I'm agnostic, but I'm starting to believe in an afterlife

[VertexSquared]

Agreed, this discussion has officially become pointless, heh.

[TaraMaiden]

You can't be both at once. Faith and spirit are illogical concepts.

 

That's not what you said.

This is what you said.

 

The "logical" and spiritual man does not exist.

 

I would posit that 'he' does.

A devout Buddhist is an extremely spiritual person, but is motivated to deepen his own practice through logical cogitation and reasoned examination.

 

 

Faith by definition is not logical.

 

That depends.

What's your definition of 'Faith'?

MY personal definition of Faith is 'Confidence'.

We all have faith the earth revolves around the sun, and that the moon revolves around the earth, and we have faith in the fact that the seasons are consecutive.

 

I would imagine you're talking about a faith in an unknown, unseen and unconjecturable.

That is an entirely different 'faith' altogether.

This is where definition and clarification is so vital.

 

You can certainly be rational and spiritual, but not logical.

And now, give your definition of 'spiritual'. Because spiritual doesn't mean religious or theistic.

Spiritual means something else entirely.

Again, be precise when discussing such matters, or one is apt to be misunderstood, or say things which seem, at face value, to have been poorly thought out.

 

The Dalai Lama is one of the most Rational and logical men I know of.

He is also extraordinarily deeply and sincerely spiritual.

[Ronni_W]

A devout Buddhist is an extremely spiritual person, but is motivated to deepen his own practice through logical cogitation and reasoned examination.

Too true. I am aware of other philosophies, or teachings, or whatever one would call them, that are also very much about "the science of religion" (though, personally I might have used the term, "the science of spirituality".) But essentially the message is to only believe/have faith in things that make sense to your own mind, and that you have tested and proven for yourself. It depends on what one takes for "proof", I suppose.

[TaraMaiden]

Just for the record, and to clarify my personal point, the Buddha taught that there are Four Unconjecturables.

These are factors that many Buddhists do indeed discuss, and debate on, but are still aware that there are no answers to.

The reasons they discuss them, is more to clarify their own train of thought and opinions, and expound their views.

But they don't expect answers, and neither do they either seek them, or claim to have them.

 

The topic under discussion here, is one such topic. (Insofar as Buddhists are concerned, it would fall under the topic of Kamma, and possibly the plausibility of Re-birth.)

 

(Four Unconjecturables: Jhana = "A meditative state of profound stillness and concentration".....)

[NoIDidn't]

Both religion and science are full of hypocrisies. Anyone who thinks that one side alone has all the answers is either misguided or a fool. They are directly intertwined and neither of them can tell the whole story alone. Scientific agnostics/atheists and religious fanatics are both guilty of the same flaw.

 

Why is it that we can reclaim skeletal evidence of ancient dinosaurs extinct for over 200 million years, yet we cannot locate one single example of the missing link? Did modern humans simply sprout out of the ground?

 

Why is it that we have no confirming record of where Christ went after his 'resurrection' other than theory and prediction? Did the most symbolic man in human history simply vanish?

 

The above two questions are both questions that each side cannot answer outside of pure theory. No one is indefinitely right. The argument from the scientific community is that all things can be proven, they simply have not been yet. The argument from the religious community is that all things require faith, and time will reward the most ardent.

 

The logical yet spiritually aware man rests in the middle of the two sides and pilfers the best of both sides to explain his (mankind's) story. We are entering an era the likes of which mankind has not yet seen, that of tremendous technological advancement and idea evolution, yet nearly %85 of the world's population still (and will continue to) anchor themselves in some kind of firm religious belief.

 

My opinion is that the further we advance, the more we will come to realize that creationism and evolution are so closely intertwined that they will soon no longer be a separate idea. Where, you might ask, are we to find the answers that lead us to this belief? In my opinion, it will be the study of our own DNA.

 

Good post.

 

I was thinking how the very science that most atheists/anti-religion evolved in Witch doctor kitchens.

 

The two are very entwined.

 

Its a shame we demand all-or-nothing when it comes to these theories and beliefs.

[H1N1]

I sometimes have dreams about people I know that have passed and I don't think they are just dreams.

