# The View of an Afterlife - Positive or Negative?



## Sukerkin (May 18, 2008)

I came across this blog video by Penn (of Penn and teller) which struck me as quite insightful in it's own way about the nature of belief and the effect that having an atheist or non-atheist viewpoint can have on you when you experience the death of someone close to you.

Have a look and see what you think:

http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_says-_Atheism_is_a_Solace/2280592/#ml=o=9&fc=52&fp=-2&fx=


----------



## Kacey (May 18, 2008)

Well, first, I have to say that it was delivered in a parenthetical and disjointed style that made it horribly hard for me to concentrate on what he was saying; however, I did make it to the end of the video.

A few thoughts on the topic:

Funerals are for the living, not the dead.  They are to help those alive deal with the loss of those who have died.  A phrase the comes up in every Jewish worship service that includes the Mourner's Kaddish (prayer for the dead) that I have attended is "May the Source of peace bring peace to all who mourn, and comfort to the bereaved among us."  Notice that this is aimed at those left behind - not at those who are dead.

The concept of an afterlife exists in many cultures, in a variety of fashions.  If you grow up in a culture that includes an afterlife, then to decide you do not believe in an afterlife requires you to consciously reject that belief - and even so, for many people, a niggling doubt remains, due to a need to plan for all possibilities, along with the difficulty of completely rooting out childhood training.

For myself, I have a problem with the idea that all life as we know it is a proving ground that leads to eternal punishment or salvation - if only because of the number of people who have tried to convert me with based on the idea that, as a Jew, I am damned to Hell no matter how I live my life, or console me with the idea that I am condemned to Limbo, that I can access only the very outer reaches of Heaven, or (my personal favorite), that I will spend the afterlife in a type of "college" where I will have until Judgment Day to change my mind about my beliefs so I can be saved, lest I spend the remaining portion of Eternity in Hell.

To return more directly to the concept of atheism as a consolation - all I can say is that everyone is different, everyone responds to grief differently, and if the concept described works for you, great!  That does not mean to me, however, that it is appropriate to tell anyone who believes in an afterlife and takes comfort from that belief that such belief is wrong - especially immediately following the loss of a loved one.

When I was about 10, a great-uncle of mine (whom I had never met) died of age in his upper 90s, quietly, in his sleep, without any protracted illness or disability.  The rabbi who conducted the funeral service included an idea that has stayed with me to this day, some 30 years later:  we should not grieve for this relative, who died peacefully at the end of a long, productive life - rather, we should consider that life is like a journey in a sail boat, that his life was the journey from port, through the storms, shoals, and calms of his life, and that he had, now, returned peacefully to dock.  Others would no doubt find this as useless as Penn's friend found his message about his mother's death.


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 18, 2008)

I have pondered this question from time to time.  Given all the religious craziness we see all around us you wold think that not believing in a afterlife would be a positive thing.  Afterall, how many extremely unpleasant people do you know who do 'good' work because they think it will get them into heaven regardless of how much an **** they are?  All too often the afterlife, in Christian belief anyway, comes across as a place you can buy your way into.  It has gotten to the point, as Kasey pointed out, where there are lesser degrees of afterlife just in case you did not accumulate the requisite numbers of appropriate deeds.  So an atheist does not have this sought of thing to worry about.

On the other hand, an atheist also does not have that brain-deadening certainty that they will go to a better place after death.  This might means he worries more about dying than the foamingly psychotic neo-Christian who is convinced he will go to heaven regardless of what he does because he pays lip service to the Sabbath and a collection of rituals.

(You may have picked up by this time I am no fan of the new breed of Christian)

Of course this does not take into account the other beliefs in the world.  The traditional Chinese belief, for instance, has everybody go to hell for a short period before moving on to whatever is next for them.  Hindus whirl through a series of reincarnations before they achieve escape from the cycle either by going to heaven for a short time or gaining enlightenment and release.  

Every belief with regard to what happens after death is supposed to stop people from fretting about the unknown, that really is what the mystery cults that arose during the time of the early Roman Empire were all about - what happens when we die?

My own belief is rather unusual.  It is based in Taoist philosophy in that we are all part of something much larger.  Yes, there is an individual 'me' which is immutable, but I might be human now, I will die, go back into the mixing bowl (or whatever) and come out as something else (rock, tree, gust of wind, who knows).  Only one thing can influence what might happen and that is to live in accordance with the Tao.  What that is I do not know, I have some guide lines about how to approach it but nothing clearcut.  Do I fret about dying and beyond?  No that would be pointless because I cannot do anything about it.  All I can do is improve the way I live my life.  I cannot improve my death without knowing the Tao.


----------



## tellner (May 19, 2008)

Both belief in the continuation of something after death and the belief that it is not the case are forms of attachment and often indicative of a spiritual weakness such as hoping that you will escape the effects of your actions. We have no reliable information one way or another. Soon enough you will find out or not exist any longer.

So why fret about it? Make the most of your time here.

As far as it goes, heaven and hell are both traps, dead ends. Think about it. You're tortured forever or you're in church forever or you get to be the tinpot deity lording it over your own terrified creations or you're partying forever. Nowhere is there the possibility for continued growth, meaningful work or improvement. It seems like a waste of eternity.


