Watch this video and share your thoughts. IMHO, you have one life and is the only one you have, enjoy it to the fullest, cherish the things around you and learn all you can learn in this short life you have. Do what you can to impact those around you in a good way, so your life will live through their memories forever! When I die, I want my children, family and friends to remember me for what I am. If my children can say my dad was an honorable and respected man and they can look up to me, then I've done my job in this life! [video=youtube;eeMoOJpvUlU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeMoOJpvUlU[/video]
Interesting video. One of the main arguments I got from the video is this: an afterlife diminishes the value of life. This is the main point I'd like to discuss about. In order to support this thesis, the video makes a few points: 1) The afterlife in question refers to the Christian afterlife, Heaven, Hell and Judgement. It did not address other religious afterlife, and other religious afterlives are completely different. 2) After we die, we will not know the truth of death. 3) We are insignificant in the universe. There are more points, but these are the points I'd like to focus on. Before continuing, I would like to firstly say that I completely agree that, in our present life, we should do everything in our power to be productive, helpful and a contributing member of our society. I would also like to start off stating that I do not confirm nor deny the existence of any sort of afterlife (i.e. Agnostic mindset). Regarding point number one, if this video is solely targeting the Christian definition of the afterlife, then I wholeheartedly agree. People are afraid of what happens after death. This is why there is a need for the idea of Heaven and Hell, in order to appease this fear. When I was in Turkey, we visited the City of Constantinople, one of the main cities during the Crusades. Apparently, the idea of Heaven/Hell was introduced as soldiers feared death. Heaven/Hell was designed to motivate soldiers. I can't find sources, as this was explained to me during my visit there. In fact, Christianity believed in the idea of reincarnation, similar to Hinduism and Buddhism (We'll come back to the topic of reincarnation in a bit). And to the majority of Christians today, this would be a blasphemous claim. To address other definitions of the afterlife, say reincarnation, let's make sure we're on the same page, regarding the definition of reincarnation. Reincarnation in my opinion, refers to the idea that there is a "dimension" out there where our spirit/soul lives when on incarnated on Earth. Our lives on Earth are essentially classes. We are reincarnated on Earth in order to learn certain lessons. When we die, our spirit/soul leaves to rejoin that other dimension. It's much more complex than that, but that's the shortest I can define it. There's one point I'd like to outline: 3) We are insignificant in the universe. This also implies that our scientific understanding of the universe is also insignificant. I ask the following question: If we are so insignificant in the universe, and our understanding of the universe is also insignificant, how can we absolutely confirm or deny the existence of something, say, an afterlife? The video makes the claim: 2) After we die, we will not know the truth of death or what's after death. This implies that even during life, we never knew the truth of death, or what's after death. Since the video makes the claim that "we do not know what's after death", how can one state for absoluteness that there is nothing after death? The video says we don't know! TL;DR: My argument is this: If we don't know what's after death, then why do we say that nothing is after death? Not knowing is not the same as nothing. Anyway, on a different note: I must say I dislike the way this video was narrated. They speak as if they know more than other people, and say, there's nothing to worry about. They speak as if they truly know what happens at death (i.e. there is no afterlife). But the argument has been said that if we don't know what happens at death, then no one on this earth truly knows what happens at death. This argument implies the conclusion that we can neither confirm NOR deny the existence of something beyond death. HOWEVER whatever is beyond death DOES NOT include the Christian definition of the afterlife (Heaven/Hell), because it has been confirmed by historians that this idea was introduced by the Pope at the time, in order to appease the Crusade soldiers of the fear of death.
