the belief in an afterlife is required in old age for mental health

[SiegfriedSchtauffen]

Sorry, I've somewhat misread your post before the last one.

As far as why they'd find it boring, my guess it isn't really about a measure of what is interesting, so much as its that they don't reach the point of thinking and dwelling in the beauty and meaning of it because they find the notion threatening to what they already hold ad are afraid of thinking about in the first place, and in avoiding it, not having anything to think about is.... Well, boring.

But that's a 2 second psychological analysis generalizing over 5 billion people on my part, so you know... Grain of salt.

They must have at least a little bit of knowledge about the material world. All they have to do is widening their view into it - it takes effort and bravery. I know quite well what it means to be lazy and daydreaming and it is very easy to go too far with it. It's too easy and comfortable to escape to artificial worlds. I had to face the possibility of losing everything that is valuable for me before I could get rid of my fears and the biases it introduced to my decision making. Fear highly interferes with your ability to see clearly. Without fears "real life" becomes much more interesting. I'm afraid the degree of help someone can get from outside in this kind of self development is limited.

 

[SiegfriedSchtauffen]

What about experiential evidence? Eben Alexander and many others like him have literally been to heaven, so to speak.

I'm afraid some of these people just want fame and money by riding on this topic. Why does one release a book about his experience instead of writing it down on a free blog? It's also suspicious when someone uses his scientific background to get credibility when he claims without evidence...

Stephen Hawking acknowledges that other dimensions of reality could exist. They've been neither proven nor disproven from a scientific viewpoint. But meanwhile they've been experienced by many people (or so they claim). And they may be experienced by all of us.

A parallel dimension is not necessarily an afterlife.

 

[prplchknz]

the only waay to prove or not prove this is to die all at once and if we see each other after say what's up. but of course get humans to cooperate is worse than getting cats to so i say i know what i know and you know what you thinkk you know and so don't worry i'll let you believe what you want to.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

I'm afraid some of these people just want fame and money by riding on this topic. Why does one release a book about his experience instead of writing it down on a free blog? It's also suspicious when someone uses his scientific background to get credibility when he claims without evidence...


A parallel dimension is not necessarily an afterlife.

A parallel dimension would constitute an afterlife if any moment in that reality was related to any moment in our own because after we die we would still be entangled in some sort of life/continuity.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

BTW: The piont of the thread is not to prove if there is an afterlife.

No one can prove that.

What the the thread is claiming is that belief in some sort of afterlife, or continuity after death, is required for mental health in old age based on studies both during Jung's time, and today.

 

[Swivelinglight]

I disagree with the op based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[Patrick]

Yes, I do assume that without proof the body is just a body. My opinion isn't even remotely irrational. YOU are the one who bares the burden of proof because you're the one who made the claim that there is a soul.

Oh, did I? I think not. What I said, to be exact, is this:

So, as I go through life, I'm always conscious. When I go to sleep at night, my consciousness shifts, but it doesn't cease. When my body dies, am I certain that consciousness will then cease? No--not at all. It might very well continue. I may go on being aware--thinking, feeling, dreaming, experiencing things--as a disembodied entity (what some religions call the Soul).

You have to prove it, I do not have to disprove it. Logical arguments do not work that way. It is the claim makers job to provide evidence. As they say, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

I didn't make the claim you're saying I did, so I'm off the hook. Sounds to me like you're claiming we are only our physical bodies and nothing else. So, buddy--you prove that extraordinary claim.

While you're at it, prove to me there are no nonphysical dimensions nor any afterlife.

Or, if you're not making those claims, then kindly admit the afterlife is a reasonable possibility.

Because I live my life in accordance to my own rules and laws, and live life in accordance to the world around me. I don't have to worry or concern myself to some external self or force that has no way of understanding what to do, what is right, what is wrong, aside from extremely flimsy "assumptions" and "gut feelings". I don't have to worry about some sort of afterlife (which would be really shitty to experience, I do not want to "live" forever). The only consequences I have to worry about are the here and now. I don't have to concern myself with some kind of existential idea that can not be reasonable solved even a little.