----------



## Tez3 (May 19, 2008)

I'm with Kacey on this. I believe though that mourning rituals whatever religion or even no religion you have are comforting and useful. Whatever we believe happens when you die it's the people who are left that need comforting.
My Rabbi said he has a suspicion that heaven and hell were the same thing, that when you died you ended up in the presence of G-d, now depending on who you were and what you'd done this was either heaven or hell!
On the whole Jews believe that there is nothing after death, until the time comes for us all to be risen up. I do think that life comes first and we should do our best in this life whatever comes afterwards.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2008)

Watching the video I was like Kacey, found it disjointed and hard to follow. 
Then I realized that Penn while grieving apparently for the recent loss was struggling within himself. Basically trying to convince himself that he was atheist and that there was nothing more to it after death. .... he doesn't honestly deep down inside believe it. 

People are atheist because it's a lot easier on their own psyche's to "not believe." You're born, you live, you die. That's it. Nothing more, end of story, lets make the best of it all. Simple, no complications in that aspect of living. One can grieve the loss of a great, fine, wonderful human being in our lives but that's experienced and then we move on. When we die our memories die with us or at least are carried on in some memorial (on line, in books, films, or whatever) for those we "leave behind". 

Believing in an afterlife however requires faith. For some it takes a lot and for others (like myself) not much. By whatever faith/religion this act of faith takes work. It has to be nurtured according to it's needs. Problem is I think people invest not in the needs of themselves but in the needs of whatever faith/religion they choose to believe in. Going to church on Sunday, teaching Sunday school classes, visiting with the elderly, providing comfort to those in need, singing in a choir, reading the bible often (or whatever book of doctrine is there in their religion), prayer, and on and on. But they rarely attend to the needs of their faith. They hope all that work they do will do that for them. 
Some will have fulfillment and others just a glossed over idea of fulfillment. 
Either way it affects how they view life after they or (someone) dies. 

I've recently had the opportunity attend a memorial service and to observe a family who have lost a "loved one". Honestly, they didn't seem too broken up about it. Were they atheists? Not particularly, they have a faith but probably haven't attended a church service in years. The grandmother was really the only one who was broken up and crying a lot. She attends church services roughly 3-4 times a month weekly. 
Speaking briefly with the others they simply have a hope that the one who died has gone on to a better place and is with their family who are also residing in that better place wherever it may be according to their beliefs. 

For myself I have to believe there is a life beyond this one. My own inner-self requires it. I've had far too many spiritual experiences NOT to believe, both within and without. But I try to keep it simple. To have faith, as Jesus Christ once put it; as that of a little child. Or to have faith the grain of a mustard seed. 
You tell a child that you'll take them to the ice-cream store and they'll believe you will. Simple as that. They believe it because you said so. They have an understanding and hold on to it. If it doesn't happen, they'll be disappointed and will ponder the "why's?" and will probably ask but will accept whatever you answer (or not) you give them. Their faith will be based on that henceforth. Keep to your words and the child believes you and will continue to believe you until you fail in that word. 

How can we as powerful as we are not believe in an afterlife? Powerful in spiritual matters. Here on MT we talk about Chi often, though many of us still differ in what it means. Whatever it is, it is an energy created by life. What creates life? Our spirit. I believe in (and have seen) ghosts. What are they? To me they're spirits that have "missed the boat" so to speak. Or stubbornly cling to this earthly plane of existence. 

For me death isn't an end, but a beginning. A new beginning and knowing that having the faith that I have for myself the beginning will be a glorious one. Thus knowing that we can/should mourn the loss of a great, fine, wonderful human being that we have individually and collectively known but just the loss to ourselves. For them we should be happy they have gone on and be happy in the knowing that they at least will continue, as we will when our time here has ended. 
There's a line in a hymn (I think) that says: "Fear not for I shew you a mystery; we shall not sleep, but shall be changed."


----------



## Sukerkin (May 19, 2008)

I know that it's a bit odd that I 'Thanked' every poster in the thread so far - I can't possibly agree with you all after all .  But what I hoped to get with this thread is a spectrum of peoples views on the subject, regardless of whether they are religious or not; and that is what we are getting (admittedly the bias is on the religionist side of the scale so far but maybe that will balance over time).

Don't let the conversational nature of the vid throw you - it's a blog after all, not a prepared statement and as *Caver* noted, Penn was clearly struggling at certain points to contain his own emotions when he spoke about the passing of his parents.

It's the core of whether there is an afterlife or not I was intrigued by and the implications of that on how people deal with death.

For myself, I'm an agnostic-verging-on-atheist and have a difficult time coming to terms with the concept of life-after-death when I do not believe that one (of several to choose from) powerful spirit beings created the whole multi-verse.  It requires a rationalisation of which I am unable to conjure a solution.

What I choose to believe, similar in concept to what *ST* talked about above, is that the cycle of life may be eternal and we are all part of that recycling process.  We came form the stars quite literally (in terms of what our bodies are made of) and we will eventually return when the sun goes kaboom.  Until then that of which we are made rolls around and around.

What happens to the energy that is our consciousness - ah there's the rub.  

I'll have to get back into this tomorrow as I've just had guests arrive, so forgive my making half a proposition and I'll talk to you chaps tomorrow ...


----------



## Empty Hands (May 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> People are atheist because it's a lot easier on their own psyche's to "not believe."



Uh yeah, since you're not an atheist, perhaps you shouldn't declare how all of their minds work?

For some atheists, coming to grips with their lack of belief is extraordinarily difficult, involving huge amounts of guilt and shame within themselves, and disapproval and disgust from others.  Definitely not the lazy path.  For many others, they have simply always been that way, it is in their natures - just as a need to believe in an afterlife is part of your nature, as you have said.  They are no more lazy than you.

