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.

 

Spiritual Evolution

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Some religious doctrines believe in the evolution of the soul, concerning reincarnation. But Do We or Can We reincarnate in to Animals? Or do we just reincarnate in to an-lightened form of man, which can be a primitive form (survival). Also are we bound to the wheel of human re-birth, and must live in body, after body? Or is Reincarnation just myths and stories without proof?




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
The idea of any kind of after life gives people comfort in times of grief or when they face the prospect of losing a loved one . However just like the existence of a higher power an afterlife including variations such as reincarnation is an fictional idea created by people that has been sold as truth .

Cheers xpert11 .



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
We have no real substantial proof of any-thing concerning reincarnation, or heaven. I'm not a real skeptic; but most might find their own sense of proof within themselves.
And xpert11 your blog and especially "Music Monday's" is pretty good.

Double Cheers for Xper11

[edit on 30-3-2009 by WhatsThat]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The idea of any kind of after life gives people comfort in times of grief or when they face the prospect of losing a loved one . However just like the existence of a higher power an afterlife including variations such as reincarnation is an fictional idea created by people that has been sold as truth .

Cheers xpert11 .


Actually, I think what you've said is what has been "sold as truth". You couldn't possibly know that as fact, because the very act of even "knowing" anything beyond death in itself constitutes life after death.

And in fact, depending on how the person lives their life there is much more comfort in living and thinking there is no consequences of this life, and what is done here only matters in the current life and has no effect or consequences on the person, vs having to answer for all the bad things you've done in life.

If I were someone who had done things like Hitler for example, I think I'd be a bit more comfortable thinking nothing was going to happen after death than thinking I might have to answer to a greater authority about what I had done.

But all in all, you exhibit the classic problem with those who believe like you do. You view yourselves not as consciousness/soul, but as a physical body. And as such, you can't possibly imagine anything that doesn't involve that physical body. Sad really.

However, I know that I am not my body, I am consciousness. I am born of the virgin father and my body is just a possession. And as consciousness, the only one who can kill that is the father, which is in the end the only consciousness that exists, and has always been, always will be and is impossible to not exist, as the moment it didn't exist there wouldn't be anything conscious to "know it".

To the OP: I don't know if it's possible to reincarnate into animals and such, but it certainly could be possible. Really it's a matter if they have souls/consciousness or not to begin with. If they have souls and conscientiousness then the answer I believe would be yes, as in reality what "you" are is already incarnated into them.

However, if that means that you can experience it, and at the same time remember this current life, then I would have to say the answer is no. Because in order for such experiences to exist, including our current experience, it requires a lack of knowing. If you remembered this experience while being an animal, then you are no longer really that animal, you are a "human" inside an "animal". Only if you did not have knowledge of the human life, could you actually experience being the "animal". Not to say it wouldn't be possible for that to happen, just that the experience by default would not be one of being an animal.

As all consciousness is in the end the father, and a soul is just an "individual" consciousness within the father, then technically "you" are already incarnated in those animals, and of course in other people as well. Thus why the commandments are not just laws, but actual sin against the father. Thus why the body is a temple of god, and so forth. This is the father/son relationship. Where as the father is the sum total of all consciousness, is all knowing and has experienced all things, you are the son/daughter in which has the individual experience, and do not know all or anything beyond your own experience. Again, a requirement to have the individual experience in the first place, same as with the animals etc.

Hope that makes sense.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Actually, I think what you've said is what has been "sold as truth". You couldn't possibly know that as fact, because the very act of even "knowing" anything beyond death in itself constitutes life after death.


Well based on the facts available it is only reasonable to conclude that claims concerning the existence of an afterlife e.t.c are false .




If I were someone who had done things like Hitler for example, I think I'd be a bit more comfortable thinking nothing was going to happen after death than thinking I might have to answer to a greater authority about what I had done.


Hitler was a Catholic so it is unlikely that he didn't think about an after life . Terrorist organizations use the idea of an after life to recruit suicide bombers . On the whole your argument simply doesnt work .


But all in all, you exhibit the classic problem with those who believe like you do. You view yourselves not as consciousness/soul, but as a physical body. And as such, you can't possibly imagine anything that doesn't involve that physical body. Sad really.


Another false hood I don't deny the existence of Gravity for example. It just so happens that I don't support wild claims that are not backed up by any evidence . As for the rest you have completely lost me .



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Well based on the facts available it is only reasonable to conclude that claims concerning the existence of an afterlife e.t.c are false .


Really, I'd like to hear some of these well based facts concerning the afterlife. I'd also like to hear more about how anything outside of your current very small and limited perspective of even the known universe, in such a small % of the time this universe has existed can be "reasonably" concluded as false? If anything, the reasonable conclusion would be - I really don't know one way or another. And at the very least, a lot more honest.



Hitler was a Catholic so it is unlikely that he didn't think about an after life . Terrorist organizations use the idea of an after life to recruit suicide bombers . On the whole your argument simply doesnt work .


What does what he thought have to do with if he has to face what he did in his life? Your opinion is based only on the assumption that such talk is only a means to try and control people. I'm sure I can point out people who do such things who don't believe in an afterlife as well. The entire point had nothing to do with if people act accordingly, but rather which was more comforting.




Another false hood I don't deny the existence of Gravity for example. It just so happens that I don't support wild claims that are not backed up by any evidence . As for the rest you have completely lost me .


Not only do you not support "wild claims", you deny they are even possible. Sure, it is honest to and fine to not support things you don't know, but you step beyond that point when you deny the existence because "evidence" isn't present in your perspective.

Again, your perspective on this universe is so tiny, I think it's pretty arrogant to claim that which is beyond our perspective is impossible. I don't blame you if you don't believe me, that's fine. But to say it is false for sure, well that is arrogance.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
What in the world are you on about ?
All I did was point out that a belief in an after life doesnt necessary mean people will think twice about there actions . I would say that the idea of an afterlife is just a part of the fabrications from organized religion , which is nothing more then a tool for controlling the masses .
Sure new plants and stars e.t.c have been discovered but none of that points to the existence of an afterlife . So once again your point is null and void .
Your making claims that are not backed by any evidence and you claim that I am showing arrogance ! LOL

I didn't say that the existence of an Afterlife is impossible what I am saying is that based on the lack of evidence the only reasonable conclusion is that an Afterlife doesnt exist .



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


Are you aware of what Critical thinking, or Critical reasoning is?

en.wikipedia.org...



Thinking is often casual or routine, whereas critical thinking deliberately evaluates the quality of thinking. In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser writes that the ability to think critically involves three things:[4]

1. An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experiences,
2. Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,
3. Some skill in applying those methods.


As such, it is only logical that in order for one to know if there is an afterlife or not, a basic requirement would be for that person to be alive after death, thus the only way one could know if the afterlife is real or not, is if there is an afterlife.

As such, it is logically impossible for someone to make a claim that there is no afterlife. Because the claim by default constitutes having an afterlife to actually know. So for you to make the claim there is no afterlife is not at all based on logic, it is just an arrogant claim. The only honest and logical claim that would be valid in such a case is that one doesn't know one way or another.

Now, you were the one who first made the claim that those who believed in an afterlife did it for their own comfort.



The idea of any kind of after life gives people comfort in times of grief or when they face the prospect of losing a loved one .


And then I pointed out that is not exactly true, if what people who believe in religion actually say is true, then it's not something people who have lived lives like Hitler would look forward to. It has nothing to do with if it actually changes their actions, you were pointing out beliefs. Your comment about if it made Hitler think twice about his actions was irrelevant to the claims you made previously, and irrelevant to the point I was trying to show after.

Lets assume you did the actions of Hitler and you did what he did. Which would be more comforting to you; That when you die it's all over and it didn't matter, or that when you die you are going to be punished for every wrong thing you did?

You set the premise up in your first post, not me. Which was basically that people who believe in such things are stupid and it isn't based in intelligence. I'm your huckleberry.

Belief in such things isn't just about feeling good and being comfortable. The source of such things come from people who weren't stuck on the material world and looked beyond it, which logic, critical reasoning and a divine source that answers mens thirst for such knowledge and understanding that is beyond those who can't look, see or ask about anything beyond their own perspectives and what they think to be "real".

Can you find examples of people who do? Sure, we can find examples of most everything.







[edit on 4-4-2009 by badmedia]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
From the source you posted .


Critical thinking gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the nature of the problem


There is no evidence in the first place to base any theory on !
So all the rest is redundant. You don't seem to grasp that the fact that I am not dealing in absolutes .
Look let me try and explain this better .
Person A " Mr X committed such and such a crime . "
Person B " There is no evidence to point to Mr X committing the crime ."

Sure its possible that Mr X committed the crime in question but there is no reason to think so based on the lack evidence available . Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof . When the people who make such extraordinary claims aren't taken seriously because they fail to back up there claims with any evidence , they get there knickers in a twist .

The same goes for the existence of a higher power or gods . You claimed as I understand that either yourself or other people find that the thought of an afterlife makes them think twice about there actions . Then you used Hitler as an example of someone who could have benefited from such an idea .

I pointed out that wasn't the case with Hitler . What you fail to grasp is that the Nazis were so convinced that they were doing the right thing that any thoughts of facing some kind of punishment in an afterlife wouldn't have entered there heads . Umm belief in an afterlife and religion aren't mutually exclusive .

I never said that people who believe in an afterlife are dumb . You are putting words in my mouth or just following the same old script regardless of how the discussion goes . I have found that people who argue on the side of faith tend to do this . I am fully of the school of thought that your neighbor is more important then your TV such ideas have nothing to do wild claims that are made from some quarters .

Are you asking me to give an example of someone who takes comfort from the idea of there being an afterlife ?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
There is no evidence in the first place to base any theory on !
So all the rest is redundant. You don't seem to grasp that the fact that I am not dealing in absolutes .
Look let me try and explain this better .
Person A " Mr X committed such and such a crime . "
Person B " There is no evidence to point to Mr X committing the crime ."

Sure its possible that Mr X committed the crime in question but there is no reason to think so based on the lack evidence available . Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof . When the people who make such extraordinary claims aren't taken seriously because they fail to back up there claims with any evidence , they get there knickers in a twist .


Fine, you made the claim that the afterlife isn't real, and is just people using it for comfort. Prove your claim. You can't, as I pointed out the very act of proving it false is impossible. As such, while you are asking those people to provide evidence for their claims, you yourself can not provide evidence for your claims either.

So, the best you can claim is that you do not know 1 way or another. That is the only honest and logical position one could take, unless personal proof was somehow given to them. And in such a case personal proof was given, it would only be valid to the person it was given too.

That a lack of evidence is present with Mr X neither proves or disproves he did the crime. Thus, the importance put on an alibi. Because the alibi proves there is no way that person committed the crime. Until an alibi is established, the person remains a possible suspect.

Because it would be impossible to prove there is no afterlife, you can not rule it out. To rule it out would be the same as ruling out Mr X without an alibi.

So, when you come into the thread and say it's not real and just done for comfort, you are the one making assertions for something without proof, on something that is also impossible to prove. Could it be correct? It is possible, but my own personal experiences tell me otherwise. Are my personal experiences evidence for you? No, and that is fine. But for your to deny it of others and rule it out is not very smart.



The same goes for the existence of a higher power or gods . You claimed as I understand that either yourself or other people find that the thought of an afterlife makes them think twice about there actions . Then you used Hitler as an example of someone who could have benefited from such an idea .


I am not a man of faith. I don't just accept things because it's written in a book or whatever. I know the father exists, as I know the father. The father is within. Not a man in the clouds, not external, but internal. As such, it is impossible for me to prove to you that the father is real. And once again - that is fine, I completely understand. Nobody could have ever convinced me it was true until I actually experienced and found out for myself. But I didn't say it was impossible before hand, I said - I do not know.

That I can not prove it to you is the same as above. It neither proves or disproves god. And of course the only logical and honest answer would be - I don't know, unless you have personal experience. Think you know where this is going.

So prove to me a dream is real. Oh sure, we all know they are real because we experience dreams, but prove to me dreams are real. You can't do it? Why? Because it is within you. We can prove brain waves and such, but we can't prove they are dreams anymore than viewing electrical charges in a wire have dreams. But how do we know they are real? Personal experience. And because of your personal experience, what would you think of someone who thought dreams weren't real? You'd probably think they were crazy, but if they had never had a dream you could probably understand why they think that.

There is nothing that can replace actually knowing for yourself, and there is no reason to settle for less than that. But good luck finding that for yourself with an attitude that anything that isn't in your perspective and understanding is by default impossible unless someone proves otherwise. That is what you call a box, and rather than expanding your box you ask for people to throw things into your box nicely and neatly packaged for your consumption.

You can look "out there" into the box for your answers if you want, but some things are found "in there".



I pointed out that wasn't the case with Hitler . What you fail to grasp is that the Nazis were so convinced that they were doing the right thing that any thoughts of facing some kind of punishment in an afterlife wouldn't have entered there heads . Umm belief in an afterlife and religion aren't mutually exclusive .


You can find examples to point out, stereotype and use to paint a big group for ALL sides. What Hitler believed was NOT the point. The point was asking you a question, regarding his actions.

Again, if you had done the actions of Hitler, which "end" possibility would you find to be more comforting? No afterlife, or being judged and punished. That was the only point I was trying to make. What Hitler believed and him as a person has nothing to do with it.



I never said that people who believe in an afterlife are dumb . You are putting words in my mouth or just following the same old script regardless of how the discussion goes . I have found that people who argue on the side of faith tend to do this . I am fully of the school of thought that your neighbor is more important then your TV such ideas have nothing to do wild claims that are made from some quarters .


Well, I would view people who just make up things for comfort to be dumb and only fooling themselves. So when you say that, I take it to mean anyone who believes in an afterlife is dumb. If I say you would take a big mac and eat the box instead of the burger because it has a picture of a burger on the box, I'm not really saying you are dumb, but I'm pretty well implying it.

I am not someone who is based on faith. I know. If I don't know something, then I will just say I don't know. I don't believe the bible is the word of god(has been put in as a replacement for it), and I don't think being ignorant is even close to being the quality of someone who follows god. Although they are still blessed, as are you - because when you see the truth from yourself, you will know just as you know dreams exist.

I think Christianity as a religion is satanic and warped. But I don't let them define things for me. So I would appreciate it if you didn't group me up with that. I realize I speak of Jesus and god, but that doesn't mean I belong to the religion or agree with what is said.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
By your logic someone could say the tooth fairy exists and people would have to take the notion seriously . Now until some evidence emerges to back up claims of an after life there is no reason to think that an afterlife exists . Your not think about what I have said in a rational manner . If the police used your logic you could be arrested because they feel like doing so . You never clarified what your question to me was . I am not the claimant here because I haven't made claims about the existence of an afterlife . I am merely questioning the wild claims made by some people even if they haven't been made specify on this thread . I don't follow your logic concerning dreams.

A member of my family who isnt religious seems to take comfortable from the idea that may late Grandfather is in heaven . Your own personal experiences haven't been made clear at all I haven't grasped half of what your on about at times . Your point concerning Hitler makes no sense what so ever . If I had been anything like then Nazi ideology would have come up trumps against any religious beliefs I had including an afterlife . I am sorry if I offended you in any way concerning any religious or spiritual beliefs that you have .



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 

You're being a bit odd with your 'no evidence' argument. There can't be any evidence, because people can't (usually) speak after they've died. In fact, if you want to take evidence, the whole 'white light' thing with near-deaths IS in fact evidence. But then again, this would just be dismissed with some vague response involving "chemicals" and "the brain is a mysterious thing!11!"


You're argument is like an 8th century poor guy in Europe. You've never seen India, you never met anyone who's been to India, there is no evidence (except wild tales about headless men and cannibals), so it obviously doesn't exist!

Or another example....if there is a group of children on an island, and they all seem to die before reaching puberty, if one of them says "we become hairier when we get older!" it'll be silly to say "No we don't, there is no evidence!", since they die beforehand, and thus there CAN'T BE any evidence, unless one of them was able to survive past puberty.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


The only thing offensive about your post is the low level of intelligence and honesty involved in your thinking. I don't much care what you actually think, I even put the Hitler thing into a simply question you could answer, but you refuse to do so and ignore it. It's the method of your thinking and reasoning I am drawing issue with.

There is nothing wrong with the position of "I don't know, there is nothing I've seen that suggests it's true". That is honest, it's only that you stepped over the line and asserted what you don't know to be fact that I even said anything.

I've explained it about as best as I can, so I guess if you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Good luck.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Babloyi think of it this way you are looking for a place where somebody lives . You see a house at a given address and nobody is home . When you look thou the windows you can see furitnite and other signs of people living there such as magazines on a coffee table . Now lets use the comparsian with the claims of an afterlife . There is no known location or other signs of an afterlife existing in any sense that cannot otherwise be explained . I know that the comparsian isnt perfect but it is the best I could come up with .



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
But given that there is no such thing as ghosts, and that people can't communicate from the afterlife (unless you believe in seances), what sort of 'signs' are you expecting to see? And be honest with yourself, do you really believe that there is ANYTHING you could possibly see that you wouldn't 'explain away' for your own comfort?


I mean, it is like those rebuttals to UFO sightings. While I personally don't believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life, some of the explanations some people come up with to give rebuttals are hilariously out there...I mean, anything goes as long as it is not 'aliens': "Oh, it was a light reflected from a satellite that shone into a swamp and caused a chemical reaction that released toxic swamp vapours that caused everyone to hallucinate that they were being eaten alive!"



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
But given that there is no such thing as ghosts, and that people can't communicate from the afterlife (unless you believe in seances), what sort of 'signs' are you expecting to see?


Well I haven't had any experiences that I would defiantly class as being Supernatural . To answer your question I would want some evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt . I am not interested in shoddy evidence or reasoning that can be found in such things as the Global Warming Hoax .


And be honest with yourself, do you really believe that there is ANYTHING you could possibly see that you wouldn't 'explain away' for your own comfort?


Well it is possible that concrete evidence could emerge at some stage . I could also win lotto its possible but unlikely .
Why would I take comfort from rational reasoning ?
The notion that my grandfather is up in heaven and that I could one day join them is a lot nicer then somebody just dieing and rotting in the ground .




I mean, it is like those rebuttals to UFO sightings. While I personally don't believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life, some of the explanations some people come up with to give rebuttals are hilariously out there...I mean, anything goes as long as it is not 'aliens':


Now that is a very interesting observation . I have found the complete opposite those who make claims of ( enter the existence of god or a conspiracy theory here ) will go to almost any absurd length to try and prove there point .



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 

I'm not asking if you think it is possible. I'm asking if there is anything that you would accept to be "evidence that is beyond any reasonable doubt" or "concrete evidence". Because I've seen this many times: someone makes up their mind, and then all evidence points to whatever they believe, and all evidence that contradicts it is marginalised (goes for all manner of people, not just directed at you).

Suppose your grandfather came to you, and said "Hey kid, this afterlife place is great!". You'd shake your head and say "Wow, that was some hallucination".

Suppose you almost died, and saw a white light while unconscious, and heard all your loved ones calling to you. "Wow, the human brain is an amazing thing"

So really, you are comfortable in your belief that there is no afterlife, and really, nothing is going to convince you otherwise. Because you've already decided, and anything that contradicts your opinion is brushed away as irrelevant.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by babloyi]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I treat any evidence put forward on a case by case basis which means that I keep an open mind . Your second example would cause me to rethink my stance providing I couldn't have been a sleep at the time the event happened or on pain killers e.t.c . The problem is that it is all hypothetical . In theory it should be eventually possible to look back as far as the Big Bang and disprove the existence of a god or gods once and for all . But again that is hypothetical and people of faith would say that in such a event Atheists will be proved wrong .

Cheers xpert11 .



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by xpert11
 


It is only hypothetical to you in many ways. You mentioned something that would make you think again. Lets assume for a minute you had such an experience.

If you told someone about it, and told them what you knew and they asked for proof what would you say? What would you say to them when they say it's impossible because there is no evidence that suggests it to them?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
If you told someone about it, and told them what you knew and they asked for proof what would you say?


Well I wouldn't make the claim to anyone unless I could provide some kind of proof in the first place . Plus you are assuming that I would even reach the conclusion that a ghost was from the afterlife . Even if I was to see something that couldn't be explained away straight away why would I assume it came from an afterlife ?



I would bet money that such an event wouldn't even occur in the first place .




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join