there are many mansion in my father's house, jesus said what's that means? it means when you DIE, you will go to a certain house , depending on the level of consciousness when you die === In my Father's house are many mansions. John 14, 2 (NT)
•Atheism represents a belief system about religion and God that covers a wide spectrum. It is also characteristic of a phase of life, although in some people, it may be a life-long position. [...] The majority of atheistic positions calibrates very low. These range from ignorance and indifference to anger, resentment, and hatred of God by militant atheism at calibration level 25. If we ask what is the calibration of the karma of rebuking God or the great Avatars, the calibration levels are 20 to 40 [...] The psychological matrix of atheism has been well described by Feuerbach and others as the rejection of the father figure, as was the case with Karl Marx [...] Disillusionment results in narcissistic resentment towards all authority figures. The psychology of atheism is well covered by Prof. Paul Vitz. From the viewpoint of the evolution of consciousness, atheism results from the refusal or inability to let go of the illusion that the narcissistic core of the ego is sovereign and is the source of one's life and existence. [...] One reason computer games are so popular is that they reinforce the illusion of "being in control" and thus sovereign and the "captain of one's soul" [cal. LoC 170]. [...] The relinquisment of the illusion of self-sovereignty is the essence of the "hitting bottom" experience that is transformative and to which millions of people testify. It is also the crux of a true conversion experience, as well as a major consequence of the near-death experience. Curiosly, atheism is based on faith, but on faith in falsity (the ego, intellect) and cannot be overcome except by an act of Will. Truth vs. Falsehood. How to Tell the Difference, S. 355-356, 2005 •From the viewpoint of the evolution of consciousness, atheism results from the refusal or inability to let go of the illusion that the narcissistic core of the ego is sovereign and is the source of one's life and existence. Truth vs. Falsehood. How to Tell the Difference, S. 361, 2005 •The karma of atheism is hatred of God or denunciation of Divinity itself, all calibrate at very serious levels of 40-70, thus indicating a very dire spiritual destiny that calibrates at the lower astral level of Hells. (Calibrates as "true".) In contrast, atheism as an intellectual/philosophical position calibrates at 165-190, which is the level of (intellectual) pride. Truth vs. Falsehood. How to Tell the Difference, chapter 17 Spiritual Truth, S. 388, 2005 •[T]he Grinch hates Christmas, and the ego of the atheist secretly hates the Infinite Glory of God. In miserly fashion, the ego seeks to discredit the Absolute by which all of Creation’s energy from the potentiality of the Godhead emerges into mani*festation as never-*ending Creation. Reality, Spirituality and Modern Man, S. 91, 2008 •Atheism (cal. 165) is currently academically popu*lar, very ‘in the know’, ‘Hollywood’, fashionable, chic, hip, cool, savvy, and ‘modern’. Among elitists, God is passé, old hat, and fuddy*-duddy. Reality, Spirituality and Modern Man, S. 92, 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- •That the mind is unable to prove a proposition does not mean that the proposition is false. This is the pitfall of the atheist because the mind is unable to know truth. Agnosticism [...] is more sophisticated, more aligned with reality, and merely admits that the intellect, in and of itself, is unable to resolve the problem of the actual existence of God. Seminar ''Title unknown, date unknown
I refuse to discuss this topic with you, because all you know how to do is copy and paste from other sources. We can discuss like adults when you are able to construct your own words. If you throw bible verses at me, just be prepare to get bible verses back that exposes the god you so believe in.
I was going to say that despite his inability to construct a proper sentence, he was providing statements by an academic. However upon closer review, all of these statements come from one academic, a Dr David Hawkins M.D. Ph.D. To the poster: the problem with quoting from one individual is that there is a strong chance his literatures are not peer-reviewed. This may be the opinion of one man, regardless of his credentials, which may be disapproved by the academic body. One man with M.D. and Ph.D. in his name without the support of other academic, is just as good as one man without M.D. or Ph.D.
I am just sharing information, my own opinions are quite irrelevant and not important in this subject. whether you want to consider it or not, it's up to you. If you want to research and read his works further, go ahead, i recommend start from here http://de.spiritualwiki.org/Hawkins/Ego , if not, that's fine too. pp , and yes me got inability to make proper sentence too . Don't listen to me
Frankly, I prefer Stephen Hawking's material over your Dr Hawkins. Better yet, how about Richard Dawkins? I suggest you read both sides of the story before sharing your opinions on any religious subject. Before I even dare to comment or share my opinions on an open forum regarding religion, I research and study said religion, try to understand the believe, consult with those who are believers. Ask questions, ask many many question. I read the Qur'an, I read the bible and countless of other religious book while I was trying to find myself and a deity. Anyways, Good luck with your spiritual journey! I wish you the best of luck.
Care to elaborate a bit more? Do you mean it's tough for you, tough for society? How is it tough? I'm just curious how one feels about this subject. For both the faithful and non believers.
Dan - I just reread your post......damn it's long! LOL But at least it's not cut and paste. Here's my respond to some of your comments. Please don't take any of it offensively, I'm just discussing the topic at hand and mean no disrespect to any religion. You are right that no one knows about death and what happens afterwards. Yet every religion claims to know about the afterlife as if they've all been there. Also all believes of the afterlife came from one religion or another, and each religion has a different story about afterlife. If you ask which one is true, they all say their version is the truth. That is why I can't believe in it and agree with most of the people's comment in the video. They didn't claim to know for sure there is no afterlife. They are merely saying, they don't know if there is one or not, but while there is no proof of an afterlife they are going to cherish and live the life before death to the fullest. Not following or being restricted to any dogma while doing it. At least that's what I got out of the video. Since you are an atheist Buddhist, I assume that is why you believe in reincarnation? I'm not sure from your comments if you believe in reincarnation or just giving us another example of an afterlife. Being asian and grew up surrounded by Buddhist myself. I hear all the stories about reincarnation and the 18 levels of hell, when you get selected to return, you cross a bridge and a sweet old lady gives you a bowl of lost memory soup etc etc......I don't know, it all just too fairy tale to me. To me that is just part of the cultural myths and true Buddhism is probably far from it. But I'm sure you would agree with me that that's what most asians really believes. So again I would have to call it BS. It just goes to show you, it depends how lucky or unlucky you are to be born into what region of the world that dictates what god and what kind of afterlife you are going to get. If you were born in Iran, Pakistan, you may be expecting 72 virgins for your afterlife. But how you going to get that 72 virgins while you are alive is the problem. Also I don't recall reading anywhere that tells you if the 72 virgins are hot or not, they could be all 72 year old grannies that never had sex. LOL.....it's a joke people!! Lighten up! For argument sake. What if one of these afterlife fairy tales are true? But it's not the one from your religion and you get turned down in front of this other god that you didn't believe in? Then what? Is that fair? So wouldn't you rather live life without dogma and just live a good and responsible life? Like my favorite quote from Marcus Aurelius: “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
What if ALL of these afterlife fairy tales are true to people who believe them? What if some people want beyond than just to live a good and responsible life?
