What are your views on the afterlife?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
StevenJay
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by StevenJay » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:57 am

KeepitRealMark wrote:StephenJay wrote:
You might as well have just said, "There is only one true God. But...an infinite array of perceptions of it."

That's OK... I'll stick to saying there is only one reality. That I am certain of.
It bothers some people for me to be so unrelenting in my approach to reality.
All I can say is... Sorry if it bugs you. I hope it doesn't.
After 38 years of debating the subject. I have become Rock Solid in my opposition to religious insanity.
It's been my experience that becoming "rock solid" in opposition to anything is a bad career move, as it is ultimately self-defeating.

Your relentlessness and "certainty" with regard to "reality" could be viewed as religious ferver in a slightly different context. You have abandoned one unprovable philosophical concept in favor of another unprovable philosophical concept; so-called "reality" - a topic that is every bit as nebulous as "religion."

It always comes back around to perception. :geek:
It's all about perception.

User avatar
Aristarchus
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by Aristarchus » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:28 am

KeepitRealMark wrote:I am very glad for all my past exposures to the myths taught by religions.
More than several weeks ago I posted on the TB forum a link to someone very active in the Saturn Myth. It can be found here

In that link the author stipulates that 4000 - 3500 BC the myths recorded were more historical events rather than something interpreted as religious. The ancients were literally describing in the language that was afforded to them at the time what they were witnessing in the sky. It wasn't until 1500 BC to 600 BC that the rise of religious thought truly became pronounced in civilizations, and this was due to a development of the subjective consciousness which considered the "I' in relations to others, as opposed to the pre-consciousness of only perceiving the "I".

Religious teachers and bodhisattvas encouraged their followers to accept an appreciation of contemplative thought to exercise a control of their animal instincts. In addition, the intellect and intuition of humankind progressed to a level accepting that one could change the reality of their existence through contemplative meditation and prayer.

For example:

Mindful meditation training
Meditation group participants reported spending an average of 27 minutes each day practicing mindfulness exercises, and their responses to a mindfulness questionnaire indicated significant improvements compared with pre-participation responses. The analysis of MR images, which focused on areas where meditation-associated differences were seen in earlier studies, found increased grey-matter density in the hippocampus, known to be important for learning and memory, and in structures associated with self-awareness, compassion and introspection. Participant-reported reductions in stress also were correlated with decreased grey-matter density in the amygdala, which is known to play an important role in anxiety and stress. Although no change was seen in a self-awareness-associated structure called the insula, which had been identified in earlier studies, the authors suggest that longer-term meditation practice might be needed to produce changes in that area. None of these changes were seen in the control group, indicating that they had not resulted merely from the passage of time.

"It is fascinating to see the brain's plasticity and that, by practicing meditation, we can play an active role in changing the brain and can increase our well-being and quality of life." says Britta Hölzel, PhD, first author of the paper and a research fellow at MGH and Giessen University in Germany. "Other studies in different patient populations have shown that meditation can make significant improvements in a variety of symptoms, and we are now investigating the underlying mechanisms in the brain that facilitate this change."
KeepitRealMark wrote:I have learned to decipher the reality from the nonsense.
Do you really believe that you're engaging your interlocutor with any degree of respectful discourse when you use terse statements that end with "nonsense?" If you want to espouse your atheist view and challenge your interlocutors, you could do it with a greater emphasis of engaging in actual dialogue (IMO).
KeepitRealMark wrote:And be honest about it all.
This sounds like a directive from you.
KeepitRealMark wrote:What does anger me is the prevailing hatred and killing caused by the various religious beliefs. Every time someone dies in the name of a false god is an atrocity.
The early Christian fathers were appalled by the brutality of the Roman State - abhorred by the atrocities of the Roman arena, and preached a condition of love and peace. Saint Paul upstaged the Beatles by centuries with a letter dedicated to the concept of "All You Need is Love."

In addition, it's my understanding that Gandhi followed the precepts of Hinduism, gave deferrance to the New Testament, and was one of the outstanding champions of peace in our recent history. Also, I do recall another champion of peace and very religious man in the name of Martin Luther King Jr.

