Forums → WEPR → Heaven is for Real
| 81 | 27519 |
This isn't about how I feel about heaven being real. It's more about how this boy feels about heaven.
Heaven is for Real
So this boy had a near-death experience and he wanted to share what he saw there. WHat do you think about it, do you belive it? Do you think he was just seeing things? Post your opinion.
- 81 Replies
did i ever say you HAVE to believe in that?
i didn't say names i said "the one's"
however it's often said that if you don't believe your going to hell.
that sounds like a demand to believe to me.
i can say that you have to prove to me it doesnt exist and if you cant then i dont have to not believe those claims.
the problem then is that i did not make a claim.
only thing i did is denying a claim that is unproven.
those that said it exists has brought the claim to the world.
if that claim was never made by them then i wouldn't say it wasn't true because there is no proof.
im not sure what you are trying to argue about unless you think all theists try to make other people to believe in the same thing they do.
read carefully: "the one's"
i mean the theists that actual say these things in public.
most theists keep to themself or only share whit other theist.
i don't care what they think and talk about when they are together.
(and i always speak in general terms. i know there always alot of exeptions in those general groups.)
and you do realise that not all religions believe that the non-(insert religion here) are going to hell right?
most have some sort of way to demand people to believe in it.
i just pointed out a example.
but as i explained befor there are always exception in general groups.
the problem then is that i did not make a claim.
only thing i did is denying a claim that is unproven.
those that said it exists has brought the claim to the world.
if that claim was never made by them then i wouldn't say it wasn't true because there is no proof.
but... you did clame care bears exist... anyway forget about it. i guess i didnt read your comment carefully enough. we have the same opinion anyway.
ahh nvm, i scrolled up. hebrew confusion since "claim" has more meanings in a sentence XP sorry
but... you did clame care bears exist...
that was a example about what the religions are actualy doing.
only did i replace the word god for care bears. to make clear to people that do believe in god. what they are actualy believing in.
and to show people that believe in god. how we (atheists) see religion.
Heaven isn't for real. Obviously everybody knows that.
if everybody knows that then why are there theists?
When was theism about knowledge? Though I don't agree that everyone really knows Heaven isn't real. However many who do believe in such a fate often don't behave as if that is the case. So it's possible some part of most people don't actually buy this claim, even if they don't admit it to themselves.
Here's a funny video illustrating what I'm talking about.
If Heaven Really Existed
Scientific proof or it didn't happen.My point. There is no heaven. It's just a illusion created by the mind, as it is a simple thing to comprehend. Religion has centered it around everything. Good thing I'm not involved in religion.
My point. There is no heaven. It's just a illusion created by the mind, as it is a simple thing to comprehend. Religion has centered it around everything. Good thing I'm not involved in religion.
I believe in Heaven, but I also know it's not scientifically proven so why argue about it?
My point. There is no heaven. It's just a illusion created by the mind, as it is a simple thing to comprehend. Religion has centered it around everything. Good thing I'm not involved in religion.
Any proof that heaven doesn't exist? No. It's not falsifiable, and cannot be bashed down, or supported. It's just there.
Any proof that heaven doesn't exist?
This would be dependent on the existence of a soul, something that is also not demonstrated to exist. Our observations on the nature indicates the non existence of dualism which would exclude the existence of a soul. Thus no soul, no heaven. Now is this definitive? Surely not. This is simply where the current evidence leads us.
This would be dependent on the existence of a soul, something that is also not demonstrated to exist.
Is there any hard evidence that a soul doesn't actually exist? No.
Is there any hard evidence that a soul doesn't actually exist? No.
Where did I say this? I said given our observable evidence this is likely not the case.
I said given our observable evidence this is likely not the case.
Yes, but you didn't provide any links of such. I'm not an expert on the topic you know.
Yes, but you didn't provide any links of such. I'm not an expert on the topic you know.
I was mainly referring to our observations of how brain damage can effect one conscious state. We see alterations in personality, behavior, and so on. If this came from a soul physical damage shouldn't have any affect.
One can argue that it's liken to a faulty car with the driver as the "soul" still functional correctly but unable to get the car to do as they wish. However any concept of judging the soul would than have to be suspended. This would also beg the question as to where this persons consciousness is coming from if the soul has lost control.
http://www.neuroskills.com/brain-injury/temporal-lobes.php
Another example that indicates no soul is the split brain phenomena where the connections between the left and right hemispheres are severed and each half takes on a different personality and are capable of independent perceptions.
"1. Each hemisphere was presented a picture that related to one of four cards placed in front of the split-brain subject. The right hemisphere saw the picture on the left (a snow scene), and the left hemisphere saw the picture on the right (a chicken foot). Both hemispheres could see all of the cards.
2. The left and right hemispheres easily picked the card that related to the picture it saw. The left hand pointed to the right hemisphere's choice, and the right hand pointed to the left hemisphere's choice.
3. The patient was then asked why the left hand was pointing to the shovel. Only the left hemisphere can talk, and it did not know the answer because the decision to point to the shovel was made in the right hemisphere.
4. Immediately the left hemisphere made up a story about what it could see --- the chicken. It said the right hemisphere chose the shovel to clean out a chicken shed." -Gazzaniga, Michael S., "The Split Brain Revisited," Scientific American, July 1998
Is the soul split in two in this case, if so this still leaves us with the same problem of physical damage on an immaterial thing. Does one gain a second soul, but why would physical damage to the brain result in a second being taking up residence?
A soul is said to be the source of a persons consciousness. Consciousness in general is ones capability to sense and respond to the world around them and can also refer to awareness of ones self. I would think an even basic understanding of how our senses work (the parts of us that does the sensing, making us aware ie conscious of our surroundings) would be enough to see that ascribing this quality to a soul is as silly as saying emotions actual originate from the heart.
A soul is said to be the essence of a person, what makes a living thing alive. This is silly in light of our knowledge in biology and chemistry giving us a view of the biochemical processes involved.
The evidence indicates the qualities ascribed to a soul have physical causes and can be altered physically. This indicates the soul does not exist and without it no heaven for the non existent soul to go to after the physical body dies.
Thinking about it, even if there was a soul given how it would have to be clearly effected by the bodies physical changes this put's into question it's survival after the body dies.
If this came from a soul physical damage shouldn't have any affect.
It depends on what one defines as a soul, and how one assumes a soul affects our bodies. It's already clearly shown by medical science that our brains control a large part of our personality or actions, but that doesn't refute whether a soul, the incorporeal essence of a person's physical body doesn't exist. Or a soul can just simply mean the psychological parts of ourselves condensed into a single form. It depends on how you define it.
Furthermore, as different religions present different definitions of what a soul is, we can't refute the existence of souls as a whole even if we shoot down separate definitions.
A soul is said to be the source of a persons consciousness. Consciousness in general is ones capability to sense and respond to the world around them and can also refer to awareness of ones self. I would think an even basic understanding of how our senses work (the parts of us that does the sensing, making us aware ie conscious of our surroundings) would be enough to see that ascribing this quality to a soul is as silly as saying emotions actual originate from the heart.
A soul is said to be the essence of a person, what makes a living thing alive. This is silly in light of our knowledge in biology and chemistry giving us a view of the biochemical processes involved.
Yes some Christians believe that the soul is the focal point for our personality and such. But the concept of a soul is very much different in Buddhism or other religions.
And yes, the mind controls our behaviour and such and such. But who's to say that the incorporeal essence of ourselves doesn't control the mind itself?
Anyway, some people have tried their hands at philosophy to prove the soul exists:
1) Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
2) The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
3) Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose oneâs own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
4) Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3)
5) So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal.)
6)The self chooses oneâs own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
7)The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).
Or a soul can just simply mean the psychological parts of ourselves condensed into a single form.
That would seem to exclude the existence of heaven.
Furthermore, as different religions present different definitions of what a soul is, we can't refute the existence of souls as a whole even if we shoot down separate definitions.
Actually looking it over there are some commonalities. Those being a life essence, source of consciousness, an immaterial part of a living thing, an immortal part of a living thing.
Far as I can tell regardless of what religion you look at you will find at least one of these definitions. With each of these can be linked to a physical cause.
the incorporeal essence of a person's physical body doesn't exist.
Since want we ascribe to a soul has a physical cause for each aspect this does give evidence indicating that a soul is likely not to exist.
And yes, the mind controls our behaviour and such and such. But who's to say that the incorporeal essence of ourselves doesn't control the mind itself?
Given our observations of things like split brains we clearly don't see such control existing.
I'm not saying any of this is definitive. I'm saying these sorts of observations do give us evidence leading in such a direction.
You must be logged in to post a reply!