Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hi there,

I had created this thread so as to answer the thread named
"Is death so bad ".One thing we need to understand, that every living creature in this world has to face death one or the other day. For the person who has done good deeds through out his life and by humbly taken shelter of the feet of the god, will get easy death or leave his body with and divine people will come to receive that soul take them to heaven but for the violent people death will be very harsh and threatening one and even after death, soul will be trouble by evils.
There are some Indian spiritual scriptures that explains all these in details.

Regards

Or you rot in the ground.

Originally posted by percept
Hi there,

I had created this thread so as to answer the thread named
"Is death so bad ".One thing we need to understand, that every living creature in this world has to face death one or the other day. For the person who has done good deeds through out his life and by humbly taken shelter of the feet of the god, will get easy death or leave his body with and divine people will come to receive that soul take them to heaven but for the violent people death will be very harsh and threatening one and even after death, soul will be trouble by evils.
There are some Indian spiritual scriptures that explains all these in details.

Regards

However, there is no evidence for the soul. That makes your point moot. Also, good and evil are relative. What maybe good to you could be evil to someone else.

We all go back to where we came from. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
We all go back to where we came from. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
We all go back to where we came from. I think that makes a lot of sense.

Us men always try.

Hense sex...



HAHAHAHhahaha. you always want to go back there...lol

Now, I can only regurgitate arguments that I've read or heard, but Depak Chopra had a fairly convincing argument based on Near Death Experiences, out of body experiences and memories in children that suggest knowledge from a past life. Granted, I haven't thought about evidence for the soul very much, but is it impossible? Dawkins wants me to say 'no', but we have to take all the evidence into account...

I'm rambling. What would count as evidence of a 'soul'?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Now, I can only regurgitate arguments that I've read or heard, but Depak Chopra had a fairly convincing argument based on Near Death Experiences, out of body experiences and memories in children that suggest knowledge from a past life. Granted, I haven't thought about evidence for the soul very much, but is it impossible? Dawkins wants me to say 'no', but we have to take all the evidence into account...

I'm rambling. What would count as evidence of a 'soul'?

you should look up Sue Blackmore's work on NDEs

as for the soul, you would need to operationalize it, meaning it would need to have reliable affects upon some part of reality which could be predicted and measured. Given that "soul" is thrown around so frivolously, it is unlikely.

Chopra, really?

Originally posted by inimalist
you should look up Sue Blackmore's work on NDEs
Will do.
Originally posted by inimalist

as for the soul, you would need to operationalize it, meaning it would need to have reliable affects upon some part of reality which could be predicted and measured. Given that "soul" is thrown around so frivolously, it is unlikely.
Lack of precision in language shouldn't infringe upon scientific pursuits.
Originally posted by inimalist

Chopra, really?
Well, pop-spiritualism is better than pop-music, right? And, I mean, I can't not read a gift... I got a book: The Burden of Proof, Chopra, and a box of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. My brother wants me to not not believe in god (any god) so he gave me a spiritualism book. (Laced with candy)

Originally posted by inimalist
for the soul, you would need to operationalize it, meaning it would need to have reliable affects upon some part of reality which could be predicted and measured. Given that "soul" is thrown around so frivolously, it is unlikely.

21 grams

Originally posted by inimalist
Chopra, really?

What about him?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What about him?

Presumably inimalist thought that I was part of the fad...

I'm not on the bandwagon yet. I'll read all of his other works (as per my standard practice with a new author) and then make my judgment. I'm not compulsive at all.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Lack of precision in language shouldn't infringe upon scientific pursuits.

But by the very nature of scientific research means that imprecise language is detrimental to the results. You can disprove one version of the soul but no one who believes in a different type of soul will care or will just argue that the wrong definition was used.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But by the very nature of scientific research means that imprecise language is detrimental to the results. You can disprove one version of the soul but no one who believes in a different type of soul will care or will just argue that the wrong definition was used.

Right. But it shouldn't be that way. This is why we need a unified language of everything (not mathematics) before we can get to a unified theory of everything.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, there is no evidence for the soul. That makes your point moot. Also, good and evil are relative. What maybe good to you could be evil to someone else.