Whereas, there were some that espoused atheist societies and governments that were brutal beyond the pale, e.g., Stalin and Chairman Mao. All ideologies can fall victim to abuse.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I have little tolerance left for this sad state of affairs assaulting our humanity.
Tolerance is a crucial concept, precept, and guiding principle for people living in a free society.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I prefer to point a finger in the face of religion and loudly say…. Face Reality. Face the Truth.
May I suggest, at the risk of being bold, you might want to concentrate on breathing in and than out - and perhaps dedicate your energies to changing yourself?
KeepitRealMark wrote:There are no gods. Stop killing in the name of gods. Start taking care of each other in the name of Humanity.
A word to the wise, people kill when they are overcome with passion or a certain ideology, whether it is religious, emotional, or atheistic. Others kill because they are psychopaths that enjoy it and have no compunction about it. You might want to read a book from a person invested in psychological research and who suffered from the abuses of Nazism and Communism in Eastern Europe. The book is called Political Ponerology

In the book, the author explains how those of a psychopath inclination often come to power manipulating through self-righteous indignation and high moral ground to control an entire's society's political structure. The author stresses an objective approach and research to understanding the nature of evil, but also that the morals found in religions are conducive for developing a healthy society.
KeepitRealMark wrote:What is most important is to share the knowledge we have gained and help eradicate the disease of delusional religious dogma.
Eradicate? You do realize that exterminate is a synonym of eradicate. Wow. This really does beckon to the language espoused by the Social Darwinism movements of the early 20th century that condoned eugenics.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I am pleased that the truth behind EU serves to accomplish both.
I don't believe those researching the EU model claim a lock on the truth, but rather, directing ourselves to investigating a new scientific paradigm of our universe and understanding ancient myths that serve as a key to what transpired in the skies that comport with the EU model.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison

User avatar
StevenJay
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by StevenJay » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:27 pm

Well stated, A. :)
It's all about perception.

KeepitRealMark
Guest

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by KeepitRealMark » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:36 pm

Honesty is the Foundation of my character. I call it as I see it. I have debated all (seemingly) the various issues related to religious beliefs. I HAVE HEARD IT ALL.
Love is instinctive. Hate is a taught condition. There are still plenty of unsophisticated people learning to hate others because some insane person is still teaching the absurdities in religious dogma. But there are some of us that can still help the uninformed If we try.
I am not an Enabler. I stopped being overtly nice about religion about five years ago. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchings and several others helped persuade me to stop playing “Make Believe” and get real. And Keep It REAL
No more delusional insanity justified in the name of tolerance. Insanity is insane. Like it or not. All the talk about universal consciousness and connected to ancient wisdom is useless in today’s world. It only serves to add validity to old beliefs. I am way past that.


I have already changed myself from a foolish believer into a rational thinker.
Like it or not Reality is what it is.

You are free to believe what ever makes you feel good.

I'll remain "Rock Solid" and "Certain"

User avatar
Aristarchus
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by Aristarchus » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:53 pm

KeepitRealMark wrote:I have debated all (seemingly) the various issues related to religious beliefs.
In my last post, which you ignored all the particulars and furthermore simply did not address at all, I explained and linked a page related to the Saturn Myth in an effort to hone the topic back to subject matter of the TB forum. What you have done is distracted from other posters responding on this topic as they related the subject matter according to their own personal perspective as it regarded the EU model and concepts. You then you went on the NI&MA threads starting a new topic to discuss your anti-religious zealousness with only a fleeting mentioning and not very convincing justification of how the EU authors validated your anti-religious assumptions.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I HAVE HEARD IT ALL.
There's no need to shout. You've articulated and repeated the same slogan based phrases on more than one occasion on the TB forum without engaging your fellow posters. I think it is becoming evident where you're coming from.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I stopped being overtly nice about religion about five years ago.
At this point, I would settle for a little social an academic decorum on your part.
KeepitRealMark wrote:Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchings and several others helped persuade me to stop playing “Make Believe”
Interestingly, Martin Rees had this say about the zealot posturing of the likes of Dawkins
Speaking at a debate at the Guardian Hay festival, Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal who heads the Royal Society, said that science needed as many allies as it could find in the current climate. "If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," he said. "We need people like that as allies in dealing with extreme fundamentalism."
BTW, the name is Christopher Hitchens.
KeepitRealMark wrote:“Make Believe” and get real. And Keep It REAL
No more delusional insanity justified in the name of tolerance. Insanity is insane. Like it or not.
Not only are you not rationally engaging your fellow posters with the topic at hand as it relates to their own perspective on their personal beliefs as it regards the EU model, but you're now making a rather embarrassing attempt to incite and instigate. Furthermore, your modus operandi will have the moderators remove this topic because it is not adhering to the guidelines. You might believe that you have succeeded in eradicating any religious thought from the forum, but, in actuality, it will only be an empty victory comprising a pseudo-reality of distinguishing religious perspectives that will still exist in the thought of your fellow EU posters on this forum, as they continue to relate the EU model with metaphysical questions.
KeepitRealMark wrote:You are free to believe what ever makes you feel good.
This was already addressed by me as it relates to my own personal view and with scientific data. Your efforts to demonstrate that you can ignore such responses by posturing with the use of slogans, doesn't bode well for someone claiming to be a rational thinker.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I have already changed myself from a foolish believer into a rational thinker.
That's odd. I would think "tolerance" would be a prerequisite for a rational thinker.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison

KeepitRealMark
Guest

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by KeepitRealMark » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:58 pm

Aristarchus wrote:
KeepitRealMark wrote:I have debated all (seemingly) the various issues related to religious beliefs.
In my last post, which you ignored all the particulars and furthermore simply did not address at all, I explained and linked a page related to the Saturn Myth in an effort to hone the topic back to subject matter of the TB forum. What you have done is distracted from other posters responding on this topic as they related the subject matter according to their own personal perspective as it regarded the EU model and concepts. You then you went on the NI&MA threads starting a new topic to discuss your anti-religious zealousness with only a fleeting mentioning and not very convincing justification of how the EU authors validated your anti-religious assumptions.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I HAVE HEARD IT ALL.
There's no need to shout. You've articulated and repeated the same slogan based phrases on more than one occasion on the TB forum without engaging your fellow posters. I think it is becoming evident where you're coming from.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I stopped being overtly nice about religion about five years ago.
At this point, I would settle for a little social an academic decorum on your part.
KeepitRealMark wrote:Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchings and several others helped persuade me to stop playing “Make Believe”
Interestingly, Martin Rees had this say about the zealot posturing of the likes of Dawkins
Speaking at a debate at the Guardian Hay festival, Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal who heads the Royal Society, said that science needed as many allies as it could find in the current climate. "If we give the impression that science is hostile to even mainstream religion, it will be more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important," he said. "We need people like that as allies in dealing with extreme fundamentalism."
BTW, the name is Christopher Hitchens.
KeepitRealMark wrote:“Make Believe” and get real. And Keep It REAL
No more delusional insanity justified in the name of tolerance. Insanity is insane. Like it or not.
Not only are you not rationally engaging your fellow posters with the topic at hand as it relates to their own perspective on their personal beliefs as it regards the EU model, but you're now making a rather embarrassing attempt to incite and instigate. Furthermore, your modus operandi will have the moderators remove this topic because it is not adhering to the guidelines. You might believe that you have succeeded in eradicating any religious thought from the forum, but, in actuality, it will only be an empty victory comprising a pseudo-reality of distinguishing religious perspectives that will still exist in the thought of your fellow EU posters on this forum, as they continue to relate the EU model with metaphysical questions.
KeepitRealMark wrote:You are free to believe what ever makes you feel good.
This was already addressed by me as it relates to my own personal view and with scientific data. Your efforts to demonstrate that you can ignore such responses by posturing with the use of slogans, doesn't bode well for someone claiming to be a rational thinker.
KeepitRealMark wrote:I have already changed myself from a foolish believer into a rational thinker.
That's odd. I would think "tolerance" would be a prerequisite for a rational thinker.


My sense of reality and confidence must really bug you.
I’ve seen it happen many times before.
I have expressed some of my ideas about the universe.
You aren’t required to agree. You can take a nap and forget I’m even here at all.
I need not justify to you my desire to remain realistic in my approach to my own life.
As for staying on topic. I'll say again... Just as there is No beforelife, there is No afterlife.
If only you were half as smart as you seem to think you are.
In the Big Picture of the EU, we agree on more than we disagree on.
I’ll be tolerant of that.

KeepitRealMark
Guest

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by KeepitRealMark » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:23 pm

"It's been my experience that becoming "rock solid" in opposition to anything is a bad career move, as it is ultimately self-defeating."..StevenJay


I am Rock Solid in opposition to Rape and Pedophiles.
I hope that meets with your approval.

I have already been exceptionally successful in my career.
Very happily Retired at 54 years old. Lots of Love in my family.
Great kids. Great friends. Lots of toys and land. Three houses.
Self-defeating is not in my character.
Making my own Reality has been very rewarding.

User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by HelloNiceToMeetYou » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:46 am

Its threads like these I wish JL was still around (RIP) He would tell you a thing or two about the EU and the universe in general that would make Richard Dawkins quiver. :| :cry:

User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by HelloNiceToMeetYou » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:53 am

KeepitRealMark wrote:"It's been my experience that becoming "rock solid" in opposition to anything is a bad career move, as it is ultimately self-defeating."..StevenJay


I am Rock Solid in opposition to Rape and Pedophiles.
I hope that meets with your approval.

I have already been exceptionally successful in my career.
Very happily Retired at 54 years old. Lots of Love in my family.
Great kids. Great friends. Lots of toys and land. Three houses.
Self-defeating is not in my character.
Making my own Reality has been very rewarding.
Your changing his words. In a scientific sense being rock solid is the worst thing. Expessially in the EU and the universe and in your case God in general. You have to understand Richard Dawkins and other atheists have a certain hate for a god, as they like to be the Alpha male in every situation or have some kind of problem of control or for example there own sexuality like James Randi, who just announced that he is in fact gay. I am not saying you are any one of those but a lot of the authors you stated are some of those. God is complicated word, to much personalization. God could mean just the energy in the universe. It depends on what view of god you are talking about. Like I said if you want to succeed in the scientific world you need to get rid of your dogma and think "outside" the box. I am not saying God exists, But I am saying you need to at least admit of there being a 1% chance he/she might instead of 0% chance. You say you have debated this over 34 years, That is still not much time of debating. I know people who have been debating that God is real for over 60 years and are now at the ripe old age of 90. Time means nothing in debating. Wisdom can be attained by a 6 year old with the right attitude. (And in most cases it is) ;)

User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by HelloNiceToMeetYou » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:59 am

Your whole perspective on life is Keep it real, meaning materialistic in a sense. (form the vibe I am getting off your threads) And that is perfectly fine. But you have to realize, you are not keeping it real, by sticking to you dogma (atheism) Agnostic is the way to go... Seriously. Humans cannot fathom the whole universe and the works behind it, like how a fish cannot fathom our world. There will come a time when we can fathom the universe (if our species survives that long). But until that time, we are blind. Not even the EU can tell you how the universe started. If you ask me, the EU has a lot more in relation to reincarnation/God to me then the mainstream science, but that is just my opinion. Interconnectedness is a funny thing isent it? But again it is a matter of perspective. :!:

KeepitRealMark
Guest

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by KeepitRealMark » Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:22 am

HelloNiceToMeetYou wrote:Its threads like these I wish JL was still around (RIP) He would tell you a thing or two about the EU and the universe in general that would make Richard Dawkins quiver. :| :cry:

Hi Nice.
I respect and appreciate your thoughts.
Richard Dawkins is not an authority on how the universe functions.
He does have some very realistic views on religion that helped inspire me to stop being an enabler about it and tell it like I see it. I don't care about anyone’s sex life. That is irrelevant to me.

The people at this forum are the ones I refer to for the answers to the universe.
Religious beliefs have nothing to do with that process.
As far as I’m concerned.. Religion is a dead issue.
I am here to learn about the physics behind what we can see happening in the universe only. If I want to talk religion, there are many other places to do that.
It seems just saying I am an atheist was like kicking sand in some people’s face. Not my intention at all.

Being rock solid is a very good thing in many cases.
I am rock solid the earth is not flat. Or… Rapist, Murderers and Pedophiles are bad.
I simply express my own beliefs-non beliefs. Everyone can do the same.
I am not here to change anyone’s mind. Just to express mine. In a friendly rational way.
As for religion.. I am done with the subject.
I will remain A Rock Solid Atheist forever.
No Gods... No Beforelife... No Afterlife.
No Compromising reality. No Concessions made to delusions in the name of tolerance.
Just like there are No Black Holes.

Good Day

BTW… what are your thoughts on all the other points I have made about the physics of the universe?
The REAL reason I am here.

User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by HelloNiceToMeetYou » Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:47 am

you can be rock solid over facts like those because those are "facts". You have not died, and As i take it you have not had a true NDE were you're heart and brain stopped to function. So you cannot use a scientific principle of observational evidence, as you do not have any evidence. So saying you being a rock hard atheist on the subject, is illogical, because none of those things happened to you. Rock solid, means 100% sure, in my opinion (remember matters of perspective). You can never be 100% sure of no afterlife...never as you have not died. That is a form of ignorance. :lol: For you forums I like how you said how electricity is like an unconscious god, in a way. I sort of have similar views with plasma, or the process plasma initiates. Like Birkeland currents. I am not hating on you, I like a fresh perspective on this matter. I am just saying being Rock solid about the afterlife, is illogical in every way. Maybe god is not illogical as there are flaws in the bible. But through information transfers and the way life is in general, you cannot say you are 100% certain there is no afterlife, because you have no memory of it. If you agree with the holographic principle or Rupert Sheldrakes Morphic Fields any of those just shows you memory is more complex then we thought. Even Stuart Hameroff; micro-tubules in the brain shows that memory can exist outside of the head. Remember even on wikipedia it shows you references for neurosci problems. One big one is how memory works and how it is stored. WE DO NOT KNOW ;)

User avatar
StevenJay
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by StevenJay » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:47 am

Hi'ya, Hello -

I'd like to address the original topic of this thread (remember that? ;) ), if I may, with a couple of questions and views.

When you say "afterlife," does that imply that "life" starts with this physical incarnation, and then continues on in a non-physical form after the physical vehicle expires? Or does it also imply an existence prior to physical incarnation?

I've had a deep feeling for many years, now, that it's not about befores and afters, it's all simultaneous. It's just a matter of where our Consciousness - our attention - is focused. Upon the demise of the physical vehicle (or maybe because of it), Consciousness merely withdraws its focus and attention to wherever it was before - more or less.

An analogy (maybe a lousy, overly simplistic one) would be the process of going to work each day. When we go off to work, our home life doesn't die and cease to exist. We merely withdraw our attention from it and put it elsewhere. When we return home, our work life doesn't cease to exist either. We've merely shifted our attention again. The difference is, our Consciousness experiences this lifetime - even multiple lifetimes - simultaneously, rather than in a linear manner, which is an artifact of the human perception of time and causality.

Beyond that, I've only had fleeting glimpses of nebulous feelings that don't lend themselves to linguistic interpretation. Perhaps, as Awareness expands, those fleeting glimpses will become more discernable. Maybe not.

8-)
It's all about perception.

User avatar
Aristarchus
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by Aristarchus » Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:39 pm

StevenJay wrote:An analogy (maybe a lousy, overly simplistic one) would be the process of going to work each day. When we go off to work, our home life doesn't die and cease to exist. We merely withdraw our attention from it and put it elsewhere. When we return home, our work life doesn't cease to exist either. We've merely shifted our attention again.
Here's some interesting research I placed in the context of my underlined emphasis from your previous post:

Brain circuitry could shape computer design
Computers lag in raw processing power--even the most powerful components are dwarfed by 100 billion brain cells--but their biggest deficit may be that they are designed without knowledge of how the brain itself computes.

While computers process information using a binary system of zeros and ones, the neuron, Liu discovered, communicates its electrical signals in trinary--utilizing not only zeros and ones, but also minus ones. This allows additional interactions to occur during processing. For instance, two signals can add together or cancel each other out, or different pieces of information can link up or try to override one another.

One reason the brain might need the extra complexity of another computation component is that it has the ability to ignore information when necessary; for instance, if you are concentrating on something, you can ignore your surroundings. "Computers don't ignore information," Liu said. "This is an evolutionary advantage that's unique to the brain."
Liu found that these microprocessors automatically form all along the surface of the cell as the brain develops. The modules also have their own built-in intelligence that seems to allow them to accommodate defects in the wiring or electrical storms in the circuitry: if any of the connections break, new ones automatically form to replace the old ones. If the positive, "excitatory" connections are overloading, new negative, "inhibitory" connections quickly form to balance out the signaling, immediately restoring the capacity to transmit information.
I hope to add more to this as it pertains to the topic of this thread, especially as it relates to my last highlighted emphasis in the quote above.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison

User avatar
HelloNiceToMeetYou
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:51 am

Re: What are your views on the afterlife?

Post by HelloNiceToMeetYou » Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:40 pm

By afterlife, I mean anything besides oblivion (nothingness) after death. Any description.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests