Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[SkepticThinker]

You appear to believe in not believing, and that's fine, you are free to believe what you like, the true seeker seeks to understand. But to dismiss the possibility of there being a divine reality represented by the concept 'God' without seriously investigating is folly. I will explain.

Uh nope. Not even sure what that means.

I've told you several times now that I am interested in believing as many true things as possible and not believing in false things.

I haven't dismissed any possibilities of anything. I'm asking for EVIDENCE in order to believe something. I'm asking for a demonstration that your claims are even possible to begin with. I really, really wish you could grasp that concept. Not accepting something is not the same thing as declaring it to be false.

Concepts of themselves are mere symbols, like numbers, they can be used to represent real things. For example, the concept 'God' is just a few letters of the alphabet, but we English speakers understand that it represents some reality.

I don't.

How do we know what that reality represented by the concept 'God' is? Ask a religious person and all you can get are more concepts, conceptual descriptions, conceptual teachings, conceptual images, conceptual rituals, conceptual religious practices, etc. All these concepts will never in all eternity reveal what the reality, if there is one, represented by the concept 'God' is.

Yeah, that's the thing. The "answers" I get are woo woo and not actual demonstrations of the veracity of the claims being made.

So to test the efficacy of the religious teachings and practices, we must actually devote some effort to understand. Only after doing this can one know what the reality represented by the concept 'God' is, or is not.

Demonstrate that such a reality exists please.

To believe there is no reality represented by the concept of God without ever trying to realize the truth or not of such a reality, is to not understand true understanding.

Have you done this or are you just happy with your present beliefs?

Do you have evidence, or not?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure thing. Sounds made up.

Let me know when you can demonstrate any of that.

What you believe or don't believe pertains to your own karma, you must deal with it yourself. How else do you think you can know first hand instead of relying on someone else to provide you with a narrative you can believe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Uh nope. Not even sure what that means.

I've told you several times now that I am interested in believing as many true things as possible and not believing in false things.

I haven't dismissed any possibilities of anything. I'm asking for EVIDENCE in order to believe something. I'm asking for a demonstration that your claims are even possible to begin with. I really, really wish you could grasp that concept. Not accepting something is not the same thing as declaring it to be false.

I don't.

Yeah, that's the thing. The "answers" I get are woo woo and not actual demonstrations of the veracity of the claims being made.

Demonstrate that such a reality exists please.

Do you have evidence, or not?

I too do not believe in false things, so that is a good starting point.

I am saying that the universal spirit is of the 95% dark universe, now you may not believe this to be true, but you do not know categorically that it is false just because you have not yet seen objective proof. Lack of proof of a claim is not evidence of falsehood, it just means a certain claim is yet to be proven.

For that reason I find agnostics are more reasonable, they too withhold acceptance of the claim of there being a spiritual reality because they have yet not seen sufficient evidence, but this lack of evidence they personally have not seen to date is not sufficient to logically conclude that the claim is categorically false.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I too do not believe in false things, so that is a good starting point.

How do you know that you don't believe false things, given that you can't demonstrate the veracity of your claims?

I am saying that the universal spirit is of the 95% dark universe, now you may not believe this to be true, but you do not know categorically that it is false just because you have not yet seen objective proof. Lack of proof of a claim is not evidence of falsehood, it just means a certain claim is yet to be proven.

Neither of us know if it is true, so I have no idea how you've concluded that it is true (or what "the universal spirit is of the 95% dark universe" even means).

Again, I'm not saying it's false. I have no idea why you can't grasp this concept I have explained no less than 3 times now. Not believing a thing doesn't mean a person is claiming it is false. What I am saying is, how do we know it's true? How can it be shown to be true? Without that, we can't say it's true. That doesn't mean I'm claiming it is false.

For that reason I find agnostics are more reasonable, they too withhold acceptance of the claim of there being a spiritual reality because they have yet not seen sufficient evidence, but this lack of evidence they personally have not seen to date is not sufficient to logically conclude that the claim is categorically false.

Seriously, do you not read my posts all the way through? I'm not stating it is false. I'm asking how it can be shown to be true.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know that you don't believe false things, given that you can't demonstrate the veracity of your claims?

Neither of us know if it is true, so I have no idea how you've concluded that it is true (or what "the universal spirit is of the 95% dark universe" even means).

Again, I'm not saying it's false. I have no idea why you can't grasp this concept I have explained no less than 3 times now. Not believing a thing doesn't mean a person is claiming it is false. What I am saying is, how do we know it's true? How can it be shown to be true? Without that, we can't say it's true. That doesn't mean I'm claiming it is false.

Seriously, do you not read my posts all the way through? I'm not stating it is false. I'm asking how it can be shown to be true.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

How do you know you do not believe in false things?

So finally you admit to being agnostic, you accept that it is possible there may be spiritual realms after all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know you do not believe in false things?

Because I make a point to believe in things for which there is demonstrable evidence.

That doesn't mean I don't believe false things - I very well could. But my interest is NOT believing in false things and so I do everything in my power to seek out verifiable, demonstrable, repeatable evidence for the claims I accept as convincing.

So finally you admit to being agnostic, you accept that it is possible there may be spiritual realms after all.

Admit? That's a weird choice of words. I'm an agnostic atheist and have been for about 20 years.

Besides that, I've pointed out in virtually every post made to you that I don't rule out "spiritual realms," rather, I've seen no evidence to convince me that such things exist, and so I don't believe in them. Hence my continually asking for evidence backing up the claims that said things do exist.

It seems you might finally be getting it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because I make a point to believe in things for which there is demonstrable evidence.

That doesn't mean I don't believe false things - I very well could. But my interest is NOT believing in false things and so I do everything in my power to seek out verifiable, demonstrable, repeatable evidence for the claims I accept as convincing.

Admit? That's a weird choice of words. I'm an agnostic atheist and have been for about 20 years.

Besides that, I've pointed out in virtually every post made to you that I don't rule out "spiritual realms," rather, I've seen no evidence to convince me that such things exist, and so I don't believe in them. Hence my continually asking for evidence backing up the claims that said things do exist.

It seems you might finally be getting it.

So we are kindred souls wrt not believing in false things.

So all this time I must admit to presuming your position was pure atheist, I am happy to discover an agnostic, gosh you're halfway there.

 

[night912]

So we are kindred souls wrt not believing in false things.

So all this time I must admit to presuming your position was pure atheist, I am happy to discover an agnostic, gosh you're halfway there.

You were correct the whole time that SkepticThinker was a pure atheist. And presently, if he doesn't believe that a god exist, then he's still a pure atheist. A hybrid of atheist and theist is a logical contradiction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You were correct the whole time that SkepticThinker was a pure atheist. And presently, if he doesn't believe that a god exist, then he's still a pure atheist. A hybrid of atheist and theist is a logical contradiction.

Skeptic Thinker is not a hybrid, but is an agnostic, She allows that even though she herself has not experienced evidence of a spiritual reality, that in itself is not proof that one does not exist.

 

[Lekatt]

How many times must I repeat, the spiritual state is not dualistic. whether you believe this is true or believe it is not true is irrelevant, beliefs are not real, merely opinions.. The non-dual state of mind is what people who have realized it call the spiritual state in order to explain conceptually what the reality is like to those who have not yet realized that state, The explanation is the 'pointing finger' not the reality, it is a conceptualization to guide the aspirant, and not to be just believed If you are not an aspirant, it is irrelevant to you, but for the sake of clarity, there is no intention for anyone to believe anything.

Some people are more curious then others as to what and who they are in the big picture of universal existence, they are not prepared to take anyone's explanation as a tenet to believe in, religious prophets, philosophers, scientists, etc.. They do not want to be a mere actor who just remembers their lines as they go through life, but someone real who understands what and who they really are. It is a path of discovery, not a stagnant belief. .

What makes you believe that beliefs are not real. Is that your belief? Where did you come by that belief? Please explain what you mean when you say the spiritual state is not duelist. I really want to know more.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What makes you believe that beliefs are not real. Is that your belief? Where did you come by that belief? Please explain what you mean when you say the spiritual state is not duelist. I really want to know more.

A belief is a mental state that is meant to represent something real, but that something, even it is real, exists independently of the belief, and in no way depends on anyone believing or disbelieving in it.
So you believe in God, an atheist believes there is no God, whether God exists or not does not depend on either of your beliefs.

The danger of belief in God wrt religious practice is that the believer may imagine that is all there is to it, but if God is real, a truly religious aspirant must realize God, to know God. Knowing is different from belief in God. That is what Jesus meant when he called out the Rabbis of his day, they spoke and taught about the scripture pertaining to God, but did not go through the door that leads to realizing God.

Here is where your second question comes in, a belief is dualistic, there is you the believer in God otoh, and there is God the reality of the other. This is analogous to the preacher preaching about God. Then there is the non-dualist state of having gone beyond the belief in God and have realized God directly, the Father and I are one state. Remember the Corinthians piece that says our bodies are not who we are, but are temples of the living God. God is with us, if this is so, go beyond the belief and be that, because God is not separate from us, rather we are truly an expression of God. Go from belief to realization is going from having a dualistic relationship to a non-dual unity.

 

[Lekatt]

A belief is a mental state that is meant to represent something real, but that something, even it is real, exists independently of the belief, and in no way depends on anyone believing or disbelieving in it.
So you believe in God, an atheist believes there is no God, whether God exists or not does not depend on either of your beliefs.

The danger of belief in God wrt religious practice is that the believer may imagine that is all there is to it, but if God is real, a truly religious aspirant must realize God, to know God. Knowing is different from belief in God. That is what Jesus meant when he called out the Rabbis of his day, they spoke and taught about the scripture pertaining to God, but did not go through the door that leads to realizing God.

Here is where your second question comes in, a belief is dualistic, there is you the believer in God otoh, and there is God the reality of the other. This is analogous to the preacher preaching about God. Then there is the non-dualist state of having gone beyond the belief in God and have realized God directly, the Father and I are one state. Remember the Corinthians piece that says our bodies are not who we are, but are temples of the living God. God is with us, if this is so, go beyond the belief and be that, because God is not separate from us, rather we are truly an expression of God. Go from belief to realization is going from having a dualistic relationship to a non-dual unity.

I can agree with everything you have written. Then since I have experienced God I am now non-dual. I would say that most experiencers of the Near Death Experience are non-dual. It is a knowing experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I can agree with everything you have written. Then since I have experienced God I am now non-dual. I would say that most experiencers of the Near Death Experience are non-dual. It is a knowing experience.

Speaking for myself, there are periods of being in a state on non-duality and then there are other times when my mind state is that of duality, out of necessity. This world works on the dualistic state, it is not heaven, and to function in it, one must 'play' by the rules and engage in a practical way. One can only be in the non-dual state of mind when practicing the religious state of being, other times, there is nothing wrong being in the dualistic state, one can still be a practical expression of God as a co-creator, but when it comes to our religious devotion, non-duality is the goal. Eventually our true spiritual destiny will be realized permanently.

 

[Lekatt]

Speaking for myself, there are periods of being in a state on non-duality and then there are other times when my mind state is that of duality, out of necessity. This world works on the dualistic state, it is not heaven, and to function in it, one must 'play' by the rules and engage in a practical way. One can only be in the non-dual state of mind when practicing the religious state of being, other times, there is nothing wrong being in the dualistic state, one can still be a practical expression of God as a co-creator, but when it comes to our religious devotion, non-duality is the goal. Eventually our true spiritual destiny will be realized permanently.

I separate religion or religious from being spiritual. One can be religious and not spiritual. Spiritual is knowledge of the illusion we live in. Best said: I live in the world, but am not of the world. Decisions are made from the spiritual perspective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I separate religion or religious from being spiritual. One can be religious and not spiritual. Spiritual is knowledge of the illusion we live in. Best said: I live in the world, but am not of the world. Decisions are made from the spiritual perspective.

I understand your position and do not disagree.

 

[night912]

Skeptic Thinker is not a hybrid, but is an agnostic, She allows that even though she herself has not experienced evidence of a spiritual reality, that in itself is not proof that one does not exist.

She's a pure agnostic and a pure atheist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

She's a pure agnostic and a pure atheist.

Didn't you forget the pure theist part from her youth, now average the three and she comes out an agnostic.

But who are you night912 to be declaring what she is or is not, she can speak for herself.

 

[night912]

Didn't you forget the pure theist part from her youth, now average the three and she comes out an agnostic.

No, I didn't forget that she was a pure theist earlier in her life. That's why she was a pure theist back then and now she is a pure atheist. The positions of atheism and theism deals with the current state of belief, so someone being an atheist or theist is what they currently believe whether or not a god exist. You don't average it out like what you said.

But who are you night912 to be declaring what she is or is not, she can speak for herself.

I'm another person just like you. The difference between us is, I use the label that Skeptic Thinker used for herself.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It was an attempt at humor.

Ok, so you say that you are a pure atheist and a pure agnostic? If a pure atheist does not rule out the possibility of spiritual realms, what is the label used for an atheist who does rule out spiritual realms?

 

[night912]

It was an attempt at humor.

Ok, so you say that you are a pure atheist and a pure agnostic? If a pure atheist does not rule out the possibility of spiritual realms, what is the label used for an atheist who does rule out spiritual realms?

A pure atheist.