Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

No Heavan No Hell

profile picture
OhioRiderSPK5
Posts: 968 - Karma: 24

Ok so i just got  back from this party an im kinda drunk so im my grammar is bad im sorry an im not tryin to sound cool by sayin im drunk a shit but anyway, the whole time at this party i kept thinkin bout wow i wonder if im gonna go to hell for drinkin an smokin. Afer that i startd to think about what if there really was no heavan or hell. You would livee yor life die an then thats it. forever an ever. just thinkin boutt it scares the shit out of me. What are youur guys thoughts on this

Nov 21 2009 12:15AM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
fuck i hate being the last post of a page. i'll repost what i wrote, as im curious to know what other people think about this:

has it been proven beyond any doubts that brain activity is the only explanation for consciousness ?
check this story out, there's been a thread about it in the thinker's cult: a guy hypothetically gets his brain detached from his body. However, doctors plug a bucnh of receptors in his cranium and transmitters on his brain. The guy, when he wakes up,  feels like he is still in his body, even though his brain is in a jar somewhere. When he sees his brain in the jar he knows that he's "really" in that jar, because that's where he is thinking, but he still feels 100% like normal, like he's in his body. Here's where I started to think myself:  let's say he walks into a fire and burns himself alive, completely destroying his body. He will still be conscious because his brain is in that jar. It's just that now, he really truly realizes that in reality he has always been in that jar, all along. Following this logic, what tells me that if you destroy that guys brain, he will not realize that he really was actually somewhere else, at another level ? In this guy's situation, he was under the illusion that he was in his body. When his body was gone, he realized that he really was that brain in that jar. What if that is also another illusion and when you destory that brain he realizes he really was something else, somewhere else. Hypothesis on the "soul" im guessing ...
Nov 22 2009 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Moisty_Goat
Posts: 601 - Karma: 31
You just named 3 obscure or extreme religions to prove your point
I was referring to many of the major religions
Nov 22 2009 1:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8581 - Karma: 4,053
I think you're full of shit and will continue to think that until you cite some sources on the head in a jar.
Nov 22 2009 1:36PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
lol don't you understand the meaning of the word "hypothetical" ?
Nov 22 2009 1:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8581 - Karma: 4,053
I guess i missed that part in the giant wall of bullshit without any grammar or sentence structure.
Nov 22 2009 1:47PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 638
That wouldn't happen. There would need to be a constant supply of blood and oxygen to the brain that exactly matches the way his body works. If doctors did manage to do that then the brain would still be controlling his body and once his body dies he will have no sight, hearing, touch, or any senses connecting him to the outside world. He could theoretically still stay conscious as long as the brain were supplied with the necessary things to stay functional. As soon as the brain is deprived of the artificially infused blood and oxygen it would cease to work and therefore the guy would cease to think.

Use rational thinking here.
Nov 22 2009 1:51PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
sounds like you should go back to the 17th century when this was worth talking about

this goes for most posts in this thread
Nov 22 2009 1:54PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
the grammar and structure are actually pretty correct. i love how close-minded you are. you probably hate philosophy don't you?
Nov 22 2009 1:56PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 638
Read my post and respond to it instead of picking out the post with nothing in it.
Nov 22 2009 1:57PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
You're completely missing the point here. This is about perception. With a detached brain, you would still feel like you're in your body. When that body would be destroyed, you'd realize that you were that brain in that jar all along, and that feeling like you were in your body was just an illusion. Again, this is a HYPOTHESIS, but maybe it'd be the same when you destroy the brain. You'd realize that thinking you were the brain in the jar was also an illusion. This could explain out of body experiences, soul, and all that jazz.

This is a rational thinking.
Nov 22 2009 2:01PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
why isn't it worth talking about anymore ?
Nov 22 2009 2:09PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 638
Yes but the only reason you would feel like you're still in your body is because of the transmitters places in your body the exact way they would be before your brain was detached thus connecting you brian in a sense to all your nerves which would give you the perception that you were still in your body, once you saw your brain, it would be strange but you would still feel like you are inside your body because of the transmitters acting like your brain used to. Once your body was destroyed you would have no senses only thoughts.
Nov 22 2009 2:13PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
I 100% agree with this. Nothing I said disagrees with this.
Nov 22 2009 2:14PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 638
But when the brain is destroyed then you won't be able to sense or have consciousness because the organ in our body governing the way we think and perceive the world is our brain. Thoughts are merely electrical signals that are fired off by synapses. The brain is something that has puzzled scientists for a very long time, but we do have an intricate knowledge of how our body works and how our senses are nerves that send signals to our brain and thoughts are the signals fired off in our brain. Those signals are the only reason that we are thinking about this in the first place. When we die, our brain stops functioning stopping all senses and thought.
Nov 22 2009 2:21PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
You're still staying at a very matter-of-fact prosaic level. The brain in jar story was just to illustrate that some illusions could be extremely convincing and that you could use this same kind of pattern to speculate on the idea of a "soul". And while we know a lot about the brain and consciousness, I'm sure that some things are still fuzzy and unexplainable. I don't think that that "spark" that differentiates humans from other animals has been completely explained and proven, out of body experiences have not been explained, etc. Things like that make you think that there might be more to the mind than just the body and the brain, and I used this brain in the jar story to illustrate the fact that you can be thinking you're just something in particular, while in reality there's more to it. The thing is that there is no way to know this for a fact other than dying. Just llike the brain in jar guy realized his brain was in fact in a jar by destroying his body, the only way we can know if a soul exists is by destroying our brain. This is a pretty extreme way to find out, so instead, we are left to speculate. It's all about thinking a bit outside the box.
Nov 22 2009 2:35PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Your argument is not valid because you are not adhering to Occam's razor. You are coming up with an incredibly complicated argument, whilst you have no way of ever really being able to prove yourself right, nor do you have much evidence, if any, to back up your claims.
whilst it is interesting to think about these things, it is still better to go with what we know forsure right now rather than speculate wildly.
Nov 22 2009 2:39PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
partly because none of you are going to have anything worthy to say above and beyond what has already been said about problems Descartes worried about back in 1637

and mostly because of the horrendous injustices that would be committed by people paraphrasing, wikipediaing and translating into argumentation, that which has already been said
Nov 22 2009 2:40PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
So in other words, you're using a completely hypothetical, fictional anecdote to "prove" your point?
Nov 22 2009 2:41PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
this post proves how retarded you are.
being closed-minded means you refuse to change your beliefs when presented with lots of evidence to the contrary.
You are presenting no valid evidence, and then claiming that people are "closed-minded" for not believing in your "hypothesis" which has no evidence to back it up and is basically impossible to prove.

Nov 22 2009 2:44PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
Oh I'm well aware that in a debate of some sort my arguments would be considered fallacious, but I'm just speculating, for the sake of speculating. I think that way too many people take what's given to them for money and don't try to think a bit outside the box. Of course I can't prove anything I'm saying and I'm obviously not saying that I'm right at all. I'm just thinking a bit about things, and I think more people should do so.
Nov 22 2009 2:45PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Nov 22 2009 2:46PM
0 0
profile picture
selkirks
Posts: 1979 - Karma: 62
The number of misconceptions in this thread is astonishing.
Nov 22 2009 2:48PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
not trying to prove a point at all. i never said i was right.  i'm using a completely fictional anecdote to illustrate the "plausibility" of a hypothesis that can't be proven.
Nov 22 2009 2:48PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
And that somehow disproves what I said about a dead brain having no conscious thought?
All you're talking is speculating about random things that have zero significance. You're just post whoring, at most.
Nov 22 2009 2:52PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
true, it's impossible to prove. what i'm saying is that it is close minded to say that what i'm saying is not even remotely plausible, because even if I can't prove any of this, no one can prove that it's bullshit either.  That being said, since you can't prove or disprove it, it remains in the realm of "plausible". Saying its right is being closeminded and saying its wrong is also being closeminded. What can you say against that? Don't say I'm retarded, I think about everything I say before I say it.
Nov 22 2009 2:53PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Which you could do to illustrate the possibility of any hypothesis you could possibly come up with.

Im pretty sure a good amount of people like to think about these things and wonder how everything really works... however, when it comes down to it, its just wrong to go and try and present those thoughts as any sort of argument without legit evidence... thats not how science works.
Nov 22 2009 2:53PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 638
The whole reason you would think "you're" still in your body is because of the receptors and transmitters that were placed in your body and brain that emulate the way your brain interacts with your body. You are technically in two places but you feel like you are still in your body because YOU ARE YOUR BODY.
Your conception of "thinking outside the box" consists of trying to speculate in something that has no relevance to anything. See my previous posts to solidify my last statement.

The concept of heaven and hell is irrational. Where is this heaven and hell? Is it in our minds? It isn't a concrete place, so is what is it? A spiritual place? It is something that humans have constructed as a way to cope with the idea that we can cease to exist. In a way it's narcissistic of us to think that we can't stop existing. Like I said in an earlier post, the accounts of people "seeing the light" is the massive amount of DMT released when we are about to die. This is essentially a trip and feels like an eternity, while it may only be a few seconds or minutes. This is what they recount when they are brought back to life.
Nov 22 2009 2:53PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
QED

just because i can give you lots of evidence for x doesn't mean you necessarily need to change your belief that x.

I need to provide sufficient evidence that 1.possibly x and 2. believing x is more probable than maintaining your current belief

Nov 22 2009 2:55PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
1- Coming from someone with the number of posts you have, the postwhoring claim is hilarious.
2- you can't possibly prove that after the brain is dead there isn't another level of consciousness
Nov 22 2009 2:58PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
read my post above yours and tell me whats wrong with it.
Nov 22 2009 2:59PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
I am by no means religious. I highly despise organized religion. I'm just speculating on the topic of spirituality. I know about the DMT, and have never mentioned the "tunnel" or anything along those lines to try to make my hypothesis more valid.
Nov 22 2009 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Just because you cant prove something doesnt mean that i cant be wrong.

Its impossible to prove something 100%, however, it is just wrong to say that the boiling point of water is 603 degrees because it isnt... but maybe if you go into some weird parallel dimension through some wormhole and then the quantum state of the water molecule changes and blah blah blah then maybe it could happen..

You aren't a good philosopher.


If there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of something, the correct stance to take is that said being/phenomenon does not exist.
Nov 22 2009 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
T-Holt
Posts: 5020 - Karma: 638
So what you're saying is that there is some undetectable force that called our conscious that floats away when our brain ceases to work and goes to either to some place that only exists in a spiritual worlds and is the best place ever or the worst place ever.

And how the fuck would heaven and hell work? There would have to be infinite heavens and hells to create the perfect heaven or hell for every single person because people have different perceptions of what is good and evil or what if the perfect place or what is the worst place.
Nov 22 2009 3:02PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
This is untrue because if you can give even the slightest piece of evidence to disprove a certain hypothesis, it annuls it. My hypothesis cannot be proven wrong, because I cautiously made sure that I didn't say anything that could be refuted by science or logic. That's why im saying that this particular hypothesis is interesting and at best plausible. I can't understand why someone couldnt agree that it is plausible.
Nov 22 2009 3:06PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
... you havent read my previous posts eh ? I said that i despise organized religion and i think that the concept of heaven and hell is extremely ridiculous and childish. For the first part of your post, thats why i used the brain in the jar story. You think you're in your body but when it dies you realise you were that brain in that jar. All im saying is that maybe when the brain dies youll realise that the "conscious" part of you was that "soul" all along, merely controlling the brain, which was controlling the body. This hypothesis is extremely simple.
Nov 22 2009 3:11PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
IF YOU CANT REFUTE SOMETHING OR PROVE SOMETHING THEN THE CORRECT STANCE IS TO BELIEVE THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST.

The burden of proof is on you. you have not made a valid argument yet because you have provided no proof for your claim you idiot.
Saying "it could happen we just dont know" is not proof. You fail at philosophy, just shut up.
Nov 22 2009 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
That water thing was completely absurd, because the boiling point of water has been proven. I'm talking about things that havent been proven yet.

"no evidence for the existence or non-existence of something, the correct stance to take is that said being/phenomenon does not exist."

However, if by reasoning rationaly you are able to formulate a hypothesis that is logically viable, I think that the hypothesis can be formulated. I'm not trying to prove the existence of the soul. I agree that no evidence for the existence or non-existence means that you must say it doesnt exist. It doesnt however mean that you can't formulate a hypothesis about it. See that's the thing, since the begining im just formulating a hypothesis. Never once have i said that i "proved" something. All im saying is that logically my hypothesis is plausible. That's it. Nothing more. That's what philosophy is about: hypothesis that make sense.
Nov 22 2009 3:17PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
the hypothesis is NOT plausible, because it is impossible to prove or disprove it. get that through your head holy fuck.

There is no point in making a hypothesis if you cant prove it or disprove it. the whole point of a hypothesis is that you can test it. You cannot test your hypothesis, therefore it isnt a fucking valid hypothesis.
Nov 22 2009 3:19PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
I NEVER SAID THAT THE SOUL EXISTS !

How ridiculously thick are you ??? I have never said that. I agree 100% fully that if I can't prove or disprove the existence of a soul,  i have to say that the soul doesnt exist.

I KNOW THAT YOU CANT SAY THE SOUL EXISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR COUNTEREVIDENCE.

How retarded are you. Im just saying that my hypothesis on the subject could be plausible.

PLAUSIBLE, NOT TRUE

If you can't understand that, you sir, fail at philosophy. So many philosophers have speculated on subjects that couldnt be proven. They never said that what they were saying was true or existed. But they still said it, because they were interesting possibilities. That's an aspect of philosophy.
Nov 22 2009 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
Plausible doesnt imply that its true. For me, somethign is plausible if logically it makes sense. Thats it.
Nov 22 2009 3:26PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
IT IS NOT A HYPOTHESIS.

"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon."

Nov 22 2009 3:27PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
Oh I'm sorry, you're right, it's not a hypothesis, it's a concept. If that was the only thing bothering you, then I guess you missed the general idea i was trying to convey. My thoughts are not a hypothesis but a plausible concept then.

a concept : "a general notion or idea; conception."

that is


plausible: "seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance"



Nov 22 2009 3:35PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
every concept is plausible. your concept is still retarded if youre trying to argue that is valid in any real way.

example: there is a giant pink unicorn flying around space but hes invisible and we cant detect him but he could be there.

If you have a concept which there is NO EVIDENCE for, and there will never be evidence for, then it is not plausible.
it is not seemingly worthy of acceptance, it is seemingly worthy of being retarded.
Nov 22 2009 3:38PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
So any speculations on the soul and life after death are retarded. Speculations on alien lifeforms on other planets are retarded. That's pretty scary. What you're saying is that if you're trying to think about something that can't be proven or disproven, you're retarded. Thats fucked up dude.
Nov 22 2009 3:41PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
I am not saying contemplating these things is retarded, im saying that presenting a concept as plausible when it is not is retarded.


Also, it would be possible to prove the existence of aliens on other planets, or at least come up with some evidence that could suggest that possibility, which is entirely different from what you have been doing with your "concept".
Nov 22 2009 3:43PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
Then according to you, a whole lot of influential philosophers were retarded. Take Descartes. Every single concept he ever thought of was something that could not be possibly proven. His way of thinking was discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method. According to you, that's retarded.
Nov 22 2009 3:50PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
lolwut?

Are you comparing your thoughts in this thread to Descartes now? All i have done in your thread is disprove your concept. The whole point of Philosophy is to suggest ideas and then have other philosophers try and disprove them... it works just like a scientific theory works. You have presented a concept, and i have proven it to be invalid:


1. You have present a "concept" that can never be proven or disproved, this makes it invalid.

2. The logical stance on said concept is to hold the belief that it does not exist.

3. You have no evidence to support your concept, nor will there ever be evidence to support it.


I have made my point and i really don't want to keep repeating myself onto the next page of this thread, so i am done.
Nov 22 2009 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
Let's take Descartes then and his theories on God:

1. He has presented a "concept"; that can never be proven or disproved, this makes it invalid.

2. The logical stance on said concept is to hold the belief that it does not exist.

3. He has no evidence to support his concept, nor will there ever be evidence to support it.

Therefore, according to you, Descartes is retarded.

You seem to have a twisted concept of philosophy, where you analyse things like in science. Philosophy and science are different. Philosophy doesnt use concrete evidence to support concepts; it uses reason.

Now please reply to this.
Nov 22 2009 4:01PM
0 0
profile picture
OhMyBosh
Posts: 5056 - Karma: 171
Descartes was wrong?
Just because a famous Philosopher says something doesn't mean it cant be wrong.

I used reason and logic to dismantle your argument, there was no science involved.
Nov 22 2009 4:02PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
You didnt use reason and logic to dismantle my argument. You said that there was no evidence nor could there ever be evidence on the subject, therefore its not valid. In reallity, using that argument means that it is a scientifically invalid argument. Philosophy doesnt utilize concrete evidence as an argument, because it usually deals with stuff that cant be proven. My Descartes thing was just one example. Using your "reason and logic", you could say that 95% of philosophers throughout history were wrong, because they never had any evidence. Heck, you can even say that the whole branch of metaphysics is retarded because it only deals with speculation on reality that can be proven or disproven.You obviously arent really aware of what philosophy is, as youre using a scientific approach to determine was is right and wrong.
Nov 22 2009 4:11PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)