One of my favorite quotes I use when asked by theists about “where I’ll go”:
“From the moment of death onward, the body and soul feel as little as they did before birth” –Pliny
It might be possible that, with advanced enough technology, our minds could be recorded and transferred to another medium. I read a story once where people with this kind of technology and the ability to travel through time were going back through time and recording everyone.
Or’n’ry Oscar wrote:
But there was a physiologial difference – a striking one. You just would have needed a microscope to see it.
A few minutes after the heart stops, the neurons in the brain begin to die. When a brain neuron dies, it shrivels up and unplugs from its neighbors. The interconnections this neuron once had to its neighbors are irreparably severed.
In cases where people suffer brain damage but do not die, their memories and personalities are often changed thereafter. The greater the extent of the brain damage, the more memories and capabilities are lost and the more the personality can be altered.
Therefore, it is my contention that the personality, memories, and general intellectual and emotional capacity reside entirely in the brain (or, perhaps, in other neurons attached to the brain). If there is a soul separate and distinct from th body, this soul does not retain the body’s personalities, memories, intelligence, or emotions. This doesn’t sound like much of a “soul” at all to me.
Tonight the show “Contact” was shown on one of the networks. At the end of the movie the words “For Carl” come on the screen. It is in reference to Carl Sagan, who wrote the book that the movie is based on. In the movie there is no support for the idea of God, but it is definitely about the idea of there being an afterlife. Since Sagan was very open about being an atheist, this tells me that an atheist can at least play with the idea that there is an afterlife.
Huh? Where in Contact did you hear any arguments for the existence of an afterlife? When Dr. Arroway (Jodie Foster) met her deceased “dad” on the other side of the wormhole, the aliens made it clear that they were just reproducing an image of her father drawn from her own memories.
However, in the book, Sagan–an atheist to the day he died, as far as I know–clearly did speculate about the possibility of finding evidence that the Universe has a Designer.
The essence of the atheist position as I understand it (i.e. this is my position) is that there’s no good evidence for the existence of any kind of supernatural beings, from gods to invisible pink unicorns. As I understand the evidence after several decades of puzzling over it, matter and its interactions are the ultimate reality for which we have reliable evidence, and what we call mind, spirit, soul, whatever, must therefore be a manifestation of complex and subtle interactions among various bits of matter. There is no room for a ‘spirit world’ as such in that view, and claims of evidence to the contrary I find singularly unconvincing. I have yet to encounter such a claim that isn’t just as readily explainable as a more or less self-serving interpretation of an emotional state.
All of which is a long way of saying that my answer to the OP is currently “No, you cannot truly be an atheist if you believe in an afterlife.”
Weeelll…strictly speaking, an atheist is simply someone who has no belief in God or gods. So, on a purely formal level, this is not incompatible with believing that we all have a Spark of Life which will Pass on to Another Plane of Existence when we die. It’s true that most atheists these days are scientific naturalists, or rational empiricists, or secular humanists, or whatever, and therefore reason as you do (and as I do) about these matters. The apparent connection between gods and souls, as supernatural entitites, is sufficiently strong for most people on both sides of the divide that generally speaking atheists are also a-spiritualists, and most theists are spiritualists (and most spiritualists believe in some sort of Higher Power, although there do seem to be a fair number of people who believe in reincarnation or life after death who have only vaguely defined and rather impersonal beliefs in some kind of “Life Force”.)
Still, it’s hard to be really dogmatic about something which really just boils down to “lack of belief in an entity or entitities of the type n”. Now, if you want to talk about “secular humanists”, that might be a different story.
I’m still not sure what exactly I qualify as… If someone asks me if I believe in God, my response is invariably “does it matter?” If God exists, it will continue to do so with or without my help.
I consider myself a secular humanist as far as religion goes (as compared to faith), but I am also certain of humans having a spiritual side. To deny that is simple folly. But perhaps this is a conversation for a different thread?
[montypyhton]
“I’m an atheist!”
