the concept of heaven is flawed

[Laughing_Bun]

Alright so I posted the following message on a myspace forum ran by a youth group i used to attend at my church. Its hard to express something like this on the computer so bare with me and share your thoughts and insights about "heaven". I know most of you are agnostic/atheist already, but Im curious to see what you think about my little theory on heaven. try to ignore the bad grammer and things it was just a quick 10 min writeup.


OK so when we die were all (or the believers, better watching my wording so people dont have anything to criticize me about when the find out their wrong) supposed to go to heaven. Now while what life form we may take up there is under debate, were all in agreeance we will take our mind. OUR mind is our "spirit" it makes us who we our. If we dont take our mind we are no longer ourselves, making heaven meaningless to us. OK so we take our minds.

But if we take our minds, we take with us all of our knowledge (some More than others, some very little). There are limitations set upon us just as on earth as to what we can achieve. Suddenly the bridge between heaven and earth is that much closer. We still maintian our human emotions, because changing that is to re-write ourselves, and once again than makes heaven null.

Were we to assume that heaven is whatever makes us happy 24/7- for most of atleast guys admitadly or not, that includes sexual deeds (not something that would go over too well in heaven). Aside from that ANYthing you can imagine would grow tiresome, because we maintain our minds and therefore maintain the human condition, We always want more, and when we have it all, were left longing for something else. Anyone see where im going with this, whether you agree with me up to this point or not, your a fool to deny that as humans we could be eternally satisfied. Were heaven some sort of for lack of the better word "orgasmic" stream of happiness, that would get old as well, and obviously doesnt sound very pleasent from the outside...now does it.

IN CONCLUSION- heaven is flawed on this basic principal "if we dont take our minds we dont take ourselves, if we take our minds we take the troubles of the world. We will always be humans and to change that is to change the essence of who we are, IF that is removed in our eyes, so is the glory of heaven"

I hope that makes sense, anyway you cut it heaven is flawed

LIVE FOR TODAY! ITS ALL YOU HAVE! Its part of he human condtition to want that pot at the end of the rainbow. But guess what its never there. Live your life to the fullest dont waste it, i assure you its all you have. Not glamourous, but i finally found something i believe in.

[Zazoo]

share your thoughts and insights about "heaven"

It doesn't exist. When you die you cease to exist.

Just my 2 cents,
~Mike

[BajaBravo]

I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that theologically mind and spirit are two separate things, albeit related. It is believed by some that the spirit transcends physical form but the mind does not.

The mind is the manifestation of one's consciousness. It has itself a physical form: the brain. As such, it exists only on the physical plane. It governs conscious behaviour (and I would argue unconscious behaviour as well) based on a balance of logic and emotion, and in turn it is governed by experience and factors such as genetics and physical brain structure and chemistry. Given the inherit complexity of the brain, the mind is not fully understood but it is in the realm science to figure it out in time.

One of the main jobs of the brain is to facilitate through motivation the satisfaction of the physiological needs of the body. It creates hunger when you need fuel, discomfort when you are too cold or too hot, loneliness if you are too isolated etc. If you eat, have sex, put on a sweater, go to a party, or whatever, "happiness" is created. This kind of happiness is essentially a chemical response in the brain.

When the body dies, the brain dies, destroying the mind. Physiological needs are irrelevant as is happiness in terms of the chemical response kind.

The spirit is the manifestation of the force or will which gives us life. (May the force be with you.) It exists only on the moral (i.e. non-physical, not moral as in right/wrong) plane. The idea is that if one could physically replicate the mind and the body in exact detail, that construct would still not be "alive" because it lacks a spirit. The spirit is in the philosophical, not scientific, realm. Spiritual needs involve understanding one's place in the universe and identifying and fulfilling one's purpose. Spiritual "happiness" comes from resolving spiritual needs, not physiological ones. Since the spirit is non-physical in nature, many believe that it perpetuates beyond the existence of the physical body and mind.

If there is a "place" such as Heaven, accessible only to disembodied spirits than things like sex would be irrelevant there because the mind is long gone. The eternal happiness of Heaven comes from being in the presence of God, understanding and having fulfilled His purpose for creating you.

Of course, if you don't believe in God or you believe the nature of the spirit is far different, the concept of Heaven won't make sense.

[MindlessOath]

It doesn't exist. When you die you cease to exist.

Just my 2 cents,
~Mike

thats true - for my two cents - i belive religion is a piramd scheme its just brainwashing to make you think in a certain way - i remember the buisness that sells motivational material to make you sell better, and i seen it, they were brainwashed and felt great about it.  most religious people got into this field and even those that were not because motivotinal material can be very very incuraging.  belivers can belive what they want, but they cant tell me that they are right honestly because they dont even know and thats the truth they are unwillingly able overcome for some reason (be it the stories or the fact generation after generation has been told this and that trough time).

THE mind and body and spirit are all just motivational material to confuse or whatever people to think this and that, and your right, its bunk - when you die you die, you sease to exist - i forget the movie but the refrence to religion  and how powerfull it is - a religias war can make someone powerfull enough to continue to fight when his head gets cut off (for as long as possible - i belive it was 7 mins or so - i forget).


ya ya, i know spelling, and mean comments are comming my way, but hey thats what i feel, this is 2006 and people still are wasting time when the earth can much better use there time without religion and bad poletics.  mabe we can all go in on something large to benifit the earth as a whole.

[farmboy]

ditto to what bjb said.  i was going to reply similarily, but he did so much better

i belive religion is a piramd scheme its just brainwashing to make you think in a certain way

I would just like to point out, here.  There is a difference between religion and spirituality.  Belief in heaven and God requires the latter, but not neccessarily the former.  I think you're pretty much right about RELIGION being a brainwashing/control mechanism, but a personal belief in God, Jesus, and Mary, or Muhammad, or Shiva, or L. Ron Hubbard, or whoever is SPIRITUALITY.  I think spirituality is a gift and is eternally bound to our spirits.  My only other rebuttal is that no one knows what heaven is like, and attempting to define it by mortal parameters (what Bun's theory did) is a futile effort.

[BajaBravo]

There is a difference between religion and spirituality.

x 2 - I couldn't agree more. One can be an committed atheist even, and still be very into spirituality.

[MONOLITH]

x 2 - I couldn't agree more. One can be an committed atheist even, and still be very into spirituality.

*raises hand*

[Zazoo]

Given the context, I think Laughing Bun was using mind and spirit in the philosophical sense (Cartesian Dualism), where the two are often used interchangeably. In that context, body refers to our corporeal existence (to include the brain and the senses), whereas mind refers to a supposed nonphysical (but real) existence -- it is in this realm where the conscious, free-willed self exists (the soul).

Personally, I could never accept dualism. The problem is the idea that there is a nonphysical "mind" that exists outside the physical body -- yet this mind can effect our physical form. If so, there has to be some "interface" between our physical brains and our nonphysical mind. Obviously the interface has to be a point where a completely intangible/nonphysical entity (the soul/mind) can create a physical influence on our bodies (our brain). The interface would be a point in our minds where physical phenomena took place without any scientifically identifiable "cause" (since the phenomena is being initiated from a completely nonphysical plane). In other words, it's a supernatural phenomenon. Further, it hinges on the assumption that the brain’s function can never be fully understood by science. Why should we feel that way? This is no different than introducing any supernatural cause into any other gap in our scientific understanding (be it God, ghosts, miracles, or whatever). The most logical (albeit unromantic and uninspired) explaination seems to be that everything we are is completely contained within our physical brain. That's not to say it must be this way, only that IMHO, I see no justifiable reason to assume a second plane of existence, completely removed and untouchable by scientific inquiry, when an entirely physical explaination of the mind and self seems entirely plausible and attainable. We don't really need a disembodied mind to explain our conscious selves.

Think about it, we are made out of the same small collection of atoms as the rest of the universe, and our bodies and our physical brains are subject to the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe. On the atomic and molecular levels our bodies are nothing "special" – just one of the many possible arrangements of matter. Why should we suppose that there is anything supernatural going on in our minds, or that our personal identity exists outside of our physical form? I understand why such an idea persists – it’s certainly far more desirable to believe we are special than to accept that our consciousness, our emotions, everything we are, is nothing more than a collection of chemicals and electrical impulses acting according to physical law. It's this same need for purpose anf meaning that put the earth at the center of the universe and man at the center of "God's" kingdom as a designed animal. We also don't particularly like the idea that our existence is finite. We can't deny that our physical bodies are finite -- we see them destroyed all the time -- so the only way to get around this is to create a higher plane of existence where we continue to exist, even after our bodies have turned to dust.

The idea of a intangible plane of existence where our “self” (soul) exists seems superfluous to me -- unnecessary and unjustified.
The cognitive and neurological fields are replete with cases and studies where a fully physical “self” is the most logical explanation. We know that self-awareness in children takes 2-3 years to develop, and the sensory experience a child has in his first several years of life has a profound impact on the “self” that develops in later years. We also know that brain injuries and disease like Alzheimer's can completely destroy a person’s identity and their concept of self (and this disease also shows us how totally dependent we are on memory for our concept of self -- and we know that memory is a physical aspect of the mind). What we know about who we are and how it relates to our mind seems to suggest that the physical body is not just a vessel, but a complete being – there is no “ghost in the machine” (to borrow a phrase).

In other words – I’m not a spiritual person. :tongue:
~Mike

[MONOLITH]

*lowers hand*



:tongue:

[Zazoo]

*lowers hand*
:tongue:

I'm not trying to crap on anyone for having religious or spiritual beliefs. I'm just giving an honest assessment given my own particular point of view. Obviously my particular point of veiw is that of a very small minority of this planet's population. So, I'm probably wrong. :wink: :tongue:

Don't let me change your mind.

~Mike

[Lazerblade]

Well-put Zazoo. But to shed even more light on the entire concept of spirit over body, let's use some real examples of things that anyone can actually understand, percieve, and identify with.

Cloning- if a clone is not born, but rather develops in a lab, where does its spirit come from? Does it have a spirit? I think that the ban on cloning has more to do with religious impact than anything. Unethical my ass, it's simply unreligious, and that- in the eyes of society- makes it wrong.

If someone believes in spirituality, does that person also believe in ghosts? Are ghosts not spirits trapped in pergatory, the place between heaven and hell where judgement has not yet been passed? Is a ghost anti-religious, or the epitome of religion, proof of existence of spirit? The problem there is, if ghosts exist, then spirits are tangible things, yet when death occurs, there is no visible separation of spirit and body, otherwise it would be on film and visible to the human eye, since ghosts are supposedly visible. Therefore, spirits cannot exist, or in existing they disprove religion because all spirits either go to heaven or hell, because judgement of one's life is complete upon death. I'm up in the air on this one, because it could go so many ways.

Other religion-controversies include alien life, evolution, sentience, the Mars controversy, and various science-religion clashes. I think the biggest contradictions to the existence of spirit and "God" are yet to come, and so long as there is religion, there will be someone out there trying to disprove its basis for being.

[BajaBravo]

Given the context, I think Laughing Bun was using mind and spirit in the philosophical sense (Cartesian Dualism), where the two are often used interchangeably. In that context, body refers to our corporeal existence (to include the brain and the senses), whereas mind refers to a supposed nonphysical (but real) existence -- it is in this realm where the conscious, free-willed self exists (the soul).

Interesting. It seems I'm mistaken on the brain/mind semantic then. Despite that, I still think that defining eternal happiness in Heaven in terms of meeting deficiency needs such as sex, as is implied in the original post, is missing the mark because such needs originate in the body. I'm suggesting that concept of Heavenly Bliss is linked to resolving "being" needs; self-actualization/self-transcendence. (I feel kind of dumb talking in Maslow terms here, but I have virtually no knowledge philosophy. I'm making this crap up. :wink: )

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting Heaven exists, I'm just saying that the idea that one would get tired of all the supposed raunchy sex in Heaven isn't a logical argument to refute the concept of Heaven. (No offence intended Bun)

Personally, I could never accept dualism. .. – there is no “ghost in the machine” (to borrow a phrase).

What can I say? Compelling.

In other words – I’m not a spiritual person. :tongue:

It's interesting that I basically agree with everything you're saying yet I still see a spiritual aspect to ourselves.

