I'm sure some of you have realised this already, but I feel it's the best answer ever to the question of afterlife. So what will the afterlife be like? It'll be the exact same as your beforelife. Consult your memory of what you were like before you were born. Can't remember anything? Guess what! That's what the afterlife will be like. You will cease to exist and have no consciousness. There is no afterlife.
Hey douchebag, meet my asshole, you can be great friends. Wow... you've been warned before about flaming and you should know this isn't what GC is about - TokinBlue
Maybe in the beforelife, we were all chilling in heaven as little babies, but in this presentstate, smoking blunts as a child is no big deal, so we're smokin blunts too. and we do this for a while, until we're ready to ripe. so God then erases our memory of us smoking blunts in heaven, and puts us on earth. just a stage we must overcome, before we can be mature to become fiery angels of heaven fighting for God in the struggle of good and evil. And of course if we fail, then we goto hell and will become slaved for eternity, probably by making battleaxes for demons and what not. This sounds about right. edit: i forgot to mention that you get to smoke blunts as a fiery angel too. that way you can be blitzed while fighting in the name of God.
Uh, what? Was that supposed to be an insult? I think the OP's opinion is just as valid as anyone elses. Except with his he took some evidence and came up with a potential theory. OP, how ever depressing the afterlife you described may seem. I don't remember being unhappy before I was born, so I'm cool with it.
Well it's either doneski or it's hitting the reset button for me- I don't believe my ego lives on without it's body and life behind it.
Sorry for the double post. Haha, dude I like the way you think, smoking blunts is the constant. Me too.
"It should be said," writes Bertrand Russell, "that the old distinction between soul and body has evaporated quite as much because 'matter' has lost its solidity as mind has lost its spirituality. Psychology is just beginning to be scientific. In the present state of psychology belief in immortality can at any rate claim no support from science." Hume, for instance, looked into consciousness and perceived hat there was nothing except fleeting mental states and concluded that the supposed "permanent ego" is non-existent. "There are some philosophers," he says, "who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we call 'ourself,' that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence and so we are certain, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call 'myself' I always stumble on some particular perception or other - of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself... and never can observe anything but the perception... nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity." Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change." http://www.enotalone.com/article/4090.html I don't know if that's completely relevant, but I think today is a perfect day to reflect on the afterlife and the beforelife, as it is my birthday.
Happy Birthday ^^. I personally know that there is an afterlife and am greatly looking forward to day i get to find out exactly wat everlasting extacy is like.
You know this? I'm eager to hear your evidence. Oh wait, it's just faith? Then GTFO and come back when you have evidence. Don't say you know something when you don't. You have faith. Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. -Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Come on man, we all have some form of faith. If you believe in reality you have faith, and if you don't believe in reality then why are bothering to indulge it? Faith is a powerful tool, and when used effectively can do great things. The only problem with faith is when people let other determine thier faith for them. Faith should be something you personally believe for now other reason then you personally believe it, and if some one else doesn't thats fine, because it doesn't need to exist in thier subjective reality only in yours.
Huh? The only faith I can claim is faith in science, but it's not really faith given I trust it because it's always right. Science defines reality. You can let religion alter your perception of reality, but that doesn't make your pseudo-reality real. Science defines reality. Period.
i would like science to define a 30 minute dmt experience. science can define gravity, i know that e=mc^2. but wheres the scientific explination for flying into a world of dmt color. hallucinations? a simple word hardly defines what anyone experiences, a dictionary cant define it and richard dawkins cant define it. how does science define it? thats something i never got about this 'science'.
It's all about your brain and nervous system. How your body reacts to the chemicals. It's chemistry and biology.
I know what you mean, I realized after my first mushroom trip theres some things that can't be explained, even by science, like what it's like for people to relate to each other. you could describe all of the electrical and chemical processes in your brain that cause it to someone, but even if the person understood everything you're saying they would have no idea what it's like to relate with someone else based on what you said.
Well first let me ask are you saying science as in the belief structure based upon empircal evidence, that uses experimentation to form hypothosisies(sp) or are you talking about the scientific rules of the universe that as of yet we don't fully and completely understand? Becuase I will submit that the universe does follow the rules of the univers. But there have been times where the what science held to be true was not. If I really need to I will go find links and references, but I'm lazy and I'm relatively confident that you know as much if not more about these mistakes then I do. Regardless there were laws that had to be changed and beliefs that had to be discarded. Now I would like to examine the sentence "The only faith I can claim is faith in science, but it's not really faith given I trust it because it's always right." Its not faith, because you trust, becasue its always right. Thats the defintion of faith, trusting something. You can have whatever reason you want, but unless its been 100% prooven true, your still trusting it. And science, while not as faulty as some other religions still fucks up from time to time. Science defines your reality. Its part of mine but not all, because it doesn't answer all my questions. It could if it takes great strides before I die, but I doubt we'll have it all figured out by then.
But if you could meaningfully re-create the neurological reaction by understanding them, then you could have entirley been able to relate that experience. There is simply a gap in technology and communication ability; not a limitation of the scientific method. I don't not know Mr. Blonde terribly well, but this is an outlook I think I share with him, so I'll answer on my own behalf Science can be used to define reality as tool-kit of evaluation; the scientific method. Evidence? Absolutely, and by that very definition, those previously held theories and ideas are no long considered part of the scientific consensus. There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. -- Carl Sagan And that is the strength of scientific inquiry. Firstly, we must keep in mind the juxtaposition of making a small logically consistent leap of faith to call something a truth, in accordance with evidence, and the faith of making an illogical and dangerous conclusion based on fallacies and lack of evidence. It is an important dichotomy. Nothing is science is ever 100%. That again is the strength of science. Although, when enough evidence had been gathered and enough experimentation has been done, we can surpass just calling it a fact, but go as far to call it a truth, with an incredibly high probability. On the other hand, unvalidated and unproven claims, being called truth is an exhibition of intellectual dishonesty because of the incredibly low probability them demonstrate in lacking empirical evidence and a lot of the time; even logical consistency. I reiterate another quote by Mr. Sagan In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. -- Carl Sagan Right. Then by the principles of rational inquiry, you should leave those questions with an unknown variable, and not attempt to gloss over it with a kind of hand-waving assertion (I'm not saying you do, but religion certainly does)