It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Realistic Afterlife

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows




maybe, we don't have anyway of knowing for sure


This is the absolute statement I was speaking about. This is the statement I was saying was an Ipse dixit. How do you know that we don't have any ways of knowing for sure? You don't. You assume such, and also expect me to assume the same, when I have showed we do know for sure, and can provide predictable, repeatable evidence that shows exactly what happens to us after death.

So tell me, why do you deny the evidence?




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah, someone has arrived at absolute certainty.
Stating uncertainty is not ipse dixit.
It's one of the few things that can be taken as a given.
To think otherwise opens the gateway to dogmatic thinking.
Science was built upon accepting uncertainty and factoring it in.
I know, I know.
You'll assert your dogmatic thinking is the most correct, and the world is and would be better for it.
Just like every other dogmatic thinker, be they religious or otherwise.
Just to provide further exposition:


I assume we are all familiar with this term and the phenomenon to which it refers. However, for the sake of clarity, here, I am defining dogmatism as a way of being or existential mode characterized by an extreme demand for absolute certainty, an uncritical and uncompromising adherence to a particular perspective or belief system, and a fierce opposition toward uncertainty and conflicting perspectives or beliefs. According to such a definition, it is possible to be dogmatic in regard to just about anything—any value perspective or belief is a potential vehicle for the unjust and intolerant reductionism of the dogmatic approach toward life. Therefore, in the political sphere, there are dogmatic conservatives, dogmatic liberals, dogmatic moderates, etc.; in the religious sphere there are dogmatic Christians, dogmatic Muslims, dogmatic Buddhists, dogmatic Hindus, etc.; in the intellectual sphere there are dogmatic atheists, dogmatic scientists, dogmatic academics of every discipline, etc.; one can even be a dogmatic opponent of dogmatism.

Of course, an implicit and crucial question must be answered—what it is about dogmatism that is destructive or harmful. My answer to this question is evident within the previously utilized terms “unjust,” “intolerant,” and “reductionism.” Dogmatism, regardless of its particular manifestation, is destructive and harmful because it reduces the full truth of an aspect of reality to something less than what it actually is. It elevates one perspective or belief to a position of absolute authority, thereby negating and devaluing all others that differ from or contradict it. This rigid and severe intolerance toward competing perspectives and beliefs is unjust because it results in a distortion and obscuring of what is true and real, as well as a denial of individual freedom in choosing how to live on the basis of a personal value perspective or belief. I could also cite innumerable current and historical examples of violent and harmful actions toward innocent people resulting from the dogmatic need for certainty or to be “right,” whether in the form of fascist oppression and human rights violations, religious or morally-based “hate crimes,” or an inability to constructively disagree in emotionally-heated debates and discussions.

Surrendering Our Obsession With Certainty: Overcoming the Disease of Dogmatism

Because there is no evidence.
Also, I am rather shocked that I have to point out to you that except in small in scale, with limited parameters situations, proving a negative is impossible.
Looking for some kind of soul organ and not finding it is not proof in any context of the word except to prove there isn't a soul organ.
And I am confused as to why there would be if such a thing does exist.
edit on 28-9-2014 by HarbingerOfShadows because: All your base are belong to Zuul.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

how do you explain NDE from people who have completly died and then suddenly come back after longer than the human brain could possible given a false impression?



NDE is a simple term for "dream", once your body gets close to death, it
produces "rem" sleep hallucinations. Which was also tested on fighter pilots
who were experiencing NDE symptoms passing out from g-forces, they experienced
same type of nDes as other people who came to death.

I've had tons of NDEs through lucid dreaming, does that mean I was dying; No.
Its easy to replicate through dreams, I've encountered all
their silly experiences through my dreams just as well,
you can produce anyone dreams.
You can bring back dead people, animals, aliens,demons, angels,
does this make it real; no. And its all REAL as DAY! just as me and you.
I can hover about above my body, visit friends and family homes
when they appear to be a sleep, but in reality they are at work,
while my mine is falsely implanting information that they are there,
doesnt make it real.
I can pop out of my body, and clearly see my surroundings, can as
well absorb outside information lightly, does this mean I was dying?
NO! The body is smart when it comes to absorbing surrounding
information.

You can produce same effects of NDE through "certain" drugs/substances.

I for one dont like when people NDE as spiritual. Its just
a process of the brain.

There is a huge population who has NEVER EXPERIENCED a LUCID dream IN
their LIFE TIME but they have secretly without knowing it.
Most people might see this as a spirit/mystic
experience, even though its not. So in other words,
if they had lucid dreams before, they could've of debunked themselves.

Being a dreamer is tuff. Trying not to mix dreams with reality.

People should play around with "lucid dreaming", watch their
world turn upside down literally. Dreams are infinite
in creating/editing/changing. However you will it.
This is the reason why 75% of paranormal exists,
while the rest is caused by delusions. I wonder
how much of lucid dreaming conflicts with
religion in terms of stories, I wonder how
they viewed such godly dreams back then,
did they see it as a revelation? or
godly message perhaps? Who knows,
how they perceived "Mental/brain" problems.

Dont forget "sleep paralysis" another form
of rem sleep which causes more paranormal
problems which people dont seem to understand.
This is where all the "alien" abductions was born from.
As with demons/shadow people etc was spawned from.
Its fun play around with our imagination under this state.
You could also consider this a form of lucid dreaming,
once you master it.



posted on Sep, 29 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows


Ah, someone has arrived at absolute certainty.
Stating uncertainty is not ipse dixit.
It's one of the few things that can be taken as a given.
To think otherwise opens the gateway to dogmatic thinking.
Science was built upon accepting uncertainty and factoring it in.
I know, I know.
You'll assert your dogmatic thinking is the most correct, and the world is and would be better for it.
Just like every other dogmatic thinker, be they religious or otherwise.


Apparently not.

Stating uncertainty with absolute certainty is a contradiction. Contradiction holds little weight in matters of reason, and worse, trumpeting a contradiction as certainly true is the most irrational form of dogmatism around. Expecting me to accept your contradiction when you have provided no evidence that proves it to be true is the ipse dixit I’ve been talking about.

How much further can you widen your goal-posts?


Because there is no evidence.


There is plenty of evidence.


Also, I am rather shocked that I have to point out to you that except in small in scale, with limited parameters situations, proving a negative is impossible.


There’s that dogmatism again. Prove it. Oh wait you cannot, because “you cannot prove a negative” is a negative. Whoops. Where are you getting these ideas from? Yes, you can prove a negative.


Looking for some kind of soul organ and not finding it is not proof in any context of the word except to prove there isn't a soul organ.
And I am confused as to why there would be if such a thing does exist.


When you open your wallet and there is no money in there, that is proof there is no money in your wallet.



posted on Oct, 1 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I'm one of those who believe people are spirits as manifestations of the physical. We all have our own version of reality yet it's exactly the same reality and even though we may all be different and react differently to this individual yet similar reality we are all human and our reactions are not infinite but finite.

The spirit goes on when the physical decomposes and then it's either sleep until some (grand, biblical) event wakes up the dead or it is the existence of a restless spirit all in a realm of memories trying to find rest and peace to join the sleepers. In the afterlife, it's spirits that react to eachother just like clockwork.

Finding peace in this life is the most important thing to do lest one becomes one of the restless souls wandering around until this event happens.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


There is plenty of evidence.


In the context you cannot prove a positive?
Hm?


When you open your wallet and there is no money in there, that is proof there is no money in your wallet.


Defininitely one of the poorer analogies.
And that would be that limited variables thing I was talking about.
That you ignored.
But, now had you said checking to see if a certain microrganism was present in the wallet.
It would be closer.
Still not quite directly similiar but close enough.



There’s that dogmatism again. Prove it. Oh wait you cannot, because “you cannot prove a negative” is a negative. Whoops. Where are you getting these ideas from? Yes, you can prove a negative.


Perhaps you should work on comprehending what I'm actually saying hm?
It would save you a great deal of trouble down the line.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

An individual really cannot question what happens to them after they die, they simply are too small in comparison to the systems of life and death and the mechanics of the universe at large.

A being that can function without a "realty" such as a universe, exists as a discreet entity. Knowledge of such beings is dangerous for the average human, for when he questions his existence, he has yet to even to confront his creator, and cannot really comprehend beings that have spawned outside of his own plane of existence.

To attempt to step up to the plate spiritually, is a difficult situation, one must accept that he is still "small" in relation to existence, and that he has no real control over his fate. To accept this is to accept that there are indeed others who are not in the same predicament - such beings possess capabilities that are beyond the reach of the average man, and this is a major blow to the human ego.

To question ones own fate is dangerous, and it is the reason why the "controllers" would prefer us to be happy little drones, because, if one realises how little control they have, in the true sense of the word, they would experience a nightmarish fear that leads many to either self-destruct or commit heinous acts.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: SystemResistor


To question ones own fate is dangerous, and it is the reason why the "controllers" would prefer us to be happy little drones, because, if one realises how little control they have, in the true sense of the word, they would experience a nightmarish fear that leads many to either self-destruct or commit heinous acts.


We do have control over our fate, and this is the reason the "controllers" are in control. While everyone else is going around believing they are too small to change anything, people are making things happen, altering the things of reality, and in effect, changing the course of history. Try skipping to work rather than walking. It seems innocuous, but is in fact a revolutionary act.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows




Perhaps you should work on comprehending what I'm actually saying hm?
It would save you a great deal of trouble down the line.


That's easy for you to say, I'm stuck here reading sentences that double as paragraphs. Carriage returns occur after paragraphs, not sentences.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Doesn't change the meaning of words.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Hi, my name is Mike and I am currently working on a book called, 'How to Debate Atheists.' I have completed the first three chapters and would appreciate any feedback.
mikemanea.com...




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join