Death

[Astarte]

This is for atheists and non-atheists, what do you think happens after death?

[Tommy4ever]

Nothing.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah, nothing. I really have trouble believing that the mind/soul/whatever is powerful enough to continue existing even after physically ceasing to function.

It's a scary thought but whatever.

[tbasherizer]

As far as any one individual is concerned, there is no 'after death'. Death is the end of the human experience; there is no guessing what happens after it.

Sure, there's the grief of the people socially connected to the deceased, but that has nothing to do with their(the deceased's) experience.

[Tenka]

It's a depressing sight for anyone who does not believe in an afterlife: the consciousness is snuffed out, the body is degraded by animals and plants or burned. I've often seen death romanticised by supposed materialists with sayings to the rough effect of "It gives life so much more worth", but this is just vaguely poetic-looking nonsense. Death is an enemy for our species to eventually surmount.

[Zav]

Life keeps going without one's presence. One's molecules are recycled to create more life.

[Astarte]

I chose option 2. Essentially it is the school of thought revolving around many religions and belief systems such as Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and some schools of Taoism and Buddhism, as well as Hinduism - it states the soul i.e. consciousness is entrapped is a matter body with the purpose of tending the material world on behalf of the Absolute - (humanity is the way "Chaos" has chosen to bring "Order" to the material universe) after a life dharmatically "well lived" you essentially ascend to either a re-unification with the "Abstract" aka "God" in a "Nirvana" state, or at least ascend into a metaphysical being such as a deva or asura, or an "angel" or "demon" ... "descendancy" would be transmigration down the ladder into an animal form, so essentially option 2 is also the "reincarnation" option.

[Zav]

It's a depressing sight for anyone who does not believe in an afterlife: the consciousness is snuffed out, the body is degraded by animals and plants or burned. I've often seen death romanticised by supposed materialists with sayings to the rough effect of "It gives life so much more worth", but this is just vaguely poetic-looking nonsense. Death is an enemy for our species to eventually surmount.
Yes, we will be able to extend the number of times our cells can divide. And yet, while it is within grasp, it receives no research funding.

[Tablo]

I voted for nothing, but I really don't know. It isn't really possible for me to know.

[PhoenixAsh]

well...whatever happens...one day we will all find out.

[Astarte]

It's a depressing sight for anyone who does not believe in an afterlife: the consciousness is snuffed out, the body is degraded by animals and plants or burned. I've often seen death romanticised by supposed materialists with sayings to the rough effect of "It gives life so much more worth", but this is just vaguely poetic-looking nonsense. Death is an enemy for our species to eventually surmount.

In fact, if humanity ever did conquer physical death using science it would be the apotheosis of the human race itself, and one further step in the union of the physical and metaphysical worlds.

[Tenka]

In fact, if humanity ever did conquer physical death using science it would be the apotheosis of the human race itself, and one further step in the union of the physical and metaphysical worlds.

I agree with this to an extent. The conquering of physical death would so drastically reduce the domain of metaphysical thought that it might seem absorbed by the physical. (What is after life if there is no death? If it was possible and normal for one's consciousness to 'live' indefinitely in the physical world, the only ones who would seek death would not hope for anything that resembled life in it, would they?)

Anyway, I voted "Nothing" in the poll, as that is what becomes of the consciousness of the dead individual.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

The energy in your brain dissipates as heat and returns to the great entropy of the environment. It's over, you're a mass of rotting organic matter.

[Sir Comradical]

In fact, if humanity ever did conquer physical death using science it would be the apotheosis of the human race itself, and one further step in the union of the physical and metaphysical worlds.

We should totally do this shit! Fuckin' awesome idea!

We can preserve people like Lenin and Marx and consult them like they're some divine oracle supercomputer.

[Tjis]

Although I don't believe humans possess a soul, I do believe in the Buddhist notion of karma and rebirth.
To put it simply, actions have consequences. Either these consequences come to fruition right away, or they do so at a later time. If I die before experiencing the consequences of some actions, those actions will be a factor in where I am reborn. Heaven, hell, or maybe even another human existence. Nevertheless, this new existence is finite as well, since whatever is born must eventually die. The result is an endless cycle of birth and death.
But rebirth is not the transfer of the soul from a dying body to a living one. It is the birth of a new being that inherits the consequences of the actions of the old being, without sharing essence with the old being.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Although I don't believe humans possess a soul, I do believe in the Buddhist notion of karma and rebirth.

There is a mathematical problem with the concept of rebirth or reincarnation (I am dealing with only human to human reincarnation at this point).

If a human dies and is born again as another human, all well and good, but that would mean the population would have to remain static. Obviously, our population isn't static, it is always growing (at 1.092% per year). Where are the new humans coming from? I believe this fact disproves human to human reincarnation, rebirth, and past lives absolutely.

Now some religions hold that you may not be reincarnated as a human, but as a lower life form. However, the total biomass on this planet is decreasing due to human actions. I'm not talking about the extinction of species, just that there is less life on the Earth now that there was 100 years ago. This is especially true in the oceans, where plankton and bacteria populations are declining steeply. So if human to non-human reincarnation is considered, there aren't enough new lifeforms for the old lifeforms to inhabit. Now we have trillions of extra dead lifeforms with no where to go. Thus again, mathematics disproves the doctrine.

[Tjis]

There is a mathematical problem with the concept of rebirth or reincarnation (I am dealing with only human to human reincarnation at this point).

If a human dies and is born again as another human, all well and good, but that would mean the population would have to remain static. Obviously, our population isn't static, it is always growing (at 1.092% per year). Where are the new humans coming from? I believe this fact disproves human to human reincarnation, rebirth, and past lives absolutely.

Now some religions hold that you may not be reincarnated as a human, but as a lower life form. However, the total biomass on this planet is decreasing due to human actions. I'm not talking about the extinction of species, just that there is less life on the Earth now that there was 100 years ago. This is especially true in the oceans, where plankton and bacteria populations are declining steeply. So if human to non-human reincarnation is considered, there aren't enough new lifeforms for the old lifeforms to inhabit. Now we have trillions of extra dead lifeforms with no where to go. Thus again, mathematics disproves the doctrine.
That'd hold only if everything is reborn on earth in a physical cellular form. But earth is just one planet in a huge universe, which potentially is just one universe out of many. And cellular life is just one kind of existence. Within Buddhist cosmology there's such a thing as formless existence for example.

All the mathematical argument proves is that if there is such a thing as rebirth, then cellular life on earth can't be the only destination. It can't prove or disprove rebirth, just as mathematical arguments can't prove or disprove the existence of god, soul or afterlife, or any other kind of metaphysical construct.

[Manic Impressive]

Reincarnation and karma is a horribly reactionary fairy tale as it justifies suffering and class. Those who were better people in a previous life get a better life next time so the people who were bad end up having a shit life great almost everyone I know must have been a right bastard last time around thanks. Not to mention babies who were born with aids or addicted to drugs but hey that's karma right they probably deserved it? :mad:

[Johnny Panic]

Why is I don't know (which is the truth for almost everyone) not a choice?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

That'd hold only if everything is reborn on earth in a physical cellular form. But earth is just one planet in a huge universe, which potentially is just one universe out of many. And cellular life is just one kind of existence. Within Buddhist cosmology there's such a thing as formless existence for example.

