do you believe Heaven and Hell exist?

[cacian]

and is there a seventh heaven?

[YesNo]

Based on near-death and shared-death experiences, I think there is evidence that we continue in some way after our deaths. Some people have reported heavenly experiences and some hellish. The descriptions of heaven and hell in any particular religion could be tested by these experiences.

[cacian]

Based on near-death and shared-death experiences, I think there is evidence that we continue in some way after our deaths. Some people have reported heavenly experiences and some hellish. The descriptions of heaven and hell in any particular religion could be tested by these experiences.

Hi YesNo thank you for posting.
What is a share-death experience?

[Ser Nevarc]

No I don't. I'd like to hear more from YesNo regarding his experiences.

But what reasons are there to believe (as in indubitable self-KNOWLEDGE) in an afterlife?

[Varenne Rodin]

No and no.

[cacian]

No and no.

Haha not so quick.
Why must you insist it is a no Varenne?
Just curious to know if you do not mind me asking.

[Charles Darnay]

There just isn't enough space to accommodate everyone: therefore, no.

[cacian]

There just isn't enough space to accommodate everyone: therefore, no.

Good point.
That is an intriguing idea one I have not thought about.
Oh well maybe not everyone makes it to heaven how else would you explain it to those who believe in it.
As to hell I am not sure I count that as true.
No point in a heaven if hell exists. That would be be call segregation and god would have a hefty task on his hand to sift through the good and the bad.
I guess it is one or the other for peace of mind.

[Volya]

I do not believe in the Biblical version of Heaven and Hell, however I am a firm believer of life after death through reincarnation.

[CaptainHatteras]

No, I am the collection of neurons - biological cells. Once they no longer function, I will not be able to experience anything. Without a functioning nervous system we cannot feel or sense anything. To believe otherwise would be a denial of basic high school level biology.

[Volya]

To believe otherwise would be a denial of basic high school level biology.

Or a belief in something outside the realm of science.

[CaptainHatteras]

Which would be denial of basic science. You don't need to be a scientist to know that once one is brain dead, there cannot be any continuing thought processes, because thoughts are electrochemical charges transmitted over synapses by neurons. Once this is no longer happening, the person is no more.

[Volya]

Which would be denial of basic science. You don't need to be a scientist to know that once one is brain dead, there cannot be any continuing thought processes, because thoughts are electrochemical charges transmitted over synapses by neurons. Once this is no longer happening, the person is no more.

This cannot be proven though. If there were a life after death, it would be impossible to detect it through scientific means of investigation. Nothing can be known of what happens after death.

[Charles Darnay]

As far as neuroscience has come since Descartes - and it has come a long way - it has not completely explained the mind/body relationship. There is still room within the realm of human mystery for the idea of thoughts to exist outside of the electric make-up of the brain.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

No and no.
Ditto.

Haha not so quick.
Why must you insist it is a no Varenne?
Just curious to know if you do not mind me asking.

You asking for elaboration is the height of irony.

[BienvenuJDC]

Not a 7th...just a 3rd heaven.
Hell...yes, indeed...

[YesNo]

Hi YesNo thank you for posting.
What is a share-death experience?

A shared-death experience is the name Raymond Moody gave to the experiences some people have when other people close to them die. Sometimes they see or talk to the person who died.

Moody also created the term "near-death" experience.

[Ser Nevarc]

I do not believe in the Biblical version of Heaven and Hell, however I am a firm believer of life after death through reincarnation.


Volya,

I'd like to learn more about this. Why is it, if you're comfortable discussing, that you believe in the notion of reincarnation? Care to describe this belief?

Thanks

[cacian]

Ditto.


You asking for elaboration is the height of irony.

You making an issue out of it is the irony itself.

[Volya]

Volya,

I'd like to learn more about this. Why is it, if you're comfortable discussing, that you believe in the notion of reincarnation? Care to describe this belief?

Thanks

Well my first instinct is that yes, there is an afterlife. But I find the notion of heaven/hell implausible as there is no omniscient god who can decide whether we are good or bad. So it seems to me that the most likely theory is that our souls go somewhere else (though not necessarily on our world).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You making an issue out of it is the irony itself.

How so?

[cacian]

Well my first instinct is that yes, there is an afterlife. But I find the notion of heaven/hell implausible as there is no omniscient god who can decide whether we are good or bad. So it seems to me that the most likely theory is that our souls go somewhere else (though not necessarily on our world).

How do you mean?
Are you suggesting that one does not know the difference between the two?

[Charles Darnay]

Well my first instinct is that yes, there is an afterlife. But I find the notion of heaven/hell implausible as there is no omniscient god who can decide whether we are good or bad. So it seems to me that the most likely theory is that our souls go somewhere else (though not necessarily on our world).

This is why I like the traditional Jewish laissez-faire attitude towards the afterlife. "No our souls don't die after death? Where do they go? How should I know I haven't gotten there yet, now stop worrying about it."

[togre]

Yes. I believe in a heaven. (Btw, the "3rd heaven" thing is because in both Hebrew and Greek the word "heaven" has much of the same flexibility that it does in English. The first heaven is the sky in which the birds and such fly, the second is what we'd call the atmosphere and the third is the abode of the Lord.)

And just in case you weren't ready to laugh at me, I believe in a heaven where not only the soul will dwell, but both my body (raised from the dead and made imperishable) and my soul will be united as I dwell there.

Even for those who are not Christians I find it shocking and not a little sad (in the heart-wrenching, not pathetic sense) that some assume they are merely a collection of cells. What happened to the philosopher and the "I am more than the sum of my parts?" <sigh>

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I suspected you didn't know what "irony" meant.

[tonywalt]

This is why I like the traditional Jewish laissez-faire attitude towards the afterlife. "No our souls don't die after death? Where do they go? How should I know I haven't gotten there yet, now stop worrying about it."

I am neutral on religon, but I always that it interesting that Judaism places relatively low interest or emphasis on the afterlife, whereas that is the whole point with most major religons.

It would seem to me that religon was spawned for a number of reasons- the answer to the afterlife question being one of the big reasons.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yes. I believe in a heaven. (Btw, the "3rd heaven" thing is because in both Hebrew and Greek the word "heaven" has much of the same flexibility that it does in English. The first heaven is the sky in which the birds and such fly, the second is what we'd call the atmosphere and the third is the abode of the Lord.)


Excellent...someone else actually knows this too.

[Paulclem]

There are hellish and heavenly conditions here on earth. A few people live very luxurious and pampered lives, and unfortunately more people live in hellish conditions. If you believe in an afterlife, then the fact that these conditions exist on earth already - even if they are temporary - means that they could exist in the hereafter too. Scary.

The idea of eternal heaven and eternal damnation in the Christian tradition makes no sense on a purely logical level. What crime could possibly justify eternal damnation? Then again, the ideas we have about what heaven and hell are like are not borne out in the bible either. There is no description in the bible of our modern conceptions of heaven and hell. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected.

It dos beg the question about where such ideas came from.

[SkyCetacean]

I personally don't believe in an afterlife, simply because there is no evidence for it.


Which would be denial of basic science. You don't need to be a scientist to know that once one is brain dead, there cannot be any continuing thought processes, because thoughts are electrochemical charges transmitted over synapses by neurons. Once this is no longer happening, the person is no more.
But in most afterlife-based hypotheses it's not the brain that ascends to heaven but rather the soul, and you can't disprove a soul. The concept of "soul" is inherently unrational, it is beyond the realm of the rational.

[Charles Darnay]

I am neutral on religon, but I always that it interesting that Judaism places relatively low interest or emphasis on the afterlife, whereas that is the whole point with most major religons.

It would seem to me that religon was spawned for a number of reasons- the answer to the afterlife question being one of the big reasons.

I don't think this is so. Christianity and Islam tend to place more emphasis than most religions. In most ancient religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Celtic) the afterlife is very unified - basically everyone goes there. Greece introduced the idea of Hell (Tartarus) and Romans added heaven (Elysium) - but these were reserved for only a few - the vast majority just went to the underworld. Judaism is basically the same, they just never gave a strict vision of their underworld.

[Volya]

The idea of eternal heaven and eternal damnation in the Christian tradition makes no sense on a purely logical level. What crime could possibly justify eternal damnation? Then again, the ideas we have about what heaven and hell are like are not borne out in the bible either. There is no description in the bible of our modern conceptions of heaven and hell. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected.


I think in Revelations it says that God will separate the bad from good, and the good will go to Jerusalem or something along those lines.

[togre]

I think in Revelations it says that God will separate the bad from good, and the good will go to Jerusalem or something along those lines.

What you say is not wrong but...

1) While there are places where the Bible that describes the divide as between the "good" and the "bad," the wider context of the Bible makes clear that both good and bad are equally sinful but because they trust Jesus the "good" have been forgiven.


2) The reference to Jerusalem is symbolic, not geographic. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel (and the home of God's Temple), and Israel was the chosen people loved by God. As such Jerusalem becomes shorthand for all those saved through trust in God and/or the eternal home of these people. So, fancy picture for heaven. :)

[cacian]

What you say is not wrong but...

1) While there are places where the Bible that describes the divide as between the "good" and the "bad," the wider context of the Bible makes clear that both good and bad are equally sinful but because they trust Jesus the "good" have been forgiven.

Hi togre really nice to see you back. I hope you do not mind me answering this.
What do you mean by good and bad are equally sinful?


2) The reference to Jerusalem is symbolic, not geographic. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel (and the home of God's Temple), and Israel was the chosen people loved by God. As such Jerusalem becomes shorthand for all those saved through trust in God and/or the eternal home of these people. So, fancy picture for heaven. :) somehow find it difficult to believe God would chose one over another.
Surely in anybody's mind that is not right and a god that is not fair is not a god.
I am not sure I believe this Jerusalem bit because in reality if you look at what Jerusalem has created is bloodshed and war.
God would not have a favourite one or a beloved one simply because it would create tension and war.
There is no such a thing as the chosen one by a god that creates everyone regardless of race.

[togre]

Hi togre really nice to see you back. I hope you do not mind me answering this.
What do you mean by good and bad are equally sinful?


I see how what I said can be unclear. Sorry.

Volya mentioned the good [people] being separated from the bad [people]. My point was that the difference between "good" people who go to heaven and "bad" people who go to hell, is NOT that the "good" people are nicer, better, have kept God's laws perfectly, or deserve a better fate based on their behavior.

The Bible says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Everyone deserves to go to hell, because of sin and rebellion against God. That is, if you judge based on what a person does and thinks. But Jesus became a substitute--He lived a sin-free life. He suffered the pangs of hell on the cross. He earned forgiveness for the world.

The difference between the "good" (people going to heaven) and the "bad" (people going to hell) is the good benefit from what Jesus did by trusting in him (faith) and the bad do not benefit from what Jesus did by rejecting it/him (unbelief).


This ties in to my second point/your second question: Since no one deserves God's love (no one is lovable in any sense to God) any one who is loved is loved not because of something in them, but because of something in God. God loves the unlovable. He chooses to give his love to those who do not deserve. (and in giving his love, he forgives, washes away sin, makes them into something good and pleasing in his eyes.)

[YesNo]

It dos beg the question about where such ideas came from.

Reading some of Mary Boyce's studies of Zoroastrianism I was under the impression that the Christian heaven and hell idea originally came from Zarathustra, however, looking at the Wikipedia article on Hell, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell), it seems there are many different origins for the ideas of what happens after death.

Regardless of the history, togre's point that much of any of these religious traditions is "symbolic" is important. A rejection of any religious tradition based on a search for literal contradictions in that tradition doesn't amount to much. Also, being "symbolic" doesn't mean there is no truth behind the religious tradition. Although some claim there is no evidence for an afterlife, near-death experiences do offer evidence. Nor are near-death experiences something people have only recently found out about. Plato used a near-death experience in the last book of the Republic to justify his theory of reincarnation.

I think we might agree on much this, Paulclem, I am just using your comment to expand on the history of the ideas. I also want to make clear that linking Christianity with Zoroastrian beliefs does not imply negativity on my part toward either of those religions.

[cacian]

I see how what I said can be unclear. Sorry.

Volya mentioned the good [people] being separated from the bad [people]. My point was that the difference between "good" people who go to heaven and "bad" people who go to hell, is NOT that the "good" people are nicer, better, have kept God's laws perfectly, or deserve a better fate based on their behavior.

The Bible says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Everyone deserves to go to hell, because of sin and rebellion against God. That is, if you judge based on what a person does and thinks. But Jesus became a substitute--He lived a sin-free life. He suffered the pangs of hell on the cross. He earned forgiveness for the world.

The difference between the "good" (people going to heaven) and the "bad" (people going to hell) is the good benefit from what Jesus did by trusting in him (faith) and the bad do not benefit from what Jesus did by rejecting it/him (unbelief).


This ties in to my second point/your second question: Since no one deserves God's love (no one is lovable in any sense to God) any one who is loved is loved not because of something in them, but because of something in God. God loves the unlovable. He chooses to give his love to those who do not deserve. (and in giving his love, he forgives, washes away sin, makes them into something good and pleasing in his eyes.)

I see what you are saying and agree with most of it.
The only issue I have with this is this ambivalence idea of good or bad.
It comes across as simplistic when there is more to it.
Humans are complex and go beyond this ambivalence.
For the bible to think god and good goes hand in hand is misleading.
Therefore the concept of heaven and hell is misleading too.

[Paulclem]

I think in Revelations it says that God will separate the bad from good, and the good will go to Jerusalem or something along those lines.

I'm sure it does, but the modern conception of heaven is not described as such in the bible.

[Umbreon]

I see how what I said can be unclear. Sorry.

Volya mentioned the good [people] being separated from the bad [people]. My point was that the difference between "good" people who go to heaven and "bad" people who go to hell, is NOT that the "good" people are nicer, better, have kept God's laws perfectly, or deserve a better fate based on their behavior.

The Bible says "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Everyone deserves to go to hell, because of sin and rebellion against God. That is, if you judge based on what a person does and thinks. But Jesus became a substitute--He lived a sin-free life. He suffered the pangs of hell on the cross. He earned forgiveness for the world.

The difference between the "good" (people going to heaven) and the "bad" (people going to hell) is the good benefit from what Jesus did by trusting in him (faith) and the bad do not benefit from what Jesus did by rejecting it/him (unbelief).


This ties in to my second point/your second question: Since no one deserves God's love (no one is lovable in any sense to God) any one who is loved is loved not because of something in them, but because of something in God. God loves the unlovable. He chooses to give his love to those who do not deserve. (and in giving his love, he forgives, washes away sin, makes them into something good and pleasing in his eyes.)

Exactly right: those who get into heaven are just as sinful as those who will go to hell. Entrance to heaven is in no way based on merit. It is stated in the NT that no one who gets into heaven may brag or self-congratulate about reaching heaven as it is not their works that will get them into heaven but God's mercy. Belief in Jesus as the Son of God is the (necessary and sufficient) ticket in.

[cacian]

Exactly right: those who get into heaven are just as sinful as those who will go to hell. Entrance to heaven is in no way based on merit. It is stated in the NT that no one who gets into heaven may brag or self-congratulate about reaching heaven as it is not their works that will get them into heaven but God's mercy. Belief in Jesus as the Son of God is the (necessary and sufficient) ticket in.

I am not sure that mercy is entirely right.
The reason for this is that it encourages people to commit heneous crime making them think they can get away with it.
It cannot be the case.


I'm sure it does, but the modern conception of heaven is not described as such in the bible.

Heaven is heaven and what is more it is difficult to describe by anyone's standards since no one has ever been or could even be.

[ennison]

I guess yes and yes is the quick reply here. But like most of us I'm in no hurry to arrive early in either.

[cacian]

I guess yes and yes is the quick reply here. But like most of us I'm in no hurry to arrive early in either.

Interesting I think you are very right. Why rush when you can hush haha.
Only kidding I was just thinking what I should have actually put at the beginning of the thread is this:

What is heaven?

[Paulclem]

Heaven is heaven and what is more it is difficult to describe by anyone's standards since no one has ever been or could even be.

How do you know?

I was also merely saying that the common conception of heaven is not how it has been described in the bible - seeing friends/ family, like a happy reunion, the inclusionof animals. As for descriptions of heaven, we still seem to be taken up with the clouds, whiteness and harps idea - basically, when you see modern representations of heaven in things like film. Where do these ideas come from? They certainly don't come from the bible.

[cacian]

How do you know?
I do not know and no one does at least here amongst the livings.


I was also merely saying that the common conception of heaven is not how it has been described in the bible - seeing friends/ family, like a happy reunion, the inclusion of animals.

So if I understand you you are saying that it is not all this? If I had to hazard a guess I would say it is something like this.


As for descriptions of heaven, we still seem to be taken up with the clouds, whiteness and harps idea - basically, when you see modern representations of heaven in things like film. Where do these ideas come from? They certainly don't come from the bible.
Everyone has an idea of what is a heaven is and I do not even know whether it is called heaven. It is just a word.

[Paulclem]

?
I do not know and no one does at least here amongst the livings.



So if I understand you you are saying that it is not all this? If I had to hazard a guess I would say it is something like this.


Everyone has an idea of what is a heaven is and I do not even know whether it is called heaven. It is just a word.

How do you know no-one does?

Heaven, has been described like this but on what basis? If it's not biblical, then it must be based on ideas from somewhere else.

Some people have an idea about heaven, and perhaps it is their projections that have caused these ideas to take off where there has been litle to rely on.

[Volya]

I think we can work out how we came to this idea of Heaven pretty easily. From what I know of mythology and religion, the ancient Greeksbelieved in the Underworld where Hades ruled, and Mount Olympus where the rest of the Gods lived. Mount Olympus was up in the sky beyond the clouds.

Now although in this idea of things, ALL of the dead went to the Underworld, my understanding is that once they went there they were separated, with the better people getting a better/less-punishing afterlife (anyone with better knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong).

The greatest heroes went to Mt Olympus to live with the gods. Now this already draws parallels with the modern concept of Heaven, with the good/heroic going 'up to the clouds in the sky' and the bad people going down underground to a dark, desolate world. Angels have also an extensive history, with the word itself meaning 'messenger', relating to Hermes the winged messenger god. I believe they also had cherubs back then too.

So from looking at what the Greeks believed, it's not too much of a jump to see how this has evolved over time into the concept we have now.

This is all pure speculation from me based on what I know, so I'm not entirely sure how much is true.

[cacian]

Well I am only speculating overhall because the idea that one is not without the other is what upsets the balance with me.
Heaven is linked to hell and vice versa hence me rejecting the idea that all is well and not so well either.
There is no hell and there is no heaven as such.
What there is is something totally different. A different world a perfect world I don't know.
Heaven it seems is like giving presents to people at Christmas and hell is the opposite taking nice things away from them.
I don't want a present if it means it has been taken away from someone else's.
In other words a person who can give something nice, ie a present to someone, then in the same breath does the complete opposite with someone else, ie not give a present or not be nice, is my allegory to heaven and hell and so that is why I reject it.
You are either nice all around or you are not and that is the point.
Religion and god is not about I give you this and then I also do a nasty thing to someone else by putting them in hell. This does not add up to me.

[Volya]

I don't think it's a matter of you getting to go to Heaven because you've taken somebody elses place. One would assume there are an infinite amount of places in Heaven. You getting 'the present', would not result in somebody else not getting it. The other person doesn't get the present because they have been bad/sinned.

[Paulclem]

The disturbing thing is that both heavenly and hellish and heavenly conditions have, and continue to exist, on earth. That suggests that if they can exist in this life, then should thete be an afterlife, then the existence of heaven and hell are more likely.

[E.A Rumfield]

I think we can work out how we came to this idea of Heaven pretty easily. From what I know of mythology and religion, the ancient Greeksbelieved in the Underworld where Hades ruled, and Mount Olympus where the rest of the Gods lived. Mount Olympus was up in the sky beyond the clouds.

Now although in this idea of things, ALL of the dead went to the Underworld, my understanding is that once they went there they were separated, with the better people getting a better/less-punishing afterlife (anyone with better knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong).

The greatest heroes went to Mt Olympus to live with the gods. Now this already draws parallels with the modern concept of Heaven, with the good/heroic going 'up to the clouds in the sky' and the bad people going down underground to a dark, desolate world. Angels have also an extensive history, with the word itself meaning 'messenger', relating to Hermes the winged messenger god. I believe they also had cherubs back then too.

So from looking at what the Greeks believed, it's not too much of a jump to see how this has evolved over time into the concept we have now.

This is all pure speculation from me based on what I know, so I'm not entirely sure how much is true.

The idea of an afterlife is as old as human thought and exists in every civilization in different but inherently similar ways. It is simply a comforting human feeling. That is spirituality. Religion is another matter. I believe like Nietzsche that religion came from the desire to control people. Work real hard and you'll be rewarded eternally, no matter how bad your life is heaven awaits you. The idea of Heaven effectively excuses any travesties. What is poverty, war and famine now compared to every lasting bliss?

[E.A Rumfield]

You are either nice all around or you are not and that is the point I want to make.


Not for nothing but it is a stupid point to make. Nobody is all around nice or all around evil. So nobody is in heaven or in hell. We are all capable of EVIL things and if you take the time you can find an equal amount of bad and good traits in each person. We are all the products of the same world how can we not be the same at the very basest level?

[cacian]

The disturbing thing is that both heavenly and hellish and heavenly conditions have, and continue to exist, on earth. That suggests that if they can exist in this life, then should thete be an afterlife, then the existence of heaven and hell are more likely.

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

[MorpheusSandman]

No, I don't believe in either because there isn't a shred of evidence for them. NDEs and OBEs have largely been explained by medical science, but, like most naturalistic explanations, it takes non-scientists much longer to catch up with the facts.


There is no description in the bible of our modern conceptions of heaven and hell. If I am wrong I'll stand corrected. A lot of people's ideas about heaven, hell, an anti-christ, and satan come more from Dante and Milton than The Bible. The Bible is often very ambiguous about such things, or, at least, nowhere near as simplistic as most beliefs make them out to be.

[YesNo]

No, I don't believe in either because there isn't a shred of evidence for them. NDEs and OBEs have largely been explained by medical science, but, like most naturalistic explanations, it takes non-scientists much longer to catch up with the facts.

I wouldn't be so sure that NDEs and OBEs have been largely explained by medical science.

Here's a recent account of a neurosurgeon who would disagree with you:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

[DNCancio]

Which would be denial of basic science. You don't need to be a scientist to know that once one is brain dead, there cannot be any continuing thought processes, because thoughts are electrochemical charges transmitted over synapses by neurons. Once this is no longer happening, the person is no more.

There is no doubt that to function on the earth as a conscious being, one requires brain function and the neurons to be working, but that does not mean that one does not have an afterlife that one can function in. It has been accepted that the body contains a soul. When the flesh has died, this soul no longer exists within the human body. It is possible that the exiting function of the soul leads to the afterlife.

[manuscript]

even if i could believe it i would hope it is not true. this life is enough for me and i cant think of any worse torture than existing interminably on and on. i want to be like the sisters of the little mermaid and dissolve into ocean foam.

[MorpheusSandman]

I wouldn't be so sure that NDEs and OBEs have been largely explained by medical science.

Here's a recent account of a neurosurgeon who would disagree with you: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.

[MorpheusSandman]

It has been accepted that the body contains a soul. The same way it's been accepted that the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, and a bearded man is throwing lightning bolts at us?

[ennison]

I can't find anything in my Bible about being reunited with loved ones in heaven or about the inclusion of animals. Guess we read different ones.
Anyway "sufficient for the day etc..."

[cacian]

I can't find anything in my Bible about being reunited with loved ones in heaven or about the inclusion of animals. Guess we read different ones.
Anyway "sufficient for the day etc..."

Can I ask what is so special about the inclusions of animals?

[cacian]

No, I don't believe in either because there isn't a shred of evidence for them. NDEs and OBEs have largely been explained by medical science, but, like most naturalistic explanations, it takes non-scientists much longer to catch up with the facts.

A lot of people's ideas about heaven, hell, an anti-christ, and satan come more from Dante and Milton than The Bible. The Bible is often very ambiguous about such things, or, at least, nowhere near as simplistic as most beliefs make them out to be.

Why would I want to include science to tell me about whether there is an after life?
How is science to know?
It is not up to science it is literally to study it or prove it. Science stops there.

[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.