Printable View
What does everyone think happens after we die?
Is there really such a thing as heaven/hell?
Or is it just a ploy to keep peace amongst people.?
I know i am opening a pandora's box of ideas and comments.
so post away i am interested in what you all have to say?
After all has anyone ever talked to GOD? or the DEVIL?
How do we know either exists?
There's to much wrong in the world for there to be a god, or we must have pissed him of when we killed his son.
Death is a natural progression in evolution, if we lived forever would we evolve any.
Spud
This is my theory. First of all go to sleep for a bit and have a lovely dream, now in that dream make sure exactly half an hours worth of stuff happens, (so to you the dream seems to last half an hour) I can't remember the figures but I'm pretty sure that dream lasts for less than a minute in real time.
no although we don't have much data to go on we can extrapolate this to see that when you loose conciousness time seems to last longer. ie you can fit more time into a second of real time. So if we say that the less concious you are the more thought time you can get into a second.
now if we imagine that when you die you loose conciousness in a finite period of time, so the nearer you are to death the more though time you get, now just about any reasnoble way of modelling this will show that you get an infinite amount of thought time when you die. so to you you never die.
Now If we accept this, we can throw the idea of god into this whole equation.
Imagine a devout believer dies, when he dies there is no doubt in his mind that god exists, heaven exists and, because he has been good all his life he will go there, what do you think his final dream will be? he will dream he goes to heaven, he will dream an image of what he believes god is. In other words to him he goes to heaven.
Now imagine the same guy dies exept he has been evil in his life. Somewhere deep down he feels guilty about his life, and that guilt will eat him in his last dream, he will bring himself into his own vision of hell, wracked with guilt he will torture himself.
We can probably imagine similar situations for a non believer, or less devout believer. however you would have to talk to a psychologist to guess what would actually happen.
in the same way you would probably have to talk to some sleep experts to confirm the original theory. There is also the question of deep sleep and R.E.M. sleep. R.E.M. sleep is where dreams happen, i'm not sure what happens in deep sleep, all I know is that you don't remember it when you wake up.
anyway, that's what I reckon.
Well... that solves it....
From now on if ever I am hovering near deaths door I am going to dream of Big Breasted Blonde Nymphomaniacs
:D :D :D
What i think happens is ..when you die...thats it..you die and thats all. You dont remember anything nothing not your family, freinds, wife, husband, all events in your life is forgetten. Besides if it wasnt that way..would you want to be dead and still aware of your past life and know there's nothing you can do about getting back to it?But to agree with sam..i beleive also that whatever happens to you when you die is all in what you believe when you were alive. But then again how can that be if you are dead? cause your brain died also. so if whatever happens to you after you die knowing that you believed all your life that you deserved to go to heaven is there a higher being that takes care of what YOU think is right?
Like the everlong search for the meaning of life..when i think of what the meaning of life is and cant figure it out...i just think too myself the meaning of life is not to worry about the meaning of life.
I am interested in everyone's opinion on this subject.
heheheheQuote:
Originally posted by Gen-X
Big Breasted Blonde Nymphomaniacs
:D :D :D
you never said they were female :p
Sam
I like your theory. Just a couple questions:
We'll assume you have to alive for you mind to process conscious/sub conscious thought.
When you dream (unconcsious), your brain takes a finite amount of real time (i.e. 1 second) and can seemingly produce a large amount of imaginary time (i.e. 1/2 hour).
I do not understand your argument for extending the imaginary time to infinity. The brain still has a finite amount of unconsicous AND alive time, before it expires. So it would seem plausible for the brain to imagine a LONG period of time as it is about to die, but how do you get to infinity?
dvst8
Sam proposed that the less concious you are the more time you experience. What this means in mathematical terms is that as the level of conciousness tends to zero, the length of time you experience in a given actual time tends to infinity.
when you die, it is usually your heart that gave up on you, but you brain is still working for 5 minutes or so, and then your brain cells start to die due to lack of oxygen.
so when you think about it, even if people see you dead - laying there on the floor, you're really still alive for next 5 minutes, you hear stuff and smell things.
i don't know if it is true, because nobody ever went back...
it is just my theory
M. Ali was not the greatest. Sam is.
For most of my life I have acknowledged being an atheist, ever since I read somewhere that "cowardly agnostic" is the definition of an atheist. I realized that the definition was an exact fit, and have since then called myself an atheistic.