All the mathematical argument proves is that if there is such a thing as rebirth, then cellular life on earth can't be the only destination. It can't prove or disprove rebirth, just as mathematical arguments can't prove or disprove the existence of god, soul or afterlife, or any other kind of metaphysical construct.

I'm afraid your wrong. You see, involving the universe as a whole just extends the argument, and mathematics is infinitely scalable. In the case of sentient to sentient reincarnation, again, the population of the universe as a whole would have to remain constant, and growth disproves this. You still have to account for new spirits/souls being created, and no reincarnation doctrine does this. Something can not be created out of nothing, so there are no new spirits/souls.

In the second case, even taking formless existence in to account, there would be an ever increasing number of formless spirits, until it reached infinity. An infinite number of things that don't exist and a finite number of things that do exist. Since any level of existence entails either mass or energy (which are after all the same thing), you would have to have an infinite amount of mass or energy, which you can't have.

Sorry man, math is scalable. You can't make a problem too big for math to solve. Math 2. Reincarnation 0.

P.S. You'd be amazed what I did with math yesterday, but I can't tell you because it's against the DIY rules. It involved volumes, unit conversions, ratios, densities, and algebra, all with hard constraints. Boy was it fun!

[Tjis]

Reincarnation and karma is a horribly reactionary fairy tale as it justifies suffering and class. Those who were better people in a previous life get a better life next time so the people who were bad end up having a shit life great almost everyone I know must have been a right bastard last time around thanks. Not to mention babies who were born with aids or addicted to drugs but hey that's karma right they probably deserved it? :mad:

Unfortunately this is a popular view of karma which helped secure the comfortable position of many priest classes in history, even up to this day in Hinduism. It is also ridiculous. In our everyday experience we can clearly see many causes that have nothing to do with karma. When a rock falls, that is not caused by the rock's karma, it's caused by gravity. When an earthquake kills hundreds of people, that was not because of their karma, it was because of a natural cause. When someone is born in a rich family, they're not rich because of karma, but because of the support of their family.

This ridiculous view of karma is not the Buddhist view of karma though. There are many causes, and karma is just one of them. It is karma that results in a human rebirth but the quality of this rebirth is more influenced by natural causes, as well as the present actions of ourselves and those around us than actions in previous lives.



I'm afraid your wrong. You see, involving the universe as a whole just extends the argument, and mathematics is infinitely scalable. In the case of sentient to sentient reincarnation, again, the population of the universe as a whole would have to remain constant, and growth disproves this. You still have to account for new spirits/souls being created, and no reincarnation doctrine does this. Something can not be created out of nothing, so there are no new spirits/souls.

Buddhism actually holds that there are more universes, some of which expanding and others shrinking. Beings can be reborn in any of these universes, not just the one we currently live in. So beings in a shrinking universe can be reborn in an expanding one, and the other way around.
So yeah, it actually does have an explanation for this :).



In the second case, even taking formless existence in to account, there would be an ever increasing number of formless spirits, until it reached infinity. An infinite number of things that don't exist and a finite number of things that do exist. Since any level of existence entails either mass or energy (which are after all the same thing), you would have to have an infinite amount of mass or energy, which you can't have.

That's quite some big assumptions right there. Why must every level of existence necessarily either entail mass or energy? Why is an infinite amount of mass/energy impossible?



Sorry man, math is scalable. You can't make a problem too big for math to solve. Math 2. Reincarnation 0.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Before you can do any math, you must first know the properties of whatever you are calculating with. As it is, you are just guessing about these properties.

[hatzel]

In the case of sentient to sentient reincarnation, again, the population of the universe as a whole would have to remain constant, and growth disproves this.

Hold up hold up hold up...how the hell do you know the population of the universe? :confused:

I call bullshit :sneaky:

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Buddhism actually holds that there are more universes, some of which expanding and others shrinking. Beings can be reborn in any of these universes, not just the one we currently live in. So beings in a shrinking universe can be reborn in an expanding one, and the other way around.

First, there is no multiverse. It is strictly an idea, and not a scientific one. There is nothing in the behavior of physics or particles in this universe that would suggest that other universes exist, and if there were other universes, there would be effects. Moreover, if in your model, energy or matter could cross between universes, there would be HUGE effects, noticeable by a college physics student at a 30 year old atom smasher.


That's quite some big assumptions right there. Why must every level of existence necessarily either entail mass or energy? Why is an infinite amount of mass/energy impossible?No, it's not assumptions, it proven by physics and math. For anything to exist in this universe, it must be a thing. Everything is made up of particles (of various types) and energy (of various types), which at the lowest levels are the same things. If an infinite, forget that, even a near infinite amount of formless mass or energy existed, it would cause another Big Bang WITHIN in the existing universe, an explosion inside an explosion. Given that within this universe alone we are talking about 300 sextillion stars (300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), and 13.75 billion years (13,750,000,000), we would have long ago reached that singularity of formless beings. Many times over in fact.

Also, the universe is finite. You can't have infinity inside something finite.

Math 3. Reincarnation 0.


How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?None. There are no such things as angels.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Hold up hold up hold up...how the hell do you know the population of the universe?

Simple.
There exists a universe.
It is populated (you're here, aren't you?).
Therefor there exists a total population. 2+2=4 (except when it equals 5).
"I think therefor I am" proves that the population of the universe is at least 1.

There are 300 sextillion stars (proof: we can see some, detect others, and extrapolate the rest).
Some have planets (proof: we can see some, detect others).
Some planets have life (proof: we are on one).
Result, a finite but changing population of the universe.

This is really simple stuff, I would expect even you to understand.

This is why I prefer arguing with Jesuits over (alleged) rabbis. Jesuits study science and logic. They know their stuff.

[Tjis]

First, there is no multiverse. It is strictly an idea, and not a scientific one.
I agree, it's not scientific at all. It is based on century-old texts passed down through generations, not empirical testing in a controlled environment. That's why Buddhism is a religion and not a scientific truth. I hope that I haven't given the impression that I view it as such.
This topic is about believes around death and the afterlife. I am not sure how one can be scientific about such matters.



There is nothing in the behavior of physics or particles in this universe that would suggest that other universes exist, and if there were other universes, there would be effects. Moreover, if in your model, energy or matter could cross between universes, there would be HUGE effects, noticeable by a college physics student at a 30 year old atom smasher.
I don't see why matter or energy would cross between universes. Earlier I stated that in the Buddhist model of rebirth, no essence from the old being is reborn in the new being. There is no immortal soul that crosses over or something like that. A being dies in one world and another being is born in another world. That is all.



No, it's not assumptions, it proven by physics and math. For anything to exist in this universe, it must be a thing. Everything is made up of particles (of various types) and energy (of various types), which at the lowest levels are the same things.
No such thing has been proven. It is impossible to disprove the existence of something you can not see, feel, hear, smell or touch in any way. It's just not very reasonable to assume that it exists from a scientific point of view. That's why Buddhism is religion and not science.



If an infinite, forget that, even a near infinite amount of formless mass or energy existed, it would cause another Big Bang WITHIN in existing universe, and explosion inside an explosion. Given that within this universe alone we are talking about 300 sextillion stars (300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), and 13.75 billion years (13,750,000,000), we would have long ago reached that singularity of formless beings. Many times over in fact.
Assuming that if there is such a thing as 'formless beings', then they can only be reborn within this universe possessing either mass, energy or both, then yes. But these are assumptions.

If it makes you feel better I agree with you that there can't be such a thing as an infinite amount of 'formless beings' that possess mass and/or energy within this universe.



Also, the universe is finite. You can't have infinity inside something finite.

There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1 (0.1, 0.001, 0.0001, etc is a nice example of an infinite sequence of numbers between 0 and 1), but both 0, 1 and the difference between 0 and 1 are finite.



None. There are no such things as angels.
Yet if there exists such a thing as a formless being, then it must have mass or energy and exist within this universe? You seem rather picky about what assumptions you want to calculate with.

[Property Is Robbery]

After having several out of body experiences (sober and not) I went from being an atheist to believing in something after death. Of course it is not a heaven where we all sit on a cloud with a god who has a white beard. But the fact that I have felt my consciousness outside of my body makes me feel that this will happen after I die as well. When I have this experience I am infinitely connected to everything, every living being, a feeling of ultimate oneness with the infinite energy/light. And if this is wrong at least no energy can be created or destroyed so I will manifest as something else (I don't mean reincarnation)

[Inquisitive Lurker]

After having several out of body experiences (sober and not) I went from being an atheist to believing in something after death.

Out of Body Experiences (OBE's) have been neurologically explained. The part of your brain in charge of keeping track of your body falls asleep. Usually this results in a memory of floating around the ceiling of the room.

Many studies have been undertaken to disprove OBEs. For example, a book, unknown to the subject, was placed on a high shelf in the room. The next time the subject had an OBE, all they had to do was report the title of the book. None could.

In another study, more aimed at astral projection, claimants were placed in a room with a bed. In the room there was a locked door. Behind that door was an assortment of unusual objects. All they had to do was identify a single object. None could.

OBEs with near death experiences have been similarly disproved. Unusual objects were placed in operating rooms and ERs, like grandfather clocks, lava lamps, and big pink teddy bears. Those that claimed to have experienced an OBE were asked what they saw. None saw these objects, they all saw what in their mind they expected to see, an operating room.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

This topic is about believes around death and the afterlife. I am not sure how one can be scientific about such matters.

One must be scientific about all matters, as science is the only way to the truth. The scientific method is flawless.


I don't see why matter or energy would cross between universes. Earlier I stated that in the Buddhist model of rebirth, no essence from the old being is reborn in the new being.Buddhism teaches that there is "the very subtle mind" that survives death and enters the new life. This "very subtle mind" must exist in a form of energy. Therefore, in your model, the universes must be exchanging energy. It can't be a closed system with no interaction if an event (death) in one universe causes an event (birth) in another. It is called causality. It has to have a vehicle. Dominoes don't fall over of their own free will.

Even if we were to assume multiple universes (gawd), this would just again extend the argument, and as I said before, math is infinitely scalable. It would just mean that population of the multiverse would have to be constant.


No such thing has been proven. It is impossible to disprove the existence of something you can not see, feel, hear, smell or touch in any way.Please study the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn) and Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) to see why what you said is silly.


Assuming that if there is such a thing as 'formless beings', then they can only be reborn within this universe possessing either mass, energy or both, then yes. But these are assumptions.No, it's a proven scientific fact. Everything that exists is either matter or energy.


There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1 (0.1, 0.001, 0.0001, etc is a nice example of an infinite sequence of numbers between 0 and 1), but both 0, 1 and the difference between 0 and 1 are finite.Ideas and enumerators are not things. They don't have an existence except in the firings of the neurons in your brain, which are finite.


Yet if there exists such a thing as a formless being, then it must have mass or energy and exist within this universe?This is the definition of "existence." If it doesn't exist (and it doesn't) then it's not real (and it isn't). This is why science kills religion, but religion never makes a dent in science.

Math 4. Reincarnation 0.

P.S. I must confess I'm enjoying this.

[Tjis]

Buddhism teaches that there is "the very subtle mind" that survives death and enters the new life. This "very subtle mind" must exist in a form of energy. Therefore, in your model, the universes must be exchanging energy. It can't be a closed system with no interaction if an event (death) in one universe cause an event (birth) in another. It is called causality. It has to have a vehicle. Dominoes don't fall of their own free will.

Ah, the subtle mind. If we're going there, you should know that in Buddhist cosmology, the material world is a result of the mind, not the other way around. This 'subtle mind' transcends the material world, it is not part of it.



Even if we were to assume multiple universes (gawd), this would just again extend the argument, and as I said before, math is infinitely scalable. It would just mean that population of the multiverse would have to be constant.

And why would this not be the case?





No such thing has been proven. It is impossible to disprove the existence of something you can not see, feel, hear, smell or touch in any way.

Please study the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn) and Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) to see why what you said is silly.

Funny that you refuse to quote the rest.


It's just not very reasonable to assume that it exists from a scientific point of view. That's why Buddhism is religion and not science.

I am well aware of the invisible pink unicorn, russel's teapot and the flying spaghetti monster. They are arguments for why religious theories can't be taken serious by science, since it amounts to finding proof to go with what is already assumed to be the truth, instead of finding the truth through observation.

But it is equally ridiculous to try to disprove religion through science. Religion and science are two separate things which really don't have much to do with each other.



No, it's a proven scientific fact. Everything that exists is either matter or energy.

Please show me the proof.
To me it seems that you simply define 'existence' as 'that which has mass/energy', and then use that definition to disprove that anything but mass and energy exists. Circular reasoning.



Ideas and enumerators are not things. They don't have an existence except in the firings of the neurons in your brain, which are finite.

Ideas don't exist? Again, what a convenient definition of existence.



This is the definition of "existence." If it doesn't exist (and it doesn't) then it's not real (and it isn't). This is why science kills religion, but religion never makes a dent in science.
the definition of existence is that if something doesn't exist then it is not real? That's circular too!


Math 4. Reincarnation 0.
Rebirth is not the same as reincarnation. Just saying.

[SacRedMan]

Pfff... depressing thread. Why do we even live if we know that if we die there will be nothing, and we will be just a rotting corpse? Why even living if it hasn't any purpose or something at all? Why work for the future of others, if we die, and don't know if that future is going to work out well?

Are all species on Earth worthless and are just there... living?

[Property Is Robbery]

Out of Body Experiences (OBE's) have been neurologically explained. The part of your brain in charge of keeping track of your body falls asleep. Usually this results in a memory of floating around the ceiling of the room.

Many studies have been undertaken to disprove OBEs. For example, a book, unknown to the subject, was placed on a high shelf in the room. The next time the subject had an OBE, all they had to do was report the title of the book. None could.

In another study, more aimed at astral projection, claimants were placed in a room with a bed. In the room there was a locked door. Behind that door was an assortment of unusual objects. All they had to do was identify a single object. None could.

OBEs with near death experiences have been similarly disproved. Unusual objects were placed in operating rooms and ERs, like grandfather clocks, lava lamps, and big pink teddy bears. Those that claimed to have experienced an OBE were asked what they saw. None saw these objects, they all saw what in their mind they expected to see, an operating room.

Never said it couldn't be explained. What I experienced wasn't just the room in front of me though. My experiences are impossible to describe adn I don't care about convincing a bunch of people on the internet anyway :p

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Ah, the subtle mind. If we're going there, you should know that in Buddhist cosmology, the material world is a result of the mind, not the other way around. This 'subtle mind' transcends the material world, it is not part of it.
There is nothing beyond the material world (see reference to physics, particles, particle accelerators, multiple universes). If there was something beyond the material world, it would effect the material world, and the effect would be detectable. There are 10 or 11 dimension, 3 of which are expanded, 1 of which is extended, and the remaining 6 or 7 are collapsed to 0. This has been studied in particle accelerators where under extremely high energy reactions we can tease some of the other dimensions to expand by a millionth of a degree.


And why would this not be the case?Because growth and decay are both universal, but not linked. One is biological, the other is the second law of thermodynamics.


But it is equally ridiculous to try to disprove religion through science. Religion and science are two separate things which really don't have much to do with each other.It is the most sensible things to do. Science (and here I draw the broad definition of science which includes anthropology, psychology, neurology, history, medicine, etc.) kills religion. It shows all the stories to be made up. It shows all the beliefs to be false. If a single religion were true, they wouldn't be so easy for science to attack. They would have doctrine and dogma that hundreds of years later science would reinforce. But this never happens. Piece by piece, chip by chip, science whittles away at religion until there is nothing left (see the Lazy God hypothesis).


Please show me the proof.E=mc^2
Damn that was easy.


To me it seems that you simply define 'existence' as 'that which has mass/energy', and then use that definition to disprove that anything but mass and energy exists. Circular reasoning.
Ideas don't exist? Again, what a convenient definition of existence.
Nothing except energy and matter exist, that is what existence is. A thought does not exist, it is merely the firing of neurons. Without the neurons, there is no thought. Thought is an illusion. If you die, the thought is gone, because it never was really there. It's just a pattern of chemical-electrical reactions, which cease about 5 to 15 minutes after you die.

Entropy. Beautiful beautiful entropy.


We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.

[Tjis]

E=mc^2

energy and mass have a relation to eachother, therefore nothing else exists?
How is that a proof?

[hatzel]

Result, a finite but changing population of the universe.

Tell me now: what is the population of the universe? I'll quote you again, with emphasis added:


In the case of sentient to sentient reincarnation, again, the population of the universe as a whole would have to remain constant, and growth disproves this.

Where is the evidence that the population of the universe is growing? Show me the census data! Your argument relies on the claim that the population of the universe is growing, and that it should stay constant if each being were to be reincarnated as another being...you have no way of proving the dynamic change of the population of the universe. Until you prove it, this is a non-argument.

I have literally no idea how you can think that you're such a great debater...you make next to no arguments, those that you do make have little if any basis in fact, you don't even reply to what people say, but what you want them to have said. Everything's a strawman. It's also clear that you have no idea what you're talking about when you come out with all that 'look at Russel's teapot, it proves there is no god!' when the analogy makes literally no claims as such! The entire point of it is that the teapot may exist, implausible as it sounds, but that the doubter can't be expected to have to provide scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that there is no teapot. It's not proof that the teapot doesn't exist, as the entire point of it is that you can't prove the teapot doesn't exist with any reasonable means! If you've misunderstood that whole thing...yeah, I'd not be surprised...I find it absolutely hilarious that you're so cocky when you're spouting such shit :lol:

[Astarte]

Why is I don't know (which is the truth for almost everyone) not a choice?

Because in our "guts" we all having inklings and feelings towards one answer to the death of our own consciousnesses or another - as far as I am concerned the "I don't know" option would have to reduce to one of the above choice - probably for most the answer "Nothing" - thus the choice "I don't know" or "I don't care" can be rendered from tallying the total amount of votes in contrast to the total number of views of the thread, thus the absence of the choice forces all who participate in the vote to give the most honest answer they can - and if they abstain I just take it that they either have no opinion whatsoever on the matter, or do not care.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Tell me now: what is the population of the universe? I'll quote you again, with emphasis added:

Ah, you're talking to me again. I thought you swore you weren't going to do that :laugh:


Well I can tell you now that the population of the universe is at least, oh, let's say 1 octillion (the number of life forms on Earth). Actually I think it may be considerably higher but I don't want to go out on a limb. There are at least 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 lifeforms living inside the human population alone! Bet you didn't know that one!

Every life form either grows and expands or dies and withers away. When one lifeform dies off, it gives room for new lifeforms to take its space and grow. For evidence, see the mass extinctions on Earth. Specifically, the recovery.

Now, if you wanted a real detailed estimate on the population of the universe, and even more specifically the intelligent population of the universe, you'll have to read Carl Sagan. He came up with an equation of 6 or 7 variables for life to exist (Goldilocks zones, etc). Obviously he couldn't give exact figures to all the variables, just high and low estimates. He ran them against our own galaxy and came up with between 10 and 1,000,000 intelligent civilizations.

Now the Milky Way contains about 250 billion stars, and approximately 50 billion planets. So let's take the average of Sagan's analysis, 500,000 intelligent civilizations amongst 250 billion stars, results in 1 civilization per 500,000 stars. I like it when I get to work with round numbers.

So if there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe... does the math... there should be 600,000,000,000,000,000 civilizations. Since Earth is in the mid-range of the Goldilocks Zone, let's give them each 10 billion sentient lifeforms.

So that would make the sentient population of the universe at a very vaguely estimated 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 octillion I believe).

Now that's just the SENTIENT population. There are 7 billion humans on Earth but an octillion lifeforms (minimum). And this does not even take into account the living but non-sentient planets.

So to answer your question, what is the population of the universe, in total lifeforms, sentient or otherwise, the answer is: a whole lot.



And as I said, growth and decay are universal but not linked. A constant population is impossible. No species reaches stasis, not in a small environment like an island, not in a large environment like the universe. It is ALWAYS fluctuating.


90% of this post was me having fun with numbers. The last 10% is what blows you out of the water. Stasis is impossible. Look for a single example and you won't find it. Up and down up and down populations never reach stasis. There can be no constant population in the universe. What is true in a Petri dish is true in a galaxy.


Math (OK Science) 5. Reincarnation 0. Sanctimonious alleged rabbi 0.


P.S. I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier. I'm ashamed that I didn't. Are my skills slipping? The absolute proof that the population of the Universe is expanding is... BECAUSE THE FUCKING UNIVERSE IS STILL EXPANDING YOU IDIOT! How could I have not brought that into the argument sooner?

We are still in the expansion phase of the universe. The Universe has expanded a minimum of 46 billion light years in only 13.75 billion years. Now, if you know even a little about physics, that would mean it is expanding faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. No, what is happening is that as the Universe expands at or near the speed of light, space gets stretched out behind it. If you want more of an explanation ask me nicely or just go read a book.

So the Universe is still expanding, which means new galaxies, new stars, new planets, new life forms. And as the Universe is expanding as a sphere, the volume it will create in the next 13.75 billion years is far greater than the volume it created in the first 13.75 billion years, so the increase in lifeforms is exponential!

Again, Jesuits trump alleged rabbis.
And Science trumps Religion.

[Ballyfornia]

The mind is like a computer, When you die nothing else happens.

[Astarte]

As far as the inability of molecules to pass through multiple universes, there are many ideas which I am not well enough familiar with on a scientific level to discuss in depth such as the behavior of particles on the quantum level that are seemingly impossible to observe through human senses and their instruments, as well as "dark matter" - which almost seems to be the skeletal meta-frame work of physical reality in this universe. In my opinion, when physicists say "religion" will eventually "die out", they are getting at a more perfect understanding of the universe - science working from one end and spirituality working from the other - in this way the two worlds of the mundane and metaphysical also will be united - leaving "believings in 'God', or not believing in 'God' " sort of an anachronistic argument. To think humanity has explained all about the quality of the universe thus far is a little presumptuous in my opinion.

---

Also, I wanted to add, that a fixed or non-fixed number of physical lifeforms in the universe or multi-verse does not have much bearing over whether transmigration is true or not since most traditions in which the idea occurs point out that life forms are constantly reuniting with the god head "ascending" - meaning returning to the "source" - Nirvana - or descending (- leaving the source and engaging in mundane activities -) or even merging. The true meaning of "Hell", to my knowledge is kind of a "scrapping and purifying" of a soul too kharmically heavy to continue, and too dharmically burdened to continue as a singular being - it is a diminishing of accumulated "soul energy" and dispersal of it into lesser form-kinds - even the same could be true of the inverse as "Heaven".

[hatzel]

Ah, you're talking to me again. I thought you swore you weren't going to do that :laugh:

I said I wouldn't reply to you on a one-to-one basis when you started trying to use the Holocaust to 'prove' a 'point', and I feel that I was totally justified in that decision...


Now, if you wanted a real detailed estimate on the population of the universeYou know I don't, though, so that whole post was in vain. I want concrete figures. Concrete. Figures. If you're trying to make a claim and prove a point, by saying that the population of the universe (without even approaching the question of other universes) is growing, then you'll need to provide proof. Last time I checked, that was a basic principle of debate, science, logic, anything. What's that people say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link? If you are going to make an argument, with a number of proofs, then each and every one of these proofs must be accurate. If these building blocks are strong, then the argument as a whole is strong, if the logic joining the blocks is coherent. If the building blocks are vague unsubstantiated claims, then the entire theory is equally vague and unsubstantiated. So your whole argument is vague and unsubstantiated. You have no proof to back up your claim, and even making an assumption is totally bullshit! We're only now starting to find the slightest sign of very very primitive life on other planets in our solar system, and you're already telling us about the demographics of the universe?! Fucking hell, fucking hell...

If we're keeping score, you're yet to have got a single point by my count. And it seems I'm not the only person in this thread who thinks you're talking a load of bullhonk...

EDIT: Astarte has above pointed out that the whole question is irrelevant, because it doesn't require a constant number of beings. Still, I'm not defending the concept of reincarnation; I'm just critiquing the (il)logical arguments flying around in an attempt to 'disprove' it...

[Inquisitive Lurker]

You know I don't, though, so that whole post was in vain. I want concrete figures. Concrete. Figures. If you're trying to make a claim and prove a point, by saying that the population of the universe (without even approaching the question of other universes) is growing, then you'll need to provide proof.

I provided absolute proof, but I did it in a PS which I think happened after you posted, so I'll repost it here:

P.S. I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier. I'm ashamed that I didn't. Are my skills slipping? The absolute proof that the population of the Universe is expanding is... BECAUSE THE FUCKING UNIVERSE IS STILL EXPANDING YOU IDIOT! How could I have not brought that into the argument sooner?

We are still in the expansion phase of the universe. The Universe has expanded a minimum of 46 billion light years in only 13.75 billion years. Now, if you know even a little about physics, that would mean it is expanding faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. No, what is happening is that as the Universe expands at or near the speed of light, space gets stretched out behind it. If you want more of an explanation ask me nicely or just go read a book.

So the Universe is still expanding, which means new galaxies, new stars, new planets, new life forms. And as the Universe is expanding as a sphere, the volume it will create in the next 13.75 billion years is far greater than the volume it created in the first 13.75 billion years, so the increase in lifeforms is exponential!

Again, Jesuits trump alleged rabbis.
And Science trumps Religion.

So that's still Science 5. Reincarnation 0. Sanctimonious self-proclaimed rabbis 0.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I said I wouldn't reply to you on a one-to-one basis when you started trying to use the Holocaust to 'prove' a 'point', and I feel that I was totally justified in that decision...
Fine, then one of these days I'll create our own little thread on the subject in the Religious sub-forum and you can defend yourself there. Better start reading up, because I know some Judaic scholars have come up with some way to spin the Holocaust.

We'll make it a formal debate. You're goal will be to prove the Holocaust was the will of a benevolent god against his Chosen People, or give a theological explanation as to why He didn't intervene, and my goal will be to prove that either G~d was indifferent, endorsed it, or didn't exist in the first place.

[agnixie]

I provided absolute proof, but I did it in a PS which I think happened after you posted, so I'll repost it here:

P.S. I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier. I'm ashamed that I didn't. Are my skills slipping? The absolute proof that the population of the Universe is expanding is... BECAUSE THE FUCKING UNIVERSE IS STILL EXPANDING YOU IDIOT! How could I have not brought that into the argument sooner?

We are still in the expansion phase of the universe. The Universe has expanded a minimum of 46 billion light years in only 13.75 billion years. Now, if you know even a little about physics, that would mean it is expanding faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. No, what is happening is that as the Universe expands at or near the speed of light, space gets stretched out behind it. If you want more of an explanation ask me nicely or just go read a book.

So the Universe is still expanding, which means new galaxies, new stars, new planets, new life forms. And as the Universe is expanding as a sphere, the volume it will create in the next 13.75 billion years is far greater than the volume it created in the first 13.75 billion years, so the increase in lifeforms is exponential!

Again, Jesuits trump alleged rabbis.
And Science trumps Religion.

So that's still Science 5. Reincarnation 0. Sanctimonious self-proclaimed rabbis 0.

Your post has quite a lot that's... well unsupported assertions.
You have hypotheses which seem to be pulled out of thin air. To be kind. Your numbers for lifeforms seem purely arbitrary.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Your post has quite a lot that's... well unsupported assertions.
You have hypotheses which seem to be pulled out of thin air. To be kind. Your numbers for lifeforms seem purely arbitrary.

All my numbers came from the best sources available. Estimates were made, and I noted them when I made them.

The fact that the universe is expanding is not up for debate. That's a hard scientific fact. Hubble (the man), Red Shift, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Which means more galaxies, more stars, more planets, more lifeforms, in an exponentially increasing environment. Period. That ends that discussion. The population of the Universe is growing. Exponentially, not linearly.

