What do you guys think about afterlife? Religion VS Science

[GrumpyGoomba]

We can see that the sun exists with our own eyes. This immaterial knowledge however, I see no proof of. Or rather, you haven't provided the said proof if it exists. You cannot possibly compare the sun, which we can clearly see and physically know to exist to immaterial knowledge which is already a vague concept and conviniently for you cannot be physically seen.

[MarvelsTheFixer]

tbh, i believe more in reincarnation

This seems to be either the most likely or the most preferable outcome.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Definitely the most preferable. Human beings want to believe what they want to be true, and the prospect of just dissappearing seems rather bleak that is why I believe the concept of afterlife was created, to give the hope humanity needed in it's earlier days to survive.

[ARandomDouche]

Definitely the most preferable. Human beings want to believe what they want to be true, and the prospect of just dissappearing seems rather bleak that is why I believe the concept of afterlife was created, to give the hope humanity needed in it's earlier days to survive.

So basically you are suggesting that early homo sapiens created the after-life so we didn't commit mass suicide until extinction? Sounds about right.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Indeed it might as well be. Other animals, unlike humans, purely run on instincts without any higher thoughts. Once the human beings gained sentience, they needed something more to keep going on other than the mere will and instinct to live. And that is why I think the concept of afterlife, and by an extention even possibly religion or god came to existence, to provide hope that there is something good waiting for them after they die, which in turn prevented them from just realizing that they are suffering around for nothing and ending their lives then and their. Another reason for the origin of afterlife religion might've been to unite different kinds of humans under a single soceity, because there really was nothing stopping humans to leave and lead solitary lives except for the protection within numbers provided by the other humans, which might not have appealed to some individuals. So... yeah, these are my opinions.

[spelerthomas]

People believe what they want to believe. You can't prove or disprove afterlife. Personally, I don't believe in it.

[James2]

We can see that the sun exists with our own eyes. This immaterial knowledge however, I see no proof of. Or rather, you haven't provided the said proof if it exists. You cannot possibly compare the sun, which we can clearly see and physically know to exist to immaterial knowledge which is already a vague concept and conviniently for you cannot be physically seen.

I have already shown why knowledge of universals must be immaterial. The point of my last post, which apparently went over your head, was that it isn't necessary to explain how something works to demonstrate that it exists.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Unless it doesn't exist. Then your arguement is nullified.

[MarvelsTheFixer]

Other animals, unlike humans, purely run on instincts without any higher thoughts.

Technically speaking, this is another matter that cannot be proven as it is beyond our power to know what an animal is thinking.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Ah well then that was my fault for claiming that animals run on instincts. What I actually meant to refer was that extra something which allowed us humans to gain sentience and the animals to not. At some point we began contemplating our existence, something I am definitely sure no animal does.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Hmm... let me see. I suppose it is due to our enhanced intelligence and the ability to learn things very quickly relative to other beings on this planets. I am guessing that at some point as our brain kept evolving and we kept learning new things, we ran out of stuff to learn that is completely essential for our survival. And with that free space in our brains, we began to think about stuff that isn't necessary for survival, because we could afford to do that.

[GrumpyGoomba]

The only suggestion that I have to offer to this would be that we were extremely lucky. Out of the millions of types organisms that are there on this planet, we were the only one to evolve in what I would like to call the 'right way' for us to achieve this. Ofcourse I won't say that the other organisms aren't capable of becoming sentient or achieving this but at some point in their history, their evolution went into the 'wrong direction'. (Remember that wrong or right as in to achieve the desired result we are talking about. There is truly no evolution that is entirely right or entirely wrong according to what I think). Some organisms put too much importance on their survival and thus lost their opportunity of gaining sentience, some were just simply too weak compared to their surroundings and became extinct. One example would be of the neanderthals who evolved from the same biological ancestors as us, the homo erectus and they came extremely close to us but we outlived them sheerly because I believe that they went just a little bit wrong in their evolution, which resulted in us outliving them when they were considered to be possibly even more smarter than us. This I believe is the cause of there not being other sentient beings on they planet such as us, they either died out early or they were too dumb to become sentient. Ofcourse I am no expert in this topic so there might be some mistakes in my analogy so don't take my words to be entire correct. But I do believe that there is a speck of truth in them.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Deciding that someone else's life is not at all limited only to humans... Take the ants for example. Worker ants would sacrifice their lives happily for their queen's survival. But I think this is directly related to the colony's continued living and can be considered their own survival instinct so I think this cannot be compared to the exact emotions that humans feel. The only thing I have to say about this is that no system is perfect. Everything has it's flaws. Humanity without emotions might seem to be better suited at survival but there are many positive things that we can do just because we have these emotions. The falling in love and deciding someone else's life is more valuable than them has most likely stemmed from the feelings of protection towards one's family/tribe that the earlier humans might've felt. This is dealing with the survival of their whole group as compared to survival of their own individual self and thus they believe that the first is the better alternative.

As for the reason of feeling guilt and loneliness to the point of being driven to suicide, I believe that might as well be a side effect of having a higher intellect than other organisms.

[MarvelsTheFixer]

Actually we can. We know that animals do not rely purely on instinct because we have evidence that animals can love, or feel guilt, or even that they osometimes intentionally commit suicide.

The only question here is how does this and the theory of evolution coincide?

Actually, no we can't. We can take reasonable guesses, but there is no way for us to be 100% positive about any of it because animals do not communicate.

[ARandomDouche]

Actually we can. We know that animals do not rely purely on instinct because we have evidence that animals can love, or feel guilt, or even that they osometimes intentionally commit suicide.

The only question here is how does this and the theory of evolution coincide?

Actually, no we can't. We can take reasonable guesses, but there is no way for us to be 100% positive about any of it because animals do not communicate.

That's where you are wrong, kiddo. What about mating calls? That's a form of communication.

Where as if creatures have sentience, well... I'm not one to answer such a question.

[MarvelsTheFixer]

You know I meant communicating with us.

At least I hope you are being sarcastic.

[ARandomDouche]

You know I meant communicating with us.

At least I hope you are being sarcastic.

If I was being serious, I would have gone for something else instead of a mating call. The only serious part was me not being able to answer if animals do in fact have sentience.

[ARandomDouche]

Animals have been known to commit suicide when one of their loved one die, die in order to save another in danger, etc.

Sauce? Source?

[GrumpyGoomba]

I am actually interested about the source too. Not because I doubt you but I would like to view this study myself because it has intrigued me.

[spelerthomas]

Im not the one who posted it but 2 sec google and you have this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

[KarlBowers]

Im not the one who posted it but 2 sec google and you have this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

Summarizing...

Animal suicide refers to any kind of self-destructive behavior displayed by various species of animals, resulting in their death. There are anecdotal
reports of grieving pets displaying
such behaviour after the death of their owner, or monogamous animals refusing to feed after the death of their mate.

Suicidal behavior
It is generally considered that humans
are the only known beings to use
weapons when putting an end to their own life. There are examples of
animals dying in defence of their
family or colony, such as the case of pea aphids increasing their chances of death as a response to parasitism.[1] Many animals that appear to be depressed or grieving begin to exhibit self-destructive behavior that sometimes ends in death.

[spelerthomas]

Linking this as the source https://www.nature.com/articles/328797b0 .

The whole suicide point is a bit weird. Surely it doesn't really go well with the evolution theory. Why would humans evolve into beings that are willingly killing themself. The same with animals or insects that do this. Try to explain monogamous animals refusing to feed after the death of their mate with evolution. Then again, if you study that animal more in-dept you can explain those things somehow, probably.

On the other hand, try to explain the same thing with creationism. Why would god have given humans the need of killing themself, or animals for that matter. That doesn't make any sense either. Then again, whenever these kinds of arguments come up they usually blame the devil.

[GrumpyGoomba]

Yes, why would god give the human beings the ability to willingly end their lives and on top of that make it a punishable act whereas he could just simply not give the ability to do so in the first place? That sounds not at all like what a 'perfect being' would do if you ask me.

[cshizzle]

Why would God give us the ability to do anything that is wrong? Because us to be free to make our own choices. If we choose to reject him, then we can blame only ourselves.

By that logic god is an evil sociopath. He allows humans do bad things so he can have the fun of sending them to hell for an eternity of pain and suffering?

Isn't a simpler explanation is that there is no god?

[KarlBowers]

God didn't created hell, Lucifer *clears throat* Satan did. As he wants to be as powerful as God that's why he's a devil and hell exists.