How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[savage1]

Anyone who carefully considers my ideas is likely to be disheartened. Cherished delusions to give one hope are dashed by the reality of my ideas. Reality sucks. Freud regarded God as a projection from our childhood image of our parents - our parents in childhood seemed omnipotent and omniscient to us and we project this image in creating a God who looks over us, provides for us, and disciplines us when we deserve it. Those who believe in religion are searching for something to fulfill this lost parental function and find it in their religion.

A delusional belief can serve a useful function in ordering our lives and giving us purpose and guidelines for living. Reality can do this better, as far as I am concerned, but it has to be a complete and valid reality that most people can not realize. Religion on the other hand, is simple to comprehend and readily available, and has consensual comfort from other believers who huddle with you in the shadows of shared delusion.

I'm not so sure that anyone who considers your ideas will likely be disheartened simply because there are many who are as steadfast in their beliefs as you are in yours.
While there is a possibility that you may be right in your beliefs, one could argue that you are simply using an earthly defined term of logic to make you case against the existence of an all good and all powerful God.
If you accept the premise that there is a universe outside of earth and/or even consider the possibility that on earth there are various and numerous and different dimensions outside of that which we encounter in our everyday lives, then I believe it is very difficult if not impossible to conclude that sheer logic is the necessarily right method to conclude that there is or is not a God.
In short, how can you say that your method of reasoning to draw your conclusions is the correct one and/or that ones which center more about emotional feelings are necessarily wrong?

[bryce]

Fuck Art you are coming off as a total terd.. I don't believe in the extra terrestrial but fk come on... I just lost my mom almost 8 months ago and she believed and that was her comfort before she died. So who cares. People need to believe in something and if that makes people face the inevitable whether it is reality or not so be it.

I do respect your opinion but please respect others beliefs and values... We meaning me and you. We may think we know it all but take a step back like I do every so often let people believe... Makes things easier... We are no better... Here nor there..

[Art]

I'm not so sure that anyone who considers your ideas will likely be disheartened simply because there are many who are as steadfast in their beliefs as you are in yours.
While there is a possibility that you may be right in your beliefs, one could argue that you are simply using an earthly defined term of logic to make you case against the existence of an all good and all powerful God.
If you accept the premise that there is a universe outside of earth and/or even consider the possibility that on earth there are various and numerous and different dimensions outside of that which we encounter in our everyday lives, then I believe it is very difficult if not impossible to conclude that sheer logic is the necessarily right method to conclude that there is or is not a God.
In short, how can you say that your method of reasoning to draw your conclusions is the correct one and/or that ones which center more about emotional feelings are necessarily wrong?

I believe in God as a universal quantum computer, by which successive presents are generated, in material pulses in discrete steps, from wave interference of past presents and future (wave forward) possibilities - God as causality.

I do regard the idea as delusional, that morality is a part of God and that some absolute morality is sourced in God. God is amoral and causality is not regulated by any kind of absolute morality - the good die young, and evil people can prosper without paying any price in an afterlife. The reason to be good is totally a matter of adaptability on earth in material life.

I do believe that personality, human or animal, continues in some form after physical death. Heaven and hell in afterlife, just like on earth, is a state of mind as constructed by personality processing.

These ideas are based on knowledge as inductively and deductively derived from observations and reported evidence.

[tash]

some poeple here have some real issues...wow... too funny!

[kbsooner21]

Art, are you an atheist?

[savage1]

I believe in God as a universal quantum computer, by which successive presents are generated, in material pulses in discrete steps, from wave interference of past presents and future (wave forward) possibilities - God as causality.

I do regard the idea as delusional, that morality is a part of God and that some absolute morality is sourced in God. God is amoral and causality is not regulated by any kind of absolute morality - the good die young, and evil people can prosper without paying any price in an afterlife. The reason to be good is totally a matter of adaptability on earth in material life.

I do believe that personality, human or animal, continues in some form after physical death. Heaven and hell in afterlife, just like on earth, is a state of mind as constructed by personality processing.

These ideas are based on knowledge as inductively and deductively derived from observations and reported evidence.

Ok-but you have to admit that what you say is an opinion based on your own criterion and as you say in last sentence using inductive and deductive reasoning.
Also, could you define more specifically what you mean when you say observations and evidence?
I would assume that these refer to your observations and evidence using the inductively and deductively criterion which you have defined as the means to determine your conclusions.
Who is to say that these are necessarily correct and/or that someone else might have some other evidence and observations based on their own selected criterion which might be correct?
To put it another way and to relate it to sports services:
Lets say that team A is playing team B in college football.
One sports service selects team A to win and has a writeup delineating the reasons and the criterion used(trends, angles, etc.) to support the pick but also leaves out any reason/criterion which doesn't support their pick.
The other sports service chooses B and has its own set of reasons and criterion in its writeup to support its picks while like the first capper, leaving out anything which wouldn't support their selection.
Who is right?
Well I supposed it could be argued that whichever capper has the winning selection used the right criterion, but who is to say that if the two teams met again, that the other capper would have the winning pick?
And also, who is to say that any of the criterion used by either capper constituted the reasons that their team covered in the first place?
Obviously, in any case, talking about the outcome of a football games, which has an empirical end result and what happens when we die and/or if there is a God as defined by the Bible are two different animals;in the latter result we don't find out until we die(not considering what folks say about their near death experiences), and there is no actual way to prove or disprove the existence of God as defined.
However, as in the handicapping example, people who wish to make a case either for or against the existence of God as defined by the Bible and for that matter all of the religions in the world, use whatever criterion they think is valid and of course that which supports their beliefs-in that sense it is not that much different from the handicapping example
In short, folks believe what they want to believe and use whatever criterion they deem appropriate to support it.
ps Sorry if sentences are too long for some of you but that is the way my thought processes operate.

[Art]

Art, are you an atheist?

I previously defined the God I believed in. All religions embed morality into ontology (existence) and this is delusional. Which means I believe that morality is not built into causality - events do not conform to an intrinsic morality as they unfold in changes in the world. We impose morality onto the world. All religions reject these real ideas and fail to define God so we can determine its existence. I define God as causality which is shown in change. Causality exists ergo God exists, religions say more than this in embedding morality into causality (God) and this is delusional. Morality is simply an evaluation humans (and many animals) make and demonstrate behaviorally in setting self-versus-other need priorities.

[Art]

Ok-but you have to admit that what you say is an opinion based on your own criterion and as you say in last sentence using inductive and deductive reasoning.
Also, could you define more specifically what you mean when you say observations and evidence?
I would assume that these refer to your observations and evidence using the inductively and deductively criterion which you have defined as the means to determine your conclusions.
Who is to say that these are necessarily correct and/or that someone else might have some other evidence and observations based on their own selected criterion which might be correct?
To put it another way and to relate it to sports services:
Lets say that team A is playing team B in college football.
One sports service selects team A to win and has a writeup delineating the reasons and the criterion used(trends, angles, etc.) to support the pick but also leaves out any reason/criterion which doesn't support their pick.
The other sports service chooses B and has its own set of reasons and criterion in its writeup to support its picks while like the first capper, leaving out anything which wouldn't support their selection.
Who is right?
Well I supposed it could be argued that whichever capper has the winning selection used the right criterion, but who is to say that if the two teams met again, that the other capper would have the winning pick?
And also, who is to say that any of the criterion used by either capper constituted the reasons that their team covered in the first place?
Obviously, in any case, talking about the outcome of a football games, which has an empirical end result and what happens when we die and/or if there is a God as defined by the Bible are two different animals;in the latter result we don't find out until we die(not considering what folks say about their near death experiences), and there is no actual way to prove or disprove the existence of God as defined.
However, as in the handicapping example, people who wish to make a case either for or against the existence of God as defined by the Bible and for that matter all of the religions in the world, use whatever criterion they think is valid and of course that which supports their beliefs-in that sense it is not that much different from the handicapping example
In short, folks believe what they want to believe and use whatever criterion they deem appropriate to support it.
ps Sorry if sentences are too long for some of you but that is the way my thought processes operate.

I find no empirical support for basic ideas of religion which are subjective in being based on need/emotional dynamics (as sources of thought disorder). It is not easy to free your thinking of thought disorder, and think in terms divorced from emotion and divorced from what you need to believe. Most opinions from most people are based in various degrees of thought disorder, such as:

1. The liberal political approach of overspending to expand government, then increasing taxes to pay the debt, then overspending again, then increasing taxes again, and so on and so on, is best for the nation. This is what has happened over the last 60 years as progressive views have reigned. The truth is that expansion of the private sector from technological advances has compensated for the increasing parasitism of government, but as money is drained (in increasing taxation) from business and the people, to government operations, the nation degrades.

2. Killing is wrong, all the time, under any circumstance. The truth is that killing is good as often as it is bad - some benefit and some suffer to an equal extent over time. Peace can only come through war - to think otherwise is delusional thinking that ignores the realities of human nature.

[Art]

Which capper is right? Who knows?

As far as finding a good capper, it is a fallacy to assume a good past record indicates future success since variables are so complex, usually hidden, and ever changing. What has worked well for a capper can turn immediately and fail. I am more inclined to fade a capper with a recent string of success or go with one that has been failing recently. Much betting is need or emotion based - thought disorder decisions that fail.

[jcindaville]

Art, are you an atheist?

He defined himself as agnostic from what i can determine by his statements

[jcindaville]

No doubt Uncle Savvy has found someone to play with!!

[savage1]

Which capper is right? Who knows?

As far as finding a good capper, it is a fallacy to assume a good past record indicates future success since variables are so complex, usually hidden, and ever changing. What has worked well for a capper can turn immediately and fail. I am more inclined to fade a capper with a recent string of success or go with one that has been failing recently. Much betting is need or emotion based - thought disorder decisions that fail.

Art-in all due respect I hope that you understood that my point in using the handicapper analogy had really nothing to do with your views on what capper you would use if you wanted to select a handicapper-this discussion is not about picking winners.
Conversely, I was simply trying to make a point pertinent to the discussion of the existence of God, heaven or hell, etc. and how different folks can use different criterion to come to different conclusions(or for that matter even the same conclusion) regarding the above matter.

Also I need clarfication of this using your criterion:

Killing is wrong, all the time, under any circumstance. The truth is that killing is good as often as it is bad - some benefit and some suffer to an equal extent over time. Peace can only come through war - to think otherwise is delusional thinking that ignores the realities of human nature.

What do you think of the killing of Osama bin Laden? What is good, bad or somewhere in between and why?

[tash]

Where is Thomas Henry Huxley when you need him...

[Art]

Also I need clarification of this using your criterion:

Killing is wrong, all the time, under any circumstance. The truth is that killing is good as often as it is bad - some benefit and some suffer to an equal extent over time. Peace can only come through war - to think otherwise is delusional thinking that ignores the realities of human nature.

What do you think of the killing of Osama bin Laden? What is good, bad or somewhere in between and why?

Killing OBL was wrong from the perspective of him, his loved ones, his supporters, enemies of the western nations and of Israel, and those with moral views based on thought disorder.

Killing him or any other terrorist was/is right from those threatened by terrorism - western nations and many others.

God as causality is amoral and thus who should or should not kill who does not factor into causality in nature (except in moral personality evaluations).

Morality is not absolute - it is relative. Might always makes right. The might of the nation regularly kills criminals and enemies in battle, as supported by most of its citizens (except some with thought disorder who believe in unconditional or universal love). The best moral perspective is the nation's, to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of that nation's citizens and to be concerned with the good of foreigners only when that pays off for one's own nation, otherwise the plight of foreigner's should be ignored. People crossing our borders illegally should be shot on sight, women and children included, as this is best for the nation.

[savage1]

Killing OBL was wrong from the perspective of him, his loved ones, his supporters, enemies of the western nations and of Israel, and those with moral views based on thought disorder.

Killing him or any other terrorist was/is right from those threatened by terrorism - western nations and many others.

God as causality is amoral and thus who should or should not kill who does not factor into causality in nature (except in moral personality evaluations).

Morality is not absolute - it is relative. Might always makes right. The might of the nation regularly kills criminals and enemies in battle, as supported by most of its citizens (except some with thought disorder who believe in unconditional or universal love). The best moral perspective is the nation's, to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of that nation's citizens and to be concerned with the good of foreigners only when that pays off for one's own nation, otherwise the plight of foreigner's should be ignored. People crossing our borders illegally should be shot on sight, women and children included, as this is best for the nation.

If might always makes right, does this apply to individuals also as well as nations?
I ask this because if what you say is true, then it is be inference ok for someone to rob a bank if he thinks he can get away with it, lie about anything, and on and on and on as long as he can get away with it and advance his own cause.
In an instance like this if I understand you correctly, would there not be a conflict with societal values?
The logical conclusion in the example cited would be that any individual has a right to do anything as he pleases even it it infringes on the rights of others as long,as he gets away with it(or thinks he can get away with it)-howevert the nation or the other person or persons upon whom he in infringing in so doingalso has the right and might to go after him and bring him to justice under the rules set by that societyy.
Is that what you are in essence saying, and if so, is this not in a sense a related to Darwin's survival of the fittest?