Know the death and after it.

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 [b]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'? [/B]

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

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.

Originally posted by inimalist

Chopra, really?

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.

Originally posted by percept
When spiders can't see sky due to it's blindness it doesn't mean that there is no sky.

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.