Theories about god

by **aeroue** » February 19th, 2006, 2:27 pm

Near death experiences?
Astral projections?

These are both experiences involving the mind having some sense of existence out of body.

What do you think of them?

Including accounts of near death experiences when in surgery the anaesthetised person is able to recount exactly what the doctors and nurses did, said and look like when they should not have this knowledge? Which is then verified by the doctors and nurses to be true.

by **Mallic** » February 19th, 2006, 6:31 pm

aeroue wrote:Near death experiences?
Astral projections?

These are both experiences involving the mind having some sense of existence out of body.

What do you think of them?

Including accounts of near death experiences when in surgery the anaesthetised person is able to recount exactly what the doctors and nurses did, said and look like when they should not have this knowledge? Which is then verified by the doctors and nurses to be true.

What do I think of them? It is the soul escaping when the body is unable to support it. The soul has either the option to

a) Go to the afterlife (whatever it is, I don't know and that isn't the issue)

b) Hang around to see whether the body will get stable enough to contain them.

Astral projections are the soul volentarily coming out during sleep.

In any case, I have no creative or phyical energy to continue this post any longer.

by **aeroue** » February 20th, 2006, 5:05 am

a) Go to the afterlife (whatever it is, I don't know and that isn't the issue)

My opinion exactly.

It is more imoprtant in my opinion to actually establish whether or not there even is an afterlife before you discuss what it actually is. Though from what you said earlier you suggested that was not enough, claiming we need to say what it actually is, now you endorse it....

SubmissMe what is your opinion on these near death experiences?

by **goldragon_70** » February 20th, 2006, 9:16 am

Mallic wrote:
Astral projections are the soul volentarily coming out during sleep.

I can astral project with out sleep, infact I have done it from time to time with my eyes open in a meditative trance.

by **Primus** » February 20th, 2006, 3:24 pm

trance is like sleep... only better

Man it looks like I missed a hell of a good argument when my laptop died so I'm just going to offer this blanket statement to cover it all. You all suck and your all wrong

and hopefully your all united against a common foe

by **aeroue** » February 20th, 2006, 4:41 pm

lol

To be honest though that might as well be the case :(

I mean the afterlife is the afterlife, we can't ever know for sure till we get there and if we do just become nonexistant we still won't know cause we won't be able to comprehend it.

by **Mallic** » February 23rd, 2006, 2:34 pm

Aeroue, what you seen to not realize, is that we are asking you about what you think the afterlife is. We are not asking about your theories on souls and death, but for a theory about the AFTERLIFE

by **aeroue** » February 23rd, 2006, 3:54 pm

I am aware you have been asking me, and I already said I did not know (I think, can't be bothered to check). But if not...

I never made a claim to know what the afterlife is.

I still don't know, I assume it is something like the astral world, but I cannot be sure, I am not dead.

I expect to still have a self (probably made up of past lives more than just the current me) and some sort of body, what form these will take I do not know, I also expect there to be an option of reincarnation but I do not know for sure. It may well depend on how far you have got on spiritually in this life whether you reincarnate or go somewhere else. But still I view this knowledge as unattainable until death or some some of genius.

Besides all I have been asking is why is it so unlikely that there is an afterlife. That is what spawned this part of the disussion.

It was aimed at submissme's claim it is unlikely.

also

Becuase you can't see it, hear it, feel it, touch it, smell it.

You can't verify it through experience ergo it is unlikely.

In relationship to the afterlife I am pretty sure having thought about it a bit, is no reason to not believe in the AFTERlife.

I mean it is the afterlife. It comes after life, i.e. after death.

The whole concept of the thing suggest that you will not experience it until a certain event happens, your death.

Have you died? Ergo if it does exist you cannot experience it, YET

Mallic, what is your opinion of the afterlife?

by **Mallic** » February 23rd, 2006, 6:45 pm

Afterlife? Afterlife?

