The Afterlife

[Taz]

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

How many people do you think believe simply because they've been told to believe?

Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.

Young people start out believing their parents, but, once they start to be able to think on their own (pretty early on) will believe either (1) what makes sense to them in their own mind or (2) whatever belief supports how they want to live

 

[Hawkins]

Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.

Well, a creator created itself and then created the universe is just as logical. That's the problem.

If you say a creator created something, where did the creator come from?

The only answer is exactly the same answer as if you're talking about the creation of the universe from nothing.[/QUOTE]

It is because the human conception of time is wrong as proven by physics. Humans don't actually know what time is, scientifically speaking. In human conception time is stably and evenly progressive forward. In science however it's not.

That said, the human conception of 'create' means something doesn't exist at a point of time but exists later on. The concept however doesn't apply to God. To put it another way, in order for God to be 'created', you need to first address at which point of time He didn't exist. If you can point out this point in the axis to time, we then can tell where He's coming from. You can't point out such a point because He's there all the times.

 

[Hawkins]

And perhaps when you die, you will simply cease to exist.

That's the point, isn't it? You don't know what will come next. Perhaps you'll be roasted on the fire for believing in some false God and I'll get a pass to heaven for not.

Humans can reach the unreachable by believing in accounts of human witnessing. Today, you don't need to go to Africa to know what happens there. We have reporters/journalists go there to bring us the news of what have happened. What is said by reporters are human accounts of witnessing for us to believe with faith. That's the way how we reach a truth usually not reachable to us. The same as any human history written some 2000 years ago. We can't go back to history to know what could possibly happened. However have documents recorded by historians for us to believe with faith.

We believe in afterlife not without a reason. We believe that the human accounts of witnessing recorded in Bible are sincere and thus believable. Plus that this is the only way we can reach a truth if in the case that Christianity is a truth. The difference between history and Christianity is that history is about the recording of human deeds while the Bible is about the recording of God's deeds.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

How many people do you think believe simply because they've been told to believe?

Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.

Young people start out believing their parents, but, once they start to be able to think on their own (pretty early on) will believe either (1) what makes sense to them in their own mind or (2) whatever belief supports how they want to live

Which can often mean carrying on following the norms they perceive.

 

[Dajjal]

Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.

In the book 'teachings of Silver Birch' a spirit guide of the same name covers this point. He says that everyone will wake up in the afterlife whether they want to or not, because the spirit is immortal.

 

[anotherlife]

Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.

Yeah, we make kids believe, we put them into churches, they see all these people around them believing this stuff, so they believe too.

How many of them have actually felt anything? How many of them have actually had any reason to believe that anything they have been told is true?

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

 

[anotherlife]

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

Well, how much of spirituality is to explain away fears, to impose fears, to keep people in line?

If religion actually existed, then surely in different places around the world, the same thing would have evolved, rather than completely different religions.

Now, the most popular ones, Christianity and Islam are kind of polar opposites. Christianity is "oh, shit, I did something wrong" and the Priest or Vicar or Pastor says "don't worry about it son, just say you're sorry and then come back next week when you've done the same thing again, and say sorry again". Islam is "don't do bad shit or we'll cut your fucking hand off bitch".

Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true.

"Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true."

yep.

Like 90 % of everything never gets proof. Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. For example, the Volyager space crafts seem to over act the laws of gravity. Proof is always a fragile thing forever.

"Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. "

But again, that comes in degrees. No, certain things, we can be certain, are not going to be completely debased. Your Voyager example (with which i do not agree), even if true, does not debase the greater theory of gravity to any significant degree. Finding footprints of bipeds from 5.7 million years ago does not upend the theory of evolution, nor will likely anything, ever. You have yet to agree with this notion, or the similar notion that NOT all truth is equally subjective. why not? Surely you agree. and if you don't, you are either lying to yourself or to everyone else, because there is no way such a person could even function.

If evolution is your question, which is off topic here, I am honest enough to admit that I believe in evolution for whatever reason , in the same time as being Christian. As discussed above, logic of various evidences is secondary in every human function.

"If evolution is your question, which is off topic here"

No, it's germane to my point, which itself, I think, is germane to talking about magical ideas in general. I want to demonstrate that some things are more "known" than others. So, do you think evolution is only as true as someone thinks it is? No. you don't. I think I can confidently say that now, which is good.

