What do you believe happens when we die

Tonnes, kilos, schmilos. NASA has done worse. And the bigger boys made me do it.

Simply ceasing to exist means one has to deny the spiritual realm exists. That means denying the existence of angels, demons, people being possessed resulting in abnormal behaviour, many of the new age spiritual practices that involve spiritual guides that are really demons, a person's eternal soul, and a day of judgement for everyone. It's a lot of denying. I don't think there is any atheist that truly believes there is no creator.

I would contend that, while no one has definitive answers, the parameters of the discussion are not as unknowable as they might appear.

For example, it has been known since ancient times, that a bang to the head can fundamentally alter a person's nature.

We now know that to be brain injury. The Egyptians sent us along the wrong path for millennia, with the heart as the seat of emotions, even though we now also know that there are ganglia of brain-like neurons in the heart too.

The point is, conscious resides and emanates from the brain and an impaired brain, through injury or disease, can show a deterioration in a person's consciousness.

Therefore, if consciousness cannot be separated from the brain, then it makes the idea of a soul, spirit, whatever, very difficult.

Prof Brian Cox put it very succinctly when he said that we have now, for about 150 years, refined what has become known as the standard model, which includes the sum of all knowledge about how matter, space and energy interact.

All we know thus far, he said, indicates that energy on its own, without physical structure, will dissipate. Therefore, if the soul can exist independently of the body, it does so in a manner not just completely unknown, but also completely unevidenced - as in, no hint or indication what or which might be at play.

This is tantamount to the very idea of gods themselves - unknowable. And therefore, mere conjecture, up there with teapots orbiting the other side of the sun.

From a logical perspective, I have to say: feck that from a height.

Everything we associate with the personal experience of the divine, from the all consuming presence, to the feeling of oneness with the universe, or even the demon presence, can be induced with drugs, or other physical stress. This would indicate that what we are experiencing is not the divine, but a biological interpretation of a set of stimuli that tends to go in one direction. But, that one direction has resulted in the veritable cornucopia of belief, religions and daftness that we enjoy today.

I do not claim to know why we do this; there are probably evolutionary advantages to having religious ideas, such as social cohesion, order and species distribution, but it does result in some awful behaviour by our species.

The more we refine our ability to measure what is going on in our brains and nervous systems, the more we understand how our brains work.

We now know that there is a level of precognition in our decision making that is breathtaking in its effect but very hard to understand in its effectiveness. It has been shown that the certain decisions are made by certain parts of the brain milliseconds before the conscious part becomes aware of it, or responds.

But the fact remains, consciousness, in every single test that has ever been devised or carried out, does not survive the destruction of the brain that produced it.

Not only that, everything else we have learned about the environment it exists in supports that position.

To ignore this and persist in an unsupported belief, or worse still to insist that others alter their lives to conform to it, is the very height of madness.

I fully believe in people's rights to believe in whatever the feck they like, but as soon as someone thinks that right allows them to compel someone else to do something, then they lose the that right.

As one wag put it, if one person has an imaginary friend, they are a bit odd. If everybody has the same one, it's religion.

But back the the original point, if one considers the vastness of time before and after one's own birth, look at the wonder there is to cherish the time you have. Look at the choice you have to either make the world a better place by being kind to all, not because of an eternal reward or the threat of hellfire, but because it's just a good thing to do, or just be a dick and always been known for that.

I think making that choice, not to be good, but to do good with the time you have, is the most human thing you can do because it contributes to something larger than one's self - the species well being as a whole, with the small resource you have: your time.

Or something, I dunno.

What?

one world order wrote: »

Simply ceasing to exist means one has to deny the spiritual realm exists. That means denying the existence of angels, demons, people being possessed resulting in abnormal behaviour, many of the new age spiritual practices that involve spiritual guides that are really demons, a person's eternal soul, and a day of judgement for everyone.

All of that stuff has never been demonstrated to be anything other than complete and utter nonsense.

I don't think there is any atheist that truly believes there is no creator.

You can think what you want, but you'd be wrong.

one world order wrote: »

Simply ceasing to exist means one has to deny the spiritual realm exists. That means denying the existence of angels, demons...

What about the Tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, the Bogeyman?

I don't think there is any atheist that truly believes there is no creator.

Yes there is, just one. :pac:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/measurement.html

smacl wrote: »

And what divine power do you posses that you claim to know what every atheist does or does not believe? I rather doubt that anyone can categorically state that they know what anyone believes other than themselves. Some seem to struggle even with that

Subjectively, I know you're wrong as I personally have never believed in the existence of a creator. Objectively you are also most probably wrong given that ~80% of the people on this poll believe death is final which wouldn't tally with your creationist stance. Or perhaps you believe that I'm lying and they're all lying too?

Reading some of your previous posts, you have a lot of hostility towards God. The reason most atheists are so hostile is because deep down they know God is real, and trying to suppress God's existence makes them angry when someone talks about God. People that try to suppress God usually resort to mocking and name calling to make God a joke and so overcome that internal conflict.

I believe this world is under the control of the Devil, trying to deceive as many people as possible. I know God is personal, he will reward those that seek him. We as humans are a sinful people, and it's that sinful nature that separates us from God as he is holy. But God did do something for us for all those sins we have done, and it's that act of love, which comes under the most attack through films, cartoons, media, music and the false indoctrination been pushed in the education system.

We are reborn as ghosts on the moon.

saabsaab wrote: »

Interesting article below re consciousness after death..

It's not though is it? It was an article about minor activity continuing in a short temporary unexplained manner after MEDICAL death was called. (Medical death and actual death being somewhat different).

saabsaab wrote: »

Parnia's research has shown that people who survive medical death

saabsaab wrote: »

reported watching—from a corner of the room, from above—as doctors tried to save them, accounts subsequently verified by the (very perplexed) doctors themselves.

And Parnia went on to construct double blind controlled experiments to try and verify that the patients in question actually were viewing the room from the reported locations.

Thus far, to my knowledge, those experiments have 100% failed to verify a single case of it actually happening. And this is from Parnia who is biased TOWARDS not away from verifying life after death.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It's not though is it? It was an article about minor activity continuing in a short temporary unexplained manner after MEDICAL death was called. (Medical death and actual death being somewhat different).




And Parnia went on to construct double blind controlled experiments to try and verify that the patients in question actually were viewing the room from the reported locations.

Thus far, to my knowledge, those experiments have 100% failed to verify a single case of it actually happening. And this is from Parnia who is biased TOWARDS not away from verifying life after death.

Those studies as far as I can make out aren't finished. The visual tests were unsuccessful so far in a very small number but an audio hit was confirmed.

smacl wrote: »

You're on an atheist forum here where most people don't believe any stories from the bible. I would recommend that if you want to discuss Christianity with like minded folk that you'd be better on the Christianity forum. If you're here to preach, you're most likely going to have a hard time of it as you're looking for others to treat your beliefs with respect while trampling over theirs. This is something most atheists are all too used to and tend to treat with derision. I often wonder what motivates a proselytising Christian to do this. Honestly, it comes across as looking for brownie points with your deity in the hope of an easier entrance into the pearly gates. One would hope an omniscient deity would see through this ruse.

You want Jesus gone from society but if I ask why, you tell me to go to the Christianity forum. Surly you can come up with a reason, and no I am not looking for brownie points from God, the salvation of my soul is already secured.

Ah, the 'Why do you hate Jesus' argument...