|
| Thread: Life after Death |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
posted May 29, 2002 01:35 AM |
|
|
you never know Bjorn it could go both ways lol.
Or like some say to someone when talking about matthy.
"but i bet you didnt know that he went both way,he left most with the most, we used to kick it, but we dont kick it no mo.
Ya ya ya I suck at rapping so sue me LOL
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted May 29, 2002 02:13 AM |
|
|
Cool..
so maybe when we are "deathing" we r wondering what comes after life.. if there is an afterdeath 
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted June 02, 2002 05:50 PM |
|
|
Here's an argument put forth by C.S. Lewis that I remember reading some time back. It's kind of on the 'cute' side, but perhaps that's what I like about it  .
Two presuppostions:
1) Appetites exist only because they have the possibility of being fulfilled. If we hunger, we can eat, if we thirst, we can drink, if we lust... etc.
2) Humankind in general has such an appetite - a hunger, a yearning - for the eternal that can find no fulfillment in this life.
He concludes that there must therefore be an afterlife that we were given the hunger for, there being no natural explanation for the existence of such, and no natural fulfillment.
Both presuppostions are open to debate of course, but still, I think that the argument is not without some merit. Not enough to convince me if I believed otherwise, I expect, but something to ponder, anyway.
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
|
Kynes
Adventuring Hero
altruistic egoist
|
|
posted June 02, 2002 06:34 PM |
|
|
Some incidents happened to some of my friends have actually made me believe that there is - if not afterlife - at least something supernatural in this world. Those incidents are many and even though I think all of them probably aren't real, some of them surely are.
Some examples:
My friend told me he had woken up of his bed because he heard a woodpile fall in their basement where the wood is usually stored. He went down to look what had happened and when he reached the wood storage room, he saw that there weren't any wood there at the moment.
The same friend told me he had spoken with his big brother at night, when they were both in their beds (they slept in the same room at the time). He told they had spoken some normal things and joked like they normally did, but in the morning he remembered that his big bro wasn't even home, because he had gone to another town the day before.
My friend's ex girlfriend told me there had been several paranormal incidents in their former house, like weird human figures at nights, doors closing without a reason and such. She also told me of one in particular: after one night their bathroom was messed up with blood and their whole family had seen it. They had spent the day cleaning the mess. I would naturally suspect this was bull, but the girl's mom had told me and my friend not to wear black metal shirts (with satanic symbols) because "they'd had their share of Satan already". Made me wonder...
I don't usually swallow this kind of stories without biting, but the friend I told about is my best and most trustworthy friend. I've known him for 11 years out of my 18, and he has never admitted he had lied.
I have experienced some weird stuff myself, but they haven't been so clear, and one could easily just say they've been my wild imagination or so. There is also lots of stuff I don't remember right now, or am too lazy to write here, but I guess you get the idea.
One thing is for sure (about the afterlife and the supernatural stuff too): we can't be sure. 
|
|
Wesley
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
banned
|
|
posted June 02, 2002 07:50 PM |
|
|
Well... Satan can visit me anytime!
However... if you wish they come, then they never come.....
It's all fairytales!
____________
|
|
Halfling
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 12:02 AM |
|
|
I liked you post avallach . I think there's nothing after one dies, unfortunately. In my opinion we were made from 'dust' and so we shall become 'dust' again. So when you are death, you become nothing, you can't think anything more, you can't suffer anymore from the way you died, you can't remember your friends and family.
So why shouldn't I just kill myself if I feel too down?
Well, it's because I'm curious what kind of life I will live, and I don't want to leave the others behind. But perhaps I shouldn't think so much...
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 12:13 AM |
|
|
I think the most logical explaination is that of man's refusal to believe he is an animal.
The Bible and many other holy books elevate man into a position of power far greater than that of any animal. and Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution place man even higher on the pedestal. Man believe's heis the greatest being on earth and closest to god.
However, if you look at the base composition of our bodies, they are made of the same carbon, water, sodium, etc as everything else on this earth. We have sulphur in us the same as the rocks do, calcium just like the wolf. Man needed something to show his brilliance, and this was done using the "soul" as an immortal essence of everyman.
I believe in a "soul", but not as an immortal essence. Man, it seems, is unable to come to terms with the finite mortality of his own body. Thus, the "afterlife" is merely something which alows man to feel at ease with his mortality and not think about it constantly as he grows old. Afterlife could simply be a placebo and nothing more. If you do not like your own reality, after all, you invent another.
____________
 Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
Kynes
Adventuring Hero
altruistic egoist
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 01:04 AM |
|
Edited By: Kynes on 2 Jun 2002
|
Here's some feedback to your post, Cat:
It's true that man doesn't want to be an animal, but something greater. Whether man is truly an animal or not is however a question without an absolute answer. Man would have to be closest to God, though: man invented him.
Yes, man is made of the same substances as all other stuff on earth, but I don't think it's very essential; man can still be the supreme being and the sovereign. If we look into history, man has always considered himself superior, even when he didn't know anything about what he was made of. So, I don't think man needs soul to show his brilliance - where the idea of soul comes from is unclear to me, though. Perhaps it was Descartes with his body/soul dualism, but the idea of soul may have existed already before that.
I agree with you in your last paragraph. One simple way to describe, why man can't think of himself non-existent is that when you don't exist, you can't think - now how would you think yourself not thinking? Pretty impossible, so you must come up with another solution, which would be an afterlife of some sort.
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 01:16 AM |
|
|
Descartes actually didn't ever meantion the soul.. he never thought "soul" existed. The concept of soul originated, as far as we can tell, in the aincient dynastys such as the egyptians and the greeks.. the egypitans believed that when they died their soul would be wieghed against a feather by anubis, the god of the underworld. If the heart was of identical weight, the individual could pass.
Descartes wasn't around till almost 1700AD.
____________
Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
Kynes
Adventuring Hero
altruistic egoist
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 01:57 AM |
|
Edited By: Kynes on 2 Jun 2002
|
Ahem... Descartes was indeed the one to cut the spirit/soul apart from the body. I'm not sure if he mentioned specifically soul but that's the idea.
As for the origins of soul, thanks for info.
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 02:13 AM |
|
|
Descartes never said soul, but "mind" or "mental".. it may translate badly, but he wrote his original "meditations" in english, and call it his concept of the eternal "mind". No "soul".
____________
Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
Kynes
Adventuring Hero
altruistic egoist
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 02:46 AM |
|
|
|
Ok, but it doesn't matter if it's spirit, soul, mind or mental - the idea is the same.
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 02:52 AM |
|
|
Often, but not always.. in the case of Descartes, he said that "mind" was essential, non-spacial and eternal, but he neglected to say how it was eternal and where it went and how it interacted with the body. All in all a very flawed, desparate theory.
____________
Diwethaf Gloau Sylw y Gymreag
http://aozos.com/phpBB2/index.php
|
|
Kynes
Adventuring Hero
altruistic egoist
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 02:57 AM |
|
|
|
Maybe so. What's your point?
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 02:58 AM |
|
|
|
Kynes
Adventuring Hero
altruistic egoist
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 03:04 AM |
|
|
|
Yeah, Descartes is pretty interesting, as is philosophy other than that too. Could talk about it half an eternity, but I don't think I'm up to it right now
|
|
Cat
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Gonna Get Dirrty...
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 03:06 AM |
|
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 03:54 AM |
|
|
It is basically thy same thang mind & soul orless you lying to yourself.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
SubZero
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 09:20 AM |
|
|
Some yin/yang gibberish...
The principle of yin/yang basically says there is always something that is opposite to one. So when there's light there's also darkness. Then there's that "eternal" between them that binds these things together.
Of course problem is finding those counterparts because it's easy to implent to things that aren't really true.
Like man is different from animal in example...
What I'm trying to say that we can only use our mind to do all our thinking. In the end we may be all just crazy animals without ever knowing anything. We could vanish in the next century just simply destroying ourselves. The aliens that come to search the area wouldn't say we were so close to truth but that we were so far away from it.
Thinking that afterlife is opposite is for life we could easily also say that in fact life is eternal and death is opposite for birth.
Kynes...
Even though man invented the idea of God that doesn't mean man is living nearer to God. It could mean that we are just longer away from God.
Avallach...
I think thirst for afterlife is same as thirst for knowledge or for spiritual experience and I think you can find it during your life without afterlife being really existing.
And also no hunger and thirst can be ever fulfilled fully.
You will always come hungry and thirsty again. Maybe some people have found way not come thirsty for knowledge again as they have already found their "truth". But as said that doesn't tell anything about afterlife.
We must each other find our own truth and try to fulfill that nothingness inside. Or maybe it's supposed to be empty?
Who knows?
____________
The only Zen you find on the top of mountains is the Zen you bring up there.
|
|
Avallach
Hired Hero
Disputo ergo sum.
|
|
posted June 03, 2002 12:39 PM |
|
|
Halfling
Quote:
In my opinion we were made from 'dust' and so we shall become 'dust' again. So when you are death, you become nothing, you can't think anything more, you can't suffer anymore from the way you died, you can't remember your friends and family.
So why shouldn't I just kill myself if I feel too down?
Although my own beliefs are different, it's something I think I can understand. If we were made from 'dust', and will become 'dust', in what way are we any more than 'dust' now?
But I'd propose a variation on Pascal's wager, taking it to the broadest level. There are two possibilities:
1. There is some objective meaning and value to life.
2. Life is objectively meaningless and without value.
Further, it is assumed that if there is an objective meaning, it is possible to discover it.
If proposition 1 is true, the person who sought and found this meaning (whether God, or whatever) would potentially gain much. The person who did not would potentially lose much.
If proposition 2 is true however, neither person would gain or lose anything of value.
The best 'odds' then would be to go with assumption 1 - not necessarily to believe it, but to act as if it were true by actively seeking for such meaning. If you find nothing you're no worse of than before, but if you find that there is something... well, it'd sure suck to have missed out.
Cat
Quote:
I think the most logical explaination is that of man's refusal to believe he is an animal.
And perhaps the most logical explanation of man's refusal to believe he is an animal is that he is not one .
Quote:
The Bible and many other holy books elevate man into a position of power far greater than that of any animal. and Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution place man even higher on the pedestal. Man believe's heis the greatest being on earth and closest to god.
On the contrary, It is Darwinism that says we are animals. We may be the most evolved, but terms such as 'greatest' have no objective value, and are thus worthless. If we are the result of random processes, the particular configuration of atoms that is I has no more inherent value than that of dust floating in space. Which, you might say, is why people turn to the Bible and such. But it says nothing, really, about which belief is actually true.
Quote:
I believe in a "soul", but not as an immortal essence.
What definition do you give the word then?
Quote:
Man, it seems, is unable to come to terms with the finite mortality of his own body. Thus, the "afterlife" is merely something which alows man to feel at ease with his mortality and not think about it constantly as he grows old. Afterlife could simply be a placebo and nothing more. If you do not like your own reality, after all, you invent another.
Perhpas, perhaps. But does it not seem odd that we are inherently not reconciled to how things seem to be? Have you ever felt a sense of the wrongness of things? It is an affliction that does not appear to plague the animals. Whence comes it then? Is it a product of greater intelligence alone?
I'd have to agree with Kynes about Descartes. In regarding the mind as non physical and eternal he's placing it on a 'spiritual' plane of existence. It is the spiritual part of a person that is generally termed soul. Granted, that does not make the correlation exact - a theologian might regard Descartes' 'mind' as being only one aspect of soul, for example. But it's close enough, I think, to use the words more or less interchangeably.
Quote:
he never thought "soul" existed
I'd be very surprised if this were correct. Descartes was Roman Catholic, and if not devoutly so still more than nominally, I'd have thought. Whether or not he worked it fully into his philosophy, he could be expected nonetheless to subscribe somewhat to the Catholic view of the soul. Not that it's relevant to anything much - as you say, he didn't deal with afterlife in his philosophy. But that's different to saying he did not, as a man, believe in such.
SubZero
Quote:
Even though man invented the idea of God that doesn't mean man is living nearer to God. It could mean that we are just longer away from God.
I think the point was that if man invented God, then he made God near to himself. It's basically saying not "man made in God's image" but "God made in man's image."
Quote:
I think thirst for afterlife is same as thirst for knowledge or for spiritual experience and I think you can find it during your life without afterlife being really existing.
I had typed a reply to this, but have just deleted as I realised your statement could have two meanings. Do you mean that the thirst for eternity, knowledge, and spiritual experience are one and the same? Or that they are separate but in the same category?
Quote:
And also no hunger and thirst can be ever fulfilled fully.
But is that really relevant? The argument was only that such appetites exist for a reason - that for mortal creatures to have an innate longing for eternity would be about as logical as trees desiring sex. The permanance of fulfillment is unimportant, only that some form of fulfillment can be had.
____________
"Death slew him not, but he made death his ladder to the skies"
- Edmund Spenser, on the death of Philip Sidney
|
| |
|
|
