Death is the end

One day you will be dead for 500 years and won't matter to anyone.

Haven't you ever met a medieval genealogist? 

No, I think that's a completely unreasonable view to take. I mean, what some of the more intelligent people in this have pointed out is key - there is absolutely, positively nothing in this scenario. There's no point in appreciating anything. There is no point... to literally anything. I was going to comment on what Steve001 said, by saying that he probably just hadn't really thought all that hard about it, but Will beat me to it. 

Your last sentence is nonsense. There have likewise been plenty of crimes committed by atheists and materialists in the name of nihilism. It's a non sequitur. 

Trying to somehow paint a demonstrable, nihilistic end in that rosy light might seem nice to you, or some other reductive atheist who isn't believing in an afterlife (or really anything) in any capacity whatsoever, but as tim pointed out, it's just a lack of acceptance of the real implications of that belief system. Life is not precious in that situation - life is nothing. I would think that if this were true and every single person knew about it, many would live their lives the exact same, just with an increased sense of depression and dread. I would guess that many people would be substantially more self-serving, since in that universe there's really little point to being excessively nice or caring about others (there's actually no point to it, save preserving your own ultimately worthless life a tad longer than otherwise, perhaps). You just ostensibly just get by by not being a dreadful person, and just kind of do as you please otherwise. I think plenty would take that approach as well. (If this sounds unsavory to you, consider that it would cause people to live and act in a way that most people would consider to be antithetical to human feelings, intuition, and emotion - might there be something to that?)

What I am very, very confident of, though, is that it would not make people have some mystical and lovely appreciation for life. If you hadn't taken notice, plenty of very religious people already live the way you mentioned, because they believe it's what God wants or it'll help them get into heaven. So for those people, no, your scenario would not apply. The vast majority of people on Earth believe in some form of an afterlife one way or another, and there's not, nor has there ever been, some mass suicide as people rush to the afterlife.

For whatever it's worth, I don't really know exactly what I believe in terms of specifics as far as an afterlife goes, but I sure as hell know that I believe something is going, whatever that thing is. To me, there's too much evidence to look the other direction or act like there isn't "more to it" than just this life from a reductive standpoint. As others have noted, the sheer absurdity of this life would, in your scenario, be maddening and depressing, regardless of how people chose to live their lives if it were true.

Sorry if I have misunderstood. Are you saying one should not appreciate life or cannot properly appreciate life if they know death is the end? I really do not get this logic. We all live and we die, that is the cycle of nature. If someone knows beyond doubt death is the end why would that stop them from appreciating life right now? Would they not go out and achieve more in life? If someone knows death is the end sure some might be depressed about it, but others will appreciate it more. 
 
Also you talk about positive scenarios. Is disease positive? Just because something is natural does not mean it has to be positive. Nature does not work this way. The belief system here by proponents seems to be that one can not appreciate life if death is the end, and what is the point in appreciating anything if we die? This I do not understand. There has to be an afterlife for you to appreciate anything in life here now? Makes no sense to me! 

It also seems you invent a 'meaning' for your life if an afterlife exists. Also makes no sense to me! It seems belief in an afterlife comes with a lot of philosophical baggage.

Sorry if I have misunderstood. Are you saying one should not appreciate life or cannot properly appreciate life if they know death is the end? I really do not get this logic. We all live and we die, that is the cycle of nature. If someone knows beyond doubt death is the end why would that stop them from appreciating life right now? Would they not go out and achieve more in life? If someone knows death is the end sure some might be depressed about it, but others will appreciate it more. 
 
Also you talk about positive scenarios. Is disease positive? Just because something is natural does not mean it has to be positive. Nature does not work this way. The belief system here by proponents seems to be that one can not appreciate life if death is the end, and what is the point in appreciating anything if we die? This I do not understand. There has to be an afterlife for you to appreciate anything in life here now? Makes no sense to me! 

It also seems you invent a 'meaning' in your life if an afterlife exists. Also makes no sense to me! It seems belief in an afterlife comes with a lot of philosophical baggage.