Sam, your idea about the hereafter is delightful. I do not believe it, but it is the most imaginative idea on the subject that I have ever read.
Keep up the good work.
When I said "breasts" I meant the home-grown REAL variety...
I don't consider "Man-Boobies" to be breasts ;)
I think any guy who grows his own breasts at home has to be more than a little odd ;)
Honeybee
Interesting to have somebody from an Eastern religion making comments.
Others
While I am an atheist, I have always been interested in theology. I am not inviting evangelists to convert me, but I would be interested in any Threads/Posts on religious beliefs, especially nonchristian or non-Mainstream Christian theology.
Many years ago, somebody told me that a Zoroastrian sect or some other Persian religion believed you could be punished in the herafter for being good. As I understand it, they believe that Ahura Mazda (god of light & good) and Ahiriman (?spelling: god of darkness & evil) are in a constant struggle for control of the universe. The outcome of this battle is not known. By their behavior, humans are expected to side with one or the other of these dieties. I am not sure if human efforts have any effect on the final outcome of the battle (It would be a nice touch if the battle were to be determined by how many good/bad guys there are). At any rate, if you side with Ahura Mazda & he loses, you will be punished for not being on the winning side.
If the above is for real, it is probably the only religion which does not promise believers a reward now or later.
Does anybody know about the above? I will be disapointed if I was given bad data many years ago. This is one of my favorite theologies.
My favourite religion: There's a Christian sect in Jamaica (think it's jamaica) who worship Jesus by smoking spliffs ;)
Something to do with fire or something.
Am probably going to be flammed from hell and back but oh well:
I believe there is a god..of somekind and i also believe you dont need to go to a specified place to worship whatever god is. in your home or wherever is good enough.
Besides did jesus chrits have his own church to preach in?
honeybee
Well I think we can put that theory to rest. If it only takes 4 minutes for a soul to leave a body at death and find someone new then what about all these people who have been dead for 15 minutes and resussitated???
Sophtware
Like I said... you go where you "THINK" you will go... Because of your belief you have already booked your tickets and have your destination all planned out ;)
Gen-x
I think the Hindu definition of death is when the soul departs the body, which differs slightly from the clinical definition, so you can be clinicly dead for as long as you like as long as your soul doesn't leave your body, which it clearly doesn't if you wake up. (or maybe it returns for some reason)
Sophtware
I agree one of the main reasons I disagree with all formalised religion is that I think ones relationship with god is a very personal thing,and I don't think it helps to sit in a big building with a bloke at the front reading passages from a book that was written thousands of years ago and you need a degree in theology to understand.
[Edited by Sam Finch on 08-10-2000 at 08:28 PM]
I used to be a Christian but suddenly became more cynical and decided to be an atheist a few years ago. It was mainly for the reasons Sam gave, and also because of the fact that it seems somehow strange to believe in something of which we have no proof.
Parksie...
So you changed your view when you lost faith (ie No longer believed WITHOUT evidence)
I find this interesting... It indicates that those who do believe via faith continue to do so for as long as they can maintain the ability to ignore things and belief because they "choose" to... and that when a point comes when they actually see and accept evidence they "lose faith" and stop believing.
In my opinion this is the crux of the problem with religion in that it survives purely on the act of "faith" and by making it a virtue to accept something without any possible or feasible reason to do so.
If I wanted to brainwash people into doing what I wanted then I would set it up exactly the same as a religion in making it bad to do anything other than what I wanted... make it a sin to question, to seek evidence, or to do anything but blindly believe. I would then make a nemesis that I can blame for everything that is wrong and place all true indications of validation beyond the reach of everyone so that I could never be proved wrong.
The fact that Christianity itself uses all of these principles is to me glaringly obvious as to its intentions... Of course those already "brainwashed" don't see it that way because they have been trained (or allowed themselves to be trained ala hypnotism) not to see it.
But that is just me clarifying why I have the opinions I do, and providing some background information on how I see things :)
It was when I turned 12 and started showing intelligence. I do try and be open-minded, I just have difficulty with things like this. I mean these religious cults. WHY THE F**K DO THEY KILL THEMSELVES IN A HUGE FIRE FOR SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T EXIST!!!!! Sorry for being stupid, but something that overrides the inbuilt human will to live must be dangerous in the extreme.
Parksie reminded me of something Ayn Rand said many years ago. Quotes not used below because I do not remember her exact words. By the way, Parksie, they are not being stupid because they believe what you cannot accept. They are not killing themselves for nothing. They probably believe that they are saving their immortal souls.
Ayn Rand said: Whenever you are told that some principle or plan is more important than your plans, your ambitions, or your life then the person telling you is unspeakably evil.
You should not be required to risk your life for "The war to end all wars" or to "make the world safe for democracy." You should not required to give up your goals or money "for the good of the (communist) party" or "for the greater good of a greater number of others."
If god is omnipotent, omniscient, and all important then is is easy to justify burning witches, the inquisition, the crusades, et cetera. After all, if you can save somebody's soul, a human life or a human ambition is a small price to pay. In fact, many human lives and the ambitions/efforts of many are a small price to pay.
I have heard pro-life types called hypocritical for killing doctors who perform abortions. They are not hypocrites. They are being quite logical. They believe that abortion is murder. If you saw a serial killer about to slaughter some innocent people, would you consider it wrong to waste him?
If a heretic is endangering somebody's immortal soul, is is surely right to kill him.
Ayn Rand also said that a war which could not be fought with a volunteer or mercenary army (as opposed to a drafted one) should not be fought. A country which cannot defend itself with a volunteer army does not deserve to be defended.
It is interesting to note that the two world wars in the 20th century probably could have been fought with volunteer armies. They had overwhelming popular support. With voluteers, the armed forces might have been forced to accept many not capable of combat. Those could be assigned to the many noncombat jobs required to run a war. Neither the Korean nor the Vietnam war could have been fought with a volunteer army.
When we die this is what really happens, we get taken to a mouge, put in a freezer, have our clothes taken off, examined, dress up, have make up put on our face, then put into a coffin, then we decay and get eaten up be lots of yucky insects and organisms..
George Constanza dad had breasts..the man zere.
That example about the serial killer and the pro-lifers are different things.Of course if i saw some person trying to kill a woman or someone that couldnt defend themselves i would attack the attacker...but the abotion thing is different, Who made the people that blow up abortion clinics with doctors in them judge,jury and executionor?
Also what business is it of yours (not pointing to you directly guv) to butt into a womans decision to have the abortion? you didnt get her pregnant..thats her choice if she wants to have a abortion or not ..not yours.
Am not saying that abortion is right or wrong..am just saying if people would mind there own business and use common sense life would be alot better...
Like the old saying goes..."Two wrongs dont make a right"
See ya
Sophtware
I am not Pro-life. I believe a woman has the right to make up her own mind. Unfortunately, sarcasm/irony is sometimes missed when written rather than spoken.
I do not believe that the Pro-Lifers have the right to waste Doctors. I only said that they are being consistent in their point of view. Abortion is murder (their belief, not mine), ergo they are justified in killing the doctor.
Gen-X
i think this is the most concise and honest definition of Christianity i've ever heard.Quote:
make it a sin to question, to seek evidence, or to do anything but blindly believe. I would then make a nemesis that I can blame for everything that is wrong and place all true indications of validation beyond the reach of everyone so that I could never be proved wrong.
kudos.
dvst8
My belief and many others is that after we die we travel to another dimension (The Astral World) - Astral is an ancient Greek word meaning “Starry”. The astral is an exact copy of the world we live now only the true laws of physics don't apply.
Its possible to travel to the Astral before death. I'm trying all the time and I'm having mixed success. Have you ever heard of an OBE (Out of Body Experience) - It’s the same as Astral Projecting. Projecting your body into the astral world. When in the astral, your body can't be possessed by ghosts because you don't fully leave your body and are connected to it by a silver cord.
Right now I pretty sure that many of you are saying I'm just another mad man? - No I'm not. If you want to know more buy a book on the subject i.e. "Astral Dynamics" by Robert Bruce. Failing that you can visit many websites i.e. http://home.tower.net.au/~rsb/ http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Alfred.B...h/engindex.htm
Another thing that I could mention is NDEs (Near Death Experiences). In an NDE people often report floating above their bodies looking down at the dead physical body. Of course they live to tell the tail because the doctors bring them back. To learn more about NDES visit this site: http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/nde.html
"Its fantastic, exploring our inner beings"
Yes, I do have difficulty accepting things like that, but that's only because I think that the way that Christianity is introduced to children is wrong. It seems to have a habit of saying: "This is what happened", rather than "This is what we believe. What do you think?". It's the fact that there is little or no freedom of interpretation.
Oh parksie you're so right. I completely agree with you! I remember when I was in school taking RE classes the teachers said, "this is what happened..." and not "Christians believe...” I have always been really annoyed at the way they explain things, they try making you believe rather than letting you make up your own mind!
I think its only natural that you have difficulty believing what I have said above but please believe me. Visit the links and read up on the subject, its very compelling! Please click here to read about an experience that I had with an OBE: http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/Alfred.B...s3/lett272.htm - My name is Richard
Actually, it's a subject that I have been interested in for a while. It's a very intriguing state, which I believe exists because since we have proof that the human brain is capable of extraordinary things, it must, at some point, perform said things. I'm a little spoken advocate of ESP, too. (Such as the bond between siblings, or stronger, twins).
Even more proof that there is life after death is that the consciousness isn’t a part of the brain but actually an external being (Rather like a VB program that requires APIs - hehe). Scientist are proving that the brain cells in the brain can not think for them selves so the consciousness can’t be a part of the brain. What do you think about this?
[Edited by rino_2 on 08-11-2000 at 07:04 PM]
An interesting theory, which could be usable, but the problem stems from: where is this consciousness if it isn't in the brain? I think a few experiments have been done on something like this, and they had some quite spooky results. (I'm not sure of the exact details). If they're right, though, it'll be one hell of a good point for religion of some kind. Technology might be able to make use of it: instead of parallel processing, parallel consciousness, with more than one consciousness linked together in one body.
Some believe that everybody's consciousness is one and we are all connected.
If so, then it would be an explanation for intuition in many forms. Although, if exploited, it would sound the death knell of many forms of security. Good point to keep in mind, though, is that if humanity actually stopped bickering and joined together, we'd become a better civilisation, and would have no need for security.
Let us not Post nonsense as if it is fact. There is not one shred of evidence that the consciousness is anywhere but in the physical brain.
If not in the brain, where is it? Is it magic which works due to regular doses of fairy dust? Is it in your big toe or the 13th dimension? Is it in the mind of some dreamer who is dreaming our reality? Does it surround us like an aura?
There is no good evidence for astral projection or OBE. I remember dreams in which I seem to be viewing myself from an external site, like an astral projection. When I wake up I know it was a dream. My best guess is that something similar happens to others and they remember it as being real.
Some people have vivid hallucinations which they insist are real experiences. Unfortunately for them, they are not cunning enough to make up fancy jargon like OBE, astral projection, channeling, et cetera. Perhaps if paranoids used a buzz-phrase like PEP (Phantom Enemy Phenomena), we would not call them psycotic, merely more perceptive than the rest of us.
Guv you are talking complete rubbish! The only reason I mentioned the consciousness not being a part of the brain is because there is evidence! Brain cells which the brain is made up of can’t think for themselves but only follow instructions (a bit like a computer). So the consciousness must be a separate entity because we can think for ourselves.
The ancient Chinese said it all along but only now are scientists coming to terms with the possibility. As for where the consciousness is, I have no idea. But if you think about it, it makes great sense! If people die they should be able to remember when they were living in the physical dimension, if they can remember it proves that the consciousness is not a part of the human brain. – Open up your mind Guv
As for there being no evidence of OBE, scientists have done experiments. They put a person in a room and an object in another. That person had to have an OBE to travel to the other room and see the object. Then when the person comes back they can say exactly what they saw. By the way, I know its true because I’ve had one!!! There’s no better evidence then that! Why don’t you try telling somebody like Robert Bruce that it isn’t real, he has only got 25 years of experience!!! Now stop talking like you know what you’re saying because you really don’t!
Can we all be a little tolerant of other people's ideas please?
Guv, in saying "Let us not Post nonsense as if it is fact" you are being hypocritical by saying it is nonsense, and that what you say is fact. I am not saying that it is or isn't right, just that you shouldn't just say "That's total crap, shut up".
Also, could we not make this into another anti-Christian war please? This is not the thread for it, go shout somewhere else.
