Current Events > What are some common "criticisms" you've heard about why an Afterlife

(+) Yeah! (+)

is implausible? I've heard this one before, then what age are the people that are in heaven? I mean if you die when you are very young or very old then how old are you in heaven? What are some other ones that you have heard?

Everything that defines you and your consciousness is inside of your brain; that's why physical damage to the brain can radically alter a person's personality. Hence, when you die and the brain stops functioning, you simply stop existing, period.

Solar_Crimson posted...

when you die and the brain stops functioning, you simply stop existing, period.

This. Don't see why it's so difficult for people to grasp.

MorbidFaithless posted...

This. Don't see why it's so difficult for people to grasp.

They think it's unfathomable because all they know is consciousness. Once your brain turns off that's it and you won't even know it happened because you won't be able to process it.

It's easy to fathom eternity when you realize it's your brain that keeps track of time, without it, eternity is a 10th of a second.

Pretty much all of them rest on either materialism or physicalism being true which is impossible to prove or disprove.

Bottom line the afterlife is not a healthy subject to spend much time thinking about. All we can do is try to make the most of the life we know we have. Once we die whatever happens will be.

ForsakenHermit posted...

Pretty much all of them rest on either materialism or physicalism being true which is impossible to prove or disprove.

Bottom line the afterlife is not a healthy subject to spend much time thinking about. All we can do is try to make the most of the life we know we have. Once we die whatever happens will be.

so you're not leaning one way or the other , on its possibility?

We'd experience what it was like before we were born and then come out of a new womb or egg that might not be from a human or earth creature and might not even be from this planet or universe

GranTurismo posted...

so you're not leaning one way or the other , on its possibility?

I have a stance on it but I don't think arguing about the subject on a message board is a healthy use of time. Especially if you side with the popular view around here.

you're just electricity inside a skull covered in skin.

ForsakenHermit posted...

I have a stance on it but I don't think arguing about the subject on a message board is a healthy use of time. Especially if you side with the popular view around here.

Nothing we do on this board is healthy. This board is a carcinogen.

Evening_Dragon posted...

Nothing we do on this board is healthy. This board is a carcinogen.

ruining my life this board is

If there's an afterlife, is there a beforelife?

"the concept of afterlife is that there is a reward or retribution for what you did in life. without it, humanity wouldn't care about morality."

Eh?

Evening_Dragon posted...

Nothing we do on this board is healthy.

it's healthy until lose it.

Ricemills posted...

"the concept of afterlife is that there is a reward or retribution for what you did in life. without it, humanity wouldn't care about morality."

this is dumb as shit

Ricemills posted...

"the concept of afterlife is that there is a reward or retribution for what you did in life. without it, humanity wouldn't care about morality."

Thats demonstrably false though. Plenty of people who dont beloved in an afterlife care about morality.

Glob posted...

Thats demonstrably false though. Plenty of people who dont beloved in an afterlife care about morality.

yes but what society says is moral and what i say is moral are two different things.

it would be moral of us to stop working and demand UBI, turn the entire country into one giant mardi gras party, and collectively pursue advancements in science and art as a species.

society says "go to job" is morality.

so we have a disconnect.

Ricemills posted...

"the concept of afterlife is that there is a reward or retribution for what you did in life. without it, humanity wouldn't care about morality."

Morality existed way before religion did.

Ar0ge posted...

Morality existed way before organized religion did.

In far smaller doses.
Religion just helped make morality more widespread. We'd probably a lot more people killing each other without it Shinto, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. enforcing it.

Ye cause organized religion definitely never led to people killing each other

lennethsoki posted...

In far smaller doses.
Religion just helped make morality more widespread. We'd probably a lot more people killing each other without it Shinto, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. enforcing it.

lol no. this is 100% wrong. The Iroquois, for example, has a lot less people killing each other, as well as completely eradicated abject poverty and homelessness in their society.

lennethsoki posted...

In far smaller doses.
Religion just helped make morality more widespread. We'd probably a lot more people killing each other without it Shinto, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. enforcing it.

you're conflating morality with ethics here

Robot2600 posted...

you're just electricity inside a skull covered in skin.

Hell yeah, I'm lightning man

ThyCorndog posted...

Ye cause organized religion definitely never led to people killing each other

Lol

lennethsoki posted...

In far smaller doses.
Religion just helped make morality more widespread. We'd probably a lot more people killing each other without it Shinto, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. enforcing it.

Right.... Because nobody ever gets killed over religion...

if nothing else i can understand that people find it fucking scary for there to be nothing after everything.

in that sense believing keeps some people from going insane.

ForsakenHermit posted...

Pretty much all of them rest on either materialism or physicalism being true which is impossible to prove or disprove.

Bottom line the afterlife is not a healthy subject to spend much time thinking about. All we can do is try to make the most of the life we know we have. Once we die whatever happens will be.

It's impossible to prove and disprove, but there are countless of evidences and cases, altered brains, physically and chemically alter the persona and state of conciousness. Hell, gut bacteria can control your nutrition preferences. It's not far fetched that drawing a logical conclusion that consciousness is a property of the physical. It's either hubris or naive hope in humanity that consciousness can exist without the physical matter that sustain the process of thoughts.

TetsuoS2 posted...

if nothing else i can understand that people find it fucking scary for there to be nothing after everything.

in that sense believing keeps some people from going insane.

Good pt

TetsuoS2 posted...

if nothing else i can understand that people find it fucking scary for there to be nothing after everything.

in that sense believing keeps some people from going insane.

This is a part of this argument that i at least accept. Hey if it works for you, and make your life easier, believe whatever you want.

There are 2.2 billion people who think your soul belongs to God and you should take care of your body (mass) and look for the light (pray). I believe people are either a goat or a sheep and they know it now and then join a giant chess game after we die but have to be herded first. Look for love now because you might not get to later.

ehhwhatever posted...

There are 2.2 billion people who think your soul belongs to God and you should take care of your body (mass) and look for the light (pray). I believe people are either a goat or a sheep and they know it now and then join a giant chess game after we die but have to be herded first. Look for love now because you might not get to later.

What?

well-excuse-me posted...

Hell yeah, I'm lightning man

hell. yeah.

apolloooo posted...

It's impossible to prove and disprove, but there are countless of evidences and cases, altered brains, physically and chemically alter the persona and state of conciousness. Hell, gut bacteria can control your nutrition preferences. It's not far fetched that drawing a logical conclusion that consciousness is a property of the physical. It's either hubris or naive hope in humanity that consciousness can exist without the physical matter that sustain the process of thoughts.

It could just as easily be that the body in general or the brain in particular filters or transmits consciousness and if the brain is damaged or impaired that consciousness is scrambled or garbled in transmission.
Obviously this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis but materialism is too.

ForsakenHermit posted...

It could just as easily be that the body in general or the brain in particular filters or transmits consciousness and if the brain is damaged or impaired that consciousness is scrambled or garbled in transmission.
Obviously this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis but materialism is too.

That's stupid. Where'd it recieve the transmission from? It's just a pseudoscience or straight up made up, like twisting the fact to fit your worldview. Materialism is sufficient to explain the phenomenon.

What if the software can be transferred from the hardware? Or like suggested, it was being streamed the whole time

Octans posted...

What if the software can be transferred from the hardware? Or like suggested, it was being streamed the whole time

There is literally 0 evidence for that. It's pure speculation. There are mountains of evidence about brain activity and state of consciousness in many of species. The whole "brain is a receiver" thing is pure gobbledygook

Robot2600 posted...

yes but what society says is moral and what i say is moral are two different things.

it would be moral of us to stop working and demand UBI, turn the entire country into one giant mardi gras party, and collectively pursue advancements in science and art as a species.

society says "go to job" is morality.

so we have a disconnect.

Whats your point? Because it sounds like youre trying to argue that the only people who care about morality are the people who dogmatically follow somebody elses idea of it (and lets be honest, many dont even do that).

lennethsoki posted...

In far smaller doses.
Religion just helped make morality more widespread. We'd probably a lot more people killing each other without it Shinto, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. enforcing it.

Shinto doesn't really have anything to say about morality. That's why it was so easy for Buddhism to thrive alongside it, Buddhism is more concerned with morality than metaphysics/spirits. Though modern Japan is one of the least religious countries in the world and also one of the safest with the least violent crime. Religion doesn't seem to be doing much for morality.

^ it's pretty much true that more secular countries have lower crime rates than more religious ones.

Same can be said for states in the US.