Proof of Heaven.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
Quote:Physicians, surgeons, lawyers, NASA engineers, Mr. Smoothy Ice Cream drivers--they are all people. They either engage critical thinking or they do not. In this case, he did not.
Now you're omniscient and see inside his head. Good job, son! As for Vosur's comment about "as a scientist, he should know better than to accept anecdotal evidence," it's HIS bloody anecdotal experience. Why do you deny the human condition to have such experiences just because you missed out or denied your experience(s)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(03-04-2013 02:02 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for Vosur's comment about "as a scientist, he should know better than to accept anecdotal evidence," it's HIS bloody anecdotal experience. Why do you deny the human condition to have such experiences just because you missed out or denied your experience(s)?
Really? Is there no end to your intellectual dishonesty? Your misrepresentation doesn't even come close to what I actually said.

I stated that:

(29-03-2013 05:44 PM)Vosur Wrote:  As a man of science he should know better than to call his anecdotal experience proof of anything, let alone an afterlife.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
03-04-2013, 09:41 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
I am unsure as to why this is even a book worthy of debating about. There have been a great many such books written by all manner of people who were absolutely convinced beyond the interference of criticism, that they had seen and experienced the hereafter. This might seem credible enough, if eyewitness testimony weren't so damned useless in determining the truth. I hesitate to trust the word or experiences of any one person, since I cannot be sure of what they have actually experienced, vs. the story they are telling themselves about the event. I would not put it past the hopeful to convince themselves of things which did not occur, for the purpose of providing evidence for their religious hopes.

It should concern anyone with a habit of reading such books, that they do not agree on the nature of the afterlife, neither do they agree on the activities taking place within its borders. If such an afterlife truly does exist, and these people have visited it, why have they returned to our world with conflicting stories of their collective journey? It should likewise concern us that they contradict one another via many chapters of elaborate, vivid, detail. It smacks of the imagination, more so than an actual description from memory. Actual memories often have very little description and detail, since it is impossible to take everything in at once during an actual event. I would be wary of anyone claiming to remember everything from the hereafter, down to the blue trim on the curtains, and the brass insignia on a doorknob. It should be obvious to all who think on it, that they have spent many hours imagining up their adventures, rather like writing a fiction novel, the only difference being that they intend to sell it as truth.

I have read several books of a similar nature, although they claimed something slightly different. Rather than claiming to have seen the hereafter, they claim to have been abducted and experimented on by an alien race. I would not be questioned by any sane person for immediately dismissing this kind of thing as utter tripe. No person would be concerned that I did not consider the account to be evidence. I find it humorous that there is no such expectation of criticism on the subject of religion. It is yet another example of the faithful demanding that utterly inferior and unconvincing tripe be admitted into open discourse with the respect normally reserved for real evidence.

It is perhaps important to note that I do not find the idea of an afterlife particularly reprehensible. Provided it did not go on for an eternity, I might enjoy it. If I were to discover many years from now, that I have been utterly wrong, and heaven has been proved true through actual evidence and study of facts, I would not be upset in the slightest. It would be tiresome to want vindication of my own theories, more than the pure truth of the facts. I will go where the evidence goes, and for now, there is none for any life after death.

I have never understand the claim that the live of a human individual will continue after their earthly demise. In what way can it continue? Since my every thought and action is defined by the electrical signals in my brain, what remains of me when they no longer leap from synapse to synapse? How will I think, and be, without my brain and body?

No doubt the religious would claim the spirit as the answer. I find this to make very little sense. What spirit is this? If it exists, why can it not yet be measured? Why can it not be sensed? Why has it not already been cataloged by science, and studied as accepted fact? The current lack of evidence of a spirit, leads to me to safely suppose it does not exist. I would however, not be opposed to being proved wrong at some point in the future.

Also, assuming I am wrong, and it does exist, how can spirit matter supply the necessary solidity for my brain, and thus all that I am, to function once again? How will my memories survive the brutal decay of the grave? Surely if I am to survive in spirit form, I will be a thoughtless, emotionless, formless, amnesiac, with no place in the universe, and no chance for happiness. If god is truly in the details, he will have his work cut out for him.

Religion, rather than acting as a symbol of truth or justice, merely acts as a symbol of human gullibility and stupidity. Surely no race of beings with any real intelligence would concoct such drivel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 12:26 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:36 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: Proof of Heaven.
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 04:52 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(03-04-2013 09:41 PM)Prometheus762 Wrote:  It should concern anyone with a habit of reading such books, that they do not agree on the nature of the afterlife, neither do they agree on the activities taking place within its borders. If such an afterlife truly does exist, and these people have visited it, why have they returned to our world with conflicting stories of their collective journey? It should likewise concern us that they contradict one another via many chapters of elaborate, vivid, detail. It smacks of the imagination, more so than an actual description from memory. Actual memories often have very little description and detail, since it is impossible to take everything in at once during an actual event. I would be wary of anyone claiming to remember everything from the hereafter, down to the blue trim on the curtains, and the brass insignia on a doorknob. It should be obvious to all who think on it, that they have spent many hours imagining up their adventures, rather like writing a fiction novel, the only difference being that they intend to sell it as truth.

I have read several books of a similar nature, although they claimed something slightly different. Rather than claiming to have seen the hereafter, they claim to have been abducted and experimented on by an alien race. I would not be questioned by any sane person for immediately dismissing this kind of thing as utter tripe. No person would be concerned that I did not consider the account to be evidence. I find it humorous that there is no such expectation of criticism on the subject of religion. It is yet another example of the faithful demanding that utterly inferior and unconvincing tripe be admitted into open discourse with the respect normally reserved for real evidence.
They don't agree on the nature of afterlife, or better said, they describe special cases that have no obvious general unifying theory of afterlife.
To understand the wildly different and confusing accounts of afterlife, you need to read up on the idea of the "astral world", but from a more academic point of view.
Theosophists say that there are multiple degrees of matter varying in subtlety, next of them after visible and dark matter being the astral matter. Astral matter is notoriously easy to manipulate and it shapes itself according to non-rational, non-intellectual expectations, all things emotional. It is a ready mirror to our desires, passions and fears. Subtle particles that respond to the field of astral body (another thing we need to take into account) so easily as to create one's own illusory world. For some it would be hell, for some heaven and vice versa. The descriptions would obviously vary and include some very bizarre and basically illusory claims.
You may think it a complete crap and perhaps it is, but it is a unified, non-contradictory crap that fits on most accounts and puts them into a greater context. This is the first step to any testability. For example, the idea of shaping matter by thought is utterly counter-intuitive for you, but in terms of plasma physics fields easily shape the plasma matter, actually almost all visible matter in the universe is plasma. The solid, visible stuff is more of an anomaly. If the astral body has a relatively strong field and if the subtle matter is essentially a magnetized plasma, it should give this result of creating one's own less or more illusory environment, being bound in it as long as the emotion is strong.

(03-04-2013 09:41 PM)Prometheus762 Wrote:  It is perhaps important to note that I do not find the idea of an afterlife particularly reprehensible. Provided it did not go on for an eternity, I might enjoy it. If I were to discover many years from now, that I have been utterly wrong, and heaven has been proved true through actual evidence and study of facts, I would not be upset in the slightest. It would be tiresome to want vindication of my own theories, more than the pure truth of the facts. I will go where the evidence goes, and for now, there is none for any life after death.

I have never understand the claim that the live of a human individual will continue after their earthly demise. In what way can it continue? Since my every thought and action is defined by the electrical signals in my brain, what remains of me when they no longer leap from synapse to synapse? How will I think, and be, without my brain and body?

No doubt the religious would claim the spirit as the answer. I find this to make very little sense. What spirit is this? If it exists, why can it not yet be measured? Why can it not be sensed? Why has it not already been cataloged by science, and studied as accepted fact? The current lack of evidence of a spirit, leads to me to safely suppose it does not exist. I would however, not be opposed to being proved wrong at some point in the future.

Also, assuming I am wrong, and it does exist, how can spirit matter supply the necessary solidity for my brain, and thus all that I am, to function once again? How will my memories survive the brutal decay of the grave? Surely if I am to survive in spirit form, I will be a thoughtless, emotionless, formless, amnesiac, with no place in the universe, and no chance for happiness. If god is truly in the details, he will have his work cut out for him.
Theosophists say that the biologic brain is not a creator of thought, it is a receiver, dedicated processor and integrator. I'd call it a lampshade to consciousness that comes from "within".
In such a case a loss of the biologic body would deprive you of the vehicle to act in the solid world, but it would actually improve your consciousness. No longer would your thought and perception be hindered by slow, imperfect human senses. As a roughly oval-shaped toroidal field of magnetized plasma you'd be freer to find your ideal place in the greater fields of Earth, a place you most resonate with.

How is the transmission achieved? My first guess is, that all electric conductors - like nerve synapses and all solid matter is wrapped and permeated in small amounts of dark matter, or as Theosophists call it, etheric. The transmission of power in wires is not done through passage of electrons or ions or other medium. These particles are not quantitative units of energy, they're like stones in the stream that has to flow over them, is slowed down by them and drags them along by its own force. What is this force? I'd say it has to do with static electricity. The buildup of charge, so circularly and counter-intuitively defined, is actually a response to a local concentration of dark matter that is also electrically charged. These basic natural forces are shared by all forms of matter, although can usually interact only with the closest corresponding kind of matter, such as between visible and dark matter. If there is any less solid, less dense, more plasmatic, more energetic, charged and dispersed matter with different parameters of spin and such, then it may be called a spirit-matter and it would be basically intangible to us. But let's say its lower degrees would be tangible to the highest degrees of etheric matter.

Why science does not know of this yet? It does have some hints, but it went a wrong way historically, a different way of looking at the world. A form of geocentrism, basically. It sees itself as the center of the world and there are no frontiers of knowledge besides the quantum scale and the cosmic scale.
They know that 99,9 % of the universe is plasma, whether in stars, or solar wind, that is, a flying plasma ready to travel along electric fields. Almost nothing is solid out there. And my best bet on dark matter says, that it is even more plasmatic, perhaps even the atoms themselves are so charged, large and internally dispersed that they don't bind properly with ours, but they're held together by the same electric or other fields of natural forces.
Of course, if scientists use instruments made of the most solid, unresponsive matter, how can they effectively detect any subtler matter? There would be only very little interaction, well within the error margin, unless they specifically know what to search for, an interaction with the next most dense form of subtle matter that can actually interact through the natural forces.

OTOH, Theosophists see the solid world as the bottom of all manifested universe, a world of effects, but not causes. They recognize that this solid appearance is permeated and transcended by subtler, yet less entropic forms/degrees of matter, plasmatic in nature, not solid. Not solid, yet more charged with energy in physical sense, less prone to entropy, more "perfect" so to speak. This increased energy content might even lead to some relativistic effects in terms of different time perception, leading people to such concepts as "eternal life".
They regard this solid existence as temporary, imperfect precipitation of the higher worlds. Not an etalon of reality, not at alll. Everything that exists has already its multifold subtle-physical reflection underlying it in the subtle worlds, most of all human beings.

I just want to say, read through the website, drop what doesn't seem logical to you, don't sweat it. It's not about belief, it is about presenting a coherent hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. I want you to understand that it is possible to make a sense of seemingly different experiences and mystical talks and put them into possible reach of science.
Then you will understand why even some apparently educated people may take this stuff seriously. All your questions and doubts should be "answered", what is the reason and mechanism of reincarnation and so on. This "explanation" might help you to look differently on things. This is a very different approach to Occam's razor, where you add only little most necessary bits. Here you'll see that you can't make sense of some things unless you assume they're like icebergs within a whole great cosmologic system. And you know what? Considering how large and unknown is the cosmos of dark matter and dark energy, there is just about enough space for such a cosmology. In the sea of the unknown, you need big nets to catch big fish.

But first you have to be a good atheist and good at logic. I see atheism as a good mental disinfectant, to clear your head of nonsense that is not under your control and that would interfere with logical thought.We can't have people arbitrarily assuming what is of the devil or god and what isn't. The astral nature is such that it will show anything we want or don't want to see and usually it shows popculture and traditions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 06:43 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(03-04-2013 09:41 PM)Prometheus762 Wrote:  I am unsure as to why this is even a book worthy of debating about. There have been a great many such books written by all manner of people who were absolutely convinced beyond the interference of criticism, that they had seen and experienced the hereafter. This might seem credible enough, if eyewitness testimony weren't so damned useless in determining the truth. I hesitate to trust the word or experiences of any one person, since I cannot be sure of what they have actually experienced, vs. the story they are telling themselves about the event. I would not put it past the hopeful to convince themselves of things which did not occur, for the purpose of providing evidence for their religious hopes.

It should concern anyone with a habit of reading such books, that they do not agree on the nature of the afterlife, neither do they agree on the activities taking place within its borders. If such an afterlife truly does exist, and these people have visited it, why have they returned to our world with conflicting stories of their collective journey? It should likewise concern us that they contradict one another via many chapters of elaborate, vivid, detail. It smacks of the imagination, more so than an actual description from memory. Actual memories often have very little description and detail, since it is impossible to take everything in at once during an actual event. I would be wary of anyone claiming to remember everything from the hereafter, down to the blue trim on the curtains, and the brass insignia on a doorknob. It should be obvious to all who think on it, that they have spent many hours imagining up their adventures, rather like writing a fiction novel, the only difference being that they intend to sell it as truth.

I have read several books of a similar nature, although they claimed something slightly different. Rather than claiming to have seen the hereafter, they claim to have been abducted and experimented on by an alien race. I would not be questioned by any sane person for immediately dismissing this kind of thing as utter tripe. No person would be concerned that I did not consider the account to be evidence. I find it humorous that there is no such expectation of criticism on the subject of religion. It is yet another example of the faithful demanding that utterly inferior and unconvincing tripe be admitted into open discourse with the respect normally reserved for real evidence.

It is perhaps important to note that I do not find the idea of an afterlife particularly reprehensible. Provided it did not go on for an eternity, I might enjoy it. If I were to discover many years from now, that I have been utterly wrong, and heaven has been proved true through actual evidence and study of facts, I would not be upset in the slightest. It would be tiresome to want vindication of my own theories, more than the pure truth of the facts. I will go where the evidence goes, and for now, there is none for any life after death.

I have never understand the claim that the live of a human individual will continue after their earthly demise. In what way can it continue? Since my every thought and action is defined by the electrical signals in my brain, what remains of me when they no longer leap from synapse to synapse? How will I think, and be, without my brain and body?

No doubt the religious would claim the spirit as the answer. I find this to make very little sense. What spirit is this? If it exists, why can it not yet be measured? Why can it not be sensed? Why has it not already been cataloged by science, and studied as accepted fact? The current lack of evidence of a spirit, leads to me to safely suppose it does not exist. I would however, not be opposed to being proved wrong at some point in the future.

Also, assuming I am wrong, and it does exist, how can spirit matter supply the necessary solidity for my brain, and thus all that I am, to function once again? How will my memories survive the brutal decay of the grave? Surely if I am to survive in spirit form, I will be a thoughtless, emotionless, formless, amnesiac, with no place in the universe, and no chance for happiness. If god is truly in the details, he will have his work cut out for him.

Well I am not sure that I was foolish writing about the book.
You place an ultra extreme trust in science, almost a godlike trust....

When it comes to esoteric stuff I do not need permission from 'science' to have a look at what is being claimed. Boundless infinity/infinitude is not locked into the scientific methods of an insignificant planet. "Out there" who knows what is possible, none the less because science says so!

While I am not a religious person, neither do I lock myself into the very high probabilities, within boundaries and time limitations posited by science, along with the contradictory views that are held in some areas.

If a neuro surgeon falsifies an experience, or believes an experience is suggestive of higher/ lower worlds I simply consider his claims relevant to any minor interests I might have in such areas of thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 06:47 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(29-03-2013 05:07 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  It is very simple: the periods he cannot recall--and he cannot even recall the passage of lost time--that is where you "go." If you have ever truly lost consciousness, that is where you "go."

So like that time in Taiwan after the Absinthe Martini and the thirteen drinks before it? Hobo

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:22 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2013 07:04 PM by Prometheus762.)
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(04-04-2013 06:43 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:41 PM)Prometheus762 Wrote:  I am unsure as to why this is even a book worthy of debating about. There have been a great many such books written by all manner of people who were absolutely convinced beyond the interference of criticism, that they had seen and experienced the hereafter. This might seem credible enough, if eyewitness testimony weren't so damned useless in determining the truth. I hesitate to trust the word or experiences of any one person, since I cannot be sure of what they have actually experienced, vs. the story they are telling themselves about the event. I would not put it past the hopeful to convince themselves of things which did not occur, for the purpose of providing evidence for their religious hopes.

It should concern anyone with a habit of reading such books, that they do not agree on the nature of the afterlife, neither do they agree on the activities taking place within its borders. If such an afterlife truly does exist, and these people have visited it, why have they returned to our world with conflicting stories of their collective journey? It should likewise concern us that they contradict one another via many chapters of elaborate, vivid, detail. It smacks of the imagination, more so than an actual description from memory. Actual memories often have very little description and detail, since it is impossible to take everything in at once during an actual event. I would be wary of anyone claiming to remember everything from the hereafter, down to the blue trim on the curtains, and the brass insignia on a doorknob. It should be obvious to all who think on it, that they have spent many hours imagining up their adventures, rather like writing a fiction novel, the only difference being that they intend to sell it as truth.

I have read several books of a similar nature, although they claimed something slightly different. Rather than claiming to have seen the hereafter, they claim to have been abducted and experimented on by an alien race. I would not be questioned by any sane person for immediately dismissing this kind of thing as utter tripe. No person would be concerned that I did not consider the account to be evidence. I find it humorous that there is no such expectation of criticism on the subject of religion. It is yet another example of the faithful demanding that utterly inferior and unconvincing tripe be admitted into open discourse with the respect normally reserved for real evidence.

It is perhaps important to note that I do not find the idea of an afterlife particularly reprehensible. Provided it did not go on for an eternity, I might enjoy it. If I were to discover many years from now, that I have been utterly wrong, and heaven has been proved true through actual evidence and study of facts, I would not be upset in the slightest. It would be tiresome to want vindication of my own theories, more than the pure truth of the facts. I will go where the evidence goes, and for now, there is none for any life after death.

I have never understand the claim that the live of a human individual will continue after their earthly demise. In what way can it continue? Since my every thought and action is defined by the electrical signals in my brain, what remains of me when they no longer leap from synapse to synapse? How will I think, and be, without my brain and body?

No doubt the religious would claim the spirit as the answer. I find this to make very little sense. What spirit is this? If it exists, why can it not yet be measured? Why can it not be sensed? Why has it not already been cataloged by science, and studied as accepted fact? The current lack of evidence of a spirit, leads to me to safely suppose it does not exist. I would however, not be opposed to being proved wrong at some point in the future.

Also, assuming I am wrong, and it does exist, how can spirit matter supply the necessary solidity for my brain, and thus all that I am, to function once again? How will my memories survive the brutal decay of the grave? Surely if I am to survive in spirit form, I will be a thoughtless, emotionless, formless, amnesiac, with no place in the universe, and no chance for happiness. If god is truly in the details, he will have his work cut out for him.

Well I am not sure that I was foolish writing about the book.
You place an ultra extreme trust in science, almost a godlike trust....

When it comes to esoteric stuff I do not need permission from 'science' to have a look at what is being claimed. Boundless infinity/infinitude is not locked into the scientific methods of an insignificant planet. "Out there" who knows what is possible, none the less because science says so!

While I am not a religious person, neither do I lock myself into the very high probabilities, within boundaries and time limitations posited by science, along with the contradictory views that are held in some areas.

If a neuro surgeon falsifies an experience, or believes an experience is suggestive of higher/ lower worlds I simply consider his claims relevant to any minor interests I might have in such areas of thought.

There is no need to take a personal offense. My opinion remains the same. I consider the entire affair of experiencing the hereafter to be an utter sham, and to be unworthy of standing as evidence in a discussion about reality. That does not mean that I think you are foolish for bringing it up in the first place. Is this a place for opinions or is it not? Having an opinion doesn't automatically make the other person an idiot.

As far as science goes, we all know it is a bunch of highly qualified primates, using a very good system, to determine reality as best they can, with a fair amount of error along the way. For christ's sake it isn't a religion. If you have better way of getting technology and knowledge rolling along quicker and more accurately, have a go sir.

It never ceases to amaze me how ridiculously people think about science. What do you think it is, just an interpretation of things? Science is a method of determining fact. Fact. It's not a language, allowing for only one perspective. Take a single atom in a pencil for instance. How much does it weigh? When we find out via scientific study, the answer will be a fucking number, not an interpretation of what it weighs, or an explanation of how science doesn't have a monopoly on what it weighs. It has a god damn weight, a number.

As far as esoteric things go, you are right. You don't need permission from science to believe things not yet proven, unless you want to publish a school textbook. However, if those thing want to make a debut in the world of the accepted fact, they will have to be studied by science. No doubt they will, assuming they have validity.

It is amusing that you think using scientific knowledge is like worshiping a god. The repository of knowledge that I have access too in my life, thanks to scientists of the past, works for me. I don't work for it. I live longer, healthier, and happier because of the knowledge I have. Who wouldn't want to learn more? Who wants homeopathic medicine or the like, when you can have a real medication? Sure, things will go wrong. Sure, mistakes will be made. However, at least there is a standard to meet when proving things. I will advocate every pseudoscience currently known to man, the day they can stand up to the barrage of questions and investigation required by real science. Frankly, its just a bloody cop out to claim science is like worshiping a god.

Religion, rather than acting as a symbol of truth or justice, merely acts as a symbol of human gullibility and stupidity. Surely no race of beings with any real intelligence would concoct such drivel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Prometheus762's post
30-04-2013, 12:19 AM
 
RE: Proof of Heaven.
I just finished reading that book. It's good that he's come to realize consciousness does not originate in the brain, and it's good that he's come to a monistic concept of God. But, one has to keep in mind, he wasn't having an NDE. Those occur when the brain is starved of oxygen. And they may be real; I think they probably are, but the visions he enountered, the experience he had, was something else.

I find his account unconvincing, and I believe in heaven. He may have had a revelation, but he seems to have lost his objectivity. I have had lots of lucid dreams and one very powerful OBE. But I can't claim those as proof to anyone about anything. They changed me, and I have come to realize that heaven has to be like a lucid dream or it can't be heaven, but that's all those experiences are worth.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
30-04-2013, 12:21 AM
 
RE: Proof of Heaven.
error
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: