Life after death

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Life after death

Post by Tomas » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:54 pm

Sarge_Jr wrote:Dependant that actual 'Life' as we view it is built by our brain, There is a very slim chance that part of that will carry on to somewhere else in a way. Possibly a fragment of consciousness will slip through time after the bodies main systems die and decompose. It may also depend on how one's death is caused; A gunshot wound to the head (brain) may lower the possibility of some form of consciousness to slip through time. However, if the mind is as smart as we know it to be, maybe it could escape the body in some way.

Sadly there is no way we can know this. However if the human body has a spiritual alternative, theres also a chance of that existing somehow. Then theres the dialema of religion, which is based around the theory that the bodies spirit goes to either Heaven or Hell, dependent on how good you've been.


But if you think about it logically, it would only make sense if the human body is just a organic machine, that we die and cease to exist for the rest of time.

Coming to a conclusion on this subject will prove difficult in so many different ways...
This Sarge guy. He posted on August 26, 2008.

Now this is one, well-thought out commentary.

Overall, (he) posted but 16 times or so.
Don't run to your death

jufa
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by jufa » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:14 pm

Tomas wrote:
jufa wrote:
Tomas wrote:
David Quinn wrote:That gave me a chuckle. Alex believes that constantly hopping from branch to branch and chattering like an excited monkey is an expression of vitality and life .....

A sure sign that one's own inner existence is sterile and lifeless is the need to keep looking endlessly outwards - in books, in religions, in theories, in people, in guides - for inspiration. Or worse, to find refuge in them.

-
David nails it.
He sure did. He nailed a faery tale. Should ones inner existence be sterile and lifeless, how could birth take place? Please explain!
Certainly I'll explain right after your definition of 'faery tale'.

I'd looked into (leafed through, paged) a few online [faery tale] teasers and a couple local-library hard-book dictionaries and another opinion from a (our local) university doctorate dude.

Also their usages in different english dialects canadian, aussie, usa, scottish-english, french, latin and for the kick of it, Aesop's Fables..

faery tale(s)
mythical lie

to avoid clearing up this lie, i assume I have to hear a long or short story of faery tale explanation from you. No here.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Life after death

Post by Tomas » Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:04 pm

Tomas wrote:
jufa wrote:mythical lie

to avoid clearing up this lie, i assume I have to hear a long or short story of faery tale explanation from you. No here.
As far as your stoic assumption of hearing (much less reading this thread) you will not be reading the digressions of Mr Quinn and Mr Solway regarding "Life after death".
Don't run to your death

Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Life after death

Post by Bobo » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:10 am

(...) remember that no man can lose any other life than that which he lives now, neither is he possessed of any other (life) than that which he loses. - Marcus Aurelius.

User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Life after death

Post by Tomas » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:06 am

Bobo wrote:(...) remember that no man can lose any other life than that which he lives now, neither is he possessed of any other (life) than that which he loses. - Marcus Aurelius.
Even a dead man would see through your partial quote.
Don't run to your death

jufa
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by jufa » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:34 am

Tomas wrote:
Tomas wrote:
jufa wrote:mythical lie

to avoid clearing up this lie, i assume I have to hear a long or short story of faery tale explanation from you. No here.
As far as your stoic assumption of hearing (much less reading this thread) you will not be reading the digressions of Mr Quinn and Mr Solway regarding "Life after death".
What I do know beyond my stoic assumption thus far is the following has not come to fruitcake/
Should ones inner existence be sterile and lifeless, how could birth take place? Please explain!
Just as D. Quinn could not give any dialog as to his reasoning [beginning, middle, nor conclusion] that Nature does not have a cause.

One should be more than willing to back-up what they say. Should they not be able to do so,, I see on this forum, they escape by the flip off pass. "Professing themselves to be wise..."

Never give power to anything a person believes is there source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by David Quinn » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:05 am

jufa wrote: Just as D. Quinn could not give any dialog as to his reasoning [beginning, middle, nor conclusion] that Nature does not have a cause.
He did provide the dialog, but the shutters instinctively come up and you do not see it. You have a god-riddled world-view to protect.

Since Nature is everything, whatever you care to point to as being the cause of Nature will necessarily be a part of Nature.

Whoosh! With a single stroke of logic all gods are obliterated.

