Atheism: Can you still believe in an afterlife?

[Desmostylus]

Lib, get a grip.

On what date did Manhatten make the remark you’ve just applauded?

Take the pills.

[Urban_Ranger]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
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.

Which book is that?

[Sam_Stone]

Here’s some plausible scenarios for a type of ‘afterlife’ that would not be incompatible with science:

1. If the universe goes through an infinite cycle of expansion, collapse, bang, expansion, and collapse, then there will be an infinite number of configurations to the universe if each bang results in a random initial state for the universe. Using the infinite number of monkeys analogy, you could say that given enough ‘bangs’, we will eventually duplicate everything we have now. You’ll live your life over again. Of course, you’ll also live out every other life as well, plus an infinity of other states. Of course, there would be no recreated memory or sense that these lives are connected in any way. Perhaps I am Sam Stone Number 4,3277, and the last ‘Sam Stone’ came along a few trillion iterations of the universe ago.

2. Since I can have no perception of being dead, then the totality of my conscious universe is all that matters, and I AM immortal in that sense. This is more of a philosophical argument than scientific. Once I die, NOTHING matters. So if I draw a venn diagram of the universe as it is possible for me to perceive, I’m contained within it. It’s a tautology. All of us are immortal, because being alive is all we will ever know.

3. One day someone will make a computer so powerful that we can be created within it. If a neural net identical to my brain is created, will I ‘wake up’ from the dead? Or will it just be a good simulation? I have no idea.

4. There is more to the universe than we can understand, and levels of existance we haven’t developed the science to comprehend. So something’s coming after we die, but we can’t explain what it is.

[verybdog]

*Originally posted by RJKUgly *
**…What would you call continuing to exist after your body dies but an “afterlife”?

**

I call that a “Periodic Table”.

[MEBuckner]

*Originally posted by Urban Ranger *

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
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.

Which book is that?

The novel Contact.

[foolsguinea]

Hmm. I guess it depends on what you mean by an afterlife. Like tracer, I don’t think much of a personal afterlife for the “soul” if the mind crumbles away. And brain science seems to indicate that it does.

But I do believe that the matter & energy that makes me up remains & changes after this organism fails. The world doesn’t end when I die. My afterlife is in this world, not in another, & as other living things, not as myself.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by foolsguinea *
**Hmm. I guess it depends on what you mean by an afterlife. Like tracer, I don’t think much of a personal afterlife for the “soul” if the mind crumbles away. And brain science seems to indicate that it does.

But I do believe that the matter & energy that makes me up remains & changes after this organism fails. The world doesn’t end when I die. My afterlife is in this world, not in another, & as other living things, not as myself. **

Are you trying to prove a point by resurrecting a dead thread?:smack:

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by tracer *
**
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. **

This is pretty much exactly what I’ve concluded as well. It doesn’t disprove the soul, but it certainly makes the soul irrelevant. The existence of a spiritual/supernatural realm is entirely of that character, IMO, impossible to prove or disprove (if proposed without internal contradictions) but wholly irrelevant to our existences and therefore incosequential.

[eburacum45]

I tend to think that the most likely answer is that there isn’t an afterlife yet - but there eventually will be…
Tipler The Physics of Immortality (already mentioned) imagines an infinitely intelligent, infinitely resourceful Omega Point, resurrecting us all and doing essentially everything God is supposed to do…
unfortunately in many respests his calculations are probably wrong (the universe is probably not going to contract, for instance).
In a few hundred or thousand years from now, constant monitoring of the neurons in a persons brain may be commonplace, allowing for artificial life after death, reincarnation or ascension into ore advanced states of being…
warningsci-fi speculations
But even this existence woud not be eternal, begging the question is there a real afterlife, and would creating an artificial one simply delay the death of an individual and his/her passage to the real one?

[elfje]

a-theism from the Greek a (none) and Theos (god), literally no god, so it’s only the God concept that’s not believed.
I for one do not believe in God, but I do believe in some form of afterlife, yes.