The Afterlife

[Sabre]

Explain things? This is a topic about the concept of an afterlife, not superstitions on the real world. We can talk about fvkcing magnets and how they work in another thread.

Afterlife is a concept. A notion of the mind. It's a person's own beleifs rooted in their own spirituality and whatnot. "Figment of the mind" is a misleading term, because in that regard you can pretty much label anything as a figment, like the senses. Yes underneath it all there is probably some crazy-awesome chemical reactons going on, but what does that matter to most common people who base things on what they personally perceive?

In the end, with that way of thinking, everything is just matter and reactions. And while that is indeed fascinating, it isn't paticularly enlightening. Its just the factual hows of why we do things. The eternal vying for the question of "why" is still there, and can never be answered with objective evidence.

I agree. Sabre is being an irrational logically flawed tactless dickhead! ...oh, wait, that's not me, that's DZ. :3

Seriously though. By your (I mean robert) logic someone who is having a bad trip is really seeing snakes and demons that are really there, but we are just not percieving them. If you watched the vid, it explains a theory of why this happens.

Afterlife is a belief. Ok, fine. But what if that belief is based on something that's wrong? That is not enlightenment but rather the opposate. It's ignorrance.

[Xortberg]

Afterlife is a belief. Ok, fine. But what if that belief is based on something that's wrong? That is not enlightenment but rather the opposate. It's ignorrance.

According to dictionary.com:

enlighten - to give intellectual or spiritual light

This is a rather vague definition, but hey. It fits the bill for what Robert said. It also fits the bill for what you said. Know what that means? Both of you are right. I know, me admitting Sabre's right? 2012 came early! But really. Enlightenment is just what you make of it.

I agree. Sabre is being an irrational logically flawed tactless dickhead! ...oh, wait, that's not me, that's DZ. :3

Seriously though. By your (I mean robert) logic someone who is having a bad trip is really seeing snakes and demons that are really there, but we are just not percieving them. If you watched the vid, it explains a theory of why this happens.

That's not what he said. In fact, he said quite the opposite. In a certain light, anything could be construed as a figment of the mind that we only perceive to be true. I've often contemplated this myself, such as wondering if my perception of a color might be different from another's. He didn't say that figments of the mind were all real if they are perceived real, but that anything real could be perceived as a simple construction of our own minds.

[Sabre]

Enlightenment: education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge

and according to the dictionary I have here

Enlighten: To give or receive information and knowledge.

[Xortberg]

Enlightenment: education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge

and according to the dictionary I have here

Enlighten: To give or receive information and knowledge.

Okay? Different dictionaries will have differing definitions. The basic idea is the same. Also, nice job only responding to half my post thar. The relatively unimportant part, no less.

[Robert Monroe]

While on this boat, ignorance is defined as: ignorance (plural ignorances) The condition of being uninformed or uneducated. Lacking knowledge or information.

This can apply to both accademic and spiritual notions. You can be ignorant of one's personal beleifs just as much as you can be ignorant of scientific facts; and likewise being sensitive to one will not automatically make you ignorant to the other.

That's not what he said. In fact, he said quite the opposite. In a certain light, anything could be construed as a figment of the mind that we only perceive to be true. I've often contemplated this myself, such as wondering if my perception of a color might be different from another's. He didn't say that figments of the mind were all real if they are perceived real, but that anything real could be perceived as a simple construction of our own minds.

Essentially this. When you just call things "perceptions of the mind", its a moot point to make because -everything- is a perception by the end of the day.

[Sabre]

The whole idea of the afterlife is moot. So in a way this entire thread is a waste of time, but here it is.

[Xortberg]

The whole idea of the afterlife is moot. So in a way this entire thread is a waste of time, but here it is.

There's the ass I know and love!

No, Sabre. The idea of an afterlife is not moot. If someone believes in it, they believe in it. If they don't, they don't. This thread is to discuss that, not be a dick.

Take me, for example. I actually agree with you here, in that I don't believe in an afterlife. Am I calling this thread pointless? No. I'm discussing and taking in the ideas of others. After that, I put my own ideas out there, and all parties involved come away with a better understanding of the other side's beliefs, not act like a douche. I could very easily, since as Robert himself has stated not only in this topic, but in others: this is a matter of faith, not fact. There is no way to prove the existence of an afterlife, since one has to be dead to know for sure. So those who believe in it take it on faith, and that's that.

Do I have a problem with you coming in here and stating your opinion? TotallyNo, and I'd be a hypocrite if I did. I do have a problem with you just flamebaiting your way through what has otherwise been some quite interesting discussion.

Plus, if it's such a waste of time, why do you concern yourself with it?

[Sabre]

Go back and read the thread again and you find the answer rather then trying to take my point out of context.

On a related note to the joke I made earlier. You earn an ignore placement for attempting to troll me while not going after DZ, I wonder why that could be...

[Robert Monroe]

Go back and read the thread again and you find the answer rather then trying to take my point out of context.

On a related note to the joke I made earlier. You earn an ignore placement for attempting to troll me while not going after DZ, I wonder why that could be...

Ok, let's do that! The difference between what you and DZ said is in a key word. I'll boldface it for you:

Seriously though. By your (I mean robert) logic someone who is having a bad trip is really seeing snakes and demons that are really there, but we are just not percieving them. If you watched the vid, it explains a theory of why this happens.

Afterlife is a belief. Ok, fine. But what if that belief is based on something that's wrong? That is not enlightenment but rather the opposate. It's ignorrance.

There is no "right" or "wrong" to be had in this discussion. Now while DZ's post certainly has an atheist spin so to speak, he isn't calling anyone "wrong", he's just saying he finds it to be rubbish (although he says it rather less-than-subtle jab at those who do beleive in them which I already called him out on).

Beyond that, you take -my- post out of context, and when Xort corrects you (the whole deal about perception), you trivialize it by throwing around a different dictionary definition and -not- addressing his counterpoint, followed by you just saying the thread is "moot" because the concept of an afterlife is "moot", to which Xort corrects you on again (things are not moot so long as they matter to someone), and then asks you if its so moot then why do you even bother with the topic to begin with, to which you make your current request, which I have done, and I see no points being made out of context. Then you say Xort earns a spot on the ignore list because he's apprently "trolling" you and not DZ, although the primary reasons he's been debating with you and not DZ is because you've replied more (DZ hasn't even replied yet to anyone) and because once -again-, you find it necessary to turn a discussion of opinions into a mudslinging contest where those you do not see eye to eye on are "wrong" and you are "right".

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Explain things? This is a topic about the concept of an afterlife, not superstitions on the real world. We can talk about fvkcing magnets and how they work in another thread.

Afterlife is a concept. A notion of the mind. It's a person's own beleifs rooted in their own spirituality and whatnot. "Figment of the mind" is a misleading term, because in that regard you can pretty much label anything as a figment, like the senses. Yes underneath it all there is probably some crazy-awesome chemical reactons going on, but what does that matter to most common people who base things on what they personally perceive?

In the end, with that way of thinking, everything is just matter and reactions. And while that is indeed fascinating, it isn't paticularly enlightening. Its just the factual hows of why we do things. The eternal vying for the question of "why" is still there, and can never be answered with objective evidence.

Thanks dude, well said. :yes:

[Milkyway64]

Ok, let's do that! The difference between what you and DZ said is in a key word. I'll boldface it for you:

There is no "right" or "wrong" to be had in this discussion. Now while DZ's post certainly has an atheist spin so to speak, he isn't calling anyone "wrong", he's just saying he finds it to be rubbish (although he says it rather less-than-subtle jab at those who do beleive in them which I already called him out on).

Beyond that, you take -my- post out of context, and when Xort corrects you (the whole deal about perception), you trivialize it by throwing around a different dictionary definition and -not- addressing his counterpoint, followed by you just saying the thread is "moot" because the concept of an afterlife is "moot", to which Xort corrects you on again (things are not moot so long as they matter to someone), and then asks you if its so moot then why do you even bother with the topic to begin with, to which you make your current request, which I have done, and I see no points being made out of context. Then you say Xort earns a spot on the ignore list because he's apprently "trolling" you and not DZ, although the primary reasons he's been debating with you and not DZ is because you've replied more (DZ hasn't even replied yet to anyone) and because once -again-, you find it necessary to turn a discussion of opinions into a mudslinging contest where those you do not see eye to eye on are "wrong" and you are "right".

This. I've nothing to add, everything was sealed wonderfully.

No one's trolling you, Sabre. They're making counterpoints. Surely you can see that?

[Star Fox Runner]

I personally believe in an afterlife, and in Heaven and Hell. I believe that Heaven is a place of eternal bliss, and Hell is a place of eternal suffering. The exact details of what happens in those places, I don't know, NO ONE knows, because you have to be dead to get there.

So my belief is that all answers will be given AFTER death, not before. Because everything you believe about the afterlife could be entirely wrong once you get there, or it could be everything you imagined it to be, no living person knows.

