AFTERLIFE LITERATURE

[Anonymous No.23882792]

I want your best afterlife literature to BTFO all my atheists friends.

[Anonymous No.23882810]

This is easily debunked by religious nuts. Since he didn't actually die he was not shown heaven. Or he was going to purgatory.

[Anonymous No.23882813]

>>23882810
True. But then also with the NDEs where they see heaven they weren't dead yet. I think it just doesn't mean much either way.

[Anonymous No.23882822]

Time to wake up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtOXx84aT-c

Summary:

In the psychedelic state, brain activity ONLY decreases massively, while the richness of experience ONLY increases massively.

This evidence contradicts the idea that the brain activity generates consciousness since the materialist hypothesis predicts that increases in the richness of experience MUST BE accompanied by increases in material brain activity somewhere.

Why does materialism necessarily predict this? Well, in materialism, the brain is the material object supposedly generating my experience; you can not have increases in the richness of experience without some increase in brain activity somewhere to explain it.

Thus, materialism has been empirically falsified along with the material brain generating consciousness.

Relevant Studies:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1119598109
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18593735/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24048847/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25693169/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28711736/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1518377113

--------------------------------------------------------------

If you are someone who has understood what I've said, you will ask "so what is the brain then?"

Idealists would say that the brain is just what your inner experience looks like from another conscious perspective: an mental icon representing your mental activity from another mind's perspective. It doesn't do anything, and there are no materials nor the hard problem of consciousness. That's because everything is consciousness in this view.

[Anonymous No.23882837]

>>23882813
when NDEs say they saw heaven it was hallucination
when they didnt see heaven it was because they didnt properly die

QED cringe religion

[Anonymous No.23882852]

>>23882792
Here, OP. It's not like bulletproof but it lays a very interesting case as to why death may not be the end. Kurt Gödel's letters to his mother as to why he believed in an afterlife are also intriguing:

https://aeon.co/essays/kurt-godel-his-mother-and-the-argument-for-life-after-death

[Anonymous No.23882853]

>>23882822
the materialist hypothesis predicts that increases in the richness of experience MUST BE accompanied by increases in material brain activity somewhere.
It doesn't. We don't understand how the brain works exactly, saying that stronger experiences must be accompanied by higher amplitudes of brain signals is extremely simplistic.
Also I took shrooms and it feels like a dream, normal conscious experience is much clearer, maybe that clarity requires brain power.

[Anonymous No.23882862]

>>23882792
Strictly speaking, atheism is consistent with an afterlife. You're more likely to find this unusual belief system in the East, but you get Westoids who don't believe in deities but who think consciousness can survive the death of the body.

[Anonymous No.23882864]

>>23882852
>jens
>godel
Never seen a more wojak post before

[Anonymous No.23882870]

>>23882792
Why would afterlife be any different from the "time" before you were born?

[Anonymous No.23882871]

>>23882870
What was your name before your father was born?

[Anonymous No.23882874]

>>23882871
Luckiest man not-in-the-world

[Anonymous No.23882876]

>>23882870
Why not?

[Anonymous No.23882878]

>>23882870
I can't be sure what it was like before I was born. I think death is just the end, but I think the argument is that our material brain somehow obfuscates the true spiritual reality and we therefore don't remember what it was like before birth. We will only experience that again when we are dead again or at most get a glimpse during NDEs.
Also it could be possible that our soul was created at birth, or that our soul existed before but it gained new abilities to perceive things during our physical life.

[Anonymous No.23882886]

>>23882876
Why?
Why not?
Why?
...

>>23882878
Self is memory. I don't care if there is any before or after as long as I don't remember this life.

[Anonymous No.23882894]

>>23882792
>there is nothing there
How would anyone know nothing?

[Anonymous No.23882896]

>>23882886
>Self is memory. I don't care if there is any before or after as long as I don't remember this life.
I don't think self is memory. Self is the space in which all phenomena exist.
When it comes to memory though, you might remember the time before your birth after you die.

[Anonymous No.23882903]

>>23882792
Divine Comedy
Western Lands
Third Policeman

[Anonymous No.23882908]

>>23882894
It's not that hard if you're not autistic

[Anonymous No.23882911]

>>23882896
I don't care about this hairsplitting pilpul language games.

Let me make my point clear. I am taking Schopenhauerian view here. There is an individual self that is (You) which is a part of Will-to-Live that is whole. Before one is born there is no individuation so there is no personal self but "(You)" are still there as you're the whole Will-to-Live. After death that same thing happen your ego and this shell of individual self will fade away and (You) will go back to slumber before birth and (You) will still remain like always. So after death you will remember nothing because there will be no individual self. Therefor afterlife is not different from before the birth of individual self.

Now there is a tiny chance of an afterlife and then you will end up in the hell of some religion and you're going burn for an eternity.

[Anonymous No.23882922]

>>23882908
Being conscious of "the absence of existence" in a given space in itself requires the presence of something, ie not "nothingness".

[Anonymous No.23882928]

>>23882911
How was I supposed to know that you share Schopenhauer's view? If Schopenhauer was right, then there will be no individual self but this is exactly the point that's beinh debated, whether the self persists. Memory is not the same as individuation (maybe on Schopenhauer's view it is, in which case I would disagree with him).
We could lose our memory and still remain individuals, just like people with amnesia.

[Anonymous No.23882930]

>>23882922
No, he had a NDE experience so he was told he was dead and he was then brought back to life. Nothing happened for him during that time. He's "conscious of the absence of existence" by inference.

[Anonymous No.23882933]

>>23882930
That is the one thing I thought could be a legitimate aspect, yes, but that's essentially "just" a blackout you suffer during which you're not conscious of the flow of time and the moment you regain it, in your mind, is the exact same as the moment you lose it.

[Anonymous No.23882967]

>>23882933
Hence his conclusion that there's nothing there

[Anonymous No.23882974]

>>23882792
If I cut you in two, which one of you goes to heaven?

[Anonymous No.23882999]

>>23882974

[Anonymous No.23883254]

Article author: Matt Schimkowitz.

[Anonymous No.23883262]

>>23882792
>Die
>First thing you see is a Dunkaccino

[Anonymous No.23883264]

>>23882999
kek


on that note being is a sensation of experience, not memory as some moron said

[Anonymous No.23883272]

>>23882792
She's got a GREAT AFTERLIFE!!!

[Anonymous No.23883335]

>>23883272
AND MY POST DEATH AETHER WAS ALL THE WAY UP IT

[Anonymous No.23883444]

>>23882792
>I checked.

[Anonymous No.23883980]

non perception doesn't entail non being

[Anonymous No.23884018]

>>23882792
(((Schinkowitz)))

[Anonymous No.23884023]

>>23884018
>(((Pacino)))
?

[Anonymous No.23884024]

>>23882792
>asshole dies
>gets lost in the void

Self incriminating, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.23884037]

Lotta coping in this thread

[Anonymous No.23884425]

>>23882792
btfo Al Pacino

[Anonymous No.23884485]

>>23882792
just study the metaphysics of what a person is, all the "anti-afterlife" stuff is basically dependent on having a hyper specific systematic understanding of reality. I'd focus on showing that doesn't work first, then you can point to the variety of things that give evidence for making that a reasonable thing to believe.
The phaedo is good for that but we don't have anything conclusive.
If you want to deal w/ athiests just go through ed feser's stuff
last superstition (skip if you already know the basics) > scholastic metaphysics > aristotle's revenge > his book on the soul that's coming out now
but like I said if I were you I'd just focus on reading plato/aristotle and getting a better idea of what a human being is and what science is so you can just kind of see how their paradigm works.