[agnixie]

All my numbers came from the best sources available. Estimates were made, and I noted them when I made them.

The fact that the universe is expanding is not up for debate. That's a hard scientific fact. Hubble (the man), Red Shift, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Which means more galaxies, more stars, more planets, more lifeforms, in an exponentially increasing environment. Period. That ends that discussion. The population of the Universe is growing. Exponentially, not linearly.

So you admit that your argument is purely circular?

[Inquisitive Lurker]

So you admit that your argument is purely circular?

To the contrary, I provided the absolute proof to back up my argument. The population of the Universe is growing. Exponentially, not linearly. End of story.

You can't have reincarnation without either:
1. a static population on a planet (disproved), universe (disproved), or multiverse (gawd... disproved)
2. an infinite build up of spirits/souls/subtle minds which must exist in energy form with no bodies to inhabit (physically impossible as it would start another Big Bang)
3. movements of energy between universes which would be HIGHLY detectable and to which 1 and 2 would still apply.

[agnixie]

To the contrary, I provided the absolute proof to back up my argument. The population of the Universe is growing. Exponentially, not linearly. End of story.

You can't have reincarnation without either:
1. a static population on a planet (disproved), universe (disproved), or multiverse (gawd... disproved)
2. an infinite build up of spirits/souls/subtle minds which must exist in energy form with no bodies to inhabit (physically impossible as it would start another Big Bang)
3. movements of energy between universes which would be HIGHLY detectable and to which 1 and 2 would still apply.

You provided no such proof: you're arguing the consequent, your absolute proof is your hypothesis.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

You provided no such proof: you're arguing the consequent, your absolute proof is your hypothesis.

I proved all three, you are just in denial:

You can't have reincarnation without either:
1. a static population on a planet (disproved),The total lifeform population of our planet is not static, as can be seen by the increase in the number of humans, and the much greater decrease in total biomass (deforestation, farming, pollution, desalination, plankton, bacteria).

universe (disproved),The universe is expanding, therefore the population of the universe is increasing exponentially, and is not static.

or multiverse (gawd... disproved)Interacting universes can be viewed the same way you view one universe. A single un-interacting universe is a closed system, no energy or matter goes in or out. An interacting multiverse can also collectively be viewed as a single closed system (though it is a conglomerate of open systems). The same rules apply.

2. an infinite build up of spirits/souls/subtle minds which must exist in energy form with no bodies to inhabit (physically impossible as it would start another Big Bang)In the example given back when we were talking about life on this planet only, i pointed out that the decrease in biomass would lead to an ever increasing number of formless bodies. Everything in the universe must be either energy or matter, I think we can assume these are energy as we haven't bumped into them, so a mass of energy would increase (linearly or exponentially I don't know) until it reached a singularity. Hasn't happened, won't happen.

3. movements of energy between universes which would be HIGHLY detectable and to which 1 and 2 would still apply.People have been searching for other universes. We've even tried to create a few (CERN LHC). But they don't exist. If they did, we would know. We would see particles vanishing and other ones appearing. We would see particles being effected by unseen forces without a source. We would see many things. We haven't, we won't. And even if it were true, problems 1 and 2 still apply.

If the numbers go up, reincarnation doesn't work.
If the numbers go down, reincarnation doesn't work.
If there's a multiverse, nothing changes, still doesn't work.

Now deal with it.

[Octavian]

I have no reason to believe any after life exists so I default with death is nothing.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

If any of the doctrine about reincarnation were true, they would stand up to scientific inspection. They don't. Isn't that interesting? These great wise men centuries ago inspired by the divine didn't know what an electron was. Where was "Thou shalt not create or destroy matter or energy"? Or "Seek thee not more than 92 protons for it is Forbidden!" (Physicists will get that joke).

[Revolution starts with U]

It's a depressing sight for anyone who does not believe in an afterlife:

It's not your place to tell me what's depressing.


Pfff... depressing thread. Why do we even live if we know that if we die there will be nothing, and we will be just a rotting corpse? Why even living if it hasn't any purpose or something at all? Why work for the future of others, if we die, and don't know if that future is going to work out well?

Are all species on Earth worthless and are just there... living?

To me that's all the more reason to take care of things; what a magnificent accident we have been thrust into. Isn't that all the more reason to try to keep it going.
Again, don't tell me what's depressing.
And why take care of the world if your fate is already decided?

[Viet Minh]

Oblivion hopefully! Thats actually kinda comforting to me. Although that said I am intrigued by some of the 'evidence' put forth for reincarnation, with hypnotic regression for example.

[Comrade J]

I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but you will not survive your own death. :rolleyes:

[Astarte]

Well, I guess if this thread has taught us anything it is that Inquisitive Lurker won't be having an after life, or does not yet know it at least. :D

All I am going to say is if you are looking for concrete evidence by way of either the sense, or the tools and instruments associated with them you will find nothing concrete, not because there is "nothing", but because this universe is infinitely more complex than those overt sense and their material tools let on to.

At the title of this forum though, it does say it is for theological discussion, so I will make the completely cryptographic, esoteric, obscure, theological and irrational statement "you either know, are gonna know some day, or never will".

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm an atheist.

I don't know...possibly anything. If it's a hell then I don't care.

[Property Is Robbery]

"You simply re-live the same life over and over only each time with variations"

Does this belief belong to a certain philosophy or religion? I've never heard it.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Foolproof way to disprove the afterlife:

Put a dying person in a hermetically sealed tank.

Measure the mass and energy of everything in the tank down to the electronvolt.

Let them die.

Take the measurement again.

No change = no spirit/soul/subtle mind. No energy escaping. No one going anywhere. Just good old fashioned biological death.

Entropy. Beautiful beautiful entropy. Worship it baby!


We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of chaos. Gone is purpose; all that is left is direction. This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and dispassionately into the heart of the Universe.

[Magón]

I'll probably just be turned into a bunch of ash (cremation), and tossed somewhere I liked when I was alive.

Either that, or my Fountain of Youth concoction made up of several ingredients: Jack Daniels, Tequila, Wormwood, and Mezcal (with the worms included), will finally be perfected and I'll live forever.

Only thing is it'll probably work so well, that my entire consciousness will be transported to an entirely new dimension after just one glass.

[Astarte]

LOL, I got it from a Twilight Zone Episode and was like "O.M.G. It. Could. Actually. Be. Like. That." The episode totally tweaked me out ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Play_(1961_The_Twilight_Zone_episode)

---

Also, I think people may think of "Deja Vu" in this context.

[FreeFocus]

Hopefully nothing happens after death. There's no evidence otherwise and I don't think I'd want to come back to Earth (reincarnation)..

[Johnny Kerosene]

I assume nothing, but I voted other, because I think Reincarnation would be cool as shit. It'd be even better though if you were aware of who your past lives were.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I assume nothing, but I voted other, because I think Reincarnation would be cool as shit. It'd be even better though if you were aware of who your past lives were.

While I chose nothing, I agree reincarnation would be awesome. To add to knowing who your past lives were, there should also be a list you can submit ranging from 1 (most wanted) to 10 (least wanted) about what you'd like to come back as. :)

[SacRedMan]

"You simply re-live the same life over and over only each time with variations"

Does this belief belong to a certain philosophy or religion? I've never heard it.

That would suck... I guess.

[hatzel]

To actually return to the topic: some currents within Judaism suggest that the soul is made up of 613 'chambers' or such, to match the mitzvot. And that as we live, these chambers are 'filled up' according to the mitzvot one keeps. If one doesn't manage to 'fill' all the chambers? Well, then your soul is reinstalled in another new being, to see if you can 'fill' the remaining chambers. This continues ceaselessly until all the chambers have been 'filled', and then...well, I guess that's when its time for the world to come...I assume that this has some similarities to certain Buddhist traditions, but I'm hardly an expert! :)

[Astarte]

To actually return to the topic: some currents within Judaism suggest that the soul is made up of 613 'chambers' or such, to match the mitzvot. And that as we live, these chambers are 'filled up' according to the mitzvot one keeps. If one doesn't manage to 'fill' all the chambers? Well, then your soul is reinstalled in another new being, to see if you can 'fill' the remaining chambers. This continues ceaselessly until all the chambers have been 'filled', and then...well, I guess that's when its time for the world to come...I assume that this has some similarities to certain Buddhist traditions, but I'm hardly an expert! :)

Wow, that is really interesting, what would you suggest in terms of a good text on this subject? Also what do you think the significance of the number 613 is...?

[Revolution starts with U]

6+1+3=10

[Astarte]

6+1+3=10

Yes, I thought of that, and it makes sense since it is "1" brought to a qualitative higher level, one meaning the "singularity" of our individual consciousness "1+0" meaning that plus "the next world", but usually in numerological contexts when numbers are not summed there is usually some esoteric connotation affiliated with the numerical combination.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

6+1+3=10
Only in base 10. Why should the universe be ruled by the number of fingers we have? Which by the way is due to the fact that we are evolved from a fish with 5 spines on it's fins. Why not ruled by 8, the number of digits of arachnids (spiders), octopi and the Sauri (dinosaurs), or 12, the number of digits on Hemingway's cats, or 6 for the insects? In hexadecimal 6+1+3=A. In octadecimal 6+1+3=12. In binary, the only absolute numbering system, base on Yes and No, Exist and not Exist, True and False, 6(110)+1(1)+3(11)=1010.

[MaximMK]

Nobody knows all of those are just ideas of what might happen there should be a "Nobody knows" option

[Astarte]

The poster who said "Nobody knows should be an answer"

vote "Other" if this is your answer or abstain.

[Astarte]

The difference is that my statements are based on scientific fact and observation, not delusional writings.



When all you have left is an ad hominem, you have lost the argument.

And if being thick headed protects me from the lies of religion, all I can say is "Thank God!"

Delusional writings? Just who do you think you are? For real. Are you in other peoples' minds? How can you ever know what another may or not know? Do you claim your ideas are Absolute and Flawless? You present them as if they were the infallible and absolute Truth - able to put to rest the question of what happens after Death - which is what this thread is about - because no matter what you say you will never be able to explain, prove or disprove just what occurs. Sometimes I wonder if it is myself or people like you who are actually free of the ideology of "Religion".

[mikelepore]

When you die, the situation goes back to being the way it was for the 13 billion years before you were born: there is a universe, and the electrochemical pattern of motion that is called "you" is not one of the universe's many patterns of motion -- there are other patterns in place of it. It's like when a bubble in the ocean pops, there is still an ocean that has many bubbles, but not the exact one that has popped, although many are similar to it.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

...so, can somebody please explain to me how the position of the Earth relative to the rest of the universe has any bearing whatsoever on this conversation on life after death? Somebody other than Lurker, please

We left reincarnation at post 47, when I put the nail in its coffin. Now we are just talking cosmology.

The thread should really be split and put in the Science forum.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

No one post anything further on cosmology or astrophysics, I'm going to get this thread split.

[RedAnarchist]

No one post anything further on cosmology or astrophysics, I'm going to get this thread split.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cosmology-and-astrophysics-t155045/index.html?t=155045

[CommunityBeliever]

In binary, the only absolute numbering system, base on Yes and No, Exist and not Exist, True and False, 6(110)+1(1)+3(11)=1010.

I think I can do you one better then that, lisp syntax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_%28programming_language%29) with the unary numeral system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_numeral_system):

(= (+ | ||| ||||||) ||||||||||)

[Lanky Wanker]

I think either nothing or some kind of reincarnation. Not that heaven/hell bullshit though, it makes no sense.

[bezdomni]

What happens after you die doesn't matter. It is only what you do before death that is of any importance.

[Astarte]

What happens after you die doesn't matter. It is only what you do before death that is of any importance.

If one doesn't matter, why should the other?

[RedSunRising]

If one doesn't matter, why should the other?

Personally I think Stoicism has so much to offer, that there is a duty to be done and consequences dont matter. Im suspcious of both religion and atheism for the record.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

If one doesn't matter, why should the other?
Because what happens in the real world has real effects.

What happens in the fantasy world doesn't.

[Rafiq]

Tell me now: what is the population of the universe? I'll quote you again, with emphasis added:

.

Where is the evidence that the population of the universe is growing? Show me the census data! Your argument relies on the claim that the population of the universe is growing, and that it should stay constant if each being were to be reincarnated as another being...you have no way of proving the dynamic change of the population of the universe. Until you prove it, this is a non-argument.

I have literally no idea how you can think that you're such a great debater...you make next to no arguments, those that you do make have little if any basis in fact, you don't even reply to what people say, but what you want them to have said. Everything's a strawman. It's also clear that you have no idea what you're talking about when you come out with all that 'look at Russel's teapot, it proves there is no god!' when the analogy makes literally no claims as such! The entire point of it is that the teapot may exist, implausible as it sounds, but that the doubter can't be expected to have to provide scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that there is no teapot. It's not proof that the teapot doesn't exist, as the entire point of it is that you can't prove the teapot doesn't exist with any reasonable means! If you've misunderstood that whole thing...yeah, I'd not be surprised...I find it absolutely hilarious that you're so cocky when you're spouting such shit :lol:



But how do you define the "Population"? "life"? And how can we define that? Put it this way. Unless you think the big bag was total crap, you have to accept that at some point, almost all the crap in the Universe that exists today, hasn't existed before.

We know the human population is growing. Is reincarnation something that happens with all living things?


Can you define living then?

Reincarnation is absurd. Unless one must believe that for every death of every living thing that ever existed, something came to replace it. That would mean that the population of the universe has always stayed the same, forever.

Obviously, this is quite unlikely, and never the less cannot be proven.... At all.

[bezdomni]

Because you can only do things while you're alive...

[Astarte]

Because you can only do things while you're alive...

Yes, but we all die, and if there is nothing afterwards in terms of your own consciousness then what is the point? Even attaining the "immortality" of history is futile in the face of death for the atheist. To say otherwise would be admitting to some larger purpose to life besides base chemical reactions.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't know.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I am more inclined to agree with the Sadducees in not believing in the ressurection of the dead and all this because it is not explcitly mentioned in the torah. Officially, I would say, yeah, I do agree with the Pharisees, I believe in ha-'olam ha-ba, zombie ressurection, etc. but naturally, I am more inclined to agree with the Sadduccees as far as this is concerned. Fuck gilgul though, bunch of chasidic/qabbalah nonsense.

[Decolonize The Left]

The only acceptable answer to this poll is: Who the fuck cares?

Just like no one knows what happened before the big bang, and no one knows what happened to 'you' before you were born, no one knows what happens after 'you' die. The fact that there are actual debates about this topic is mind-numbing. Same goes for debates around god - it's all nonsensical metaphysical hogwash.

- August

[tradeunionsupporter]

In my opinion nothing happens.

[Black Sheep]

All answers are simply wrong,objectively.

We just DON'T KNOW.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

All answers are simply wrong,objectively.

We just DON'T KNOW.

We don't know if there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn in the room, but any rational person would not believe it.

[Comrade_Oscar]

There is no life after death so one must live to the fullest and do everything possible to spread their message to the next generation.

[bezdomni]

Yes, but we all die, and if there is nothing afterwards in terms of your own consciousness then what is the point?

The whole point of life is that it ends. There is only a finite amount of time in which we can do meaningful things.

It is actually hard to see the point to existence without a finiteness condition. That is, without death.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Another nail in the coffin of Reincarnation

I was reading through this month's National Geographic, the only print magazine I still subscribe to (everything else is online), and I came across an article that made me smile. I'll quote it in full, then in summary, then make my point.



Earth will soon be the home to seven billion humans. If you find that hard to fathom, try grasping how many have ever walked the planet. That's what American demographer Carl Haub wanted to find out when, in 1975, he heard someone say that 75% of the people who'd ever been born were alive at that time. Dubious, he set out to disprove it, taking two main things into account: (1) the assumed dawn of humanity and (2) average populations at different periods of time. Using 50,000 BC as his starting point, Haub applied crude birthrates - the number of annual births per thousand people - to each population set, then added them. His estimate? In 1975 103 billion people had lived, but only 4 percent of them were alive at the time. Applied to 2011, says Haub, those numbers are 108 billion and 6.4 percent. Mind-boggling, indeed.





140 million people are born each year.
7 billion people live on Earth now.
57 million people die each year.
108 billion are estimated to have ever lived on Earth

So, in the model of human to human reincarnation, this would make for 100,000,000,000 spirits/souls/subtle minds/formless beings circling the Earth waiting for their lucky shot at one of the 7,000,000,000 lives that can be lived.

If we extend the argument to lifeform to lifeform reincarnation, that just increases the numbers, but not the ratios.

If I haven't provided enough coffin nails back in post 47 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2114359&postcount=47), then here's one more.

[Dunk]

Hey, look at it this way: if there is no afterlife, we can't experience disappointment over it. If there is some kind of afterlife or reincarnation, we'll all be in for a pleasant surprise.

Then again, maybe some us of will live long enough to be able to upload our consciousness into some kind of computer. I won't hold my breath. ;)

While we're on a related topic, check out Isaac Asimov's story "The Last Question". It's one of my favorites.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

[Inquisitive Lurker]

While we're on a related topic, check out Isaac Asimov's story "The Last Question". It's one of my favorites.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

I read that one in a collection of his works. It is very good. I like the ending, which I won't spoil. Read it people.

[ComradeMan]

Hmmm reading through all of this I found one problem with the mathematical disproval of reincarnation.

It is known/accepted in Eastern religions that two people may share the same past life. This throws out the idea that an ever-increasing number of beings would require an ever-increasing number of births/beings in which to reincarnate and conversely only a steady- 1-for-1 population would allow the mathematical possibility of reincarnation. The fact that the doctrines of re-incarnation also allow you to escape the cycle by entering another "dimension" beyond life-death-rebirth also evens things out slightly.

Another problem with this expanding population theory is that, at a crude estimate there have been around 100 billion species on earth and presently we have around 3 billion. :confused: But of course everyone doesn't live and die at the same time- like the 3 million passengers who pass through an airport in one year- no one is suggesting they all arrive on the same day for the same flight.

To postulate that the universe population of living organisms/beings would have to remain constant otherwise re-incarnation is impossible on mathematical grounds doesn't stand up to scrutiny as far as the actual docrtines of the various Eastern religions are concerned.

As far as Out-of-Body/Near deah experiences are concerned. Whilst I will be the first to admit that most may well be explained by neuro-science, some are not and cannot be. Even if we exclude the charlatans or the deluded there remains a hardcore of unexplainable phenomena.

I have read cases of people who were technically brain dead recalling what was going on around them- how's that possible? I've also read of cases in which people knew what was happening outside the operating theatre or in the next room or a whole load of other stuff that they just could not have guessed or known in any way or form.

Getting back to re-incarnation, in Eastern Asia where it is pretty much accepted anyway and not seen as a strange or exotic idea people don't make such a fuss and are not trying to get into the headlines with their stories therefore I tend to treat these cases, albeit with scepticism, as at least being sincere. Some cases are out there to be read about, of children under hypnosis speaking long lost languages or knowning things they just couldn't know- especially given their age.

I can offer no scientific explanation for this but I am not going to discount stuff immediately as non-sense per se.

[Inquisitive Lurker]

I think you'll find that the anecdotes you referenced to be unsourced. Like this one about an entire airplane of people seeing a UFO next to them and then it disappearing into the ocean. I saw it on some History Channel documentary. Yet when I tried to independently verify it, it could not be sourced. Not one bit. No statements from the pilot or from the passengers. Nothing. The incident wasn't even listed on conspiracy theory and UFO-ologist websites.

Urban Legends. Never documented. You'd think someone would document such amazing occurrences. To say nothing of scientific documentation.

[hatzel]

Fuck gilgul though, bunch of chasidic/qabbalah nonsense.

FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU :cursing:

You see that? That's what I think of you!

:rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Double post- please delete

[ComradeMan]

I think you'll find that the anecdotes you referenced to be unsourced. Like this one about an entire airplane of people seeing a UFO next to them and then it disappearing into the ocean. I saw it on some History Channel documentary. Yet when I tried to independently verify it, it could not be sourced. Not one bit. No statements from the pilot or from the passengers. Nothing. The incident wasn't even listed on conspiracy theory and UFO-ologist websites.

Urban Legends. Never documented. You'd think someone would document such amazing occurrences. To say nothing of scientific documentation.

I think you'll find that most people here have the intellect to sort through the information and separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak.

WoSrzpLoODo

Parts 2/3 & 4 on Youtube.


ooRnQT4agXY

[ZrianKobani]

I think those who did the best with what they had and honestly tried to lead a good life will be rewarded somehow.

[Dumb]

I believe that when we die, we all go to hell. Well, okay, I know this isn't true, but I believe it because it would be pretty cool if it were true - in the spirit of "ha, take THAT, god!"

[RedRise]

My belief is that souls (spirit, essence, whatever) return to being part of God/creation when the physical body has had the biscuit. Scriptures say that when the Messiah comes the dead will be risen but my theory on that is that I'll wait and see (presumably I'll know about it if I'm resurrected).