# Do you think their might be some type of reincarnation after we die?



## Sanandreas818 (Nov 30, 2012)

Not EXACTLY like reincarnation but something close to it. I mean we were already born once so wouldn't it make sense for us to become something else after we die? I'm not a really a religious person at all I consider myself an agnostic. I see no evidence for the existence of a higher power or a god or an afterlife. I don't rule it out. But don't you ever think of the possibility for any animal not just us to become something else? I mean it does make sense to an certain extent. I'm not high if that's what any of you might think. Lol. I'm just curious that's all. I have a lot of time on my hands so I think about this stuff a lot. Haha.


----------



## mosu (Feb 8, 2013)

No, your consciousness is a function of your working brain, when it's gone you're gone. Reincarnation is just wishful thinking that death is not the end.


----------



## Sanandreas818 (Nov 30, 2012)

I'm not talking about my consciousness carrying on after death I'm talking about me becoming someone else after I die or a different different species all together.


----------



## mosu (Feb 8, 2013)

Sanandreas818 said:


> I'm not talking about my consciousness carrying on after death I'm talking about me becoming someone else after I die or a different different species all together.


YOU are your brain, so if your brain dies how can YOU reincarnate? Doesn't make any sense.


----------



## IHMLILML (Nov 22, 2012)

I agree with what mosu wrote, but my mind is also open to the possibility that quantum entanglement could play a role in the neurological process that we call consciousness. I also believe that our scientific understanding of the human brain could evolve to the point where we could have the ability to preserve and transfer the information that is in the brains memory centers.


----------



## enfield (Sep 4, 2010)

IHMLILML said:


> I agree with what mosu wrote, but my mind is also open to the possibility that quantum entanglement could play a role in the neurological process that we call consciousness. I also believe that our scientific understanding of the human brain could evolve to the point where we could have the ability to preserve and transfer the information that is in the brains memory centers.


'

like mind uploading?

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

==

consciousness is very confusing to me and i can't really find any nice answers to some of the questions i have about it. so i have thrown the doors very wide open for possible answers. could there be something we don't know about it, something that resolves the questions people have, which would change our idea of what it means to die and live? and so could be thought of as some kind of 'reincarnation'? i think there could be.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Sanandreas818 said:


> Not EXACTLY like reincarnation but something close to it. I mean we were already born once so wouldn't it make sense for us to become something else after we die? I'm not a really a religious person at all I consider myself an agnostic. I see no evidence for the existence of a higher power or a god or an afterlife. I don't rule it out. But don't you ever think of the possibility for any animal not just us to become something else? I mean it does make sense to an certain extent. I'm not high if that's what any of you might think. Lol. I'm just curious that's all. I have a lot of time on my hands so I think about this stuff a lot. Haha.


Why should any part of your concious transfer to another being or species when your mind powers down? What would be the reason for it and where would such broadcast energy and data stream come from? We know the universe abhors a proton gradient and takes the easiest route through matter, so for energy to somehow transfer to another life is strange and unusual with regards to the laws of thermodynamics.

According to the evidence, reincarnation is just wishful thinking. It would be a very easy thing to prove with simple experiments if it was real, but nobody ever has, so we can reliably state that it's false, at least with contemporary technology.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

No one knows what happens after you die. So maybe, maybe not. I think it might be possible.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> No one knows what happens after you die. So maybe, maybe not. I think it might be possible.


What are you basing that prediction on?


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> What are you basing that prediction on?


It's not a prediction. It just makes sense to me personally. Everything else in the universe is a cycle so I wouldn't be surprised if life/death were a cycle too.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> It's not a prediction. It just makes sense to me personally. Everything else in the universe is a cycle so I wouldn't be surprised if life/death were a cycle too.


Actually you are clearly predicting it might be possible in your personal opinion.

However as you are just basing this on what you as a layperson "feels" personally combined with what we know of physiological bias and ego coupled with zero observational field evidence indicates it's never going to be found to be correct.

The cycles you see in the universe are actually just manifestations of entropy, which is always progressing towards more disorganisation and destruction. Therefore there is no reason for something like a consciousness to prevail as the natural flow of energy in the universe is to destroy anything ordered like that.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Actually you are clearly predicting it might be possible in your personal opinion.
> 
> However as you are just basing this on what you as a layperson "feels" personally combined with what we know of physiological bias and ego coupled with zero observational field evidence indicates it's never going to be found to be correct.
> 
> The cycles you see in the universe are actually just manifestations of entropy, which is always progressing towards more disorganisation and destruction. Therefore there is no reason for something like a consciousness to prevail as the natural flow of energy in the universe is to destroy anything ordered like that.


You're right. You have it all figured out. :|

I do think it is possible and that is my personal belief. I do not claim to know why or how. I choose to go with it without looking for proof or evidence and fully recognize it's nonscientific and that's okay with me in this instance because I don't have this incessant need to center my life around proving the existence or nonexistence of a God. It doesn't matter to me. I have my own belief and other people have theirs or lack thereof. I definitely won't be out there preaching or writing books about it but I think I have the right to think whatever I want without people like you setting out to convince me that only your way is the right way. It's like religious people but even more sanctimonious. :roll


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> You're right. You have it all figured out. :|
> 
> I do think it is possible and that is my personal belief. I do not claim to know why or how. I choose to go with it without looking for proof or evidence and fully recognize it's nonscientific and that's okay with me in this instance because I don't have this incessant need to center my life around proving the existence or nonexistence of a God. It doesn't matter to me. I have my own belief and other people have theirs or lack thereof. I definitely won't be out there preaching or writing books about it but I think I have the right to think whatever I want without people like you setting out to convince me that only your way is the right way. It's like religious people but even more sanctimonious. :roll


OK so you are a proponent of believing things without evidence/proof. All I'm advocating is evidence based belief rather than blind faith. I'll go wherever the evidence leads us.

You have stated what many would regard a dubious stance, and you will be judged by many others for it.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> OK so you are a proponent of believing things without evidence/proof. All I'm advocating is evidence based belief rather than blind faith. I'll go wherever the evidence leads us.
> 
> You have stated what many would regard a dubious stance, and you will be judged by many others for it.


Oh, damn you used a gif, that must mean you totally know who I am and what I'm saying. :blank
Yeah I don't really care because I'm usually one of those *******s who try to prove **** but sometimes you just need to live life. Plus I doubt anyone can come up with clear proof of what happens after death so let me know once that happens. People like you seem very closed minded to me. I'm all for science but to say that just because we haven't discovered something yet it isn't a possibility is dumb. If everyone had thought like that, we would never discover anything. Also it's amusing how you also bring in the boogie man of "people judging" me as if that somehow enhances your stance. Even if you tried to scientifically assess this, how would you and what proof do you have of what happens after death? Please enlighten me.

Medical science still doesn't know everything about the human body and how it functions, so I doubt we know everything about the demise of it.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> Oh, damn you used a gif, that must mean you totally know who I am and what I'm saying. :blank


It's not a gif, it's a jpg. 



> Yeah I don't really care because I'm usually one of those *******s who try to prove **** but sometimes you just need to live life.


Even if that means you go around predicting things which there is no evidence for?



> Plus I doubt anyone can come up with clear proof of what happens after death so let me know once that happens.


Indeed but until we find any evidence to support your reincarnation fantasies then saying we all turn into hacksaws would be just as credible.



> People like you seem very closed minded to me.


You confuse close mindedness with being able to recognise theories with merit and the wades of lay ridiculous crap that people dream up.



> I'm all for science but to say that just because we haven't discovered something yet it isn't a possibility is dumb. If everyone had thought like that, we would never discover anything.


To the contrary if we wasted time and resources on every unfounded fantasy of people we would rarely discover anything.

There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere.



> Also it's amusing how you also bring in the boogie man of "people judging" me as if that somehow enhances your stance.


No I'm just saying that is something that will happen. It doesn't enhance my stance but it severally weakens yours.



> Even if you tried to scientifically assess this, how would you and what proof do you have of what happens after death? Please enlighten me.


There are some very obvious experiments that could be done to assess anyone who claims to have knowledge of past lives.

Nobody has achieved this yet, despite a £1,000,000 reward in place for anyone who can.



> Medical science still doesn't know everything about the human body and how it functions, so I doubt we know everything about the demise of it.


