What Happens When You Die?

[Nakosis]

We actually have the physical proof you are just in denial. As I stated earlier, the occurrence of thoughts decisions and yes, even consciousness has been tested. Why on earth do you think neuroscience is for? Why do you think the prevailing theory is that consciousness is a product of the brain?

I'm not a neuroscientist. Why on earth do you think I'd be able to answer your questions?

Tell you what, next life, if I become a neuroscientist, I'll get back to you.

 

[godnotgod]

This Higher Consciousness garbage is for morons, I am not a moron and no such thing as a higher consciousness exists. It is was spiritualists have created and some what copied from Hinduism and I am no Hindu either. Meditation does not require supernatural fluff and stupidity.
Why make something make-believe into a universally binding fact?
Normal people do not do this. This is why I don't make my dreams as factual items of existence or else pink dinosaurs would be added in every museum.

Oh, the unmistakable stench of Academic Ignorance!

For one thing, where did you get the notion that the spiritual and the supernatural are the same thing? Your brain? No, let's not blame your poor brain, shall we? Why should it be at fault when Ignorance is it's directing force?

No such thing as Higher Consciousness exists? That is what the prisoners in Plato's Cave said about the Sun. Your brain is obviously still enslaved by those dancing cave wall shadows you call Reason, Logic, and Analysis, while firmly believing them to be Truth.

Turning make believe into 'fact' is precisely what your notion of the brain is doing. Emergent Theory is just an idea at this point. You believe it because it is presented under the color of scientific authority *cough*, and because you just don't know any better.

'Normal people?' That's some kind of obscene joke! It's normal people who have created the misery of the world exactly by treating their beliefs as fact, and then ignorantly proceeding to act upon them. Hitler and his Nazis will always be held up as the prime example of this gross error of the brain's faulty machinations.

'There is a way which seems right to man that ends in death'
Jesus

Meditation requires that you learn to see things as they are, and not as any 'official' methodology tells you they are, and that includes science and religion. Meditation is not thinking; it is seeing.

 

[godnotgod]

Matthew
25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

also:

Matthew 18:3
“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

So how does a child see the world? Without passing moral judgment via discrimination, which we only learn via our social indoctrination. Krishnamurti calls this state of non-judgment 'innocency'. It is an unconditioned state, a consciousness of "life" in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows.

 

[godnotgod]

The missing ingredient, cognizance, will be gone.

When your TV set dies, the TV signals are still there. Cognizance may not be a local phenomena as you surmise, and you only think it is because of the illusory 'I'.

If I could have the cognizence to hold, I'd get rid of the rest of it.

See what I mean? You imagine that you can encapsulate it via itself. But in the bigger picture beyond 'I', it is non-local cognizance that 'gets rid' of the rest of it, ie; 'the body'. Cognizance itself cannot die, because it is unborn. It exists outside of Time and Space, like love.

 

[godnotgod]

We actually have the physical proof you are just in denial. As I stated earlier, the occurrence of thoughts decisions and yes, even consciousness has been tested. Why on earth do you think neuroscience is for? Why do you think the prevailing theory is that consciousness is a product of the brain?

Because the west is an anal-cerebrally oriented society. It hasn't learned to get over it's head yet, it being located in a place where the Sun don't shine.

It probes the brain, gets a response, and says: 'Ah, look! Der mind!' Not good science.

You haven't answered my question: how does the material brain create non-material consciousness, which is what you and your 'neuroscience' are claiming?

 

[Thief]

I don't think it works. If I spend my afterlife with people who think and speak like me, then i should spend my afterlife with naturalists.

I find it challenging to imagine naturalists in the afterlife.

Ciao

- viole

No one waiting for you?
No one you know will have what it takes to crossover?

 

[Thief]

When your TV set dies, the TV signals are still there. Cognizance may not be a local phenomena as you surmise, and you only think it is because of the illusory 'I'.



See what I mean? You imagine that you can encapsulate it via itself. But in the bigger picture beyond 'I', it is non-local cognizance that 'gets rid' of the rest of it, ie; 'the body'. Cognizance itself cannot die, because it is unborn. It exists outside of Time and Space, like love.

'You'.... cannot exist without love.
unless you plan to go to hell and live in hate.

 

[godnotgod]

'You'.... cannot exist without love.
unless you plan to go to hell and live in hate.

Existing in relative love/hate and heaven/hell is to live in the delusion of duality; these must be transcended and Absolute Joy realized. Otherwise you will forever be caught in the throes of duality, in the illusory conflict between moral Good and moral Evil, never seeing the One.

 

[Thief]

Existing in relative love/hate and heaven/hell is to live in the delusion of duality; these must be transcended and Absolute Joy realized. Otherwise you will forever be caught in the throes of duality, in the illusory conflict between moral Good and moral Evil, never seeing the One.

Can't have one without the other.

 

[`mud]

Thief and Godnotgod......the Zen and Zang of our reality.
excuse the misspellings and etc.
The extreme opposites of phrase and meaning.
And inward toward middle is the center of it all,
some are just bound to fail, but what direction is 'up' ?
Where the hell was that middle, I'm still looking.
~
'mud

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One way to look at it- why would there not be an afterlife? why would the creator of the universe and hence human awareness- not have a higher purpose for that awareness? It's a fairly logical extension of the existence of awareness in the first place..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...why would the creator of the universe and hence human awareness- not have a higher purpose for that awareness?

Because the universe wasn't created?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because the universe wasn't created?

Don't make me bring up Lemaitre v Hoyle again!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't make me bring up Lemaitre v Hoyle again!

Funnily enough the first science book I read as a child was by Fred Hoyle, so I grew up believing in steady state.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Funnily enough the first science book I read as a child was by Fred Hoyle, so I grew up believing in steady state.

Yes, it was still very popular when I grew up, I remember being told that the concept of a beginning to space and time was a scientifically impossible religious belief- creationism.

Do you still?

 

[`mud]

Can you ask that question in English ?
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Do you still?

The latest thinking in cosmology seems to be that there was something before the big bang, with the possibly that it was just the latest in an infinite sequence ( there are various permutations ). So maybe Fred Hoyle will eventually be proved right on the principle, but wrong on the detail.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Can you ask that question in English ?

Fred Hoyle was a cosmologist who theorised a steady state universe, this was succeeded by the big bang theory.

 

[`mud]

hey Spiny,
I've been telling them that for years and more years,
and I have very little time left.
Remember me for this idea: "... there's never been a singular singularity... !"
~
'mud

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The latest thinking in cosmology seems to be that there was something before the big bang, with the possibly that it was just the latest in an infinite sequence ( there are various permutations ). So maybe Fred Hoyle will eventually be proved right on the principle, but wrong on the detail.

that rationale (no creation = no creator) has always prevailed in atheist cosmogony- and was the explicit rationale behind Hawking's 'big crunch'- which likewise 'made God redundant' in his words...
until that too was debunked by observation. That marked the end of testable, falsifiable, and hence scientific static models.

M theory, Multiverses, are philosophical speculation at best, inherently untestable by design

atheism of the gaps