You can believe what you want and live as you like. Who's arguing with that? I think you've gone off on a tangent here.

This is a bunch of spiritual and psychobabble, talks in circles, goes no where, and is ultimately unsubstantiating. If I didn't know any better, I'd guess this would be written by Mole. I'm sure you know how I react to such things. What you said did not even remotely answer my question, and I'm honestly thinking you either can't, or don't want to. If I ask a plain question, I expect a plain answer.

Did you ask a plain question here? Or any other kind? If so, I must've missed it. Sorry.

Besides, it's painfully obvious you have all kinds of clear opinions on these matters and think lower of a shit ton of people (me included), but are too afraid to speak it. I should have known better than to expect you to be straight forward with how you actually think and feel on this. You should full well know being vague is completely unsatisfying to me, and I don't accept it.

Don't know where you're coming from there, but you've sure got me all wrong. I'm as low as anybody here, and I wouldn't think otherwise. Yeah, I happen to believe I'm a Soul and you are too. But as far as I'm concerned, Soul equals Soul; there's no higher or lower. Nor am I making any claim that there definitely is a Soul, or asking you or anyone to believe it. I'm just saying I believe it and have experienced it (to my own satisfaction).

How am I being vague? I don't see how I could possibly say what I've said any more clearly than that.

What I'm not being--and absolutely refuse to be--is a materialist (one who believes physical reality is the whole extent of reality). To me, that's like sailing along in a ship, seeing an iceberg, and saying, "Hypothetically there could be more ice beneath the surface, but all we can see is that ice in front of us, so we should presume that's all there is." Or like the blind man holding the elephant's tail and saying, "An elephant is a lot like a snake."

 

[Patrick]

I'm afraid some of these people just want fame and money by riding on this topic. Why does one release a book about his experience instead of writing it down on a free blog? It's also suspicious when someone uses his scientific background to get credibility when he claims without evidence...

<shrug> Some people probably are out for fame and money. Some probably are charlatans. So what? That doesn't mean others aren't being perfectly honest and straightforward in sharing what they've experienced.

Just as a thought experiment, suppose you one day found yourself outside your body in some remote place, or in a nonphysical dimension. You were there in full consciousness and were amazed by the experience (especially since you never believed such a thing would be possible). When you come back, how do you communicate your experience to others? What do you say to someone like your former self--the materialist who believed only physical things could possibly be real? No matter what you said, the materialist would no doubt be skeptical and beyond convincing. He'd be self-sure that you merely had a hallucination; and even though you know it wasn't just a hallucination, you can't convince anyone else of it. So, what do you do?

A parallel dimension is not necessarily an afterlife.

Splitting hairs, are we? If there are parallel dimensions, conceivably we might each have a body in each dimension. Besides a physical body, you might have an astral body, a mental body, and a Soul body, for example, just as some teachings claim.

In any case, this particular thread is about the afterlife, and I think that term refers to a parallel dimension--something like heaven or hell, which is apart from the physical plane. Otherwise we're talking about reincarnation--coming back to this physical world after dying. Or maybe something like the Judgment Day that Jehovah's Witnesses talk about, where people physically rise out of their graves (now, that's a weird idea even to me!).

 

[Patrick]

BTW: The piont of the thread is not to prove if there is an afterlife.

No one can prove that.

What the the thread is claiming is that belief in some sort of afterlife, or continuity after death, is required for mental health in old age based on studies both during Jung's time, and today.

And on that topic, my opinion is that "required" is too strong a word. Also, it depends on the individual. Some people are motivated by the possibility of life continuing; others seem to be turned off by the thought.

Years ago I heard that Henry Ford had been lifted out of depression by a new-found belief in reincarnation. He had previously felt sad that his life's work might have all been for nothing; but if he might reincarnate--and especially if he could retain some or all of his learning and experience--then he'd be able to accomplish more in a future life.

Ironically, those of us who adhere to teachings that include reincarnation tend to think of it as an undesirable thing. We want to get to where karma no longer drags us back to this material world, because then we'll be able to enjoy more spiritual freedom in higher planes.

OTOH, my father believed in an afterlife but was sure he was going to hell. So I don't think it was something he looked forward to. However, when he was in the hospital dying, he told my mother of an experience he'd had: he found himself on the ceiling, looking down at his physical body on the bed. He described it as an incredible experience and said that because of it he'd never be afraid to die. (My mother, being more materialistic at the time, dismissed it as probably just a medication-induced hallucination. But I took my dad's experience at face value and regarded it as real.)

Me, I was always fascinated by spirituality, including the afterlife, when I was young. Now that I'm approaching old age, I find myself more inclined to shrug and say, "Whatever happens happens. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it." I suspect death is merely a translation from physical consciousness to another plane of consciousness, but I'll find out for sure when the time comes (or, if consciousness ceases, then I guess I won't find out, but I'm betting consciousness will persist and I'll be glad of it).

 

[SiegfriedSchtauffen]

Just as a thought experiment, suppose you one day found yourself outside your body in some remote place, or in a nonphysical dimension. You were there in full consciousness and were amazed by the experience (especially since you never believed such a thing would be possible). When you come back, how do you communicate your experience to others? What do you say to someone like your former self--the materialist who believed only physical things could possibly be real?

With lack of evidence I would treat it as a strange dream that isn't worth spreading (especially not in a book).

 

[á´…eparted]

What about experiential evidence? Eben Alexander and many others like him have literally been to heaven, so to speak. Hence, it is a real place for them. It's a nonphysical dimension that of course there can be no physical (empirical) evidence for. You can't measure something psychic or spiritual with physical instruments, but that doesn't mean psychic and spiritual things are unreal.

Yet, materialist scientists persist in using their physical instruments. They try (in vain, IMO) to explain near-death experiences by pointing only to what they can measure--e.g., electrochemical processes in the brain. I don't see how they can prove or disprove life after death that way. But those who are dyed-in-the-wool materialists seem to believe they can.

Stephen Hawking acknowledges that other dimensions of reality could exist. They've been neither proven nor disproven from a scientific viewpoint. But meanwhile they've been experienced by many people (or so they claim). And they may be experienced by all of us.

In vain? You really have no understanding of how this all works. Experimential "evidence" is not evidence in a case like this. It's unsubstantiating, undefinable, and completely unreliable. There is no way to verify the voracity of an individuals statements. It's no better than claims of "ghosts" that people often make. Just because something is common or frequent does not make it true or valid. The statements that MD's and scientists are not made in vain, they are being accurate. They point to what they can measure, because that is what is required to validate this. Anything less doesn't count. If you don't see it that way, then you do not belong in a scientific field. Experience is an anecdote, and anecdotes have little weight, especially in this case. The reason Hawking, and several other prominent theoretical physicist (such as Ed Witten) acknowledge that other dimensions could exist is because there is mathematical formulas that require such things to exist under several theories of how the universe formed, came to be, and exists. It's not just a wanton claim based off nothing. There is significant backing to it. Theoretical yes, but those theories are grounded in something well established and verifiable.

While not the same, I've had multiple experiences on psychadelic drugs (Mushrooms, and DMT in particular), and some of them very well could or would be categorized as support towards a spirit, soul, god, or whatever. Just because I experienced that though, doesn't make it true. It was merely what I experienced due to the perceptual changes induced by the chemical shifts in the brain due to the substance. That's it. Those experiences were great and I learned some about myself in the process. I do not interpret it to be spiritual though because there is no evidence to support that, and there is absolutely evidence to support the medical and biochemical outcomes that dictate my experiences.

Oh, did I? I think not. What I said, to be exact, is this:

I didn't make the claim you're saying I did, so I'm off the hook. Sounds to me like you're claiming we are only our physical bodies and nothing else. So, buddy--you prove that extraordinary claim.

LOL! You're not even slightly off the hook .Nice semantic nit-pick and redirection attempt. That's not going to work. You heavily implied where you stand, and I do not need to prove anything. One does not need to disprove the existence of something. It's abundantly clear you did not understand the video I linked you to, and the concept of the burden of proof in general. You're bordering on making yourself look like a fool by trying to blame shift here. Further, because it's on nothing more than a semantic nitpick.

While you're at it, prove to me there are no nonphysical dimensions nor any afterlife.

As I said, I do not need to disprove something. You have to prove it. The existance of something unsubstantiated with no backing does not need to be disproven. The concept of a soul is a wild claim with absolutely nothing to support it. It does not need to be disproven. I have already explained how and why, and I am not going to repeat myself. If you fail to see or accept that, it is not my problem.

Or, if you're not making those claims, then kindly admit the afterlife is a reasonable possibility.

Yeah, there's like a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance, if that. Probably FAR less than that but I don't want to clutter the post with more zeros. The odds of my computer suddenly teleporting one foot to the left is far significantly higher than the concept of a soul. Reason being, is that actually is theoretically possible, just astronomically small to the point where it's said to be impossible. When odds are so remote, it's fair and reasonable to assume impossible.

You can believe what you want and live as you like. Who's arguing with that? I think you've gone off on a tangent here.

I do not take well to those who make spiritualistic claims or taut the existence of it like this and fail to back it up. To me, this isn't a tangent at all. I generally regard most forms of spirituality (though not all) to be rather damaging.

Did you ask a plain question here? Or any other kind? If so, I must've missed it. Sorry.

Don't know where you're coming from there, but you've sure got me all wrong. I'm as low as anybody here, and I wouldn't think otherwise. Yeah, I happen to believe I'm a Soul and you are too. But as far as I'm concerned, Soul equals Soul; there's no higher or lower. Nor am I making any claim that there definitely is a Soul, or asking you or anyone to believe it. I'm just saying I believe it and have experienced it (to my own satisfaction).

How am I being vague? I don't see how I could possibly say what I've said any more clearly than that.

What I'm not being--and absolutely refuse to be--is a materialist (one who believes physical reality is the whole extent of reality). To me, that's like sailing along in a ship, seeing an iceberg, and saying, "Hypothetically there could be more ice beneath the surface, but all we can see is that ice in front of us, so we should presume that's all there is." Or like the blind man holding the elephant's tail and saying, "An elephant is a lot like a snake."

I was talking to Evee under that quotation, not you. Sorry if that was not clear.

 

[Patrick]

In vain? You really have no understanding of how this all works. Experimential "evidence" is not evidence in a case like this. It's unsubstantiating, undefinable, and completely unreliable.

Baloney. I once went snorkeling off the coast of Barbados and reached out and touched a sea turtle. I have no evidence of it, though. Nobody took a picture of it, and perhaps nobody else remembers anything about it. So as far as you and the rest of the world are concerned, my claim is merely anecdotal. No proof that it happened at all.

Likewise, I once (more than once, actually) had what started out as a very lucid dream. I was in a distant place, but I knew by body was on the bed in my room, sleeping. Yet as i looked around, I said to myself, "Wait--this isn't just a dream; it's real!" Everything about the experience was every bit as real to me as is sitting here, typing this. I had no doubt whatsoever that I was in this other place while my body was far away. But just like my sea-turtle experience, it's entirely anecdotal as far as you're concerned. No proof that it happened at all.

In both cases, I know it happened. I can't prove it in either case, but from my POV that doesn't mean a thing. I had these real-to-me experiences; they're as much a part of my reality as anything that can be proven.

Materialists will probably believe my sea-turtle experience more readily than my out-of-body experience (they'll dismiss the latter as hallucination brought on by electrochemical processes--maybe triggered by something I ate). But I don't care how materialists choose to limit themselves. I'm open to a bigger universe, with more dimensions than theirs. And I don't have to prove anything to anyone; I only have to have my experiences and gain what wisdom I can from them.

