Is there an afterlife? (Civility please?)


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 986 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A spinoff from an earlier discussion that touched but did not cover the afterlife. I hope we can all try to be civil, and remember that on metaphysical issues, nobody can force you to believe differently. It eventually boils down to personal beliefs, but what those beliefs are is interesting.

For myself, being a firm atheist, I see very little that says there is an afterlife. Indeed, the findings in neuroscience speak rather strongly for the concept that if there is an afterlife, it is very different from what it is usually described as. See, neurological damage such as a stroke will destroy functions of the brain as brain tissue dies. Someone could lose the ability to form sentences, their awareness of sight, or the ability to recognize faces. And so on. It is possible that there is some core to us that doesn't correspond to areas in the brain, but if so, we have not found it yet. In a very real sense, it seems the brain is all we are, and just as much can be lost.

I see this life as the one I have. When I die, I am gone. I have no fear of punishment or hope of a reward. The rewards, as it were, have to come in this life to be relevant. As a corollary, too, something doesn't need to be eternal to be important. I do not fear death. I just hope that when it comes, it goes quickly, and that my loved ones will be able to move on.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, an afterlife just doesn't matter anymore. I, and I think most people, don't lead moral & ethical lives for any kind of recognition or validation in this life, let alone some immortal reward. They do good things because it's the right thing to do -- for their friends, their family, their community, and the worldwide society as a whole.

Edit: Noooo, not favs. Crap. This comment is gonna feel really hypocritical the next time I angrily bite someone's head off in a messageboard comment.


I agree completely. You do right because you want to be able to look yourself in the mirror, not because of Heaven and Hell. Yet, we can't deny that worry for the destination of one's immortal soul was a major reason for the expansion of the monotheistic religions. So what happened? Did we grow up safe enough that religion wasn't as needed? Did the world change? Did humanity change?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Given the severe limitations of human capability, I sincerely doubt that any afterlife that follows rules posited by human consciousness actually exists.

However, given my own limitations, I'm perfectly happy to let people keep their foma.

As for Sissyl's question about "what changed"?

I think we, as a species,became more aware of how much bigger the universeis than our ancestors thought.


I myself don't believe in one. However I like to think that every molecule, atom, and subparticle I'm made of will spread and disperse into the universe and be interconnected with everything else.


I surely hope there is an afterlife.

However, if there is, one has to wonder, how it fits into our biology currently.

I've hypothesized at times that perhaps, if we have a soul, than that is what actually composes our consciousness and our memories.

However, it's simply memory, we need a processor to access it, and that's where the brain comes in. Without the brain, we have no way to access those memories or other items that make us...us.

Of course, that creates the entire question, if we need a brain to access that stuff in our souls, and we die, then obviously we don't have the brain to process it anymore...so then what?

I hope there is an afterlife, and that it isn't just...that's all folks, when we pass on.

I imagine it would be VERY different than anything that we experience here, however.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I expect to be surprised.

Or not. If there's nothing, then I won't be around to be disappointed.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course there's an afterlife. Where else would you put a soul as awesome as mine after my all-too-magnificent body is worm food?

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure there's nothing. If I find out otherwise, I imagine I'll be pounding on the intangible barrier yelling at everyone about it.


Is there an afterlife?
Yes. Life goes on.

Is it relevant to us individually once we die?
Undetermined. Hard to prove a negative and sufficiently dead people don't come back to talk it out with us... seemingly.

For the Judeo-Christian POV, to be a living soul is to be embodied. Hence resurrection being posited.

Most other POVs posit some sort of existence and/or recycling of the soul. All very vague and lacking useful details IMO.

As for the right/wrong thing. Nihilism wins that argument every time unless one assumes a ground of being to counter it.

What's a Cynical Hipster to do?
My skepticism is focused solely on humanity and with good reason.
However you define it we sure seem to posses something (generally) called freewill and the consequences for that have proven to be a real #####!

Related question: Are there any TTRPGs that expressly deny an afterlife or metaphysics?


Quark Blast wrote:
Related question: Are there any TTRPGs that expressly deny an afterlife or metaphysics?

It's much harder to build dramatic tension around a lack of something, unless your audience is completely familiar with the every day impacts of that thing.

It's like if I told you to imagine a game world set in contemporary NYC, but imagine if the Amish had never existed.

For one, you'll have a hard time coming up with what that even means. Two, you might have no actual experience with Amish people, just caricatures from TV and films, so it's hard to know what the lack of something you don't understand would even mean.


I believe that the soul is what is created our of our memories, biology, and life experience, it is what makes us human and individual, and it dies when we do.

