Interesting I think you are very right. Why rush when you can hush haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Only kidding I was just thinking what I should have actually put at the beginning of the thread is this:
What is heaven?
Printable View
Interesting I think you are very right. Why rush when you can hush haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Only kidding I was just thinking what I should have actually put at the beginning of the thread is this:
What is heaven?
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.
?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
How do you know no-one does?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Volya
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Hi Paul why exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Why could it not be something totally different?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I wouldn't be so sure that NDEs and OBEs have been largely explained by medical science.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Here's a recent account of a neurosurgeon who would disagree with you:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...afterlife.html
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHatteras
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by DNCancio
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Why would I want to include science to tell me about whether there is an after life?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
How is science to know?
It is not up to science it is literally to study it or prove it. Science stops there.
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Subjective experiences are my personal favourites.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.
I know that heaven exists...I spent the evening with her tonight!! ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
How a brain functions has nothing to do with subjectivity in fact it is the total opposite.Quote:
Subjective experiences from people that don't understand how their own brains function under different conditions?
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?
As oppose to an objective realisation that subjectivity is down to an objective that might or not exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.