Afterlife

[TaraMaiden2]

Well you are the happiest person you know, according to you:)

 

Yes, I am. I really find it difficult to comprehend people (specifically those unaffected by any kind of *mental medical condition) who cannot understand that misery or happiness is a choice.

 

*I underscore the known, diagnosed medical conditions that require pharmaceutical or professional intervention. I understand those circumstances and conditions are far more complicated to deal with; so I'm not talking about those with recognised and acknowledged mental afflictions.

 

That said, I personally know around 5 people who take prescribed medication, and/or who are under professional psychiatric care and supervision, who follow and adhere to Buddhist practice, and regularly attend meditation sessions. They, running parallel with their professional care and working in alliance with their doctors, have effectively reduced - and in one case, entirely eliminated - their medicine intake, because of the beneficial effects they have reaped in practising Buddhism and meditation.

[Toodaloo]

I actually do know the answer to this.

 

Don't know if you would call that sad, happy or just damned freaky...

 

No one is wasting their time on a fantasy.

[autumnnight]

I actually do know the answer to this.

 

Don't know if you would call that sad, happy or just damned freaky...

 

No one is wasting their time on a fantasy.

 

Basically, there are some people who MUST denigrate, criticize, and make fun of anything they cannot understand. Ironically, they are usually the same people ragging on Christians to "live and let live."

[Weezy1973]

Basically, there are some people who MUST denigrate, criticize, and make fun of anything they cannot understand. Ironically, they are usually the same people ragging on Christians to "live and let live."

 

Honest question for you though - do you think you might be overly sensitive to people who question the validity of your religion or beliefs? Do you think in other venues, like economics, people should not ask question and debate either?

 

Part of the Christian dogma is that they're persecuted - but I really don't see it. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Just like anything, it should be open to questioning, and in a plural society there's definitely going to be disagreement. But debating and questioning and trying to come to better answers is part of the human condition.

[autumnnight]

Honest question for you though - do you think you might be overly sensitive to people who question the validity of your religion or beliefs? Do you think in other venues, like economics, people should not ask question and debate either?

 

Part of the Christian dogma is that they're persecuted - but I really don't see it. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Just like anything, it should be open to questioning, and in a plural society there's definitely going to be disagreement. But debating and questioning and trying to come to better answers is part of the human condition.

 

I have quite a few friends who are agnostic or atheists. We have spirited discussions. They ask lots of questions, I ask lots of questions. They question my logic, I question theirs. We laugh and we learn and we have dinner. These are not shy shrinking violets. They are blunt and dogged.

 

What they are NOT, is sarcastic, name-calling, makers of sweeping generalizations. They do not call the God they know their friend believes in a "monster" of any kind, they do not declare me heartless, judgmental, racist, ignorant, or crazy for my faith. I do not call the heathens or hell-bound.

 

We speak like rational, respectful adults without the need to get in our petty little digs.

 

So no, I am not overly sensitive. There are some people on the internet who are asshats.

[bippy123]

There's literally zero evidence for an afterlife (of any specie really). I don't think the portion of common DNA is relevant to this question.

 

After almost two hundred years of modern, enlightened medicine we haven't seen anything that suggests an afterlife outside of near death hallucinations.

 

If someone believes in the afterlife it's likely because it's a comforting idea. Powerful people who prevent others from experiencing joy and health love this scheme because it allows them to keep the gullible at bay and lie to them about the future paradise that they'll join.

 

To say what you just said about nde research is amazing since almost every nde expert that has done nde studies believe that it has shown evidence of the complete opposite of what you just claimed . In fact you can't even find an nde researcher that's still an atheist . Doctor Pim van Lommel for example, the renowned Dutch cardiologist was an atheist before his nde studies but quickly left it after .

 

This is what we call an assertion from ignorance . The PEER reviewed scientific nde studies point in the direction of both the soul and the afterlife . You can try to assert that Nde's are hallucinations , but you will look foolish for calling veridical Nde's hallucinations . How can a hallucination be of real world events happening while the patient is unconscious or even at a point where the brain is non functional and still recall real world events around him that are then verified by outside witnesses.

The aware study was just one of quite a few peer reviewed nde studies in which the evidence points to the soul and the afterlife .

 

Most of the smarter atheists tend to stay far away from veridical Nde's be usse they understand that the evidence there is extremely compelling . You simply can't explain away veridical Nde's as hallucinations because hallucinations are not verified as real world events that really happened by people like the doctor or the whole staff .

 

First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study - Telegraph

 

One man even recalled leaving his body entirely and watching his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Despite being unconscious and ‘dead’ for three minutes, the 57-year-old social worker from Southampton, recounted the actions of the nursing staff in detail and described the sound of the machines.

 

“We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating,” said Dr Sam Parnia, a former research fellow at Southampton University, now at the State University of New York, who led the study.

“But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes into the period when the heart wasn’t beating, even though the brain typically shuts down within 20-30 seconds after the heart has stopped.

 

“The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

“He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”

 

Even the more open minded and intellectual atheists know that the evidence is strong for the soul and the afterlife and are trying to explain it in a natural way lol.

Sir roger Penrose the famous mathematical physics who shared honors with stephen hawking is an atheist who believes in the afterlife and has collaborated with Stuart hammeroff in their microtubules theory .

 

You simply haven't studied theeervrevuewed nde literature and it's probably your emotional atheistic bias that is speaking now , not yoir logic or scienctific knowledge.

[bippy123]

Doctor patricia churchland is an oxford educated professor in the philosophy of neuroscience . She also teaches at one of the most prestigious medical universities in America at ucsd medical school. She is also a militant atheist .

 

This should be her area of expertise . If you wanna see her look foolish and get totally demolished on the nde evidence just listen to this interview with skeptiko host alex tsakiris . Alex catches her in a lie which she prints in her book claiming that Nde's are caused by the brain and even doctor Pim van Lommel agrees with her.

 

Tsakiris has interviewed doctor Lommel already and Lommel actually stated the complete opposite of what doctor churchland claimed he stated and it's very easy to find on any YouTube Lommel video interview .

 

When alex catches her in a lie she suddenly hangs up the phone on her .

When he calls her back again and asks her to defend what she said about Lommel in her book she makes believe her audio isn't working even though we can clearly hear her coffee mug move . She makes believe her sound is breaking up and astonishingly hangs up on him yet again lol.

 

This is what happens when you research your nde literature well and corner an atheist expert in neuroscience on this . They end up looking foolish and dumb .

 

Here is the interview

 

 

I'm a catholic Christian , but alex tsakiris isn't a Christian , he's actually an anti Christian but he also feels atheists are ducking the nde evidence for the soul and the afterlife .

 

Listen to the interview . I promise you will get a great laugh out of it he he

[bippy123]

Honest question for you though - do you think you might be overly sensitive to people who question the validity of your religion or beliefs? Do you think in other venues, like economics, people should not ask question and debate either?

 

Part of the Christian dogma is that they're persecuted - but I really don't see it. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Just like anything, it should be open to questioning, and in a plural society there's definitely going to be disagreement. But debating and questioning and trying to come to better answers is part of the human condition.

 

I'm a Christian weezy, and when I'm talking about the soul and the afterlife with an agnostic or atheist I don't even use the bible with them. I'll go to the scientific nde research studies which are starting to verify thousands of anecdotal evidences for the soul and afterlife .

 

I find agnostics are much more open to the evidence and a lot more unbiased then the atheists who usually feel so uncomfortable that they either put me on ignore or call it a hallucination ..

 

I haven't even talked about peak in Darien Nde's or shared Nde's .

Veridical Nde's put the dogmatic naturalist/atheist in a huge pickle.

[bippy123]

Even atheists who are more knowledgeable in the area of Nde's are begging their fellow atheists to admit to the survival of consciousness and the afterlife and try to explain it away from a naturalistic viewpoint before atheists later come out of it looking ignorant and unscientific .

 

Habermas - Paradign Shift: A Challenge to Naturalism

 

""In an article in The Humanist, Beloff argued that the evidence is strong enough that even humanists should admit survival after death and try to interpret it in naturalistic terms. Perhaps this signals a new shift in attitude on this subject. Beloff stated that the evidence points to a "dualistic world where mind or spirit has an existence separate from the world of material things." He admitted that this could "present a challenge to Humanism as profound in its own way as that which Darwinian Evolution did to Christianity a century ago." Yet, he added, naturalists "cannot afford to close our minds . . . to the possibility of some kind of survival."

 

In an American Psychological Association convention a panel discussed the nature of near-death experiences. Only one of the panelists, UCLA psychologist Ronald Siegel, held that those could be explained totally by natural means. However, when challenged later by cardiologist Michael Sabom to explain his then unpublished corroborative accounts by naturalistic means, Siegel responded that he was unable to do so. The other panel members agreed that neardeath research points to or provides evidence for a spiritual realm and life after death.37

 

With every year of nde research the evidence gets stronger and stronger for what we call the soul and the afterlife .

[Weezy1973]

I'm a Christian weezy, and when I'm talking about the soul and the afterlife with an agnostic or atheist I don't even use the bible with them. I'll go to the scientific nde research studies which are starting to verify thousands of anecdotal evidences for the soul and afterlife.

 

I totally agree with you. So often believers and non-believers talk past each other. I remember seeing a debate between Bill Nye (non believer) and Ken Hamm (believer). Bill Nye was going on and on about how global flood and Noah's Ark were physically impossible because of the laws of physics. I remember thinking "but that wouldn't matter to anybody that believes in miracles." He was talking past the believers - saying things that were completely irrelevant.

 

Similarly, as you pointed out, religious folks often talk past non believers by quoting scripture. If these discussions are to have any meaning, we need to communicate better and understand the other perspective so we can at least stop talking past each other. I think you supporting your assertions with studies and evidence is great!

