No need for an afterlife? The paradox of the afterlife.

Sort of reminds me of Carlin. He wasn't a fan of "groups" but loved individuals he said.

Life, in your context, is a group thing, not an individual thing. There's also some interesting parallels between that idea and comments Ron Paul has made, but that's neither here nor there.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

if there is no end to life,,, yet life continues to keep going and going,..,,..,.,wouldnt that mean that reality which includes the phenomenon of life,,,, is a process of,,, life after life, after life, after life, after life,,,, therefore,, semantically existing an "after life'?

Very good. But if we say life doesn't stop, it would still be life; continuous life because it hasn't stopped yet.

in my original post to you,,,,, i meant to throw in there the fact that life is continuos,, but as you pointed out,,, the individual points out of the infinite diverse life forms at any time,,,die,,.,,, and this brings us into the contemplation of what will come for me,, my individuality,, all ive known,, all ive grown accustomed too,, my biggest responsibility,,, what will i become,,,, to live life makes you love itself,,, it makes you not want to leave,, for that thought is handy for survival,,.,.

Of course; it is a scary thought, but one that should at least be explored. It does seem like every memory, thought and the whole linguistic structure we've built should go somewhere. But if we apply Occam's razor and a little common sense, we should at least recognize our own self-centeredness, and the possibility that we aren't what we think we are, we aren't the eternal beings in physical shrouds we hope we are.

Like you said, this simplifies everything and makes life more exquisite and dear, it makes one cherish what can be cherished—anything in this life. I think if people realized this, they would love life, and love the life in others. But—let's not get all mushy.

oh totally agree.,.., those thoughts wheather you like it or not,,, is pretty much the basis for new age and maybe some eastern philosophy of ego death,..,,. to realise that you are a force of nature,,,, birthed from the whole,,, you feel completely separate and unique but your only as seperate and unique as every bird, bee, flower, tree.., who were birthed into this process in a time and place relatively near your own for the moment,, to realise that your individuality you have created since birth does not preceded the history and creation of All things, by a long shot,.,.., you are a very complex equation, and the most significant thing in reality,.,.,. but unseeable in the reality which exists of infinite infinities,,

I can do ego-death whenever I want. I call it racing down an alpine mountain at 70km an hour on a skate-deck with a ski on the bottom. I can experience the same states of mind that new agers do by going fishing or living on my own in the woods for a week. I can't deny I am a product of nature because I feel at home there. To me New Age philosophies are the result of people not getting out of the prison of their city, or who are slaves to their jobs (which at the moment, I am) and synthetic lives and systems. Its a product of living in a synthetic overpopulated world. People need asceticism to remind them they are a part of nature. Who needs mysticism when you're cooking bannok by a fire on the shore between a rain forrest and the pacific ocean.

But of course, everything is different for different people. I do agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the individual. That is something I would give my life for.

Thank you for the uplifting chat sir.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Your question assumes firstly that life needs a physical body to exist, and secondly that inanimate things such as rocks, dirt or air are completely void of life energy...

Yes, this is assumed. If energy is life, and energy doesn't end, then we can still safely say that life continues. I think this would still show that an afterlife is unnecessary and paradoxical. What do you think?

Not quite sure what you mean SO. Do you mean that you do not believe in spirit/soul/whatever and life simply continues in other forms in other beings

or

that life is itself is a separate energy and you do believe in spirit. For if this is the case then 'afterlife' would simply mean after 'physical' life, even though technically there is no death of life energy.

What we call life is in fact movement.
Movement equals change, change equals adaptation.
We are part of a manifested existence that is transforming constantly.
Earth is but a tiny dot in this universal existence, it will ones vanish into the realm of nothingness.

But we are walking on this earth as conscious beings, and wondering why, what's the point of being.
We regenerate, we will live on in the smile of our children, and regeneration means that we adapt to changes in the enviroment, biological evolution.
A chain or a wire through existence in which we know beginning and ending, but for movement it is just ongoing process of transformation.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Your question assumes firstly that life needs a physical body to exist, and secondly that inanimate things such as rocks, dirt or air are completely void of life energy...

Yes, this is assumed. If energy is life, and energy doesn't end, then we can still safely say that life continues. I think this would still show that an afterlife is unnecessary and paradoxical. What do you think?

Not quite sure what you mean SO. Do you mean that you do not believe in spirit/soul/whatever and life simply continues in other forms in other beings

or

that life is itself is a separate energy and you do believe in spirit. For if this is the case then 'afterlife' would simply mean after 'physical' life, even though technically there is no death of life energy.

My beliefs are suspended. I cannot answer those questions to myself.

Either way, whatever constitutes life continues—life in its entirety, as in every living thing. When one peace of it dies, it still continues, much like a body shedding a cell. If this is the case, what is the need for an afterlife? It is a logical problem, not one based on my beliefs.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


If you are questioning yourself on the after life, there have been instances where clinically "dead" patients or people going near to death have reported or testimonied what happened to them or what they saw. One is free or not to believe about it but, "Life after Life" from M.D. Moody could be a good start.

For thos interested in the topic, a quick search in google books could give you a brief outlook of what it is. Interesting stuff I must say and related to after life somehow.






Thruthseek3r

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Your question assumes firstly that life needs a physical body to exist, and secondly that inanimate things such as rocks, dirt or air are completely void of life energy...

Yes, this is assumed. If energy is life, and energy doesn't end, then we can still safely say that life continues. I think this would still show that an afterlife is unnecessary and paradoxical. What do you think?

Not quite sure what you mean SO. Do you mean that you do not believe in spirit/soul/whatever and life simply continues in other forms in other beings

or

that life is itself is a separate energy and you do believe in spirit. For if this is the case then 'afterlife' would simply mean after 'physical' life, even though technically there is no death of life energy.

My beliefs are suspended. I cannot answer those questions to myself.

Either way, whatever constitutes life continues—life in its entirety, as in every living thing. When one peace of it dies, it still continues, much like a body shedding a cell. If this is the case, what is the need for an afterlife? It is a logical problem, not one based on my beliefs.

A logical one or a question of semantics maybe.

Cos now the question becomes whether 'afterlife' is really the right word for it.

But as for your logic, that will be only answered when we discover why exactly we are here. When that question is answered then what becomes of the spirit after the physical body has past and why it does this will probably be answered by default.