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

The One Who Knocks

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Nope. Death is the end.

Speaking from experience?

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but we can never really know for sure, so why bother arguing.

[Deleted User]

Well here is an alternate way of viewing it based on logic.
This all hinges on whether or not the big bang is a repeated cycle or a once off (it being a once off it actually mind blowing to think about) but anyway if it is a repeated cycle then it repeats infinite times. The chances of your atoms becoming life again in any of the infinite times the dice is rolled becomes 100%.

dd972

Socrates had it measured

“To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils.”

still should have won the 1982 World Cup though

I Heart Internet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To build on your question however, if the After Life is so great why do people who purport to believe in it mourn so heavily when a loved one dies? For people who purport to subscribe to the idea of an after life, they seem in many ways to ACT like people who do not believe it.

Most (if not all) people don't know. We (I am one of them) believe in life after death but we're not sure. So we are unsure.

Another reason for grief, of course, is the (temporary, if you believe in life after death) separation from a loved-one.

Also, of course, if the loved one was young and perceived as having a life ahead of him/her, that can be a cause for grief, even if we believe we'll see them again.

I can only speak for RCC tradition, but a requiem mass for a roman catholic is designed to pray for the deceased person - as if they were still alive, but not as we are. That God will forgive them their sins and welcome them into heaven. We also pray for those "left behind", recognising their sadness and grief, but reminding and assuring them that we will, hopefully, all meet again in Heaven. The requiem mass is not (and was never meant to be) a memorial service, where people talk about what a great guy Johnny was. It is to pray for Johnny.

I believe in life after death, but like everyone else, I have no real way of knowing if I'm right.

sbsquarepants

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Also, of course, if the loved one was young and perceived as having a life ahead of him/her, that can be a cause for grief, even if we believe we'll see them again.
.

Makes no sense.
They had eternity in front of them, they now have eternity in front of them - what's the difference? If anything you should be happy for them, they don't have to deal with day to day shít anymore. Doubt is the only real reason for the sadness that I can see.

nozzferrahhtoo

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Another reason for grief, of course, is the (temporary, if you believe in life after death) separation from a loved-one.

Yet the pain appears disproportionate to other forms of separation. For example when someone moves to Australia and it is likely someone close to them will never see them again..... the grief and suffering does not appear to scale with that of dealing with death.

So not convinced temporary separation explains it that well if I simply compare the reactions of different kinds of "separation" and including "death" in that list.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Also, of course, if the loved one was young and perceived as having a life ahead of him/her, that can be a cause for grief

Why? Under the after life world view they STILL have a life ahead of them. And if the theists espousing such a view are to be believed, it is one of a higher quality than this one.

So no I am not buying it. If I was operating under the after life world view, and more specifically the type exampled by what is espoused by Christians, I would see death on earth as something to be celebrated. Not mourned. There can be no greater thing that could happen to my loved one than to proceed to this next better life.

This kind of thinking, it seems, would not be limited to just me. Was it not an Archbishop of Canterbury (Jeffery Fisher) who expressed a line of thinking more becoming of Rafsin Jarnz when he told us that the worst thing Nuclear War could do is speed people on their way to paradise?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I believe in life after death, but like everyone else, I have no real way of knowing if I'm right.

I think that understates the problem. There is currently no reason whatsoever to even suggest you are right, and quite a few reasons to expect you are wrong. A fact that is somewhat diluted by merely representing it "I just am not sure".

Your belief in an after life is yours, but it appears at this time to be not just slightly.... but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in any way.

I Heart Internet

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Makes no sense.
They had eternity in front of them, they now have eternity in front of them - what's the difference? If anything you should be happy for them, they don't have to deal with day to day shít anymore. Doubt is the only real reason for the sadness that I can see.

Our human nature perceives missing out on 50 years of living, child-rearing, having a career, seeing the world as a sad thing. So we grieve.

We are reminded not to, the person does, indeed have eternity ahead of them, but it's very hard to accept that when all you know is that your young sister (for example) won't be around for the next 50 years of your life.

Doubt is, of course, a huge issue. If we new for absolute certain that the dead were having a great old time in heaven, loving every second of eternity, we'd probably be delighted for them. We don't know for sure.

There's a nice story told about Basil Hume (former Archbishop of Westminster):

When he told his abbot (he was also a Benedictine monk) that he was dying, the abbott replied:

"Congratulations! That's brilliant news. I wish I was coming with you."

Pope John XXIII said, of his impending death: "My bags are packed and I am ready, very ready to go.”

I Heart Internet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So no I am not buying it....

Your belief in an after life is yours, but it appears at this time to be not just slightly.... but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in any way.

I'm really not selling it.

It is deliciously unsubstantiated. It is merely promised. It's a promise I chose to believe in. No more than that.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Definately believe in life after death! You get to see everyone that's died before you, you don't have to go to work, you can just float around all day just enjoying yourself. And everything you cared about that's dead is there, dogs, cats, cows. And you can just live like that forever, with nobody leaving or dying.

Maybe reality is much different, but everyone will have their own beliefs and shouldn't go ****ting all over other people's. I can't wait to snuff out.

nozzferrahhtoo

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Our human nature perceives missing out on 50 years of living, child-rearing, having a career, seeing the world as a sad thing. So we grieve.

I think we get that. The point was to point out how non-sensical that actually is though in the face of an eternal after life. Such 50 years is meaningless in the face of that. In fact this entire life here on earth at all is essentially meaningless in the face of that.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Doubt is, of course, a huge issue.

I imagine this is true of any idea one subscribes to in the absence of any and all substantiation of any type. You say "We do not know for sure" but that as I said is a dilution of the issue. There is no reason of any type on offer anywhere to think it is true at all. That is a lot worse than not knowing for sure. There is no reason to even _suspect_ it is so.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is deliciously unsubstantiated. It is merely promised. It's a promise I chose to believe in. No more than that.

Then your credulity is a lot more labile than mine, is all I can say. Because if there is no reason whatsoever to believe X, I can not simply CHOOSE to believe X. If you can, then more power to you.

I often wonder how far this lability of credulity can go in some people. Are you capable of obtaining an empty box and merely choosing to believe it is stuffed full of money for example?

I assume there are at least some limits to your capacity for self delusion, but I wonder where they lie. I assume it to be different from person to person I guess.

Zubeneschamali

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Our human nature perceives missing out on 50 years of living, child-rearing, having a career, seeing the world as a sad thing. So we grieve.

Your "human nature" understands what's really going on.

MRnotlob606

probably end up in purgatory for a while

I Heart Internet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think we get that. The point was to point out how non-sensical that actually is though in the face of an eternal after life. Such 50 years is meaningless in the face of that. In fact this entire life here on earth at all is essentially meaningless in the face of that. .

The RCC doesn't teach that it is meaningless, far from it, just that it is part of a much grander eternity.

Then your credulity is a lot more labile than mine, is all I can say. Because if there is no reason whatsoever to believe X, I can not simply CHOOSE to believe X. If you can, then more power to you.

Thanks

I Heart Internet

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your "human nature" understands what's really going on.

No. I'm always sad at funerals.

blacklilly

sup_dude wrote: »

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.

Agree entirely with this. The promise on an after life or heaven should not be a reason for someone to have morality and it's quite a strange way to calculate someone's morality or lack thereof. Morality is not correlated to your belief in a higher power.
We all process morality, some of which may be derived from religious teachings but mostly derived from knowing what's right and what's wrong

nozzferrahhtoo

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The RCC doesn't teach that it is meaningless, far from it, just that it is part of a much grander eternity.

I did not claim they teach it is meaningless. My claim is that in many ways it being meaningless is an implication of what they do teach. Big difference

Take the idea, for example, that given INFINITE time anything that can happen will happen. Therefore the "50 years" you feel people are missing out on here.... will likely occur anyway in this after life. Infinite times.

Which is why I say that the implications of your unsubstantiated after life hypothesis are A) life here is essentially meaningless in any way and

Grieving that a young person has lost 50 years of their life by dying young is entirely nonsensical.

But alas we have too often seen people IMPLEMENT that belief too. Like for example the stories we hear of parents who willingly watch their children die painfully of easily treatable conditions because they believe god is against medical intervention and to engage in any will influence the quality of the child's eternal after life.

Would that there were a hell for such parents to go to, but alas the reality is that this IS the senseless curtailing of young lives in the service of nothing but adherence to a not just slightly but entirely unsubstantiated world view. And THAT is a tragedy worthy of grieving over.

Zubeneschamali

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. I'm always sad at funerals.

Exactly. You tell us (and yourself) that you can choose to believe a promise, but you actually react as if death is the end. I've felt it - it's a physical reaction, a gut-punch, and completely different from someone emigrating or whatever.

I Heart Internet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is why I say that the implications of your unsubstantiated after life hypothesis are A) life here is essentially meaningless in any way and Grieving that a young person has lost 50 years of their life by dying young is entirely nonsensical.

Thing is, if you try to "console" someone at a funeral with those points, you won't be thanked.

In your helicopter view of the issue (and I'm doing the same), you are forgetting about the irrational, odd, wacky and sentimental aspects of human nature.

You're critical of people believing in an afterlife, but also critical when they don't believe in it enough to not cry at funerals. We're not all like Data from Star Trek, we are not all as fantastically rational as you.

Birroc

I know now that it would be much easier to be religious and explain the afterlife in some ideal way but being atheist I don't have that luxury. As I get older it gets harder to visualise and accept but I reckon there is nothing after death. Time will tell but I an enjoying life now so no rush!

I Heart Internet

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly. You tell us (and yourself) that you can choose to believe a promise, but you actually react as if death is the end. I've felt it - it's a physical reaction, a gut-punch, and completely different from someone emigrating or whatever.

It is. Comparing death to moving to Australia is silly.

It's an end of sorts. And it is a separation. So grief is entirely natural.

nozzferrahhtoo

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Thing is, if you try to "console" someone at a funeral with those points, you won't be thanked.

Nor would I. But I also would not try and console them by the ultimate lack of decorum of declaring they are in a "better place" which I see as little more than an offensive judgement of their life here. I applaud the woman in my life who responded to hearing someone say that to her with "What the hell was wrong with his life here???"

No I choose to console people in grief by being there for them, giving them the greatest gift we as humans have to give.... our time, and by helping them work through their grief and DEAL with it in a healthy and effective fashion, and I share my grief in turn with them because a problem shared is a problem halved and the best people to truly understand what you are going through are people going through it too.

But why do any of that difficult stuff when we can just make something up huh? I do not throw out unsubstantiated fantasy that personally pleases me. In fact I wonder how often people who do that are actually trying to make THEMSELVES feel better in an emotionally uncomfortable situation rather than the person in grief.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

you are forgetting about the irrational, odd, wacky and sentimental aspects of human nature

Speak for yourself. I am doing the exact opposite of this and your following paragraph as it happens, as I described above in the list of things I ACTUALLY do with people in mourning. Your "Data" analogy is double fail because as I said above I share my own emotions with them because it puts me in a place to really know where they are and work through it WITH them. Show me your "data" doing that.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is. Comparing death to moving to Australia is silly.

No one is comparing them. The point was that if you want to explain away the grief thing by suggesting it has to do with a temporary absence...... then one simply has to note that different types of absence result in different emotional reactions. And that people react to death so much harder than someone merely moving out of your live geographically.... shows simply that mere absence does not explain it.

As such no one is comparing death to the move to Australia. What one is doing is highlighting the DIFFERENCES between death and moving to Australia and extrapolating implications from that.

But certainly do not let the actual point of my analogy get in the way of you striking at the ridiculousness of your straw man version of it.

Calibos

'No one has a clue what happens when we die'.

Ahem!.....Every single person who ever existed 'experienced' a very big clue actually.

Everyone living and dead had a common frame of reference for what it's like when we are dead. The 14 billion years before we were alive. Why is it so hard for so many people to make the mental connection between the two? Sure we can't know for certain what happens after we die but what 'happened' to us before we existed is a pretty big clue.

As for morality. Who is more moral. The person who only responds morally to the carrot and the stick or the person who responds morally without punishment or reward.

The way I look at it, it's a win win win situation for me when I die assuming a led a moral life following the Golden Rule.

I die and enter a state of non existence like before I was conceived. It's what I expect. I don't fear it. It's noting to be afraid off. I didn't spend 14 billion years in existential terror before I existed.

I die and there is a God and a Heaven but it's not the abrahamaic god who sends me to hell for not believing despite being moral. Instead I get a pat on the shoulder for being moral without threat of punishment or promise of reward.

I die and there is a god and he is the god of Abraham who sends me to eternal torment for not believing despite being moral. I get to suffer in hell but can bask in the warm glow of knowing that I am more moral than the fcuking creator of the universe for crying out loud.

I Heart Internet

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As such no one is comparing death to the move to Australia. What one is doing is highlighting the DIFFERENCES between death and moving to Australia and extrapolating implications from that.

But certainly do not let the actual point of my analogy get in the way of you striking at the ridiculousness of your straw man version of it.

Well you did compare death to moving to Australia. Let's be factual about that:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet the pain appears disproportionate to other forms of separation. For example when someone moves to Australia and it is likely someone close to them will never see them again..... the grief and suffering does not appear to scale with that of dealing with death.

But, as for the rest of your email and, in particular, your approach to consoling grieving people, I applaud you. It's an excellent approach. For the record, I would never be so crass as to day "ah sure he's gone to a better place."

The_Valeyard

Meh. The human being is so complex in its creation and function that I cannot simply believe that physical death is the end of our consciousness.

Zubeneschamali

The One Who Knocks wrote: »

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but we can never really know for sure, so why bother arguing.

Of course we know.

Science doesn't tell us exactly how 3 pounds of brain generates a self-conscious mind, but we can see how damage to the brain affects the mind: localised damage affects parts of the mind, and severe damage damages it severely.

If your mind in the afterlife can see, and recognize others, and remember, why does damage to a small part of your brain cause you to go blind, or stop recognizing faces, or forget?

There is absolutely no reason in the world to think killing the brain will somehow detach a mind from the physical realm and send it to magic land. It's a fairy tale, a ghost story. We know better.

sbsquarepants

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The RCC doesn't teach that it is meaningless, far from it, just that it is part of a much grander eternity.

Thanks

You don't think it seems a bit crazy to base entry to the happy ever after club, countless billions and trillions of years on maybe 70 or 80 you spent here? And what about those who only spent 20 years here, or a week, or an hour. It's like judging your entire life on one particular millisecond you spent somewhere in 1984 - it's patently ridiculous.

Tony EH

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

Don't know. Nobody knows.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

As an aside you know the way a doctor will always say so and so died "peacefully"? Do you believe that is likely?

No. Death is usually violent. Just because it may look peaceful, at times, on the outside, it's absolute chaos on the body internally.

I can only hope I am completely unconscious when it happens.

Birroc

Nozzferrahttoo is much too intelligent for Boards and especially AH. I do love his posts though.

statesaver

"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C. Clarke

kylith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You don't think it seems a bit crazy to base entry to the happy ever after club, countless billions and trillions of years on maybe 70 or 80 you spent here? And what about those who only spent 20 years here, or a week, or an hour. It's like judging your entire life on one particular millisecond you spent somewhere in 1984 - it's patently ridiculous.

Not to mention the unfairness of denying entry to all the millions of people who were born before Deity X was 'made known', all the millions of people who never heard of DEITY X, and all the millions of people who were brought up being taught, through no fault of their own, that Deity X wasn't real.