I also tend to believe that cryonic suspension is one of the biggest frauds ever to be perpetuated in the name of science.


Cole Deschain wrote:

Given the severe limitations of human capability, I sincerely doubt that any afterlife that follows rules posited by human consciousness actually exists.

However, given my own limitations, I'm perfectly happy to let people keep their foma.

As for Sissyl's question about "what changed"?

I think we, as a species, became more aware of how much bigger the universe is than our ancestors thought.

This is basically my stance, as with some other things like the existence of a higher power, be it a singular god or multiple deities.

Maybe there is one, perhaps there isn't. Our scope of everything can only take us so far, so we might never know if there is anything at all beyond the demise of our physical form.

I kinda like living though, so while I don't exactly fear death to a crazy degree, I'd prefer going about and experiencing what this existence has to offer for as long as I can. So much to see, so much to do.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

What changed is the paradigm, as in the model we use to explain how reality works

It is important to remember that all models are human constructs : flawed and limited

I think there are unexplained things out there as well as things that go beyond a single individual or even a single moment in time for the whole human species

I do not worry overmuch about an afterlife though as I think I have no way to affect what it will be


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've never seen any compelling reason to believe in an afterlife. I was born and raised an atheist, but even when I became a theist and a Christian for several years, I never had any belief in heaven (although that pretty clearly marked me as a heretic at best).


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

{. . .}

I also tend to believe that cryonic suspension is one of the biggest frauds ever to be perpetuated in the name of science.

This is probably correct for now, but with another 100 years or so of advances in medicine, it may cease to be correct (although probably not within my lifetime). Although knowing how medical advances work these days, I would expect mainly people like Montgomery Burns to benefit from it, not most of us.


I don't think there's an afterlife. In part because I accept the evidence that supports materialist neuroscience, and also because I haven't seen any evidence that supports an afterlife.

I could be wrong, but I can only go on the available evidence.


Ooh! Ooh!

What about downloading your brain onto a computer chip? It's not really you but, it's something...

Maybe I could rig that up to my paizo account...


In the now-long-dead Manticore publishing RPG Waste World they actually had an option for you to purchase a "Necrochip" for your character. It was basically a memory back-up drive that, if you were killed, could be ransomed back to the company you took out a "resurrection" contract with. They would pay the agreed ransom to whoever returned it, then install the chip into a new clone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MageHunter wrote:

Ooh! Ooh!

What about downloading your brain onto a computer chip? It's not really you but, it's something...

Maybe I could rig that up to my paizo account...

Better be on REAL GOOD terms with the moderators if you do this . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
MageHunter wrote:

Ooh! Ooh!

What about downloading your brain onto a computer chip? It's not really you but, it's something...

Maybe I could rig that up to my paizo account...

Better be on REAL GOOD terms with the moderators if you do this . . . .

And keep up with your protection dues to the Pugwampi Unionized Nihilist Komputer Engineers of Brewster (Washington). That's right, don't even think of stiffing us... or you'll unleash the full wrath of P.U.N.K.E. Brewster!


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

{. . .}

I also tend to believe that cryonic suspension is one of the biggest frauds ever to be perpetuated in the name of science.

This is probably correct for now, but with another 100 years or so of advances in medicine, it may cease to be correct (although probably not within my lifetime). Although knowing how medical advances work these days, I would expect mainly people like Montgomery Burns to benefit from it, not most of us.

Here's the thing biology and chemistry guarantee to make this a croc. Once brain activity ceases, there is no way to restart it. The brain itself dissasociates.

About the only thing that cryonics can offer would be to clone you from your remains. That clone won't be you though, it would be a brand new person who only has your appearance, not your memories.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one do believe in an afterlife, I believe in a God who sent his son born of a virgin, to live a perfect life on this earth for the purpose of dying as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of each and everyone one of us. I believe that he rose from the dead three days later and that through faith in him, and his death and resurrection that we can one day hope to live eternally in heaven.

Can I prove it? No not a chance I believe by faith, and on faith. I have been the best I can try to be as a christian and I have fallen and wandered far from my faith at times, but I am always reassured by the presence i feel when I am still and quiet and listen.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

{. . .}

I also tend to believe that cryonic suspension is one of the biggest frauds ever to be perpetuated in the name of science.

This is probably correct for now, but with another 100 years or so of advances in medicine, it may cease to be correct (although probably not within my lifetime). Although knowing how medical advances work these days, I would expect mainly people like Montgomery Burns to benefit from it, not most of us.

Here's the thing biology and chemistry guarantee to make this a croc. Once brain activity ceases, there is no way to restart it. The brain itself dissasociates.