-

jufa
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by jufa » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:26 am

David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote: Just as D. Quinn could not give any dialog as to his reasoning [beginning, middle, nor conclusion] that Nature does not have a cause.
He did provide the dialog, but the shutters instinctively come up and you do not see it. You have a god-riddled world-view to protect.

Since Nature is everything, whatever you care to point to as being the cause of Nature will necessarily be a part of Nature.

Whoosh! With a single stroke of logic all gods are obliterated.

-
I'm still here!!!

I do not point to anything as being a cause. Yet naivety prevents logical individuals from stating Something Came From Nothing. It is just as ignorant to say life began out of a ball of fire. And so, with a single stroke of logic, still I can say you have yet to clarify how you know Nature has no cause? How do you know nature is everything? How do you know Nature is everything?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by David Quinn » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:53 am

jufa wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote: Just as D. Quinn could not give any dialog as to his reasoning [beginning, middle, nor conclusion] that Nature does not have a cause.
He did provide the dialog, but the shutters instinctively come up and you do not see it. You have a god-riddled world-view to protect.

Since Nature is everything, whatever you care to point to as being the cause of Nature will necessarily be a part of Nature.

Whoosh! With a single stroke of logic all gods are obliterated.
I'm still here!!!

Ha!

I do not point to anything as being a cause. Yet naivety prevents logical individuals from stating Something Came From Nothing.

I'm not saying that Nature came from nothing, but that it has always been around. It is beginningless. Timeless.

It is just as ignorant to say life began out of a ball of fire. And so, with a single stroke of logic, still I can say you have yet to clarify how you know Nature has no cause? How do you know nature is everything? How do you know Nature is everything?

It's simply a definition. I define Nature to be everything. A definition is a building block of thought, a tool for thought to use in its bid to reach meaningful conclusions about the world. It is neither true nor false.

Let's forget the word "Nature" for the moment, as it seems to be confusing you, and just focus on the concept of everything. Can you see how everything necessarily stretches back forever and has no cause?

-

jufa
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by jufa » Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:27 pm

David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote: Just as D. Quinn could not give any dialog as to his reasoning [beginning, middle, nor conclusion] that Nature does not have a cause.
He did provide the dialog, but the shutters instinctively come up and you do not see it. You have a god-riddled world-view to protect.

Since Nature is everything, whatever you care to point to as being the cause of Nature will necessarily be a part of Nature.

Whoosh! With a single stroke of logic all gods are obliterated.
I'm still here!!!

Ha!

I do not point to anything as being a cause. Yet naivety prevents logical individuals from stating Something Came From Nothing.

I'm not saying that Nature came from nothing, but that it has always been around. It is beginningless. Timeless.

It is just as ignorant to say life began out of a ball of fire. And so, with a single stroke of logic, still I can say you have yet to clarify how you know Nature has no cause? How do you know nature is everything? How do you know Nature is everything?

It's simply a definition. I define Nature to be everything. A definition is a building block of thought, a tool for thought to use in its bid to reach meaningful conclusions about the world. It is neither true nor false.

Let's forget the word "Nature" for the moment, as it seems to be confusing you, and just focus on the concept of everything. Can you see how everything necessarily stretches back forever and has no cause?

-


Let's stop all the jostling with word definition. The word Nature is eliminated since you seem to believe
it seems to be confusing
to me. What is not confusing is the truth. You have presented a concept yet cannot give deductive nor inductive reasoning to support it beyond
Can you see
. Should I have seen your reasoning by observation this conversation would be moot. All along I have stated I cannot see how you have formatted your journey of reasoning and came to the conclusion you have.

The only reasoning you present is
Can you see
. What is so disturbing here is you cannot see the logic behind, before, on the side, top of and under your statement. Should I not be correct than simply give me a blueprint of your logical journey of reason. This is all I ask. Is this to simple a request? Being you are such a logical individual, this should be easy for you!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by Dan Rowden » Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:06 pm

Asking for a "cause" of everything (Nature) is nonsensical given that any answer cannot in fact be an answer because it must necessarily be part of the "everything" for which one is trying to determine a cause.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by David Quinn » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:02 pm

jufa wrote: You have presented a concept yet cannot give deductive nor inductive reasoning to support it beyond
Can you see
. Should I have seen your reasoning by observation this conversation would be moot. All along I have stated I cannot see how you have formatted your journey of reasoning and came to the conclusion you have.
Okay, forget it, then. These reasonings aren't for you.