With regards to your first paragraph, I addressed this already. Some might appreciate it more, my guess without a doubt is that the vast majority of people would not. This is exactly my point - you do not understand the implications of this scenario. What is the point of "achieving more in life"? There is no point. Your progress or achievements are devoid of any real meaningfulness, because nothing is this scenario "means" anything. It just "is", and then it "is not". Your contention that this situation would in some way make people appreciate life more generally is what I disagree with; not in premise, which is logically sound. But there's more to life than logic, and I am confident that most people would not feel that way at all.

For your second paragraph: I didn't say the word natural, and have no idea what your point about disease is. I think you have a fundamental lack of comprehension about the implications of this scenario, and that's clear. What is the foundation for meaning in the situation put forth in the op? "Create your own meaning" is a platitude people like to say, that has, ironically, little meaning itself in a universe in which there is nothing to life. Note that you took what I and others have said and twisted it entirely: I never said you have to have an afterlife to have meaning. Hypothetically, let's say that a God exists who is interested in the collective evolution of his creation, but there is no afterlife. In this situation, were we aware of it, at least we are serving some purpose. That doesn't involve an afterlife, but it involves a purpose from which people can at least draw meaning. There is a humongous spectrum of things from which a person can ascribe meaning that don't fit into a neat little personal afterlife. On the flip side, there is no value in "appreciation" because there is no value in anything in the proposed situation. Perhaps the absurd and impossible to comprehend-ness of this is what is making it difficult for anyone to understand, which certainly makes sense to me. So what you've done here is try to set up a caricature of what people here have said that isn't at all representative of their views. No one has said "There has to be an afterlife for you to appreciate anything in life here now!" What we have said, is that if death is final and there is nothing else, and we are a cosmic accident and nothing more, etc. etc., it's pretty much impossible to ascertain some meaning or value from that if you're being intellectually honest.

With regards to your last sentence, you don't "invent" meaning. I think the best way of putting it is that you "find" meaning, with the key being that meaning is actually rooted in some legitimate purposiveness as opposed to false creations out of the atoms and subatomic particles bouncing around randomly in your brain. You're just making assertions with no supporting statements with that entire last paragraph... I think, again, that you are just ignoring the immense philosophical baggage that comes with your scenario, as laid out by most of the people who have responded here.

There is no ultimate real meaning, it is all subjective... all made up. Makes no difference if an afterlife exists or not. People find meaning and purpose in their own heads... How can you prove that legitimate purposiveness exists?

Can you tell me what is positive about an afterlife scenario? What if some people do not want an afterlife? How can someone with alzheimer's disease have an afterlife? Would their memory essentially be destroyed? How would they remember what they did on earth?

There are too many questions and philosophical problems with the afterlife scenario.

There is no ultimate real meaning, it is all subjective... all made up. Makes no difference if an afterlife exists or not. People find meaning and purpose in their own heads... How can you prove that legitimate purposiveness exists?

Can you tell me what is positive about an afterlife scenario? What if some people do not want an afterlife? How can someone with alzheimer's disease have an afterlife? Would their memory essentially be destroyed? How would they remember what they did on earth?

There are too many questions and philosophical problems with the afterlife scenario.

You can't prove that life has a larger purpose, but entertaining the possibility isn't invalid as a thought experiment. Philosophical theorizing and contemplation of that nature can sometimes prove to have grounding in fact, once technology reaches a point that it can be tested. You and I can't conceive of what technology could possibly resolve the question of life after death, but I doubt Democritus conceived of anything like electron microscopes or atomic bombs.

Some people don't want total annihilation upon death. You're not going to please everyone. And annihilation invites its own philosophical problems, whether you want to engage with them or not; I note you haven't made any response to the issues raised on those grounds so far in this thread.

How many of your ancestors are not remembered because of the life they lived? If you yourself do not make a major contribution to history you will like millions of other humans alive and dead will pass from memory eventually to be forgotten. My niece traced our ancestry back to the late 1300's, there are no records going back further. Until she did that no one knew they lived and no one will ever know the names of our ancestors before that. Why would anyone think there's existential meaning?

I'm not sure at what point I said anything regarding whether or not those living in the distant future remember who I am.

Why would anyone think there might be meaning to life? I'll borrow a quote from Trey Parker:

Basically… out of all the ridiculous religion stories which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah… there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause… just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.

Random chance and basic physics doesn't satisfy some people. I can't say for sure whether there is existential meaning to existence, but I'm not about to definitively rule it out when I don't have the means to find out.

You can't prove that life has a larger purpose, but entertaining the possibility isn't invalid as a thought experiment. Philosophical theorizing and contemplation of that nature can sometimes prove to have grounding in fact, once technology reaches a point that it can be tested. You and I can't conceive of what technology could possibly resolve the question of life after death, but I doubt Democritus conceived of anything like electron microscopes or atomic bombs.

Some people don't want total annihilation upon death. You're not going to please everyone. And annihilation invites its own philosophical problems, whether you want to engage with them or not; I note you haven't made any response to the issues raised on those grounds so far in this thread.

I'm not sure at what point I said anything regarding whether or not those living in the distant future remember who I am.

Why would anyone think there might be meaning to life? I'll borrow a quote from Trey Parker:



Random chance and basic physics doesn't satisfy some people. I can't say for sure whether there is existential meaning to existence, but I'm not about to definitively rule it out when I don't have the means to find out.

snip- How can someone with Alzheimer's disease have an afterlife? Would their memory essentially be destroyed? How would they remember what they did on earth?

Will and others- These people remember everything from their life. It has been demonstrated many times and in many ways: most notably and obviously in cases of Terminal (AKA End of Life) Lucidity. Memories are not lost, ever, they are just rendered inaccessible, or inexpressible, for some periods, by a damaged physical brain or bodily system.

http://skeptiko.com/278michael-nahm-terminal-lucidity/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stafford-b...63492.html

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber...-lucidity/

I suspect that after I croak, I'm going to 'wake up' on a comfy recliner sometime and somewhere in the 23rd century and some bit of tech is going to float over to me and ask whether I enjoyed my 'holiday' in which I will say, "WTF was thaaaaat  all about??!! I demand my quatloos be refunded!!

There is no ultimate real meaning, it is all subjective... all made up. Makes no difference if an afterlife exists or not. People find meaning and purpose in their own heads... How can you prove that legitimate purposiveness exists?

Can you tell me what is positive about an afterlife scenario? What if some people do not want an afterlife? How can someone with alzheimer's disease have an afterlife? Would their memory essentially be destroyed? How would they remember what they did on earth?

There are too many questions and philosophical problems with the afterlife scenario.

Okay... here goes:

There is no ultimate real meaning, it is all subjective... all made up. Makes no difference if an afterlife exists or not. People find meaning and purpose in their own heads... How can you prove that legitimate purposiveness exists?

Again, and I addressed this in this other post: this is entirely and purely your opinion, a straight up assertion that is not supported by any statements or otherwise. Why does it make no difference if an afterlife exists or not? You saying "people find meaning and purpose in their own heads" is, yet again, you assuming the conclusion - it assumes a priori that reductiveness is an accurate representation of the universe and the life therein, and that there can be no other source of meaning or purpose other than from within "their own heads". I never said that I could prove that legitimate purposiveness exists; what I said was that there is no possible way for any form of meaning or purposiveness to be rooted in anything real in the scenario you provided in the OP. 

Can you tell me what is positive about an afterlife scenario? What if some people do not want an afterlife? How can someone with alzheimer's disease have an afterlife? Would their memory essentially be destroyed? How would they remember what they did on earth?

What do you mean by positive? That life is not ultimately meaningless, and that there is more to it than this sorry cosmic accident that is the reality of your presented scenario? This thread is loaded with people elaborating clearly with why they think an afterlife in one form or another is more positive or palpable than your alternative. What do you think is not positive about an afterlife scenario? People have provided you with adequate suggestions of what is not positive about yours. 

