nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Life after death?

Kermit.de.frog

Do you believe in life after death? Maybe not the traditional narratives of heaven etc but maybe something else?

As an aside you know the way a doctor will always say so and so died "peacefully"? Do you believe that is likely? Curious. Because I don't believe that myself but I suppose that is separate.

Discuss!:)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cookie_Monster

Nope. Death is the end.

[Deleted User]

I think after you die it's just the same feeling as you 'felt' before you were born.

Kermit.de.frog

Omackeral wrote: »

I think after you die it's just the same feeling as you 'felt' before you were born.

Reincarnation?

KERSPLAT!

When you die, that's it, nothing happens you're just gone IMO

takamichinoku

Basically not even remotely, must be extremely certain of it because I never even entertain an alternative.

I think you can get so ****ing exhausted that the allure of letting go of life becomes quite nice in its own respect, in much the same way as you might become so exhausted that a nap could seem like a nice thing to do even if you're driving on a motorway. Asides from some weird freaky last gasp stuff that I never heard about beforehand, my dad pretty much chose to bow out once it got to be too much after a ****ing awful few weeks and went very peacefully. He was extremely religious though, would've had no fear about the whole thing.

Like23Ninjas

There is life after death, just not the dead persons life... I want to come back as a bird.

Kermit.de.frog

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

When you die, that's it, nothing happens you're just gone IMO

What is your moral compass then? It's easy to be smart and just dismiss it but if you want to foist that view on the world then maybe you should also endeavor to explain what moral views people should hold to themselves and the rest of humanity. If you just wilt and die like a plant than why not simply turn on each other and kill each other? No consequence and sure it's darkness in the end.

A lot of clever people like to be clever and tell people there is nothing afterward without thinking what fills the void.

takamichinoku

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you just wilt and die like a plant than why not simply turn on each other and kill each other? No consequence and sure it's darkness in the end.

But there are consequences, consequences to you during your lifetime, the risk of consequences to your loved ones after you pass... just not any ultimate ones (or at least very few, I'm sure most people don't want their death to be any more intolerable than it absolutely has to be).

IMO, if it's total darkness in the end, that should make the time up until then more important, not less.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What is your moral compass then? It's easy to be smart and just dismiss it but if you want to foist that view on the world then maybe you should also endeavor to explain what moral views people should hold to themselves and the rest of humanity. If you just wilt and die like a plant than why not simply turn on each other and kill each other? No consequence and sure it's darkness in the end.

A lot of clever people like to be clever and tell people there is nothing afterward without thinking what fills the void.

Bit rich to ask people their opinion and then accusing them of foisting that view on the world.

Some people don't see the absence of life after death as a void, quite the opposite in fact because it makes the time we do have all the sweeter.

Cookie_Monster

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What is your moral compass then? It's easy to be smart and just dismiss it but if you want to foist that view on the world then maybe you should also endeavor to explain what moral views people should hold to themselves and the rest of humanity. If you just wilt and die like a plant than why not simply turn on each other and kill each other? No consequence and sure it's darkness in the end.

A lot of clever people like to be clever and tell people there is nothing afterward without thinking what fills the void.

why would no life after death affect your moral compass?

If anything the concept of a last minute redemption resolving you of everything and making sure you get into heaven severely alters your morals as you know you can justify anything in life as all will be magically forgiven.

osarusan

I don't believe in life after death.

I still like Mark Twain's quote on death:

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

KERSPLAT!

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What is your moral compass then? It's easy to be smart and just dismiss it but if you want to foist that view on the world then maybe you should also endeavor to explain what moral views people should hold to themselves and the rest of humanity. If you just wilt and die like a plant than why not simply turn on each other and kill each other? No consequence and sure it's darkness in the end.

A lot of clever people like to be clever and tell people there is nothing afterward without thinking what fills the void.

Dafuq? Who's being smart, who is dismissing anything? You asked a question and I answered it. I don't believe there is anything after death, that's my opinion. I'm sure you have your own and that's fair enough

Antar Bolaeisk

What you do in life echoes in eternity.

That's all the afterlife you'll get.

Kermit.de.frog

The fact is, whether atheists like it or not, the vast majority across the world take their code from a religion and act accordingly. I don't believe many of them would be satisfied by nothingness.

It's a point often ignored by those that preach atheism and such. I'm not religious, far from it, but I recognise this issue and the reality is that the theory of nothing after death does leave a void and something has to fill it. Simply living and no aspiration to something better afterward won't bind society together or make people act good in my opinion.

Look at the crime rate in Ireland now compared to 40 years a go for example. Some would say life was worse in Ireland then but others would say life was safer and better for it under a more catholic and religious country. I do agree more often than not.

[Deleted User]

I wrote this six years ago, the point still stands.

Deleted User wrote:

The reason, I believe, that an atheist would choose to live a moral life, is simply because, while you, <snip>, believe your life has consequence when you die, others believe their life has consequence while they are still alive, that is to say, why would they want to hurt another person, when, if they are still alive tomorrow, they will have to face that person, you may have 80 years of life to live, why would you choose to live each of those days immorally - resulting only in people around you hating you and being unahppy, that would not be life, life is for living, not for dying.

So, to answer your question, I believe that Atheists live for the people who they can see around them, who help them, who love them, and not for some unknown being that "might" be there when they die, judging them on every day of their happy lives.

House of Blaze

Morality is so subjective that it is essentially meaningless anyway in my view.

I don't really believe in right and wrong or good and evil at all in fact. I accept the premise that the universe is just a random collision of particles and atoms moving through spacetime.

If you accept that hypothesis, then where exactly does the notion of whether something is 'right' or 'wrong' come into it? Now that's not to say that I would spend my days raping and murdering if there were no repercussions of course. And I think that would be true of most people. I mean afterall, even though there are severe consequences for doing things society considers wrong it doesn't actually prevent people from doing those things anyway.

As for life after death? No. Sure, the atoms that constitute your body are recycled into new forms but I don't believe for a moment that your consciousness has any experience of it.

Your consciousness is basically an electrochemical illusion at best anyway, and so when that electric energy converts into something else, say after your body has decomposed or been burned to ashes then your consciousness ceases to exist as well. The matter that constituted your brain persists, in some form, but not in a way that is meaningful for human experience.

Kermit.de.frog

Deleted User wrote: »

I wrote this six years ago, the point still stands.

But why would you care? There is no higher authority to hold you accountable under your theory?

Do you see what I am getting at?

KERSPLAT!

Two perfect answers

[Deleted User]

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But why would you care? There is no higher authority to hold you accountable under your theory?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Nope. I see you ignoring exactly what has been written

Kermit.de.frog

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. I see you ignoring exactly what has been written

You don't see it. You are ignoring it because you have no answer to it. There is no morality without a far higher power. Morality is redundant under your perspective.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The fact is, whether atheists like it or not, the vast majority across the world take their code from a religion and act accordingly. I don't believe many of them would be satisfied by nothingness.

It's a point often ignored by those that preach atheism and such. I'm not religious, far from it, but I recognise this issue and the reality is that the theory of nothing after death does leave a void and something has to fill it. Simply living and no aspiration to something better afterward won't bind society together or make people act good in my opinion.

Look at the crime rate in Ireland now compared to 40 years a go for example. Some would say life was worse in Ireland then but others would say life was safer and better for it under a more catholic and religious country. I do agree more often than not.

Or, alternatively, look at what has happened in the past few centuries since the Enlightenment and a gradual trending towards secularism and atheism - recognition of universal human rights, suffrage for women, abolition of slavery, vast improvements in medicine and consequently the quality of life for most people etc etc.

Behaving morally because you are afraid of the cosmic consequences of behaving otherwise is not really moral.

House of Blaze

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But why would you care? There is no higher authority to hold you accountable under your theory?

Do you see what I am getting at?

You wouldn't need a higher authority to judge you for murdering someone though..

Just a large group of the victims friends armed with sharp objects.

takamichinoku

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's a point often ignored by those that preach atheism and such. I'm not religious, far from it, but I recognise this issue and the reality is that the theory of nothing after death does leave a void and something has to fill it. Simply living and no aspiration to something better afterward won't bind society together or make people act good in my opinion.

Look at the crime rate in Ireland now compared to 40 years a go for example. Some would say life was worse in Ireland then but others would say life was safer and better for it under a more catholic and religious country. I do agree more often than not.

