Do you believe in the afterlife/souls/heaven and hell
| I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know. Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it. |
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
rTz said: I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know. Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it. When you get right down to it, there's not much difference between not dreaming at all, and forgetting your dreams. And of course the subject of forgetting stuff always makes me think of alzheimer's patients... that's some freaky shit. |
sargos7 said: rTz said: I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know. Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it. When you get right down to it, there's not much difference between not dreaming at all, and forgetting your dreams. And of course the subject of forgetting stuff always makes me think of alzheimer's patients... that's some freaky shit. What I was referring to was more: Let's say you die in your sleep, and 10^999999 years later a vacuum fluctuation randomly create a new Earth, with an inhabitant that has an atomically identical brain, the same memories, emotions, and preferences as you, and whose last memory is your memory from before going to your final sleep. Is this the same person as you? Let's say you teleport to another planet -- your present body is annihilated atom-by-atom, and then a reserve of atoms on a distant planet recombines to form your body, with exactly the same atomic structure. To the reconstituted person, they feel no time has passed, like they stepped into the teleportation booth and stepped out orbiting Alpha Centauri. Is that the same person as you? Let's say your brain is infected with a virus that causes degeneration, leading to death. The treatment involves replacing every neuron in your brain quickly with a mechanical replacement, a cyber-neuron. The process takes under ten seconds. In the end, you wake up feeling like no time has passed, but no part of your brain remains. Is this the same "you" as before the transplant? Let's say the same thing happens, but the replacement happens gradually over the course of a year. In the end, is that person the same as you before the operation? Or at what point did it stop being you, even if at any given time there was no lapse in subjective continuity? How about the previous two cases, except that they replace neurons not with machines, but with genetically modified, immune versions of your very own neurons? What if you had a deadly disease, were frozen, and thawed several centuries later -- nanomachines undo the damage from the ice, and you re-awake exactly the same as when you went to sleep, except that your brain at one point decayed, and was artificially restored by robots -- would you be the same person? Let's say you go to sleep and wake up. without dreaming; is the you from before sleeping the same person as the you after sleeping? Or is the previous "you" dead, replaced by a consciousness with all your memories and with a subjective sense of continuity from the night before? |
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
rTz said: sargos7 said: rTz said: I think it is inevitable that after trillions of trillions of untold years, across this universe and every universe, it is eventually inevitable that either a random vacuum fluctuation will lead to a big bang that perfectly reproduces this universe, or to resurrection as a short-lived Boltzmann brain. Whether consciousness between the two would be continuous, however, I don't know. Whether consciousness in general is the result of continuity is pretty cloudy in general. We could very well have a cessation of continuity every time we sleep, and we wouldn't even know it. When you get right down to it, there's not much difference between not dreaming at all, and forgetting your dreams. And of course the subject of forgetting stuff always makes me think of alzheimer's patients... that's some freaky shit. What I was referring to was more: Let's say you die in your sleep, and 10^999999 years later a vacuum fluctuation randomly create a new Earth, with an inhabitant that has an atomically identical brain, the same memories, emotions, and preferences as you, and whose last memory is your memory from before going to your final sleep. Is this the same person as you? Let's say you teleport to another planet -- your present body is annihilated atom-by-atom, and then a reserve of atoms on a distant planet recombines to form your body, with exactly the same atomic structure. To the reconstituted person, they feel no time has passed, like they stepped into the teleportation booth and stepped out orbiting Alpha Centauri. Is that the same person as you? Let's say your brain is infected with a virus that causes degeneration, leading to death. The treatment involves replacing every neuron in your brain quickly with a mechanical replacement, a cyber-neuron. The process takes under ten seconds. In the end, you wake up feeling like no time has passed, but no part of your brain remains. Is this the same "you" as before the transplant? Let's say the same thing happens, but the replacement happens gradually over the course of a year. In the end, is that person the same as you before the operation? Or at what point did it stop being you, even if at any given time there was no lapse in subjective continuity? How about the previous two cases, except that they replace neurons not with machines, but with genetically modified, immune versions of your very own neurons? What if you had a deadly disease, were frozen, and thawed several centuries later -- nanomachines undo the damage from the ice, and you re-awake exactly the same as when you went to sleep, except that your brain at one point decayed, and was artificially restored by robots -- would you be the same person? Let's say you go to sleep and wake up. without dreaming; is the you from before sleeping the same person as the you after sleeping? Or is the previous "you" dead, replaced by a consciousness with all your memories and with a subjective sense of continuity from the night before? Yeah I know what you were saying, and those are all awesome examples. I like to look at it like this: it doesn't really matter if it's the same you or not. You are you, in this current waking moment, not doubt about it. Maybe all your memories are fabricated, and the you you are now never was the you you remember you were. But if you continue to be you in this current waking moment, or if you once again become you when you wake up, the you you will be will be you, so who cares if it's the same you or not? When you get right down to it, you can't even actually answer the question what is you, exactly? You just are. You might say you're your brain, but current neuroscience is disproving the once-held belief that the brain cells you are born with are the same ones you have your whole life. They actually regenerate just like the rest of you. So that example of replacing neurons is more real than you think. It happens every 10 years or so. But you're you right now, right? So even if you aren't the you you were 10 years ago, you're still a you. That means whatever you is isn't the physical matter your brain cells are made of. So then you might say you are the "program" that your brain is running. If that's the case, then you do cease to exist every time you lose consciousness, but then you come back into existence once you regain consciousness. So you can come and go into and out of existence on a regular basis, and it's not tied to any specific physical matter. Not enough to call it proof of the soul, but still pretty comforting to me. |
| It's sort of like asking if the instance of the operating system your computer uses is the same instance as before the last time you rebooted it, or if it's the same instance if you replace some of the hardware, or reformat it. Of course it's not, but it doesn't matter, either. It's still your computer. Even if you burn it, and buy a new computer, the new computer will still be your computer. If someone else gives you their computer, that computer will still be your computer. So what exactly does the you mean? You are nothing more than a point of view. If you could possess someone else's body, you would still be you, even if you had none of your memories and all of theirs. Their memories would become your memories, their body would become your body. You would still be you. Even if you lost your personality and gained theirs, you would still be you. And you would also never even know it happened. For all you know it does happen, all the time. |
sargos7Mar 8, 2014 10:36 PM
| I'm agnostic but I believe in God, or at least an unknown higher deity. I do not believe in Jesus, or the Bible, or whatever religious teaches. I like to believe that 'God' controls my destiny, and that I'll be punished when I do bad things (sort of like karma). |
Aoba said: Sorry to break it to you but your are not agnostic, you are a theistI'm agnostic but I believe in God, or at least an unknown higher deity. I do not believe in Jesus, or the Bible, or whatever religious teaches. I like to believe that 'God' controls my destiny, and that I'll be punished when I do bad things (sort of like karma). |
| Sup People and yes I am the physical manifestation of Shinji Ikari's Balls And this what elite-sama says to incest elite-sama said: I'm against it because I don't have a sister. It's not fair. |
cabacc2 said: Nah the definition of an agnostic is "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God". She, btw he's a she, is most definitely a theist as believes in a godBallsOfShinji said: he is an agnostic theist.Aoba said: Sorry to break it to you but your are not agnostic, you are a theistI'm agnostic but I believe in God, or at least an unknown higher deity. I do not believe in Jesus, or the Bible, or whatever religious teaches. I like to believe that 'God' controls my destiny, and that I'll be punished when I do bad things (sort of like karma). |
| Sup People and yes I am the physical manifestation of Shinji Ikari's Balls And this what elite-sama says to incest elite-sama said: I'm against it because I don't have a sister. It's not fair. |
tiro_finale said: Kousoku11 said: [ Monad said: There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked. Well thanks for dictating my beliefs to myself, as you clearly know them better than me. I may dislike being intentionally hostile in a serious way, but that statement seriously feels like a personal insult. Nothing he said looks insulting, I think you're really reading beyond what is written. I agree with what he said to some extent because atheism is simply the lack of a belief in deities. If agnostics lack this belief because whatever reason doesn't that make the term alone pretty redundant? There's no middle ground in Boolean logic, it's either true or false. You either have a belief, or you don't have it. There isn't a half-have/half-lack. So I don't see the point in the term Agnostic alone simply because if you don't have a positive belief in the existence of 1 or more gods, than that makes you an atheist by elimination. I'm open to corrections though, if you disagree elaborate on why. I bolded the part that I have a problem with. Mainly because that heavily implies that people who say they are agnostics aren't really agnostics, but rather atheists who don't want to call themselves atheists. I don't really like your logic either.The difference is that atheism simply to lack of belief, while agnosticism also includes the lack of disbelief as well. If you want an umbrella term, just use "non-believer". |
 |
| I believe I will die and a tree will seek sustenance from my corpse thereby transferring my consciousness to said tree. However, then I will be cut down for timber and most likely end up as some piece of shit desk sold at Ikea. In all seriousness though I believe death is it. Nothing after, no consciousness, no heaven, hell, or any equivalent. On a side note that article mentions Christians believing the dead can be communicated with as being at odds with the religion itself. However, if one were to believe the bible (assuming Christians do) then communing with the dead is possible although it's an 'abomination'. |
| |
