One thing that bothers me about a belief in the afterlife. If you believe in an afterlife

[raccoon]

where everything is wonderful and you’re eternally happy/content, then why would you want to prolong this life? Or to take it to the logical extreme, why not drink the koolaid (literally) and go on to that wonderful afterlife?

[TomClash]

1. The afterlife is boring

If everything is always wonderful, wonderful loses its meaning.

[Robb]

2. Always hedge your bets. nt

[Jim__]

3. But most people who believe in an afterlife still choose this life.

Even for someone who believes in an afterlife, I think it's a hope and an unknown.

[nykym]

4. I dunno

No one has come back to tell us otherwise.

[peace13]

6. You're forgetting Jesus.

Someone had to say it! Just kidding.

[MineralMan]

5. Even the religious aren't sure about that eternal life thing.

Consider this common phrase used at funerals by ministers:

"In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ"

Now, if that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what an oxymoron is. Not "sure and certain knowledge." Not "sure and certain fact." Nope, it's "sure and certain HOPE."

What waffling...

[Iggo]

14. "...certain hope..."

Yeah, I never caught that before.

Nit? Picked, man!

[Bitwit1234]

7. If the things we were taught about being good and evil are true

then Hades is a the resting place of every single republican going. It will soon be so damn crowded they might need a stimulus to expand.

[trotsky]

8. Or consider this...

suppose you reach this afterlife. After 20,000 trillion years wouldn't it get just a LITTLE boring? Kinda like that Star Trek: Next Generation episode where the all-powerful being Q tries to show (was it Picard or Riker?) what the "continuum" was like. The Q beings were bored out of their skulls. They had done everything, seen everything, a billion times over. Nothing is new, no opportunities to grow or expand or anything. I would imagine an eternal afterlife to be something like that - which I think would be more like eternal torture.

[Silent3]

11. As long as this is all make believe anyway...

...you could simply define the afterlife as an eternal state of bliss -- forget the details, forget about worrying about becoming bored because being bored is not blissful, therefore it can't be a part of the afterlife.

Imagine something like having pleasure centers of your brain activated, and all symptoms of neural fatigue constantly treated and relieved so that "getting used to it" never happens, a feeling of bliss that remains as joyful and as fresh after a billion or a trillion or a googleplex of years as it was at the first moment.

Living eternally just to feel that way sounds like a rather pointless existence, but then again, you'd be free from feeling bad about the pointlessness of it all. :)

[trotsky]

13. LOL, that's one way around it!

Strips out any kind of interaction or any remaining bits of our humanity or consciousness, but hey, at least you're in eternal bliss!

[Silent3]

15. The difficulty of translating anything remotely like our human selves...

...into an eternal afterlife of any sort is something I posted about a few years back.

What I think about when I think about an eternal afterlife is this: what would or could anything still recognizably human do all of that time? One could assume that the afterlife is timeless, or that the nature of time in the afterlife is different from what we know, but as soon as one considers such things, one has to immediately realize that one doesn't really understand what it is that we're hoping for. Everything we know and understand, including the very selves we're hoping to have preserved, is defined in and through the flow of time.

If the experience of afterlife time were anything like our living, mortal experience of time, but simply goes on forever, then think about this:

Imagine your first thousand years in heaven. A thousand years worth of conversations, events, activities, sumptuous meals, concert events singing the Praises of the Lord, thousands of sex acts a piece with each of your 70 no-longer-very-virginal virgins. Would it all begin to just blur together? Would God grant you some special resistance to becoming tired of the same old things, or simply provide such a bountiful variety of experiences we can't imagine it? Is basking in The Presence of The Lord just so wonderful that nothing else matters? Pleasant though it might be, would that really be a life, or just some kind of frozen mental state?

Would your heavenly self have a greater memory capacity than your human self, so that a thousand years worth of memories could be held in your mind at once?

A thousand-year lifespan is already hard for the human mind to grasp. Now imagine that your first million years has passed by, and your first thousand years becomes no more than a tiny sliver of your life. Then a billion years passes, and the first million years takes its place in the flow of your life along with 999 other million-year spans that you pass through. Then someday you reach a trillion years old, and, had you decided to keep something like an ordinary scrapbook of ordinary size, spans of billions of years might be forgotten as unimportant or reduced to one or two photographs.

Then a quadrillion years go by. Then a quintillion, a sextillion, a septillion. No matter how staggering an expanse of time you care to imagine, still greater spans of time always stretch before you, waiting to reduce the incomprehensible magnitude of all you have ever known to a fleeting twinkle.

Could anything that is meaningfully you survive this endless stretch of time? Would your memory keep expanding ad infinitum into God-like proportions so that you could know the fullness of your own life, and if so, would the being that could remember so much be you anymore?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=51137

[Zebedeo]

36. Unfortunately,

you have been deceived by a lie of Satan. Satan surely would like people to believe that everlasting life in Heaven would be a bore. Don't fall for this lie.

[darkstar3]

37. Yes, because

every time something negative is said about God or Heaven, it's a "lie of Satan."

Damn...:crazy:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The_Commonist]

9. That's why they made sure to throw in the part...

...about suicide being a sin.
If you kill yourself, you don't get the wonderful stuff.
You get the fire and brimstone stuff.
It's all a bunch of horse-hockey anyway...

[saltpoint]

10. What pisses me off is that afterlife angels are only shown playing harps

and never saxophones or guitars or tubas.

I'm not saying I don't like harp music, but dammit it all, people, there ARE other instruments in the band.

It's like a, you know, total rip-off or somethin'.

[LiberalFighter]

12. I thought man invented all those instruments.

[saltpoint]

23. BUT MAN WAS GUIDED BY THE HAND OF THE ANGELS

--which might go some distance toward explaining why Yo Yo Ma can turn an arena into a living room.

[rrneck]

16. For the same reason

amateur painters study Picasso and amateur writers study Hemingway. It may be an impossible ideal but the effort put toward the attainment of an impossible goal is not wasted if it results in progress.

Always swing for the fence.

[onager]

17. The afterlife has more fine-print conditions than a bad real-estate deal...

I went to the source of the con...er, thelogy: the Original Catholic Encyclopedia. Not to be confused with any of those fraudulent Non-originals, I guess.

There is a heaven, i.e., God will bestow happiness and the richest gifts on all those who depart this life free from original sin and personal mortal sin, and who are, consequently, in the state of justice and friendship with God.

Concerning the purification of those just souls who depart in venial sin or who are still subject to temporal punishment for sin, see Purgatory.

On the lot of those who die free from personal sin, but infected with original sin, see Limbo (limbus parvulorum).

On the immediate beginning of eternal happiness after death, or eventually, after the passage through purgatory, see Particular Judgment.

We pause now for a brief commercial message, slamming the competition:

The existence of heaven is, of course, denied by atheists, materialists, and pantheists of all centuries, as well as by those rationalists who teach that the soul perishes with the body, in short, by all who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul.

But, for the rest, if we abstract from the specific quality and the supernatural character of heaven, the doctrine has never met with any opposition worthy of note. Even mere reason can prove the existence of heaven or of the happy state of the just in the next life. We shall give a brief outline of the principal arguments...

Got that? Well, lemme tell you, the arguments are NOT brief. I'll be merciful and only provide a couple of short examples:

To enable it to see God, the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light of glory (lumen glories). This was defined by the Council of Vienne in 1311 (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403); and it is also evident from the supernatural character of the beatific vision...

Oh, and you lose free will in the afterlife. At least I THINK that's what they're saying:

Nevertheless the Thomists, and with them the greater number of theologians, maintain that the beatific vision of its very nature directly excludes the possibility of sin. For no creature can have a clear intuitive view of the Supreme Good without being by that very fact alone irresistibly drawn to love it efficaciously and to fulfil for its sake even the most arduous duties without the least repugnance. The Church has left this matter undecided. The present writer rather inclines to the opinion of the Scotists because of its bearing on the question of the liberty of Christ.

(See Hell. Impenitence of the Damned.)

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heaven

Personally, I'll stick with the good old advice from Robert G. Ingersoll: "Never invest in any enterprise that only pays dividends after your death."

[ralph m]

19. I never realized Catholic theology was so complicated

until I had a few back and forth debates with a Catholic convert a few years ago. It's all designed to make simple assertions sound logical and sophisticated. For example, they claim: "Even mere reason can prove the existence of heaven or of the happy state of the just in the next life." Well reason can prove the existence of God and a soul if I also accept: "the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light of glory." You know, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort have a simpler, more direct approach that goes something like 'if you pray to God for wisdom and understanding, his holy spirit will guide you to the right answers.' All the Catholic theologians have done with their long articles on the subject, is try to make the same argument that you find your proof, if you already believe it's true, to appear to be some great sophisticated exercise in logic.

[MorningGlow]

18. In my belief system, "life" as we know it is a medium for learning,

helping others, removing karma, etc. We choose to live in a human body in this dimension (and, in my belief system, come back repeatedly) because it's interesting, it's a medium for self-improvement, and it's...well...fun! Kind of like an RPG. So why not? :shrug: Also please note that souls are welcome to take a "time out" and not be born into a 3D life for as long as they wish, whenever they wish.

On edit: so many "alsos" I was starting to sound like Sarah Palin.

[ralph m]

21. I was hoping at least one believer in souls would show up!

We've been trying to figure out the purpose of this world since the beginning of time, and I'm skeptical of there actually being a purpose other than we are part of the same life cycle that all of the other plants and animals on this planet are part of. The Universe appears to be way too big, way to empty, to make any sense as a staging ground for human perfection. That concept would have made more sense under the old cosmology of a flat or circular Earth with several heavenly layers above it. The Universe we've been dealt is flying apart at an accelerating rate until it disintegrates back into some multiverse that physicists can't even begin to conceptualize yet. There's just to much empty stuff in this universe to make it look like our proving ground.

I won't go through all of the recent neurological evidence of late that indicates out-of-body-experiences are generated by a malfunctioning in an area of the brain that maps out the world around us, the first question I have for soul-believers, especially the Western JudeoChristian variety is what about the animals? This is not a question that philosophers and theologians even considered until recent times; but now that we have reached a point where many people have closer relationships with their dogs and cats; do their pets have souls, and can they go to heaven as well?

I vaguely recall a survey a few years back of American Catholics which I found quite comforting, since their attitudes on birth control, abortion and other social issues indicate that they tune out the priests when they make these decisions. But what was really fascinating was that not only do the vast majority believe in an open heaven policy, where other Christians and even other religious adherents and even atheists can get in, something like between 20 and 25% of U.S. Catholics believe that animals, especially favoured pets can get into heaven also. I'd love to see how the Pope and the Cardinals react to these kinds of surveys! The surprisingly high number who believe in a heaven for animals was laughed at in many of the comments, but to me there was a serious side to the results, since it indicates that a lot of Christians are losing the old concept that we are separate and above the other animals on the planet. The problem is that a heaven being filled with the souls of humans as well as animals starts to make the belief look absurd if it is something to be taken literally.

[MorningGlow]

22. Well, since the

"Religion/Theology" forum is pretty much the "Mock Religion/Theology Forum" (oh don't act so shocked, atheists--you know it's true :P), believers of any stripe tend to stay away in droves. :hi:

I have indeed read the studies about OBEs, and I agree that activity in certain parts of our brains can be mapped as people experience a near death, but I think we have a whole lot more to learn about consciousness.

I think most people who believe in souls also believe that animals have souls, Vatican decrees be damned (hee). In my belief system (pagan/witch), everything has a consciousness/soul, even what we think of as things without consciousness and "lifeless" objects, because life/soul/consciousness is the same as energetic vibration (again, speaking as a pagan/witch), which everything has. That's why pagans/witches revere trees and rocks and whatever else is supposed to be "beneath" humans on a worthiness scale.

Then there's the whole concept of "heaven". A bunch of dead people (and animals) sporting wings and sitting around on clouds eating grapes and playing harps? Nuh-uh. That's applying our limited 3-D perception (and memories of old paintings) of what paradise would be like to something that's beyond our scope. Separate "heavens" for people and animals? Well, that would depend on whether you believe the clouds/harps thing. As I believe that "souls" are energy that merely return to the Great Is that is made up of all the vibrations of the universe, it's more that everything with a consciousness is in the same place.

There is the theory that whatever you expect to see when you die is what you do see--Christians will see Jesus, agnostics might see family members, people experiencing a great deal of guilt will see demons coming to take them to "hell", etc.--and then, after they're eased into the concept of being dead, they're shown the reality behind their illusions/expectations, which is their becoming part of the One.

[ralph m]

24. There's no reason why this issue can't be discussed without disrespecting others for their views

"Religion/Theology" forum is pretty much the "Mock Religion/Theology Forum"'

It's sad to hear, but I suspect it's true since moderates bail when religious fundamentalists and their atheist counterparts start hurling abuse at each other on some of the other forums I've looked at. The difference here is that a place like DU is much less likely to have the religious fundamentalists shouting from the pulpits. Conservative forums are loaded with them.

On the soul issue, I had a couple of OOBE's when I was young, that really freaked me out. They certainly felt real! At the time, I was under a lot of stress and had often experienced sleep paralysis, which is closely connected with the phenomena. I started to seriously question the reality of it later in life after I stopped having the sleep disorder problems.

To me, the big stumbling block to having a real soul that acts as our immaterial mind, is that we are finding more and more evidence that states of mind are generated by brain processes. Our emotions and memories can be correlated with brain function; it's difficult to conceptualize what sort of personality a soul would have if the things that make us unique are created by the brain. From studies of patients with brain disorders and split-brain patients, it seems that our sense of having a unified, continuous mind is an illusion of brain mapping as well. Something that is likely generated so we can function in this world, but not a useful description of what is actually going on in our heads.

The only form of dualism that seems to able to fit with what's being learned from neuroscience are forms of property dualism -- where particles, or the stuff of the universe have basic conscious properties. But having a complex mind would still be dependent on complex physical organization, such as the 100 billion or so neurons in the human brain.

[MorningGlow]

25. Or, looking at it from another angle...

Perhaps you truly were having OBEs when you were young, and as you got older your openness to that practice shut down. All too often young children--even up to adolescence--are able to do and learn things that later in life are seen as "impossible". Even like learning a language or a musical instrument, to use two "practical" examples.

Thanks for the info on brain mapping; it is indeed fascinating--especially how our physical, emotional, and psychological behavior can be modified by messing with the different areas of the brain. I do wish that we could develop some scientific processes that would be able to study consciousness in and of itself, and its relation to and possibly independent of the brain, if that's at all possible!

And thank you as well for actually having a CONVERSATION about this topic! It's a breath of fresh air! :hi:

[ralph m]

35. for me it wasn't a pleasant experience

It's true that the conditions I was under when I had an OOBE would lead me away from really wanting to believe it was real. Nevertheless, I couldn't think of any other way to explain it for a lot of years. From what I've read about the research done by people like Olaf Blanke http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/08/experimentallyinduced_outofbod.php who have discovered that the brain will create visual illusions to fit the feeling being outside of the body that has been induced by fooling our tactile sense. It's just more proof that you can't always believe what your eyes are telling you.

For some people, the belief that we can leave our bodies behind at the end of our lives is a source of comfort; but there is some evidence that a lot of people with strong belief in the afterlife, don't look after this life, and are less prepared for the end than for those who do not expect to live on after death of the body:

This research (from Amy Al and colleagues at Washington University) found that people who report experiencing "religious reverence" are, as you might expect given the above, less likely to make plans for settling their affairs after they die.

However, people who had experienced reverence in a naturalistic setting (feeling reverent in the presence of nature, or enjoying music or art) were more likely to plan for their deaths.
http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2010/01/be-religious-and-live-forever.html

ON the other hand, correlations between brain activity and states of mind do not explain how the brain generates consciousness:

We cannot therefore conclude that when we see what seem to be neural correlates of consciousness that we are seeing consciousness itself. While neural activity of a certain kind is a necessary condition for every manifestation of consciousness, from the lightest sensation to the most exquisitely constructed sense of self, it is neither a sufficient condition of it, nor, still less, is it identical with it. If it were identical, then we would be left with the insuperable problem of explaining how intracranial nerve impulses, which are material events, could "reach out" to extracranial objects in order to be "of" or "about" them. Straightforward physical causation explains how light from an object brings about events in the occipital cortex. No such explanation is available as to how those neural events are "about" the physical object. Biophysical science explains how the light gets in but not how the gaze looks out.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527427.100-you-wont-find-consciousness-in-the-brain.html?full=true

So, there is a lot of unknown territory in studies of the mind and brain function that warrant a little caution before jumping to conclusions about the mind/body connection.

[rd_kent]

26. Interesting beliefs. Where do you derive that from?

And I am not trying to judge or look down on you. I am curious where you derive those beliefs, especially the part of being able to opt-out of coming back if one chooses.

[MorningGlow]

27. I'm a pagan

and have been a practicing witch for more than 15 years.

[rd_kent]

28. I understand that, but where do you get the ideas about what I asked?

I mean, from what ideology, and where did it start? Is is written down? Is it dogmatic? I don't understand it, thats why I ask.

[MorningGlow]

29. It was part of what I was taught in my "year and a day" training before my initiation

Neo-pagans and modern witches have an oral tradition (although there are books on the subject as well) which are handed down from elder to coven members, and some of those coven members become elders, start their own covens, and the tradition continues. We don't do "dogma", however, and we don't have a "bible"/one book to rule them all; in fact, some details vary widely from tradition to tradition (the "trad" is the type of coven you belong to--Celtic, Dianic, Norse, etc.) and even from coven to coven within each trad, but the basic tenets remain the same.

[rd_kent]

30. At risk of sounding condescending....

It seems that this ideology was, for lack of a better term, "made-up" at some point and then passed down over time? Is there any basis in fact or reality, or is it strictly just a "belief"?

For the record, I feel that all religions started this way, I just don't know a thing about wicca or paganism or whatever you call it, so I though I would ask.

[MorningGlow]

31. Let's face it

Non-believers tend to think that all religious beliefs, no matter what the faith, are made up out of whole cloth and "beliefs" are not valid without a document notarized by the Almighty himself (and then they'd question the authenticity of the alleged Almighty, notary, the stamp, the paper/vellum/parchment, etc.) I could trace each teaching back to some sources, but I think the effort would be unappreciated.

If you'd like to learn more about paganism/witchcraft, I can direct you to a few popular authors who cover the subject matter pretty accurately.

On edit: The beliefs I adhere to resonate with me. I don't ask other people to accept them in any way (pagans do not proselytize, and they believe that everyone's belief systems are equally valid).

[rd_kent]

32. And I will never judge you for it.

[MorningGlow]

33. I appreciate that n/t

[ralph m]

20. if there aren't many atheists in foxholes, there certainly aren't many believers at a funeral.

Mark Twain said it best:
"everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one is in a hurry to die to get in there" or something like that.

[Deep13]

34. Um, it's god's plan or some other unconvincing, made-up reason.

:shrug:

[conscious evolution]

39. In the path that I follow

suicide leads to extinction of the soul.
No going to heaven.Or hell.
Its just lights out.Permanently.