One last thing: Gen-X, Honeybee SPECIFICALLY said
And what do you do? You go and bloody analyse it and tell him he's wrong! Give him a break! Now who's being disrespectful of someone elses wishes? (a la your 'Don't you DARE pray for me' theme)Quote:
Please don't analyse this like you guys did with the Bible stuff.
To get back to the point of this thread, my personal feeling is something like Gen-X said a while back, you go where you believe you will go. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a belief though, just a feeling.
I'm not Anti-Christian, in fact I'm very open-minded. However, I just feel that it is important for people to make their own choices and believe what they want to, rather than what someone else does.
I absolutely agree with that. People should be allowed to develop their own beliefs, and not have any particular beliefs forced on them.
I agree with both HarryW and parksie. Well said.
While this forum might be less rigorous that the other VB forums, I think there should be at least a minimum amount of mental discipline. Statements of faith and statements of fact should be treated differently, with the latter being restricted to conformance with mainstream science.
Furthermore, when somebody makes a statement of fact and is questioned, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Rino_2 posted the followingHarrywQuote:
Even more proof that there is life after death is that the consciousness isn't a part of the brain but actually an external being (Rather like a VB program that requires APIs - hehe). Scientist are proving that the brain cells in the brain can not think for them selves so the consciousness can't be a part of the brain.
Do you accept as fact the statement: "...the consciousness isn't part of the brain but actually an external being ..."? I would be astonished to discover that you do. Do you interpret it as a statement of faith? It looks like a statement of fact to me. Note, I am not questioning nor discussing his personal belief in the hereafter. By the way, I would not have questioned him if he had made the following statement "Because I believe in the hereafter, I believe that the consciousness is independent of the physical brain."
When somebody makes a statement of faith like "I believe in God!" or "I believe the hereafter is like ...", I might say that I do not believe, but I usually do not comment. I would never attack such a statement or call it nonsense. Furthermore, I do not believe that such statements are subject to proof or disproof. Sometimes I encounter a set of such statements which seem logically inconsistent to me, and am likely to make a comment. However, I am not sure that logical consistency should be required of statements of faith.
Is it being open minded or gullible to accept every statement of fact as true without judging it on the basis of comparison with mainstream science?
There are certain arguments which should not be accepted. For example: "If you had an open mind ...", "Intelligent people agree that ...", "When I was young I believed ... but now I know ...", "I had this revelation that ...". When somebody tells me to have an open mind and believe whatever, I say baloney! Show me a valid argument or some evidence. The "Open mind" argument is especially insulting. It is equivalent to saying "If you were as smart as I am, you would know that I am right." The "I had this experience" argument can be used to back up anything.
When somebody makes a statement of fact which is not supported by the scientific community, I expect to see some evidence or at least some supporting argument, especially if he is making the statement as part of a proof of some other statement/belief. If Rino_2 wants to say that he was expressing a personal religious belief, I apologize for attacking his faith. If he insists that it is a true statement of fact, I challenge him to specify a mainstream scientist or experiment described in a reputable journal. Until he can back it up, I will continue to assert that it is nonsense, and wonder if he was being deliberately deceptive or is merely ignorant of what are considered accepted scientific facts. Please note that I am discussing statements of fact not statements of belief.
I do not know who Robert Bruce is, but I imagine that he is analogous to Uri Geller. I am sure that he is not a microbiologist, a physicist, or other mainstream scientist.
OBE
Several times in my life, I have had vivid convincing deja vu experiences. I never considered them as evidence of anything other than a minor glitch in my brain functions or an unimportant hallucination. However, I have read some fascinating theories about them. Similarly, I have had some dreams which seemed very real while they were happening. When somebody claims to have an OBE, I do not think it should be uncritically accepted as a statement as a fact. This is the "I had an experience that convinced me ..." argument which can be used to fallaciously prove anything. Your anecdotal experiences do not prove anything to me. If you want to play that sort of game, I will counter your claim with a statement like "Just the other day, the great god Chilthzar told me that OBE experiences are hallucinations caused by a spell he casts." Would such a statement (honestly expressed) convince you that your OBE experience was an hallucination? If not, do not expect me to accept your claim of an OBE to convince me. Once again, I claim that there is no mainstream scientific backing for OBE. If you think there is, tell me where to read about it.