Heaven and the after-life, the skeptic's hell

[arthwollipot]

Your forgetting one thing that meditating with out drugs or injuries can produce out of body also. Then there is the accidental soul travel that can happen either on the way to sleep or set of by external stimuli.
Those also seem to have a religious context to them.

But they also have known physical explanations.

 

[Radrook]

The people were God's enemy?

They had declared themselves God's enemies just as the preflood people had. Our behavior either makes us friends or enemies of God. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Psalm 68:1
Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him.

According to Radrook. According to Genesis 11:6, it was because:

"...the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

Nothing about mandates or disorder. Ever try actually reading the book?

Obviously you aren't familiar with the mandate given Adam and Noah in Genesis are you? That's why you fail to notice that the people involved were violating that mandate. Actually, our disagreement isn't because you read and I don't. It's because you read and isolate and I read in context. Biblical context which must bear on the scripture and sheds light on it. Furthermore, your assumption just doesn't harmonize with God's attribute of almightiness. Instead you describe a fearful cringing God fearful that his creatures might enter his heaven and harm him. Sorry but that pathetic description is repeatedly contradicted by the rest of the Bible writers and is therefore wrong.

Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
God originally said to man after the Flood, "Replenish the earth." Man said to each other, "We are not going to scatter and replenish. We are going to get together and stay together and build a city and a tower so that we will never be scattered." ECT REBELLION against God's command. ://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/Babel_The_Center_of_Unity.html

The people were trying to reach heaven by building a tower of mud bricks. God was concerned that they might succeed. Would you say that His concerns were well founded?

The ziggurat was to have a cubicle at its top where the god was supposed to present himself to the priest. That's the way they sought to reach into heaven, via contact with their supposed false god. The expressions God used in reference to their puny efforts were irony. A mockery of their naivete. God does laugh, you know?

Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire [a]
and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.


Concerns? An almighty God doesn't fear what puny man does.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.


He sometimes expresses himself in those human terms so that you can understand as human understands because there is no other way for humans to understand besides the human way.

Psalm 103:14
For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.


Furthermore, the Bible tells us that to survive in heaven we need to be physically transformed and that God is the only one capable of transforming us.

1 Corinthians 15:49-51

49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,


Neither is his heaven described in the Bible as being within earth's thin atmosphere. Actually, not even within the heaven of heavens which is the biblical term for the cosmos.

2 Chronicles 6:18
But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!

So he couldn't have meant what you are supposing he meant.

Babel - The Center of Unity
http://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/Babel_The_Center_of_Unity.html

 

[Dymanic]

Neither is his heaven described in the Bible as being within earth's thin atmosphere.

In other words, "No, the people had not even the slightest chance of reaching heaven by building a tower of mud bricks".

Concerns? An almighty God doesn't fear what puny man does.

So why bother sabotaging the project?

 

[Shalamar]

I KNOW I'm on Ignore... But I can't help myself.

Radrook, why are you still whipping out your bible, and using quotes from it as refutations? You said yourself that it doesn't count.

Psalm 68:1
Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him.

Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire [a]
and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.

3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.

THIS made me laugh though.

Concerns? An almighty God doesn't fear what puny man does.

[hulk]GOD SMASH PUNY MAN![/hulk]


Should I quote Radrook AGAIN to show how he said that one shouldn't use quotes from the bible? I think he needs a better way to make his arguments.

 

[Autolite]

"I was discussing Pascal's Wager the other day with someone, and after saying that I choose not to believe because of lack of evidence the person asked me what I would say if I was in heaven before God".

"Hey, how about some lunch? I'm buyin'".

 

[Belz...]

That lead me to think even further that Heaven, in the Christian way anyway, could very well be the worst place for a skeptic to be. If reality doesn't exist anymore, if the laws of physics don't apply, this means we can't really be sure about anything, or inversely, if after we're dead we're given knowledge about everything, so what's the use of keeping existing forever? What's there to do when you already know everything? Wouldn't that suck? Either way we're screwed, either we can't know anything, or we know too much.

Hell, we'd even know EXACTLY what the upcoming bit of bliss will be like. Talk about spoilers!

 

[Radrook]

In other words, "No, the people had not even the slightest chance of reaching heaven by building a tower of mud bricks".

So why bother sabotaging the project?

Because it went contrary to God's mandate to populate the earth not just one region of it as the builders planned. Also, the builder of it-king Nimrod, was in opposition to God. It would have been a center of false worship for all mankind.

Genesis 1
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


Genesis 9
1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.


Genesis 11:
4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.



Please read the explanation at the website I provided a link to. It goes into greater detail.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Pardalis:

This Heaven and Hell thing, as I understand it, is in the presence of, or completely missing and the absence of, God. What is key to all this is that the physical body remains behind (unless you are Mary and Jesus, see Assumption and Resurrection/Ascension) and the spirit/soul arrives somewhere and somewhen. I have been advised more than once that God is unbound by time, and thus when we die, time as you and I experience it in the flesh is not applicable to the state of grace in Heaven. One simply is, and is thus free of the constraints of Time. That never made any sense to me until I read a set of fiction books by Robin Hobb, who is IIRC Catholic, or raised as one. Suddenly, what I'd been presented with previously clicked.

So, if you are not "with God" where/when are you? Well, somewhere/somewhen else. Presuming that sentience remains in this state, I suspect that the average atheist/skeptic (like the many I have met on this board) would find some way to amuse him/her self wherever and whenever that is. If it's in a lake of fire, without a physical body being there, studying the minute variations of the flame and lava would be a source of quite some interest, for example. And no distractions! One could even argue with Larsen over the flames for a long time. Wait, might that be Larsen's Heaven, and your Hell?

The assumption of suffering at that level assumes that those not in the state of Heaven, with God, deep in their heart of hears wish to be "with God" when life is ended. But what if one didn't give a flying fart? Then the absence of God isn't suffering, is it?

Since God leaves the path to him as conditional on the choice to take it, then provision for the rest is "somewhere/when" else. That "other condition" is assumed to be bad. Heck, with God knowing how wonderful being with God is (if yer gonna create a Universe, you might have the ego to match, eh?) of course God encourages his children to follow that path.

We can use a bit of a parent analogy here, if you like. You love your children, but they may not follow the path in life you set out for them. You still love them, even if they stray.

If those going to that other state are already not suffering by not being "with God, " then there'd be little suffering in the bodiless stage to not be "with God." For those in Heaven/With God, that other state would be as a default inaccessible anyway, as being with God precludes "not being with God."

A possible Hell for the not with God state is an eternity of conscious boredom. However, if this board of skeptics is any indication, if even two of those spirits in that state run across each other in the otherwhere/otherwhen, or commune in any way, the Larsen jokes would start almost immediately, as would an attempt to reach down to Sylvia Brown and screw with her through the ether!

For all we know, "not with God" is a torment of too much beer and pizza for eternity, whilst watching the Lions play on every TV set equivalent in the non physical state.

DR

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

They also interviewed over a hundred people. Sabom's anecdote was not the basis for the paper. Pam Reynold's case remains fascinating and controversial. There is another NDE case Hamilton talks about in Scalpel and Soul (body cooled, blood flow cut off to the brain). This is a very rarely done procedure, so not much data on it.

Slight correction...........body cooling and complete cardiac arrest with no blood flow to the brain is actually quite common for many cardiac procedures. There is plenty of data on it. It is less common for neurosurgeons to do this, but cardiothoracic surgeons do it frequently.

I also don't think Pam Reynold's case should be seen as all that controversial. Look at the timeline of events -- helps if you have medical training, of course -- but she apparently reported no sensations while her EEG was flatline. The things that she reported hearing in the OR occurred long before she was placed on bypass; and the other experience -- seeing the white light and her family -- would have occurred during the warming period. I'm not sure this is the sort of case anyone would really want to use to document dualism.

