Are you a visionary?

Rob – why don’t you provide any evidence for your statements? You make claims which aren’t true (or at the least resulting from ignorant/bias views) then when I ask you to provide reasoning/evidence to back up such claims you divert attention to another bankrupt view, make false accusations or run away.

You have not any added any science whatsoever to this discussion & yet you have the audacity to critique my reasoning based around empirical/testifiable science. No doubt based on your track record thus far you cannot (& will not) substantiate your above view of... "nonsensical piece of non-science". Ironically, it appears you are the one clinging onto "nonsensical piece of non-science"... which probably explains why your conduct/responses have taken on the character they have.

The further you carry on with what appears to be paranoid delusion, the deeper you dig your hole. The above point is a load of rubbish. Our dialogue is here to follow & assess for all to see. What "typo" have I picked on to expand my "non-argument"? How is this possible? I have raised questions primarily addressing the driving mechanisms of evolution as well as provide some reasoning/rational evaluation to your irrational responses. I have tried my best to solely focus on the science aspect of this thread & in our direct dialogue. You have not reciprocated with any scientific reasoning or rational response to the subject matter. With this stated – how can anybody see that I have picked on a "typo" & then somehow expanded a "non-argument" from it is beyond me. Hang on; you are not referring to your frequent spelling/grammar misdemeanours? I addressed this issue (after you brought it up) & that was it. Frankly, I feel it is sloppiness on your part & that’s it – yet I will address the issue if quoting your views with the misspellings via the of "[sic]" after the quote. If by doing this bugs you, then I suggest you put in some effort & improve your spelling/grammar.

There is a prominent individual (MVP) on this forum who has publicly questioned the intelligence on individuals who frequently make spelling/grammar mistakes (& he has a point for doing so on this academic based forum). However, that has not occurred within our dialogue as I see this will only divert attention away from the real issues – the science. On the other hand the record shows that you have tried to divert attention at every opportunity away from the science aspect of the discussion & focus on the likes of straw man arguments, 'bait & switch' tactics & false accusations.

Ummm... did anybody mention anything about "Professor Ian Plymer" [sic] (just for the record his surname is spelt Plimer). I certainly didn’t – so why bring this gentleman up (with association with the climate change controversy). I have already discussed the issue surrounding the use of various scientists from various disciplines in relation to the evaluation of the evolution paradigm... which was instigated after another false/ignorant claim made by yourself in relation to the qualifications/academic positions of those who have the courage to question evolution.

Look Rob, we should both know by now that this area addressing 'Origins' (Creation/evolution debate) will always be a controversial one & subsequently discussions can get quite heated/passionate as a result. However you are not only not answering pertinent questions pertaining to evolution but you are also being unreasonable as well as irrational within our discussion... this raises other issues which I should be careful about... careful with addressing (thus concerning), thus it best we don’t go any further.

Fair enough Rob. This will also be my last response as well. I actually have precious little time as it is... & there are far more productive things I should be doing with my time than having an intended intelligent/rational discussion with someone who will not reciprocate.

Goodbye Rob – all the best... good luck with your "science" (I’m inclined to think you’re going to need it).

Yes Rob, neither have I Mark. However, I have provided reasoning from a world renowned evolution proponent (Dr Michael Ruse) that has stated that evolution is a "religion" ("This was true of evolution in the beginning, & is true of evolution still today"). Hence should not tarnish science with its involvement (as well as provide a discriminatory environment for scientists who have the courage to question its authenticity). Be that as it may, I don’t have any issue with others discussing religion within the context of the thread/dialogue & in a reasonable/rational manner.


Some people think that because I refer myself as a Creationist that I must also be religious & subsequently have a religious agenda. I am not religious & I don’t have any related agenda – I have stated here that I refer myself as agnostic – albeit of a Creationist persuasion. I dislike religion on the whole – albeit I am interested in spiritual/metaphysical views (i.e. the likes of David Smith’s). Due to time constraints (& pressing issues), I have only been able to skim over David’s posts. Unlike David I have never experienced a cognitive awareness of a supernatural/spiritual entity (one that transcends the natural laws of matter/energy, space & time)... that’s not to say that I’m not open to the possibility that there has been an interaction in my past (& possibly in the future)... it’s just with my sceptical mind & limited faith I can’t categorically claim so. With this said, I do not have the apparent degree of bind faith required to believe in the naturalistic/materialistic confinement of evolution - self-replicating undirected by-chance events, with no known scientific mechanism to acquire the billions of bits/bytes of information/coding required for organisms (i.e. their genome) to acquire greater & more complex function with evidently purposeful, symbiotic & irreducibly complex characteristics... not to mention the seemingly evident fingerprint (blueprint) of intelligence within the structures/systems that the various fields/disciplines within the realm of science investigates (i.e. Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Physiology, Zoology, Geology etc...).

