What made you abandon Christianity?

[Habitat]

7 hours ago, danydandan said:

No you aren't. You are just like those you argue against...... You are a hypocrite and unable to admit it.

Seasons greetings to you too ! I know I would never have ventured on to these boards, if not a witness to the reality of the unseen "beyond", what I see mostly here are people who crave validation of a rationalist prejudice. Which is tantamount to madness, as it is all too obvious consummation of such a prejudice depends on the impossible, the falsification of the unfalsifiable. If someone asked me about the supernatural a decade ago, I would have said " I don't know, and how would anyone know", and left it at that. There is only one way to know, and that is if "it" lets you know, you will not smoke it out by clever stratagems or science. Looking inside the normal, will not discover that which is outside the normal, as a wise poster here said recently.

[Habitat]

33 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin

…….do not a brain, or a mind, make.

[Habitat]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

On life after death, medical science is the strongest evidence that there is no consciousness beyond biological death. 

And you appear to be very invested in that being the case, or else it might open a can of worms you don't want opened. Surely you can see that ?

[+joc]

If consciousness doesn't need a body...why are their bodies?

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, joc said:

If consciousness doesn't need a body...why are their bodies?

Information is never lost, I heard a Nobel-winning physicist say. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I was thinking about mystical experiences a bit today. I wonder if it's a result of a neurochemical 'explosion'. Too much dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin can lead to almost schizophrenic and hallucinatory experiences. Maybe they built up a belief so strong that their brain kinda went 'pop'? 

I totally agree with you Bro, that's been happening all through thread. That neurochemical explosion certainly makes people delusional and very toxic. I can also see how this could lead to Schizophrenic behavior, I have also seen that present itself here. Dude your right on target as always.

Peace.

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 12/27/2019 at 11:03 AM, Dejarma said:

 it  makes your image appealing to me

nothing NOTHING will ever get passed logic/ rational thinking & the bleeding obvious IMO:

though faith does try- it's just funny to watch

You are always right on point, thanks for breaking down so everyone can understand the concept.

Peace

[Grim Reaper 6]

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

When it comes to the status of god and we apply Ockham’s razor to proving god or disproving god ha vies we can’t one way or the other—so we conclude at this time we don’t know. 
 

The question you should ask is how can you logically reason or support certainty on something you cannot prove or disprove? Maybe you can so let’s hear it.
 

I will leave this for you to work out,

On life after death, medical science is the strongest evidence that there is no consciousness beyond biological death. 
Even if you want to believe that there is consciousness after death you will have to advance a theory to support this, but you cannot because we have no way to do this at this time. 
 

Sure we have reports of near death experiences, and ketamine used in anesthesia produces hallucinations, in fact, it is a side effect, such as seeing a white light and feeling outside the body. 
 

It is more likely that NDE’s are probably as a result of ketamine, more than there is life after death and you ”just know” and possess this secret knowledge that you can't evidence. If you apply Ockham’s razor which one is a better explanation for reality?
I will let you work this out. 
 

A natural science mind would not look to supernatural explanations to explain things they would look for a cause that is in line with reality as we know it or offer evidence otherwise.

 

 

 

( On life after death, medical science is the strongest evidence that there is no consciousness beyond biological death ). 

According to science that is certainly correct. But the thing that Science doesn't explain so clearly is what happens to the energy that is released when someone dies? I am not talking about a sole, because I don't believe in that, I believe in reincarnation. What I am talking about is pure energy that exists within the human body, that is released at death. 

We all know that energy can be produced in many forms, however it can't be destroyed. It will only change its form and properties. So where does this energy go?

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

( On life after death, medical science is the strongest evidence that there is no consciousness beyond biological death ). 

According to science that is certainly correct. But the thing that Science doesn't explain so clearly is what happens to the energy that is released when someone dies? I am not talking about a sole, because I don't believe in that, I believe in reincarnation. What I am talking about is pure energy that exists within the human body, that is released at death. 

We all know that energy can be produced in many forms, however it can't be destroyed. It will only change its form and properties. So where does this energy go?

What is the name of this energy?

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 hours ago, joc said:

If consciousness doesn't need a body...why are their bodies?

That's a well throughout question, I think bodies are nothing more than vessels that contain consciousness until we are reincarnated. The reason it must occur in this manner is because we have not evolved to the point where a vessel to contain our consciousness isn't necessary. In my opinion it is the future of mankind to become formless pure energy, not like gods are discribed, because omnipotent deities who are all powerful don't exist. 

In my opinion we will become pure energy without form and without the power to harm or control others. At this point we will know all, see all, or to be more clear we will become enlightened beings who can watch but never interfere with other life forms on a galactic level.

Peace 

[Grim Reaper 6]

40 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What is the name of this energy?

Please don't answer a question with a question, if you don't understand or can't answer the question please say so that's what I would do it's only show respect for the fact that we can't know everything. Because in our present forms it would become over very overwhelming and we couldn't handle the pressure it would create.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[onlookerofmayhem]

56 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

But the thing that Science doesn't explain so clearly is what happens to the energy that is released when someone dies?

"The universe as a whole is closed. However, human bodies (and other ecosystems) are not closed — they’re open systems. We exchange energy with our surroundings. We can gain energy (again, through chemical processes), and we can lose it (by expelling waste or emitting heat)."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/amp

[Grim Reaper 6]

57 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

"The universe as a whole is closed. However, human bodies (and other ecosystems) are not closed — they’re open systems. We exchange energy with our surroundings. We can gain energy (again, through chemical processes), and we can lose it (by expelling waste or emitting heat)."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/amp

You are correct that is the scientific view of the human bodies release of energy at death. However in my opinion when the body breaks down at the point of death, these energies are released as mental energy or according to my belief Wind Energy that is released by the heart. Energy cannot be destroyed and therefore, this energy has to re-establish itself in a new body.

This is based upon my beliefs as a Buddhist, I do understand however that this is only a view held by those who believe in reincarnation. But in reality I also understand that this view or the scientific view can't really be proven they are theories. But one thing is for certain and agreed upon by both of these views, Energy can't be destroyed it is eternal and it doesn't have boundaries or limits concerning it's movement at the point of death. When energy is released it becomes a cosmic force, that at some point will be collected and reborn or in some form used again in a continuous cycle.

Peace.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[Mr Walker]

On 12/27/2019 at 1:11 AM, danydandan said:

So you can't name any nor present evidence of one single Academic as you claimed initially? So what you are doing is talking crap and winging it? And repeatedly repeating the same argument, that was wrong to begin with, won't make it correct.

You made the claim thus the emphasis is on you to back it up. You could easily present academic links and links to articles your refusal to do so speaks volumes.

 

Christianity was established, The Catholic Church, for political reasons it was always a tool for control. Still is. Same with Protestantism. 

Happy Christmas by the way, I hope you had a good one. I also hope you, and everyone else from Oz, aren't affected by the fires happening in Australia.

No that is a incorrect assumption. I gave sources which quoted over half adozen expert and recognised historians dismissing Christ mythers as non academic  and explaining why There are almost NO academic historians christian, atheist, or  of any other faith  who accept christ mythers as having the slightest credibility  I dont have to prove that to you.

A few seconds googling will establish it for you 

And i have just presented two sources with numerous names of academic historians  dismissing christ mythers,. You have fallen for a common internet fallacy ie tha t a person making a claim MUST evidence it .

That is not true if anyone wants to prove a claim false the y need to provide evidence that it is false Otherwise the original statement stands And many things do not require any proof or sources a tall because the y are so well known Eg you would not ask me to provide  sources proving the earth is an oblate spheroid. 

Not sure what you are getting at in your last few sentences Christianity evolved from  Judaism. Paul shaped it into a church for gentiles in he first few decades after  christs death  but Christ began it as a message for jews 

Being a non catholic, I simply disagree with you about churches and religion being created to control people.

The y work because the y liberate people  from fears loneliness material desires etc.  and provide for the needs of those who believe in them. The y are  a product which is very effective, and always will be due to the evolved nature and needs of human beings  

However this a particularly protestant view, in that the original reformation began with people who began to see how the church had evolved away  from Christ's messages and WAS becoming a powerful centralised bureaucracy which could control every element of a human's life 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/27/2019 at 2:29 AM, Sherapy said:

Your behavior doesn’t demonstrate the things you claim are enlightenment. 

You are describing the effects of oxytocin and dopamine. 
 

For you, time served is the pinnacle of a good marriage, for me, it is the effort put into it the quality of the relationship and the passion and love nurtured. 
 

With this being said, my way is not better than yours it just works best for me, 
 

Enought said. 
 

Happy Anniversary. 

Thats your judgement and may reflect a misunderstanding of enlightenment 

Besides you have never believed the things i have told you about how my wife and i live BECAUSE we are enlightened 

No lol I am NOT describing those things I LEARNED the nature of classical romantic love from m my parents and others and from my reading.

I suspect that  those  who read little struggle to comprehend how to construct the sort of love found in literature  Love is not chemical at all. it is intellectual .

tristan and isold 

lancelot and guenivere

robinhood and marion

pip and estella 

I am not exaggerating when i say i have read most of the great novels of western literature form the last 200 years  and thus most of those with romance in them 

Romantic love is found in many of these but also in plain simple western stories, science fiction, and fantasy   Often sex does not even come into it or chemical attraction It is the idealised concepts inherent in love which create/define  romantic love These  include many things; from love, honour, duty, to empathy compassion protection and companionship,  tenderness and, sometimes, desire,  but often attraction of the mind, interests etc. .  

 

 

https://www.hitched.co.uk/wedding-planning/quotes/romantic-quotes-from-literature/

Maybe you should  start reading a few Nicholas Spark's novels (I have read them all) 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

18 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Clearly you have never been to a psychiatry lab and had your psych buddy dose you up with some oxytocin.  Yes, you are still thinking, and reasoning, but everything is colored by intense feelings of irrational affection.  Very much the same as being in love, but without a focus for that affection.  Love is about context as much as the chemistry I think, with the hindsight of the experience.  On the other hand, to say that oxytocin can only make you feel lust and attraction is wrong imo.  I have always regarded loyalty as being more important than love anyhow.  Love is inconstant and a bit pointless next to Loyalty.

lol I am fully aware of the effects of such chemical  I can both release them on demand or control their release and   even prevent it   Anyone who desires intellectual control over their moods emotions and thus behaviours, MUST learn  at least some of this control, or always be at the mercy of their animal instincts and chemicals 

I dont deny the importance  of these things in sex and procreation and the sort of attraction required to keep two peole together long enough to raise a child but SURELY I am not the only one who knows that human love is much more than this and actually different to it.

It is an intellectual abstract and symbolic construct which only humans have the cognitive capacity to construct. (most animals suffer the effects of chemicals on the body and in their   mating rituals

My wife and i were raised by parents who together had almost 140 years of married life together.

The y remained in love, faithful and loyal to each other, all that time.

  THAT is human love  as I know it  My wife and i have been married 45 years We haven't had sex for the last  20, but my love for her is as powerful and strong as it was the day I met her and fell in love with her NOT because of hormones but because she appealed to my nature, and met the requirements i had for character in a wife I would spend a lifetime with. I spent 5 years before we were married, getting to know her and making sure we would be compatible (as well as getting a start in my career)  I was still at uni when i met her, and in no position to offer her anything as a husband at that time.

If i had given into my hormones and other chemicals we would have had sex, but probably never have married, and certainly not had 50 wonderful  years  together 

[onlookerofmayhem]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I gave sources which quoted over half adozen expert and recognised historians dismissing Christ mythers as non academic  and explaining why There are almost NO academic historians christian, atheist, or  of any other faith  who accept christ mythers as having the slightest credibility  I dont have to prove that to you.

A few seconds googling will establish it for you 

And i have just presented two sources with numerous names of academic historians  dismissing christ mythers,.

I think a distinction needs to be made between a 100% mythological Jesus, an amalgamated Jesus and a Jesus that is described in the bible.

I don't think I've seen anyone here arguing that Jesus never existed in any way, shape or form and is 100% mythologized. That is not my position. 

The point of contention is what facts can we ascertain that pinpoint a genesis from only one historical person. 

If it's conceded that an itinerant Jewish preacher was baptized and executed, how then are we to determine what other details are true details of his life and acts?

Were his parents Mary and Joseph?

Where and when was he born?

What did he actually preach?

How much of the Gospel accounts can be shown to be true and why?

You get the point.

Some people who prescribe to a mythological Jesus actually concede there may have been one or more inspirational characters behind the story, but so much was added to the story that it's impossible to pin down the one and only historical Jesus.

It also is an issue of Euhemerism vs. Apotheosism.

It depends on which Jesus myth hypothesis is in question. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I think a distinction needs to be made between a 100% mythological Jesus, an amalgamated Jesus and a Jesus that is described in the bible.

I don't think I've seen anyone here arguing that Jesus never existed in any way, shape or form and is 100% mythologized. That is not my position. 

The point of contention is what facts can we ascertain that pinpoint a genesis from only one historical person. 

If it's conceded that an itinerant Jewish preacher was baptized and executed, how then are we to determine what other details are true details of his life and acts?

Were his parents Mary and Joseph?

Where and when was he born?

What did he actually preach?

How much of the Gospel accounts can be shown to be true and why?

You get the point.

Some people who prescribe to a mythological Jesus actually concede there may have been one or more inspirational characters behind the story, but so much was added to the story that it's impossible to pin down the one and only historical Jesus.

It also is an issue of Euhemerism vs. Apotheosism.

It depends on which Jesus myth hypothesis is in question. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ

 

Your position is the most reasonable one but many people DO argue that no single man on whom Christianity was built ever existed 

I get the point, but it is not pertinent to my argument.

I accept that historical facts prove christ was a real preacher teacher. i accept that  he taught  /preached the theology of the hillel school  of liberal Judaism

This figure was the origin of Christianity as a jew and his message was taken up and radically altered by Paul who is the true father of modern (Catholic)  Christianity 

Roman records show many Jewish Christians by about AD 50, and these were taxed as jews,  but by AD 75 there were many more gentile Christians so the Romans created two tax forms for the different religions 

The details of his personal life are really as irrelevant as his status as  mystical miraculous god figure. 

many of his teachings are also  recorded as the teachings of the Hillel school of rabbis 

Personally, it is my belief  that  his teachings are basically as recorded. The y began as oral records Paul commented on them in the mid  first century and the y were first recorded around 70-80 AD 

Debate about his miraculous work or his divine nature belong in another sphere.

  It is possible this is all simply mythology, OR it is possible it is all true, but that depends on belief, not evidences. 

 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Please don't answer a question with a question, if you don't understand or can't answer the question please say so that's what I would do it's only show respect for the fact that we can't know everything. Because in our present forms it would become over very overwhelming and we couldn't handle the pressure it would create.

I have no idea what you are talking about, so I asked a question to clarify. 

What energy are you referring to, does it have a name?

[+Sherapy]

46 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats your judgement and may reflect a misunderstanding of enlightenment 

Besides you have never believed the things i have told you about how my wife and i live BECAUSE we are enlightened 

No lol I am NOT describing those things I LEARNED the nature of classical romantic love from m my parents and others and from my reading.

I suspect that  those  who read little struggle to comprehend how to construct the sort of love found in literature  Love is not chemical at all. it is intellectual .

tristan and isold 

lancelot and guenivere

robinhood and marion

pip and estella 

I am not exaggerating when i say i have read most of the great novels of western literature form the last 200 years  and thus most of those with romance in them 

Romantic love is found in many of these but also in plain simple western stories, science fiction, and fantasy   Often sex does not even come into it or chemical attraction It is the idealised concepts inherent in love which create/define  romantic love These  include many things; from love, honour, duty, to empathy compassion protection and companionship,  tenderness and, sometimes, desire,  but often attraction of the mind, interests etc. .  

 

 

https://www.hitched.co.uk/wedding-planning/quotes/romantic-quotes-from-literature/

Maybe you should  start reading a few Nicholas Spark's novels (I have read them all) 

What ever works for you. 

All the best.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

What energy are you referring to, does it have a name?

Phlogiston ?

[Mr Walker]

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What ever works for you. 

All the best.

True, but i find it incredibly sad (if) it is true that you have not experienced this form of love, and believe your love is some chemically driven emotion which may disappear if the chemicals dry up 

I suspect you have experienced this form of intellectual, abstract, symbolic love, but wont admit it in this debate. 

Plus, of course, it is not JUST what works for me, but the most fundamental difference between humans and al other primates and animals  

Edited December 28, 2019 by Mr Walker

[Grim Reaper 6]

44 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I have no idea what you are talking about, so I asked a question to clarify. 

What energy are you referring to, does it have a name?

Thank you for your candor, the energy I was referring to is the remaining electrical and heat energy that starts leaving the body at the time of death. The Buddhist call this Wind Energy, or Mental Energy according to the Buddhist tradition you follow. According to this belief Wind Energy is released from the heart, and may not leave the body for days after death. Mental energy of course is released from the mind, and also may not leave the body for days after death. 

Now either form of energy mentioned above will only be released if the death was natural and the body was unmolested. Cremation or violent death will disrupt this cycle, however, over longer periods these energies will eventually be coalesce so that reincarnation can occur. 

Peace.

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Manwon Lender

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

( On life after death, medical science is the strongest evidence that there is no consciousness beyond biological death ). 

According to science that is certainly correct. But the thing that Science doesn't explain so clearly is what happens to the energy that is released when someone dies? I am not talking about a sole, because I don't believe in that, I believe in reincarnation. What I am talking about is pure energy that exists within the human body, that is released at death. 

We all know that energy can be produced in many forms, however it can't be destroyed. It will only change its form and properties. So where does this energy go?

The energy is not created, it's generated by tiny ion pumps on your nervous system.

I'm sure it be told you before. It's converted to heat. Basic thermodynamics. All the energy left in your body when you die is accounted for. That's why a body drops to room temperature, then during decomposition atoms are repurposed.

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by psyche101

[Grim Reaper 6]

28 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

The energy is not created, it's generated by tiny ion pumps on your nervous system.

I'm sure it be told you before. It's converted to heat. Basic thermodynamics. All the energy left in your body when you die is accounted for. That's why a body drops to room temperature, then during decomposition atoms are repurposed.

 

Um ok, where does the energy that leaves the body go?

Edited December 28, 2019 by Manwon Lender