Is there any evidence we dont live on in some way after death

[Violet]

Yes. The evidence that we don't live on after death is that if we lived on we would not have died, merely 'transcended' or otherwise shifted to a different 'plane' of 'reality'.

There is only one afterlife: death. Which is an eternal oblivion.

[xonage]

Well, there are a couple things going on here. If atheism simply means a disbelief in a creator god, then should atheism have anything to say on other subjects? If you want to talk about science, then the first thing to recognize is that 1., science, and scientific discoveries are infinite, 2. Evolution is infinite, and 3. it therefore follows that we dont really know shit about shit, and in 5 million years, if we live on and keep evolving we may find a lot of things to be reality that seem impossible now. So to say something isn't possible because we haven't yet understood it it anti scientific. The only reasonable, honest answer to whether there is some form of existence after death is to simply say, "As of now we dont have enough evidence, but who knows, stranger things have happened, so I really dont know."

I made this thread because of another thread where the OP is convinced there is nothing after death, and he is trying to figure out how to accept it. What a waste of time. Until someone can prove that consciousness or life force is only the brain, then the mystery is unsolved.

[LastPoet]

By all the stars in the milky way, is this guy dumb or what?

[Epimethean]

The former. Thick as a fucking brick.

[xonage]

We are all dumb, that's my point. You guys are just slightly less hairy apes, barely out of the woods yet. Humans are a badly evolved joke. Do you really think it matters what any of them think? No, the truth is, whether you are an atheist or a christian, you are still an idiot, grasping at straws of meaning and reality. And the vast universe, in all it's objectivity could probably care less about any of it, or maybe it does. Who knows. Certainly not any of you pretentious duchers. haha

[leo-rcc]

Well, there are a couple things going on here. If atheism simply means a disbelief in a creator god, then should atheism have anything to say on other subjects?

No it shouldn't and it doesn't. As explained before, atheism is not a worldview, but can be a part of one. It asserts nothing, it only means non-belief in deities.

If you want to talk about science, then the first thing to recognize is that 1., science, and scientific discoveries are infinite, 2. Evolution is infinite, and 3. it therefore follows that we dont really know shit about shit,

Science is finite? What does that even mean? Science is a tool, not a goal.
Evolution is finite? How can change be finite?
and your conclusion does not follow at all. Just because we do not know everything does not mean we know nothing.

and in 5 million years, if we live on and keep evolving we may find a lot of things to be reality that seem impossible now. So to say something isn't possible because we haven't yet understood it it anti scientific. The only reasonable, honest answer to whether there is some form of existence after death is to simply say, "As of now we dont have enough evidence, but who knows, stranger things have happened, so I really dont know."

So what? Even if I would grant you that we don't know what happens after death, that still doesn't mean we should assume there is something after death. Not every hypothesis is equally valid if certain parameters are unknown.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

p.s. to all the suspicious douche bags who live on this forum and think I am some theist in disguise, get a life. I am just a curious person.

G'day mate, I'm one of the resident suspicious douchebags. Have we met? I don't think so. That means I have no reason to either trust or distrust you. I will make my assessment on your posts.

Asking for proof of a negative is not a good start.

[BethK]

Do you then pronounce them "resurrected?"

No, they just had a Near Death Experience...

I had one. And, I'm completely unconvinced that it had anything to do with "life after death". It had more to do with my brain being oxygen-deprived and in peril, interpreted through the veil of things of which I had knowledge.

In my case, it involved gods of Ancient Egypt - a pantheon which appears incredibly unlikely even if it could be shown (somehow) or believed that supernatural beings exist.

BTW, I believed in the divine when I had my Near Death Experience. Over the following 20 years, I gradually turned into an atheist. Yeah, it did a great job of convincing me of the "reality" of God, god's will, god's plan. It opened my mind and heart to the Truth of atheism where people explaining it with their reason and logic could not.

---

The common theme I see here is "burden of proof" and "an afterlife has no evidence so dont believe in it." But why then firmly believe in no afterlife, if there is no evidence for it. You guys have it a little mixed up. The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. If you claim there is no life after death, the burden of proof would be on YOU. Since it cannot be proven, there is no reason to believe it. This is why i cannot take a stand with insufficient evidence.

You've got it backwards. It goes like this:

There is no obvious, objective life after death. The dead do not just get up and run around. Once they are really dead - not just comatose or knocked out or something - they stay dead. Those rotting bodies just don't seem to bode well for them re-animating. The obvious thing to assume is that the dead are dead, and there is no life after death. Unless, of course, you define it in impersonal ways such as that your atoms or molecules may continue to exist and become part of another living organism. In such a way there is no death, since a living thing's atoms continue to live on in trees and birds and and earthworms and aerobic bacteria and coal and even (other) people and... From an individual's conscious point of view, that's a pretty useless definition, although it's ecologically sound.

Like anyone, I think it would be nice if my life went on, but I am also fully prepared for the possibility it will not.

As regards the energy. I have heard we lose 6 onces at the moment of death. Anyone know if this is true? And the point about maggots and apples and where to draw the line, I feel it would have to apply to everything or nothing, as I dont feel humans are special in any way.

Many people are not prepared to accept any possibility that life will not go on after death.

The "6 oz of weight loss" after death is in general "woo". It's based on the experiments of a Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts in 1907. His experiments were far from conclusive, and had a wide variation among cases.

1. "[S]uddenly coincident with death . . . the loss was ascertained to be three-fourths of an ounce."

2. "The weight lost was found to be half an ounce. Then my colleague auscultated the heart and found it stopped. I tried again and the loss was one ounce and a half and fifty grains."

3. "My third case showed a weight of half an ounce lost, coincident with death, and an additional loss of one ounce a few minutes later."

4. "In the fourth case unfortunately our scales were not finely adjusted and there was a good deal of interference by people opposed to our work . . . I regard this test as of no value."

5. "My fifth case showed a distinct drop in the beam requiring about three-eighths of an ounce which could not be accounted for. This occurred exactly simultaneously with death but peculiarly on bringing the beam up again with weights and later removing them, the beam did not sink back to stay for fully fifteen minutes."

6. "My sixth and last case was not a fair test. The patient died almost within five minutes after being placed upon the bed and died while I was adjusting the beam."
"
See http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

This doesn't show much - except the weight was never nearly 6 ounces. He was unable to repeat the results of weight loss at time of death on experiments with dogs. (Ethical considerations and questions abound). Note that he did not have the precise tools that exist today to determine the exact moment of death under any criteria. The problem of criteria and definition exists across jurisdictions today. Is death defined as "Brain death" (ceasing function of the brain)? Heart stopping (Patient's hearts are stopped routinely with open heart surgery)? Lack of breath? Failing to request chocolate, alcohol, tobacco, or sex over a period of hours? Okay, the last one is a joke.

Dr. MacDougall included the weight of excrement in his calculations. One possible reason offered by physiologists involves the lack of cooling of the body by sweating shortly after death - and that partly explains the reason that dogs don't normally cool themselves by sweating, but by panting which stops at the time of death.

[Napoléon]

Well, there are a couple things going on here. If atheism simply means a disbelief in a creator god, then should atheism have anything to say on other subjects?

Was atheism having a say on other subjects? Care to point them out? Didn't even realise atheism was able to speak, seen as it is just a point of view and all, and it's in fact the people who hold that view which may 'have a say on other subjects'. Atheism is not like religion, it doesn't cover a broad spectrum of questions. It generally only asserts one, and that is belief in a god. I think you get that a little mixed up.

If you want to talk about science, then the first thing to recognize is that 1., science, and scientific discoveries are infinite, 2. Evolution is infinite, and 3. it therefore follows that we dont really know shit about shit, and in 5 million years, if we live on and keep evolving we may find a lot of things to be reality that seem impossible now.

If YOU want to talk about science, then the first thing to recognize is that YOU don't know shit about how science works.

1. Why the fuck does this matter?
2. Why the fuck does this matter?
3. Non Sequitur. BTW what does shit have to do with any of this? I'm not sure I want to know much about shit, it seems like a pretty stinky subject but there we go.

And In 5 million years I hope evolution keeps dumb fucks like you outa the family tree.

So to say something isn't possible because we haven't yet understood it is* anti scientific. The only reasonable, honest answer to whether there is some form of existence after death is to simply say, "As of now we dont have enough evidence, but who knows, stranger things have happened, so I really dont know."

Again, you have no idea of how science works. We DO understand what happens after death. Just because you are an ignorant buffoon is no reason to start asserting that we don't. Seriously, the evidence is right there in front of your less than adequate brain. The very point of death is that life ceases. So tell me why it is fallacious to assert that "there is no life after death". Thus far you haven't given any reasoning as to WHY it is fallacious, other than to keep saying, "we don't have evidence". But we do. We know what happens when the body dies. If you cannot be bothered to even attempt understand, then it is your own shortcoming.

I made this thread because of another thread where the OP is convinced there is nothing after death, and he is trying to figure out how to accept it. What a waste of time. Until someone can prove that consciousness or life force is only the brain, then the mystery is unsolved.

It's a waste of time to try and come to terms with reality? Clearly this is a concept you have mastered.

Wait... Again? You again assert that we haven't proved that consciousness needs the brain? Get real. The mystery is well and truly fucking solved. You just wasn't involved with the investigation.

BTW can you define "life force". Thanks.

We are all dumb, that's my point. You guys are just slightly less hairy apes, barely out of the woods yet. Humans are a badly evolved joke.

Speak for yourself there buddy. Humans have achieved some pretty amazing fucking accomplishments. I don't know of any other species that has visited the fucking moon. Do you?

Do you really think it matters what any of them think?

Any of who think? Us? Well yeah it does matter, to US. Seen as WE are the only creatures at this point in time bothered about the discoveries WE can make, then I'd think it entirely relevant what we as a collective species can accomplish.

No, the truth is, whether you are an atheist or a christian, you are still an idiot, grasping at straws of meaning and reality. And the vast universe, in all it's objectivity could probably care less about any of it, or maybe it does. Who knows. Certainly not any of you pretentious duchers. haha

Truth. Pretty telling. I like that for someone who is so insistant we don't know anything about anything (or shit about shit WTF), you seem to know exactly what is true?
I'll grant you, a lot of people on this planet probably don't give a shit about meaning or reality, or answering questions, and many of them probably don't have the brain capacity to do so. But to say we shouldn't bother at all in trying to understand the universe is in my opinion, the truest form of "idiocy".

It's been a pleasure reading your posts you 'ducher'

[Ace Otana]

If atheism simply means a disbelief in a creator god, then should atheism have anything to say on other subjects?

No