6
   

Life after death,but different as you used to know!

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 12:17 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
One can also inform oneself sufficiently to make an educated assessment of the evidenced offered, to judge the plausibility of the thesis. On that basis, theism is particularly lame.


I almost agree with you here, Setanta, but I would ask that you consider my alternative wording, which eliminates the unnecessary designation.

On that basis, an assertion that there is a GOD is lame...but no more than an assertion that there are no gods..or that it is highly unlikely that there are gods.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 12:22 pm
@Okjustaguy,
Quote:
And agnosticism is in fact atheism.


Not anxious to get into a discussion about agnosticism and atheism, but your contention that agnosticism is in fact atheism is nonsense. It is not.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 12:25 pm
@tomr,
Quote:
Guessing about what happened before life and what happens after death does not have to be a guess without any good basis.


I think you are wrong, but I am willing to hear you out on why you think the way you do.

Quote:
An atheist can say birth is like death because "I have been knocked unconscious and aparently time passed without my knowledge." If the connection between a lack of brain function and lack of self existence can be drawn from such a case and other similar cases, then from this understanding we could draw the conclusion that with no brain activity due to death there is no longer mental activity. Whether this is actually true or not can only be supposed from a body of experiences. On the other hand, a religious person may say "I have been hit in the head and while you saw me lying still on the ground I saw God and He/She/It spoke to me." . From this and similar experiences we may draw the conclusion that death is like lying still on the ground for eternity and so there will be an infinite time experienced in the presence of God. Whether this is true or not... well it is not true.


Not sure of your point here, but if you feel strongly about it, please make it more understandable and I will happily discuss it with you.
Okjustaguy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 01:15 pm
@Frank Apisa,
xD
Well,you don't seem to get it,and you never will,
your profile showed me your pseudowise talk about agnosticism.
But your hippie-like attitude that no one shall claim to know the truth,doesn't suit me because it's way to far from reality.
Your attitude is to believe anything and to negate nothing.
Guy 1: "Santa Claus exists!"
Guy 2:"I don't believe you,there's no evidence for him!"
You: "We don't know the answer to this unanswerable question."

Well that doesn't get's us anywhere,you're just going round in circles.
And once again my friend,atheism is the lack of belief,stop claiming it that it is a ideology,there are some that treat it like that,but the definition says it's lack of belief.
So any answer to the question "Do you believe in god?" but "Yes,I do!",makes you an atheist,even if you say "I don't know." or "No,I don't."

That's a fact.
So how is it like to be atheist,not so bad huh?
Don't understand me wrong,you're a nice guy,and your posts we're all written friendly,but your argumentation is kinda old-school.

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 01:58 pm
@Okjustaguy,
Quote:
.Well that doesn't get's us anywhere,you're just going round in circles.

Laughing
Admittedly your circles are more philosophically interesting than Frank's circles !
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:14 pm
@Okjustaguy,
Quote:
And once again my friend,atheism is the lack of belief,stop claiming it that it is a ideology,there are some that treat it like that,but the definition says it's lack of belief.


Carelessly written, OK, but I will assume when you say “lack of belief”…you actually mean “lack of belief in gods.” There are many atheists who have beliefs…MANY who have beliefs that there are no gods. In fact, some definitions of atheism include “an assertion that there are no gods.”

In any case, it is not so cut and dry. There are many schools of thought about what the word “atheism” actually means. But even if it were to mean a lack of belief in gods…that does not mean everyone with a lack of belief in gods is an atheist. There is no requirement in the definition that requires that to be so. (All cars are vehicles…not all vehicles are cars.)

Quote:
So any answer to the question "Do you believe in god?" but "Yes,I do!",makes you an atheist,even if you say "I don't know." or "No,I don't."


That is an absurdity that some (thankfully not all) atheists indulge in. I am an agnostic…I am not an atheist.

But none of this matters, because the discussion can proceed without the labels…and quite frankly, I am not interested in whether you consider me an atheist or not.

I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if gods do not exist; I do not personally see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

I do not know if there is a soul; I do not know there are no souls; I do not personally see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

If you have a problem with that, just tell me what it is and we can discuss it.
0 Replies
 
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
No doubt it could be worded better. Especially...
Quote:
An atheist can say birth is like death because "I have been knocked unconscious and aparently time passed without my knowledge."


The atheist above has an experience of being hit in the head causing him to lose awareness. Though the atheist personally is unaware during some period of time, he can understand upon regaining consciousness that he has been knocked out. He knows this either because other people saw what happened and told him, he remembers being hit standing up and awakes on the floor, and/or he checks the time knowing the initial time of the impact. The atheist can then connect this experience of not being aware with having an injury to the brain. Other experiences, whether direct or indirect, can reinforce the idea that mental activity is dependent on brain functionality. Since he can confirm indirectly, through his parents and others, that his brain was formed at some point and never before that point is there any recollection of any kind it is easy for the atheist to conclude that this is just another case where mental activity was lacking because the brain did not function (or exist). Likewise, he can associate the idea of a complete lack of brain functionality due to death with a complete lack of mental activity.

