Presumtion of 'Heaven'

[Mega City 5]

Why not?

If the soul need not be in this body, but could also be in any number of other bodies, why should it, in fact, be in this particular one?

If the same soul can animate duck, horse and cow, why is it currently animating Pythagoras?

[Arach-Naga Combine]

I have no faith system. I have a belief system, if you want to call it that. But again, our views on the topic are opposed, and I challenged yours. You're a hypocrite if you think i'm not allowed to do that. You're naive if you don't think i'm going to challenge faith as an irrational basis for belief when it was very clear to anyone paying attention that I rejected all the mentioned theistic claims.

I want evidence INSTEAD of assertions. I want you to change them from assertions to arguments, or groups of evidences. I don't need to disprove, because you've tried to demonstrate nothing yet, all has been mere assumption.

And if there cannot ever be proof, we know that the subject in question cannot exist. If you define a thing beyond observation, you have defined it beyond existence. I'm not disproving a thing, you are placing it beyond possible existance.

Yep. Can you give me any reason at all to believe that any afterlife exists at all, but make no appeals whatsoever to faith or any supernatural entity?

You're narrow-minded if you think that the only way to have a rational debate is to throw faith out the window. Especially in a setting where we're discussing a faith-based issue, like the existence of Heaven.

And I've already said that evidence does not exist. You might as well try to prove multiversal theory using the wealth of evidence you don't have for it. It's a theory based on mathematics, there's nothing physically indicating it exists. Does that make it suddenly no longer valid? Also, might I point out the name of the thread is the Presumption of Heaven? Believe me, if Heaven was proved to exist it'd make the news. As it is, it hasn't been proven, and it doesn't.

Heaven is as non-falsible as true God is. They're sort of a package deal. Nuff said.

There's significant psychological evidence for reincarnation, at the very least. Let me see if I can pull a few sources...

https://exemplore.com/paranormal/The-Re ... e-Memories

http://reincarnationstudies.com/anne-frank/

There's two, if you're defining reincarnation as an afterlife, per se.

Making this short, going to be after cosmological argument guy.
1. faith is when you have no good reason, and I like good reasons for my beliefs. Of course faith gets thrown out the window.
2. You admit no evidence exists - that means you cannot have a good reason for the belief. Scientists do not accept the claim about multiverses as you do heaven - you believe it completely, they reject it in favour of the null hypothesis - it is a useful and promising HYPOTHESIS, not a theory.
3. so it's as imaginary as god - good deal.
4. Those are not sources. Saying those are good sources is like saying stormfront is a good source for weather or not jews run a global conspiracy, or weather tobacco companies are good sources for research on tobacco causing cancer.

and i'm out for now. TG if you have anything else you want me to see.

[Godular]

Arach-Naga

You've simply failed to understand it.

A comforting delusion, no?

[Jolet]

Which is your choice, and I'm not going to jump down your throat for doing it. If and when we get there, one of us will be right, and one will not. Sometimes that's what it boils down to.

Technically, I'll be right either way. My idea had two possible options and one pop-tart. One of those options accomodated for the notion that mayhap there is something to all those words you said, purportedly even with meaning.

However, I take issue with subjective knowledge. The knowledge that one plus one equals two is not subjective, it is in fact objective. That cannot be subjective. However, to a degree you're also right. We as humans form subjective perceptions of an objective reality. In a way, that collage of subjective perception is what we define as "knowledge", which then can crystalize into an (mostly) accurate perception of the world. Semantics, but accurate.

Two of nothing is equal to one of nothing. Conversely, two of infinity is no different than one infinity. Without an agreement that the rule works, the value of the information is wholly subjective. Our perception is subjective, thus all things resulting from that perception are subjective. We can reduce the degree of that subjectivity by agreeing upon certain principles, some on the basis that something works, so it must be true. This does not make it 'objective', however.

Faith is inherently illogical. If you don't like it, that's fine. You do your thing with your pop tarts and I'll do my religion thing over here. We'll both be happy for the moment with that. Agreed?

Sure thing! Just don't try to claim something professed only by your religion is accepted fact.

That would be dishonest.

