Afterlife

[NGC1300]

Science has proven we share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees and roughly 50% with primordial pond scum. We have far more in common with species that are not even in the animal kingdom than we tend to acknowledge.

 

How likely then is an "afterlife"?

 

It is surely as likely for us as it is for chimpanzees, dogs, mice, spiders, snails, algae, and bacteria.

 

I personally do not believe spiders and bacteria have an afterlife, so there's no reason to think homo sapien has an afterlife either. This is the only logical conclusion an intellectually honest person can reach.

 

There is most likely no afterlife. While the universe may indeed "recycle" matter, even reincarnation is very unlikely. Otherwise we might all remember past lives. Instead, people claiming memories of past lives occur at the same frequency, and are placed in the same camp as people claiming alien abduction and psychic powers.

 

Afterlife is fiction.

[umirano]

There's literally zero evidence for an afterlife (of any specie really). I don't think the portion of common DNA is relevant to this question.

 

After almost two hundred years of modern, enlightened medicine we haven't seen anything that suggests an afterlife outside of near death hallucinations.

 

If someone believes in the afterlife it's likely because it's a comforting idea. Powerful people who prevent others from experiencing joy and health love this scheme because it allows them to keep the gullible at bay and lie to them about the future paradise that they'll join.

[madjac74]

After almost two hundred years of modern, enlightened medicine we haven't seen anything that suggests an afterlife outside of near death hallucinations.

 

 

Maybe 200 years just isn't enough time to grasp the concept. Maybe the only way to know is to die

[madjac74]

If someone believes in the afterlife it's likely because it's a comforting idea.

 

No it is because it is incredibly difficult to imagine yourself not existing. Everything just gone in a poof.

[lollipopspot]

It is surely as likely for us as it is for chimpanzees, dogs, mice, spiders, snails, algae, and bacteria.

 

I personally do not believe spiders and bacteria have an afterlife, so there's no reason to think homo sapien has an afterlife either.

 

Spiders have a brain and nervous system, bacteria and algae do not. I can't see why you would lump them together. I also don't see any reason why mice, dogs, chimps, or snails wouldn't have an afterlife, if humans do. The thought that they're so "low" as to be lumped in with nonconscious bacteria is a type of human arrogance.

 

Not saying there's such a thing as an afterlife, but the reasoning that if nonhumans could have it then humans couldn't is speciesist and rather nonsensical reasoning.

[madjac74]

It's likely there isn't an afterlife, I'm just angry about it and for selfish reasons. I'm doing all this for what? To just get deleted? I won't know how my kids did in life? screw that notion.

[TaraMaiden2]

....even reincarnation is very unlikely. Otherwise we might all remember past lives.

 

What precisely, were you doing on Saturday, March 21st, 1998? Not 'probably'. Precisely.

 

If you can't even tell me what you were doing in your own lifetime, why would you automatically expect to remember a past lifetime?

 

Instead, people claiming memories of past lives occur at the same frequency, and are placed in the same camp as people claiming alien abduction and psychic powers.

 

Not by many scientists. There are current medical studies, and an awful lot of literature available to indicate that even if it's not quite understood what is happening, something IS happening.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions and putting them forward as indisputable fact, which of course, they're not.

 

Afterlife is fiction.

Prove it.

[Haydn]

I think there is an afterlife...

 

Where we and our 4 legged friends and all other life stroll hand in hand through beautiful mountains, shady glades......

 

Sorry i was reading the `Watchtower` leaflet.....

 

 

But seriously, i suspect there may be something. I just hope God or whoever speaks English i mean everyone does......

[TaraMaiden2]

I think there is an afterlife...

 

Where we and our 4 legged friends and all other life stroll hand in hand through beautiful mountains, shady glades......

 

Sorry i was reading the `Watchtower` leaflet.....

 

 

But seriously, i suspect there may be something. I just hope God or whoever speaks English i mean everyone does......

 

:laugh:

 

You got my day started with a good giggle, and for that, I thank you!

[Arieswoman]

OP,

 

You asked;-

 

How likely then is an "afterlife"?

 

 

The answer depends on who you ask, you'll get different answers from a Christian and an atheist.

[TaraMaiden2]

OP,

 

You asked;-

How likely then is an "afterlife"?

 

The answer depends on who you ask, you'll get different answers from a Christian and an atheist.

 

 

No, it doesn't depend on that at all.

The likelihood remains a total unknown, no matter who you ask.

Whoever you ask, will give an opinion, not a likelihood.

[Trimmer]

If someone believes in the afterlife it's likely because it's a comforting idea.

No it is because it is incredibly difficult to imagine yourself not existing. Everything just gone in a poof.

Sorry, I hear those two statements as essentially the same thing. "Difficult to imagine yourself not existing" = distress, dissonance, anxiety at the idea of "self" not existing. Belief in afterlife = relief from that distress, dissonance, anxiety = comfort.

 

What precisely, were you doing on Saturday, March 21st, 1998? Not 'probably'. Precisely.

 

If you can't even tell me what you were doing in your own lifetime, why would you automatically expect to remember a past lifetime?

Oh, c'mon... You've created a bit of a strawman there, haven't you? The premise is that we don't remember anything about past lives, and you are challenging him to categorically index to a specific day and claiming that is a valid counterpoint?

 

No, I can't index my life to a particular requested day, but give me any year after about age 6, a grade in school, or mention an event in my life, and without reference to external sources (i.e. from my own memory), I'll tell you where I lived, in general what I was doing, tell you some specific stories from that time in my life, the people that were around me at the time, describe some visual snapshots from places and events I remember, etc. And oh boy, if you play me some music, the entire emotional landscape of a given time period will come flowing back over me like a computer recalling something from a hard drive.

 

Memories of my entire life are indexed quite strongly by emotion, by people, by place, by event; the fact that I don't index precisely to a specific, numeric day doesn't prove that "I don't even remember my own lifetime."

[TaraMaiden2]

Oh, c'mon... You've created a bit of a strawman there, haven't you? The premise is that we don't remember anything about past lives, and you are challenging him to categorically index to a specific day and claiming that is a valid counterpoint?

Actually, it's a statement made by HH the Dalai Lama when someone questioned him about his own previous existences. It's not surprising that if previous lives were lived, that we can't remember them, if we can't even remember what in this life existence, has transpired.

 

In actuall fact, some people who have Past-Life memories have been shown to be eerily accurate in their accounts of certain events. The memories have been corroborated, and established to be almost 100% factual, even though creating or making up the memory was absolutely impossible.

 

Some 'memories' have been debunked, of course. Others have been given as substantiated fact, and nobody can explain how or why this should be the case.

 

The Dalai Lama gave that answer to deflect further question.

Such claims merely create a distraction, and are not considered of important value, within the Buddhist sphere.

"Lived before? Yes, possible. So what? Best time is NOW. This is what to focus on, not trivia of previous life experience. "

 

 

No, I can't index my life to a particular requested day, but give me any year after about age 6, a grade in school, or mention an event in my life, and without reference to external sources (i.e. from my own memory), I'll tell you where I lived, in general what I was doing, tell you some specific stories from that time in my life, the people that were around me at the time, describe some visual snapshots from places and events I remember, etc. And oh boy, if you play me some music, the entire emotional landscape of a given time period will come flowing back over me like a computer recalling something from a hard drive.

 

Memories of my entire life are indexed quite strongly by emotion, by people, by place, by event; the fact that I don't index precisely to a specific, numeric day doesn't prove that "I don't even remember my own lifetime."

 

Actually, any memory you have, is only based on the last time you actually had that memory. Not on the actual event itself.*

In other words, your memory of something, is only as good as the last time you had it.

Which could have been yesterday, or it could have been a year ago.

 

So because one might have transitioned from one previous existence to another, it's hardly surprising no memories of a previous existence exist, because that stream of Consciousness was interrupted.

 

*Other links and sources with similar information.

[Trimmer]

op,

you asked;-

how likely then is an "afterlife"?

the answer depends on who you ask, you'll get different answers from a christian and an atheist.

 

no, it doesn't depend on that at all.

The likelihood remains a total unknown, no matter who you ask.

Whoever you ask, will give an opinion, not a likelihood.

 

Tara - you're being so literal tonight!

 

Perhaps the question Arieswoman was commenting on was "What is your opinion of an "afterlife"?, in which case her answer "depends on who you ask" makes a lot of sense. That's how I heard her answer, even if it's not a direct question to the "how likely is it?" question.

 

About that question, incidentally, you opine that "the likelihood remains a total unknown..." and I actually agree quite strongly with you on that point.

 

Why is the likelihood unknown? Because we have absolutely zero objective information that leads to the conclusion that there is an afterlife.

 

My opinion aligns with that of Carl Sagan, who - right to his dying moment - declined to take refuge in the comforting thought of an afterlife. If you want to see a brief description of the last days of Sagan's life, you can google

"Carl Sagan Death after life" "Freethought Today"

 

...and the first link should be to an April, 1998 article by a "Dan Barker". This is on an apparently non-commercial blog of a non-profit website, but I'm still not posting the direct link, out of an abundance of caution regarding the LS community standards or whatever they're called. Warning, however: this is the site of the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" - I'm only recommending it because this article is nicely descriptive of Sagan's beliefs at the end of his life.

 

(Incidentally, this article was published with a dateline of April, 1998, so Tara: I would say there's a strong possibility that the author was already working on it on Saturday, March 21, 1998. Perhaps this is a sign from the gods that we should not ignore...)

[Trimmer]

I just posted a response to the above comments, Trimmer, but I got the erroneous 'your response is queued for moderation' message.

I'm not AFAIK(!) under moderation! So hang in there!

Must be all those uncivil and hostile rants you go off on all the time! I respectfully await your response.

 

Incidentally, I stated my opinion above as an opinion, not asserted as fact. Given that I can't prove the negative (e.g. "prove that there is no afterlife") I go with the idea that the burden falls to those who have an affirmative belief in an afterlife to prove that it's anything more than an opinion (if they wish to assert it as anything more than opinion - they are not required to do so on my behalf...)

 

My opinion is that there is nothing compelling that leads us in that direction, so I'm with Sagan: when I die, I cease to exist, and you won't be meeting me anywhere "out there."

 

Incidentally, my wife, when I was married, found this a somewhat distressing opinion, so I didn't make it a point to wave it in front of her. Sagan and his wife had an understanding, as they looked into each others' eyes as he was in his dying days, that they were saying goodbye forever. Now that's a conviction.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Trimmer

[umirano]

No it is because it is incredibly difficult to imagine yourself not existing. Everything just gone in a poof.

 

It actually isn't. Try to think of yourself before you were born. That's exactly what it will be like after you died.

 

Your reply confirms my point, I think. To many people the realization that we're one of seven billion primates on a fairly average planet in a fairly average solar system in a fairly average galaxy is horrifying. We don't matter as much as we'd like to. That's why we keep lying to ourselves and others about our significance.

 

How many other things do you believe that you have no evidence for and that are "difficult to imagine non-existent"? What are they?

[pureinheart]

It actually isn't. Try to think of yourself before you were born. That's exactly what it will be like after you died.

 

Your reply confirms my point, I think. To many people the realization that we're one of seven billion primates on a fairly average planet in a fairly average solar system in a fairly average galaxy is horrifying. We don't matter as much as we'd like to. That's why we keep lying to ourselves and others about our significance.

 

How many other things do you believe that you have no evidence for and that are "difficult to imagine non-existent"? What are they?

 

The first bold- unfortunately most don't see themselves as having any or little significance, which is why we have MSM with more news than they are able to report in a 24 hour cycle.

 

Could you please show me your evidence that there is no afterlife?

[Trimmer]

Actually, it's a statement made by HH the Dalai Lama when someone questioned him about his own previous existences. It's not surprising that if previous lives were lived, that we can't remember them, if we can't even remember what in this life existence, has transpired.

With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, it is still a wholly unconvincing statement - still for the same reasons I said. While we don't remember everything from this life, we do remember many things. Yet we remember nothing from any past lives.

 

It's not a convincing argument (to me) to say: because we forget some things about this life, it makes perfect sense that we would remember nothing about a past life.

 

In actual fact, some people who have Past-Life memories have been shown to be eerily accurate in their accounts of certain events. The memories have been corroborated, and established to be almost 100% factual, even though creating or making up the memory was absolutely impossible.

I understand this is believed to be the case. Where are such accounts documented?

 

The Dalai Lama gave that answer to deflect further question.

That's great, but the answer is still unconvincing, and only raises more discussion, which is not a very effective way of deflecting further questioning. Better to just get straight to the point and say:

Such claims merely create a distraction, and are not considered of important value, within the Buddhist sphere.

"Lived before? Yes, possible. So what? Best time is NOW. This is what to focus on, not trivia of previous life experience. "

 

Actually, any memory you have, is only based on the last time you actually had that memory. Not on the actual event itself.*

In other words, your memory of something, is only as good as the last time you had it.

Which could have been yesterday, or it could have been a year ago.

I'm familiar with this mechanism - actually there are treatments for trauma, PTSD and similar difficulties, which rely on this "memory refresh" mechanism: by intentionally recalling the memory in a calming setting with positive associations, the memory gets refreshed with its harsh edges dulled, eventually mitigating the negative intensity.

 

But the fact that a memory is altered and refreshed over time doesn't mean that it fails to be some kind of a representation of a real event, though. The "DRAM" memory in most PCs works on the same principle - being refreshed many times per second.

 

I am fascinated, though, that you are using research which strongly implies that a physical mechanism underlies memory and consciousness, to support your assertion that a given soul is everlasting through afterlives and multiple life existences on earth. How do you reconcile that?

 

So because one might have transitioned from one previous existence to another, it's hardly surprising no memories of a previous existence exist, because that stream of Consciousness was interrupted.

Wait a minute! So you are saying, effectively, that of course, given that the stream of Consciousness is interrupted, that the slate is essentially wiped clean? If so, then I have two questions:

 

(1) What is the meaning of saying that a given soul is the "same" soul that is undergoing multiple lives, if that soul is wiped clean at each iteration?

 

(2) If a soul is wiped clean - the "it's so obvious" explanation for us not remembering past lives - how is it that the great universe occasionally slips, and lets through some of these past life memories that are corroborated and 100% factual. That seems like an oddly sloppy mechanism for a universe that is grander and more awesome than we can even imagine...

 

Oh wait, I have a third one:

 

(3) How come everybody who thinks they had a past life was, like Russian nobility, or a king or a queen or some kind of great adventurer? Nobody ever says "In my past life, I was a starving peasant!" when statistically, you have to admit - most would have been...

[Trimmer]

Could you please show me your evidence that there is no afterlife?

Oh please - proving the negative...

 

Please show me the evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

 

Please show me the evidence that Zeus, of Greek Mythology, does not exist.

 

Convincing evidence is needed to infer what is likely to exist.

[amaysngrace]

Convincing evidence is needed to infer what is likely to exist.

 

(3) How come everybody who thinks they had a past life was, like Russian nobility, or a king or a queen or some kind of great adventurer? Nobody ever says "In my past life, I was a starving peasant!" when statistically, you have to admit - most would have been...

 

So let me get this right...you've spoken to every single person who thinks they had a past life for you to be able to make such a statement?

 

Mmmmokay....I believe you......

[TaraMaiden2]

Great discussion, Trimmer, thank you!

 

With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, it is still a wholly unconvincing statement - still for the same reasons I said. While we don't remember everything from this life, we do remember many things. Yet we remember nothing from any past lives.

 

It's not a convincing argument (to me) to say: because we forget some things about this life, it makes perfect sense that we would remember nothing about a past life.

I take your point in this, and think it's wholly valid.

 

First of all, I think the DL felt himself placed in a position of having to justify certain factors and beliefs of his specific tradition. Some of which he may not be entirely comfortable with himself. To give an example (and without wishing to go off topic) he has recently declared that the next Dalai Lama may well be female, and he can see no reason why such an occurrence should not be, and secondly he has made public the comment that he may decide to not reincarnate at all, which has been seen as a direct jab at the Chinese (long political story there, not the time/place to elaborate on it here) and a possible indication that he too, in these modern times of internet access and widespread curiosity knowledge, cynicism and investigation, is fully aware that it may no longer be seen as credible as it once was...

 

 

I understand this is believed to be the case. Where are such accounts documented?

I believe mainly in certain literary publications, written by those who have spent years researching and analysing such phenomena. I think some authors may be qualified, educated and respected authorities in their field, but I can say no more than that, as although I know publications exist, I can't to hand, cite or quote one for sure.

Besides, if someone wants to be totally doubting and cynical (and I emphasise I'm not including or hinting that you are) they will disbelieve anything placed before them, however authoritative it may be or sound, simply because they themselves refuse to be open to the possibility....

 

......I am fascinated, though, that you are using research which strongly implies that a physical mechanism underlies memory and consciousness, to support your assertion that a given soul is everlasting through afterlives and multiple life existences on earth. How do you reconcile that?

I don't believe in the transmigration of a manifested person's soul.

 

(1) What is the meaning of saying that a given soul is the "same" soul that is undergoing multiple lives, if that soul is wiped clean at each iteration?

 

(2) If a soul is wiped clean - the "it's so obvious" explanation for us not remembering past lives - how is it that the great universe occasionally slips, and lets through some of these past life memories that are corroborated and 100% factual. That seems like an oddly sloppy mechanism for a universe that is grander and more awesome than we can even imagine...

 

Buddhism does not recognise that a living person is equipped with a soul.

Buddhism in general subscribes to the notion of re-birth; and Buddhists everywhere have differing opinions on that matter too, although it was one of The Buddha's primary teachings, it's a toughie to get 'your' head round.

 

Reincarnation is a uniquely Tibetan Buddhist concept. Rebirth and reincarnation are two different things.

 

Oh wait, I have a third one:

 

(3) How come everybody who thinks they had a past life was, like Russian nobility, or a king or a queen or some kind of great adventurer? Nobody ever says "In my past life, I was a starving peasant!" when statistically, you have to admit - most would have been...

You'll be very glad to know that both Lama Surya Das and I share your humorous cynicism on that matter!

However, I would point out that I have read accounts in a couple of publications of people attesting to remembering past lives, and I seem to recall that they were pretty ordinary, basic, run-of-the-mill people...one was even a murderer.... so I don't think 'everybody' remembers such high-level past lives....

 

I'm not putting that link forward as proof of past lives. I'm putting it forward as a response to your last question.

 

Thanks, Trimmer!

[TaraMaiden2]

Must be all those uncivil and hostile rants you go off on all the time! I respectfully await your response.

 

Incidentally, I stated my opinion above as an opinion, not asserted as fact. Given that I can't prove the negative (e.g. "prove that there is no afterlife") I go with the idea that the burden falls to those who have an affirmative belief in an afterlife to prove that it's anything more than an opinion (if they wish to assert it as anything more than opinion - they are not required to do so on my behalf...)

 

My opinion is that there is nothing compelling that leads us in that direction, so I'm with Sagan: when I die, I cease to exist, and you won't be meeting me anywhere "out there."

 

Incidentally, my wife, when I was married, found this a somewhat distressing opinion, so I didn't make it a point to wave it in front of her. Sagan and his wife had an understanding, as they looked into each others' eyes as he was in his dying days, that they were saying goodbye forever. Now that's a conviction.

 

 

Gah! I'd love to sit in a cafe, in a nice comfy chair, with a hot coffee and talk about this all day!

 

I'll be honest with you:

First of all, I'm very open to all possibilities.

Just as one may believe that when one dies, there is absolutely nothing left (and I totally respect that opinion) it stands to reason that when someone else believes there may be a continuation of some kind, they have a right to have that belief respected.

 

I will admit that to be frank, I don't know.

 

I don't know where I stand with regard to 'what happens next'...?

 

Voltaire once said "It should be no more a surprise to be born twice, than it was to have been born once."

 

I've only been practising Buddhism for 22 years (more or less) and I'm a very 'Simple' person. Simple, in that I break things down to what essentially matters to me.

The teachings in Buddhism, regarding Rebirth, Dependent Origination and Self/Not-self, are as complicated as anyone could get, so I tend to leave the highfalutin verbose, intricate, convoluted so-called scholarly debates to those who like those kinds of things. Me? I just get to the gist of the point, take it, and quietly leave...

I mentioned that Rebirth is different to Reincarnation.

 

With regard to Buddhism, Rebirth and Reincarnation are singularly a Tibetan Buddhist premise.

 

Reincarnation is the re-manifestation of a recognisable personality, although in Tibetan Buddhism, this is recognised as an essence, a nuance, an regeneration of certain aspects of character, because the Tulku - the chosen inheritor of the previous incarnation - is also a person, a living being, in their own right. So they carry the responsibility of honouring their predecessor, by engaging in the same creed, dogma, practice and tradition, and remaining faithful to the Tenets supported previously.

 

Rebirth is for every other schmuck.

 

Other Buddhist Schools/Traditions, do not consider Reincarnation to be relevant....

 

I think, for myself, there may well be a continuation. This continuation is a Stream of Consciousness. It's not 'me' as an identifiable, definite personality known as TaraMaiden. It's a subtle, hardly-manifest energy which passes into somewhere, and manifests eventually somewhere else.

 

There is a teaching which states:

 

Take a candle.

Light it.

Now take a second candle.

Light this second candle, from the flame of the first candle.

Blow the first candle flame out.

This second flame: Is it the same flame as the first, or different?

 

Apparently, according to Newton's Laws of Physics, Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

It simply transforms, changes, is moulded channelled and used.

 

So when a human body dies, where does the energy from its functioning physical entity, go?

 

I don't know.

But looking at it as a stream of Consciousness, passing from one sentient entity into another, holds a certain logic for me.

 

"UNDER the wide and starry sky

Dig the grave and let me lie:

Glad did I live and gladly die,

And I laid me down with a will.

 

This be the verse you 'grave for me:

Here he lies where he long'd to be;

Home is the sailor, home from the sea,

And the hunter home from the hill.

Work in progress. To be continued.

 

(With apologies to R. L. Stevenson).

Edited June 1, 2015 by TaraMaiden2

[Taramere]

(3) How come everybody who thinks they had a past life was, like Russian nobility, or a king or a queen or some kind of great adventurer? Nobody ever says "In my past life, I was a starving peasant!" when statistically, you have to admit - most would have been...

 

I knew a guy who had past life regression therapy (God knows why, since he was a perfectly chilled out person who didn't seem to need any sort of counselling). He was told that he'd been a miner in a previous life.

 

In the throes of grieving for a pet recently, I did find myself thinking that perhaps I'd be lucky enough to get the reincarnated version of her in my next pet if I time it right. I think it's probably quite common for people to have that little seed of hope, in the initial stages of losing somebody (and maybe for quite a bit longer) that they'll somehow connect with them again on a different plane or life.

 

Meantime, my departed dog's soul is probably picking up those vibes of hope and thinking "that's lovely, but I'm holding out to come back as Jay Z and Beyonce's next child if they have one."

[Tayla]

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

 

A friend of mine responded that way when asked if she would "exist" once her body was put in the ground.

 

Kinda like that attitude.Molecularly

[TaraMaiden2]

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

 

A friend of mine responded that way when asked if she would "exist" once her body was put in the ground.

 

Kinda like that attitude.Molecularly

 

Matter IS created AND destroyed.

Matter is a physical material, and as such is subject to transitory existence, as are any other compounded phenomena.

 

Energy, is not 'matter'.

 

 

matter ˈmatə/

nounnoun: matter; plural noun: matters; noun: the matter

1.

physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.