Discussion Y'all are delusional

[Sad_Sack]

As for energy not being able to be destroyed, sure. However I don't believe that the energy that survives ones death is their soul or consciousness at all. I think that ones consciousness is held within the physical structure of their nervous systems and is simply powered by energy. This is why you can physically manipulate ones brain and change how they act. Your consciousness is physical and everything points to it being destroyed with your nervous system when you die.

When a person is choked out you go out with absolutely no awareness. You are gone. That is because your physical structures In your brain that run your consciousness have been deprived of the physical things like oxygen they need to function. When the choke is released in time the blood returns to the brain and you are conscious again. When the choke isn't released you do not regain consciousness again and die. I find it hard to believe that if one were being choked and lost consciousness and then continued to be choked until they were not only brain dead but their heart stops that their bodily energy would suddenly be released and they would only then regain consciousness but now in the form of energy. If your consciousness was independent of your body then you would simply become paralyzed but still aware when you are choke out.

I hope I'm wrong about this as I don't want this life to be the complete end. I just can't see it working that way.

 

[Forever Sleep]

@FuneralCry I was hoping you'd drop in - sorry to see you bothered by the post. I don't know if you actually read what I wrote...I called myself out on the ridiculous title right away in that large, underlined text, and go on to explain the reason and intention. I'm not seriously insulting anyone, least of all for being suicidal. If this is still bad form then I encourage mods to rename and/or move the thread maybe to off-topic.

The point of the post is to try and get some insight into what exactly people mean when they say the kinds of things I wrote about in the first main paragraphs. I've seen you yourself write statements like this, and part of my own desire to understand and come to terms with my own suicidality is questioning these kinds of thoughts and assertions, some of which I have to a degree myself. You're probably one of the most active members here; you seem to be a good soul and are always leaving people kind, validating comments. Tthough I also seem to recall you saying confusingly enough that you personally gain nothing from being on this site, you're an interesting one to me and I'd be happy to hear your more detailed explanation of this opinion you have.

Sorry- I'm not Funeral Cry but I have been mulling this thread over in my mind because it reminds me of one of the first discussions I had with a member on here about atheism. I'm sorry that I don't recall who that was.

I had misunderstood what atheism is. I was under the impression it was a disbelief in God. I posed the argument that while no one can prove that God does exist, there is also no proof that there is nothing. I was trying to say that BOTH religious folk and atheists are still only working from a BELIEF rather than a fact. (That I would in fact LOVE to truly believe there was nothing.) I vaguely recall them replying that having to prove there was nothing was nonsensical. Honestly, I didn't feel like I had the mental agility to argue this one but to me, the question still makes sense. I feel like if something isn't fact, you DO still need to prove it- even the absence of it (for it to be convincing... Anyway, they kindly explained to me that atheism wasn't necessarily a disbelief in God but more an open minded- I'll believe it when I see it type thing.)

What I suppose I'm trying to say... Badly- is that I do STILL feel that some people's default beliefs ARE firmly there is no God and no meaning to life. Similarly, to my rather poor and badly explained 'atheist' example, I expect they don't see the need to 'back up' their thoughts because- to them- they may seem like logical facts- or- the default. Plus- I imagine- they may not see the point (seeing as everything is meaningless).

I suppose- just to play devil's advocate- if you want to insist on them somehow proving/ supporting their ideas that there is no meaning to life. What indicators have you been given that there IS indeed some greater meaning to all this?

As for energy not being able to be destroyed, sure. However I don't believe that the energy that survives ones death is their soul or consciousness at all.

I think I'm similar to you- in that I do have a spiritual side that does 'like' the idea of the soul. (Mainly because I don't like the idea of my deceased family members being nothing now.)

Still- the whole 'energy not being able to be destroyed or created- only transfered' doesn't really convince me either. The energy input for us I suppose is ultimately sunlight which we consume through plants and animals. We turn that into physical matter. I'd agree that all that makes us up is likely connected to our brains and bodies which need to be alive to work. When we die- our energy IS transfered through either our rotting bodies which nourish the insects or, we burn and fuel the flames.

Unless we are somehow taking in some other form of energy that we don't know about that 'feeds' our souls. Music maybe... Don't they say 'music feeds the soul?' I do like the idea but find it unlikely too... sadly.

 

[Rounded Agony]

Sorry- I'm not Funeral Cry but I have been mulling this thread over in my mind because it reminds me of one of the first discussions I had with a member on here about atheism. I'm sorry that I don't recall who that was.

I had misunderstood what atheism is. I was under the impression it was a disbelief in God. I posed the argument that while no one can prove that God does exist, there is also no proof that there is nothing. I was trying to say that BOTH religious folk and atheists are still only working from a BELIEF rather than a fact. (That I would in fact LOVE to truly believe there was nothing.) I vaguely recall them replying that having to prove there was nothing was nonsensical. Honestly, I didn't feel like I had the mental agility to argue this one but to me, the question still makes sense. I feel like if something isn't fact, you DO still need to prove it- even the absence of it (for it to be convincing... Anyway, they kindly explained to me that atheism wasn't necessarily a disbelief in God but more an open minded- I'll believe it when I see it type thing.)

What I suppose I'm trying to say... Badly- is that I do STILL feel that some people's default beliefs ARE firmly there is no God and no meaning to life. Similarly, to my rather poor and badly explained 'atheist' example, I expect they don't see the need to 'back up' their thoughts because- to them- they may seem like logical facts- or- the default. Plus- I imagine- they may not see the point (seeing as everything is meaningless).

I suppose- just to play devil's advocate- if you want to insist on them somehow proving/ supporting their ideas that there is no meaning to life. What indicators have you been given that there IS indeed some greater meaning to all this?

This is interesting, and led me to looking up the term, as well as "agnosticism"; as you say, the definitions are slightly different than I'd thought. Atheism seems to refer to any set of beliefs on a spectrum between "I firmly believe there are no gods" to what you describe, the softer "I have no believe in the existence or non-existence of any gods". The latter is what I actually thought agnosticism was, but seems that's actually the slightly stricter "we can't know whether or not there are gods". Kinda splitting hairs, but I guess when you're getting all metaphysical and existential a hair can contain a universe and whatnot.

Anyway, I was never trying to solicit proof on anything - given I feel that's the kind of thing beyond human capability, I just want to know why it was they had that stance. As has kind of emerged in some of the better responses here already, I'm becoming more and more convinced that terms like "mistake", "point", "meaning" and "purpose" can't possibly be used objectively with reference to concepts like "suffering", "life", or whatever else. It's just another case of the inescapable filter of the human perspective at play; the painting of far broader strokes than is really justified. Just as if all of my own personal misery magically ended up leading me to some happier-ever-after fairy tale ending (hah), I could say it was all "for" something, but that something will just be snuffed out and forgotten by the sands of time eventually.

 

[lyles]

I truly think anyone who claims to have a perfect understanding of this is bull shitting, be it others or themselves (or both). As far as suffering dictating the meaning, or therein perceived nature of the reality we live in, I find that to be both lacking and unlikely to truly be intended to indicate a universal statement. While pain is a natural and inevitable fact of life, pleasure exists alongside it to varying degrees just the same. The individual is responsible for their own meaning, even if their conclusion is that suffering is the prominent denominator and thus overwhelms all else contextually for themselves. The universe does not exist for us, nor do we exist for it. We have arrived to our lives, be it by an almighty choice or of simple chance. In the grand scheme of anything, we are very small. I find it a bit silly to assume that any force of nature is out to get any one person. Perhaps people or institutions, yes, but existence itself is a neutral. As far as we are aware, plants don't suffer the same emotional grievance as humans, but they surely exist. And even if we narrow it down to the human experience, that itself is too varied and diverse to concretely derive the sentiment suffering alone is our purpose. I take statements that you mentioned purely as a statement of philosophical exhaustion and resentment, a vocalization of suffering rather than a sentiment that has been analyzed deeply on a metaphysical level. For some this may not be true, but that is what I have seen.

 

[SarRy]

Eruvin 13b says, "For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin."

Does life have meaning? No, it cannot have any meaning other than what it is. People make mistakes by their ignorance, but the universe does not have such a mentality. Everything is as it must be. A person might think of a meaning or purpose, but this is usually just a method for them to envision that things will improve for their life as they work towards it. Others might have a sense of meaning and purpose that twists their logic and desires enough that they enjoy their suffering and thusly enjoy life. Happy people need no meaning. Their happiness is their meaning. If there is a purpose to life, then it is that it must be as it is. Life must be lived with all its joy and sadness and end in death.

Sure, if the idea of God is taken into account, then some future recompense might give circumstances such as life might be gauged, the purpose of this life would be to find whatever recompense we seek in the next. Yes, then we might expand the definition of life and find the quandary of the meaning of that life. Even if we consider that there is God, that does not mean that there is a living soul beyond our bodies or an afterlife.

It is reasonable to assume that we did not exist before our formation and will not exist after our deaths. The parts of our beings might dissipate and return whence they came, but the whole shall not exist. The whole has a nature separate from its parts. The gestalt is a unique concept beyond its parts.

Is life a mistake? No, people make mistakes, the world does not. People guide their actions by their knowledge and make mistakes in their actions towards objectives by their ignorance. The universe does not have such a nature as a person. Everything is as it must be. In this world of cause and effect, there is nothing out of place. Furthermore, it does nothing to question the value of the existence of life. Life exists. It must be contended with as it is.

We might do well to not complicate our philosophies. Look not to what is thought and what might be. Study instead what is. Those who enjoy life by the nature of their taste and those who expect to enjoy life in the future, it is these who strive to live. Those who do not enjoy life by the nature of their tastes and expect the future to be without sufficient enjoyment, it is these who seek their own end. Truly, it is a matter of tastes and expectations. Life is not complicated, it's just hard. In some ways, it is the arrogance of humanity to think that those who did not have the power to form themselves could have the power to understand themselves. Moreover, how could we understand life in its entirety when we cannot even comprehend the entirety of our own individual lives? Truly, our abilities and understandings are limited. It is all we can do to try our best with what we have. We try to live as best we can with what we have and what the powers that be allow.

I know people shun religion. Still, it bears remembering that much of what was known about philosophy, psychology, and the general study of life and mankind was contained within religious studies before they cam to their modern forms. Also, when nothing of this world can form itself and so much of life is beyond our power and control, then why should it seem strange to believe in God and a higher power?