Life After Death [modified]
-
Energy. What animates this dust? How do you explain mind and the art of dreaming? How does the body contain mind? Its separate from brain. How can one perceive oneself in the third person? Where does that separation originate? Is it all contained in the physical? Which network is your hub or switch connected to? On the other front... in evolution, what drives mutation? Or adaptive change? Is it the animal's willpower? "I really need this defense, gee if only I could adapt a chemical reaction that would produce acid when I spit." Viola! Over 100,000 (arbitrary) years acid spitting bug defends itself. Is that directed? Is it accidental? How? My point is that there is so much that we cannot know. There are leaps taken on both sides. I side with evolution personally, but I find that I take quite a bit on faith in that regard. I'm more agnostic than anything. But have studied religions and the history of them from the Sumerian through Egyptian, through Judaism to Christianity, with some Buddhism and Hinduism for good measure. As well I've embraced the scientific. I think there is evidence on both sides to show that there is something there. Not saying the FSM is going to lift me into a elegant afterlife of Pesto Cream Sauce, but energy has to go somewhere. It doesn't die. Consciousness appears to be energy based and not limited to the physical. So I'll take a wait and see approach. Now about our actions here effecting our afterlife? Its a matter of state of mind in my opinion. Our state of mind effects our wellbeing, and I think our mind drives our energy and consciousness. So living a life that is social and positive can only contribute to a mind that has less torment thus freeing it to see the doors that might be open when not inhibited by this animated dust. I think that Heaven and Hell are states of mind regardless of the environment of containment. Physical or metaphysical. So I think its important to find it here and not wait for an afterlife, because you are living it now. The best way for a tadpole to prepare for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole. I'm not going to worry about life as a frog. What happens after I die I'll find out soon enough, or I won't and it won't matter. And no amount of conjecture on the part of fundamentalists can change that truth. Here's an interesting tangent: God the Father. If God is our Father, then why is my Brother talking for him? My physical brother cannot interject into my relationship with my father or my mother. Its who
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Over 100,000 (arbitrary) years acid spitting bug defends itself.
Lets be positive here. :cool:
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'm not hijacking this thread, merely commenting on how sad it is that someone who clearly wants to be 'useful' and is capable of extended logical thinking is utterly undermined by ridiculous false ideas
Matthew, you sound just like Ilion.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Hardly, I haven't accused anyone of lying yet, or called you an idiot or me a Euroweenie :laugh: If I seem a little excersized about the content that was posted it is mostly out of frustrated disappointment that someone so clearly clever as the author is such a fool and even worse is not recognised as such but has his drivel promoted here. The particular kind of relativist broken thinking represented by the article is not just a matter of theoretical disagreement about a tertiary matter ( like much of the article ). The removal of the concept of objective reality as an axiom of civilized thinking is probably the single most dangerous degradation currently undermining our culture. It is a step beyond even what Orwell imagined; the ultimate pychological tool for diassociation. Those who 'think' this way are as controllable as sheep and as easy to blind side as a one eyed sloth because the moment they come under the slightest phychological pressure they merely 'choose to alter their reality' and thereby don't see what they don't want to and never have to deal with the awkward truth of the one and only reality we all live in. This insidious nonsense has left the majority of UK under 30's functionally insane, unable to accept inconvenient reality and unable to distinguish between truth and lies. Orwell is not just spinning in his grave but simultaneously doesn't have one, never existed, isn't dead, was somebody else etc etc.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
http://www.stevepavlina.com/articles/life-after-death.htm[^] Living to expand your consciousness... Sounds like a plan. I like how he sees the physical as dust animated with consciousness. Also how he states that doubt can never lead to certainty, only more doubt. It amazes me how much bullshit exists in our everyday lives because people do not honestly face our own mortality.
modified on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:35 AM
I'm not a religious person at all, however I respect other people's choices, so long as they don't preach to me about what is absolutely right and wrong. That pisses me off. I'm not driven to act a certain way because I think it will effect my afterlife. In short, I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me that I shouldn't be a dick or not commit murder.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
I read his relativistic use of the word truth as being in regard to your experience during or after death. This cannot be anything but a subjective speculation. His use of the word was erroneous if even one reader, i.e. you, failed to understand his point. Even if we all accept, hypothetically, the certainty of not ceasing to exist after our first human death, the nature of out experience of that event and afterwards can never be more than speculation, to the living.
