Apatheist:
I agree with you; science will soon prove the existence of Santa Claus
Then our Lord, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You definitely dont have a point thats why you are engaging some distractions. I cant be a party to your distractions. Its either you believe that science and discoveries are infinite and you leave it at that or you dont believe it. Be honest to yourself atleast.

alexleo:

You definitely dont have a point thats why you are engaging some distractions. I cant be a party to your distractions. Its either you believe that science and discoveries are infinite and you leave it at that or you dont believe it. Be honest to yourself atleast.

What distractions?
I agree that the universe is infinite - and still expanding, and we know very little about it.

Apatheist:
What distractions?
I agree that the universe is infinite - and still expanding, and we know very little about it.

So leave it at that and stop being selective and drawing conclusions anyhow. This issue that the Op raised is too deep for one to rush into conclusions. He is not a christian and therefore wasnt thinking on religious lines. But once in a while one get to think deep about this life and the mysteries surrounding it. Must you castigate religion over every little thing? If you as an atheist dont give deep thoughts about life and its mysteries, there are some other atheists who do and they are not wrong

striktlymi:

If you don't know that everything (even the rock you step on) is one form of energy or the other, in its strict sense, then there is no need having a debate with you.

So much I agree with all you have posted on this thread, I think I will have to cut in here. . . .I am getting confused somewhere.

To me, I believe there is nothing like death, and this very life is an illusion. The world as it is and everything around us are creation of our brain.

If I may ask, what exactly is 'consciousness'? I define it as 'awareness and reaction'; in this sense, everything in the universe is conscious. But from what I have been reading all since, it appears as if what you guys refer to as consciousness is 'sentience'. I understand that they are synonymous but there is a big difference between both. If my presumption is wrong, I will want you to please correct it.

To add more, sentience, mind, self-awareness and 'what you choose to call consciousness are effects of chemical-reaction. What essential in this case is reaction which result from the two or more substances contacting each other. What I mean here is, something can not react without contacting (linked), there after recognising and responding to each other. A case study is vingar and soda. . . . .they react to acid because it presence is recognised when they are mixed together therefore both exchange atoms which reaction effects produce water and carbon dioxide. So with this case, they are conscious. As per sentience, I cant really say.

Life can simply mean activeness. In this case, everything is alive and living. Everything are made up of energy and can never get destroyed or dead but only transform. In the right sense, there is no death.

The question now is, does sentience carry on after biological death?

What do you think is 'self'; does it exist separately on it own or it is illusionary creation of the brain; can it exist outside the body; can it survive death?

And lastly, if we sentient/sapient being, we are made up of energy and are 'aware' of our environment; can we then deduce that rocks, sun and urine which are form of energy are sentient, have mind and 'self'?


I will like to know your thought on this questions.



Thanks

alexleo:

So leave it at that and stop being selective and drawing conclusions anyhow. This issue that the Op raised is too deep for one to rush into conclusions. He is not a christian and therefore wasnt thinking on religious lines. But once in a while one get to think deep about this life and the mysteries surrounding it. Must you castigate religion over every little thing? If you as an atheist dont give deep thoughts about life and its mysteries, there are some other atheists who do and they are not wrong

Bros

you need to be able to identify an atheist and a hateist. Most folks here claiming to be atheists are simply hateist who hate everything about religion and would do anything to find fault in it.

alexleo:

You still dont get it. What science cannot prove today, it can prove tomorrow. Except you are not being honest that science is infinite.

Dude, you're not paying attention. When you put the concept of the afterlife under a scientific microscope, what you would come up with is the fact that the mere notion of it is utter fiction, a pure fabrication.

Science deals with facts, things that can be proven or seen. Things that can make sense to the human perception. Unless you can prove all multicellular organisms possess "souls" that can somehow transforms themselves into another dimension whenever their physical bodies stop functioning, then your logic is baseless, a reasoning borne of "superstition" and "sentiments."

Science is infinite and with strong intolerance towards the unreasonable. This is necessary. Why? Imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in the 'gerflagenflopple'. You cannot prove that the gerflagenflopple does not exist, therefore it exists." You can see that this is ridiculous. Just because I have invented something out of thin air does not mean that its non-existence is suddenly unprovable. There has to be some evidence that the gerflagenflopple exists in order to assert its existence. Since there is not, it is quite easy to say that the gerflagenflopple is imaginary.

Science deals with facts. The concept of the afterlife is not factual, and thus doesn't apply. Case closed.

Apatheist:
I agree with you; science will soon prove the existence of Santa Claus
Then our Lord, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You beat me to this. Bravo!

Apatheist:
Premise 1: Consciousness is brought about by the brain, agreed?
Premise 2: The brain dies during death, agreed?
Corollary: Consciousness ends with the advent of death since the brain that "produces" consciousness is dead.

I could be wrong though.

No, No And No, I don't agree

1. Consciousness possesses the brain
2. nothing ever really dies, in the case of the human body or the brain it jst reduces consciousness
2. Consciousness is let loose at the advent of death, living the body with so little consciousness that you call it lifeless

RayMcBlue:

The "miracle of life" is no miracle -- it is a big chemical reaction. When those reactions stop, the cell is dead.

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. Finis.

There is no "energy" or "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your energy transforming when you die is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication. Don't mix science with delusions, please, both have absolutely nothing in common.

it seems you don't know the meaning of miracle. Because everything is a miracle not just life.

RayMcBlue:

I agree that energy is a constant, and undergo all sorts of transformations, but imbibing it in your delusions of afterlife is a no-no. "Consciousness" is not a form of energy. It's a byproduct of the human psyche as a result of chemical reactions. Don't complicate the issue.

The big bang is a result of Consciousness,in essence the physical universe is born out of consciousness. So you can't say this consciousness is a byproduct of the human psyche when it is intact the source.

Maybe when you understand what consciousness is you would take this topic differently

MrAnony1:
Lol, this would have made sense if you could use logic properly but hey never mind, I can't wait to see what you came up with



How exactly does this tell us whether or not a pre-life necessitates an afterlife? Your very first reply already goes off point.

I personally do not follow that line of thought that having a before life is necessary to have an after life, i just stated the fact that the afterlife is a man made construct and idea, that is why there are different versions of the afterlife based on the thoughts, fantasies and ideas of those that created the afterlife concept. . .

If in the end we still die and rot anyway and are erased from any conscious existence, regardless of whether we strive for peace or for war then what is the point of upholding one and denouncing the other?

Because it will make our stay here or earth worthwhile. . .This life is the only one we know of, we don't know of any other one, we can only conceive or have ideas of another one, since this is the only one we know and have experienced then its up to us to make living a worth while experience. . .The idea of an afterlife doesn't help us here at all. . .If we strife for peace we all enjoy and blissful life, if we don't we all suffer, pains and agony. . .That is enough reason for us to pursue peace and see to it that we live moral lives. . .The society flourishes when there is peace and when every one lives moral lives. . .

You would have noticed that I didn't bother with the rest of your post as it has nothing to do with whether a belief in an afterlife is consistent with a belief in objective moral duties.

You are all over the place. . You didn't bother with the rest of my post because it destroys everything you claim to stand for. . .You claim that people need to live moral lives because of an afterlife without which they have no reason to live morally. . .The points I raised have completely destroyed all what you wrote because according to the world view you hold belief and how you act according to the belief is what matters not whether you lived a morally upright life. . .Under your belief, a muslim has no reason to live morally because according to you god he is already condemned not for believing in his son. . .A hindu has no reason to live morally because his status as a hindu has already condemned him to eternal damnation. . .According to your world view about 70 percent of the people living in the world have already been condemed to eternal damnation, not because they are immoral people but because they hold other beliefs. . .Under your world view moral uprightness is a waste of time, after all according to your god, peoples righteousness are like filthy rags in his eyes, what matters is faith in him and how you act according to the faith you have in hi,. . .You don't have faith in him, you are condemned already. . .Under your world view those that do not share your beliefs have no reason to live moral upright lives because they are already condemned and doomed in the afterlife. . .

If you want to discuss with me, you'll need to stay on point my friend.

I am staying very much on point. . .I just don't have time for philosophical sophism. . .

enigmaotr:
Animals are also sentient beings.
Why is it that only humans seek to have a purpose in life?

And what makes you think animals don't seek a purpose in life?

enigmaotr:
Dogs and Apes? What about them?
And which business do Honey Badgers mean? It's still a fact that all animals, but Man lives by instinct

What rubbish fact?
Animals are intelligent, not as intelligent as humans but all animals, even a maggot acts for a purpose

alexleo:

No friend. You ve not died before so you can't say for sure. Discoveries and science have not ended so you can't conclude yet.

My friend, I do not need to die to know that the after life is just a man made idea. . .Look around you there are different versions of the afterlife. . does the fact that science is unable to know if reincarnation is real make it true?. . .Reincarnation just like life after death is a human construct. . .people sat down and came up with all these ideas based on their imaginations. fantasies, and many other factors. . .The fear that death ends it all is something so depressing that we as humans invented reincarnation and life after death in heavenly bliss just to placate our deepest fears or to scare people into believing in what we what them to believe. . .

everything is alive. nothing dies. they simply change form or vibration.
the fact that we can no longer perceive the new form with our physical senses does not mean they have stopped existing.

for example souls living in the astral plane or first heaven which is closest to earth in terms of vibration can not be seen with our physical eyes. but those whose spiritual eyes are open can perceive them.

MrAnony1:
You seem to lean towards the believe that it is more likely the case that there is no such thing as an afterlife because you are not conscious of any events that happened before you were born (let's refer to this as a "pre-life" ).

1. I hope you do realize that it doesn't follow that if you don't have a pre-life, you won't have an afterlife. (If you don't realize this, please take some time to explain to me why you think it follows).

2. Now that said, your question leaves us with two possibilities:

a. An afterlife exists
b. An afterlife does not exist.

3. I will argue that:

a) If an afterlife does not exist then man really has no actual moral obligations i.e It is not reasonable to act morally

b) If an afterlife exists and it's outcome depends on the way the present life is lived, then there are actual moral obligations and hence it is reasonable to act morally.

4). Expanding upon the above....

a. If there is no afterlife, then there are no consequences for the sort of life you choose to live i.e. whether you spend your life taking pleasure in smashing the skulls of innocent babies or whether you spend your life taking pleasure in caring for the helpless little ones, in the end you will just die and rot forget everything and eventually be forgotten. There is no way we can objectively say that one pleasure is better than the other. Therefore there is no reason why one needs to act morally.

b. If on the other hand, there is an afterlife and our present life determines it's outcome, then there is an objective way in which we ought to live this present life and hence there is a reason to act morally.

5). Now I must point out that the above does not prove that there is or isn't an afterlife however it shows that the absence of an afterlife is not consistent with the presence of moral values. So if you believe that there are moral duties that we ought to adhere to, then an afterlife would be consistent with such a belief.

If on the other hand you don't believe in an afterlife, then I struggle to see how you can make a case for why we ought to live morally especially if we can derive pleasure from doing evil deeds. (If you think the two are rationally compatible then you may need to explain to me how so)

mr anony this really is funny as you have just implied that having a good afterlife is judged by living morally not the belief in Christ

mazaje: The afterlife is just a human idea and creation that is why there are many different versions of it. . . Some have moved from the after life to reincarnation. . All human ideas and conceptions. . . This is the only life we have and we know. . .any other thing is a lie and pure fantasy and fiction. . .

Hmm. You seem to know all the truths and lies, but how can you be sure that there's no afterlife or reincarnation??

Even the most famous of your masters(past scientists) never made such statements

-Consciousness is a byproduct of the human psyche as a result of chemical reactions.

-When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That's the end of it.

macof:
2. Consciousness is let loose at the advent of death, living the body with so little consciousness that you call it lifeless

A body left with little consciousness at the period of demise and at the same time in a lifeless state is a scientific impossibility. The dictionary defines "Lifeless" as dead or apparently dead, hence, something that is "apparently dead" couldn't possibly be left with the remnants of consciousness, however negligible.

When you sit down and think it through using your common sense, the statement makes no sense. It's the kind of reasoning a sane person can call "delusions of grandeur."

macof:

Hmm. You seem to know all the truths and lies, but how can you be sure that there's no afterlife or reincarnation??

Even the most famous of your masters(past scientists) never made such statements

If you present objective evidence for an afterlife or reincarnation then i'll believe and accept it. . .till then it remains one of the many fantasies that humans created. . .

Apatheist:
It's all the same.
Afterlife is a concept of religion, not science.
I don't believe in any God, I don't therefore see how the "afterlife" affects me.

Afterlife really isn't religion. It's what you believe happens in the afterlife that is a concept of religion

Afterlife doesn't affect anybody, it's nt suppose to

macof:

The big bang is a result of Consciousness,in essence the physical universe is born out of consciousness. So you can't say this consciousness is a byproduct of the human psyche when it is intact the source.

Maybe when you understand what consciousness is you would take this topic differently

I understand consciousness just fine. The consciousness is neither ethereal nor spiritual.

Let's start with a bacterium. Does it have a consciousness? A bacterium is a cell membrane filled with a variety of molecules. These molecules react together in different ways to create what we call life/consciousness.

So what about humans? The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop, the consciousness ceases.

RayMcBlue:

"Near Death Experience" is a natural, chemically induced state that the human brain enters. The trigger for an NDE is lack of oxygen to the brain and body. If you read scientific papers, you find that there is a completely chemical and completely non-spiritual reason for the features of every NDE.

There is a drug called "Ketamine" that produces all of the elements of an NDE when it is injected into normal, non-dying people, BTW.

Lack of oxygen to the brain and body triggers NDE, now this is just for a short time, ok maybe not short but temporarily

Death is a permanent case of lack of oxygen to the brain and body leaving you to a long (probably infinite) period of The experience of NDE

Now tell me if that's not afterlife what is??

macof:
Lack of oxygen to the brain and body triggers NDE, now this is just for a short time, ok maybe not short but temporarily
Death is a permanent case of lack of oxygen to the brain and body leaving you to a long (probably infinite) period of The experience of NDE
Now tell me if that's not afterlife what is??

I'm well aware that NDE is not a direct proof that the concept of an afterlife is imaginary. However, it is a direct proof that the NDE (which many people use as "indisputable" proof that God and eternal life exist) has no supernatural meaning. We can scientificaly prove NDEs to be chemical side-effects rather than "a gateway to the afterlife."

macof:

it seems you don't know the meaning of miracle. Because everything is a miracle not just life.

Do mosquitoes get an afterlife? Clearly not. Think of how many mosquitoes have lived and died over the course of millions of years. No one imagines heaven being full of septillions of everlasting mosquitoes. I could be wrong though.

RayMcBlue: -Consciousness is a byproduct of the human psyche as a result of chemical reactions.

-When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That's the end of it.



A body left with little consciousness at the period of demise and at the same time in a lifeless state is a scientific impossibility. The dictionary defines "Lifeless" as dead or apparently dead, hence, something that is "apparently dead" couldn't possibly be left with the remnants of consciousness, however negligible.

When you sit down and think it through using your common sense, the statement makes no sense. It's the kind of reasoning a sane person can call "delusions of grandeur."

first sit down and think through consciousness, the statement makes all the sense in the world

A lifeless body still has consciousness, I didn't say sentience.
Sentience is just a high level of consciousness

mazaje:

If you present objective evidence for an afterlife or reincarnation then i'll believe and accept it. . .till then it remains one of the many fantasies that humans created. . .

We are discussing this through aren't we??
I haven't experienced afterlife in any sort but it makes total sense as I have thought about it's possibility..

I don't care about heaven or hell, but having an experienced after death

RayMcBlue:

Do mosquitoes get an afterlife? Clearly not. Think of how
many mosquitoes have lived and died over the course of
millions of years. No one imagines heaven being full of
septillions of everlasting mosquitoes. I could be wrong though.

And what stops a maggot that dies before it metamorphosed into a fly from getting an afterlife??

As long as you have life, the moment you loose it and begin to experience something else, that's afterlife
I don't believe in heaven, and I believe in reincarnation so don't worry about billions of mosquitos

macof:

first sit down and think through consciousness, the statement makes all the sense in the world

A lifeless body still has consciousness, I didn't say sentience.
Sentience is just a high level of consciousness

Error... Error... Error... Error... Error...

I need that shìt you're smoking, bro. Shìt seems real.

macof:

Afterlife really isn't religion. It's what you believe happens in the afterlife that is a concept of religion

Afterlife doesn't affect anybody, it's nt suppose to

The Afterlife is a concept of religion.

macof:

No, No And No, I don't agree

1. Consciousness possesses the brain
2. nothing ever really dies, in the case of the human body or the brain it jst reduces consciousness
2. Consciousness is let loose at the advent of death, living the body with so little consciousness that you call it lifeless

WTF?

Double post.

macof:

And what stops a maggot that dies before it metamorphosed into a fly from getting an afterlife??

As long as you have life, the moment you loose it and begin to experience something else, that's afterlife
I don't believe in heaven, and I believe in reincarnation so don't worry about billions of mosquitos

Lolz. Imagine that I tell you this story:

-A man was sitting in a cave minding his own business.
-A very bright flash of light appeared.
-A voice spoke out one word: "Read!" The man felt like he was being squeezed to death. This happened several times.
-Then the man asked, "What should I read?"
-The voice said, "Read in the name of your Lord who created humans from a clinging zygote. Read for your
Lord is the most generous. He taught people by the pen what they didn't know before."
-The man ran home to his wife.
-While running home, he saw the huge face of an angel in the sky. The angel told the man that he was to be the messenger of God. The angel also identified himself as Gabriel.
-At home that night, the angel appeared to the man in his dreams.
-Gabriel appeared to the man over and over again.
- Then, one night about 11 years after the first encounter with Gabriel, Gabriel appeared to the man with a magical horse. The man got on the horse, and the horse took him to Jerusalem. Then the winged horse took the man up to the seven layers of heaven. The man was able to actually see heaven and meet and talk with people there. Then Gabriel brought the man back to earth.

What do you make of this story? If you have never heard the story before, you may find it to be nonsensical and rightfully so. But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Qur'an. This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.

Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? Seriously?? That is imaginary, as is reincarnation.