What happens when we die?

[pstripling]

I am posting this because I am new to the SMP boards and from reading other posts it appears to me that most posters are atheist/agnostic/self-deity. I'm just curious, according to that belief system... what happens when a person dies? And what justification do you have for believing that?

[guesswest]

I don't know what happens when we die and my justification for that position is ignorance.

[pstripling]

I appreciate your honesty. What do you think happens?

[AJFenix]

The same exact thing that happened before you were born. Nothing, aside from obvious physical things such as body decomposing, etc.

[TimWillTell]

When a tornado emurges from the ocean, it grows in strenght, it rages over the land, and finally... it dies down.
Whats happens to it after its gone?

When I'm dead and gone, I'll be just like the tornado that once roamed the land; going, going, gone...

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your honesty. What do you think happens?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm tempted to apply Occam's razor and say that nothing happens other than the heart stops beating, brain stops firing and the body decomposes. But I'll entertain the possibility that something else happens, not having died I can't say.

[Sharkey]

It could be a useful distinction to treat the fates of body and consciousness as two questions.

[pstripling]

First off, I appreciate the answer. If you truly believe this it leaves me with 2 questions:

1) How did you arrive at this conclusion? IMO the natural human condition is spiritual. If you go to the most remote tribe on Earth who have had no contact with the outside world they are worshiping something (sun god, trees, whatever)

2) If we just die and thats it... then there is no reason to be socially acceptable unless it suits that person at the time. If you need money, rob a someone who is weaker. If you want something, take it. If there are truly no eternal consequenses what would stop someone from having this attitude?

[pstripling]

Good point. For purposes of this discussion I am asking about consciosness.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
It could be a useful distinction to treat the fates of body and consciousness as two questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the central question is really the same - whether consciousness is just a symptom of brain activity. If it is it's quite easy to make an argument for the possibility of some kind of afterlife, if it isn't it'd be nigh impossible to do so.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, I appreciate the answer. If you truly believe this it leaves me with 2 questions:

1) How did you arrive at this conclusion? IMO the natural human condition is spiritual. If you go to the most remote tribe on Earth who have had no contact with the outside world they are worshiping something (sun god, trees, whatever)

2) If we just die and thats it... then there is no reason to be socially acceptable unless it suits that person at the time. If you need money, rob a someone who is weaker. If you want something, take it. If there are truly no eternal consequenses what would stop someone from having this attitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I arrive at the conclusion because it's where all the evidence points. Once you've understood the idea of the brain, which everyone in the developed world does, it's hard to conclude that all thought doesn't come from it's physiology, you can take drugs to alter your consciousness, brain damage changes perception etc. When we die neurons undoutably stop firing, it's hard then to conclude we have any mind/consciousness/soul etc left. But like I say, having not died I can't be sure of this, it's just the most likely theory in my mind with the information we do have.

2. The reason for good ethical behaviour in this lifetime is creating a society/identity with good ethics - the same reason it would be over eternity, you're just talking about time scales. I don't want to have boiling oil poured over me for eternity, but it doesn't follow from this that I don't care about having boiling oil poured over me for 5 minutes. One's maybe worse, but they're both bad.

[akashra]

I believe nothing absolute, but here's several different ideas floating around in my head anyways (in no particular order):

a. our core beliefs, values, ideals take some part in melding our death experience. (ie. you believe strongly enough in a god and heaven, (and that you deserve to be in heaven) you just might see something similar ~ although it would be more or less self regulated.)

b. We are sort of instructed that well "you are dead." and given several options.. You look back at your life a bit, look back over it's purpose and what' you've accomplished as far as your ultimate spiritual (core self / non-physical) growth. You can than choose several options... Reenter the physical in a different form of sorts that you might want to work on spiritual growth placing yourself in a particular lifestyle that may help to work on that portion of your ultimate self. Another option would be to choose some other form of reality which is w/our current sensory system simply unexplainable -- with different physics, idea systems, etc..

Unfortunately. I have to cut this short for now.

[theweatherman]

I vote for nothing.

HoweverI would like it to be either:
1) A Billiy Pilgram type existence. Moving back and forth between times in my life.

2) Spontaneous reincarnation. I can from nothingness when I was born, and I will passinto nothingness when I die. Hopefully I will come back out of it again.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I vote for nothing.