There can be no reletavistic truth regardless of the context, that's the nature of his and possibly your misunderstanding of truth and the point I'm making. As to his arguments about the after life I have no issue with them other than, as I said, there being undermined by his resort to reletavism which once resorted to pollutes and renders meaningless all it touches.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
There can be no reletavistic truth regardless of the context, that's the nature of his and possibly your misunderstanding of truth and the point I'm making. As to his arguments about the after life I have no issue with them other than, as I said, there being undermined by his resort to reletavism which once resorted to pollutes and renders meaningless all it touches.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There can be no reletavistic truth regardless of the context
Hence the error in his use of the word alluded to by me, but unless you are playing the role of English Teacher, there is no reason to ignore the spirit of his use of the word, even if the damn letter is wrong. His whole piece was rank with suggestion of an currently unknowable objective reality after death, and how to best prepare for whatever that reality collapses into being when its time comes.
-
Hardly, I haven't accused anyone of lying yet, or called you an idiot or me a Euroweenie :laugh: If I seem a little excersized about the content that was posted it is mostly out of frustrated disappointment that someone so clearly clever as the author is such a fool and even worse is not recognised as such but has his drivel promoted here. The particular kind of relativist broken thinking represented by the article is not just a matter of theoretical disagreement about a tertiary matter ( like much of the article ). The removal of the concept of objective reality as an axiom of civilized thinking is probably the single most dangerous degradation currently undermining our culture. It is a step beyond even what Orwell imagined; the ultimate pychological tool for diassociation. Those who 'think' this way are as controllable as sheep and as easy to blind side as a one eyed sloth because the moment they come under the slightest phychological pressure they merely 'choose to alter their reality' and thereby don't see what they don't want to and never have to deal with the awkward truth of the one and only reality we all live in. This insidious nonsense has left the majority of UK under 30's functionally insane, unable to accept inconvenient reality and unable to distinguish between truth and lies. Orwell is not just spinning in his grave but simultaneously doesn't have one, never existed, isn't dead, was somebody else etc etc.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This insidious nonsense has left the majority of UK under 30's functionally insane
Functionally not, technically maybe. I'm sure the rest of us would hear more about the loony left, and the UK in general, if that many of her citizens were that mentally dysfunctional.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There can be no reletavistic truth regardless of the context
Hence the error in his use of the word alluded to by me, but unless you are playing the role of English Teacher, there is no reason to ignore the spirit of his use of the word, even if the damn letter is wrong. His whole piece was rank with suggestion of an currently unknowable objective reality after death, and how to best prepare for whatever that reality collapses into being when its time comes.
If it had been one instance or one word I would have let it go for sure but it wasn't.
Brady Kelly wrote:
His whole piece was rank with suggestion of an currently unknowable objective reality after death
Which is fine until he contradicts himself by resorting to reletavism thus undermining what he's been saying.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
If it had been one instance or one word I would have let it go for sure but it wasn't.
Brady Kelly wrote:
His whole piece was rank with suggestion of an currently unknowable objective reality after death
Which is fine until he contradicts himself by resorting to reletavism thus undermining what he's been saying.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
It was, according to your testimony, one word, 'truth'. To me, the very fact that he acknowledges that what happens immediately after his death is not at all subject to his control, but only that he may influence how he experiences his afterlife, states quite clearly that he believes that, if it exists, his afterlife is an objective reality.
-
Hardly, I haven't accused anyone of lying yet, or called you an idiot or me a Euroweenie :laugh: If I seem a little excersized about the content that was posted it is mostly out of frustrated disappointment that someone so clearly clever as the author is such a fool and even worse is not recognised as such but has his drivel promoted here. The particular kind of relativist broken thinking represented by the article is not just a matter of theoretical disagreement about a tertiary matter ( like much of the article ). The removal of the concept of objective reality as an axiom of civilized thinking is probably the single most dangerous degradation currently undermining our culture. It is a step beyond even what Orwell imagined; the ultimate pychological tool for diassociation. Those who 'think' this way are as controllable as sheep and as easy to blind side as a one eyed sloth because the moment they come under the slightest phychological pressure they merely 'choose to alter their reality' and thereby don't see what they don't want to and never have to deal with the awkward truth of the one and only reality we all live in. This insidious nonsense has left the majority of UK under 30's functionally insane, unable to accept inconvenient reality and unable to distinguish between truth and lies. Orwell is not just spinning in his grave but simultaneously doesn't have one, never existed, isn't dead, was somebody else etc etc.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hardly, I haven't accused anyone of lying yet, or called you an idiot or me a Euroweenie
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
such a fool
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
controllable as sheep
Once you call people fools, you're playing in his ballpark. You may want to claim that you don't throw the same spitballs he does, but you set yourself to be written off as merely an irritant.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This insidious nonsense has left the majority of UK under 30's functionally insane
Functionally not, technically maybe. I'm sure the rest of us would hear more about the loony left, and the UK in general, if that many of her citizens were that mentally dysfunctional.
