Is there life after death?

[Alexandre]

It goes back to that age-old question, "If God exists, why is there suffering?" To believe is God is to believe that there is a "right way," a way things ought to be, and that is a path to disappointment and ultimately to indignation and ungratefulness. "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to/been told it does?" That sort of thing.

But if there's no God and no afterlife, then our present life becomes precious.

Oh, wow.  I love this.  I'm gonna have to think a lot about what you've said, Sskessa.

I'm not sure if God exists; I've finally come to a point in my life where I can say that.  I'd also prefer not to think there is a specific path to follow...

... I need to internalize this for a while.  Thanks for sharing this.

[Yip]

I don't see how life after death is possible unless we have souls or some other kind of life essence. But as far as I know there is no verifiable evidence that we do.  Everything seems to point to what makes us work merely being the function of our brains.  I think the fact that a person with brain damage can have their personality completely altered shows this even further.  In fact, if we do have souls, what about all the other lifeforms on the earth? All the evidence seems to point to us being just another species of animal, and thus there is no reason that we should have souls unless other animals have them as well (that is, apart from our bizarre need to be special).

As for evidence of ghosts and the like, the only thing we really have are people's personal experiences. And just because someone experienced something doesn't mean their explanation for it is correct. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this, but in every case I know of that was looked at scientifically, they either didn't find anything or found evidence of it being something completely normal. Or in many cases, it was simply a hoax.   Note: finding no evidence that something did not occur in no way suggests that it did. The best we can say about such cases is "I don't know".

I'm not saying that I completely dismiss the possibility of there being souls and/or ghosts. But I have not seen sufficient evidence, and the only default position that makes sense is one of disbelieving until there is sufficient evidence.  Taking a default position other than this leads to possibly believing all kinds of nonsense.

[Kay Alett]

It goes back to that age-old question, "If God exists, why is there suffering?" To believe is God is to believe that there is a "right way," a way things ought to be, and that is a path to disappointment and ultimately to indignation and ungratefulness. "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to/been told it does?" That sort of thing.

But if there's no God and no afterlife, then our present life becomes precious.

Oh, wow.  I love this.  I'm gonna have to think a lot about what you've said, Sskessa.

I'm not sure if God exists; I've finally come to a point in my life where I can say that.  I'd also prefer not to think there is a specific path to follow...

... I need to internalize this for a while.  Thanks for sharing this.

I think of it like this: Why does god not clean up our polluted earth and save people from crime, poverty, and famine?

It's all along the same lines of why your parents don't come over and clean your house and pay your bills and keep people at work from messing with you. The earth is ours, not God's. We are expected to keep it clean outselves and not ruin it. As for crime, poverty and the like, humans posses free will. God cannot intrude upon that will and so people are allowed to make choices that bring pain and suffering upon others. It's not up to God to save those in need, it's up to us, their fellow man. But they too can do much to help themselves by choosing to leave the places that cause so much pain for them, it isn't hard, just choose. But to many, the idea of leaving behind all they've known is scary, so scary that they would rather have their familiar hell then face the unknown.

People are also sentimental, they cherish the land they live on, even if it is part of their problem, like seasonal flooding, drought, barren land that yields no crops. It's hard to give that up for many.
I don't think God is looking down at humanity with scorn when an earthquake claims hundreds of lives, it's just a random occurrence.

Bad things happen to good people because they place trust in untrustworthy people and don't take opportunities if they know it will hurt others. Good things happen for bad people because they disregard others safety in order to get ahead, they take chances regardless of the outcome and if someone gets hurt "Oh well, I didn't know them so I don't care."
This opinion is of course based o my own experience or how I used to be as a kid when I felt my life was bad, and how I am now and my attitudes toward others and how good things seem to be for me now.

Things got good for me once I started acting differently, more aggressive and with less concern for others. Am I bad person because of it? I think I am at times, but many who know me will say I'm not. I'll find out in my final judgement.

[Sskessa]

I think of it like this: Why does god not clean up our polluted earth and save people from crime, poverty, and famine?

It's all along the same lines of why your parents don't come over and clean your house and pay your bills and keep people at work from messing with you.

Hmm, I still don't think this frees God from responsibility. If God created people, than we have to assume it had a plan or a reason. And if it had the power to create us the way we are, why didn't it do a better job and create us in such a way that it's not so easy for us to hurt ourselves?
I'm sure whatever reasoning I could think up, it would leave me with uncomfortable resentment. This isn't parents, who want you to be able to live in a world they have no control of. This is God, who presumably created the world in the first place.

It's not up to God to save those in need, it's up to us, their fellow man.

Of course I believe this, too, but without the God part.

But I have not seen sufficient evidence, and the only default position that makes sense is one of disbelieving until there is sufficient evidence.

Just wanted to acknowledge this. Well said.

[RedneckFur]

Back when I was a hardcore Christian, I used to ask myself often why would God put us here, only to make us fend for ourselves.  Why would he test us? Make us struggle?  Allow us to feel pain?

I came to the conclusion, that the only reason that anyone would do these things, would either be for an experiment, or for entertainment. In a sense, we would be like yard dogs who are allowed to come and go as they please, but get punished when we go against master's will.  Like those dogs, we exsist only for masters pleasure.  His entertainment.

If I were still Christian, I would belive that basically we're God's reality show, and the joke's on us. 

[Narei Mooncatt]

While I was never religious, I pretty much agree with you, Redneck. I think *IF* there's a supreme being of sorts, that he gave us free will to "see what would happen". Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm completely wrong, but you know what.... It would make sense if I'm right, and I don't have to consider whether or not I'm serving properly. I know about the here and know and what I like. I'll live as best I can and hope it's good enough should there be anyone beyond the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Yip]

But I have not seen sufficient evidence, and the only default position that makes sense is one of disbelieving until there is sufficient evidence.

Just wanted to acknowledge this. Well said.

Thanks.

I used to believe in souls, but that was more of as a requirement in order to believe in an afterlife since I used to be a Christian.  Now I know it doesn't make sense to accept one thing as true without any evidence because it has to be true in order for this other thing to be true which you also don't have evidence for. But then, that's a big part of why I'm not a Christian anymore: because it really doesn't make sense and I found myself having to invent stuff to hold my beliefs together.

[WhiteShepherd]

One of the things I find significant about this whole debate is that due to the fact that "ghost phenomena" has been around through our entire history.  It's gotten to the point that a majority of people assume as fact that it's not real when there is a huge amount of documented evidence to prove that it is real.  Note that though I am saying "ghost phenomena" as the fact we know something is happening does not prove "why" it is happening.

As one example are some of the new reality shows that hunt for ghosts.  Most are garbage and they are staged drama heavy for the effect.  They are taking advantage of the fact that most people don't know that ghost phenomena is fairly common and trying to capture it on TV for sensation.  The some of these shows to me are pretty annoying but some of the authentic footage they have caught is some of the best documented evidence to date.  Ghosthunters (1/6 of their episodes hold some very good evidence) and Ghost Adventures (very armature but some of the best footage I've seen).  There is also Paranormal state.  They seem to have the least evidence but seem to be the best at helping others when hauntings are harmful. 

I know many of you have decided that there is no chance whatsoever for something after life.  But doesn't the fact that there are common reports in every city of shades shaped like people, orbs of light that interact with people, and messages delivered to people who would have NO way of getting them.  Doesn't that at the very least make you want to wonder if we truly know death is the end?  Unfortunately most people don't like to think about death so it's very hard to get them to even concider possibilities.

My own personal experiences have been varied.  As a teen moved into a 200 year old haunted farm house.  I was in college on a scholarship and was tested 99% in the country in science.  I decided that I was going to figure this out in a scientific method.  Long story short it's good to study things scientifically but dangerous to assume nothing can hurt you.  This thing would drag my queen sized bed (which had no wheels) across the room towards the window each night.  I would wake to female laughter alternating in each ear sometimes and friends valuables would take flight on their own and be damaged by scratches.  To my suprise at the time it was solved by a special prayer service.

Life had been pretty peaceful up until 6 months ago.  Me and Kada were staying at a friends house in Indiana.  We suddenly noticed what appeared to be a dark man walking around the room.  The only way to describe him was he was darker than the shadows.  Unknown to us there was a flood in the basement and that is when we first saw him.  What I find fascinating is WHY would a ghost hold human form?  There are no joints or bones.  What is it of the human structure that holds after death?  Things progressed with orbs chasing the 2 year old, chairs flipping, and doors opening on their own.  This all also ended with a church intervention.  I even suspect the pastor herself did not know what exactly happened to end it though I believe something came to "help" due to the community prayers. 

Theory 1: I think the answer in part at least lays with science.  I spent a large part of my youth studying magnetism.  A magnetic field does not "go away".  It bleeds off energy slower and slower as it fades.  A magnetic field can remain for years or even longer.  It can also remain for a while even though the original source has been cut off.  A example of this is Kirlian photography which is a way of photographing magnetic fields.  One of the noted effects are if you take a leaf and cut it you could still photograph the cut missing section of the leaf that would fade over hours.  If we apply the basic principles of magnetic fields to human bodies (which are strongly magnetic and strongest in the brain) when we die there is more or less a perfect image of us that will linger for a VERY long time if not but so faintly in the electromagnetic spectrum.  This would include your memory (a pattern at least even of your mind). 

Theory 2: What if ghosts were not from another dimension?  What if ghosts exist somewhere in the magnetic spectrum.  Magnetic fields when charged by nearby power sources will emit photons (light).  A ghost that is charging itself or wants to be seen could take advantage of this.  It would explain a LOT of the photographs captured.  Would a person simply become a ghost or would they need help?  Hard to say.  It's documented that orbs of light are often photographed around new graves. If you believe in God could it be possible that heaven is not another dimension so much as perhaps a different frequency in a tarahertz spectrum we can not easily see?  Honestly I don't know either way but it does make one ponder?

Opinion:  I went from church belief, to no belief, to now a understanding that there IS something more.  Honestly I'm not 100% for sure what it all means.  A very brief descriptions of my studies so far is: I do believe there is life after death.  I do believe there IS a God though I don't feel he is as unforgiving or aggressive to differences as many churches think.  I think when one passes many (or all, unknown) are preserved.  But there are rules and they are not allowed to interact or interfear with the living.  The more I think of it this makes sense.  As the "youngest" ones.  If the spirits of the deceased came back to talk in anything other than a minor way we would lose our free will.  Rather than grow we would take direction from spirits who could see beyond our own vision.  However there are spirits I feel who like in life chose not to follow the rules.  They don't want to be a part of the group or are stuck.  These spirits roam and sometimes push the line in interacting with people.  These account for most authenticated ghost sitings.  There are many reasons for the growth of these beliefs that I can't detail here without writing a book.  If any one wants to know more feel free to ask in private.

Here is some footage I thought may add some food for thought enjoy:

Some scrolling pictures.  Note with digital cameras (which can see into the infrared and UV) modern photographs are a lot more detailed than this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6trH81xpko&NR=1

Some interesting pics:















Video:
Something caught on video at an Ohio gas station.  What was interesting in the accounts is that it seemed to "hide" from people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb0upNDhKPA&feature=PlayList&p=8C084A0B811920D1&index=4

Is it a dog or something else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t87rJxKaoQ&feature=related

[Mianame]

Theory 1: I think the answer in part at least lays with science.  I spent a large part of my youth studying magnetism.  A magnetic field does not "go away".  It bleeds off energy slower and slower as it fades.  A magnetic field can remain for years or even longer.  It can also remain for a while even though the original source has been cut off.  A example of this is Kirlian photography which is a way of photographing magnetic fields.  One of the noted effects are if you take a leaf and cut it you could still photograph the cut missing section of the leaf that would fade over hours.  If we apply the basic principles of magnetic fields to human bodies (which are strongly magnetic and strongest in the brain) when we die there is more or less a perfect image of us that will linger for a VERY long time if not but so faintly in the electromagnetic spectrum.  This would include your memory (a pattern at least even of your mind). 

Theory 2: What if ghosts were not from another dimension?  What if ghosts exist somewhere in the magnetic spectrum.  Magnetic fields when charged by nearby power sources will emit photons (light).  A ghost that is charging itself or wants to be seen could take advantage of this.  It would explain a LOT of the photographs captured.  Would a person simply become a ghost or would they need help?  Hard to say.  It's documented that orbs of light are often photographed around new graves. If you believe in God could it be possible that heaven is not another dimension so much as perhaps a different frequency in a tarahertz spectrum we can not easily see?  Honestly I don't know either way but it does make one ponder?

It is an interesting notion, but I do have a way to poke holes in both of our theories. At least the theory with the leftover image from magnetism such as with the leaf example you gave and mine about parallel universes. Both assume that ghosts are a leftover image or a repeating action of something that has happened in the past, but I have seen evidence of the contrary in so many cases when it comes to ghosts.

Take poltergeists for example. They seem to be purposefully malicious beings that are out to make their presence known, scare or torment people in some shape, form or fashion, whether ti be throwing a chair or scratching someone. And when I say 'evidence' I can't say any of it is concrete since this entire discussion is on theory as is.

So with that in mind, what do you all thing of the different classifications of ghosts? Would a poltergeist indeed be different from ghosts, brought on from something else? Do you believe that poltergeists would be a form that comes from your second theory WhiteShepherd?

I personally can only explain, in my own mind, the duplication of a previous made action hundreds of years ago. I can't explain poltergeists or things as such. Also WhiteShpeherd, I was curious exactly how many years the leftover magnetic image of something can be left behind? Can it be there for hundreds of years? I could definitely put stock into your own theory for the duplication of made actions if that is the case, especially since humans are very magnetic if I remember correctly.

[Yip]

One of the things I find significant about this whole debate is that due to the fact that "ghost phenomena" has been around through our entire history.  It's gotten to the point that a majority of people assume as fact that it's not real when there is a huge amount of documented evidence to prove that it is real.  Note that though I am saying "ghost phenomena" as the fact we know something is happening does not prove "why" it is happening.

Sorry, but there is no preponderance of evidence that "ghost phenomena" exists.  If you want to claim proof, then I have to ask where are the peer reviewed scientific papers that show this?

All of the supposed "proof" we have is shaky at best. For example, you tell of personal experiences which you attribute as "ghost phenomena". However, personal experience can never work as proof of anything. Sure you've experienced something, but that doesn't mean your explanation for it is valid or that you are even recalling it correctly. People tend to interpret things within their own biases. We all do it at least to an extent. For example, it is not uncommon for many religious individuals to, when nearly getting in a car accident, to claim that god was looking out for them. They fail to take into account that near car accidents happen all the time with people of all different belief systems. There is no reason to take their personal case as special.

Edit:  Just wanted to add, I mean no disrespect here. Just countering your use of personal experience as proof.


Of those that are not hoaxes, the majority of ghost sitings can be explained by this: Humans are hardwired to see patterns, especially things like faces and figures. In many ways this is beneficial, however an unfortunate side effect is that it mean we are also highly susceptible to seeing false patterns. For example, people who claim to see mother mary in a piece of french toast. (BTW, this also explains why "ghosts" tend to have human like forms.)

But there are rules and they are not allowed to interact or interfear with the living.

I know you listed this as part of your opinion, but I wanted to point out that it's fallacious to rely too heavily on this. You have absolutely no reason to believe this rule exists except that it props up your belief in the paranormal.  I used to make the same mistake a lot back when I was a Christian. That is, that of making unsupported claims to prop up my beliefs.

Aside from the existence of your "rule", which there is no evidence for, it seems that if ghosts are real, we should be overrun with the things. Especially if you consider insect ghosts. (as I said, there is no evidence to support that humans are more than just another species; there is no reason to think us special.)

[Baako]

My personal opinion is based solely off empirical evidence. What we percieve as the world and what we feel is controlled by our senses, once brain death has occurred we have no senses and therefore are no longer aware of anything. Our energy is still there in the form of our decaying corpse, the decaying being the transfer of energy from our bodies into the soil and bacteria of nature which consumes us.

A consciousness is nothing more than your senses giving you a representation of the world around your body, for this reason I cannot merely asume that it will somehow remain after the fundamental parts which it is comprised of are no longer there, (In the same way that when you fall unconscious you cannot percieve the world or any of your feelings, you simply 'black out').

Dreaming is a different matter as during your sleep you subconscious generates dreams, but you cease to have any form of consciousness once brain death has ocurred so you can't even remain under the comforting delusional blanket that death will be just like sleep.

Sorry if I sound a little bit arrogant but I have a highly skeptical view on matters like this, we as humans need to embrace our mortality and just accept that death generally sucks.

[WhiteShepherd]

Mianame

Take poltergeists for example. They seem to be purposefully malicious beings that are out to make their presence known, scare or torment people in some shape, form or fashion, whether ti be throwing a chair or scratching someone. And when I say 'evidence' I can't say any of it is concrete since this entire discussion is on theory as is.

Again this goes as my personal theory as the only recorded evidence (video and audio) is ghost phenomena. Vararam I do count untampered audio and video recordings as evidence. At any rate my theory (in all fairness a lose theory) is after death it's possible for "in part" of the consciousness to survive.  If said existence is in the electromagnetic spectrum and there is some form of intelligence to this new entity it could quite possibly prolong it's own existence.  A magnetic or electric charge can be increased or decreased bases on it's proximity and resonance with other fields.  This personal theory is based off of countless recordings of entities that seem to draw from sources of energy.  As far as poltergeist that brings us back to the fundamental question of "where" do ghosts (ghost phenomena) comes from?  Why would a human do such a thing?  There is even theories that poltergeist activity are generated by people.  Based on what I've seen (myself and recorded) so far I would venture to say is that what is left over after death may not be all of the person.  How and what a person at death evolves into for now is pure speculation.

Vararam

Sorry, but there is no preponderance of evidence that "ghost phenomena" exists.  If you want to claim proof, then I have to ask where are the peer reviewed scientific papers that show this?

I would have to disagree. There is quite a bit of recorded evidence to prove the phenomena exists.  Most of this is new with the advent of full spectrum digital cameras which have a much farther range than analog cameras.   I think the public and much of the scientific community at large has a bias to assumption that such recordings do not exist due to reported sympton and sensationalism in modern movies.  In the early 1900 many people refused to believe radio waves existed due to the fact they felt it was impossible. When I get back from my trip I'll do my best to gather some video footage so you can decide for yourself rather than just my opinions.  If your looking for footage now check out SyFy Ghost Hunters on wensdays.  It's incredibly drama hokey and they don't always find anything.  But the footage is real (confirmed by many labs and publishers) and can be used for self hypothesis if you wish to review it.

Vararam

You have absolutely no reason to believe this rule exists except that it props up your belief in the paranormal.

Actually one of my big interests is the psychology of ghost phenomena.  In quite a few cases actions taken by the phenomena show a striking intelligence malevolence.  I mean if you can drag a 150 pound hutch and a 50 pound sofa with no problem why not pound the family to pulp?  Injury does happen but it is incredibly rare even in the most violent of cases.  But as I said this is just a opinion and personal theory based on a pattern I see.

  WhiteShepherd

[Yip]

...  I think the public and much of the scientific community at large has a bias to assumption that such recordings do not exist due to reported sympton and sensationalism in modern movies.  ...

If the scientific community is "biased" on this, it's probably because 1) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and 2) evidence of ghost phenomena tends to be pseudo-science.  Recordings generally fail in one or both of these categories.

You have absolutely no reason to believe this rule exists except that it props up your belief in the paranormal.

Actually one of my big interests is the psychology of ghost phenomena.  ...

Just to make sure it's clear, I was not saying you have no reason to believe in ghost phenomena. I was specifically referring to your idea of them having a rule not to interfere with the living. The existence of this rule is completely speculation, and I was simply pointing out the danger in relying on speculation as though it was something more than it is.

To quote one of my favorite lines from Sherlock Holmes:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
   

[Mianame]

Just to make sure it's clear, I was not saying you have no reason to believe in ghost phenomena. I was specifically referring to your idea of them having a rule not to interfere with the living. The existence of this rule is completely speculation, and I was simply pointing out the danger in relying on speculation as though it was something more than it is.

To quote one of my favorite lines from Sherlock Holmes:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

I have to disagree here considering the fact that the entire conversation up to this point is nothing but speculation. To get to the theory that ghosts can't hurt people as a rule, you have to spoeculate that ghosts exist. No matter what I've seen and what I believe, there is no definite answer that ghosts really exist. It's all speculation along with life after death. In my opinion of course. I don't think any scientist has been able to prove it as a fact, therefore I still count all of this as only theory and to begin to question furhter events, such as whether ghosts can hurt people, you must first rely on a theory that ghosts even exist. This entire discussion requires one to lean on speculations and ideas that are not yet proven, so I don't see why the line should be drawn on putting trust into this rule that WhiteShepherd brought up.

[Yip]

I have to disagree here considering the fact that the entire conversation up to this point is nothing but speculation.

So the photos WS posted are purely speculation? I mean the photos themselves, not the explanations for them. How about his or other's personal experiences? And what of those, myself included, that say we've seen no evidence to support the existence of souls or ghosts, is that only speculation? It's true that there is a lot of speculation in this thread, but it's far from "nothing but".

Furthermore, speculation itself is not bad, so long as it is recognized as such.  The reason I singled out that particular line is because he stated this as though he believes this to be true. So I was merely warning that it's dangerous to accept something that is completely and entirely pure speculation as a belief.

[Narei Mooncatt]

I think the only way anyone could really settle this would be if a ghost went on national tv, in front of thousands of people and went "Here I am!" then did tricks to prove it was something supernatural. I know it may sound way overboard, but all these individual sightings are too easily dismissed as camera tricks/glares, and nothing that really eliminates doubt. If any of these pictures that have came out that truely was of an actual ghost, it wouldn't get much credibility just because it can be so easily dismissed as a lens flare.

[Mianame]

I have to disagree here considering the fact that the entire conversation up to this point is nothing but speculation.

So the photos WS posted are purely speculation? I mean the photos themselves, not the explanations for them. How about his or other's personal experiences? And what of those, myself included, that say we've seen no evidence to support the existence of souls or ghosts, is that only speculation? It's true that there is a lot of speculation in this thread, but it's far from "nothing but".

Furthermore, speculation itself is not bad, so long as it is recognized as such.  The reason I singled out that particular line is because he stated this as though he believes this to be true. So I was merely warning that it's dangerous to accept something that is completely and entirely pure speculation as a belief.

Yes, the photos he posted are pure speculation and the videos. If they weren't speculation then they would be making headline news as being the first real, solid proof of ghosts existing. In my opinion it all still is 'nothing but' speculation.

And the rest of this debate is leading way too off of the point of this post. I could get into a very lengthy discussion about belief, faith and speculation all wrapped into one, but it would prove pointless right now. So I'm just going to say that I think we both have our different ideas and leave it at that.

I think the only way anyone could really settle this would be if a ghost went on national tv, in front of thousands of people and went "Here I am!" then did tricks to prove it was something supernatural. I know it may sound way overboard, but all these individual sightings are too easily dismissed as camera tricks/glares, and nothing that really eliminates doubt. If any of these pictures that have came out that truely was of an actual ghost, it wouldn't get much credibility just because it can be so easily dismissed as a lens flare.

Exactly. That's why I still say this entire discussion is speculation even though I personally do believe in life after death and ghosts. I just have to say that I don't think any concrete proof has been given yet. If it was concrete enough there would be no arguments like the ones in these threads and it would end up on the news or some such thing.

[Yip]

Yes, the photos he posted are pure speculation and the videos. If they weren't speculation then they would be making headline news as being the first real, solid proof of ghosts existing. In my opinion it all still is 'nothing but' speculation.

I think is missed what I was saying. PM'd since the explanation strays off topic.

[Traumerei]

Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.

Although... I have had some spiritual encounters in the past. The story is a little long to explain, but I have been convinced that spirits can be witnessed on earth.

This isn't really an easily proven/disproven subject, therefore I'd rather throw my opinion in without attempting to debate the impossible.

[Baako]

Whether or not we can capture it with our senses (smell, touch, hearing) is under question but unlike the physical methods mentioned above, it is certainly possible that due to some "soul" element potentially existing within us as we life that we may capture traces of these "spirit" elements using not our eyes or ears, but actually our own souls, our own "spiritual" elements.

Everything we percieve is a direct result of it reacting to one of our senses, if we are dead we have no senses and therefore cannot detect any afterlife.

The truth is no one, not even scientists can prove something absolutely, but the reason science works is because scientists accept this fact and attempt to prove thing beyond all reasonable doubt. It is unreasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence (alternate planes of existence, an afterlife, etc) and merely saying "well you can't disprove it, so I believe it" is illogical and infering the Burden of Proof fallacy.


Heh, kinda stole Tachyon's method of highlighting points of importance ^^;

[Yip]

Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.

What makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?

If your idea is some attempt to be fair to everyone, sorry but this is still a completely unfair system. It specifically rewards those with grand selfish delusions, and punishes those that look at the world rationally. If you don't believe without evidence, you get nothing. But if you believe, say, that you'll get 72 virgins when you die, kinda sucks for the virgins.

[Traumerei]

Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.

What makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?

If your idea is some attempt to be fair to everyone, sorry but this is still a completely unfair system. It specifically rewards those with grand selfish delusions, and punishes those that look at the world rationally. If you don't believe without evidence, you get nothing. But if you believe, say, that you'll get 72 virgins when you die, kinda sucks for the virgins.

A delusion is exactly what it is, though. It is not like those virgins are existing in anything but the persons idea of an afterlife. It is almost like being trapped in a dream for eternity, without realizing it. Though the idea may not seem fair to you, it rewards anyone who has thought they were doing the right thing.

[Baako]

Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.

What makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?

If your idea is some attempt to be fair to everyone, sorry but this is still a completely unfair system. It specifically rewards those with grand selfish delusions, and punishes those that look at the world rationally. If you don't believe without evidence, you get nothing. But if you believe, say, that you'll get 72 virgins when you die, kinda sucks for the virgins.

A delusion is exactly what it is, though. It is not like those virgins are existing in anything but the persons idea of an afterlife. It is almost like being trapped in a dream for eternity, without realizing it. Though the idea may not seem fair to you, it rewards anyone who has thought they were doing the right thing.

A delusion is/can be harmful to the person/those around them.

[Yip]

A delusion is exactly what it is, though. It is not like those virgins are existing in anything but the persons idea of an afterlife. It is almost like being trapped in a dream for eternity, without realizing it. Though the idea may not seem fair to you, it rewards anyone who has thought they were doing the right thing.

So the afterlife is fake? And all afterlifes are fake?  I don't quite understand what you're saying.

And again, what makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?

[Traumerei]

So the afterlife is fake? And all afterlifes are fake?  I don't quite understand what you're saying.

And again, what makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?

The after life isn't fake, and there is no way of telling if it is fake. Other people are not influenced by your idea of life after death, unless in the care of reincarnation, where you will be thrown back into the pot of life.

I believe keeping everyone satisfied plays a big role because no god or goddess would deny another paradise because he or she grew up in the wrong family. Like it or not, the general person follows the religion their parents set up for them. Take for example, the Christian god: I could never believe that a loving god would send a person to suffer forever because they grew up in an isolated village without any knowledge of Christianity. However, this is exactly what the local Baptist church is saying will happen. I'd much rather follow a system where everyone wins, so long as they truely feel they are doing the right thing.