EEGs, by the way, do not go flat 10 seconds after total loss of blood flow. It takes one to three seconds after the heart stops before we see any discernable change, and it is usually 15 to 20 seconds, at least, before the EEG goes flat. In surgical cases, where the body is cooled, it takes many minutes -- dependeing on how the tech is doing it up to 20 minutes or more, but usually 5 minutes or so -- for the EEG to go flat.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This Heaven and Hell thing, as I understand it, is in the presence of, or completely missing and the absence of, God. What is key to all this is that the physical body remains behind (unless you are Mary and Jesus, see Assumption and Resurrection/Ascension) and the spirit/soul arrives somewhere and somewhen. I have been advised more than once that God is unbound by time, and thus when we die, time as you and I experience it in the flesh is not applicable to the state of grace in Heaven. One simply is, and is thus free of the constraints of Time. That never made any sense to me until I read a set of fiction books by Robin Hobb, who is IIRC Catholic, or raised as one. Suddenly, what I'd been presented with previously clicked.

If, when in heaven, we are not bound by time, then how is there any passage of time to speak of doing anything? Or, from another perspective -- look at this from the experience of a person dying -- if heaven is eternal, unchanging bliss (no passage of time) how is this experientially any different from the last microsecond of existence as the brain dies (if that last microsecond is a blissful experience)?

 

[MattusMaximus]

No, because it's not true. If 20 independent eyewitnesses saw person X murder person Y, that's extremely strong evidence. Anecdotal evidence can be unreliable, but then so can physical evidence. Ever hear of Piltdown Man?

Really? So if you were on a jury during a murder trial, you would vote the defendent guilty based solely upon eyewitness testimony? If so, you have extremely low standards of evidence and I hope you never do jury duty. Trials that result in wrongful convictions are full of jurors like yourself.

And if eyewitness testimony is so useful, then why is it that so many eyewitness accounts of UFOs (it's an alien spacecraft, etc) are found to be so dead wrong after the fact?

Hell, I had a guy tell me one time that when he visited a "haunted house" he witnessed a sandwich make itself right in front of his eyes (presumably it was made by a ghost). Since there was no one else present to refute his claim with an eyewitness account, are we to then assume that he was, by default, correct in his conclusion?

 

[Radrook]

Wow, seriously? I don't have to apologize?? Awesome. So I can even mock God in his face and it's ok anyway because I've already been deemed worthy of the heavenly reward? Cool. Can I also pee in his carpet and get laid with his wife?

Obviously if you have that trash attitude you aren't going to get in are you?

BTW

Is all this sarcastic crap necessary in order to get your point across? Obviously from your standpoint it is-isn't it. Which of course is your right up to a point and on my screen I am the one who sets that point.

 

[normdoering]

This online article does a pretty good job of showing the weaknesses in it. One could always argue it is clearly a 'skeptic' rebuttal, but I have a hard time arguing with the reasoning in it, or the medical facts on it.

There certainly are serious problems with the evidence for NDEs. However, people resort Pascal's wager in other ways:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Pascals-Scare-Tactic

The stripped down and distorted version of the argument that usually pops up in amatuer debates between theists and atheists, isn't the version that was posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal in note 233 of his book, Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes on Christian apologetics. The original version is a bit longer and has some historical importance for people interested in probability theory and the philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

The modern, stripped down and distorted version gets it wrong. It usually goes something like this: "Since you can't know if God exists, you should believe God exists anyway because then you'll get the rewards religion promises and if you're wrong and God doesn't exist then you haven't lost anything."

The problem with that distorted version of Pascal's Wager is that you have to be insane to make it work. Sane people do not decide to believe things because they want to believe them or because they find some advantage in believing them. Sane people reserve judgment until enough evidence is found to be convincing. If you want to trim Pascal's Wager down to essentials it would be better to say: "Since you can't know if God exists, you should act as if God existed anyway because then you'll get the rewards religion promises and if you're wrong and God doesn't exist then you haven't lost anything." That would be closer to what Pascal was saying and it's closer to what Scare Tactics' victims are doing.

"Acting as if" is not quite the same thing as believing, though it might lead to believing eventually. Pascal didn't tell people to just believe things, he told them to try and convince themselves. For example, Pascal wrote:

"Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you-will quiet your proudly critical intellect..."

There you go, all you have to do in order to believe is to act like you believe. Dab on the holy water, go to church, and "by a simple and natural process this will make you believe." Don't worry about if what you believe is real, this acting "will dull you" and "quiet your proudly critical intellect." Then the truth you can't really know won't matter.

Note how Pascal suggests that you "learn of those who have been bound like you... people who know the way which you would follow..." before telling you to go to church. He's talking about hanging around with believers. To a certain extent SciFi's show Scare Tactics illustrates just how easy it is to "believe" in crazy things if the conditions are right and one of the conditions happening on Scare Tactics is that you're being surrounded by others who seem to believe, or rather, who are acting like they believe, in some crazy ****. Fear, a kind of belief, is especially catching and you don't have to know why the other people are afraid to start feeling it yourself.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If, when in heaven, we are not bound by time, then how is there any passage of time to speak of doing anything? Or, from another perspective -- look at this from the experience of a person dying -- if heaven is eternal, unchanging bliss (no passage of time) how is this experientially any different from the last microsecond of existence as the brain dies (if that last microsecond is a blissful experience)?

Good question, and one I don't know the answer to. Might be that you're on to the answer.

How that squares with the whole Purgatory notion of Catholic Doctrine and the entire Jesus is coming back, and he's gonna be pissed is, well, clumsy. Contradictory even. The whole "waiting in line" thing based on the Return/Second Coming model of how it all plays out leaves Purgatory as that same brief-yet-eternal moment you just mentioned, in a state of being aware of being punished with the sentient sense of self. Not the kind of answer I think satisfies much of anyone, but the best I can puzzle out.

DR

 

[Malerin]

Slight correction...........body cooling and complete cardiac arrest with no blood flow to the brain is actually quite common for many cardiac procedures. There is plenty of data on it. It is less common for neurosurgeons to do this, but cardiothoracic surgeons do it frequently.

I also don't think Pam Reynold's case should be seen as all that controversial. Look at the timeline of events -- helps if you have medical training, of course -- but she apparently reported no sensations while her EEG was flatline. The things that she reported hearing in the OR occurred long before she was placed on bypass; and the other experience -- seeing the white light and her family -- would have occurred during the warming period. I'm not sure this is the sort of case anyone would really want to use to document dualism.

EEGs, by the way, do not go flat 10 seconds after total loss of blood flow. It takes one to three seconds after the heart stops before we see any discernable change, and it is usually 15 to 20 seconds, at least, before the EEG goes flat. In surgical cases, where the body is cooled, it takes many minutes -- dependeing on how the tech is doing it up to 20 minutes or more, but usually 5 minutes or so -- for the EEG to go flat.

Are you sure that blood flow is completely cut off to the brain in cardiac procedures? Why would they do that? My dad had a quadruple bypass, had his core temperature reduced, but bloodflow to the brain was never cut off. My understanding is that they have to cut off bloodflow to the brain to operate on the aneuryism.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Are you sure that blood flow is completely cut off to the brain in cardiac procedures? Why would they do that? My dad had a quadruple bypass, had his core temperature reduced, but bloodflow to the brain was never cut off. My understanding is that they have to cut off bloodflow to the brain to operate on the aneuryism.

Not talking about cardiac bypass but one of the ways that aortic arch repairs are/were performed. I don't keep up with all the ins and outs of the procedures since I no longer have to be involved in them, but it used to be that complete circulatory arrest was used with profound hypothermia and EEG monitoring. The surgery would not proceed until the EEG was flat. Hypothermia and heart lung bypass are used for CABGs and valve repairs without EEG monitoring (usually).

Nowadays bypasses with cannulation of the brachial or innominate artery are done, but from what I understand there are some who still use hypothermia with complete arrest.