 

Maybe they are just dreams, but that doesn't make the experience in your dreams any less significant. In a way, the deceased souls continue to live -- with those who are living. I think they continue to inhabit both our conscious and unconscious minds. And we keep continuing to pass along their legacies to others in myriad ways.

 

I think people who want to believe in an afterlife want to believe that we exist as one single entity indefinitely, without a known end. But based on my admittedly very limited understanding of the world around me, I suspect that this is just a folly. The individual is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Our lives are important locally speaking, but in terms of the whole, we're like drops of rain in the ocean.

 

I think that this finality of our lives as individuals bothers us on some level, because maybe we want to believe that we should continue to exist as individuals, which is why we have these notions of afterlife. I just don't think it squares with the sum of the parts.

[H1N1]

Sober reasoning will lead you to the truth.

 

1. Belief in god is a human-centric or ego-centric supposition started by people who had no understanding of the myriad possibilities of the true universe. They assumed them selves the reason for the existence of everything else. In reality we are not the reason for everything else and there is no divine intervention whatsoever in nature.

 

2. If there were a god, wouldn't it require some real trickery to satisfy every dead human's expectations of an afterlife. One may expect dead relatives to be reunited with. But what about those dead relatives expectations. Perhaps you were only a small part of their social picture and they're too busy having their expectations fulfilled by a god who simulates all that these humans expect to see. To me that's like being medicated for eternity by some artificial contraption--something I can't see why any being--god or otherwise would want to saddle themselves with.

 

This life is enough of a privilege if your grateful for it and live it to its fullest. It's natural to die and ignorant to think otherwise. TYVM.

 

There could still exist a God in this Universe, but maybe it's just the anthropocentric one that is the source of so many of the world's religions.

[VertexSquared]

"If triangles believed in God, he would have three sides"

[gypsy_nicky]

Dreams: Confirmation bias

NDE: Neural activity

 

Do you believe your computer has a soul, for instance? If not, why assume humans do?

 

 

were more complicated than pc's

[gypsy_nicky]

Yes, but even scientists acknowledge there is a difference between 'Brain' and 'Mind'.

And it's this leap - from one to the other - that is puzzling to them.

 

Because we all have a brain that functions in specific physical, neurological ways - but everybody's Mind' is different.

And this is where the mystery lies.

 

I agree. To put this in perspective, scientists are still somewhat at odds to determine whether the nerve stimulus in the brain comes before or after a certain emotion, feeling, or thought is conceived by the human mind.

 

So its not all physical processes at work.

[VertexSquared]

were more complicated than pc's

 

Not the point. Computers are extremely complex. So are computers. Complexity does not imply a soul.

 

 

I agree. To put this in perspective, scientists are still somewhat at odds to determine whether the nerve stimulus in the brain comes before or after a certain emotion, feeling, or thought is conceived by the human mind.

 

So its not all physical processes at work.

 

This is simply untrue. Scientists are NOT at odds with this. Everything originates in the brain and has a physical underpinning. We can show this experimentally and there is ample evidence to show for it.

[Ronni_W]

Everything originates in the brain

I suppose it depends entirely on the size of one's vision of "everything". For me, though, that statement is inaccurate. While I agree that the brain is critical for humans to be able to do...everything, I don't think that "everything" originates in it.

 

Outside and independent of the brain, there is something like life force, or prana, or chi/qi (whatever term one wishes.) Because. If we could somehow "disconnect" every single brain that is functioning on our planet at this very moment, that same life force/energy, whatever it consists of, will still exist; will still be sustaining ALL other life forms on this very planet, including the single-cell variety.

 

Humans are not needed for that...but 'something' definitely is. Many refer to that 'something' as "god", or use some other term that suggests a power greater than humans are or possess. Regardless of science, in the Grand Scheme of things, we're just not as important as we sometimes want to think-believe.

[H1N1]

There could still exist a God in this Universe, but maybe it's just NOT the anthropocentric one that is the source of so many of the world's religions.

 

That's how it should have read.

[Trimmer]

Regardless of science, in the Grand Scheme of things, we're just not as important as we sometimes want to think-believe.

Interestingly, I see it that it's science itself that continually reminds us that we are not as important as we sometimes believe.

 

Religion, on the other hand, has "gods" focusing all their attention upon the one-and-only Earth where the only life in the universe is found - life that was created "in the image of" the god(s). How anthropocentric can you get?

 

The closest thing I can imagine to a "god" is a kid in an alternate, multidimensional universe somewhere, playing with the new "particle smasher" kit she got for her birthday, saying "Hey, look, mom! When I adjust the fine structure constant to .0072974, I can get a little ball of quantum goop that lasts for a hundred micro-clicks! This is so cool!"

 

And that little ball of goop is our universe, and a hundred micro-clicks in her universe is 30 billion years in ours.

[Ronni_W]

Religion, on the other hand, has "gods" focusing all their attention upon the one-and-only Earth where the only life in the universe is found

The way that's phrased makes it sound as if only 'the religious' do not believe that there is life on other planets and in other galaxies. I don't think that's accurate.

 

I'm not religious but was raised Roman Catholic. I never interpreted anything that I was taught (as part of RCC teachings) to be saying that the "gods" only focus on Earth. I also don't remember them saying that Earth is the only planet in the Universe on which life can be found...though I'd not be surprised if they did. It just never registered with me.

[Trimmer]

The way that's phrased makes it sound as if only 'the religious' do not believe that there is life on other planets and in other galaxies. I don't think that's accurate.

 

I'm not religious but was raised Roman Catholic. I never interpreted anything that I was taught (as part of RCC teachings) to be saying that the "gods" only focus on Earth. I also don't remember them saying that Earth is the only planet in the Universe on which life can be found...though I'd not be surprised if they did. It just never registered with me.

I'm not religious either, but as I hear the story told, the Earth was created on the first day, and then God waited until the fourth to create the Sun, the Moon, and the "other" stars (although many of us now know that the sun is "just" another one of those other stars...)

 

And once Christ returns, the universe (and Earth) will be destoyed and a new universe (and earth) will be put in its place for the faithful and righteous... (Revelation 1, and 2 Peter 3)

 

So, create the Earth as a home for man, then, oh yes, the sun and moon, and all those other stars for the purpose of providing light and separating night from day... on the Earth. (Genesis, of course) Then when it's all over - on Earth - the whole mess will be destroyed, in a great noise or a great fire, depending on your translation...

 

Sounds awfully Earth-centric to me. So Christian religion on one hand commands us to be humble before God and all, but the underlying message is really: You are super important, and all this was put here specially for you, and once Christ comes back to you, it will all be taken down again.

 

In contrast with all of this, science does, indeed, remind me that (1) the earth was not first, (2) the earth is not at the center of everything, either literally (which the Catholic church has finally admitted) nor figuratively, (3) that what we humans do, while very important to us, will have virtually NOTHING to do with how the universe turns out.

[Ronni_W]

Sounds awfully Earth-centric to me. So Christian religion on one hand commands us to be humble before God and all, but the underlying message is really: You are super important, and all this was put here specially for you, and once Christ comes back to you, it will all be taken down again.

Trimmer,

Yes, I do see what you mean. I suppose a book written for earth-people would, by its nature and purpose, be earth-centric. And I do think that, for and on Planet Earth, we humans are super-important.

 

Same as, on Planet Arcturus, the Arcturans are super-important. I haven't yet had the privilege of reading any of their "handbooks for Arcturans", but suspect it pro'ly is Arcturus-centric. I mean, that would make sense to me.

 

I personally don't have any conflict being humble/in awe of the same thing that is humble/in awe of me (would create everything for my personal comfort and enjoyment) -- it's the same thing, to my mind, as me loving and seeing as special and important someone who loves me and sees me as special and important. For me, that dynamic can happily co-exist.

 

Whether everything on all planets was put there for the exclusive use or plundering of the respective planets' most highly evolved creatures (which I do believe, on Earth, we are)...I'll leave that up to others to decide for themselves.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Ronni_W

[TheLoneSock]

The closest thing I can imagine to a "god" is a kid in an alternate, multidimensional universe somewhere, playing with the new "particle smasher" kit she got for her birthday, saying "Hey, look, mom! When I adjust the fine structure constant to .0072974, I can get a little ball of quantum goop that lasts for a hundred micro-clicks! This is so cool!"

 

And that little ball of goop is our universe, and a hundred micro-clicks in her universe is 30 billion years in ours.

 

Haha, this made me laugh. Very creative. I don't agree with it, but still a funny illustration of your opinion.