The afterlife is totally subjective. Therefor(e? I don't know), we all convince ourselve that we will go to a place taliored to us. I am a pc game freak. I will want to a place where it turns out that life is a game, and that we play characters with differant personalities and challenges (For example, me being a fat lazy bastard) and that I'll get to chose a new challenge (My own version of rencarnation) or quit the game. Of course, you would thinmk I was out of touch with reality, as my perfect heaven would clash with yours. The afterlife will not be what you expect. If your unlucky, it WILL be EXACTLY what you expect.

I hate this world. I hate everything about our society. I predict that we will destroy ourselves by the year 2020. Write that down. Put it on record that I said that. I don't care whether I am right or wrong about it. All I want, is to see it happen. I want to see the streets burning. I want to see the world in devastation. Its the only way for this world to get a second chance. It is the only way for the balance to be kept in the human race. The politics that we created will detroy us. Like everything in human history, it started out as a way to protect us, to help us grow, to survie on day more. All it is now is a method of control. How ingenious a way they found for control. Its called religion. Its more closely related to something called fear. Would we be arguing right now about the meaning of life and the afterlife if there there was no religions? Of course we wouldn't. Moral were the invetion of mankind. one more method of control. If people realized there was no reason to live by the shit of politics and religion, there would be anarchy. But they amde a mistake. They tried to introduce Polictical Correctness. And then, the people picked it up. George Orwell picked it up. He wrote 1984. He made the unconfortable conection. The conection between PC and control. So the people opposed PC.

I don't know why I just wrote that. It was something I needed to get off my chest. Sorry for the rant.

by **goldragon_70** » February 23rd, 2006, 9:10 pm

I believe in a type of reincarnation. We can become one with god again, but there is no fun in that, so we live life over and over, gaining experiences for god, and just enjoying different roles in life. :P

Edit: Freaky, I started page number 15; my Bday is the 15th of July. Probably just a coincidence, but then again, I don't believe in that...... 8O

by **hailtheprinceofdarkness** » February 24th, 2006, 1:26 am

huh.....

I personally am a Chaos Mage and i guess that could be considered a religion. my beliefs are quite mixed. Chaos magic came from the united states, it is a mixture of all the known magicks in the world, it hinges mainly on psionics, but the belief is there.

the general chaos mage view on death is the hindu reincarnation theory with a twist, the fact of god's existance. Many sages have thought this over many times and concluded that people are being sent back to earth. This lead many Chaos Mages to believe that there was a war between two major powers, and the two different sides were sending reinforcements to the battle.

by **aeroue** » February 24th, 2006, 4:25 am

Mallic I think I see what you are saying with your little rant there, our governments are way out of control.

I heard just the other day that the 22nd Ammendment of the US Constitution is under threat from Bush. Then there is patriot act.

It is almost as bad over here in the UK, so many of our civil rights are in danger because of this 'terrorist threat'

But that aint the point.

Have you heard of the ascension?

Supposed to be around 2012. I don't know how valid it is but many seemingly unrelated theories I have read about seem to connect with it.

here is a link - http://ascension2000.com/09.28.03.htm

Basically it is a kind of Doomsday theory, but supposedly some of us 'ascend' into I think, one of the higher dimensions.

Oh, and I disagree with afterlife being subjective. If it is subjective it is just yours and yours alone. So you would be alone, that would be a lame way to live out eternity.

by **SubmissMe** » February 25th, 2006, 6:38 am

I always hear of crackpot views on when there will be a doomsday, when the world will end and so on.

Does any of it ever happen? NO.

Will this one happen? NO.

by **aeroue** » February 25th, 2006, 8:33 am

Look man, if all you are ever going to do is say no thats rubbish then why post? I mean fine say it is rubbish but back it up. You are yet to reply to what I said earlier.

I never said it was true, also I bet you did not even check the link.

If you can be bothered then you will find that our solar system is doing some weird stuff.

Assuming it is true, I havn't checked all the sources but a lot of them are genuine.

I only said about it cause from what Mallic said he might find it interesting at least.

BUT, if you are going to use precedence to say that it is impossible try this out.

You know the Mayans? Ye olde civilisation long gone. They have predicted all solar events up to this day eclipses etc. and been right. They also predicted the end of the world (though this is somewhat disputed and relies on some interpretation) so by your logic,

Have the Mayans accurately predicted similar events before? YES

Could they be right with this too? YES

But still, I find things like this interesting im not saying it is true.

Anyway SubmissMe, again, what are your thoughts on accurate reports of doctors during out of body experiences?

by **Mallic** » February 25th, 2006, 3:50 pm

Please Aeroue, do not talk like I am on your side because I believe in an afterlife and SubmissMe doesn't. This is a better conversation because Sub is a aethiest(?) and I am not. You are a hinderence to the flow of conversation here. You say that Sub gives no sources. You don't need to if you are making a judgement base on common sence. You DO NEED TO GIVE SOURCES if you talk about some Mayan prediction of the future that supposedly came true, and were more than "I think it will rain." The mayan lived (I'm not sure, it was them or the Aztecs or Incas, all of whom had acurate calanders) on or near a mountain range, having a very clear view of the sky, thus insuring that they had very good calanders and astronomy. They had a calender of both the moon and the sun. See where I am going.

Now, like the good little boy I am, I will tell you that my source was wikipedia.

by **aeroue** » February 25th, 2006, 6:54 pm

Errr...

I wasn't talking to you like your on my side...if I was it was unintentional.

And I just posted that randomly as I felt you and others may have some interest, 'sources' was in direct relation to the link and all the strange yet true happenings in our solar system.

For example did you know that the earth has inexplicably changed shape?
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801gravityfield.html

Anyway that was just an aside, I really do not see any point in discussing theories like that here.

If I am such a hindrance ask and I will just go, no point in burdening you, it seems you ignore what I am saying half the time anyway, though maybe I am not putting my points across well (dyslexic).

by **SubmissMe** » February 26th, 2006, 10:08 am

As a general rule, I'd say that it is the responsibility of yourself to prove your theories about afterlife and doomsdays, not mine.
That's very convenient for me as we can never KNOW about these things, all we can do is take a look at the world around us in which we live and use these interpretations to form a coherent conclusion.

Now, just because the earth has changed shape or some primitive mayans made a prophecy to me doesn't constitute reason for building a bomb shelter in my back garden. If molten ash was raining from the sky and a lake of fire was running through the street whilst demons in chariots flew around the crimson sky tormenting souls of the wicked then sure, It's time to start crapping myself.

For me, proposing the idea of an afterlife goes hand in hand with proposing the idea of a God. I don't think an afterlife could exist without a God and I don't think there is a God thus I don't think there is an afterlife. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me of a God, so aeroue if you find one just gimme a shout.

Ok, so that's my view on proof of an afterlife and of doomsday theories. And in my spare time I prefer to revise up on philosophical theories rathen than if the earth is changing shape. It's not a case of not being bothered, you find most of the junk you're proposing in the Sun.

by **aeroue** » February 26th, 2006, 11:11 am

The Sun, sure, thats why the article about the earth changing shape is straight from NASA....and I wasn't trying to prove it I just think it is interesting.

Anyway, why must there be a God for there to be an afterlife?

N.B. I am NOT proposing anything I am asking you why you think that.

People seemed to get a bit confused last time I asked you why YOU thought the afterlife was unlikely.

by **SubmissMe** » February 26th, 2006, 11:18 am

Well, to be honest there's no deep philosophical insight I can really shed on the subject.

The more I think about it the more it seems that it's either God and an afterlife, or no God and no afterlife. When you think about it the two just seem to go hand in hand.

An afterlife with no God makes even less sense than a God with an afterlife.

by **Mallic** » February 26th, 2006, 2:38 pm

Interesting. What about this? God does not have to be around anymore. You know religion is based on faith, right? Gods don't exsist by default, They need a following to have faith in them and so they can continue to exsist.

by **aeroue** » February 26th, 2006, 3:36 pm

Sounds like that was straight from Terry Pratchet to me.

And no I doubt it, something exists or it doesn't. If it (God) is all powerful as a God is supposed to be then it will not need faith to exist.

Should it require faith to exist it is not all powerful and so not God, even I am powerful enough to exist and sustain myself so I am sure a God would be.

by **Mallic** » February 26th, 2006, 4:54 pm

Up untill I wrote that, I wazs assuming that god is a person. Now i am open to the possibilty that god is what it followers want it to be. Now, of course we have to presume that something has happened to fill the plot hole of the universe ajnd what came before that void, which of course is impossible to comprehend let alone explain to others. Lets just say that the universe happened by chance. Ok, so, humans have always been the odd one out. As far as we know, we are the only intelligant creature on the planet. Man sees a dog. Man goes 'Wow, that thing is differant than me! It must be speical!' So god took the form of a dog. If you trace this up the timeline, you can see whast I mean.

by **aeroue** » February 27th, 2006, 3:53 am

Where is this 'Dog God'? The main culture that tended to specifically animal God's is the Egyptians. Which I know little about...

The majority of God's are protectors, or providers.

Pagan/Greek/Viking pantheistic Gods bring seasons, food, alcohol also tended to get a specific one, etc.

Then monotheistic Gods are protectors generally. i.e Christian. Jewish,Islam

Hinduism does have animal Gods as well but they are symbolic someone did not just see a monkey and come up with a God called Hanuman because the monkey was different, and generally the animal God is an avatar of a more powerful God.

I fail too see the pattern you said or understand the logic behind why this dog becomes a God. I mean why is this dog special, are there not hundreds of dogs? What did this dog do for mankind to warrant worship?

It doesn't fit with accepted sociological or psychological reasons for God/s either.

Also primitive man's thoughts tended to be less 'that animal looks special it can be our God' and more 'that animal looks tasty it can be our dinner'

by **Mallic** » February 27th, 2006, 5:10 am

I was giving an example. Dog came to mind 'cause it is goD backwards. And your reasoning that they aren't special 'cause there are hundreds of them is flawed. There are hundred of statues of Jesus. Why are the indeviduals special? Personally, I have no Idea, I don't see what he did good. But my point is that each individual dog is the same (Or differant based on seicies) God's avatar.

Dogs, are possible to train. Some tribal leader tains one, and teaches his son, and the image of a dog as a pet becomes synomonus with a leader. Therefor they connect a dog with god. I don't care anymore. I am in over my head. SubmissMe or Snady can take over. I'm done. Too many pig words. My brain is going to sleep. my hands are beoming blurred. I feel like shit.

Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ

by **aeroue** » February 27th, 2006, 6:23 am

Your Jesus example is flawed, there are hundreds of statues of Jesus because he is special so people want to make a statue to honour him. Us making statues to honour Jesus does not make him less special.

The fact that the dog is trained does not make it any more holy either, in my opinion that only makes the dog more subservient to us. Which is less god like as we are subservient to God the trained dog is to us.

by **SubmissMe** » February 27th, 2006, 7:04 am

Thinking of God as a person is just absurd to be honest. Too many cartoons show a God as a big old man in the sky dressed in white with a white beard wearing 'Jesus Sandals'.

If God where to exist ( let me make quite certain that this is not my belief ) then God would be some kind of benevolent force, more like wind than anything human.

by **goldragon_70** » February 27th, 2006, 11:45 am

The Egyptians had Gods symbolized as animals, because they were the closest humanoid form to what they really were. IE: Ra is the god of the SUN, which is not a bird headed humanoid like he was represented. The ancestors are represented as animals in Native American cultures, and there are other cultures that have clearly used animals as spiritual icons.

To me god does not require worshiping, we are the one that require something to worship; God is just obliging us.

by **SubmissMe** » February 28th, 2006, 3:48 pm

The Egyptians also had slavery...............................

by **Mallic** » February 28th, 2006, 4:10 pm

And.....?

by **aeroue** » February 28th, 2006, 4:54 pm

Pyramids!

I was wondering why it matters that they had slavery too...

It is pretty genius symbolism though.

by **goldragon_70** » February 28th, 2006, 10:08 pm

SubmissMe wrote:The Egyptians also had slavery...............................

they weren't the only ones. :(

by **SubmissMe** » March 1st, 2006, 12:12 pm

The idea is that the Egyptians also had slavery, but nobody thinks that's a good idea in this day and age. A bit like the Egyptian gods.

by **juniper** » March 1st, 2006, 2:43 pm

I know more than one person that is quite fond of the Egyptian gods(no, I'm not one of them, but I believe that if belief in a deity is valid to a person then that is all that is important).

by **SubmissMe** » March 1st, 2006, 4:13 pm

So are we actually suggesting that the Egyptians were right with their ideas of Gods?

by **aeroue** » March 1st, 2006, 5:19 pm

No he was saying that it does not matter if they are real or not so long as the person gets something from their belief.

If I am wrong please correct me.

BUT have you seen any evidence to the contrary?
You havn't seen them so you don't think they exist.
The egyptians had't seen them either, but they ~knew~ they existed.

Not that I believe in the egyptian gods.

by **goldragon_70** » March 1st, 2006, 10:08 pm

That's what I get she is saying too.

by **Mallic** » March 1st, 2006, 10:39 pm

Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ
Good Morning, Welcome to ICQ

Whew, I'm back.

From the fact the Egyptians are not the largest/greatest/most advance civilization on earth anymore, I would guess their gods either wern't real or went on vacation. No, its that we haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence ever.

by **juniper** » March 1st, 2006, 11:25 pm

goldragon_70 wrote:That's what I get he is saying too.

hehe. It's she, not he. hehe. If I COMPLETELY misunderstood, please just ignore this post.lol.

Juniper

by **goldragon_70** » March 2nd, 2006, 7:39 am

juniper wrote:
goldragon_70 wrote:That's what I get he is saying too.

hehe. It's she, not he. hehe. If I COMPLETELY misunderstood, please just ignore this post.lol.

Juniper

Whoooops!!!!, sorry about that. :oops: will change.

by **SubmissMe** » March 2nd, 2006, 9:17 am

It often seems like me and Mallic against aeroue, which I'm completely fine with.

Aeroue, there is more to my understanding of the world than the verification principle. I use my interpretation of the world based on probability and logic. Is it probable or logical that the Egyptians were right? No. When you think about it, is it probable or logical that there is a God? No.

And please don't tell me that it is because it's widely accepted that God's existence isn't the most probable answer. If we use reason alone then we come to the conclusion there is no God, but when we use faith we can end up with an existing God.

Is it reliable to go through life using reason? Yes.
Is it reliable to go through life using faith? No.

But wait. here's where aeroue will tell me that you can go through life using faith. So time for an analogy.

A man goes up to you and tells you to jump off Big Ben. He tells you that you won't die. A man with reason would weigh up the drop and the argument and think "no way, i'll be killed". The man with faith would say "Sure, why not? I have faith so i'll trust him". Of course the man with reason stays alive and the man with faith leaves a nice body imprint on Oxford road.

Yet another example that faith and religion is harmful to our rationality.

by **aeroue** » March 2nd, 2006, 9:52 am

hehe I know it does seem that way, unfortunately I know I am pretty much fighting for a lost cause. Im not really a theist or promoter of religion, when I was doing my a levels, I critisised :)

But you analogy is broken.
That is not a man with faith that is a man with stupidity.

Your also assuming that faith and reason cannot co-exist.

But anyway there is a man with faith and a man with reason.

The reasonable one believes in no God. He sees no higher purpose to his life, he believes when he is dead he is dead, it is over. The world is just material there is nothing special about it, just one of many in the universe. If he is right it serves no purpose because in the end there is nothing.

p.s. sorry Juniper :)

The faithful man, he has a purpose, he serves his God. He knows he has an immortal soul and sees beauty in all of creation. To him each day is a joyous one just be be living in his lords world gifted to him. He will lead a good life and a happy one. If he is right he will go to heaven.

Of course that is very stereotyped and generalised but I felt like writing something random to show why I think it is better to try and have some sort of faith. It probably leads to a better life and if you are right you can gloat at the end :)

I used to be atheist but I figured there is no point, I still don't believe in God but I look for one. So I am prolly agnostic.

by **SubmissMe** » March 2nd, 2006, 11:41 am

Oh how wonderful, instead of following God and putting your trust in him you cheat him by looking for something by your own admissions doesn't exist. Clever.

Reason can exist without faith, but faith could never exist without some reason. Therefore reason is more important and faith is only a product of human reasoning obscured.

by **juniper** » March 2nd, 2006, 12:26 pm

goldragon_70 wrote:
juniper wrote:
goldragon_70 wrote:That's what I get he is saying too.

hehe. It's she, not he. hehe. If I COMPLETELY misunderstood, please just ignore this post.lol.

Juniper

Whoooops!!!!, sorry about that. :oops: will change.

it's all good:).

Peace

by **Mallic** » March 2nd, 2006, 5:03 pm

Wonderful. Are you saying that an atheist automaticaly has a bad life? Your saying that you are looking for a god? If you have to look for a god, then it is not part of human nature. If we came from the hand of god, then he would of given us some sort of way to let us know he was there.

A faithful man does not have a good life by default. And vice-versa. A faithful man living in poverty would not have the mindset of "each day is a joyous one just be be living in his lords world gifted to him". He would justbe waiting to die and get his eternal reward.

The reasonable one has more immedaite worldly pleasures, the one he KNOWS to exsist. The faithful one has a 50-50 chance of getting to sit down next to a man with a beard in heaven.

I know which one I want to be. I want to be the one in the middle. Yes, there is a middle.

by **aeroue** » March 3rd, 2006, 7:13 am

Hehe I was somewhat stoned at the time :D

I also tend to be an idealist :?

SubmissMe where did I say God did not exist?
Also when you wrote faith can't exist without reason, that breaks your earlier analogy the guy who jumped obviously had no reason yet he had faith.

Also I do not see why faith is reason obscured.
I follow your reason is more important as you need it for faith, but that does not make faith obscured reason.

Not that I think my random spiel of drug induced thought is that relevant :)

by **SubmissMe** » March 3rd, 2006, 1:07 pm

You said "I still don't believe in God...." which means you don't think he/she/it exists.

You are an idealist? As in you follow Bishop George Bekreley's theories?

by **Hyp-know-fetish** » March 3rd, 2006, 1:35 pm

I don't want to get into a huge argument right now, because I'm sick and don't have the mental strength to put up a huge fight. (On the plus side, this makes me highly suggestible in trance) However, I would like to say what I believe in.

I believe in the evangelical God because of the miracles He's worked in my life, and the life of my family. A few too many to count, and having miracles performed for you would make anybody a believer. :D

by **Mallic** » March 3rd, 2006, 4:42 pm

Oh, good for you, well done. Tell god to get his ass over here and help me, cause I haven't had one miricle in my life.

by **aeroue** » March 4th, 2006, 7:31 am

SubmissMe not believing in God is very different from saying he does not exist.

As I said I am agnostic. I don't have faith so I don't believe in God but I think he/she/it could exist.

And no im not that sort of idealist.
I get caught in ideals. So if I don't watch it, especially when im high I portray things very black and white. ~ If you get what I mean.

by **SubmissMe** » March 4th, 2006, 7:38 am

There is a huge leap of faith involved to take a "could exist" and turn it into a "does exist". With religion possibly the worst thing to do is sit on the fence post and wait to see what happens.

Theories about god

Who is online