Anon. . I believe in an afterlife but nat a god. What does that make me Pretty fucking optimistic.. `buddhist? hinduist??? new age spiritual ? Anon I believe in an afterlife but nat a god What does that make me Pretty fucking optimistic `buddhist? hinduist??? new age spiritual ?
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (105)
[ 105 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - angelious
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
`buddhist? hinduist???




new age spiritual ***********?
#38 to #1 - uwsj
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Both Buddhists and Hindus teachings acknowledge the existence of a god.

But good try
User avatar #45 to #38 - andranadu
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
hinduism does
buddhism doesnt
#89 to #45 - anon id: 6721b5b2
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
They do believe in gods, but not in the Western sense. The gods didn't create the world, but they are just cool and ****
User avatar #48 to #45 - gameless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Wait. So what's Buddha? Just some fun fat guy on a mattress?
User avatar #51 to #48 - sturyl
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
buddha is a human that have got peace in his soul
User avatar #50 to #48 - andranadu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
buddha's on the same level as jesus or mohammed
just like, the main prophet
User avatar #53 to #50 - gameless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
So whose message is he retelling? Or is he telling about the peace he found? What sturyl said.
User avatar #55 to #53 - andranadu
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
buddha was some indian prince that got like the best treatment anyone could get
then he decided to go outside and see the **** in the world and was like
"im way too stuck up, i just gotta stop and relax"
and that was him findin peace and going to nirvana
i think thats how it goes, dont quote me on it
#57 to #55 - gameless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
''buddha was some indian prince that got like the best treatment anyone could get
then he decided to go outside and see the **** in the world and was like
"im way too stuck up, i just gotta stop and relax"
and that was him findin peace and going to nirvana
i think thats how it goes, dont quote me on it''
-andranadu
14-08-2014
User avatar #58 to #57 - andranadu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
well at least im not joshlol
User avatar #92 to #58 - gameless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
So are we on the frontpage yet?
User avatar #59 to #58 - gameless
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
But now you've done it...
#82 to #53 - andrakian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Buddha supposedly found illumination in his travels. Inner peace and a pure form of spirituality, by forgoing earthly greed and desires until only his spirit remained. There is no God in Buddhism, but there is a spiritual world, represented by the wheel of incarnations and stuff.
So yeah, he isn't retelling messages of any God whatsoever; just the philosophy he learned while traveling and some suppositions about how's the afterlife.

Also, there are some sects of buddhism that developed his guess about how things work after death in full-fledged pantheons, or use gods and entities as symbols of important concepts, such as the Asura and Mara demons representing sins.
#13 to #1 - bbzz
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
well they're pretty ******* optimistics
User avatar #15 to #13 - angelious
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
touche
#2 - badpony
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Is it so far fetched to believed that a consciousness would continue after leaving a physical form? Entering a new dimension or even a new vessel of a creature. I'm by no means religious but I'm as curious as anyone as to what happens after you die.
#39 to #2 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
On a psychedelic trip you might realize that you're consciousness. I did and I KNOW it's not in the body.
User avatar #4 to #2 - deltaspace
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Same, I'm not religious but I do believe that something other than just nothing occurs after you die. There would be nothing more frightening than being stuck in limbo for an eternity
User avatar #9 to #4 - haeckal
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Well, hell would be more frightening.
User avatar #14 to #2 - ianchrist
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Even though I' religious and believe in God and what-not, I am equally open to accepting that the afterlife is just some sort of higher plane of existence, and I think it's illogical to not think that there is more to reality than what we perceive life to be.
User avatar #20 to #14 - jukuku
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
"and I think it's illogical to not think that there is more to reality than what we perceive life to be."

Do you want to come up with some sort of cohesive argument which demonstrates that it is illogical to refrain from believing beyond what is perceptible via experiment, observation or consequential circumstance?
#30 to #20 - ianchrist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
>be 2014
>2014 years ago we didnt understand gravity, how the solar system worked, electricity etc.
>Person on internet thinks for some reason that in another 2000 years we wont understand so much more about the universe that our current time will seem like retarded jawas by comparison
>MFW person thinks they're the one whos being logical
User avatar #31 to #30 - jukuku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
But they made the same mistake that you are making. I am withholding speculation on something which has no viable theory, no supporting evidence or reliable account of having ever existed, that's exactly the opposite of claiming infallible knowledge.