 

I find agnostics are much more open to the evidence and a lot more unbiased then the atheists who usually feel so uncomfortable that they either put me on ignore or call it a hallucination ..

 

This makes sense. People who admit they don't know something are going to be more open to more things than people who feel they do know something. Goes both ways of course; someone who "knows" that Genesis is an accurate historical account of the creation of the universe and life on the planet is not very open to the evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

[bippy123]

I totally agree with you. So often believers and non-believers talk past each other. I remember seeing a debate between Bill Nye (non believer) and Ken Hamm (believer). Bill Nye was going on and on about how global flood and Noah's Ark were physically impossible because of the laws of physics. I remember thinking "but that wouldn't matter to anybody that believes in miracles." He was talking past the believers - saying things that were completely irrelevant.

 

Similarly, as you pointed out, religious folks often talk past non believers by quoting scripture. If these discussions are to have any meaning, we need to communicate better and understand the other perspective so we can at least stop talking past each other. I think you supporting your assertions with studies and evidence is great!

 

 

 

This makes sense. People who admit they don't know something are going to be more open to more things than people who feel they do know something. Goes both ways of course; someone who "knows" that Genesis is an accurate historical account of the creation of the universe and life on the planet is not very open to the evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

Yea I also don't believe in a global flood as well weezy. I do however support a regional flood as there seems to be evidence of that. I never bring up scripture to an atheist unless he wants to quote it in meaning.

 

As far as evolution I was an evolutionist for 41 years , and I was extremely enthusiastic and spirited in defending it, especially against young earth creationist. Almost all my relatives are evolutionists . I am now more on the side of ID, but still concede that there's a chance that evolution could have done it, but not a blind Darwinian Evolution . For me it was the flimsy evidence for macroevolution and the specified complex information within the nucleotide bases of dna of that swayed me to ID, for now.

 

As far as the bill nye ken ham debate,I thought it was a complete waste of time as ken ham is a young earth creationist and bill nye knows very little about evolution .

 

I would have preferred a debate between kenneth miller and michael behe as it would have been intense because of their intellectual rivalry and the fact that they both the science very well.

 

Yes I totally agree that religious folks do often talk bast unbelievers, just as some unbelievers talk past believers by creating a false caricature of God as an old invisible man in the sky. We need better dialogue in this area for sure.

 

I don't think genesis was meant to be written as science. I doubt that a sheep herder would have understood the incredible science behind it all anyways and it's not needed for ones salvation.

 

Coming from a background where I studied different denominations of Christianity , Islam , druz islam as well as Buddhism I was always hungry to seek out the most profound answers to the most important existential questions of our existence, I eventually came back to Catholicism , but I'm thankful for all the friends along the way.

 

As far as being unsure, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I am an inclusivist which means if a person is seeking God out with all their heart they can be saved even outside of Christianity as inclusivism was the belief of the easiest Christian writers as it speaks volumes towards God's infinite understanding of our hearts true intentions .

 

But I also believe that at some point in your life you have to , as the country song says "you got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything "

[Weezy1973]

As far as evolution I was an evolutionist for 41 years , and I was extremely enthusiastic and spirited in defending it, especially against young earth creationist. Almost all my relatives are evolutionists . I am now more on the side of ID, but still concede that there's a chance that evolution could have done it, but not a blind Darwinian Evolution . For me it was the flimsy evidence for macroevolution and the specified complex information within the nucleotide bases of dna of that swayed me to ID, for now.

 

Intelligent Design just happens to be the modern day God of the Gaps. Evolutionary biologists can't explain "blank" therefore it must be God. History tells us that a gap in knowledge, is not because of any gods. It would be foolish to think that is suddenly the case now.

 

Coming from a background where I studied different denominations of Christianity , Islam , druz islam as well as Buddhism I was always hungry to seek out the most profound answers to the most important existential questions of our existence, I eventually came back to Catholicism , but I'm thankful for all the friends along the way.

 

So, do you think you actually know the ultimate truth? That your particular interpretation of Catholicism is true, and anybody who believes different from what you believe is wrong (even if they can be saved)?

 

 

As far as being unsure, there is nothing wrong with that at all...

 

But I also believe that at some point in your life you have to , as the country song says "you got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything "

 

Clearly these are contradicting statements. I would suggest that if anybody has absolute certainty that what they believe is the actual truth, then they really can't have any complaints about people flying airplanes into buildings, if indeed said people believed absolutely that they were doing the right thing.

 

Absolute certainty in one's beliefs is not only arrogant, but can, and does, produce atrocities.

[jsp32020]

My young cousin has apparently been visited by her relatives that have passed on on many occasion. Her mom works at a veterinarian clinic and some of the animals she's had that have passed apparently still hang out at their home from time to time.

 

Right before my uncle passed, a friend of his said that my uncle told him that he was visited by my grandmother right before.

 

Could just be workings inside the minds of the visited if not.

 

I'd like to believe there is an afterlife, too many curious things in this world lead me to believe there's more to this experience.