Even atheists can believe in life after death. Perhaps is all a dream within a dream within a dream! Now I wonder... is it possible to have a significantly meaningful life without the idea of immortality?
edit: "significantly meaningful" means that it doesn't stop us from being the happiest person on the planet. Do all the happiest people on Earth believe they are immortal? Is that belief affecting their happiness?
edit 2: I drew my entire reasoning to help you understand my question. Don't take that graph TOO seriously because it is just a rough sketch.
Sure there's life after death. But it won't be life as a complex system of organisms such as your current one, but rather your cells will be recycled for life's use elsewhere.
Is it possible to have a significantly meaningful life without the idea of immortality? Yes.
Even atheists can believe in life after death? No. The afterlife is almost always tied to some god. An atheist believing in an afterlife is like a vegetarian eating meat.
Even atheists can believe in life after death? No. The afterlife is almost always tied to some god. An atheist believing in an afterlife is like a vegetarian eating meat.
Me = athiest
idea that the afterlife is phsycological = no diety involved :P.
IN TOPIC:
The idea of immortality somehow seems dull to me, so I don't think we're immortal... Or maybe I don't want us to be immortal? Hmm..
Sure there's life after death. But it won't be life as a complex system of organisms such as your current one, but rather your cells will be recycled for life's use elsewhere.
These sentences revoke the feeling of a symbiotic complex in me. While the body is a symbotic mechanism, the brain is the only body we actually use. Everything else is only a tool controlled by electricity, and each cell is a form of life. This give me the feeling of being dead.
But to the topic: I belive in a concept of rebirth, but not as like as in buddism or hinduism. The whole karma story is a little awkward and have the possible background to be nice and polite.
In my theory there is the concept of a soul and so the concept of reusing the soul as a medium to gain informations from the dead people about their life. But the system won't score the soul and it will reincarnate in a new body from a random species.
It could be as complex, or even more so. The important bit though is that it isn't YOUR life, per se.
Now it's not our lifes too. It's just an illusion of personality and consciousness, created by evolution to control individual's behavoiur in a more complicated manner than with simple pain and pleasure.
The whole ecosystem is more complicated being than its organisms and it's immortal. Unless it's destroyed by a cataclism. But still it can spread itself between planets. Some researches showed that energy of a collision between an asteroid and a dwelling planet allows some particles (including bacteria) to reach space and overcome planet's gravity. And some bacteria can survive space beams and low temperature.
But actually, I think that life can evolve by itself in any appropriate conditions without being infected from space. And it's more then immortality. It's an ability to arise from nonexistence. And ability of thinking is probably inevitable for any evolving life. So, the possibility of consciousness is existing in the universe, in its basic logic, no matter does life use it in its individuals' control systems or doesn't, life is jsut one of the ways to make thinking work.
So, life of a single individual isn't a subject of a great concern in the face of fact, that consciousness is a predefined ability of our universe.
Doubleclick is right, there. In fact, one of the theories of the afterlife is one that incorporates the ideas of a 'field of energy' somewhere in the universe that we all return to after we die. This doesn't have anything to do with a deity or god and is a theory that could in fact well be scientifically provable somewhere in the forseeable future.
With that said, we need to be argueing definitions here first. What classifies as 'significantly meaningful', Rodrigo? If that means "have some kind of impact on the whole universe", then no, that probably wouldn't really be possible for us at the moment without an afterlife. If it means "have impact on other people", then it would be. If it means "fulfilling to yourself", then it'd be possible as well.
Off-topic: I can't stop thinking of when I see the thread title.
Are we immortal? Yes and no. Our bodies can die, yet they are permanently bound to our souls until death. In that sense, we are both mortal in flesh and immortal in soul. This creates an interesting conflict for someone who believes in the immortal soul: In one sense, our ignorant humanity writhes with ambition to accomplish as much as possible before our bodily death, as if it's all we have... and yet our bodies can sense the eternal span of the soul, even if it's only a subconscious whisper, which allows us to do things like love and self-sacrifice. That's why even someone who doesn't believe in God has these capacities, even though God is the author of love and self-sacrifice. In our humanity, both of these things make absolutely no sense: loving and self-sacrifice accomplish nothing according to our ambition, and in fact can cause backsliding or suffering.
