THERE IS NO HEAVEN AND HELL.
Yes thats right folks,there is no heaven and hell.
I wish society would let go of the belief of a heaven and hell.

It doesnt exist.

I had a recent spiritual awakening,and the last thing on my mind was going to hell for the sins I did.THERE IS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HELL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was freer and more at ease than I have ever been in my adult life.I had NO limitations in what I thought I could do.And actually did some things I was never able to do. And just to say this....I am not bi-polar.
This awakening accompanied reading some very truth speaking books.Yes the Bible was involved.
Then when I tried to venture out into the world again,I got clubbed.
Not literally,but in a sense of not being in the same place as every one else is.
It was the most peaceful experience I ever had,but it was also very lonely.lASTED 6 WEEKS.

I could keep on this path,but I have the sinking feeling that I am seeing the truth and no one else is and it would be a totally solitary path. The recent struggle has been this.....do I fall back into old beliefs,or do I follow the truth and live a solitary life.


I am sure I am going to get driven into the ground with this thread......
but have at it.................
Let your opinions known.....


BRIAN



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2008 02:26AM by Raw1228.

hi brian

u sure are not the only one that believes that heaven and hell lies within
some believe that we can create heaven even in the midst of hell

others believe that one can also create hell even in the midst of heaven

i am talking about this corporeal life right now

i also think that what u believe has a large effect on what u will experience in the after life

call me crazy
yes i am

its all up to our own belief,but I do NOT think any one belief sends you to heaven,and one to hell.

ps...
Not ONE drop of booze was involved in any of this spiritual process.
Only in the lonely retreat into not fitting into the world once again.

Once again.

I have read and heard your opinions for some 9 months now.....
all appreciated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2008 02:39AM by Raw1228.

I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, either.

But life is very cruel and people need to believe in something that gives them comfort, and usually the most comfortable thing for them to believe is that they will receive a reward vastly greater than what they deserve while those who were unkind to them will receive a punishment vastly greater than what they deserve.

It doesn't bear up to my scrutiny but I'd love to believe it, myself.

Hmm.. It sounds good Brian, the only question I would ask is this,is your new way of seeing things making you feel happiness ? If it does, then you have your resolution. As for heaven and hell, I believe they are as real or unreal as everything else as LaV suggests.

Brian, unless a staunch belief in Heaven and Hell undergirded your entire world view before, I'd say continue on the path away from them that you have recently been on--your brain or soul is revealing a conceit to you that you no longer need to move through the world as yourself. Actually, even IF you really believed in Heaven and Hell, your brain or soul is trying to tell you something. The trick is to not substitute OTHER things for Heaven and Hell[you know, like Sarte: Hell is other people]. If you're gonna make a break, make a clean break.

I cannot ever remember a time, even as a wee girl, when I thought the concepts of Heaven and Hell served a purpose. To me they seemed really, um, contrived. Like here we live a corporeal existence, and then we die and go to . . . some other physical place, like walking into an office building. You know, the American Spiritualists believed that Seventh Heaven, the greatest level of Heaven, was like a nice, bourgeoise Victorian suburb, but with unlimited food and games and no illness or death. Frankly, that's really limited, but whatever. As for me, I believe that when we die, our energy goes to form stars, quasars, and Dark Matter. No harm, no foul. Ta.

Heaven, Hell, as everything in the Abrahamic faiths are complete fabrications, glad to hear you got rid of that oppressive mental structure.

Cheers,
J

What Jose said.

I believe in the Religion of Raw. I don't eat raw, I'm in hell. I eat raw, I experience heaven.

I like your "religion" brian1cs.

I can understand the position of agnosticism, but atheism makes no sense to me.

An atheist considers a believer in God to be irrational for having no "proof" of that position, and yet the atheist holds his own position (that God does NOT exist) without having any proof of it.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2008 08:23PM by Omega.

An atheist considers a believer in the flying spaghetti monster to be irrational for having no "proof" of that position, and yet the atheist holds his own position (that the flying spaghetti monster does NOT exist) without having any proof of it.

"I am a devout atheist, but I have to explain to my atheist
friends that I do pray to the 'Godidontbelievein."

Im allergic to dogma. I thrive on the riddles. Any idea I
believe, I reserve the right to disbelieve as well.


No such thing as an atheist in a fox hole, old war saying.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2008 11:00PM by riverhousebill.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An atheist considers a believer in the flying
> spaghetti monster to be irrational for having no
> "proof" of that position, and yet the atheist
> holds his own position (that the flying spaghetti
> monster does NOT exist) without having any proof
> of it.

so true Omega

brian i wouldnt worry too much about what others are doing, thinking being as long as your true to yourself

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2008 11:38PM by Jgunn.

Hehe, that's a funny one arugula

Apparently, there's already been a schism in the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", mirroring what happens in other religions pretty well.

More seriously, the point is well made, and should be obvious: if you are going to postulate that something exists (ie God), then it is up to YOU to come up with the burden of proof of that assertion, not the other way around.

Another classic example is what is known as Russell's teapot [en.wikipedia.org]

Back to raw1228, you seem like a good guy, keep up the good work and don't be so hard on yourself, and certainly don't feel guilty about things like heaven or hell, as they don't exist.

Cheers,
J

by the same token tho Jose if the person is posulating that it doesnt exist then doesnt the burden of proof now lie on them?

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

No, of course not Jodi, it doesn't work that way. Think about all the silly things (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster) that people can postulate and can never be proved false.

You start with NOTHING, and have to prove EVERY assertion you make about the world. That is the rational approach which makes sense.

You can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. You assume a negative until proven otherwise.

That is what arugula was trying to say in a humourous way, and also the point of Russell's teapot.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?"[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
“ If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Cheers,
J

This discussion reminds me of what my dad used to tell the Jehovah's Witness types who came around knocking on our door.

"I'm sorry, but we're heretics."

lol arugula

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Arugula,

or how does that old descriptor go: "I'm agnostic. I don't know. And you don't either."

Jose,

The last part of Bertie Russell's zany hypothesis predicts Borgés's greatest work, "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius." This is the one where a fictional civilization is artificially inserted into human history by a Rosicrucian-like order of false historians, burying fake artifacts and writing fake encyclopedia entries. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster missed the boat on that one. If just a few carefully aged stone carvings of the creature were "unearthed" tomorrow in the Guatemalan jungle and passed dating standards, that would be that. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly would be blubbering away about it in wonderment every night for weeks. We shall never know . . .

Omega Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like your "religion" brian1cs.
>
> I can understand the position of agnosticism, but
> atheism makes no sense to me.
>
> An atheist considers a believer in God to be
> irrational for having no "proof" of that position,
> and yet the atheist holds his own position (that
> God does NOT exist) without having any proof of
> it.

As has been said, the burden on proof is on the one making the claims. The default is disbelief.

i believe in the flying spaghetti monster
prove me wrong

join me in the foxhole LaV

heh

I think the whole 'burden of proof' thing really only applies to conversion or issues of whats appropriate in universal education.

any society that rules out the possibility of faith is missing out on a fundamental expression of us as divine beings..it is not sustainable. but of course its easy to assume that since faith can be a symptom easily preyed upon and controlled then it must be bad..umm ok.

theres some 'great' sci fi film with Cristain Bale thats shows why that logic isn't true.


I watched the Religilous movie. I was actually partial to Maher...but in the end I thought his argument looked poor, even though from his perspective everything else was completely asinine.


I'm calling in the galactic confederacy right now. I put the burden of proof on y'all that I am not.

personally I think we're all in some cosmic/karmic phase of Dante's Inferno
thats my take on the heaven/hell thing. of course there is always one quick easy step to be certain!

I grew up in a foxhole. I call it hell.

Hey Tamukha,

That would indeed have been a masterful coup

Hey Jodi,

I believe in a God, which we may call Bob, that killed your God, and all the other thousands of competing Gods, yesterday.

Please prove me wrong.

I hope this absurd example settles the issue on who has to come up with the burden of proof when making a claim.

Cheers,
J

ps In the specific case which I mentioned, the Abrahamic faiths, one CAN indeed scientifically falsify those claims, since these faiths call for an INTERVENTIONIST God, who meddles in the affairs of the world. There have been double blind studies done on PRAYER, one of the ways in which these Gods are supposed to intervene, that show NO measurable effect for the person that is being prayed for, in the case of ill people in hospital. Therefore, these Abrahamic faiths, that incorporate prayer as an integral part of their dogma, are just plain FALSE, as has been proven scientifically.





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2008 02:07PM by Jose.

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> join me in the foxhole LaV
>
> heh
>
> I think the whole 'burden of proof' thing really
> only applies to conversion or issues of whats
> appropriate in universal education.

What do you mean? Why does it not apply to any belief that will effect a person's life?


> any society that rules out the possibility of
> faith is missing out on a fundamental expression
> of us as divine beings..it is not sustainable.
> but of course its easy to assume that since faith
> can be a symptom easily preyed upon and controlled
> then it must be bad..umm ok.

??? You don't need faith to believe that humans are divine beings. Just observe some of the better ones out there.

We don't need a perfect papa in the sky, we need to be inspired by each other & inspiring for each other.

That's what they world needs, not another God (or more repeats the anecdotes of the ones that already exist "and then God smote these guys & those guys, etc.".

Without magical Gods to intervene we're all we've got & that makes human life much, much more valuable.

Without God there is no greater being to love & cherish than your fellow man/woman, no intermediary, no distraction. "God" is a distraction from the world at best & a denial of the world (and all those suffering within it) at worst. Why bother to change something that is false & fleeting anyway?


> theres some 'great' sci fi film with Cristain Bale
> thats shows why that logic isn't true.

Explain why.

God is dead, Marx is dead, and I ain't feeling too good myself.

In Judeo-Cristian cultures, many people associate the sky
with the masculine form of God.
According to this bias, the surpreme father rules us all
from high--up, away, far from here. But if you were an
ancient Egyptian, the sky was the goddes Nuit, her body
its very substance. She was a loving mother whose tender
touch could be felt with each new breath.

>>You start with NOTHING, and have to prove EVERY assertion you make about the world. That is the rational approach which makes sense.

the first reason this is false is the obvious. that all concepts have to filter through language and/or visual example in order to be related to other people as 'proofs'

anyone just has to dip into any semiotic/post structural philosophy to realize the conundrum that exists for assuming the material world actually stands for any real proof of anything 'in the desert of the real'



let say hypothetically I move to small insular village in peru and coincidentally the entire rest of the world gets enveloped in flames which destroy everyone and everything except this village. (sinners! lol)

I would probably find myself referenceing things the people of the village had no concept of. For many things...I could use my skills of language and mannerism to describe. other things...such as hot (fluorescent) pink, I would have absolutely no tools to describe. I have my experience of hot pink..even if it no longer exists...even if no future culture ever stumbled upon such a chemical invention it would still 'exist'

if I have something - lets call it form for lack of a better expression - 'in my head' or spirit but it lacks any shape or package or sound, does it not exist?


the second reason is for as many 'proofs' you can come up with that deny the existence of non-recordable phenomena of any sort..there does exist EXAMPLES of people privately (and sometimes publicly) disproving it. I cannot believe anyone that is truely living a raw cleansing lifestyle does not re-instinctively feel/know that this is true.


>> Without magical Gods to intervene we're all we've got & that makes human life much, much more valuable.
why? if there is no god, or spirit in the world, regardless of whether she is in the sky or just an unpackaged form 'in my head' where is motivation?

to me just the nature of our 'solid' material reality suggest an interventionist god of some sort..or at leat the 'watchmaker' god that the deists that founded this nation believed in. What I mean is I think many people seem oblvious to the fact that you don't wake up and your head is experiencing some kind of chemical combustion and your leg is in some other dimension and there is a cloud in your room dripping kool-aid or whatever...I mean with the google ammount of variables that are channeling through the cosmos you got to wonder why these things work their way out especially when one has an understanding of quantum and dimensional physics.




>>What do you mean? Why does it not apply to any belief that will effect a person's life?
if beliefs are not forced upon you its kinda up to you whether or not they effect your life.


>> theres some 'great' sci fi film with Cristain Bale
>> thats shows why that logic isn't true.

>Explain why.

- in a nutshell the film was about a society that had avoided destruction by inoculating its citizens against having emotion, which they believed lead to destruction. the result was obvious, citizens, catching a glimpse at how complex (both good and bad) the experience they were missing out on began to form enclaves of resistance.

----
another statement i'm gonna bring up which applies to the political threads as well as increasingly in our society...
its easy to be critic...its hard to be both knowledgeable and have faith or hope of any sort..in God, in the species, in the president etc...
at one point this was not the case..but like..things change.

and the mere existence of blind followers in any camp does not disprove this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2008 12:10AM by anaken.

[I mean with the google ammount of variables that are channeling through the cosmos you got to wonder why these things work their way out especially when one has an understanding of quantum and dimensional physics. ]

You don't have to be a scientist by career with a good understanding of core biology, general and organic chemistry, calculus, differential equations, and Newtonian physics to appreciate how these things literally just fell into place. Some things really do just assemble themselves under certain conditions without an invisible finger to prod them around.

Everything that happened with life on this planet is because of the attractive and repulsive forces between atoms and molecules, and on a larger scale, because of the way things are shaped and fit together.

Core biology, which is probably the easiest subject among these, is enough. You can take it at a community college or just buy the book edited by Campbell and Reece or maybe just read it at the closest library that carries it. It is a very beautiful and deeply moving subject, something that gives back much more than what you put into it, which, among other things, will be a sense of awe and joy and renewed wonder.

And you don't need to know anything about non-Newtonian physics to appreciate it.

well personally I don't put much stock in those subjects

the basic tenent of core biology:
all life uses the same common methods of energy utilization, growth, genetic storage, heredity, reproduction and development

hmm..nope

it also assumes natural selection and evolution to be an absolute when actually it is a widely disputable theory (and not just from wacko creationists)


When you say "these things literally just fell into place" it sounds exactly to me like "Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman"
its actually a very religious statement to make

I'm not denying that everything (that we can comprehend) is potentially some cosmic accident...but that accident had to occur somewhere. doesn't the traditional rational mind require the duality of cause and effect?

according to probability there could potentially be a cloud of kool aid in my room sometime in the next 10000000000000000000000 years or in another dimension, and so could there be the spontaneous creation of an all powerful god sometime 100000000000000000000 years ago. To completely deny the possibility of such is actually un-scientific.

agnosticism yes, atheism...no such thing. atheism an ego delusion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/30/2008 05:20AM by anaken.