Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: WhiteShepherd on June 14, 2009, 06:22:17 pm
-
It's hard for me to take a side on this one. For myself I KNOW that ghost phenomena is real. There are enough documented video/audio recordings in my opinion to prove it exists without a doubt. But the debate is WHAT is a ghost? Myself I am on the fence on wether it is the leftover conscious of whoever passed or perhaps a new life form that can pick up others emotions/thoughts? What are others opinions?
-
It's hard to really speak on this without voicing my personal beliefs.
I'll say this as a start: The laws of thermodynamics and physics teach us that all matter is made of energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed, mearly changed. Is there life after death? You must find out what life is in your own eyes first.
I know that there is existence beyond death, but existing and living are two different things.
In light of the scientific evidence I choose to believe that there is life after death, and since energy is always changing and moving from one form or another, I also choose to believe in reincarnation.
-
Personally, I think life after death exists. I also believe in reincarnation, simply because it makes the most logical sense to me (and because it appeals a lot to me).
As for ghosts, I understand that some people see them. I never have, mind you, but I'm prone to believe that they exist. If reincarnation is real, there would be time between death and the spirit (or whatever you call it) to enter another body. I think it's possible for this energy, this force, or this actual spirit (whatever it is) to hang around for a bit. Again, I'm not sure of this, but that's what makes sense to me.
-
I lean more towards no, that once we pass, we just simply cease. I'm not religious, so I don't really believe in a soul that could remain as a conciousness after we pass on. If you think about it, our conciousness isn't anything more than a bunch of neural pathways firing off analogous to a computer's CPU. Once they stop firing, I think we're just.... blank. Is there a higher power? I think it's one of those things that can't ever be proven unless him/her/them appear in front of us and prove it beyond doubt. This could not only mean a god, but also space aliens (I think that it's a bit arrogant to think we're the only planet in the entire universe and space that has life still).
-
No offense to WS, but I kinda wish this topic was never posted. I happen to be afraid of death and dying. x_x There have been times in the past where I've had panic attacks and/or nightmares just "thinking" about such things.
*exits stage right out of this topic* -------->
-
I kinda know what you're talking about, Kobuk. I sometimes think that I may have to ditch my rig off the side of a road and risk my life to save an innocent family in a car because of an accident happening around me. It's one of the things I was taught in CDL school, that you may be put in a place to have to take that kind of chance.
-
As a pretty rude country song once said "I'm not afraid of dying, its the thought of being dead..."
I can understand the fear of death. Its a very natural human feeling.
I'm not really sure how I feel about life after death. I was brought up christian, and to belive in heaven and hell. I've since strayed away from those beleifs.
My personal feeling is that one should live their life as if this is the only chance they will get, and not spend their entire life "preparing" and betting on an afterlife that may not even exsist.
-
I think the way you answer this question will depend purely on your own religious/spiritual orientation. Personally, I don't believe in an afterlife, or a god, or ghosts, or really, in anything for which I have no evidence and no reason to believe. I'm more of an Occam's Razor kind of dude. :P
...I do sometimes envy those who believe in an afterlife, though. It must be nice to not fear death as much as I do.
-
...I do sometimes envy those who believe in an afterlife, though. It must be nice to not fear death as much as I do.
How so? In my mind, there's a greater sense peace associated with believing that everything ends at death.
-
Personally I do believe in a life past death, but I don't believe ghosts play into it. I don't believe in a limbo or that ghosts are actually souls who have lost their way or any such thing.
One day I was watching the show The Universe(very awesome if you love space by the way) and they were talking about alternate universes. Thousands and thousands of them, all on different planes of existence and all only microns off from the other. If we could see them all it would be like watching someone in slow motion, their actions repeating and a projection of their last action constantly following them along with the actions to come.
This is what I believe a ghost is, when somehow those planes cross and we see that projection from another plane pass over and suddenly become visible. Or even just audible or just a feeling. It would make even more sense since a lot of ghosts are said to be people who were killed in a tragic manner. It seems to me like that death was not supposed to occur yet, so the alternate planes are distorted by this loss and a rift is formed in the planes, letting us get a small glimpse of another universe.
I'm sure this is a very odd interpretation, but since I was absolutely petrified of ghosts when I was younger I had to find some way to rationalize it. This seemed the most plausible to me.
-
I don't believe in life after death: A person's consciousness, experiences and memory are a function of brain activity, and when the brain stops, you no longer exist. Even if it is somehow possible for your consciousness to exist after death in some other form, the second law of thermodynamics states that such an existance cannot continue indefinitely.
-
...I do sometimes envy those who believe in an afterlife, though. It must be nice to not fear death as much as I do.
How so? In my mind, there's a greater sense peace associated with believing that everything ends at death.
That's only if you think you're going to hell otherwise. XD
No, just kidding. I'm at peace with the idea that everything ends at death. It's the idea that this death could come at any time that tends to weigh on the mind.
-
Personally I do believe in a life past death, but I don't believe ghosts play into it. I don't believe in a limbo or that ghosts are actually souls who have lost their way or any such thing.
Ghosts are a really interesting thing. I don't think they're really essential in the way we think, and I really don't believe in the movie type of ghost that just sticks around to scare people; it doesn't make sense to me. Even if I died horrendously, I wouldn't want to stay in the same place with the same people where I was murdered.
Your theory could make sense. However, if ghosts exist (which I'm not completely sure if they do or not), I like to think of it in a more positive sense. Believing in reincarnation, I believe that people's spirits, in general, have a strong link to each other. We've all existed long enough that we have a desire to be with those we love. Truthfully, I think the people I'm closest with have been my friends and acquaintances for a very, very long time. To me, that opens up the possibility of spirits hanging around, not necessarily to scare, but to help.
That's my own view, though.
...I do sometimes envy those who believe in an afterlife, though. It must be nice to not fear death as much as I do.
How so? In my mind, there's a greater sense peace associated with believing that everything ends at death.
That's only if you think you're going to hell otherwise. XD
No, just kidding. I'm at peace with the idea that everything ends at death. It's the idea that this death could come at any time that tends to weigh on the mind.
You know, I understand that you feel that way. It doesn't really bother me because of my own mindset. But if there were no afterlife, everything would end really quickly. But that doesn't bother me, as well... the same thing has happened to everyone before.
If I do want to become immortal, in a way, I'll either write something worth reading or do something worth writing about. :)
-
...I do sometimes envy those who believe in an afterlife, though. It must be nice to not fear death as much as I do.
How so? In my mind, there's a greater sense peace associated with believing that everything ends at death.
That's only if you think you're going to hell otherwise. XD
No, just kidding. I'm at peace with the idea that everything ends at death. It's the idea that this death could come at any time that tends to weigh on the mind.
Death coming at anytime scares you? I think about death every day. not in a "I wish I were dead" way or anything like that. I contemplate different ways to die all the time and the ramifications of my death and how my passing will impact others.
I also think about what it would be like to have a doctor tell me I had a terminal condition. Would I want treatment? Could I afford it if I did want it? If I resfused treatment, how woud my friends react? How coulld I make sure word of my passing would reach all my friends?
To me, death is nothing scary. We're going to die one day, so why should I be afraid of it?
My motto is modified from a Red Dwarf quote. "Everybody dies; you're born, then you die. The bit in the middle is called life, so enjoy it while you can.
And I do. I eat what I want to eat, drink what I want to drink. I take in all the great things in life I want. I face my fears now and then to say I did it, and I run from my fears now and then because I don't feel up to facing them. I don't worry about anything in my life short of going to jail (Thankfully I don't do illegal things).
Everything has an end and everything dies. The day must end and give way to night, the night must end and give in to the day. There exists no story or book that goes on forever, and even the stars above us will eventually fade out. Even if there is no life or existence beyond this I still do not fear death because it will happen one day. Till then, I'm gonna enjoy my time.
-
I can't remember where I heard this from, but I think it was from a tv show.
Person A: What's death like?
Person B: It's kinda like being born. Only backwards.
:o :D
-
To me, death is nothing scary. We're going to die one day, so why should I be afraid of it?
For me, it's not knowing when it's coming that's kinda scary. While we all want to live our lives the best we can, most of our lives haven't lasted long enough to say we've lived a fulfilling life. At least that's my current take on it, that there's so much I've yet to do.
-
To me, death is nothing scary. We're going to die one day, so why should I be afraid of it?
It's not death that's scary, but the actual process of dying, which is not usually as quick and painless as most people would like.
-
Ghosts are a really interesting thing. I don't think they're really essential in the way we think, and I really don't believe in the movie type of ghost that just sticks around to scare people; it doesn't make sense to me. Even if I died horrendously, I wouldn't want to stay in the same place with the same people where I was murdered.
Your theory could make sense. However, if ghosts exist (which I'm not completely sure if they do or not), I like to think of it in a more positive sense. Believing in reincarnation, I believe that people's spirits, in general, have a strong link to each other. We've all existed long enough that we have a desire to be with those we love. Truthfully, I think the people I'm closest with have been my friends and acquaintances for a very, very long time. To me, that opens up the possibility of spirits hanging around, not necessarily to scare, but to help.
That's my own view, though.
I could very well see this being in the positive view. I have the automatic need to force it into some sort of scientific description. As I said, rationalizing it was the only way I could keep it from scaring me.
Still, I'll have to consider the spiritual side and that these spirits might actually be here to help instead of harm. But if that is the case would mind elaborating on why a ghost would stick around more often after a horrendous tragedy(AKA being killed, etc)? And why it seems almost automatic to fear them? I think those questions are mainly why I don't automatically fall for the spiritual explanation. No offense meant, I'm truly just curious.
To me, death is nothing scary. We're going to die one day, so why should I be afraid of it?
It's not death that's scary, but the actual process of dying, which is not usually as quick and painless as most people would like.
I have to disagree. I fully believe with the way I treat myself I will die of cancer or heart failure. Yet I am not afraid of death in the slightest actually despite the fact that cancer will be a most horrendous and painful death. The only one that unnerves me a little(and doesn't quite scare) is drowning. I don't know, personally I just think it is all a matter of the person and their current spot in life.
For example, say a person has most of their affairs settled, knows where their money will go when they die and who will take over what. Even further, they are religiously secure and believe they know exactly what will happen to them after death. I think these factors are major ones among many that will make a person fear or not fear death. However, of course, this is all just speculation.
-
To me, death is nothing scary. We're going to die one day, so why should I be afraid of it?
It's not death that's scary, but the actual process of dying, which is not usually as quick and painless as most people would like.
I have to disagree. I fully believe with the way I treat myself I will die of cancer or heart failure. Yet I am not afraid of death in the slightest actually despite the fact that cancer will be a most horrendous and painful death. The only one that unnerves me a little(and doesn't quite scare) is drowning. I don't know, personally I just think it is all a matter of the person and their current spot in life.
For example, say a person has most of their affairs settled, knows where their money will go when they die and who will take over what. Even further, they are religiously secure and believe they know exactly what will happen to them after death. I think these factors are major ones among many that will make a person fear or not fear death. However, of course, this is all just speculation.
See, I don't have my affairs in order, I don't know for certain what will happen to me when I die, and I'm not even 30.
Even so, I look forward to my end with anticipation. I'm eager to find out, but not so eager I'd commit suicide. My life is great and I'm enjoying it. I belive that as long as a person can be content in their life, despit not accomplishing all they want to do, they can face death without fear. But thats just my own opinon.
I certainly do belive in life after death based on scientific principles, but there is always room for doubt. After all one could argue that just because your nurons aren't firing anymore doesn't mean the soul is gone, the energy of your body remains, it's simply stored inside the flesh. This is why I wish to be cremated after my passing in order to release the stored, poteintial energy of my remains. In this way, I hope that my soul will not be trapped inside but released.
-
Ghosts are a really interesting thing. I don't think they're really essential in the way we think, and I really don't believe in the movie type of ghost that just sticks around to scare people; it doesn't make sense to me. Even if I died horrendously, I wouldn't want to stay in the same place with the same people where I was murdered.
Your theory could make sense. However, if ghosts exist (which I'm not completely sure if they do or not), I like to think of it in a more positive sense. Believing in reincarnation, I believe that people's spirits, in general, have a strong link to each other. We've all existed long enough that we have a desire to be with those we love. Truthfully, I think the people I'm closest with have been my friends and acquaintances for a very, very long time. To me, that opens up the possibility of spirits hanging around, not necessarily to scare, but to help.
That's my own view, though.
I could very well see this being in the positive view. I have the automatic need to force it into some sort of scientific description. As I said, rationalizing it was the only way I could keep it from scaring me.
Still, I'll have to consider the spiritual side and that these spirits might actually be here to help instead of harm. But if that is the case would mind elaborating on why a ghost would stick around more often after a horrendous tragedy(AKA being killed, etc)? And why it seems almost automatic to fear them? I think those questions are mainly why I don't automatically fall for the spiritual explanation. No offense meant, I'm truly just curious.
The person might have died so fast that they stay for answers, or maybe to comfort people that mourn the death. The person could also have unfinished affairs, as suggested by some previous posters, he or she might stick around to make sure that everything is right, so to speak. Though, as a ghost without having any effective method of interaction, for years and years on end. One would be expected to get severely frustrated and lash out at people, after so long wouldn't you try anything to let people know you're there and get their help? Of course, getting slapped by thin air would scare most people away...
-
Personally I do believe in a life past death, but I don't believe ghosts play into it. I don't believe in a limbo or that ghosts are actually souls who have lost their way or any such thing.
Ghosts are a really interesting thing. I don't think they're really essential in the way we think, and I really don't believe in the movie type of ghost that just sticks around to scare people; it doesn't make sense to me. Even if I died horrendously, I wouldn't want to stay in the same place with the same people where I was murdered.
Your theory could make sense. However, if ghosts exist (which I'm not completely sure if they do or not), I like to think of it in a more positive sense. Believing in reincarnation, I believe that people's spirits, in general, have a strong link to each other. We've all existed long enough that we have a desire to be with those we love. Truthfully, I think the people I'm closest with have been my friends and acquaintances for a very, very long time. To me, that opens up the possibility of spirits hanging around, not necessarily to scare, but to help.
That's my own view, though.
I agree with alexandre, in reincarnation, i beleive important people stick with us life after life and we keep coming back to experience life in a new way, through a new view. i beleive that ghosts come in somewhare in the middle of each life. you are born at a cirtin time so that every event you are ment to experience lines up properly, during that time you wait, and perhaps sometimes the spirit still floats around the physical world while its waiting to come back, due to one reason or another, perhaps strong feelings or emotions.
-
I don't think we know enough about anything to make any assumptions about this.
I mean, think how we aren't all just automated masses of matter, but we actually think, and have consciousness. Is that consciousness some sort of soul that will live on after our physical bodies have died? Or is consciousness induced by the complexity of the brain, that will fade as the other organs in the body that allow the brain to function stop working themselves?
This then raises other questions - if consciousness is induced by the complexity of the brain, then what does it mean to be human? Accepting that death is the end also means accepting that humans are just another species on the planet. Given the egocentric nature of humanity, that's a hard thing to do, and is what makes most religeons and the concept of life after death so appealing.
I believe the latter myself, that consciousness in induced by the complexity of the brain, and that death really is the end.
-
Life after death? There is only one way to find out for sure, so I'm not in a hurry to figure it out. :)
-
Ghosts are a really interesting thing. I don't think they're really essential in the way we think, and I really don't believe in the movie type of ghost that just sticks around to scare people; it doesn't make sense to me. Even if I died horrendously, I wouldn't want to stay in the same place with the same people where I was murdered.
Your theory could make sense. However, if ghosts exist (which I'm not completely sure if they do or not), I like to think of it in a more positive sense. Believing in reincarnation, I believe that people's spirits, in general, have a strong link to each other. We've all existed long enough that we have a desire to be with those we love. Truthfully, I think the people I'm closest with have been my friends and acquaintances for a very, very long time. To me, that opens up the possibility of spirits hanging around, not necessarily to scare, but to help.
That's my own view, though.
I could very well see this being in the positive view. I have the automatic need to force it into some sort of scientific description. As I said, rationalizing it was the only way I could keep it from scaring me.
Still, I'll have to consider the spiritual side and that these spirits might actually be here to help instead of harm. But if that is the case would mind elaborating on why a ghost would stick around more often after a horrendous tragedy(AKA being killed, etc)? And why it seems almost automatic to fear them? I think those questions are mainly why I don't automatically fall for the spiritual explanation. No offense meant, I'm truly just curious.
Hey, no offense taken. I'm just as skeptical of what I believe as anyone else. I've only settled here because it makes the most sense to me.
You know, most instances that people talk about scary ghosts are hoaxes. I'm willing to bet my life savings on it (or I would if I had one). Truthfully, I'm not sure if I believe in any evil spirits or anything. However, if they did exist, I think it would be based off their own feelings, thinking there's something they could do to change what's happening.
Again, I'm hesitant to believe in ghosts that haunt places. When I was Christian, I was quite paranoid of people getting possessed for a while (I even thought I had met a few). I'm pretty sure I was just convincing myself of what I wanted to believe. I'm a little less paranoid about things like that now. :)
Life after death? There is only one way to find out for sure, so I'm not in a hurry to figure it out. :)
Quoted for truth. I could theorize all I'd want, but I'd have to die to know for sure. ;)
-
I don't see any good reason to believe in anything after death.
Just like everyone else here, my desires influence my beliefs, only they run counter to what everyone else has said so far. I wouldn't want there to be an afterlife. It would cheapen real life.
To go further, I've been asked by Christians how I can feel optimistic or happy when I don't believe there's any "higher purpose" to life. To turn this around, I find the idea of God, reincarnation, or any sort of higher intelligence depressing. It goes back to that age-old question, "If God exists, why is there suffering?" To believe is God is to believe that there is a "right way," a way things ought to be, and that is a path to disappointment and ultimately to indignation and ungratefulness. "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to/been told it does?" That sort of thing.
But if there's no God and no afterlife, then our present life becomes precious. And to suppose your existence is not part of anyone's master plan allows you to truly be thankful for any good things that happen to you.
Uh, er...didn't mean to delve so far into my personal philosophy, but there it is.
-
It goes back to that age-old question, "If God exists, why is there suffering?" To believe is God is to believe that there is a "right way," a way things ought to be, and that is a path to disappointment and ultimately to indignation and ungratefulness. "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to/been told it does?" That sort of thing.
But if there's no God and no afterlife, then our present life becomes precious.
Oh, wow. I love this. I'm gonna have to think a lot about what you've said, Sskessa.
I'm not sure if God exists; I've finally come to a point in my life where I can say that. I'd also prefer not to think there is a specific path to follow...
... I need to internalize this for a while. Thanks for sharing this.
-
I don't see how life after death is possible unless we have souls or some other kind of life essence. But as far as I know there is no verifiable evidence that we do. Everything seems to point to what makes us work merely being the function of our brains. I think the fact that a person with brain damage can have their personality completely altered shows this even further. In fact, if we do have souls, what about all the other lifeforms on the earth? All the evidence seems to point to us being just another species of animal, and thus there is no reason that we should have souls unless other animals have them as well (that is, apart from our bizarre need to be special).
As for evidence of ghosts and the like, the only thing we really have are people's personal experiences. And just because someone experienced something doesn't mean their explanation for it is correct. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this, but in every case I know of that was looked at scientifically, they either didn't find anything or found evidence of it being something completely normal. Or in many cases, it was simply a hoax. Note: finding no evidence that something did not occur in no way suggests that it did. The best we can say about such cases is "I don't know".
I'm not saying that I completely dismiss the possibility of there being souls and/or ghosts. But I have not seen sufficient evidence, and the only default position that makes sense is one of disbelieving until there is sufficient evidence. Taking a default position other than this leads to possibly believing all kinds of nonsense.
-
It goes back to that age-old question, "If God exists, why is there suffering?" To believe is God is to believe that there is a "right way," a way things ought to be, and that is a path to disappointment and ultimately to indignation and ungratefulness. "Why doesn't the world work the way I want it to/been told it does?" That sort of thing.
But if there's no God and no afterlife, then our present life becomes precious.
Oh, wow. I love this. I'm gonna have to think a lot about what you've said, Sskessa.
I'm not sure if God exists; I've finally come to a point in my life where I can say that. I'd also prefer not to think there is a specific path to follow...
... I need to internalize this for a while. Thanks for sharing this.
I think of it like this: Why does god not clean up our polluted earth and save people from crime, poverty, and famine?
It's all along the same lines of why your parents don't come over and clean your house and pay your bills and keep people at work from messing with you. The earth is ours, not God's. We are expected to keep it clean outselves and not ruin it. As for crime, poverty and the like, humans posses free will. God cannot intrude upon that will and so people are allowed to make choices that bring pain and suffering upon others. It's not up to God to save those in need, it's up to us, their fellow man. But they too can do much to help themselves by choosing to leave the places that cause so much pain for them, it isn't hard, just choose. But to many, the idea of leaving behind all they've known is scary, so scary that they would rather have their familiar hell then face the unknown.
People are also sentimental, they cherish the land they live on, even if it is part of their problem, like seasonal flooding, drought, barren land that yields no crops. It's hard to give that up for many.
I don't think God is looking down at humanity with scorn when an earthquake claims hundreds of lives, it's just a random occurrence.
Bad things happen to good people because they place trust in untrustworthy people and don't take opportunities if they know it will hurt others. Good things happen for bad people because they disregard others safety in order to get ahead, they take chances regardless of the outcome and if someone gets hurt "Oh well, I didn't know them so I don't care."
This opinion is of course based o my own experience or how I used to be as a kid when I felt my life was bad, and how I am now and my attitudes toward others and how good things seem to be for me now.
Things got good for me once I started acting differently, more aggressive and with less concern for others. Am I bad person because of it? I think I am at times, but many who know me will say I'm not. I'll find out in my final judgement.
-
I think of it like this: Why does god not clean up our polluted earth and save people from crime, poverty, and famine?
It's all along the same lines of why your parents don't come over and clean your house and pay your bills and keep people at work from messing with you.
Hmm, I still don't think this frees God from responsibility. If God created people, than we have to assume it had a plan or a reason. And if it had the power to create us the way we are, why didn't it do a better job and create us in such a way that it's not so easy for us to hurt ourselves?
I'm sure whatever reasoning I could think up, it would leave me with uncomfortable resentment. This isn't parents, who want you to be able to live in a world they have no control of. This is God, who presumably created the world in the first place.
It's not up to God to save those in need, it's up to us, their fellow man.
Of course I believe this, too, but without the God part.
But I have not seen sufficient evidence, and the only default position that makes sense is one of disbelieving until there is sufficient evidence.
Just wanted to acknowledge this. Well said.
-
Back when I was a hardcore Christian, I used to ask myself often why would God put us here, only to make us fend for ourselves. Why would he test us? Make us struggle? Allow us to feel pain?
I came to the conclusion, that the only reason that anyone would do these things, would either be for an experiment, or for entertainment. In a sense, we would be like yard dogs who are allowed to come and go as they please, but get punished when we go against master's will. Like those dogs, we exsist only for masters pleasure. His entertainment.
If I were still Christian, I would belive that basically we're God's reality show, and the joke's on us. :)
-
While I was never religious, I pretty much agree with you, Redneck. I think *IF* there's a supreme being of sorts, that he gave us free will to "see what would happen". Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm completely wrong, but you know what.... It would make sense if I'm right, and I don't have to consider whether or not I'm serving properly. I know about the here and know and what I like. I'll live as best I can and hope it's good enough should there be anyone beyond the light at the end of the tunnel.
-
But I have not seen sufficient evidence, and the only default position that makes sense is one of disbelieving until there is sufficient evidence.
Just wanted to acknowledge this. Well said.
Thanks.
I used to believe in souls, but that was more of as a requirement in order to believe in an afterlife since I used to be a Christian. Now I know it doesn't make sense to accept one thing as true without any evidence because it has to be true in order for this other thing to be true which you also don't have evidence for. But then, that's a big part of why I'm not a Christian anymore: because it really doesn't make sense and I found myself having to invent stuff to hold my beliefs together.
-
One of the things I find significant about this whole debate is that due to the fact that "ghost phenomena" has been around through our entire history. It's gotten to the point that a majority of people assume as fact that it's not real when there is a huge amount of documented evidence to prove that it is real. Note that though I am saying "ghost phenomena" as the fact we know something is happening does not prove "why" it is happening.
As one example are some of the new reality shows that hunt for ghosts. Most are garbage and they are staged drama heavy for the effect. They are taking advantage of the fact that most people don't know that ghost phenomena is fairly common and trying to capture it on TV for sensation. The some of these shows to me are pretty annoying but some of the authentic footage they have caught is some of the best documented evidence to date. Ghosthunters (1/6 of their episodes hold some very good evidence) and Ghost Adventures (very armature but some of the best footage I've seen). There is also Paranormal state. They seem to have the least evidence but seem to be the best at helping others when hauntings are harmful.
I know many of you have decided that there is no chance whatsoever for something after life. But doesn't the fact that there are common reports in every city of shades shaped like people, orbs of light that interact with people, and messages delivered to people who would have NO way of getting them. Doesn't that at the very least make you want to wonder if we truly know death is the end? Unfortunately most people don't like to think about death so it's very hard to get them to even concider possibilities.
My own personal experiences have been varied. As a teen moved into a 200 year old haunted farm house. I was in college on a scholarship and was tested 99% in the country in science. I decided that I was going to figure this out in a scientific method. Long story short it's good to study things scientifically but dangerous to assume nothing can hurt you. This thing would drag my queen sized bed (which had no wheels) across the room towards the window each night. I would wake to female laughter alternating in each ear sometimes and friends valuables would take flight on their own and be damaged by scratches. To my suprise at the time it was solved by a special prayer service.
Life had been pretty peaceful up until 6 months ago. Me and Kada were staying at a friends house in Indiana. We suddenly noticed what appeared to be a dark man walking around the room. The only way to describe him was he was darker than the shadows. Unknown to us there was a flood in the basement and that is when we first saw him. What I find fascinating is WHY would a ghost hold human form? There are no joints or bones. What is it of the human structure that holds after death? Things progressed with orbs chasing the 2 year old, chairs flipping, and doors opening on their own. This all also ended with a church intervention. I even suspect the pastor herself did not know what exactly happened to end it though I believe something came to "help" due to the community prayers.
Theory 1: I think the answer in part at least lays with science. I spent a large part of my youth studying magnetism. A magnetic field does not "go away". It bleeds off energy slower and slower as it fades. A magnetic field can remain for years or even longer. It can also remain for a while even though the original source has been cut off. A example of this is Kirlian photography which is a way of photographing magnetic fields. One of the noted effects are if you take a leaf and cut it you could still photograph the cut missing section of the leaf that would fade over hours. If we apply the basic principles of magnetic fields to human bodies (which are strongly magnetic and strongest in the brain) when we die there is more or less a perfect image of us that will linger for a VERY long time if not but so faintly in the electromagnetic spectrum. This would include your memory (a pattern at least even of your mind).
Theory 2: What if ghosts were not from another dimension? What if ghosts exist somewhere in the magnetic spectrum. Magnetic fields when charged by nearby power sources will emit photons (light). A ghost that is charging itself or wants to be seen could take advantage of this. It would explain a LOT of the photographs captured. Would a person simply become a ghost or would they need help? Hard to say. It's documented that orbs of light are often photographed around new graves. If you believe in God could it be possible that heaven is not another dimension so much as perhaps a different frequency in a tarahertz spectrum we can not easily see? Honestly I don't know either way but it does make one ponder?
Opinion: I went from church belief, to no belief, to now a understanding that there IS something more. Honestly I'm not 100% for sure what it all means. A very brief descriptions of my studies so far is: I do believe there is life after death. I do believe there IS a God though I don't feel he is as unforgiving or aggressive to differences as many churches think. I think when one passes many (or all, unknown) are preserved. But there are rules and they are not allowed to interact or interfear with the living. The more I think of it this makes sense. As the "youngest" ones. If the spirits of the deceased came back to talk in anything other than a minor way we would lose our free will. Rather than grow we would take direction from spirits who could see beyond our own vision. However there are spirits I feel who like in life chose not to follow the rules. They don't want to be a part of the group or are stuck. These spirits roam and sometimes push the line in interacting with people. These account for most authenticated ghost sitings. There are many reasons for the growth of these beliefs that I can't detail here without writing a book. If any one wants to know more feel free to ask in private.
Here is some footage I thought may add some food for thought enjoy:
Some scrolling pictures. Note with digital cameras (which can see into the infrared and UV) modern photographs are a lot more detailed than this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6trH81xpko&NR=1
Some interesting pics:
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/upsidedowndemon.jpg)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/shadowerShadowperson.jpg)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/AmrySoldgierghost.jpg)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/demoninmirror.jpg) (http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/demoninmirrorcloseup.jpg)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/JimMorrisonGhost.jpg)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/crawlingghost.jpg)
(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b6/Faeden/HalloweenGhost.gif)
Video:
Something caught on video at an Ohio gas station. What was interesting in the accounts is that it seemed to "hide" from people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb0upNDhKPA&feature=PlayList&p=8C084A0B811920D1&index=4
Is it a dog or something else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t87rJxKaoQ&feature=related
-
Theory 1: I think the answer in part at least lays with science. I spent a large part of my youth studying magnetism. A magnetic field does not "go away". It bleeds off energy slower and slower as it fades. A magnetic field can remain for years or even longer. It can also remain for a while even though the original source has been cut off. A example of this is Kirlian photography which is a way of photographing magnetic fields. One of the noted effects are if you take a leaf and cut it you could still photograph the cut missing section of the leaf that would fade over hours. If we apply the basic principles of magnetic fields to human bodies (which are strongly magnetic and strongest in the brain) when we die there is more or less a perfect image of us that will linger for a VERY long time if not but so faintly in the electromagnetic spectrum. This would include your memory (a pattern at least even of your mind).
Theory 2: What if ghosts were not from another dimension? What if ghosts exist somewhere in the magnetic spectrum. Magnetic fields when charged by nearby power sources will emit photons (light). A ghost that is charging itself or wants to be seen could take advantage of this. It would explain a LOT of the photographs captured. Would a person simply become a ghost or would they need help? Hard to say. It's documented that orbs of light are often photographed around new graves. If you believe in God could it be possible that heaven is not another dimension so much as perhaps a different frequency in a tarahertz spectrum we can not easily see? Honestly I don't know either way but it does make one ponder?
It is an interesting notion, but I do have a way to poke holes in both of our theories. At least the theory with the leftover image from magnetism such as with the leaf example you gave and mine about parallel universes. Both assume that ghosts are a leftover image or a repeating action of something that has happened in the past, but I have seen evidence of the contrary in so many cases when it comes to ghosts.
Take poltergeists for example. They seem to be purposefully malicious beings that are out to make their presence known, scare or torment people in some shape, form or fashion, whether ti be throwing a chair or scratching someone. And when I say 'evidence' I can't say any of it is concrete since this entire discussion is on theory as is.
So with that in mind, what do you all thing of the different classifications of ghosts? Would a poltergeist indeed be different from ghosts, brought on from something else? Do you believe that poltergeists would be a form that comes from your second theory WhiteShepherd?
I personally can only explain, in my own mind, the duplication of a previous made action hundreds of years ago. I can't explain poltergeists or things as such. Also WhiteShpeherd, I was curious exactly how many years the leftover magnetic image of something can be left behind? Can it be there for hundreds of years? I could definitely put stock into your own theory for the duplication of made actions if that is the case, especially since humans are very magnetic if I remember correctly.
-
One of the things I find significant about this whole debate is that due to the fact that "ghost phenomena" has been around through our entire history. It's gotten to the point that a majority of people assume as fact that it's not real when there is a huge amount of documented evidence to prove that it is real. Note that though I am saying "ghost phenomena" as the fact we know something is happening does not prove "why" it is happening.
Sorry, but there is no preponderance of evidence that "ghost phenomena" exists. If you want to claim proof, then I have to ask where are the peer reviewed scientific papers that show this?
All of the supposed "proof" we have is shaky at best. For example, you tell of personal experiences which you attribute as "ghost phenomena". However, personal experience can never work as proof of anything. Sure you've experienced something, but that doesn't mean your explanation for it is valid or that you are even recalling it correctly. People tend to interpret things within their own biases. We all do it at least to an extent. For example, it is not uncommon for many religious individuals to, when nearly getting in a car accident, to claim that god was looking out for them. They fail to take into account that near car accidents happen all the time with people of all different belief systems. There is no reason to take their personal case as special.
Edit: Just wanted to add, I mean no disrespect here. Just countering your use of personal experience as proof.
Of those that are not hoaxes, the majority of ghost sitings can be explained by this: Humans are hardwired to see patterns, especially things like faces and figures. In many ways this is beneficial, however an unfortunate side effect is that it mean we are also highly susceptible to seeing false patterns. For example, people who claim to see mother mary in a piece of french toast. (BTW, this also explains why "ghosts" tend to have human like forms.)
But there are rules and they are not allowed to interact or interfear with the living.
I know you listed this as part of your opinion, but I wanted to point out that it's fallacious to rely too heavily on this. You have absolutely no reason to believe this rule exists except that it props up your belief in the paranormal. I used to make the same mistake a lot back when I was a Christian. That is, that of making unsupported claims to prop up my beliefs.
Aside from the existence of your "rule", which there is no evidence for, it seems that if ghosts are real, we should be overrun with the things. Especially if you consider insect ghosts. (as I said, there is no evidence to support that humans are more than just another species; there is no reason to think us special.)
-
My personal opinion is based solely off empirical evidence. What we percieve as the world and what we feel is controlled by our senses, once brain death has occurred we have no senses and therefore are no longer aware of anything. Our energy is still there in the form of our decaying corpse, the decaying being the transfer of energy from our bodies into the soil and bacteria of nature which consumes us.
A consciousness is nothing more than your senses giving you a representation of the world around your body, for this reason I cannot merely asume that it will somehow remain after the fundamental parts which it is comprised of are no longer there, (In the same way that when you fall unconscious you cannot percieve the world or any of your feelings, you simply 'black out').
Dreaming is a different matter as during your sleep you subconscious generates dreams, but you cease to have any form of consciousness once brain death has ocurred so you can't even remain under the comforting delusional blanket that death will be just like sleep.
Sorry if I sound a little bit arrogant but I have a highly skeptical view on matters like this, we as humans need to embrace our mortality and just accept that death generally sucks.
-
Mianame
Take poltergeists for example. They seem to be purposefully malicious beings that are out to make their presence known, scare or torment people in some shape, form or fashion, whether ti be throwing a chair or scratching someone. And when I say 'evidence' I can't say any of it is concrete since this entire discussion is on theory as is.
Again this goes as my personal theory as the only recorded evidence (video and audio) is ghost phenomena. Vararam I do count untampered audio and video recordings as evidence. At any rate my theory (in all fairness a lose theory) is after death it's possible for "in part" of the consciousness to survive. If said existence is in the electromagnetic spectrum and there is some form of intelligence to this new entity it could quite possibly prolong it's own existence. A magnetic or electric charge can be increased or decreased bases on it's proximity and resonance with other fields. This personal theory is based off of countless recordings of entities that seem to draw from sources of energy. As far as poltergeist that brings us back to the fundamental question of "where" do ghosts (ghost phenomena) comes from? Why would a human do such a thing? There is even theories that poltergeist activity are generated by people. Based on what I've seen (myself and recorded) so far I would venture to say is that what is left over after death may not be all of the person. How and what a person at death evolves into for now is pure speculation.
Vararam
Sorry, but there is no preponderance of evidence that "ghost phenomena" exists. If you want to claim proof, then I have to ask where are the peer reviewed scientific papers that show this?
I would have to disagree. There is quite a bit of recorded evidence to prove the phenomena exists. Most of this is new with the advent of full spectrum digital cameras which have a much farther range than analog cameras. I think the public and much of the scientific community at large has a bias to assumption that such recordings do not exist due to reported sympton and sensationalism in modern movies. In the early 1900 many people refused to believe radio waves existed due to the fact they felt it was impossible. When I get back from my trip I'll do my best to gather some video footage so you can decide for yourself rather than just my opinions. If your looking for footage now check out SyFy Ghost Hunters on wensdays. It's incredibly drama hokey and they don't always find anything. But the footage is real (confirmed by many labs and publishers) and can be used for self hypothesis if you wish to review it.
Vararam
You have absolutely no reason to believe this rule exists except that it props up your belief in the paranormal.
Actually one of my big interests is the psychology of ghost phenomena. In quite a few cases actions taken by the phenomena show a striking intelligence malevolence. I mean if you can drag a 150 pound hutch and a 50 pound sofa with no problem why not pound the family to pulp? Injury does happen but it is incredibly rare even in the most violent of cases. But as I said this is just a opinion and personal theory based on a pattern I see.
WhiteShepherd
-
... I think the public and much of the scientific community at large has a bias to assumption that such recordings do not exist due to reported sympton and sensationalism in modern movies. ...
If the scientific community is "biased" on this, it's probably because 1) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and 2) evidence of ghost phenomena tends to be pseudo-science. Recordings generally fail in one or both of these categories.
You have absolutely no reason to believe this rule exists except that it props up your belief in the paranormal.
Actually one of my big interests is the psychology of ghost phenomena. ...
Just to make sure it's clear, I was not saying you have no reason to believe in ghost phenomena. I was specifically referring to your idea of them having a rule not to interfere with the living. The existence of this rule is completely speculation, and I was simply pointing out the danger in relying on speculation as though it was something more than it is.
To quote one of my favorite lines from Sherlock Holmes:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
-
Just to make sure it's clear, I was not saying you have no reason to believe in ghost phenomena. I was specifically referring to your idea of them having a rule not to interfere with the living. The existence of this rule is completely speculation, and I was simply pointing out the danger in relying on speculation as though it was something more than it is.
To quote one of my favorite lines from Sherlock Holmes:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
I have to disagree here considering the fact that the entire conversation up to this point is nothing but speculation. To get to the theory that ghosts can't hurt people as a rule, you have to spoeculate that ghosts exist. No matter what I've seen and what I believe, there is no definite answer that ghosts really exist. It's all speculation along with life after death. In my opinion of course. I don't think any scientist has been able to prove it as a fact, therefore I still count all of this as only theory and to begin to question furhter events, such as whether ghosts can hurt people, you must first rely on a theory that ghosts even exist. This entire discussion requires one to lean on speculations and ideas that are not yet proven, so I don't see why the line should be drawn on putting trust into this rule that WhiteShepherd brought up.
-
I have to disagree here considering the fact that the entire conversation up to this point is nothing but speculation.
So the photos WS posted are purely speculation? I mean the photos themselves, not the explanations for them. How about his or other's personal experiences? And what of those, myself included, that say we've seen no evidence to support the existence of souls or ghosts, is that only speculation? It's true that there is a lot of speculation in this thread, but it's far from "nothing but".
Furthermore, speculation itself is not bad, so long as it is recognized as such. The reason I singled out that particular line is because he stated this as though he believes this to be true. So I was merely warning that it's dangerous to accept something that is completely and entirely pure speculation as a belief.
-
I think the only way anyone could really settle this would be if a ghost went on national tv, in front of thousands of people and went "Here I am!" then did tricks to prove it was something supernatural. I know it may sound way overboard, but all these individual sightings are too easily dismissed as camera tricks/glares, and nothing that really eliminates doubt. If any of these pictures that have came out that truely was of an actual ghost, it wouldn't get much credibility just because it can be so easily dismissed as a lens flare.
-
I have to disagree here considering the fact that the entire conversation up to this point is nothing but speculation.
So the photos WS posted are purely speculation? I mean the photos themselves, not the explanations for them. How about his or other's personal experiences? And what of those, myself included, that say we've seen no evidence to support the existence of souls or ghosts, is that only speculation? It's true that there is a lot of speculation in this thread, but it's far from "nothing but".
Furthermore, speculation itself is not bad, so long as it is recognized as such. The reason I singled out that particular line is because he stated this as though he believes this to be true. So I was merely warning that it's dangerous to accept something that is completely and entirely pure speculation as a belief.
Yes, the photos he posted are pure speculation and the videos. If they weren't speculation then they would be making headline news as being the first real, solid proof of ghosts existing. In my opinion it all still is 'nothing but' speculation.
And the rest of this debate is leading way too off of the point of this post. I could get into a very lengthy discussion about belief, faith and speculation all wrapped into one, but it would prove pointless right now. So I'm just going to say that I think we both have our different ideas and leave it at that.
I think the only way anyone could really settle this would be if a ghost went on national tv, in front of thousands of people and went "Here I am!" then did tricks to prove it was something supernatural. I know it may sound way overboard, but all these individual sightings are too easily dismissed as camera tricks/glares, and nothing that really eliminates doubt. If any of these pictures that have came out that truely was of an actual ghost, it wouldn't get much credibility just because it can be so easily dismissed as a lens flare.
Exactly. That's why I still say this entire discussion is speculation even though I personally do believe in life after death and ghosts. I just have to say that I don't think any concrete proof has been given yet. If it was concrete enough there would be no arguments like the ones in these threads and it would end up on the news or some such thing.
-
Yes, the photos he posted are pure speculation and the videos. If they weren't speculation then they would be making headline news as being the first real, solid proof of ghosts existing. In my opinion it all still is 'nothing but' speculation.
I think is missed what I was saying. PM'd since the explanation strays off topic.
-
Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.
Although... I have had some spiritual encounters in the past. The story is a little long to explain, but I have been convinced that spirits can be witnessed on earth.
This isn't really an easily proven/disproven subject, therefore I'd rather throw my opinion in without attempting to debate the impossible. :P
-
Whether or not we can capture it with our senses (smell, touch, hearing) is under question but unlike the physical methods mentioned above, it is certainly possible that due to some "soul" element potentially existing within us as we life that we may capture traces of these "spirit" elements using not our eyes or ears, but actually our own souls, our own "spiritual" elements.
Everything we percieve is a direct result of it reacting to one of our senses, if we are dead we have no senses and therefore cannot detect any afterlife.
The truth is no one, not even scientists can prove something absolutely, but the reason science works is because scientists accept this fact and attempt to prove thing beyond all reasonable doubt. It is unreasonable to believe in something for which there is no evidence (alternate planes of existence, an afterlife, etc) and merely saying "well you can't disprove it, so I believe it" is illogical and infering the Burden of Proof fallacy.
Heh, kinda stole Tachyon's method of highlighting points of importance ^^;
-
Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.
What makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?
If your idea is some attempt to be fair to everyone, sorry but this is still a completely unfair system. It specifically rewards those with grand selfish delusions, and punishes those that look at the world rationally. If you don't believe without evidence, you get nothing. But if you believe, say, that you'll get 72 virgins when you die, kinda sucks for the virgins.
-
Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.
What makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?
If your idea is some attempt to be fair to everyone, sorry but this is still a completely unfair system. It specifically rewards those with grand selfish delusions, and punishes those that look at the world rationally. If you don't believe without evidence, you get nothing. But if you believe, say, that you'll get 72 virgins when you die, kinda sucks for the virgins.
A delusion is exactly what it is, though. It is not like those virgins are existing in anything but the persons idea of an afterlife. It is almost like being trapped in a dream for eternity, without realizing it. Though the idea may not seem fair to you, it rewards anyone who has thought they were doing the right thing.
-
Personally, I believe whatever you think happens to you after death is indeed what will happen to you after death. It seems to be the only way to keep everyone satisfied without agreeing with any particular set of beliefs. Some people may wish for reincarnation, a life in a heaven, or to come back as a spirit. It all depends on the individual.
What makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?
If your idea is some attempt to be fair to everyone, sorry but this is still a completely unfair system. It specifically rewards those with grand selfish delusions, and punishes those that look at the world rationally. If you don't believe without evidence, you get nothing. But if you believe, say, that you'll get 72 virgins when you die, kinda sucks for the virgins.
A delusion is exactly what it is, though. It is not like those virgins are existing in anything but the persons idea of an afterlife. It is almost like being trapped in a dream for eternity, without realizing it. Though the idea may not seem fair to you, it rewards anyone who has thought they were doing the right thing.
A delusion is/can be harmful to the person/those around them.
-
A delusion is exactly what it is, though. It is not like those virgins are existing in anything but the persons idea of an afterlife. It is almost like being trapped in a dream for eternity, without realizing it. Though the idea may not seem fair to you, it rewards anyone who has thought they were doing the right thing.
So the afterlife is fake? And all afterlifes are fake? I don't quite understand what you're saying.
And again, what makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?
-
So the afterlife is fake? And all afterlifes are fake? I don't quite understand what you're saying.
And again, what makes you think that keeping everyone satisfied has anything to do with it?
The after life isn't fake, and there is no way of telling if it is fake. Other people are not influenced by your idea of life after death, unless in the care of reincarnation, where you will be thrown back into the pot of life.
I believe keeping everyone satisfied plays a big role because no god or goddess would deny another paradise because he or she grew up in the wrong family. Like it or not, the general person follows the religion their parents set up for them. Take for example, the Christian god: I could never believe that a loving god would send a person to suffer forever because they grew up in an isolated village without any knowledge of Christianity. However, this is exactly what the local Baptist church is saying will happen. I'd much rather follow a system where everyone wins, so long as they truely feel they are doing the right thing.
-
So we each have our own reality after death? What evidence is there of this? If that's true why do we share one reality now? Or do you not believe that we share one reality?
Everyone wins may sound nice, but that doesn't mean it's true. Plus your system still isn't everyone wins because it still unfairly punishes those that don't believe in any afterlife. For example, I believe that when you die that's it. Sorry, but all the evidence points to us being a product of the functioning of our brains. When the brain stops working, that person's individual personality will cease to exist. According to what you said, since I believe this, it's true for me. How is this win? Do you think I WANT to cease to exist? No! But like it or not that's what the evidence points to. So I should be punished for going with the evidence?
-
So we each have our own reality after death? What evidence is there of this?
Yes, and what evidence is there of any afterlife?
If that's true why do we share one reality now? Or do you not believe that we share one reality?
There is a specific name for believing you are the only entity in existence, and everything is a byproduct of your imagination, but I can't seem to recall it. Honestly, I am lead to think there is only one reality, but there really is no way of knowing.
Everyone wins may sound nice, but that doesn't mean it's true. Plus your system still isn't everyone wins because it still unfairly punishes those that don't believe in any afterlife. For example, I believe that when you die that's it.
How do you think you are being punished? You get what you believe. Even in the end, there would be no way of knowing which religious belief was correct. I don't see how believing everyone gets their own ending makes it any different from what anyone currently believes. You plan for nothing, you get nothing. You plan for reincarnation, you get reincarnation. No surprises, no catches. This seems the most fair out of any belief of an afterlife.
Sorry, but all the evidence points to us being a product of the functioning of our brains. When the brain stops working, that person's individual personality will cease to exist. According to what you said, since I believe this, it's true for me. How is this win? Do you think I WANT to cease to exist? No! But like it or not that's what the evidence points to. So I should be punished for going with the evidence?
Being a conscious entity, I cannot imagine not existing. Try as hard as you can to think of not being, and I doubt you can. Because I cannot imagine it, I refuse to believe it. Although, even if I was pushed from existence, would I even care? Could I even care? No, because I wouldn't exist. No scientific evidence can explain why you specifically are living, just as no scientific evidence can prove or disprove the fate of your consciousness.
-
Dude, it is punishment because you're saying I don't get an eternal afterlife whether I'd want it or not simply because I'm not willing to delude myself into believing in it without evidence. If you can't see that as punishment, surely you can see how your system rewards those with grand selfish delusions of what the afterlife will be. What is a delusion except a strongly held false belief. Under your system, that's all it'd take. I'm sorry, but I can't see how you could possibly think that's fair.
And if you are willing to except that things are not fair, then there is no reason for your system that is completely unsupported by evidence.
-
I do side with Vararam on individual afterlives. I actually find the idea behind the argument for them to be ironic. Based on everything we know, things either are or are not. I.E. I'm either here or I'm not. I'm not here to one person and non-existant to someone else standing next to me. Logic dictates that since we don't have any way to even really guess about the afterlife, then we should consider it the same as we look into other things that could indicate what, if anything, awaits us. I will agree to a possibility of an individual afterlifes in the sense that if you get to heaven you can choose what that heaven will be for you. For some, they may choose to reside in a huge mansion with an olympic sized swimming pool. Others may prefer to reside in a forrested setting and a log cabin. But these would not be different realities (assuming this is the case). It would be one "heaven", just designed seperately for each individual. If you play Second Life a lot, then this concept should already be somewhat familiar, as each resident can own land and make his own ideal "second home".
-
I will agree to a possibility of an individual afterlifes in the sense that if you get to heaven you can choose what that heaven will be for you. For some, they may choose to reside in a huge mansion with an olympic sized swimming pool. Others may prefer to reside in a forrested setting and a log cabin. But these would not be different realities (assuming this is the case). It would be one "heaven", just designed seperately for each individual. If you play Second Life a lot, then this concept should already be somewhat familiar, as each resident can own land and make his own ideal "second home".
This sounds far more plausible. Like maybe life is like a video game, and when you die, game over and you start a new game. Maybe this one again, maybe another. Things like this I can accept as possibilities. Unlikely, but at least possible.
-
Dude, it is punishment because you're saying I don't get an eternal afterlife whether I'd want it or not simply because I'm not willing to delude myself into believing in it without evidence. If you can't see that as punishment, surely you can see how your system rewards those with grand selfish delusions of what the afterlife will be. What is a delusion except a strongly held false belief. Under your system, that's all it'd take. I'm sorry, but I can't see how you could possibly think that's fair.
And if you are willing to except that things are not fair, then there is no reason for your system that is completely unsupported by evidence.
If you are not willing to believe in something, how will you be disappointed if you don't get it? And once again, there is nothing proving or disproving anything about an afterlife. According to Christian religion, you won't even get an afterlife if you don't follow them, so compared to that my views seem quite fair.
This thread (I assume) was meant for personal opinions. It's not like I can pull out an article to show you who is right and who isn't.
-
An interesting article;
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Technology/Story?id=894217&page=1
personally as stated before I think I will be reborn once I die.
-
If you are not willing to believe in something, how will you be disappointed if you don't get it?
So you're saying because I don't know that I'm missing out, that makes it fair? Honestly, that's not even the worst part about this system. The worst part is that it rewards delusion. Under the system you describe, never mind trying to find what's really true, instead just believe the most crazy selfish things you can think of no matter how unfounded, because in the end it'll be true for you.
I have to ask: Why should a person get the afterlife they believe in? What is the basis for this belief? If it is simply that you think it should be fair, then why? Why does it need to be fair?
-
I have to ask: Why should a person get the afterlife they believe in? What is the basis for this belief? If it is simply that you think it should be fair, then why? Why does it need to be fair?
A person should get the afterlife they believe in because if there is only one afterlife, billions of people would be left disappointed. I cannot simply believe that any loving god or goddess would leave so many people out in the cold, therefore I adopted a system where everyone gets exactly what they expect.
-
A person should get the afterlife they believe in because if there is only one afterlife, billions of people would be left disappointed. I cannot simply believe that any loving god or goddess would leave so many people out in the cold, therefore I adopted a system where everyone gets exactly what they expect.
So then why not get rid of the afterlife all together. No afterlife, you can't be disappointed right?
Also, you still haven't addressed the problem of those with grand selfish delusions. Do you really think if there is some loving god or goddess that he/she/it would want people to be delusional? Can you actually call wanting someone to be delusional "loving"?
[edited to correct spelling error]
-
I remember seeing a movie or something a long time ago that hinted that a soul in the afterlife is a knowing being about any/all past lives and why they are about to be born into the real world. But once born, the person getting the soul wouldn't know anything of the afterlife as if the soul's memory was erased until it leaves the body in death. If something like that were true, then there could be only one type of afterlife that our souls accept and like, even though in the land of the living we fantasize about it in different ways. Selfish delusions or just trying to be fair aside, in the end it may not matter and we could all be in for a shock. You can believe in what you want to believe in but since there's no proof, you have to at least leave some room in your belief that you could actually be wrong. And if you want to have your beliefs tolerated, you have to return the favor to others because they have just as much chance of being right or wrong as you.
-
... And if you want to have your beliefs tolerated, you have to return the favor to others because they have just as much chance of being right or wrong as you.
Sorry, but that statement it completely wrong. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean all possibilities are equally likely.
However, I do agree that we should all acknowledge the possibility we could be wrong.
-
So then why not get rid of the afterlife all together. No afterlife, you can't be disappointed right?
Also, you still haven't addressed the problem of those with grand selfish delusions. Do you really think if there is some loving god or goddess that he/she/it would want people to be delusional? Can you actually call wanting someone to be delusional "loving"?
You can get rid of afterlife, but that is not what I believe. I already said that I have trouble accepting that my being will no longer exist, some time. If anything other than this, I'd follow reincarnation, but this debate has nothing to do with that.
I believe that we have the power to choose our own fates, from our time on Earth to whatever afterlife there is. Should your fate be considered a delusion, or your personal reality? It is difficult to break the concept that their is only one reality, because in this life, that is true. To fully understand what I believe, you need to accept there being more than one truth, instead of a collection of delusions. I use the term "dream" to describe this because it is the closest word there is.
-
... And if you want to have your beliefs tolerated, you have to return the favor to others because they have just as much chance of being right or wrong as you.
Sorry, but that statement it completely wrong. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean all possibilities are equally likely.
However, I do agree that we should all acknowledge the possibility we could be wrong.
That's not what I said....or at least not what I meant. It's like schrodinger's cat. You don't know if he's alive or dead unless you open the box. Since we have no way to tell if any afterlife exists or which it may be, then we can't say any one is 100% right. We also can't say any one is 100% wrong.
The last part of your statement was the point I was aiming for, though.
-
YI already said that I have trouble accepting that my being will no longer exist, some time. If anything other than this, I'd follow reincarnation, but this debate has nothing to do with that.
And what of our existence before this life? How do you explain that?
To fully understand what I believe, you need to accept there being more than one truth, instead of a collection of delusions.
And how do you distinguish between a delusion and an alternate truth?
That's not what I said....or at least not what I meant. It's like schrodinger's cat. You don't know if he's alive or dead unless you open the box. Since we have no way to tell if any afterlife exists or which it may be, then we can't say any one is 100% right. We also can't say any one is 100% wrong.
The last part of your statement was the point I was aiming for, though.
It was the "just as much chance" part I was disagreeing with. That may not be what you meant, but you did say it. And um... I hate to sound like I'm nit-picking, but that's not what schrodinger's cat is about. Though unfortunately I can't really explain it here without going way off topic. So... look it up.
I agree that we can't say anyone is 100% right; but you really can't know anything with a 100% certainty. But as for not being able to say if someone is 100% wrong, I disagree. If someone's idea is based on a logical contradiction, then you can know it's completely wrong without knowing anything at all about what's actually correct. (note to Traumerei: that was not aimed at you.)