About the only thing that cryonics can offer would be to clone you from your remains. That clone won't be you though, it would be a brand new person who only has your appearance, not your memories.

Yes and no. You are probably right on the cryoclone. It would not have your consciousness. I hadn't thought of that. However, memories are composed of structural changes in the brain tissue. There is nothing that would prevent your clone from having your memories. It would be a functional copy of you - but you would still be dead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There has to be something after this. The alternative is too banal to contemplate.


I think it depends on the person whether they feel their is evidence of an afterlife or not.

For me, there are the NDE's and other things that seem to indicate that an afterlife probably exists. I know there are many who feel that these are mere illusions of the brain, and the counter arguments, but to me, it seems more logical that we continue in some state.

Of course, if one is Christian, than with the acceptance of Christ, there is also the testimony of his resurrection and that he will resurrect us all. I adhere to this idea, but I'll admit it is by faith on my part more than any evidence.

Islam also believes in an afterlife, though it's not what many fanaticals or even fundamental Christians many times try to think it is like or explain it as being. In many ways, it is more in line with what traditional Christians think, interestingly enough.

Of course, we could all think about the Dune idea. It's a sort of interesting take on it all, if I recall. You have a computer/AI which becomes so advanced it can basically control and manipulate everything (which was one of the big things Man was fighting against in the beginning of the series...prequels). In some ways, it could also save part of our essence and place our consciousness (though I don't think it would be bodies) into an everlasting/eternal state of being where we don't experience death, pain, or any of our mortal difficulties.

In some ways, the movies of transcendence and other sci-fi ideas sort of investigate this thought where our consciousness is separate from our bodies and hence can be transferred to a more computerized or transcendental state.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find belief in an afterlife to be the most rational course of action. Before you start mentioning science and evidence, though, bear with me. XD I'll explain. This is based on three facts:

1) Either there is, or there is not, an afterlife as described by one faith.
2) I do, or I do not, believe that such an afterlife exists.
3) I cannot know the answer to 1 while still alive - not unless it's made pretty darn obvious, anyway.

Taking this, then, we have four possible outcomes.

1) I believe in an afterlife, and it exists.

This is generally regarded as the most 'ideal' situation. Different faiths have various teachings on how one can actually get into said afterlife - Christianity, for example, basically comes down to "You can get in if you ask to, and people who are not adequately informed about the opportunity while alive will have a fair and reasonable chance later on to make their decision".

I also receive the benefits, but not the drawbacks, of 2.

2) I believe in an afterlife, but it does not exist.

In this situation, I am ultimately incorrect in my beliefs. I will have lived my life being wrong - but the tenets of my faith are essentially "Be kind to other people and live as the best person you can be". If I follow these tenets, I will have made the world a better place for being in it (one hopes), which is about all that anyone can really ask for in the end. I will probably die happy, and if I'm wrong, well, I'll never know that and quite literally won't be bothered.

3) I do not believe in an afterlife, but it does exist.

In this scenario, I choose to reject faith and say it is not for me. This gets broken down into two sub-categories:

3a) Here, I am insufficiently informed, or perhaps I believed in the wrong faith. The actual result of this depends on the nature of the afterlife. Some are open to everyone whether they believe or not (which is basically a lucky break), others are only open to those who believe and accept a particular faith. Most people think that a 'good' deity would give everyone a fair chance to decide, although it's always possible you're going to be out of luck and the deity is harsher, hostile, evil, or otherwise negative.

3b) In the other scenario, I outright reject belief even after being adequately informed. Perhaps I simply don't like the idea of an eternal existence, or I find the tenets of a faith distasteful and not something I want to support. Here, I might 'lose' my place in the afterlife thanks to my denial - or I might not, since we may not have a choice in the matter.

4) I do not believe in an afterlife, and it does not exist.

In this scenario, I am once again correct, although I will never know this for sure. Whatever happens in the end, I will die - and whether I lived a good life or not, that's the end. Ultimately, this ends up looking a lot like #2, although some - I stress, some - non-religious people aren't interested in goodness for its own sake. Abusive governments, for example, or people who are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and do anything they can to get ahead while still alive regardless of who it hurts because they'll never have to pay for it. Not everyone is like that - and not all believers are righteous and upstanding, for that matter - but it happens.

