death is the end?

[breeze]

It's more reasonable to believe that the entire thing was concocted by the Catholic Church to give people something to focus on to encourage their faith in Catholicism. Our Lady of Lourdes was made up. Bernadette's body remains intact not because of a miracle but more likely because the Catholic Church had her body secretly embalmed the same way that Vladimir Lenin's body was.

So you're saying , in a sense , that the church conspired with newspapers worldwide to publish a lie. If that's the case how can we believe anything written in the newspapers ? That's like saying the press has no integrity. If that's the case we can't function as a democracy. Anything is possible but its hard to believe that the church or anyone else for that matter can buy off hundreds of reporters and newspapers worldwide who all printed similar accounts. No one i would think including the church has that kind of power.I gather from what i read once in an article that among those who have first hand knowledge of the event , even in scientific circles , that what happened happened. That its more or less indisputable but i don't want to say that. But from there on its a mystery.

 

[basque9]

I don't expect a delusional person such as yourself to agree with reality. No evidence means no reason to believe. That isn't my belief it is how things work here in this world and people such as yourself are too willing to believe nonsense to simply stick with reality.

Obviously I am not deluded about your arrogance! Apparently you can not sanction a belief which has dimension which you are unable to comprehend!
In scientific terms, no evidence often means that meaningful experimentation has not yet begun, rarely does it mean there is no reason to experiment!
That is the problem with your thinking, as I view it...meaningful thought has not yet begun! You declare that whatsoever you can not understand is delusional...is this perhaps that the concept of alternative theories and multiple solutuions to concepts is beyond your intellectual grasp ?
You remind me of the engineer of a train travelling the wrong way on a one way track who is too stubborn to admit an alternative direction until there is a head on collision!
I seriously reject your claim to pure truth, because I do not think you are all-knowing : strongly prejudiced in your own thinking, yes,... quick to insult other people, yes, ....but all -knowing, not on your life!:smile::smile:

 

[goodwood]

Having been christened Catholic, then having mother defect to protestantism with the whole profession of Chirst is the son of God and believe that he died to forgive every sin and believe in that and then go to heaven.

 

[Equus14]

So you're saying , in a sense , that the church conspired with newspapers worldwide to publish a lie. If that's the case how can we believe anything written in the newspapers ? That's like saying the press has no integrity.

All News media at one time or another has published lies whether they were intentional or unintentional lies is unimportant. To believe otherwise is naive. For the most part the press has something to sell. Sensationalism sells.

If that's the case we can't function as a democracy.

I'm not certain where you live but I know that here in the U.S. it's up for debate at this point if we really are a democracy at all. Personally I think we're an Bi-factionalized Aristocratic Oligarchy with pretentions to democracy simply to placate the citizenry.

Anything is possible but its hard to believe that the church or anyone else for that matter can buy off hundreds of reporters and newspapers worldwide who all printed similar accounts. No one i would think including the church has that kind of power.I gather from what i read once in an article that among those who have first hand knowledge of the event , even in scientific circles , that what happened happened. That its more or less indisputable but i don't want to say that. But from there on its a mystery.

The press is easily duped. Example: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Yet this idea was all over the news media for a long while and although its died off for the most part by now, it's only because it was later proven to be false. A single incident like Fatima cannot prove itself so easily to be fraudulant, once it was over there was no evidence left apart from the claims of people said to have been there, and as we know scientifically eye witness testimony is not that reliable.

 

[goodwood]

What happens after death cannot be known by anyone other than the dead. However faith is something that if one has and one believes and hopes for then I hope that in the end it works out well. I am sticking with what I believe.

 

[breeze]

All News media at one time or another has published lies whether they were intentional or unintentional lies is unimportant. To believe otherwise is naive. For the most part the press has something to sell. Sensationalism sells.






I'm not certain where you live but I know that here in the U.S. it's up for debate at this point if we really are a democracy at all. Personally I think we're an Bi-factionalized Aristocratic Oligarchy with pretentions to democracy simply to placate the citizenry.






The press is easily duped. Example: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Yet this idea was all over the news media for a long while and although its died off for the most part by now, it's only because it was later proven to be false. A single incident like Fatima cannot prove itself so easily to be fraudulant, once it was over there was no evidence left apart from the claims of people said to have been there, and as we know scientifically eye witness testimony is not that reliable.

I'm not so sure that the press was so much duped as bought off. They were there. There is a difference between a paper being duped and outright lying Now i might believe you might be able to buy off one or 2 newspapers but hundreds ? The theory that either the church or large numbers of newspapers fabricated the events is in my opinion a real long shot. I guess my real question is are there any other explanations which might be more plausible. But i agree you that we don't have a pure democracy. On the other hand all the church and the papers have is their credibility. If they lose that they risk losing their support.{ in fact they risk losing everything } The events at fatima obviously don't meet scientific standards. But is the arguement that the church or the newspapers lied the only other explanation out there because though it is possible i think its , like i said , a real longshot.

 

[basque9]

What happens after death cannot be known by anyone other than the dead. However faith is something that if one has and one believes and hopes for then I hope that in the end it works out well. I am sticking with what I believe.

And so you should, goodwood...nothing that has been stated in this thread is either provable or definitively not provable. Therefore, the best posture would seem to be to adhere to what gives comfort to one in this life! If that is some form of belief , then that is correct for you...if what comforts another is having no belief, then that is what is best for them!
To believe that one solution is the only solution , I believe , oversimplifies a very complex reality!:smile:

 

[invisibleman]

Life After Life by Raymond A. Moody, MD

Talking to Heaven by James Van Praagh

Heaven and Earth by James Van Praagh

 

[Equus14]

Obviously I am not deluded about your arrogance! Apparently you can not sanction a belief which has dimension which you are unable to comprehend!

I can comprehend spiritual/religious beliefs. I was a Christian for most of my life.

In scientific terms, no evidence often means that meaningful experimentation has not yet begun, rarely does it mean there is no reason to experiment!

Should we experiment to see if there really is a tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and invisible gnomes in people's gardens as well? The claims made by religion and spiritual people are no less outlandish than believing in those things. As yet though I can't imagine how anyone could find out if there is an afterlife without actually trying to go there and if it should exist how would one get back to record the results? Most religious claims are beyond experiment, and there is many things that are claimed that have already been proven to be untrue. Scientists have found Prayer, for example, to be uneffective, and when the findings were brought out for everyone to know religious people dismissed it saying that "one can not test god" so the experiment was dismissed and therefore did not effect those people who would have stood to gain the most from the knowledge.

That is the problem with your thinking, as I view it...meaningful thought has not yet begun!

I accept your opinion on that, since that's all it is.

You declare that whatsoever you can not understand is delusional...is this perhaps that the concept of alternative theories and multiple solutuions to concepts is beyond your intellectual grasp?

No, I declare people who hold "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact" to be delusional. In fact that is the definition of delusional.

delusional - Definitions from Dictionary.com

My definition of 'false belief' is a belief for which there is no evidence, and is therefore undeserving of credence, or has contrary evidence which invalidates the belief.

I seriously reject your claim to pure truth, because I do not think you are all-knowing : strongly prejudiced in your own thinking, yes,... quick to insult other people, yes, ....but all -knowing, not on your life!:smile::smile:

I never said I was all knowing. In fact what's so 'all knowing' about the rejection of beliefs for the lack of evidence? It is theists/spiritualist people who are making their claims to know things that have no evidence. That sounds to me like 'all knowing' arrogance. I refuse to pander to delusional people. I left delusional land myself when I discovered reality and if I can do it so can anyone else.

 

[goodwood]

I think this is a very good thread and something very worthwhile to talk about. I am stricken by people who have had 'religious' or 'christian' upbringings and who have been very disenfranchised as a combined reslut of lack of results for that belief system and/or witnessing lack of immediate evidence of what might have been expected or hoped for.
If anyone is angry or disbelieving in any given belief structure, and does not fully understand the aforementioned things then it is good to ask questions and consider what anyone might have to contribute. I am always curious to know what people think and why they think as they do and love to listen and appreciate what they have to say.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Equus14, the problem people are having with you is that you present yourself as so positive that you have all the answers, but the rest of us see something you are missing. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (as I once heard in a movie) and to conclude that a failure to prove spiritual theories with regard to what happens to a being afer death proves that nothing but decay of ones physicality happens after death is folly. There may be evidence supporting that belief, but there certainly is no proof.

Do you have a soul? Is it eternal? I have no idea, and neither do you.

 

[Equus14]

I'm not so sure that the press was so much duped as bought off. They were there. There is a difference between a paper being duped and outright lying Now i might believe you might be able to buy off one or 2 newspapers but hundreds ? The theory that either the church or large numbers of newspapers fabricated the events is in my opinion a real long shot. I guess my real question is are there any other explanations which might be more plausible. But i agree you that we don't have a pure democracy. On the other hand all the church and the papers have is their credibility. If they lose that they risk losing their support.{ in fact they risk losing everything } The events at fatima obviously don't meet scientific standards. But is the arguement that the church or the newspapers lied the only other explanation out there because though it is possible i think its , like i said , a real longshot.

There's always a chance that they just reported what the claims were. That doesn't mean it was true. When you have a large group of people believing and talking about some occurence that supposedly happened why should the newspapers not report it? That, in itself, is news worthy even if the story is a fraud.

Take for example the reading of the war of the worlds on the radio. Lots of people believed it was happening, and it was reported in newspapers that there were lots of people who believed it was actually happening at the time and even though the belief was news worthy the actual event that was being believed was not.

Radio's War of the Worlds Broadcast (1938)

This also goes to show how gullable people are.

 

[goodwood]

Thanks donkeyboy9. I appreciate your response. Have a good Monday night.

 

[breeze]

There's always a chance that they just reported what the claims were. That doesn't mean it was true. When you have a large group of people believing and talking about some occurence that supposedly happened why should the newspapers not report it? That, in itself, is news worthy even if the story is a fraud.

Take for example the reading of the war of the worlds on the radio. Lots of people believed it was happening, and it was reported in newspapers that there were lots of people who believed it was actually happening at the time and even though the belief was news worthy the actual event that was being believed was not.

Radio's War of the Worlds Broadcast (1938)

This also goes to show how gullable people are.

That is possible but what i understand is that there were dozens if not hundreds of reporters at fatima and that they saw the "miracle" with their own eyes and simply reported what they themselves saw , not what others claimed happened. You would have to assume that all the reporters from all parts of the world meet and conspired to print the exact lie. Reporters who spoke different languages and had deadlines. How would anyone know who was a reporter and who wasn't at fatima spread over a large area ? How and where would have all the reporters meet ? Is the only explanation for fatima that others can arrive at is that the church or the newspapers lied ? What if they didn't ? A lot of things have to happen for that theory to be true. Is that the only alternative theory out there ?

 

[Equus14]

I think this is a very good thread and something very worthwhile to talk about. I am stricken by people who have had 'religious' or 'christian' upbringings and who have been very disenfranchised as a combined reslut of lack of results for that belief system and/or witnessing lack of immediate evidence of what might have been expected or hoped for.
If anyone is angry or disbelieving in any given belief structure, and does not fully understand the aforementioned things then it is good to ask questions and consider what anyone might have to contribute. I am always curious to know what people think and why they think as they do and love to listen and appreciate what they have to say.

I left Christianity because it very seriously was driving me to suicide. Apart from hearing how god doesn't make gay people at church, and how Christians treat gay people, especially here in the south. It was verses in the Bible like the one below that got to me. So, without contrivance or adding anything to it to make it sound like it means something else.......

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

And it actually says this in Hebrew as well I looked it up.

I take this verse to mean that the Christian god actually is anti-gay. There are those who would disagree and I also tried going to the Metropolitan Community Church which teaches this verse means something else, but their claim is a lie. It means precisely what it appears to mean. It's an all encompassing edict against homosexual relations and does not specify any exceptions whatsoever, and it doesn't matter that Christians no longer go by the Levitical codes. The fact that it's in there at all is enough.

My mother discovered my desire to die and after getting counseling from a therapist because my mother insisted and knowing that suicide is permanent I felt I should make an attempt to really make sure I was correct in what I was thinking. So I studied the Bible for a couple of years and actually read it, something that most Christians have never done. That's when I began to doubt. I began seeing the inconsistancies, and those things that are logically absurd. I eventually got online and began researching other religions. This led me to Buddhism and Conversations with God. Conversations with God was the beginning of my journey toward atheism. It allowed me to let go of the Christian god and embrace a god that was more in line with nature. Once I did that it was only a few but very difficult steps to believing that god was all there was and that's when I became a pantheist for a short time and then I realized that the term god was a human concept and that it was unnecessary which led me to a kind of theistic naturalism, which eventually led me to nature itself with no belief in a god at all.

 

[Equus14]

Equus14, the problem people are having with you is that you present yourself as so positive that you have all the answers, but the rest of us see something you are missing. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (as I once heard in a movie) and to conclude that a failure to prove spiritual theories with regard to what happens to a being afer death proves that nothing but decay of ones physicality happens after death is folly. There may be evidence supporting that belief, but there certainly is no proof.

Do you have a soul? Is it eternal? I have no idea, and neither do you.

Who you are as a person is intrinsically connected to your memories, and your thoughts and feelings about your memories all of which are contained in your brain. Your brain will eventually die destroying your memories and your thought processes. That alone is evidence that who you are does not survive death. That is real and valid evidence. There is no evidence at all that there is any mechanism that exists in which to contain who you are after death. Many people are afraid of death and many people desire to see people whom have died that they loved. No one really likes the idea that death is final, even I do not like it. BUT it is not valid to take a desired conclusion and only accept evidence which is annecdotal and hearsay to support it. Theories are created through a desire to answer questions that have not been answered, but there is a difference in discovering that there are unanswered questions to observable phenomena and asking questions based on an assumption that has no evidence.

It's like years ago someone asking why things fall down rather than up. That is a valid question and one worthy of being discovered. But to ask things dealing with the soul, god, and an aferlife is presuming that those things exist. Why not just ask how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin? If there is no evidence that fairies exist then why question about them?

I have a question. I could not answer these questions myself when I was a theist so....

Since I have been an atheist I have lived an entirely full and happy life with no belief in any god and without any belief in an afterlife. So why do you, or anyone else for that matter, need a belief in those things? What purpose does it serve you?

 

[camper joe]

Resurrection Heaven and Hell Christian.

 

[Dorian_Gray]

Death is the road to awe.

 

[Equus14]

That is possible but what i understand is that there were dozens if not hundreds of reporters at fatima and that they saw the "miracle" with their own eyes and simply reported what they themselves saw , not what others claimed happened. You would have to assume that all the reporters from all parts of the world meet and conspired to print the exact lie. Reporters who spoke different languages and had deadlines. How would anyone know who was a reporter and who wasn't at fatima spread over a large area ? How and where would have all the reporters meet ? Is the only explanation for fatima that others can arrive at is that the church or the newspapers lied ? What if they didn't ? A lot of things have to happen for that theory to be true. Is that the only alternative theory out there ?

The only theory that fits all the facts would have to be that they actually saw something. That doesn't mean it was the sun since we know that the sun cannot do those things and the sun was exactly where it should be for the rest world and nothing unusual happened with the sun for those other people. So these people must have seen something, but it could not have been the sun. What it was? Who knows. They clearly thought it was the sun but like I said, eye witness testimony isn't very reliable. It may have just been an illusion.

 

[basque9]

I can comprehend spiritual/religious beliefs. I was a Christian for most of my life.






Should we experiment to see if there really is a tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and invisible gnomes in people's gardens as well? The claims made by religion and spiritual people are no less outlandish than believing in those things. As yet though I can't imagine how anyone could find out if there is an afterlife without actually trying to go there and if it should exist how would one get back to record the results? Most religious claims are beyond experiment, and there is many things that are claimed that have already been proven to be untrue. Scientists have found Prayer, for example, to be uneffective, and when the findings were brought out for everyone to know religious people dismissed it saying that "one can not test god" so the experiment was dismissed and therefore did not effect those people who would have stood to gain the most from the knowledge.





I accept your opinion on that, since that's all it is.





No, I declare people who hold "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact" to be delusional. In fact that is the definition of delusional.

delusional - Definitions from Dictionary.com

My definition of 'false belief' is a belief for which there is no evidence, and is therefore undeserving of credence, or has contrary evidence which invalidates the belief.





I never said I was all knowing. In fact what's so 'all knowing' about the rejection of beliefs for the lack of evidence? It is theists/spiritualist people who are making their claims to know things that have no evidence. That sounds to me like 'all knowing' arrogance. I refuse to pander to delusional people. I left delusional land myself when I discovered reality and if I can do it so can anyone else.

I don't know how you did it Equus , but you have just attributed many of my comments to The Reverend. I am not a reverend and do not even belong to a church group. My ideas and beliefs are purely mine and are not representative of any organization and I certainly am not a reverend! LOL
I am Donkeyboy9!:smile: I believe in live and let live and will be sporting enough to permit you your beliefs and disbeliefs, because I feel that individual beliefs are inviolable! I simply request that you not try through your pseudo philosophical mumbo jumbo to deny me of that same right.:wink: