bou wrote: » In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body.
bou wrote: » On the measurement of neuron activity at the time of death, that could be interesting. From the tradition I follow, after ordinary consciousness has died, the remaining consciousness coalesces from above and from below at the heart centre which is somewhere around the spinal column at chest level. Perhaps some residual activity could be there after the brain activity has ceased. In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body. There is a good description of the subjective experience of the dying process in this book "Mind beyond death":https://selfdefinition.org/zen/Dzogchen-Ponlop-Rinpoche-Mind-Beyond-Death.pdf. See pages 130-140. I read the pages you indicated - pretty quickly I admit - and I do agree from my limited experience the four stages of dying do reflect the physical process. However the rest is just creative waffle and proves nothing. Anyone who came back to relate the detail given of the mental effects of dying was not dead in the first place. Can you offer any information or evidence of how the knowledge of any of this was gathered?
bou wrote: » On the measurement of neuron activity at the time of death, that could be interesting. From the tradition I follow, after ordinary consciousness has died, the remaining consciousness coalesces from above and from below at the heart centre which is somewhere around the spinal column at chest level. Perhaps some residual activity could be there after the brain activity has ceased. In some advanced practitioners, it is possible for them to remain in a state of meditation for up to a few days after death and during that time, their mind is still associated with the body. There is a good description of the subjective experience of the dying process in this book "Mind beyond death":https://selfdefinition.org/zen/Dzogchen-Ponlop-Rinpoche-Mind-Beyond-Death.pdf. See pages 130-140.
Mutant z wrote: » Well generally to be an athiest, means you dont believe in the supernatural, so yes its not compatible with an after life.
seamus wrote: » However, someone who was never raised to believe in a God is likely a little more susceptible to supernatural belief.
Though I doubt very many people get to adulthood without ever having to consider the whole God delusion. So that critical thinking will have been exercised at some stage.
smacl wrote: » What's your logic on this one? I was raised atheist and consider myself less superstitious or inclined towards supernatural belief than most. My experience is that people who've bought into one inexplicable faith based belief system (e.g. Christianity) are prone to buy into others (ghosts, homeopathy, reiki, etc..) on the basis they're brought up to accept given truths from trusted sources without question.
seamus wrote: » What I meant is that people raised atheist were probably a bit less suspicious than people who became atheist in later life. I definitely didn't mean that they were more susceptible to nonsense than your average religious person. No, once someone accepts religion, pretty much anything goes for them, in my experience. Ghosts, reiki, homeopathy, leprechauns, whatever you imagine, "could be real, you never know!". I guess my rationale here is that people who've been raised religious and later become atheist probably have their bullsh1tometer set overly sensitive when compared to someone who was raised atheist.
vrt12 wrote: » How is someone raised atheist?
vrt12 wrote: » The best hope an atheist who wants to cling to the belief of an after life has is the theory of multiple universes.
recedite wrote: » The simulation/hologram theory of life seems to be gaining more followers every year. Elon Musk last year. Maybe its because people are becoming more familiar and comfortable with the idea of advanced computer programs and virtual realities. Does this qualify as "an afterlife"? I wouldn't know.
seamus wrote: » Mutant z wrote: » Well generally to be an athiest, means you dont believe in the supernatural, so yes its not compatible with an after life. Being pedantic, that's not what it means at all. "Atheist" specifically relates to belief in God, or lack of one. One does not need to believe in God to believe in the supernatural. It just so happens that for most atheists in the western world, that lack of belief in a God was something that they had to realise for themselves through critical analysis and consideration. The exact same kind of analysis consequently leads you to realise that all proposed supernatural phenomena are without sufficient evidence. However, someone who was never raised to believe in a God is likely a little more susceptible to supernatural belief. Though I doubt very many people get to adulthood without ever having to consider the whole God delusion. So that critical thinking will have been exercised at some stage.
Walter H Price wrote: » Theocracy and Spirituality are two very different things , for me personally I'm very anti Theocracy and Organised religion , i also have no sense of spirituality , i don't believe in God , a higher power , reincarnation or any sort of afterlife. But i know plenty of people who would disagree with organised religion and theocracy but do feel some greater sense of self or contentedness to the universe , I've never felt it , never understood it but i believe it is absolutely possible to be both atheist (opposed to theocracy) and spiritual.
Pat D. Almighty wrote: » The whole God delusion? Is that not a bit arrogant?
Deleted User wrote: » Some concepts of the after life don't make any sense though. If christians genuinely believed they would see their loved ones in heaven when they die, people would be offing themselves left right and centre.
the_syco wrote: » I think it was mentioned in the film Ghost Rider that if you commit suicide, you goto hell, as it was a sin? But looking at the amount of things that are sins, I'd say heaven is completely empty.
seamus wrote: » Pat D. Almighty wrote: » The whole God delusion? Is that not a bit arrogant? I don't think so. Certainty in the existence of God would seem to qualify as delusion to me.
Pat D. Almighty wrote: » There's the arrogance again.
robindch wrote: » Pat D. Almighty wrote: » There's the arrogance again. Indeed, it is - please cut out the ad-homs or I'll be reaching for my stack of cards. thanking youze.
Pat D. Almighty wrote: » People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Pat D. Almighty wrote: » People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding. So too have some people who think Obama is actually a lizard alien in human costume, or those who believe they were abducted and probed anally (so often anally for some reason) by aliens as a prelude to global invasion. It leaves one wondering if whatever experience they had is not beyond my understanding, but theirs. Certainly wondering it enough to warrant a demand of even a MODICUM of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to validate or lend any level of credence to the things they claim to believe which...... invariably....... they can not provide. So experiences beyond understanding likely happen all the time, but I would suggest they are beyond the understanding of the person experiencing them........ before I would put them beyond the understanding of the person they are selling a related narrative to off the back of the experience.
Pat D. Almighty wrote: » You're confusing ad-Homs with something else.
Pat D. Almighty wrote: » I'm not confusing your instructions with anything else at all, you just didn't like the reaction they got. It's probably because you know quite well that there was no ad-hom. If you genuinely believed that then perhaps you would have pointed them out by now.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Pat D. Almighty wrote: » I'm not confusing your instructions with anything else at all, you just didn't like the reaction they got. It's probably because you know quite well that there was no ad-hom. If you genuinely believed that then perhaps you would have pointed them out by now. Calling someone arrogant is an ad-hom...
Pat D. Almighty wrote: » I didn't call the poster arrogant.
seamus wrote: » Pat D. Almighty wrote: » People who are certain have perhaps had an experience that qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding. Perhaps. Of course "qualifies as certainty beyond your understanding" is meaningless. Another way of saying "they had a personal experience, which therefore means nobody else can understand it". Which doesn't make it any less delusional.