For myself, it took years to admit to myself that I didn't believe anymore, that I had no reason to believe and no conviction for it.  It was much longer before I could admit it to my wife, which caused all sorts of strife and problems.  She has calmed down a lot, but I think she is still convinced I will "grow out of it" one day.  There are other family members I will never tell.  It would have been much easier to stay a squishy Christian and go to Christmas and Easter services once a year and never deal with it otherwise, like the majority of so-called Christians in this country.

As for the lack of belief itself, it has been extraordinarily freeing.  No more dogma to defend and explicate.  No more competing religious dicta to rationalize away or compromise together like a creaky Frankenstein.  I no longer have to try to believe irrational things, or feel bad that I don't believe in irrational things.  I also no longer have to believe in infinite punishment for finite crimes, which is nice.  

We are responsible for ourselves, in the here-and-now, and that is the most freeing part of atheism.  Also why so many people seem to hate and fear it so!


----------



## morph4me (May 19, 2008)

I didn't watch the blog, but I have my own thoughts on the subject. I don't think it really matters if there's life after death or not, we're all going to die and that's a fact, nothing we can do about it but postpone it as long as we can. I've always considered death as just another phase of life, not unlike all the other phases we go through, crawling to walking, childhood to adulthood etc.  I agree with Kacey that funerals and other rituals of mourning are for the living, those left behind. I would prefer that those I leave behind don't mourn my death, because it's inevitable, but celebrate my life, because that means I made an impression and possibly, a difference.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Uh yeah, since you're not an atheist, perhaps you shouldn't declare how all of their minds work?


That was not the declaration of my post and you should know me well enough by now to know that I intended no offense to ANYONE. It's an opinion. I'm sorry if you find it offensive. 


Empty Hands said:


> As for the lack of belief itself, it has been extraordinarily freeing.  No more dogma to defend and explicate.  No more competing religious dicta to rationalize away or compromise together like a creaky Frankenstein.  I no longer have to try to believe irrational things, or feel bad that I don't believe in irrational things.  I also no longer have to believe in infinite punishment for finite crimes, which is nice.
> 
> We are responsible for ourselves, in the here-and-now, and that is the most freeing part of atheism.  Also why so many people seem to hate and fear it so!


As offensive as it may be you proved my point that being "freer" by being atheist has made your life easier, simple and one less thing to worry/fret about on what happens when/after you die. It's what I meant by easier on the psyche in my OP. 

Being an athiest is a choice made by an individual after searching and thought. I neither fear nor hate them. Nor do I pity them like some of those "so called Christians". It is what they/you choose to believe and that's fine. I respect their decision as they respect mine. I've numerous friends that are atheists and have no problem getting along with them. 

Peace. :asian:


----------



## Empty Hands (May 19, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> That was not the declaration of my post and you should know me well enough by now to know that I intended no offense to ANYONE. It's an opinion. I'm sorry if you find it offensive.



Fair enough!  You should know though that a similar point is made by many fundamentalists against atheists: that they are atheists because they are lazy or want to sin.



MA-Caver said:


> It's what I meant by easier on the psyche in my OP.



I understand your point more clearly now, but it still isn't true for all atheists.  Some of them have a great deal of mental difficulty deciding what their ethics and responsibilities should be based on, the purpose to their life, and their place among humanity and the universe.  From a different point of view, having a great big Cosmic Authority _tell_ you exactly what everything means is by far the easier path!  Not easier for me because that Cosmic Authority, at least the one I grew up learning about, was irrational, contradictory, and unjust - but my experience is not universal.



MA-Caver said:


> Being an athiest is a choice made by an individual after searching and thought.... It is what they/you choose to believe and that's fine.



I no more made the choice than you did.  This is a common misconception about atheism, and theism.  People either believe or don't believe, it isn't a choice.  If it was, you could wake up tomorrow morning and decide you are an atheist.  Only problem, that little god-belief and need will be still knocking around your psyche.

That is why I described my atheism as a "coming to grips" process.  I didn't believe, I just had to admit that to myself.  No choice involved.  Gay people for one describe a similar process, and for similar reasons.


----------



## karate-dragon (May 19, 2008)

First of all hard to even take Penn's comments seriously when under the video is a tag line on dinner with a pornographer. For myself I have wanted to find an answer to life after death or not since I was a teenager. Way past that now, and still have no answers, no voice from beyond from a best friend or my dad. But, you can only look at your life and what you feel. I feel that I was meant from the first second I saw my husband that we were destined to be together and it's 25 years later. I feel that my daughter and I are so connected and sometimes it's as though we change roles (maybe in another life the roles were reversed?). I feel that enough connections are there and meant to be there that there has to be a continuation of energy and the soul at some point. But who's to know until we know?


----------



## Empty Hands (May 19, 2008)

karate-dragon said:


> For myself I have wanted to find an answer to life after death or not since I was a teenager.



Today is your lucky day!  The answer is "no."


----------



## terryl965 (May 19, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I didn't watch the blog, but I have my own thoughts on the subject. I don't think it really matters if there's life after death or not, we're all going to die and that's a fact, nothing we can do about it but postpone it as long as we can. I've always considered death as just another phase of life, not unlike all the other phases we go through, crawling to walking, childhood to adulthood etc. I agree with Kacey that funerals and other rituals of mourning are for the living, those left behind. I would prefer that those I leave behind don't mourn my death, because it's inevitable, but celebrate my life, because that means I made an impression and possibly, a difference.


