₦airaland Forum

onetrack:
Well one could say that there is 'internally rational' and 'externally rational'. I'd argue that believing in life after death is 'internally rational' because it reduces anxiety; however it lacks 'external rationality'. I've borrowed this from the scientific principles of internal and external validity.

I remember of a quote that says "Hurt me with the truth, never comfort me with a lie" so is it rational to always lie to ourselves just to derive comfort...

[even though i don't find death any bad as people who fear it does- lets leave it for now]

An analogy to make my point: a crazy person takes off all their clothes and walks in the street naked. We've all seen this before. It is not rational to the people around him because social codes do not permit nudity and he brings shame upon himself, therefore it is externally irrational. However, when asked why he is naked, he says that his clothing burns his skin and therefore he cannot wear them. This is internally rational because this would be proper behavior to the individual doing the act because it is what you should do if you are in contact with something that burns.

This is what I mean. Believing in an afterlife with zero proof may seem irrational to the skeptic, but if it reduces stress for the individual then it is rational.

So what ever makes us feel good is rational to concieve even though it is a lie?

Reyginus:
Seems I understand where the problem is coming from. My response to your argument on human form. Enough of the complications.

In simple terms, if we die pur bodies are buried. They decay and sometimes nourish our earth to spring up some life saving minerals.

Honestly speaking, if we don't address what life really is, or more directly what a human really is, then I don't know what we are expecting in the afterlife.

If my body is my human form, and my human form me, and I die then any argument about afterlife is not rational. In that case, what makes human human?

Is not an easy one but it is the first step if we must get close to the answer. I think that's the only way I will provide an answer.

So in order to derive basis for afterlife we must define 'human' to be more than the numerous cosmological effects we observe called 'life'?

Isn't that some what of an egoistic upliftment, wont it be another attempt to place 'human' at the center of universal effect because we must assume we are more than every other species we know of and we are somehow the pinnacle of creation and not just an intricate part of it.

But the apex of creation that deserves more life after the one we've got?

honourhim:
John 3; 16 says.....that WHOSOEVER believeth in him WILL NOT PERISH.

Salvation is for WHOSOEVER embraces it.

This sounds more like an unfair, unjust, disturbing and infantile criteria.

"Here is a story, a man born of a virgin woman died on the cross to die for your sins even though you don't exist yet"

then you are expected to either believe it [no matter how ridiculous it sounds] or burn forever..

Believe me i reward you, if you don't you burn - seems like a very severe ego issue.

More like GOD is offering salvation from his very own orchestrated wile?

Is it really salvation or just an example of forcful coercion to derive belief?

If the same person offering you salvation is same person going to hurt you in the first place, it's not salvation but rather abusive blackmail.

Makes one wonder "Did any God make such plan or is this just a genius plot of a few who wants you to believe what they want you to believe"

Reyginus:
Let me get this straight before we proceed. When you say 'human is not a form but ability of thought' what exactly do you mean?

I was simply referring to your post of ruling out babies as humans if they don't think

It doesn't. If it doesn't then our foetus doesn't fit into the rhetorics with
human form? I don't think it does.

unless i misunderstood??

ifenes:
It still exist. You are only shifting between realities and time-lines. You are pure energy, your mind attracts what you think. That brought the sayings like. "mind leads to matter". "Our thoughts creates what we experience ".

The past and the future co- exists

If the past and the future co-exists and now is the bridge that moves you between the timelines.

then Afterlife as a future event is a possibility in our timeline?

Reyginus:
Does a foetus think? That's a problem.

I think we can both agree that to this we just don't know.

It doesn't. If it doesn't then our foetus doesn't fit into the rhetorics with human form? I don't think it does. And if it doesn't we are back to we were left off. Do you agree?

This means "Human" is not a form but ability of "thought" . . . If this be so and we for certain ascertain the "thought" abilities in or of other species, does this then make such dstinct specie human?

I think such definition is wanting.

If we expected humans to be in human form, I don't think we'd be having this discussion because we both know what happens to this form when a person dies.

the state after death is not variance with human as a form because a form being distingerated does not mean it wasn't once in that definite form.

so human can can die and cease to be human just like a star dies and ceases to be star.

When you describe afterlife, our roles in it, how exactly do you see us in it? I'm not saying you see us in it. I mean how exactly should afterlife look like for us humans without our human bodies we left behind?

A very valid question : If there is no form only 'thought' in what existential state is such manifestion?

ifenes:
Okay I will try.

Time and space are not real. The experience of them make them look real. Afterlife is under time,so is the past and future. Time can be manipulated( maybe not now, but will be obvious with man advancing in knowledge everyday). Einstein himself discovered that time is relative, flexible,and an illusion that covers the reality of timelessness. Basically in our real state, we are timeless. Which means before life or after life( past and future) are not possible.

Ok like this "one hour ago is in the past and this past no longer exist only now does"

am i right?

Reyginus:
Not at all. I don't know what is really real anymore. I know the person called me thinks. That's all. Maybe he thinks he thinks.

"Anymore" this implies you used to know what is 'real' or should i say 'believed' you knew?

Reyginus:
Can we then say a Foetus is not Human?

We'd then have to have an established definition of "Human" before we categorize. . . Because even as you and i are right now, we are growing and changing but still are humans.

So if a feotus is not human because it changes and grows then at what point do you become human and do you stop changing?

To shoot this, i require a definition of human.

ifenes:
I think I may have discussed this with you before. The Afterlife is not really a correct experience since everything is happening in the Now. To explain the term Afterlife( which is in a lane man's language),you will have to look at it in relationship to space and time, which are both illusions. Because we cannot experience a different point of view of our real self in a timeless state ,the illusion of space and Time was created, which is what you and I are experiencing now.

The past and future are illusions. Afterlife falls in the category of the illusion of the future, so in reality it doesn't exist. But if you say it does exist you are right because you are looking at it from the surface. But dive in deeper, it's is a mere illusion of time.

Could you break it down a bit?

Strawman:
Nice question. I'm still wondering why evolution [as it is taught] suddenly decided to pause the moment cameras were invented for us to keep pictorial records of organisms evolving. But I digress

johnydon22 I posted on the first page of this topic sha, you probably didn't see it cos I booked space then replied late. I've posted my answer on the belief being rational and the reason for my answer

Oooh alright i just hope it's not too long [lol] , i will go check it out

KingEbukasBlog:
"Let's not believe , lets find out " and you became an atheist What's now the rationale behind that ? You should be an agnostic if you cleave unto such principle .

I have repeated it times without number: I am an agnostic atheist.

I do not believe any claim of God(s) abound due to lack of substantial empirical evidence - this makes me an atheist.
[Lack of belief ] as my quote states lets not believe… therefore i do not believe hence the label atheist.

Atheist it's not something you become asin in the case of religious affiliation - as long as you lack belief in the eventuality of Gods (what ever your reason may be) you are an atheist.

I also recognize the inconclusiveness and uncertainty [unknown] in holding an absolute approach towards such subject [unrestricted possibilities] - that makes me agnostic...

Agnosticism is still diluted atheism - because for someone to agree to agnosticism it is already obvious such a person does not buy the ideas of deities already in place [which is basically the position of atheism]…

I think Agnosticism is a tag used by mild atheists who are unable to agree or find the tag 'atheist' too strong or straight to bear..

More like a subtle or soft presentation of atheism

Reyginus:
Afterlife? Does evolution really exist? What about this:

If our law of thermodynamics is correct then I don't think it would even be fair to say we ever began to exist. We are all molecules and vitamins simply taking different shape at different intervals.

We(energy) have always been. Can it be called Evolution or Energy Cycle? Are humans their bodies? And our bodies are what? If not then what? I don't know if I can help you.

Probably the word "evolution" is one of the most misunderstood word in human language.

'Evolution' in a basic definition is 'Change, modification, developmeny' . . It is evident that nature is ever changing in order words ever evolving.

You are basically creating more problems than help - i think the bolded we can also go deeper on. In another thread maybe?

When we say humans what do we mean? Surely this afterlife, this transformation of energy, will not produce a human form. If so, are we not still existing but in different form?

If you severe thought from human form, then if you take away this human form in what way will this 'thought' be?

KingEbukasBlog:
Your atheistic views about the existence of the universe and its purpose are convictions since its based on your perception of reality . See ? Its the same with the theist and deist . Our convictions are drawn from our perceptions . That's why I'm strongly against imposing one views on another or pejoratively criticizing another's views .

I think it takes less faith to say "lets find out and know" it doesn't actually require faith because certainty derived through empirical probe has left the confines of speculations or belief and are within the horizones of FACT.

I hold a scientific view of the universe and that is 'lets not believe, lets find out'… … so every iota of scientific speculations are treated as such even thesis with evidences pointing towards are also touched with shivering hands of possible errors.

Gluthatione:
When it comes to things like this our own intelligence will fail us, there is life after death never wait till death closes ur eyes before u know the reality.

since our intelligence fails us when it comes to things like this, how then did you manage to ascertain that there is such a thing?

It doesn't require intelligence but you as an intelligent being somehow happen to know - is this rather a case of subtituting 'gut feelings' 'personal convictions' 'hope' 'emotions' and 'what we feel or want to be' with what actually might be?

lordnicklaus:
@ johnydon22. It would be wrong for me to make presumptuous claims. I must say that I do not know. Even neurosurgeons are working on a way to preserve human memory in a chip. In that way, they could resurrect the dead according to them.

That would be replicating the biological wiring of a neurological network in a mechanical system.

That if it happens will i think put to rest once and for all and confirm that "thought [consciousness]" is a product of matter...

I am really yet to see a good point here supporting the rationality afterlife except for Regynius brilliant approach - anyway let me raise one myself from the fundamental premise held on to by the proposing side during our live debate.

For morality to make sense then there must be afterlife..

How so?

Lets hear more ideas

Reyginus:
I could say, if it is not irrational to try to know how far we've come and actually traced something, I don't see how it's irrational to belief we changed forms? That will surely create another argument.

The big bang, space time, blue green algae, the Spi worms, the Archaean era, the Proterozoic, Paleozoic, Meso and Cenozoic Eras. That's if this orders I think I know is even true in the first place.

If we didn't appear instantly in this form and consider trancing our transmutation to this form rational how then can another tracing to our transmutation to another form irrational?

Oh very good direction your argument is based - so in this 'afterlife' is just another phase of our evolution?

Frenchkisss:
Because there is no substantial and cogent evidence to corroborate such claims. Religious adherents who believe strongly in an afterlife do so on the basis of blind faith. Faith does not PROVE anything..

If there be an afterlife, is there also a pre-life?

I agree on the basis of faith not being proof for anything - it only means you believe such a thing whether it is true or not.

So in essence to you - anything held on to by faith is irrational?

KingEbukasBlog:
Everyone - atheists and theists - exercises faith .

https://www.nairaland.com/3202814/why-faith-good

This doesn't necessary matter - what ever someone holds on to by Faith Atheist/theist or what ever tag there is still means same thing.

that held on to by faith is only because it is uncertain and require exercision of conviction none the less

CHARLOE:
Exactly what I was about to talk about: reincarnation! I've read of children dat cld remember their former lives.

Under which condition(s) do you think reincarnation can be possibly achievable. . .

- E.G: If the exact same genes are arranged in the exact same order [ same former consciousness is born]

- or exact same atoms are rearranged intricately in the exact same form and order..


I want to know your thoughts on how reincarnation is achievable.

D most recent is a Syrian boy; he rememberS his former name,

There are very many weird psychological misfires - example is a man who hit his head on a hard surface and immediately became a master pianist.

He never knew or learnt how to play a piano before...

Acquired savants . . . Can it also be possible that someone remembering what he wasn't is still another psychological misfire ?

d name of his killer etc when confronted she cldnt'

why couldn't she?

Reyginus:
I don't know of I'd be useful here. My perspectives are all change and I don't trust almost everything anymore.

Just blare your mind - the ground is open to all

There is an irony of one Nigeria...

every part of Nigeria never believed in "One Nigeria" in the 60's. Ahmadu Bello called it the mistake of 1914…

Awolowo said Nigeria is just a geographical expression

The Nigerians of Igbo extraction championed One nigeria more than every other part even Ojukwu.

then at the turn of the events immediately the Igbos asked for a divided Nigeria, every other part of Nigeria began chanting for a "One Nigeria".

Isn't that an ironic sudden and curious exchange of roles?

KingEbukasBlog:
But the point is that reincarnation is indeed a notion of afterlife so we should also discuss about it.
Thanks for the correction too . I forgot about those primitive religions

Of course when one says "Afterlife" it encompasses every idea of afterlife, so those who find it rational to believe in the afterlife concept of reincarnation can also tender their points.

Kay17:
A proof of the afterlife must be metaphysical proof. It is like introducing a super reality into the ordinary reality. Like pouring the contents of a tank into a bucket. It is short of impossibility.

Metaphysics is to Physics what astrology is to astronomy. . .

KingEtienneSky:
But their holy book necessitates such silly beliefs..... That's why I prefer to reference Christianity in terms of the ideologies fundamental to it, as opposed to judging based on the opinions of the people who subscribe to it....

I agree

HardMirror:
God wants all men to be saved, he does not want anyone to perish. That's what the bible teaches.
BUT it does not make sense that we have to pass through earth to determine our eternal abode. Why?
It only makes sense that we have to come to earth to make choices that would either take us to heaven or hell IF we actually had a life before this earth and we are all condemned sinners based on our lives before this earth and God is bringing us to this earth as a second chance to redeem ourselves.
If you don't agree with this, then how dOes it make sense that God does not want people to perish yet he does not just create us directly in heaven without having to pass through earth were we make choices that would take us to hell?

Only deep thinkers would understand this

If there is a perfect god with the ability and willingness to make a perfect world and wants you to be in this perfect world, you would have been there already.

There absolutely is no need for a bizarre cruel test, not only is there no reason for the test, results already known by virtue of omniscience.

KingEbukasBlog:
Actually other religions' beliefs on the afterlife involve serving your punishment in a place of torment and then reincarnation takes place- they dwell on Buddhism's teachings on afterlife or they simply modify it to suit their beliefs.

Nope this is wrong again - there are several thousands of other beliefs with different concepts of afterlife, very many of them much older than both buddhism and abrahamism.

First of this is Ancient Egyptian beliefs, Even African traditional beliefs also vikings [Norse] to mention but a few.

So it is neither an abrahamic or buddhism thing, therefore wrong to label it as such. . . You can correct yourself

onetrack:
I am atheist, however I concede that it could be considered rational to believe in an afterlife IF it reduces your stress level and makes you feel better. However if this belief causes you to engage in behavior harmful to yourself then it is not rational.

Ok you are basically saying: if it makes you feel all warm and cozy and provides a means for you to escape the cold dread of death [if you see death like so] then it is rational to concieve such thoughts for comfort?

I think the topic is based on if such ideas are objectively true [but since it is unprovable and uncertain therefore within the confines of belief] is it rational to hold such belief?

HCpaul please take down the meme, lets make this as mature and as civil as possible. . . Wouldn't want it taking a very infantile lane.

4kings:
wtf is speck of dust here.
My opinion came from the principle of cause and effect, if its rational u want.


You better wake up from that dream.
Even Andrew wommack, says he has never heard god speak directly to him, but oyedepo who had 18 hours vision with god, his wife has missed services cause of illness he couldn't heal. smh.

If you'd listen to me, i'd suggest you focus on the topic of the thread and leave every digressing and trivial matters.

dorox:
If by afterlife you mean an immaterial part of us that survives our death, then my answer is a resounding no.

Your reasons brother..