Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Heaven and Hell


Guyver
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

 

 

Hi Walker

What logic have you applied as you have a god and claim to be an atheist?

Two points 

At the time I was an atheist/secular humanist who did not believe gods existed

Now, in a sense I am still an atheist   secular humanist, in that I dont believe gods exist, I know the y do  :)  

However "god" is just a label humans have always applied to wise and powerful beings whose abilities seem like magic to us .

There may indeed be no real gods like those imagined by people.

Real things (even gods)  are bound by real laws of nature. 

imaginary constructs are not .

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

So either you are lying to yourself or us about being an atheist and in all the years of reading your posts you have yet to demonstrate that you are an atheist as you preach your belief in a god.

Hopefully my post above explains this. 

Until my early twenties I was an atheist  I would have laughed at people who believed in gods if  I wasn't too well brought up to do so. 

I don't believe in gods. Indeed, I don't have belief constructs in ANYTHING. The difference now is that  I KNOW that a being,  which  humans think of as a god, exists.

So it depends how you define atheist. I am an atheist in that I have no BELIEF construct  in god, but I am not one in the sense   that i can actively disbelieve in their existence.

I agree with you in one sense This is not a god in the sense of a magical imaginary being  IMO  those do not exist outside the human imagination 

But it is a god in the sense of the power and abilities it demonstrates. Humans have always known it as, and called it, a god. 

in my experience, it is a powerful, self directed, intelligence,   with both physical and mental abilities  beyond our  present  technologies . 

Simply put, I do not, and can not,  believe or disbelieve in the existence of my parents.

That is knowledge I possess,   which makes belief /disbelief impossible.

  For me, god is just the same  as my parents  ie  a real, physical powerful being, which is  interested in me, which protects /empowers and tutors me  and which gives me certain abilities when I am linked with it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someday, the manager is going to walk in, twirling a ring of keys and announce with a grin: closing time boys. Then he flips a switch and the place reverts back to a Pachinko Parlor.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Someday, the manager is going to walk in, twirling a ring of keys and announce with a grin: closing time boys. Then he flips a switch and the place reverts back to a Pachinko Parlor.

Now that is an interesting metaphor.

Does it represent, at all, how you perceive reality might be,  or is it simply humour ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Now that is an interesting metaphor.

Does it represent, at all, how you perceive reality might be,  or is it simply humour ? 

Compared to the vastness and age of the Universe, the conceptual framework by which tiny, finite organisms, such as ourselves, navigate it may be cosmically small. 

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Two points 

At the time I was an atheist/secular humanist who did not believe gods existed

Now, in a sense I am still an atheist   secular humanist, in that I dont believe gods exist, I know the y do  :)  

However "god" is just a label humans have always applied to wise and powerful beings whose abilities seem like magic to us .

There may indeed be no real gods like those imagined by people.

Real things (even gods)  are bound by real laws of nature. 

imaginary constructs are not .

  

Hi Walker

What part of atheist do you not understand? You cannot claim”I know god exists” then say I am an atheist because an atheist claims that there is no god.

Your claims of using logic seems somewhat lacking in reality

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Hopefully my post above explains this. 

Until my early twenties I was an atheist  I would have laughed at people who believed in gods if  I wasn't too well brought up to do so. 

I don't believe in gods. Indeed, I don't have belief constructs in ANYTHING. The difference now is that  I KNOW that a being,  which  humans think of as a god, exists.

So it depends how you define atheist. I am an atheist in that I have no BELIEF construct  in god, but I am not one in the sense   that i can actively disbelieve in their existence.

I agree with you in one sense This is not a god in the sense of a magical imaginary being  IMO  those do not exist outside the human imagination 

But it is a god in the sense of the power and abilities it demonstrates. Humans have always known it as, and called it, a god. 

in my experience, it is a powerful, self directed, intelligence,   with both physical and mental abilities  beyond our  present  technologies . 

Simply put, I do not, and can not,  believe or disbelieve in the existence of my parents.

That is knowledge I possess,   which makes belief /disbelief impossible.

  For me, god is just the same  as my parents  ie  a real, physical powerful being, which is  interested in me, which protects /empowers and tutors me  and which gives me certain abilities when I am linked with it .

So you subscribe to Arthur C Clarke’s premise: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Essentially it’s the God is an alien or aliens thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No.

I also learned, and taught, skimming techniques, which is very different to true speed reading, and has a different purpose.

The way it worked for me was that I looked a t  a page for a second or two.  I saw every word and punctuation mark on that page in one glance,  and memorised it.

Later, I could rewrite the page exactly,  with the same words and punctuation. I used this technique in exams at uni., where i could recall every page of notes taken in lectures over the full year,  (about   30-5000 words)  if i read through them  before an exam 

This was the extreme.   More usually i could do this and have a 90% accurate recall.

I've slowed down a bit as I've stopped needing the skill and got older, but last week I did an online test. This maxed out at 700 words in a minute.

I completed 700 words in about 50 seconds 

In the test given afterwards, I got 80% recall/accuracy,  which is about the same for most people  reading at an average speed.   I did 3 separate  tests including JFK's inaugural address, and got similar speeds and results 

There are two techniques involved 

 1. Being able to see a whole page in the same way a beginning  reader sees and identifies one word, then a sentence.

  Thus, reading page by page, not word by word.

 2. The abilty to memorise that all, and recall it, like an actor learning their lines  

The eidetic memory will  decay over time but if you  transfer it to long term memory, you will remember the basics, 50 years later. 

I cant speak for companies seeking money. I taught myself  back in the 60s, after reading how JFK learned to speed read and getting a scholarship to complete my high school education  

I'd been reading since age 3 and was always a fast reader  (same for all my siblings and their own children  ) 

Ps 700 words is my recreational reading speed.  If i really concentrate, and give myself a headache, I can double that but this will reduce comprehension. eg one lunch time at school I sat down and read ,"T he English Patient "'cover to cover in 40 minutes. That's over 80000 words in 40 mins or 2000 words a minute 

I had a headache and a dry throat when I finished, but i could understand it all, and tell you about the characters, storyline etc. with as much accuracy as a person who took many hours to read it. 

 

So now you can double your reading speed from 700 wpm to 1400wpm. 

You have just shifted your range. It is no longer from 500 wpm to 1000 wpm, but now as low as 500 wpm up to 1400 wpm if you wish to give yourself a headache.

:w00t:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always wondering where  did we get  our emotions from ,  we got them from the animals in the evolution ,animals  do have love, hate jealousy, happyness ,ect   

Edited by docyabut2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, docyabut2 said:

I was always wondering where  did we get  our emotions from ,  we got them from the animals in the evolution ,animals  do have love, hate jealousy,ect   

There's an instance of Homo Ergaster caring for wounded (compassion) 1.5 million years ago. 

Caring would be included as an emotion I would say. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, docyabut2 said:

I was always wondering where  did we get  our emotions from ,  we got them from the animals in the evolution ,animals  do have love, hate jealousy,ect   

Emotions tend to initiate action. So I'd say survival.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heaven is where I am.  Not concerned with the egos of others.

Hell is where you are all...entertaining the Ego of  One...

:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skimming through some of the conversations going on got me to thinking. I probably don't read a lot of words per minute. Was considered "slow" and "thick headed" as a kid. It would take be a dozen+ read through to grasp a concept or remember details. So I have to ask, what is more important. How much you can read or the absorption of what you have read? 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Freez1 said:

Here’s the down side of it in a nut shell. Don’t believe and it’s going to be real hot in you’re afterlife.

This concept of going to hell, if there be such a place to begin with, merely for not believing is completely erroneous. It's all about the works/deeds that merits rewards and punishments in the afterlife, if there be something more after physical death.

Belief implies faith, and faith alone is insufficient for being "saved", as it is incorrectly, and conveniently preached/taught by those wolves in sheep's clothing. The flock is easily fooled because it's very convenient; after all it's so much easier to just believe, rather than doing all the good hard deeds/work. Saved from what? Punishment, of course! 

Here is just one example which clearly, and unambiguously states it, and there are more to be had, besides being even more clear when all is understood.

James 2:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that? 17So too, faith by itself, if it does not result in action, is dead.

18But someone will say, “You have faith and I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19You believe that God is one.g Good for you! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20O foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is worthless? 21Was not our father Abraham justified by what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith was working with his actions, and his faith was perfected by what he did. 23And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”i and he was called a friend of God.j 24As you can see, a man is justified by his deeds and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute justified by her actions when she welcomed the spies and sent them off on another route? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what you will about Mr. Walker, but he, fearlessly, takes everyone on, and does not just give a one liner back, nor does he resort to banal personal insults in his replies. He adds pages and pages to any thread he posts on.

Kudos to Mr. Walker.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Babies are not  "fully human" 

 

   Hmmmmm.     I think they are.  .. just as much as a baby elephant is fully elephant.?    Infancy is simply the beginning of a life, of any species.?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Say what you will about Mr. Walker, but he, fearlessly, takes everyone on, and does not just give a one liner back, nor does he resort to banal personal insults in his replies. He adds pages and pages to any thread he posts on.

Kudos to Mr. Walker.

Pages and pages of nonsense, you mean.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Say what you will about Mr. Walker, but he, fearlessly, takes everyone on, and does not just give a one liner back, nor does he resort to banal personal insults in his replies. He adds pages and pages to any thread he posts on.

Kudos to Mr. Walker.

There's quality vs quantity. Trash piles up faster than product.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It needs to be said, over and over again that heaven and hell, supposing there are these two "places", are of the UNSEEN. These are the abodes of the soul alone, once separated from the body, as the wise have been telling us for a long, long time. If only the physical world could prove the existence of the soul, then it would be obvious to all that Heaven and Hell must exist.

"Well, then, added Socrates, let us suppose that there are two sorts of existences—one seen, the other unseen."

Excerpt from Plato's Phaedo:

Then now let us return to the previous discussion. Is that idea or essence, which in the dialectical process we define as essence or true existence—whether essence of equality, beauty, or anything else—are these essences, I say, liable at times to some degree of change? or are they each of them always what they are, having the same simple self-existent and unchanging forms, not admitting of variation at all, or in any way, or at any time?

They must be always the same, Socrates, replied Cebes.

And what would you say of the many beautiful—whether men or horses or garments or any other things which are named by the same names and may be called equal or beautiful,—are they all unchanging and the same always, or quite the reverse? May they not rather be described as almost always changing and hardly ever the same, either with themselves or with one another?

The latter, replied Cebes; they are always in a state of change.

And these you can touch and see and perceive with the senses, but the unchanging things you can only perceive with the mind—they are invisible and are not seen?

That is very true, he said.

Well, then, added Socrates, let us suppose that there are two sorts of existences—one seen, the other unseen.

Let us suppose them.

The seen is the changing, and the unseen is the unchanging?

That may be also supposed.

And, further, is not one part of us body, another part soul?

To be sure.

And to which class is the body more alike and akin?

Clearly to the seen—no one can doubt that.

And is the soul seen or not seen?

Not by man, Socrates.

And what we mean by 'seen' and 'not seen' is that which is or is not visible to the eye of man?

Yes, to the eye of man.

And is the soul seen or not seen?

Not seen.

Unseen then?

Yes.

Then the soul is more like to the unseen, and the body to the seen?

That follows necessarily, Socrates.

And were we not saying long ago that the soul when using the body as an instrument of perception, that is to say, when using the sense of sight or hearing or some other sense (for the meaning of perceiving through the body is perceiving through the senses)—were we not saying that the soul too is then dragged by the body into the region of the changeable, and wanders and is confused; the world spins round her, and she is like a drunkard, when she touches change?

Very true.

But when returning into herself she reflects, then she passes into the other world, the region of purity, and eternity, and immortality, and unchangeableness, which are her kindred, and with them she ever lives, when she is by herself and is not let or hindered; then she ceases from her erring ways, and being in communion with the unchanging is unchanging. And this state of the soul is called wisdom?

That is well and truly said, Socrates, he replied.

And to which class is the soul more nearly alike and akin, as far as may be inferred from this argument, as well as from the preceding one?

I think, Socrates, that, in the opinion of every one who follows the argument, the soul will be infinitely more like the unchangeable—even the most stupid person will not deny that.

And the body is more like the changing?

Yes.

Yet once more consider the matter in another light: When the soul and the body are united, then nature orders the soul to rule and govern, and the body to obey and serve. Now which of these two functions is akin to the divine? and which to the mortal? Does not the divine appear to you to be that which naturally orders and rules, and the mortal to be that which is subject and servant?

True.

And which does the soul resemble?

The soul resembles the divine, and the body the mortal—there can be no doubt of that, Socrates.

Then reflect, Cebes: of all which has been said is not this the conclusion?—that the soul is in the very likeness of the divine, and immortal, and intellectual, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and that the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintellectual, and multiform, and dissoluble, and changeable. Can this, my dear Cebes, be denied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, lightly said:

   Hmmmmm.     I think they are.  .. just as much as a baby elephant is fully elephant.?    Infancy is simply the beginning of a life, of any species.?

I admit others would define human differently. In this case  I don't define us by species, or biology, but by capability 

Thus to be fully human, with all the rights and responsibilities of a full human, one must be an adult,  functioning, human being.

Children and those with minds which don't work are human, and require protection, but are not fully human ie they are not seen or treated as an adult human of sound mind would be, either by law or by custom  Eg they are not given full autonomy/freedom  of movement or behaviour.  

As it relates to animals and evolving artificial intelligences, I think they will be given the protection we give human children, until the y can think and act like an adult human being   ie the y will be protected and cared for  more than non  "self aware"  animals, but not given  the freedoms and responsibilities of an adult human being.

Other animals, like elephants, are a bit different  from human beings   As the y age their cognitive abilities do not  advance to the level  a human child's do.

They can never become like an adult human, but a child can.   It is this POTENTIAL which differentiates human children from young animals,  and causes us to give them more protection and rights.

  We are protecting what they will become, as much as what they are  as infants. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I admit others would define human differently.

Such as yourself. You love being slippery.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There's quality vs quantity. Trash piles up faster than product.

That is your subjective opinion, as it is  Nuclear's 

Basically people call trash, that which they disagree with or cannot understand,   and especially that which offends them or challenges their view of the world (which they have constructed  to feel safe and secure within)

I keep asking people to challenge the facts logic or actual opinions i express.

Almost no one does. 

They might have reasons (excuses)  for not doing so, but I believe the y simply cannot. 

Heck, I could give logical, rational, and reasoned arguments, against all my opinions, so why can't anyone else? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Walker said:

Basically people call trash, that which they disagree with or cannot understand,   and especially that which offends them or challenges their view of the world (which they have constructed  to feel safe and secure within)

Quote

That is your subjective opinion, 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

I was always wondering where  did we get  our emotions from ,  we got them from the animals in the evolution ,animals  do have love, hate jealousy, happyness ,ect   

If you get a chance read “How Emotions are Made” at current, it is one of the most up to date books on a current understanding of emotions. 
 

https://www.audible.com/pd/How-Emotions-Are-Made-Audiobook/B01NA0TG25?source_code=GO1DH13310082090P1&ds_rl=1262685&ds_rl=1263561&ds_rl=1260658&gclid=CjwKCAjw2bmLBhBREiwAZ6ugo6T8J5tMSEbspsrAn3d5NSOJSm4qPGF8FToxMMxupjMBTiOuWvY2DhoCdFAQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

A few excepts:

In part, the Theory of Constructed Emotions as advanced by Lisa Barret (Neuroscientist) states “that the meaning we make of how we feel for example: fear, joy, happiness, sadness, jealousy, uncertainty is constructed in-the-moment from incoming sensory information, memories of previous experiences, and expectations.  
 

“All of these are informed by the present context.meaning the same emotion such as fear can be interpreted in many ways. In other words, there isn’t just one way to be afraid. Current context and past experience of an emotion color the fear felt in any given moment, this applies to all emotions” 
 

Barret goes onto state “that the construction of an emotion starts with affect, which we are all born with the ability to experience. Barrett defines the term affect as
the “simplest feeling that continually fluctuates between pleasant and unpleasant, and between calm and jittery.” And we are always feeling some kind of way—it’s a condition of being conscious.”

 

“ Affect is the ABCs of survival. It guides us on how to regulate the body by letting us know in the simplest way when things are good or bad. Over a lifespan, beginning at birth we learn to make good use of our ability to make sense of our senses. Our early years of life consist of mapping out what physical sensations and environmental contexts result in what kinds of desirable or undesirable outcomes. This process is called statistical learning, and the human brain is really good at it. Barrett describes statistical learning as “an inborn ability of the brain to learn patterns by observation, computing probabilities of what is similar and what is not.”

Another skill imperative to survival is an ability to read emotions, yet it isn’t automatic, it is shaped by culture and ones physical envoirnment.  
 

Meaning, “we socially construct meaning from the continuing cocreation of knowledge that occurs as people and groups interact. Through this process, norms, social values, beliefs, and ideas about what we should fear emerge and are then taught to us and internalized through experience.
While some differences in cultural norms are obvious, there are many often imperceptible and automatic ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that we’ve internalized simply through the process of growing up in a culture.” 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension isn't someone's strong point. I believe my comment is an analogy. A way of comparing two things in a easy to understand manner.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.