The belief that the world revolved around the Earth was contradictory to experiment, observation and more. They were ignorant of the truth because they jumped to conclusions.

Are there phenomenon which we do not know of? Absolutely, we don't have much knowledge on the governance of quantum phenomenon. However, we have been very meticulously in demonstrating the likelihood of things like the big bang.

Your comparing my argument to that of someone who rejected heliocentricity or some other now established phenomenon is not consistent because I am not claiming to know anything beyond what we have been able to test.

Support your argument, don't make false critiques of mine. Why do you think it is logical to believe that there is an afterlife when there is a complete lack of evidence?
User avatar #32 to #31 - ianchrist
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
i think its illogical that you or anyone else pretends to know anything about the universe.

If you flip a coin 10 times and get heads each time then it would be scientifically accurate to assume that the coin always lands heads up because you've observed something happening and run tests.
This is retarded.
Its statistically impossible to be sure of anything. Even if a result happens ever time we've tested it in the last hundred years doesnt mean that its the way something works. Its stupid to believe that anyone knows anything.

thus I find it logical to think that things that we believe to be impossible are in fact possible.
User avatar #33 to #32 - jukuku
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
"If you flip a coin 10 times and get heads each time then it would be scientifically accurate to assume that the coin always lands heads up because you've observed something happening and run tests."

No it wouldn't, by observing the phenomenon of the coin flip we can see whether or not it is capable of landing on tails, again, we can experiment further, if I flip that coin 6 million times and it ALWAYS lands on heads than it would be reasonable to assume that there is something influencing it's tendency to land on that side.

Not only that but there are also many theories which make attempts to explain phenomenon which has yet to be proved, it does however have to be sound within a mathematical framework, you cannot rely on a quantitative value which is impossible to have for example, if you theory requires a value of 10 to be less than 5 than it is not a viable theory. We can compare mathematical theories against each other as well. The limits of c (speed of light) are well established in the theory of relativity so anything which contradicts that will almost certainly be incorrect as it is almost certain that we have accurately ascertained the speed of c.

"Its statistically impossible to be sure of anything. Even if a result happens ever time we've tested it in the last hundred years doesnt mean that its the way something works. Its stupid to believe that anyone knows anything. "

Again, I never claimed to have the absolute truth, I have only claimed the likelihood of those things through experiment. For example we can determine a likelihood based on the sigma scale.

Your reasoning for belief in what is not viable within the current framework of physics, which has been verified over and over again to a point that the odds of it being incorrect are so small I couldn't type out enough digits to illustrate that.
User avatar #63 to #33 - ianchrist
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
to get back to my original point (because you seem more inclined to attack my style of arguing instead of my point): All of these things are perceptions made by people in the year 2014. I dont trust perceptions made by people in the year 2014. I refuse to accept that our theories are completely accurate or that our explanations for anything are true.
Thus, my original remark, I think its illogical to not assume that there is much more to reality that what we are capable of perching now, or have perceived in the past, including the possibility of infinite versions of afterlives, or higher planes of existence.
User avatar #96 to #63 - jukuku
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
But they're not just subjective perceptions, they've been found through rigorous experiment. As I have said before, I do not think we know everything I have not made that claim. What I am saying is that what we have established through experiment (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) is not just a perception, it is an EXTREMELY likely truth to our universe. Our universe is governed by laws, we're trying to find out what they are and the implications of them, there is a truth to be found so it is only logical to assume that something will be a correct answer. We've already established that the standard model is correct, there is yet to be anything that claims an afterlife yet fits within that current model of physics. Chances are the afterlife theory is wrong all together.
User avatar #100 to #96 - ianchrist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
wow there's serious no talking to you is there? Either dispute what Im saying or leave, dont jet the conversation in a different direction so you can use things that are true. Thats the straw man argument.
User avatar #101 to #100 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
What you're saying doesn't make any sense, I can't dispute it because it is totally nonsensical.
User avatar #104 to #101 - ianchrist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/16/2014) [-]
then why did you try?
User avatar #35 to #30 - priestoftheoldones
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
You're right, we will know so much more, like about dark matter, hell, there could be a whole shadow universe, all around us, made out of dark matter, for all we know, there could be an afterlife, there could be a god. What are we? little specs of insignifigance in the universe, there could be more, there IS more. We know so little about the universe.
User avatar #34 to #14 - priestoftheoldones
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Why are you being thumbed down?
User avatar #64 to #34 - ianchrist
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
jukuku has his fedora tipped so far it's in his ass and he cant live with someone having a different opinion. So even though I was being open minded and neutral, he obviously couldnt stand the sight of someone believing in God, so he thumbed me down.
User avatar #27 to #14 - jukuku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I asked a question, no need to thumb me down.
#5 to #2 - Wallinger
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
**** dude, it sometimes terrifies me.
User avatar #10 to #2 - godtherapist
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Consciousness is a byproduct of the functionality of our brains.

Once your brain stops functions, so does consciousness. Even if your body is still alive. We can prove this because people who are brain dead have no consciousness.

When you die your brain stops functioning. There is no way for your consciousness to be 'transferred' into something or someone else.
User avatar #18 to #2 - jukuku
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
"Is it so far fetched to believed that a consciousness would continue after leaving a physical form?"

You asked, you're getting an honest answer.

Yes, it is. Here is why:

Every single ounce of experimental evidence on the subject of human consciousness has determined that our being is entirely dependent on physical structures in order for it to persist. There is absolutely zero empirical evidence in favor of consciousness persisting after death (no ghosts, spirits, demons, etc. have ever been proven to exist) however we are able to play with the consciousness through manipulation of it's chemistry and structure. If I snip at your brain, your mind is serious damaged, if I give you drugs you behave erratically. I can make you happy, sad, hyper, sedated, whatever you want. So, we know that physical manipulation effects virtually every single level of cognitive function and so it appears as though the human 'person' is purely physical.

If new evidence arises to suggest otherwise than so be it but out of the many attempts no evidence has been yielded to support that theory yet we continually demonstrate that consciousness is dependent on physical structures. It's an unnerving prospect for most but the reality is that it is exceedingly likely that once our bodies fail to sustain themselves, our mind goes with it.

What you are purporting is called 'dualism,' it has never been found to have any merit.
User avatar #21 to #18 - dissectedtesticle
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
do you have an explanation for why i see through my eyes and you see through yours? just asking.
#43 to #21 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
The one behind your eyes and mine and experiencing being the trees and birds and every living being is the same ONE consciousness. Hence the phrase "we are all one". It's literal. Of course that one that we are creates different experiences for itself. So the evidence of our inseparable union is actually our individuality. Our unique experience.


As a puzzle, each piece being different, is what makes up the whole.
User avatar #22 to #21 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Could you be more specific with your question.
User avatar #23 to #22 - dissectedtesticle
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
why am i a different individual from you? it's the concept of souls, you know.
User avatar #25 to #23 - jukuku
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Really it just breaks down to causality. You're a different person from me and therefore you will have different perspectives, behavioral tendencies, etc. It's a composition of biological make up as determined by DNA and environmental factors. We're all very unique because we come from unique circumstances (biological factors) and we have different experiences (environmental factors)

Variation in personality, physique, intelligence and all of that can be traced back to physical influences.
User avatar #26 to #25 - dissectedtesticle
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
guess i can't phrase the question right. nevermind.
User avatar #24 to #23 - dissectedtesticle
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
like, why are there so many people in the world, each with their own traits, each of them lead their own lives and each of them see through their own eyes. it's hard to explain.
User avatar #66 to #24 - kingderps
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I know what you're asking. As far as I can tell, our language does not offer us any way to effectively explain it, or to even logically think about it. It's just outside our comprehension. This gets really deep. The question seems dumb sometimes, but it isn't, and it's probably the cornerstone of all religious thought.

-I see through my eyes, not 7 billion others'.

-I am not special in this regard, I am basically the same as the others.

-I know that my consciousness is an emergent property that comes from my brain.

-If my parents waited even a second before or after conception, I wouldn't exist, someone very much like me would instead. I would not see through their eyes the same way I don't see through anyone else's, I wouldn't see at all eternally, I wouldn't be.

-Why was I born to see through my eyes and be existing and not another being existing as me just like the other 7 billion people, and I not experiencing existence?

-This seeing through my eyes seems uncanny, why am I me? But, I know it's not special, everybody has this perspective. We have to go beyond ego-centric thinking.

-Why is anyone who they are? How is everyone not existing and other people are conscious.

-Somebody had to be, and that somebody is us.

-You see through your eyes, because; eyes. You think with your brain because; brain. And so on, these things physically exist at an objective point in space. You are just an active process that surrounds and forms around them.

-If your brain was somehow moved to another body with another set of eyes, you would see through those eyes.

-You don't even exist as much as you think. Your past self is dead. You only see through your eyes for a moment before a new you takes over.

User avatar #80 to #66 - dissectedtesticle
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
yes, that is exactly it. thank you.
User avatar #79 to #66 - ianchrist
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I think about this a lot but its hard because its so above our understanding of the world.
The thing about parents waiting to conceive really scares me. it would be like someone else existed in a similar body to yours, but was a different "soul" (for lack of a better word)
User avatar #28 to #24 - jukuku
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I think that what I said still applies, there is a lot of variability in nature. If you can think of a better way of phrasing it I'd be glad to hear your question.
#36 to #24 - anon id: b7d0c9d1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
because we have different individual cells and each cell is different which makes us unique and different from each other

basically we are different combinations of cells and star dust that has been through different situations, our experiences are what define us and what makes us different, nto souls
User avatar #37 to #36 - dissectedtesticle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
basically the same answer he provided. i phrased my question wrong.
User avatar #29 to #22 - jukuku
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
*?
#40 to #18 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
this doesn't mean ****. You could have a camera functioning but it wouldn't be aware of what it records. That point of awareness is consciusness and it hasn't been explained.


what you're talking about is the filter through which that consciousness experiences the physical reality construct. You change the "filter" you change the experience but it has nothing to do with "the one observing"
User avatar #95 to #40 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
You're right that it isn't fully understood, the capability of self-awareness is not yet understood but again, we are able to manipulate our consciousness with drugs which suggests that it too is dependent on physical structures. Every facet of 'consciousness' can be toyed with.
#103 to #95 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
with some drugs what we actually do is lessen the grip of the physical mind on conciousness so it starts to perceive more of what it is. But that's just a change on what it's perceving through the different bodies it has created for itself. what you haven't experienced is that consciousness itlsef trascends all of that. Or is the source of all of that.
#102 to #95 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
consciusness isn't manipulated. the filter by which it's looking is. consciusness just is. You can't make it un-exist. some would argue consciousness is existence itself.
#94 to #40 - jukuku
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#83 to #18 - doctorprofessornv
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Your statement is true, however there have been several cases of people who were biologically brain-dead, but woke up recounting that they were still conscious on some level. The best case I can think of is a neurosurgeon who had a stoke due to meningitis, and slipped into a week-long coma during which his cortex (the area responsible for consciousness and awareness) was completely inactive. He was eventually resuscitated, and stated that while he was out he experienced vivid visions and believed that he had seen the afterlife (or a part of it anyway).

Now granted, it is possible that his mind only perceived time as moving normally when in fact the hallucination occurred just as he was dying, and waking up snapped him to the present moment since the brain wasn't 'recording' during the interval. It is also possible that his brain wasn't as inactive as they thought (there have been rumors of a hoax as well, but I'm not going to go too far into that).

Mainly the point I am trying to get at is that science still has a very poor understanding of our universe, despite our great progress. Sometimes we end up not being able to observe phenomena properly due to lack of proper technology, or simply observe the wrong aspect of a phenomenon because we do not know what it is we are looking for. Science is based on the idea of 'no proof until concrete evidence/we can repeat it in a lab', which is not bad at all. However, it is possible that we simply aren't advanced enough to observe everything just yet, or as mentioned before we are missing key details because we don't understand their significance (I also think mainstream science tends to look down on such 'paranormal' theories due to a combination of arrogance and the influence of decidedly unscientific 'scientific investigation' shows like ghost hunters). All in all, science has always walked a razor's edge between delusion and discovery. If we want to move forward, we must at the very least be open to possibilities.
User avatar #93 to #83 - jukuku
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
"biologically brain-dead, but woke up recounting that they were still conscious on some level."

There is absolutely no recovery from brain death, if they were brain dead they would have been completely unable to function. It is more likely that they were in a comatose state, in which people have some brain function.

I'm also aware of the account from the neurosurgeon, it can be explained by things we already know of, it really isn't anymore interesting than the idea that someone still has some neurological function while in a coma.

"Mainly the point I am trying to get at is that science still has a very poor understanding of our universe, despite our great progress. "

I would say what we've learned so far is pretty accurate but there is still much we don't know, that doesn't mean that supernatural forces are a valid theory though, there is no supporting evidence nor a viable theory in which those are possible when compared to the standard model of physics. Again, the fact that our knowledge is limited doesn't validate claims of the supernatural. "We can't know for certain" doesn't support "We can't know for certain, therefore everything is a possibility"

This video does a very good job of covering how supernatural belief is said to be possible because of our gaps in knowledge and why it doesn't make much sense: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgN7a_vdIIc
#98 to #93 - doctorprofessornv
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
< also, MFW girl under blanket
User avatar #97 to #93 - doctorprofessornv
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
Fair enough, but then there's still the question about what it is that so many people throughout history see when they describe supernatural encounters (I'm talking more about spirits now and less about out of body experiences). sightings of supernatural entities have been a part of our history since the beginning, and even in the present day millions of people still believe in and report sightings of strange entities.

Some researchers have demonstrated that infrasound interference may be responsible for some of these sightings (infrasound is too low frequency for our ears to pick up, comes from many natural and man-made sources, and can cause hallucinations given direct exposure). However this theory may not explain all occurrences, especially ones that are caught on camera/electronic devices and in cases where many witnesses report the exact same thing. Supernatural occurrences also occur in places without detectable infrasound as well, so that theory falls flat in such places.

Until we can definitively and accurately identify the cause of these occurrences (supernatural or not), I don't think it's very good science to just dismiss the whole theory out of hand.

On a final note, just because a phenomenon seems alien to us or seems to defy physical laws does not make it supernatural. If such phenomena are indeed occurring as they are described then they are inherently natural, we simply do not understand the physical forces behind them at this point in time. They may also function under normal physical laws, we simply don't know where they fit in the theory.
#78 to #18 - tumblrsjw
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
this is such a dumb point i cant hold my self back from commenting.
You talk about evidence when it is a fact that there is no information on the consciousness. There are conflicting theories but none of them have evidence. We don't even know if humans have free will or not. So before claiming to know more than other people how about you take off that fedora and let these people have an intelligent discussion.
#42 to #18 - selfdenyingbeggar
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
mind is not consciousness.
User avatar #6 to #2 - blacksmithgu
Reply +40 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
From a purely scientific viewpoint, it is rather far fetched. As far as we know, the neurons in the brain cease operation, your conciousness stops, and that's just it. Nothing afterwards.

I fear that the afterlife is a rather helpless wish or hope that people may continue "living" after they die because the idea of non-existence is understandably very frightening. But unless you're religiously inclined, there's nothing which can give proof or fact to that hope.

It's probably as depressing as you fear, in other words.
User avatar #41 to #6 - sciencexplain
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Even though I'm massively pro-science, I've always been a believer that our universe exists on a plane, and there are several planes. I like to believe that consciousness is spiritual, and whilst the body dies, much like in religion, the consciousness lives in inside another being or in an afterlife or whatever. I just like to think that since we can't disprove it, we can't shrug it off as false. However, I also accept that it is mainly because I fear death and struggle to cope with the idea of my consciousness permanently ending.
User avatar #73 to #41 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
TIL Sciencexplain is religious and doesn't understand the burden of proof
User avatar #91 to #73 - sciencexplain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
Burden of proof? Please, explain, using proof, how my belief is an impossibility or is invalid.
User avatar #99 to #91 - YllekNayr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
"I just like to think that since we can't disprove it, we can't shrug it off as false."

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Supernatural claims are false until proven to be true. We have no reason whatsoever to believe any of that exists, so we don't NEED to prove it false.

See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
#105 to #6 - anon id: ae6ae67e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/18/2014) [-]
Okay Spock. Thank you for your view.
#77 to #6 - anon id: c7dd21c0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I would be full on atheist if not for the ghosts. Been haunted ever since I was born, and stuff flies around our house, there are people and voices that every one near me can hear. The ghosts were proof enough for me of a soul.
#69 to #6 - blancka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I know what you're saying scientifically, but I think the teleportation debate is relevant here. I.E. If your matter is deconstructed one place, and reconstructed another, "You" cease to exist. You are dead essentially, and what's left is a clone of yourself essentially, except with the idea that teleportation has no negative effects, as they remember both entering and exiting the machine.

Even though scientifically you would be identical, even the same person, you would no longer be the same consciousness. It's confusing to say the least, but that's what makes me think there may be more.

I mean, scientifically, what we call sentience shouldn't exist. If anything sentience would just be an illusion. We're all just robots with cells instead of wires reacting to stimuli being processed by the brain. But then why am I myself and not some random dog or fish or bird? And why can I view things through my own eyes.

It becomes difficult to talk about because basically, we are robots reacting to stimuli. But individually we see ourselves and sentience comes into play. The only one we can know is sentient and not reacting to stimuli is ourselves, which is a crazy concept in its own right.
User avatar #81 to #69 - blacksmithgu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I see the teleportation argument and the "robots reacting to stimuli" as aiding the argument of consciousness being just a consequence of how our brain works and operates - if you can deconstruct and reconstruct "yourself" (a clone, as you say) via machine, it would show that nothing more is required to create human life. The human created would essentially be you, and have a consciousness and sentience that is exactly equivalent to the one you had before you were constructed. In that sense, that clone is you for all intents and purposes - sentience and all.

Note that humans, while technically still robots who react to stimuli, maintain a sentience/consciousness as a consequence of the continual operation of the brain even when no external stimuli are present. In other words, we have an active consciousness which makes us distinct because our brain is in a constant state of operation which is not only capable of reacting to stimuli, but to applying rationality and feelings to create or predict new stimuli. In this sense, humans are more than just robots reacting to stimuli.

Sorry for being long-winded. Esoteric topics call for esoteric responses, I suppose.
User avatar #7 to #6 - seriouslyblack
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
once you're actually dead, your brain stops working so you won't feel any emotion. you won't feel sorry for yourself or your family that you may never see them again. so even if you're afraid of the idea of non-existence, it's more than likely that once you don't exist, you won't have the ability to give a ****.
User avatar #8 to #7 - blacksmithgu
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
That's pretty much the biggest "consolation" you can give about death, as unreassuring as it is.
User avatar #12 to #7 - retardeddinosaur
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
change that color, fag. Can't read ****
User avatar #71 to #12 - kingderps
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
He wrote it in his own blood!
#49 to #12 - anon id: 73278e22
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
then you should learn to read
#11 to #6 - endospore
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
I disagree. From a purely scientific stand point, we can't make life from nothing. We can build the body parts, put them together, but we can't start life or restart it once someone's dead.

That says to me that there's something else contributing to life other than just electrical or chemical impulses. We should theoretically be able to emulate them and create a person if that were the case. We can't, so it makes sense to me that there's some spark or some other thing that contributes to life.

Now when we die, that spark could still just go out and there could be nothing, but it could also retain our consciousness somehow. The collective unconscious proposed by Freud is one thing, it could be recycled due to conservation of energy and we'd essentially reincarnate, a la Buddhism, or it could go somewhere else, akin to electrons jumping energy levels, and that somewhere else could be anything.
User avatar #16 to #11 - blacksmithgu
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
But we're not making life from nothing, are we? Living, from a scientific viewpoint, is a process in which cells execute a certain number of vital tasks which they are capable of doing - processing energy, proteins, replicating and a few other tasks. Put together trillions upon trillions of these cells with some diversification and you have the human body in all of it's glory. The brain itself is a collection of trillions of specialized cells which create the consciousness through their specific connections and electrical impulses. Once the electrical impulses stop...so does the brain and thus the consciousness.

The trick is not just putting together all of the body parts, but putting them together in such a harmony that biological organisms have managed to do over the course of 4 billion years. We can't do it now, but that doesn't mean we never will be able to. Computers are perhaps the greatest evidence of our increasing ability to create complex systems. A computer is nothing but a bunch of silicon and wire, yet it is capable of executing trillions of computations per second and supporting huge systems such as the internet all because we run power through it in a specific way.

There's a lot to be said about consciousness, but I think there's little stopping humans from creating life, even if it's artificial.
User avatar #19 to #11 - jukuku
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Your logic is flawed and it is not scientifically reasoned as you claim it is.

The "If we can't make it work than it must be beyond the physical realm" argument doesn't really have much validity.
User avatar #17 to #11 - revanmal
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
We can't restart life? Sure we can. There's many reported cases of people being resuscitated even after brain functions ceased. This might beg the question of what exactly we define as being truly "dead" but that's a matter of opinion.

And building a body is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. Flesh and bone and organs are vastly complex things, especially a brain. We lack the technology and biological knowledge to make a person out of whole cloth. Maybe one day we could. but right now that's not really feasible.
User avatar #70 to #11 - kingderps
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
The collective unconsciousness I believe has to do with how our brains and experiences are similar enough that we think almost as one on 'subconscious' level. But I may be mistaken. I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve spirits or anything supernatural.
User avatar #44 - zourch
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
i believe universe=god
thus science is god magic.
User avatar #47 to #44 - frankhh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
i'm part of the universe
me=god
#56 to #44 - narutolas
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
You know, that could work, have green thumb. What think you of the bible?
User avatar #65 to #56 - zourch
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
most of it is stories that are sketchy but all out its main purpose is to make
you a better person whether or not the stories are fictional or nonfiction.
The only person you really need to worry about it the bible is Jubar.
go with christ bro.
#67 to #65 - narutolas
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Good point, I agree, but i mean the origin of the bible. Where did it come from?
User avatar #68 to #67 - zourch
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
apparently the bible is a collection of like 66 books from a bunch
of different authors all of them being from different times.
User avatar #76 to #67 - capslockrage
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
some guy conned a bunch of people into being his followers then got them to live their life based on this book he wrote.
#46 to #44 - gaminggenus
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#54 - brothergrimm
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
#62 - otroviciado
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
my logic:
there are 3 universes, people universe, soul universe and limbo
if you die peacefully, you'll go to the soul universe, like a shot to the head or while celebrating something and then a heart attack, of course the heart attack hurts, but you're having a good time, and being in war is scary, but you'll not feel the headshot

if you died painfully you'll stay in some weird ass limbo if you get burned alive, stabbed 18 times, by an infection, tortured, etc also, if you're unhappy with the things you did on your life, you'll stay on this limbo scammed lots of people, killed innocent civilians, betrayed your family, etc the way to escape, i dunno...

and it doesn't care if you were good or bad, the way you died is what it matters, so yeah, if you're a crazy dictator like hitler you'll also go to heaven cause he didn't actually regret his actions, in resume, life is a bitch
User avatar #84 to #62 - christheace
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
this is prolly the dumbest thing i've ever read, but those are just your beliefs man. stick by them
User avatar #72 to #62 - capslockrage
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Well your logic is retarded.
#60 - icameheretotroll
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Imagine how awesome it would be if this was real:   
   
You're a god and you're omnipotent, you create realities and mess around and have a lot of fun with them, you enjoy your life as a god but one day you get bored of it all. so you create a reality where you forget everything about being a god, and set a certain age time when you reveal your powers to yourself, lets say age 27 and when this happens you get all the powers and get told that you are this god and do whatever you want with your new powers. this cycle goes on and on every time you get bored you get reborn as a god with new memories   
   
I know this sounds really goofy but it sounded way cooler in my mind
Imagine how awesome it would be if this was real:

You're a god and you're omnipotent, you create realities and mess around and have a lot of fun with them, you enjoy your life as a god but one day you get bored of it all. so you create a reality where you forget everything about being a god, and set a certain age time when you reveal your powers to yourself, lets say age 27 and when this happens you get all the powers and get told that you are this god and do whatever you want with your new powers. this cycle goes on and on every time you get bored you get reborn as a god with new memories

I know this sounds really goofy but it sounded way cooler in my mind
#61 to #60 - anon id: 07833ba6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
bitch i hope thats true and im the god
#90 to #60 - anon id: c6313596
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/15/2014) [-]
So I take it you're 26...?
#52 - titanjupiter
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
To everyone saying there is no afterlife

Some people believe because they live REALLY ****** up lives, and an afterlife where everything is peaceful and there is happiness everywhere, is the only thing they look forward to.
At least, that's why i believe
Also, what the hell ever happened to kony?
User avatar #75 to #52 - capslockrage
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Lying to yourself will never bring true happiness.
User avatar #86 - deathweaver
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Well, if there was an afterlife, what would we do for the rest of eternity?
User avatar #87 to #86 - deathweaver
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Besides jacking off.
User avatar #74 - undeadmaus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/14/2014) [-]
Hey I wanna believe in an afterlife but I don't really. Still it would be cool if there was one.
#3 - vlemich
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
[ 105 comments ]
Leave a comment