It is perfectly rational to believe in an afterlife given the evidence that NDE's present. If there were no afterlife there would be no NDE's and they aren't mere hallucinations as Seun claims.

UyiIredia:
It is perfectly rational to believe in an afterlife given the evidence that NDE's present. If there were no afterlife there would be no NDE's and they aren't mere hallucinations as Seun claims.

Don't mind that insincere seun!

I created this monster of a text cos I don't like to prolong arguments. I even anticipated possible future questions and added more details, just in case. Hopefully this reduces the length of the debate. Reply whenever you can
(if you can).

johnydon22:
Hhmmmm really? that sounds curious.

Please mention these studies in quantum physics that is about continious consciousness after death?

Example...
From Dr. Robert Lanza, (expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company + voted 3rd most important scientist alive), who's also involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics:
Basically...
"Our brains are just receivers and amplifiers for the proto-consciousness that is intrinsic to the fabric of space-time." ergo... "If the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle."

I'd advice you to read a more detailed version if you're actually interested

You'd see other points like Dr. Hameroff's explanation of life after death, "intelligence existed prior to matter", "conciousness exists even outside the constraints of time and space" (God?), etc and other interesting concepts.

You can also read on Professor Hans-Peter Dürr's contribution (former head of the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich), and other scientists who support this - all referring a higher dimension we move to after death in one form or another.

Simply searching "Quantum Physics Afterlife" on Google might've done my job sef.

Btw, these scientists are experts in their respective fields and they have already-established scientific grounds and studies to stand on.

johnydon22:
Philosophy is boundless and unlimited and can through mind speculations derive any idea - it is not a determinant of objective reality.

You misunderstand my point; the bolded part was not my point.

Philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism. Note: rationality is a key concept of philosophy.

Your question was "Is it rational to believe in an afterlife?". It is its rationality that is in question here, and I was simply saying that there's a number of philosophical theories that support it; I was staying on topic.

johnydon22:
This is untrue and this is not a FACT.

No human study have ever being able to severe consciousness from the neurological networks.

For the sake of the discussion lets ask : Please how did you arrive at the conclusion? [possibly i'm sure NDE's - i will address that]

Ironically, no human study has ever been able to link consciousness solely to the neurological networks.

The study of NDEs however, have managed to severe them (contrary to your statement). Yes, NDEs are a factor to how I arrived, other factors include my statement above this one ("Ironically...networks" ), my beliefs, reports of paranormal activities related to this etc.

If you planned on addressing NDEs, I'd preferred you just went ahead and did that, instead of waiting for me; like see how long it took me to see your post and reply it; it'd be better if I saw what you planned on saying.

johnydon22:
consciousness is a process, so if you take away this human form.

tell me in what form a consciousness manifests, in what way? does it become s a formless needless conscious nothingness?

Lol a process created by what exactly? The brain? I beg to differ
Citing...

The question, "How does the brain create consciousness?" originally appeared on Quora

Answer by Yohan John , Ph.D in Cognitive and Neural Systems, on Quora:
Does the brain create consciousness? I’m not so sure. At the very least, I know that no neuroscientist has caught the brain “red-handed” in the act of creating consciousness.

(+ Recall my very first quote in this post)

(continued...) The standard materialist position is that consciousness is tied up with the brain. There is plenty of evidence that the brain influences consciousness (and vice versa! ), ranging from studies of brain damage to the well-known effects of mind-altering chemicals.

To your question..."in what form?" Consciousness is immaterial.

johnydon22:
There have not being any established study that says consciousness is independent of the body - As long as the brain is still getting even a little oxygen any illusionary projection is possible.

False; the brain requires about 20 - 25% of all oxygen used by the body to stay conscious. Anything lower than that by a moderate margin leads to brain hypoxia and may cause illusionary projections - "may" because hallucination isn't even a major symptom of brain hypoxia. Now anything lower by a far margin is a severely comatose state, and that person is just at the door step of "brain death" - can as well be declared clinically dead. Whatever little amount of oxygen present is not enough for the brain to function at this stage. The brain system required to have a dream/illusionary projection are in fact the same systems required when you're awake; none of that is possible at this stage.

So "even a little oxygen" (as you said) is not significant enough to cause an illusion.

Most authentic NDE reports involved people who were reported to have been revived from a clinically dead state. I posted a good case on the first page. And have you ever wondered why people's NDEs are seeing virtually the same thing? Even atheists who claimed not to believe in God and religion, why are they seeing an afterlife that they don't believe in during their NDEs?

I also read of an experiment by a Russian scientist, Konstantin Korotkov, [s]using GDV technology to spot some form of "life energy" leaving the body of dead people. He found out that the aura from those who died peacefully was different from that of those who died violently and confused. Note the connection between this "aura/energy" and their consciousness before they died...?[/s] (instead of this layman's summary, how about a link to his original study)

BTW, What exactly do you regard as an "established study"? Is it what we were taught in history and science classes? Is it the scientific knowledge that we grew up with? Credible and legitimate studies and research are being carried out every year. Are we now going to ignore their findings?

You'd be surprised how much knowledge we grew up with have been replaced or debunked by new facts: from even menial subjects (do you know that the map of the tongue's taste buds is wrong?) to new discoveries (more evidence of dinosaurs coexisting with man), historical discoveries (historical evidence of Biblical characters etc) and even some corrections made to our history records. I read that Science News refused to publish some of these discoveries. Many of these new things don't receive publicity; a lot of notable people, nations, sects etc have garnered political and academic authority through past "established studies" - imagine the power shift if the whole world were to learn of new discoveries as widely as those old ones were learnt...but I digress...another topic altogether

johnydon22:
It doesn't, theories of parallel and multiverses even though mathematical speculatons can only be proof of themselves if confirmed not an afterlife

so let's stretch this again: Please how does a multiverse theory support an afterlife?

Again, you misunderstand my point...I wasn't saying "multiverse proves afterlife". I meant that the theory of the multiverse (and other theories I mentioned there) is a plausible and rational theory. Therefore it won't be far-fetched to have the thought of an afterlife environment that would accommodate the soul. In other words, it won't be irrational to believe in an afterlife.

johnydon22:
They are curious audacious and brilliant thoughts but seem more so like incorrect affiliations.

@the first bolded - I.e. they are rational...now you see what I'm saying?

@the second bolded - That phrase shows you are speaking from your perspective, good thing you didn't completely rule them out cos that would be dogmatic. There are some experts who would defend those theories with their lives.

johnydon22:
"Like multiverse proves afterlife" even though a multiverse has not been proven yet, i wonder how it can prove something else when the hypothesis itself is unproven.

if a multiverse is confirmed it can only proof of itself which in fact is a physical value [not metaphysical as you implied thoughts would exist solo]

Metaphysics is the study of a supersensual (beyond our senses) realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world (transcend our physical laws).

I've already settled the red part; I wasn't saying that. Or was I? If there's a realm within ours that accommodates phenomena (such as the soul) that is supersensual and is beyond the physics that we know, can we call that a multiverse?

And if we can call my description above a multiverse, can't we call that a "metaphysical multiverse"? (because it's beyond our senses and transcend our physics)
Therefore proof of such "multiverse" would be proof of itself (as you stated)...right?

johnydon22:
Nice direction this conclusion is derived.

Exactly...so before you place emphasis on anything else, remember this is the crux of the topic; the crux of my entire post.
Before you say something is irrational, it should be without reason, absurd and nonsensical with no ground to stand on. Now whether we eventually reach a consensus or not, from your posts, I've seen that you've acknowledged the presence of reasoning in some points used to defend the belief in an afterlife..now will you still say it is irrational?

johnydon22:
All 3,500,000,000 may not necessarily be lying but all can be mistaken, just because everyone believes something does not make it true.

Have you ever thought of the possibility where someone who believed he could scientifically explain what he saw was also mistaken? It happens...there are things we previously thought to be scientific facts that were later debunked to end up being something else [which is also scientific], or end up being unexplainable.

I have some Muslim friends who tell me about cases of evil genes (dunno spelling) temporarily possessing people. I heard of a scene where a scrawny adolescent boy [who was possessed] flipped his entire bed upside down, a short [possessed] Muslim girl beat up a man 4x her size etc. I laughed at those at first until I heard of very similar cases from non-muslim sources. Now your easiest escape route is to tell me that they were ALL lying, or that it was just a rare medical condition that gives people super strength for a limited time, but has a side effect of madness.

I have also seen weird things in church (lol you should know what I'm referring to), and have heard of unexplainable miracles; people being healed of life-threatening or permanent illnesses in sudden ways that left doctors puzzled, people's prayers being answered in very specific ways (now how do you even expect them to prove this to anybody?) etc.

Other abnormal reports too from traditionalists and people of other religions, and even people who don't necessarily have a religion (visit subreddits like r/nosleep and r/letsnotmeet on Reddit where people go to report weird and scary stuff. If you try to point out that their stories are false, you could even get banned) ...etc etc etc.

Anyway, out of this 3,500,000,000 yes some reports could be lies, some hallucinations, some mistaken or misinformed, but if you want to say that not one..not even one..could be authentic, you would be making a very strong claim, and I may end up stonewalling you.

Btw, just one authentic claim is sufficient enough in proving a supernatural realm. Have that in mind.

johnydon22:
Rathe mysteries are just things waiting to be known - why not vy to find out these mysteries and not explain them with a dose of superstition...

Labeling every paranormal report as superstition is also just as bad as how you see people who explain mysteries with "a dose of superstition". Why not vie to find the connection between science and supernatural stuff, or at least find out to what extent there is a connection, instead of labeling it as mere superstition? The moment you discard something as downright impossible, you are creating a limit for discoveries. This is why I appreciate those scientists who delve into the study of metaphysics, as well as those who were involved in experimenting NDEs to inquire into knowledge for our sakes.

Discarding all reports of supernatural/paranormal nature to be downright impossible is wrong IMO. It would be better to regard them as "physically impossible" or "scientifically impossible" for now.

Strawman:
I created this monster of a text cos I don't like to prolong arguments. I even anticipated possible future questions and added more details, just in case. Hopefully this reduces the length of the debate. Reply whenever you can



Example...
From Dr. Robert Lanza, (expert in regenerative medicine and scientific director of Advanced Cell Technology Company + voted 3rd most important scientist alive), who's also involved with physics, quantum mechanics and astrophysics:
Basically...
"Our brains are just receivers and amplifiers for the proto-consciousness that is intrinsic to the fabric of space-time." ergo... "If the body receives consciousness in the same way that a cable box receives satellite signals, then of course consciousness does not end at the death of the physical vehicle."

I'd advice you to read a more detailed version if you're actually interested

You'd see other points like Dr. Hameroff's explanation of life after death, "intelligence existed prior to matter", "conciousness exists even outside the constraints of time and space" (God?), etc and other interesting concepts.

You can also read on Professor Hans-Peter Dürr's contribution (former head of the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich), and other scientists who support this - all referring a higher dimension we move to after death in one form or another.

Simply searching "Quantum Physics Afterlife" on Google might've done my job sef.

Btw, these scientists are experts in their respective fields and they have already-established scientific grounds and studies to stand on.



You misunderstand my point; the bolded part was not my point.

Philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism. Note: rationality is a key concept of philosophy.

Your question was "Is it rational to believe in an afterlife?". It is its rationality that is in question here, and I was simply saying that there's a number of philosophical theories that support it; I was staying on topic.




Ironically, no human study has ever been able to link consciousness solely to the neurological networks.

The study of NDEs however, have managed to severe them (contrary to your statement). Yes, NDEs are a factor to how I arrived, other factors include my statement above this one ("Ironically...networks" ), my beliefs, reports of paranormal activities related to this etc.

If you planned on addressing NDEs, I'd preferred you just went ahead and did that, instead of waiting for me; like see how long it took me to see your post and reply it; it'd be better if I saw what you planned on saying.




Lol a process created by what exactly? The brain? I beg to differ
Citing...


(+ Recall my very first quote in this post)



To your question..."in what form?" Consciousness is immaterial.




False; the brain requires about 20 - 25% of all oxygen used by the body to stay conscious. Anything lower than that by a moderate margin leads to brain hypoxia and may cause illusionary projections - "may" because hallucination isn't even a major symptom of brain hypoxia. Now anything lower by a far margin is a severely comatose state, and that person is just at the door step of "brain death" - can as well be declared clinically dead. Whatever little amount of oxygen present is not enough for the brain to function at this stage. The brain system required to have a dream/illusionary projection are in fact the same systems required when you're awake; none of that is possible at this stage.

So "even a little oxygen" (as you said) is not significant enough to cause an illusion.

Most authentic NDE reports involved people who were reported to have been revived from a clinically dead state. I posted a good case on the first page. And have you ever wondered why people's NDEs are seeing virtually the same thing? Even atheists who claimed not to believe in God and religion, why are they seeing an afterlife that they don't believe in during their NDEs?

I also read of an experiment by a Russian scientist, Konstantin Korotkov, [s]using GDV technology to spot some form of "life energy" leaving the body of dead people. He found out that the aura from those who died peacefully was different from that of those who died violently and confused. Note the connection between this "aura/energy" and their consciousness before they died...?[/s] (instead of this layman's summary, how about a link to his original study)

BTW, What exactly do you regard as an "established study"? Is it what we were taught in history and science classes? Is it the scientific knowledge that we grew up with? Credible and legitimate studies and research are being carried out every year. Are we now going to ignore their findings?

You'd be surprised how much knowledge we grew up with have been replaced or debunked by new facts: from even menial subjects (do you know that the map of the tongue's taste buds is wrong?) to new discoveries (more evidence of dinosaurs coexisting with man), historical discoveries (historical evidence of Biblical characters etc) and even some corrections made to our history records. I read that Science News refused to publish some of these discoveries. Many of these new things don't receive publicity; a lot of notable people, nations, sects etc have garnered political and academic authority through past "established studies" - imagine the power shift if the whole world were to learn of new discoveries as widely as those old ones were learnt...but I digress...another topic altogether



Again, you misunderstand my point...I wasn't saying "multiverse proves afterlife". I meant that the theory of the multiverse (and other theories I mentioned there) is a plausible and rational theory. Therefore it won't be far-fetched to have the thought of an afterlife environment that would accommodate the soul. In other words, it won't be irrational to believe in an afterlife.




@the first bolded - I.e. they are rational...now you see what I'm saying?

@the second bolded - That phrase shows you are speaking from your perspective, good thing you didn't completely rule them out cos that would be dogmatic. There are some experts who would defend those theories with their lives.



Metaphysics is the study of a supersensual (beyond our senses) realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world (transcend our physical laws).

I've already settled the red part; I wasn't saying that. Or was I? If there's a realm within ours that accommodates phenomena (such as the soul) that is supersensual and is beyond the physics that we know, can we call that a multiverse?

And if we can call my description above a multiverse, can't we call that a "metaphysical multiverse"? (because it's beyond our senses and transcend our physics)
Therefore proof of such "multiverse" would be proof of itself (as you stated)...right?




Exactly...so before you place emphasis on anything else, remember this is the crux of the topic; the crux of my entire post.
Before you say something is irrational, it should be without reason, absurd and nonsensical with no ground to stand on. Now whether we eventually reach a consensus or not, from your posts, I've seen that you've acknowledged the presence of reasoning in some points used to defend the belief in an afterlife..now will you still say it is irrational?




Have you ever thought of the possibility where someone who believed he could scientifically explain what he saw was also mistaken? It happens...there are things we previously thought to be scientific facts that were later debunked to end up being something else [which is also scientific], or end up being unexplainable.

I have some Muslim friends who tell me about cases of evil genes (dunno spelling) temporarily possessing people. I heard of a scene where a scrawny adolescent boy [who was possessed] flipped his entire bed upside down, a short [possessed] Muslim girl beat up a man 4x her size etc. I laughed at those at first until I heard of very similar cases from non-muslim sources. Now your easiest escape route is to tell me that they were ALL lying, or that it was just a rare medical condition that gives people super strength for a limited time, but has a side effect of madness.

I have also seen weird things in church (lol you should know what I'm referring to), and have heard of unexplainable miracles; people being healed of life-threatening or permanent illnesses in sudden ways that left doctors puzzled, people's prayers being answered in very specific ways (now how do you even expect them to prove this to anybody?) etc.

Other abnormal reports too from traditionalists and people of other religions, and even people who don't necessarily have a religion (visit subreddits like r/nosleep and r/letsnotmeet on Reddit where people go to report weird and scary stuff. If you try to point out that their stories are false, you could even get banned) ...etc etc etc.

Anyway, out of this 3,500,000,000 yes some reports could be lies, some hallucinations, some mistaken or misinformed, but if you want to say that not one..not even one..could be authentic, you would be making a very strong claim, and I may end up stonewalling you.

Btw, just one authentic claim is sufficient enough in proving a supernatural realm. Have that in mind.



Labeling every paranormal report as superstition is also just as bad as how you see people who explain mysteries with "a dose of superstition". Why not vie to find the connection between science and supernatural stuff, or at least find out to what extent there is a connection, instead of labeling it as mere superstition? The moment you discard something as downright impossible, you are creating a limit for discoveries. This is why I appreciate those scientists who delve into the study of metaphysics, as well as those who were involved in experimenting NDEs to inquire into knowledge for our sakes.

Discarding all reports of supernatural/paranormal nature to be downright impossible is wrong IMO. It would be better to regard them as "physically impossible" or "scientifically impossible" for now.

Saccharine ... so saccharine ... I love the last part of it .

Because they don't want to accept the supernatural they describe everything pertaining to it as superstitious or irrational . Talk about being close minded and limiting discoveries . Fantastic response .

KingEbukasBlog:


Saccharine ... so saccharine ... I love the last part of it .

Because they don't want to accept the supernatural they describe everything pertaining to it as superstitious or irrational . Talk about being close minded and limiting discoveries . Fantastic response .

Aye! "People fear what they do not understand, and hate what they can't conquer."

Science has limits. Too bad anything that happens to transcend these limits, "they" quickly give it derogatory terms (e.g. superstition) to make it look silly and irrelevant. But Ebuka we all know the secret reason behind this sha; imagine the implications this would mean to their lives if they found out it were all true; they would have to buy a new book (turning a new leaf won't be enough lol) for some areas of their lifestyle, they would realise they've been wrong regarding a lot of things. They fear all this well well.

Plus they can't conquer religion [as much as they've tried], so they hate it.

I don't see why when a group of well-intentioned intellectuals are out there working their āss off; delving into the study and discovery of these abnormal stuff on valid grounds, yet there's another group of people somewhere else trying to convince themselves that it's all irrational just to protect their empty hubris.

sǝʌlǝsɹnoʎ ʍouʞ no⅄ ˙oʇ sǝᴉlddɐ ʇᴉ ɯoɥʍ ʎluo oʇ sǝᴉlddɐ sᴉɥʇ :ǝʇoN 'ƃuᴉsᴉlɐɹǝuǝƃ ɟo ǝɯ ǝsnɔɔɐ noʎ ǝɹoɟǝq

Strawman:


Aye! "People fear what they do not understand, and hate what they can't conquer."

Science has limits. Too bad anything that happens to transcend these limits, "they" quickly give it derogatory terms (e.g. superstition) to make it look silly and irrelevant. But Ebuka we all know the secret reason behind this sha; imagine the implications this would mean to their lives if they found out it were all true; they would have to buy a new book (turning a new leaf won't be enough lol) for some areas of their lifestyle, they would realise they've been wrong regarding a lot of things. They fear all this well well.

Plus they can't conquer religion [as much as they've tried], so they hate it.

I don't see why when a group of well-intentioned intellectuals are out there working their āss off; delving into the study and discovery of these abnormal stuff on valid grounds, yet there's another group of people somewhere else trying to convince themselves that it's all irrational just to protect their empty hubris.

sǝʌlǝsɹnoʎ ʍouʞ no⅄ ˙oʇ sǝᴉlddɐ ʇᴉ ɯoɥʍ ʎluo oʇ sǝᴉlddɐ sᴉɥʇ :ǝʇoN 'ƃuᴉsᴉlɐɹǝuǝƃ ɟo ǝɯ ǝsnɔɔɐ noʎ ǝɹoɟǝq

Bro, they are afraid to realise they've been have wrong all this while and I can't fathom why they protect their pride . I mean they have never brought forward any logical argument , they are filled with so much misconceptions , Christians live better lives than they do in every aspect - so what exactly are they proud of

They question God's existence simply because of religion , take away religion from their arguments and they are very vulnerable to attacks . And one more thing , whether the afterlife is irrational to anyone or not it does not preclude its existence . Its irrational to kill someone just because he is religious but atheists did it anyway .

.......................................................

KingEtienneSky:
This is a wonderful thread!! We can never stop asking the most important questions.... and no matter what dimension they take, they always boil down to one question.... What is the meaning of life, the purpose of existence?

Then we have questions like, where do we come from. Why are we here? Is there a meaning or purpose to our life in the sense of an externally or internally assigned function? Alternatively, did random events place us into this universe, without any purpose or reason? (I would laugh at that).... Maybe we shouldn't be jumping into conclusions so fast.

Anyways, I do believe that an afterlife exists.... that this life is NOT the end. In other words, I believe in Reincarnation, and the immortality of the "soul"... a conclusion which flows from my position as a Scientific Rationalist Idealist, as opposed to Scientific Empiricist Materialism...

Oh, right.... That wasn't explanatory. I guess it's finally time to get involved.

You are an atheist and you believe in the afterlife ? Explain please

Strawman:

First I'd point out that you are wrong.

See the case of Pam Reynolds:


Pam Reynolds' case proves that our existence is beyond the physical body that we attribute it to.

i concur.Clearly its obvious the body differs from the 'spirit' aka the conciousness. Out of body experience is still the most guarded secret of our era.certainly our concioucness(the mind) still trancends the physical experience. Energy can neither be destroyed nor diminished but can be transformed.Everything in the universe is energy.

KingEbukasBlog:


True . I even forgot that some atheists believe in afterlife .

cc: ifenes , immortal

Oya appear !

KingEbukasBlog i do not believe in after life where you eat blueberriess and tofu scramble in paradise nor sings in high-pitched frequency in heaven. I realised Atheist maintain a very strong relationship with reality or physicality just like science works in tandem with physics so scientifically there is no afterlife because it has not been substantially proven. Though not every analogy is based on circumstancial evident because every notion nor ideology was once devoid of quality knowledge of evidence until proven scientifically. As at writing this,science has not proven the existence of 'demons'(in a more religious term) although i classify them as alien existing in the own realm. You see, the universe is one mysterious i.diot beyond our intelligent.I believe that human conciousness survives physical death and i believe there are millions of realms a conciousness can exist in this universe. Do not rule anything out,the UNIVERSE IS ONE VAST I.DIOT.

ValentineMary:
For us to say something is rational, there must be a step by step analysis and a conclusion must be reached. The unavailability of a step by step analysis exclude thebelief in afterlife as rational.

It stems from an emotional point of view, the fear of non existence and the longing to live forever. There is no physical proof whatsoever of an after life.

Guess am late here.

Is before life rational?

Is it rational to believe in the after life? What is rational? What is the after life?

Unlike the after life, rationality can be pinned down to one or more specific definitions. For the sake of this discuss, I'd take 'rational' as stated to mean 'reason'. Thus the question would become: Is it reasonable to believe in the after life?

We should have at the back of our minds that the question is not about proving the existence of an after life or proving that there is a God that people necessarily go to after their lives in this world. Neither is it about describing how the after life is like, if it exists.

The question's primary focus, for me, is whether or not we can relate with the notion of an after life, i.e does it make sense to believe in it.

For me, I believe it makes sense to believe in the after life because not to believe in it negates some basic principles about life and existence. I take it to be common knowledge that energy cannot be destroyed but changes form.

An example of this can be seen in water, which can take the form of gas and ice when subjected to certain temperatures. When water dries up, it can be taken that the water at that point is no more but is this really true? The best we can say is that the water exists in some other form.

Taken that really bad example a step further, we can also relate it to humans. When we lose consciousness, brain function and ultimately declared dead, does that mean that we seize to exist?

Granted, I would agree if it is said that we stop existing as man, made up of 'flesh', water and blood but to say that our conscious self which is driven by energy floats to non-existence implies that energy can actually be destroyed which is not the case.

One really does not need to be Theist to believe in the existence of an after life. It's common sense...or so I believe.

darknez:
Is it rational to believe in the after life? What is rational? What is the after life?

Unlike the after life, rationality can be pinned down to one or more specific definitions. For the sake of this discuss, I'd take 'rational' as stated to mean 'reason'. Thus the question would become: Is it reasonable to believe in the after life?

We should have at the back of our minds that the question is not about proving the existence of an after life or proving that there is a God that people necessarily go to after their lives in this world. Neither is it about describing how the after life is like, if it exists.

The question's primary focus, for me, is whether or not we can relate with the notion of an after life, i.e does it make sense to believe in it.

For me, I believe it makes sense to believe in the after life because not to believe in it negates some basic principles about life and existence. I take it to be common knowledge that energy cannot be destroyed but changes form.

An example of this can be seen in water, which can take the form of gas and ice when subjected to certain temperatures. When water dries up, it can be taken that the water at that point is no more but is this really true? The best we can say is that the water exists in some other form.

Taken that really bad example a step further, we can also relate it to humans. When we lose consciousness, brain function and ultimately declared dead, does that mean that we seize to exist?

Granted, I would agree if it is said that we stop existing as man, made up of 'flesh', water and blood but to say that our conscious self which is driven by energy floats to non-existence implies that energy can actually be destroyed which is not the case.

One really does not need to be Theist to believe in the existence of an after life. It's common sense...or so I believe.

Very good. I don't understand how any believer in Energy will say it's irrational. It's very simple.

..

darknez:
Is it rational to believe in the after life? What is rational? What is the after life?

Unlike the after life, rationality can be pinned down to one or more specific definitions. For the sake of this discuss, I'd take 'rational' as stated to mean 'reason'. Thus the question would become: Is it reasonable to believe in the after life?

We should have at the back of our minds that the question is not about proving the existence of an after life or proving that there is a God that people necessarily go to after their lives in this world. Neither is it about describing how the after life is like, if it exists.

The question's primary focus, for me, is whether or not we can relate with the notion of an after life, i.e does it make sense to believe in it.

For me, I believe it makes sense to believe in the after life because not to believe in it negates some basic principles about life and existence. I take it to be common knowledge that energy cannot be destroyed but changes form.

An example of this can be seen in water, which can take the form of gas and ice when subjected to certain temperatures. When water dries up, it can be taken that the water at that point is no more but is this really true? The best we can say is that the water exists in some other form.

Taken that really bad example a step further, we can also relate it to humans. When we lose consciousness, brain function and ultimately declared dead, does that mean that we seize to exist?

Granted, I would agree if it is said that we stop existing as man, made up of 'flesh', water and blood but to say that our conscious self which is driven by energy floats to non-existence implies that energy can actually be destroyed which is not the case.

One really does not need to be Theist to believe in the existence of an after life. It's common sense...or so I believe.

you drove it straight to the garage.The knowledge of afterlife eludes us all,not that its not possible,using the concepts of energy and how possible it is for the human 'spirit' (conciousness) to be seperated from the body via astral projection,its generous to say conciousness still exist after pysical death.

Immorttal:
you drove it straight to the garage.The knowledge of afterlife eludes us all,not that its not possible,using the concepts of energy and how possible it is for the human 'spirit' (conciousness) to be seperated from the body via astral projection,its generous to say conciousness still exist after pysical death.

Eludes us all? What does that mean if you are talking about energy in the same sentence?

Reyginus:
[b]eludes our mental graps[/b]Eludes us all? What does that mean if you are talking about energy in the same sentence?

no one can describe what goes on in the after life as there is still no concrete evidence on that. Your second question is confusing,elaborate.

Immorttal:
no one can describe what goes on in the after life as there is still no concrete evidence on that. Your second question is confusing,elaborate.

Using the energy concept, like you said, wouldn't the whole seemingly complex thing be simplified? This is what I mean.

Science claims that all is energy and all is energy, and life is part of all, which implies life's energy, wouldn't the question itself be impossible in the first place since when humans die nothing is lost except the personality?

In that case, can we say we are eluded of knowledge of afterlife?

Afterlife? After what life when life is not even lost but only leaves homosapien bodies? You should not respond to this last paragraph to save us some headache.

KingEbukasBlog:


You are an atheist and you believe in the afterlife ? Explain please

Yeah when it comes to matters concerning existence as a whole and its meaning and purpose..... I support the PRIMACY of mind over matter.... That is, matter is secondary to mind. Mind is the basis of existence.... This means mind is not an emergent property of matter, but rather fundamental to the universe. It also follows that life "emerging" in the material universe WASN'T an accident... (That would be an extremely INSANE claim. Utterly ridiculous.) What's the probability of life appearing in the universe? 100%..... Because it would only be rational to think that was the whole point of it anyway. So then, if the mind is IMMATERIAL, why wouldn't it survive the physical death of the body?

Okay.... That's it for now. I'll give the details later.

KingEtienneSky:
Yeah when it comes to matters concerning existence as a whole and its meaning and purpose..... I support the PRIMACY of mind over matter.... That is, matter is secondary to mind. Mind is the basis of existence.... This means mind is not an emergent property of matter, but rather fundamental to the universe. It also follows that life "emerging" in the material universe WASN'T an accident... (That would be an extremely INSANE claim. Utterly ridiculous.) What's the probability of life appearing in the universe? 100%..... Because it would only be rational to think that was the whole point of it anyway. So then, if the mind is IMMATERIAL, why wouldn't it survive the physical death of the body?

Okay.... That's it for now. I'll give the details later.

Very well said. Good.

darknez:
Is it rational to believe in the after life? What is rational? What is the after life?

Unlike the after life, rationality can be pinned down to one or more specific definitions. For the sake of this discuss, I'd take 'rational' as stated to mean 'reason'. Thus the question would become: Is it reasonable to believe in the after life?

We should have at the back of our minds that the question is not about proving the existence of an after life or proving that there is a God that people necessarily go to after their lives in this world. Neither is it about describing how the after life is like, if it exists.

The question's primary focus, for me, is whether or not we can relate with the notion of an after life, i.e does it make sense to believe in it.

For me, I believe it makes sense to believe in the after life because not to believe in it negates some basic principles about life and existence. I take it to be common knowledge that energy cannot be destroyed but changes form.

An example of this can be seen in water, which can take the form of gas and ice when subjected to certain temperatures. When water dries up, it can be taken that the water at that point is no more but is this really true? The best we can say is that the water exists in some other form.

Taken that really bad example a step further, we can also relate it to humans. When we lose consciousness, brain function and ultimately declared dead, does that mean that we seize to exist?

Granted, I would agree if it is said that we stop existing as man, made up of 'flesh', water and blood but to say that our conscious self which is driven by energy floats to non-existence implies that energy can actually be destroyed which is not the case.

One really does not need to be Theist to believe in the existence of an after life. It's common sense...or so I believe.

Seconded.

KingEbukasBlog:


Bro, they are afraid to realise they've been have wrong all this while and I can't fathom why they protect their pride . I mean they have never brought forward any logical argument , they are filled with so much misconceptions , Christians live better lives than they do in every aspect - so what exactly are they proud of

They question God's existence simply because of religion , take away religion from their arguments and they are very vulnerable to attacks . And one more thing , whether the afterlife is irrational to anyone or not it does not preclude its existence . Its irrational to kill someone just because he is religious but atheists did it anyway .

@redded part, Exactly why I said "empty hubris". It's only intellectual superiority they can try to boast of, and even that is very laughable lol. Believing they're more intelligent and knowledgeable than every one of us including people of distinguished minds who are religious (e.g. Ben Carson, Charles Babbage, Galileo etc), and even those who denied atheism (e.g. Einstein) is a foolhardy joke. Anyway, there are plenty of deeper reasons why they'd scoff at evidence and information that proves them wrong - pride, anger/pain, fear, ignorance, denial etc. my guy, there are plenty reasons - but well that's their own delusion.

For the sake of staying on topic I will just address the bolded, and you've made a very good point there. People's perspectives cannot disprove fact/reality.

Reyginus:
Using the energy concept, like you said, wouldn't the whole seemingly complex thing be simplified? This is what I mean.

Science claims that all is energy and all is energy, and life is part of all, which implies life's energy, wouldn't the question itself be impossible in the first place since when humans die nothing is lost except the personality?

In that case, can we say we are eluded of knowledge of afterlife?

Afterlife? After what life when life is not even lost but only leaves homosapien bodies? You should not respond to this last paragraph to save us some headache.

the first step to understanding our universe is knowing that all is energy.Look around,It's instantaneous and sureal. yes science proposed that all is energy but they have not really delved into the rudiments of that concept which has changed to general abstract.i believe the almighty science has many mysterious and ambigous events to clearify before they could be considered phenomenal,science has fallen short in their explanation of the correlation of human mind/body in the simple placebo effect.or isn't that a part of theoritical analysis that deserved a detailed critical inspection.although science has recognised the universe as a spectral energy field,Antiquated sorcerers have outsmarted science in applying the laws of relativity and energy which they have guarded passionately Recent studies and research have shown scientists are gradually trotting out the cautiosly concealed secret. Time will clear the obscure soon,the after 'life'exists and there is nothing religious or ghostly about it.Its just pure conciousness,a part and parcel of the universe.what you found in the universe is concious and unconcious beign, concious aka the spirit inhabiting the unconcious aka the body.(meat)

KingEtienneSky:
Yeah when it comes to matters concerning existence as a whole and its meaning and purpose..... I support the PRIMACY of mind over matter.... That is, matter is secondary to mind. Mind is the basis of existence.... This means mind is not an emergent property of matter, but rather fundamental to the universe. It also follows that life "emerging" in the material universe WASN'T an accident... (That would be an extremely INSANE claim. Utterly ridiculous.) What's the probability of life appearing in the universe? 100%..... Because it would only be rational to think that was the whole point of it anyway. So then, if the mind is IMMATERIAL, why wouldn't it survive the physical death of the body?

Okay.... That's it for now. I'll give the details later.

well said,mind is not matter,it is conciousness or you can choose to label it the'spirit' a part and parcel of our universe.Our scientists always have focused and equate everything on the physicals platforms.

Immorttal:
the first step to understanding our universe is knowing that all is energy.Look around,It's instantaneous and sureal. yes science proposed that all is energy but they have not really delved into the rudiments of that concept which has changed to general abstract.i believe the almighty science has many mysterious and ambigous events to clearify before they could be considered phenomenal,science has fallen short in their explanation of the correlation of human mind/body in the simple placebo effect.or isn't that a part of theoritical analysis that deserved a detailed critical inspection.although science has recognised the universe as a spectral energy field,Antiquated sorcerers have outsmarted science in applying the laws of relativity and energy which they have guarded passionately Recent studies and research have shown scientists are gradually trotting out the cautiosly concealed secret. Time will clear the obscure soon,the after 'life'exists and there is nothing religious or ghostly about it.Its just pure conciousness,a part and parcel of the universe.what you found in the universe is concious and unconcious beign, concious aka the spirit inhabiting the unconcious aka the body.(meat)

Yeah. We are on same page. That's looking at it from the physicists point of view. I completely agree the conclusion. What do you think about this biological viewpoint?

If we evolved from something as claimed and find it rational to draw from our past can it ever be irrational to see where we are heading? Isn't our notion of cessation of life in human bodies as finality of life suggest finality of evolution and are we being rational suggesting such?

Reyginus:
Yeah. We are on same page. That's looking at it from the physicists point of view. I completely agree the conclusion. What do you think about this biological viewpoint?

If we evolved from something as claimed and find it rational to draw from our past can it ever be irrational to see where we are heading? Isn't our notion of cessation of life in human bodies as finality of life suggest finality of evolution and are we being rational suggesting such?

thats an intelligent and thought provoking question.But my conclusion is that the concepts of evolution roams around the walls of nature and PHYSICSal manifestations that is involving solely the body as distinguished from the mind and spirit.Until we are prepared to boldly inquire about the 'uknown' can we have the satisfying answer to the gestates of evolution. The term evolution is misleading and incomplete because it emanated from nowhere and has no solid ground.Evolution in my own opinion should satisfy all uncertainties ranging from the beginning of life(where we are prior to our physical existence) and its abrupt discontinuance. (where we go when we loose that physical attributes.)

cravings for the afterlife is purely natural and was triggered and influence by our diversed awareness as higher animals but we shouldn't worry about that hence our fellow animals doesn't give a damn where they end up when they die.Sadly we invented religion and religion has submitted a misleading answer to our cycle.

i have a simple question for the afterlife christians...
If satan who was an angel...nd was in the presense of god continually cud take the negative force of god(evil) nd sin...
What are the odds that humans..who it is in our very own nature(evil) will not also do evil worse than satan tried to do in heaven?

Immorttal:
thats an intelligent and thought provoking question.But my conclusion is that the concepts of evolution roams around the walls of nature and PHYSICSal manifestations that is involving solely the body as distinguished from the mind and spirit.Until we are prepared to boldly inquire about the 'uknown' can we have the satisfying answer to the gestates of evolution. The term evolution is misleading and incomplete because it emanated from nowhere and has no solid ground.Evolution in my own opinion should satisfy all uncertainties ranging from the beginning of life(where we are prior to our physical existence) and its abrupt discontinuance. (where we go when we loose that physical attributes.)

cravings for the afterlife is purely natural and was triggered and influence by our diversed awareness as higher animals but we shouldn't worry about that hence our fellow animals doesn't give a damn where they end up when they die.Sadly we invented religion and religion has submitted a misleading answer to our cycle.

Nice. Would you then say that life is purposeless?

Reyginus:
Nice. Would you then say that life is purposeless?

no one knows the purpose of life as it beats our intelligence so i would conclude its not purposeless.,Lets just say our existence is the universe's way of experiencing itself in a hetero scope.but have you ever paused to consider this lines?
What if our life was programmed aforehand?
What if reicarnation is the methodical order of life?
What if we do not really die but transits into other realms and continues a sort of existence?
What are the chances that this physical life is an advanced illussion?

Immorttal:
no one knows the purpose of life as it beats our intelligence so i would conclude its not purposeless.,Lets just say our existence is the universe's way of experiencing itself in a hetero scope.but have you ever paused to consider this lines?
What if our life was programmed aforehand?
What if reicarnation is the methodical order of life?
What if we do not really die but transits into other realms and continues a sort of existence?
What are the chances that this physical life is an advanced illussion?

No one knows the purpose of life but it is not purposeless you say? That means no one knows about a particular thing but it is not smart to call it unreasonable? Okay. Just thinking.

raphieMontella:
i have a simple question for the afterlife christians...
If satan who was an angel...nd was in the presense of god continually cud take the negative force of god(evil) nd sin...
What are the odds that humans..who it is in our very own nature(evil) will not also do evil worse than satan tried to do in heaven?

Two things:

1) God does not have a "negative force".
2) How does your question address the present discuss?