AFTERLIVES ABROAD: An evaluation of major afterlife ideas

[Salmenella]

Admiral Dardanos

Salmenella

Admiral Dardanos

The ED is so slow these days, any conversation is appreciated.

True. Still though. I don't want to come off like I know everything. I don't, still learning sweatdrop

An admirable quality. We are all learning. Those who claim to know everything, well, they are the ones to watch out for.

Agreed. And I know for something like this one never stops learning. I'm just so early on in learning that I don't want to say anything that might be wayyy off.

Although I found a blog that I adore from someone that has been apart of this religion since birth. His grandfather is even religio romana.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religioromana/all-posts/

Although granted he's only a sect of Roman Reconstructionist (which he gets into in one post) and obviously what he says isn't the end all be all to the religion. Still good. If you're curious about the whole Roman deity bit check him out. I'm sure you'll find a post that he gets into that stuff (haven't read all his posts yet)

[CuAnnan]

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

Have I offended you?

Madam, you offend reason.

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".

[Kaworu 17]

Any afterlife except rebirth/reincarnation/whatever is good enough for me.

Just please don't make me go back here. I'd rather stay in Purgatory forever.

[metamary]

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

Have I offended you?

Madam, you offend reason.

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".

Do you believe everything you read?

[CuAnnan]

metamary

Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

[metamary]

CuAnnan

metamary

Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?

[CuAnnan]

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?

Therefore, not true?
You know, like I said?
And directly opposite to what you said?

[metamary]

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?

Therefore, not true?
You know, like I said?
And directly opposite to what you said?

That's not what you said. You said that it's impossible for "A" to exist because "B" says it cannot while "B" exists, and vice versa. Not once did you ever give way to the possibility that they were both lying. You are now lying.

[The New Wineskin]

Fermionic

The New Wineskin

Fermionic

The New Wineskin

Fermionic

Oh, how silly of me, the OP was so very clear on that point.

I never said it was clear. Hence, why I explained myself. You're welcome.

I certainly feel so.

The point I was making still stands however; regardless of the factor you deigned to emphasise. They all exhibit a wish for continued consciousness, and most a wish to curb what are perceived as negative behaviours in their mortal life for promise of a joyful immortal existence. The rest is mostly detail.

Not necessarily. (I.e., in Judaism, they tend to worry about the world, and not the afterlife, because of the benefits they receive in mortal life for their good deeds; there are many Jews that don't even necessarily accept an afterlife).

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Good question.

[CuAnnan]

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?

Therefore, not true?
You know, like I said?
And directly opposite to what you said?

That's not what you said. You said that it's impossible for "A" to exist because "B" says it cannot while "B" exists, and vice versa. Not once did you ever give way to the possibility that they were both lying. You are now lying.

Samsara is eternal rebirth.
Heaven is precluded by eternal rebirth.
A not B.
B not A.
You're the one whose lying.

[Malaresianx]

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

Have I offended you?

Madam, you offend reason.

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".

I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Malaresianx

CuAnnan

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".

I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?

I've only noticed him here when there's people to be sacrificed.
- ninja

[Ask Jappleack]

Fermionic

Sometimes, I like to pretend that Narnia is my afterlife.

That would be like.
*dies* *sees narnia* wtf I thought I was done with my suffering now I need to overthrow evil rulers and s**t, Im probably in a coma.

[CuAnnan]

Malaresianx

CuAnnan

metamary

CuAnnan

metamary

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".

I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?

Because the brehon laws recognise the law of the land.
The law of the land forbids the intentional ending of the life of another.

[CuAnnan]

Lucky~9~Lives

Malaresianx

CuAnnan

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".

I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?

I've only noticed him here when there's people to be sacrificed.
- ninja

My Calling is a b***h sometimes.