Poll: Poll: Do you believe in an afterlife?
- Thread starter Sefirosu
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,707
I don't beleive in afterlife but I do hope I come back as a fish.
Soldato
I don't believe one comes back as another living thing as such, but I also don't think it's as simple as just completely ceasing to exist. It's not a case of being afraid of death or being arrogant......we just really don't know much about the universe on the grand scale of things. There are some pretty major questions we still haven't answered, so it would be arrogant to speak with certainty on the subject of the "afterlife", one way or the other. We simply don't know.
I'm sorry you feel your belief is being challenged... But that is what this thread is about
My beliefs are not being challenged, so I fail to see why you would say this...maybe you can explain to me what my beliefs are and how they are being challenged precisely?
The afterlife or to be more precise the extension of material reality into the immaterial reality is an integral part of spiritualism in general....the term "afterlife" is not defined specifically and so it can only really be discussed in the broader sense by discussing spirituality and so I think it is totally relevant to your claim of the relative intellect of anyone believing in any kind of transcendent or immanent non-corporeal reality.
Well, I never made that argument, I countered you "you can't prove it, so it must be false, and by the way, you are also a moron" argument...which is equally ridiculous.
Unfortunately you made a specific statement as to the intelligence of anyone who has an alternative view to you, for any belief to be baseless would require you to have significant and in-depth personal knowledge of how any individual comes to the conclusion that they do....you didn't do that, you made a broad and unjustified assumption about how people reason out their positions.
You made the claim as to a definitive position that must be true...that is what I questioned and not what you believe regards the afterlife.....
I did not question your unbelief in an afterlife or immaterial reality, you have, I hope, come to the conclusions you have using your own experience, perceptions and what you hold to be true about that existence objectively.....I was simply pointing out that others have come to a different conclusion (or are still in the process) based on their own experiences and perceptions.
Gandhi doesn't agree with you with regard to the statements you have made.....if you are referring to the quote I posted he is not dismissing peoples beliefs, only those that have not been reasoned to.
So it is "well documented" that each individual's basis for what they believe is manipulated by religion?.....what about those who have no religion and still profess to a spirituality......spirituality doesn't require religion or a believe in God, and anyone who professes to using "common sense" would, I hope, see the difference between religion and spirituality.
You simply said that anyone would be a moron to believe in any form of afterlife or spirituality.....that implies you have a problem with it. You then went on to make definitive claims that anyone with an opinion that differs from the negative has been manipulated out of fear and a desire for control....when that is simply an assumption informed by your bias and ignorance of the individual's reasoning for their position.
We are taking about personal beliefs on human spirituality, not religion. And as the topic is largely subjective to the individual it is not sensible to make assumptions based on no information as to how they come to those positions or the myriad of position held.
It should be pointed out that many people base their opinions on scientific ideas regarding an afterlife or immaterial reality, from the expansion of quantum multi-verses to theories on NDE..the debate is not limited or exclusive to religion......I would say that religion is one consequence of Spirituality and not the cause of it.
You cannot objectively base your world view only on scientific developments (you wouldn't conceivably have the knowledge base to do this objectively)....Science has apart to play in how we as individuals inform, perceive and define ourselves within our own subjective existence, but it is not the only one and you would be pretty one-dimensional if you attempted that in my opinion.
So can you point to the scientific papers that disprove any form of afterlife, or have proven that our existence is in fact limited to the corporeal material world?
or are you simply making assumptions on what you think Science says and can or cannot prove?
There are a significant body of beliefs that do not specify any particular importance for humanity with regard to spirituality....in fact there are many that ascribe the greater spiritual connections to animals, especially those that maintain a spiritual connection to nature and what they believe is the Universal Spirit from which all existence derives. Spiritualism is about the immaterial reality that either you consider or you don't in your particular world view....this can mean a myriad of things and manifest in a myriad of ways, not necessarily meaning that an individual feels that they will live on indefinitely as the specific self awareness they currently possess or even a the individual at all, or even with some secular beliefs that focus on the harmony of the individual with the universe around them rather than the broader meaning of the word......in both cases we are dealing outside of the materialistic world, therefore trying to apply a purely scientific basis is largely meaningless.
This is what I mean by ignorance....not that you are ignorant in the pejorative, just that you are not fully considering the gamut of different ideas and positions that people hold or the way in which they come to them.
Because of the subjective nature of the material, and you only have to look at the broad spectrum of beliefs and opinions in this thread regarding this subject, it would be difficult to assess a definitive answer to such a question, there is currently no yes/no formula regarding an afterlife or any immaterial reality thereof, so we can only objectively state our own subjective opinion based on our experience rather than making any definitive statements regarding another's specific beliefs other than saying why you agree or disagree as an individual.
As far as evolution goes, I don't think the current consensus is that we are somehow more evolved or have evolved quicker than any other species...only that we have evolved differently.
Last edited:
I have to agree with Einstein (see sig)
which is sortof YesInteresting that a lot of those in the No camp just love to belittle those who hold contrary beliefs....haters gotta hate
Last edited:
Permabanned
Thank you for twisting my words, again.
I can't be bothered typing such a lengthy reply on this iPad... But for crying out loud... Spiritual experiences disproved != afterlife disproved.
There is no finality in my responses, I fully accept that I could be wrong and in fact wish that I am. I'm merely sharing that anyone who believes in the "traditional" form of an afterlife is a moron to believe such a silly story.
No, this does not include those who consider their options and choose their own path.
I can't be bothered typing such a lengthy reply on this iPad... But for crying out loud... Spiritual experiences disproved != afterlife disproved.
There is no finality in my responses, I fully accept that I could be wrong and in fact wish that I am. I'm merely sharing that anyone who believes in the "traditional" form of an afterlife is a moron to believe such a silly story.
No, this does not include those who consider their options and choose their own path.
I am not twisting your words, maybe you should frame you argument or statements differently.
I did not assume that there was....I was specifically disagreeing with your statement that you would have to be a moron to believe in an afterlife.
However, The traditional form of afterlife?
Did the OP specify a particular defined version of the afterlife which we should consider?
That is not clear in either the OP or specifically your original post:
It does appear that you are referring to any afterlife...rather than a specific definition of one. ( I have highlighted the part I disagree with generally, not that means that some people will not fit into that definition)
Which would be almost everyone I suspect.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 624
I have to agree with Einstein (see sig)
More emphasis on the 'sort of', many can relate to Spinozism and have nothing to do with any of the organised religions.
" I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God. "
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So you claim to have proven a position with simple mathematics....if this is so, why is it that you are not world renowned?
Because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If people are determined to believe in something despite sound logical arguments to contrary that's their look out.
But I never made that argument?
I simply pointed out that as the number of living organisms on the planet has grown exponentially since the Earth formed, it PROVES mathematically that most of the life on earth hasn't been reincarnated.
The only way you can get around this mathematical fact is if you start saying stuff like "well maybe your spirit can split into two and half gets reincarnated into one new life and the other half into another new born organism which is getting even more silly and implausible than the whole concept of reincarnation already is.
So, if we know that the majority of life on the planet wasn't re-incarnated and we have no way of proving whether or not any of it has, isn't it more logically sound to assume than none of it has been re-incarnated?
If you have no way of proving something, rationality dictates you go with past results. If I drop a pen, I don't KNOW it will fall to the ground but I can safely assume it will because it always has in the past. The same logic applies here, if we know that historically most new life wasn't reincarnated, the sensible logic is to be consistent and assume no life was.
Last edited:
Soldato
Erm, what? So everybody is free to consider their options and choose their own path......unless it doesn't agree with yours.....in which case they're a moron?
You hold far too much stock in science. Science can't even begin to grasp why we're even here in the first place, so how on earth can it "prove" anything about what happens when we're gone?
Man of Honour
But I never made that argument?
I simply pointed out that as the number of living organisms on the planet has grown exponentially since the Earth formed, it PROVES mathematically that most of the life on earth hasn't been reincarnated.
The only way you can get around this mathematical fact is if you start saying stuff like "well maybe your spirit can split into two and half gets reincarnated into one new life and the other half into another new born organism which is getting even more silly and implausible than the whole concept of reincarnation already is.
Or simply that you have two streams of life - those who are reincarnated and the "new" stream. Those in the "new" stream will presumably get added to the pool to be reincarnated when they die.
There is, of course, then the question of how the new life comes into being but at this point it's hardly the biggest of leaps to be taking. I'll point out now that this is merely a possible suggestion as an alternative way to get round the question of "soul-splitting", it isn't something I have ever given thought to before now.
You're essentially trying to apply a logical process to something that is, in and of itself, outwith the bounds because it is a question of faith.
The most rational stance is to say that we simply don't know - it's a question that is presently (and may be for all time) unanswerable so to take a definitive postion (whether pro or anti) is to take a position based on faith.
Don't get me wrong here, logic is great and highly useful in many situations but applying it to all situations doesn't necessarily make it valid.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 624
Why we are here in the first place?
I didn't know that there had to be an answer to that.
As Dawkins would say its a silly question.
Edit : it's pretty good at answering 'How' we got here though
Associate
IMHO essentially, no. Personally I need to see proof of something before I believe it. Hence no god etc.
However my view has always been that the "afterlife" is how you live on in your loved ones memorys. For example I will always remember my grandma and grandad -this is their afterlife.
Physical bodies - gone, spirit no such thing (imo), the elements that make up their bodies are now back into the universe and will eventually become part of something else.
I dont think that believers are morons (my wife being one) however I know for a fact the reason she believes is that she cant face never seeing her loved ones again. Whereas I accept that as the truth, again imo. She wants to believe that when we are both dead we will live together in an after-life, because she can face the opinion (notice I dont say fact) that we are just "gone".
Exactly my feelings - why does there have to be a reason?
However my view has always been that the "afterlife" is how you live on in your loved ones memorys. For example I will always remember my grandma and grandad -this is their afterlife.
Physical bodies - gone, spirit no such thing (imo), the elements that make up their bodies are now back into the universe and will eventually become part of something else.
I dont think that believers are morons (my wife being one) however I know for a fact the reason she believes is that she cant face never seeing her loved ones again. Whereas I accept that as the truth, again imo. She wants to believe that when we are both dead we will live together in an after-life, because she can face the opinion (notice I dont say fact) that we are just "gone".
Exactly my feelings - why does there have to be a reason?
Last edited:
But I never made that argument?
It is a form of the same argument however as it relates directly to the continuance of consciousness individualism being a prerequisite for any form of afterlife. It also concludes that material reality is the only kind....and as a general rule the afterlife and related discussions therein deal with an immaterial reality.
It doesn't though does it.....unless you have the specific variables required as to the level of conciousness and type of conciousness required in any given scenario....the Earth is not the universe and if some physicists are to be believed the Universe is not the only one. So there is no mathematical prove to support your conjecture, at least not in the broader sense that we are discussing.
You are making assumptions as to the nature of any proposed spirit/soul/non corporeal essence that you cannot define sufficiently to support any mathematical or scientific analysis thereof.
Yet we don't actually know the basis for your argument or the variables or criteria with which to define them in any material way.
If you drop the pen outside of the Earth's gravitational pull...can you be sure or assume that it will fall then?
You are making an unverifiable faith assumption and then saying that the conclusions that depend on that unverifiable assumption make the assumption true.....that is not logical. As pointed out, the rational conclusion is simply that we do not know......nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is down to the individual.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Jeez, let me break this down for you step by step and you can come back and stop me where you think I've gone 'wrong'.
1) Reincarnation is the belief that something that was once living, has died and then come back to life at a later point, correct?
2) Regardless of whether you believe the creation story or accept the scientific explanation of abiogenesis at some point there was no life (either on earth or anywhere in the Universe) so at that point nothing has lived and therefore nothing can have been reincarnated, correct?
3) For the population to grow and not stay constant, when life does come into existence it is necessary that they give birth (on average) to more new organisms that it took to create them, correct?
...I'll wait to see what you say first on those three before continuing any further and waste my time.
Many believe that conciousness is universal in the immaterial reality....so while we are individually corporeal we are not individually incorporeal, if you get my meaning.
It is some peoples belief that we are all One with the Universe and that our fleeting corporeal existence(s) are merely that Universal Conciousness experiencing a material perception across a myriad of different subjective realities.
This can explain why we as individuals have a limited experience spiritually....basically our consciousness is limited by the corporal body within which it is confined and at the moment of death it is no longer confined......the omnipotent factor of immortality I suppose you could call it. It may be that those barriers are weaker, or stronger in some individuals than others, and thus we have the whole supernatural phenomenon etc.....much depends on your own point of view and what you are willing to consider and how it relates to your own experience and perceptions.
Personally, I have no idea and I approach these things with scepticism, but I do not dismiss that I cannot explain as easily as some seem to...that doesn't mean I accept them as true either.
No, reincarnation is not limited to the corporeal material world. It can mean any form of reincarnation of the spirit, either within a corporeal form or a spiritual one. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the conciousness or individuality expressed in our corporeal form is evident in any kind of afterlife and as such you need to make fundamental assumptions as to the nature of spirit and conciousness and define any given afterlife and specify the nature of reincarnation within certain material boundaries to apply the kind of analysis you are suggesting. Given that reincarnation and spirituality deals primary with an immaterial reality, those boundaries are largely immaterial (pardon the pun)
Again you are limiting yourself to material reality, by definition spirituality and therefore the idea of reincarnation doesn't necessarily fit into the boundaries of what we consider corporeal life as it deals with a immaterial reality. So no, it is not what I would consider correct. a Universal Conciousness could simply have come into existence with the Universe, that it may have manifested in the material world as life doesn't mean that it is dependent on it or that it is static.
There are as many differing philosophies on reincarnation and how it manifests.....also not all afterlife philosophies require or support reincarnation...and some that do, see it as an innately bad thing as it means the spirit has not reached that state of Nirvana or entered the Godhead or Universal Collective or whatever you wish to call it.......
This is why mathematics doesn't prove anything in this regard. Certainly not in the way you suggest.
See above.
Last edited:
Soldato
"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.” CS Lewis