Whether some people don't want an afterlife has little bearing on pursuit of the reality of any potential "afterlife" evidence. My guess is that most people prefer an afterlife in some form or another to a lack thereof entirely; I guess I'm not sure exactly what point you're attempting to make with that comment.

The last three sentences in the above quote are the most revealing in terms of helping me understand where you're coming from of all the posts I've seen you make on this site. They really and truly reflect that you have trouble extricating yourself in any meaningful way, even for the purpose of a hypothetical discussion such as this one, from your narrow-minded view of things. You are incredulous as to how someone who has Alzheimer's could have an afterlife, likely because you don't even understand what many of the people here mean when they say afterlife (important note: afterlife doesn't just mean this wonderfully perfect heaven that is an eternal continuation of your personality and ego as purported in some religions - there are loads of other ways to interpret and look at things based on the evidence, depending on how much weight you give to what). You have a legitimately fundamental misunderstanding of what the entire idea of an afterlife is, if that's the question you're asking. People can believe an afterlife only after they've accepted that in some way, shape, or form (and we do not know how this might be, though there are obviously various ideas or theories), consciousness, memory, and/or awareness are not reducible to the physical brain, that something about consciousness exists independently of the physical brain in some way. It is precisely for that reason that anyone remotely familiar with research into "afterlife" evidence (I do not like that term to describe the evidence - it's loaded) would not consider that question to be sensical in any fashion. You asking it is very telling. 

One major idea is obviously that memory exists independent of the physical; that would be how memory isn't destroyed in an afterlife. Additionally, this would only impact a "personal" afterlife, wherein you retain your memories and ego in the afterlife. As I said, there are other conceptions of the afterlife; and, this isn't even coherent to begin with if you're even discussing an afterlife, as explained above. The "how would they remember what they did on earth" falls under the same category - applies to a particular view of an afterlife, not all conceptions, and reflects a really narrow and limited view of the range of possible interpretations. Those aren't remotely legitimate challenges to an afterlife.

There are too many questions and philosophical problems with the afterlife scenario.

No, there aren't. Because you're unable to get beyond your own incredibly limited view of what could be, and complete commitment to a belief in reductionism, you're having trouble even discussing introductory concepts to an afterlife, let alone anything beyond that. Your a priori commitment is causing that issue. "Too many questions and philosophical problems" is not anything resembling a legitimate challenge, especially when you haven't laid out a single philosophical problem with it anywhere in this thread or elsewhere. You've avoided direct discussion of evidence and have made statements without supporting them with anything whatsoever. This quote establishes nothing... and, by the way, there are a plethora of questions with the scenario that you presented, too. But me saying "there are too many questions" isn't a legitimate challenge to that scenario. Philosophical issues is a different story, but again, you haven't presented any issues whatsoever of that sort.

Okay... here goes:


Again, and I addressed this in this other post: this is entirely and purely your opinion, a straight up assertion that is not supported by any statements or otherwise. Why does it make no difference if an afterlife exists or not? You saying "people find meaning and purpose in their own heads" is, yet again, you assuming the conclusion - it assumes a priori that reductiveness is an accurate representation of the universe and the life therein, and that there can be no other source of meaning or purpose other than from within "their own heads". I never said that I could prove that legitimate purposiveness exists; what I said was that there is no possible way for any form of meaning or purposiveness to be rooted in anything real in the scenario you provided in the OP. 


What do you mean by positive? That life is not ultimately meaningless, and that there is more to it than this sorry cosmic accident that is the reality of your presented scenario? This thread is loaded with people elaborating clearly with why they think an afterlife in one form or another is more positive or palpable than your alternative. What do you think is not positive about an afterlife scenario? People have provided you with adequate suggestions of what is not positive about yours. 

Whether some people don't want an afterlife has little bearing on pursuit of the reality of any potential "afterlife" evidence. My guess is that most people prefer an afterlife in some form or another to a lack thereof entirely; I guess I'm not sure exactly what point you're attempting to make with that comment.

The last three sentences in the above quote are the most revealing in terms of helping me understand where you're coming from of all the posts I've seen you make on this site. They really and truly reflect that you have trouble extricating yourself in any meaningful way, even for the purpose of a hypothetical discussion such as this one, from your narrow-minded view of things. You are incredulous as to how someone who has Alzheimer's could have an afterlife, likely because you don't even understand what many of the people here mean when they say afterlife (important note: afterlife doesn't just mean this wonderfully perfect heaven that is an eternal continuation of your personality and ego as purported in some religions - there are loads of other ways to interpret and look at things based on the evidence, depending on how much weight you give to what). You have a legitimately fundamental misunderstanding of what the entire idea of an afterlife is, if that's the question you're asking. People can believe an afterlife only after they've accepted that in some way, shape, or form (and we do not know how this might be, though there are obviously various ideas or theories), consciousness, memory, and/or awareness are not reducible to the physical brain, that something about consciousness exists independently of the physical brain in some way. It is precisely for that reason that anyone remotely familiar with research into "afterlife" evidence (I do not like that term to describe the evidence - it's loaded) would not consider that question to be sensical in any fashion. You asking it is very telling. 

One major idea is obviously that memory exists independent of the physical; that would be how memory isn't destroyed in an afterlife. Additionally, this would only impact a "personal" afterlife, wherein you retain your memories and ego in the afterlife. As I said, there are other conceptions of the afterlife; and, this isn't even coherent to begin with if you're even discussing an afterlife, as explained above. The "how would they remember what they did on earth" falls under the same category - applies to a particular view of an afterlife, not all conceptions, and reflects a really narrow and limited view of the range of possible interpretations. Those aren't remotely legitimate challenges to an afterlife.


No, there aren't. Because you're unable to get beyond your own incredibly limited view of what could be, and complete commitment to a belief in reductionism, you're having trouble even discussing introductory concepts to an afterlife, let alone anything beyond that. Your a priori commitment is causing that issue. "Too many questions and philosophical problems" is not anything resembling a legitimate challenge, especially when you haven't laid out a single philosophical problem with it anywhere in this thread or elsewhere. You've avoided direct discussion of evidence and have made statements without supporting them with anything whatsoever. This quote establishes nothing... and, by the way, there are a plethora of questions with the scenario that you presented, too. But me saying "there are too many questions" isn't a legitimate challenge to that scenario. Philosophical issues is a different story, but again, you haven't presented any issues whatsoever of that sort.

Dante, I started this thread to ask proponents a simple question, not really the other way round. I am not really interested in philosophical mumbo jumbo myself or answering questions about an afterlife, I do not believe in an afterlife, my position is non-belief so I choose to ask proponents the questions. The burden of proof is on you guys to provide the evidence for your beliefs not the other way round.

It is clear from mainstream science that there is no afterlife. Microbes, bacteria, insects dying in nature every second every minute, nobody seems to care about those. It is human bias from religion, a perverted anthropomorphic world-view to why certain humans believe in an afterlife. Proponents of this afterlife hypothesis fear death and erroneously believe they are 'important' or above nature and somehow and deserve a magical afterlife. I do not choose to discuss the pro and cons of 'afterlife' research, would be a futile task. I was more interested in how proponents would change if they came to realise there was no afterlife.

Tim for example stated " I don't see how humans could or would be able to complete their lives satisfactorily" if they know beyond doubt death is the end. I am trying to figure out why you guys believe this? Proponents seem to strongly bank on an afterlife existing. Their belief in it seems to shape what they do in the now. That is something I do not understand.

I cannot demonstrate this statement with evidence so this one is a speculation from me, but I believe one other possible reason people believe in an afterlife is because they have not achieved much in their life. In conclusion I bottle it down to several types of people who believe in an afterlife:

1. Those brainwashed by religion or anthropomorphic belief systems
2. Those who are unhappy, ill or have not achieved much with their lives
3. Elderly people who fear death

Do you agree with any of this?