Indeed we don't know everything about it yet but to predict wild fantasies like reincarnation is simply not credible and purely whimsical.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> It's not a gif, it's a jpg.
> 
> Even if that means you go around predicting things which there is no evidence for?
> 
> ...


You're right it's a jpeg. I had gifs on the mind from tumblr.

As for the rest of your post. You would have a premise if I were going around trying to tell people that reincarnation exists and everyone should believe in it. Or even if I had posted that reincarnation exists, period. However I specifically stated that "we don't know for sure what happens after death" and that it is my personal belief that anything including reincarnation is possible. The fact that you took that as a challenge to science in general is very telling. It's highly uncalled for and annoying. It's also annoying how you assume you know what theory of what happens after death holds merit or doesn't as if you have some secret knowledge of the universe the rest of us are lacking. We know nothing, zip, zilch about what happens to the human consciousness after we die. And there is nothing to test as of yet since no one can contact anyone who's dead. People like you are the reason why so many people think atheists and agnostics are annoying. I'm agnostic and I find you to be smug and ridiculous. Also it is not an "obvious test" to talk to people who think they've been reincarnated because it's not objective data. Plus people could just make **** up. And who can even say if it existed, how it would work or if anyone would remember anything.

Anyway my point is that the fact that you cannot even tolerate the fact that people have varying beliefs and thoughts on this subject is very troubling.


----------



## Sanandreas818 (Nov 30, 2012)

I agree with DiamondHeart89. We have no way of knowing of what happens to to us after we die.


----------



## IHMLILML (Nov 22, 2012)

enfield said:


> '
> 
> like mind uploading?


 Yes, mind uploading. But I am skeptical about the idea of ones and zeros being a complete replacement for As Gs Cs and Ts. I don't think our current biological definition of consciousness can be completely replaced by a digital copy of a person's DNA and neural activity. I can envision a future where biological and non-biological substrates would be used to store and transfer information. I could see digital /quantum computing, genetically modified neurons, and perhaps some kind of synthetic neurons all playing a role in the process.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> As for the rest of your post. You would have a premise if I were going around trying to tell people that reincarnation exists and everyone should believe in it. Or even if I had posted that reincarnation exists, period. However I specifically stated that "we don't know for sure what happens after death" and that it is my personal belief that anything including reincarnation is possible.


All I asked was for your reasoning behind your belief.



> The fact that you took that as a challenge to science in general is very telling. It's highly uncalled for and annoying.


Nothing you have said is of any challenge to science. Your just shouting your baseless fantasies in the wind.



> It's also annoying how you assume you know what theory of what happens after death holds merit or doesn't as if you have some secret knowledge of the universe the rest of us are lacking.


No I just base my opinions on expert evidence rather than layperson whims. It's horrifically arrogant for people to think they know better on complicated topics.



> We know nothing, zip, zilch about what happens to the human consciousness after we die.


Indeed, just as we know nothing of our conciousness before we are born. Until indicated otherwise there is no reason why we should believe that conciousness can survive on post brain death.



> And there is nothing to test as of yet since no one can contact anyone who's dead.


Who's talking about contacting the dead? We were talking about reincarnations.



> People like you are the reason why so many people think atheists and agnostics are annoying. I'm agnostic and I find you to be smug and ridiculous.


Me challenging you to explain your irrational beliefs have obviously wound you up real good.  I can appreciate how frustrated theists and afterlife believers can become when people like me ask them to justify their claims and they pathetically fumble for bible passages like some lunatic shouting a bus.



> Also it is not an "obvious test" to talk to people who think they've been reincarnated because it's not objective data. Plus people could just make **** up. And who can even say if it existed, how it would work or if anyone would remember anything.


There are tests which could be very convincing if replicated several times with positive results. There is $1,000,000 for anyone who can do so but nobody has been able to be explained by science.



> Anyway my point is that the fact that you cannot even tolerate the fact that people have varying beliefs and thoughts on this subject is very troubling.


Of course I tolerate it, I wouldn't be here if I wasn't. However what you need to accept is that I have the right to openly and frankly criticise anything and everything and frequently will. How upset you get when legitimate criticism is aimed at one of your beliefs is very telling in how confused and half baked your ideas on the subject actually are.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

IHMLILML said:


> Yes, mind uploading. But I am skeptical about the idea of ones and zeros being a complete replacement for As Gs Cs and Ts. I don't think our current biological definition of consciousness can be completely replaced by a digital copy of a person's DNA and neural activity. I can envision a future where biological and non-biological substrates would be used to store and transfer information. I could see digital /quantum computing, genetically modified neurons, and perhaps some kind of synthetic neurons all playing a role in the process.


The future of computational process need not be constrained to binary. Binary is just a crude approximation of reality that works with our primitive computers, and there may be a much better way to process information using quantum computers where each qubit can be a 1, and 0, and everything else in between simultaneously, and that's when computers will truly resemble reality with it's planck scale units.


----------



## Hamster12 (Jun 11, 2012)

Very interesting and sad that people take things so personally on stuff like this.

People's beliefs are very important to them.

The funny thing is, they want everyone else to agree with them.

I think we all have a ball of energy inside us which we can cultivate as good or bad energy. 

Then when we die I think it joins a big energy field, and then it might pop off and join another life form at some point. 

I'm just lucky to be alive.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Hamster12 said:


> Very interesting and sad that people take things so personally on stuff like this.
> 
> People's beliefs are very important to them.
> 
> ...


We, and everything else in the know universe consists of energy. Cultivating it as "good" or "bad" is just a silly way to say we should do "good" things and not "bad" things.



> Then when we die I think it joins a big energy field, and then it might pop off and join another life form at some point.


Energy is never destroyed, it just moves to less structured state, so in that way the energy from our bodies is fed back into the universe. This is the flow of entropy, everything is headed towards disorganised chaos as that's what nature dictates and ultimately demands. Nature abhors keeping organisation, as organisation requires investment of energy, so the idea that parts of an energy hungry human consciousness could leave the energy feast that is the human brain organ and "live wild" while keeping it's immense organisation makes no sense without hardware providing an energy source.


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

There are a lot of things I don't understand, so I wouldn't completely overlook the possibility. I have no proof to say either reincarnation (or something akin to it) is definitely real or definitely not real. It would be interesting though if it was.


----------



## whattothink (Jun 2, 2005)

mosu said:


> No, your consciousness is a function of your working brain, when it's gone you're gone. Reincarnation is just wishful thinking that death is not the end.


This is blatant conjecture. The question of what consciousness is, what causes it, and its implications on reality remain unanswered and - seemingly - unanswerable.

However, the prospect of reincarnation which implies anything of an individual reincarnate I find entirely implausible. Our individuality, inclinations, character, is the result of matter interacting. This is testable and has been demonstrated innumerable times: behavior is the result of our brain. The _origin_ of experience, though, remains a mystery.


----------



## Hamster12 (Jun 11, 2012)

Do you not agree that there is good and bad energy? 

Do you not think that how we live our lives affects the energy in our bodies? 

Do you not think that the quality of our energy affects how we join up with positive or negative energy forces when we die?


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> All I asked was for your reasoning behind your belief.
> 
> Nothing you have said is of any challenge to science. Your just shouting your baseless fantasies in the wind.
> 
> ...


Lol, you have far from upset me. I just find it hilarious how you have a problem with other people not believing exactly what you believe. Just like the religious extremists, you are a science fanatic. You intolerance for others having different beliefs from your own is highly ironic and amusing. Again, I state that not having proof for something does not mean it is impossible. Explain to me how that is a fallacy. I know you're stuck on the premise that you have to have evidence to even propose something. But you have to get a hypothesis from somewhere don't you? It's pathetic how sanctimonious you are. Well, whatever helps you stroke your ego. At the end of the day, I am perfectly happy and have no problem with letting other people be as they were unless they're being harmful in some way. It must suck to to be you and have to attack other people's beliefs in order to make yourself feel better. If we were on a science forum I might engage you further but since I came here specifically to answer a question on whether I think reincarnation is possible or not, I have said what I believe and I find this discussion to be pointless because you are only out to diminish other people's point of view. That's not only infantile, but also closes down any useful communication you could possibly have on the topic.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

diamondheart89 said:


> Lol, you have far from upset me. I just find it hilarious how you have a problem with other people not believing exactly what you believe.


You are confused. I have no problem with people not believing exactly what I believe as long as they have something to back up what they are saying. There are numerous competing credible scientific hypotheses on a multitude of subjects, some which I favour more than others but still respect the others as they at least have some basis.

I only dismiss hypothesis that have zero evidence. It's really quite a simple and valid line to draw. It would be very foolish to accept everything might be possible.

If I never believed anyone else then how could I learn anything? I respect and believe what many people say. You seem to be confusing me not believing someone like you with not believing anyone. 



> Just like the religious extremists, you are a science fanatic.


No i'm a fact fanatic. That's the opposite of a religious extremist.



> You intolerance for others having different beliefs from your own is highly ironic and amusing.


See above. Not everyone, just you and people like you.



> Again, I state that not having proof for something does not mean it is impossible. Explain to me how that is a fallacy.


Not having any evidence for something means I can easily dismiss it along with all the other supernatural crap like the existence of fairies, goblins and witches.



> I know you're stuck on the premise that you have to have evidence to even propose something. But you have to get a hypothesis from somewhere don't you? It's pathetic how sanctimonious you are.


A hypothesis means nothing without supporting evidence. Without any supporting evidence it's just a wild guess and holds no credit.



> Well, whatever helps you stroke your ego.


Yeah asking for evidence when people demand the supernatural is real but can't provide evidence is classic ego stroking. :roll



> It must suck to to be you and have to attack other people's beliefs in order to make yourself feel better.


I feel indifferent to challenging your supernatural beliefs.



> If we were on a science forum I might engage you further but since I came here specifically to answer a question on whether I think reincarnation is possible or not, I have said what I believe and I find this discussion to be pointless because you are only out to diminish other people's point of view.


Cop-out. 



> That's not only infantile, but also closes down any useful communication you could possibly have on the topic.


You closed down any useful communication on the subject when you couldn't say anything that validated your claim.

If you find people asking for evidence of your supernatural claims "infantile" then so be it. :lol


----------



## Sanandreas818 (Nov 30, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> You are confused. I have no problem with people not believing exactly what I believe as long as they have something to back up what they are saying. There are numerous competing credible scientific hypotheses on a multitude of subjects, some which I favour more than others but still respect the others as they at least have some basis.
> 
> I only dismiss hypothesis that have zero evidence. It's really quite a simple and valid line to draw. It would be very foolish to accept everything might be possible.
> 
> ...


Wait, weren't you the one that started with her? All she did was come and give her opinion on my question and here you come trying to start ****. How about leaving her alone and letting her believe what she wants to.


----------



## Evo1114 (Dec 9, 2012)

This thread is a snooze fest. Who knows what happens when we die. I personally think nothing happens...our bodies rot and we never regain any sort of conciousness. I will keep hoping that we somehow reincarnate into something else. But I know it is probably impossible.


----------



## Monroee (Aug 26, 2009)

When we die, little bugs eat us, bugs eat those bugs, birds eat the bugs, a cat catches and eats the bird. A cat has consciousness. Then a person comes along and eats the cat. That person gives birth to a baby, a new form of self-consciousness. Have we reincarnated? 

Overly simplistic, but the thought of the transference of energy like that surely is like some sort of reincarnation? :b

When I die I definitely don't want to be cremated. I want my body to decay as it was supposed to and contribute to life as natural.


----------



## Hamster12 (Jun 11, 2012)

Monroee said:


> When we die, little bugs eat us, bugs eat those bugs, birds eat the bugs, a cat catches and eats the bird. A cat has consciousness. Then a person comes along and eats the cat. That person gives birth to a baby, a new form of self-consciousness. Have we reincarnated?
> 
> Overly simplistic, but the thought of the transference of energy like that surely is like some sort of reincarnation? :b
> 
> When I die I definitely don't want to be cremated. I want my body to decay as it was supposed to and contribute to life as natural.


I think that about sums it up.

Who reads those long posts anyway with quotes and answers ad infinitum???

There is a certain amount of skill in being concise.

Those posters should try putting their thoughts into haikus.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

The earth is within a solar system which is within a galaxy. It is proposed that the galaxy contains billions of stars, it is also proposed that in the universe there are billions of galaxies (or some ridiculous inconceivable number). I'll contrast that with the amount of living organisms on earth who have a consciousness, and the chances of another hospitable planet similar to earth existing amongst this seeming cosmic stretch of eternity. Think whatever the feck you wish to think or believe. Time is constant though.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Sanandreas818 said:


> Wait, weren't you the one that started with her? All she did was come and give her opinion on my question and here you come trying to start ****. How about leaving her alone and letting her believe what she wants to.


All I asked was for the reasoning behind why she believed. I was genuinely interested. However it is an answer she has gone to great lengths not to give me, and instead chose to just complain about me asking.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Hamster12 said:


> Who reads those long posts anyway with quotes and answers ad infinitum???


People who aren't you.

I know i'd far rather read a detailed discussion over a couple of half baked thoughts from an infrequent poster.

Some people like to read, some people don't.



> There is a certain amount of skill in being concise.


There is, but unless there is a specific need to be brief then I don't usually see the need for it. I enjoy dissecting and discussing lots of points. If some people don't have the stamina or concentration span for it then so be it. Others do.



> Those posters should try putting their thoughts into haikus.


What's haikus?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Railroad Cancellation said:


> Time is constant though.


Actually time is relative to time keeper. We all keep our own time. There is no such thing as "universal" time.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> Not having any evidence for something means I can easily dismiss it along with all the other supernatural crap like the existence of fairies, goblins and witches.
> 
> A hypothesis means nothing without supporting evidence. Without any supporting evidence it's just a wild guess and holds no credit.


In the past people would have scoffed at the idea of radio waves or television transmissions. There was no technology for creating\detecting them. They would have said that, since these things were invisible, there was no evidence for them. The poster you quoted is right: the mere fact that there is no evidence does not mean it is impossible. It may just be that the means of collecting the evidence does not exist.

By the way, that very point occurred to me two days ago at 12:30 pm (my time). That was before I saw your post.


----------



## VanGogh (Jan 13, 2013)

Everything that makes up the infinite universe among the infinite multiverses would have to mean that any given slice of time there are an infinite number of duplicate constructs of your consciousness, which get infinitely greater for every quantum occurrence. It's not whether you are reborn as something else, you already exist in so many places that you can neither die nor be reborn, you simply ARE, forever.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

hoddesdon said:


> In the past people would have scoffed at the idea of radio waves or television transmissions. There was no technology for creating\detecting them. They would have said that, since these things were invisible, there was no evidence for them. The poster you quoted is right: the mere fact that there is no evidence does not mean it is impossible. It may just be that the means of collecting the evidence does not exist.


Indeed and I never disputed that. Of course there are things we don't yet have any evidence for that do exist.

However my point was that until any evidence is found then belief in the likes of the supernatural is futile, as there is no more reason to believe in reincarnation as there is in fairies.

Believing that everything could be possible and having no quality control is just silly in my opinion.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

VanGogh said:


> Everything that makes up the infinite universe among the infinite multiverses would have to mean that any given slice of time there are an infinite number of duplicate constructs of your consciousness, which get infinitely greater for every quantum occurrence. It's not whether you are reborn as something else, you already exist in so many places that you can neither die nor be reborn, you simply ARE, forever.


It's debatable if any but one of them are "you" though.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

ugh1979 said:


> Actually time is relative to time keeper. We all keep our own time. There is no such thing as "universal" time.


That would have to be one of the most farcically stated opinions to have ever disgraced my eyes.

That said, I am rather confident that the universe does not revolve around a particular notion or subjective interpretation of time in relation to our own consciousness, furthermore, nor do I reasonably believe it bears intrinsic connection to something as arbitrary and abstract as time. It's all pure speculation at the end of the day of course, however when forming an opinion try to reason a little more beyond that of a solipsist.

I suppose however I am still obliged to acknowledge your opinion in much the same way I would approach my insurance policy; begrudgingly.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Railroad Cancellation said:


> That would have to be one of the most farcically stated opinions to have ever disgraced my eyes.


:lol :lol :lol

Did you just warp here from 1713?

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

It appears I should've highlighted the word 'Solipsist' more for your own viewing pleasure.

Spare yourself. You don't need to clarify what you meant in an attempt elevate your own sense of propriety. Furthermore, I can't believe you just gave me a link to 'Theory of Relativity' to somehow bolster or elucidate the nothingness that so far constitutes your actual argument, to which end I have to say I am still completely nonplussed as to what it really is.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

I merely put forth that whether we are here or not, time continues on. Don't misconstrue it or appeal to your inner tendencies to be a #@%-face. I understand if that's too difficult for you however.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Railroad Cancellation said:


> It appears I should've highlighted the word 'Solipsist' more for your own viewing pleasure.
> 
> Spare yourself. You don't need to clarify what you meant in an attempt elevate your own sense of propriety. Furthermore, I can't believe you just gave me a link to 'Theory of Relativity' to somehow bolster or elucidate the nothingness that so far constitutes your actual argument, to which end I have to say I am still completely nonplussed as to what it really is. *shrugs*


I can't believe you think time is constant.

If you can't understand my reply to you informing you that it isn't, and is in fact relative, then you are a lost cause.


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

ugh1979 said:


> I can't believe you think time is constant.
> 
> If you can't understand my reply to you informing you that it isn't, and is in fact relative, then you are a lost cause.


Oh yeah, time is _relative_! Thanks a lot Einstein.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Even if there is, all of your memories would be erased and nothing you did on Earth would have any significance.


----------



## Ramondo (Feb 16, 2011)

For those who believe in reincarnation, do any of you believe that you will be punished for all your bad behaviour, but not rewarded for any good behaviour? So each lifetime gets worse and worse? There is no positive karma.

That is just as likely as any other reincarnation scenario, and if anyone actually believes that, that is at least some evidence that believing in reincarnation is not simply wishful thinking.


----------



## misski (Sep 25, 2011)

Screw heaven, I much rather reincarnate and restart life. That would be awesome... But no, I don't believe in that.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

The laws of thermodynamics make reincarnation extremely unlikely in my opinion. Energy, while never being able to be destroyed, is always trying to become more disorganised. (this is the law of entropy). Therefore, I don't see how something highly organised like a conciousness could exist out with the human brain which fuels it. The human brain is extremely energy hungry and if you cut that energy source it dies and conciousness stops (according to observations). 

Everything needs energy to exist, so I don't see how conciousness could go against that fact and somehow move elsewhere without almost immediately being diluted and dying a heat death. Everything is slowly dying a heat death. It's only by consuming calories to continually add fuel/energy to our bodies we stop ourselves from falling apart due to entropy and dying a heat death.


----------



## gopidevi (Aug 21, 2012)

i'm a firm believer of reincarnation. not because it sounds nice, not because i'm scared of not existing, but because it makes sense. it gives me answers to questions I have about life. it gives existence a purpose and meaning. no one, and I repeat, no one will ever be able to change my mind about reincarnation. but i'm definitely open to hearing what others have to say about it. the problem with reincarnation and karma is that people make up their own definitions about it because they don't understand it and then say it's a ridiculous idea.


----------



## ashli116 (Feb 14, 2013)

I only believe we either go to heaven or to hell and that's it...no debates pls. I'm already tired. Just wanted to say my opinion on the topic.


----------



## AwkwardEd (Feb 21, 2013)

No. We die. We get eaten by bacteria and bugs. We then rot into the ground...

or just get put into a oven and disintergrate...sort of.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

gopidevi said:


> i'm a firm believer of reincarnation. not because it sounds nice, not because i'm scared of not existing, but because it makes sense. it gives me answers to questions I have about life. it gives existence a purpose and meaning. no one, and I repeat, no one will ever be able to change my mind about reincarnation. but i'm definitely open to hearing what others have to say about it. the problem with reincarnation and karma is that people make up their own definitions about it because they don't understand it and then say it's a ridiculous idea.


If it makes strong sense to you and think that people who say it's ridiculous don't understand it can you give us an explantion of the process and why it must be real?


----------



## fleur (Nov 25, 2011)

It's a cool idea and I've thought about it a few times. One thing I struggle with is Karma. If you do terrible things in one life you will be punished in the next? Who is punishing us? Some sort of God who sits in a judgement perspective? Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Coincidence said:


> I believe what's going to happen is going to be unexpected , i am just sane enough not to ignore the "good/evil,reward/punishment" thing , why should i be afraid as long as i am at least " trying " to do good ! , Well without some philosophical silliness we all know right from wrong , Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months , think about it our actions are either good or bad there is no third option ! , Anyway if there is judgement , i am sure there won't be a naive or psychopath guy waiting for me , eternal happiness in heaven i hope ....


To the contrary i'd say it's never either "good" or "bad", and is in fact always somewhere in between. The same action can be extremely "good" or "bad" depending on who is making the call and the circumstances surrounding it. It's often highly subjective.

"Good" and "evil" are entirely human constructs in my opinion. I don't see how or why they can or should objectively exist in the universe.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Coincidence said:


> You can't change the underlined words with two different words that have two different meanings "somewhere in between" didn't make much difference , more like playing on words to avoid the facts ,


I have no idea what you are trying to say. I wasn't changing the definitions of the words, just pointing out that not everyone agrees with what you think is "good" and "bad". Do you disagree with that?

My point about there being many stages in between is that somethings have upsides and downsides in varying amounts.



> your words always come off as an attempt to promote or justify a dark and miserable view of life and existence .


I find it interesting you have interpreted it that way. Relative to a fantasy world with angels, after lifes and heavens, I can understand why it could appear dark and miserable. However I find the awesomeness of the universe which we can observe far more poweful, compelling and beautiful than unsubstantiated faith based claims.

I actually deem life and existence a wonderful thing which we should celebrate while we can before the darkness comes. I think the difference between us is in my opinion existence is finite and I don't think it will be better when we die.


----------



## ItsEasierToRun (Feb 2, 2013)

No. Death is death. It is what it is..
All the people who fear death can dream and fanticise that they will live on after their body dies but in reality, death is the end. Deal with it :|


----------



## Anyanka (Dec 18, 2012)

What happens to the _soul_? I don't have any set belief on that, though I do think the most likely scenario is that it just shuts off as it is part of the brain. But who knows? 

Still, I don't think we're ever really gone. We just transform. Generally, returning to the earth from which we came and over a very long period of time, the particles that comprise our being scatter and help to give birth to life, or well, potentially, not so lively elements of nature.


----------



## heysam (Jan 14, 2013)

I don't know but if I died right now, I wouldn't want to be reincarnated because this generation and the world we're living in right now is cruel and unsafe and it's getting worse every year.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

wtfsam said:


> I don't know but if I died right now, I wouldn't want to be reincarnated because this generation and the world we're living in right now is cruel and unsafe and it's getting worse every year.


To the contrary, things have never been better for mankind.

We have the lowest average levels of violence, poverty, illness and war, along with the highest standards of living and longest life spans in our history.

The illusion that the world is getting worse is a product of mass media overexposure to negative events.

Don't believe the hype, check and compare the facts.


----------



## tieffers (Jan 26, 2013)

AwkwardEd said:


> No. We die. We get eaten by bacteria and bugs. We then rot into the ground...
> 
> or just get put into a oven and disintergrate...sort of.


Reincarnation isn't a belief based on what happens to the physical body after its death, though. That's already established because we know what happens to the body after it dies. Reincarnation tries to explain where your soul goes, which is completely separate from your body, if you believe in that kind of thing. And I'd like to.

Even if there is no God, some mysterious cosmic accident took place that gifted me self-awareness to go with my body. Clearly it's already happened at least once; why is it so unbelievable that it couldn't happen again, or that it hasn't happened before?

Isn't it a scientific fact that energy never dies - it just changes form? Okay, so for that physical energy, I guess that's just body heat leaving you and leeching into cooler objects around. But I've often heard the word soul and life energy used in conjunction with each other, so assuming we have a soul, which I personally think is just self-awareness, would that qualify as energy, too? Is energy even quantifiable? It's always just been this shapeless concept to me.


----------



## LittleEarthquakes (Jan 13, 2013)

I think so. I've entertained the idea of something similar to reincarnation, though I don't really believe in 'souls'.


----------

