A Question for Christians

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to look outside the 5 senses. I'm a non-believer and I think our 5 senses are actually limiting our experience of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, we are blind because we can see, and deaf because we can hear. What alternative, superior sense modalities do you propose?

[ QUOTE ]
If I were a believer, I'd tell you that once we die, the soul is freed, no longer bound by just the 5 senses in which we can experience everything. We are now exposed to God's full glory and His creation. Things like Alzheimer's, senility, and the lack of earthly sensory perception of a newborn are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

My question asks what, precisely, is meant by the verb "to experience" in the afterlife, not how do we sense external stimuli. My experience, i.e. my consciousness, is a direct result of the neural firings in my brain. Since those firings cease upon death, I don't know in what way I can continue to "experience" anything which is not a result of that neural activity.

Like I said, any answer is unintelligible.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">In other words, we are blind because we can see, and deaf because we can hear. What alternative, superior sense modalities do you propose? </font>


I'm pretty convinced there are dimensions outside our own existence and expererience. One might ask, how could a soul experience anything without eyes, smell, taste, sound, or feel? What I'm saying is those senses are limiting us from experiencing all that is beyond. Imagine viewing a parade through a keyhole. You see only certain parts marching past your view, but open the door and Whahla! There is so much more.

[paraphrasing slightly because I can't remember the exact quote]

"Once the doors of perception are opened, we begin to see things as they truly are, infinite."

-Huxley

[hmkpoker]

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: Infinite. This I shall do by printing in the infernal method by corrosives, which in Hell are salutary and medicinal, melting apparent surfaces away, and displaying the infinite which was hid."

William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0234.html


Huxley, on the other hand, would have just come out and said "try mescaline" ^_^

[Lestat]

Oops! I KNEW it was William Blake, and tried to google it, but all I got was Huxley. I'm most familiar with the phrase as Jim Morrison said it.

Thanks for the correction.

[fuego527]

The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Sifmole,

I really think that here you hit the nail right on the head. Indeed relgion is based on faith, as has been demonstrated and claimed over and over again, on this forum. Of course if a religionist says that he has no rationale for his belief, I, for one, cannot object to this. I accept that it is so. The problem is that religionists in their insecurity always seem to want to justify to themselves and others that their position is somehow rational. Of course it isn't, and by these discussions they are going to be confronted over and over again with the obvious contradictions inherent in their faith based positions. This is why I do tend to answer statements from religionoists, altough I am certain, that they truly are not interested in critically investigating facts. They would like to convince themselves and others that their position is rational. But being confronted over and over again, may just be enough in rare case to start thinking critically, like nearly every atheist has probably had to do. I do hope so. Liberation from delusion is a very worthy thing in my experience. It is truly to be reborn and see the world as if for the first time.

By the way, I find it most interesting that religionists, seem to act in concert (in cohorts? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) and tend to ignore the most salient posts made on this forum.

[Lestat]

Wow! You said what I have to say better than I ever could have said it.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Sifmole,

I really think that here you hit the nail right on the head. Indeed relgion is based on faith, as has been demonstrated and claimed over and over again, on this forum. Of course if a religionist says that he has no rationale for his belief, I, for one, cannot object to this. I accept that it is so. The problem is that religionists in their insecurity always seem to want to justify to themselves and others that their position is somehow rational. Of course it isn't, and by these discussions they are going to be confronted over and over again with the obvious contradictions inherent in their faith based positions. This is why I do tend to answer statements from religionoists, altough I am certain, that they truly are not interested in critically investigating facts. They would like to convince themselves and others that their position is rational. But being confronted over and over again, may just be enough in rare case to start thinking critically, like nearly every atheist has probably had to do. I do hope so. Liberation from delusion is a very worthy thing in my experience. It is truly to be reborn and see the world as if for the first time.

By the way, I find it most interesting that religionists, seem to act in concert (in cohorts? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) and tend to ignore the most salient posts made on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you sell quite short many Christians and incorrectly elevate many atheists. Much philosophical and scientific thought was produced by individuals who held to Christian beliefs. Holding a belief in something spiritual does not preclude thought, reasoning or science. And simply chucking the concept of something divine and becoming an atheist does not suddenly make one a reasoning, or rational, individual.

I find it most interesting that the most insulting posts come from the "rational" scientific posters. I don't see that religionists, as you termed them, act any more together than the scientifists ( not-a-word ). They just tend to be answering the same questions.

What is the core problem with Lestat's "question"? Well, because it can't be answered in a one-answer-is-right fashion. From the "belief" in a soul standpoint, I don't know that there is even concensus among Christians -- I've never really thought about the question myself until this thread so I never looked into it. But if the Christians to whom this question is posited answer, "We don't know." Will Lestat accept that? Or will a "We don't know" be seen as proof that Christian belief is false?

I would hazard Lestat's intent to the "We don't know answer" would not be acceptance; but perhaps I am wrong, although the rest of his posts don't seem to show that.

So -- all you non-believers: If we switch brains which man is which? Because one is on death-row and to be executed tomorrow and the other is a free man. So which one dies?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, any answer is unintelligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a winner.