-

User avatar
Shepard
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:42 pm

Re: Life after death

Post by Shepard » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:48 pm

All of it.
ha.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:44 am

David, it is my hope that the contents of your response to jufa will serve as a meaningful dialogue between us. I don't know if you recall a previous conversation we had quite a while back about transcending the male principle of logic [which I define as the activity of making causal inferences], which you agreed was a necessary step. We were deep into the heart of this discussion when you told me that you had to go away for a while, but would return and pick up where we left off. This never happened.

You said:
David Quinn: Let's forget the word "Nature" for the moment, as it seems to be confusing you, and just focus on the concept of everything. Can you see how everything necessarily stretches back forever and has no cause?

It's simply a definition. I define Nature to be everything. A definition is a building block of thought, a tool for thought to use in its bid to reach meaningful conclusions about the world. It is neither true nor false.
I completely agree with both of your conclusions, from the position of the human [male] logical sentient mind. But Nature or Everything or Life is neither human nor male nor logical nor sentient. I do believe you know this truth and it is why you appear to be placing forward [correct me if I am wrong] the concept of enlightenment as being one of an eternal turning wheel of sentient relativity. In other words, we, as sentient beings, cannot know the cause of Everything, ergo, we have no choice but to eternally invent our own sentient causes for Everything.

I will stop here and wait to see if I have interpreted your concept of enlightenment correctly before preceding with my argument that it is an incomplete concept. I am open to hearing your thoughts without prejudice, my intent being to discover the way of releasing myself and others completely and permanently from the suffering of having to infer their life so as to discover what is absolutely true of their life.

jufa
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by jufa » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:57 am

David Quinn wrote:
jufa wrote: You have presented a concept yet cannot give deductive nor inductive reasoning to support it beyond
Can you see
. Should I have seen your reasoning by observation this conversation would be moot. All along I have stated I cannot see how you have formatted your journey of reasoning and came to the conclusion you have.
Okay, forget it, then. These reasonings aren't for you.

-
What reasoning's are you talking about? Show me where i can find this reasoning beyond the first quote below in this thread. You have given no reasoning by definition of anything but
Can you see?
See what? is what I have been asking you to define. Even moreso now being you have stated
A definition is a building block of thought, a tool for thought to use in its bid to reach meaningful conclusions about the world. It is neither true nor false.
This invitation is not only for you, it is extended to anyone else who agrees with your concept Nature has no cause.

Is your statement
Nature has no cause
true? Should it be true, show the defining reason of definition PLEASE!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillousionofgod.yuku.com

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by David Quinn » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:27 am

lol

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by David Quinn » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:55 am

movingalways wrote:David, it is my hope that the contents of your response to jufa will serve as a meaningful dialogue between us. I don't know if you recall a previous conversation we had quite a while back about transcending the male principle of logic [which I define as the activity of making causal inferences], which you agreed was a necessary step.
I don't recall what I said back then, but I certainly wouldn't define logic as the activity of making causal references. Rather, logic is the activity of exposing and undermining delusion. Delusion is the belief in things that don't really exist and expresses itself in the form of contradictory thinking.

movingalways wrote:You said:
David Quinn: Let's forget the word "Nature" for the moment, as it seems to be confusing you, and just focus on the concept of everything. Can you see how everything necessarily stretches back forever and has no cause?

It's simply a definition. I define Nature to be everything. A definition is a building block of thought, a tool for thought to use in its bid to reach meaningful conclusions about the world. It is neither true nor false.
I completely agree with both of your conclusions, from the position of the human [male] logical sentient mind. But Nature or Everything or Life is neither human nor male nor logical nor sentient. I do believe you know this truth and it is why you appear to be placing forward [correct me if I am wrong] the concept of enlightenment as being one of an eternal turning wheel of sentient relativity. In other words, we, as sentient beings, cannot know the cause of Everything, ergo, we have no choice but to eternally invent our own sentient causes for Everything.

It's not a matter of our being unable to know the cause of Everything. There is literally no cause to know. It has nothing do with our status as sentient beings. Not even the greatest of super-beings can determine the cause. Not even Everything itself can determine it.

As for enlightenment, it is simply the habit of being without delusion.