The most interesting thing of all is that when we consider an interesting, meaningful life, it includes things like worldly accomplishments, yet almost always has to include something about love and self-sacrifice as well. So to answer your question, even a strict atheist has the ability to love and sacrifice himself, even if he doesn't know why he does it or where it comes from, therefore a fully meaningful life can be achieved. This implies that even an atheist can find himself in heaven when he dies... of that I'm not certain. I suppose it depends on whether you think acting in a loving, self-sacrificing way is belief in God in the most basic of forms or not. And, of course, it all depends on God's mercy.
I would say that a truly interesting and meaningful life always results in an eternal, heavenly life.
Are we immortal? Yes and no. Our bodies can die, yet they are permanently bound to our souls until death. In that sense, we are both mortal in flesh and immortal in soul. This creates an interesting conflict for someone who believes in the immortal soul: In one sense, our ignorant humanity writhes with ambition to accomplish as much as possible before our bodily death, as if it's all we have... and yet our bodies can sense the eternal span of the soul, even if it's only a subconscious whisper, which allows us to do things like love and self-sacrifice. That's why even someone who doesn't believe in God has these capacities, even though God is the author of love and self-sacrifice. In our humanity, both of these things make absolutely no sense: loving and self-sacrifice accomplish nothing according to our ambition, and in fact can cause backsliding or suffering.
The most interesting thing of all is that when we consider an interesting, meaningful life, it includes things like worldly accomplishments, yet almost always has to include something about love and self-sacrifice as well. So to answer your question, even a strict atheist has the ability to love and sacrifice himself, even if he doesn't know why he does it or where it comes from, therefore a fully meaningful life can be achieved. This implies that even an atheist can find himself in heaven when he dies... of that I'm not certain. I suppose it depends on whether you think acting in a loving, self-sacrificing way is belief in God in the most basic of forms or not. And, of course, it all depends on God's mercy.
I would say that a truly interesting and meaningful life always results in an eternal, heavenly life.
Fact is that this is nothing more than wishful thinking.
You might find it comforting to believe that you're not going to completely die, and that's your belief. You're entitled to that.
However it is absolutely unfounded and without even a shred of verifiable evidence. With that in mind, you are not entitled to talk as if you know the answer.
Waste of time entering this debate though. The human mind is hardwired to not accept conflicting information, so if you believe you're immortal, great. Though until you can provide verifiable evidence, your belief is superstition only.
Friend, I'm pretty sure almost every reply, even the ones by atheists, have been worded in such a way as to impart the impression that the poster "knows the answer." I find it curious that you target my post specifically with such a response.
To clear the water, though, I don't know the answer. I'm only speaking from my perspective... this is what I've come to accept as Truth. I could word it differently if it would make you more comfortable, but I'm not sure that would be necessary.
And finally, there is no verifiable evidence that there is no life after death either since you can't prove a negative, so I'm not sure why you think it's OK to tell me I have no right to claim knowledge of "Truth" and subsequently attempt to espouse your own "Truth." I'm not trying to cause a conflict here, but can you at least see the contradiction?
You know, guys, what's a real truth? When science will suggest a real immortality - some kind of cybernectic body, or genetic, or pharmacological, or some other type of solution, which will allow to avoid death indefinitely, everybody will forget in one second all the stories they believe, like "death isn't scary, u'll keep having fun after". When people has no immortality, they use stories, when they will stop to die, they'll betray their beliefs and start using the technology.
Yeah, there will be a sect like "technological immortality is a sin, we choose to die and go to heaven", but it won't be realy popular. I'm sure.
@Eiviyn: We agree, then. Like I said, I don't know - I only speak from my perspective. Belief and knowledge are two completely different things that many confuse all-too easily.
Also, Zolden, people will still be mortal because they will still be able to die. There is always a chance that an accident can happen to you, so when that's stretched out to infinity, eventual death becomes a certainty.
As a atheist i believe life itself is utterly pointless, the reason i am here is pure coincidental. That however should not stop me from bringing meaning into my own life, be it my own happiness or others.
Edit: @Zolden: Go Come back in 200 years and let's see how keen you're on life then.
there is no verifiable evidence that there is no life after death either since you can't prove a negative, so I'm not sure why you think it's OK to tell me I have no right to claim knowledge of "Truth"
We have to prove to you that there is no afterlife? You're the one making the claim, you prove it. If you can't then I have the right to say that your belief is stupid.
Even atheists can believe in life after death. Perhaps is all a dream within a dream within a dream! Now I wonder... is it possible to have a significantly meaningful life without the idea of immortality?
edit: "significantly meaningful" means that it doesn't stop us from being the happiest person on the planet. Do all the happiest people on Earth believe they are immortal? Is that belief affecting their happiness?
edit 2: I drew my entire reasoning to help you understand my question. Don't take that graph TOO seriously because it is just a rough sketch.
Sure there's life after death. But it won't be life as a complex system of organisms such as your current one, but rather your cells will be recycled for life's use elsewhere.
@Sephiex: Go
It could be as complex, or even more so. The important bit though is that it isn't YOUR life, per se.
@Nebuli2: Go
It could be as your life, or even more so.
Death is prob psychological :P, your lasts thoughts about what happens after life are what happens.
But... back to the main question... is it possible to have a significantly meaningful life if you believe you will stop existing at any time from now?
Are we immortal? No.
Is it possible to have a significantly meaningful life without the idea of immortality? Yes.
Even atheists can believe in life after death? No. The afterlife is almost always tied to some god. An atheist believing in an afterlife is like a vegetarian eating meat.
Me = athiest
idea that the afterlife is phsycological = no diety involved :P.
IN TOPIC:
The idea of immortality somehow seems dull to me, so I don't think we're immortal... Or maybe I don't want us to be immortal? Hmm..
These sentences revoke the feeling of a symbiotic complex in me. While the body is a symbotic mechanism, the brain is the only body we actually use. Everything else is only a tool controlled by electricity, and each cell is a form of life. This give me the feeling of being dead.
But to the topic: I belive in a concept of rebirth, but not as like as in buddism or hinduism. The whole karma story is a little awkward and have the possible background to be nice and polite.
In my theory there is the concept of a soul and so the concept of reusing the soul as a medium to gain informations from the dead people about their life. But the system won't score the soul and it will reincarnate in a new body from a random species.
Now it's not our lifes too. It's just an illusion of personality and consciousness, created by evolution to control individual's behavoiur in a more complicated manner than with simple pain and pleasure.
The whole ecosystem is more complicated being than its organisms and it's immortal. Unless it's destroyed by a cataclism. But still it can spread itself between planets. Some researches showed that energy of a collision between an asteroid and a dwelling planet allows some particles (including bacteria) to reach space and overcome planet's gravity. And some bacteria can survive space beams and low temperature.
But actually, I think that life can evolve by itself in any appropriate conditions without being infected from space. And it's more then immortality. It's an ability to arise from nonexistence. And ability of thinking is probably inevitable for any evolving life. So, the possibility of consciousness is existing in the universe, in its basic logic, no matter does life use it in its individuals' control systems or doesn't, life is jsut one of the ways to make thinking work.
So, life of a single individual isn't a subject of a great concern in the face of fact, that consciousness is a predefined ability of our universe.
@Tolkfan: Go
Doubleclick is right, there. In fact, one of the theories of the afterlife is one that incorporates the ideas of a 'field of energy' somewhere in the universe that we all return to after we die. This doesn't have anything to do with a deity or god and is a theory that could in fact well be scientifically provable somewhere in the forseeable future.
With that said, we need to be argueing definitions here first. What classifies as 'significantly meaningful', Rodrigo? If that means "have some kind of impact on the whole universe", then no, that probably wouldn't really be possible for us at the moment without an afterlife. If it means "have impact on other people", then it would be. If it means "fulfilling to yourself", then it'd be possible as well.
Off-topic: I can't stop thinking of when I see the thread title.
And I - of this:
Are we immortal? Yes and no. Our bodies can die, yet they are permanently bound to our souls until death. In that sense, we are both mortal in flesh and immortal in soul. This creates an interesting conflict for someone who believes in the immortal soul: In one sense, our ignorant humanity writhes with ambition to accomplish as much as possible before our bodily death, as if it's all we have... and yet our bodies can sense the eternal span of the soul, even if it's only a subconscious whisper, which allows us to do things like love and self-sacrifice. That's why even someone who doesn't believe in God has these capacities, even though God is the author of love and self-sacrifice. In our humanity, both of these things make absolutely no sense: loving and self-sacrifice accomplish nothing according to our ambition, and in fact can cause backsliding or suffering.
The most interesting thing of all is that when we consider an interesting, meaningful life, it includes things like worldly accomplishments, yet almost always has to include something about love and self-sacrifice as well. So to answer your question, even a strict atheist has the ability to love and sacrifice himself, even if he doesn't know why he does it or where it comes from, therefore a fully meaningful life can be achieved. This implies that even an atheist can find himself in heaven when he dies... of that I'm not certain. I suppose it depends on whether you think acting in a loving, self-sacrificing way is belief in God in the most basic of forms or not. And, of course, it all depends on God's mercy.
I would say that a truly interesting and meaningful life always results in an eternal, heavenly life.
Fact is that this is nothing more than wishful thinking.
You might find it comforting to believe that you're not going to completely die, and that's your belief. You're entitled to that.
However it is absolutely unfounded and without even a shred of verifiable evidence. With that in mind, you are not entitled to talk as if you know the answer.
Waste of time entering this debate though. The human mind is hardwired to not accept conflicting information, so if you believe you're immortal, great. Though until you can provide verifiable evidence, your belief is superstition only.
Friend, I'm pretty sure almost every reply, even the ones by atheists, have been worded in such a way as to impart the impression that the poster "knows the answer." I find it curious that you target my post specifically with such a response.
To clear the water, though, I don't know the answer. I'm only speaking from my perspective... this is what I've come to accept as Truth. I could word it differently if it would make you more comfortable, but I'm not sure that would be necessary.
And finally, there is no verifiable evidence that there is no life after death either since you can't prove a negative, so I'm not sure why you think it's OK to tell me I have no right to claim knowledge of "Truth" and subsequently attempt to espouse your own "Truth." I'm not trying to cause a conflict here, but can you at least see the contradiction?
I'm not trying to impose my "truth" on you. I oppose the idea of anyone claiming to know the unknowable.
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. "I know that my unverifiable claim is true" is dangerous.
You know, guys, what's a real truth? When science will suggest a real immortality - some kind of cybernectic body, or genetic, or pharmacological, or some other type of solution, which will allow to avoid death indefinitely, everybody will forget in one second all the stories they believe, like "death isn't scary, u'll keep having fun after". When people has no immortality, they use stories, when they will stop to die, they'll betray their beliefs and start using the technology.
Yeah, there will be a sect like "technological immortality is a sin, we choose to die and go to heaven", but it won't be realy popular. I'm sure.
@Eiviyn: We agree, then. Like I said, I don't know - I only speak from my perspective. Belief and knowledge are two completely different things that many confuse all-too easily.
Also, Zolden, people will still be mortal because they will still be able to die. There is always a chance that an accident can happen to you, so when that's stretched out to infinity, eventual death becomes a certainty.
As a atheist i believe life itself is utterly pointless, the reason i am here is pure coincidental. That however should not stop me from bringing meaning into my own life, be it my own happiness or others.
Edit: @Zolden: Go Come back in 200 years and let's see how keen you're on life then.
We have to prove to you that there is no afterlife? You're the one making the claim, you prove it. If you can't then I have the right to say that your belief is stupid.
@Mozared: Go
Those "theories" have as much validity as deities or mermaids.