Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, we'll say that you read the entire thing. Then your reading comprehension skills are lacking. There is a difference, as I stated in my post, between discussing, (in which I gave an example), and attacking, (which I gave an example). Attacking someone and telling them that they are wrong, (which I gave an example in my post), is NOT inviting discussion.
So, let's try this again, and see if you finally comprehend what I said. You're too busy trying to be right, that you don't even have a CLUE that I've already stated discussion is fine.
Example 1: I don't believe in an after life. I don't think there's anything there.
That is called discussion, and sharing ideas.
Example 2: There is no such thing. God does not exist. You and your imaginary friend are ridiculous.
That's called attacking, and not sharing ideas. That's acting like the authority on a subject.
Do you now see the difference? One is stating what the person believes, one is telling everyone else that they are idiots for what they believe. If you STILL do not comprehend the difference, then perhaps you are part of the problem?
I appreciate your pointing this out . . . I think sometimes folks do not realize that by stating their emphatically held beliefs - while also stating that to think any other way makes the other person (fill in the blank, i.e. stupid, vacuous, naive) - is a discussion ender and is very hurtful and mean-spirited, even if that was not the intent.
Here is my take on this subject.
Of course most of us are going to be fascinated by it - what happens after death is unknown and unqualifiable.
All we have to go on is 1. religious beliefs 2. anecdotal experiences from others and 3. any experiences we, ourselves, have had.
Therefore, NO ONE has a 100% "right" answer. There is no way to "prove" what occurs. Mystics and prophets have given us some insight . . . what we decide to accept on faith and what we decide to discard -- that is an individual matter of faith as well as reasoning, plus experience.
So for anyone to state that someone's beliefs "are not right" . . . well . . . that ain't right, lololol. No one living on this planet can state without qualification what happens after death.
Therefore, the personal experiences, the words from prophets . . . those things become as good a criteria for discussion (and belief) as anything else.
Dead IS dead, but there are many many people that have been clinically dead and come back. Having your heart completely stop is not unconcious.
When I was 16 I drowned in a swimming pool because I was held under so long I passed out. I floated to the bottom of that pool and layed there. I was found by a man walking by, coming home from work in his suit. He took off his shoes and his watched and jumped in and pulled me out. He then did CPR and artifical respiration on me and in time I came back. When I was fighting for my life trying to get to the top of the water for air I was never filled with so much fear and panic. i used every ounce of strength I had trying to save myself. I was only 16 and had everything to live for. Finally I had nothing left in me and the last thing I remember was literally floating slowly to the bottom of the pool, unable to help myself, actually accepting that I was going to die, and feeling a peace I had never felt before. Did I see my relatives on the other side? No. Did I see The Light and go towards it? No. The reason I think that didn't happen was because I had not reach that level of death yet for my spirit to leave me, I was saved by someone. Do I think that if no one had found me then and I had laid there much longewr in the pool that I would have experienced those things? Yes. But lets face it, none of us know for sure what lies out there. All I can tell you is what I experienced.
Ok, we'll say that you read the entire thing. Then your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
Ad hominem personal insults add nothing to the thread. Me disagreeing with you is not the same as me not comprehending you.... though all too many people willfully misconstue the former as the latter in order to dodge points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Attacking someone and telling them that they are wrong, (which I gave an example in my post), is NOT inviting discussion.
Yet there is nothing wrong with telling people they are wrong when you have every reason to think they are. Too many people will see being told they are "wrong" as being an insult. I see it as quite the opposite. Where people point out your errors we should be grateful. Alas we are an unjustifiably over proud species who are quick to take personal offense on behalf of our ideas. If someone is wrong, or making unsubstantiated claims, we very much should point that out to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Do you now see the difference? One is stating what the person believes, one is telling everyone else that they are idiots for what they believe. If you STILL do not comprehend the difference, then perhaps you are part of the problem?
Once again, me not agreeing is not the same as me not comprehending, though I understand your need to pretend it is so. You make two examples and then assert that the latter is calling people "idiots". I do not see it that way. Insults demean the insulter, never the insulted, ever. So I would not condone calling anyone an "idiot". Yet both your example 1 and 2 are find by me and I do not see them as calling anyone an "idiot". If someone espouses a ridiculous idea then I see nothing wrong in explaining to them THAT and WHY it is a ridiculous idea.
If you want to find offense in that, where none exists and none is intended, then the only person who is "part of the problem" is you. Not me. But as I said people are too quick to take offense vicariously on behalf of their ideas and calling an idea stupid or ridiculous is not the same as calling the HOLDER of that idea stupid or ridiculous. And you would do well to learn the difference.
The best example I can think of is Newton. No one thinks he was stupid. Quite the contrary. He was likely one of, if not the, best mind our species has ever produced.
Yet he subscribed to some egregious nonsense and ridiculous ideas, all of them entirely unsubstantiated in any way.
So given my great respect for his intelligence I think it clear that there is a great disparity, that you ignore, between attacking an idea, and attacking the holder of an idea.
I feel you would be better to phrase this as "I" (meaning you) have literally no reason to expect anything does", rather than "we".
I mean "we" as a species appear to have no substantiated for such things. If I am mistaken in that then by all means present said substantiation. But it appears not to be forthcoming.
We as a species appear to have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning upon which to expect anything except a complete cessation of subjectivity and consciousness upon the death of our brain.
So perhaps, if I might politely request, you could worry about the phrasing of your own posts and leave me to decided upon the phrasing of mine.
Yet I still stand by my last post. I have every reason to believe there is more to come once a person "dies" on this planet. And I'm sure countless others of our species do too.
Yet I still stand by my last post. I have every reason to believe there is more to come once a person "dies" on this planet. And I'm sure countless others of our species do too.
If you say so, but until such time as you start presenting those reasons or reasoning I can only take your word for it. Which I do not. At all.
There is no compelling reason to believe there is 'life' after death. I can understand why one would want to have it be true, but life after death has no scientific proof, first, and second, a reason to happen in the first place. It strikes me as nothing more than wishful thinking.
If you say so, but until such time as you start presenting those reasons or reasoning I can only take your word for it. Which I do not. At all.
And I don't expect you to. You might need science. I do not. I am quite happy believing the way I do, in what I do...as should you be in what you believe. I have no desire to go around trying to convince anyone of anything...or trying to prove anything to anyone.
I feel there is a mastery over death. That one does not have to die. Jesus for instance, proved this when he was resurrected. There are many others that have "died" and returned. The OP of this thread may very well be an example of that. Call it what you want...but it is what it is.
There is so much more out there...all within our grasp. Unfortunately the various religions have twisted the truth of it all, and have made a mess of everything.
There is no compelling reason to believe there is 'life' after death. I can understand why one would want to have it be true, but life after death has no scientific proof, first, and second, a reason to happen in the first place. It strikes me as nothing more than wishful thinking.
There is an awful lot of compelling evidence out there that reincarnation happens. How else could children hold the knowledge they do in these documented cases?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