Your problem is exclusivity. But you can't force a case by case "trend" to predictively eliminate all categories of observations, especially if that category is the afterlife.

"But you can't force a case by case "trend" to predictively eliminate all categories of observations, especially if that category is the afterlife."

But I am not doing that. I am completely open to evidence of afterlife. But this extraordinary claim would require some very extraordinary evidence. Seeing a ghost would not cut it.

Not every evidence in the world needs to closely correlate between the individual senses of all of its observers. The afterlife is an example that does not fit well into such demands. This is a spectrum and you seem to be at the extreme edge of it.

 

[anotherlife]

Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.

They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.

Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.

It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.

Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.

They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.

Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.

It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.

Clearly it is not just "my belief system", but statements based on empirical facts, and which statements can be considered empirical facts themselves. all of that evidence is quite independent of what you or I had for breakfast, or what of gods we worship. delusions, hallucinations, suspension of incredulity... all are not only extremely well-documented, but are so well-understood as to come, at times, under our control. As in, we can induce them in others. I can make you hallucinate with some chemicals. i can make you suspend your incredulity, and then fool you.

And just because we can't alter the brain to our will yet does not mean it cannot be done.

My point being, there are simpler explanations for people who really, truly believe absurd things (no, I am not including all people who believe in an afterlife). But first we have to agree those things are absurd. And you have so far completely refused to admit that some things CAN be more well-known than others, and, no, the ability of new evidence to arise does not mean we, for instance, jump off our roofs, thinking we will "fall up".

You simply refuse to admit it. You either are very stubborn and don't want to concede this point, or you actually believe that all knowledge is equally subjective.

I did mention the statistics of knowledge and statistics of belief a few times above, if that's what you mean. I don't need equal subjectivity to my point, various degrees of suvjectivities is what I used but never zero.

"I did mention the statistics of knowledge and statistics of belief"

That's equivocation. You cannot be any more vague if you tried... as if you can assign a statistic to any belief. No, all one could do is to speak about how very well-known something is, based in its matching mountains of mutually supportive evidence. The belief that houseplants talk and the belief in evolution do not belong on the same scale, in this case your bogus idea of a continuum of statistical probability to describe the "value" or "truthiness" of a belief, or some such nonsense. They are qualitatively different.

No they are not different, although it was you that put them in parallel. Also yes it is possible to put statistics on beliefs.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.

This is nonsense. Everyone wants an afterlife, especially one that is "better".

You religionists had better hope there is not an intelligence test as part of the "judgement".

If there really is an Intelligent Designer, you all will fail

 

[anotherlife]

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

How many people do you think believe simply because they've been told to believe?

Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.

Young people start out believing their parents, but, once they start to be able to think on their own (pretty early on) will believe either (1) what makes sense to them in their own mind or (2) whatever belief supports how they want to live

I think your point #1 is according to the guidance by the worlds outside the physical life.

I think that your point #2 too, because your wants and wishes may result from the same interaction.

The point #0 with the parent thing is the most interesting, because that is a physical force, and that can influence and reshape #1 and #2 any time.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.

Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.

Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.

Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.

Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.

"life came from nothing."

Who says life "came from nothing"? Nobody I know. No science I have seen. You keep making up these imaginary people to complain about.

Religionists are the only ones claiming life came from nothing. Not only life from nothing, but advanced life.

 

[MarkDuffy]

And perhaps when you die, you will simply cease to exist.

That's the point, isn't it? You don't know what will come next. Perhaps you'll be roasted on the fire for believing in some false God and I'll get a pass to heaven for not.

Humans can reach the unreachable by believing in accounts of human witnessing. Today, you don't need to go to Africa to know what happens there. We have reporters/journalists go there to bring us the news of what have happened. What is said by reporters are human accounts of witnessing for us to believe with faith. That's the way how we reach a truth usually not reachable to us. The same as any human history written some 2000 years ago. We can't go back to history to know what could possibly happened. However have documents recorded by historians for us to believe with faith.

We believe in afterlife not without a reason. We believe that the human accounts of witnessing recorded in Bible are sincere and thus believable. Plus that this is the only way we can reach a truth if in the case that Christianity is a truth. The difference between history and Christianity is that history is about the recording of human deeds while the Bible is about the recording of God's deeds.

People throughout history have given accounts of all kinds of things. Alien abduction, JFK & 9/11 conspiracies. Who really built the pyramids. Witchcraft, etc.

The only history of the Bible is IN the Bible.

 

[task0778]

Yeah, we make kids believe, we put them into churches, they see all these people around them believing this stuff, so they believe too.

How many of them have actually felt anything? How many of them have actually had any reason to believe that anything they have been told is true?

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

1. An AI program that is more spiritual than you are? And just how is anyone going to determine that other than each individual? Personally I highly doubt any math program is going to be all that spiritual.

2. My criteria for acceptance of spiritual origins is a bit more than the fact that another person wrote it. It's going to have to make sense to me, have some plausibility to it.

3. "Maybe" is pretty much all we got. How many other explanations of spirituality are there that have so many personal testimonials and tapes of hypnotized individuals by different hypnotherapists all relating the same story about the afterlife? It isn't proof of anything, proof is kinda hard to come by. So, everybody has to decide for themselves, seems to be an awful lot of people who were raised to believe in one thing and after further consideration have discarded it. Some did, some did not, whatever floats your boat.

4. Some people want to believe "X", so they do. Maybe they were raised to believe it and never challenged it, maybe that belief system works for them. Pragmatism sort of. Whatever, if an atheist or agnostic believes or thinks there is no God, I'm good with that. My problem is the effort they make to denounce or detract from the beliefs of someone else who does believe in God, one way or another. It's not really much different from the religious people who are out there proselytizing for their faith to save your soul, the non-believers are trying to convert you to their way of thinking too.

 

[anotherlife]

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

1. An AI program that is more spiritual than you are? And just how is anyone going to determine that other than each individual? Personally I highly doubt any math program is going to be all that spiritual.

2. My criteria for acceptance of spiritual origins is a bit more than the fact that another person wrote it. It's going to have to make sense to me, have some plausibility to it.

3. "Maybe" is pretty much all we got. How many other explanations of spirituality are there that have so many personal testimonials and tapes of hypnotized individuals by different hypnotherapists all relating the same story about the afterlife? It isn't proof of anything, proof is kinda hard to come by. So, everybody has to decide for themselves, seems to be an awful lot of people who were raised to believe in one thing and after further consideration have discarded it. Some did, some did not, whatever floats your boat.

4. Some people want to believe "X", so they do. Maybe they were raised to believe it and never challenged it, maybe that belief system works for them. Pragmatism sort of. Whatever, if an atheist or agnostic believes or thinks there is no God, I'm good with that. My problem is the effort they make to denounce or detract from the beliefs of someone else who does believe in God, one way or another. It's not really much different from the religious people who are out there proselytizing for their faith to save your soul, the non-believers are trying to convert you to their way of thinking too.

Exactly, #1 and #2 proves my point, that anything can be spiritual depending on how you look at it and what you personally accept or reject, there cannot be a unified single criterium.

And #3 and #4 proves that it is easy to cause damage to everyone. Like pedo priests make atheists, or atheists beat up their children for looking at the Bible. It is such aggressions that are in the category of pushing people into the Hell.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

1. An AI program that is more spiritual than you are? And just how is anyone going to determine that other than each individual? Personally I highly doubt any math program is going to be all that spiritual.

2. My criteria for acceptance of spiritual origins is a bit more than the fact that another person wrote it. It's going to have to make sense to me, have some plausibility to it.

3. "Maybe" is pretty much all we got. How many other explanations of spirituality are there that have so many personal testimonials and tapes of hypnotized individuals by different hypnotherapists all relating the same story about the afterlife? It isn't proof of anything, proof is kinda hard to come by. So, everybody has to decide for themselves, seems to be an awful lot of people who were raised to believe in one thing and after further consideration have discarded it. Some did, some did not, whatever floats your boat.

4. Some people want to believe "X", so they do. Maybe they were raised to believe it and never challenged it, maybe that belief system works for them. Pragmatism sort of. Whatever, if an atheist or agnostic believes or thinks there is no God, I'm good with that. My problem is the effort they make to denounce or detract from the beliefs of someone else who does believe in God, one way or another. It's not really much different from the religious people who are out there proselytizing for their faith to save your soul, the non-believers are trying to convert you to their way of thinking too.

Near death or shortly after "death" experiences can easily be explained as "that is just how the brain works" in such situations.

Things such as the white light and tunnel appear to me to be what I would expect when the brain begins to turn off.

 

[K9Buck]

Yeah, we make kids believe, we put them into churches, they see all these people around them believing this stuff, so they believe too.

How many of them have actually felt anything? How many of them have actually had any reason to believe that anything they have been told is true?

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

 

[Hawkins]

And perhaps when you die, you will simply cease to exist.

That's the point, isn't it? You don't know what will come next. Perhaps you'll be roasted on the fire for believing in some false God and I'll get a pass to heaven for not.

Humans can reach the unreachable by believing in accounts of human witnessing. Today, you don't need to go to Africa to know what happens there. We have reporters/journalists go there to bring us the news of what have happened. What is said by reporters are human accounts of witnessing for us to believe with faith. That's the way how we reach a truth usually not reachable to us. The same as any human history written some 2000 years ago. We can't go back to history to know what could possibly happened. However have documents recorded by historians for us to believe with faith.

We believe in afterlife not without a reason. We believe that the human accounts of witnessing recorded in Bible are sincere and thus believable. Plus that this is the only way we can reach a truth if in the case that Christianity is a truth. The difference between history and Christianity is that history is about the recording of human deeds while the Bible is about the recording of God's deeds.

People throughout history have given accounts of all kinds of things. Alien abduction, JFK & 9/11 conspiracies. Who really built the pyramids. Witchcraft, etc.

The only history of the Bible is IN the Bible.

So?

You can believe. You can choose to ignore those don't concern your life. You can believe those concern your life and get yourself prepared. Christianity is about how we take the warning seriously as the eye-witnesses are said to be willing to martyr themselves for their testimonies to stand. Plus the warning concerns our life. Plus that it's the only way to reach the truth shall it be a truth, there's no other way round!

 

[K9Buck]

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

1. An AI program that is more spiritual than you are? And just how is anyone going to determine that other than each individual? Personally I highly doubt any math program is going to be all that spiritual.

2. My criteria for acceptance of spiritual origins is a bit more than the fact that another person wrote it. It's going to have to make sense to me, have some plausibility to it.

3. "Maybe" is pretty much all we got. How many other explanations of spirituality are there that have so many personal testimonials and tapes of hypnotized individuals by different hypnotherapists all relating the same story about the afterlife? It isn't proof of anything, proof is kinda hard to come by. So, everybody has to decide for themselves, seems to be an awful lot of people who were raised to believe in one thing and after further consideration have discarded it. Some did, some did not, whatever floats your boat.

4. Some people want to believe "X", so they do. Maybe they were raised to believe it and never challenged it, maybe that belief system works for them. Pragmatism sort of. Whatever, if an atheist or agnostic believes or thinks there is no God, I'm good with that. My problem is the effort they make to denounce or detract from the beliefs of someone else who does believe in God, one way or another. It's not really much different from the religious people who are out there proselytizing for their faith to save your soul, the non-believers are trying to convert you to their way of thinking too.

Near death or shortly after "death" experiences can easily be explained as "that is just how the brain works" in such situations.

Things such as the white light and tunnel appear to me to be what I would expect when the brain begins to turn off.

There are countless people who have shared very detailed accounts of them meeting loved ones, etc. in an NDE, you just refuse to accept any of them. Don't worry. God will let you die if that's what you really want.

 

[K9Buck]

Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.

Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.

Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.

Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.

Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.

Well, a creator created itself and then created the universe is just as logical. That's the problem.

If you say a creator created something, where did the creator come from?

The only answer is exactly the same answer as if you're talking about the creation of the universe from nothing.

Something or someone not confined or bound to the laws of this universe created said universe. It's obvious the universe had a beginning. You are bending over backwards to avoid the obvious answer that we have a creator. Don't worry; God will let you die into non-existence if that is what you want.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

1) The program might give itself consciousness, w/o our ever realizing it until it is too late.

2) Yet!