Do you believe on the fact "Life after death"?

FACT?

Only through organ donation.

@anartist : You can say concept,thing.

@blinkErri concept thing

Life after death is a fabrication for those who do not wish to accept death.

When did they discover life after death a fact?

read the after-death experiences of those who were “clinically dead” for a short time—don’t think they could be verified—but there a lot of them
Here

I’m not even sure that life exists… that everything just isn’t another hologram.

@anartist when you die the brain releases chemicals that are quite close to the compound DMT, to say anything that has been witnessed during said time of chemical release is hearsay.

I personally don’t believe in life after death, but I do not declare it impossible either. I simply don’t know. I doubt it exists. There is no logical reason to believe in life after death. It would seem to be as unprovable as the existence of God or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or flying reindeer. But I can;t DISPROVE any of those either.

Well, it certainly is an intersting concept, but in terms of afterlife and other beliefs of heaven, I’m not 100% certain, but I lean toward such concepts as being a crutch for the fear of the sheer power of the unknown after this life is over. To be honest, I don’t think anyone can be sure of anything, even being sure of not being sure…lol. Like @talljasperman said, maybe it’s just a hologram? 0.o

@anartist @Axemusica: This is also a great information.

The only kind of life after death that is a fact is that our nutrients can provide life to the plants after we die.

I have reason to believe in life after death.

Not my own, but the death of another person. Someone I was not particularly close to, but someone who brought me a message two days after she died.

The visit occurred in the morning, seconds before I awoke. She was standing next to my bed and just asked for my help. I answered her out loud, and woke myself up. I determined later that I was asked because I knew the location of the object she wanted to have delivered, and who should do the task she needed to be done.

This was a subtle experience, not strange to me in any way. She looked just like she had looked the last time I saw her.

Due to some personal effects we found in the home of the deceased, I was able to prove to myself and others that the message was genuine, and not just a dream. This surprised me, and the others involved, as I had no preconceived idea of the authenticity of the experience. I accomplished the thing I was asked to do, and that was the end of that experience.

Not everyone would be persuaded by this experience, I’m sure, but I’m quite literal and not given to fantasy, and it was enough to convince me. (And the others who were present.)

There is life after my death, but it won’t be my life. That ends when I die. That’s what death means.

@YARNLADY…Gaia?

With the exception of @eden2eve there seems to be universal affirmation on this thread that life after death cannot possibly exist. And, in fact, that is a reasonable affirmation IF…..if you posit that there is no Creator. If there is no benevolent Creator, then I must agree that life after death cannot exist. So the question of existence of life after death is driven by the answer to a prior question about a Creator. If no Creator, then no life after death is likely…or even possible.

But if you do posit a benevolent Creator, then that Creator would be all powerful and could, if he wanted, not only give life for now, but another life beyond this one. So, at the very least, one could no longer say with certainty that life after death could not exist. Because, in fact, that decision is up to the Creator…and life after death might very well exist.

If you are referring to “le petit mort” then yes, but otherwise no.

Yes I do. I can’t imagine it all just being over, and I’m not that lucky.

@WolfFang Not in that the Earth itself is a life, but through decomposition we return the nutrients of our own body to the life that grows from the earth.

Put me in the “plant-food” camp.

Enjoy life while you have it.

If you die near the epicenter of a nuclear bomb blast, you wont serve as plant food for a while even if whatever’s left of you ends up in soil somewhere, I’m betting.

Don’t romanticize death. To regard death as anything but an end is disrespectful. Live for the living, die for the living if you must; but remember the dead only for the living’s sake. They are gone but for what of them still exists in the living. We all share that fate. It’s the only fate we all share.

Wish I could say yes but going to have to say no.

‘Science has found that nothing can disappear without a trace. Nature does not know extinction. All it knows is transformation! [....] And everything science has taught me – and continues to teach me – strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death. Nothing disappears without a trace.’

- Werner von Braun

I wish this were a better translation. Feels cheesy. Even so….

@absalom
This is partly true, and part woo woo.

We do leave behind something when we die, something that continues to exist, becomes a part of life once again, and so transforms into new things. For the first few years after you’ve died, this is usually referred to as “a corpse”.

This is the trace we leave behind, this is the part of us that lives on after we die. The matter that our bodies are composed of is older than us, it has existed for aeons before this entire solar system even came into being, and it will continue to exist for aeons more after we die, being decomposed into simpler substances and then again taken up into the dynamics of life.

You are a construct of ancient star stuff that has temporarily come together to form your body. After you die it will all separate again and come together with other matter to form other things.

You can call that redistribution “becoming worm food”, but there’s no need to be so gloomy about it. Don’t we all want to continue to exist? Well, there you have it.
And at any rate, being eaten by worms only covers a minor part of the journeys your body matter will undertake after you’ve stopped using it.

But the emergent property of the mind does stop existing altogether when its component parts stop working together. The information that constitutes us will probably still be encoded in the wetware of our brains, but it won’t work any more. You will not be aware.

@absalom Yeah, might as well worship the skin cells as they fall from your body if you’re going to glorify your remains after you die.

@zophu

You can waste the breath you share with Werner von Braun’s last gasps when you tell his corpse you disagree.

It was just a quotation.

@absalom :)

@zophu :O=8

@absalom :P0===3

. . . finish what you started.

Are you guys done with the ascii profanity?

@zophu :P~O=8

@Axemusica very interesting. thanx

You might find this site interesting: http://www.near-death.com/

Conscious existence after death? No one knows. I don’t believe in it, but I believe it could be. I’ll just wait and see, then again, maybe I won’t.

How can there be universal certainty on this proposition on this thread?

@plethora

There can’t.

The mind is derived from the organ named the brain. The mind is a manifestation of the organic function of the brain.

When you impair the brain – you demonstrably impair the mind.

Therefore, the death of the brain is the death of the mind.

But.
Should one be a coward who fears death, who cannot accept the prospect of oblivion; one must invent a fantasy whereby the mind is Other to the body, the body a vessel for the intangible mind, a vehicle.

Should this vehicle then perish, such a coward can be preserved beyond death, in a second “life”, removed to an invented second plane of existence by a chorus of angels….

Ah, such comforting delusion…

Please explain to me what is surviving death in this fantasy?

Does this…. it’s a soul, isn’t it? ... possess memories? How are these carried with it? Does the soul possess some sort of “spiritual” organ with which it stores memories of its time in the body? Does this soul possess sensory awareness? With what? How does this soul interface with the body? Does it have a nervous system? Does the soul have behavioural phenotypes? How does it acquire these if it has no genes? Consequently, does the soul have a personality? Personality is a manifestation of nature (behavioural phenotype) and nurture (learned behaviour, experience, memories).
If the soul has all these things, what is the point of their equivalents in the body?
If the soul, lacking the above requirements for such, has none of these things – then what of it is you?

How does one demonstrate the soul?
If one cannot demonstrate the soul, if it cannot interact, cannot effect, cannot be effected, does not have a spacial value, then can not one consequently say that such a thing does not exist?

But this sort of search for knowledge is not the point of this thread, I think. It is comforting to believe in such things. It gives hope, and when the mind in question is weak and fearful hope is the only thing that keeps it going…

Hope that death is not the end. Hope that the worms and maggots will not devour ones flesh and recycle ones matter back out into the world, for use by other organisms….
Hope that one is not so inconsequential in the face of the universe as one seems…

Hope to be spared the trial of existence in a heavenly second life; a life where all ones wishes are met without effort and where one can gently melt away in the soporific embrace of an all-pervasive god entity…

…..

Why do people hate life so much that they fantasise about escaping it into another life?

Another life, yet still a “life” ....

What is this fear of mortality, this deification of impermanence?
Nothing lasts forever.
And yet nothing is destroyed either.
Your body will die and you with it. The mind is as mortal as the body.
Yet your constituent parts will not be destroyed and might find life again in another organism.
As they did before you were born.

There is no beginning; only change. There is no end; only change.
Same with life and death.

@CaptainHarley Appears so to me. I see the same answer in each post, just expressed a little differently. You see some diversity?

I do believe it, yes. Under which believe is the only question remaining for me. I am Christian, so of course they believe in life after death (doing good deeds for the purpose of receiving a reward is something I take issue with, however). But I believe wholeheartedly in reincarnation as well. I know for a fact it exists, so that issue is in my “resolved” file.

I do belive it because the bible has it. I’m a Catholic and we also believe in it.

I agree with @Fyrius summation of the redistribution of the atoms that comprise our bodies. I like to believe the life force energy that makes up who we are is what gets the opportunity to freely interact back in our universe with certain elements and or people that were an important part of our life. Wouldn’t be so bad if we could interact with the people who made us miserable too! What fun that would be! lol!

LMAO @Cruiser

Yes, there is life after death! It is about Faith!

@BoBo1946 yes, It is I really do believe that.

How in the world could you for a belief either way? There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support either side.

Saying “I don’t know” is the only honest answer here.

@roundsquare

Not at all. It isn’t dishonest to say one believes in things that cannot be proven either scientifically or legally ( based on a preponderance of the evidence ).

Belief and proof are two entirely different things. If we could prove what we believe, then it would no longer be a belief, but a fact.

If it is a fact, it is not a matter of belief. If it is belief it is not a matter of fact. I find it to be an insignificant question in a kind of reverse Pascal’s wager: I’m really not going to change my behavior in life, so what’s the difference. I’m rather convinced that death is total annihilation, and I live based on that belief. If I find myself singing hymns at the right hand of The Father, I will be pleasantly surprised.

@Love_or_Like there is not one iota of doubt in my mind! Over my lifetime, have had many experiences that supported my Faith!

Faith is the biggest part of that question. Faith is everything in life that you do.

@Love_or_Like

and you are sure of the goal of your faith, that is, the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:9, NJB)

Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him. (James 1:12, RSV)

The ultimate goal of our faith should be the salvation of our soul and the receipt of the “Crown of Life”—the eternal life in heaven—which God has promised that He will give as a reward for those who love Him.

I guess so! I’m still young; my parents have told me to do everything that you believe in such as my faith. and I do believe it.

@Love_or_Like you are a very lucky person to have parents like that!!!!

No. If it were true, then there would be no such thing as death, and nobody would talk about it.

@BoBo1946 thank you… I believe in my faith as my religion.

@CaptainHarley I agree, I wasn’t asking for proof. I’m asking for something in the form of evidence. Real evidence.

Waiting for a proof to believe in something is indeed asking for too high a standard, but you need something, otherwise its just pure guesswork.

I think a lot of people who’ve tried LSD or magic mushrooms and didn’t screw it up with alcohol, tiny dosages, or immature friends know in their hearts and without any doubts that life is interconnected literally, and eternal.

Removed by yours truly.

I’m trying to convince myself that there is life before death.

I accept it as part of my belief system. Heaven and Hell and such. I’ve never been.

@Kraigmo I’ve never used psychedelic drugs, but I’ve felt that. I’m a poser with my mushroom icon. I plan on eventually doing shrooms or peyote. I’m going to make sure I’m ready and with a good person.

@Fyrius Hah. I had to censor myself as well. Not sure if it’s for the same reasons, but I suspect so.

No.

I believe in LAD. I am a Christian.

No, it is not a fact, it is a myth promoted by the fear of death. All available evidence points to cognition existing solely in the brain, and we know that the brain is no longer functional after death, so there is no part of the person that is able to survive death.

party pooper

I believe on what @FireMadeFlesh said.

@FireMadeFlesh

We know no such thing. At one point in history, we “knew” that the sun revolved around the earth; at another point we “knew” that nothing could exceed the speed of light; at another point we “knew” that the universe was slowly decelerating; we “knew” that atoms were the smallest component of matter. Now, we “know” that there is nothing of us which lives on after death. Wonder what we’ll “know” tomorrow?

@zophu, you are doing it quite the proper way. Wait without rushing. And in advance of your journey, Welcome Home

All these people saying with such absolute certainty one way or another are wrong. There is room for error on both sides, so alot of what they say is subjective. Like I said, we don’t know the complete functionings of the universe, we don’t know the complete functionings of the mind, and there is so much left to be discovered. Just because something doesn’t make sense now, doesn’t mean something will come along later to disprove it. All we have are theories…

Looks like I’m going to get back into this thread after all.

@WolfFang
“There is room for error on both sides, so alot of what they say is subjective.”
Isn’t that a non-sequitur? Room for error means a lot of what is said is less certain than we like to pretend it is. But that’s not what subjective means.
Even without conclusive proof, the competing hypotheses are still about the real world, and that makes them objectively true or false. We’re just not sure which is which.
Which is where my next point comes in…

“and there is so much left to be discovered. Just because something doesn’t make sense now, doesn’t mean something will come along later to disprove it.”

But we don’t have to suspend our judgement on whether or not to believe something until we have more evidence. Maybe we can’t decide whether to put it in the category ‘known to be true’ or ‘known to be false’, but you shouldn’t be thinking about beliefs in terms of 1 or 0 anyway. There are shades of probability between those extremes. And we can still put an unproven idea on its presently right place on that scale.

With the proper methods, I think you can assess how likely something is to be true at any moment and in any situation. Your assessed probability would be more sophisticated and reliable if you had more evidence, of course, but having no hope for perfection is no reason to give up altogether.

@CaptainHarley I suggest you read the paper by Isaac Asimov called ‘the relativity of wrong’. The vast majority of our knowledge is correct, but not accurate. We are ever increasing our accuracy, and becoming more correct.

I would suggest our knowledge needs a great deal more accuracy before anyone can rightfully and correctly claim either position as “fact”. Why is it so many people seem so willing to back up a, at least currently, unfalsifiable position? Is it that one side claims truth and therefore the other feels compelled to make an equally strong assertion regardless of evidentiary validity? Sometimes I wonder if it’s the claim of faith alone that triggers such reactions. Regardless, it’s fine to have faith, but let’s not portray it as truth without reason. Nor should we misrepresent scientific results to back up (or tear down) claims they don’t verify.

Oh, and here’s a link to the article @FireMadeFlesh referenced. Regardless of your position it’s a very worthwhile a read.

@wonderingwhy I never claimed that life after death cannot be true. I said that “we know that the brain is no longer functional after death”, and I don’t think anyone would dispute that point. All available evidence points to cognition solely existing in the brain, but of course it is not yet conclusively proven. It is possible, although extremely unlikely, that there is another centre of thought to complement the brain, so I am not claiming that we know there is no life after death. I just think it is an extremely unlikely concept, and therefore is not one worth adopting.

There is no more actual evidence towards life-after-death than there is towards unicorns. People love the idea of both, but that’s it. There’s no natural need for an afterlife and any psychological need seems to indicate sickness.

If you find yourself clinging to this belief, I suggest you analyze your reasons for doing so. They are very important.

“There are more things in heaven and earth, [ @FireMadeFlesh ], than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

@CaptainHarley
Are there, now?

Even if it’s a Shakespeare quote, what you just said is still a flat-out “yes there is”. Which in itself can be adequately countered with “no there isn’t”. It has no weight.

@CaptainHarley I also never claimed to know everything, so of course there are things that I have never dreamt of. I wouldn’t have a clue about what the difference between types of stitching in clothes is, because I simply don’t care. However consciousness and the brain are things that I have devoted a lot of time an effort into understanding, and so is death.

It seems you are clinging to this belief just because it cannot be disproved, which I think is intellectual self-deception. Unless you can provide a logical sequence of reasoning as to why you believe it, the burden of proof is yours.

LOL! No, the burden of proof is not mine. I have made statements to the effect that we cannot know what, if anything, lies beyond death, that science can neither prove nor disprove any sort of life after death. In the absence of substantive information to the contrary, I choose to believe that there is.

The argument stands.

@FireMadeFlesh The burden of proof is on all of us.

@zophu

At my age, I have nothing left to prove, either to myself or to others. I share what I think I’ve learned and then it’s up to others to accept or reject.

@CaptainHarley I didn’t mean to suggest I think you should have to prove it, just that we all share the burden of uncertainty.

@zophu

Agreed. : )

@zophu The burden of proof is always the person making the extraordinary claim. I am just interested to know why people make such claims when there is no real reason to believe them, apart from a fear of ceasing to exist. There is no more reason to think humans have an afterlife than there is roses or mushrooms, yet I have heard nothing of an afterlife for these.

@Fyrius I agree, but many people don’t portray things in their proper scale of 1 or 0, they put them into the extremes of “known to be true”/“known to be false”

@WolfFang
Then I suggest that you and I try to do better. :)

@FireMadeFlesh

This isn’t debate class. When people aren’t competing with their arguments like performing fools, the only purpose of any discussion is to learn from and about each other. To claim someone has to prove what they are saying simply because they are saying it is ridiculous outside of important practical decision making.

You’re right, there is no reason to believe in an afterlife but for the fear of your own death or the death of others. But, that does not mean that people who claim there is an afterlife are the ones who have to prove it. It’s up to anyone to prove it, regardless of what their beliefs are.

@Fyrius ;) that’s a promise

I seriously doubt that it’s amenable to proof.

I only believe in “factual” facts. I tried your way but it didn’t work.

@zophu I am trying to learn why people believe concepts for which there is no obvious reason for doing so. The best way to do so, in my opinion, is to present the opposing point of view and see what results. Apologies if I seem overly critical in the process.