Does anyone else

[hoping to lose hope]

Post a question and ask if anyone else does (whatever you mention)
Does anyone else spend all day listening to music trying to find more you like and get no goals completed?

 

[Dizzy_Dreams]

Post a question and ask if anyone else does (whatever you mention)
Does anyone else spend all day listening to music trying to find more you like and get no goals completed?

do you personally think theres an afterlife?

 

[sadworld]

do you personally think theres an afterlife?

How many people have you asked so far? Just curious

 

[Dizzy_Dreams]

How many people have you asked so far? Just curious

I like knowing other people's opinions on it.. I feel like every suicidal person must think about it

 

[hoping to lose hope]

do you personally think theres an afterlife?

Well we cannot actually know and it is error on part of secularists to claim they have the big answers for reasons I will explain.
We could well have an afterlife. Do you think we had a before life?
We can only ever be uncertain.

The philosopher cannot prove if his abstract concepts which point to a possible cause of existence are correct and the scientist can never peer outside of the representation and peek at what the true form of reality is beyond figuring out laws that govern our world with no actual claim to why they manifested

 

[waived]

Well we cannot actually know and it is error on part of secularists to claim they have the big answers for reasons I will explain.
We could well have an afterlife. Do you think we had a before life?
We can only ever be uncertain.

The philosopher cannot prove if his abstract concepts which point to a possible cause of existence are correct and the scientist can never peer outside of the representation and peek at what the true form of reality is beyond figuring out laws that govern our world with no actual claim to why they manifested

If there's no evidence of something why is it even discussed? We know why through anthropology.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

If there's no evidence of something why is it even discussed? We know why through anthropology.

Sure we could ascribe the idea of an after life as a form of death denial and unique to human psyche but when you consider how we will never understand why anything is the way it is within this world is it a leap to consider consciousness may continue in some form after death?
I used to be a fedora wearing cringelord militant atheist but now I am simply agnostic and realize our limitations on knowledge.

 

[demuic]

Well we cannot actually know and it is error on part of secularists to claim they have the big answers for reasons I will explain.
We could well have an afterlife. Do you think we had a before life?
We can only ever be uncertain.

The philosopher cannot prove if his abstract concepts which point to a possible cause of existence are correct and the scientist can never peer outside of the representation and peek at what the true form of reality is beyond figuring out laws that govern our world with no actual claim to why they manifested

Most secularists don't claim they have "big answers". It's the religious people who do that. What they acknowledge is there's no reason to go about living your life thinking something will come after, when we have no reason to believe there will be.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

Most secularists don't claim they have "big answers". It's the religious people who do that. What they acknowledge is there's no reason to go about living your life thinking something will come after, when we have no reason to believe there will be.

In my experience they are merely two sides of the same coin.
I envy people with faith ｡ﾟ･ (>﹏<) ･ﾟ｡

 

[waived]

Sure we could ascribe the idea of an after life as a form of death denial and unique to human psyche

I mean, we can look at the history of human development and see with some exactness when it's necessary when, where, and why certain beliefs became popular. The beliefs didn't arise out of logical or material evidence.

but when you consider how we will never understand why anything is the way it is within this world is it a leap to consider consciousness may continue in some form after death?

We do know why a lot of things are the way it is, including death.

I used to be a fedora wearing cringelord militant atheist but now I am simply agnostic and realize our limitations on knowledge.

Why do you think you became a 'fedora wearing cringelord militant' atheist and not just someone who is an atheist?

 

[hoping to lose hope]

I mean, we can look at the history of human development and see with some exactness when it's necessary when, where, and why certain beliefs became popular. The beliefs didn't arise out of logical or material evidence.



We do know why a lot of things are the way it is, including death.



Why do you think you became a 'fedora wearing cringelord militant' atheist and not just someone who is an atheist?

Claiming the validity of life after death is diminished by repeatedly manifesting in different cultures etc is erroneous in my opinion.
I will accept people do conjure up the abstract idea due to their psychology and not try to use it to claim it must be something known a priori though.
Material evidence has no weight in the discussion of the metaphysical.
Do you understand that because if you have no shifted your thinking and realized this we largely will be having a defunct conversation.

I was memeing a bit about being militant atheist I just liked to argue with my family regarding religion due to rebellion I guess.

 

[Life_and_Death]

I like knowing other people's opinions on it.. I feel like every suicidal person must think about it

i havent read it so im not sure how useful it will actually be but have you thought about reading the afterlife thread?

 

[Squiddy]

Does anyone else have full on conversations with themselves? I had a 15 minute conversation with myself a couple of minutes ago and it was great lol

 

[waived]

Claiming the validity of life after death is diminished by repeatedly manifesting in different cultures etc is erroneous in my opinion.
I will accept people do conjure up the abstract idea due to their psychology and not try to use it to claim it must be something known a priori though.
Material evidence has no weight in the discussion of the metaphysical.
Do you understand that because if you have no shifted your thinking and realized this we largely will be having a defunct conversation.

I was memeing a bit about being militant atheist I just liked to argue with my family regarding religion due to rebellion I guess.

It's not just that it repeats across various cultures as a quantitative argument but we can see the material evidence of when, where , and why beliefs were being adopted, changed, destroyed, used to destroy, used to obtain power, used to unify and to separate all to various scales. The material evidence of anthropology and human physiology reveals that we don't need to have a discussion on metaphysics at all. We clearly disagree on some things but having your ideas challenged isn't a defunct conversation.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

It's not just that it repeats across various cultures as a quantitative argument but we can see the material evidence of when, where , and why beliefs were being adopted, changed, destroyed, used to destroy, used to obtain power, used to unify and to separate all to various scales. The material evidence of anthropology and human physiology reveals that we don't need to have a discussion on metaphysics at all. We clearly disagree on some things but having your ideas challenged isn't a defunct conversation.

I am well aware that having my ideas challenged do not make a discussion defunct however when someone else fails to understand certain concepts it can make having a conversation with them non productive unless you wish to spoon feed them information and hope they can then assimilate it properly.

>The material evidence of anthropology and human physiology reveals that we don't need to have a discussion on metaphysics at all.
This statement you made would not be made for example.
You are discussing a metaphysical abstract concept yet claim that the mentioned fields reveal why we do not need to bring up metaphysics.
Perhaps you could try to explain why that is the case although I am fairly sure I know exactly why you hold that view and it stems from be unawares of the scientific method holding no weight when it comes to the metaphysical.
Your entire argument is that because you can see social influences that correlate with humans adopting religious thinking that definitively shows such concepts are invalid.

 

[waived]

Spoiler

I am well aware that having my ideas challenged do not make a discussion defunct however when someone else fails to understand certain concepts it can make having a conversation with them non productive unless you wish to spoon feed them information and hope they can then assimilate it properly.

>The material evidence of anthropology and human physiology reveals that we don't need to have a discussion on metaphysics at all.
This statement you made would not be made for example.
You are discussing a metaphysical abstract concept yet claim that the mentioned fields reveal why we do not need to bring up metaphysics.
Perhaps you could try to explain why that is the case although I am fairly sure I know exactly why you hold that view and it stems from be unawares of the scientific method holding no weight when it comes to the metaphysical.
Your entire argument is that because you can see social influences that correlate with humans adopting religious thinking that definitively shows such concepts are invalid.

We could well have an afterlife. Do you think we had a before life?
We can only ever be uncertain.

Anthropology and the study of human physiology reveal that beliefs and death are not abstract or metaphysical in nature but are material. We know of their origins and it is all terrestrial and domestic, no theophany, no aliens building pyramids, no light at the end of the tunnel. Attempting to start the conversation on the terrain of metaphysics is a plea to begin with everything being unknown, back with the people who had early thoughts on the topics but lacked the means or centuries of science and documentation that we currently have.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

Anthropology and the study of human physiology reveal that beliefs and death are not abstract or metaphysical in nature but are material.

They are literally abstract and metaphysical. lolz
Everything is unknown though: you cannot see what anything actually is within the representation only explain what it appears like ad behaves like.
There is no way to look beyond and as I already mentioned philosophy cannot prove the big questions the same as empiricism cannot.
How is belief in an after life not an abstract concept or metaphysical :3

 

[waived]

They are literally abstract and metaphysical. lolz
Everything is unknown though: you cannot see what anything actually is within the representation only explain what it appears like ad behaves like.
There is no way to look beyond and as I already mentioned philosophy cannot prove the big questions the same as empiricism cannot.
How is belief in an after life not an abstract concept or metaphysical :3

Ideas such as an afterlife are only able to exist when being engaged through metaphysical and abstract examination which is inadequate in proving that these ideas are things that actually exist. We understand that the origins of these alleged theophanic ideas are never theophanic and we can understand the experiences of the belief via medical science and also anthropology. We understand their material composition and thus we know what those things actually are.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

Ideas such as an afterlife are only able to exist when being engaged through metaphysical and abstract examination which is inadequate in proving that these ideas are things that actually exist. We understand that the origins of these alleged theophanic ideas are never theophanic and we can understand the experiences of the belief via medical science and also anthropology. We understand their material composition and thus we know what those things actually are.

I think I have been essentially agreeing in regards to the origin and reason they exist.
As far I follow (am zzz tired) we disagree about how to test their existence?
I know we cannot test these theories at all with any method but you do seem to really think that the scientific method actually provides answers instead of merely measuring the simulacrum.

 

[waived]

I think I have been essentially agreeing in regards to the origin and reason they exist.
As far I follow (am zzz tired) we disagree about how to test their existence?
I know we cannot test these theories at all with any method but you do seem to really think that the scientific method actually provides answers instead of merely measuring the simulacrum.

I think anthropology and medical sciences do test those theories.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

I think anthropology and medical sciences do test those theories.

They speculate and provide possible reasonings for such phenomena but do not test anything in actuality.

 

[waived]

They speculate and provide possible reasonings for such phenomena but do not test anything in actuality.

I think anthropology and medical sciences both test theories to a satisfactory level where philosophizing over certain topics is no longer relevant because of the amount of information that we do know.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

I think anthropology and medical sciences both test theories to a satisfactory level where philosophizing over certain topics is no longer relevant because of the amount of information that we do know.

