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.

 

What do you really know?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Many times when reading these boards, I come across arguments from people who seem to be stating their opinion as undisputed fact. Also, in many cases I suspect that the opinion they're stating is simply the view that was impressed upon them by other people. This is not always the case though, as I've read posts from some people who sincerely appear to have their own personal belief.

Now, I think most people would agree with me that no one knows everything. I admit that there are a lot of things I'm still trying to figure out. I believe that faith is important, however it's hard to base a convincing argument on faith because different people have faith in different things.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I think we should all ask ourselves what legitimate points we can make in discussing spiritual issues. I think that productive debates are possible, but there are some that seem to go nowhere because it's just two people reiterating their beliefs to each other ad nauseam. In conclusion I would just remind everyone (including myself) to be thoughtful, be humble and work together to advance the knowledge of everyone here.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
There's atleast one thing that ANY intelligent person with the ability to think for him/herself can agree on, NO ONE can factually state what created or how the universe came to be. Our universe is finite in what we can observe due to the speed of light. Scientist's say it's 14 some odd billion years old. I agree, the OBSERVABLE universe would be 14 some odd billion years old, but what about objects who's light hasn't yet reached our eyes beyond that finite distance that we can currently observe? The universe for all we know could be trillions of year old.

Point is, no one can nor ever will observe what started this universe. With that known, we can safely and factually say that NO ONE has the answers. It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of god damned common sense, something this planet is in short supply of. Man created the gods, just look through history ffs. These issues are literally no brainers, and yet ... seemingly so DIFFICULT for people to grasp. It just amazes me how many mindless zombies exist on this planet eating up anything and everything someone tells them is truth. People, THINK FOR YOURSELVE'S.

If there is a creator of this universe and all life within it, all I can say is ... HOW BORING. What's to discover when we can default all our questions to "God did it".

If the universe came about through natural means, then it's the most awe inspiring event that I can even imagine. I honestly can't think of anything more awsome and moving and amazing than that. Even life itself, even though semi-proven to be a natural occurence given the PROPER conditions is amazing. We may not have all the answers, and have MANY thing's wrong. But there is one thing we can PROUDLY say. WE DON'T KNOW AND DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. And yes, I mean proudly. Atleast then we can put a real effort into discovery and learning and advancing our intellect, knowledge base, and value of our lives.

Heh ... God did it. The most boring intellectually lazy answer to the questions without answers.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
There's atleast one thing that ANY intelligent person with the ability to think for him/herself can agree on, NO ONE can factually state what created or how the universe came to be.

Yeah, I can agree with that.


Point is, no one can nor ever will observe what started this universe.

I agree with this as well from the standpoint of life on earth, however if an afterlife exists then who knows?


Man created the gods, just look through history ffs.

In my opinion, there are two general ways of analyzing the various gods/religious beliefs. On one hand, they could be entirely false and a meaningless creation of man. On the other, they could be ways of trying to explain otherwise unexplainable divine forces or simply natural processes or both. I have read some interesting things about certain gods of antiquity being symbolic of natural processes. In any case, the fact that some kind of religious belief has been present in virtually every society in history is very interesting to me.


If there is a creator of this universe and all life within it, all I can say is ... HOW BORING. What's to discover when we can default all our questions to "God did it".

If the universe came about through natural means, then it's the most awe inspiring event that I can even imagine.

But who's to say that God isn't behind the natural processes that created the universe? Why are God and natural processes exclusive ideas in your opinion? I agree that "God did it" doesn't tangibly explain anything. It could be true, but even if it is we don't know "how God did it".



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   


I agree with this as well from the standpoint of life on earth, however if an afterlife exists then who knows?


There is no afterlife. Common sense and common knowledge will teach you that. People need to think for themselve's and not blindly follow some archiac primitive concept. Man created the afterlife. You try and explain to your kid what happens when a person dies. Even from an atheistic standpoint, it's too hard for me to explain death to a child. They're not ready for that kind of a shocker.

We can also look at different cultures and see how no afterlife is the same. We can look through history and see how our concept of an afterlife has evolved and changed. Seriously, put on your thinking cap for abit.



In my opinion, there are two general ways of analyzing the various gods/religious beliefs. On one hand, they could be entirely false and a meaningless creation of man. On the other, they could be ways of trying to explain otherwise unexplainable divine forces or simply natural processes or both. I have read some interesting things about certain gods of antiquity being symbolic of natural processes. In any case, the fact that some kind of religious belief has been present in virtually every society in history is very interesting to me.


