Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print
some problems with the idea of an afterlife (Read 27092 times)
hawkeye
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 886
canada
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #60 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 12:39pm
 
Don, It concerns me that you seem to be filled with such anger, hate, and you own ego. Why are you being like this towards the people here who are expressing their personal beliefs here. Who gives you this right to judge us so harshly? Very few here deny the existence of "God", yet you attack them like they are some how less than you. You insult our intelligence at every opportunity in order to make your beliefs look correct. Please look inside of yourself and consider the damage you are doing to not only your own soul, but also to what you say you believe in. Your turning me off religion more than I have ever been before.
Joe
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
orlando123
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 258
France
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #61 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 1:17pm
 
I can see the first point here - too much focus on the afterlife could prevent us getting the most out of this life experience. This is a possible explanation.

However I'm not so sure about the tons of evidence. Also your point about skeptics ignoring evidence and only focussing on the negative can very easily be turned around and said about believers, who could be said to ignore all the evidence against survival and exaggerate the amount of evidence for it, becasue they want to believe it. You can see this in psychic readings, for example, where people often forget all the wrong statements and focus on the few bits that impressed them. I saw a u-tube clip about this, where a skeptic spoke to a guy who had been impressed with a psychic reading and said the psychic correctly guessed the name of someone important to him, but the skeptic had recorded the session and showed the pyschic mentioned, in the course of the reading, about 20 names that the sitter couldn't identify with.


the_seeker wrote on Aug 8th, 2007 at 10:13pm:
Quote:
I also can;t really see why God could not provide a bit more to go on in terms of proof of his/her existance and of a soul and afterlife and so on. I don't see what harm it would do.


well "they" (the new age authors) say it's because if we knew too much about our real souls and the afterlife, life wouldn't seem "real" to us, or we might not try as much or be as immersed in the "reality" of earthly life, or too caught up on what we did in a past life.  you make a very good point, however.....................  there IS a lot of evidence of the afterlife.  it's just that most of those "skeptics" don't WANT to read the books, they don't WANT to open their mind to the possibility.  they say they would like to believe... what would make them believe??  if God came down and said "yo i'm here, i'm real" ?  that's not going to happen.  sure, i would like it if i could truly 100% believe in the afterlife, but i have to take what i can get, which is other people's accounts and stories.  i haven't been as lucky as many people have, to have out of body experiences etc., but that doesn't mean they didn't really have them.

there is a TON of evidence for reincarnation out there, open to anyone who wants to read it and let the evidence speak for itself.

it's like racism - a racist can see lots of nice, wonderful black people, but they'll still think black people are bad because their bias colors everything they see.  similarly, these "skeptics" miss every piece of evidence for an afterlife because they're so fixated on their bias, they think all of it is false no matter what.

in fact bruce moen was so skeptical himself, that even after a ton of amazing experiences that proved what was happening to him was real, he still took a long time to believe he wasn't making it up in his own mind.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
dave_a_mbs
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #62 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 1:50pm
 
Well thanks for them kind words, Berserk.

After you're through dissing me for being intellectually impotent, you might want to pick up my text in hypnotic regression and its companion in psychopathology - published by Amazon - But don't tell Mainstream Academia - they might think it's an effort to become critically engaged in the mental health industry and its methodology.

Oh yes - if you want the metaphysical part, try a copy of this: Armentrout, D (1987) "An Attributive Systems Model of the Generation of Knowledge". Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, Access: LD 01227 - Assuming that you have enough math to read it. Smiley  Notice especially the section on entropy accretion in a closed active system.

In point of fact, this forum has more heavyweight academics, healers, technicians, engineers and field workers than any other of this sort that I've discovered. The depth at which a lot of these discussions occur is, frankly, better than most of my discussions with academic colleagues in the Faculty Lounge. And of course there are always a few odd balls and kids who still have foot-in-mouth trouble. But we tolerate them gladly, both here and in everyday encounters, because it is through criticism and discussion that these will become the thinkers of tomorrow. And some of them will make it.

Hope to see you amongst the successes.  Grin

dave
Back to top
 

life is too short to drink sour wine
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Berserk2
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 844
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #63 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 2:08pm
 
Dave, I do have abackground in academic statistical applications to research.  When are going to shift from self-serving posturing about credentials and actually address the mainstream issues raised?  And Hawkeye, I apply my in-your-face approach precisely because it works.  Close-minded types like you are a lost cause.  Or are you actually willing to engage me at a critical level and explore new ideas and paranormal experiences--you know, actual arguments and experiences that shed light on crucial distinctions that need to be made?  Naw, I knew you weren't.  The Ghetto is just too damn comfortable, isn't it?

Don
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 9th, 2007 at 7:54pm by Berserk2 »  
 
IP Logged
 
orlando123
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 258
France
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #64 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 2:27pm
 
As someone who tried past life regression once and finds the idea of past lives interesting, I must admit I do see problems with them as proof. The person I went to didn;t even, for example, go back to early childhood first, just relaxed me with visualisations and then told me to go back to a past life with some significance to my current one and start describing my surroundings and what I was wearing. The problem I see with that is that hyponsis is known to release inhibitions, stimulate the imagination and spontaneous creativity etc - as you can see when stage hypnotists get people to act in amusing ways, so I'm not sure one can be sure that any images that come up are definitely a factual past life or not.

I don;t want to take sides on this, but I imagine (not based on much knowdledge of the area, admittedly) that mainstream scientists dealing with the study of consciousness etc probably on the whole take a skeptical view of claims that regression proves real past lives whereas the view they DO is probably quite common among those therapists that make use of it in practice, probably becasue it seems to help many people, as dave says. It seems fair that if a number of people say the experience helped them and they feel more in control of their lives etc then that is a positive result. On the other hand it still doesn;t necessarily mean the experience relates to a factual past life for it to have had a therapeutic effect IMO

I must say though, in view of the hard-nosed stance Don takes on this - insisting on siding with the most skeptical, materialistic, fact-driven view - I can;t quite see how this gels with his defence of Christianity, which try as I did, did not seem to make any hard-nosed logical sense at all (or even fluffy, touchy-feely sense either) . I was going to say that in a sense it can be best seen as like a fantasy book which makes sense within its own world and rules, but not when compared to the actual world of facts, history, logic, experience and laws of physics we live in, but even that is not true as it is full of internal inconsistencies that any top-notch fantasy writer - say Tolkein - would have spotted and ironed out.

I see a few possible approaches to believing it - 1. the naive, unquestioning approach - the person who doesn't seek to ask questions and probably doesn't want to hear about theories that would make them doubt (or maybe thinks such things are from the Devil), similar to the obedient/passive approach - like the Roman Catholic who accepts the Pope is always right and the Cathechism can explain everything once and for all 2. the highly academic and theoretical approach whereby a certain type of clever person may be able to convince himself it makes sense, despite the common sense evidence to the contrary, by complicated intellectual contorsions 3. the mystical aproach - going on feelings and not spending too much time reading the Bible and creeds etc 4. the liberal approach, agreeing that traditional explanations are largely a product of their time, and not to be believed too rigidly, but that somehow there is a "core" of values, experiences, traditions and even aesthetics that are valuable. There is also probably the most common approach of those who call themsleves Christian (in the Uk anyway, where I am from originally) , in that it is mostly a matter of tradition and emotion and they have not bothered to examinine it much and see either what the religion precisely teaches or if and why they should believe in it.

If someone wants to believe in it, that's OK, it would take far too long to rehash all the reasons against it, and if anyone wants to find out about them they only have to read sites about atheism, biblical errors, the historical Jesus, comparative religion, church history and so on. However a "true believer"probably won't. i do find it odd though that Don inissts on his credentials as a fiercely logical and intellectually honest person. i mean it has been shown again and again that we know incredibly little about the historical Jesus, for a start, and that credible cases can be put forward for the possibility he did not even exist. Even if that is an extreme viewpoint, a much more common one, for which there is a great deal of evidence, is that he was a very minor figure in his time who was built up into a figire of mythic proprtions after his death. So how you can base a whole belief system of eternal salvation and damnation around the obligation to hold certain improbable beliefs about this character, when you have access to such information as now exists, instead of being forced by lack of information and social and legal pressures, to conform (as in the past), I'm not sure. Christianity is also internally inconsistent with Judaism, the faith it sprung from - which, for example , has no concept of original sin and a concept of the Messiah quite at odds with the one Jesus is purported to have provided.

On the other hand, it could also be argued that "New Age" type beliefs, while more immediately appealing and somewhat more consistent and more easily believable, are only so because they are a reaction (and human construct, based partly on a pick'n'mix of western and eastern ideas)  against the problems with the traditional western default religion, substituting the confusingly inconsistent God of the Testaments with one who is PUL, substituting eternal black and white judgment with eternal "spiritual evolution" and learning and so on. Also, for example, ditching the wildly improbable Christian notion of the resurrection of the body and final judgment (itself - the judgment - hugely pointless as most christian denominations say you are immediately assigned Heaven or Hell after death anyway, or Purgatory, which is an antechamber of Heaven) in favour of a mix of otherworlds and reincarnations for endless experiences and learnings, which appeals to the modern, educated, liberal mind.

Just playing Devil's Advocate (for both sides  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
blink
Ex Member


Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #65 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 2:29pm
 
Don, have you lost your mind?  Smiley

Me too.

What do you hope to accomplish here?

Have you questioned your own belief that this "method" of inquiry of yours is actually working?

How can it be that your questions are more valid than my questions or anyone else's?

Have you ever asked yourself why you are so disappointed with your own experiences?

What do you think is the next level up from where you are at?

How would you get there?

How have your explorations been going?

Are you willing to share any of your recent experiences?

love, blink Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
hawkeye
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 886
canada
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #66 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 2:34pm
 
Don,
My love to you.
Joe
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
orlando123
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 258
France
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #67 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 2:39pm
 
However, even if the "New Age"version turns out not to be factually right either, I must admit I prefer it, as it is not dogmatic and encourages people to be loving. Christainity also, theoretically, encourages people to be loving, but in most versions is very dogmatic, which I find sadly divisive and also intellectually insulting. The RCC version where the church claims to have got everything mapped out in a book of Cathechism, and whose leader claims to be God's representative on earth, able to speak infallibly about matters of faith and doctrine - and whose books have to be vetted and stamped as having correct doctrine in them - is one good example of a kind of rigidity which seems incompatible with my (fluffy, new-agey) version of what spirituality means (if anything) which is about seeking, being open-minded and compassionate and learning and so on. My version may not be too far from one possible interpretation of the historical Jesus (focussing on alleged teachings about humility and love and forgiveness etc) but the CHurch gave up on that version of things from the world go in favour of a system of beliefs about him.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Berserk2
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 844
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #68 - Aug 9th, 2007 at 8:09pm
 
Orlando,

In my view, allmost everything you say about Jesus is a mischaracterization fueled by online New Age and anti-Christan sites sponsored by people who lack the requisite training to offer informed insights.  I don't expect you to take my word for this.  I am setting up future threads on the issues recently addressed and you can post your reactions there.  I don't assume that the modern mainstream consensus is always correct--only that those like Dave who differ from it should engage it critically and post their justifications on this site.  At the risk of repeating certain themes, I hope to find the time to offer a comprehensive assessment of various types of evidence for an afterlife to accomodate the newbies who have not been exposed to this discussion before. 

It is striking how offended some are by a frank and honest reaction to a site's tone and bias.  I probably been exposed to more relevant paranormal experiences than almost everyone here.  I view reasoned alternative perspectives as the most helpful way to energize the spiritual quest of others. 

Don
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
the_seeker
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 179
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #69 - Aug 10th, 2007 at 12:24am
 
Quote:
Yet Stevenson repudiates hypnotic regression as a tool for past life recall, despite the fact that the claims of these hypnotherapists are compatible with his research.


so?  it's because stevenson is a rigorous scientist.  you can't scientifically prove that i love my family either.  does that make it any less true that i do??
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
orlando123
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 258
France
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #70 - Aug 10th, 2007 at 3:01am
 
Berserk2 wrote on Aug 9th, 2007 at 8:09pm:
Orlando,

In my view, allmost everything you say about Jesus is a mischaracterization fueled by online New Age and anti-Christan sites
Don


No, I don;t think so. It's based on a  lifetime of interest in religion and wide reading around the topic. I find the lack of solid information about Jesus disappointing but I know there is, for example, no writing from his century that documents him apart from Josephus, whose main mention of him is certainly altered and IMO probably inserted altogether after the 2nd Century, and who possibly, but not certainly, refers to him in passing when mentioning his brother James (some suggest the "called Christ"bit was inserted later and that this originally referred to another jesus - a very common name at the time). In comparision, for example, he writes at some length and without sensationalism, about John the Baptist, who is more credible as a historical figure of some importance in the period. It is not as though no other major  historians were writing at the time - for example Philo the Jew, writing about Jewish history in the 1st century (when he lived) omits mention of Jesus. Otherwise we just have the letters of Paul, which may or may not also have been tampered with, but which are notable for the surprising lack of information and interest in the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of faith.

Oh, apart from the gospels, of course - but they are contradictory , include obvious propaganda to try and link their Jesus character with expactations of the messiah from the OT and were written decades after Jesus'supposed death by people who most likely never met him and were trying to promote their new religion. I know tradition claims John and Matthew as disciples, but modern scolars mostly discount this - for example  the consensus is John is the latest gospel, possibly written around the 90s, so he would have had to be extraordinarily old. Matthew is also one of the least credible gospels (IMO) becasu eof its style, for example, in his deperation to make implausible links between the OT and Jesus to impress his fellow Jews as to Jesus being the Messiah.

I have studied the evidence and no doubt so have you and I guess we just have different standards of what proof we need or come to different conclusions. but don't just assume I've only read a new "new Age websites". I came to studying Christianity and its historical basis with an open mind, initially trying to bolster a shaky and ill-informed Christian faith.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 10th, 2007 at 9:03am by orlando123 »  
 
IP Logged
 
Never say die
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 177
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #71 - Aug 10th, 2007 at 10:35am
 
Berserk2 wrote on Aug 8th, 2007 at 11:28pm:
Dave,
Like most New Agers, the low level of consciousness that dominates the site.

Don


Grin Low level of consciousness? term sounds pretty new agey to me, shame on you Berserk  Shocked  Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Never say die
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 177
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #72 - Aug 10th, 2007 at 10:59am
 
orlando123 wrote on Aug 7th, 2007 at 12:52pm:
Never say die wrote on Aug 6th, 2007 at 11:44pm:
Hi orlando, I'm just curious as to how you came about this site. I recall recommending this site to someone called orlando098 at youtube.com


Yes, that was me . Hi!


I remember somewhat fondly our dialogue in the video threads about the Secular Case for Survival. I'm glad you have decided to join, while you are skeptical about some of my beliefs (as even I am sometimes about my own) you are open and honest with your inquiry.

I think a difference between me and those who consider themselves 'skeptics' is that I choose to take a little more on the 'balance of probabilities'. I'm in my late 20's but already I'm intellectually comfortable with my 'beliefs', spiritually and experientially I'm becoming more and more convinced. I'm also even heading towards being 'convinced' scientifically.

I haven't had alot of direct experience yet, that's why I've got Bruce's book and cd's. Then I got a nasty fright, they seem great and all but personally I find it hard to relax, I need to learn to really meditate first before I can do any astral travelling or anything of that kind. That's what I'm learning now and I wouldn't have really bothered if I'd never found this site.

Enjoy your debate with the re-incarnation of Berserk. Oops!  Shocked
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #73 - Aug 10th, 2007 at 12:45pm
 
Orlando:

I'd recommend that you consider the posts Don states he is going to post. You can't find out what is true by considering just half of the argument. I ventured on the trek of reading sources that deny the existence of Jesus for a while, but something inside told me this isn't a valid approach. Certainly some of the authors who deny the life of Jesus are biased for whatever reasons. So instead of limiting my search to an academic study, I opened my heart and mind and tried to find out spiritually, and had a number of experiences and received a number of messages which have told me that Christ is a major part of the spiritual reality of mankind, he did in fact exist as the man Jesus, and he was in fact crucified. I don't believe a person can honestly dismiss these facts, until they try to find out spiritually if they are true.

Regarding contradictions in scriptures, don't forget that mass media didn't exist during the time period in which Jesus preached. His teachings were passed on by word of mouth.  Some weren't recorded until generations after he was crucified.  Then the process of numerous translations took place. When you consider this, it would be quite surprising if some misunderstandings didn't take place.

orlando123 wrote on Aug 10th, 2007 at 3:01am:
Berserk2 wrote on Aug 9th, 2007 at 8:09pm:
Orlando,

In my view, allmost everything you say about Jesus is a mischaracterization fueled by online New Age and anti-Christan sites
Don


No, I don;t think so. It's based on a  lifetime of interest in religion and wide reading around the topic. I find the lack of solid information about Jesus disappointing but I know there is, for example, no writing from his century that documents him apart from Josephus, whose main mention of him is certainly altered and IMO probably inserted altogether after the 2nd Century, and who possibly, but not certainly, refers to him in passing when mentioning his brother James (some suggest the "called Christ"bit was inserted later and that this originally referred to another jesus - a very common name at the time). In comparision, for example, he writes at some length and without sensationalism, about John the Baptist, who is more credible as a historical figure of some importance in the period. It is not as though no other major  historians were writing at the time - for example Philo the Jew, writing about Jewish history in the 1st century (when he lived) omits mention of Jesus. Otherwise we just have the letters of Paul, which may or may not also have been tampered with, but which are notable for the surprising lack of information and interest in the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of faith.

Oh, apart from the gospels, of course - but they are contradictory , include obvious propaganda to try and link their Jesus character with expactations of the messiah from the OT and were written decades after Jesus'supposed death by people who most likely never met him and were trying to promote their new religion. I know tradition claims John and Matthew as disciples, but modern scolars mostly discount this - for example  the consensus is John is the latest gospel, possibly written around the 90s, so he would have had to be extraordinarily old. Matthew is also one of the least credible gospels (IMO) becasu eof its style, for example, in his deperation to make implausible links between the OT and Jesus to impress his fellow Jews as to Jesus being the Messiah.

I have studied the evidence and no doubt so have you and I guess we just have different standards of what proof we need or come to different conclusions. but don't just assume I've only read a new "new Age websites". I came to studying Christianity and its historical basis with an open mind, initially trying to bolster a shaky and ill-informed Christian faith.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
orlando123
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 258
France
Re: some problems with the idea of an afterlife
Reply #74 - Aug 10th, 2007 at 1:02pm
 
Hello NSD

Nice of you to say you enjoyed our chat before, and thank you for the welcome. What do you mean when you say you are heading towards being convinced "scientifically" Do you agree with Michael Roll's theories, or do you have another version of how spirituality fits in with the physical world as science knows it at present?

I would like to see science going further in investigating all this, but I guess science is always going to be a slower process than imagining, experiencing or believing - like, for example, the way science fiction has sometimes preceded real scientific technologies (Jules Verne wrote a story about a rocket journey to the moon in 1865). That's because it needs to proceed with caution and establish credible theories and experiments etc, and because investigating every out-there theory would be very expensive and would be bad for people's credibility. It's much cheaper and quicker to believe in something but not be able to prove it! To some extent you could say this lag will always be there - for example, we all experience consciousness but science can;t say exactly how it works yet, neither can it say exactly what gravity is, for example. However we know from universal experience that these things do definitely exist as phenomena. Claims about physchic/metaphysical matters are a bit trickier as some people have strong experiences that are convincing to them, but many people don;t, and those that do experience them have quite varied accounts and explanations.

Good luck with the investigations and learning to meditate etc. I find that whole area a bit confusing because meditating means such different people to different people - it could perhaps almost be described as any technique designed to deliberately create an altered (or controlled) mental state, from emptying the mind, to focusing intently on one image or idea, to letting the thoughts meander  around a particular topic, or creating a visualised journey, or just watching the breath, or mentally saying a mantra or focussing on certain emotions, or just letting the mind relax and drift off to whatever images it comes up with to..... you get my point!

One thing I used to have a problem with was visualising, but I think I'm better at that now, since I stopped thinking you must see a crystal-clear image like a TV screen in your head, and, for example,  allowed the impression of whatever it is to be fuzzier round the edges and concerned with the other senses as well as the visual (perhaps "sensualisation"would be a better word?). Not that I specifically do any visualisations at the moment as such.

All the best  Smiley

Never say die wrote on Aug 10th, 2007 at 10:59am:
I remember somewhat fondly our dialogue in the video threads about the Secular Case for Survival. I'm glad you have decided to join, while you are skeptical about some of my beliefs (as even I am sometimes about my own) you are open and honest with your inquiry.

I think a difference between me and those who consider themselves 'skeptics' is that I choose to take a little more on the 'balance of probabilities'. I'm in my late 20's but already I'm intellectually comfortable with my 'beliefs', spiritually and experientially I'm becoming more and more convinced. I'm also even heading towards being 'convinced' scientifically.

I haven't had alot of direct experience yet, that's why I've got Bruce's book and cd's. Then I got a nasty fright, they seem great and all but personally I find it hard to relax, I need to learn to really meditate first before I can do any astral travelling or anything of that kind. That's what I'm learning now and I wouldn't have really bothered if I'd never found this site.

Enjoy your debate with the re-incarnation of Berserk. Oops!  Shocked

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.