do you believe Heaven and Hell exist?

[Volya]

Although there is no evidence at all that suggests there is an afterlife, a soul, a god, or anything like that, it is still impossible to prove that none of them are real. The only real 'evidence' we have for believing in such things is faith.

[ennison]

For me there's nothing special about animals being in heaven but someone above said that it was a common conception. We live in an age increasingly full of superstition and mumbo- jumbo.

[Paulclem]

Hi Paul why exactly?
Why could it not be something totally different?

The original post asked whether heaven and hell exist. Well they do at certain times and conditions such as during war, oppression, famine, fire, flood, good fortune, happy times, success etc. If they already exist on earth, then what does that say about an afterlife?

[Paulclem]

Although it is accepted by some scientists and cynics, it is unscientific to assert that there is no evidence of an afterlife as evidence is currently defined. What we are left with are the beliefs based upon subjective experience and beliefs based upon a lack of evidence.

Still, the conversation is fun.

[MorpheusSandman]

Why would I want to include science to tell me about whether there is an after life?

What else do you got to go on that's more reliable when it comes to finding truth? Subjective experiences from people that don't understand how their own brains function under different conditions?

[MorpheusSandman]

it is unscientific to assert that there is no evidence of an afterlife as evidence is currently defined.

There are no scientific studies of these phenomenon that support the hypothesis of an afterlife, ergo, it is perfectly scientific to state there is no evidence of an afterlife. There is proof of phenomena that some people experience when close to death, and that's it. Most of these phenomena are explicable by various forms of brain activity.

[ennison]

Subjective experiences are my personal favourites.

[YesNo]

He's already been taken down by actual neuroscientists (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven). The only reason that article is proliferating so quickly is a combination of what I said above (ignorance of non-scientists), and the ol' argument from authority and ignorane fallacies. Nobody of actual authority is the least bit impressed by Alexander's experience because he presents no actual science; the story is meant to cash in on the old NDE/OBE market/cult that's proliferating amongst the wishful, mystical ignorant.

Of course Sam Harris would disagree with Eben Alexander. But the point is that Alexander's experience is evidence, like it or not. In fact, it is so powerful evidence that Harris has to resort to sarcasm to try to defeat it. I don't think Harris succeeds. He certainly doesn't convince me. The main reason I'm not convinced is because if Harris is right about our human nature, then there should be no near or shared death experiences at all, but they seem to pop up all over the place. So I have to assume Harris is wrong.

I recently read Harris' Free Will. He claims we, including himself, of course, don't have any free will. If he is right, there is no point in any of us arguing anything, since none of us, by his assessment, are free to change our minds.

Now I partially agree with him. We certainly abdicate our freedom to our emotions which make us give knee-jerk responses that we fantasize are well thought out. However, unlike him, I think we can recover our freedom. It is part of our human nature to be free, if we work at it. Just like it is part of our human nature for some of us to have near and shared death experiences which provide evidence for something beyond our current lives. Rather than trashing these experiences, they should be approached with an open, free mind.

[BienvenuJDC]

I know that heaven exists...I spent the evening with her tonight!!

[cacian]

What else do you got to go on that's more reliable when it comes to finding truth?

I thought science is in denial with religion and so for it to try and determine the existence of heaven would be to prove it does not.

Subjective experiences from people that don't understand how their own brains function under different conditions?

How a brain functions has nothing to do with subjectivity in fact it is the total opposite.
Subjective is down to feelings and how people perceive their reality to be with regard to how they feel with regard to something that is neither here or there.
Determination of something that can't be proven is through imagination and imagination only.
Different conditions as in what?

[cacian]

Subjective experiences are my personal favourites.

As oppose to an objective realisation that subjectivity is down to an objective that might or not exist?

[Paulclem]

There are no scientific studies of these phenomenon that support the hypothesis of an afterlife, ergo, it is perfectly scientific to state there is no evidence of an afterlife. There is proof of phenomena that some people experience when close to death, and that's it. Most of these phenomena are explicable by various forms of brain activity.

None of which says whether there is a life after death or not. If there is something like a soul or a spirit, then science has not identified it. If it does exist, then science is not able to determine whether it continues or not.

If it is reincarnation - which in some traditions does not rely uipon the existence of a soul/ spirit, then it is not hard to see how difficult it is to provide evidence. We have evidence of people who lived in the past through records, births/ deaths etc - but there is precious little to certify their existence beyond administrative rites of passage.

So the debate will go on.

[Redzeppelin]

There are no scientific studies of these phenomenon that support the hypothesis of an afterlife, ergo, it is perfectly scientific to state there is no evidence of an afterlife. There is proof of phenomena that some people experience when close to death, and that's it. Most of these phenomena are explicable by various forms of brain activity.

I am always fascinated by people who believe this: "I can't see it, so therefore it does not exist" (which is, I know, I highly simplified form of what you just posted). Lack of evidence for something does not automatically mean that said something does not exist or is invalid. It means what it says: there is insufficient evidence. By very definition, the afterlife is a spiritual realm, and that means that our scientific measuring tools cannot measure such a thing. We, imprisoned in 3 dimensions as we are, make the error of reducing all of reality to the scope and limit of our vision - like a child who, lacking more sophisticated understanding of the earth, assumes that the sun sinks into the ocean at night. We may have more sophisticated toys, but it is a mistake to assume that they have widened our vision to encompass the entirely of reality, the material and spiritual worlds included.

[Hawg Horse]

Why is it important to know whether, or not, there are such things as Gods and souls ... or places in time like Heaven or Hell? I don't think my moral code would be altered if I had a full understanding of these matters. Not trying to express an opinion ... but to form one. Presently, the concepts best serve me as inspirational expression ... like the idea of Camelot, rather than serious moral or academic inquiry.