theft by the time factor is not a certainty?
Certainly not - one can sell, hand down etc etc but it's irrelevant either way. The theft of something does not indicate that it isn't your property, (well to my knowledge thieves get imprisoned).
-----
*missed answer alert!*
I notice here that you've *accidentally* skipped a part - in fact two parts both asking the same thing. Unfortunately they were the parts asking you if you had direct perception. If I didn't know it was an accident on your part I could be forgiven for thinking you've once again done everything you can to avoid answering such a simple question. I suppose however this is a much better tactic than your previous ones. Saying nothing at least saves me having to read the nonsensical irrelevant crap that you usually use as an avoidance tactic. As it was an accident I shall restate it now:
" Q) Do I have direct perception of gods? A) No, I don't. How hard was that? Your turn:
Q) Do you have direct perception of gods? A) ?"
-----
Experience of the material world in relation to god is the primary step to developing an experience of god
I didn't ask about steps to get to having experience of god, I asked if you had actual experience of god. Your claim that you do because 'the material world exists' is pointless and fallacious.
For the same reason it would be more productive to talk to the high school drop out in third person
Sorry but I beg to differ. The only reason I can tell that you even make such a statement is because you know I'll call you once again on your lack of direct perception, or - if you want to argue that you never said you didn't - your complete inability to even face up to the question, (i.e plain cowardice).
Really?
“.....and if you want to talk about imagination, its your imagination that such a process to give up material desire is successful....”
I guess I just assumed you wrote it in the mood of establishing your position
Uhh... Your guesses and assumptions are without value because.. well...
you wrote that line lol, (post 37).
Bizarre.
According to who? Persons who share the same knowledge base as yourself?
Anyone who is currently alive and has not had direct perception of this supposed other realm. Now, this is where once again you try to impress me with those that claim to have had NDE's, but even this is not sufficient grounds with which to turn around and say it
must be an afterlife. The theist of course will ignore that and profess in a loud voice that heaven exists and as a result of that his particular brand of god exists. All this without them understanding the brain, knowing the particulars of the case etc etc. It didn't take you long and all you did was enter it in google and
then tell me you didn't even read them - but here, this shows heaven does exist. What complete and utter horse poopie. You now, (later on in your post), go on to say that you gave them a 'cursory examination'. Let me ask: out of the ones you did 'examine' how much time was spent looking at arguments against? (Be honest).
Scripture confirms your position
No it doesn't.
Since there are obviously persons who do make claims about the nature of life after death, and since its also equally obvious that they make claims of prerequisites to attain such a state of perception (free from the influence of lust, anger, etc), and since you obviously transgress such prerequisites, it’s not apparent what the value of your opinions or persons like yourself are
So somehow my statement that I do
not say "there is no.." but "there is no evidence to suggest there is.." is somehow valueless? If I made a claim that worshipping a banana will get you £1 million as long as you truly love that banana, you'd undoubtedly be here telling me that your own opinions are meaningless because you lack the prerequisites, (true love for the banana). Your whole argument is silly.
Of course we could go on from there and state that you yourself told me that nobody is free from lust, (other thread). In saying,
nobody satisfies the prerequisites and thus
nobody is going to say anything of value - given your own arguments. You'll probably go on to say that you said "influence of lust", which would get back to my statements on the other thread.. that lust in itself isn't a sin by any means because having lust doesn't mean you're influenced by it. You argued adamantly against this and even dared me to find one person that had lust that wasn't accordingly influenced by it.
Furthermore, as you yourself lack those prerequisites, (unless you claim you're free from lust/anger etc), then anything you say is of no value. So why did you bother telling me it?
As it also stands at the moment, there is no clear empirical indication what it actually is that animates a body and prevents it from rotting either
There are many clear indications, but it is a work in progress. However, this is neither here nor there.. "Any claim that there's this wispy soul inside of us that floats off to another realm is imagination"
Name names.
Even a cursory examination of the 547 hits reveals that there documented incidents of persons who have entered into a state of brain death, and then come out of it, so the similarity between leprechauns appears nebulous
Even a cursory examination of the 520
thousand hits reveals that there are documented incidents of persons seeing leprechauns. Let me ask.. do you honestly believe that even
one of those people has
actually seen a leprechaun? If not, why not?
What does it matter? – You were stating that the brain is the ultimate last word in the distinction between death and life, but NDE’s show otherwise
What does it matter heh... :bugeye:
See how you instantly ascribe NDE's as coming from somewhere other than the brain without the prerequisites to be able to do so - and then when it is questioned, you say "what does it matter? (I'm happy with my answer so the rest can be ignored)". Needless to say it matters a great deal. If the NDE lasts for .2 of a second and occurs while there is brain activity then you simply have no place to say "NDE's show otherwise". There is so much left to investigate that it is not quite time to assume and believe that there are realms out there in the cosmos that one goes to for life part II when they kick the bucket. From what we've gathered though, you don't care.. "What does it matter?" Great.
The brain is known, (depending upon damage caused to it etc), to induce hallucinations etc etc. To then claim that these are signs of other realms, aliens or whatever else the 'brain' can conjure up are simply imagination.
Not sure where you are going
Want me to write slower?
I was expressing the importance of figuring out how long an NDE lasts for and at what particular stage in the process of death. Nevermind.
The thing is, these people are eventually alive and kicking. They sit there and then relate a story: They remember events. This in itself is quite important. If the brain didn't have activity - was truly dead, it wouldn't remember the events that happened and thus the person wouldn't be telling anyone of those events. The way round this now for you is to now add more and more to your imaginations: i.e say that the 'soul' provides the brain with the information, but this is nothing more than imagination.
The amusing thing is that against all the data and evidence will dismiss the brain and say "well there's nothing empirical you can't say that", while happily espousing something that has
nothing to support it as being the case. It's simply ludicrous.
These people 'remember' the events. This shows that the brain (hippocampus) was active. Without that being the case they wouldn't remember.
Nothing like that – what would you require to peruse/understand/perceive in the name of evidence?
That depends purely on the instance. With regards to whether my tea is hot I would require evidence in the form of steam, the feel of the cup, a sip on my tongue. These evidences would tell me the tea is hot. I could take the religious option and just throw it down my throat with the belief that it isn't. This does nobody any good. But as requested before, just give me anything and everything you have. It's a good place to start.
there are others in the field (empiricists too) who are not satisfied with this definition
Names and sources please.
The difference between the seer and the field of action that the seer perceives
This isn't an answer to what was asked from you. What is the difference between the 'brain' and the 'self' and what empirical evidence supports it? Can I mention that quoting the bg isn't really sufficient.
– there is however a variety of evidences in schools of rationalism, (such as “I think therefore I am”)
How does that support a statement that the brain and self are not the same thing?
what was wrong is your statement that people who have NDE’s do not enter a state of being brain dead
Clearly not, otherwise as stated they wouldn't remember the events. The hippocampus has an essential role in the formation of new memories. Without it working.. well.. there'd be nothing to write to paranormal websites about.
And if people had registered full marks on such empirical brain death tests and returned, what then?
Several options:
1) At the moment of death aliens recreate the person, (unobservable to others on earth), and then tractor beams them, (white light), on to their spaceship, does some research on the person and then if they're not 'good enough' for the aliens needs they are then thrown back out the light, the duplicate is 'killed' and the original person comes back to life.
2) The person was glimpsing a form of afterlife
3) Measurments taken by doctors were insufficient, (not their fault just a lack of technology). To their level of knowledge and ability the person was dead, but they were wrong, we just need to wait until tests can improve.
etc etc and so on.
You dismiss plausible scientific explanations, you shrug your shoulders uncaringly at the notion of researching the phenomena, you instantly dismiss any of the other countless possibilities, (such as alien intervention), for no apparent reason other than they sound silly but then espouse that I should believe that people have a soul, the soul floats up a tunnel, decides it can't be bothered, floats back down, downloads the information into the brain and then rejoins this mortal existence when there is
absolutely nothing to support the claim. And somehow you think that's sane? Do me a lemon.
But there is clear evidence for that – one can even draw a historical continuum from Bertrand russel, who is certainly appreciated for his atheistic critiques
So Bertran Russel was pretending to be stupid? That's your evidence? You claim that one guy was pretending to be stupid, (support it), and then espouse that by dint of that everyone else is also pretending to be stupid?
So once again, your crutch is “some people get it wrong therefore everyone gets it wrong”
No, I am stating that human nature shows that people do imagine and create these things and that considering it possible that your god is also one of these human creations is certainly more feasible than to take your stance which is that everyone else created these things but your god, no.. that one is real. It's simply ludicrous to try and argue me down while being in the position you are.
Odin: human creation, Zeus, Apollo, Tiamat, Marduk, santa claus, the tooth fairy, leprechauns, werewolves, vampires, saluting magpies yada yada.. all false. My god? That's real.
Can you not see the inherent idiocy in that?
I'd give some consideration and respect if at the very least you claimed to have direct perception of this entity, but you don't. That leaves you with nothing except a piece of old paper and a personal desire.
there is also much evidence and literature how many claims in the field of science were false – are you prepared to throw that baby out with the baby water as well?
Science can and does get things wrong. That's what it's all about. I'd like, infact demand that if there's evidence against that it be considered and tested. If you find fault then yes, throw it out, (or amend). That is science. Someone makes a claim and everyone gets busy showing it to be wrong.
You don't even
care ("what does it matter?"), you just believe it's true and done with it.
Well that’s the essence of your ‘saluting magpie/sneezing bubonic plague = claims of god are false’ thing. – if not, venture something else
Human nature is really quite apparent and is used in many different areas, (such as modus operandi - it helps police catch the bad guys). What I must object to is you saying "this one is true" out of billions for no good reason, (you don't have direct perception), given no consideration to it being a human creation while happily accepting that billions of others are and go out of your way to espouse to others that it is real but when it comes to the crunch have absolutely nothing to distinguish it to all the other claims that you would happily consider man made. It's perverse and yet you think it's valid. "Leprechauns? ahahaha.. they weren't written about 2000 years ago" :bugeye:
Well what purpose do you have in showing how sometimes people get it wrong (ie salute magpies) as sufficient to determine that all people get it wrong (all claims of god’s existence are socially constructed/imaginative)?
As explained in the last post, (which your quote is actually responding to), that was not the purpose. I respectfully asked that you figure that out to which you now ask why I am saying that which I have already told you I wasn't saying. It's quite bizarre really.
The same way that I know Einstein was a great scientist
There is a difference. You claim this guy as a "saintly person" which, given your stated prerequisites means he must have been totally free from the effects of lust/anger and whatnot. To know this you must have access to all his inner emotions, everything he thought and felt. With Einstein all you need is his paperwork. Now, of course you can get an impression by their actions - much like the community have observed that the priest is a real saintly person that helps the needy, talks to god to save them blah de blah but in secret actually thinks about bonking schoolboys. Sayings like "ooh, he seemed like such a nice person" are commonplace. Now tell me, because I donate to animal charities would that instantly preclude me from being a racist?
Admittedly I couldn't gain that much information considering his name in google only gave 4 sites but by now you'll hopefully realise that knowing someone was a good scientist and knowing the inner mind of someone else are largely different issues.
For the purposes of keeping track of the discussion, you might want to keep it in mind, particularly if we were at the point of discussing marshmallows
Right so it's kept in mind. In either case if you told me that text stated marshmallows were used to make clouds I would have to inform you that the text is wrong. That's all there is to it. The text is wrong.
It has undeniable concomitant factors of suffering
But there is the problem and the point. I have not witnessed one person that was focused on the spiritual that didn't actually suffer just as much as someone focused on the material. In saying, you can't use it as an argument.
material happiness is happiness followed by suffering and spiritual happiness is happiness followed by more happiness
Again there is the problem. You cannot support your claim, and the evidence shows that everyone dies and suffers absolutely bloody regardless to whether they follow material or spiritual happiness. Your statement fails.