There is a divide in the conversation because I feel as seems logical in regards to the inability of the scientific method to ever explain anything especially that which is not part of the physical reality we are trapped in and able to test.
You are as I agree right that human psychology does essentially have memes which propagate amongst people/groups due to our brains and how we think.
Jung does a great job of detailing this yet there is not a way to know if the afterlife exists or does not simply for the reasons I stated and we cannot prove it either way.
You seem quite stuck on anthropology as a way to explain things when it is not like the natural sciences which are entirely empirical and allows for error.

 

[suicidal-raven]

Does anyone else daydream to get away from their real lives?

 

[waived]

There is a divide in the conversation because I feel as seems logical in regards to the inability of the scientific method to ever explain anything

You are alive right now because of science. It has explained some things.

especially that which is not part of the physical reality we are trapped in and able to test.

How do you know it isn't part of the physical reality? How do you know that I am actually trapped there?

You are as I agree right that human psychology does essentially have memes which propagate amongst people/groups due to our brains and how we think.
Jung does a great job of detailing this yet there is not a way to know if the afterlife exists or does not simply for the reasons I stated and we cannot prove it either way.
You seem quite stuck on anthropology as a way to explain things when it is not like the natural sciences which are entirely empirical and allows for error.

Anthropological analysis uncovers all sorts of interesting things like how religion was used to control populations and separate those populations from its own history.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

Does anyone else daydream to get away from their real lives?

I love to lay in bed all warm and comfy and play music or think and write.

You are alive right now because of science.

Can you elaborate so I know what you mean clearly otherwise I am not able to reply.
Do you mean because of advances in science or because science explains some biological processes?
I am not anti science it just has limitations for ever explaining why on a deeper level which is glossed over.

 

[waived]

Can you elaborate so I know what you mean clearly otherwise I am not able to reply.
Do you mean because of advances in science or because science explains some biological processes?

Both but I wouldn't use the word 'some'.

I am not anti science it just has limitations for ever explaining why on a deeper level which is glossed over.

That's pretty much an anti-science position because you're saying the thing science does it doesn't do. I've also explained to some degree how two branches of science contribute to debunking various claims of an afterlife, divinity, etc.. and it's by understanding on a deeper level.

Does anyone else daydream to get away from their real lives?

Have you ever had a daynightmare where it's so real you even get a fall reflex or wonder if you've been talking for real?

 

[hoping to lose hope]

Both but I wouldn't use the word 'some'.



That's pretty much an anti-science position because you're saying the thing science does it doesn't do. I've also explained to some degree how two branches of science contribute to debunking various claims of an afterlife, divinity, etc.. and it's by understanding on a deeper level.

I wanted you to clarify what you meant in exact terms and is best not to get caught up in semantics of word usage.
I am not anti science at all I understand full well we can explain everything that happens with science by formulating rules based on observation. Remember at the start of the conversation I mentioned it may not be fruitful due to it being a discussion where one party is alluding to something that the other one is not aware of?
This has happened.
You do not understand the limit of science as I described and it is not anti science as well it requires a deeper understanding as a whole.
That is ok though I did like seeing your perspective but since you seem unwilling to clearly define what you mean by the terms you use so I can respond I do not think there is much for me to do.

You actually never explained anything and merely made claims to explanations and these were explanations which I mentioned do make sense for describing the rise of the phenomena of belief in an after life yet you seem incapable of understanding why they do not actually prove or disprove the actual existence of such a thing.
You have erred by misunderstanding science itself and how it actually does not explain anything beyond creating rules which explain the causality of matter in its various states but neglects why anything is the way it is and further is unable to test the noumena.

 

[waived]

I wanted you to clarify what you meant in exact terms and is best not to get caught up in semantics of word usage.
I am not anti science at all I understand full well we can explain everything that happens with science by formulating rules based on observation. Remember at the start of the conversation I mentioned it may not be fruitful due to it being a discussion where one party is alluding to something that the other one is not aware of?
This has happened.
You do not understand the limit of science as I described and it is not anti science as well it requires a deeper understanding as a whole.
That is ok though I did like seeing your perspective but since you seem unwilling to clearly define what you mean by the terms you use so I can respond I do not think there is much for me to do.

You asked for elaboration and asked specific questions which I answered. When you use "some" biological process it's because you don't want to use the word 'lots' which is a bit beyond semantics of words. The position you took was anti science.

You actually never explained anything and merely made claims to explanations and these were explanations which I mentioned do make sense for describing the rise of the phenomena of belief in an after life

So they were explanations after all!

I'm not sure why you would expect me to preemptively post more content when you seem to at least be highly skeptical of science.

 

[hoping to lose hope]

You asked for elaboration and asked specific questions which I answered. When you use "some" biological process it's because you don't want to use the word 'lots' which is a bit beyond semantics of words. The position you took was anti science.



So they were explanations after all!

I'm not sure why you would expect me to preemptively post more content when you seem to at least be highly skeptical of science.

You do not understand I am not sceptical of science at all.
How do you think I am sceptical of science? They were not actually explanations I just knew what you were talking about so did not ask you to prove yourself.