# After Death

So what's it like after you're dead?

What was it like before you were born?

IMHO, we can't really conceive of oblivion or infinities. That's why we invent an 'afterlife'.

ummm, i guess our life is fairly simple just like a machine, if it blow up, too bad it will not function anymore. after life? i dunno

in the afterlife people go on without you.

hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
cangus said:
because life or perception has no value if it just ends..... i dont want to experience happiness, die, and never again percieve that i was happy. everything that happens, happens for a reason..... i get a glass of water because i am thirsty, i am thirsty because my body is dehydrated, i drink the water to rehydrate my body in order to survive..... there is a common pattern here. The problem is finishing the pattern..... why survive? u say, to be happy..... why be happy?

Because happiness is self justifying. It feels good. By the same token, why avoid pain? If you have a really bad headache, do you take an aspirin? If so, why? There is no external justification either way; experience is its own justification, be it for persual or avoidance.

You phrase the question in an interesting way that may provide some insight: why experience happiness if, at some point, you will never remember that happiness? Let's work with this. Suppose I know that 5 years from now I will have amnesia and irretrievably lose all of my long term memories from before that point. Should I then not bother seeking happiness in the coming 5 years? Should I not bother avoiding or alleviating pain? Think about it. I know that it won't matter to my future self whether or not I bang my toe into a chair-- but I, as consituted in the present, sure have something to say about it! I will try to avoid stubbing my toe, regardless of what it means to my future self, because it certainly means something to my present self, as it is happening.

You are looking for external justification when I think you should have every reason to be satisfied with internal justification. If I choose to watch a movie tonight, I do it because I anticipate enjoying the movie as I watch it, not in order to have some nice memories. Nice memories are nice to have, but only to the extent that the process of recalling a memory in a given instant is pleasing in that given instant. So even recollection-- 'walking down memory lane'-- is a process whose justification arises only from the instants during which it is practiced. On the face of it, it appears as if there is some external, timeless justification to memory, but on further reflection it reveals itself to be a strictly internal, time-dependent (ie in the present) justification.

If you cannot look back fondly upon your happiness after your death, then from that empty perspective, there is a sense in which the happiness you experienced in the past is irrelevant. But your current perspective is not empty; you are conscious right now, and accordingly right now it is of value for you to be happy and not to be in pain.

hypnagogue said:
Because happiness is self justifying. It feels good. By the same token, why avoid pain? If you have a really bad headache, do you take an aspirin? If so, why? There is no external justification either way; experience is its own justification, be it for persual or avoidance.

I interpreted him to be saying things a bit differently. He's saying that life conditions us to do things for a reason, to achieve some end. So why be happy only to become non-existent? Why even exists at all?

The question seems a bit absurd until you realize that life is not all happiness. For some people it isn't even close.

hypnagogue said:
Because happiness is self justifying. It feels good. By the same token, why avoid pain? If you have a really bad headache, do you take an aspirin? If so, why? There is no external justification either way; experience is its own justification, be it for persual or avoidance.

I interpreted him to be saying things a bit differently. He's saying that life conditions us to do things for a reason, to achieve some end. So why be happy only to become non-existent? Why even exists at all?

The question seems a bit absurd until you remember that life is not all happiness. For some people it isn't even close.

hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Fliption said:
I interpreted him to be saying things a bit differently. He's saying that life conditions us to do things for a reason, to achieve some end. So why be happy only to become non-existent? Why even exists at all?

The question seems a bit absurd until you remember that life is not all happiness. For some people it isn't even close.

I don't see how your phrasing changes how I should answer. Could you clarify?

When we die, our body returns to the Earth Mother. It decomposes, and gradually retruns to the food chain, becoming part of the many plants, animals, and other organisms that consititute nature.

As for the question of whether we continue to somehow exist somewhere, I am not entirely sure, but I think we don't. Once we die, we cease to exist. There is no afterlife.

What is the value of life if there is no afterlife? The answer seems simple to me: the value of our life is in the legacy we leave behind.

alpha_wolf said:
What is the value of life if there is no afterlife? The answer seems simple to me: the value of our life is in the legacy we leave behind.

the legacy we leave behind is an illusion of the mind....... what if u were the only living being on a planet..... what legacy would u leave in the minds of whom?

i've come to a conclusion that the more we think of the afterlife, the more it doesnt make sense.... we all can make up a meaning of life but if u really think about it and analyze it in depth, it ultimately wont make sense. someone said that the meaning of life was to be happy.... but why? the meaning of life is to leave behind a legacy.... why? whats the point? the meaning of life is a test from a divine source..... again, whats the point?

hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
I don't think we can say that being happy is THE meaning of life. On the other hand, being happy certainly provides sufficient motivation to live life, and motivation to live life is presumably the respect in which 'meaning of life' questions have significance.

Imagine the happiest you've ever been. Did you need to justify it extrinsically, or did it have some kind of intrinsic self-justification? Happiness does not derive meaning or significance from other things; it is its own meaningfulness and significance. It gives us sufficient reason to live without having to appeal to anything outside of itself.

cangus said:
i've come to a conclusion that the more we think of the afterlife, the more it doesnt make sense.... we all can make up a meaning of life but if u really think about it and analyze it in depth, it ultimately wont make sense. someone said that the meaning of life was to be happy.... but why? the meaning of life is to leave behind a legacy.... why? whats the point? the meaning of life is a test from a divine source..... again, whats the point?
the only logical explanation is that each person has their personal meaning of life and their personal goal(s). this includes whether or not there is an afterlife.

i believe that it is folly to accept any other persons' or groups' meaning.

when you find your answer it will resound within you. you may need to meditate or pray to hear your inner self.

love and peace,
olde drunk

cangus said:
someone said that the meaning of life was to be happy.... but why?

I did not state that the meaning of life is to be happy. In fact, I stated that I don't believe in any purpose or meaning to life. I said that happiness provides value to life. Happiness is intrinsically valuable. You know this when you feel happy.

Everyones goal in life is to be happy. Why?, becuase we were made that way.

Being happy feels good and if it didn't there wouldn't be a reason for us to stay alive.

I'm not sure I believe in an afterlife either, but maybe ceasing to Exist is not as terrible as it sounds. Afterall, think about it: everyone is going to die eventually. Even the most hardend materialst athiest will succumb to death at some point. There is no getting out of it. Sure, death would be the end of joy and laughter and whatnot, but it is ALSO the end of pain and suffering. So why should we fear it? Not everyone can live a quality life.

It's depressing to hear that people believe that life is all that there is. According to my religion, which I believe in very strongly, when you die you can go one of two places: Heaven or hell. ( I'm an evangelical christian by the way) You cannot get to heaven by works, and if you sin you go to hell. ETERNALLY! So how do you get to heaven? By accepting christ as your lord and savior. (I love forums!) By believing, no scratch that, KNOWING that christ died for your sins, you confess that he died on a cross for you (he was crucified!) and was raised from the dead (he has fulfilled I think 42 prophecies so far) and confess that you are a sinner (because EVERYONE has sinned) you will be saved. For god so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

After death is much like after half-life, only twice so.

gurl4god77 said:
It's depressing to hear that people believe that life is all that there is. According to my religion, which I believe in very strongly, when you die you can go one of two places: Heaven or hell. ( I'm an evangelical christian by the way) You cannot get to heaven by works, and if you sin you go to hell. ETERNALLY! So how do you get to heaven? By accepting christ as your lord and savior. (I love forums!) By believing, no scratch that, KNOWING that christ died for your sins, you confess that he died on a cross for you (he was crucified!) and was raised from the dead (he has fulfilled I think 42 prophecies so far) and confess that you are a sinner (because EVERYONE has sinned) you will be saved. For god so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

Then, if I understand correctly (and I probably don't), the purpose of life is to live after life. The way I have always understood it, and the way I have been taught, is that the life hereafter was a reward, a goal, "a prize worth pursuing" but not the meaning itself. The meaning was the glorification of our Creator (God the Father) who was, who is and who is to come withoug beginning and without end.

our body is really made up of sub atomic particles. I have a loose theory that some these particles could carry identity information or leave some type of imprint on such particle much like dna does.I call them smart particles.perhaps over eons of time we may find our selfs put back togeather again in some form. we would not remember this life though as time has no meaning in the sub atomic world. kinda like humpty dumpty with a vary bad memory.

I have a loose theory that some these particles could carry identity information or leave some type of imprint on such particle much like dna does. I have a loose theory that some these particles could carry identity information or leave some type of imprint on such particle much like dna does.I call them smart particles.

You obviously know nothing about sub atomic particles. They are identical, in every nuance of the word.

we would not remember this life though as time has no meaning in the sub atomic world. kinda like humpty dumpty with a vary bad memory.

What? Time has no meaning in the sub-atomic world? What crap have you been reading?

merak said:
our body is really made up of sub atomic particles. I have a loose theory that some these particles could carry identity information or leave some type of imprint on such particle much like dna does.I call them smart particles.perhaps over eons of time we may find our selfs put back togeather again in some form. we would not remember this life though as time has no meaning in the sub atomic world. kinda like humpty dumpty with a vary bad memory.

Fallacy of composition. Also, do you have any proof or is this just a preface to a Sci-Fi novel?
*Nico

dschouten said:
You obviously know nothing about sub atomic particles. They are identical, in every nuance of the word.

What? Time has no meaning in the sub-atomic world? What crap have you been reading?

I'm sorry guess I'm misinformed. I did not know all particles are indentical in every nauance of the word. so I have a few questions. how is a particle the same as an anti particle. virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed,how can one know that, they are indentical to all other particles. how is a pentaquark indentical to a force carrier particle. why can't the standard model predict a particles mass. why can't the standard model explain dark matter.

I hold that the past present and future are the same, that time is an illusion. how do you know that time has an effect on "all" particles, other that nuclear decay.

Nicomachus said:
Fallacy of composition. Also, do you have any proof or is this just a preface to a Sci-Fi novel?
*Nico

no I do not have any proof of that....... theory. perhaps I sould have said; it may be" possible "that some unknown particle "may" retain (some) information about the "form" of matter it once was in. a sci-fi novel? thats an idea. wonder if it would sell \$

Doesn't make cents.