what do you think happens when we die?

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

if the existence of anything depends on the presence of observable evidence

then the existence of the universe is totally dependent on the fact that i am here to observe its existence

so if - in dying - i cease to exist, then the universe will also cease to exist

In a sense, yes. The universe as you see it will cease to exist when you do. No one else has your exact, particular way of perceiving things.

but if i die and cease to exist, there will be no way for me to know

so in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, i must assume that everything else (including you) will also cease to exist the moment i die

And it will be true--in a sense.

the only way for me to believe that everything else will continue to go on in my absence is to have faith, not proof

if i can believe that you and the world around you exists without me being able to observe any physical evidence to support it (because i no longer exist after death), then why am i unable to believe in other things that do not have any observable physical evidence?

It's true that we depend to an extent on the observable evidence to conclude what does and does not exist. We combine evidence with our best efforts at reason and logic to determine how the world really is--and being limited little humans, we get plenty of stuff wrong both as a species and as individuals.

We often have to come to conclusions about things which cannot be directly observed--atoms, for example. I've never seen an individual atom, yet I'm confident they exist based on the evidence that is observable combined with the strenuous efforts of many people before me.

The thing is, though, just because neither thing A nor thing B can be directly observed does not mean the existence of both is equiprobable, which to me seems to be implied by what you're saying.

 

[vj288]

Well I meant it more as an either/or choice. I also skip the first choice and go straight to 'accept'...well, try to accept.


In order for there to be a purpose there has to be a something/someone/ deity of some sort to assign a purpose. I understand why people of a faith might ask 'What's the meaning of life' but I don't understand why an Atheist would ask that. :thinking:

Ohhhhhh h: Yes, that makes sense. Doy. h:

I don't see an atheist having any less reason to ask that than a theist, where the meaning comes from doesn't have to be from a Deity per se. It can be a "force" or something else of that nature, or something too complex to comprehend even. I'm not all the well versed in atheism though, all in all it's just a label anyway.

 

[LazyHermitCrab]

But don't you think that the concept of a purpose implies design?

The thing that confuses me about design is whether it's meant one thing or a bunch of things. I still say noone really knows but maybe someday we will know.

 

[vj288]

But don't you think that the concept of a purpose implies design?

I'm not sure, it would be difficult to argue otherwise I think. In think there's purpose for being here, it only follows there's a purpose for that purpose (a designer). And then a purpose for that purpose...and a purpose for that purpose and so on. To me the purpose for the purpose seems unimportant, interesting to contemplate no doubt but something even if we could answer wouldn't have much bearing on our lives, or at least wouldn't on mine. Whatever the answer I don't think we can ever know, or may be too complex to even understand. I really don't know though, at this point I just feel like I'm blabbering (what's new )

 

[Englishman]

Nothing...

 

[Flanscho]

I haven't provided evidence because: A. I'd have to go and look through my books to find them and then quote them, and I do not feel it's worth spending so much time and effort on it for a post on a forum where I am not going to enter into a debate. And B. I prefer to encourage people to research for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

I don't want to offend anyone, but if you claim that there is scientific evidence for stuff, but are then too lazy to give exact quotes or name sources, then it's absolutely irrelevant of claiming that there is any evidence at all. It's like when two children are playing, one claims it got super powers, and then refuses to demonstrate them to the other child, because "I don't want to right now".

It's very difficult for them to publish their work and it remains largely unknown by the larger community. Sometimes it take a long time for things to change due to evidence not being accepted...

The reason why it's difficult for scientists working on pseudo-sciences to publish their stuff is that the important journals and websites for that matter don't want to lose their credibility and humiliate themselves by publishing absolute nonsense for which there is zero scientific evidence. If they WOULD have scientific evidence, and experiments that other scientists could repeat with the same results, things would be very different.

The field of abiogenesis, and Big Bang Theory to name two obvious ones...

I agree, abiogenesis is not proven yet, but it's the most logical explanation we have, and I'm sure that it will be proven in near future.

Big Bang? Oh come on, you are kidding me. There might not be absolute proof yet, but there is not only a huge amount of evidence for it, it's also the only reasonable theory that exists in that matter. There exists no single other theory that is supported as well as the Big Bang theory in that matter. So while you are free to say that you don't believe it, same as you are free to believe that gravity doesn't exist, it doesn't make much sense to do so, unless you can come up with any better explanation.

However, it's worth pointing out that I don't actually believe in anything... I am merely open to all possibilities...

It seems to me that you deny theories for which there is lots of evidence (such as the Big Bang theory), and support theories, for which there is absolutely zero evidence (reincarnation, some sort of life after death). That's not just being "open to all possibilities". That's leaving all logic behind.

 

[MikeyC]

When I die, I will be a good-looking man with a six-pack, in a room with many voluptuous women and an endless supply of doughnuts.

 

[coyote]

The thing is, though, just because neither thing A nor thing B can be directly observed does not mean the existence of both is equiprobable, which to me seems to be implied by what you're saying.

that's just the sort of thing somone in the illuminati would want me to think

although i've never actually seen schrodinger's cat, that doesn't mean there is no bigfoot in loch ness!

 

[I'm Not There]

What would be the point in that?

I highly doubt there's a point to us living at this very moment...

 

[bcsr]

Maybe something, maybe nothing. No one can know for certain. I just don't concern myself with it, because it's an inevitability. I'm a good person, so I'm confident that whatever comes after, if anything, will be alright.

 

[Earthcircle]

Quoting Bertrand Russell: “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold; surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world. Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigour, and the great spaces have a splendour of their own.”

 

[MikeyC]

What would be the point in that?

Reincarnation. It's something I think is a possibility, but I will never know!