Ultimately the question is not what happens after people die, its what happens after you die. The issue become emotional, personal and inescapeable A devout muslim who landed on a christian heaven, he would be unhappy, eternity would not meet with his expectation, and vice versa
I don't know.........ask the Muslims who beats their wives, walk into crowds of children and women and detonate a suicide bomb. Or ask those who rioted and attacked US Embassy and killed innocent people. Or ask those who likes to control our politics through their faith, tell our women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Tell schools what they can and cannot teach. Need more examples why some would rather just live a good and responsible life and nothing more?
Rephrasing Socrates Men only can only choose the good, he perceived it as the good, so killing you is what he perceived is the highest good, so he is still operating from the highest good ... so any other 'good' things people do out there, whether they use 'religion' or 'god' or 'science' or 'moral' or 'logic' or 'intellect' or 'any other' faith / beliefs so the point is what does it ends up to you personally? Blame? Hatred?
edit: I am sorry for the long reply again... I tried to keep it short, but it's just too difficult to condense what I want to say... I apologize for the late reply. At the time I was reading this, I had a good dose of booze in me, and didn't think it would be right to reply with that much booze in my system lol. Having made that assumption (what if one of these afterlives are true), I completely agree with your perspective, and Marcus Aurelius'. Let truth be told, we DON'T know what's waiting for us beyond death, or if anything awaits us at all. And that scares people. Furthermore, after a series of events that occurred to me in the past few weeks, I've concluded that people are dumb. People are followers. People are scared. As such, people NEED this dogma. To connect this with your question on my belief in reincarnation, I'll be frank, I don't know WHAT to believe. Here are my thoughts: At first, like many atheists, I would think that the need for an afterlife is simply due to people being afraid of the ultimatum of death, the fear of no longer existing. Furthermore, it can also stem from the need for materialistic needs, greed. However, there are things I've experienced that I cannot ignore. Warning: you may think I'm crazy after this. I'm a scientist, and naturally, a skeptic. However, if the belief in an afterlife, in this case reincarnation, is simply the product of human fear and greed, how do we explain the belief that the Dalai Lama and high level monks, in reincarnation? They are theoretically the least greedy individuals on Earth, and have less fear than the average human being? Furthermore, like my previous argument, we are infinitesimally insignificant in the scope of the universe, and as such, our understanding of the universe doesn't span past the Earth, nevermind the universe. What if there is an afterlife, in a form of a dimension? Dimensions are a scientific theory, and we have not been able to prove or disprove it. In regards to reincarnation, all this 18 levels of hell or what not is total bullshit to me. There are some Buddhists who spread as much bullshit as any other religion extremists; it's human nature. However to discount reincarnation altogether is too premature at this point in time. We don't know what happens after death, and as such we cannot embrace it or reject it. Question 1: These tales may be true to people who believe in them, only within the scopes of their mind. Truth is relative. However, for the sake of this debate, we are referring to the absolute truth, what is true outside the scope of people's minds. Question 2: This is true. People want more than just to live a good and responsible life. These types of people are called greed. HOWEVER, if people JUST want to live a good and responsible life, and something beyond life does exist, then these people are humble, modest. Impeccable observation. You're right, religion in my opinion is more than just finding what's going on after death, it's an emotional one. Many faithful individuals follow religion not to find what goes on after death, but follow religion for an emotional reason. Which brings up a question; CrazyMofo, since atheism is driven by the non-belief of theology, say an atheist experiences something life-changing, or one that affects them deeply on an emotional level (goodness forbid), where does that atheist turn to? Many non-faithful actually turn faithful due to some traumatic experience. So religion, though it may be wrong in the explanation of what's beyond death, does serve an important role in helping people re-stabilize themselves emotionally. My unbiased opinion: "Good", "responsibility", "truth" are relative. To them, this may be truth, good and responsibility. Unfortunately, the teachings that they receive is completely contrasting the education we have received, which is why we see them as "bad" and "irresponsible". To them, that is their truth. My biased opinion: People are dumb, people are followers, and people are afraid. Anything that gains momentum and grows, is caused by a bunch of people who don't know better, and blindly follow. I'd call this a "zerg" (Starcraft term). The literature that promotes beating of wives, and suicidal destruction, and violence in general, happens to have accumulated a bunch of people who are dumb, followers and afraid. So my ultimate conclusion is that people are stupid as fuck (pardon my language). This supports my previous point. But to answer your last question (How does this affect me?), I'll be honest, I try not to let it affect me. To be able to do 'good', and be 'responsible', one must first shed his ego. One must not have any negative feelings, which includes blame, hatred, sadness, anger, etc. To do 'good' means to be able to help the world become a better place, and that starts with oneself being humble, not greedy, generous, calm, forgiving, to care for others and the surroundings. That is what it means (to me) to do 'good' and 'responsible'. And also, that is my understanding of the Buddhist way (not this 18 level of hell crap or any of the sort). However I'll be lying if I said it didn't affect me, because human stupidity and the need to be followers instead of thinking for oneself is something that makes me sad. I try to be a humanist, someone who is optimistic about the advancement of human intellect, however when I hear/see things like this, it's apparent that humans are idiots and love to follow.
That chart of level of consciousness above can explain many things, for example, those 'real and authentic' high level monks 'probably' has reach the level of 600 in the above chart, to have the 'natural' ability to spontaneously recall their own past lives. They don't need to believe it, it is their experiential knowledge based on their experience. To Believe is a cover up for insecurity. Reincarnation informations are easily available today on the internet and from that link as well, if one wants to research further. Intellect or Reason level as the chart shown, is only able to reach level 499, it is based on dualistic, linear, newtonian, cause and effect perceptions and observations of the universe / reality based on sensory perceptions and instruments. It is also the level of sciences. The most intellectual genius can only reach level 499. It is the level of the logical mind and it has its limit of understanding the reality. True and wise scientist admit that limitation. From 500 to 599 is level of the heart - a level of authentic Love is, and from level 600 to 1000 is the level of the spirit, a direct experience of permanent connection of and identifying with one's spirit / true nature. That table basically said that below LOC 200 people are acting mostly from their animal instinct, associated with their 'reptilian brain' part of their brain, the flight and fight respond and reactive respond. The instinctual need to survive, to compete, to be right, to be and feel secure and safe, to defend, to be approved , to be loved, to control, to possess, etc, It is also mostly left brain part of the brain plus the emotions and behaviours associated with it. The life view on the chart is basically how one see the world, also depending on one's level of consciousness, the same situations (ie. someone do 'good' thing to blow things), will have different understanding and perception. An 'enlightened' person will have different view of it than the other person with different level of consciousness. Most arguments that people have, when they don't agree with each other, it is simply because they argue from their own different levels of consciousness. When they agree with each other, they probably have the same levels of consciousness. The higher the level, they can see the point of views of the lower level, but from the lower level, they can't see the point of view of the higher ones. For example, someone who has high school physics have different understanding from someone who has university physics knowledge. Someone who has climb half way to the top in the mountain and someone reach the top of the mountain and someone who are still near the bottom of the mountain are all have different view and understanding of the reality of the mountain. And for skeptics, I'll just copy n paste someone opinions about it "No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others. Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "You're Wrong" so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism. For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them. It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe. Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs." The original teaching of Jesus, is to raise people above 200, so who understand his teachings will reject the negativity and avoid the 'sins' / mistakes / ignorance associated with the level below 200, so at least they will become 'civilized' when they are here on earth, and will be 'safe' after they die, however ideally they reach level 540 - unconditional love as Jesus main teaching. The original Buddha teaching is for people who also wants all that Jesus teaching plus also wants to reach level 600.
In regards to your chart, as it is in a language foreign to me, i cannot provide any opinions on it. I'll just take it as it is. But as for your opinion on skepticism, I wholeheartedly agree. However I believe skepticism is quite relative. Would you not be skeptical of those who, for example, believe that superman is a real individual? That he does indeed exist outside the world of comics? I cannot speak for atheists, but many of those who have a scientific background do have a sense of wonder. Though their wonder is not related to the belief in religion, they believe in the universe. Like Alain de Botton believed, the fact that we're so insignificant in the scope of the universe is a wonder in and of itself. But having said that, not all non-believers are like this. Many do in fact "sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "you're Wrong". This boils down to one thing: Human nature. Humanity's biggest flaw, is itself. Humanity is egotistic, power hungry and ignorant. And believers/non-believers both have one thing in common: Humanity. So to argue the rightfulness of religion or atheism is the wrong debate we should be having. The right debate is to find out and explore ways to reduce our own flaws, our egos, our greed, and strive to learn more.