While not the same, I've had multiple experiences on psychadelic drugs (Mushrooms, and DMT in particular), and some of them very well could or would be categorized as support towards a spirit, soul, god, or whatever. Just because I experienced that though, doesn't make it true. It was merely what I experienced due to the perceptual changes induced by the chemical shifts in the brain due to the substance. That's it. Those experiences were great and I learned some about myself in the process. I do not interpret it to be spiritual though because there is no evidence to support that, and there is absolutely evidence to support the medical and biochemical outcomes that dictate my experiences.

My point is that you have no way of knowing that there was not a spiritual reality to your experiences. If they seemed real to you, why would you doubt the reality or validity of them just because a bunch of smug materialistic scientists can point to the physical aspects of those experiences? You have a choice: (1) limit yourself to what's been proven scientifically, or (2) open your mind to the possibility that you experienced something very real that science cannot yet prove.

You don't think science has explored every facet of Creation, do you? Not even the most vain and self-righteous scientist would be so smug as to claim that there's nothing left for science to discover.

Sailors traveled around the globe even while many people believed the earth was flat. Likewise, IMO, saints and mystics--and probably even you, during your dreams or drug experiences--have been traveling through other dimensions of reality even though many people believe physical reality is all there is.

LOL! You're not even slightly off the hook .Nice semantic nit-pick and redirection attempt. That's not going to work. You heavily implied where you stand, and I do not need to prove anything. One does not need to disprove the existence of something. It's abundantly clear you did not understand the video I linked you to, and the concept of the burden of proof in general. You're bordering on making yourself look like a fool by trying to blame shift here. Further, because it's on nothing more than a semantic nitpick.

No semantic nitpick at all. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it seems to me you're the one being evasive and trying to pull some kind of bait-and-switch.

I said what I said; nothing more. If you read something else into it, that's your problem.

I did not, and will not, claim to be able to prove anything. I'm talking about reasonable possibilities, and nothing more. I'm saying my experiences are real to me, and some of my experiences--and those of others too--may very well be beyond what has so far been scientifically proven.

As I said, I do not need to disprove something.

You do if you want to deny that it's a possibility.

That's what it sounds like you're saying: that it's impossible for me to leave my body and travel to another dimension. If that's your claim, you need to demonstrate what makes it impossible.

Same if you deny that there's such a thing as an afterlife. Prove that it's not possible.

Otherwise, all you're saying, as far as I can tell, is that you choose to focus only on what has been proven and regard everything else as empty fantasy.

You have to prove it.

If I had made a claim, I'd have to prove it. All I claimed is that I'm a conscious human being, like you and everybody, and that our consciousness may conceivably continue beyond death of our physical bodies.

Which part of that do you want me to prove? That we're conscious human beings? That sounds kinda tedious, and I'll bet you'd accept that without proof anyway.

But if you want to say, No, it could not conceivably last beyond death, then you have to explain why it's inconceivable.

The existance of something unsubstantiated with no backing does not need to be disproven. The concept of a soul is a wild claim with absolutely nothing to support it. It does not need to be disproven. I have already explained how and why, and I am not going to repeat myself. If you fail to see or accept that, it is not my problem.

In plain English, then, you're just talking out your ass? Denying something because it strikes an unpleasant emotional chord with you?

OK, be that way, if you like. Strange, though, because you come across as more intelligent than that.

Yeah, there's like a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance, if that. Probably FAR less than that but I don't want to clutter the post with more zeros. The odds of my computer suddenly teleporting one foot to the left is far significantly higher than the concept of a soul. Reason being, is that actually is theoretically possible, just astronomically small to the point where it's said to be impossible. When odds are so remote, it's fair and reasonable to assume impossible.

You're obviously making up numbers just to express an emotion-driven viewpoint. Not very scientific of you. Very human, though.

I have no problem with your doubting the existence of Soul and spiritual dimensions of life. I doubt a lot of things too. I just wish you'd stop trying to sound as if you're Mr. Science and everyone who's not an earthbound materialist is just a hopeless, head-in-the-clouds dreamer.

Statistics-wise, I suppose there's a fifty-fifty chance of an afterlife. When your body dies, either you continue on or you don't. One of those things is surely gonna happen, and nobody can prove (or disprove) either one. So, a fifty-fifty chance.

The only question left is what you, as an individual, are going to do with that iffiness. You can close your mind to all but what science has so far discovered, or you can open your mind to possibilities beyond what science has so far discovered. You can trust your experiences, understanding them to be real whenever they seem real to you; or you can doubt your experiences and understand them to be real only when they match up with what science has so far proven.

I couldn't care less what choice you make. I make my own. I object only when someone comes along and tries to use force or persuasion to get me to change my choice.

I do not take well to those who make spiritualistic claims or taut the existence of it like this and fail to back it up. To me, this isn't a tangent at all. I generally regard most forms of spirituality (though not all) to be rather damaging.

Why do you regard them as damaging? And who the hell are you to be telling me, or anyone, how to live life? That's about the most vain, self-righteous thing I've ever heard. Makes fanatical evangelists sound easygoing and tolerant in comparison.

And once again, I haven't made any of the claims you seem to be opposing so vehemently. I think you're mistaking me for some Bible thumper who has knocked on your door and is trying to convert you. I'm a live-and-let-live kind of guy, and I want you to be free to believe anything you like and live as you please (as long as you're not harming anyone).

 

[Patrick]

With lack of evidence I would treat it as a strange dream that isn't worth spreading (especially not in a book).

You couldn't treat the kind of experience I'm talking about that way. I'm proposing an experience that makes you say, "OMG, this is absolutely real!" and afterward leaves you thinking, That was undoubtedly real, even though I don't know how it could possibly be. An experience like that might leave you perceiving this everyday earthly life as dreamlike and insignificant.

If you had an experience like that, I venture to guess you'd at least want to talk to somebody about it. You might not write a book. You might seek psychiatric help instead. But you'd be unable to dismiss it as just a weird dream. And if you persisted in being sure that it was real--more real, perhaps, than anything else--you might even be motivated to tell the world about it.

 

[Lark]

You couldn't treat the kind of experience I'm talking about that way. I'm proposing an experience that makes you say, "OMG, this is absolutely real!" and afterward leaves you thinking, That was undoubtedly real, even though I don't know how it could possibly be. An experience like that might leave you perceiving this everyday earthly life as dreamlike and insignificant.

If you had an experience like that, I venture to guess you'd at least want to talk to somebody about it. You might not write a book. You might seek psychiatric help instead. But you'd be unable to dismiss it as just a weird dream. And if you persisted in being sure that it was real--more real, perhaps, than anything else--you might even be motivated to tell the world about it.

But what if there's no psychiatric help or even no psychiatry?

I think for the majority of humanity and the majority of human history they have consulted something else but for the reasons you suggest.

The question I suppose is what triggers this and whether its organic and internal or externally caused and consequential, at least I believe so.

 

[Lark]

For me the anchor of reality is the material world. I have to wake up into that every day. From my perspective souls and afterlife are pretty much "unreal".


For me bending reality is believing in something that has seemingly no connection with the material world.

Most of our debates can be traced back to the definition of "reality". For me reality is the material world. The world into which you wake up every day, in which you can be hedonistic, sad/broken. In which you can help or punish others' (or others' bodies if it fits more...), you can destroy, you can build, you can be buried. For me it was only the fear that made it difficult to accept my current "reality".


Being cruel is probably another dimension of personality. You have to be extremely sick in order to take cruel actions against others, actions you wouldn't like others to take against you. I do not hold anything universally valid, I'm just anchoring myself to the material world, to my "reality", and I'm solving my problems in it, I'm defining my truths in it.


I'm simply trying to avoid asking and answering questions that make no sense for me in the material world. I'm not searching for universally valid ideas but I'm drawing the line for myself usually in reasonable and often materialistic ways.


People refused to believe in "insane" (often material and scientific) things even when proof was available. This often resulted in witch burning. Mostly because of stupid and/or false beliefs. I make a difference between (proven) things that are connected to the material world and things that are not. You can reason about material things, you can't really do the same with afterlife or souls.

Actually when I've written "insanely" I was thinking about the story of a scientist who believed in a theory, dedicated decades of his life to find a proof, and then killed himself when others proven the theory to be wrong.


I don't think that accepting that everything ends at some point would be nihilism. Knowing something that has limited lifespan is a privilege. I can really value things - much more than I could before realizing that basically "everything" on Earth has a finite lifespan.

Afterlife may or may not be part of reality (our material world). Before we have any reasonable evidence I'm not going to waste much energy in believing or not believing in it. I don't know whether it exists or not and I'm not really interested in the answer because it wouldn't really change my "real" life.

I'd say that spirituality and the super natural or transcendent is material and is real. We can disagree but simply labelling it as unreal and immaterial or ideal in order to dismiss it is a poor reasoning tactic.

I'll leave you with a quote from Queen, "Is this the real life, is this just fantasy?" and another from Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Heratio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

 

[Lark]

Straight to the point. I forget this very important thing too often...

Another point about proof, interpret it as you will, for those who need it there will never be sufficient proof.

 

[Lark]

You are underestimating the capabilities of the material world along with the values it provides. The material world isn't boring. It is possible to be strong and spiritual with a down to Earth approach. I don't mind if someone uses his brain (or soul) to express things in artistic ways but claiming the existence of an afterlife without evidence is a step beyond that.

In my opinion you have nothing to think about if you know that you may disappear completely with your death and you have to think about making your current life good (why is this boring?) regardless of having an afterlife and doing so is the opposite of life sucking from my perspective. I would treat afterlife as a possible bonus. There is no problem with thinking about artificial worlds (workoholism, afterlife, ....) as long as you are not trying to escape into them.

And what is good? After all, believing you could die at any moment, without consequence and without any further chapter of existence of any shape or form what so ever, can for some people be a rapist or junkie's charter, to often it is.

I see a lot of what ISIS is doing and even how they attract and who they attract to their ranks as being about the "good life", in terms of a power tripping, human, all too human amoral violent hedonism. Even how they conceive of an afterlife, in terms of an all too material, worldly, temporal "reward" is sort of "more of the same" of the hellish ego trip of an existence they have crafted on earth for their believers.

An afterlife is worth thinking about, for it shouldnt be thought of as "pie in the sky", it shouldnt be something which is exulted or affirmed at the expense of the present, there are good and vital conceptions of the same which say that it is so different from the actual lived and present existence to be the same sort of finality and non-being or non-existence that existentialists, philosophers, atheists and others suppose, does anyone reckon upon sleeping and dreaming as a condition superior to living? If it were possible to put into an medically induced coma for the rest of your natural days how many people would choose it? And what if that is exactly what the afterlife is like because no one knows (interestingly this was a minor scene in House MD when on a spiritual trip his friend becomes resigned to death from cancer and House puts him into an anesthetised state).

The exulting of an afterlife, "pie in the sky" style, is actually considered sinful by some religious thinkers, their conclusions have included individual souls or essence or whatever being called before God and in addition to being questioned about their sins of commission they are asked about sins of omission, not simply "failing to do good" when the opportunity exists but refraining and foregoing the opportunities for pleasure or happiness that life involves. I even know of one thinker who supposes within this frame that people are animated dust and return to the state of dust without consciousness at all but the opportunity for a life and all it involves is the gift from God, this is heaven and hell depending upon how you live. Its not a view I subscribe to but its more interesting than the dismissal as "unreal" of all spirituality and religosity that most atheists prefer.

- - - Updated - - -

With lack of evidence I would treat it as a strange dream that isn't worth spreading (especially not in a book).

Spend your time well.

 

[Evee]