 

[akala]

our spirit leave our bodies and we enter the universe... then we enter the parallel universe through the black holes and move on to phase 2 of life on another planet in the parallel universe as ourselves until we die again, and the cycle continues.

 

[Starry]

I don't want to offend anyone, but if you claim that there is scientific evidence for stuff, but are then too lazy to give exact quotes or name sources, then it's absolutely irrelevant of claiming that there is any evidence at all. It's like when two children are playing, one claims it got super powers, and then refuses to demonstrate them to the other child, because "I don't want to right now".

The reason why it's difficult for scientists working on pseudo-sciences to publish their stuff is that the important journals and websites for that matter don't want to lose their credibility and humiliate themselves by publishing absolute nonsense for which there is zero scientific evidence. If they WOULD have scientific evidence, and experiments that other scientists could repeat with the same results, things would be very different.

I agree, abiogenesis is not proven yet, but it's the most logical explanation we have, and I'm sure that it will be proven in near future.

Big Bang? Oh come on, you are kidding me. There might not be absolute proof yet, but there is not only a huge amount of evidence for it, it's also the only reasonable theory that exists in that matter. There exists no single other theory that is supported as well as the Big Bang theory in that matter. So while you are free to say that you don't believe it, same as you are free to believe that gravity doesn't exist, it doesn't make much sense to do so, unless you can come up with any better explanation.

It seems to me that you deny theories for which there is lots of evidence (such as the Big Bang theory), and support theories, for which there is absolutely zero evidence (reincarnation, some sort of life after death). That's not just being "open to all possibilities". That's leaving all logic behind.

I'm not going to respond to your points as I don't wish to debate... Suffice to say, we disagree.

However, I must respond to your final points as they are attempts to make me look stupid and illogical:

I didn't say I didn't believe these things - I said they weren't proven... I deliberately chose points which were not too contentious...

There are so many things which are not proven, but which are accepted - and which you fully accept - that was the point.

However, I do not believe in most things - where possible, unless something's proven I'll stick with "we don't know - this is the best explanation so far, it may be wrong, it may be right" and then add to my position upon it based upon the evidence I've personally seen... (don't ever expect me to take something on the word of others, no matter who they are or how many of them there may be...) I may accept them as a basis, but of course I don't believe them... To believe is too close to religion...

I feel it's important to look at all theories and evidences, not just to look at the ones currently "accepted"... Only by doing that can we see any errors there may be in the current theories and raise new questions, see new evidence which may have been missed etc...

Surely it's very closed-minded to summarily dismiss anything not currently accepted, purely on the basis that's it's not... After all, a great many things were once not accepted and were ridiculed, which now people are ridiculed for not accepting...

Also, to reiterate, once again, since you seem to keep missing the point - I do not believe in reincarnation or life after death... I am completely agnostic on the matter - as I've stated repeatedly.

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

that's just the sort of thing somone in the illuminati would want me to think

although i've never actually seen schrodinger's cat, that doesn't mean there is no bigfoot in loch ness!

He kinda looks like he's flipping us off, doesn't he?

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

Also there are many things in specific areas which I have personally looked into, such as the originator of the Laetoli footprints (popular works - and Wiki - make it appear that they were definitely made by an Australopithecine (usually A. afarensis). However, reading various papers by many experts reveals a split view ranging from an unknown species through to a form resembling Homo, with other ideas between...)

Although it is highly debated, it is believed the three individuals who made these footprints belonged to the species Australopithecus afarensis.

I dunno, sounds fair enough to me. Not really the tone of an article summarily dismissing anything.

Anyway, I'm curious--what do your sources say about it? Got a link?

 

[xDreamseller]

Maybe a better question would be, what do you HOPE happens when you die? Or, what would you LIKE to happen when you die?

I would love life to be sort of like a 80 year long groundhog day, where you retain information from your "past run through" of life and can then experiment in your "future lives".

The possibilities would be endless. It would be so much fun. Of course, you would require some way to finally break out of the loop and die. Or, a way to erase all built up knowledge so you begin from scratch again, without knowing it ever happened. That would be cool.

What I really think happens though? Probably whatever happened before we were ever born. Doesn't really answer much, but I think that's as close as we can ever know until it happens.

 

[destructoroflife]

Nothing.

The world ends for us and continue for the people who's alive.

We cease existing.

 

[coyote]

it takes awhile for a body to decompose

the soft parts quicker than the hard parts - skeletons may lay around for hundreds of years

there have been mummified remains of prehistoric humans unearthed from peat bogs and glaciers that are so well preserved that their fingerprints are still visible

so we don't just suddenly disappear when we die....

or is the thing that makes us "we," the thing that makes us who we are - is that something distinct from our physical body? something which exists separately?

can we measure this something? can we mount it, stuff it, pin it to a board, or put it in a jar?

no. but we know it's there.

if it can exist as something separate and distinct from our physical bodies, can it continue to exist somewhere else, after our bodies cease to function?

or does it only exist as a random byproduct of biochemical processes?

we have created supercomputers that rival the complexities of the human brain, but none of them have yet to become self aware. perhaps it's not as simple as that.

perhaps that thing we know as ourselves came from somewhere and goes somewhere else different than where we are now - somewhere we are unable to observe while we're here.

like the spherical entity entering and leaving Flatland - while in Flatland it only knows itself as a circle, as do all the other Flat inhabitants - we are only able to experience this world as part of this world while we're here.

but when we leave, maybe we go somewhere else that everyone who stays behind has no ability to fathom,

until they leave as well.

 

[xDreamseller]

I dunno about everyone else, but I'm just waiting for the day when we can upload ourselves to the internet and live forever. Think of all that time saved, no need to type...just think your way through the internet.