Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not everyone who believes in a soul (by whatever name) necessarily believes in an afterlife. Although if you believe in an afterlife, belief in a soul is a necessary prerequisite. --Kels 13:29, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Are there any who belive in a non-eternal afterlife? The Viking afterlife seems non-eternal, but it is kind of vague. Researcher 21:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Well, what I was getting at was the belief in a heaven/summerland/whatever sort of afterlife. I, personally, have a belief in reincarnation but it doesn't require a separate place, just a "recycling" if you will of the essential self back into the world. It doesn't go anywhere, from my point of view. A lot of people who beieve in reincarnation have similar beliefs. Not all, some do seem to believe in some sort of "holding area" between rounds, but that never made sense to me. --Kels 11:55, 30 December 2007 (EST)

I just hope that there is one. I don't want this to be "it." I'm a bit scared. Fire Warrior 10 16:26, 29 December 2008 (EST)

which version?[edit]

It would be interesting for someone to sock up and ask Aschlafly & Co which version of us is eventually in Heaven. My mother died absolutely gaga with Alzheimers. I would prefer the 35 year old of my childhood memories, she would probably have wanted the eighteen year old amateur actress to be her avatar. Which one would the good lord select? 10:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)

It also depends which version of an afterlife you believe in. Whether there's an immutable 'inner' element to us, whether or not it's in time, and so on. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום

Belief in an afterlife[edit]

I see we have a fact tag on beliefs held by "most people" about a possible afterlife. I can't find anything directly on this at the moment but I've been looking at some polls recently for another potential article and this poll certainly says that most US adults believe in God - which suggests they may believe in an afterlife too. On the other hand this one would suggest that the US is out of line with the rest of the developed world. Maybe we need to define who "most people" are?--Bobbing up 13:45, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

I added the tag to the patently ridiculous claim. According to my Bible on these matters,, Christianity and Islam alone make up over 1/2 of the world population. "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" are about 1/6. So it seems to me that a substantial majority of the human race (="most people") believe in some sort of afterlife. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:00, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Should be less biased in the 2nd paragraph. Don't want to look like a bunch of jackasses!— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Don't see the bias myself. ToastToastand marmite 22:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Torn from it's womb asunder[edit]

I ripped this abortion out of the article because it is really badly argued, but someone cared and I don't want to see it die:

"An argument that there is an afterlife"

1. Things are said to exist if they are verified. For example, neutrinos are verified by observation.

2. Things have the possibility of existing if they are verifiable in principle (the red dress Cleopatra may have worn on her 20th birthday could have been verified, in principle, by her or by those present at her party).

3. Things do not exist if they are not verifiable, even in principle (a ball that is all red and all blue does not exist because it is a self-contradiction and not verifiable, even in principle).

4. Consciousness before death exists, because it is being verified now (you are conscious, for example, of this proof).

5. Consciousness is a private phenomenon which is only verifiable by the person who has it. This is why it can only be inferred that animals, who cannot speak, have awareness.

6. Consciousness after death may exist, because it could be verified, in principle, by the subject himself, post mortem, if consciousness after death exists.

7. The case that "no consciousness after death exists" does not exist, because it is not verifiable, even in principle, since verification requires the consciousness of the deceased.

8. If the case that "no consciousness after death exists" does not exist (7), and if its negation, that "consciousness after death exists" is not ruled out (6), then consciousness after death must exist, by the rule "if not non-A then A."

I was trying to edit it to make sense in some way, and realized I was "arguing by editing" - there was no way to make it make sense. So here it is for posterity. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:24, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Fallacy somewhere, I fancy... Scarlet A.pngbomination 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
1 is basically a tautology. If you want to get technical about epistemology then how you verify things is the important part. "Things are true if they're verified" is nothing.
2 and 3 are just wrong.
4 - 6 are like a weird misquoting of cogito ergo sum.
7 and 8 are so muddled they make the rest look pretty sensible. I mean really, wtf? Is 7 seriously trying to prove that the case against the afterlife doesn't exist? Also I realize this comment is ancient, but since Armondikov brought it up... Mei III (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Might as well say "I think there is an afterlife because I think there is an afterlife". Тиранесmystify blow-up doll, putrefy ROM? 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I had to necro the thing because it was just so WTF I couldn't resist. But I think Mei III's assessment is fairly spot on. Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


"But the paradox inherent in a consciousness attempting to contemplate the cessation of its own activity" - is this really a paradox? If there is one inherent in such activity, I'd like to hear what it is. Thanks, ħumanUser talk:Human 17:54, 20 December 2008 (EST)


I'd love to call "POE" on it, but I've seen some of the Rapture services so I'm assuming it's genuine. But regardless, WHY ARE PEOPLE STEALING ALL MY GOOD MONEY MAKING SCHEMES!!?!?!?!?! Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it really exist[edit]

That section did not really address if an after life existed, but focused more on the mind and if there is a place in the mind for a soul. I pared it down, cause it is right on the money for "where the heck would a soul be", but cut most of the rest. Probably the cut pieces would fit well into the section on a soul.Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was so much taken out?[edit]

A great deal was taken out and I've put much of it below:-

For instance, in the famous case of Phineas Gage, a 25-year-old man survived destruction of one or both frontal lobes by a projectile iron rod and went on to manifest pronounced changes in personality, suggesting a correlation between brain states and mental states.[1] Similar examples abound; neuroscientist David Eagleman describes the case of another individual who exhibited escalating pedophilic tendencies at two different times, and in each case was found to have tumors growing in a particular part of his brain.[2][3] The amygdala processes reactions to violations concerning personal space, and these reactions are absent in persons in whom the amygdala is damaged bilaterally.[4] Monkey mothers who have amygdala damage show a reduction in maternal behaviors towards their infants, often physically abusing or neglecting them.[5] Psychoactive substances can be used to temporarily alter the mind through manipulation of neurotransmission. Also, see lobotomy.

  1. Harlow (1868), pp. 339–342.
  2. "Brain tumour causes uncontrollable paedophilia"
  3. Eagleman, Philosophy Bites Podcast, "David Eagleman on Morality and the Brain"
  4. Kennedy, DP; Gläscher, J; Tyszka, JM; Adolphs, R. "Personal space regulation by the human amygdala." (2009). Nat Neuroscince. 12 pmid=19718035
  5. Bucher, K.; Myersn, R.; Southwick, C. "Anterior temporal cortex and maternal behaviour in monkey." (1970). Neurology. 20 pmid = 4998075

Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's exactly the reason for that section's removal, but it was ripped directly from wikipedia. Cow...Hammertime! 16:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
please see above. Green mowse.pngGodotWhat is your fucking defense of automatic guns, again? 16:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Im glad the material was removed. The IP who added the material has copy edited it that is lazy for a start; also some of it was wrong. One example is he was writing that the brain stops to function at death and thus this refutes the afterlife, but which person on earth would deny the brain stops to function at death? Nobody denies this not even those who believe in the afterlife. He was also equating "soul" or "spirit" with the brain, well no occultists, paranormalists, religionists or spiritualists etc equate the brain with the soul... they say it is a metaphysical entity not the brain itself. DinoCrisis (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Afterlife in Judaism[edit]

One Jewish view of the afterlife is that all people remain in a sort of suspended animation until the Messiah comes and raises the dead though Judaism has few clear dogma about the afterlife. The Afterlife

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist. The Afterlife

Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

At least the article now acknowledges that there is more than one view in Judaism, that was all I was trying to write during the edit war. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Proxima, would you at least have the courtesy to read what you write?[edit]

"There is no one clear tradiational Jewish view of the afterlife is that all people remain as disembodied souls until the Messiah comes and raises the dead." Are you trying to vandalize the wiki? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the bad grammar. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked that you of all people would do such a thing. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 18:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the grammar, please read Heaven and Hell in Jewish Tradition before you modify what I wrote. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I read your article, did you? it says the same thing that most traditional scholarship has discussed about sheol. And again, we are talking TRADITONAL, not modern mainstream, christian influenced judeasim. Sheol is not "one among many" it is the dominant view.Green mowse.pngGodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 18:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The article says disembodied souls are in Gan Eden the dead traditionally are in Sheol but the text says nothing about whether they have bodies or not in Sheol. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what motivates you to try to "prove me wrong", and i don't really care that you do. The problem I have is how you go about it. Not knowing a broad base of your topic, you look for one link here, and one link there, then don't just stop at "here are other views' (which in this case we kept after you stated them - including your quote). You make broader statements about things you don't really understand, and then push and push even more (in this case you started with showing there were other views - good, then stated that Sheol is only "one of many", then added "no traditional view", etc without even really reading the articles you suppply, much less contextualizing them with other works. It's fine to keep editors honest. critical in fact. Keep me honest. but you then need to keep yourself honest, as well. and since you play this "one article, therefore truth" game, it gets quite silly. --Green mowse.pngGodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 18:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried about the vast amount of stuff that you put into articles on your sole authority. None of this is Peer reviewed in the same way that isn't peer reviewed. I'm never sure if you're right or wrong and I feel you should give reliable sources so the rest of us can be more confident about what's in articles.

I try and research your contributions and try to find out if there are errors in what you write. Then as you point out I don't know enough so if you're making errors they are likely to stay. Giving citations would reassure me at least partially. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)