 
Now morph I have to dis-agree, I believe they will come up with something so I can live forever. The Ultimate post whore extreme can never truely die, I need to post forever.:high5::lol:


----------



## morph4me (May 19, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> Now morph I have to dis-agree, I believe they will come up with something so I can live forever. The Ultimate post whore extreme can never truely die, I need to post forever.:high5::lol:


 
You will live on as a shining example of what it truly means to be a post whore in the memories of generations to come :asian:


----------



## MA-Caver (May 19, 2008)

morph4me said:


> but celebrate my life, because that means I made an impression and possibly, a difference.


Whuddaya mean _possibly_???

This goes for everyone else too. :uhyeah: 

Of course we make a difference. Just by being here and contributing to each other we make a difference. Nothing we do is for naught.


----------



## Mr G (May 19, 2008)

Hello and greetings to all,
This subject obviously has no right answer. I  just  watched the Penn's comments  and  I think he was talking more about the living's response to the death of a loved one.  He is right, the "she's in a better place" or "it's for the best" type of comment can be very hard at the time of loss.  

For the sake of disclosure: I'm an ER Nurse, and I work (mostly) in a pediatric ER.  So, this subject makes me think of the death of a child.   The pain piercing the family is so severe I feel there is almost nothing comforting to say.   I can only offer my sorrow, my empathy.  I try to stick to "I'm sorry".  and I cry...

For my own beliefs.  I completely believe *I Don't know*.  I don't understand a merciful God who creates cancer.  But I also see a universe that is too complex for random chance.  When I consider any individual life, I sometimes think of a book.  When it ends, it ends.  Shut the cover, there is nothing more.  But you can take the ideas and the stories and essence of it and remember those parts that are worth remembering to you.  I hope I'm at least a decent read.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (May 20, 2008)

I like the view of the Mac Nac Feegles in Terry Pratchet's Wee Free Men book.
They believe they are dead now.  They are having so much fun drinking and fighting that this must be heaven and they must have been really good during life to deserve this.


AoG


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2008)

Mr G said:


> But I also see a universe that is too complex for random chance.



It's not.  I can elaborate if you like.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 20, 2008)

Heavy topic, Sukerkin, but a darn good one. My view of the afterlife is neither negative nor positive, it is neutral - just like my view of the world of the living. I am not a religious person. I used to be, and I even got baptised. I still help out with the church every now and then. However, when I was younger, I began to do the one thing that the church discourages - I began to question and seek answers on my own. Well, the more I questioned, the more I learned, and the more I learned, the more I began to realize that I just couldn't go on believing in something that was contrived by man from various other religions that are readily called myths but yet somehow are true when they appear in my religion because they were "christianized". Sorry, I just couldn't bite anymore. Another problem was the whole forcing yourself to believe thing - I learned to accept myself and my views as they were. If I felt that something just wasn't right, then I should accept that feeling, not deny it and try to force myself to believe even against my own intuition. As far as the afterlife, do I believe in it? Yes, I do. I don't believe in heaven or hell or anything like that, but I believe, like yin and yang, that everything has a counterpart, a spiritual world being the counterpart of the physical. I think that the afterlife is for everybody, not just for people who believe in a particular religion. Why do I believe in the afterlife? As a paranormal investigator, I know from personal experience that death is definitely not the end, not by a long shot. It is only a transition. I have many friends who were hardcore skeptics and strict materialists (you meet all kinds in college:lol2 and they laughed at me and told me that I was crazy. Then I took them up to Gettysburg and spent the night near Reynold's Woods with them and well, it is funny to see just how fast one's opinion changes when he/she actually experiences it for themselves. Needless to say, I went from being perceived as someone who was totally irrational to being percieved as a well educated individual in the know (over night, literally :lol2. I think what is most important is that we explore this in our own way while being open to the myriad possibilities that exist.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 20, 2008)

That's a valid viewpoint, *Sage* and as someone who has experienced more than their fair share of inexplicable 'paranormal' events, I'm more than ready to concede that the three solid dimensions we see (plus the non-visible one of time/duration) are not the be-all-and-end-all of the universe.

We'll have to chat sometime about your investigations, as it's a field that fascinates me and one with which I am not entirely unfamiliar {having been told on several occasions that I'm in "denial" :lol:}.

This ties in with what I was leading towards when my guests interrupted me last night viz what happens to the energy that is our consciousness?  I have two pretty much mutually exclusive views on this.

The first is that the energy only has organisation as long as the impulsing artifact (our brain) continues to function.  As soon as it ceases to be supported, which means we die, then that energy rapidly disperses into non-structured chaos.  The energy states may persist, disorganised, in the atoms that made us up but what made us "Us" has gone.  That's my 'engineer' side talking there.  It's hard to argue with as the theoretical underpinings are fairly well established.  Remove the 'motive force' of the organism and the biological 'machine' stops.  Straightforward and highly demonstrable.

The second, conflicting view, is that altho' entropy is a truism, there is such a persistent, multi-cultural, belief that 'we' survive death and so many non-dismissable anecdotes that seem to support that belief, that it would not be rational to throw it *all* away as hysteria and self-deception.  

Having lived in a house with a poltergeist, I'm fairly hard to dissuade that there is not something beyond the normal parameters of tangible living organisms.

So, what do I think of the concept of an afterlife?  My internal jury is out.  I don't know how to balance the rational with the experiential, the mathematical with the empathic.

When it comes to God, I'm fairly certain that I know my mind and that the odds are very strongly against there being such a ... erm ... being. The Afterlife, as defined as the persistence of consciousness (or fragments of same) after death, I'm less certain about.  One thing is for sure, with the current population levels (and hence sheer volume of deaths) the 'ether' is surely going to get very crowded in short order and the reported incidences of the paranormal should escalate accordingly.

I'm willing to wait and see and the grief that I have, annually, for the deaths of those I have loved (platonically or otherwise) will persist.  If nothing else, in my tears they live on.


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 20, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> The first is that the energy only has organisation as long as the impulsing artifact (our brain) continues to function. As soon as it ceases to be supported, which means we die, then that energy rapidly disperses into non-structured chaos. The energy states may persist, disorganised, in the atoms that made us up but what made us "Us" has gone. That's my 'engineer' side talking there. It's hard to argue with as the theoretical underpinings are fairly well established. *Remove the 'motive force' of the organism and the biological 'machine' stops.* Straightforward and highly demonstrable.


 



Sukerkin said:


> I'm willing to wait and see and the grief that I have, annually, for the deaths of those I have loved (platonically or otherwise) will persist. *If nothing else, in my tears they live on*.


 
It may seem strange but these two sentences really struck me in combination.  If you consider that that thing that is us is gone when the mind ceases to drive it, then it cannot be possible for someone to be gone if they are in someone's thoughts.  Alright, it can be argued that our 'motive force' only applies to our own being, but why?  This is a kind of afterlife I guess.

These thoughts lead me to the Aboriginal views on their ancestors.  The ancestors *lived in the past* by our European-oriented description.  But to an Aboriginal his ancestors are *living in the past*.  They see no temporal distance.  There is no need for an afterlife because everyone lives on in, and with, their descendants.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> The first is that the energy only has organisation as long as the impulsing artifact (our brain) continues to function.  As soon as it ceases to be supported, which means we die, then that energy rapidly disperses into non-structured chaos.  The energy states may persist, disorganised, in the atoms that made us up but what made us "Us" has gone.



Exactly right.  We know what the units of consciousness are, if not exactly how they function to give rise to the integrated experience we call consciousness.  What are those units?  Action potentials in nerve cells that cause action potentials in other nerve cells.  Upon death, the sodium gradients collapse and those action potentials stop.  Thus no more thoughts, and no more consciousness.  There is no "consciousness energy" to persist.



Sukerkin said:


> The second, conflicting view, is that altho' entropy is a truism, there is such a persistent, multi-cultural, belief that 'we' survive death and so many non-dismissable anecdotes that seem to support that belief, that it would not be rational to throw it *all* away as hysteria and self-deception.



Perfectly rational actually, absent compelling evidence otherwise.  Widespread belief and anecdotes apply to many demonstrably wrong things: women are inferior, slavery is natural and right, no-touch knockouts, and alchemy are but the merest sample of absolute nonsense fully believed in by appallingly large numbers of people at one time or another.  Even that most notable of scientists, Isaac Newton, was a rabid believer in alchemy!

I was just having this conversation with a friend today, actually.  Having faith (belief without evidence) is all well and good, but how do you discriminate what to have faith in?  Evidence, I say, and widespread belief is no evidence for the afterlife.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 20, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> Alright, it can be argued that our 'motive force' only applies to our own being, but why?  This is a kind of afterlife I guess.



If this is true, then there is no unitary "me."  No "Empty Hands" who lives in LA and plays with chemicals.  There are in fact thousands of versions of me, one for each mental construct living in the mind of someone who knows me somehow.  Perhaps even billions or an effectively infinite number if we consider how I am perceived by animals and how I cause lasting changes in my environment.

Worse, few of those versions of me would agree with each other.  To some who know me through this board, I would be some faceless, nameless crazy liberal whackjob.  To those on other boards, I would be an evil heartless conservative.  Some versions of me are noble and nice, others are vain and twisted.  Some are hawt and sexy, _most _are probably odd looking and kinda ugly.  What they _all _share in common is that none are complete, and none are really _me _at all.

So even if your idea was true, would you really like it all that much?  Just a horde of incomplete caricatures of who you really were somehow defining your afterlife?  It may be one of sorts, but one that I wouldn't like.  It also wouldn't be an afterlife the _real _Steel Tiger or Empty Hands could experience and enjoy.


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 20, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> If this is true, then there is no unitary "me." No "Empty Hands" who lives in LA and plays with chemicals. There are in fact thousands of versions of me, one for each mental construct living in the mind of someone who knows me somehow. Perhaps even billions or an effectively infinite number if we consider how I am perceived by animals and how I cause lasting changes in my environment.
> 
> Worse, few of those versions of me would agree with each other. To some who know me through this board, I would be some faceless, nameless crazy liberal whackjob. To those on other boards, I would be an evil heartless conservative. Some versions of me are noble and nice, others are vain and twisted. Some are hawt and sexy, _most _are probably odd looking and kinda ugly. What they _all _share in common is that none are complete, and none are really _me _at all.
> 
> So even if your idea was true, would you really like it all that much? Just a horde of incomplete caricatures of who you really were somehow defining your afterlife? It may be one of sorts, but one that I wouldn't like. It also wouldn't be an afterlife the _real _Steel Tiger or Empty Hands could experience and enjoy.


 
It was just an idea that struck me as I read through Sukerkin's post and your counterpoint rings very true.  My idea doesn't actually doesn't line up with my own thoughts on the subject at all.  For me, as I expressed in an earlier post, there is an immutable, continuing "Me".  That me is currently a human named Anthony, but in time it may be a rock or a tree.  It will always recognise itself as "Me" and will be able to identify with whatever it is at the time but will not hold that form to be part of its "Me"ness.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 21, 2008)

If I may, the presence or occurrence what we like to call "intelligent" hauntings is something that shows that the personality, I.E. the person, still persists after death. An intelligent haunting is one where the entity is aware and actually interacts with you. Having come across many in my investigations, I can tell you that, yes, they do exhibit real human personalities and approach you in there own way. Some are shy and skittish, some are more curious towards you than you are towards them, and some are outright nasty and don't like the fact that you are invading their personal space. They respond and behave in a logical way befitting a "living" personality. I think that a "residual" haunting would support that theory though, ST. It is unaware of itself and it just does the same thing over and over again while not showing any semblance of a personality. However, a residual haunting is not a person, it is an event, so I guess that it technically wouldn't count.


----------



## thardey (May 22, 2008)

I think the question really comes down to the issue of whether we are made of spirit or not.

Old Hebrew philosophers used the word "souls" in regards to men and animals. Many, myself included, take that to mean that the "soul" is the physical part of our personality that *Empty Hands* was talking about. In theological circles the soul is defined as our "mind, will, and emotions." We know enough about the human brain to realize that these are all affected by physical, and measurable, processes. When you die, these processes cease to function, and therefore, one could say that the soul "dies." Even the memories of the person are physically stored in the brain, which begins to deteriorate, and the memories are lost.

However, there is also the idea of Spirit, or "Ghost." The ghost of you is with you right now, and is an integral part of you. The ghost of many people has never been recognized, or been developed. For some, it is like a spiritual appendix, there, but not really doing much. For others, that ghost is a powerful part of your personality and being. Sometimes we are led by the spiritual part of us, or the Ghost, and sometimes we are led by our physical processes, or our Soul. 

When we die, it is our Ghost that lives on. Where it goes and what it does is different according to different religions. It can go to heaven, it can be reincarnated, it can wander in darkness, it can take up residence here on earth, it can herd cattle for eternity, etc. It's not that we "become" a Ghost after we die, but that our ghost is all that is left. 

If the Ghost is just a case of bad pizza, or the heebie-jeebies, then when we die, we cease to exist.

Unfortunately, we cannot prove that Ghosts exist, since they can't be measured. Also unfortunately, it appears that the people who are sensitive to the presence of spiritual things, or ghostly things are so only because they are aware of their own spirit, or Ghost. Which means that those who don't believe, or aren't aware of their ghost will remain skeptical. Those who believe will have to use words like "hope" "faith" and "believe." Unless you've had an experience that makes you aware of the spiritual, the spiritual idea is preposterous. However, if you have had a spiritual encounter of some sort, no one is going to be able to really talk you out of it, even if you can't fully explain it.

That's where I re-define "Faith": Instead of it being a "belief without evidence" I define it as "interpreting the evidence with hope."

I _want_ there to be a spiritual realm, I _hope_ it is true, and therefore I interpret the evidence that exists differently than one who does not have that hope. I can't transfer that hope to anyone else, nor can anyone else take that hope from me.

Coming from a Christian viewpoint, it is that Ghost of you that is "saved" or "born again." Not the physical side of you. Only it's not usually called a "ghost" in the Bible, but "spirit." Paul has a long argument with himself in Romans chapter 7 about his "ghost" wanting to do or not do the "right thing," but his physical appetites compel him to do the opposite. He "does what he does not want to do."

Who knows? Maybe if your ghost is strong here, it will be stronger after, but if it is not strong here, or if it is not strong enough to affect you, it will be little more than a thought or vapor in the end. Essentially non-existence for those don't believe in the afterlife anyway! But I'm just postulating now.


----------



## Steel Tiger (May 22, 2008)

thardey said:


> Coming from a Christian viewpoint, it is that Ghost of you that is "saved" or "born again." Not the physical side of you. Only it's not usually called a "ghost" in the Bible, but "spirit." Paul has a long argument with himself in Romans chapter 7 about his "ghost" wanting to do or not do the "right thing," but his physical appetites compel him to do the opposite. He "does what he does not want to do."
> 
> Who knows? Maybe if your ghost is strong here, it will be stronger after, but if it is not strong here, or if it is not strong enough to affect you, it will be little more than a thought or vapor in the end. Essentially non-existence for those don't believe in the afterlife anyway! But I'm just postulating now.


 
I have a problem with Paul in Romans in that it seems an excuse for having done the wrong thing.  As though, if he were brought to task over his actions he could say, "I didn't want to do it, but I could stop myself."  Its a dichotomy created by supposing there is more than one self.

The idea that something of a person can only linger if it is strong enough is an intriguing one.  But the suggestion that a person that does not believe in an afterlife will not have one really does add fuel to the bigotted zealots fire.  

Of course there are those zealots who know damn well that everyone goes into an afterlife experience but if you don't follow there exact version of Christianity you will burn for all eternity.

The concept of a firey hell in Christianity is an interesting thing too.  It seems to stem from a reinterpretation of the Latin infernus "being underneath" into something ablaze.  Some earlier writings on hell, especially those discussing the fallen angels associated with Lucifer's revolt, placed hell on the third level of heaven and it was a cold and dismal place.

But most cultures have had a concept of an afterlife place that is forlorn and unpleasant.  It is not necessarily a place of torment, it could simply be a really unpleasant waiting place, like a lonely little railway station in the middle of winter.  I wonder why?  It seems to me that a punishment after death suggests a feeling of guilt (very appropriate for Christianity) attached to simply being alive.

This leads me to that old adage, "Only the good die young."  On the surface it suggests that a good person is naive and will not survive.  However, it also suggests that only the young are good (virtuous, without sin) and it is a good thing for them to die becuase they will not acquire a lifetime of sin and evil.  Taoism has a similar concept in that there is a suggestion that a newborn who dies is closer to the Tao than a man who has lived 300 years.  When did age become a synonym for "not good"?  A very long time ago I am guessing.

But this flies in the face of the Christian concept of original sin which suggests life is a trial because we are born full of sin (thank you Adam and Eve) and can only achieve happiness in the afterlife after a long life of contrition and abasement before god.

I have rambled around enough for the time being I think.  The concept of an afterlife just gets me thinking about all these things, which seem to have come into being because of that concept.  A belief in an afterlife might very well reassure people but it also throws up a lot of stuff for them to worry about.


----------



## Archangel M (May 22, 2008)

"Am I the bulb or the light?" - Joseph Campbell.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 22, 2008)

thardey said:


> I think the question really comes down to the issue of whether we are made of spirit or not.
> 
> Old Hebrew philosophers used the word "souls" in regards to men and animals. Many, myself included, take that to mean that the "soul" is the physical part of our personality that *Empty Hands* was talking about. In theological circles the soul is defined as our "mind, will, and emotions." We know enough about the human brain to realize that these are all affected by physical, and measurable, processes. When you die, these processes cease to function, and therefore, one could say that the soul "dies." Even the memories of the person are physically stored in the brain, which begins to deteriorate, and the memories are lost.
> 
> ...


 
I think it all comes down to viewpoint, as well. Are we looking at it strictly from a materialistic viewpoint, or are we looking at the deeper side of it? One rule of thumb is that you don't have a ghost, you are a ghost, just with a body. Someone once told me that we are not physical beings who are experiencing the spiritual, but that we are spiritual beings who are experiencing the physical. Something to the effect of you don't have a mind, you are the mind - thinking and being aware. There is the whole Out-Of-Body experience thing, too. Now, there are many scientific reports that say that it is a result of something purely physical, however, they still can't explain how somebody is hovering at the top of the room, looking down on their unconscious body and witnessing everything that is happening in the room in realtime. I have had a few of them myself and in one particular instance, I have even reached out and tried to touch my own body while it was unconscious on the operating table (not in that way, get your minds out of the gutter :lol. I always tell my peers that we can't take spiritual phenomena and apply physical laws and theories to them. I believe that such phenomena are beyond this plane of existence or at least different from this plane of existence. Apples and oranges, I guess. When investigating and gathering evidence, I always say that we must deal with it on its own terms and not limit ourselves to only the materialistic level. This makes for some very open and objective investigations, which is generally the goal. There are plenty of times, when reviewing the evidence, that the group doesn't know how a particular entity is doing what he/she/it does or why a particular entity does what he/she/it does. We conclude that some matters will simply never be known to the living and that each and every one of us, in due time, will personally know exactly what this afterlife thing is all about. Hopefully this revelation is decades down the road for all of us (although I have had several close calls while carrying out my own military duties).


----------



## Tez3 (May 23, 2008)

As Peter Pan says "'To die will be an awfully big adventure'.
I've always liked that, we can't avoid dying so looking at that way has always comforted me.


----------



## morph4me (May 23, 2008)

I've always been comforted by the fact that rich or poor, powerful or powerless no matter what our circumstances, we all end up the same way


----------



## tellner (May 23, 2008)

Pogo said it best

Don't take life so serious, son - it ain't nohow permanent.


----------



## SageGhost83 (May 23, 2008)

I was always told to wear the cleanest pair of underwear that you can find because you never know if you are going to get turned into a street pizza. Then there was something about being embarrassed in front of the neighbors...I don't know, my parents were weird.


----------



## Archangel M (May 23, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> "Am I the bulb or the light?" - Joseph Campbell.


 
"Well, that is no problem at all. The problem in middle life, when the body has reached its climax of power and begins to decline, is to identify yourself not with the body, which is falling away, but with the consciousness of which it is a vehicle. This is something I learned from myths. What am I? Am I the bulb that carries the light, or am I the light of which the bulb is a vehicle?

One of the psychological problems in growing old is the fear of death. People can resist the door of death. But this body is a vehicle of consciousness, and if you can identify with the consciousness, you can watch the body go like an old car. There goes the fender, there goes the tire, one thing after another &#8211; but it&#8217;s predictable. And then, gradually, the whole thing drops off, and consciousness rejoins consciousness. It&#8217;s nolonger in this particular environment."

-Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth, pp. 70-71


----------



## thardey (May 26, 2008)

Steel Tiger said:


> I have a problem with Paul in Romans in that it seems an excuse for having done the wrong thing.  As though, if he were brought to task over his actions he could say, "I didn't want to do it, but I could stop myself."  Its a dichotomy created by supposing there is more than one self.



Only if you skip Romans 1-3 where Paul makes it clear that it is that exact argument with ourselves (in Romans 7) that proves that we can't perform to the arbitrary rules we set for ourselves, therefore performance is useless in determining our status of reward in the afterlife. But that may be more appropriate in another thread.



> The idea that something of a person can only linger if it is strong enough is an intriguing one.  But the suggestion that a person that does not believe in an afterlife will not have one really does add fuel to the bigotted zealots fire.



