Life after death?

[GrandizerII]

Hello, newbie here.
Question.
If the claim of life after death is rejected because there is no evidence for it, shouldn't the claim of oblivion after death be rejected because there is no evidence for it?

Welcome.

In my opinion, one seems more reasonable than the other, so we can't be sure there is just "oblivion" after death, but as there seems to be continuing evidence for brain being the sole "control center" for our consciousness (i.e. monism), then one can only reasonably conclude that when the brain dies, all of consciousness dies with it.

[Purplundy]

Do you think you have to exchange reason for faith?

Luther thought so.

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

― Martin Luther

I'm just gonna bump in and give an answer that does not involve Bible quotes.

I'm not defending Luther, but I can see where he's coming from.
Altruism, one of Jesus' big talking points, involves helping others with no benefit to yourself. It has the tendency to be unreasonable. Of course, I wouldn't go so far as to demonize it; it gave us the wheel. But most nice people, regardless of religion, find themselves having to push it aside so they can do good things for others.

[rexbeccarox]

Dude... make a coherent post. Then we'll talk.

Do you think you have to exchange reason for faith?

Not necessarily. I'm not asserting that my mindset is the best. I think some people are better off because they have faith in whatever it is they have faith in. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live his life.

What I'm saying is that in order to have knowledge, one needs to want to continue to learn. Thinking one knows the answer to every question is the antithesis to continued learning. Anecdotes aren't evidence, for the most part, and in the case of the OP, that's all there are.

[Mudhammam]

One thing I've never understood about the afterlife: Since humans are no more special than any other creature that has ever existed (well, our intelligence is pretty special but I mean ontologically speaking), than any future life would presumably include all creatures that have also already died. So then, in the hereafter there would be all the obnoxious, dangerous pests around us that exist now, and if you think about it long enough--what it would take to sustain such an environment where each creature continues on as it did before--the hereafter starts to look like a lot like earth. Maybe it's not something we should hold out hope for.

[Purplundy]

Welcome.

In my opinion, one seems more reasonable than the other, so we can't be sure there is just "oblivion" after death, but as there seems to be continuing evidence for brain being the sole "control center" for our consciousness (i.e. monism), then one can only reasonably conclude that when the brain dies, all of consciousness dies with it.

That makes perfect sense.
The afterlife is officially the fuzziest area of anyone's knowledge, but basically, my take on this is that the aggregate of the things that make us who we are as individuals, like our relationships, beliefs, and actions, constitute what you might call a 'soul', and that exists forever because no person's existence is undoable.
And yes, this immortality in no way involves soirées with winged angels in the clouds.

[ignoramus]

PARTIAL QUOTE "call a 'soul', and that exists forever because no person's existence is undoable."

I hear you brother ... But just saying it or reading it somewhere doesn't make that statement true.
Prove it to me scientifically and I'll fall to my knees!

[GrandizerII]

Welcome.

In my opinion, one seems more reasonable than the other, so we can't be sure there is just "oblivion" after death, but as there seems to be continuing evidence for brain being the sole "control center" for our consciousness (i.e. monism), then one can only reasonably conclude that when the brain dies, all of consciousness dies with it.

That makes perfect sense.
The afterlife is officially the fuzziest area of anyone's knowledge, but basically, my take on this is that the aggregate of the things that make us who we are as individuals, like our relationships, beliefs, and actions, constitute what you might call a 'soul', and that exists forever because no person's existence is undoable.
And yes, this immortality in no way involves soirées with winged angels in the clouds.

Why should they constitute some soul that exists forever? They are easily explicable in terms of monism. Why add extra unnecessary features/entities?

[jesus_wept]

I think being dead will be about the same as before we were born.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If there's life after death I'm sure that you'll have to pay some heavy taxes.

If there is life after death, there is life before death also.

Evidence?

You have none, which means you are confusing faith for fact, which also means nobody here should listen to you (as if they were anyway).

[Purplundy]

PARTIAL QUOTE "call a 'soul', and that exists forever because no person's existence is undoable."

I hear you brother ... But just saying it or reading it somewhere doesn't make that statement true.
Prove it to me scientifically and I'll fall to my knees!

George Washington is dead.
Once upon a time, he was alive. Empirical fact.
After the Earth is engulfed by the Sun and our galaxy collides with Andromeda, it will still be a fact.
You don't need to kneel down. I was simply articulating something that I believe based on the fact that my first four sentences were true and reaffirmed by certain religious leaders.