How do you think heaven and earth?

[Ryannoah]

I am not a follower of any religion; mainly because I don't understand the need people feel to label themselves, and arrange themselves into different groups according to their beliefs.

I don't believe in a god as such, either. I simply believe that everything was created by an energy. I believe that the universe was created through this same energy, and that everything in it has evolved from that over time.

I believe that while we are alive, we are almost borrowing a part of that energy, and that when we die, that energy is returned. There is no afterlife.

What's your opinion? Do you agree with my views, or do you believe something completely different?
Please let me know your ideas concerning creation and the idea of an afterlife, as I am very much interested in finding out other peoples ideas. Thanks.

[JaJa]

hi ryan

would you define what kind of energy you refer to, plus hint at any mechanism for creation through this energy?

how would you feel if i said you are an intricate part of the creative process..?

JJ

[D_Archer]

I guess you watched Avatar by James Cameron...... am i right?

[JaJa]

I guess you watched Avatar by James Cameron...... am i right?

No... any good?

[bourbon_bot]

I find it interesting in near death experiences seem to adhere to ones belief. A Lutheran may see a beautiful light where an atheist may see nothing. Could it be a stuck conscious thought. I think as long as your perceptions are truly yours and not forced they are your soul for want of a better word. An inwardly truthful understanding to me is pure where an outwardly portrayed one is impure. It is a huge question you ask and to use actual words to answer in my opinion makes the answer invalid as it would not be entirely truthful.

[JaJa]

I think as long as your perceptions are truly yours and not forced they are your soul for want of a better word.

hi bourbon_bot

It seems, through culture, society and education we're given a very narrow-minded view of what is, might be or could be. Materialism, survival of the fittest seems to be the trend. Magical singularities going bang, clumps of matter and gas, stars, planets, galaxies collapsing into the cosmos over billions of years, with chance and gravity making it all very pretty... but utterly meaningless because when your gone your gone.

I think if a person accepts and sincerely believes in something like this then that is what they will get each time, with no recollection, no memories...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

“Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song, A medley of extemporanea; And love is a thing that can never go wrong; And I am Marie of Rumania”
Dorothy Parker

JJ

[StevenJay]

I think if a person accepts and sincerely believes iN ['when your gone your gone'], then that is what they will get each time, with no recollection, no memories...

Yeah - for "a while," maybe. Everything's transient, though.

[JaJa]

Yeah - for "a while," maybe. Everything's transient, though.

but what's a while in near infinite terms

my view is that we "forget" and we forget because the knowledge of everything contracts to a focused point - like that of a newborn for example.



Consciousness then expands, we mature, grow up. I believe it cycles like the ouroboros because we dont remember previous lives, well at least i dont, i wonder if that is because we have been conditioned by the paradigm to stay in this zombie-forgetful-state based on what we have been conditioned to believe...

Just some thoughts

JJ

[mrjacquel]

I don't believe in a god as such, either. I simply believe that everything was created by an energy. I believe that the universe was created through this same energy, and that everything in it has evolved from that over time.

That's a way to put it, I suppose. I won't say I disagree with you, your summary of your ideas is much too ambiguous in some areas for me to do that (i.e., "an energy"). It was often the criticism of Schopenhauer against other philosophers that they lacked clarity. Despite that, in your brief description, your ideas seems to coincide with some of my own.

I don't believe in gods either, and I'd dare to say that no rational human being on this planet ought to. Bad ideas deserve to be eliminated, as bad ideas that I myself used to hold were, because they are at best foolish and at worst very dangerous. I know there are pseudo-philosophers who humor themselves with personal deities and spiritual beings looking out for their well being, but I think they are the product of some misfortunate attempt to reconcile their reason with irrational beliefs. It's a nice try, but a lamentable one.

[mrjacquel]

Hi Jaja,

Materialism, survival of the fittest seems to be the trend.

I'd say quite to the contrary that, not materialism, but "new age" spiritualism and religious beliefs are (and throughout our history, have been) the trend. The majority of our species still identify themselves as a member of one of the three big monotheisms. Materialists, atheists, naturalists and the like are still seen in a bitter light by most people (as some on this very forum seem to confirm). Why is it that materialists like Christopher Hitchens are considered iconoclasts?

And what if when you're gone you really are gone? What if you're not? Since I cannot in any way have certain access to this knowledge, should I not at least attempt to live my life - or think and behave - as if that is a very real possibility?

[JaJa]

hi mrjacquel

"new age" spiritualism and religious beliefs

is that code for mainstream cosmology?

The majority of our species still identify themselves as a member of one of the three big monotheisms

and this is different to people identifying themselves as say...

Materialists, atheists, naturalists

each to their own imho...

Materialists, atheists, naturalists and the like are still seen in a bitter light by most people (as some on this very forum seem to confirm)

that's a sweeping assumption and accusation - maybe its the philosophy and not the person that causes most people (like you say) to see others in a bitter light? I don't know because I dont see any person in a bitter light

Why is it that materialists like Christopher Hitchens are considered iconoclasts?

because iconoclasts by definition are deliberately confrontational people?

And what if when you're gone you really are gone?

gone where?

Since I cannot in any way have certain access to this knowledge

i'm sorry you feel that way.

should I not at least attempt to live my life - or think and behave - as if that is a very real possibility?

i guess that would depend on how a person thinks and behaves, it might be fulfilling for some people to try and reach the greatest heights, but if a person has trampled over countless others along their path i doubt very much it would be fulfilling for those that have been trampled. But i guess that would be argued as a matter of fitness in some peoples eyes though

JJ

[mrjacquel]

No that was not code for mainstream cosmology, (lol).

To each their own, certainly. But when someone's "own" attempts to effect me or humanity in any, then it's deserving of critical examination, review and revision (if necessary). That's when dialogue comes into play and (hopefully), we learn something as a result of it.

Iconoclasts are deliberately confrontational, certainly we could make that assertion, and I would add that they are justified in this when certain beliefs deserve to be treated with irreverence.

Gone where? Let's not be coy.

i'm sorry you feel that way.

Oh? Very generous of you, but if it's not too much, might I ask if you've somehow achieved this impressive feat? And if so, how?

[JaJa]

hi mrjacquel

To each their own, certainly. But when someone's "own" attempts to effect me or humanity in any, then it's deserving of critical examination, review and revision (if necessary).

this sounded like an honest attempt to recognise freedom of thought or speech but then the rest of what you had to say reminded me of the secret police of Oceania in a book i once read...

Iconoclasts are deliberately confrontational, certainly we could make that assertion, and I would add that they are justified in this when certain beliefs deserve to be treated with irreverence.

what can be gained from engaging in dialogue that is openly direspectful, makes a mockery of and shows derision to other people based on their thoughts, ideas or beliefs?

Gone where? Let's not be coy.

who's being coy - was it not a valid question?

Oh? Very generous of you, but if it's not too much, might I ask if you've somehow achieved this impressive feat? And if so, how?

you could start with understanding, forgiveness, appreciation, compassion, humility and valor...

JJ

[mrjacquel]

what can be gained from engaging in dialogue that is openly direspectful, makes a mockery of and shows derision to other people based on their thoughts, ideas or beliefs?

Always something to be gained, imho. But let me explain what I mean: In a dialogue, criticism is often involved. Why? Because criticism is fundamental as one of the mechanisms by which we expand our knowledge. Not that people themselves need necessarily be the object of criticism in most cases (though sometimes they are), their ideas are. And for an idea to be subject to criticism, we wouldn't want personal bias to get in the way; that is, if we're to view it as objectively as possible. If we're respectful of ideas, it follows we may not be as objective or critical as we need to be. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Now this doesn't mean we need to be blatantly insulting toward more mild ideas. But a preconceived respect for an idea might dispose us less toward criticism of it when it is called for. But at their worst, bad ideas can become dangerous to society. Not that they need to be repressed, but they certainly deserve to be treated with ridicule and mockery. I'm a fan of Einstein, for example, but not of relativity. My respect for him would not prevent me from criticizing his theory.

who's being coy - was it not a valid question?

With all due respect, no. I think you can infer what I meant when I said "gone."

you could start with understanding, forgiveness, appreciation, compassion, humility and valor...

Sounds very poetic... but what I meant was to ask you to explain the mechanism of your access to this knowledge of life after death, if there really is such knowledge (I rather doubt it). In other words, if your alleged understanding of these virtues really gives you this knowledge, I'd like very much to minimize my ignorance and rise to your level of wisdom by learning how it is this happens.

[JaJa]

Mr Jacquel

With all due respect to you Sir; let me explain what I mean. It is my view that you have come to this thread on the premise that you are interested in courteous and objective discussion. Your dialogue however is filled with invective rhetoric that is geared for sleazy argument.

Criticism may very well be a fundamental mechanism to a cynic who asserts certain beliefs deserve to be treated with irreverence or that bad ideas deserve to be treated with ridicule and mockery but this is a clumsy and tactless approach at best that doesn’t expand anything in my opinion.

A hero of yours once said;

"If at first the idea is not absurd then there is no hope for it”

Perhaps it is your use of language Sir that betrays you... careful analysis, I would say, is a fundamental ingredient in trying to expand knowledge.

I would also say to you go back and read this thread again. I have claimed nowhere that I have knowledge of life after death. In response to this;

“Since I cannot in any way have certain access to this knowledge”

I said this...

“I'm sorry you feel that way”

To which you responded with more sarcasm. So I suggested looking at the virtues. Getting a grip on the virtues may or may not lead a person to discover the so-called “holy-grail” (who knows?) but it might give a person an inkling of how to behave around other human beings. Nonetheless you responded with even more cynicism.

Had you been more willing to put aside your disdain for other people’s thoughts and words then we may very well have progressed. As for this mechanism you are looking for... I cannot account for insight or intuition any more than science can account for mass or electricity. It just appears that they are so.

On a final note before bringing this discussion to a close. A friendly word of advice for minimizing your own (self-confessed) ignorance... you might like to try looking at the world with an open mind.

Just a thought.

JJ