My idea of one's spirit is not any kind of supernatural thing but it isn't contained entirely in the body either.

For example, my grandfather passed away a few years ago yet today I still "feel" his presence. I don't think my grandfather has turned into an invisible voyeur with a halo, white robes, and chicken-wings coming out of his shoulder blades or anything ridiculous like that; but rather in terms of the experiences he shared with me, the lessons, values and stories he taught me, and the things about him I learn from family and friends.

These are elements of his "self" (albeit filtered through the perceptional limitations and biases of others) that transcended his physical being. His "spirit" isn't supernatural, it exists in the mind/brains of the multitudes of other people he effected in his life.

Over time of course, the specifics will be lost - I could barely tell you anything about my great-grandfather for example - but there is, at least potentially, a immutable effect. My great-grandson, despite never knowing anyone that knew my great-grandfather, may be profoundly influenced by him, just as I'm sure I am influenced by  people that came and went long before I was born.

My spiritual wants/needs revolve creating a legacy; around how I raise my family, what service I perform for my community, how I impact those around me. (Gee, I'd be a great guy if I actually did any of that :tongue: ); which are in turn linked to my self-actualization needs (How can I leave a great legacy if I don't live up to my potential?).

Anyways, I've probably babbled long enough. Bottom line, Heaven and Hell are here on Earth. We should all live well while we can.

[Zazoo]

I'm suggesting that concept of Heavenly Bliss is linked to resolving "being" needs; self-actualization/self-transcendence. (I feel kind of dumb talking in Maslow terms here, but I have virtually no knowledge philosophy. I'm making this crap up. :wink: )

Don't worry, I totally understand what you're getting at. (Just curious, but have you read Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning"? The first part of his book recounts his experiences in a Nazi concentration camp, this serves as a setup for his "logotherapy" which is a system that borrows heavily from Maslow, with a focus on self-actualization. I believe his "will to meaning" has a much wider application to conscious and subconscious motives/drives than Freud's "will to pleasure" or Adler's "will to power". Perhaps it's because I can really see the effect a "will to meaning" has had on my life and my conduct -- and it is very similar to the ideas you express later in your post).

It's interesting that I basically agree with everything you're saying yet I still see a spiritual aspect to myself.

My idea of one's spirit is not any kind of supernatural thing but it isn't contained entirely in the body either.

I understand. In my post "spirituality" refered specifically to the supernatural/metaphysical definition of "spiritual" (i.e. a "soul" or disembodied mind, higher planes of existence, transcendentalism, etc.). Other shades of meaning are definitely ones I agree with. For example, when hiking I often feel like I am having a "spiritual" experience. It's a sense of connection and a state of mind that doesn't parallel anything else in my normal life. I don't ascribe a supernatural cause to that feeling/state, but it is spiritual in every other sense of the word.

My spiritual wants/needs revolve creating a legacy; around how I raise my family, what service I perform for my community, how I impact those around me. (Gee, I'd be a great guy if I actually did any of that :tongue: ); which are in turn linked to my self-actualization needs (How can I leave a great legacy if I don't live up to my potential?).

This sounds pretty close to my own outlook on life.
When it comes to matters of meaning, purpose, and ethics, my beliefs borrow very heavily from secular humanism and existentialism. I believe that my life has no meaning or purpose beyond that which I create for it through my conscious actions/choices. I am responsible for discovering and realizing my full potential. I know that I will not live forever, so my desire is to leave a lasting impression on this world (favorable of course). This is the closest thing to immortality I can hope for -- to be remembered warmly by future generations, and to impact the world in some measurable (positive) way.

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

So, I'm probably wrong.

Don't worry about changing my mind. I was just humorously pointing out that your argument was good.  :yup:

On my spirituality, you can't change it; because it seems to be an instinctive thing, like having a favorite color as blue. It seems to not be a choice, but a feeling from within.

Even my own logic, which agrees with your post and tells me there's nothing more to life than the chemical reactions we feel in our bodies, can't seem to defeat my own superstitions.