Yes, it is interesting that we've managed to find religion in almost every civilization. But looking at the worlds religions, not everyone came to the same conclusion. They're way to different compared to each other. Aborigine's, native americans, and hipochristianity have nothing in common with each other, except that they claim the universe and life was created and that there's an afterlife.

And let's look back and think abit about that. People like to be know it alls. They just HAVE to have an answer to anything. The first issue, the universe and how it got here... people wanted to know how and why. Obviously they didn't have the technology back then to conduct any scientific experiments and discover the big bang, and so... the gods did it. Same problem arises with life. Same answer. The afterlife is more philosophical and psychological then anything else.



But who's to say that God isn't behind the natural processes that created the universe? Why are God and natural processes exclusive ideas in your opinion? I agree that "God did it" doesn't tangibly explain anything. It could be true, but even if it is we don't know "how God did it".


It could very well be that some intelligent being created the universe or the very fabric of existence. But such a concept is ill logic. Just as some magical entity could've existed for all of eternity, so could the very fabric of reality that lead to our universe without the need for such a fancifull creator. Problem is, know one know's, nor ever will. I tend to exlude the two as seperate for a very good common sense reason. The two are seperate. It's not NATURAL to be created at the whims of some fancifull being. That's like saying a television set can come about through natural means in an isolated forest despite the fact that man made it. How is that natural? Nature doesn't get built.

Honestly, really think about this and just forget everything you were taught. No one's witnessed the creation of this universe. It's all just guess's. Look at ALL the worlds religions, both past and present and how they mesh and evolve with each other. Look at the ACTIONS of those followers through out history. And please understand that not even science itself will ever have a factual answer as to how the universe came to be.

Just accept that we don't know and never will know. There's more important thing's to worry about.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
There is no afterlife. Common sense and common knowledge will teach you that.

You sound pretty sure of this. Maybe you should refer to the title of this thread. If you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that you cannot prove this claim.


We can also look at different cultures and see how no afterlife is the same. We can look through history and see how our concept of an afterlife has evolved and changed. Seriously, put on your thinking cap for abit.

Just because people have different conceptions of the afterlife doesn't negate the possibility of an afterlife. People's beliefs don't change reality, whatever that may be.


Yes, it is interesting that we've managed to find religion in almost every civilization. But looking at the worlds religions, not everyone came to the same conclusion. They're way to different compared to each other. Aborigine's, native americans, and hipochristianity have nothing in common with each other, except that they claim the universe and life was created and that there's an afterlife.

There are/have been many seemingly contradictory belief systems. As you mentioned though, there is a common thread linking them together.


And let's look back and think abit about that. People like to be know it alls. They just HAVE to have an answer to anything.

If this is the case, then you could also legitimately ask why people are so obsessed with a search for meaning.


The afterlife is more philosophical and psychological then anything else.

The way I see it, an afterlife either exists or does not exist.


It could very well be that some intelligent being created the universe or the very fabric of existence. But such a concept is ill logic. Just as some magical entity could've existed for all of eternity, so could the very fabric of reality that lead to our universe without the need for such a fancifull creator. Problem is, know one know's, nor ever will. I tend to exlude the two as seperate for a very good common sense reason. The two are seperate. It's not NATURAL to be created at the whims of some fancifull being. That's like saying a television set can come about through natural means in an isolated forest despite the fact that man made it. How is that natural? Nature doesn't get built.

The point I was making is that "God" could be the force which set the natual laws and forces in motion.


Honestly, really think about this and just forget everything you were taught. No one's witnessed the creation of this universe. It's all just guess's. Look at ALL the worlds religions, both past and present and how they mesh and evolve with each other. Look at the ACTIONS of those followers through out history. And please understand that not even science itself will ever have a factual answer as to how the universe came to be.

Just accept that we don't know and never will know. There's more important thing's to worry about.

Believe me, I don't rely on anyone else's opinion to form my own. As for the religions evolving and meshing with each other, who's to say that's not the point? Maybe religions evolve along with everything else. Anyway, you're the one who started the debate on the creation of the universe. I think it's an interesting subject to ponder, but it's not keeping me up at night or anything.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Sometimes Fact is fact and reason is fact. Just because some people don't want to accept it doesn't mean its not true



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   


You sound pretty sure of this. Maybe you should refer to the title of this thread. If you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that you cannot prove this claim.


Yes, I am sure of this. And this has been proven many time's over already. No, it's not on the 6 o'clock news day in and day out. Which is why people need to activley learn and not just arbitarily believe ANYTHING someone presents to them without any evidence that can be fully scrutinized by your own personage.



Just because people have different conceptions of the afterlife doesn't negate the possibility of an afterlife. People's beliefs don't change reality, whatever that may be.


Different conceptions based upon cultural and religous refrences. A hindu for example will NOT have an hipochristian afterlife experience. Are we to now think there are thousands of differing afterlife worlds specificly created for thousands of various cultural and religous beliefs and even an afterlife for electromagnetic fields passing through the living brain? I bet you believe in talking snakes ruining society as well.



There are/have been many seemingly contradictory belief systems. As you mentioned though, there is a common thread linking them together.


And that one and only one thing is some form of creator OR creator's. Yet without any evidence that this is truth and reality. A theory developed by a primitive people who did not have the technology to discover anything that would lead to any NON supernatural mystical talking snake mumbo jumbo. A primitive theory who's only sole reason for lasting as long as it has by WAR and destruction. That speaks volumes right there. Take out the earplugs.



If this is the case, then you could also legitimately ask why people are so obsessed with a search for meaning.


Good philosophical question. Why people are so obsessed is beyond me. The answer is pretty clear cut.



The way I see it, an afterlife either exists or does not exist.


It could exist. Who knows. Problem is however, we have no evidence in favor and tons against. Same issue with a supernatural diety and with talking snakes.



The point I was making is that "God" could be the force which set the natual laws and forces in motion.


COULD BE. Correct. But SHOULD people let COULD BE'S run their entire live's? I myself COULD BE god. You can either accept that and be on my good side or you can write me off as a ranting loon. Writing me off as a ranting loon COULD BE a bad idea if I am god. Are you now going to worship me as I so rightly deserve because I COULD BE god?

The universe has just as much chance as comming about without the need of hundreds of magical beings. Common sense. I don't let maybe's and could be's run my life, nor should anyone else.



Believe me, I don't rely on anyone else's opinion to form my own. As for the religions evolving and meshing with each other, who's to say that's not the point? Maybe religions evolve along with everything else. Anyway, you're the one who started the debate on the creation of the universe. I think it's an interesting subject to ponder, but it's not keeping me up at night or anything.


Religions do evolve along with everything else. That's a given. They've evolved so much that they are nothing at all like what was worshipped when they were first concieved. Granted, I did bring it up, and the thread title is What do you know. This is one thing I do know. That we DON'T know. I just wish people would accept that.

Why I brought up what I have is this ..

"The point I'm trying to make here is that I think we should all ask ourselves what legitimate points we can make in discussing spiritual issues."

And seeing as how the creation of the universe, religion and afterlife are all spiritual issues, it makes perfect sense to point out that not even religion KNOW'S. The truth shouldn't have to evolve constantly. Religion claiming to have that ultimate truth shouldn't CHANGE that ultimate truth just to suite it own politcal agendas and gain a wider spectrum of followers. These are all seriously just common sense points.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rock Lobster
The point I'm trying to make here is that I think we should all ask ourselves what legitimate points we can make in discussing spiritual issues. I think that productive debates are possible, but there are some that seem to go nowhere because it's just two people reiterating their beliefs to each other ad nauseam. In conclusion I would just remind everyone (including myself) to be thoughtful, be humble and work together to advance the knowledge of everyone here.


Here, here! I used to teach undergrads philosophy a while back. The most difficult challenge was getting them to, first, admit that there were opposing points of view to their own; two, try to get them to see why the other person holds the views they do; three, construct the strongest argument possible for a view that opposes their own.

Have you ever read Eric Hoffer's book The True Believer? It focuses primarily on how mass movements such as fascism and communism are formed and motivated, although he does not spare other movements such as Christianity. Anyway, the psychology of the true believer is such that they believe their perspective to be not only impervious to scrutiny, but indeed that other views simply do not exist. I'm sure all of us have talked to a true believer, where they simply refuse to engage in debate about anything other than what they already hold to be true.

I read the True Believer in an intro to philosophy course once, and the freightening thing was those students who wildly applauded the premises of the book tended to be those students in the class who simply could not conceptualize or argue against their own positions. My standard reply to those students who called other arguments stupid or irrational or non-sensical, was that they must have felt their own arguements were very poorly formulated, if they did not believe that their arguments could not withstand rational scrutiny. (In lieu of denigrating other possibilities as being ignorant.)

[edit on 8/18/2006 by Toromos]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Im kinda confused....

IF you guys keep going back and forth, which all do on this forum, then there is no such thing as absolute truth. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, why bother to debate if nothing can be proven in math or any other sense of the word to be absolute ? My point is that everything is an opinion. EVERYTHING can be debated and EVERYTHING has two sides to it. Thats kinda the point of life, to debate. If there was absolute anything then man would just one day be sitting in the corner and saying..."well, thats the answer so I guess there is nothing more to talk about."

Sorry if i dont post more, i am not an intellectual type, my mind is mechanical, the speach part dosnt work as good.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by R3KR]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
In reference to the afterlife:

Originally posted by Prot0n
Yes, I am sure of this. And this has been proven many time's over already. No, it's not on the 6 o'clock news day in and day out. Which is why people need to activley learn and not just arbitarily believe ANYTHING someone presents to them without any evidence that can be fully scrutinized by your own personage.

This was later followed by . . .


It could exist. Who knows. Problem is however, we have no evidence in favor and tons against.


So you see that you are contradicting yourself here. In your initial response you claimed you were sure an afterlife does not exist and in your later response you claimed you were unsure or whether this was the case. Also, if you'd like to share I'd like to hear some of the evidence you're talking about.



Different conceptions based upon cultural and religous refrences. A hindu for example will NOT have an hipochristian afterlife experience. Are we to now think there are thousands of differing afterlife worlds specificly created for thousands of various cultural and religous beliefs and even an afterlife for electromagnetic fields passing through the living brain?


Yes, but just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. Even though Christian and Hindu conceptions of the afterlife differ, that does not in itself disprove the existence of an afterlife. Who's to say there isn't an element of truth in both belief systems? Maybe the problem is that no one group has a completely accurate conception of what the afterlife is.


I bet you believe in talking snakes ruining society as well.


This is a baseless accusation.

Prot0n, I have to say that certain parts of your posts are exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when starting this thread. We've had some legitimate debate, but at times you've also belligerently pushed your views as fact and made unfounded assumptions about my beliefs. What's the deal?



[edit on 18-8-2006 by Rock Lobster]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Prot0n, what do you really know??



Originally posted by Prot0n
There's atleast one thing that ANY intelligent person with the ability to think for him/herself can agree on, NO ONE can factually state what created or how the universe came to be.

But there is one thing we can PROUDLY say. WE DON'T KNOW AND DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.


How then can you be so "factual" when stating this??



There is no afterlife.


You also stated:



People need to think for themselve's


I find this really odd since you then go on several times telling others WHAT TO THINK and that if they believe otheriwse they are "not thinking". Obviously you want everyone to believe as you do but how then would they be "thinking for themselves"??

In other words, people ARE IN FACT thinking for themselves because they have views different from yours, understand?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
Im kinda confused....

IF you guys keep going back and forth, which all do on this forum, then there is no such thing as absolute truth. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, why bother to debate if nothing can be proven in math or any other sense of the word to be absolute ? My point is that everything is an opinion. EVERYTHING can be debated and EVERYTHING has two sides to it. Thats kinda the point of life, to debate. If there was absolute anything then man would just one day be sitting in the corner and saying..."well, thats the answer so I guess there is nothing more to talk about."

Sorry if i dont post more, i am not an intellectual type, my mind is mechanical, the speach part dosnt work as good.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by R3KR]


To deny Truth is to confirm it. In other words, "Do you deny Absolute Truth?" The person being asked responds, "Yes, I do" The person asking the question then replies with, "So you absolutely believe that Truth is not absolute?"

I'm sure you see the dilemma for the person denying Truth is Absolute. You personally fall into this dilemma. Allow me to explain.

You state:



If there is no such thing as absolute truth, why bother to debate if nothing can be proven in math or any other sense of the word to be absolute ? My point is that everything is an opinion. EVERYTHING can be debated and EVERYTHING has two sides to it.


So do you then believe that "everything is an opinion" to be absolutely true?

See what I mean?

The reason people seek to deny Truth is because if they confrim it then they must deal with another question..."Who authors that Truth?"



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
One thing I can tell you all that I definitely 100% know for sure without a doubt is this,.....

Anyone that thinks they know all the answers, are only fooling themselves.

Even egos should be used in moderation.

That's my two cents.

Later,... Ausable_Bill



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Toromos, thanks for the interesting post. I have not read The True Believer, but I'm interested in reading it after hearing your description. It's pretty ironic that the students who were into the book's premise were the very people the book was describing. Maybe they were so certain they were right that they automatically viewed any critique of closed-mindedness as applying to "those other people who are wrong".



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   


So you see that you are contradicting yourself here. In your initial response you claimed you were sure an afterlife does not exist and in your later response you claimed you were unsure or whether this was the case. Also, if you'd like to share I'd like to hear some of the evidence you're talking about.


I don't believe that I am contradicting myself on that issue. I never claimed that I was unsure, not once. Don't misrepresent me. Granted I DID say there COULD BE, but the evidence AGAINST is so vast compared to NO evidence for. Hence the whole reasoning behind me saying that there is no afterlife. I hope this clears thing's up abit. As for this evidence. Learn. Go look for it yourself.



Yes, but just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. Even though Christian and Hindu conceptions of the afterlife differ, that does not in itself disprove the existence of an afterlife. Who's to say there isn't an element of truth in both belief systems? Maybe the problem is that no one group has a completely accurate conception of what the afterlife is.


With the numerous experiments done, all repeatable mind you, we know the brain induces these experiences based upon cultural and religous beliefs. Not inaccurate misrepresentations of an afterlife. No two NDE's are alike. It's almost like a friggin fingerprint. You can't find two exact descriptions. This is a no brainer issue for those who've bothered to look into it.



Prot0n, I have to say that certain parts of your posts are exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when starting this thread. We've had some legitimate debate, but at times you've also belligerently pushed your views as fact and made unfounded assumptions about my beliefs. What's the deal?


Yes, it was a pretty baseless assumption. I wouldn't agree that we've had any legitimate debate however. It's like debating that Copperfield is a real magician performing supernatural mind over matter hocus pocus despite all the evidence for such an ignorant argument is pointing to a more mundane and provable argument. For example, there's no proof of a god or gods. Yet there is proof that MAN made up gods and religions surrounding those god's and these evolved over the course of time due to political and cultural means and to a certain degree, even technological advancments have had a small effect. This is more prominent today and easily seen. There's no proof of an afterlife either. That one is just common sense. These people are NEAR DEATH. None have ever actually 100% died. Their brains are still functioning to some degree. We don't live in a movie. You can't resucitate a fully 100% dead body. Our intstruments and technologies aren't 100% trustworthy and HAVE given wrong diagnosis's before and continue to do so to this very day. People still get wrongly pronounced as dead. Some monks can even fool our machines into thinking they are officially dead through biofeedback. Etc etc and etc. A legitimate debate would be one of having both parties presenting evidence for their argument. Not baseless arguments of could be's and what if's and maybe's. Mine's easily attainable, evidence for god or afterlife is a matter of FAITH, not evidence as none presently exist's.

What do you really know indeed.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n

A legitimate debate would be one of having both parties presenting evidence for their argument . . . As for this evidence. Learn. Go look for it yourself.

You're killing me here.



With the numerous experiments done, all repeatable mind you, we know the brain induces these experiences based upon cultural and religous beliefs. Not inaccurate misrepresentations of an afterlife. No two NDE's are alike. It's almost like a friggin fingerprint. You can't find two exact descriptions. This is a no brainer issue for those who've bothered to look into it.


I admit I haven't researched NDEs thoroughly, but I looked around a little and found this:



Typically the experience follows a distinct progression (Mauro, 1992; Morse, Conner & Tyler, 1985; Morse & Perry, 1992; van Lommel et.al, 2001) as summarized in the following points:
The sudden awareness that one has had a "fatal" accident and not survived.
An out-of-body experience. A sensation of floating above one's body and seeing the surrounding area.
Pleasant feelings, calmness. A sense of overwhelming love and peace.
A sensation of moving upwards through a tunnel or narrow passageway.
Meeting deceased relatives or spiritual figures.
Encountering a being of light, or a light (possibly a religious figure, e.g., Jesus Christ / God the Father, Buddha).
Being given a life review.
A feeling of being returned to the body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return.


So it appears that there are similar aspects found in many NDEs.


A legitimate debate would be one of having both parties presenting evidence for their argument. Not baseless arguments of could be's and what if's and maybe's. Mine's easily attainable, evidence for god or afterlife is a matter of FAITH, not evidence as none presently exist's.


I admit I don't know everything so I don't usually assert many things as facts. After reading your initial post on the thread, I decided to play devil's advocate a little bit and pose questions to you regarding your beliefs.

In my opinion though, there are some observable things that point to a life outside of the present. For example, out of body experiences - these at least show that there is something more to us than the physical body. Now you could classify OBEs as an illusion created by the mind, but I've heard of cases of people expressing a loss of fear relating to death after having an OBE. Same thing with NDEs. This seems to suggest there is something more to these phenomena. Also, there have been cases of young children recounting a past life and in some of these cases the information they gave was verified (things like the location of a former home and recorded historical events).

As you said though, it ultimately comes down to faith. I completely agree. I'm not trying to prove anything to you here, just posing possibilities.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   


So it appears that there are similar aspects found in many NDEs.


Really now? Keep searching and keep learning. Most NDE research you'll find is usually of the hipochristian variety, as your exerpt show's.. seeing jesus or god. That just bring's us back to the cultural and religous factors of NDE's. A hindu, aboriginal or ancient egyptian NEVER report that they seen jesus and company.



In my opinion though, there are some observable things that point to a life outside of the present. For example, out of body experiences - these at least show that there is something more to us than the physical body. Now you could classify OBEs as an illusion created by the mind, but I've heard of cases of people expressing a loss of fear relating to death after having an OBE. Same thing with NDEs. This seems to suggest there is something more to these phenomena. Also, there have been cases of young children recounting a past life and in some of these cases the information they gave was verified (things like the location of a former home and recorded historical events).


The one thing you have to remember in regards to NDE's, no one actually died. Like I said, we don't live in a movie and don't bring back zombies. The body is still functioning to some varying degree, hence the name NEAR DEATH. This does little to suggest that there is some magical afterlife as no one has died to witness it. The mind can do funny thing's durring a traumatic experience, and if nearly dying isn't traumatic then I don't know what is. There has been ton's of research done on how NDE's work. What's going on inside the brain. We can pass an electromagnetic field through the brain and if your hipochristian you'll recount your experience of seeing god or jesus, if you believe in UFO's you'll recount an alien abduction experience. Etc Etc Etc. These are repeatable experiments. Now THAT should say something about NDE's. Your not dead durring them. No two are alike even within the same culture and religous beliefs, and they are EASILY induced. Past life stuff, I don't know too much about really but if there was something to it beyond heresy then I'm sure the scientific community would be all of it.



As you said though, it ultimately comes down to faith. I completely agree. I'm not trying to prove anything to you here, just posing possibilities.


With abit more searching you'd know that those aren't possibilities. Knowledge is power my friend.



posted on Aug, 21 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   


Really now? Keep searching and keep learning. Most NDE research you'll find is usually of the hipochristian variety, as your exerpt show's.. seeing jesus or god. That just bring's us back to the cultural and religous factors of NDE's. A hindu, aboriginal or ancient egyptian NEVER report that they seen jesus and company.


You'll notice that they listed Buddha as well. They were just giving examples of some of the various figures that are seen under the general heading of "being of light". Like you said, these different figures would indicate cultural differences, but outside of this there were shared experiences such as leaving the body, feelings of calm and joy, going through a tunnel etc.



Past life stuff, I don't know too much about really but if there was something to it beyond heresy then I'm sure the scientific community would be all of it.


You would certainly think that the scientific community would be all over this sort of thing, but not necessarily. For one thing, there's probably a certain stigma attached to investigating things like past lives. Some might think that it would damage their credibility as a scientist and avoid it. Besides, science deals with observable, testable phenomena. Even if you were to find someone with a past life story that you could corroborate, there's still no way to "scientifically prove it" at this time. Either you would acknowledge that we live multiple lives or you would have to chalk up it up to some currently unknown cause such as some sort of universal mind for example.



With abit more searching you'd know that those aren't possibilities. Knowledge is power my friend.


Knowledge is power, but I disagree with the statement that one can definitely rule out those possibilities. As Benjamin Disraeli said, "To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge."




top topics



 
0

log in

join