I hear a lot of poeple say this, however I personally believe, that for the most part good and evil are seen similarly accross most religions. eg. Murder = evil. Compassion towards your fellow human being = good. I don't know of two differnt religions that have such a large contrast of beliefs when it comes to good and evil to the point where they are opposite, like you have pointed out. Apart from satanism etc of course.

Originally posted by Kosta
I hear a lot of poeple say this, however I personally believe, that for the most part good and evil are seen similarly accross most religions. eg. Murder = evil. Compassion towards your fellow human being = good. I don't know of two differnt religions that have such a large contrast of beliefs when it comes to good and evil to the point where they are opposite, like you have pointed out. Apart from satanism etc of course.

Not everyone has a religion. Not everyone with a religion uses it to define their morals.

Many atheists are moral relativists. All objectivists are. Perspectivists (like Nietzsche) are moral relativists be definition, I believe. Most sane people can think of situations where killing someone is at least justified if not highly moral.

As far as I know Satanists actually embrace hedonism not "being evil". In fact something like murder would no be Satanistic because a) people typically don't enjoy murder and b) if you're caught it makes life difficult.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, there is no evidence for the soul. That makes your point moot. Also, good and evil are relative. What maybe good to you could be evil to someone else.

Hi there,

When spiders can't see sky due to it's blindness it doesn't mean that there is no sky. Similarly if we can't see soul through our necked eyes it doesn't means that there is no soul. So many people had realised it. Evil are the demons and goods are the angels . A demon is bad for every one and Angles are good to everyone.

Regards
Percept

So because we can't see something with our "necked"(?) eyes, we should assume it exists?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Right. But it shouldn't be that way. This is why we need a unified language of everything (not mathematics) before we can get to a unified theory of everything. A "unified language of everything" would mean that we would all have to have a unified experience of everything, which clearly we do not. This is why operational definitions are important, so that we're all on the same page (as best as we can be) when discussing a phenomenon, especially a questionable one.

Originally posted by percept
When spiders can't see sky due to it's blindness it doesn't mean that there is no sky. Actually, some spiders have excellent color vision and depth perception.

In any event, this doesn't prove the existence of a "soul." At best, it may give some food for thought.

Originally posted by Kosta
I hear a lot of poeple say this, however I personally believe, that for the most part good and evil are seen similarly accross most religions. eg. Murder = evil. Compassion towards your fellow human being = good. I don't know of two differnt religions that have such a large contrast of beliefs when it comes to good and evil to the point where they are opposite, like you have pointed out. Apart from satanism etc of course.

Are you sure that Murder = evil? If someone were to have murdered Hitler during WWII, would that have been evil? The same is true about compassion towards your fellow human beings. Sometimes all that compassion does is enable people to do evil.

Originally posted by percept
Hi there,

When spiders can't see sky due to it's blindness it doesn't mean that there is no sky. Similarly if we can't see soul through our necked eyes it doesn't means that there is no soul. So many people had realised it. Evil are the demons and goods are the angels . A demon is bad for every one and Angles are good to everyone.

Regards
Percept

However, the soul, demons and angels are part of mythology, and are not real. They are symbolic of parts of reality that are real, but have no substance within themselves. They were invented by people of the past who did not know how the human body and mind really worked. However, these people were not stupid. They could see how people behaved and needed to find a way to understand something that was beyond their comprehension. They came up with stories that helped them understand how humans behave, and in a limited way, these stories worked.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not everyone has a religion. Not everyone with a religion uses it to define their morals.

Many atheists are moral relativists. All objectivists are. Perspectivists (like Nietzsche) are moral relativists be definition, I believe. Most sane people can think of situations where killing someone is at least justified if not highly moral.

As far as I know Satanists actually embrace hedonism not "being evil". In fact something like murder would no be Satanistic because a) people typically don't enjoy murder and b) if you're caught it makes life difficult.

Perhaps religion was not the best example, because as you mentioned, not everyone belongs to a religion. People however still expect a sort of standard of bahavior from one another. You always hear people saying things like "How would you like if I did the same to you?" "Give me a bit of your's and I'll give you a bit of mine." or "What did he/she ever do to you?" and so on.

No matter what religion you do or not belong to, if any, people still ask these sort of questions. They don't simply ask them because what the other person may have done displeases them in some way, but like I said, they seem to be appealing to some standard of behaviour which they expect the other person to know about. I believe, personally that this law of "Right" and "Wrong" or "Good" and "Evil" is for the most part extremely similar for most humans.

As for sanity, you don't have to be insane to have "evil" thoughts, and try to justify them.

Just my opiniopn though. I'm too much of a pacifist sometimes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you sure that Murder = evil? If someone were to have murdered Hitler during WWII, would that have been evil? The same is true about compassion towards your fellow human beings. Sometimes all that compassion does is enable people to do evil.

The act of murder is evil, whether he deserved to die or not. I personally don't believe it is up to us to decide. At the same time though I support capital punishment for certain kinds of crime (kiddie rapists and murderers etc.) So I guess I somewhat contradict my own views. That's just my human nature surfacing.

As far as compassion, if one is driven to do further evil once shown some compassion, then they are the evil one, not the person that showed compassion. Figting evil with evil only begets more evil.

Originally posted by Kosta
Perhaps religion was not the best example, because as you mentioned, not everyone belongs to a religion. People however still expect a sort of standard of bahavior from one another. You always hear people saying things like "How would you like if I did the same to you?" "Give me a bit of your's and I'll give you a bit of mine." or "What did he/she ever do to you?" and so on.

Not to be cliche but talk really is cheap.

Originally posted by Kosta
No matter what religion you do or not belong to, if any, people still ask these sort of questions. They don't simply ask them because what the other person may have done displeases them in some way, but like I said, they seem to be appealing to some standard of behaviour which they expect the other person to know about. I believe, personally that this law of "Right" and "Wrong" or "Good" and "Evil" is for the most part extremely similar for most humans.

They probably do. Unfortunately history has mountains of evidence that people are very elastic about "Right" and "Wrong" especially when it applies to themselves.

Originally posted by Kosta
As for sanity, you don't have to be insane to have "evil" thoughts, and try to justify them.

I never disputed that. However, there are very few actions that are "evil" or "good" simply due to the existance of context.

For example:
Murder. Bad, right? What if it stops the guy from blowing up a building full of innocents (and you)? His life simply is not worth the same as all those people.

Lying? Bad, right? But this time its just for a surprise party.

Setting fire to a small child? Bad, right? He's the nexus point for a Loveraftian alien invasion that will tear its way out of his skull and torturing everyone in the galaxy to death an burning him alive is the only way to stop them. (it could totally happen)

Originally posted by Kosta
...The act of murder is evil, whether he deserved to die or not. I personally don't believe it is up to us to decide. At the same time though I support capital punishment for certain kinds of crime (kiddie rapists and murderers etc.) So I guess I somewhat contradict my own views. That's just my human nature surfacing.

As far as compassion, if one is driven to do further evil once shown some compassion, then they are the evil one, not the person that showed compassion. Figting evil with evil only begets more evil.

You just proved my point. There are times when an act we would normally call evil is in fact good. It is good to stop a mass murderer, even if that means to murder that person.

Have you ever heard of "tough love"? Sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do is withhold compassion. For example; if you give an alcoholic on the street money because you are being compassionate, what you are really doing is enabling that person's addiction, and enabling someones addiction is evil.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You just proved my point. There are times when an act we would normally call evil is in fact good. It is good to stop a mass murderer, even if that means to murder that person.

Have you ever heard of "tough love"? Sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do is withhold compassion. For example; if you give an alcoholic on the street money because you are being compassionate, what you are really doing is enabling that person's addiction, and enabling someones addiction is evil.

Giving someone money is a morally neutral act unless you know for certain (or intend) that the person will use it for destructive ends. And to further your point it could be that the person has turned to alcohol because no one ever cared about her and that single act of compassion might turn her entire life around. Yet another (sappy) layer of moral grey.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Giving someone money is a morally neutral act unless you know for certain (or intend) that the person will use it for destructive ends. And to further your point it could be that the person has turned to alcohol because no one ever cared about her and that single act of compassion might turn her entire life around. Yet another (sappy) layer of moral grey.

My point was that good and evil are relative, and not clear cut.