English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If it`s true well then that cancels out any hope in an afterlife. Because an organism can not be both dead and alive. Right? What would you call that.....Half-Life? lol

If it`s false well then organisms never die. Which seems pretty odd because in real life organisms die all the time.

Whether it is true or false there is no hope for an afterlife. Agree?

2007-09-30 20:08:24 · 14 answers · asked by Future 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Z - Not if you get cremated.

2007-09-30 20:19:29 · update #1

14 answers

this is the tangible truth .... but if you accept an imaginary soul as real the next step is too believe in an imaginary afterlife .
so you see delusions seem totally rational to the deluded who base their thinking upon delusion in the first place .
this is the nature of superstitious thinking when fulfilling our primitive instinctual desires with fantasy for reality.
"
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger," Roman stoic philosopher, writer, and politician (4-65).
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

2007-09-30 20:30:52 · answer #1 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 2 2

Yes, death is the end of a 'living organism', but what is life?
Life is a phase before what we call death, which to those who are religious, is the next phase and doesn't concern physical form, but rather the soul.
The self--all of what a person is, is the soul, and in death, the person leaves the body they had in life and goes to the 'afterlife', ie, heaven or hell.
'Living' is a term given to the self that exists in a physical form, and death is the term for its release from that form.
The self always exists however.

2007-10-01 03:13:55 · answer #2 · answered by M.J.C 4 · 1 0

Death is Non operational. Afterlife would mean No Resurrection,Thus opening the Door for Reincarnation. Thats a No No.

2007-10-01 04:10:10 · answer #3 · answered by conundrum 7 · 0 0

if the physical organic organism is the self and no further, then yes,.

but "I" am not by organic physical body, "I" am a soul that currently occupies this body.

just as the driver is not the car, when the car breaks down, the driver does not cease to function as well, it simply does not have a functional vehicle.

I am the driver. the physical organic living organism is the car.

the "afterlife" is the part of life after the current car breaks down completely.

2007-10-01 03:14:04 · answer #4 · answered by RW 6 · 3 1

I doubt your tiny brain will be able to reason this fact but the body dies, the soul lives on. Depending how your "organism" behaved on earth will determine where your soul will spend eternity, heaven or hell. A soul is the spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state. I would hate to be you if your theory is wrong.

2007-10-01 03:19:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Ahh, but here is the rub, isn't it true that when many organisms die they in-turn nourish new life forms. In away they become part of that new life form isn't that the circle of life?

2007-10-01 03:15:54 · answer #6 · answered by DrMichael 7 · 0 0

FALSE!

I believe in a life that extends beyond the frontiers of what most people label "death".

2007-10-01 03:14:20 · answer #7 · answered by The Maulvi Who Sold His Maruti 3 · 0 0

I find that death is the cessation of biological functionality necessary to sustain the whole organism. Without a brain, we are unable to think.. So even if there were a soul, we would not be able to think or experience without a brain..

Anyone that disagrees with me, please explain how you could possibly conclude that a brain is not needed to think?

2007-10-01 03:14:17 · answer #8 · answered by Green 7 · 1 1

True, but you need to separate biological death from spiritual death. The religious will happily admit that their mortal body dies but their soul transcends death.

2007-10-01 03:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by rogavit 3 · 0 0

The second assumption doesn't make any sense. You're changing the definition of death mid-sentence.

2007-10-01 03:20:27 · answer #10 · answered by w2 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers