So, we'll never see our loved ones again?

[The Grand Nudger]

Individualism like that is a pretty strong indicator of the secularization of christian belief.

If a christian person laments never seeing their loved ones again as though this would be a shit world to live in if it were true....then they should consider that they would likely think as much in hell, but still...and especially then... should instead be happy for their loved ones, and that they did -not- see them again. We're all up in your religion, rearranging your head, devious secular types that we are.

[Bucky Ball]

Individualism like that is a pretty strong indicator of the secularization of christian belief.  

If a christian person laments never seeing their loved ones again as though this would be a shit world to live in if it were true....then they should consider that they would likely think as much in hell, but still...and especially then... should instead be happy for their loved ones, and that they did -not- see them again.  We're all up in your religion, rearranging your head, devious secular types that we are.

I like Aquinas' view. 
My joy in heaven will be enhanced because I will be able to see my enemies suffer in hell.

[The Grand Nudger]

Satisfaction is sweet.

[Shazzalovesnovels]

How depressing.

You position assumes that what is important, is *individuals*. 
We can (obviously) see, that evolution does not care about individuals, .. the larger universe does not "care" about anything.
Individualism (as a point-of-view) is prevalent in today's culture. That has not always been the case. 

It's actually not "depressing", necessarily. 
The lesson is, "show them you love them while you have the chance". 

The implication that one can make up a comforting reality to live in, is, of course, false.

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
― Mark Twain

But why should we assume that we were 'dead' before we were born? How can we be sure that the after life state is the same as the before life state? we could't have been dead, we just hadn't been born yet. 


And what about nature? If a plant can die and live again, why can't we?

[Silver]

Plants are not complex enough to have conscience, personality, character, individual identity; therefore, the comparison of us to plants simply does not work.

[Sal]

You position assumes that what is important, is *individuals*. 
We can (obviously) see, that evolution does not care about individuals, .. the larger universe does not "care" about anything.
Individualism (as a point-of-view) is prevalent in today's culture. That has not always been the case. 

It's actually not "depressing", necessarily. 
The lesson is, "show them you love them while you have the chance". 

The implication that one can make up a comforting reality to live in, is, of course, false.

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
― Mark Twain

But why should we assume that we were 'dead' before we were born? How can we be sure that the after life state is the same as the before life state? we could't have been dead, we just hadn't been born yet. 


And what about nature? If a plant can die and live again, why can't we?

The implication in Mark Twain's quote, poetically alluded to, is that "you" didn't exist before you were born, which is the same non-existent state "you" will be after death.

[zebo-the-fat]

You position assumes that what is important, is *individuals*. 
We can (obviously) see, that evolution does not care about individuals, .. the larger universe does not "care" about anything.
Individualism (as a point-of-view) is prevalent in today's culture. That has not always been the case. 

It's actually not "depressing", necessarily. 
The lesson is, "show them you love them while you have the chance". 

The implication that one can make up a comforting reality to live in, is, of course, false.

"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”
― Mark Twain

But why should we assume that we were 'dead' before we were born? How can we be sure that the after life state is the same as the before life state? we could't have been dead, we just hadn't been born yet. 


And what about nature? If a plant can die and live again, why can't we?

Never seen a dead plant come back to life, it may go into a dormant state but that's not the same as being dead

[GrandizerII]

And what about nature? If a plant can die and live again, why can't we?

What do you mean by "die" here? As Eleven brought up, do plants have a sense of identity like we do?

[Mister Agenda]

But why should we assume that we were 'dead' before we were born? How can we be sure that the after life state is the same as the before life state? we could't have been dead, we just hadn't been born yet. 


And what about nature? If a plant can die and live again, why can't we?

We weren't alive before we were conceived, so it does seem a reasonable assumption. 'Dead' in the sense of 'no longer alive' is probably not the best word to describe that state, if we're being precise we should settle for nonliving or similar, if we're not being precise, 'dead' is fine. We can't be sure, but afterlives sure sound made-up and anything that seems to support them being real doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny. It's not certain that the after life state is the same as the before life state, but concluding that it is based on the evidence we have is reasonable.

A dead plant stays dead. A plant that's dormant (not completely dead) can revive. In any case it resembles an afterlife for an immaterial spirit in another plane of existence in no way whatsoever.

[The Grand Nudger]

And what about nature? If a plant can die and live again, why can't we?

They don't die and live again.  

I also wonder what any natural whatsit has to do with your ghost flitting off to supernatural ports unknown.  We know that the sort of afterlife™ biological things have also applies to human beings - that we fall apart and our constituent chemistry gets taken up by other living things, but that's not the sort of afterlife in mind when we consider heavens and hells.

The credibility of one lends nothing to the other - or so it would seem. I'd be interested in seeing the process that lead to this claim and this inference from that claim.