No, you hear less because of the vast numbers of people wandering through their lives in a daze believing so many blatantly contradictory things at once they they can barely function. Many of them find its just easiest to do whatever the TV and the magazines tell them. Then there's a whole strata of smart, professional, highly qualified people who come across like the author of the pice the OP linked to and just when you think you're dealing with somebody who can think, wham, black is white, up is down, in my reality the Earth is flat, all with a friendly smile for just as long as you don't contradict them. X|
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hardly, I haven't accused anyone of lying yet, or called you an idiot or me a Euroweenie
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
such a fool
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
controllable as sheep
Once you call people fools, you're playing in his ballpark. You may want to claim that you don't throw the same spitballs he does, but you set yourself to be written off as merely an irritant.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
you set yourself to be written off as merely an irritant.
Go on, you know you desparately want to :laugh:
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
No, you hear less because of the vast numbers of people wandering through their lives in a daze believing so many blatantly contradictory things at once they they can barely function. Many of them find its just easiest to do whatever the TV and the magazines tell them. Then there's a whole strata of smart, professional, highly qualified people who come across like the author of the pice the OP linked to and just when you think you're dealing with somebody who can think, wham, black is white, up is down, in my reality the Earth is flat, all with a friendly smile for just as long as you don't contradict them. X|
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
in my reality the Earth is flat
Yes, and it's a Satanic conspiracy that we all believe it round. :laugh: In all honesty, I agree with you on one thing alone, and that the world isn't what we each make it to be. We are participants in a world shared, to a minimum degree, by all living people. Whether it is what we all, together, make it, or some other cause made it, is less important than the fact that there is more than just subjective reality.
Last modified: 52mins after originally posted --
-
I'm not a religious person at all, however I respect other people's choices, so long as they don't preach to me about what is absolutely right and wrong. That pisses me off. I'm not driven to act a certain way because I think it will effect my afterlife. In short, I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me that I shouldn't be a dick or not commit murder.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills. . . ~ Robert A. Heinlein
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Everything he says is not meaningless.
No, it's not, but according to his own clearly evidenced belief system he must consider it to be meaningless. He clearly does not believe in a universal objective reality, without which his 'certainty' is nothing but abitrary self delusion and all communication is inherently meaningless because if any other individual can be assumed to have an independent existence it is not even in the same reality so their is no common frame of reference. I'm not hijacking this thread, merely commenting on how sad it is that someone who clearly wants to be 'useful' and is capable of extended logical thinking is utterly undermined by ridiculous false ideas like being able to 'choose your own truth' that he imports from postmodernism without justification or comment. I'm all for being honest about death but it's no good if you wont be honest about reality in the first place. His overall argument by the way is not new and was argued more coherently and concisely by for example C.S. Lewis many years ago.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
The point isn't that you can choose your own truth. In order to get at the truth you have to start off with the premise that there is no right answer. I don't know that he does not believe in a "universal objective reality". I'm not sure that reality is completely objective. For example, Muslims and Christians have a completely different view of reality. Neither of which is necessarily right or wrong, it is just what they believe. That being said, at least Christians don't kill people who don't agree. I don't see why you feel sad for the author. He seems to have found peace of mind.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
The point isn't that you can choose your own truth. In order to get at the truth you have to start off with the premise that there is no right answer. I don't know that he does not believe in a "universal objective reality". I'm not sure that reality is completely objective. For example, Muslims and Christians have a completely different view of reality. Neither of which is necessarily right or wrong, it is just what they believe. That being said, at least Christians don't kill people who don't agree. I don't see why you feel sad for the author. He seems to have found peace of mind.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
For example, Muslims and Christians have a completely different view of reality
Is that fact not a component of the objective reality; there is always a degree of subjective reality. In the mentally ill it just overshadows the perception of objective reality.
-
http://www.stevepavlina.com/articles/life-after-death.htm[^] Living to expand your consciousness... Sounds like a plan. I like how he sees the physical as dust animated with consciousness. Also how he states that doubt can never lead to certainty, only more doubt. It amazes me how much bullshit exists in our everyday lives because people do not honestly face our own mortality.
modified on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:35 AM
-
A bright white light?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. Me blog, You read
-
You don't really know how your behavior will affect what happens when you die. You might believe in a Christian after life, but you still don't understand what part of you makes up a soul or how it will exist for eternity. Your physical self does not move on when you die, that is for certain. So how is it that you can be in hell or heaven. What form do you believe your soul takes? How does you soul interact with other souls? Do you communicate in English? You won't have a throat to make a sound... I think the point here is to try and develop your consciousness and think about things keeping in mind that all which is physical is ephemeral.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I think the point here is to try and develop your consciousness and think about things keeping in mind that all which is physical is ephemeral.
I think the point is that he's reworded Pascal's wager and is trying to make a quick buck from it.
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I think the point here is to try and develop your consciousness and think about things keeping in mind that all which is physical is ephemeral.
I think the point is that he's reworded Pascal's wager and is trying to make a quick buck from it.
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.