belief in an afterlife

Q: I understand the need to interpret subjectively but it starts to defeat the purpose of either conversation or debate if the other party not only cannot even remotely understand but is also reduced to petty insults.

And, before you say it, maybe I should be clearer. Unfortunately, however clear I may attempt to be, I have a feeling you will always misinterpret because that is where your consciousness currently lies.

There again Star Trek's Q was apparently ‘condescending’. Interestingly, he wanted to commit suicide as he had negative feelings about living.

For me, however, while I may have less than happy feelings about particular moments in time, I have boundless positivity about Life itself and its amazing capacity to renew and recreate.
 
Cris – Several good points. Especially about the apathy inherent in some religious creeds.

Firstly, I firmly believe that we have to try to resolve issues here and now. We cannot ignore what is going on in either our local communities or the wider world, simply for an easier life.

I believe that how we live our lives now, not only raises our own spiritual vibration, but that of the greater whole beyond time and space. That may sound a bit new-agey but there is some validity for this - matter vibrating, particle physics et al.

There are only ever moments in time and not all become worse. Everything evolves, changes. Change invariably involves some discomfort for a while.

As for all being ‘sociable and cooperative’… well they are not. You have only to read some regular commenters on even this fine forum to know that.

‘Long term climate changes are of less importance since our long term future will not be on this planet.’ Well my credo is that even elements beyond our ‘here and now’ are just as important as they belong to the same 'Great Everything'.

The ‘meanings and concepts’ of words are frequently subjective. Look at the word ‘gay’. I gather many young heteros now use it as a term of abuse.

Although words generally have communal meanings, groups will always appropriate them and change their meaning quite significantly.

I haven’t read every post here, but maybe someone ought to start a thread on definitions and word associations.

“None have any credibility unless there is some form of support for them.” Well there is support in various quarters, just not necessarily on this forum.

“Not if they are good scientists. While they might speculate they are not permitted to conclude until they can support their claims.”

I have a feeling that most scientists speculate; most do not share their speculations unless they have proof. But there again, Einstein was blasted for his theory of everything. Sir Martin Rees has frequently written about as yet unprovable things.

Scientists see or sense something and then spend lifetimes trying to match intuition with 'proof'.
 
euphrosene said:
Q: I understand the need to interpret subjectively but it starts to defeat the purpose of either conversation or debate if the other party not only cannot even remotely understand but is also reduced to petty insults.

And, before you say it, maybe I should be clearer. Unfortunately, however clear I may attempt to be, I have a feeling you will always misinterpret because that is where your consciousness currently lies.
Click to expand...

There is no misinterpretation here, no need to clarify, you believe in an afterlife because you can't stand reality, typical theist. Clearly, if you find that acceptable, then you are missing out on life. Too bad for you.

There again Star Trek's Q was apparently ‘condescending’. Interestingly, he wanted to commit suicide as he had negative feelings about living.
Click to expand...

Maybe your problem is that you watch too much TV? That must be the case considering there are dozens of examples of the use of (Q) which you missed.

For me, however, while I may have less than happy feelings about particular moments in time, I have boundless positivity about Life itself and its amazing capacity to renew and recreate.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself, if an afterlife is your apparent goal.
 
euphrosene said:
I have a feeling that most scientists speculate; most do not share their speculations unless they have proof.

Scientists see or sense something and then spend lifetimes trying to match intuition with 'proof'.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.
 
There you go yet again, misinterpreting and 'rubbishing'. Great advert for a supposedly scientific mind!

Let's leave it there as we are apparently never going to agree in this time and space, and this is wasted energy for me at least.

And, AGAIN for the record, the harmonious continuance of life is my goal. Life to me never stops.

All the best and have a good weekend.

Euphrosene
 
euphrosene said:
There you go yet again, misinterpreting and 'rubbishing'. Great advert for a supposedly scientific mind!
Click to expand...

So, you can come up with any nonsense you want and expect agreement? I would suspect to call a spade a spade IS scientific.

Let's leave it there as we are apparently never going to agree in this time and space, and this is wasted energy for me at least.
Click to expand...

Of course, why should anyone agree with your delusions of an afterlife? Why would anyone waste their entire life in pursuit of death?

And, AGAIN for the record, the harmonious continuance of life is my goal. Life to me never stops.
Click to expand...

But, it will stop, that is the point.
 
Kron said:
Can you please EXPLAIN what you mean instead of spouting strings of zen.
Click to expand...

you are the only mind/consciousness, and everything is inside you, like in a dream. everything you see are just your thoughts. humans. and also your own body. just concentration of thoughts.

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the net.
Click to expand...

but if i believe everything, i believe nothing.
 
c7ityi_ said:
you are the only mind/consciousness, and everything is inside you, like in a dream. everything you see are just your thoughts. humans. and also your own body. just concentration of thoughts.
Click to expand...

So what if you can only experience things within? That doesn't mean the outside universe doesn't exist. Look at a computer; it only experiences the universe 'within'...

c7ityi_ said:
but if i believe everything, i believe nothing.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Hence, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the net. There's a lot of crap there. Look at the time-cube if you want an example...
 
Is it just me or is there very little level-headed debate on these forums? it seems to me like everyone on here is an extremist/fanatic fighting their incredibly polarized corner.
Anyone out there interested in the middle ground?
 
c7,

you can't be aware of something if it's not in your awareness/mind/consciousness.
Click to expand...
Emotions are entirely within. And we can become aware of the outside through our senses.
 
Cris said:
Emotions are entirely within. And we can become aware of the outside through our senses.
Click to expand...

you can't know if there is an outside because the only way to be aware of something is if it's in your awareness.

no one can ever prove that there is a separated outside because the only way to reach the it is through our senses.
 
c7,

you can't know if there is an outside because the only way to be aware of something is if it's in your awareness.
Click to expand...
So that means I can be aware of the outside then doesn't it?

no one can ever prove that there is a separated outside because the only way to reach the it is through our senses.
Click to expand...
So I can use my senses then to prove there is an outside.
 
Cris said:
So I can use my senses then to prove there is an outside.
Click to expand...

what you call outside could be just your thoughts, like in a dream.

the outside is mental. without consciousness there would be no outside, and we couldn't be conscious if we didn't think something was outside us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top