HoweverI would like it to be either:
1) A Billiy Pilgram type existence. Moving back and forth between times in my life.

2) Spontaneous reincarnation. I can from nothingness when I was born, and I will passinto nothingness when I die. Hopefully I will come back out of it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2, if you have no recollection of the prior life (ie no continuity of consciousness) then coming back out of it again is irrelevant...it is indistinguishable from a totally "new" birth.

Since there is no credible evidence for memory of past lives 1) has no evidential support, and 2) is meangingless.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I vote for nothing.

HoweverI would like it to be either:
1) A Billiy Pilgram type existence. Moving back and forth between times in my life.

2) Spontaneous reincarnation. I can from nothingness when I was born, and I will passinto nothingness when I die. Hopefully I will come back out of it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2, if you have no recollection of the prior life (ie no continuity of consciousness) then coming back out of it again is irrelevant...it is indistinguishable from a totally "new" birth.

Since there is no credible evidence for memory of past lives 1) has no evidential support, and 2) is meangingless.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I siad these are merely pipe dreams. Billy Pilgram is a fictional character. I have no doubt that his story would lack acertain evidence.

#2 is not meaningless because you have no memory. Existing is better than not existing. This may be lifetime 300 but I wouldnt know. All I know is that I enjoy being something rather than nothing.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I vote for nothing.

HoweverI would like it to be either:
1) A Billiy Pilgram type existence. Moving back and forth between times in my life.

2) Spontaneous reincarnation. I can from nothingness when I was born, and I will passinto nothingness when I die. Hopefully I will come back out of it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2, if you have no recollection of the prior life (ie no continuity of consciousness) then coming back out of it again is irrelevant...it is indistinguishable from a totally "new" birth.

Since there is no credible evidence for memory of past lives 1) has no evidential support, and 2) is meangingless.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I siad these are merely pipe dreams. Billy Pilgram is a fictional character. I have no doubt that his story would lack acertain evidence.

#2 is not meaningless because you have no memory. Existing is better than not existing. This may be lifetime 300 but I wouldnt know. All I know is that I enjoy being something rather than nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, existing is better than not existing, but if there is no continuity of consciousness then prior or future existences have no impact on any given existence...you are what you are at that time. It is indistnuishable from existing once.

[hyde]

"the worms crawl in, the worms crawl out......."

I can't recall the exact rest of this childhood poem, but this captures the theme.

[Copernicus]

well, in the words of a book that gets a lot of credibility from some, "ashes to ashes, dust to dust"

Or, from an 18th century gravestone in Teaneck, NJ (in case David missed it growing up):

"Stop and look as you pass by
As you are now so once was I
As I am now you soon shall be
Prepare for death and follow me"

[traz]

[ QUOTE ]
2) If there are truly no eternal consequenses what would stop someone from having this attitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

Big burly prison inmates, among other things

[akashra]

.. Nihilist?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It could be a useful distinction to treat the fates of body and consciousness as two questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the central question is really the same - whether consciousness is just a symptom of brain activity. If it is it's quite easy to make an argument for the possibility of some kind of afterlife, if it isn't it'd be nigh impossible to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The origin of consciousness is not well understood. In fact, to my knowledge, science has not been able to find falsifiable evidence that consciousness exists at all.

[akashra]

Has anyone experimented with Lucid Dreaming/Astral Projection. This in a sense gives more validity to consciousness existing beyond the body.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone experimented with Lucid Dreaming/Astral Projection. This in a sense gives more validity to consciousness existing beyond the body.

[/ QUOTE ]

AP was a hobby of my father's, and Ive been reading about it and then LD's for 40+ years. The only thing they give validity to is the mind's ability to fool itself.

Many of us "acid casualties" from the 60s have had very convincing "out of body experiences". The coincidence of those OOBE's with other auditory and visual hallucinations plus the absence of consciousness during general anesthesia convinced me that "its all in the head".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The origin of consciousness is not well understood. In fact, to my knowledge, science has not been able to find falsifiable evidence that consciousness exists at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Processes of any kind only exist as we define them. 'Running' doesn't exist.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It could be a useful distinction to treat the fates of body and consciousness as two questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be if there was any evidence of a disembodied consciousness. It's like wanting to treat the lips and the smile as two separate entities.

luckyme

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The origin of consciousness is not well understood. In fact, to my knowledge, science has not been able to find falsifiable evidence that consciousness exists at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Processes of any kind only exist as we define them. 'Running' doesn't exist.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Science has been able to find falsifiable evidence that running exists.

Exist
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist.
4. To continue to be; persist.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur.

Science has not been able to find falsifiable evidence that consciousness exists.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The origin of consciousness is not well understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is quite well understood is that it doesn't have "an" origin. It's an emergent property and as neuroscience shows it can be the faintest flicker or a full blown symphony and everything in between. There is no Aha moment like with Frankensteins creature.

We can pick any form it's in at any given time an say "That" is consciousness, or we can slide the criteria either direction.

luckyme

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The origin of consciousness is not well understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is quite well understood is that it doesn't have "an" origin. It's an emergent property and as neuroscience shows it can be the faintest flicker or a full blown symphony and everything in between. There is no Aha moment like with Frankensteins creature.

We can pick any form it's in at any given time an say "That" is consciousness, or we can slide the criteria either direction.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

That is your opinion, nothing more.

Neuroscience does not have consciousness “well understood”, since neuroscience cannot even provide falsifiable evidence that consciousness exists.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Neuroscience does not have consciousness “well understood”, since neuroscience cannot even provide falsifiable evidence that consciousness exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't claiming that it does, the 'running' analogy was meant to illustrate that it doesn't exist anything like a carrot exists, so we must mean something different when we us 'exist' when we're descibing processes.

Dennett, Blackwell, Damasio, etc ... regardless of which approach you think is closer to an explanation, the 'exist' part is up for grabs.

luckyme..

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Science has been able to find falsifiable evidence that running exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take 2 please, one twice as heavy as the other.

luckyme

[akashra]

..That's one standpoint. I take it you haven't ever had the experience yourself though, at least ~ not in a sober state of mind?

Here's an article that suggest the opposite:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science has been able to find falsifiable evidence that running exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take 2 please, one twice as heavy as the other.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like the contents of sub-branches of kinesiology and exercise physiology?

[chezlaw]

Instead of explaining to 2+2ers why a benevelent god cannot demand belief, I can explain it to those cute furies.

chez

[hyde]

[ QUOTE ]
.. Nihilist?

[/ QUOTE ]

nondenominational skeptic

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
2) If we just die and thats it... then there is no reason to be socially acceptable unless it suits that person at the time. If you need money, rob a someone who is weaker. If you want something, take it. If there are truly no eternal consequenses what would stop someone from having this attitude?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believed in no afterlife for many years and never understood this point. I can believe in right and wrong without believing I am going to live past death. So my answer would be my ethical beliefs would stop me having this attitude.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I believed in no afterlife for many years and never understood this point. I can believe in right and wrong without believing I am going to live past death. So my answer would be my ethical beliefs would stop me having this attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point, bunny. It always floors me when a believer say that if it was not for a belief (threat of damnation and/or recompense of eternal bliss), that the world would be full of thiefs, rapists, murderers and that nothing would hold humans socially together. I an an atheist, and I know many atheists. They all are very compassionate people, often more so than believers. Now, theists that do put forward the above statement must be basing it on what they think they would do. I mean that they would know at least what they would do, what other would do they are less likely to know, surely. Am I to infer that a lot of believers are just pathological psychopaths kept in check by their beliefs? This is a frightening realisation, for those tendencies are bound to find channels of expression if repressed (hence, perhaps, jihad, inquisition, dominance of other lifes, etc...).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I to infer that a lot of believers are just pathological psychopaths kept in check by their beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They merely believe that other believers are psychopaths. Since there are major societies with atheistic philosophies and have been throughout history, we know they can't be concerned about atheists. ( isn't there a study out showing a correlation between religousity and crime??)

luckyme

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I an an atheist, and I know many atheists. They all are very compassionate people, often more so than believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in my experience as well. While there are certainly alot of compassionate, loving believers, there are also alot of folks who profess (preach) Christianity but make a habit of hatefulness. Most of the people I know who profess no beliefs are kind people who would be a good neighbor to anyone.

I think Chez has a good point about the difference between professing Christianity and actually being christian.

[Brom]

[ QUOTE ]

2) If we just die and thats it... then there is no reason to be socially acceptable unless it suits that person at the time. If you need money, rob a someone who is weaker. If you want something, take it. If there are truly no eternal consequenses what would stop someone from having this attitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe just the opposite of this opinion, and I never really understood where it stems from exactly.

