I've been reading Lucretius' De rerum natura and Epicureans in the last couple of weeks and I find their idea of the afterlife believable: since we're made of atoms and energy, which can't be destroyed, when death comes, the first ones break-apart and the seconds disperse and, then, the atoms reunite again in a new being, that's going to absorbe our dispersed energy. Eventually, we are reborn in a new body (animated or inanimated) and our existence goes on, till the next time death catches us and the process stars all over again. It seems a lot more believable to me than Hell and Heaven.
>>8137672
The Christian theory is that one's soul or spirit is what determines consciousness and that it persists after bodily death, and that the state and/or location of this spirit can be called heaven or hell.
Why is your explanation, which is merely a transfer of energy, and not of consciousness (which is what we are generally referring to when we talk about life) more convincing? Besides, right now you may have atoms that were once in Stalin, or in Jesus, and yet you are not Stalin or Jesus reborn.
>>8137707
Because that belief is held in a state of physicalism - that is to say that the body and soul are one, and indistinguishable - and therefore this soul is transferred along with the physical matter that corresponds with bodily death.
>>8137707
Because, while we're sure that atoms and energy exist, the existence of something we call soul can't be proven. Our consciousness is a mere series of electrical pulses in our brain and, once death, the informations they carry disappear, so that, when you gain a new body, you don't have any memory of your past life. Furthermore, you can be reborn in something which isn't a human being, even something without brain functions.
>>8137732
can't know nuffin
The wide majority of the atoms in our bodies are replaced each year.
imo it's better to read platonists...