Poll: Poll: Do you believe in an afterlife?

[Curio]

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.

It's silly because science can't explain (for example) what there was before the big bang. If there even was a big bang. Science says "it's pointless thinking about it because anything that existed during that time doesn't fall within the realms of our laws of science....and is therefore silly"

 

[Heaven Can Wait]

No.. its silly because its a pointless question, the examples you've given are not the same.
what was there before the big bang?

why was there a big bang?

 

[estebanrey]

Castiel, can you please buy a thesaurus. Your over use of the word 'corporal' is blooming annoying. How about giving one of these ago instead?

anatomical
physical
carnal
human
material
objective
somatic
tangible


..you know just for a change.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, can you please buy a thesaurus. Your over use of the word 'corporal' is blooming annoying. How about giving one of these ago instead?

anatomical
physical
carnal
human
material
objective
somatic
tangible


..you know just for a change.

The word is corporeal and it has a specific meaning in relation to the spiritual and it's separation from the physical body and broader reality that contextually the others, such as Somatic, Objective, Anatomical, Carnal etc do not necessarily support. It would also be confusing to use material in relation to both the body and the universe, not to mention the different realities we are discussing.

You will simply have to learn to live with it.

 

[bloodiedathame]

I like my afterlife the way I like my women; cold, black and empty.

 

[estebanrey]

The word is corporeal and it has a specific meaning in relation to the spiritual that contextually the others do not necessarily support.

You will simply have to learn to live with it.

No I won't, can't be ar*ed with this discussion anymore. Your position seems to be anything in the "spiritual world" is possible including breaking all the laws of physics, logic and mathematics and not matter what I say you can shift the goal posts to 'disprove', so there is no point debating because you are setting yourself up in a position where you can't be wrong so what's the point?

All your arguments just remind me of this phrase...

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

 

[Lunatic Dreyfus]

No. It's goodnight, Vienna.

 

[Surfer]

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. "

I guess you were unaware that i was aware of all of what you just said. Uhh whats your point? Are you agreeing?

 

[Castiel]

No I won't, can't be ar*ed with this discussion anymore. Your position seems to be anything in the "spiritual world" is possible including breaking all the laws of physics, logic and mathematics and not matter what I say you can shift the goal posts to 'disprove', so there is no point debating because you are setting yourself up in a position where you can't be wrong so what's the point?

All your arguments just remind me of this phrase...

You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to dispute it.

The problem you have is that you cannot separate the material from the immaterial realities that these discussions demand. It has nothing to do with creationism or quotes thereof, it has everything to do with your inability to approach any discussion on philosophy with the required frame of reference. This is not about proving any specific philospohy...it is about discussing the myriad of different ideas, philosophies and positions that relate to an afterlife or spiritual world. You can no more use a material context to dismiss them as I can to prove them.....which is the point I was making regarding you idea that simple maths disproves an afterlife.

I am not telling you what to believe, I am discussing why I do not agree with your belief.....so that quote is out of context and irrelevant, in fact on reflection it describes your reaction to your position being questioned quite well.. To be absolutely clear, I am entirely sceptical about an afterlife of any description, I simply do not have any definite answers, no-one does.....and that I am afraid includes you although you are perfectly entitled to believe that you do.

I will leave you with Plato:

Philosophy begins in wonder.

and Andre Gide:

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.

As an afterthought, as you like quotes, here is one that may encourage you think about your position a little more expansively:

Seeing death as the end of life is like seeing the horizon as the end of the ocean.

David Searls.

 

[Sinny]

I'd like to Believe that there is one, but I tend not to think about it as their is an overwhelming possibility that there isn't.

I'd rather live my life to the best I can rather than worrying or thinking about it.

 

[crinkleshoes]

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?

I don't see how they can be linked together?

Of course everyone is free to make their own choice, doesn't mean they're not mentally handicapped.

I stand by my statement that anyone who believes in any way a continued conciousness in the way were currently experience it. Heaven/Hell... These people deserve to be laughed at.

Science has shown how the brain behaves as it dies... Mis-firing all over the place, explaining near death experiences. It has also shown how it dies in bits... So to sustain a solid conciousness is not physically possible.

We emit photons as we decompose, so a part of us continues on as light. This could certainly not be considered a conciousness, nor could it truly be considered an after"life" as it's not live-able... It's purely after life, which is the post-death time none of us get to experience.

 

[Nitefly]

If something or nothing, then something.

Nothing is too boring

 

[crinkleshoes]

No.. its silly because its a pointless question, the examples you've given are not the same.
what was there before the big bang?

why was there a big bang?

Silly human perception of time... Although its extremely difficult to consider it in another way as our brains are programmed to experience it in the way that we do.

There was no before and in fact, the current model of the big bang is only an estimation... It did not happen in the way most people think of it... There was no bang.

Not everything has a beginning, middle and end... Time is a dimension, not a duration... Something like we experience in our "limited" 3d world, extended in to another dimension.

Clocks, etc... Are wrong we perceive a non-existent duration.

This leads in to some interesting metaphysics

 

[Castiel]

Science has shown how the brain behaves as it dies... Mis-firing all over the place, explaining near death experiences. It has also shown how it dies in bits... So to sustain a solid conciousness is not physically possible.

Not quite:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/science-life-after-death.htm

There are several scientific theories:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts01.html

Also Science has yet to actually define Individual Consciouness, what makes you you and not me for example......

It is entirely open to debate, despite your statements that science has definitely answered the question.

 

[crinkleshoes]

It's silly because science can't explain (for example) what there was before the big bang. If there even was a big bang. Science says "it's pointless thinking about it because anything that existed during that time doesn't fall within the realms of our laws of science....and is therefore silly"

No... We just haven't discovered the means to express it yet... We'll get there, it takes "time".

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

Of the 21 people (so far) who believe in an afterlife, who actually goes to church on a weekly basis (or other religion equivalents)?

I voted yes and I'm atheist. I believe in manifest, in that you manifest as someone else after death with no recollection of your previous life. Experiencing nothing, dead-end, full stop, nada after death is something I can't comprehend.

 

[crinkleshoes]

No I won't, can't be ar*ed with this discussion anymore. Your position seems to be anything in the "spiritual world" is possible including breaking all the laws of physics, logic and mathematics and not matter what I say you can shift the goal posts to 'disprove', so there is no point debating because you are setting yourself up in a position where you can't be wrong so what's the point?

All your arguments just remind me of this phrase...

The best representation of what I could potentially consider to be an "afterlife" was presented by stargate sg1 of all things!

However... They did not die & were still susceptible to death (loss of energy), according to the story.

They reached the limits of the capabilities of their humanesque form and were able to ascend to a higher plane of existence as energy. This still is not an afterlife though, it was a continuation of their existence.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Not quite:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/science-life-after-death.htm

There are several scientific theories:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts01.html

Also Science has yet to actually define Individual Consciouness, what makes you you and not me for example......

It is entirely open to debate, despite your statements that science has definitely answered the question.

And yet you still dispute that a theory is more reasonable than imagination?

 

[crinkleshoes]

I voted yes and I'm atheist. I believe in manifest, in that you manifest as someone else after death with no recollection of your previous life. Experiencing nothing, dead-end, full stop, nada after death is something I can't comprehend.

Where do all the new people come from and how could "you" get transferred?

Surely you are the sum of your experiences... Without your experiences you are not you anymore?

So even if this somehow was true... It's pointless?

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Where do all the new people come from and how could "you" get transferred?

Surely you are the sum of your experiences... Without your experiences you are not you anymore?

So even if this somehow was true... It's pointless?

correct