----

Based on these four results, I can determine the following:

1 has the greatest reward. 2 has no reward, but probably a decent life if I actually follow the teachings of a faith. 3 is kind of iffy but has a possible reward, and 4 has no reward and in some cases tends to lean more negative than 2. I know, we hear a lot about militant faiths and fighting - what you don't hear about are the tens of thousands of aid workers and over a billion dollars that churches spend on humanitarian work, medicine, food, and so on all around the world each year, often focused on helping those most in need. It's not as exciting or newsworthy... but even if my faith is wrong about its beliefs, it's still saving lives, feeding children, fighting disease, and generally making a positive impact on the world. So there's that, at least.

I cannot pick which of these four actually occurs - but I can narrow it down to a range through my personal beliefs. If I believe, the reality is either 1 or 2 - if I do not believe, the reality is 3 or 4. The first set of options represents a higher net gain than the latter two. Furthermore, most faiths make allowance for those that follow other teachings, so there's a possibility that choosing to believe also gets me the benefits of 3, and I won't necessarily be out of luck just because I'm wrong about which afterlife is correct.

However, if I outright reject an afterlife, then either I get lucky and get to go anyway (or at least live a decent life and hope I made the world a better place), or I don't get the reward at all. Personally, I think it's most reasonable to believe - in the absence of surety, I choose the course that represents the highest potential gain for myself and the world regardless of what the truth is. As for the specifics of my faith, I find the actual teachings of Christianity to be the most acceptable. I refuse to blindly follow, though - humans (including priests) are fallible, and I make a habit of questioning everything and rejecting what I think are incorrect interpretations.

So...

This went on longer than I really planned, but that's how I think. XD

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That assumes that the cost of believing and the cost of unbelieving are the same.

It also ignores the possibility that "I believe in the afterlife, and it exists, but I have chosen the wrong one." Also known as Homer's Wager.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
There has to be something after this. The alternative is too banal to contemplate.

Nothing sounds nice and peaceful, like a well-deserved rest. If there is an afterlife, I'm gonna want to sleep through at least the first couple millennia.


@TOZ: *Shrugs* Gotta draw the line somewhere. Life is unpredictable - I cannot know all the benefits and costs for belief and unbelief, so I can't weight that too heavily.

Also, Result 3a addresses your other point. If I'm wrong about which afterlife exists, I might get to go anyway - some faiths have explicit allowances for that. Alternatively, I might not. I can't know that for sure - and more to the point, I have no method of determining which is more likely. Thus, I can only hope for the best, and should not let fear of being incorrect prevent me from making a decision, because then I'll never decide anything. Broadly speaking, though, I'll probably be fine if a deity (or group of deities, for that matter) is basically benevolent, which most faiths teach. If the deity is not benevolent and doesn't make allowances for people who weren't adequately informed, though... well, I'm just gonna be out of luck, then.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

But you have an infinite number of possible afterlives, so your odds of selecting the correct one approaches zero.

The point being that 1 or 2 is not a better choice than 3 or 4, as you suggest. (Nor vice versa, as they are both just choices. Neither is inherently a better gain than the other.)


I assume it's something pasta related.

I mostly joined so I could look like an a%&$&!* on my driver's license.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Many sincere beliefs and thinking

I don't mean this as a challenge to those who hold a sincere belief in the afterlife, or those who are open to it, but...

I completely reject Pascal's Wager.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My god... it's full of tables...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

That assumes that the cost of believing and the cost of unbelieving are the same.

It also ignores the possibility that "I believe in the afterlife, and it exists, but I have chosen the wrong one." Also known as Homer's Wager.

Ah, here comes Toby now...


@TOZ: I think "infinite" might be a bit of an exaggeration. XD Most religions feel that a deity (or deities) 'act', which tends to weight things towards success. We want to avoid the Bandwagon Fallacy, of course - being the largest religion in the world doesn't make you correct, but on the whole, things are probably weighted in the direction of the larger religions. Isn't trying to use logic with unknowables fun? 8D

@Ambrosia: Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for that? I'm always interested in hearing why people believe the way they do, and if you feel there's enough inconsistency to completely reject even the fundamental premises, I'd genuinely like to know why.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I completely reject Pascal's Wager.

As you may have guessed, so do I.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
@TOZ: I think "infinite" might be a bit of an exaggeration. XD Most religions feel that a deity (or deities) 'act', which tends to weight things towards success. We want to avoid the Bandwagon Fallacy, of course - being the largest religion in the world doesn't make you correct, but on the whole, things are probably weighted in the direction of the larger religions. Isn't trying to use logic with unknowables fun? 8D

It's a wonderful thought experiment, I've just found that Pascal was far too limited in his argument for it to carry weight. When I say infinite, I refer to the fact that any afterlife you can imagine is a possibly alternative, as every single religion or belief could be wrong. Thus, any other possibility may be the correct one. Any kind of prize can be behind door number one, and if you have to guess what it is before you open it to win, you're almost certainly going to lose. A larger consensus is just more people being wrong together, not more evidence they are right.


Quote:

The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe in it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't.

Honest Book of Truth; The Gospel According to Fred, 3:1


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Time is an illusion. Everything you do is there permanently, forever.

Make it count.


@TOZ: That's where the "action" comes in, I think. If a deity (or group of deities) exists, it's generally going to be either "active" or "passive" - as in, they either actively worked to establish a church and teach things (and continue to intervene in the world, or simply let it run on its own), or they exist but generally don't interact with the world, so we can't really know anything about them in the first place. And we can't know which of these would be correct. XD Since a deity being passive kind of lumps all of the results together, I focus mainly on the potential results of an active deity - which, as I said, generally weights things towards success.

To put it another way, a one-person religion practiced by a kid in his garage doesn't have as much weight to me as being one of the largest, most enduring faiths on the planet. The doors are not equal. It is possible, but less likely, that a little-known faith is more correct than one of the major ones - and so in deciding which faith to follow, I focused my efforts on the largest ones to learn their differences and see which one made the most sense to me.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And your assumption that deities are active is what is fooling you into thinking larger religions carry more weight.


So, if god(s) and the afterlife are mostly like you think they are, then the wager holds. :)

Personally, I assume that given the multiplicity of variations on human belief it's very unlikely any one is actually divinely inspired. Wouldn't your activist god have been able to do a better job? I say it's in fact far more likely that the actual truth is something we haven't even thought of yet.

Which is why I said above, I expect to be surprised.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pascal's wager has a deeply seated, inherent problem. He assumed that the cost of acting in accordance with the existence of an afterlife to have no relevant cost. I find that the mere idea is dangerous indeed - because it both lets someone tolerate suffering in this life since there is s reward for that suffering in Heaven, and it gets people uninterested in solving the problems we have in this life.

Is this perception true? How big are these problems? What dangers come with belief in an afterlife, if any?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@TOZ: Well, you may have noticed that I've also allowed to the possibility of a passive deity (or deities). o wo/ Such an entity would be even more of an unknowable than most of this, though, and there's really only so far you can take that. I think Terry Pratchett summed it up nicely.

Quote:
“God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.”

Since a passive deity is essentially a total lottery, there's really no way for me to interact with it (including changing my behaviors) in any meaningful fashion. On the other hand, if a deity is active, my choices are more likely to matter. Accordingly, that's what I've decided to focus on.

@Sissyl: Similarly, would things be worse if people didn't believe? If they had no hope for the future, would it be possible to endure the present? Put simply, what dangers come with not believing in an afterlife? There's a reason these kinds of questions haven't been definitively answered - in many cases, we can guess, but we just can't know. Philosophy and theology are fun that way, aren't they? XD

Side Note: I actually have slightly more... complex... thoughts about how the God I believe in actually behaves. XD It's not quite as simple as 'active' or 'passive', but I can elaborate if anyone's curious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
@Ambrosia: Would you care to elaborate on your reasons for that? I'm always interested in hearing why people believe the way they do, and if you feel there's enough inconsistency to completely reject even the fundamental premises, I'd genuinely like to know why.

I'm going to try to explain this in a way that doesn't trod on the beliefs of well-meaning posters who do Believe, and do so in spite of my own imperfect mastery of language.

[MUCH EDITING AND RE-EDITING OCCURS]

I suspect a large portion of it is that even when I was still Roman Catholic, I rejected the ideas of both original sin and that one must accept Christ to be saved. I rejected the idea that humanity is incapable of true virtue and grace because of how we are born. I reject that we can constantly & consistently do good and be good, yet still be denied an eternity with a divine creator simply for not picking, or more likely, not being raised in some chosen religion. That was probably the seedling that split the rock. Once that foundation was cracked... :)

I reject Pascal's Wager because it diminishes my choices and the consequences of my actions and inactions. It undermines my free will. Even if no one but me knows about it, I still know.

Edit:

Mookie Blaylock wrote:

I know I was born and I know that I'll die

In between is mine
I am mine


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I was kicked out of five Sunday school classes when the subject of what god was about, or my personal favorite an essay about what kind of religion you envision.


Personally...I don't believe in an afterlife. But I don't begrudge those who do.


For me the afterlife is just the way your bits keep going after you die. After life is being eaten by beetles and worms, fertilizing roots of trees and flowers, getting nibbled on by digging rodents- afterlife is where you go after you die, into everything else.

1 to 50 of 986 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Is there an afterlife? (Civility please?) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.