CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The question itself seems to render your reply moot, as much as I agree with it. The "we" - the sum of our parts and that little extra that makes us an "I" in relation to others - is non-existent at death, particularly if the sum of our parts and that little extra become separated and interwoven in the fabric of the cosmos.
The question is "Do we continue to exist when our bodies die?". We doesn't imply an "I", it implies a "Me", which is different because "I" implies consciousness. We is a collective Me's, not "I"'s, therefor no consciousness is implied. With that said, you can safely say that we do exist beyond the passing of the conscious part of us. If the material aspect is not good enough for you, there will be memories of us... unlike before birth, so at least we will exist more so than before we were born.
Before I respond proper, if a "me" does not connote consciousness, then what is it? Could you define it in such a manner that it is distinguishable from an "I", and if so, could you please provide that definition?
Well then, if it's that obvious, "Do we continue to exist even when our bodies die", means, do we remain conscious once our bodies fail... this is an obvious answer that doesn't need to be answered... it is simply that we do not know. Now, do you need someone to tell you that? No, so what else can we get from the questions. The question itself does not imply consciousness. Now, if we were alive, as we are now, and say, we cut off a finger, you would say "That is my finger on the ground" even though it is just a body part... Am I right? You do, consciously, identify with your body.
So, if we do say that a body is part of us, the question is again, extremely simple. Even if your finger is incinerated, you think "This is the remains of my finger", meaning that it is a part of you... which, it is, great job. Now, if someone tells you a story about someone that they knew, and it was you, that they were talking about, you would say "That story is about me"... would you not?
After all of that, the question, no matter how you look at it, is obvious. You do exist after you lose consciousness forever. Your body exists for a while, and memories of you remain... so, things that you identify as yourself remain... not indefinitely of coarse.
So, in short, to the question, yes. To the implied meaning of the question (Do we remain conscious after death), empirically, is no. Your brain is linked to consciousness... your brain dies and your consciousness dies. Rationally though, nobody can know this until they experience death themselves as there is no proof as to whether or not you remain "spiritually" without the body.
Right, but really, humans haven't evolved in a manner that would allow us to know truth. I don't know if you've ever done work on the meaning of truth, but it's very different than it may seem by it's use.
Human beings as we know ourselves now, and logical and rational... barely capable of grasping even the most empirical workings of our surroundings. We make sense of the world we live in using a tool (the reasoning mind) that is far from capable of even coming close to knowing any truth, even about itself.
Ask any philosopher what the meaning of truth is and you'll get a different reply every time... check the dictionary, it can't explain it either.
I explained up there ^, that the implied question's answer is more obvious than the question itself.
We don't know whether or not you'll be conscious or not once your body dies, but based on everything we know about life and death is that when you're here, you're here... when you're not, you're not. You weren't here before birth, and you have no memories of before. You don't see people hanging around after their bodies die...
When the poster made the dichotomy between "we" and "our bodies" he was clearly referring to self awareness and consciousness. That does not continue to exist after the brain dies unfortunately.
1) he was clearly referring to self awareness and consciousness (no I wasn't - I was debating whether death is an end to existence in every sense of the word)
2) That does not continue to exist after the brain dies unfortunately.
(Prove it. Self awareness and consciousness are absolutely personal to the subject. The brain is an organ that helps you process your thoughts, I'd say, rather than being the thought itself. But I apologize, your science box doesn't allow you accept that)
Even if it was unintended, by separating "we" from "our bodies" you were still referring to self awareness which is what "me/we" characterizes.
Consciousness is still a heated debate in neuro-philosophy but one thing that is not in dispute among the scientific community is that consciousness is an emergent property of neurological activity and complexity; activity which ceases when you die.
"Prove it. Self awareness and consciousness are absolutely personal to the subject."
Yes, because the subject's brain generates what we would call consciousness. And once the brain dies, it's over. We have every reason to believe this is the case and none to believe there is something apart from the physical operations of the brain that somehow "lives on" once the brain is shut off. You're the one who has to prove that something does continue to exist that is intrinsic in the "identity (which is a culmination of electric impulses, memories and features of the brain itself)" of the person who dies.
"The brain is an organ that helps you process your thoughts, I'd say, rather than being the thought itself."
Are you a neurobiologist, by any chance? If not, then I don't recommend saying "I'd say" when speaking of science. Neurobiologists have found a strong correlation between the physical operations of the brain and the formation of what one would call a consciousness. Neuroscientists have observed humans exhibiting a loss of consciousness due to brain conditions such as PVS (Present Vegetative State), or epileptic seizures. Other biological causes of a loss of consciousness, such as cardiac problems, can be found here:
There is a connection between what is understood to be consciousness and biological mechanisms, indicating that consciousness is indeed a product of higher cognitive centers in the brain. People in PVS, for example, lose higher cerebral powers of the brain yet maintain sleep-wake cycles and partial or full autonomic functions. Comparative studies done with fully awake subjects show a much lower level of cortex function in the PVS subjects, as well as an impaired connectivity between the lower and the upper areas of the brain.
Do we know for a fact that consciousness ceases? No, but due to the correlating evidence linking brain function to consciousness, we have much more reason to assume it does cease when the brain shuts down than it somehow continuing to exist without any biological mechanisms to process sensory information. Self-awareness is the culmination of sensory input, therefore consciousness could be described as a processing of that input, rather than a separate entity altogether.
I'm sorry I didn't realize there was a qualification requirement to this debate (I didn't set one). No I'm not a neurobiologist, the same way as you aren't a religious scholar, a philosopher or a sea monkey. I am an ordinary guy, who has had a lot of questions, and satisfied himself to the answers, while retaining a healthy scepticism and logical base.
I'm pretty sure that conciousness and self-awareness are seated in the brain (it's pretty damn obvious). But that just proves that there cannot be any mental activity related to self-awareness and conciousness in the physical realm, since our brain stops functioning when we die.
I'D SAY that yes, we do continue to exist when our bodies die, not only physically speaking because our 'atoms get recycled' like someone else here has said (meaning 'we' is not just what you see in the mirror), but also because I believe that the 'self' is occupying our human form for this instant, and using this organic machinery to operate in the physical realm (which includes the complex processing unit we call the brain). When we die, we discard our shells, like the driver that steps out of her car when the destination has arrived, and get on with the rest of our existence. O and I'm not speaking of science, not just, which by the way is an opinion (or hypothesis) through good observation taken to the next level and considered in detail. You should also check out my other debate: Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?
Supporting Evidence:
Link to debate
(www.createdebate.com)
"he same way as you aren't a religious scholar, a philosopher or a sea monkey"
You used the phrase "I'd say" when speaking about what the brain's function is. That's much more daring than anything I've said; I actually try to take information from external sources.
You don't seem to comprehend that consciousness and self-awareness are not independent of the brain, they are PRODUCED by the brain. Therefore your argument that they continue to exist after we die is moot.
"using this organic machinery to operate in the physical realm"
You're using backwards logic; we have observed consciousness and self-awareness to be tied directly to the brain. This indicates consciousness is produced by the brain - you say that the consciousness existed before it happened to possess the body or something to that effect. You have no evidence to this claim whatsoever and therefore that argument is moot as well.
this is a Buddhist story i found... its made me look at things differently. I wonder if it will do the same for you.
