|
Post by stephen5000 on Nov 12, 2010 23:34:39 GMT -5
This is honestly something I could care less about. I think it's weird. I'm an atheist, and I think the possibility of an afterlife is slim. But technically our physical bodies decompose and the particles from our bodies go on to make up other things eventually...but I dunno... I've thought about that before, how the energy and matter from our bodies goes on to form other things. Maybe if we want to have a good "afterlife" we should get our bodies recycled as fertilizer.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 12, 2010 23:36:47 GMT -5
I've thought about that before, how the energy and matter from our bodies goes on to form other things. Maybe if we want to have a good "afterlife" we should get our bodies recycled as fertilizer. Now that's just... possibly unsanitary. However, when I die, I'm planning on doing an eco-friendly funeral. I don't want to be buried in some fancy coffin with corpse preservatives pumped into my veins. Just bury me in a biodegradable pine box.
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on Nov 13, 2010 0:55:18 GMT -5
Why would there be an afterlife? You would be conscious for all of eternity. And that's not something I'd want to look forward to. Plus it just doesn't make sense. It would mean that we would have literal spirits or something along that line. In which case reincarnation would be just as plausible.
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Nov 13, 2010 0:58:50 GMT -5
On the afterlife: We'll all figure it out at some point.
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Nov 13, 2010 1:08:41 GMT -5
I believe in heaven, hell so on, so on.
Only one way to find out the truth. *pulls out twinkie and french fries.*
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 13, 2010 2:38:05 GMT -5
I'm surprised the one thing no body has mentioned yet is when people have had contact with the deceased. It happens. It happened to myself and several members of my family. You hear about these things all the time, and sure - Some people are crazy or just liars. But some aren't. And I'm certainly not!
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 13, 2010 2:39:43 GMT -5
I'm surprised the one thing no body has mentioned yet is when people have had contact with the deceased. It happens. It happened to myself and several members of my family. You hear about these things all the time, and sure - Some people are crazy or just liars. But some aren't. And I'm certainly not! And how, may I ask, has this been possible?
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 13, 2010 2:46:16 GMT -5
There have been two common scenarios between what some members of my family experienced and what I experienced.
The first method was by contact in a dream. Yeah, it sounds easily fabricated by the subconcious. However empathic responses like this are CERTAINLY not uncommon. Google it. In this PARTICULAR case, it was confirmed by an empathic sensitive person, who wasn't told that this dream had been experienced beforehand, but described it and what it meant. It was honestly...Uncanny.
The second scenario which has happened far more often is the deceased will literally visit someone moments after death. The apparition looks just like the real person standing there, but informs the visitee of what has just happened, they say their goodbyes, then he/she is just...gone.
Now HOW? I honestly don't know how it works. But recurring experiences are consistent evidence, nonetheless. Which is still more than the "no afterlife" argument has thus far.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 13, 2010 5:04:38 GMT -5
Why would there be an afterlife? You would be conscious for all of eternity. And that's not something I'd want to look forward to. Plus it just doesn't make sense. It would mean that we would have literal spirits or something along that line. In which case reincarnation would be just as plausible. Why wouldn't there be an afterlife? So you'd rather not exist at all then to exist as a ghost? What's so bad do you think about being a ghost that makes a complete lack of existence so much better? You don't make sense. How would reincarnation be just as plausible as living on as a ghost? They're two completely different things. That's like saying that the existence of life on other planets is just as plausible as the existence of a microscopic hyper intelligent life building cities and advanced technology far beyond our own in a matter of minutes on a piece of moldy pizza. The existence of an after life makes just as much sense as the existence of life itself. If we exist then some form of afterlife most also exist. We couldn't come to exist and have this debate in the first place if there wasn't also something after this. People have actually reported ghost sightings all over the world but hardly anyone claims to be able to remember their past lives. No one is even able to remember everything that happens in their current life so the likelihood anyone would remember a past life if reincarnation were a real thing is completely impossible. Simply put how is anyone suppose to convince anyone that they remember lets say, being a soldier in the war of 1812 and they can remember every single detail of that life but can't even remember what they had for dinner last week. I know there's such a thing a thing as short term and long term memory loss but that's kinda pushing the boundaries there. No one even remembers their own birth so they're not going to remember having a past life even if it was actually possible to have one. If someone claimed to have a memory of every single detail of their current life and a past life then I would believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 13, 2010 10:19:08 GMT -5
If we exist then some form of afterlife most also exist. This logic is quite flawed, we exist due to a biological process, an after-life does not necessarily have a biological process associated with it, so saying that we exist implies that an afterlife exists is a rather flawed conclusion. In regards to topics relating to ghosts or postmortem visitation, one should recognize that, though these events might be consistently appearing, they could be caused by any number of factors that are biological within the brain, and not actually caused by the visitation of a ghost. Also, even if these events were entirely non-biological, and in fact there were apparitions, whether they be in dreams or just after the death of someone, they do not prove the existence of an afterlife. While they seem to suggest that there is an afterlife, it is possible that apparitions, are merely vessels of messages, and not the conscious life that has died.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Nov 13, 2010 13:01:23 GMT -5
I don't think there is an afterlife. It doesn't seem to make sense for me. Long time ago I gave some thought to the idea that ghosts may be some energy that remains after the body dies, this idea being a tangent of my ideas on aura, at that time I thought that if there was some crazy sort of aura-energy that it may turn into the energy needed for ghosts. My ideas went something like this (with a lot of variations): "Since auras are supposedly related to our conciousness and personalities, then, after a whole life, this aura-energy could have some of our personalities and thoughts impregnated into them, and thus, when the body dies, aura is freed, and a ghost could be born, the ghost wouldn't really be able to think or develop its own personality, but would carry on our personalities, thoughts and/or our stronger desires at the time of death." ... Then I just dismissed this whole idea (specially because I don't really think auras exist, but also because if they existed, their energy could just be liberated through heat or other forms of energy when we die).
Generally speaking, I agree with what Ryan and Ricky had said.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 13, 2010 13:06:56 GMT -5
If we exist then some form of afterlife most also exist. This logic is quite flawed, we exist due to a biological process, an after-life does not necessarily have a biological process associated with it, so saying that we exist implies that an afterlife exists is a rather flawed conclusion. How does any of that make it flawed? I think it makes perfect sense for exactly the same reasons you seem to think make it flawed. The problem is that for some reason you seem to think that there's no biological process to the afterlife which is illogical. Life itself is biological so the afterlife also must be biological. The other thing it could be is magic which does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by MattGilb3rt on Nov 13, 2010 13:32:06 GMT -5
We die, our brain dies, our thoughts die along with our brain, so for our thoughts to be with us in an afterlife; to me it wouldn't be possible. So having some sort of presence doesn't seem possible.
As for the last post about a biological theory, you could be right. But for a biological presence to continue into an afterlife without a physical host would be hard/near impossible, plus the 'being' would have to be alive to pass on the energy, not when dying or dead.
I don't believe what I've said is 110% correct or right I could in fact be, wrong.
I would like to believe in an afterlife but in my eyes you die, your body dies, the end.
....But
.....what if you got into a space craft, took off and traveled for 10 years out into the deepest parts of space and the craft blows up. You're out there, floating around as some form of 'energy' forever trapped there by yourself? Nobody around.. Blackness
Next post will probably say, well you have no physical weight or mass so you can speed around at the speed of light or faster and go back to Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Nov 13, 2010 15:02:01 GMT -5
Rialvestro - your logic is the following argument.
premise 1. If an afterlife exists, it is a form of life premise 2. life is biological Sub-conclusion 1. If an afterlife exists, it is biological. premise 3. life exists and is biological Your conclusion: An afterlife exists and is biological.