If nothing else, it makes sense from an game theory to not be a total wanker in most cases and you'll find plenty of people who will jump on the exceptions whether they're religious or not.
There's loads to fill it anyway; I'm sure most people want to be able to leave the world thinking that they were more of a positive than a negative, and there's an aspiration to not leave things worse for the generations which follow you (admittedly most people will wind up focusing on their immediate relatives rather than the world at large, but it's still something).

You know what, I'd say not that many would say that Catholic Ireland of 40 years ago and beyond was that good, what with the child abuse and magdalene laundries and all that stuff. Not really sure what about now is more scary than a major authority being just as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the Catholic church was back then.

Ave Sodalis

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But why would you care? There is no higher authority to hold you accountable under your theory?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Yeah, because religious people never do anything wrong or unmoral due to fear of judgement...

People don't need a higher authority. You say " I don't believe many of them would be satisfied by nothingness. ". Well, I'm not satisfied with the belief of heaven or hell. Not am I satisfied with the idea that I need to live my life in certain ways to get into either of them. No, I much prefer to live my life as though it's the only one I have. Luckily, some people are capable of drawing morality from other sources and don't need to live their life in fear of retribution from a higher authority. Not that that stopped an awful lot of people committing terrible acts "in the name of God" down through history...

[Deleted User]

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You don't see it. You are ignoring it because you have no answer to it.

The answer to everything you are asking is right there in my post. You can keep asking the question, you can ask it in as many different ways as you like, but the answer is still all written in that post.

ceadaoin.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The fact is, whether atheists like it or not, the vast majority across the world take their code from a religion and act accordingly. I don't believe many of them would be satisfied by nothingness.

It's a point often ignored by those that preach atheism and such. I'm not religious, far from it, but I recognise this issue and the reality is that the theory of nothing after death does leave a void and something has to fill it. Simply living and no aspiration to something better afterward won't bind society together or make people act good in my opinion.

Look at the crime rate in Ireland now compared to 40 years a go for example. Some would say life was worse in Ireland then but others would say life was safer and better for it under a more catholic and religious country. I do agree more often than not.

Talk about 'foisting' views on people!

I would love to believe in life after death but logic tells me it must be nothingness. Like when you go into a deep sleep sometimes and can't remember any dreams, just nothing and then you wake up.

People don't need religion to act morally. Even if you do believe in that stuff you can still be as evil as you want and just repent on your deathbed and still get into heaven with no probs. Not much of a deterrent there.

takamichinoku

ceadaoin. wrote: »

People don't need religion to act morally. Even if you do believe in that stuff you can still be as evil as you want and just repent on your deathbed and still get into heaven with no probs. Not much of a deterrent there.

As seemingly evidenced by about half the dudes on death row.

Kermit.de.frog

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Talk about 'foisting' views on people!

I would love to believe in life after death but logic tells me it must be nothingness. Like when you go into a deep sleep sometimes and can't remember any dreams, just nothing and then you wake up.

People don't need religion to act morally. Even if you do believe in that stuff you can still be as evil as you want and just repent on your deathbed and still get into heaven with no probs. Not much of a deterrent there.

Why would anyone be moral without religion or a higher power or whatever? Why?

It's bull**** at the end of the day because morality would not come in to a world where everyone was atheist. Because morality would have no reason to exist. Take what you can even if you have to steal and kill. Does not work.

Ave Sodalis

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why would anyone be moral without religion or a higher power or whatever? Why?

It's bull**** at the end of the day because morality would not come in to a world where everyone was atheist. Because morality would have no reason to exist. Take what you can even if you have to steal and kill. Does not work.

Thankfully, most people are not silly enough to think that morality comes from religion. Morality is not defined by religion. You don't need God to tell you it's not okay to go around killing people. You don't need God to tell you it's a good idea to save some kid that's wandered out on a busy road.
I don't think you understand morality enough to have a discussion on it.

Cookie_Monster

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is no morality without a far higher power.

There is no morality with a higher power, only justification through fear and judgement of what those who claim to act of behalf of that power teach or the direct fear of an 'ultimate judgement'. In the absence of such a 'higher power' one actually has to think and consider their actions and thus learn morality from them and those around them rather than simply fall back on narrow minded nonsense.