What happens when we die?

[johnny-boy]

"Maybe you should both agree on this: we don't know jack" - Henrah

Exactly what I stated Henrah.
"Since no one knows what happens after death, we have a choice to believe in the positive or the negative. You can either believe in life after death or that we just rot away never to exist again. One’s “sense of life” determines one’s outlook"

Best, John

[semme]

If you want to prove nothing you do not need to prove anything so that means no proof is needed.

thats nonsense. you cant use the word nothing with the word nothing. if you want to prove that there is no table in a closed room you cant look into, which means that there is nothing, you have to show us that there is no table, which means, you have to prove/show that there is nothing. understand? your statement makes no sense.


well, i rather believe in a god, than of a world was randomly built, by chance. especially if the chance is as low as an ape cruising through a turkish market that finds a typewriter and writes goethes faust.

[henrah]

Ah so that's who wrote Faust!! I've been wondering about that for ages, thanks for randomly clearing that up. What a great example of the chance you were talking about

Btw, who said/wrote the quote in your signature Semme? Was it yourself?
Henrah

[prometheus]

Prometheus, surely your statement about buddhism will make every buddhist lose faith in their religion, thus not being a buddhist any more? So they made their own downfall really.
Henrah

Do you know what buddhism is? Buddhism isn't a religion.

Semme, you cannot disprove a theory. 'Everyone' knows this.

And about your other comments. One says that you only accept that what you want to believe. Fine. But the other alludes to an often used fallacy about the theory of darwinistic evolution. That is not pretty.

And, if we 'know jack' we know jack. We can't just superimpose that what we like in the gap. Well, you can but that is pure delusion. If you need delusions to feel happy you will never feel happy.

And about not standing in someones sunshine. I don't talk about religion with those that are not willing. Not out of respect but out of the danger that one may lose ones religion because of my comments. But I post this on a forum so people that do not want to read don't have to. It is not an issue.

I really don't see how I have to think for myself. I mean, that's what I do. If you look at all my comments and opinions here you will see not many are mainstream. My comment was one of irony since 'someone' recently called me too absorbed with my own opinion.

Actually, it is kind of strange to tell an atheist to think for himself because he is an atheist. I mean, atheism is an 'aborration of free thought'.
In the whole history of mankind they have peaked for a small period of time. Their number being almost two percent of the world population. And now the number is declining again. The reason for this strange incident in human history is not hard to see.

[henrah]

Oh, I was always under the pretence that buddhism was a religion. What exactly is it then? Is it a state of mind, or way of living perhaps?
Henrah

[prometheus]

Yes. Actually you have to believe in some axioma's. The core is this:

Life is suffering
Suffering is caused by attachment and desire.


This is the problem of live. Now buddhists want to end suffering. Now obviously one must get rid of attachments and desire to reach happiness. Buddhism presents the 'Noble Eightfold Path' wich was taught by Gautama Siddharta as a way to do this.

That's it. Being a buddhist means recognising this and believing that Siddharta's teachings are correct. Sure, one will have to have some faith but this is nothing like faith in god. It is like faith in capitalism or your friends. You don't need to prove that the faith you put in your friends is 'rational' before you decide it is the right thing to do.


The confusion probably comes from the fact that since buddhism doesn't answer many of the questions religion was meant to answer there is just as much room for a real religions as with any other kind of philosophy of life. So this means buddhists are also hindu, shinto, christian or whatever. You also see people 'worshipping buddha' but this is often a wrong observation. Buddha doesn't exist. Buddha is merely a symbol or titel. So in the cases people actually honor a buddha they often honor their teacher of ancestors. No worshipping of spiritual powers to gain their favor. Well, it probably does happen, I mean people like religion, but this has nothing to do with the core of buddhism.


Also, one should note about the noble eightfold path and other buddhist teachings that there may be tons of other ways to reach happiness also. Buddhism just represents one way. Also, buddhism doesn't teach you you have to become happy, become enlightened. Actually, since buddhism is grounded in hinduism reincarnation is often assosiated with it. This means you can die and live tons of more lives before you become enlightened. It is not a race or something.

The 'stupid' thing is that this means that buddhism is a way to end eternal life. It is a way to escape life, cheat life rather than cheat death, and become one with the universe. Nirvana is not an afterlife in the normal sense of the word. Actually it means 'extinction'. So it is much more similar to an atheist view of death than to that of a christian.

[johnny-boy]

https://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Buddhism

[semme]

Btw, who said/wrote the quote in your signature Semme? Was it yourself?
Henrah

to be honest, i dont remember from where i got it. i came across a forum once, where my signature came up somehow, but i already knew of it before got there.


@ prometheus.

hmm, i didnt know that you cant disprove a theory. arent there thousands of articles about disproving theories? i really dont get your point.

[prometheus]

I am sorry. For some reason I did not type what I meant to say. I am not sure why. I guess I was tired when I posted that message. So let me explain the whole point in depth.

You can only show that a theory is not in accordance with observation. When your theory isn't falsifable you cannot disprove it.

Also, if you want to refute something there has to be a theory. Otherwise there is nothing to refute since you cannot know if the theory is in accordance with reality.

Actually you cannot proof a theory. When a theory makes predictions that are in accordance with reality it doesn't mean the theory is the truth. It only means the theory works, at least up till that moment.

So getting back to what you said. You claim that one can prove when there is nothing, ie no chair. But since you can only refute a theory there has to be a theory. Without a theory that can be tested you don't have anything to do. The idea that there is nothing after death does not require a theory. One does not have to explain how a soul does not exist and how it does not ascend into heaven.

So what I wanted to say is that you cannot refute a theory that does not exist. One cannot prove souls do not exist. One can only refute a theory that claims they do. If there is no theory there is nothing to refute.

This is very different from observing an empty room. I guess this became even more confusing after my stupid mistake. But think about it. How can you observe nothing? Think about something you know does not exist. Say pink little elephants that turn invisible when you do not look. How do you disprove them? You can only disprove that you postulate. So one first has to explain what how these pink elephants fit into reality. Then you can make predictions and observations. I mean, how do they eat. How do they fit in with the rest of the world. Etc.

If the only part of the theory is that there are pink elephants that turn invisible when you look you can throw the theory away. It does not matter if they exist or not because they are irrelevant. They do not influence reality because they are invisible. There is no reason to assume they actually exist, eventhough they might.

So if there is a chair in my room that is invisible when I enter and which I can walk through without me noticing it then the chair is not part of my reality. Therefore from my  perspective it does not exist.

Do note that in both of these examples nothing is left unexplained.

I do not say god or heaven does not exist because they do not float in the glass in front of me. One does not go and look in every cup and pan to prove god or heaven are not there. Those people that claim god or heaven exist need to postulate a theory. If god and heaven do exist but it is impossible to proof then no one can say god and heaven exists without being irrational.

So I say that I do not know god does not exist. But I am not an agnost. I do not have to know god does not exist to assume she doesn't. I do not even say that god might exist. It is silly to say something might be true because we cannot be absolutely sure of the contrary.

[maul]

prometheus, are you 14 by chance?

[prometheus]

Hahaha... I remember your other comments.

[cfortunato]

Do you know what buddhism is? Buddhism isn't a religion.

Buddhism is not theistic.  However, most definitions of "religions" include Buddhism in the definition, because Buddhists usually think of it as a religion.  The term "religion" is difficult to define, and defined by those who claim to be its adherents.

[prometheus]

Yes, it is often coined as a religion but I do not think it is fair. It is a religion of no religion as Alan Watts put it.

[anekdote]

https://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Buddism is certainly a religion. And if you don't believe this, just take a look at a Buddist nation/culture. These people certainly live their lives religiously. Hence, buddism is a religion. It doesn't matter what the "principle" of the religion teaches, if its followers practice it as a religion, it's a religion and will always have an association as such.

[johnny-boy]

“Religion” is a philosophy based on the worship of God or the supernatural. This separates religion from other philosophies. So if “Buddhism” exists in the spiritual realm and belief in a higher being it would indeed be classified as religion.

From what I understand there are different types of Buddhism. I guess the philosophy has been altered through the years to fit the life styles of an array of people – much as the Catholic Church alters Christianity.

I choose to follow my God given conscience and common sense to guide me through life here on Earth. I’ll deal with the afterlife when the time comes.

As far as all the different philosophies and religions in the World; even the intellectuals and experts disagree fervently about them (and interpret them differently). It seems everyone thinks their faith is “the one”, but someone has to be wrong, if not everyone.

My advice:
Live a clean life. Don’t hurt anyone. Be honest. And don’t take anything you haven’t earned, unless it’s a gift from someone else that has earned it.

Signing off, John

[prometheus]

Buddhism may be spiritual, there is nothing supernatural about it. Also there is no point to worshipping in buddhism.

And I don't need a dictionary to tell me what buddhism is since I have read several books and followed several lectures by different people on the subject. There is absolutely nog god or anything divine at the core of buddhism. The fact that some people have religious rituals being part of how they work out buddhism has everything to do with their 'real religion'. Which is often hindu or shinto in the east. Reincarnation in buddhism is purely hinduism.

Also, buddhism doesn't think buddhism is 'the one' or better than something else. Actually the Daila Lama tells people in the west to become christian instead of buddhist.

[maul]

Hahaha... I remember your other comments.

Yes, the ones where I had to explain to you the difference between a news analyst and a journalist and you couldn't understand it. Fun times.

[prometheus]

I meant your insults.

[maul]

Yeah... which stemmed from you insulting the United States and acting as if your random, uninformed opinions were fact.

[prometheus]

You may claim that I do not understand the difference between a 'news analist' and a journalist, actually that word is new to me, but you don't understand the different between negative critisism backed by arguments, justified and correct or not, and blunt insults.

You did not understand that it does not matter how it is called or presented. I just think that journalists, which news analists will also have to be, have a responsibility to the society. I do not see how entertainising the news allows one to abandon this responsibility.

You also do not understand that even when I am incorrect, badly informed and when I am blunty critising the US for no apperent reason, that, though it may give you the right but, this does not mean that the right thing to do is to insult me.

[henrah]

True true, insulting isn't a good way of telling someone they are misinformed. But did he try reasoning with you, and did you give him the chance? Also sometimes it's hard to stay calm and not resort to attacking when someone criticises something that you might love/cherish, or highly respect or believe in, especially when it's without reason. So you must learn to understand why someone might resort to insulting, though in some cases it isn't the right thing to do.

I have no stance in this arguement, I am simply trying to see an ends.
Henrah

[maul]

You know, I started typing a response to this, but realized it was absolutely worthless and it was making myself feel retarded just recapping s*** that happened in another thread. Let's just say it's not wise to take anyone from the netherlands seriously. case closed

[prometheus]

You blame everyone in the Netherlands because of me?

That's not fair! Other people here are actually nice.

[semme]

back to topic.

prometheus, what is your opinion about cases where a brain dead woman saw the doctors performing the surgery on her and could later recall what tools they used after she was "back to life", and other real occurances. doesnt this indicate, that there must be a soul?

[gyzzzmo]

It implies the docters werent doing their jobs right.

[semme]

i mean she stated later that she saw herself from above, not from her own eyes...

[prometheus]

Near death experiences don't really indicate anything. I mean, if I dream I am in a magical forest filled with elves when I go to sleep this doesn't mean that my soul travels to this forest.

I use Occams razor. The most simple way to explain something is the most logical (note this does not mean it is the most correct or the best). You can induce a NDE with DMT, which is produced by the brain itself as well.

So the point is that there is no real problem when one can explain NDE through things like psychology and neurology. Sure, it is not understood but dreams are also not understood.

And yes, this experience can make a big impression on a person. But that isn't really relevant when we want to know what happens.

Research has suggested that people with religious experiences often have a form of temporal-lobe epilepsy. This can cause hallucinations and intense spiritual or religious eperiences. These 'attacks' can be very special and precious to a person. Mohammed is said to have had symptoms that match epilepsy. Same with Fyodor Dostoevsky. He has describes his experiences as something he wouldn't want to miss. His kind of epilepsy is sometimes called 'Ecstatic Epilepsy'.

[pianistimo]

and, yet, maybe death has no feelings involved whatsoever.  maybe after the moment of 'realization' and going through that 'tunnel' to the light as many people have experienced with near death - we simply become unattached to our physical bodies.  much lighter and able to withstand the eons of time that may or may not be between our physical state and the ressurrection of the dead.  physical bodies = physical feelings (that we can conciously be aware of)  spiritual bodies = no pain, no death, no fear

[lisztisforkids]

Who says that God is limited by our laws of reality?

[lisztisforkids]

I am starting to dislike Atheist almost as much as I dislike Fundamentalist. 

[prometheus]

It is a natural assuption. Everything that is part of our reality follows the laws of nature. That is what we observe.

For an exception to be made there needs to be a reason. The burder of proof is placed on the exception.

Also, since I assume you are referring to my comments on NDE, this isn't about god herself.  The question is: "Why would god create something that doesn't follow her own laws, laws which are meant to make her creation possible in the first place?" Makes no sense.

[lisztisforkids]

Also, since I assume you are referring to my comments on NDE, this isn't about god herself.  The question is: "Why would god create something that doesn't follow her own laws, laws which are meant to make her creation possible in the first place?" Makes no sense.

I wasent just refering to your comments, but Atheist in general...

Like I said before: God dose not follow our laws of reality. Why would God? You are assuming that God is something that we can observe. I am asserting that God is unobservable...But I do beleive that there is ample evidence to state that it is very likely that a higher form does exists...

Questiong how God came into existence does not make sense to me as asking a physisct why the Big Bang occured: 'It just did'.

[prometheus]

Physicists want to know why the 'Big Bang' occured. They only want to know nature as she is. But there is a problem. Nothing from before the big bang survives, if there even was anything. So there is no evidence left. Also, what happened the first microseconds after the big bang is not understood. It didn't 'just happen'. No physicist will say that, or none of them should. The answer is that we do not know. Hmm, not sure if you are referring to either 'how' or 'why'. Both questions have the same answer. It is just that science usually doesn't answer the 'why' at all.

Also, the laws of nature aren't our laws. If god exists they are her laws. The question is if she is directly part of our universe. If she is in another universe there will be different laws. But everything that happens in our universe follows the laws of our universe.

The only reason for god to intervene in our world is that because of our free will we can do something she does not want and she changes it. To me that does not make any theological sense if you assume that this world is only a world in which we are tested to find out if we are to be let into heaven or not.

[Floristan]

Science encourages questioning; religion deplores it.  How can any human endeavor that would put limits on questioning be supported by intelligent people?  That very questioning is our free will.  Religion would have us believe in can only lead to a bad end, as it necessarily undermines their faith-based control systems.  One can question and search and still believe in a higher power, but it needn't be one that proscribes and is involved in every, intimate, human endeavor.  Quite the contrary, it's possible to believe in a god who gave us free will, then sat back and said, "Let's see what they do with it."  If there be a god, I'd like to think he cheers positive use of free will and disapproves attempts by his well-meaning but misguided followers to reign it in.  If it is our sin, it is also our salvation!

[ted]

"How can any human endeavor that would put limits on questioning be supported by intelligent people? "

Very well put indeed, Floristan. It cannot. To assert the contrary is to choose ignorance over understanding.

[gyzzzmo]

atheism
 93%

Satanism
 67%

Paganism
 54%

agnosticism
 54%

Islam
 46%

Judaism
 38%

Buddhism
 38%

Christianity
 25%

Hinduism
 0%

[pianorama]

atheism
 93%

Satanism
 67%

Paganism
 54%

agnosticism
 54%

Islam
 46%

Judaism
 38%

Buddhism
 38%

Christianity
 25%

Hinduism
 0%

? And what exactly does that mean?

[gyzzzmo]

I gues that means i'm able to put things at the wrong threads