Your premises are true, and even the subconclusion that 'should an afterlife exist, it would be biological' holds weight. However you make the leap that since this life exists and is biological, there MUST be an afterlife, which is a logical flaw. I'm not saying, that there is no afterlife, or that an afterlife, should it exist, is not a biological existence, I'm saying that your logical leap that you took to assert such a conclusion, is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Nov 13, 2010 18:15:50 GMT -5
We die, our brain dies, our thoughts die along with our brain, so for our thoughts to be with us in an afterlife; to me it wouldn't be possible. So having some sort of presence doesn't seem possible. It's already been stated that there are electrical impulses in the brain. The brain, that being the physical organ, is most defiantly dead. But that does not have to mean that our thoughts die with it. The electrical impulses which is in theory our spirit, can live outside the body, outside the mind, and still be able to think. Think of death as not really the end of a life but the evolution of life where the energy outgrows it's container. Think of your life as a water balloon. The balloon your body and the water your electrical impulses. As you age your mind and body develop or your mind fills with "water" while your body, the balloon grows. At some point either because the balloon has filled up too much (natural causes) or some other force popped the balloon the body dies but that water is still there. (Not the best analogy I'll admit, but best I can think of for right now.) Rialvestro - your logic is the following argument. premise 1. If an afterlife exists, it is a form of life premise 2. life is biological Sub-conclusion 1. If an afterlife exists, it is biological. premise 3. life exists and is biological Your conclusion: An afterlife exists and is biological. Your premises are true, and even the subconclusion that 'should an afterlife exist, it would be biological' holds weight. However you make the leap that since this life exists and is biological, there MUST be an afterlife, which is a logical flaw. I'm not saying, that there is no afterlife, or that an afterlife, should it exist, is not a biological existence, I'm saying that your logical leap that you took to assert such a conclusion, is flawed. No part of that says any reason why it is flawed so you make no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Nov 13, 2010 21:22:08 GMT -5
^The reason because it is flawed it's because the fact that we exist is no real reason for there to be an after-life (at least not other than our death bodies serving as nutrients to other life-forms)
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Nov 13, 2010 22:43:38 GMT -5
The second scenario which has happened far more often is the deceased will literally visit someone moments after death. The apparition looks just like the real person standing there, but informs the visitee of what has just happened, they say their goodbyes, then he/she is just...gone. I remember that from an episode of the X-Files; after Scully's father died.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 13, 2010 23:00:15 GMT -5
There have been two common scenarios between what some members of my family experienced and what I experienced. The first method was by contact in a dream. Yeah, it sounds easily fabricated by the subconcious. However empathic responses like this are CERTAINLY not uncommon. Google it. In this PARTICULAR case, it was confirmed by an empathic sensitive person, who wasn't told that this dream had been experienced beforehand, but described it and what it meant. It was honestly...Uncanny. The second scenario which has happened far more often is the deceased will literally visit someone moments after death. The apparition looks just like the real person standing there, but informs the visitee of what has just happened, they say their goodbyes, then he/she is just...gone. Now HOW? I honestly don't know how it works. But recurring experiences are consistent evidence, nonetheless. Which is still more than the "no afterlife" argument has thus far. No offense, I sincerely doubt any of this -- especially the dream thing. Dreams can do incredibly bizarre things. For example, I often suffer from night terrors and sleep paralysis episodes. Those have been unlike any other dream or dream-like hallucination I have ever experienced. They have been, literally, the most frightening things I have ever experienced. But it's all scientifically explained, and I'm sure any "contact" with the dead can be scientifically explained through psychology and not metaphysics.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on Nov 13, 2010 23:19:18 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that if it can be scientifically explained, then it's no longer possible? ... ... But how then could a person who had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE to this particular dream describe it to us in exact correct detail? (The fact there was even a dream was not mentioned to this person, let alone the details. But I had told my family days previous, so we all recognized the description, and it was bang on.) You can't say "It doesn't exist" AND THEN look for a reason why it doesn't exist...
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Nov 13, 2010 23:22:18 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that if it can be scientifically explained, then it's no longer possible? ... ... So then how could a person who had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE to this particular dream describe it to us in exact correct detail? (The fact there was even a dream was not mentioned to this person, let alone the details. But I had told my family days previous, so we all recognized the description, and it was bang on.) You can't say "It doesn't exist" AND THEN look for a reason why it doesn't exist... I can pull out multiple other supernatural "unexplained" phenomena, and you won't be able to prove them. But you can't ask me to prove a negative.
|
|