Atheism and belief in afterlife

[Rasool114]

I'm an atheist. But this does not mean that I don't believe in life after death.
One of the main ideas of almost all religions is the idea of the immortality of the soul, of the eternal life after death.
Possible technical and scientific progress of humanity will reach this level, and that this idea will be implemented.
And, I mean not only the future lives, but all who lived (and died), and now live.
As is known, the number of living people on the planet can be estimated as about 80 billion people.
When you consider the potential of future generations, their number will be in the trillions.

I, as a layman, can reason like this: in the future, is created to transfer technology to the structure of collection of atoms (or elementary particles) of our body at the moment of death in some parallel Universe.
This should be maintained causality in our Universe, so as not to damage the "fabric of time" of our Universe, to preserve the sequence of events that have already happened.
And then you can implement the ideas expressed in the Bible: Heaven, Hell, last Judgment, Purgatory, etc.
Here you experience the following problems:
1) The problem of transfer of patterns of collection of atoms (or elementary particles) in a parallel Universe so as not to damage the causality in our Universe.
But this problem may be solved in physics of the future.
2) Identification of teleportated personality.
Not to be the same person his image (copy) to parallel Universe?
One could argue that we do in life are "copies" of ourselves, because in the process of metabolism the atoms that make up our body are replaced by other atoms.
So if my hypothesis is correct, then after we die we will be judged and the afterlife. So it makes sense not to sin in life and to benefit not only ourselves but also others.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Just wanted to point out that there are not 80 billion living people on the planet. It is more like 8-10 billion. And even 80 billion would be far too many. If it ever got into the trillions the Earth undoubtedly couldn't sustain us.

 

[Kirran]

I think that was cumulative - I've seen estimates for the total human population who've ever lived to be at 108 billion, so perhaps this is referencing that.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Planck is smallest measurement of physics is loads of room )
As the smallest measurement is 46.3 billion light years at light speed to maintain your current universal position as its expanding also at speed of light .
Traveling through the universe and beyond at faster than light speed without the limitations of being human .

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This isn't what most people of any religion which believes in souls would call a soul. Since most believe a soul is actively independent of any physical structure or platform, including one made up of atoms. It would be no more a soul to them than the brain copied hard drives of Dollhouse or Soma.
As for whether or not it can be considered to be 'you,' that would depend on if you believe 'you' is the sum of your experience or a continuation of your consciousness or neither of these things.
Personally, while I believe you can have life after death of a sort, I don't believe in the afterlife most people talk about because I am not a substance dualist.

 

[Frank Merton]

Oh we probably are living in a special classroom. Life goes on and when we die we return to our more normal existence, so calling it an after-life is a misnomer derived from our particular point of view right now.

 

[Frank Merton]

I can't believe in souls. They are spiritual (whatever that is) and we are material. Therefore the soul can't move us and we can't move the soul. It's an absurd notion. What is "us" and what, if anything, survives our death, is our mind, or life, our being. These, as can be demonstrated, derive from materiality, so if they go elsewhere they go to something else material.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh we probably are living in a special classroom. Life goes on and when we die we return to our more normal existence, so calling it an after-life is a misnomer derived from our particular point of view right now.

I don't know if this is along the same lines-
But one hypothesis- a little sci-fi but interesting to ponder..

What if a civilization were to take technology to it's logical conclusion- to fully mastered technology to the point they could all cater to literally every whim, could instantly create whatever their hearts desired at any time, master biology to overcome any ailment, aging or injury- and achieve immortality

It doesn't take much thinking through to realize the problematic implications right?, on morality, ethics, empathy, - where there is no challenge to life whatsoever- nothing can be 'bad' and hence nothing can be 'good' in any meaningful way either.

The only way this civilization could function in any meaningful way, would be if it's citizens learned about good and bad, love and hate, greed and generosity, to know what was truly valuable, love, in it's purest form- and to pass a rigorous test where they willingly chose good over evil to the fullest possible extent.

And of course this can never be taught academically, theoretically! in this scenario Earth would be that proving ground, classroom as you say. i.e. Heaven is reality, Earth is the illusion, necessarily a very convincing one

 

[Frank Merton]

Yea. It seems to me, using probability, to be a virtual certainty that we are in a "virtual" world of some sort. There are those who claim they can prove this, but I doubt that -- the virtual engineers would be smarter than we are, or at least have more experienced.

I used the word school, but maybe it's just a form of entertainment. At first I think the suffering we experience as entertainment would be hard to believe, but watch Hamlet, and we take that as entertainment.

In short, paradise would be boring.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yea. It seems to me, using probability, to be a virtual certainty that we are in a "virtual" world of some sort. There are those who claim they can prove this, but I doubt that -- the virtual engineers would be smarter than we are, or at least have more experienced.

I used the word school, but maybe it's just a form of entertainment. At first I think the suffering we experience as entertainment would be hard to believe, but watch Hamlet, and we take that as entertainment.

In short, paradise would be boring.

Possibly- one way to look at it; if the odds of this being a virtual world are a billion to one, that is arguably far better odds than spontaneously blundering into existence for no reason at all

And that is just one of many forms of ID possible. Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' in his words, that we could one day create our own universe, and that we can't rule out the possibility of this being the explanation for our own: an experiment in an alien universe...

He seemed to be saying this a little tongue in cheek- as if a purely naturalistic explanation was presumably more likely- but why?

I might take a little more positive view of the motive - that the greatest motive for anything is love, and that can't be forced, cannot exist without the choice of evil, without suffering

And this speaks to Hamlet's point also right?; as much as we suffer in it, would we choose not to have our life?

 

[Frank Merton]

Possibly- one way to look at it; if the odds of this being a virtual world are a billion to one, that is arguably far better odds than spontaneously blundering into existence for no reason at all

And that is just one of many forms of ID possible. Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' in his words, that we could one day create our own universe, and that we can't rule out the possibility of this being the explanation for our own: an experiment in an alien universe...

He seemed to be saying this a little tongue in cheek- as if a purely naturalistic explanation was presumably more likely- but why?

I might take a little more positive view of the motive - that the greatest motive for anything is love, and that can't be forced, cannot exist without the choice of evil, without suffering

And this speaks to Hamlet's point also right?; as much as we suffer in it, would we choose not to have our life?

Ah, well, now, it seems my choice of Hamlet was not so good. I still think it a virtual certainty we are in a virtual reality, or something along those lines, but this is just probability.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah, well, now, it seems my choice of Hamlet was not so good. I still think it a virtual certainty we are in a virtual reality, or something along those lines, but this is just probability.

For what reason was this virtual reality created? -that's not rhetorical, I'm curious about what you think

 

[Frank Merton]

For what reason was this virtual reality created? -that's not rhetorical, I'm curious about what you think

Amusement park?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think that was cumulative - I've seen estimates for the total human population who've ever lived to be at 108 billion, so perhaps this is referencing that.

Most people do not know they can be reincarnated as other critters, not necessarily as humans. According to Hinduism 8.4 million. Science agrees. Now count.

".. according to new study that predicts our planet is home to 8.7 million species. Aug 25, 2011" - Google search (How many life forms on Earth?)
The difference could be because of classification.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most people do not know they can be reincarnated as other critters, not necessarily as humans.

In fact, nobody knows this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In fact, nobody knows this.

For me as an atheist, there is none, but I was trying to solve the numbers problem mentioned by members A Vestigial Mote and Kirran.

 

[Frank Merton]

Most people do not know they can be reincarnated as other critters, not necessarily as humans. According to Hinduism 8.4 million. Science agrees. Now count.

".. according to new study that predicts our planet is home to 8.7 million species. Aug 25, 2011" - Google search (How many life forms on Earth?)
The difference could be because of classification.

The Buddha, according to the oldest sources we have, was ambivalent on the idea of rebirth (the correct word for the concept -- "reincarnation" has to do with coming back as the same person). There is a story of a prince who just lived for the hunt and spent all his free time out in the wild hunting animals. Needless to say the Buddha did not approve, and indicated with gestures but did not actually say that he would likely be reborn a tiger.

Buddhist teaching tells us that we tend to be reborn out of our clinging to the aspects of existence -- sensation, pleasure, family, etc. -- and we are ultimately led to the womb as an effort to get all this back. It also implies that the nature of our karma has to do with how long this takes and how successful it is. It is clear no one, or at least very few, are reborn animals, as no one wishes this, and the human population is growing quite fast enough.

Such rebirth (I personally see it as a variation on the Hindu idea but with a Buddhist twist) solves nothing except perpetuate Samsara, the endless cycle of rebirths and corresponding suffering. We are not immortal -- we die -- what is reborn is another person with its own genes and life experiences and the karma of the one who died. It is not us. We are dead. The new being is a continuation of us in a small sense, but not a way of escaping death.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is a story of a prince who just lived for the hunt and spent all his free time out in the wild hunting animals..

Such rebirth (I personally see it as a variation on the Hindu idea but with a Buddhist twist) solves nothing except perpetuate Samsara, the endless cycle of rebirths and corresponding suffering. We are not immortal -- we die -- what is reborn is another person with its own genes and life experiences and the karma of the one who died. It is not us. We are dead. The new being is a continuation of us in a small sense, but not a way of escaping death.

I remember to have read that in a Jataka story, Buddha was a Bodhisattva in elephant form (I do not say that Buddha accepted this). To come back as the same person is not a condition in Hinduism or Buddhism. Forms change. Nothing wrong with Samsara, it is fun,leela, anatta, anicca; why take it seriously? Advaita Hinduism considers all things to be immortal, without birth (the perception of creation, birth and death being illusions), star material and what we started with, Brahman.

 

[Frank Merton]

I remember to have read that in a Jataka story, Buddha was a Bodhisattva in elephant form (I do not say that Buddha accepted this). To come back as the same person is not a condition in Hinduism or Buddhism. Forms change. Nothing wrong with Samsara, it is fun,leela, anatta, anicca; why take it seriously? Advaita Hinduism considers all things to be immortal, without birth (the perception of creation, birth and death being illusions), star material and what we started with, Brahman.

Well the Buddhist view, with which I agree, is that life is suffering. In modern terms we evolved as a result of constant struggle for existence, eventually dying either of starvation or disease or predation. Now for many things are a little better, but not much, considering the stress and anguish and addictions and insecurities we deal with.

Therefore the idea is to stop being reborn. To enter Nirvana (bliss) or maybe a state of non-existence. We can do this only by stopping grasping for things and experiences, which never fulfill in the long run and usually disappoint in the short run. The Buddha as Bodhisattva is not Buddhist, and I have never heard of it. A Bodhisattva is a god-like figure incorporated more into some schools of Buddhism than others, usually derived from local deities, but not a Buddha.

 

[George-ananda]

I think the key question for life after death beliefs is not so much theism vs atheism but materialism vs. spiritualism (though they usually go hand-in-hand). Materialists believe everything including consciousness is material. Spiritualists believe that there is more that is real than physical matter/energy. I am a spiritualist and a believer in the afterlife from my serious study of the paranormal and not from my position on theism vs. atheism.