How so? The bigots I have run into take pleasure in threatening people with hell. This would take the fun out of it for them. Anyway, it's not really theological, just a random thought I was having.



> Of course there are those zealots who know damn well that everyone goes into an afterlife experience but if you don't follow there exact version of Christianity you will burn for all eternity.
> 
> The concept of a firey hell in Christianity is an interesting thing too.  It seems to stem from a reinterpretation of the Latin infernus "being underneath" into something ablaze.  Some earlier writings on hell, especially those discussing the fallen angels associated with Lucifer's revolt, placed hell on the third level of heaven and it was a cold and dismal place.



Actually it comes from the description of a garbage dump near Jerusalem, called "Gehenna" in Aramaic. They would burn the refuse and junk there continuously. Jesus used it in one of his descriptions of punishment. Also, in the book of Revelation, there is a "Lake of burning sulphur" or "The Lake of Fire" into which the Devil and his followers are thrown. 

The idea of it being run by the Devil, with the pitchforks and cold coffee and all that is some other idea of which I don't know the origin.

The idea of cold comes from the description of "outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth" where unfaithful servants and friends are thrown in another of Jesus' parables.



> But most cultures have had a concept of an afterlife place that is forlorn and unpleasant.  It is not necessarily a place of torment, it could simply be a really unpleasant waiting place, like a lonely little railway station in the middle of winter.  I wonder why?  It seems to me that a punishment after death suggests a feeling of guilt (very appropriate for Christianity) attached to simply being alive.



While I know of many Christians who use guilt as a motivation to follow traditions and other rules that are long out of date, there are whole groups that have moved away from that, since it leads to a walking death. They focus on the forgiveness, but first you have to accept the feeling of guilt before you can release it to God. Once that's done, there's no more guilt. In fact, the very next verse in Romans after the above argument that I brought up claims: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus." The problem is that it is some people's nature to need to feel guilty, and to make other feel guilty. This is in most every religion in the World, whether Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, etc. It's not the religion that makes people feel guilty, it's that guilty people are drawn to religion.



> This leads me to that old adage, "Only the good die young."  On the surface it suggests that a good person is naive and will not survive.  However, it also suggests that only the young are good (virtuous, without sin) and it is a good thing for them to die becuase they will not acquire a lifetime of sin and evil.  Taoism has a similar concept in that there is a suggestion that a newborn who dies is closer to the Tao than a man who has lived 300 years.  When did age become a synonym for "not good"?  A very long time ago I am guessing.



I always figured it was a lament that life was unfair.



> But this flies in the face of the Christian concept of original sin which suggests life is a trial because we are born full of sin (thank you Adam and Eve) and can only achieve happiness in the afterlife after a long life of contrition and abasement before god.



The idea in Christianity of "Childlike faith" has more to do with the simple ability of a child to accept a gift, without that annoying adult tendency to refuse to accept a gift without paying for it. Of course, once you try to pay for a gift, then it is no longer a gift. Again, much of Christianity has gone off course because people are good at devising new ways to "pay" for the gift of forgiveness. (No abasement involved - think Monty Python -"I hate Groveling! Everybody's alway groveling!  'Woe is me!' Knock it off! - God).

In my experience, Christianity is more like moments going "Oh!" Followed by other moments later on down the road going "Oh!" Kind of like Karate, now that I think of it!



> I have rambled around enough for the time being I think.  The concept of an afterlife just gets me thinking about all these things, which seem to have come into being because of that concept.  A belief in an afterlife might very well reassure people but it also throws up a lot of stuff for them to worry about.



Well, at the heart of it, the afterlife is usually presented as "reality" to our current state of "practice." So any belief in the afterlife is going to hold the problems of today's life magnified.


----------



## Tomu (Jun 16, 2008)

Excellent thread so far, thought I would add my .02 worth.

First let me say that I used to be a fundamentalist Christian.  I believed the Bible to be 100% True etc.  I came to a point where I could not reconcile my rational mind with the Bible being absolute truth.  It was emotionally painful and took a long time before I even told my wife that I no longer believed.  Also let me say that I am in no way bashing anyone here who is a Christian, Jew, Muslim etc... as not being rational.  From what I can gather from thardey's posts he sounds like one of the most rational people I have read online.  It has been about 5 years since my crisis of faith, but I feel that I have found something that works for me which is Zen Buddhism.  Notice I said works for me, I didn't sat I buy in to some of  the mythology of Buddhism.  

Now I will try to get back on topic.  It has been my life experience that human beings have a huge amount of trouble with the unknown. Whether that is about what happens when you die or what the weather is going to be tomorrow.  I think fundamentalism addresses these unknowns for people.  Here they have a system that tells them almost exactly what will happen when they die so their anxiety is relieved.  I will admit that sometimes not knowing can be unnerving, but I would rather be uncomfortable sometimes than believe just for the sake of comfort.

So, do I believe in an afterlife?  I don't know.  I hope there is, but if there isn't thats ok too.  After having wasted a good deal of my life in pursuits that were less than honorable, I think whats important now is to enjoy every minute with my family that I can and to be the best possible human I can(buddha nature):wink:

Lastly, for any Christians who are having problems with heaven and hell I would encourage you to read two books by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland called "If God Is Love" and "If Grace Is True" both of which helped me at a time when I needed them to.
thanks for letting me share my opinion.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 17, 2008)

Afterlife or not..were all gonna die sooner or later so what is...is what is...


----------