The idea of an afterlife is a widespread religious tenet. Muslims have it, Christians have it, Jews do not (IIRC), Hindu's have it in a sense (Brahman) as well as Buddhists (moksha), and many pagan traditions have some idea of an afterlife. This isn't new stuff. The idea of Heaven is just another channeling of what lies beyond.

As long as you don't claim that your way is the only way of looking at things, as that would be hypocritical, we can reach an accord. If you have one to spare, pass me a pop tart. We'll toast to mutual disagreement.

[Quokkastan]

Why not?

If the soul need not be in this body, but could also be in any number of other bodies, why should it, in fact, be in this particular one?

An atom could be in any location in the universe, why should it be in this particular rock?

The system must exist in a state. That doesn't mean there's a larger reason for it.

If the same soul can animate duck, horse and cow, why is it currently animating Pythagoras?

I suppose this would be a good time to point out that people who believe in reincarnation tend to have reasons for this kind of thing. It's not like it's an unanswerable question to them.

It's hard to believe that you're so ignorant as to never have heard of karma.

[Jolet]

You're narrow-minded if you think that the only way to have a rational debate is to throw faith out the window. Especially in a setting where we're discussing a faith-based issue, like the existence of Heaven.

And I've already said that evidence does not exist. You might as well try to prove multiversal theory using the wealth of evidence you don't have for it. It's a theory based on mathematics, there's nothing physically indicating it exists. Does that make it suddenly no longer valid? Also, might I point out the name of the thread is the Presumption of Heaven? Believe me, if Heaven was proved to exist it'd make the news. As it is, it hasn't been proven, and it doesn't.

Heaven is as non-falsible as true God is. They're sort of a package deal. Nuff said.

There's significant psychological evidence for reincarnation, at the very least. Let me see if I can pull a few sources...

https://exemplore.com/paranormal/The-Re ... e-Memories

http://reincarnationstudies.com/anne-frank/

There's two, if you're defining reincarnation as an afterlife, per se.

Making this short, going to be after cosmological argument guy.
1. faith is when you have no good reason, and I like good reasons for my beliefs. Of course faith gets thrown out the window.
2. You admit no evidence exists - that means you cannot have a good reason for the belief. Scientists do not accept the claim about multiverses as you do heaven - you believe it completely, they reject it in favour of the null hypothesis - it is a useful and promising HYPOTHESIS, not a theory.
3. so it's as imaginary as god - good deal.
4. Those are not sources. Saying those are good sources is like saying stormfront is a good source for weather or not jews run a global conspiracy, or weather tobacco companies are good sources for research on tobacco causing cancer.

and i'm out for now. TG if you have anything else you want me to see.

1. Value judgement, dismissed.
2. Again, making value judgement according to your own paradigm, dismissing possibility of other explanations. Dismissed.
3. Value judgement again- dismissed. You cannot claim the lack of proof as proof of God not existing. See Immanuel Kant.
4. I can always find more, my friend. Here are some:

Look up Jim Tucker at University of Virginia. Psychologist. You might see his findings as interesting.
Secondly; An article discussing Jim Tucker and his findings.
Hopefully that helps a little bit.

[Godular]

Technically, I'll be right either way. My idea had two possible options and one pop-tart. One of those options accomodated for the notion that mayhap there is something to all those words you said, purportedly even with meaning.



Two of nothing is equal to one of nothing. Conversely, two of infinity is no different than one infinity. Without an agreement that the rule works, the value of the information is wholly subjective. Our perception is subjective, thus all things resulting from that perception are subjective. We can reduce the degree of that subjectivity by agreeing upon certain principles, some on the basis that something works, so it must be true. This does not make it 'objective', however.



Sure thing! Just don't try to claim something professed only by your religion is accepted fact.

That would be dishonest.

The idea of an afterlife is a widespread religious tenet. Muslims have it, Christians have it, Jews do not (IIRC), Hindu's have it in a sense (Brahman) as well as Buddhists (moksha), and many pagan traditions have some idea of an afterlife. This isn't new stuff. The idea of Heaven is just another channeling of what lies beyond.

Common assertion does not make it true. Just common. Bugs have wings. Birds have wings. Bats have wings. That it shows up often doesn't make flight capability the ultimate in evolution. Just makes it one way of dealing with a problem. The notion of 'NUFFIN THERE FOR YA BUB' is scary to many. A lot of folks choose to go 'NUH UH!'. Doesn't necessarily make 'em right. I choose not to consider it a problem. That might satisfy some, and not others. It satisfies me. The rightness of it isn't something we can test until it becomes too late to report the results.

So why get worried over something you can't help?

As long as you don't claim that your way is the only way of looking at things, as that would be hypocritical, we can reach an accord. If you have one to spare, pass me a pop tart. We'll toast to mutual disagreement.

Hope you like frosted cherry. I accept no other flavor.

[Godular]

1. Value judgement, dismissed.
2. Again, making value judgement according to your own paradigm, dismissing possibility of other explanations. Dismissed.
3. Value judgement again- dismissed. You cannot claim the lack of proof as proof of God not existing. See Immanuel Kant.
4. I can always find more, my friend. Here are some:

Myeh... one could make the claim that you're making a value judgement on his value judgement. Recursive value judging! Woo!

I just wanna point out one thing:

For your response to 3: Though it does not qualify as proof of God not existing, the lack of evidence leaves no rationale to accept the existence of God as anything more than speculation. That is to say... lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist... but that in turn doesn't mean God DOES exist, either.

[Urmanian]

Well if Heaven existed and made sense it'd be less of "relaxing in a lake" and more of a "metaphysical realm of pure bliss where even the concepts of sadness and boredom do not exist and where you only experience maximum pleasure for all eternity". So your concerns wouldn't be valid in Heaven, because Heaven is perfect in every way and it would be impossible for you to experience anything but bliss in it.

[Quokkastan]

Well if Heaven existed and made sense it'd be less of "relaxing in a lake" and more of a "metaphysical realm of pure bliss where even the concepts of sadness and boredom do not exist and where you only experience maximum pleasure for all eternity". So your concerns wouldn't be valid in Heaven, because Heaven is perfect in every way and it would be impossible for you to experience anything but bliss in it.

That sounds monstrous.

[Urmanian]

Well if Heaven existed and made sense it'd be less of "relaxing in a lake" and more of a "metaphysical realm of pure bliss where even the concepts of sadness and boredom do not exist and where you only experience maximum pleasure for all eternity". So your concerns wouldn't be valid in Heaven, because Heaven is perfect in every way and it would be impossible for you to experience anything but bliss in it.

That sounds monstrous.

Well yeah because you're applying mundane morality to it. But in heaven itself such moral quandaries wouldn't exist, only pure bliss. Otherwise, some people would be unhappy with heaven, which would kinda ruin the point.

[Benxboro]

Heaven is incomprehensible.

[Quokkastan]

That sounds monstrous.

Well yeah because you're applying mundane morality to it. But in heaven itself such moral quandaries wouldn't exist, only pure bliss. Otherwise, some people would be unhappy with heaven, which would kinda ruin the point.

Supposing I could lobotomize you and remove all the parts of your brain that let you feel anything other than bliss, would you be satisfied by my saying "it's okay, such moral quandaries don't exist in lobotomy patients"?

[Urmanian]

Well yeah because you're applying mundane morality to it. But in heaven itself such moral quandaries wouldn't exist, only pure bliss. Otherwise, some people would be unhappy with heaven, which would kinda ruin the point.

Supposing I could lobotomize you and remove all the parts of your brain that let you feel anything other than bliss, would you be satisfied by my saying "it's okay, such moral quandaries don't exist in lobotomy patients"?

Omitting the fact I probably wouldn't mind such an operation...Well, you're not perfectly good, but Heaven and God are. Everything about heaven is perfect and infallible in every way, there can't be anything bad or questionable about it. Talking about how you would be bored or sad in heaven is pointless, because you wouldn't be. Heaven is an incomprehensible perfect state of being that rules out any form of suffering.

That's religious logic for ya.

[Quokkastan]

Supposing I could lobotomize you and remove all the parts of your brain that let you feel anything other than bliss, would you be satisfied by my saying "it's okay, such moral quandaries don't exist in lobotomy patients"?

Omitting the fact I probably wouldn't mind such an operation...Well, you're not perfectly good, but Heaven and God are.

I dispute that on account of how they go around lobotomizing folks.

Everything about heaven is perfect and infallible in every way, there can't be anything bad or questionable about it. Talking about how you would be bored or sad in heaven is pointless, because you wouldn't be. Heaven is an incomprehensible perfect state of being that rules out any form of suffering.

That's religious logic for ya.

Shit. Is it too late to put in my application for Valhalla?

[Socialist Tera]

We do not what happens when we die. I believe in Paradise and I feel that is what happens. I don't get Atheists, I get why they believe in Euthanasia, why damn someone to nothing? To me, that is outrightly cruel, if I became an atheist I would try and extend human life artificially to such a length that hopefully in the future we would live virtually forever that death becomes a thing we do not have to worry about as much.

[Pope Joan]

Time magazine did a survey a couple decades ago about various beliefs in America.They had a huge number of respondents.
Ninety percent believed in some kind of heaven; this included people who described themselves as non-religious, and many who did not believe in any deity.
Ten percent believed in hell.
Maybe it's all wishful thinking but it's quite widespread.
I believe that the Jewish people believed the afterlife was a dull grey lifeless place where nothing happened, until they were taken captive to Babylon and heard their ideas about paradise.

[Risottia]

Ohhhh lordy, you're one of those people, eh? You must get along with Zoice and Risotta pretty well, I bet. Even got the whole anger thing down, too.

*appears in a puff of logic*
WAS MY NAME SPOKEN IN VAIN, MORTAL?
*brandishes a Logic Avenger Occam's Razor*

[Risottia]

Supposing I could lobotomize you and remove all the parts of your brain that let you feel anything other than bliss, would you be satisfied by my saying "it's okay, such moral quandaries don't exist in lobotomy patients"?

Omitting the fact I probably wouldn't mind such an operation...Well, you're not perfectly good, but Heaven and God are. Everything about heaven is perfect and infallible in every way, there can't be anything bad or questionable about it. Talking about how you would be bored or sad in heaven is pointless, because you wouldn't be. Heaven is an incomprehensible perfect state of being that rules out any form of suffering.

That's religious logic for ya.

Basically, it would be like drowning in a pool of endorphines.

[Quokkastan]

We do not what happens when we die. I believe in Paradise and I feel that is what happens. I don't get Atheists, I get why they believe in Euthanasia, why damn someone to nothing? To me, that is outrightly cruel, if I became an atheist I would try and extend human life artificially to such a length that hopefully in the future we would live virtually forever that death becomes a thing we do not have to worry about as much.

"Nothing isn't better or worse than anything. Nothing is just nothing."

[Socialist Tera]

We do not what happens when we die. I believe in Paradise and I feel that is what happens. I don't get Atheists, I get why they believe in Euthanasia, why damn someone to nothing? To me, that is outrightly cruel, if I became an atheist I would try and extend human life artificially to such a length that hopefully in the future we would live virtually forever that death becomes a thing we do not have to worry about as much.

"Nothing isn't better or worse than anything. Nothing is just nothing."

Existing is better than not. Making someone not exist, have no consciousness is wrong.

[Nordengrund]

I don't think you would want to do things like drink or masturbate since our new heavenly bodies will no longer be tainted by sin. I see boredom as a result of disobedience to God, but not a since itself. Given that heaven will be the perfect paradise, and your new body will be perfect, you won't be able to get bored.

That's just my speculation, OP.

[Zoice]

I don't think you would want to do things like drink or masturbate since our new heavenly bodies will no longer be tainted by sin. I see boredom as a result of disobedience to God, but not a since itself. Given that heaven will be the perfect paradise, and your new body will be perfect, you won't be able to get bored.

That's just my speculation, OP.

A perfect paradise would have everyone there. How could you enjoy it while you know that some people are in hell?

[The Isles of Lux]

"Nothing isn't better or worse than anything. Nothing is just nothing."

Existing is better than not. Making someone not exist, have no consciousness is wrong.

Why is it wrong to put someone into a state of being which they will perceive as worse to the one they were formerly in?

[Jute]

And what is Muslim heaven for women, I wonder?

They get to remain with their husbands and it's the same thing and extra benefits execpt they don't get hour al ayn or multiple men but all married couples are reunited in heaven. And only martyrs get the hour al-ayn (72 virgins) not every Muslim man is a martyr so not every man gets them but they of course get their loved ones and families etc.

The 72 virgins thing is a myth based on faulty translations and other things.