[Xortberg]

Go back and read the thread again and you find the answer rather then trying to take my point out of context.

On a related note to the joke I made earlier. You earn an ignore placement for attempting to troll me while not going after DZ, I wonder why that could be...

DZ wasn't an ass who claimed something taken on faith can be right or wrong. He also didn't go full hypocrite by saying the thread is a waste of time and still keep posting.

Ok, let's do that! The difference between what you and DZ said is in a key word. I'll boldface it for you:

There is no "right" or "wrong" to be had in this discussion. Now while DZ's post certainly has an atheist spin so to speak, he isn't calling anyone "wrong", he's just saying he finds it to be rubbish (although he says it rather less-than-subtle jab at those who do beleive in them which I already called him out on).

Beyond that, you take -my- post out of context, and when Xort corrects you (the whole deal about perception), you trivialize it by throwing around a different dictionary definition and -not- addressing his counterpoint, followed by you just saying the thread is "moot" because the concept of an afterlife is "moot", to which Xort corrects you on again (things are not moot so long as they matter to someone), and then asks you if its so moot then why do you even bother with the topic to begin with, to which you make your current request, which I have done, and I see no points being made out of context. Then you say Xort earns a spot on the ignore list because he's apprently "trolling" you and not DZ, although the primary reasons he's been debating with you and not DZ is because you've replied more (DZ hasn't even replied yet to anyone) and because once -again-, you find it necessary to turn a discussion of opinions into a mudslinging contest where those you do not see eye to eye on are "wrong" and you are "right".

<3 you, Robert.

So my belief is that all answers will be given AFTER death, not before. Because everything you believe about the afterlife could be entirely wrong once you get there, or it could be everything you imagined it to be, no living person knows.

Basically this. There is no way to know at all if an afterlife exists while you're alive. That's why I choose not to believe in one. If I get there and I go to Hell, I'll be bummed for sure, but oh well. It can't be much worse than cross country in there :P

[Sabre]

I personally believe in an afterlife, and in Heaven and Hell. I believe that Heaven is a place of eternal bliss, and Hell is a place of eternal suffering. The exact details of what happens in those places, I don't know, NO ONE knows, because you have to be dead to get there.

So my belief is that all answers will be given AFTER death, not before. Because everything you believe about the afterlife could be entirely wrong once you get there, or it could be everything you imagined it to be, no living person knows.

But without that knowlage, how do you know which is the real afterlife? Assuming the bible is real, but you believe in budism or whatever, you're screwed.

[Xortberg]

But without that knowlage, how do you know which is the real afterlife? Assuming the bible is real, but you believe in budism or whatever, you're screwed.

You don't know. If you'd pay attention to anything Robert or I say, you would know that these things are faith-based. One cannot know at all until one dies, so all one can do is believe and hope he or she is right.

[Sabre]

Not good enough. You have to spend your life preying and not doing certain things for something that most likely doesn't exsist, and there is less then a one in 64 (or however many religions there are) chance of being right. Why bother? I play the odds, and the plausable, and thus imo most likely outcome imo is bugger all. That's how I see it anyway.

[Xortberg]

Not good enough. You have to spend your life preying and not doing certain things for something that most likely doesn't exsist, and there is less then a one in 64 (or however many religions there are) chance of being right. Why bother? I play the odds, and the plausable, and thus imo most likely outcome imo is bugger all. That's how I see it anyway.

Not good enough for you? Perfectly fine. No one ever questioned your views, actually. Runner just stated his beliefs and you started grilling him like he has something to prove. I'll reiterate a previous point of mine: this topic is not to debate who's right and who's wrong. It's here to discuss and share. You're just coming in and acting like you're smart and everyone who believes differently is stupid.

He bothers because he wants to believe in something more than just the idea that we live and die. He wants to believe his existence has meaning outside of his achievements here on Earth, and that's fine. Know why? It's his opinion. It's not a fact. He's not stating it as a fact, either, so stop treating it as if it's a fact when it is, in fact, not.

Now, I can appreciate a good trolling, but this is far from good. It's obvious, transparent, and easy to counter.

[Konchaski]

Watch this video.

ak3z2Pm7Iwg

Now look at this.

[Sabre]

I'm not sure what the second one has to do with the afterlife, unless you are suggestiong we are just tiny being in the brain of a giant creature? A thought if you will.

On a realted note, thanks for posting that clip. It's well known in animation but I could never find out what it's from.