Isn't eternal life just as bad as eternal death?

Pretzill wrote: »

There seems to be cross threads here re: eternal life and life after death. Living eternally is not realistic unless you're an elf and life after death is a misnomer - life is living - death is no longer living - the body dies this is proven every other theory is just a theory. Some believe in spirit/soul/a metaphysical part of ourselves goes on but there is no proof - as a species we haven't been around for all that long but I would suggest that if there was a firm way of prooving life after death we'd have done it by now.

Like we've cured cancer and AIDS and figured out how to teleport already?

Hitchens wrote: »

Does a child exist before it is conceived?

Japanese think they do, they have an age system that starts from when the baby was conceived.

seb65 wrote: »

What does believing in an existence after this one have to do with religion?

Sorry, that was related to god, not related to life after death.

You ask quite a philosophical question there op. Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but. There a song by Queen on the subject which may help.

mangochavez wrote: »

So if there is an afterlife how will life be different than now?

Thankfully I see no reason to think there is one at all. There simply is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to think there is one. So I do not.

I think the idea of an afterlife cheapens the value of life here. What is the point of life here if there is an eternal afterlife? Rarity is what defines the worth of many things. Gold is not just precious because it is a bit pretty. It is precious because it is very rare.

Similarly the rarity and uniqueness of life, the fact I am a one off, and our existence before we are gone and never to be repeated is mercilessly brief, all lend life value.

Take the Myths surrounding the Christ where we are told god "gave" us his only son and that Jesus sacrificed himself for us.

Think about it. What was sacrificed? The Nazerene is said to be living a life of eternal bliss and dominion with his pa-pa. That does not sound like he sacrificed anything but in fact traded up.

It is an insult to anyone who actually did give their one and only life... with no promise of another one... in the name of some person, place or ideal. People who actually did genuinely make a sacrifice. The fact they do NOT have an eternal life ahead of them adds value to their actions.

This god did not "give" us a son but in fact "lent" us one therefore. For an insignificant time and even if this "son" did die ever then this supposed all powerful being has the ability to mediate his grief by returning life to that son in an instant.

Contrast this to the agony of parents on this planet who when they lose a child it really is lost forever. There is good reason why people often declare that there is no pain greater than to outlive your own children.

Even the tortures said to have been visited on this character are like a holiday compared to some of the horrors our species have invented to visit on each other in our halls of torture.

The rarity and transience of life gives it its value, it does not erode it. The idea of an eternal after life fills me with horror and it is with some relief I get to acknowledge the simple fact that no one any where, much less on this forum, has the single shred of the first iota of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend the idea even a modicum of credence.

The late Christopher Hitchens once described it by saying that death is like being told you have to leave a really good party soon, and that the party will continue on without you. While an unpleasant thought this may be, it is no where near as unpleasant as the thought that someone at the party will tap you on the shoulder, tell you that you will NEVER be leaving ever, and while you stay the host positively _insists_ you have a good time.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You can't say with confidence that some form of God does or does not exist.

No but we can say with total confidence that there is not a shred of reason to think it does.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Hmm nope, I'm pretty sure it would be awesome to live forever, explore the expanding universe and watch civilizations rise and fall.

It would be awesome. For awhile. Eternity is a long time though. I imagine it would get boring pretty quickly.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No one can say for certain that some form of higher power doesn't exist, no one. Because the truth is we just don't know.

I agree. We just do not "know". The problem I would have however is with any attempt some might make to take this fact and act like this means there is some kind of equivalence between the two positions on the matter. As if it is therefore somehow 50:50.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence indeed but it is a very powerful indicator of the fact that any imagined equivalence between the two positions is a false one.

If I tell you that the next time you leave your home a pink Volkswagen with purple pokka dots is going to materialize about your head and fall upon you and kill you... you simply have no way to disprove this claim in advance.

Does that mean it is 50:50 that I am correct in my assertion? Clearly not. The fact is that you recognize there simply is no reason to take my claim seriously _at all_. The claim is devoid of even the smallest modicum of anything to lend it credence.

While you would therefore be quite right to say "We can not yet disprove your claim and therefore we just do not _know_".... saying it is an empty pointing out of the obvious that invents a false equivalence between the positions of taking me seriously or not.

So while your sentence is technically correct it is an empty statement that brushes over the real facts of the matter at hand. Some sentences are so pedantically correct that their appeal to pedantry really is the only value they contain.

seb65 wrote: »

There are, actually, many experiences - many people have had that cannot be explained. So there is some evidence that there is a continuation. Near death experiences and after death communications for example. These cannot be explained. Though scientists have some sort of vendetta towards trying to explain them away, they have thus been unable to recreate an NDE experience through lack of oxygen or stimulating different parts of the brain. The people who have had NDE's swear that their experiences were more real than our earthly reality. They also say there is no concept of time in these instances. If there is no concept of time, this idea of eternal time does not exist. Also, there are fundamental components of NDE's regardless of age, religious beliefs, culture and geographic location.

I think that most people who have lost a child, as you say, try to live in hope that the child goes on and is happy, or at peace. It's rather cruel for you to assert that they know the child is gone forever, just gone. Their anguish, similar to anyone who has lost someone they love, is due to the fact that they are no longer present in the physical with them - among other things.

Yes but Near Death Experiences are not evidence of anything. No one can prove that anyone actually experienced them, you just have to take the word of the person who experienced them. In my opinion, and it is admittedly just my opinion, a near death experience is just a dream. They are often (always?) experienced while unconscious and no matter how real they feel, the person hasnt moved from his/her hospital bed or wherever their physical body is. If I had a very vivd dream of Jesus coming and telling me I'm the second coming of Christ and claimed for all the world that it was more real than life itself, would that be evidence that I am in fact the second coming of Christ?

The fact is, near death experiences are not evidence of anything except the fact that a traumatised person had a vivid dream.

As for telling parents that their child is gone forever, if it is more comforting them to believe that their child is gone to eternal bliss, then that's great for them but wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Why are they so upset about losing their child in the first place if the child is gone to a better place.

seb65 wrote: »

There are, actually, many experiences - many people have had that cannot be explained. So there is some evidence that there is a continuation.

I think I would disagree with that from two totally different angles.

The first being that there are actually many explanations for such things. The people who have had them however simply reject them. If you are aware of any that quite simply are devoid of any plausible explanation then by all means cite them. I think many of our species fall for the power of context however. Perfectly mundane things when they occur in a "lofty" context such as during deep meditation or while on the operating table in a hospital in the proximity to death suddenly take on the power of context and require special explanations because the context voids the mundane explanations in their imagination.

The second reason I would disagree is that our species seems too ready to accept the notion that if X is unexplained then any nonsense idea made up on the spot to explain it is suddenly elevated in credibility. In other words ANY answer is better than no answer at all and an answer that is recognized as total nonsense in one context can suddenly be considered credible in another for no other reason than there is no other answers around.

So no, I see nothing in the above to suggest there is ANY evidence "of continuation" here at all. Not even slightly. You would essentially be offering the lack of evidence AS evidence which is clearly a nonsense.

seb65 wrote: »

Near death experiences and after death communications for example.

I see nothing to suggest the latter has ever occured. Anywhere. Ever. Again if you feel you know something I do not then I welcome the citations.

The former however I heartily agree with. The explanation is in the name however. NEAR death experience. That is: they were not _actually_ dead. If you want to tell me that there are people who had _an_ experience while _near_ death then you will get zero argument from me.

Clearly however evidence for experience AFTER death this is not at all despite the two topics cropping up often beside one another. And, yes, they CAN be explained. The rejection of those explanations is not the same as those explanations not existing.

seb65 wrote: »

they have thus been unable to recreate an NDE experience through lack of oxygen or stimulating different parts of the brain.

Actually... depending on which aspect of NDE you are referring to here... this is entirely untrue. Many experiences associated also with NDE have very much been artificially recreated. Including the sensation of being outside or above ones own body. Perhaps you are personally not aware of such things... but that does not mean they have not been done.

seb65 wrote: »

If there is no concept of time, this idea of eternal time does not exist.

That is something of a leap given how brief their exposure to NDE actually is. Were the experience to continue at some great length their perception of the passage of time would likely be entirely different to what they describe. Most of us normal humans are already powerfully aware of the time dilation effects of dreams. We fall asleep from what the people around us assure us was only a second or two but we come out of a dream convinced we were in it for quite some time for example.

And as for the "fundamental components" of NDE I have read a few people who have taken the texts written by people describing their NDE and also by people describing certain trips on drugs... and the similarities in theme and sensation and so forth is more than striking.

seb65 wrote: »

I think that most people who have lost a child, as you say, try to live in hope that the child goes on and is happy, or at peace. It's rather cruel for you to assert that they know the child is gone forever, just gone.

I do not see it as cruel at all. It is simply what is apparently the truth. Grief is a wound that needs to be healed and dealt with. Covering it over with lies might give immediate solace but what of the long term? One recognized aspect of the grieving process in psychological literature is the concept that the sooner one deals with grief the better. The recent US tornadoes for example saw children losing parents but themselves surviving and they rushed to get child counsellors in their with boots on the ground from day 1 because every day counts.

I have witness the results of people post poning the grieving process first hand and it was never pretty. People who used faith to deal with a death who later lost that faith then had to go through the loss almost as if it was repeated all over again from square 1. Though this time they had to do it without all the tools psychologists say we require to do so.... such as fresh not yet faded memories of the departed.

Having stood over the grief racked form of someone who lost their faith and had to lose their loved one all over again as they cry in lament "I can not even remember her face any more, why can I not just see her face" you will not convince me that it would have been cruel had I been there on day 1 telling them that their loved one simply is gone and they need to face that.

I recognize and am far from unsympathetic to the appeal of the "in the moment quick fix" solution to someones pain. When someone comes out of a hospital having just lost their wife every part of you wants to say _something_ to alleviate the persons suffering in that moment. Even I have found the temptation to say "She is with god now".

But a badly dressed wound has to be re-dressed later and often with complications of infection and worse.

RexHamilton wrote: »

Yes but Near Death Experiences are not evidence of anything. No one can prove that anyone actually experienced them, you just have to take the word of the person who experienced them. In my opinion, and it is admittedly just my opinion, a near death experience is just a dream. They are often (always?) experienced while unconscious and no matter how real they feel, the person hasnt moved from his/her hospital bed or wherever their physical body is. If I had a very vivd dream of Jesus coming and telling me I'm the second coming of Christ and claimed for all the world that it was more real than life itself, would that be evidence that I am in fact the second coming of Christ?

The fact is, near death experiences are not evidence of anything except the fact that a traumatised person had a vivid dream.

As for telling parents that their child is gone forever, if it is more comforting them to believe that their child is gone to eternal bliss, then that's great for them but wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. Why are they so upset about losing their child in the first place if the child is gone to a better place.

Except in instances where people with an NDE have seen someone in "heaven" they didn't know was dead in the first place.

As I already said, believing someone is in a better place is not the issue, the issue is not having them physically present with you.

As for the tests scientists have done - they can simulate the tunnel of light effect through lack of oxygen and the OBE effect by stimulating parts of the brain. They have not been able to simulate the two experiences together. Nor have they been able to simulate the feelings of peace, love or the meeting of loved ones, the life review, etc. In other words, they cannot simulate the rich, subjective experiences people describe.

I have no answer for why people cannot read the cards that scientists in London have placed on high levels to test OBEs. However, patients do not know these cards exist and are probably not going to look for them in an OBE, should they actually occur.

After death communications have been reported. Though, people are often hesitant to speak of them for fear of ridicule by "scientific" people who approach the possibility of continued existence with the same level of arrogance as devout religious people who definitively state there is a God... and a heaven...and a hell.

I have read numerous stories of after death communications. Both my grandmother and great-grandmother have spoken of their own experiences - both of which more substantial than a rainbow or a bird in the sky.

seb65 wrote: »

Except in instances where people with an NDE have seen someone in "heaven" they didn't know was dead in the first place.

As I already said, believing someone is in a better place is not the issue, the issue is not having them physically present with you.

As for the tests scientists have done - they can simulate the tunnel of light effect through lack of oxygen and the OBE effect by stimulating parts of the brain. They have not been able to simulate the two experiences together. Nor have they been able to simulate the feelings of peace, love or the meeting of loved ones, the life review, etc. In other words, they cannot simulate the rich, subjective experiences people describe.

I have no answer for why people cannot read the cards that scientists in London have placed on high levels to test OBEs. However, patients do not know these cards exist and are probably not going to look for them in an OBE, should they actually occur.

After death communications have been reported. Though, people are often hesitant to speak of them for fear of ridicule by "scientific" people who approach the possibility of continued existence with the same level of arrogance as devout religious people who definitively state there is a God... and a heaven...and a hell.

I have read numerous stories of after death communications. Both my grandmother and great-grandmother have spoken of their own experiences - both of which more substantial than a rainbow or a bird in the sky.

Your grand mother and great-grandmother were from a simpler and more innocent time. Everyone I know from those generations has a story or an anecdote which if were would prove many things. Simple fact is, they made that leap of faith that if we don't know why something occurs, it must be caused by something supernatural. That's the same leap you're making. You're asserting that NDE's are evidence of an afterlife, when they are not. They are the experience of the individual person that experienced them. They are not evidence.

After Death communications? I really hope you're not talking about psychics and mediums. If you are I'm going to remove myself from this conversation, I reckon.