My views expressed are in support of the empirical science i.e. in relation to a biological aspect: a primordial higher order complex genome which has undergone degeneration (genetic entropy) via the likes of "mutations" – yet diverse to the degree to allow organisms to survive various environmental stressors which is where the process of Natural Selection has selected characteristics/resorted codes or removed codes (never added information/codes) within the genome. The only element of faith required of which the realm of science is unable to investigate is in that ultimate causative event (which naturalism/evolution requires as well – hence the CERN project) which set the universal wheels in motion... & there just may be a reason for this apparent obscurity of the ultimate cause. The universe looks to be a "put-up job" – but put-up by who? However, should one’s intelligence/integrity be placed under question for wanting to investigate what probably is the biggest question man can ask?... particularly if this ultimate cause is of an intelligent source giver. My involvement, views & position on this topic is sincere... & I’ll admit passionate at times. I cannot help the degree of controversy this topic attracts – like I said before; "whilst questions continue to remain insufficiently answered or not answered at all, problems will not go away". The confines of the likes of i.e. naturalism (i.e. as an information source), uniformitarianism (pertaining to i.e. Geology) within the evolution paradigm do not provide adequate answers in the face of the empirical evidence/data we see around us - & that’s not my fault.

Thus with the above in mind, along with long term established traditions & world-views being critiqued/questioned, I can now see why Dr Kirby has stated earlier on this thread that (potentially)... “such a discussion may be causing harm and ill-will among podiatric colleagues”. I don’t think it should but the reality is that it probably has & will do.



Hi Mark.

Apologise for the time taken to reply. Time constraints & issues like the above have deterred my priorities on this discussion. Hence the following will be fairly superficial & brief (of which you’ll probably welcome)... as well as being my last contribution.

Yes, good point – couldn’t agree more. This has been one of my objectives within this discussion, albeit from a deemed controversial position.

I question the above answer Mark – your "easy answer" is a wee bit too superficial if one intends to seriously investigate the topic. Your answer could be seen as the result of experiential necessity but not of philosophical consistency. The mind & the brain are not the same thing - that’s a critical distinction. The brain is of material matter – the mind is immaterial (not made from matter)... where exactly is the mind? The nature/character of experience/consciousness is hard to capture in materialist terms - how can consciousness evolve from mater... can matter think? Naturally thoughts/memories are the result of brain function but there is still uncertainty within the Neuroscientific field as to what gives rise to them & their nature... they are simply not the result of neural electrical impulses, chemicals & collective neurons.

There is a hypothesis which states... "mind is what the brain does" – but this doesn’t quite add up. We cannot physically see the mind - thoughts/memories – they are not tangible, yet every man-made object on the planet is the result of thoughts... as well as influencing differing emotions (i.e. love, ecstasy; remorse, fear etc...)... then we also have the implications of the "placebo effect". What causes a thought is one thing (i.e. experiences) but assessing the actual nature of thoughts/consciousness/sub-conscious & the nature of long term memories (which may be many years older than the lifespan of the hardware i.e. neurones) are elements of which are outside the realm of naturalism/materialism – energy & matter... which brings me to my next point in relation to the association with the naturalistic confines of evolution...

Your reference with the brain (the mind – thoughts/memories/consciousness) in this thread I have used as an analogy as for the reality of the universe/world in which we live – what best fits the world in which we live:

For simplicity, let’s look at these two viewpoints as universes:

1/ The Evolution/Naturalism/Materialism universe: consisting of 2 constituents... matter & energy (this is all we have).

2/ The Creation/Intelligent Design universe: here we also have matter & energy but we also have other constituent elements, namely spiritual or immaterial elements. One could say that these elements are supernatural – that is, they appear to transcend the laws of physics (i.e. matter & energy). It appears we all possess an element that is immaterial i.e. the mind – & could there also be the existence of an eternal intelligent entity with purposeful intentions explaining the complexity of life & matter which doesn’t fit the likes of naturalistic origins & development as well as the uniformitarian assumptions of Geology & Cosmology. Thus the relevance of the brain/mind (thoughts/memories/consciousness) analogy with its immaterial nature does not fit into the confines of the naturalistic/materialistic (Evolution) world – hence could there be cause for other elements at play... of which are being discriminated against solely due to metaphysical implications.

- Center of Scientific Divulgation about Consciousness:
By Dr Marco Biagini - Ph.D. in Solid State Physics.

- Also: Scientific contradictions in materialism: emergent and holistic properties, complexity, etc.

- Why Naturalists Should Mind about Physicalism, and Vice Versa:

Thus with the above in mind (excuse the pun) – should naturalism/materialism & the subsequent paradigm of evolution reign supreme regarding full/true enlightenment of the universe & the objects & lifeforms that dwell in it?

Whoops – longer than intended – but issues certainly worth pondering over (providing one has an open & investigative mind).

Goodbye.

 

Matthew

Thanks for the above - appreciate it. Got a busy couple of days ahead but will revert to you over the weekend. I know it's easy to get emotive on these issues but your input is valuable as is everyone else's - and it would be a loss if you felt constrained or inhibited from making future submissions. Have a good weekend.

 

Mark,

Thanks for keeping us informed of the progress of your gutsy stand and am holding thumbs for you.

Also received my calendar today. Superb :drinks

Best wishes,
Bel

 

Mark wrote

Mark, at first I was up for that except I was not to enamoured with the idea of deep hypnosis, but after thinking about it there is much literature discussing and researching those very things and evidence and outcomes are inconclusive and conclusions drawn only end up falling to whatever bias the writer had to start with (which is inevitable in some ways). I have just read two books that deal with these things: One is written by an eminent neurosurgeon 'Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife ' where he has e coli bacterial meningitis, which is almost impossible to get without having some portal of entry to the CNS e.g. surgery, which he had not had and after being in a coma for a week his chances of survival were next to none and the best he could hope for was a permanent vegetative state because his brain cortex was either destroyed or rendered useless by bacterial infection and yet after his journey to heaven he woke up and regained full cognitive function ans returned to work and wrote the book.
His collaborating medical records and testimonies by doctors who attended are on record. The main point he stresses is that he could not have dreamed or imagined the episode since the part of the brain responsible for such action was destroyed or completely out of action and MRI's and other scans confirm this plus physical evidence of green pus filled spine and brain cavity. The recovery of his brain is also miraculous and 'impossible' by medical science and yet it did. And still most do not believe that he could have experienced heaven, it was all just an hallucination and even tho the brain was not working there must have been some other mechanism that we don't yet know about or understand that was responsible for the dreams.
Huh! even under conditions incontrovertible, undeniable evidence and witness still the sceptical brain cannot let go of its strongly held belief or axion. How much less worth would be any evidence you could gather from me, whether supporting or denying the case for God.

The other book 'The Case for the Resurrection' looks at refuting the case that people only saw what they saw because they were, delusional or hallucinating or were the victims of illusion and deceit. Still sceptics will argue against well known scientific psychological principles and concepts to support their case. Even when evidence is produced by the universally accepted method and principle still the argument comes back well it must be by some explainable phenomenon that we have not yet worked out - this also applies in this book when well tested and accepted historical literary criticism, that is used to test any other written historical evidence, is applied to the bible story and indicates the account are true as can be ascertained - quite honestly it borders on the insanely ludicrous.

Ultimately this is all that would happen (on both sides) if I agreed and went through the tests you describe Mark even though I have no doubt about your own integrity in that regard.

NB I am sending you two books that investigate that very case you ask (i.e. the biology and psychology of God and spiritual experience)- from both perspectives.

Also, I love my so called delusion of God, I wouldn't give it up any more than you would give up your memories and love for your Grandmother. The love and joy that come from and thru God is a wonderful thing and the bible is a wonderful guide on how to live in it and express it. Just as your memories of your Grandmother guide you in your life and love and joy of life today.

Best regards Dave

 

Good luck mark! Do keep us posted!

 

I just read Kevin's post on another thread

Were you wearing orthoses at the time of your conversion event? If so, what was the prescription? I can see a new line in Soul Supports coming soon....

sorry!

 

The central thrust of this thread and all similar threads is not about the existence of a 'god'. It is almost totally about the inerrancy and infallibility of the christian bible.

lets state it clearly (if it hasn't been done so before). THIS AND ALL SIMILAR THREADS ARE ATTEMPTS TO PROVE THAT THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE IS INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE

Accepted methods of proving the inerr/iblity of the big B have, over time, included limited rational argument augmented by screaming, stamping, kicking, punching, scratching, biting, social exclusion, torturing, burning and assassination and all in the name of LOVE.

It's a funny old world.

 

wdd,

I hoped that I had made it clear in my postings that I was proslytizing evolutionary biology. I have never made any comments towards or not towards the bible. That is not my business. I trust that you recognise this. I am unsure (and I assure you that I have not taken offence), whether your comments are addressed at me. I am a simple evolutionary biologist, going about his job. Rob

 

What the heck are you talking about man!?

Rob Kidd is talking biological evolution, Matthew AKA Ben Hur is talking evidence that refutes many popular scientific axioms regarding evolution and how the universe began, Mark is exploring spiritual experience, both his and others in terms of how they explain them and how science could explain them and I'm explaining my experiences as interpreted in terms of the living God and how the bible validates those interpretations in terms of its concepts and axioms. There is almost no argument along the lines of what you have proposed apart from where it is necessary to examine how evidence is accepted and why it is or is not?????

Plus -

where has this happened in this thread? But I agree it is terrible how non Christian factions and states like China, Bhutan,d India etc persecute Christians to death in this day and age.

Dave

 

Hi Dave and Matthew,

Is the bible errant and fallible?

Bill

 

Hi wdd

A yes / no answer to that would be great!!!!!

The difficulty with the question you are asking is it throws up other questions before it can be possible to answer your desire for a yes/no question. Not least because the bible is a compendium of books covering a vast array of things. So for example:

Inerrant or infallible in what matter, given that the bible covers many of the experiences of human existence?
Do you mean in its original form and in its original languages before translation and interpretation (interpretation and translation are crucial matters) ?
Do you mean in its original intent of what its combined writers wished to convey? For example, is it inerrant and infallible in its spiritual content but not its historical content?
Do you mean in its accuracy of historical / geopolitical narrative?

Answers to these will, of course, be heavily influenced by what your theological persuasion (e.g fundamentalist, conservative evangelical, liberal evangelical, charismatic, liberal theologian...) and / or your agnostic / atheistic position is.

It may also, of course, depend on whether you are referring to the christian bible (old and new testament , one covenant succeeding another) or if you are referring to that material in the christian bible from the Jewish tradition, more old testament etc , etc, etc.

There again for many, the infallibility or inerrancy of the bible is not significant to their experience of, or, the out working of their christian or otherwise held faith in God. In fact it is not even a question they ask so a yes or no answer is meaningless to them anyway.

Just a view and not arguing either way myself.

 

Ian,

Thanks for putting me back on the straight and narrow.

But before I put myself back in the box I need a little rant. So here goes.

Each time I contemplate responding to anything related to religion I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I open the door take one step forward and I'm up to my neck in a quagmire of wall to wall, floor to ceiling, petty disagrement but unfortunately a type of 'petty' disagreement that historically can and frequently does bred further disagreement, hate and often proves fatal.

I think it was in Gulliver's travels that the Big Endians and the Little Endians were perpetually at war over which end a 'boiled' egg should be opened.

Not wanting to be too extreme I classify the question of the existance or non-existance of a god or gods as petty. If there happens to be a god and only one god and he is the big G God who shows his eternal and infinite love by condeming his non-believing children to 'eternal suffering' I am stuffed, as of course are my children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and uncle Tom Cobley and all to the third and fourth generation. That's a manifestation of infinite love I can do without. As a model of love I reject it totally.

Why would I want to bow down and worship anything or anyone?

Yes humanbeings almost invariably have a fear of death and of non-existence but do we really seek eternal life? Although, in the small dark hours of the night, the idea of my own non-existance can fill me with terror the idea of eternal life sounds hellish - a damned if you do damed if you don't situation.

If you win the lottery you go to heaven where you will live for ever but if you lose the lottery you go to hell where you will live for ever and be perpetually tortured. True, hell is a double whammy. So the logical choice is heaven where your are only suffering eternal life? Of course it's not just eternal life but eternal 'joy'. That sounds about as attractive as eternal priapism.

Religion is not designed ultimately to produce love and harmony in humanbeings but hate and disharmony.

Carry on trying to kick the **** out of evolution specifically and any other aspect of science that contradicts the ideas of young earth, worldwide flood, biblical creationism, biblical infallibility or errancy (as you choose to define it of course) and of course keep piling on the words to give the impression of rational argument. A suitable motto might be 'Never mind the quality feel the width'!

I feel better now.

I'll close the door behind me, again!

Bill

 

Hi Bill

As you hopefully know, there was nothing personal in my response and in truth I think you likely echo the frustration of many.

I have my views but far more questions than I have any valuable answers. We are plagued though in such discussions by concepts and terms that were used in their day as a means of trying to understand something that may be ultimately unfathomable. In their day these concepts and words (worship e.g.) might have been windows into understanding for that populace and perhaps today we need different words to aid our understanding or a better (more thorough) understanding of the biblical concepts behind the term "worship" to provide fresh windows to look through.

Don't go back in the box Bill. We all have a say.

 

Bang on cue - the Father of Chronic Pain claims that several decades of theoretical research (which probably means theologically heretical...) now show his proprioceptice insoles reprogram cerebellar function. Rhubarb saves and Jesus scores on the rebound!

 

Bill
I can understand you unease and the sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when contemplating religion, for two reasons:
1) religion is man's attempt to rationalise the divine, this leads to denominationalism and demands exclusive rules and protocols to maintain and validate a certain view. So of course this leads to disagreement both inter and lntra denomination. This is not unique by any means divisions within sport and politics are well understood examples . Now no one is going to war over football rules although a lot of people do fight over football territories and referee decisions. Many have fought to the death for political beliefs, why the difference ? Because of the relative importance, which brings me to my second point.
2) Establishing the existence or non existence of a creator god is very important and the consequences of being wrong are serious especially in the case of the Christian God. So while discussion about football or biomechanics might result in heated argument it doesn't instil a nauseating fear because ultimately its not that important who is right or wrong. However if the supporter of no god theory is wrong then the consequences are dire. Of course this will be a sickening thing to have to contemplate, just like if you had to make a decision where the outcome of getting it wrong would be world war. For a christian being wrong about the existence of God is I.e. he does'nt exist, is inconsequential in the long term.


Is the bible wholly true and inerrant? Yes.

Regards dave

 

I'm quite surprised at your reticence to consider the alternatives, Dave. Even it it were proved beyond any doubt that your view on God, the afterlife and the religious model you subscribe to was wholly imaginary and wrong - you would still not change your mind. I guess having faith in something is to be admired, but blind faith....?

I think the alternative I've suggested has greater potential to explain your 'conversion event' - the possibility of a change to brain function due to an organic cause. You are not unique in claiming such an experience - and others may not take the same explanation away from it as you have. Some may believe in a deity - others do not. Some share the same faith/religion as you - others don't. You view that you have found the 'true' god whilst others - muslim & etc., are delusional - is absurd. Some may even view it as obscene.

My view of religion -whatever colour - is that it is a simple means of controlling the masses. Recognise the fact that many people experience/suffer a similar psychosis at some stage in their lives -for reasons yet fully understood - and give them a mystical and supernatural explanation within a behavioral framework - and you control them - for whatever reasons you may wish. I wrote at the start of the thread that religion is not enlightenment but enslavement - and I think you have more than adequately illustrated my point. Sometime soon, we will have the ability to read minds or at least view them in action. Perhaps then Matthew might have his answer where 'thought' fits into the universe we all inhabit - and we might gain a true understanding of these episodes and what their etiology is. Maybe then you will have a gradual if grudging acceptance of the obvious. But it will also take a great deal of bravery!

In that, good luck my friend.

 

southampton university flag is flying high

With a comment like that - Southampton University must be so proud to have BLinda train their podiatry students.....(offering clinical placements at her private clinic for podiatry students).

 

Hi Bill. I did state in my last post that it would be my last for reasons outlined in that post. You no doubt didn't read (fully comprehend) my posts or other relevant material pertinent to queries in your following "rant" (as you describe it). Thus I feel obliged to post just one more response - just for you.

Also, you had made your first response on page 5 at post # 127 & over 2 weeks after the start of this thread - hence if you wanted any serious response/discussion to your queries you should have engaged well before now (as I have now finished).

Putting aside that I have stated in this thread that I am an agnostic (of a Creationist persuasion), I do have views on the issues you have now created (pertaining to the Bible). Why - because I have studied the topics (of which you appear have not); I know a bit about theology (more than most) so I can make informed decisions for myself & not rely on the opinions of others. Hence I have studied the Bible, the science associated with 'Origins' & other related topics in an attempt to make informed opinions & choices (limiting as best as possible bias & deception).

Very often views expressed on topics of this nature remind me of a Mark Twain quote:
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination."
We can also include "science" in there as well... anyway, your so called "rant" appears indicative of the above Mark Twain observation.

[... & in case you are wondering as to why I refer myself as "agnostic" - as also stated earlier, this is a personal reason... as well as having the degree of theological information of which I honestly believe I don't complement the title of a true/sincere "Christian" (as don't a very large percentage of so called "Christians" today & throughout history) & hence I feel this world doesn't need another bogus so called "Christian" who isn't fair dinkum (Aussie slang for "serious") about their true status]

Bill, you are applying your religious historical opinions to this thread which no doubt is affecting your assessment of the thread & associated topics. This thread has not taken on the above traits. We here are all still alive (hence not "often" "fatal") after our opinions have been expressed (& would like to think there is no "hate" generated) - & we are all entitled to express associated views without the historical repercussions deterring anyone from expressing such views on topics of which many feel are important to address/discuss. True, there will always be disagreement (sometimes heated) on such areas - for many reasons. However, what causes most of the problems are the often ignorant perceptions/views regurgitated time & time again about a topic which have been acquired from the antiquated/bias/agenda driven opinions of others - without one's own investigation on the topics in question (yes, this does require effort & time).

Case in point...

Ah, the issue of "eternal suffering" (a regurgitated false pagan doctrine). One of the biggest lies of Christendom - if not the biggest! Perpetrated (popularised) long ago by a 'Christian church' body who ironically is anything but representing the God they claim to serve - hence not "Christian". This lie alone has turned more people away from Christianity than probably any other (apart from the lie of naturalism/humanism - evolution)!

Bill, there is no - repeat... NO... theological evidence for "eternal suffering"... I don't care what anybody says, or has said on this matter. If you want true answers to this issue then one must solely get them from the source of which you are referencing it to - the Bible & the Bible only - allow the Bible to interpret itself - not fallible man putting forward ignorant (biased, agenda laden) opinions on the text i.e. the parable found in Luke 16 (of scripture). There is no ongoing torment & torture at past, present or future. This is a medieval/pagan religious idea (roots from Greek mythology - hence not Biblical) which has unfortunately taken hold (due to corrupt church agendas) because people (dare I say) have been too lazy to search the facts for themselves (i.e. the context of the parable).

This is a big topic but I'll leave it at that - besides no one here is probably interested anyway (& this is my last post - remember). Also, it appears people don't like reading long posts.

The short of it is, if you are going to discredit something, not believe in something - then do so via your own assessment of the situation - not on the potentially fallible opinions on others (of which whose views may conveniently suit your world view). As stated, it does require effort but thinking for yourself is the most enlightening approach to take (albeit – a potentially more difficult path).

Well I hope you or any rational person wouldn't "bow down and worship" to a god who condones the likes of "eternal suffering" - but unfortunately many do - hence part of the problem.

Bill, I too am an atheist to a god of this nature... an atheist to the god you have in your mind - hence I agree with you & we at least have this in common. Yet, this is a false god - based on criteria of evidence pertaining to the source (Bible) & entity (God) in question. It is of an established pagan god instigated by a church (with corrupt agendas) which is said to represent "Christianity". As you can imagine, this is extremely controversial (& potentially upsetting for many)... not to mention the potential invoking of many so called "conspiracy theories". Thus I'll leave it at that & encourage you to search for yourself.

I don't have a fear of death Bill - that's not saying that I want to experience it at this point in time. Remember, one's perceptions pertaining to the above is influenced by the acquired belief system... of which I have addressed in part with regard to the false doctrine of "eternal suffering".

Yes, religion can & does cause this. Hence why I am not religious - I avoid any association with it. Yet don't allow this deceptive religious baggage affect your opinion & search on metaphysical areas/issues.

I will continue to... "kick the **** out of evolution" when it deserves it! Oh, & please do not associate this antiquated mythological pseudoscientific form of religion (i.e. evolution) with science - true science - operational/empirical science! If you took the time to read my posts carefully you would realise the issues involved here.

Anyway, there has been plenty of opportunity/time for you (or anyone else) to refute what I have said on this issue... & I'm not about to drag this issue out any further... times up (as it is for evolution!).

Well, thanks for your opinion Bill. Just be careful to open & close the right doors in future... but here lies the problem - knowing which. For starters, think for yourself; avoid the opinions of others influencing views on topics you have little personal experience/understanding on; take time/effort investigating these areas... & weigh up the data against empirical evidence (i.e. the source... whether that be the Bible pertaining to Biblical issues or empirical science pertaining to science issues)... & be always sceptical of the data that doesn't.

All the best.

 

Aloha,

It seams that some of the most visionary of visionarys have had simular experiences.

Gospel, John 3:7-15
7 Do not be surprised when I say: You must be born from above.

8 The wind blows where it pleases; you can hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

9 'How is that possible?' asked Nicodemus.

10 Jesus replied, 'You are the Teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things!

11 'In all truth I tell you, we speak only about what we know and witness only to what we have seen and yet you people reject our evidence.

12 If you do not believe me when I speak to you about earthly things, how will you believe me when I speak to you about heavenly things?

13 No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of man;

14 as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up

15 so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

Mahalo,
Steve

 

Nobody knows what life is all about and why we are here and why we are who we are. Just enjoy what you have because it is soon gone and worrying about it isn't going to give you the answers you seek. It sounds as if you are experiencing existential anxiety.

Theologians like Paul Tillich and psychologists like Sigmund Freud have characterized anxiety as the reaction to what Tillich called, "The trauma of nonbeing." That is, the human comes to realize that there is a point at which he or she might cease to be (die), and their encounter with reality becomes characterized by anxiety. Religion, according to both Tillich and Freud, then becomes a carefully crafted coping mechanism in response to this anxiety since they redefine death as the end of only the corporal part of human personal existence, assuming an immortal soul. What then becomes of this soul and through what criteria is the cardinal difference of various religious faiths.

Philosophical ruminations are a part of this condition, and this is part of obsessive-compulsive disorder. They are typically about sex and religion or death. However, truly rational philosophical thinking is usually driven by a desire for a rational understanding of Ultimate Reality, rather than a desire to avoid death.

According to Viktor Frankl, author of Man's Search for Meaning, when faced with extreme mortal dangers the very basic of all human wishes is to find a meaning of life to combat this "trauma of nonbeing" as death is near and to succumb to it (even by suicide) seems like a way out.

The "father" of existentialism, Soren Kierkegaard, regarded all humans to be born into despair by default (in The Sickness Unto Death). Such despair was created by having a false conception of the self. He regarded the mortal self which can exist relatively, and therefore be born or die, as the false self. The true self was the relationship of self to God (the Absolute, or Ultimate Reality), rather than to any relative object.

An existential crisis can result from:

A sense of being alone and isolated,
The realization of one's own mortality, or the realization that there may be no afterlife; or
A realization that one's life has no destined, supernatural, or in some cases external purpose or meaning.
It is quite similar to the sociological concept of anomie. It has also been likened to a mid-life crisis. The implication of an existential crisis is that the crisis itself stems from some sort of existential realization or understanding.

In non-existential belief systems the essence of what it means to be human is largely held to have been predefined before birth, usually by some sort of supernatural being or group of beings. A certain lack of faith in such belief systems is typically a prerequisite for an existential crisis. Basically, an existential crisis is the sudden awareness of not knowing what one's life is all about and/or the sudden awareness of one's inevitable impending personal doom.

Cognitive dissonance results when a person is faced with the paradox of believing that their life is important while at the same time perceiving that human existence itself is without meaning or purpose. It is the resolution of this paradox that dissolves the crisis. A typical resolution is a belief in some sort of supernatural explanation through religion; others hold that one can define for oneself what one's own meaning and purpose is on this planet.

Existential crises are sometimes triggered by a significant event or change in a person's life. Usually the event makes the person reflect in some way on his or her own mortality, revealing the repression. Typical examples of such events are the death of a loved one, a life-threatening experience, use of psychedelic drugs such as LSD, one's children moving away from home, reaching a certain age, or a length of time in solitary confinement.

There are more ways and variations on how to handle an existential crisis, however. One may decide, for instance, that thought is pointless and existential truth or security cannot be obtained through it. Or one may conclude that it is not important to know what happens or how things work; all that matters is the present. Others may decide that being happy is the pursuit of life and strive to increase their knowledge base in order to accomplish this.