Is There an Afterlife?

[Bo]

Yes

[President Mitt]

BEEN DONE BEFORE

[Bo]

BEEN DONE BEFORE

Show me the thread.

[John Dibble]

Given there is no real evidence for or against it, I don't know.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I strongly doubt it.

[k-onmmunist]

     I strongly doubt it.

[Hans-im-Glück]

The Death is the end, and there is no afterlife. This is just an illusion.

[Bo]

The Death is the end, and there is no afterlife. This is just an illusion.

How do you know this?

[Free Palestine]

How do you know this?

I'd ask you the same question.

We have no way of proving or disproving that there is an afterlife.  But I personally think there is most likely no afterlife.  When we die the electrical impulses and such that make up our consciousness simply dissipate.  Perhaps our consciousness could be something more, I don't know.  And really, I don't care.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

No. The previous poster has it right, before modern science has shown us how all our thoughts and feelings worked people attributed them to souls. Now it it clear that there is most likely no such thing, as what was described as the soul fits the model of the brain. No soul, no afterlife.

[useful idiot]

I don't KNOW, and I don't think it's relevant. Live your life like there is, and then if there isn't, well all you did was try to be a better person, and at the end you'll ultimately be more satisfied with your life, I think.

[JSojourner]

Yes, there is an afterlife.  The just shall live in eternal bliss.  The damned shall spend eternity reading Rochambeau's post history.

[Franzl]

The damned shall spend eternity reading Rochambeau's post history.

How can a loving God allow such an injustice?

[JSojourner]

The damned shall spend eternity reading Rochambeau's post history.

How can a loving God allow such an injustice?

That's just for the Hitlers and Gacys.  Those in between go to Purgatory, where they simply read Bush Oklahoma's post history.  It's not always pleasant, but there's the occasional laugh and he means well.  To quote Paulie Walnuts, "I figure I got nine thousand years of that before I go to Heaven.  In terms of eternity, I could do 'dat time standin' on my head..."

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The damned shall spend eternity reading Rochambeau's post history.

How can a loving God allow such an injustice?

Franzl, I don't think God would punish leaping screaming libs like you in such a way   He's not that unkind

[Vepres]

No. The previous poster has it right, before modern science has shown us how all our thoughts and feelings worked people attributed them to souls. Now it it clear that there is most likely no such thing, as what was described as the soul fits the model of the brain. No soul, no afterlife.

Except scientists really don't know that much about the human brain. I've looked into this a bit in the past, they know how an individual cell works and such, but they don't know where consciousness comes from, or emotion, or intuition. They may have a general idea, but they don't really know. That's why a super computer has the intelligence of a retarded ant.

[afleitch]

On balance, I've came to the conclusion that there is probably not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The damned shall spend eternity reading Rochambeau's post history.

How can a loving God allow such an injustice?

Considering that William Blake was right, that is an irrelevant question.

[Hans-im-Glück]

The Death is the end, and there is no afterlife. This is just an illusion.

How do you know this?

Nobody can know it, but where is the proof that it is a life after death? I've never meet a man or a woman coming back from dead and I'm also sure that there is no one in this world. We live only to preserve our species, nothing else. Who wants to live forever it is only possible by his children, or in the history books.

[The Age Wave]

Uh no

[memphis]

Seems that the burden of proof is on those who say yes.

[Bo]

Seems that the burden of proof is on those who say yes.

I beg to differ. Both sides need to prove their points.

[Joe Republic]

Seems that the burden of proof is on those who say yes.

I beg to differ. Both sides need to prove their points.

No proof can ever really be provided either way, so that would be a futile exercise.

Besides, logic and reason are on the "no" side.  What do you guys have?

[John Dibble]

Seems that the burden of proof is on those who say yes.

I beg to differ. Both sides need to prove their points.

No proof can ever really be provided either way, so that would be a futile exercise.

Besides, logic and reason are on the "no" side.  What do you guys have?

Yes. The burden of proof is on those who are making the claim. The default position is not believing, even if you can't have absolute certainty that the claim is false, until evidence is provided to make the idea reasonably believable. This applies just as much to the idea that there is an afterlife as it does to the idea that there's an invisible pink unicorn that rules the universe. Just because one idea seems less ridiculous in your mind than the other doesn't make it any more true, nor does it mean one has more evidence to support it than the other.

[ARescan]

Since this is a question that cannot be proven, I go with what I hope.