In his dharma talks night after night, one phrase that regularly crops up is "look deeply". Look carefully, Thich Nhat Hanh urges his compatriots, and you will see that the true seeds of happiness are neither wealth, fame, nor glory. Look at your hand, and you will realize how it is composed of your ancestors' veins, motherly love, and the spirit of your children to come. Look deeply, and you will see there is ultimately no birth, no death, no coming, no going.
"After we die, where do we go?" asks the monk during his last talk. A long pause. Thich Nhat Hanh blinks his eyes a few times before he continues. "It's the same as the cloud in the sky. The heat from the sun has transformed water in the river into vapour, which then forms into the clouds. They then return to the earth, to the river _ as rain, snow, or ice.
"The cloud never dies. It just changes _ into falling rain, river, water". The monk proceeds to pour tea into a glass. "And when the poet drinks the tea, the cloud will turn into a poem." He takes a sip, and breaks into a smile. "Isn't that nice? How the cloud can reincarnate into a piece of poetry, or a dharma talk?"
A cloud can never die; a cloud only becomes rain or snow or ice, but a cloud can never be nothing. That is the true nature of the cloud. That is the true nature of all living things. No birth and no death.
Thanks for your wonderful contribution. It's a releif that someone can come up with arguments that aren't confined to downright absolutes and can dare to think outside the box.
I think the question is, is the "I" even there? Or are we just perceiving an illusion of us having these individual identities?
Anyways, I think when we die, we go off into an infinite, never-ending dream land. It's like how we can dream for 5 earth minutes, but in our dream it feels like forever. Earth time is irrelevent in dream time. This makes me question what is real? (yes, yes, the matrix) Reality or dream? They both feel real.
So basically, I don't know if "I" as an individual entity will continue to exist after my shell decomposes, but I do believe that we will continue to dream forever, with or without our sense of "I."
I feel the same sense of direction as you. Only 'dreamland' for you is the afterlife for me. If you meditate upon the (real) meaning in these concepts that religions present (though distorted and ravaged in time by insidiuous dissent), you will find they say the very same thing. For the prophets that said them, were the greatest philosophers of their age, envisioned with divine truths, that people like you and me would take a lifetime (or several lifetimes) to comprehend.
I chose to believe in the Christian religion and therefore believe that my soul will live on after my body's physical death. The idea of something as final as death with nothing after is hard for me to wrap my head around. Also, it makes it much harder to cope with other's deaths (as I recently have) if you don't believe in some sort of afterlife. It is comforting to believe that we will be reunited one day. On a side note, sometimes I think about reincarnation.... it would be nice to stay on earth and live as something/someone else to get another perspective on life.
I believe that we will one day figure out the truth and commune with the everlasting and divine. I think one lifetime's not nearly enough, it just takes so damn long to become human again...
I think we were ALWAYS here and ALWAYS will be here. If we are in fact made of atoms and energy, you cannot create or destroy energy. Energy can only be transferred. The atoms and energy just took millions of years to manifest in to what we call "our consciousness." We were here before we were born. We were in our parents, our grandparents, our ancestors, history, war, monkeys, and dinosaurs. The summation of the past equals the present, so I can only believe that the summation of our present will equal our future. Therefore, we will never cease to exist, only transfered.
I think we were ALWAYS here and ALWAYS will be here. If we are in fact made of atoms and energy, you cannot create or destroy energy. Energy can only be transferred. The atoms and energy just took millions of years to manifest in to what we call "our consciousness." We were here before we were born. We were in our parents, our grandparents, our ancestors, history, war, monkeys, and dinosaurs. The summation of the past equals the present, so I can only believe that the summation of our present will equal our future. Therefore, we will never cease to exist, only transfered.
yes. doesn't make scence that we have superior brain to everything else. they also say the mind is the greatest computer ever. computers always have users.
Aren't there more ways to 'exist' than in the strictest, most conventional sense of the word - of physical interaction with the tangible? Must we confine ourselves to the scientifically proven materialistic world when we say we exist? What if our existence is as real as the characters in this note, that are actually impressions made by electrical impulses, or more so, a representation of the writer’s thoughts, not just characters that get deleted some day? Are we only the characters or are we actually the thought that live on as a memory even when the words have been consumed? Self-awareness is yet another physical aspect that may or may not cease once our ‘being’ loses the breath of life, but may again be irrelevant when you speak of existence – beyond the physical world. I feel this truth within myself, so I know I exist in the physical sense, as well as in a place reserved for me, because of me, because I was meant to be. You don’t have to accept it, you’ll have your chance again, hopefully.
The definition of existence: that's the real question here. We exist physically as constructs made of molecules that will never be destroyed, and we also exist as beings that have effects on other people and on our world. The former will continue to exist, the latter, the person, will die and not speak or act in the same way ever again. Will this being live on in a spiritual sense? That's the harder question...
We are defined by the choices we make. Personally, I have faith in my belief that we choose when we are born and when we die (only theory, of course). When a person makes a choice immediately before what we define as 'death', the impact of said choice does not cease to exist. Every choice we make impacts our Existence regardless of the scope of the choice (consider the concept of 'the butterfly effect').
When we choose to move a finger, that movement displaces atoms of air. Each displacement of each atom is a direct impact of the initial choice to move the finger. Choice defines Existence. Every choice by every entity is intentional (I am pleasantly reminded of the band Rush's lyric "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice").
Being as we are defined by our choices and the impact of those choices do not cease to exist after 'death', YES, we continue to exist after our bodies 'die'.
I disagree. Beliefs and thought are what impact our choices and those cease when we die. I also disagree over the concept that we are defined by our choices, but that is for some other debate.
Not every choice in intentional so long as you qualify intentional as a conscious or at worst coming for the immediate subconscious. Humans cannot choose to have their heart beat, or choose to not laugh when tickled. These things are involuntary and no amount of conscious "choosing" can stop it.
You finish your argument with a non-sequitur. Though the impact of our choice does live on (figuratively) as a legacy, it does not follow that humans live on, or continue to exist because of that. It only follows that our legacy lives on, not us. You're fallaciously unifying the Essence with the Existential. Such an argument would maintain that Santa exists because his mythological legacy stemming from St. Nicholas continues today. Therefore, the one place we can partially agree is that you tend to base your "theories" on faith.
Your flaw in logic is the same as mine--neither of us can successfully prove which came first, choice or impact.
"...so long as you qualify intentional as a conscious..."
Do you contend that the beat of the heart (or other sensations) can not be self-manipulated? Furthermore, who is to say at what point such manipulations become available to us as 'living' beings (I am specifically considering embryos/newborns)?
"You finish your argument with a non-sequitur"
My closing was simply a reiteration of what I inherently stated initially.
"the impact of our choice does live on (figuratively) as a legacy"
You admittedly accept my belief as truth but you stop short--you confine your thoughts to claim that humans do not live on due to impact of choice. You disagree that we are defined by our choices but side-step and state that such a concept is unrelated to the topic. Please explain how my belief in 'Existence being defined by choice' does not directly associate with whether we exist 'beyond the flesh' or not.
You are fallaciously separating Existence from itself. Existence is not apart from anything... everything is Existence. Your analogy (which is extremely considerable but plausible and possible IMO) is a blatant attempt at ridicule due to its immediately extreme nature (as are other particulars of your response). Regardless of how insane my beliefs appear to be to you, do you genuinely believe such behavior is appropriate?
"you tend to base your 'theories' on faith"
Regarding faith/belief--our perception of Existence cannot occur without it. We only exist because we believe that Existence occurs. Perception is theory.
Great wars have been fought over these questions. And time and time again, the truth has had to be subdued, for as natural as it is for humans to beseech the truth, it is also to destroy it. My truth is within my self, I cannot force you to believe it nor stop you from attacking it.
First, I apologize for the sour language. I like debating and that includes a little bit of rhetoric. Don't expect it to stop. I also don't believe that very many things are inappropriate.
Accepting certain necessary axioms does not mean we operate on faith alone. That would create a paradox. That evidence and reason can guide one to truth is axiomatic because the only way to prove that is with evidence and reason (thus it is circular). To say that believing evidence to be useful is based on faith because it is axiomatic is paradoxical because the concept of faith is one what stems from the evidence axiom (faith being a belief in something with a lack of evidence). This is just one example of why the idea that everything requires faith is erroneous. That everything requires belief is another matter, as faith and belief are not interchangeable.
You also did not address my point that you are confusing essence with existence. Our legacy, our impact, and our influence are aspects of our essence. Our existence can be defined as our actually tangible being. Our molecular build up, and when you begin to define life - our organs and tissues and bones.
Your non-sequitur is in saying because of legacy continues, that we continue to exist. The only thing that follows "our legacy continues therefore" is "our legacy continues". The existence, me, and the actions I take, do not continue to exist. They are merely the agent.
Your flaw in logic is the same as mine--neither of us can successfully prove which came first, choice or impact.
Only if you mean it in a chicken or the egg style. Choice always precedes the impact because the impact is defined as the result of the choice, however the choice itself is an impact of a choice too (like you parents deciding to give birth, thus allowing you to make that choice). So, Choice begets impact, but choice itself is a form of potential impact.
Please explain how my belief in 'Existence being defined by choice' does not directly associate with whether we exist 'beyond the flesh' or not.
We is the agent. Choice is the tool. Impact is the effect. The agent makes the choice which creates an impact. The agent does not live on after death, and the agent is me. The only thing that "lives on" (if that can even be said) is the impact, but the impact is only the impact. It is neither the agent nor the body nor me. So are we defined by our choices? It defines aspects of our essence, not our existence, but since this is "do we continue to exist", the answer is no.
Even if one conceded that our existence is defined by our essence (which I think has some truth to it) that does not equate essence to existence. Existence "exists" regardless of an essence, just like the word still existed before life evolved to find meaning in that world.
About involuntary habits. A healthy heart beats. It will continue to beat whether you want it to or not, assuming you don't take proactive measures to indirectly stop it's beating (ex. suicide). One cannot will their heart to stop. Since choice and will are interconnected, one can also say I don't have a conscious or direct choice over the beating my heart. Now, one can take indirect measures to effect their heart. If you want to increase its beats per minute you can jog on the spot. The choice you are making is to jog on the spot; specifically to move your legs. Manipulating your heart, therefore, is an impact of a choice (move legs) decided by the agent (my mind).
This is a very existential and philosophical approach to this question, when I think from the beginning most people understood it to mean "is there an afterlife" as in heaven, hell, reincarnation, purgatory, or becoming a ghost. These things are consider "after lives" because believers in after life tend to believe in a soul. So, whereas I defined the existent to be my material biological body, they believe the body to be a vehicle for the true existential entity: the soul. Scientologists stress this concept a lot too. Under this, memories, feelings, and thoughts are existent and not just subjective illusions and "essence". The choices a soul makes (which is what were are concerned with) are still non-existent. They only exist insofar as their impact can be appreciated. And because, as I've previously explained, impact is not existence but rather the result of existence, the continued impact is not itself us.
If impact is what defines us, because impact is what defines choice, and (according to you) choice defines us, than a rock tumbling down a hillside still exists an forever, because the butterfly effect-like impact that rock had had on the universe will continue even if it becomes more and more infinitesimal. From this it logically follows that, if rocks "exist" forever because their impact on the universe does, than everything "exists" forever. This is the biggest flaw in your "theory", crack pot as it may be. If we concede that by your definition everything exists for ever due to its impact, than the word "Exist" becomes meaningless, useless, and impractical.
The question is actually "does your 'soul' continue to exist after death".
My hypothesis for reincarnation follows:
1). Posit the existence of a soul.
2). Nature wastes nothing. Matter from stars long dead still exists, and is reformed into new and more interesting things (like us). Everything that we know of is recycled into some other form or shape (plants, animals, coal, rocks, etc.).
3). therefore, if a soul exists, it is also recycled into some other form or shape after each life.
4). Therefore, a soul will continue on in some other form after the death of it's host.
This is the "Ship of Thesus" debate, and while I enjoy CreateDebate, I enjoy the fact that the substance of arguements haven't changed for a million years even better.
I believe we will exist, but as something else...
Follow the link for a good summary of the "Ship of Thesus". (Not my blog.)
Supporting Evidence:
Ship of Thesus
(www.productiveflourishing.com)
Yes, we still exist in this world, but in the form of memories. The definition of "we" here is not only meant for physical appearance ( such as ghost form or zombies), but the "we" here also stands for the memory that we left deep inside people's heart. That is why the heroes and heroines, such as Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, and Mao, who had fought for freedom and independence in the past are still remembered until today. The infamous dictators such as Hitler and Stalin are also remembered until today due to their "purge" and cruel dictatorship. Although our physical appearance may have been destroyed by the nature, our past actions will be remembered by our families and friends.
We will exist as spirits for a small time. then we will be judged and granted our bodies in a perfect form. we also existed before we lived here...so im not sure how valid that argument is.
Man, I got so many negative votes on the other side of the column that i decided to switch to this one and see how I fair. I mean, I'm easy but don't let it get around.
I figure it this way. What is nothingness? How can we just cease to exist? As humans we cannot physically understand being nothing because it is not possible. Primarily there are two answers to this debate. People who believe in religion or ghosts and people who don't. I believe in God but I also believe in spirits. Now, religion aside (because this has nothing to do with the debate) spirits do exist. There are EVPs and so forth that science has proven is above the natural but there is also other proof that spirits of people dead and gone are still around. Whether just imprints on nature or intelligent beings spirits do exist which is a life after death.
Our consciousness and our desire and attachment to this world still exists therefore not only we will exist after our bodies die, we will reborn again because of this attachment to this world
your soul cant just die... your spirit still lives on through all of the people you have touched during your life...
a soul isnt someting like before you were born, i believe its like your inner core that developes as you grow, and its like a force that cant just dissapear.
I'm not a religious person, but Ronlyn Dominique's argument in "The Mercy of Thin Air" convinced me of life after death. She put it very simply: nobody knows what makes the heart beat. The brain sends impulses to voluntary and involuntary muscles of the heart, but what makes the brain send these impulses? Chemical signals? And why are these chemical signals sent? There must be some other reason.
And this is why I believe in a soul. Matter and energy cannot be destroyed. John Mellencamp may put it best: "Life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone."
Depends how you look at it. I don't think we continue to exist in a way that our souls are somewhere, but I believe we usually continue to exist in the sense that our presence is kept alive through family and friends (if you had any).
It depends on how we define ourselves. Obviously who we are today differs from who we were earlier. If the essential qualities of our being change drastically, do we cease to exist or do we continue to exist as a changed being? I like to think of my dying body as (to paraphrase Einstein) merely a wilting leaf on the tree of life. I don't think that "who I am" began in my mothers womb. I hopefully live on through my offspring both biologically and ideologically.
lots of people must have read this question wrong it says exist not live, so i think we definatly do contione to exist after death just not after life because exsisting is your body actually being there you know your cells are all there so you definatly still exist after death!
oh boy i hope so ..................................btw it kind of looks like god himself appeared here, to grade people, for their oppinion in this debate....hmm?
We do continue after death as spirits. There are a few rare people that have the ability to see and hear these spirits and some that can feel the spirits around them. There is a place that spirits go but they can only go there once they no longer have any unfinished business upon this world. There are also some spirits, known as demons, that are very evil and powerful. Due to the fact that there is no Hell there is no place for these evil spirits but among the living.
yes when our bodies die we turn to dirt or ashes and energy. the dirt turns into potatoes that people eat. the energy turns into sugar with photosynthesis then gets eaten by plant eaters.
1. My ex-wife went to a psychic who told her that I needed to go to the hospital because a problem with my back. A month or so later, I was cross-eyed for 6 months while the doctors struggled to find out what was wrong with me. My current wife Googled my condition during this time and suggested I go to a different neurologist and ask him to check for a spontaneous spinal fluid leak (a very rare condition). He confirmed her diagnosis, operated on my back and cured me.
2. My mom had this recurring dream over a period of a few weeks. It was always the same. An analog clock on the wall displaying 6:00 o'clock. The last time she had this dream there was a change. She kept on saying, "I'm late, dear God, I'm late." In the morning, she found out my grandfather died. She went to his funeral. When she came back she had with her one of those little pamphlets they give out at the funeral with information about the person that had died. She gave that to my dad. He looked at it and said, "Hon, did you know that your father died on June 12th? Six, twelve. The numbers on the clock in your dream. Your last dream was when he died and you were late. You weren't at his bedside when he died."
I know this is not the type of proof people are looking for. All of this can be easily dismissed by anyone who hasn't experienced it but if you ever experience it, it's hard to dismiss.
You're completely right when you say "All of this can be easily dismissed by anyone".
Seriously though, coincidences happen in life. In no way do they prove the existence of a higher power or the existence of a soul.
How does your evidence show that these two things exist? You say that it must be experienced, but can you please elaborate on that to help out those who have not experienced such events?
And that's a big part of that religious stuff I don't understand:
You can never know if you have really been good enough.
So once you die you will learn if you spend eternity in heaven or hell.
No wonder the religious people want to believe in an after-life, because its really hard to enjoy life, when every wrong decision might lead you to eternal damnation.
There can be life after death and no God. If there's no God, then there's no eternal damnation. You to either pick a religion that fits your life stile or create your own. In my religion (that I've created for myself) there's no God, no eternal damnation but there is life after death. it's the best of all worlds. Wanna Join?
What you are saying isn't true at all. While there are some who don't know if they have done the right things to enter heaven. The christian path is very particular with what you need to do, repent of you sin, put your trust in jesus that he has saved you from your sin and then allow Jesus to help you and everything else will follow.
There is no magic formula. It's pretty easy to know from the start. Either you are for Jesus and you go to heaven or you are against jesus and you go to hell.
''Either are for Jesus and you go to heaven or you are against jesus and you go to hell''.
I go to hell because i don't believe in Jesus christ ?
Even when i did noting wrong ?
This proves that god is unrealistic and he doesn't love us.
This is like a threat which threatens people to believe in him.
Threaten people to have faith in him when only people believe in him because they were forced into believing that if you don't believe in Jesus Christ, You go to hell.
The problem with this idea is that Christianity is not the only religion on the planet and each religion has its own criteria for making it into "heaven." I don't claim to be an authority on which religion is right and which are wrong. Anybody claiming to be an authority is deceiving himself. The deception is ok as long as the person respects others peoples right to deceive themselves as to which religion is right.
I often use this analogy to explain what I think happens when we die. We essential return from whence we came, into nothingness. If that sounds horribly bleak to you, take comfort in the fact that nothingness will be painless, so whether you lived a good or bad life, there awaits no fire and brimstone for you.
You say that "it'll be just like the time before we were born," but how do you know what the time before you were born was like? As far as I know, none of us remember what it was like in the womb nor can any one person attest to what it was like before the sperm met the egg. So there is, of course, the opportunity that prior to birth a persons soul existed in heaven or some form of a paradisaical place but you just cannot remember now.
that's the point. You're not going to know what it's like after you're dead either. Anything is possible of course but probably the best way to navigate through the universe is to consider the evidence.
You say that anything is possible but, you don't have any proof that there isn't an afterlife. In order to say no there isn't you have to have conclusive proof that there is no after life at all for any one. All I need is 1 piece of proof. My proof is that according to Jesus Christ, there is an afterlife. In addition, with the wording of the Question being, 'do we continue to exist even when our bodies die?' is like does a tractor that has stopped working still exist? yes, you have proof that it exists, in its remains and the effect it had on it's world.
Look at the wording. even if that isn't what the person meant, they should have properly phrased the question.
The existence of the afterlife is the claim, it requires supporting evidence. No one needs to prove its non-existence, they can simply eschew it as nonsense unless substantial evidence is forthcoming.
to know without something doing the knowing doesn't make sense as an argument. Knowledge requires a mindbody construct to 'know', to make the point that you don't know what it's like to be dead until your dead is just patently ludicrous and implies a certain amount of ignorance on your part. That's like asking what you were like before you were born.
Actually, she didn't say that you "didn't know" what it was like before birth. She said you don't remember, which is also to say who knows if you'll experience anything after dying. I also don't remember anything before about age five, but that doesn't mean I didn't exist.
No I'm not - evidence and reason leads us to believe there's nothing by oblivion waiting for us after death. The only thing we'll bump into is an abyss.
The original poster makes the distinction between "We" and "our body." This distinction is of course illusionary, but referencing our body as something supplemental to the self, "I", "me", or consciousness is somewhat convenient (though technically wrong).
So since in actuality the question asks "does our self/consciousness continue to exist..." I can only answer no. Scientific and neurological research has consistently confirmed that our memories, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, and sense of self are all due to the organ called the brain and the activities within. So, when our bodies die nature doesn't give a whiff about the false dichotomy between "me" and "my body". Our brain/bodies die; "we" die too, because memories, opinions, feelings, and awareness melt away as the brain decays.
I have to admit I more want to comment than favor or oppose. First, I think science would contend it is the nervous system, of which the brain is a central part, that is the seat of consciousness. But it seems to me that the idea of consciousness is a fuzzy one at best. If consciousness is the result of a complex system of electrical signals, where does it stop? There is electrical activity at all levels of atomic interaction. Why is neural electrical activity more significant than other more subtle energetic interactions? I guess I feel that the idea of awareness/consciousness is pretty subjective. I've heard arguments that mice or other animals aren't self-aware/conscious, even though they have nervous systems too. To me, it's just a bias of viewpoint or misunderstanding of levels of awareness. It's just human to want to feel superior. (I think this could be applied to favoring or opposing.) Anyway, I think I just asked more questions than made arguments. Just my two cents.
Unless one can show that the soul, living independently of the brain, can somehow retain identity and memory, or even thought, then the answer is a resounding "no".
Faith in the afterlife provides us with nothing more than comfort. But even then, that kind of faith is observably false, and this false faith is exemplified in the fact that both the faithful and the skeptic do everything in our power to ensure that we succeed in this life: through economics, power and influence, to ensure that our children have the best lives possible.
The afterlife is not only an afterthought, it is a nonexistent thing in practice for almost every human being on the planet.
What if you could exist without an identity and a memory? What if your soul does in fact retain identity and memory? Can you prove me wrong?
Sure, like animals, our self-interest drives our actions. But our lives are not spent solely for this purpose. As intelligent beings, humans have ideals and conscience, and these play an important part in our decisions.
And as human beings, we have an inclination to the afterlife, and a desire to join the eternal, and commune with the everlasting supernatural infinite realm.
Is all you see what you believe? Or what you believe is what you see. You can cry that there's no evidence, and that it doesn't exist - for your own comfort - because you would rather live day to day like it doesn't matter, it's nonsense. For someone like me, it exists, I can almost reach out and touch it.
I don't have the capacity to disprove predictive, supernatural, hypothetical scenarios. It could very well be the case that our souls retain memory and identity after death. But just because I can't disprove something doesn't mean that it does exist.
I can't disprove the proposition that there is an immaterial gnome in the Andromeda galaxy that tills soil for a living and exports it to other planets in the form of comets. But both your and my examples are simply unlikely.
However, it has been observed, and it is demonstrable that if the left hemisphere of our brain is damaged, then we lose our notion of self in relation to "everything else". It is also demonstrable that if our brain in general is damaged, we lose our memory - short term or longterm.
So, we know that identity and memory are inextricably connected to our functioning brains. And even if there is an infinite realm, the very nature of such a realm is counterintuitive to identity. For there is no part of infinity. There just is. Believing that the soul harbors our memories and our identity doesn't make sense when we juxtapose that belief with the above.
Human beings are intelligent. But our decisions are normally centered around how we are going to survive, the quality of our survival, the quality of life we provide for our children, we are concerned with how we treat strangers (filoxenia), and how we treat the environment - ensuring that it is stable, safe and productive for posterity.
These are concerns that fundamentally invalidate any belief in the afterlife. Everything we do on this planet - in practice - expresses the fundamental notion that we know that this physical existence, the thing you call "I" or "self" is all that there is. Human living is enough evidence of that.
And this has nothing to do with me or anyone like me wanting to shirk responsible living. It is quite the opposite. When we put aside the notion of the afterlife, we are forced to become culpable in how we treat each other, our environment, and how we ensure our future on this planet. And this culpability is not contingent on our prospective existence during an afterlife.
Wonderful argument. Flawed! More than my own, since netiher you nor me has actually discovered the ultimate truth, that both know exists beyond the capacity of modern boundaries.
First off, just because you (or anyone) can't disprove something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"It is also demonstrable that if our brain in general is damaged, we lose our memory - short term or longterm."
If you use this argument to prove that 'self' is actually the brain, I can use the same to argue that the brain is just an organ that allows you to process the memory into your physical form, not the memory itself, which exists in history regardless of whether your brain has lost its ability to recall it. The same way as I argue that your self exists regardless of your physical ability to realize it.
"Everything we do on this planet - in practice - expresses the fundamental notion that we know that this physical existence, the thing you call "I" or "self" is all that there is."
Not true, I say, since that would apply more to anmals than humans. I had argued that humans (the good ones, at least) follow a code of ethics that is not necessarily correlated to self-interest, which is selfish in nature and does not evaluate the sum of all good (unless you believe that "I" and "we" are the same). In fact, often times the greatest good may be in complete conflict with your selfish desires, yet 'humanity' refers to the achievement of the greatest good, not self-fulfillment. For that reason, I beleive that humans tend towards an idealistic state that is beyond the physical.
Not that I have anything against, you but I'm adding you as my enemy to see how this works, okay. Thanks for your rhetoric any day.
Whether or not I have discovered the ultimate truth is irrelevant, though. I am not making any claims that would require knowledge of the ultimate truth.
And I am not urging that the self is the brain, only that the notion of the self is inextricably connected to the brain, and without a functioning one, our notion of self - and even our memory - is damaged.
With that I can go further. Without a brain altogether, it seems almost inane to propose that we could maintain our "self" at all.
The self might exist independent of our bodies, and I wouldn't disagree with you. The "self" is metaphysical to begin with. However, if we lack the capacity to recognize the self - that it exists even if we cannot realize it, then the notion loses its meaningfulness.
Some Hindu have the transcendent conception of returning to everything (Brahman). When our Atman ("soul") realizes that it too is Brahman, we become one in connection to the all. But we lose our consciousness and simply exist-as-being within an infinite essence (we become infinite and in-essential). That would be the closest, linguistic interpretation of being without realizing your "self".
But again, that removes the meaningfulness of the self, and whether that is a "we" or "me" or "I" existing becomes a moot point altogether.
This will get a bit technical: the very nature of the self is self-appreciation. The self already "realizes" itself. We cannot have a self that does not at the same time realize itself or else it is not a "self" and is something else or other.
Onto human behavior. We are selfish. But that line of thought does not necessarily run counter to what I have posted. We are selfish on many levels; we are self-centered, in-group centered, ethnocentric, patriotic, earth centered, galaxy centered, etc. etc.
Every one of our concerns has an I dynamic and an us/we dynamic (which inherently include a me or I dynamic). So I can help my country and still be selfish, I can provide my children with a good education and be selfish, I can ensure that my group's agenda is brought into being and still be selfish. Selfishness does not preclude other-centered action, just as other-centered action does not preclude selfishness.
I'm not arguing that we are inherently good or other-centered. Only that our behavior suggests that a great many of us think in terms of "this life" and not the afterlife.
Thanks for being one of the first to bring in a discussion from other belief systems, such as the hindu religion. 2 things I could dispute: 1) the self may infact not lose realization of itself (I think this realization will be amplified) 2) self-realization in the worldly sense may not be the same as in the afterlife. There are many different states of conciousness, the Buddhist concept of 'nirvana' is close to what I believe may be the applicable state of realization you are talking about, provided you have walked the path in search of it, rather than being bound to 'this life'.
"I can use the same to argue that the brain is just an organ that allows you to process the memory into your physical form, not the memory itself, which exists in history regardless of whether your brain has lost its ability to recall it."
Scientists have identified how memories are recorded, registered, and stored in the brain, physically. The brain creates memory, it does not merely process it. Also, clarify on what you mean by "which exists in history". What history? And how does exist? The memory encoded within your brain exists, yes, even if certain faculties are disabled to inhibit accessing that memory. However, it still exists within the brain. If you can somehow prove it exists outside the brain (in some fashion or another), I'm sure the neurologist community would shower you with awards and praise.
I punch you hard on the head. You lose your memory, it slips out of yer head, u dont remember a thing. However, in history (001, for kindergarteners), I punched ya.
You haven't seen me (probably). You don't know what I look like, but I exist. When you do see me, your brain will create an image of me in your head through your vision (duh) and a memory will be created. I think I got that even if I can't take out time to read through each of your repetetive lines and the links you send.
"The memory encoded within your brain exists" - you said it, the encoded memory exists in yer brain. The memory itself, or the instance, did not oringinate from yer brain, which is what I'm sayin.
So supposing for a second 'we' did operate within our bodies, like those japenese robots in cartoons. Your brain will create memories that your senses perceive in this world. And when you die, your brain will stop creating any more memories.
But I'D SAY, heck, who needs to create memories when you die? I'm talking about a state of being that obviously doesn't need a body, or a brain to create or process memories.
However, since I haven't taken this site up as an occupation, I don't have the motivation to post detailed discussions that invlove my personal research. There is, however, a wealth of knowledge available, though not nearly on the internet. May be I'll share it sometime, but its futile if you're thick as a walnut. (I'm gonna love it when you start squawking mad now)
"The memory itself, or the instance, did not oringinate [sic] from yer [sic] brain, which is what I'm sayin [sic]."
The "instance" was perceived by our brain, the memory originates from our brain because it is there where it was created. If you have proof that memory is somehow created outside our brain then implanted in, I'd love to hear it. It'd be nice to have some actual FACTS to argue instead of your baseless conjecture.
"I think I got that even if I can't take out time to read through each of your repetetive [sic] lines and the links you send."
So you are aware that memories are CREATED IN THE BRAIN, thus your previous point that memories somehow exist separately from the brain is moot, thus your claim that the self exists beyond the physical body just became all the weaker. Thanks for making my job a lot easier.
"I'm talking about a state of being that obviously doesn't need a body, or a brain to create or process memories."
Before you can even discuss that you have to establish what a "state of being" is. That implies that "we" are separate from our physical bodies, thus can exist elsewhere. However, we have seen that a sense of self is produced by the functions of the brain as a culmination of sensory input. Without a brain, there is nothing to gain sensory input from the environment to experience the physical world, thus have awareness, let alone self-awareness. And if you contend that awareness can be possible, you'd have to provide a lot of argumentation as to how awareness is even possible without the organic functions of a brain. So why don't you explain, in detail, how an entity can exist without a physical body. While you're at it, explain how it can maintain any kind of identity since the brain's chemical processes generate one's unique personality.
"I don't have the motivation to post detailed discussions that invlove [sic] my personal research"
Don't worry; based on your track record I wasn't expecting otherwise.
"May be I'll share it sometime, but its futile if you're thick as a walnut."
I don't know if you've been reading your own comments with a critical eye, but if we were to look at one of our exchanges, what do we see? I attempt to press points, give counter-arguments, be as thorough as possible with stating the logic behind my arguments, and post links to reference material to back up my allegations. You often take one or two quotes that aren't even dealing with the real meat of a comment and offer weak arguments against it, make claims and allegations with nothing more than pure conjecture to back it up, refuse to address points brought up by cited material, make broad assumptions, and ignore any valid points the opposition makes. This, coupled with your inability to read properly (especially reference material), shows that you might have the whole "thick as a walnut" line (which was another claim made without any stated reasons) backwards.
LOLS! Told you it would get you squawking mad! Okay here's what you'd really love to hear, before you start writing me another essay. And I'll try not to make any spelling mistakes this time, though I try to focus on the message not the spelling. But yeah, here it is: "YOU WIN". I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove (you might want to try this debate: “Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?” (http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Does_all_the_scientific_evidence_we_have_today_prove_(or_disprove)_every_damn_thing ). Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered, with tons of stuff you can’t explain with documented proofs on the internet, such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes. Well, it’s nice do go out and do a study when you are bothered enough to do so, but in my case, I take a debate on the internet only so far as I can afford to. Good luck with your skepticism, I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning. But thanks for reading so far. Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case? (Here, you can try this guy: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 1015#arg6888) )
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
It's not about winning, it's about the intellectual exchange of ideas. Gaining knowledge and new perspectives supersede any concept of "winning"; I'd much rather have you prove your point to me so I can learn something new, rather than say I "won".
"I don't expect you to be able to grasp anything that science can't prove"
You must have incentive to consider something is feasible before you get anywhere near proving it. The existence of the soul has no such incentive; it is an assumption, pure and simple.
"Neither do I expect you to be able to accept there’s a universe out there waiting to be discovered"
That I do accept.
"such as spirituality, religion, metaphysics, philosophy and the likes"
All are based on conjecture, not any empirical evidence (except for philosophy, but that's not pseudoscience; it's social science).
"I guess I am pretty simple compared to your superior intellect and reasoning"
Never said I had superior intellect, never intended to imply such. This isn't about trying to prove who's smarter, it's about proving which position is the most valid. Being concerned with personal ego issues like who's smarter is being "out for yourself", as you like to say, while I'm out for the truth (or the closest thing there is to it).
"Now will you please go away and get on someone else’s case?"
Getting on someone's "case" is not the point. Debating is the point (go figure). If you make a comment that another person objects to, don't be surprised to find said person challenging your position. It's perfectly legitimate to argue against your position if I find it to be complete BS. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Whoops, there I go writing another essay. But this'll be my last comment on this topic, if you really wish to cease the debate. Just wanted to clarify a few things.
There is so much knowledge that Humans are not aware of, and may never be. Consider quantum physics, much of which is defined by theory. Black holes themselves can be explained only to the point of what causes them and within the limits of the event horizon. It is considered a singularity in the universe in which our laws of physics no longer apply, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have any idea, on any level what happens inside a black hole at "the singularity". With this considered, how can we assume your "explanation" on how the brain works could be applied there, or that there aren't other such singularities that exist in the universe. Now I'm not saying when you die you get sucked into a black hole, it's simply that physics as we know it cannot explain "The Universe". Its simply a definition of how things work based on what we know. The numbers and values we have attached to gravity, mass, ect, and the way nerves and electrons behave in the body/brain is nothing more then a label, or a way to explain why things happen the way they do.
Now if your going to say "when you die, nothing substantial occurs and your bound by our physical laws", that wouldn't be ridiculous to assume. But to state scientific principles would be applicable to an "afterlife" such as heaven and hell, would be. The fact is IF you assume a spiritual afterlife, THEN the notion of humans getting our memories back, super strength, a lame leg was healed, whatever you wish to assume could happen, could happen. The afterlife has never been physically studied, we have no scientific restriction or conclusion about the afterlife, and no proof of a soul. Do I believe in the afterlife... Yes, Do I get scared that I could be wrong... Yes. Still, if the brain dies, that is no proof that some sort of a soul that is above the physical restrictions of our reality could carry my personality, memories, and all facets of my spiritual body to another plane or dimension however you choose to see it.
And your logic on "Will" and what motivates people can hardly be taken as fact. It has been debated by some of the greatest philosophers in human history like Nietzsche's will to power, or Schopenhauer's will to live/reproduce. But thats another argument.
There is no hard, scientific evidence that anything remains after death except a decaying corpse. Of course, people believe a lot of irrational, illogical, and unprovable things. It's a matter of faith, no proof.
Can you prove it otherwise? As in prove to me that you don't have a soul and that it doesn't continue to exist. Since you have no proof either, your statement is a result of nothing more than your personal beliefs. Just because nobody's ever seen a platypus, for example, doesn't mean that it doesn't really exist.
I can prove that your body exists. Can you prove that your soul exists? The burden of proof lies with you, just as proving the existence of the platypus would if no one else had ever seen one.
Yes, I guess you're right. The burden of proof does lie with me. At this point we're only debating. And even I don't have a complete understanding of it myself, though I have spent years trying to understand what it really means.
How it works though is: 1) You start believing in what your heart tells you, not your head (allegorically speaking, of course) and 2) You begin a long journey to realization (some may call it nirvana), where you leave the physical boundaries of the universe and seek a path to enlightenment. Hey, if it takes volumes to prove something scientifically, you can't expect an ordinary person like me to prove this just like that do you? I wish I had something zennish I could tell you right now, but maybe later.
Thanks for proving one thing though, that till I show you the platypus, you won't accept it might exist, which says a lot about how open you are to considering anything outside the box, if I'm not mistaken.
But really, this debate is flawed from its creation, as it begs the question of whether or not there is a part of a human being that exists independent of ones body. It assumes a soul. Fact is, we have no idea, and it can't be proven one way or the other, at present. Therefore, speculations on an afterlife are basically moot.
The funny thing is atheists believe that there is no afterlife, which is completely fine and totally there right to believe, but the second one of their loved ones dies, a rather large portion of them will all of the sudden say something like, "oh, well I know he/she is up in heaven looking down on me". I don't want to throw the flag and say all or even most atheists are like this, but in my life I've seen quite a few. Many people say that we create the false illusion of an afterlife in order to sustain happiness, in which case the happiness is fake, but I fail to see the logic in this argument because it could just as easily be flipped the other way to argue that atheists create the false illusion that there is no afterlife because of a fear that they have in being accountable for their actions. Maybe they feel like they've already gone so wrong that they couldn't possibly amend their lives (which of course isn't true). Or, maybe many of them are filling the desire to fall into a social hierarchy. That group is scientists or "intellectuals", the true idols of our day. Because our society constantly stresses people to quantify everything and find an answer for everything, most people believe scientists are the correct group to follow and since the majority of scientists are atheists, they feel like in order to be valid or intellectual members of society, they too must believe in no afterlife. I'm not trying to point the finger or psychoanalyze anyone, I'm just pointing out the fact that this argument could go on forever. I understand that science shows that our brains cease functioning when we die so of course "we" (our soul) must die too, (according to science) but there are forces which we as mere humans will never be granted the authority to understand and that's okay. I'm not saying just give up on trying to understand our world, but in the age of information trust has been forfeited, for good reason i must say. Because so many manipulative assholes are in the world, many feel the need to see in order to believe, unfortunately by the time they see, they'll be dead. I realize this argument won't persuade anyone who has already decided to reject the idea of God and follow the trend of modern thought, and that's fine, but I still feel my conscience telling me it's the right thing to do. (commence trying to persuade me that my conscience is nothing but my perception and we'll get involved in a nice little circular argument, wait no we won't because I won't reply back) Until we can create concreted definitions, we can't have an argument worth pursuing, and with our widely varying histories is there really any chance we'll ever agree on definitions? Let's just be content to prosper in our own convictions and marvelously respect those of others.
Wow, I've actually never read such utter nonsense in all my life.
"I fail to see the logic in this argument because it could just as easily be flipped the other way to argue that atheists create the false illusion that there is no afterlife because of a fear that they have in being accountable for their actions. Maybe they feel like they've already gone so wrong that they couldn't possibly amend their lives (which of course isn't true)."
If we had fear that we were going to be acountable for our actions after death (which, we are, but by our families and friends, not by a God), then we wouldn't be atheists, surely?
I don't wish to create the illusion of an afterlife simply because it isn't true. When you die, you die, and that's it. I'm perfectly happy living my life without the thought that once I die I'm going to carry on. The accountability of my actions are here and now, with my family, friends, co-workers, etc. I prefer living my life for those people, not for the big man in the sky who's going to judge me when I finally shuffle off of this mortal coil.
I'm mainly making throwing my vote in with the lot (pun not intended) since there are already plenty of good arguments here, and I'm replying to this particular one since it's a well-written rebuttal to an illogical argument. Xaelon, I agree with your rather scathing comment; saying that Atheists are afraid to acknowledge God for fear of hell is one of those twisted bits of logic that only arise during heated debates when a person runs out of good arguments, and I'd put it alongside a badly-backed-up "slippery slope" argument in terms of the weight it carries.
"I don't wish to create the illusion of an afterlife simply because it isn't true. When you die, you die, and that's it."
How the hell are you so sure, have you checked out first-hand? If you have let me know and that'll be the end to this debate. In the mean time you might wanna consider there's a universe out there right behind that wall your standing in front of.
"I'm perfectly happy living my life without the thought that once I die I'm going to carry on. The accountability of my actions are here and now, with my family, friends, co-workers, etc. I prefer living my life for those people, not for the big man in the sky who's going to judge me when I finally shuffle off of this mortal coil."
I don't know about the 'big man in the sky' or if that's how you describe God, but you forgot one other person who's gonna judge you (or the only person). In my crazy world, that'd be yourself when you look back at what you missed.
"How the hell are you so sure, have you checked out first-hand? If you have let me know and that'll be the end to this debate. In the mean time you might wanna consider there's a universe out there right behind that wall your standing in front of."
A universe with laws and principles that all point towards there being no afterlife. I really hate the whole "disprove it" attitude of people who think things like this. I don't need to disprove it as I'm the one who is thinking clearly and rationally about the situation. When you die, all activity in the body and brain completely and utterly ceases. My premise (that when we die, we die, and that is it) is supported by science. It's your job to prove your silly ideas (which, by the way, you don't have a single shred of evidence for). When YOu find a single shread of evidence, let ME know.
"In my crazy world, that'd be yourself when you look back at what you missed."
I won't be able to judge myself, because I'll be dead. But if I DID have the capacity to judge myself after death, I'd look back and realise that I missed absolutely nothing, because I was the one taking full advantage of the ONE chance we get to live our lives.
"I don't need to disprove it as I'm the one who is thinking clearly and rationally about the situation."
Well, I guess you stick to the conventional school of thought and like just the popular ones going around in the idea box. Just because its so damn obvious that the body dies you think your logic is foolproof. But the moon's not made of cheese once you've used your telescope and looked closer.
I've argued in several other places that the brain can infact be merely an organ that processes our conciousness and thoughts, rather than its orignation. That's why a damaged brain may not retain identity though the person exists. 'We' is more than our brains or our bodies.
The evidence is not so tangible. I guess you get this sense of beleif that tells you this isn't it, there's more you gotta work for, there's a reason for all this hardship and heartbreak through which you you have to live your ideals and be a better man. But the beleif comes first, the answers and 'evidence' follows, possibly as result of your beliefs, but that's your human capacity for understanding.
Well, glad that you hypothetically did consider that you'd look back. "I missed absolutely nothing, because I was the one taking full advantage of the ONE chance we get to live our lives." Humor me, how's that?
Which also brings us to the topic of my other debate, that I do hope you'll participate in: "Does all the scientific evidence we have today prove (or disprove) every damn thing?"
"but the second one of their loved ones dies, a rather large portion of them will all of the sudden say something like, "oh, well I know he/she is up in heaven looking down on me". I don't want to throw the flag and say all or even most atheists are like this, but in my life I've seen quite a few"
This is a common misconception. The truth of the matter is that atheists are all too often brought up in homes which believe such things as an afterlife. The fact that an atheist says something like this is his/her natural verbal response because they were brought up that way. Although it may be possible to shake the belief in a supernatural being or religion, it may be all but impossible to completely shake the culture that one was brought up with.
If science, as we know it now, is correct about the universe's constant expanding and collapsing, though I doubt it, then the chances of the universe expanding as it did this time, in the exact same order are infinite and we have probably lived these lives infinity many times in the past, and we will live them again infinitely many times in the future. So, yes, we will exist after death, but only to relive our lives infinitely. Think about it... if there is no real time, and the universe is all there is in reality (also doubt it), and it's expanding and contracting, what are the chances of it unfolding the exact same way again, to create us again? Even if it took 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.99 billion billion trillion quadrillion zillion centuries to do it again, or longer, we won't know that passing of time because we will be unconscious. We will only know the time period between being born and dying... and I will write and submit this text an infinite number of times, and you, whoever you are, will read it an infinite number of times... eugh
Our consciousness is the product of our physical brain. Once that is destroyed, it's logical to assume we cease to exist. Anything else is just wishful thinking.
Our atoms will continue to exist, but we will not. We are, basically, our brains. Without them, our thoughts, personalities, ideas, experiences, and memories do not exist.
The question presumes a distinction between the mind (the 'we', he refers to) and the body. We speak of the body as if they are two different things, the self exists as a mindbody constant. The parameters may change, one could loose a limb or suffer brain damage but so long as the mindbody constant remains unbroken the self can arguably be said to exist. However, to the question of do 'we' exist when our bodies die? I think the answer to that can only be no. At least no without appeal to such irrational concepts as 'immortal soul' or 'divine spark' or other such notions.
First we have to ask what makes a person a person. It's obviously their individuality. If you grew a human in a lab with no brain therefore unable to have a personality or an ego or anything, and set it on fire or killed it in any way, it'd be unreasonable to have remorse since it's not a person. It was simply an empty husk of human tissue.
So if we agree that what makes us "us" is within our brain -- our ability to store memories and form personalities that allow us to interact with other people and things -- then we have to agree that once we die and the brain dies and rots away, all of those memories and areas within the brain making us who we are as a person are all gone as well, and therefore we are then gone.
Yes the energy that powered us is all around us. The body runs on electricity. However to say that because this electricity, this energy, is still there around us therefore we are still in existence because of that after we're dead is like saying that a Pepsi bottle I once drank soda from still exists even after it's been recycled and used to make a window.
Once your brain is gone, YOU are gone. If you want to have faith and think that you still live after death by going to heaven or you're sitting in a limbo waiting to be put into another newborn's body where you will in essence be born again, then go for it, but that is as of today science fiction.
Science fiction or religious belief, whatever. Not that these futuristic, unconventional or unpopular concepts eventually do come to be accepted eventually. People would've scoffed you had you told them your conciousness resides in the brain before it wass scientifically discovery.
I argue that the brain is part of the husk you call the body. Our 'being' is really the soul that occupies the body, using its lungs to breathe, its heart to contniue functioning, its brain to think and so on. But once the soul has vacated the 'husk' as you so aptly call it, the soul continues its existence, perhaps outside the physical realm.
'Empty husk of human tissue'? If you think so, you should pull the plug on all those unfortunate people with brain damage in comas etc.
I didn't ask if our bodies continue to exist, I said we. Your analogy of the Pepsi bottle is inappropriate as it refers to the Pepsi bottle not, for example, the glass which continues to exist in another form.
This is one of those questions where there is little evidence on both sides. From a logical point of view, no we do not CONTINUE TO EXIST. It means our bodies existed, but do not have life anymore.
But then another question arises, what does it really mean to exist? Does it mean we have "life," the ability to touch, to sense, to feel. What if I think about a rabbit in my head. It does exist in my head, but not physically. So does it mean that it exists or does not exist? Is the ability to think part of existing?
WE can never REALLY know until we die. Even then, it may not answer the question. I personally don't think there is any sort of "afterlife" so I have to say no.
Nope. When our bodies die. The soul in our body leaves the body and goes into the spirtual world. Also you go straight into your destination like Heaven or Hell
what i would like to say is neither scientific nor spiritual. we don't know. we can discuss it until it happens but we don't know. what difference does it make. now is what we have. that's what we should be interested in. whatever it is that happens at death is going to be exactly what it is. period.
I'm going to have to go with no overall; if we do, I sincerely doubt it's in a form that would be recognizable to us as ourselves, or to others for that matter.
Consider the functionality of the brain and the result of damage to it; those with brain injuries commonly lose memories and sometimes undergo massive personality changes as well. I would expect the death of the brain to be the death of both our memories and our personality as well.
I'm not married to this perspective, however; if, hypothetically, the 'immortal soul' does exist, I would expect part of the brains function to be a physical interface through which the soul interacts with the world via the body. If this were the case, damaging that interface would most likely disrupt the ability of the soul to interact with it correctly. This could well manifest in the loss of conscious memories and radical changes in behaviour and personality, among other things. Additionally, memories being stored in the 'immortal soul' could be an explanation as to why we still have next to no understanding about how memory works (physically speaking, I mean) despite exhaustive research into the matter. That said, this line of thinking is most decidedly religious, attributing something that we don't understand (yet?) to the supernatural. Then again, the supernatural could also be said to be that which we don't yet understand; the soul may well be a very real, natural thing, not supernatural at all, that we simply don't have the ability to analyze and measure yet. Time will tell, I suppose?
A hybrid of the two is also hypothetically possible; in this hypothetical model, the brain is still a physical interface for the soul to interact with the world via the body, but memories and those aspects of our personality that derive from memories could well die with the body. Lacking evidence for any of these, this model 'feels' the most correct to me- but that is still a belief, not anything substantiated by evidence, and it will certainly be subject to change should new evidence be discovered. Which brings me back to my opening statement; if we do continue to exist after death, I sincerely doubt it's in a form that would be recognizable to us as ourselves, or to others for that matter- and thats close enough to not existing for me to vote no.
Since their is no scientific proof that their is some sort of afterlife and the science we knows suggests that their isnt an afterlife. Then we should just assume there is no an afterlife.
If by "we" you mean consciousness or awareness, then no. Our consciousness/awareness is a machination of the functions of the brain, which can cease to function. And when it ceases to function, "we" cease to exist. It'll be just like before we were born, just like falling asleep without any dreams or nightmares. Nothing, though without the capacity to even recognize the nothing.
If by "we" you mean physical body, then of course. Our atoms will be recycled back into the environment just as they always have.
In a physical sense, our matter continues to exist. In a mental or emotional sense, our soul, our being, our personality, whatever you want to call it, is finished. If the chemical processes that drive our thoughts, feelings and emotions stop functioning then as a consciousness we cease to exist. I agree, it would be exactly like before you were born...
There is a lack of evidence that we exist when our bodies die. The few reports of a dead person contacting friends or relatives can't be repeated for the purposes of scientific study, so they can't be proved.
We do know what happens to bodies: they are buried or cremated. Since our sense of who we are is closely bound with our bodies, it is hard to imagine that we would could exist in any meaningful way without bodies.
Those of us who are still alive can't know for certain what it is like to be dead, but our best guess has to be that we do not continue to exist when our bodies die.
Depends, if you mean do we exist mentally, then no; if you mean do we exist physically, then yes. I assume the question means mentally, so then no, the brain is dead and there's not more "you".
I am just wondering does it really matter? We don't know anyone who has actually died, was buried, then came back to tell us what it is like so who cares. We die just accept that.
I used to be afraid of death, now I'm praying for an early grave.
Evolutionist say that sex feels good so that we do it. But if everyone is doing it then the world would get over populated. So there has to be some mechanism in place to make people want to get off the planet in order to let others get on. And so we evolved differences in order to piss each other off and get the other person to want to get off our planet.