Further, the more assumptions one must make to establish their idea, the greater the likelihood that it is incorrect. So instead of making assumptions, one should be willing to accept that they don't know. This is something a lot of people seem to have a really hard time with, particularly when it comes to what happens after we die.
-
And what of our existence before this life? How do you explain that?
I believe in the soul. New ones can be created to compensate for those which leave to whatever afterlife, and reincarnation is the process of souls periodically exchanging places in the universe. As an example, you could die this day and be reincarnated as a raven, or some creature on another planet.
And how do you distinguish between a delusion and an alternate truth?
One is in your head, and the other is reality. Although, it is a reality only you will bear witness to.
-
I believe in the soul. New ones can be created to compensate for those which leave to whatever afterlife, and reincarnation is the process of souls periodically exchanging places in the universe. As an example, you could die this day and be reincarnated as a raven, or some creature on another planet.
New souls can be created? Was your soul created?
And how do you distinguish between a delusion and an alternate truth?
One is in your head, and the other is reality. Although, it is a reality only you will bear witness to.
If we each have our own reality, and that reality is based on our individual beliefs, then there is no difference between reality and delusion. And you haven't answered the question.
-
Is there life after death?
I'd sure like to hope so. ;) If there is no afterlife, then why were we created? What is our purpose?
But frankly, we'll never really know if there's an afterlife until we die. There is no scientific proof that says there is an afterlife. How do you even begin to try and prove the existence of an afterlife? Well, you could try to prove it by building a device that records a person's thoughts and experiences like in the movie "Brainstorm". :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_(1983_film)
Vararam: No offense, but you seem to be taking this entire topic way seriously? What exactly is it you're trying to ask or prove or get at?
-
New souls can be created? Was your soul created?
Every soul was created, I believe. There was a time when this universe was completely void of life, and there are scientific theories behind that.
If we each have our own reality, and that reality is based on our individual beliefs, then there is no difference between reality and delusion. And you haven't answered the question.
There is in fact a difference, but that can only be judged by others who are not involved, or yourself if said delusion ceases. From a mental point of view, there would be no distinguishable difference between a delusion and reality, if what you are seeing never ceases. Your life could be a delusion, for all you know.
-
You know, you sound like you're discussing what you want to happen more than what you actually think will happen.
-
Every soul was created, I believe. There was a time when this universe was completely void of life, and there are scientific theories behind that.
You accept that we at one time did not exist, thus non-existence is possible. But yet you won't except that we might return to non-existence. Perhaps because of some loving god or goddess (which there is no evidence for) that would not allow this.... except that this same "loving" god or goddess would be perfectly fine with allowing rational thinkers such as myself to cease to exist. You say it's fare because I'd never know, but then the same could be said for letting everyone cease to exist after they die: they'll never know the difference.
There is in fact a difference, but that can only be judged by others who are not involved, or yourself if said delusion ceases. From a mental point of view, there would be no distinguishable difference between a delusion and reality, if what you are seeing never ceases. Your life could be a delusion, for all you know.
A delusion is a belief (especially one strongly held) that does not match reality. If the afterlife is entirely based on the individuals beliefs then that must also apply to delusions (as they are also beliefs). If you are going to make exceptions, then your system becomes meaningless. Then what you are saying becomes: Those that believe something that's actually going to happen are correct. Those that are wrong, are wrong.
So, no offense Traumerei, but it's obvious that you haven't thought that idea through completely.
Vararam: No offense, but you seem to be taking this entire topic way seriously? What exactly is it you're trying to ask or prove or get at? You don't seem to be satisfied with anything that anybody is saying?
Too serious? Not at all. Just because I promote critically thinking about things doesn't mean I take it too serious. Critical thinking is FUN! I enjoy taking ideas to their logical conclusions. So when someone presents an idea that just doesn't add up, I'm gonna say something about it. And I'm also going to point out when someone says something that's plainly incorrect. The idea is to promote critical thinking. It's a skill EVERYONE should have.
-
You accept that we at one time did not exist, thus non-existence is possible. But yet you won't except that we might return to non-existence. Perhaps because of some loving god or goddess (which there is no evidence for) that would not allow this.... except that this same "loving" god or goddess would be perfectly fine with allowing rational thinkers such as myself to cease to exist. You say it's fare because I'd never know, but then the same could be said for letting everyone cease to exist after they die: they'll never know the difference.
I do not accept myself someday not existing because I find it impossible to imagine myself not being. Although, if that fate ever occurs I won't be able to have an opinion towards it, due to me not existing. The same would happen to you in my set of beliefs.
A delusion is a belief (especially one strongly held) that does not match reality. If the afterlife is entirely based on the individuals beliefs then that must also apply to delusions (as they are also beliefs). If you are going to make exceptions, then your system becomes meaningless. Then what you are saying becomes: Those that believe something that's actually going to happen are correct. Those that are wrong, are wrong.
So, no offense Traumerei, but it's obvious that you haven't thought that idea through completely.
I believe that you are failing to wrap your mind around my idea. When did I ever say that your afterlife is a delusion? After death, I said you are given the afterlife of your choosing, however any other individuals involved in your specific afterlife could be thought of as empty casings, and not the souls of the individuals you perceive them to be. This would not be in your mind, therefore it is not a delusion.
And I don't understand why you're making it sound like I'm against you... If you believe nothing is going to happen to you after death, and I believe I'll be reincarnated, how will either of us lose, in the end? You get what you expect, and I get what I expect.
-
I do not accept myself someday not existing because I find it impossible to imagine myself not being.
That's not true because you do imagine yourself not being: you said your soul was created. You are just making some special case for the future. Regardless, whether or not you can imagine something has no baring on whether or not it's actually true.
I believe that you are failing to wrap your mind around my idea. When did I ever say that your afterlife is a delusion?
Apparently you don't understand the problem I was pointing out. I didn't say the afterlife under your system would have to be a delusion, but that delusion would have to be just as acceptable of a basis as non-delusion since both are belief. You said that whatever you believe is what you will get. Not what you want, but what you believe. If you had said want, I'd still disagree with you since it lacks evidence, but at least it'd be logically consistent.
But you specifically said believe, and belief has no direct connection to reality; someone can believe something that isn't true just as easily as they can belief something that is. I'm pretty sure you agree with me on this point as you've stated almost the same thing. So when you say "whatever you believe is what you'll get", that means your beliefs cannot possibly be incorrect because whatever they may be, you'll get it. Therefore there would be no difference between delusion and reality as far as the afterlife is concerned.
And I don't understand why you're making it sound like I'm against you... If you believe nothing is going to happen to you after death, and I believe I'll be reincarnated, how will either of us lose, in the end? You get what you expect, and I get what I expect.
Imagine if someone believed they were going to get eternal torment after they die. Under your system they'll get what they expect, therefore they don't lose, right?
-
That's not true because you do imagine yourself not being: you said your soul was created. You are just making some special case for the future. Regardless, whether or not you can imagine something has no baring on whether or not it's actually true.
To be honest, I can't imagine myself not being in either case, but science says there was a beginning to everything so I just go with it. And the same questions of belief can apply to your philosophy, or any for that matter. I never said I'm right, I only believe I'm right. Actually, I look at my religion as more of a theory than anything else. This isn't something I feel very passionately about, at all.
Apparently you don't understand the problem I was pointing out. I didn't say the afterlife under your system would have to be a delusion, but that delusion would have to be just as acceptable of a basis as non-delusion since both are belief. You said that whatever you believe is what you will get. Not what you want, but what you believe. If you had said want, I'd still disagree with you since it lacks evidence, but at least it'd be logically consistent.
But you specifically said believe, and belief has no direct connection to reality; someone can believe something that isn't true just as easily as they can belief something that is. I'm pretty sure you agree with me on this point as you've stated almost the same thing. So when you say "whatever you believe is what you'll get", that means your beliefs cannot possibly be incorrect because whatever they may be, you'll get it. Therefore there would be no difference between delusion and reality as far as the afterlife is concerned.
If I had said "want" instead of "believe", this wouldn't be a fair system at all. Everyone wants what is best for them, but what they believe tends to be more in tune with what they deserve, or at the very most expect.
Imagine if someone believed they were going to get eternal torment after they die. Under your system they'll get what they expect, therefore they don't lose, right?
They didn't lose, because they expected it. And honestly, they must have been living one terrible life to think such of themselves.
-
To be honest, I can't imagine myself not being in either case, but science says there was a beginning to everything so I just go with it. And the same questions of belief can apply to your philosophy, or any for that matter.
The same questions of belief can apply to your philosophy? What questions are you referring to? I'm not sure what you mean.
If I had said "want" instead of "believe", this wouldn't be a fair system at all. Everyone wants what is best for them, but what they believe tends to be more in tune with what they deserve, or at the very most expect.
If it's based on what someone believes it's no more fair than if it were based on what they want. In fact, I'd say it's less fair being based on belief. Some people are a hell of a lot more self-centered then others. These people are not only likely to want better things for themselves, but also to believe that they are more deserving of such things. If the idea is for people to get an afterlife they deserve, then why not just say that and leave the "believe" stuff out of it.