I act socially (and with morals and ethics IMO), because of the fact that there is no afterlife. I try to make the most of my time living. I want to do good and help others with their life so that we can all enjoy life while we have it, since there will be no more enjoyment after it. I want to make an impact in this thing called life.

Theists (or anyone who believes in some sort of afterlife/heaven/hell type scenario), on the other hand, are less likely to be civil IMO. For these people, God already knows where you are headed (he is all knowing). They have no incentive to be nice or mean because it is already known where they will end up, and they can not change it. Maybe you could be a murderer and get into heaven somehow, maybe you were the Pope and got sent to hell. It didn't matter how this person acted though, because their actions were already the precursors to their fates.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) If we just die and thats it... then there is no reason to be socially acceptable unless it suits that person at the time. If you need money, rob a someone who is weaker. If you want something, take it. If there are truly no eternal consequenses what would stop someone from having this attitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe just the opposite of this opinion, and I never really understood where it stems from exactly.

I act socially (and with morals and ethics IMO), because of the fact that there is no afterlife. I try to make the most of my time living. I want to do good and help others with their life so that we can all enjoy life while we have it, since there will be no more enjoyment after it. I want to make an impact in this thing called life.

Theists (or anyone who believes in some sort of afterlife/heaven/hell type scenario), on the other hand, are less likely to be civil IMO. For these people, God already knows where you are headed (he is all knowing). They have no incentive to be nice or mean because it is already known where they will end up, and they can not change it. Maybe you could be a murderer and get into heaven somehow, maybe you were the Pope and got sent to hell. It didn't matter how this person acted though, because their actions were already the precursors to their fates.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that being an atheist doesnt imply amorality. I dont accept that being a theist and having God know what you are about to do absolves you in any way from behaving well, though. To me God's existence or otherwise is irrelevant to whether you should behave in a moral way. Ethics and morality says you should and I believe they exist independantly of God's existence.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that being an atheist doesnt imply amorality. I dont accept that being a theist and having God know what you are about to do absolves you in any way from behaving well, though. To me God's existence or otherwise is irrelevant to whether you should behave in a moral way. Ethics and morality says you should and I believe they exist independantly of God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I whole-heartedly agree with this. I strive to do the right thing because I believe it is the right thing to do, not because I fear punishment or expect reward. This means that, for me at least, morality trumps law. It just happens that I believe Jesus Christ gave us the best guide for determining what is the right thing to do.

edit: My, we have strayed a ways from the original topic- In regards to what happens when we die, it's all speculation until we die. Then we find out (or not /images/graemlins/laugh.gif).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
..That's one standpoint. I take it you haven't ever had the experience yourself though, at least ~ not in a sober state of mind?

Here's an article that suggest the opposite:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

[/ QUOTE ]

There are physiological explanations for NDEs that are, in fact, mimiced by psychedelics. They are essentially the same thing.

[frankidoodle]

here we have the dilema of all dilemas, has the universe any meaning? was consciousness made by design or chance? if you are athiest the answers are plain. If not, the answers are unclear. I am agnostic and really dont know. Am i designed to seek answers. Yes. My very nature taunts me to find answers. Alas I will never have any concrete evidence for or against the existance of God, who (if he exists) has made it thus. Which by the way is the perfect examination paper. Athiests who do good, I believe have a greater chance of pleasing God (if he exists) than people of any faith who do not. The examination paper is complex and set to be hard and at times unreadable. I will never ever find a solution to whether God exists or not. Or will I?

[CopTHIS]

We get eaten by worms, or burnt, or something like that. It's not the nicest thought perhaps, but not rocket science either.

[bocablkr]

We can no longer get to play poker /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
We can no longer get to play poker /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, heaven may indeed be
1) a place where nothing, nothing ever happens
2) a nice house in the sky, got central heating
3) a poker game with no bad beats

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
according to that belief system...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where the system part kicks in. I understand it when we're refering to Mormons or Muslims since there is a complex system of belief involved. If all you know is that somebody is
a)atheist.
b)agnostic
c)self-diety

fill me in on what their belief system is, because all I ever seem to know is one eensy-teensy little fact, and nothing else until I do a lot of exchanges with them about just what it is they do believe .. so I ask them about 'existance' and 'happening' and 'experiences', etc. I seem to get back a ton of different worldviews they operate under.

I can't wait for your listing of their belief system, save me a lot of ink.

[ QUOTE ]
what happens when a person dies?

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a 'stopped beating your wife' situation since the answer is half-baked in the question. If something happens to them, why would we be calling them dead? Perhaps you need to define how you use the term 'dead' and 'alive' so people have some chance of giving you an answer that means something.

Perhaps a more open-ended approach would be "what's the difference between being dead and being a rock?" or some such phrasing that leaves some options open.

hope that helps, luckyme

[siegfriedandroy]

the question is legitimate. no need to split hairs over the phrasing.

as for the 'belief system' part, you are correct that many atheists, etc have a wide range of views on particular topics. But so do Mormons, Jews, etc. I think it's safe to say that there are also many common characteristics that a large portion of atheists share. Whether or not this qualifies as a 'belief system' seems again like splitting hairs. You are quibbling over the OP's language and not adding anything productive or meaningful to the thread.

[siegfriedandroy]

i heard St Peter kicks a*s at 7 card stud

[siegfriedandroy]

Is #1 a Talking Heads reference!!?? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[siegfriedandroy]

What evidence do you have that a. or b. could possibly be true?

[siegfriedandroy]

what type of evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

[siegfriedandroy]

i agree. nothing would prevent you from such an attitude. do whatever most pleases yourself, even if this comes at great expense to all in your way.

[siegfriedandroy]

Your opinion of theists' incentives for morality is very wrong and misguided.

As for your opinion about acting socially in an atheistic world, that is fine. But the opposite view would be fine as well. Neither is better or worse. Just whatever brings you the most happiness and pseudo-meaning, I guess.

[siegfriedandroy]

That's fine, bunny. But it would be just as fine to have no ethical beliefs, or to have what we both would consider completely depraved ethics. Ultimately, whatever works best for you would trump. All would be reduced to utter meaninglessness (ultimately).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
the question is legitimate. no need to split hairs over the phrasing.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you do with your money when you go broke?

One role of philosophy is to try and ask questions in an attempt to clarify. Questions that have assumptions built in need to be challenged in order to leave all options open in the consideration.

Getting the question right is half the battle.

no prob if you prefer otherwise, and maybe it is just me, luckyme

[siegfriedandroy]

Personally, I cannot answer the question of what I would do if I was an unbeliever. The question is meaningless to me, since if I was an unbeliever, I would not be myself, etc., etc. My only contention is that there would be nothing ultimately wrong with an atheist holding to a code of ethics completely antithetical to compassionate group of atheists you mention. If put in a hypothetical situation, where one is free to rape, kill to achieve a certain goal or benefit with impunity, etc., or do any other act that would somehow benefit him (even if it is one most universally consider to be heinous and depraved), he can go ahead and do this if it would bring him happiness somehow, or even just as some sick whim, or just for no reason at all. It would not really matter which of these two diametrically opposed 'codes of ethics' the atheist chooses.

On the contrary, as a Christian, I believe it is absolutely wrong to commit rape in any and every situation that may arise. This truth does not follow necessarily from an atheistic world view.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

what type of evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the spirit of the op question - convincing evidence.

I wouldn't want to prejudge, since it's likely going to be in a form I haven't weighed before. I haven't seen any through normal channels, but who knows what options are still out there.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This truth does not follow necessarily from an atheistic world

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently not. I was just watching the "Allah is everything. Allah over everything" tape transcript.

what the heck do we know, hey, sig,

luckyme

[siegfriedandroy]

i agree with you here.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

i agree with you here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

luckyme

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Is #1 a Talking Heads reference!!?? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed...and #2 a more current lyric...though you may not bridge generations

[siegfriedandroy]

dmb

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
dmb

[/ QUOTE ]

theres hope for you yet /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
That's fine, bunny. But it would be just as fine to have no ethical beliefs, or to have what we both would consider completely depraved ethics. Ultimately, whatever works best for you would trump. All would be reduced to utter meaninglessness (ultimately).

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont agree - I think someone adopting amoral ethical principles would be wrong. I think they are objective things (as a Christian I also think God follows all of them, but that is not a necessary part of them existing - in a similar way I think God follows the laws of logic but I would still believe in them if I didnt believe in God).