We are atheists, but what will happen after we die?

are we just gonna be reborn as a another person and forget what kinda person we were last time?

or we just go to this " heaven thing"

I'm of the frame of mind that that's a bridge we'll cross when we get there.  I have my beliefs, but to be honest if I woke up tomorrow and was absolutely convinced that there was no God or afterlife, I wouldn't change a thing.  I hold the opinion that if anyone would alter the way in which they live their life if they came upon a newfound belief or disbelief in God and the afterlife, then they aren't living right.

We, both believers and non-believers, won't be going anywhere, because we're dead.Genetic_Code

We're all going to Aman....

[spoiler] Btw although I have said that in OT jokingly I would really like it if paradise was Middle Earth. Or generally if the Valar were real and in heaven you are close to Iluvatar weaving more musical themes to the great Music, close to the Flame Imperishable... *sigh* [/spoiler]

We, both believers and non-believers, won't be going anywhere, because we're dead.Genetic_Code

Well, you'll at least be going into a coffin or a furnace, right? :P

Well, you'll at least be going into a coffin or a furnace, right? :P

GabuEx

I won't be going there. My body will. 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well, you'll at least be going into a coffin or a furnace, right? :P

Genetic_Code

I won't be going there. My body will. 

I know what you mean but it still sounds weird.

That sounds like something a person that believes we have a soul would say...

I know what you mean but it still sounds weird.Teenaged

Yeah, I thought the same thing. I always thought the soul made a decent metaphor for existence.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Well, you'll at least be going into a coffin or a furnace, right? :P

Genetic_Code

I won't be going there. My body will. 

Then who are you?

Then who are you?GabuEx

I'm the individual that possesses my current body and mind. When my body ceases to function, I will exist no more.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Then who are you?

Genetic_Code

I'm the individual that possesses my current body and mind. When my body ceases to function, I will exist no more.

Interesting. According to naturalism (unless I have misunderstood), physical matter is the only reality in our universe. If the individual inhabiting a human body is not a part of the body itself, then he or she cannot be a part of that physical matter since no physical leaves a human body at the point of death. So is the body in fact actually the individual, or have you changed your views since that last post in the dogma thread?ChiliDragon

That's more or less materialism. The difference between materialism and naturalism is that naturalism allows there to be some immaterial force to possibly exist, but of no relation to the divine. Domatron may correct me on that since he's much more knowledgeable than I am.

I believe that what I define to be me can be explained in material form. I exist in material form. I don't mean to imply that I'm not part of this matter that is my body, as though I'm just borrowing my body. When I say that I possess it, I mean that I am it, and I will continue to be it as long as it continues to function.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]

Interesting. According to naturalism (unless I have misunderstood), physical matter is the only reality in our universe. If the individual inhabiting a human body is not a part of the body itself, then he or she cannot be a part of that physical matter since no physical leaves a human body at the point of death. So is the body in fact actually the individual, or have you changed your views since that last post in the dogma thread?Genetic_Code

That's more or less materialism. The difference between materialism and naturalism is that naturalism allows there to be some immaterial force to possibly exist, but of no relation to the divine. Domatron may correct me on that since he's much more knowledgeable than I am.

Not quite. Atheism allows for an immaterial force that isn't related to the divine but both materialism and naturalism (these two are one in the same) specifically preclude it.

I believe that what I define to be me can be explained in material form. I exist in material form. I don't mean to imply that I'm not part of this matter that is my body, as though I'm just borrowing my body. When I say that I possess it, I mean that I am it, and I will continue to be it as long as it continues to function.

Genetic_Code

Bingo, you nailed it on that last bit. "You" as in your identity isn't the same thing as your body, it is the functions that your body carries out while you are alive. I think it was Dr. Manhattah who remarked that a dead body contains the exact same particles as a live body. When you die the material that your body is made out of doesn't change, it just stops working is all.

So the body isn't the individual but the individual is of the body. This is consistent with naturalism and yet doesn't require that we have personhood while we are dead.

Bingo, you nailed it on that last bit. "You" as in your identity isn't the same thing as your body, it is the functions that your body carries out while you are alive. I think it was Dr. Manhattah who remarked that a dead body contains the exact same particles as a live body. When you die the material that your body is made out of doesn't change, it just stops working is all.

So the body isn't the individual but the individual is of the body. This is consistent with naturalism and yet doesn't require that we have personhood while we are dead.

domatron23

But it seems to me that either one accepts the idea that one is nothing more than one's physical body, or one does not - and if one does not, then there must be something else that constitutes "you", no?

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Bingo, you nailed it on that last bit. "You" as in your identity isn't the same thing as your body, it is the functions that your body carries out while you are alive. I think it was Dr. Manhattah who remarked that a dead body contains the exact same particles as a live body. When you die the material that your body is made out of doesn't change, it just stops working is all.

So the body isn't the individual but the individual is of the body. This is consistent with naturalism and yet doesn't require that we have personhood while we are dead.

GabuEx

But it seems to me that either one accepts the idea that one is nothing more than one's physical body, or one does not - and if one does not, then there must be something else that constitutes "you", no?

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Bingo, you nailed it on that last bit. "You" as in your identity isn't the same thing as your body, it is the functions that your body carries out while you are alive. I think it was Dr. Manhattah who remarked that a dead body contains the exact same particles as a live body. When you die the material that your body is made out of doesn't change, it just stops working is all.

So the body isn't the individual but the individual is of the body. This is consistent with naturalism and yet doesn't require that we have personhood while we are dead.

GabuEx

But it seems to me that either one accepts the idea that one is nothing more than one's physical body, or one does not - and if one does not, then there must be something else that constitutes "you", no?

Yup that's correct. That something else isn't a non-physical soul though, it's just the proper functioning of your physical body.

One such function is consciousness. The physical body (the brain specifically) isn't itself consciousness but it functions to produce it and likewise ceases to produce it when it is no longer functioning. "You" and your body are as seperate as flight and aeorplanes. One is what it is, the other is what it does.

What they both are arguing is that when your body stops functioning, you cease to be you.itsTolkien_time

I understand that, but what I am saying is that if you are more than just your body, then there must be something else that is "you".  One can say that we are our consciousness, not just our body, but then this raises the obvious question, as you say: where does the consciousness go?  And, for that matter, what is consciousness - that is, what makes something conscious, and thereby quantitatively differentiable from that which is not conscious?  And what happens to this consciousness when the body ceases to function?

One of the fundamental laws of nature is that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, so I do not believe it is a satisfactory answer to simply say that it disappears.  And if it does not disappear, then it seems to me that until we know precisely what it is and what happens to it that we cannot by any means say that we - if by "we" we mean our consciousness - simply cease to be when our containing bodies cease to function.  How do we know that that is the case, if we do not even truly understand precisely what it is that separates us from a corpse?

Yup that's correct. That something else isn't a non-physical soul though, it's just the proper functioning of your physical body.

One such function is consciousness. The physical body (the brain specifically) isn't itself consciousness but it functions to produce it and likewise ceases to produce it when it is no longer functioning. "You" and your body are as seperate as flight and aeorplanes. One is what it is, the other is what it does.

domatron23

Well, speaking of airplanes, that's the thing: a broken airplane is still an airplane.  If you fix what is broken, then it will fly again, just as before.  Would you agree with the statement, then, that if you fixed what was broken in a human that it would live again, just as it was before?  Would it be precisely the same consciousness as before?

And, I suppose, for that matter, how would we know if it was?

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Yup that's correct. That something else isn't a non-physical soul though, it's just the proper functioning of your physical body.

One such function is consciousness. The physical body (the brain specifically) isn't itself consciousness but it functions to produce it and likewise ceases to produce it when it is no longer functioning. "You" and your body are as seperate as flight and aeorplanes. One is what it is, the other is what it does.

GabuEx

Well, speaking of airplanes, that's the thing: a broken airplane is still an airplane.  If you fix what is broken, then it will fly again, just as before.  Would you agree with the statement, then, that if you fixed what was broken in a human that it would live again, just as it was before?  Would it be precisely the same consciousness as before?

And, I suppose, for that matter, how would we know if it was?

Hah, aeorplanes. That's a typo and a half from me.

In any case, yes a broken airplane is still an airplane but what something is is distinct from what it does. If you fixed it it would function again and likewise if you fixed a dead body it would live again and be conscious. Frankenstein aside though I think that death is kind of an irreversible event.

I haven't reanimated any corpses though so I don't know anything about its consciousness. Gaming provides a useful analogy though. If I have a cartridge of the game Chocobo's Dungeon and I accidently break it then I can simply buy another copy of the same game which functions identically to my "dead" copy. This isn't exactly fixing a dead body but it does demonstrate how a complex function can be recaptured intact and doesn't require some mystical essence that exists seperately to the game cartridge.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Yup that's correct. That something else isn't a non-physical soul though, it's just the proper functioning of your physical body.

One such function is consciousness. The physical body (the brain specifically) isn't itself consciousness but it functions to produce it and likewise ceases to produce it when it is no longer functioning. "You" and your body are as seperate as flight and aeorplanes. One is what it is, the other is what it does.

GabuEx

Well, speaking of airplanes, that's the thing: a broken airplane is still an airplane.  If you fix what is broken, then it will fly again, just as before.  Would you agree with the statement, then, that if you fixed what was broken in a human that it would live again, just as it was before?  Would it be precisely the same consciousness as before?

And, I suppose, for that matter, how would we know if it was?

I'm going to say yes to that, if all the neurons or whatever it is that makes up our brains are in exactly the same formation as they were before we died then what is there that could possibly be different?

[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]What they both are arguing is that when your body stops functioning, you cease to be you.GabuEx

And, for that matter, what is consciousness - that is, what makes something conscious, and thereby quantitatively differentiable from that which is not conscious?  And what happens to this consciousness when the body ceases to function?

Just something I've been thinking about, could we consider the great apes conscious/sentient, why or why not?

What about our earlier selves? Like when we were five or even younger, would alien life with even more complex brain functions or even AI, have a 'higher' level of consciousness then our own? Where is the line between consciousness and non consciousness?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Yup that's correct. That something else isn't a non-physical soul though, it's just the proper functioning of your physical body.

One such function is consciousness. The physical body (the brain specifically) isn't itself consciousness but it functions to produce it and likewise ceases to produce it when it is no longer functioning. "You" and your body are as seperate as flight and aeorplanes. One is what it is, the other is what it does.

bean-with-bacon

Well, speaking of airplanes, that's the thing: a broken airplane is still an airplane.  If you fix what is broken, then it will fly again, just as before.  Would you agree with the statement, then, that if you fixed what was broken in a human that it would live again, just as it was before?  Would it be precisely the same consciousness as before?

And, I suppose, for that matter, how would we know if it was?

I'm going to say yes to that, if all the neurons or whatever it is that makes up our brains are in exactly the same formation as they were before we died then what is there that could possibly be different?

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"][QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="domatron23"]

Yup that's correct. That something else isn't a non-physical soul though, it's just the proper functioning of your physical body.

One such function is consciousness. The physical body (the brain specifically) isn't itself consciousness but it functions to produce it and likewise ceases to produce it when it is no longer functioning. "You" and your body are as seperate as flight and aeorplanes. One is what it is, the other is what it does.

itsTolkien_time

Well, speaking of airplanes, that's the thing: a broken airplane is still an airplane.  If you fix what is broken, then it will fly again, just as before.  Would you agree with the statement, then, that if you fixed what was broken in a human that it would live again, just as it was before?  Would it be precisely the same consciousness as before?

And, I suppose, for that matter, how would we know if it was?

I'm going to say yes to that, if all the neurons or whatever it is that makes up our brains are in exactly the same formation as they were before we died then what is there that could possibly be different?

Our brain is what makes us, us, now I don't really know much about the brain, hence my 'neurons or whatever,' I'll put it another way, if we die then we re assemble every single molecule and their enrgy states as it was before we died, how would our conscious be any different? As for the soul or some other kind of supernatural essence that makes us, us, I know of no evidence that support the idea so I don't need to disprove it.

I'm going to say yes to that, if all the neurons or whatever it is that makes up our brains are in exactly the same formation as they were before we died then what is there that could possibly be different?

bean-with-bacon

Well, there wouldn't be anything different - if indeed it were the case that everything comprising a human being is purely physical.  That's my point, really - it seems that if we could truly bring a long-dead human back to life and then find it to be identical to how it was before it died, then those claiming that there is anything else to it would be in rather dire straits.  If, on the other hand, it was somehow different or less than it was before, then the same could be said about those claiming that there is not anything else to it.

Not saying that this is a test that could actually be performed - this just seems like an interesting thought experiment if nothing else that gets to the heart of what really makes "you" who "you" are.  Going back to domatron's example, it strikes me as the difference between an airplane, which is purely mechanical in nature, and a human, which is alive and acts autonomously.  Is there a difference between a human and a computer?  Is a human simply a very sophisticated computer that takes input and provides output?  Would a sufficiently advanced computer have a consciousness equal to that of a human, or is there indeed some fundamental thing that would always be missing in a computer composed solely of physical parts?

I obviously don't know the answer to these questions.  But it seems to me that we cannot simply assume answers to them when we really know nothing at all with respect to the topic of true consciousness.  To say that a dead person would obviously be the same if we fixed his failed body parts and then started him up again is basically begging the very question at hand, which is whether there is something more to consciousness than the physical body.

Just something I've been thinking about, could we consider the great apes conscious/sentient, why or why not?

What about our earlier selves? Like when we were five or even younger, would alien life with even more complex brain functions or even AI, have a 'higher' level of consciousness then our own? Where is the line between consciousness and non consciousness?

bean-with-bacon

I don't know what the line is, and I think that's the fundamental question.  Perhaps one thing that could be suggested is self-awareness - place a baby in front of a mirror and he or she is likely to think that that is another entity, because that baby has no awareness of its own existence within the physical realm.  However, you and I can look at a mirror and know very well that we are looking at ourselves, because we do have that awareness.  What provides that awareness, such that some animals appear to possess it and others don't?  That I have no idea.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]We, both believers and non-believers, won't be going anywhere, because we're dead.Teenaged

We're all going to Aman....

At first I read that as Amman, which is the capital of the country I live in. It's the city where I live. And if God exists, he'd have a creul sense of humour if he sent everyone here.

At first I read that as Amman, which is the capital of the country I live in. It's the city where I live. And if God exists, he'd have a creul sense of humour if he sent everyone here.

Maqda7

Well that's certainly a weird coincidence then. :P

Jordan, eh?  I don't think I've ever met someone before who hailed from there.

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

I'm going to say yes to that, if all the neurons or whatever it is that makes up our brains are in exactly the same formation as they were before we died then what is there that could possibly be different?

GabuEx

Well, there wouldn't be anything different - if indeed it were the case that everything comprising a human being is purely physical.  That's my point, really - it seems that if we could truly bring a long-dead human back to life and then find it to be identical to how it was before it died, then those claiming that there is anything else to it would be in rather dire straits.  If, on the other hand, it was somehow different or less than it was before, then the same could be said about those claiming that there is not anything else to it.

Not saying that this is a test that could actually be performed - this just seems like an interesting thought experiment if nothing else that gets to the heart of what really makes "you" who "you" are.  Going back to domatron's example, it strikes me as the difference between an airplane, which is purely mechanical in nature, and a human, which is alive and acts autonomously.  Is there a difference between a human and a computer?  Is a human simply a very sophisticated computer that takes input and provides output?  Would a sufficiently advanced computer have a consciousness equal to that of a human, or is there indeed some fundamental thing that would always be missing in a computer composed solely of physical parts?

I obviously don't know the answer to these questions.  But it seems to me that we cannot simply assume answers to them when we really know nothing at all with respect to the topic of true consciousness.  To say that a dead person would obviously be the same if we fixed his failed body parts and then started him up again is basically begging the very question at hand, which is whether there is something more to consciousness than the physical body.

But what is there to suggest there is something more to us then our brains? We can see what thought activity corresponds to what part of the brain, we can never think without some part of the brain having corresponding activity, when our brain dies, we die.

What if we brought a dead ape back to life with the exact same molecular make up as it had before it died? Would it be any different? What about a dog? Hell, what about a fly or germ? What if we could bring back every single stage of our human evolution to some primitive monkey with no self awareness or consciousness of itself? Where does this supernatural essence of 'self' come into being? And why is there absolutely any reason to think that it exists other then we don't know everything about how the brain works?

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Just something I've been thinking about, could we consider the great apes conscious/sentient, why or why not?

What about our earlier selves? Like when we were five or even younger, would alien life with even more complex brain functions or even AI, have a 'higher' level of consciousness then our own? Where is the line between consciousness and non consciousness?

GabuEx

I don't know what the line is, and I think that's the fundamental question.  Perhaps one thing that could be suggested is self-awareness - place a baby in front of a mirror and he or she is likely to think that that is another entity, because that baby has no awareness of its own existence within the physical realm.  However, you and I can look at a mirror and know very well that we are looking at ourselves, because we do have that awareness.  What provides that awareness, such that some animals appear to possess it and others don't?  That I have no idea.

Why do some animals have it and others don't? Well funnily enough the ones that do have it are the ones with the more complex brains :P. I guess what I'm trying to say is there isn't some magical line between consciousness and non consciousness, it's all just levels of complexity, sure it's impossible to comprehend a higher or lower level of consciousness, we tend to think something is either sentient and self aware or it isn't but there is no evidence for that line of thinking.

But what is there to suggest there is something more to us then our brains? We can see what thought activity corresponds to what part of the brain, we can never think without some part of the brain having corresponding activity, when our brain dies, we die.

What if we brought a dead ape back to life with the exact same molecular make up as it had before it died? Would it be any different? What about a dog? Hell, what about a fly or germ? What if we could bring back every single stage of our human evolution to some primitive monkey with no self awareness or consciousness of itself? Where does this supernatural essence of 'self' come into being? And why is there absolutely any reason to think that it exists other then we don't know everything about how the brain works?

bean-with-bacon

The fact that we are conscious at all, really.  I'm not at all opposed to the theoretical idea that apes or dogs could well have this supernatural essence of self as well, so those questions don't really affect me.  The fundamental question for me is this: what is responsible for consciousness?  Like I said, one can assert that we are just complex computers, responding to stimuli with programmed behavior, but then the question comes up: are computers conscious?  If not, then what is the difference?  Is it just complexity, or is it something more fundamental?

And if it is just complexity, then one can ask: at what level of complexity does the transition occur?  It seems to me that something either is conscious or it is not; there can be no in-between stage where something is "sort of conscious".  If you knock me out, then I am unconscious; when I recover, I become conscious again.  At no point was there some point in between; it is a purely binary state.  This to me seems to pose issues for those who wish to assert that it is just one big gradient.

Like I said, until we can answer those questions, I do not believe that it is valid to simply assume answers to them.  This isn't a matter of there being no evidence for something - I think that the very nature of consciousness provides a very real question whose answer is pivotal to the understanding of "self", and one that I additionally do not believe to have an easy default answer if one truly thinks about it.

Why do some animals have it and others don't? Well funnily enough the ones that do have it are the ones with the more complex brains :P. I guess what I'm trying to say is there isn't some magical line between consciousness and non consciousness, it's all just levels of complexity, sure it's impossible to comprehend a higher or lower level of consciousness, we tend to think something is either sentient and self aware or it isn't but there is no evidence for that line of thinking.

bean-with-bacon

On what grounds do you base the assertion that it is not correct to say that an entity either is self-aware or it isn't?  Is there a state where an entity can be somewhere in between?  If so, what exactly would this look like?

The fact that we are conscious at all, really.  I'm not at all opposed to the theoretical idea that apes or dogs could well have this supernatural essence of self as well, so those questions don't really affect me.GabuEx

What about a germ cell?

The fundamental question for me is this: what is responsible for consciousness?  Like I said, one can assert that we are just complex computers, responding to stimuli with programmed behavior, but then the question comes up: are computers conscious?  If not, then what is the difference?  Is it just complexity, or is it something more fundamental?GabuEx

I think it is quite reasonable to say that it will be possible to one day create a self aware computer, as for just reacting to stimuli, I don't know, as I pointed out in another thread we perform actions and make decisions etc before we consciously perceive ourselves doing them. But are we constantly reacting to external stimuli and can we make our own stimuli? Again I don't know, take daydreams for example, are we spontaneously and randomly coming up with ideas or are they a mechanism responding to boredom stimuli to prevent brain inactivity? Our imagination then reacts to our day dreams stimuli with even more ideas, but where do these ideas come from? Are they simply a random amalgam of past experience or we truly capable of spontaneous and unique ideas? I'm kind of rambling at this point... Anyway I don't know, I would say yes we do merely respond to stimuli but on some level we are able to create our own stimuli, which is probably just us responding to stimuli...

And if it is just complexity, then one can ask: at what level of complexity does the transition occur?  It seems to me that something either is conscious or it is not; there can be no in-between stage where something is "sort of conscious".GabuEx

I don't think you can say there is a transition, where exactly did you suddenly become conscious from your child self to whom you are now?

If you knock me out, then I am unconscious; when I recover, I become conscious again.  At no point was there some point in between; it is a purely binary state.  This to me seems to pose issues for those who wish to assert that it is just one big gradient.GabuEx

I don't believe the knock out is a valid example, I think it is pretty fair to say that the brain states between being knocked out and being a monkey or a baby are fairly different.

Now I'm not sure if this is a valid analogy but I'll use dreaming as an example, when we're dreaming we can't differentiate between our dream selves and what we'd be like if we were awake, when we're dreaming we think we are conscious but really we are just responding to our dreams stimuli without any real thought process going on considering some of the absurd situations that happen when we dream, so are we in a kind of lower state of consciousness then when we are our dream selves?

Like I said, until we can answer those questions, I do not believe that it is valid to simply assume answers to themGabuEx

Sure, but where's the fun in that? :P

[QUOTE="Maqda7"]

At first I read that as Amman, which is the capital of the country I live in. It's the city where I live. And if God exists, he'd have a creul sense of humour if he sent everyone here.

GabuEx

Well that's certainly a weird coincidence then. :P

Jordan, eh? I don't think I've ever met someone before who hailed from there.

Most people haven't heard of it. And if they do, they have these really crazy stereotypical idea of what an arab country who 80% of the world haven't heard of is like.

Is there a difference between a human and a computer? Is a human simply a very sophisticated computer that takes input and provides output? Would a sufficiently advanced computer have a consciousness equal to that of a human, or is there indeed some fundamental thing that would always be missing in a computer composed solely of physical parts?GabuEx

Actually the computer analogy makes sense! A computer has hard drive and RAM. When the computer is powered down It's essentially dead and there are no processes active in the RAM. But when it's powered up the operating system and the other softwares load up into the RAM from the hard drive. RAM is where all the calculations take place and the outcomes get recorded on to the hard drive.

I think our consciousness may be something similar to RAM. But we have no hard drive so everything we experience from birth becomes a part off our consciousness, the RAM. So once our body stops functioning our consciousness slowly dies with it. This consciousness is a process or a collection of processes that cannot be reactivated once terminated...

Actually the computer analogy makes sense! A computer has hard drive and RAM. When the computer is powered down It's essentially dead and there are no processes active in the RAM. But when it's powered up the operating system and the other softwares load up into the RAM from the hard drive. RAM is where all the calculations take place and the outcomes get recorded on to the hard drive.

I think our consciousness may be something similar to RAM. But we have no hard drive so everything we experience from birth becomes a part off our consciousness, the RAM. So once our body stops functioning our consciousness slowly dies with it. This consciousness is a process or a collection of processes that cannot be reactivated once terminated...

7guns

...I guess.

[quote="7guns"]I think our consciousness may be something similar to RAM. But we have no hard drive so everything we experience from birth becomes a part off our consciousness, the RAM. So once our body stops functioning our consciousness slowly dies with it. This consciousness is a process or a collection of processes that cannot be reactivated once terminated...Teenaged

Whenever I think about what it would be like when we die, I can never wrap my head around it. I always end up thinking it will probably be like before we were born. To me, that's sort of a scary thing to think about. Although, I always I thought it would be cool to be reincarnated into some other animal and still retain some of our former consciousness. 

Whenever I think about what it would be like when we die, I can never wrap my head around it. I always end up thinking it will probably be like before we were born. To me, that's sort of a scary thing to think about. Although, I always I thought it would be cool to be reincarnated into some other animal and still retain some of our former conciseness.

Dr_AlanGrant

I agree with you, the idea that we simple stop existing terrifies me. But I take a little solace in imagining a reincarnation.

Return to the Earth, and thus, the Universe.foxhound_fox

You say that as though we were gone from the Earth. 

You say that as though we were gone from the Earth.Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Dr_AlanGrant"]

Whenever I think about what it would be like when we die, I can never wrap my head around it. I always end up thinking it will probably be like before we were born. To me, that's sort of a scary thing to think about. Although, I always I thought it would be cool to be reincarnated into some other animal and still retain some of our former conciseness.

Maqda7

I agree with you, the idea that we simple stop existing terrifies me. But I take a little solace in imagining a reincarnation.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Maqda7"]

At first I read that as Amman, which is the capital of the country I live in. It's the city where I live. And if God exists, he'd have a creul sense of humour if he sent everyone here.

Maqda7

Well that's certainly a weird coincidence then. :P

Jordan, eh? I don't think I've ever met someone before who hailed from there.

Most people haven't heard of it. And if they do, they have these really crazy stereotypical idea of what an arab country who 80% of the world haven't heard of is like.

[QUOTE="Maqda7"][QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Maqda7"]

At first I read that as Amman, which is the capital of the country I live in. It's the city where I live. And if God exists, he'd have a creul sense of humour if he sent everyone here.

THUMPTABLE

Well that's certainly a weird coincidence then. :P

Jordan, eh? I don't think I've ever met someone before who hailed from there.

Most people haven't heard of it. And if they do, they have these really crazy stereotypical idea of what an arab country who 80% of the world haven't heard of is like.

To my surprise A LOT of people don't know Jordan. I convinced a couple of grad students to come visit once. They absolutely loved it.