-

jufa
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by jufa » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:47 am

D. Quinn wrote:
It's not a matter of our being unable to know the cause of Everything. There is literally no cause to know. It has nothing do with our status as sentient beings. Not even the greatest of super-beings can determine the cause. Not even Everything itself can determine it.

As for enlightenment, it is simply the habit of being without delusion.
How then can you state to others anything of truth, when you do not know the cause.

Should delusion not be definable bu definitive cause, how does one know what is enlightenment or delusion?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after death

Post by Pam Seeback » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:25 pm

David Quinn wrote:lol
This response tells me that the one thing that exists that is beyond the existence of logic, which is compassion, is not being demonstrated here. As Bob Michaels pointed out in his quote from Paul, if there is not love being shown, then one's words are as clanging cymbals.

Logic is a handy servant, but as you showed in this act of mocking another, logic is a lousy master.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by David Quinn » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:06 pm

I think you're merely seeing what you want to see. How do you know that my laughter was mocking in nature? Laughter comes in many different forms.

And another point: Above, you are rebuking me. Is rebuking compatible with compassion? If so, why can't mocking be as well? Mocking too comes in many different forms. When a brother and sister tease and mock one another, do they stop loving each other? Or when Jesus mocked the religious leaders of his time - was he ceasing to be compassionate?

-

User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by Bob Michael » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:29 am

movingalways wrote:This response tells me that the one thing that exists that is beyond the existence of logic, which is compassion, is not being demonstrated here. As Bob Michaels pointed out in his quote from Paul, if there is not love being shown, then one's words are as clanging cymbals. Logic is a handy servant, but as you showed in this act of mocking another, logic is a lousy master.
http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/greatest.htm

Whatshappening
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Re: Life after death

Post by Whatshappening » Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:55 am

Bob Michael wrote:
movingalways wrote:This response tells me that the one thing that exists that is beyond the existence of logic, which is compassion, is not being demonstrated here. As Bob Michaels pointed out in his quote from Paul, if there is not love being shown, then one's words are as clanging cymbals. Logic is a handy servant, but as you showed in this act of mocking another, logic is a lousy master.
http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/greatest.htm
"...logic is a lousy master." But so is the heart. What's a man to do? If not those two, then what?

What
Gary

jufa
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by jufa » Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:10 am

What is comical here is D. Rowden & D. Quinn's, and all who agree with them is the denial of the Einsteins, Hawkins, Susskind, quantum physics, Dr.s who specialize in all issue a man can imagine, and finally science itself which seek not only the cause of Nature, but Life itself.

Why would finding a cause for all a man is aware of be a non=stop process in the scientific world should Nature have no cause?

Tell any man in any of the fields of endeavor above there is an effect without a cause and you will witness the big bang. The big bang of pure unadulterated laughter. Laughing out loud!!!

Personally I am glad men such as Edison, Pasteur., Salk, Galileo and their kind before and after never stopped at the asinine notion of No Cause.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa


http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by Bob Michael » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:23 am

Whatshappening wrote:"...logic is a lousy master." But so is the heart. What's a man to do? If not those two, then what?
Begin to trust and go with movement, as Adler once suggested.

"Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events, not of words. Trust movement." (Alfred Adler)

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Life after death

Post by David Quinn » Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:47 am

Whatshappening wrote: "...logic is a lousy master." But so is the heart. What's a man to do? If not those two, then what?
This reminds me of an amusing entry in Poison for the Heart:
Radio Priest and the female mind (a transcript)

Woman: I am confused. The man I am with now is the best friend I ever had, but I think I should go back to the man I was with before, even though he used to abuse me badly.

Priest: But you really feel a lot for the man you're with now . . . so I think you should do what your heart tells you!

Woman: My heart tells me to go back to the man who abused me.

Priest: Then you should do what your mind tells you.
:)

It isn't so much that logic is a lousy master (on the contrary, it is flawless), but that people are lousy servants of it.

A case in point, Bob writes:
Bob Michael wrote:
Whatshappening wrote:"...logic is a lousy master." But so is the heart. What's a man to do? If not those two, then what?
Begin to trust and go with movement, as Adler once suggested.

Bob says forget logic, go with movement. (And receives a big thumbs up from the world's paedophiles, generals and dictators).

David will ask: Why?

Bob will answer: Because .... [blah, blah, blah...]

And so we're back to going with logic again.

-

Post Reply