Thread: The Afterlife

I strongly believe in life after death. I also believe in life before birth.

I'm not interested in whether or not you believe, but what you think about it.

saying "yes I believe" or "no I do not believe" is not good for conversation at all, I'm sorry. this is not a poll.

now, if you were to explain why...

The very notion of "afterlife" would establish also the idea of a "before life". If there was a before life, and an afterlife, that means there is a during life. The idea that there is this before, during and after, would lead one to believe that this so called "life" therefore is irrelavant unto itself.
Indeed it is this that is before, during , and after which is relevant. Even if that such is "nothing", that nothingness is what is relevant.

As for after life is concerned i have several of my own theories.The idea you either go to hell or heaven for me is absurd.

Have any of you read the book FireWing?
At the end of it he goes through that tree and he still exists in a sense but he is a part of anything.

I beleive that happens in a sense after you die.

Im also open to the idea of reincarnation, it makes sense to me.

IM afraid to say the most logical theory of what happens when you die is your just stuck in the ground and you are no more; dust to
dust.

The idea of an after life specifically the one about Heaven in Hell was one conjured up by scared people who didnt know why at some point in their life they would drop dead, they wondered where they would go so they came up with the after life theory subsequently creating relegion as they pondered this unusual phenomenom.

why shouldn't we believe that there are other dimensions we cannot experience in this life?

I heard a theory before that when we die we go to onother plane that is in between this one and the other so we are kind of in limbo. We can see them (the living) but they can see us (the dead).

Its pretty out there but theres lots of other ideas. Take you'r pick!

The idea of time has always made me think about the afterlife idea. Its weird that in our normal lives everything is measured in time. Wake up at six o’clock , go to work at nine o’clock come home at five o’clock. Time comes and goes so fast its hard to imagine a place where time doesn’t matter. But it goes back to the different dimension things. Its impossible to think of eternity just as its impossible to describe a 3 dimensional object to a 2 dimensional creature. Its very weird when you think about it.

almost all of my understanding of what it might be like comes from NDEs. They have provided more of an insight for me than any religious text ever could. Patients have come to the conclusion that we are a consciousness. And when the physical body ceases to function the consciousness is released. So you could call this the soul.

I am not certain in life after death I would say 60% of me believes and 40% doubts. but as Carl Jung said “the unconscious psyche believes in life after death”

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

The very notion of "afterlife" would establish also the idea of a "before life". If there was a before life, and an afterlife, that means there is a during life. The idea that there is this before, during and after, would lead one to believe that this so called "life" therefore is irrelavant unto itself.
Indeed it is this that is before, during , and after which is relevant. Even if that such is "nothing", that nothingness is what is relevant.

This is like the most philosophical thing I've ever heard...where did you steal that from? =P

The afterlife?
the great white space/light I saw as I scrolled down, then saw the picture, that seems more like the afterlife.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what else is Heavan for?

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

The very notion of "afterlife" would establish also the idea of a "before life". If there was a before life, and an afterlife, that means there is a during life. The idea that there is this before, during and after, would lead one to believe that this so called "life" therefore is irrelavant unto itself.
Indeed it is this that is before, during , and after which is relevant. Even if that such is "nothing", that nothingness is what is relevant.

Ironic coming forom NONDualistic!
This has been a reoccurring theme as of late. Polar opposites.
It exists but it does not, there is<> there isn't.
Great for tened dcussion.

Originally Posted by Howie

Ironic coming from NONDualistic!

How so is it you see irony?

Originally Posted by paperdoll

what do you see here:



































nothing? actually, it's this image



turned on its side.

the picture is 2D, and we can only see in 2D, but when we (or the image) moves through the third dimension we can see everything in it.

all of that was found in essentially nothing.

physicalism, materialism, naturalism...pointlessness.
there is so much we don't know.

why shouldn't we believe that there are other dimensions we cannot experience in this life?

I don't know. I'm stupid. tell me what you think of the idea of life after death.

(artwork is by Mark Ryden)

I am stealing this an example, this is exactly what I've been trying to explain to people.

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

How so is it you see irony?

Your user name, NONdualistic and then your post consisting of polar opposite ideas, seems ironical to me, that is all.

The very notion of "afterlife" would establish also the idea of a "before life". If there was a before life, and an afterlife, that means there is a during life. The idea that there is this before, during and after, would lead one to believe that this so called "life" therefore is irrelavant unto itself.
Indeed it is this that is before, during , and after which is relevant. Even if that such is "nothing", that nothingness is what is relevant.

Co

Originally Posted by Howie

Your user name, NONdualistic and then your post consisting of polar opposite ideas, seems ironical to me, that is all.





Co

True, though it was the cinsistency of the "nothing" behind the illusion I was pointing to, not so much the opposites.
Though one may realize the inner reality of non-duality , while in form one must also live in the duality as well. One uses the language and its dualistic terms like I & you, we & they, before, after etc, as well as speaking from the perspective of I me and mine, but its not so much because one sees that way, but because thats how "others" around one are used to communicating. One has to learn to use the duality to help bring others closer to "seeing" what one is "seeing" from the non dualistic perspective. One finds its a learn on the go experience. One learns so one can teach and then one teaches so one can learn. The chances to teach are equal to the chances to learn.

Believe in nothing, yet everything.

In this, the median shall be found.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

what do you see here: nothing? actually, it's this image turned on its side.

I'm curious to know which side it was turned on.

But to the main question. Clearly there are many things we cannot percieve. The light spectrum goes well above and below the frequency we can see with our eyes. Even outside what we can measure with the most sensitive scientific equipment. There are things smaller, larger, and more distant than we'll ever be able to see. There are likely other dimensions we can never experience.

But knowing this does not naturally lead to the conclusion that death brings us, consciousness intact, to some otherworldy experience.

The most uncomfortable thought, and yet the simplest, is that after life is nothingness. That you may be forever gone. I believe that people have a need to believe in another "place" after you die simply because they cannot understand what it would be like to not exist. But it's easy to see why: it wouldn't be like anything at all. Not understanding what it's like to not exist does not mean it's any less of a logical destination for us all.

I am amazed at how difficult it is for people to cope with the simple fact that when you die, you are dead . It is fascinating.

I believe the cycle goes somewhat like:


LIFE:

beginning of life->Maturity->Decline->death
................................|
................................V
..........................Offspring->.....

DEATH:

There is no such thing as a two-dimensional object - at least none that we can detect. Your image, were it not light being emitted from my computer screen, would be some sort of paper material. This material would have to absorb some light and reflect the rest in order to be visible. Were it truly two dimensional, it would have no thickness and therefore be unable to absorb OR reflect photons - it would be invisible to us.

The whole concept of two or four dimensions is just a human construct, as far as I'm concerned. There are three spatial dimensions, anything else is conjecture. (Even if a theory like string theory happens to explain a lot of the universe's behavior, that does not mean that it reflects the true nature of the universe - just that it makes for a good model. All models are wrong, but some are useful.)

As for the afterlife, I do not believe it exists.

There is no reason to assume that humans are anything but physical beings, and, as such, when our physical bodies are destroyed there is nothing left of us to 'go onwards'. Most theories about an afterlife are clearly born of the natural human fear of mortality, and to be honest I find them a bit pathetic. We shouldn't allow our reasoning to be so distorted by wishful thinking or primal terrors.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

There is no such thing as a two-dimensional object - at least none that we can detect. Your image, were it not light being emitted from my computer screen, would be some sort of paper material. This material would have to absorb some light and reflect the rest in order to be visible. Were it truly two dimensional, it would have no thickness and therefore be unable to absorb OR reflect photons - it would be invisible to us.

you're nitpicking but thanks anyway.


what do you think about "good" and "evil"?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

There is no such thing as a two-dimensional object - at least none that we can detect. Your image, were it not light being emitted from my computer screen, would be some sort of paper material. This material would have to absorb some light and reflect the rest in order to be visible. Were it truly two dimensional, it would have no thickness and therefore be unable to absorb OR reflect photons - it would be invisible to us.

The whole concept of two or four dimensions is just a human construct, as far as I'm concerned. There are three spatial dimensions, anything else is conjecture. (Even if a theory like string theory happens to explain a lot of the universe's behavior, that does not mean that it reflects the true nature of the universe - just that it makes for a good model. All models are wrong, but some are useful.)

As for the afterlife, I do not believe it exists.

There is no reason to assume that humans are anything but physical beings, and, as such, when our physical bodies are destroyed there is nothing left of us to 'go onwards'. Most theories about an afterlife are clearly born of the natural human fear of mortality, and to be honest I find them a bit pathetic. We shouldn't allow our reasoning to be so distorted by wishful thinking or primal terrors.

I think i made a point similar to this in another thread:

Other Dimensions CAN exist, and most likely DO. But we can never detect them.

I agree 100&#37; with you there

std::

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I am amazed at how difficult it is for people to cope with the simple fact that when you die, you are dead . It is fascinating.

I believe the cycle goes somewhat like:


LIFE:

beginning of life->Maturity->Decline->death
................................|
................................V
..........................Offspring->.....

DEATH:

You forgot compost in there somewhere.
Once a man twice a child

NonDualistic, I don't follow you.

Originally Posted by paperdoll

what do you think about "good" and "evil"?

I think that they're subjective terms with no objective meaning, based solely on what sort of things bring the individual (the one using the terms) pain and pleasure (not just physical, the whole spectrum of positive and negative feedback).

Originally Posted by Howie

NonDualistic, I don't follow you.

He means that, he types in dualistic terms, because it is unnecessary to cause "disturbances" by communicating via terms and linguistics that better support non-dualism but may also create distracting "excess noise" and confusion.

For example... i would not be "typing" or "speaking" at all, if i was looking just to support non-dualism instead of discussing, teaching, and learning through general communication.

Now that i relook at this post... it's not looking too good in simplicity... meh.

All is flux.

Humans are the naive artist weaving delusional paintings and desperately writing literature while blind. People spew impotent language which can never encapsulate the infinte quintessential entities that animistically inhabit the flux.

All is flux. Humans are to flux as the blind walk on the road. The unconscious dead smirk at humans folly.
~

Consciousness is the only truth.

Nobody knows when it ends.

Theoresticalisation is for philosophers.

I do what i do, because i do.

Originally Posted by cloudWalker

Consciousness is the only truth.

How can consciousness be a 'truth'? That doesn't make any sense. Is unconsciousness a lie?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

How can consciousness be a 'truth'? That doesn't make any sense. Is unconsciousness a lie?

To witness a dream, there must be a dreamer.

Being theoretical about existence, requisites a theoretician.