“You’re a lapsed atheist, dear.”
[/montypython]
I was a Christian until I was in my mid to late teens, and started having trouble with certain aspects of it, such as the blind faith bit. I then decided I must therefore be an athesit, 'cept I realised that most athesists are just as religious about atheism as others are about their own faiths.
I’m now a WTFist, and happy.
Show me proof for or against an afterlife or God, and you got me.
One thing I like about Christianity ('cept they never seem to follow it -especially the guys who wake me up on Saturday morning by imposing their beliefs on me at my front door) is the whole notion of humility. I like to think I’m humble enough before the universe not to dare be so arrogant as to to claim to know the answers to these questions.
I’ll find out (or not) in due course.
I’ve been mulling over this subject in recent months. I recently became an atheist (background catholic, ok perhaps i’ve a shard of agnosticism in me…) and I believe more and more that nothing but your impact on those around you and the environment is left after you die. Many of my friends argue that there are some residual energies left and that is perhaps conceivable but as far as a clear cut “soul” /personality continuing after the death of the corporeal i am doubtful.
Mogiaw
How about a technological afterlife? If after people died their brains were hooked up to a big computer running a world simulation (perhaps like in ‘The Matrix’) that would fit a lot of definitions of afterlife. I’ve written a couple short stories with this idea. (Unsold so far)
If atheists believe in an afterlife, then why they still call themselves atheists?
Atheists are people who don’t believe in Gods. You can believe in an afterlife and still not believe in Gods. Likewise you can be an atheist and still believe in astrology or psychics.
Peter F Hamilton’s Night’s Dawn trilogy describes a world consistent with this viewpoint. There was no standard God apparant (although there were entities with god-like powers, they turn out to be technological artifacts left by long-gone alien races), but the soul does survive the death of the body to go onto an afterlife of sorts. Interesting books, although the ending of the series left a lot to be desired.
I don’t believe in a God as such, but I do believe that the “awareness” of the body, such as it is, is recycled by the universe into the next generation. This probably doesn’t count as believing in an afterlife, since I don’t believe your mind and memory are preserved in any sense.
Strictly speaking, Sagan was an agnostic not an atheist. He never asserted that God (or an afterlife) did not exist, only that there was no data to prove it either way.
God must exist along with heaven and hell, according to believers. If you don’t believe in God, then using the word ‘afterlife’ is much misleading. ‘Recycling’ is better, like in ‘garbage recycling’. Yes, I believe in recycling.
You can be an atheist and still believe in astrology or psychics? Maybe in an entertaining way.
I don’t know about astrology but being psychic is not at odds with not believing in a god. I don’t personally think anyone is but there’s no reason that you couldn’t believe that people have psychic abilities yet believe that there is no god.
mogiaw
You might want to check out The Physics of Immortality for one physicist’s attempt to reconcile the two.
I think one of my brothers qualifies as an atheist who believes in an afterlife.
He doesn’t believe in any kind of god as a separate entity, or a self-aware intelligence, or creator or designer of the universe, omniscient being, protector or guide for mankind, or anything like that.
He does believe that there is some bit of ourselves that defines us in a unique way that outlives our physical body. This bit comes from some universe wide pool when we’re born, returns there when we die, and may cycle through a physical life multiple times.
But this isn’t necessarily a journey “to” anywhere, it just sort of is. Like we are amusing ourselves in between existing in some eternal link up with the rest of the universe.
At least, that’s my understanding of what he thinks.
I think that fits the definition of what the OP was asking.
Why? My brother feels that some essential spark continues to exist, and that this spark is self-aware and retains memories. But there are no “God” sparks, no leaders, no heaven, no hell, no specific direction, just life that always exists with all other life. What would you call continuing to exist after your body dies but an “afterlife”?
And he also thinks astrology may be a valid way to get meaningful information about the universe. I’m not sure what he thinks of psychics, but I don’t think he rules them out.
Mind you, I think all of this is bunk, but I think he qualifies as an atheist who believes in an afterlife.