If someone believes in spirituality, does that person also believe in ghosts? Are ghosts not spirits trapped in pergatory, the place between heaven and hell where judgement has not yet been passed? Is a ghost anti-religious, or the epitome of religion, proof of existence of spirit? The problem there is, if ghosts exist, then spirits are tangible things, yet when death occurs, there is no visible separation of spirit and body, otherwise it would be on film and visible to the human eye, since ghosts are supposedly visible. Therefore, spirits cannot exist, or in existing they disprove religion because all spirits either go to heaven or hell, because judgement of one's life is complete upon death. I'm up in the air on this one, because it could go so many ways.

For me, my own spirituality is simply the feeling that all of the emotions we feel, all of the emotional bonds we have with others, all of our memories, simply can't 'cease to exist' when the physical molecules in our body stop moving.

But I can also say, that's probably just romantic wishful thinking, and far from reality.

Yet I can't shake that feeling, much like no matter how level headed and logical I am, I still make sure I walk back through a ladder in the opposite direction after I walked under one. Just in case.

My spirituality has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The bible is junk.

So does that mean I believe in ghosts? Well, not in the sense of of the chain clanking Jacob Marley that wants to warn me of my evil ways. Which is why in response to Lazer's quote, there doesn't have to be a visual or tangible representation of a 'spirit leaving the body'. Nor does any lingering 'emotional energy' need to have anything to do with proving or disproving religion (since religion is nothing more than believing in a particular story of 'who's pulling mans strings from behind the curtain').

If I was going to believe in anything at all, (and this is a big IF);

 I would be inclined to think that within all of us is a certain spiritual energy (soul?), and that when we die, that energy is freed from the physical body and returned to a pool of all of our energies (like water filling cups). Each time a person is born, a piece of that 'soul pool' goes into that body. Each time someone dies, that energy returns to be recycled.

It explains a lot of things, including re-incarnation and deja vu.

But, it's probably all crap. There's more science to disprove it, than there is to support it.

But I'm still going to walk back through the ladder in the reverse direction. I just can't explain why.

[Frozyn]

Religion as an institution is the bane of society. More people have been killed, as we've all heard, in the name of religion than any other cause - Religion does brainwash people. Heaven is a tool in that brainwashing.

Heaven is there for one main reason, IMHO - to entice people to act with justice towards others. It's like the Social Contract in Plato's Republic - we give up being unjust to others so that they won't act unjust towards us. That alone, however, will not prevent others from being unjust - we had to create a reward for acting with justice/kindness/compassion. Heaven is that reward. With empathetic acts, a human can find himself in eternal happiness (which, I agree, is not made to satiate desires, but to reveal The Goodness). Heaven is the reward for those that lead a good life - Hell is the punishment for those that do not.

That being said, the truth to Heaven's existence does not matter. As Farmboy said, no human is capable of understanding Heaven or what it's like. Faith wouldn't exist if facts proved everything. Spirituality, to me, has always been the idea that despite all the understanding of science and the physical world, like MONO, there are times where I cannot deny the existence of 'something else'. Something had to cause the Big Bang. Intelligent Design can't explain it - Religion can't explain it - Spirituality, at least my own, can. Spirituality is the method by which I explain those things I cannot describe. I cannot explain the entity that caused the Big Bang, but I believe it exists. I cannot describe why some girl on the other side of class says the exact words I was thinking not 10 seconds before. Then again, I see no point in explaining - I just believe in the connection that all Humans have.

To me, spirituality is the belief in a connection between all humans. That connection is the hope to understand our existence. We can try and explain that certain insects exist in order to propel the pollination of plants. We can say that Angiosperms produce an Endosperm during fertilization to feed the embryo inside it. Humans, at this time, don't have that goal. Sure there's the reproduction idea - that all we're here to do is reproduce - but why are we able to manipulate the natural world so much if we didn't have someone or something else behind the curtain? Humans are constantly trying to define our purpose in life - Religion gives them that explanation. Christianity tells their followers, from what I've been told, that their purpose in life is to form a relationship with Jesus. Maybe they're right, maybe the Buddhists are right in trying to reach Nirvana.

What I believe in the strongest, however, is that our life times, miniscule in the realm of time, should not be spent constantly trying to understand why we exist. Leave that to a select group of people. The rest of us should be worried with creating the best world we can and living in a manner that allows us to reasonably enjoy every moment we're given. If we can do that, and truly leave a better world for our children - that's Nirvana. That's Moksha.

That is Heaven.

[Da Fish]

But, it's probably all crap. There's more science to disprove it, than there is to support it.

Just because our scientific understanding today only expands so far doesnt mean to say we know everything about everything. Besides if I asked for you to show me a plate full of electrons could you do it?

I know every science textbook tells you they exist, that the flow of them can release energy in other forms. you believe in them. Such as some people believe in other planes of existance. It is a theory.

Mind you something that i remember every time I see a debate about religion is a single line from the "Godfellas" episode of "Futurama":

God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
(p.s. I'm not the most religious person in the world, but i'd like to think there is more than just this existance.......... i find it comforting. Besides if there isnt any more what does it matter?)

[Zazoo]

Besides if I asked for you to show me a plate full of electrons could you do it?

I know every science textbook tells you they exist, that the flow of them can release energy in other forms. you believe in them. Such as some people believe in other planes of existance. It is a theory.

Just because we can't "see" an electron doesn't mean we don't have other ways to show/prove (beyond reasonable doubt) their existence. The fact that we have built an entire field of applied science (electrical/electronic engineering) around the movement of electrons suggests that our "belief" in electrons is quite justified (and those of us who have had the misfortune of touching the leads of a sizable charged capacitor definitely believe :tongue:). The EM equations work, and the most basic EM equations/theory can be verified by anyone with a multimeter, a breadboard, and a rudimentary knowledge of electricity/electronics.

I don't "believe" in electrons just because my science books tell me they exist. I believe in them because my science books contains very specific and detailed information and formulas that I, and anyone, can independently verify through experiment (especially basic EM theory, which only requires about $20 and a trip to radio shack).

What do you think the probability is that an entire, extremely complex, physical model like EM theory would work if it were completely wrong at the most fundamental level (i.e. electrons didn't exist)?

On the flip side: Where is the rigorous scientific theory about other planes of existence. And just WTF is an "other plane of existence"? . Can you show me a scientific model that explains how these planes function? A formula that explains their properties? Can anyone show me anything that I can test so as to independently verify the existence of other planes? The only thing most of the people who support such claims seem to agree on is that they lie outside the ability of science to experimentally prove/disprove. This seems rather convinient. Forgive me for being a skeptic. :tongue:

In science "theory" does not mean a conjecture or guess. It's clearly defined, and it takes a lot of evidence for any hypothesis to graduate to the status of scientific theory. The implication that the half-baked extraplanar "theories" of some new age flake have the same status as scientific theories, such as EM theory, is a little insulting to those of us who chose science as a career path.

Nobody has to accept science as fact (or the closest thing to it we have), but it's the only system that gives us applicable, verifiable answers about our universe. That counts for a lot in my book.

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

As an electrical contractor who's been zapped on many occasions, I'd like to verify that those electrons are there.  

[Lazerblade]

Mono, you mention a "soul pool". Once again, I have to bring up cloning. When does one receive their "soul"? At birth? At conception? This discussion leads to other social issues, not the least of which is abortion. Surely if there is such a thing as a soul, even if it has no substance, then tampering with that soul or any part of its transferance or intended destination would be considered very evil. And yet not every christian is against abortion. Most seem to be against cloning because of its religious contradictions, but again a line has not been defined.

I'm really enjoying this discussion, mainly because my own beliefs are not set in stone in regards to this topic. I consider myself atheist, a non-believer, and yet the thoughts and considerations of others fascinate me.

I'd like to bring one more element for discussion into this. Long ago I read about a growing "cloud" substance far beyond Pluto but like a shimmering pool, barely visible with the strongest of telescopes. There was a theory floating about among scholars that it could contain some answer to the whole "heaven" and "soul" debate, but focus was redirected elsewhere before any tangible scientific data could be collected. Anyone else hear about this or recall it? Any thoughts?

[BajaBravo]

As an electrical contractor who's been zapped on many occasions, I'd like to verify that those electrons are there.  

Are you sure that wasn't God zapping you for your hedonistic ways? :tongue: