Who believes in it, and why?
Your thoughts?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Who believes in it, and why?
Your thoughts?[/quote]
Me.
Because it pleases me to do so and there is no evidence to the contrary.
Nope. As depressing as it can sound, when you are dead, you are no more. You only have one life and you should make the most of it.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Nope. As depressing as it can sound, when you are dead, you are no more. You only have one life and you should make the most of it.[/quote]
Any particular reason you think that?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Nope. As depressing as it can sound, when you are dead, you are no more. You only have one life and you should make the most of it.[/quote]
Any particular reason you think that?[/quote]
To me it makes no sense why there would be anything else afterwards. I don’t know how else to explain it, but it doesn’t logically make any sense to me. Once your brain stops functioning and dies, the person who you once were is no more and will never be.
I mean I can see why people want to believe in it. They are scared of death or it gives them hope that they will see their loved ones once again.
You dyin bro?
Nah. At least not any faster than any of us. Just grappling with some philosophical issues and I’m curious what everyone’s input is.
I figure that if I have to make guesses and assumptions about life and death, then I may as well make them positive ones. We have no idea why we have complex thoughts, desires beyond survival drives, or even why we’re built with the drive to survive and procreate. So afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, given the apparent cessation of all energy at death. But there are all sorts of weird, inexplicable things going on around me, so I don’t rule it out.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I figure that if I have to make guesses and assumptions about life and death, then I may as well make them positive ones. We have no idea why we have complex thoughts, desires beyond survival drives, or even why we’re built with the drive to survive and procreate. So afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, given the apparent cessation of all energy at death. But there are all sorts of weird, inexplicable things going on around me, so I don’t rule it out. [/quote]
You don’t have to make guesses and assumptions about anything. You can form valid conclusions based on facts and logic. Since there are no facts to suggest anything other than that life ends at death, the notion of an afterlife is arbitrary and therefore unworthy of consideration, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I figure that if I have to make guesses and assumptions about life and death, then I may as well make them positive ones. We have no idea why we have complex thoughts, desires beyond survival drives, or even why we’re built with the drive to survive and procreate. So afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, given the apparent cessation of all energy at death. But there are all sorts of weird, inexplicable things going on around me, so I don’t rule it out. [/quote]
You don’t have to make guesses and assumptions about anything; you can and should form valid conclusions based on facts and logic. Since there are no facts to suggest anything other than that life ends at death, the notion of an afterlife is arbitrary and therefore unworthy of consideration, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I don’t believe in an afterlife. It’s illogical to me.
After reading Sartre’s “No Exit” many years back, the idea of heaven didn’t sound appealing anyways.
The problem is that the Valkyries decide who they are going to take to Valhalla - it doesn’t matter if you died in the glory of battle, with a sword (or weapon) in your hand either - That sucks!
Anyhoo~ the idea is to go to Valhalla (which does exist, by the way) and spend eternity fighting other warriors, drinking mead and carousing with lovely wenches (such as our EmmieDear & SnapperDear).
(crosses fingers)
You die and you go in the ground. Thats it.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I figure that if I have to make guesses and assumptions about life and death, then I may as well make them positive ones. We have no idea why we have complex thoughts, desires beyond survival drives, or even why we’re built with the drive to survive and procreate. So afterlife? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, given the apparent cessation of all energy at death. But there are all sorts of weird, inexplicable things going on around me, so I don’t rule it out. [/quote]
You don’t have to make guesses and assumptions about anything; you can and should form valid conclusions based on facts and logic. Since there are no facts to suggest anything other than that life ends at death, the notion of an afterlife is arbitrary and therefore unworthy of consideration, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. [/quote]
I have determined that there are no facts upon which to base a sound conclusion, hence the only valid response is to treat it as a mystery. I’m comfortable with that as I have no particular investment in either outcome. I’m not driven to support religious beliefs or to disown them in the name of science. There is no knowing, therefore I don’t know. If there is an afterlife, good, if not, okay.
Read this article not too long ago.
On my own personal opinion contemplating on the life after death seems pointless, no one knows what happens its a complete mystery. Religion or not a theology no matter how grandiose is still just theology a “belief.” I only feel that nothing real can ever die, take that for whatever it means for oneself. Adyashanti - ?To eternity, death has no impact; death is more like changing the scene in a play, changing your clothes at the end of the day.?
I do not accept it as true because there is no good evidence in support of it.
I do not accept things as true because of a lack of evidence against them.
That is faulty thinking.
In fact, I would argue there is good evidence against there being life after death.
We know that damaging parts of the brain leads to damages in abilities, perceptions, personality, etc. If damage to a small portion of the brain (a nail through the skull, for example) leads to loss of certain functions and abilities (memory, speech, spatial recognition, etc.), how can total damage of the brain (death) lead to anything other than total damage of abilities? If shutting off a part of the brain results in shutting off of a part of what the brain produces, then shutting off the whole thing will result in the shutting off of all of what it produces.
If the smartest person on earth belived in a creator Albert Einstein. Would it not make sense we are going some where after we die? The universe is to complex to have been a random event. The odds are overwhelmingly against spontaneous life by chance. In fact take a car apart down to the last nut put it in a big bag shake it up and pour it out. That’s about how likely life exists without a creators influence. If you can create a car by chance with all the parts I’d like to see it. So if something created us or had a part of it. Why are we here? The evidence is all around you I have a bachelors in biology and well it’s just way to complex and many great minds also think that way.
[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
If the smartest person on earth belived in a creator Albert Einstein. Would it not make sense we are going some where after we die? The universe is to complex to have been a random event. The odds are overwhelmingly against spontaneous life by chance. In fact take a car apart down to the last nut put it in a big bag shake it up and pour it out. That’s about how likely life exists without a creators influence. If you can create a car by chance with all the parts I’d like to see it. So if something created us or had a part of it. Why are we here? The evidence is all around you I have a bachelors in biology and well it’s just way to complex and many great minds also think that way.[/quote]
That’s an extremely narrow view. Just because Albert Einstein believed it does not make it true. He was human, and not perfect. Furthermore, your comparison of the car to how life was formed is not a good one.
As a biology student, you must be familiar with many of the theories on the spontaneous generation of life. Whether or not these theories are true, the fact that they show a possibility of how inorganic compounds and non-life could generate organic compounds at least makes it plausible that this occurred. The difference between this phenomenon and your analogy of the car is that there are certain factors pushing non-life to life, ie physics. I can’t get a car to form from a bag of parts, but I can get two magnets to stick together. And to make a play on the old adage, if I had an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of magnets…
So let’s then assume that somehow, the physical laws of our universe make life from non-life possible. The next assumption to consider then that we need to somehow get our universe to exist, correct? And the argument is that something had to create our universe correct? This hearkens back to Aristotle and Aquinas. And if we keep moving back in universal time, to a time before the big bang, then there is some argument that something must have created everything, and it caused the big bang. But if we accept that “something” had to create the universe (because something cannot come from nothing) why is it so easy to accept then that God (or a higher power of your choice, I’m going with God for simplicity) is “something” that came from nothing? Who created God then?
I think it’s simpler to think that the physical laws of our universe created us. Yes, the odds of it happening would be infinitesimal, but the fact that we are here shows that it is possible. And, as some physical theories predict, it may be that our universe is in a constant state of flux, expanding and contracting, always circling back on itself, never really starting or beginning.
I personally do not believe in life after death, and I was born and raised Catholic. To me, it just doesn’t seem logical that there needs to be an all powerful creator of our universe. I am perfectly content with the idea that my brain is the result of billions of self correcting experiments, and all of its computational powers and abstract potentials are simply the result of evolution and survival of the fittest. I do not think we have a “soul” beyond the synapses of our brains. Are there many unexplained phenomena out there? Yes. I think science (or perhaps the concept of science) could eventually answer those questions, but due to our limited lifespans, we’re probably never going to figure everything out. And I’m okay with that. Just because we can’t figure something out, doesn’t mean there’s some master puppeteer in the sky pulling the strings. We’re just not there yet.
[quote]Ryancoburn wrote:
If the smartest person on earth belived in a creator Albert Einstein. [/quote]
Christopher Langan believes Albert Einstein is our creator?