Now I will admit this is not nearly a rigorous enough reasoning process to be certain that a person should experience no mental activity after death and before birth. But this idea as a solution seems the most reasonable and non-contradictory among the various alternatives.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:43 pm
@tomr,
Quote:
Now I will admit this is not nearly a rigorous enough reasoning process to be certain that a person should experience no mental activity after death and before birth. But it seems the most reasonable among the various alternatives.


Okay, to you it does...to me it doesn't.

To me the most reasonable alternative would be: I do not know; I can think of no way to find out; and I can think of no way to honestly assign probability to the other alternatives.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I do not know; I can think of no way to find out;


Hey Frank, have you thought of hiring yourself out as a cure for those annoying kids who keep asking "why" ? It would be interesting to see who got murdered first, you or the child !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 02:55 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Hey Frank, have you thought of hiring yourself out as a cure for those annoying kids who keep asking "why" ? It would be interesting to see who got murdered first, you or the child !


Fresco, you are developing a sense of humor.

I like it. Keep it up!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 04:46 pm
Let's see how close I can come to agreeing with OKjustaguy:
I do feel that I will continue to exist in this universe--as an expression of this universe--after my demise. Considering the issue raised by Fresco regarding identity. I identify myself as one with the universe (and its Ultimate Reality). If this is so, and if the universe continues to manifest as life forms after I die, those forms will all be my (as well as your) continuation. What I reject about the buddhist notion of reincarnation is that it posits the rebirth of particular individuals in particular future individuals. I feel that I am reborn in all forms insofar as they are all me, the Universe. Which is what they are as well.
Frank, this "guess" is more than a BLIND guess.
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 04:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You seem extremely certain in your uncertainty. How is it that you came to the conclusion "I can think of no way to find out." or that "I can think of no way to honestly assign probability to the other alternatives.". This implies that you have tried to understand what happens before life and after it, but it does not say anything about the methods employed to get to those two statements. For instance, you could have thought once about the topic and and come to the conclusion "I can think of no way to find out (what a person experiences before birth and after life).". Is this necessarily true if more alternatives were explored? If the answer is "I don't know", then we must search for a solution until the answer is "I don't know for sure but I have a good guess".
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 06:37 pm
@JLNobody,
Quote:
Frank, this "guess" is more than a BLIND guess.


Really!

And how is it more than a blind guess?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 06:41 pm
@tomr,
Quote:
You seem extremely certain in your uncertainty.


I am absolutely certain of my not knowing.

Quote:
How is it that you came to the conclusion "I can think of no way to find out." or that "I can think of no way to honestly assign probability to the other alternatives.".


I simply cannot think of any way to find out. Can you?

I simply cannot think of any way to honestly assign probability to the other alternatives. Can you?

I certainly am willing to consider anything you have to offer, but understand that I have been discussing and debating these issues for a very, very long time (I am an old goat)...and have never heard anything reasonable on those issues. But give it a try...and we will discuss it.

Quote:
This implies that you have tried to understand what happens before life and after it, but it does not say anything about the methods employed to get to those two statements. For instance, you could have thought once about the topic and and come to the conclusion "I can think of no way to find out (what a person experiences before birth and after life).". Is this necessarily true if more alternatives were explored? If the answer is "I don't know", then we must search for a solution until the answer is "I don't know for sure but I have a good guess".


Whatever!

I am certainly willing to hear you out on what you see as reasonable...and will discuss it with you.
tomr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 08:23 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I am absolutely certain of my not knowing.


How can you be so sure?

Quote:
I simply cannot think of any way to find out. Can you?


Well we may all find out when we actual die. If we continue existence after death then we should know we exist after death. If we cease existing after death then we will still not know. But while living we may draw conclusions from observations such as " a lack of brain activity corresponds with a lack of mental activity." This alone does not allow us to know certainly. We must assume (imagine) that the above statement will continue to hold up over time. Truely some very strange things could be said to happen at death, especially that the rule we made fails when we die. So that regardless of the number of observations that led us to the statement "a lack of brain....", there could always be a break in the consistency of the events observed at the point of death. In this way of thinking, in which rules that are formed from numerous perfectly consistent observations can be broken arbitrarily, we can know nothing for sure. And it is a valid way to look at things, because we often cannot predict what will happen next and are sometimes wrong when we think we have understood a pattern and follow it to its conclusion. But lacking complete knowlege about our situation does not mean we are not approaching that more complete knowledge by following observed patterns.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 10:27 pm
@tomr,
We don't need actual certainty, only the feeling that we are certain.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Apr, 2012 10:53 pm
I would love to learn how is it that some people are comfortable to speak about what according to them does not exist...when we state that we "miss" something or that we don´t "have" something are n´t we admitting to its potential existence ? We have at the very least identified what should be existing that is not, which in turn means that we could clearly conceive the "object" which is not happening...but if truth does not exist how come we can so clearly know what "truth" intends to mean...and if as argued the concept does not correspond to any real object should n´t the very idea of truth be meaningless aside useful convention ? (more to wonder is why "they" admit such convention is useful at all)
Well what seams clear to me is that most of the so said "serious philosophers" who went down such road should not be claiming anything upon truth, nor its existence nor its non existence, and if read carefully I guess most of them are n´t...agnosticism regarding truth is being confused with certainty against it by amateurs posing as philosophers, which is lets admit it pretty much idiotic, just like being certain of being absolutely uncertain...the thing about denying truth is that we are not just denying a bunch of collage objects that do actually separately exist like the "components" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who in turn does not...we are denying it ALL, and by denying it, we are just making it all come back ! a delightful irony the amount of consistent stupidity required for such exercise.... Laughing
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:08 am
@Okjustaguy,
Okjustaguy wrote:
We need to get to the point about what we do know, and what we can't know for now : What actually is life ?

{???}-Non-Existence--[Birth]---->Life----[Death]---->Non-Existence---{???}


I have an abstract view of some sort of afterlife, but not as people used to define it. From a logic view, the fact that I once came out of nothing is a hint that it might work again so the ? would be again some sort of birth, but not in the classic idea of reincarnation, much more abstract.
This is only a thought of mine, feel free to believe in what you want. The main question about our existence is presented in my little drawing, and everyone has a different answer for "?", some say that there is no "?" and you just stay in Non-existence, but I kind of find that hard to believe, because well I already came out once out of non-existence why can't that work again. And if the goal of every life would be to be for ever dead, then there would be no life at all.

Just my opinion, feel free to answer.

It seems that there are 3 main issues in society about afterlife:

1. You go to heaven/hell and there's some huge explanation for why no one knew **** about religion.

2. You die. That's it, you can't think anymore. You can't feel. You're dead, you're gone.

3. Or this, 2 happens, and you die and wait. So time goes by like immediately since you're dead, and you wake up either born as someone else, or something else. The explanation for this would be some sort of atomic crap like your atoms finally eventually being put back in the spots they were in. Either that or something to do with mysterious quantum physics.


I think idea number 3 seems to be more logical. A life doesn't last for ever but life itself does. So your life will may end someday but your individual existence will somehow form itself new in far future (you won't recognize the time, since your dead/non-existent), like it did to form the existence you are living in now, of course this new existence will not have anything to do with the old one, you start from 0 again I think.
And yeah it's too optimistic to think of a place like heaven,
but it's also too optmistic beeing dead forever,
just now you are alive,this is by far the best proof that nothing can possibly be dead for ever.


The process that makes your existence works by itself, no one needed to do anything to exist ,it just happens.


As you can see, I am trying to argument against that "Forever and ever dead"-attitude to death, just because it doesn't make any sense at all. You once came out of nothing, so why shouldn't that work again and again after your dead (for this life at least).
Please keep in mind, that even this idea sounds great and logic, the real event that will happen after death won't change no matter what we believe in, so it's very likely that everyone of us might be wrong, or the death is in fact for ever.


The rational answer to the question of afterlife would be: Due to lack of information, I have no other choice but waiting till I am dead. And even though, if you didn't believed in anything, you can't be disappointed if there would be an afterlife and that you've would have lived life-long believing in a lie.

What do you think about Number 3?
I think that it was deftly put by Deepak Chopra, M.D.
when he said that most people believe that we are human beings
with occasional spiritual experiences, but we are spiritual beings,
with occasional human experiences.

From your post, I detect the error of: mistaken identity.
U appear to assume that people are their outer coverings,
like the exoskeletons that are molted off and abandoned by lobsters,
who leave and get on with their lives.

Do u confuse the radios that u have purchased
with radio waves that u did not buy ???
Consider: www.IANDS.org for the experiences
of folks who have returned from death of their human bodies.





David
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Smile
I love it ! At least that tackles the continuity of identity issue !

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Apr, 2012 12:31 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Smile
I love it ! At least that tackles the continuity of identity issue !
Yes; I think that its telling
that when children have gotten killed,
thay got out of their human bodies, the same as anyone does,
and thay resumed being adult, until thay re-entered their juvenile bodies
when thay came back to life of the human body.
Of course, upon re-entry, thay continued as children.





David
 

Related Topics

What made you smile today? - Discussion by nimh
Why is my life so hard? - Question by awkward25snowflake
How do i figure out what I want? - Question by ylyam1
Why Does Life Exist - Question by Poseidon384
Happiness within - Question by luismtzzz
Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
Why are we here? - Discussion by Herald
Your philosophy in life - Question by Procrustes
Advice for a graduate? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 01:08:45