PDA

View Full Version : No Heaven, Says Stephen Hawking



SaxonPagan
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 08:46 PM
NO HEAVEN, SAYS STEPHEN HAWKING
BRITAIN’S most famous scientist yesterday risked the wrath of religious groups by dismissing heaven and the afterlife as “a fairy story for people afraid of the dark”.

The wheelchair-bound Professor Stephen Hawking, who has motor neurone disease, stirred up fresh controversy by rejecting the idea that life continues after the body shuts down.

The 69-year-old physicist caused widespread anger last year with a book claiming the universe was not created by God. Now, in his latest interview, he said there was no heaven and our brains switch off like “broken-down computers” when we die.

His new comments came in reference to his illness, which struck at 21 and left him almost completely paralysed, expected to die in a few years.

He said: “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” But Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, said: *“People who believe in the afterlife don’t do so because they are afraid of death.”


--------------------------------------------------

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/247161/No-heaven-says-Stephen-Hawking

Amerikanerin
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 09:06 PM
I think it's still a little early for him to say that with such assurance. In a few years he will know for sure :)

Thors Hammer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 11:32 PM
How the hell is this news? Didn't he release a book a while back where he confirmed he was atheist anyhow?

wm mauer
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011, 11:52 PM
I will simply say this: If there is a Heaven for those who have wrecked our civilzations over the course of recorded History, I want nothing to do with it, yet, in my bones I know they will not be where I will be once everything is settled.

I'm betting my soul on it. Best of luck to all!

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 12:06 AM
Typical of the anti-intellectual arrogance of these types.

Funny, too, how they claim to be omniscient, just like the various deities whose existence they seek to refute.

Wulfram
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 12:07 AM
I cannot trust a man whose debilitating illness possibly biased his research.
Personally I feel that there is just as great a chance that consciousness never ends, much in the same way the universe allegedly continues to expand. Since no one alive has been to the alleged "other side" to observe not only their own deaths but that of others, how can we ever know just what happens?

Perhaps "heaven" is exactly at that point where the universe continues to expand. (Driving it further and further out of reach? :D)
Has he ever published a complete account of his calculations or other means by which he came to this conclusion? (Remote viewing?)
How would he possibly know where to begin to look for a heaven so that he can denounce it? (Perhaps his intention from the start?)
What area/aspect of the universe was heaven supposed to occupy for him? Where did he expect it to be?

Afraid of the dark? Perhaps he is afraid of the light!

wm mauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 12:08 AM
Typical of the anti-intellectual arrogance of these types.

Funny, too, how they claim to be omniscient, just like the various deities whose existence they seek to refute.

My experience is many of the chosen lol do not believe in the after life. Could that be because they know it isn't for them?

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 12:33 AM
My experience is many of the chosen lol do not believe in the after life. Could that be because they know it isn't for them?

Well it must be remembered that for Jews, along with Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists, the highest aim of spirituality is "reunion" with the godhead, aka the Second Death. In other words absolute destruction of their consciousnesses.

I posted this link elsewhere, but thought it may be worth reposting here,

Consciousness Beyond Life
by Pim van Lommel

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Pim-Van-Lommel/?isbn=9780061777257

Forest_Dweller
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:11 AM
I believe it's possible that there is an afterlife, but I don't think it will be anything like what is written in the bible or any religion for that matter. I don't believe we will know where we go when we die until we are dead, but theres nothing wrong with having our own religious interpretations of what it takes to reach that higher plain of existence.

Cuchulainn
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:24 AM
That pessimistic old bastard expects me to drop my faith because he says theres no heaven... nah I'm good. In his state how is he even conducting experiments? Oh wait, his field is all theoretical so is he saying theres definitively not a heaven or theoretically? Seems he's overstepping the boundaries of modern science with that declaration...

wm mauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:46 AM
Well it must be remembered that for Jews, along with Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists, the highest aim of spirituality is "reunion" with the godhead, aka the Second Death. In other words absolute destruction of their consciousnesses.

I posted this link elsewhere, but thought it may be worth reposting here,

Consciousness Beyond Life
by Pim van Lommel

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Pim-Van-Lommel/?isbn=9780061777257


With all due respect equating them with God or even a watered down "godhead" cannot be imagined.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:58 AM
With all due respect equating them with God or even a watered down "godhead" cannot be imagined.

Well Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same god.

As for Buddhism, it was originally a form of ethical training, and only later degenerated into a religion.

wm mauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:04 AM
Well Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same god.

As for Buddhism, it was originally a form of ethical training, and only later degenerated into a religion.

wow, I'm speechless. The edomite jews rejected The Christ, or did you not know this? That's kinda what the crucifixion was all about.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:12 AM
wow, I'm speechless. The edomite jews rejected The Christ, or did you not know this? That's kinda what the crucifixion was all about.

Sorry, I'm not a Xtian, so this stuff really doesn't interest me.

Ediruc
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:22 AM
Stephen Hawking has been saying some stupid things over the past years now. Didn't he just say recently that Humanity is in the possible threat of being invaded by aliens? :roll

Atheists have been saying there is no afterlife, blah blah blah blah for a long time. If Hawking thinks what he says is new and original, then I really have to put in doubt his intelligence.

Here's something H.P. Lovecraft had to say on the matter:


All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist [sic]. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine.

wm mauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:25 AM
Sorry, I'm not a Xtian, so this stuff really doesn't interest me.

Well, if it ever does, there is a lot to discover. :) Jews rejected the Christian God. I bet you didn't know that Christ called the jews sons of the devil.

I appreciate that there are pagans & odinists & others here. I strive not to offend any of them for our blood is the tie that binds.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 04:35 AM
Well, if it ever does, there is a lot to discover. :) Jews rejected the Christian God. I bet you didn't know that Christ called the jews sons of the devil.

I appreciate that there are pagans & odinists & others here. I strive not to offend any of them for our blood is the tie that binds.

Actually, it's very doubtful that the historical Jesus called the Jews the Devil because the Jews didn't have the conception of a Devil that the later Christians had. The origin of the word Satan is derived from the Hebrew phrase Ha-Satan, which wasn't the name of any actual being, but the name of a vocation, that of an accuser.

My favorite story involving Christ comes from one of the gnostic sects. It relates how Christ was not the son of the Jewish god Yahweh, but actually the son of the Serpent from the Garden of Eden. In the gnostic retelling of the myth, the Serpent in the Garden of Eden saw man spiritually enslaved to Yahweh and took pity on his plight. To free him free him from his spiritual bondage, the Serpent gave man knowledge and thereby gave him the power to free himself. Later Christ, as the son of the Serpent, was born to carry out this same task.

Personally, I'm not interested in other people's religious views, as that is their own business, and most certainly none of mine.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:31 AM
As one famous Australian atheist said: "When you know there is no heaven, you don't fear hell."

Quite right.

Hesse
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:38 AM
Well, I believe there IS an afterlife so I pray for him that he turns around so he ends up at the right one.




His new comments came in reference to his illness, which struck at 21 and left him almost completely paralysed, expected to die in a few years.

Seems kind of an irony that he doesn't see the hands of a higher power watching from above in his recovery, that it actually made him less believing in an afterlife.


I appreciate that there are pagans & odinists & others here. I strive not to offend any of them for our blood is the tie that binds.

I also agree with that but I think it would be interesting to see how athiests, pagans those who have different beliefs symphasise with him.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:47 AM
I can't pray for him as I am not a believer in the Big Guy in the Sky; indeed, I agree with the quoted atheist and Hawking. Death is a full-stop at the end of a sentence.

Cuchulainn
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 06:01 AM
Believe it or not, as a CHRISTian I can appreciate the views of those that do not share my faith, but when people belittle MY God by using substitutions (x) or names that we as Christains do not accept, it tends to stir my ire. While I understand that this is an internet forum that is of mixed religions and beliefs, I would appreciate the same respect that I give to others in their beliefs returned to me with same. That being said those with strong faith will not be shaken by those that scoff, as it is written.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 06:39 AM
I don't scoff at other people's religious beliefs. They are entitled to their beliefs and what they believe is not my business. What I object to is when and where believers in one form of religion or other try to force their beliefs on others who are not believers, such as me. I really don't care what people believe as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me, or others like me. I don't force or impose my personal beliefs on others and I don't see why they should try and force or impose their personal beliefs on me or those like me who share similar or the same beliefs.

Cuchulainn
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 06:49 AM
I don't scoff at other people's religious beliefs. They are entitled to their beliefs and what they believe is not my business. What I object to is when and where believers in one form of religion or other try to force their beliefs on others who are not believers, such as me. I really don't care what people believe as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me, or others like me.

I agree whole-heartedly, I would never try to "preach someone into submission", if anything I let people know I'm a christian and if they wish to know something I tell them what I know concerning there request. And yes I know there are many christians out there that believe everyone needs to hear about fire and brimstone to the point they're screaming at you. I just ask for respect as a fellow germanic:)

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 07:01 AM
I agree whole-heartedly, I would never try to "preach someone into submission", if anything I let people know I'm a christian and if they wish to know something I tell them what I know concerning there request. And yes I know there are many christians out there that believe everyone needs to hear about fire and brimstone to the point they're screaming at you. I just ask for respect as a fellow germanic:)

You and your beliefs have my respect as a fellow Germanic, certainly religious tolerance and freedom of belief and worship among Germanic peoples are Germanic values, and they will continue to be respected as long as no-one attempts to force or impose them on me or those like me. This is not a problem.

Stanley
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 07:15 AM
He said: “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

I very much agree with Hawking's first sentence. I dislike his second sentence, though. I don't think being afraid is the reason people believe in an afterlife. In order to believe something, you can't just wish it true. I would like there to be life beyond death. The thought that someday I'll be nothing is scary, but it can't foster belief in the existence of an afterlife by itself. I would need to truly believe it, which I can't bring myself to do.

Also, the comment exudes bitterness. It's that kind of attitude I wish other nonreligious people would do without.

arcticdoctor
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 08:23 AM
As one famous Australian atheist said: "When you know there is no heaven, you don't fear hell."

Quite right.

Oh ya? Well I swear there is no Heaven! mmm... But I pray there is no Hell!!

Really dudes, this whole thing is ridiculous. Atheism itself is a "religion".
Stephen Hawking is really an incredible person. One I admire immensely.
Even though he is totally paralyzed, except for his eye-balls, he managed to
get married and have a couple of kids. Now that is my kind of Hero.
But Dr Hawking can no more prove there is no "afterlife", than a tub-thumping, jeezuz-jumping, mecca-bowing, golem-worshiping, navel-gazing,
transcendental-transcending, kama-sutra screwing, animalistic-animistic
religious person can prove there is an "afterlife".

Ha ha, for that matter, "Science" is a religion. It has "high priests", "temples", rituals, vestments, relics, doctrine, dogma and they burn heretics at the stake. Trust me, as an apostate scientistian, my cloths are still smoldering from the last auto-da-fe'.

Ralf
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 08:40 AM
Actually, from a Biblical perspective, the fellas quite right, though he obviously isnt as clever as his Dalek voice would have us belive else he would know that, for the Bible says, "dust you are, and to dust you will return"
"There is no knowledge or wisdom or devising in Sheol, the place to which you are going" "for a live dog is better than a dead lion"
"The living know that they will die, but as for the dead, they know nothing at all"

Yes indeed, Gods punishment for man was death.
Well done Steven, you actually got something right, though probably by accident.

Of course, and like most Christians who belive you do carry on living elsewhere, (the Devils original lie by the way), he neglects the concept of the Ressurection to life after the end of Jesus 1000 year reign, something hes going to find himself ineligible for if he carries on trying to convince everyone God doesnt exist.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Having his opinions published has apparently caused Hawking to overestimate their importance. No matter how intelligent anyone may deem him to be, he cannot know the unknowable.

Thors Hammer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 10:31 AM
Why are people getting all worked up over this? Face it people places like Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium, Mag Mell, Hell, etc are tales invented by man. Before anybody starts getting all worked up over this (and so there aren't multiple posts of people saying basically the same and patting each other on the back), I'm not denying there being an afterlife of physicality, but are they like the tales created by man? I doubt it.

Someone posted that it's ironic that Hawking with his illness doesn't see the "hand of a higher power looking out for his recovery", no it isn't ironic its him being a realist that no guy in the sky will help him out, it's a shame other people spend their whole lives thinking if they worship a deity they might get better.

The man from the Xtian voice said "people who believe in an afterlife aren't afraid of death". I highly disagree, there are many people who choose to believe in an afterlife because they are scared to die. Now these people range from all religions e.g. people who reject xtianity but are still afraid of death so follow a faith like Asatru and change from heaven to Valhalla, these people are pathetic, as is anybody who follows a faith because they are afraid of death.

velvet
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Jews rejected the Christian God. I bet you didn't know that Christ called the jews sons of the devil.

This is wrong, the Jews did not reject their god, they only rejected the alleged son of that god. The Christian god is still YHWE, which you should know since you claim to be "a son of YAH" as well.

Are you a Jew? No offence, but claiming descent from the Jewish god is rather weird for a Germanic. And also questions your remark that it is the blood that ties. If you're Germanic, you cant be a descendent of YHWE :shrug


Btw, when Jesus called the priest caste 'sons of the devil', he actually spoke of YHWE, that same god that Christians still worship and call him the god of love (read the bible once more and count the dead and how cruel they died and all the revenge and hate this god poured out upon the earth, from the millions and millions killed in the name of this god not to start).

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 11:14 AM
Oh ya? Well I swear there is no Heaven! mmm... But I pray there is no Hell!!

Yes, I remember that song too: "And When I Die" by Blood, Sweat, & Tears, from the album "Blood, Sweat, & Tears", recorded, I believe, in 1968, but released 1969. It got a lot of air play here.

Doesn't seem as long ago as 1968/69. Time flies.

Wulfram
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 11:29 AM
Why are people getting all worked up over this? Face it people places like Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium, Mag Mell, Hell, etc are tales invented by man.

Agnosticism, atheism, evolution, etc. Are tales invented by man, and are also no less or more, THEORIES.


...and so there aren't multiple posts of people saying basically the same and patting each other on the back.

Like you have just done for yourself here. :oanieyes


I'm not denying there being an afterlife of physicality, but are they like the tales created by man? I doubt it.

Since you have not possibly seen what the other side looks like, your own opinion is just as inconclusive.
There is no way to know for sure until you actually die.


Someone posted that it's ironic that Hawking with his illness doesn't see the "hand of a higher power looking out for his recovery", no it isn't ironic its him being a realist that no guy in the sky will help him out, it's a shame other people spend their whole lives thinking if they worship a deity they might get better.

In spite of his unfortunate illness Hawking still has not even come close to suffering the worst a human has suffered.
There have been countless others who have agonized far more and still their belief remained unshaken.


The man from the Xtian voice said "people who believe in an afterlife aren't afraid of death". I highly disagree, there are many people who choose to believe in an afterlife because they are scared to die.

And atheists can be said to fear the possibility of going to hel to suffer the consequences, which is why they are as equally fervent in denouncing the possibility of a heaven.

Honestly, do you really wish to think that the enemies of our people, who are responsible for the tortuous deaths of hundreds of millions of Germanics, and ultimately our culture, do not ultimately suffer for their crimes? Because they certainly haven't suffered for it in this life.


Now these people range from all religions e.g. people who reject xtianity but are still afraid of death so follow a faith like Asatru and change from heaven to Valhalla, these people are pathetic, as is anybody who follows a faith because they are afraid of death.

Since I KNOW you that you have NOT seen what may, or may not come after death, your calling people pathetic only makes YOU come across like the ass here.

Steeljam
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 12:24 PM
While on a very long flight I once had a discussion with a Roman Catholic priest who confided, that Heaven the Home of Souls was not what simple folk believed it to be. The Soul detached from the mortal body has no memory, no recognition and no other characteristics but its innate morality.

wm mauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:02 PM
This is wrong, the Jews did not reject their god, they only rejected the alleged son of that god. The Christian god is still YHWE, which you should know since you claim to be "a son of YAH" as well.

Are you a Jew? No offence, but claiming descent from the Jewish god is rather weird for a Germanic. And also questions your remark that it is the blood that ties. If you're Germanic, you cant be a descendent of YHWE :shrug


Btw, when Jesus called the priest caste 'sons of the devil', he actually spoke of YHWE, that same god that Christians still worship and call him the god of love (read the bible once more and count the dead and how cruel they died and all the revenge and hate this god poured out upon the earth, from the millions and millions killed in the name of this god not to start).

No I am no jew. Can't reconcile being German & Christian? Well, no one ever said discernment was a blessing equally bestowed to all. And I am just an American, too. Maybe that is the source of my confusion. ;)

If I am wrong on what I base my eternity on, at the end of the line I will be embarrassed & have egg on my face. If the other side is wrong they will have their risks, too.

"Are you a jew?. No offense..." LOL

*Added*

If it be the policy of skadi.net to attack & denigrate Christians, then I must ask you to delete my account. I love my race & my God. I don't attack others for having views different from mine but if that is not enough in order to ensure peaceful & productive dialogue, then it is best we separate.

Thors Hammer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:04 PM
Agnosticism, atheism, evolution, etc. Are tales invented by man, and are also no less or more, THEORIES.

No they are ideas, not tales, though they are theories. Religions are also ideas but are based on mythology created by man (to explain natures laws exoterically), and many actually believe the myths.


Since you have not possibly seen what the other side looks like, your own opinion is just as inconclusive.
There is no way to know for sure until you actually die.
But since men came up with what the "other side" is meant to be like, I can easily believe the "afterlife" is not like what they claim as they themselves know nothing for certain about an afterlife.


In spite of his unfortunate illness Hawking still has not even come close to suffering the worst a human has suffered.
There have been countless others who have agonized far more and still their belief remained unshaken.
Good for them if they want to believe in stories. Hawking's non belief in an afterlife is not necessarily due to his illness.


And atheists can be said to fear the possibility of going to hel to suffer the consequences, which is why they are as equally fervent in denouncing the possibility of a heaven.
I think you mean Hell not Hel and you are right some non-believers can be afraid of their actions being decided upon in an afterlife, but I think alot are just small minded to things they don't fully understand.


Honestly, do you really wish to think that the enemies of our people, who are responsible for the tortuous deaths of hundreds of millions of Germanics, and ultimately our culture, do not ultimately suffer for their crimes? Because they certainly haven't suffered for it in this life.
Unfortunately no I do not believe they suffer for their crimes against our race, just as life many people get away with crimes, it's unfair but absurd statements that they will eventually be dealt with are moronic and I eqaute them with cowards unwilling (for what ever reason be it conscience, fear of what the law will do, etc) to do anything about scum.


Since I KNOW you that you have NOT seen what may, or may not come after death, your calling people pathetic only makes YOU come across like the ass here.
Not really, believing in anything because you’re afraid is pathetic.

velvet
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:28 PM
No I am no jew. Can't reconcile being German & Christian? Well, no one ever said discernment was a blessing equally bestowed to all. And I am just an American, too. Maybe that is the source of my confusion. ;)

If you're German, you cannot be a descendent of YHWE, thats the point.


If I am wrong on what I base my eternity on, at the end of the line I will be embarrassed & have egg on my face. If the other side is wrong they will have their risks, too.

Nope, then there will simply be nothing, no eggs and also no more embarrassment, just nothingness. ;)



*Added*

If it be the policy of skadi.net to attack & denigrate Christians, then I must ask you to delete my account. I love my race & my God. I don't attack others for having views different from mine but if that is not enough in order to ensure peaceful & productive dialogue, then it is best we separate.

Stop whining, when discussion comes to topics where there are opposing views, you better get yourself some robust skin or stay out of such discussions. Has nothing to do with "belittleing" or denigrating, but when you feel offended by opposing views, this seriously is your problem.

Skadi doesnt delete accounts btw.

wm mauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 01:58 PM
If you're German, you cannot be a descendent of YHWE, thats the point.

Ok let's dialogue. :) Please, show to me the proof, as best as you may have it, if one is German one cannot be a descandant of YAHWEH. To start with where did the Germans come from? Did they just appear in Germania or did they migrate there from somewhere?


Nope, then there will simply be nothing, no eggs and also no more embarrassment, just nothingness. ;)

I accept your position, but I respectfully do not agree. I hope this is ok with you.



Stop whining, when discussion comes to topics where there are opposing views, you better get yourself some robust skin or stay out of such discussions. Has nothing to do with "belittleing" or denigrating, but when you feel offended by opposing views, this seriously is your problem.

LOL not whining. :) I've seen many aspersions cast as i delved into the board. If I am not called a xtian, jew, son of a jew, or my God is a jew god, or that my god is the same as the ju god ( whatever that is) or that my god is the same as the moslem god, then I most certainly won't have to whine very much.

Skadi doesnt delete accounts btw.

Very well, ok I have a reservoir of discipline that I can draw from, if need be. I walked from SF I can walk again.


I really hope to become one of the true (is it here?) Germany community whose spirit may permeate this board. Please forgive me if I ever offend. The last thing I want to do is to turn away a brother as the world darkens around us.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:08 PM
wm mauer wrote,

Ok let's dialogue. Please, show to me the proof, as best as you may have it, if one is German one cannot be a descandant of YAHWEH. To start with where did the Germans come from? Did they just appear in Germania or did they migrate there from somewhere?

The answer to your question may be found here,
http://www.white-history.com/


LOL not whining. I've seen many aspersions cast as i delved into the board. If I am not called a xtian, jew, son of a jew, or my God is a jew god, or that my god is the same as the ju god ( whatever that is) or that my god is the same as the moslem god, then I most certainly won't have to whine very much.

The god that all Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship is the exact same god. In fact, Christians and Muslims are nothing but heretical Jews when you come right down to it.

As for Christ, all his attributes were originally those of the Buddha.

Alfadur
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:10 PM
The Germans, like all Europeans, are descendants of the ancient Indo-Europeans. They're not Semites.

I think the Europeans during the Biblical times - especially the Greeks and Romans - would find it kinda insulting if you suggested that they're descendants of a desert tribe like the Jews.

Ralf
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:15 PM
If you're German, you cannot be a descendent of YHWE, thats the point.



.
Why not?
And I presume you know that wm mauer isnt claiming to be a physical decendant of Abraham in the way the original jews where, but a Spiritual one, for when the Pharisses where claiming to be decendants of Abraham and the promise,(that they would inherit the earth), Jesus told them that a decendant of Abraham wasnt one who was circumcised in the flesh, but one who was circumcised in the heart, in fact he said God could raise decendants of Abraham from the stones that lay on the ground.

This was the promise that all nations would bless themselves on account of Abraham, right from the start this was Gods intention.
All nations include Germany, and how Germany embraced that invitation, being foremost in overthrowing the bonds of Catholicism starting the Protestant church with Lutheranism and Calvanism, maybe this is a reason Germany has done so well in the world despite the attentions of those who are jealous over the loss of thier position.

ohrdruf
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:22 PM
Whereas I believe that there is no death, and that we are probably condemned to re-enter the cycle of life and rebirth, I suppose it is possible for some to escape the cycle by having advanced far enough to become angels. But the precondition is faith that it is possible.

Heaven is illogical. If it existed, and a person were "good" enough to merit entering, he/she would refuse to do so until the last survivor of all suffering humanity had entered Heaven before him or her. This is the Arhat doctrine of Buddhism.

Hell, on the other hand, is not illogical.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:30 PM
Why not?
And I presume you know that wm mauer isnt claiming to be a physical decendant of Abraham in the way the original jews where, but a Spiritual one, for when the Pharisses where claiming to be decendants of Abraham and the promise,(that they would inherit the earth), Jesus told them that a decendant of Abraham wasnt one who was circumcised in the flesh, but one who was circumcised in the heart, in fact he said God could raise decendants of Abraham from the stones that lay on the ground.

This was the promise that all nations would bless themselves on account of Abraham, right from the start this was Gods intention.
All nations include Germany, and how Germany embraced that invitation, being foremost in overthrowing the bonds of Catholicism starting the Protestant church with Lutheranism and Calvanism, maybe this is a reason Germany has done so well in the world despite the attentions of those who are jealous over the loss of thier position.

This is why you ended up with the New Testament, because the traditional religion of the ancient Jews was simply unpalatable to the Aryan peoples. This is why that Christ fellow acts so much like the Buddha, who, unlike Christ, was an Aryan himself.

As for Germans embracing the murderous religion of the Jews, it must be remembered that a majority of them did so out of fear of being put to the sword if they didn't. So much for Christianity being the religion of love.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:35 PM
He's one of the smartest men alive. Why is it surprising he doesn't believe in something most people with Down's Syndrome don't even believe in?

wm mauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:37 PM
wm mauer wrote,


The answer to your question may be found here,
http://www.white-history.com/



The god that all Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship is the exact same god. In fact, Christians and Muslims are nothing but heretical Jews when you come right down to it.

As for Christ, all his attributes were originally those of the Buddha.

I may check out your link. Thank you for that. Again I respectfully disagree with you that the jew god is the same as the Christian God.

As for the repeating of your belief concerning the interchangability of the different "religions'" God, I must politely decline to ride that merry go round with you.

If you want to persist, please do not clog the broadband here with it. I will accommodate you with some debate in IM, if you really want to get off the Grandstand. ;)

velvet
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:43 PM
If you're German, you cannot be a descendent of YHWE, thats the point.

Ok let's dialogue. Please, show to me the proof, as best as you may have it, if one is German one cannot be a descandant of YAHWEH. To start with where did the Germans come from? Did they just appear in Germania or did they migrate there from somewhere?

They certainly migrated at one point from the East, but apart from the Sumerians, who invented scripture and civilisation in the Middle East (rather in close promitiy to the Black Sea from the North), in that corner of the World there were neither Indo-Europeans and even less Germanics, because the Germanic ethnogenesis took indeed place in Europe already.

In the White History source you may find a lot of answers to where Germanics / Aryans came from and where they went. It's a work in progress though.




Nope, then there will simply be nothing, no eggs and also no more embarrassment, just nothingness ;)

I accept your position, but I respectfully do not agree. I hope this is ok with you.

I referred to your if-question in case the others are right. I just corrected your assumption that there then still would be eggs, which isnt the case. :)



LOL not whining. I've seen many aspersions cast as i delved into the board. If I am not called a xtian, jew, son of a jew, or my God is a jew god, or that my god is the same as the ju god ( whatever that is) or that my god is the same as the moslem god, then I most certainly won't have to whine very much.

Well, the point is that your god is the same god as the one of Muslims and Jews.

Personally, I could say much about the level of herecy spawned by the various sects of Judaism, where I must say that the Muslims at least have the dignity and call their version by his name (even though this name is derived from Elohim, which is plural, and also from their former, pagan moon goddess whose name I forgot, hence the moon on their mosques), the Jews call him by his name, just the Christians have distanced themselves so far from their god that they dont even dare to call him by his name, which is YHWE (speak: jachwe, ch like in chime) and instead call him god, a word that is unique to Germanics and means something completely different than what christianity made of it.

Before the dawn of christianity, the gods were exclusive to the peoples who followed them, before the dawn of christianity, divine descent was reserved to kings -> leaders of this folk. The divine blood remained within the folk.

Christianity still carries this notion in reference to the chosen ones, which are the Jews, because YHWE is their god.

You can worship him, you can follow the Jewish religion, but you are not a descendent of YHWE because you dont share Jewish blood which is YHWE's blood.

The Jews know this, the christians deny it because they believe in the words of revenge against the world of Paul, who spawned Judaism light on the Goyim to enslave them and told them that YHWE now is universal ('catholic').

But it remains, sorry to say and no offence meant, an absurd idea through and through.



I really hope to become one of the true (is it here?) Germany community whose spirit may permeate this board. Please forgive me if I ever offend. The last thing I want to do is to turn away a brother as the world darkens around us.

Everyone who stands against the tides is welcome as long as you dont proselytize :)

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:44 PM
He's one of the smartest men alive. Why is it surprising he doesn't believe in something most people with Down's Syndrome don't even believe in?

And why are other people's personal opinions so important to you?

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:50 PM
And why are other people's personal opinions so important to you?

I don't understand the question. Since there've been 5 pages straight of people complaining about Stephen Hawking's personal opinions, I'm not sure why the question is being directed at me.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:56 PM
Brother, I will check out your link. Thank you for that. Again I respectfully disagree with you that the jew god is the same as the Christian God.

As for the repeating of your belief concerning the interchangability of the different "religions'" God, I must politely decline to ride that merry go round with you.

If you want to persist, please do not clog the broadband here with it. I will accommodate you with some debate in IM, if you really want to get off the Grandstand. ;)

The March of the Titans site is a very good one, and does an exemplary job of chronically the history of the Aryan peoples. Hopefully, it can and will answer your questions concerning the origins of the Germans.

Also, I'm not your "brother."

Wulfram
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 02:59 PM
No they are ideas, not tales, though they are theories.

Ideas that have never been proven except with very dubious and meager "evidence".
They have still yet to be proven even beyond 10%, therefore just as easily fairy tales as well.


Religions are also ideas but are based on mythology created by man (to explain natures laws exoterically), and many actually believe the myths.


Scientific theories are also ideas but are based on mythology created by man (to explain natures laws exoterically), and many actually believe the myths. :D


But since men came up with what the "other side" is meant to be like, I can easily believe the "afterlife" is not like what they claim as they themselves know nothing for certain about an afterlife.

Since you have not seen it for yourself, nor any living man, you are not at liberty to claim anything.
It is very easy to understand:

We will never know what comes after life until we die.
There really is no point in even arguing this.

However, for myself, I choose to acknowledge the possibility of continued existence, whereas you argue as if you are 100% sure that there isn't.


Good for them if they want to believe in stories. Hawking's non belief in an afterlife is not necessarily due to his illness.

We can only wonder what his belief system would have been if he were not confined to that wheelchair.


...but I think alot are just small minded to things they don't fully understand.

How "fully" does your own mind understand it? The only logical response to all this would be to say: "There is just as much of a possibility for continued existence after death as there isn't". Maybe heaven exists, maybe it doesn't. The question I always ask is "Why not?".


...it's unfair but absurd statements that they will eventually be dealt with are moronic and I eqaute them with cowards unwilling (for what ever reason be it conscience, fear of what the law will do, etc) to do anything about scum.

How is your above statement any less absurd?
So far you have provided just as much evidence for your opinion as that of Hawking, which is absolutely nothing.

As far your accusation of cowardice, how would expect the average, presently enslaved Germanic to even begin to punish the scum that hurts our people?


Not really believing in anything because you’re afraid is pathetic.

You have to accept BOTH possibilities if you cannot provide solid evidence for the one you follow.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:11 PM
I don't understand the question. Since there've been 5 pages straight of people complaining about Stephen Hawking's personal opinions, I'm not sure why the question is being directed at me.

You wrote,

He's one of the smartest men alive. Why is it surprising he doesn't believe in something most people with Down's Syndrome don't even believe in?

I guess "smart" people are atheists in the same way that they are also socialists and communists, because they are just so smart, right?

As has been said previously in this thread, atheism is just a religion for eggheads and armchair know-it-alls.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:11 PM
Well, from my limited Christian "education", I used to attend Sunday school at an Anglican church as a very young child, I thought that the whole idea of Christianity based on Christian scripture was continuity from the book of Genesis all the way through to the books of the New Testament: the God of Abraham was the God of Christians as Jesus Christ was the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. Ergo the Hebrew God of Abraham described in Hebrew scripture is one and the same as the God of Christians described in Christian scripture, as Christians take Hebrew scripture as their own all the way up to the time of the birth of Christ. This is all tediously academic to me as an atheist, but the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which like Christianity adopted some Hebrew scripture as the basis of its religion, all seem to share the same God, though of course with markedly different interpretations of that God and of that God's will for mankind.

Personally, if I were inclined to believe in the supernatural at all, which I repeat I am not--this world is more than enough for me without imagining any other--I'd be more inclined to believe the old Germanic pantheon of gods, who were a damn sight more interesting than anything served up in the Hebrew-based religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The old Germanic gods were far more believable characters as far as I'm concerned--and their names lent themselves very well to naming the days of the week.

Hersir
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:21 PM
I dont belive in a heaven, I think that when you do die it all goes dark like when you turn off your TV.

Your body returns to the earth and contributes to nature, so that's one kind of afterlife. The atoms in your body has been around for a long time.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:22 PM
Ingvaeonic wrote,

but the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which like Christianity adopted some Hebrew scripture as the basis of its religion, all seem to share the same God, though of course with markedly different interpretations of that God and of that God's will for mankind.

It is a misnomer to think the Jews practiced monotheism. Originally El was only one of many gods the Jews worshipped.

Here's a quick run down of the various pantheons that that particular deity was a part of,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29

As you can see, the deity that was later to evolve into the one worshipped by Christians today sort of worked his way to the top kind of like a mafia boss. :P

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:26 PM
I dont belive in a heaven, I think that when you do die it all goes dark like when you turn off your TV.

Your body returns to the earth and contributes to nature, so that's one kind of afterlife. The atoms in your body has been around for a long time.

Ah, but what about the Conservation of Energy theory? Assuming your consciousness is made of some kind of energy either presently known or unknown, then as long as you can keep your individual psychic matrix intact, then you will not fall victim to entropy/ the Second Death.

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:27 PM
Ingvaeonic wrote,


It is a misnomer to think the Jews practiced monotheism. Originally El was only one of many gods the Jews worshipped.

Here's a quick run down of the various pantheons that that particular deity was a part of,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29

As you can see, the deity that was later to evolve into the one worshipped by Christians today sort of worked his way to the top kind of like a mafia boss. :P

Well, as I wrote, my Christian education was limited to Anglican Sunday school as a very young child, a near infant--and that's just about where I left it. My family, thankfully, were never big on the religious bit and didn't press it on me--and for this I shall be grateful for the rest of my days. Actually, I'm not exactly sure if I was ever really christened. No matter. Christened or unchristened, my beliefs are my own.

Hersir
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:31 PM
Ah, but what about the Conservation of Energy theory? Assuming your consciousness is made of some kind of energy either presently known or unknown, then as long as you can keep your individual psychic matrix intact, then you will not fall victim to entropy/ the Second Death.

"Energy cant be lost, just transformed"? I dont know if brain cells counts as energy. It would be great with a afterlife, but I dont belive in it.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:36 PM
"Energy cant be lost, just transformed"? I dont know if brain cells counts as energy. It would be great with a afterlife, but I dont belive in it.

But our brains are powered by electricity. If the batteries just shut off after death, the how does one explain NEDs?

Ingvaeonic
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:36 PM
"Energy cant be lost, just transformed"? I dont know if brain cells counts as energy. It would be great with a afterlife, but I dont belive in it.

From what I've seen in my time on this planet, human brain cells very rarely count as energy, they seem to be positively torpid.

Stanley
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Ah, but what about the Conservation of Energy theory? Assuming your consciousness is made of some kind of energy either presently known or unknown, then as long as you can keep your individual psychic matrix intact, then you will not fall victim to entropy/ the Second Death.

It takes energy to work the nervous system. It doesn't have energy by itself.

Thors Hammer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:38 PM
However, for myself, I choose to acknowledge the possibility of continued existence, whereas you argue as if you are 100% sure that there isn't.
No I just don't care either way. I didn't say I didn't believe in some form of afterlife, just not a man created one.


As far your accusation of cowardice, how would expect the average, presently enslaved Germanic to even begin to punish the scum that hurts our people?
Well I don't know if certain things are allowed to be said on here, but I advocate vigilantism and keeping your mouth shut.

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:45 PM
I guess "smart" people are atheists in the same way that they are also socialists and communists, because they are just so smart, right?

As has been said previously in this thread, atheism is just a religion for eggheads and armchair know-it-alls.

Right. There are some viewpoints that no intelligent, rational person would ever align himself with, simply because his intellect reviles against stupidity. I'm actually a bit surprised Hawking felt the need to make the statement that heaven doesn't exist. I think most people could conclude that from the fact that he's not a small child. I'm sure he knows that Mr Blobby was just a guy in a suit too, but I don't think he needs to announce that knowledge to anyone. Everyone would assume he already knew it unless he said otherwise.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:57 PM
It takes energy to work the nervous system. It doesn't have energy by itself.

Good point.

This is the point where I believe modern science ends and magic begins.

I also believe that further advances in quantum theory will validate what so many GBM practitioners have known for quite some time.

Hersir
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 03:58 PM
Atheism is not a religion.

But most of the atheists I know preach more than the christians I know, It's annoying...

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 04:09 PM
Atheism is not a religion.

But most of the atheists I know preach more than the christians I know, It's annoying...

Au contraire, atheism is most certainly a religion when it is practiced by intellectual posers.

Personally, I have no problem with atheism as a philosophical stance. If a person looks around him/herself and thinks very deeply on the meaning of life and, in doing so, comes to the conclusion that there exists no other form of life other than this, then good for them. But what I despise are the intellectual cowards who pose as atheists because they think this is what "enlightened" and "progressive" people are supposed to think.

velvet
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 04:23 PM
Ah, but what about the Conservation of Energy theory? Assuming your consciousness is made of some kind of energy either presently known or unknown, then as long as you can keep your individual psychic matrix intact, then you will not fall victim to entropy/ the Second Death.

The "individual psychic matrix" is a product of the electric interaction of your various brains and braincells, where the electricity is a product of energy transformed by your body functions that make you live.

If you pull the plug, the matrix is gone, since the 'device', ie your brain, that kept it together is gone.

The brain is not like a hard disc, where information is written on in some physical process. The information is partly 'virtual', it only exists as long as the impulses are intact, although it exists along physical nodal points or hubs which are connected only by these electrical impulses which are the information, not the hubs or what is commonly referred to as braincells.

Electricity needs a physical medium to exist, when the physical medium is gone, ie dead, electricity ceases to exist. It's probably the only energy that takes a so different form after transformation that so far no one could explain where it goes. Maybe it doesnt transform at all but really does simply cease to exist the moment you cut the connection. Which would make sense considering that a lamp that you pulled from the plug does not possess any electrical energy anymore, not even traces.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 04:27 PM
Velvet wrote,

The "individual psychic matrix" is a product of the electric interaction of your various brains and braincells, where the electricity is a product of energy transformed by your body functions that make you live....

Doesn't explain NDEs.

Read Lommel's "Consciousness Beyond Life And Death."

velvet
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 04:40 PM
Doesn't explain NDEs.

Read Lommel's "Consciousness Beyond Life And Death."

NDEs are like UFO views, once invented, they spread like wildfire and people come up with the most fantastic stories.

But so much I will give you, the sheer complexity of our brains might be able to produce a supra-physical "personality" that will be affected by a NDE in such a way that it will try to cope with the experience of losing its base, and then produce some of these experiences, ie hallucinations and overreactions (maybe rather underreactions) caused by reduced impulses. The most of them though are simply made up afterwards.

And you know the dictate of science: it must be reproducable and observable. Both is not the case.

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 04:48 PM
NDEs are like UFO views, once invented, they spread like wildfire and people come up with the most fantastic stories.

But so much I will give you, the sheer complexity of our brains might be able to produce a supra-physical "personality" that will be affected by a NDE in such a way that it will try to cope with the experience of losing its base, and then produce some of these experiences, ie hallucinations and overreactions (maybe rather underreactions) caused by reduced impulses. The most of them though are simply made up afterwards.

And you know the dictate of science: it must be reproducable and observable. Both is not the case.

Read the book.

velvet
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:26 PM
Read the book.

Then send me an exemplar, when you're so convinced that it will convince me :)

The Horned God
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:46 PM
I wonder if I am alone in hoping that he's right? Imo annihilation of the thinking mind at the point of death is far from the worst faith that could befall a dying person.

I think if I died only to realise in the next moment that I was not really "dead" but still existed as a disembodied entity, (and would continue to exist for the next 100 billion years or more, until the end of the universe) that realisation by itself might be enough to drive me completely insane.

I'd be an insane ghost. :P

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:47 PM
Then send me an exemplar, when you're so convinced that it will convince me :)

Cardiologist and NDE Researcher Dr. Pim van Lommel discuses how his research with near-death experiencers has changed his beliefs about life and consciousness.

http://www.skeptiko.com/pim-van-lommel-transformed-by-near-death-experience-research/

Schopenhauer
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 05:50 PM
I wonder if I am alone in hoping that he's right? Imo annihilation of the thinking mind at the point of death is far from the worst faith that could befall a dying person.

I think if I died only to realise in the next moment that I was not really "dead" but still existed as a disembodied entity, (and would continue to exist for the next 100 billion years or more, until the end of the universe) that realisation by itself might be enough to drive me completely insane.

I'd be an insane ghost. :P

Why would anyone want their consciousness to be extinguished by death?!?!

Austin
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 06:33 PM
I don't think you can rule any place out for you can never truly find if it exists or not in the universe. There are so many possible places that such places as hell, Valhalla, heaven, or nevereverland could exist in some parallel world that is somehow an offshoot of humanities dreams and thoughts.

I've never understood the thrill of completely writing off the existence of something however unlikely it may be. There are surely weirder things that exist than heaven or nevereverland many times over in the universe so I don't think it matters all that much.

Ocko
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 08:15 PM
I suppose that man has a heart. As a physicist I expect him to calculate the energy a heart uses for 'pumping'

here some facts:


Evidence that the heart is not a pump
Significant problems with the “heart is a pump”
model include:
-Not nearly enough force is applied to accomplish
the task. Moving a viscous fluid though more than
40,000 km of vessels requires a pushing force much
greater than the measurable 1.5 watts exerted by the
heart; to move the blood a force strong enough to lift
4,000 tons one meter annually has been estimated.3
-A pump works efficiently with a closed system. But
the entire non-corpuscular volume of the blood is
replaced 80 times each day. With this “leakage,” the
return flow in the veins is entirely unexplained since
there would be no fluid pressure left after the capillaries
that open into the tissues. Furthermore, there is more
blood volume in the veins than the arteries, by a wide
(65% to 12%) margin; an efficient pump design would
operate on the larger volume directly.
-The relationship between flow and pressure is
opposite what would be expected if the heart was a
pump, with highest pressure and lowest volume
throughout the system (including the veins) when the
heart’s pumping action is highest. However, the volume
of blood and venous pressure increase when the heart’s
pumping action weakens.
-The aorta bends under systole, when it should
straighten under the higher pressure.
-Replacement by a mechanical pump only works for
a time.
-The location of the heart in the upper third of the
body makes no sense if efficient pumping action is the
functional goal; ask any farmer whether to put a pump




3. Schauberger, Living Energies, p. 192.
“Modern analysis of the heart has shown that in spite of the fact
that the most powerful ventricle of the heart can shoot water six
feet into the air, the amount of pressure actually needed to force
the blood through the entire length of the body’s blood vessels
would have to be able to life a one hundred pound weight one
mile high. The heart is simply incapable of producing the pressure
actually needed to circulate the blood.” (Buhner, p. 75)


That is a quote from www.energyschool.com.

So if the heart doesn't get the energy from the food and the air (as that is by far not enough to fuel the heart for it's work) then where is it coming from?

Obviously there is not all to science which can be answered and for absolutely sure there is a lot they haven't answered.

Science is a method which has been developed to get knowledge about physical objects. For that you need logic, perception and a frame to put the 2 together.

Science only acknowledges perception where they can find a bodily organ for. But as perception is a metaphysical occurrence one should have another definition of perception and apply it to any occurrence in the brain. From there you get a different organ of perception.

If you acknowledge more 'organs' of perception you also get a different world view. Sofar science only accepts perception of physical objects/forces. anything else they reject because it can't be a perception because it does not have a physical organ.

it is the old struggle between idea sund realia (Plato) and idea sunt nomina (Aristotle).

To explain the difference: if you take a certain plant, lets say watercress than for plato the watercress is formed after a certain really existing form which exists beyond the one one can see through the eyes.

For a nominalist the form of the watercress is only a certain form which is being able to be classified as such. Anything beyond that matter in the form of a watercress is purely fictional and non-existant.

Those are the two basic assumptions in science and with today the science is overwhelmingly nominalist.

Back to the example of the heart and the energy it uses. it is clear that there is something more to it than pure matter and the scientifically accepted forces (they are deducted because they can't be perceived directly).

Because there are forces which are not of a physical nature there is something existant which is not matter. Because of the accepted existance of non-matter one cannot say that 'a heaven' does not a exist via an explanation based on matter-science. (Does science proof the non-existance of something? would be interesting how they try to do it).

I believe that if you try to proof (or for that matter No-God) God(s) you can't use logic as that is a cage and trap (or it is a prison where the bars are logic). For what is outside of that 'prison' is something the logic sees as 'dark' because logic does not reach there.

The assumption that outside of logic is nothingness should be proven with what? Logic? That is a joke.

If that man is the most intelligent man on earth I am God. And I can prove that to him by kicking his ass.

I wander what kind of test he made, did he do invocations, prayers, healings etc. Did he go through a long religious training as he obviously went through a long scientific training?

The long training in the non-logical (the logic is based on the left brain, the other stuff is based on the right-brain) can give you proof that indeed a 'heaven' exists. But the untrained can't get a correct picture like if you try to explain the existance of 'black holes' in mathematical/physicist terms no-body would understand it except very few who got the training, everbody else gets a popularized version which is not exactly what it is but it is good enough to give a hint that such things do exist (don't bound me down whether they exist or not, I won't be able to answer that question, I only took it as an example).

I think the field Hawkins works on is not the exploration of the world not bound by logic. I think his statements are his personally beliefs. They are taken for real because he is supposedly the most intelligent person on earth (with some stupid logical faults any halfway intelligent men can figure out).

As he might be trusted in theoretical physics as an authority he certainly is not an authority in religious matters.

He simply creates new myths: the myth of darkness after death. (why darkness is only a metapher. I don't know the greek philosopher who said this but there was one who answered this question this way: If there is nothing after death, then he won't be concerned because he won't be there to suffer it, if it exists then he will find out and deal with it). So it is not necessary darkness to expect (as then there would be somebody who can perceive darkness and feel fear of it but the correct term would be non-existance).
(whether something existant can become non-existant is a philosophical question I don't want to go into as it goes too far for here).

His authority might be in logical subjects but it certainly is not in existances surpassing logic. For that he would need training in that and he doesn't have that.

Vindefense
Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 10:02 PM
What a paradox Mr Hawkings is in. He has achieved intellectual excellency but lives a life of physical uselessness. Where, he has abandoned any possibility of spiritual life and doomed himself to the Hell of a material existence. And that this existence, being a reflection of the substance of his inward self, completely escapes him. :(

Hamar Fox
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 09:38 AM
And that this existence, being a reflection of the substance of his inward self, completely escapes him. :(

Probably because it's not accurate.


Cardiologist and NDE Researcher Dr. Pim van Lommel discuses how his research with near-death experiencers has changed his beliefs about life and consciousness.

http://www.skeptiko.com/pim-van-lommel-transformed-by-near-death-experience-research/

How come only 12 out of 50 people had near death experiences? That's not an impressive figure. Surely everyone has a soul, so everybody should've had a near death experience in that sample.

The Horned God
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 11:13 AM
Why would anyone want their consciousness to be extinguished by death?!?!

First of all I believe the fear of approaching death is largely physiologically rooted, but that the experience of death itself is nothing to be feared. On the contrary, the attempt to extinguish or at least dull the consciousness is a major motivation of many peoples lives, either with drink or drugs or in less extreme cases with diversions of many kinds.

I believe that death as it is experienced is no different than dreamless sleep, which in itself might be regarded as a form of bliss.
For many people about the greatest pleasure they experience on a daily basis is falling asleep, i.e the knowledge of the imminent suspension of consciousness.

Meadhbh
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 02:29 PM
I've always thought it was strange that so many people get so uppity about what other people think happens when you die. Does it effect you? No it does not. The fact Hawkings does not believe in heaven did not prevent the sun from comming up today. If it effects your beliefs thats your call. But, if your swayed that easy about something you claim to believe you need to makes sure you really believed in it in the first place.

Wulfram
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 03:50 PM
First of all I believe the fear of approaching death is largely physiologically rooted...

Do you mean something similar to a panic attack? But that would make it more of a psychological condition wouldn't it?


...but that the experience of death itself is nothing to be feared.

Until you have experienced it yourself then there is no way you can know if it is to be feared or not.
We cannot know for sure if the death experience was fearful for someone, since they would not be in a position to clarify. ;)
We can't even truthfully call it an "experience", since consciousness allegedly ends before one can acknowledge they are actually dead.

But the actual leading up to the death can be a very frightening experience for many people, whether it is a slow cancerous decay or trapped in a burning building.

The only way you can know if death itself is fearful or not is to have died yourself, then somehow come back to life and take notes on it.
But since I am equally skeptical of such experiences I could not take your word on it, since I would have to observe it myself to corroborate your claims.


On the contrary, the attempt to extinguish or at least dull the consciousness is a major motivation of many peoples lives, either with drink or drugs or in less extreme cases with diversions of many kinds.

Doesn't necessarily mean they are attempting to replicate the allegedly blissful experience of death.
Sometimes people wish to indulge in opiates because they just enjoy bliss for bliss sake.


I believe that death as it is experienced is no different than dreamless sleep...

No one can possibly know what comes after death until one dies.
If you believe that then you may as well believe in god as well.


...which in itself might be regarded as a form of bliss.

During dreamless sleep one is not aware of anything until they wake up and acknowledge that there were no dreams.
Since we do not wake up from death then how can one know it is blissful, since consciousness allegedly comes to an end?


For many people about the greatest pleasure they experience on a daily basis is falling asleep, i.e the knowledge of the imminent suspension of consciousness.

What evidence do you have that sleep and death are related? I know people die in their sleep, and I have even read a study that claimed that people are closest to death when they sleep. Based on what evidence? If they cannot possibly know what happens after we die then their claim that sleep is an approximation of the death experience is equally without merit.

Atavist
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 03:55 PM
Of course there isn't a heaven.
Newsflash guys: The tooth fairy isn't real too.

Schopenhauer
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 05:39 PM
How come only 12 out of 50 people had near death experiences? That's not an impressive figure. Surely everyone has a soul, so everybody should've had a near death experience in that sample.

Perhaps it could be that not everyone has a soul, who knows? This isn't the point of Lommel's research though, to ascertain what percentage of the populace has a soul or not, the point of his research is to quantify the NDE as an observable phenomenon.

Schopenhauer
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 05:53 PM
First of all I believe the fear of approaching death is largely physiologically rooted, but that the experience of death itself is nothing to be feared. On the contrary, the attempt to extinguish or at least dull the consciousness is a major motivation of many peoples lives, either with drink or drugs or in less extreme cases with diversions of many kinds.

I believe that death as it is experienced is no different than dreamless sleep, which in itself might be regarded as a form of bliss.
For many people about the greatest pleasure they experience on a daily basis is falling asleep, i.e the knowledge of the imminent suspension of consciousness.

All conscious phenomenon is a product of the subjective mind. It's the mind that experiences death, not the body. The body being merely a shell that houses the consciousness/psyche.

Perhaps the people who seek to dull/destroy their existence through drug abuse are that percentage of the population who don't have souls?

All RHP practitioners see this spiritual annihilation as bliss/Nirvana/return to the godhead/Pleroma as the ultimate good. I, for one, do not. When I sleep I dream. My consciousness does not suspend in that state, but expands. Perhaps then death is the ultimate form of meritocracy where those whose will and love of life enable them to keep their consciousnesses intact, while those we were only half alive in life succumb to enthropy/cosmic recycling.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 07:23 PM
Perhaps it could be that not everyone has a soul, who knows? This isn't the point of Lommel's research though, to ascertain what percentage of the populace has a soul or not, the point of his research is to quantify the NDE as an observable phenomenon.

Which he didn't do. A soul isn't a moral entity; it's supposedly the core of personhood. According to those who believe in it, it's what ties us together, it's that unique thing only through which sentience is possible. So if people are sentient, then they have souls. Surely you're not saying that consciousness is possible through purely material, mechanistic means in some, in fact the majority (76%), of cases. I thought the impossibility of consciousness stemming from the material plane was the whole reason you believed in a soul in the first place.

And if someone 'loses' his soul, does the information in his soul get transferred to his brain's databases before it departs, so the brain can take over the soul's role?

Now obviously there's going to be intense psychological activity in any 'near death' scenario. If the brain temporarily 'dies' (which isn't the case -- brain activity continues beyond the stopping of the heart), then upon revival, there'd be some quite intense neuronal firing going on. So I don't see what's surprising about 24% having weird dream-like sensations during this time. I mean, I'm surprised it's not higher, to be honest.

For 'solid proof', Lommel would have to document specific cases of people observing the people around them, and quoting them, describing their actions etc. accurately, during a period when the brain showed zero electrical activity whatsoever. I know he hasn't done this.

Schopenhauer
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 08:05 PM
Hamar Fox wrote,

Which he didn't do. A soul isn't a moral entity; it's supposedly the core of personhood. According to those who believe in it, it's what ties us together, it's that unique thing only through which sentience is possible. So if people are sentient, then they have souls. Surely you're not saying that consciousness is possible through purely material, mechanistic means in some, in fact the majority (76%), of cases. I thought the impossibility of consciousness stemming from the material plane was the whole reason you believed in a soul in the first place.

I'm sorry, but how do you know what a soul is? How do you know a soul isn't a moral entity, whatever that is supposed to be? Also, how do you know what I believe?


And if someone 'loses' his soul, does the information in his soul get transferred to his brain's databases before it departs, so the brain can take over the soul's role?
You need to replace the word soul with Isolate Consciousness.


Now obviously there's going to be intense psychological activity in any 'near death' scenario. If the brain temporarily 'dies' (which isn't the case -- brain activity continues beyond the stopping of the heart), then upon revival, there'd be some quite intense neuronal firing going on. So I don't see what's surprising about 24% having weird dream-like sensations during this time. I mean, I'm surprised it's not higher, to be honest.

http://iands.org/research/important-research-articles/43-dr-pim-van-lommel-md-continuity-of-consciousness.html?start=3


For 'solid proof', Lommel would have to document specific cases of people observing the people around them, and quoting them, describing their actions etc. accurately, during a period when the brain showed zero electrical activity whatsoever. I know he hasn't done this.

Or, it could be that's not how it works. You want materialist answer to a non-materialist question.

Dropkick
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 08:16 PM
Those scientists who say heaven doesn't exist are very ignorant.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 08:22 PM
Hamar Fox wrote,

I'm sorry, but how do you know what a soul is? How do you know a soul isn't a moral entity, whatever that is supposed to be?

Souls are whatever you and your ilk pretend they are, since they exist only in your head. But I'm fairly sure most people who pretend souls exist, pretend that a soul is essentially the ego, the self viewed from a spiritual perspective. The moral quality of that soul is irrelevant to whether it exists.



Also, how do you know what I believe?

Well, I know what Schopenhauer believed, but you two don't really seem to have that much in common.


Or, it could be that's not how it works. You want materialist answer to a non-materialist question.

It works whatever way you pretend it does. Actually, it's a pretty good idea to pretend its too deep and complex for other people to understand. Then they can't stop you from pretending it.

The Horned God
Thursday, May 19th, 2011, 11:30 PM
Do you mean something similar to a panic attack? But that would make it more of a psychological condition wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. Psychology, in the sense of learned thought-patterns is quite superfluous to the explanation of why humans fear death. An antelope fears a lion but you wouldn't argue, I'm sure, that an antelope has a psychological complex about being eaten! A human, like an antelope is first and foremost a survival mechanism and as such we are programmed by nature to automatically fear that which could kill us.




Until you have experienced it yourself then there is no way you can know if it is to be feared or not.

I do know, because I know that at death (by definition) there will be no brain activity. Therefore I will be incapable of experiencing anything.



We cannot know for sure if the death experience was fearful for someone, since they would not be in a position to clarify. ;)

People lose and regain consciousness all the time. There is no reason to believe that death is anything more or less than the final cessation of consciousness.


We can't even truthfully call it an "experience", since consciousness allegedly ends before one can acknowledge they are actually dead.

Well, that is true. The word "encounter" might be better than the word "experience" in this singular context.


But the actual leading up to the death can be a very frightening experience for many people, whether it is a slow cancerous decay or trapped in a burning building.

Certainly. We are survival machines. If that which can kill us didn't inspire in us the most intense fear and dread, we would be a lot less likely to survive.


The only way you can know if death itself is fearful or not is to have died yourself, then somehow come back to life and take notes on it.

If you come back to life then there is a strong argument to be made that you weren't actually dead in the first place. But there are cases of people with no detectable brain activity regaining consciousness. What they typically say is that one moment they were in their car, boat, motorbike etc, and the next they were waking up in the hospital bed with no recollection of the intervening time.




Doesn't necessarily mean they are attempting to replicate the allegedly blissful experience of death.
Sometimes people wish to indulge in opiates because they just enjoy bliss for bliss sake.

I would argue that opioid drug users are trying to replicate death whether they realise it or not. Opiates create bliss by suppressing the nervous system and thus dulling the awareness. Bliss in this sense is nothing more than the absence of pain. There are two ways to achieve bliss 1) solve all problems in ones life 2) Eliminate all awareness of that which causes pain. Opiates deliver the latter, so does death.




No one can possibly know what comes after death until one dies.
If you believe that then you may as well believe in god as well.

There is really no such thing as absolute knowledge, all knowledge is subject to some degree of uncertainty. Having said that, since we know 1) that the brain creates consciousness and 2) that damage to part of the brain will have an adverse affect on the minds ability to think, how likely is it that destruction of the entire brain will suddenly restore full conscious awareness and the ability of the mind to think? In my view, it's not very likely...




During dreamless sleep one is not aware of anything until they wake up and acknowledge that there were no dreams.
Since we do not wake up from death then how can one know it is blissful, since consciousness allegedly comes to an end?

If conciousness survives death then the after-life will almost certainly not be blissful, because it will involve the awareness of human suffering and the inability to anything about it.




What evidence do you have that sleep and death are related? I know people die in their sleep, and I have even read a study that claimed that people are closest to death when they sleep. Based on what evidence? If they cannot possibly know what happens after we die then their claim that sleep is an approximation of the death experience is equally without merit.

We know what happens in the physical sense at death; it is the cessation of all coordinated biological activity and therefore of consciousness (scientifically speaking). Sleep is related to death in the simple sense that consciousness ceases during non-rem sleep.

Schopenhauer
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 12:49 AM
Souls are whatever you and your ilk pretend they are, since they exist only in your head. But I'm fairly sure most people who pretend souls exist, pretend that a soul is essentially the ego, the self viewed from a spiritual perspective. The moral quality of that soul is irrelevant to whether it exists.

Whatever buddy.





Well, I know what Schopenhauer believed, but you two don't really seem to have that much in common.

A little OT there. Feeling the urge to troll?




It works whatever way you pretend it does. Actually, it's a pretty good idea to pretend its too deep and complex for other people to understand. Then they can't stop you from pretending it.

Hmm, seems like someone is getting a little defensive. That's ok though, you can go pretend whatever you like as well.

Ciao.

Schopenhauer
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 01:05 AM
Anyone interested in other work done on the NDE phenomenon might be interested in this,

Michael Persinger on No More Secrets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6VPpDublg

Evidence of the Afterlife by Jeffrey Long, MD (2010)

Chris Carter's Science and the Near-Death Experience

Atavist
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 02:30 AM
Those scientists who say heaven doesn't exist are very ignorant.

Why?
Are scientists who say that unicorns and dragons doesn't exist also very ignorant? What about pixies and Santa Claus?

Ocko
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 02:52 AM
The first question I would ask him whether he has proof to be alive and whether he exists or not.

Before one can ask the question whether he exist after death, the logical thing is that he proves that he exists before death.

So what is his proof that he exists?

And also if he says in the affirmative I would like to know what it is that he says exists.

Science requieres and object (and an observer, the scientist). If you can't observe it it doesn't exist.

So if he says he exists then who is observing what?

If you cannot observe yourself so you never know that you exists (according to science. I personally am aware of this stupidity).

Sure you can observe parts of yourself : thoughts, emotion, body, movement etc. But the real self? Who would observe the real self and would proof its existence?

The man might be a good physicist but for sure he is poor philosopher.

(Does anyone know what he is famous for in science? what is his accomplishment?)


The absence of what you can observe in this environment in the other world might be called darkness, but there is still somebody who knows it is darkness.

What proof does he give that awareness does exist right now in him and what proof does he have that it does not exist after death?

Ocko
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 03:14 AM
To make it clear:

scientifically he does not exist, as there is no proof of it.


what he says is basically: I don't exist now scientifically and I will not exist after death scientifically.



That is the utter nonsense that man is speaking.

You can observe manifestations of the real self but you can't observe it (the real self) itself.

manifestation may stop but what is his proof that the (scientifically unproven) real self stops?

Atavist
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 05:22 AM
To make it clear:

scientifically he does not exist, as there is no proof of it.


Are you crazy or do you not understand how science work?

Hamar Fox
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 08:58 AM
Why?
Are scientists who say that unicorns and dragons doesn't exist also very ignorant? What about pixies and Santa Claus?

None of those things make people feel warm and fuzzy inside, so they're not given the same blind credence as the afterlife is.

Ralf
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 09:52 AM
Which he didn't do. A soul isn't a moral entity; it's supposedly the core of personhood. According to those who believe in it, it's what ties us together, it's that unique thing only through which sentience is possible. So if people are sentient, then they have souls. Surely you're not saying that consciousness is possible through purely material, mechanistic means in some, in fact the majority (76%), of cases. I thought the impossibility of consciousness stemming from the material plane was the whole reason you believed in a soul in the first place.

And if someone 'loses' his soul, does the information in his soul get transferred to his brain's databases before it departs, so the brain can take over the soul's role?

Now obviously there's going to be intense psychological activity in any 'near death' scenario. If the brain temporarily 'dies' (which isn't the case -- brain activity continues beyond the stopping of the heart), then upon revival, there'd be some quite intense neuronal firing going on. So I don't see what's surprising about 24% having weird dream-like sensations during this time. I mean, I'm surprised it's not higher, to be honest.

For 'solid proof', Lommel would have to document specific cases of people observing the people around them, and quoting them, describing their actions etc. accurately, during a period when the brain showed zero electrical activity whatsoever. I know he hasn't done this.

"Soul" is another of those words like hell and gay that has had its meaning changed, in this case too frighten people into joining the "church" and swelling its coffers.

Soul is a Biblical concept yet the Bible tells us,

"7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Elsewhere, when it numbers a group of men, its says somany "souls".
It calls animals "souls".

It says, "you must not eat blood, for the soul is in the blood", now compare that with the first verse I posted where God breathes life into the form of Adam, and consider what we now know about blood, that it carries "life" around in the form of oxy-haemaglobin.

The original Hebrew word for soul means life as a breather.

The concept of not dying was the original lie of the Devil to get man to disobey and reject God, it is still being perpetrated by so called Christian religions that in reality are pagan.

Schopenhauer
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 01:54 PM
Ralf Rossa wrote,

The concept of not dying was the original lie of the Devil to get man to disobey and reject God, it is still being perpetrated by so called Christian religions that in reality are pagan.

Actually, you got it a little backwards.

Speaking metaphorically, the Demiurge Jehovah was keeping mankind enslaved in his "garden." This enslavement took he form of stasis. It was Lucifer, who through sexual intercourse with Eve, set in motion the cycle of birth and death. And it is through this cycle of birth and death that mankind receives gnosis and the power to raise himself consciously to godhood.

As for this "will of god" goes, is this the same will that demanded of its adherents to massacre the Cathars, to burn the Templars alive, and to plant bombs in the back of abortion clinics?

Ocko
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 03:28 PM
Are you crazy or do you not understand how science work?

I am not crazy and I do science pretty well.

But it seems you believe in authority and defend him on that ground.

For me ideas are to be thought about not worshipped because an authority says so.

Before we talk about life after death we have to establish what he means by life. According to Biological science that is something different than what philosophers say. There are divergent ideas about it.

Under biological science 'he' (that means as a person, individuality, etc) does not exist. It is a heap of molecules with certain physical functions.

If that is what he thinks then there is no soul, no heaven no nothing beyond matter.

If he believes in the matter/soul dichotomy (the basic myth here is that there is a ghost in a flesh-machine) he should define soul and how he recognizes it and how he scientifically proofed it exists.

Same is going for the tripartite human model existing of body,soul and spirit.

I haven't read his books or articles as I am not interested in materialist physicists dabbling in spiritual matters, usually they have nothing to offer then stupid denial.


So what is his definition of soul / spirit or whatever he thinks he is and how he argues for it's existence.


BTW: It is not me who is crazy but if you deal with nutcases like Hawkins you may look crazy because of their weird handling of the subject.

Lets bring some ground to the discussion or it is all futil squabble.

Ocko
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 03:33 PM
It is comparable to somebody who wants to play soccer on a tennisfield by using the rules of american football.

Don't call me crazy when that whole mess that physicist started is crazy

Hamar Fox
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 04:33 PM
A little OT there. Feeling the urge to troll?


Schopenhauer thought that everything was the manifestation of will. All that existed were degrees or shades of it. He didn't think that people lose their souls. He actually hated Christianity and didn't talk about 'souls' at all. He even advocated attenuation of the will, the extinguishing of the will entirely being equivalent to nirvana. His equations were basically will = existence = suffering.

Also, after 'death' Schopenhauer thought that the will returned to raw existence, not even differentiated, and certainly not having access to the senses of the body, so he'd laugh at this Lommel guy's 'research'. In fact, you'd be calling Schopenhauer a troll if he were in this thread.

Dropkick
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 05:47 PM
Why?
Are scientists who say that unicorns and dragons doesn't exist also very ignorant? What about pixies and Santa Claus?

Scientists don't even know how gravity works and yet they're telling us theres no heaven. Like I said it's very ignorant and small minded.

They think inside the box because thats how they're thought. Strange things that go against their understanding of the world are dismissed and ignored.

Schopenhauer
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 07:26 PM
Schopenhauer thought that everything was the manifestation of will. All that existed were degrees or shades of it. He didn't think that people lose their souls. He actually hated Christianity and didn't talk about 'souls' at all. He even advocated attenuation of the will, the extinguishing of the will entirely being equivalent to nirvana. His equations were basically will = existence = suffering.

Also, after 'death' Schopenhauer thought that the will returned to raw existence, not even differentiated, and certainly not having access to the senses of the body, so he'd laugh at this Lommel guy's 'research'. In fact, you'd be calling Schopenhauer a troll if he were in this thread.

Pssst.. I'm not really Arthur Schopenhauer.

Hamar Fox
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 09:15 PM
Pssst.. I'm not really Arthur Schopenhauer.

What a fantastic retort. I'm assuming you called yourself Schopenhauer and chose to use his portrait as an avatar because you agree with him on at least a basic level.

I mean I'm not really getting the I-don't-agree-with-his-views-in-any-way-shape-or-form-but-I'm-going-to-use-his-name-and-face-for-no-apparent-reason-anyway approach you seem to have taken.

Schopenhauer
Friday, May 20th, 2011, 10:56 PM
What a fantastic retort. I'm assuming you called yourself Schopenhauer and chose to use his portrait as an avatar because you agree with him on at least a basic level.

I mean I'm not really getting the I-don't-agree-with-his-views-in-any-way-shape-or-form-but-I'm-going-to-use-his-name-and-face-for-no-apparent-reason-anyway approach you seem to have taken.

Well I thought you may have been confused and thought that I was actually old Arty himself by the way you were going on.

Also, try not troubling yourself too much over what you think I do or don't know about Old Arty. Of course if I'm mistaken and you don't have anything better to do with your time then trying to gleam from my forum posts the depths of my erudition then I suppose I could suggest some hobbies for you. Have you thought of embroidery? Building ships in bottles?

Ocko
Saturday, May 21st, 2011, 01:47 AM
The enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth‐persistent,
persuasive, and unrealistic.”—John F. Kennedy

Van Wellenkamp
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 10:52 PM
I know I have mentioned in other threads the book History of God. It really sheds light on how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam evolved over time. It is well written and a most interesting read. I think most on this thread would enjoy its content. Believer or not, because it makes no claims just states the facts of how things evolved.

paraplethon
Sunday, September 11th, 2011, 11:39 AM
Brain and mind are two seperate things... the brain might cease to function however...

And as for being - well, that's a whole different kettle of fish.