They didn't lose, because they expected it. And honestly, they must have been living one terrible life to think such of themselves.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that they might believe this because someone else feeding them this idea from a very early age. In case you are not aware, most people we think of as being absolutely horrible people, like mass murders and such, they usually see themselves and perfectly good. For example, a lot of evil has been done in the name of religion, and in these cases they always think they are in the right. Whether somebody expects something or not has no baring whether they deserve it or not.
I find it very strange that you think that getting what you expect automatically makes it fair. It doesn't. If you expect someone is going to rob you, it doesn't make it any more fair when they actually do it. The two things are not linked.
-
The same questions of belief can apply to your philosophy? What questions are you referring to? I'm not sure what you mean.
It means that you can ask yourself the same question, in regards to your religious beliefs.
If it's based on what someone believes it's no more fair than if it were based on what they want. In fact, I'd say it's less fair being based on belief. Some people are a hell of a lot more self-centered then others. These people are not only likely to want better things for themselves, but also to believe that they are more deserving of such things. If the idea is for people to get an afterlife they deserve, then why not just say that and leave the "believe" stuff out of it.
Unless people are mentally twisted, they should be able to understand what will land them in hell or equivalent. Personally, I don't think anyone deserves an afterlife of suffering, but if they expect it then they must have good reason to. And, I don't believe anyone should be the judge of what people end up with after death. Their true opinions of themselves and what they think is right should guide them.
Right. It couldn't possibly be that they might believe this because someone else feeding them this idea from a very early age. In case you are not aware, most people we think of as being absolutely horrible people, like mass murders and such, they usually see themselves and perfectly good. For example, a lot of evil has been done in the name of religion, and in these cases they always think they are in the right. Whether somebody expects something or not has no baring whether they deserve it or not.
Who are you to say what another person deserves, though? If someone ends up doing something extreme in the name of their religion, yet they believed they were doing the greater good, was it really an act of evil? The only person who can determine their true intentions is themselves, and that is why I feel they should ultimately determine their afterlife.
I find it very strange that you think that getting what you expect automatically makes it fair. It doesn't. If you expect someone is going to rob you, it doesn't make it any more fair when they actually do it. The two things are not linked.
If you expect someone to rob you, it makes the most sense to get out of harms way. If you think you are going to suffer in an afterlife for who you are, should you not make an attempt to turn your life around?
-
Traumerei: you know, it seems like you are just dodging my questions now. First, I asked for clarification and you respond by just repeating the same thing. Second, you try to dodge with the phase "mentally twisted" which is really just another name for the delusional which I already shown doesn't avoid the issue. Third, you accuse me of judging people when I was using the word "deserves" only because you did. Fourth, the analogy of expecting to get robbed was an illustration to show that expecting something bad doesn't make that bad thing any less unfair. And your response to it was a deliberate dodge.
It's quite clear that we aren't going to get anywhere, and I stand by my statement that the afterlife system you claim to believe is not only logically unsound, but also without basis. (it's clearly unfair, and yet you list fairness as the reason for it)
-
I'm not dodging your questions. Present them in a clear fashion
Traumerei: you know, it seems like you are just dodging my questions now. First, I asked for clarification and you respond by just repeating the same thing. Second, you try to dodge with the phase "mentally twisted" which is really just another name for the delusional which I already shown doesn't avoid the issue. Third, you accuse me of judging people when I was using the word "deserves" only because you did. Fourth, the analogy of expecting to get robbed was an illustration to show that expecting something bad doesn't make that bad thing any less unfair. And your response to it was a deliberate dodge.
It's quite clear that we aren't going to get anywhere, and I stand by my statement that the afterlife system you claim to believe is not only logically unsound, but also without basis. (it's clearly unfair, and yet you list fairness as the reason for it)
This would be a lot easier if there was something I could say to convince you my system is fair, yet you seem dead set on proving me wrong. Obviously, what you think is fair and what I think is fair are two incredibly different things.
1) I misunderstood you're question, I was responding to "Regardless, whether or not you can imagine something has no baring on whether or not it's actually true."
2) "Mentally twisted" was going for insane, rather than delusional.
3) The center of your argument has been what is "fair" and what people deserve, or do not deserve.
4) And I pointed out that if you know you are heading down a bad path, you usually have room to correct it.
-
Edit: I agree with the others that this arguement has gone on long enough so I've removed this post.
-
Too serious? Not at all. Just because I promote critically thinking about things doesn't mean I take it too serious.
Indeed, it does not. However, what you are doing now is "taking it too serious." You seem to have a strong interest in beating dead horses, which explains why virtually everyone else has dropped out of this thread.
-
No offence, but that's kinda why I dropped out as well. I suspected that Vararam and I are mostly in agreement, the challenge was on my analogies and figured no point in going on about something trivial.
-
As I said, I don't see much point in continuing. I'll happily drop it. Takes the fun out of a debate when your "opponent" refuses to address your points and instead just dodges and tries to shift the focus. I guess I'm just not very good in finding a graceful way to end the conversation. For that I apologize.
-
I've been addressing your points. Perhaps you've just failed to comprehend what I was saying.
Anyway, it has gone on long enough. We weren't getting anywhere, and I'd refuse to make this any less civil.
-
Other people may have stopped posting in this thread, but I guess I'll add my .02 cents.
I'm afraid of dieing because I don't know if there is a soul and if there's a Heaven and a Hell and so forth. If we don't have souls, then what? But I think the thing that scares me the most is how the Bible or people will say your soul lives forever/eternity or something of that sort. Well, I watched a science program long, long ago about how the universe would end trillions and trillions and trillions of years from now. According to that program, everything in the universe will end or dissipate or dissolve, etc., etc., etc. until there is nothing left but a empty black void. :o If that's the case, then how can a soul live forever? Certainly a soul would cease to exist once the universe ends, right? And if a Heaven or Hell does exist, then certainly that would cease to exist as well?
-
I wanted to point out that the end of the universe doesn't happen. The closest outcome there is would be the "big crunch", which reboots the universe. However, that void that kobuk mentioned isn't really a void: it has energy and matter spread throughout it, however it's not matter in the sense we know it. Life could live on, but not life as we know it.
I felt it was almost appropriate that this thread surfaced, with having a death in my life just now.
No, I would not say I'm emotionally involved in fighting my point, the only emotion is grief for a loss. Nothing that would interfere with my civility or maturity or behavior, and it is thus allowable. I fully respect the rights of others to think as they wish to think.
From my experience, we all strive to see ourselves as meaningful, as something in this space-time continuum. With the deaths of loved ones, it's almost as if we could create a life for them through the construction of an afterlife.
I've though ever so heavily about this since I was 5, the age at which I'd say I had my first great awakening, when I was truly born and forged as who I am today.
Now for my actual explanation into what I think.
----------------------------------
Here is an extremely simplified and abbreviated version of what I think:
You, your awareness of self, this is what you could call a soul - this is who you are. It is the summation of all data and processes that you have access to, in this case all the memories and though processes you experience in your brain. The entire universe is composed of data and processes, virtually all of which are outside your awareness - you might not 'see' them, but you can interact with them. My lamp is On. My computer is ON. My harddrive is plugged in. There are buttons being pushed on my keyboard. Each little event, each little status of anything and everything is a form of data and processes. We're like little bubbles in the air: each contained individually, unable to interact with the outside universe or the contents of other bubbles, but we're still made of the same stuff as the outside atmosphere. We're like the neurons of a brain: able to detect and control what's going on within us and sense and interact with our neighbors (thus directing them indirectly, such as talking to someone to tell them to do something), however, we arn't aware of the actual brain we compose. Such as you can't 'see' the 'mind' of the universe - similarily, this 'mind' can't easily impact us in any direct manner. Just as you can't tell a neuron you want it to activate, and the neuron next to it to not.
Once the bubble pops, it releases the atmosphere within to the outside world. Likewise, your awareness itself would slip into the universe's 'mind'. You still leave an impact on the world though, the data and processes you interacted with during your life. This impression is what lives on, what conserves your data. If you choose to, you can make a lasting impact, you can have immortality as "you" and not simply slipping back into anonymity.
I do believe that someone is still alive if you can remember them. It may not be a complete or fully accurate semblance, but it is a piece of who they are, a bit of their impact on the world. Information and data as to who and what they were. And if you can find every bit, you just might be able to rebuild them.
I have personally confronted what death means to me. My only fear is to die before I have completed my goal, and thus, in a way, I do very much fear death. Not what lies beyond, I have come to terms with that. It's the fact that I need to make the most of this life, to make some sort of positive impact that lives, on and carries a piece of who I was. I have no wish to be lost into nothingness, and thus I must make of large of an impact as I can.
And as new bubbles form, all of us will be back within them. We ourselves are really part of that greater mind, and in a sense, we could be described as one and many. It is that mind which must live on in the end, and if we can improve the world, perhaps one day we can build a heaven. We are all bound to return, and thus we should make the world as nice of a place as we can for ourselves.
-----------------------------------
Thus for me, it is important to me that I confront deaths immediately in order to remember who a person was, and to store that.
"From my experience, we all strive to see ourselves as meaningful, as something in this space-time continuum. With the deaths of loved ones, it's almost as if we could create a life for them through the construction of an afterlife."
This is my way of giving them a bit of that afterlife.
-----------------------------------
My beliefs are simply what I think, based upon my experiences and knowledge I have available to me at this point. What others believe is up to them, and I fully respect their right to that.
-
...