cabacc2 said: True but in this instance she says that she does believe in a god not that she'd like to believe...without claiming absolute knowledge. That makes her an agnostic theist. "I like to believe it but I am also aware of the fact that knowing it for sure is impossible" -> agnostic theist. |
| Sup People and yes I am the physical manifestation of Shinji Ikari's Balls And this what elite-sama says to incest elite-sama said: I'm against it because I don't have a sister. It's not fair. |
| I'm not sure if i should love or hate how threads like this expose how few people understand simple concepts |
| Who knows........il believe it when I see it. |
| I dislike lelouch vi Britannia. im a shiki supporter my YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR90F0rzcss4CsrAbkZXTkg/featured?view_as=subscriber Just past the 1500th Mark bitches I approve this video http://youtu.be/U_0CCLxibFk |
ReprideKazuga said: The only reason I believe in life after death is because I don't want to die... It's logical to assume we die and it's over. I'm afraid of death... Unlike the various shows and books that have the immortal character always wishing for death, I'm the opposite. I, too, am afraid of death. However, in my case, it partly comes from the acknowledgement that there is nothing that comes after it. Sure, there are plenty of people in the same boat as me who try to rationalize it by saying that their constituent atoms will eventually be spread through the world or that they'll continue to live on through others' memories or whatnot. But that still doesn't excuse the fact that the thing that identifies itself as me is gone forever. I also recognize that a large part of my fear comes from the same instincts that kept all of my ancestors alive long enough to have offspring. If you look at things from a logical standpoint, I've been in oblivion for the past 13.7 billion years and, should I bite it, I'll be back in that state for however many trillions of years it will take for the universe to wind down. But, despite all that, I'd rather not return to that state any time soon. I like existing. It's pretty cool. I'd rather I keep existing for as long as possible. As for those stories about immortals longing for the death that will never take them, I'm always reminded of Ray Kurzweil suggesting that the authors are doing nothing more than rationalizing the end of life. Should some fate be inevitable, it's a valid psychological defence mechanism to imagine the potential benefits of it. Here they are, looking at this terrifying event horizon that everybody has to cross one day, and making themselves feel better by thinking that maybe it's actually a good thing after all. |
| Somewhere, there is an unplugged toaster sitting on a Coleman stove. Does it feel lonely? |
| Why? Why not? |
| SCARY MONSTER |
| Why? |
| SCARY MONSTER |
| At least try to make an effort. This is why thread making should be a privilege à mon avis. |
BryanBosslingMar 14, 2014 3:18 AM
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
| Get off your high horse and stop being a tight ass. I've noticed it's really hard for mal people to have a mature discussion. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
| im neutral about it considering that a lot of scientist believe information is not lost it can only be scrambled on this universe/multiverse and their is this idea called quantum archaeology but at thesame time you got this scientific term called entropy though the natural decline of anything into disorder or death but i do not believe in the afterlife as explained by religions so far |
| I feel like people get what they want to some extent after death and usually believe what they want. I don't think an afterlife is for everyone. A lot of people who don't believe in an afterlife don't want an afterlife and nearly all who believe inn an afterlife do want an afterlife but that is just on random observations. A poll would help identify that if someone wants an afterlife or not and believes in it or not. If there is any correlation. |
j0x said: So you don't believe there is no afterlife but you also don't believe in the heaven or hell stuff. im neutral about it considering that a lot of scientist believe information is not lost it can only be scrambled on this universe/multiverse and their is this idea called quantum archaeology but at thesame time you got this scientific term called entropy though the natural decline of anything into disorder or death but i do not believe in the afterlife as explained by religions so far This quantum archeology sounds like reincarnation or something. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
GuusWayne said: j0x said: So you don't believe there is no afterlife but you also don't believe in the heaven or hell stuff. im neutral about it considering that a lot of scientist believe information is not lost it can only be scrambled on this universe/multiverse and their is this idea called quantum archaeology but at thesame time you got this scientific term called entropy though the natural decline of anything into disorder or death but i do not believe in the afterlife as explained by religions so far This quantum archeology sounds like reincarnation or something. if science can prove quantum archaeology is real then i will believe it but for now im neutral about the afterlife and ye i do not believe there is heaven or hell they are just fiction |
| Alright, I see. So you would rather know something for a fact than believe anything. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
| Isn't quantum archaeology more like the kind of cloning you see in scifi movies with memories intact ? I have heard of electromagnetic consciousness theories like quantum mind, the microtubules in the brain because of the laws of quantum physics do not have to be limited in function by space thus the mind can live outside the body or something like that if i remember right. |
| I consider humans just as biological robots. So my answer is that there is no afterlife. |
| I've been reading a bit about Buddhism and apparently it has a lot to do with fields of science like neurology, psychology, astro physics etc. I wouldn't say Buddhism is really a religion, it's a philosophy. It teaches the developing the mind and the path to escape suffering. Buddhists believe that even though the body dies a beings conscience is eternal.At the time of your death all you have left is the Karma you have accumulated in your life and that determines the new realm that your conscience will create for you to be born into. When you are born into this new realm you do not remember your past life and this cycle of birth and death continues until one of your reincarnations achieve a state called nirvana, which means to extinguish oneself from existence and escape the cycle. I don't know much about it but Nirvana is similar to heaven, it is a state of perfect peace. Here's an article about it. http://www.buddha101.com/p_nirvana.htm As an non-religious person this is the closest I've got to being interested in life after death. |
AzlanMar 14, 2014 3:37 AM
| You don't need to be a scientist to have an opinion but you're actually saying you believe in science. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
GuusWayne said: Get off your high horse and stop being a tight ass. I've noticed it's really hard for mal people to have a mature discussion. tight as a fookin ducks ass he is |
traed said: Isn't quantum archaeology more like the kind of cloning you see in scifi movies with memories intact ? yes because according to quantum mechanics information is never lost its just gets scrambled and that scrambling effect is the entropy i suppose quick google and i found an interesting talk about this but its kinda hard to grasp because its physics lol - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29175/why-is-information-indestructable |
| Well I think I should also tell you guys what I believe. Personally, I think there is life after death because it's my opinion that my conciousness is eternal and will continue to live even after my body dies. My awareness or conciousness pre-existed my birth, therefore having awareness in this body wouldn't be a coincidence, I believe that is my true identity which is the soul. It makes sense to me given some thought, so if my conciousness existed before I was born then it will also exist when I die, that's why I think there is an afterlife. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
cabacc2 said: I did not really say its fully supported as its a theory.what? Source please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm (not really the original source but good enough unless you happen to major in quantum physics) Mostly heard about it from this guy I saw on tv before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff (Id post something other than wiki if i knew where you get proper credential listings but its good enough not like hes gonna go on his own wiki page every day) http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ (I think this might be his website? ) |
Heredity said: That gave me a headache.but what about life after death after life after death? |
Heredity said: but what about life after death after life after death? The fact that this sentence not only makes sense but is also a legitimate question concerning the topic of life after death amazes me. |
| Proud founder of The Official Anti-Ging Freecss Fan Club Join now! Kellhus said: GuusWayne said: there is a limit to the suspension of disbelief And it's the fan that did it. Not the smoking porn reading rubik cube genius rape ape with a magic boat. |
Heredity said: I presume that is excluding reincarnation as that is continuous life and death. Sapewloth said: Heredity said: but what about life after death after life after death? The fact that this sentence not only makes sense but is also a legitimate question concerning the topic of life after death amazes me. i've always pondered the question when the topic's brought up. There is another belief about people going to another world when they die and then when they die in that world they come back to this world, if that fits what you're thinking of. Unless you are thinking more along the lines of various levels of afterlives each reached by a new death. So yeah that is a valid question especially considering those who believe in a soul think its eternal yet maybe its not if it were to exist so dying the next time is dying for real. |
| My grandparents died and I'm still alive. That proves there is life after death. Have a nice day. |
| Proud founder of the 20+ virgins club. Please visit my manga blog for manga updates and more! Mup da doo didda po mo muhfuggen bix nood ^ Need someone who can translate this. Pm me pls. |
cabacc2 said: First you tell me I'm irrational then you give me a stupid quote from a nerd cripple who thinks life is a computer program.GuusWayne said: you were concious before you were born? what? no!Well I think I should also tell you guys what I believe. Personally, I think there is life after death because it's my opinion that my conciousness is eternal and will continue to live even after my body dies. My awareness or conciousness pre-existed my birth, therefore having awareness in this body wouldn't be a coincidence, I believe that is my true identity which is the soul. It makes sense to me given some thought, so if my conciousness existed before I was born then it will also exist when I die, that's why I think there is an afterlife. this is so irrational I dont even know where to start here. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” -Stephen Hawking souls are fiction. |
| SCARY MONSTER |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - 4 hours ago |
9 |
by vasipi4946
»»
25 minutes ago |
|
» The level of NoLifer / NEET / Hiki you are?IpreferEcchi - Apr 22 |
18 |
by creepylurker
»»
39 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » In the future there will be battles for love between species from other planets(theory)Absurdo_N - 57 minutes ago |
3 |
by rohan121
»»
47 minutes ago |
|
» Is it a good idea to stay relatively anonymous online?DesuMaiden - Apr 20 |
27 |
by creepylurker
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - 7 hours ago |
13 |
by Lost_Viking
»»
1 hour ago |