise, and that afterlifers will have to meet.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

Now let’s see if atheists can prove that consciousness is a function of biological material rather than the other option – that biological material may serve as a physical expression of a conscious soul.

 

[L_piperatus]

Now let’s see if atheists can prove that consciousness is a function of biological material rather than the other option – that biological material may serve as a physical expression of a conscious soul.

Excellent point. And I have my proofs that angels without a material body exist, that the souls of the deceased can manifest themselves to those of us living in the flesh, that dead people can be resurrected, that sick people can be cured in a supernatural manner, that people can have prophetic dreams of future events, and so on. There’s a mountain of evidence out there, to refute the atheistic-materialistic hypothesis.

 

[samiam1611]

Obviously I cannot prove there is not an afterlife. Even most of you believers have admitted that the existence of an afterlife is a leap of faith. This semi-surprised me though, since many have argued elsewhere that God exists, no leap of faith required. Interestingly, in comparison, my disbelief in God is not as strong as my disbelief in the existence of an afterlife. I wouldn’t call it a leap of faith bc it just seems so obvious to me! I am not denying there is NO faith involved though. Disbelief in an afterlife naturally follows from my perception of reality (aka reality ) that conscious awareness is limited to this life. If you guys agree we did not have conscious awareness before our body was formed (well, a little after that) I do not see how it follows that conscious awareness would still be there when our bodies turn to dust. It just doesn’t make sense to me that the result of neurons firing now could also happen when neurons are not firing.

 

[samiam1611]

Excellent point. And I have my proofs that angels without a material body exist, that the souls of the deceased can manifest themselves to those of us living in the flesh, that dead people can be resurrected, that sick people can be cured in a supernatural manner, that people can have prophetic dreams of future events, and so on. There’s a mountain of evidence out there, to refute the atheistic-materialistic hypothesis.

Have you experienced any of these things yourself? Or are these things you learned of through your religion?

 

[L_piperatus]

Have you experienced any of these things yourself? Or are these things you learned of through your religion?

Some of these things happened to immediate family members, close friends, and acquaintances whom I trust to tell the truth. I spent a few years interviewing people - only such folks whom I knew well and I could trust their sincerity and mental soundness. I ended up with an interesting collection of supernatural events.

Other things happened to people whom I don’t know personally, but the Catholic Church investigated the events which included prophecies that were later fulfilled, supernatural healings (investigated and ascertained by medical experts), and miracles (supernatural events).

 

[Whadyamean]

Excellent point. And I have my proofs that angels without a material body exist, that the souls of the deceased can manifest themselves to those of us living in the flesh, that dead people can be resurrected, that sick people can be cured in a supernatural manner, that people can have prophetic dreams of future events, and so on. There’s a mountain of evidence out there, to refute the atheistic-materialistic hypothesis.

As I pointed out in another thread: "*As Asimov said, what is sufficiently technologically advanced appears to be magic. Consider the remote controls we use and what someone even fifty years ago might have thought seeing things happen apparently without agency! And that is material technology. In the realm of psychology, NLP has done relative miracles to the point that the founders stood outside psychiatric conventions and challenged the participants to bring them their most difficult cases. They were able to deal with them in short order. Now consider the possibilities of what might by some stretch be called “spiritual technology,” or simple proficiency in the realms of the invisible, short of Deity,

My favorite definition of “miracle” s that it is “a lessening of objective confinement.” And what is the grandest objective confinement? The very belief that objects correspond to your particular and very limited understanding of what you "see’ as “outside” yourself. If we were actually open on a great bandwidth of perception, with our pea-brained logics we would be inundated and overwhelmed by what might appear to us as astonishing chaos. And what we might be actually looking at is a higher level of what constitutes order in the Universe as we don’t understand it*.’

 

[samiam1611]

Belief isn’t necessary. You will find out for yourself, eventually. In the mean time, there are many accounts of those who were clinically dead who reported heavenly experiences. Same with many who meditate. The sagest advice in either case is to ignore the phenomenon as it is yet intermediate to a fuller realization that might come with further inquiry, but will come inevitably sometime anyway. But it is fun to focus and do critical work in this area.

That’s true

Belief never matters in the realm of Reality. What is, IS, religion, atheism or whatever. Religion and atheism are both wonderful for keeping the mind busy, but until one goes farther than that, a vial piece of experiential information is missing from the equation and calculations inevitably fall short of actuality.

Yep all we can do is speculate.

Strictly speaking, there isn’t a before or after life, only Life as it always already eternally IS. Even physics verifies this by revealing that time as we experience it is an illusion.

You lost me. Could you explain what you mean?

 

[L_piperatus]

As I pointed out in another thread: "*As Asimov said, what is sufficiently technologically advanced appears to be magic. Consider the remote controls we use and what someone even fifty years ago might have thought seeing things happen apparently without agency! And that is material technology. In the realm of psychology, NLP has done relative miracles to the point that the founders stood outside psychiatric conventions and challenged the participants to bring them their most difficult cases. They were able to deal with them in short order. Now consider the possibilities of what might by some stretch be called “spiritual technology,” or simple proficiency in the realms of the invisible, short of Deity,

My favorite definition of “miracle” s that it is “a lessening of objective confinement.” And what is the grandest objective confinement? The very belief that objects correspond to your particular and very limited understanding of what you "see’ as “outside” yourself. If we were actually open on a great bandwidth of perception, with our pea-brained logics we would be inundated and overwhelmed by what might appear to us as astonishing chaos. And what we might be actually looking at is a higher level of what constitutes order in the Universe as we don’t understand it*.’

I’m not really into sci-fi anymore. I have been doing real practical science for some 30 years now, including a master’s degree, a PhD, and close to a hundred publications in peer-reviewed journals. I deal with details and proofs as a scientist, I brought the same attention to details and proofs into my research for the supernatural.

 

[Whadyamean]

I’m not really into sci-fi anymore. I have been doing real practical science for some 30 years now, including a master’s degree, a PhD, and close to a hundred publications in peer-reviewed journals. I deal with details and proofs as a scientist, I brought the same attention to details and proofs into my research for the supernatural.

That is wonderful! Having had some such experiences, I’d like to hear more of your work. Care to share?

 

[GEddie]

That’s impossible.

Human beings:

• remember an apparently infinite number of things

Not so. Any human head can only register a finite number of impressions, because its body can only be alive for finite time, and our senses have only finite bandwidth.

While the number of impressions increases dramatically with the head’s time alive and with the mind’s quality, it can only remain finite.

• understand apparently any concept, even those that have nothing to do with survival
• appreciate aesthetics, vist art museums, go to concerts etc
• have empathy for and loyalty to familly, friends, community, country, and the world at large, even for people unseen and unknown in remote parts of the world, as well as for animals.

Unfortunately, not everybody, in any of these categories.

There is no organization of matter in the brain or anything else that could do all these things and do them so well

We really have no observation of physical organization comparable to that in our heads except, well, our heads, which we cannot observe directly. We really don’t know what physical organization is capable of.

We are not just animals.

Also,
consider the Bible.
It has hundreds of predictions that proved true hundreds of years later.

If the Bible was the product of human beings alone,…

…it would be the wonder of all wonders !

Agreed. But it’s the prophetic knowledge, which faculty we do not possess naturally, that makes the difference more than anything else.

Nothing I just wrote will satisfy the atheists. They will bring in tons of meaningless verbiage from all corners to shotgun and snowjob the issue. :hey_bud::takeoff:
I wrote this post for the believers. :harp:

Indeed. ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

That is wonderful! Having had some such experiences, I’d like to hear more of your work. Care to share?

Ditto!!!

 

[lnslucky]

I have seen spirits, and heard spirits talking. The spirits talking part, I got on record.

The seeing spirits, might of been a hallucination, but if so, it was the best thing ever, because I could clearly see them. Heigh, eyes, nose, mouth, hair, clothes, feet, everything.

We’re deal with science vs paranormal. I could be hallucination or I could be right. If im right (which i think I am), then thats all the proof I need.