Boy visits heaven

[Cinjin]

All I have to say is FUCK YOU and FUCK your "LOVING god!"

Next time, Cinjin, don't mince words, and tell us how you really feel.

I cannot apologize. This filthy religion disease has been fucking the human race for 2000 god damn years!! Enough is enough.

[liam]

Used this story as my research material in my philosophy class today, thanks for posting it and arming me with criticisms, all props to you all and AF shall be credited for bringing it to my attention

[Napoléon]

Nice to know

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

My own bias does not come from theism, but from a rejection of eliminative materialism. We are not talking about typical delusions here.

Ain't THAT the truth.

---

Does Chalmer go into detail projecting what an afterlife might be like? Or any philosophers?

Details? Not unless you count Plato or Buddha. Penrose and Hameroff explore the continuation of consciousness in general terms

....

Christians see Jesus, Buddhists see a being of light, etc.

Interesting in light of the fact that the Buddha explicitly denied asserting any sort of continuation of consciousness after death and tied consciousness directly to physical processes (nama+rupa). An entire Discourse -- in which he humiliates a monk for claiming he taught continuation of consciousness -- is devoted to this issue: the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta, MN 38.

From that discourse:

Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."

When this was said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Sati had become silent, unable to reply back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned down, told him: "Foolish man, you will be known on account of this pernicious view; now I will question the bhikkhus on this."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"

"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."

So the Buddha describes "consciousness", sankhara, as a process that arises when a sense organ (and its attendant brain functions) perceives an object within its sensory range. This is entirely distinct from any sort of reified "consciousness" THING. The Buddha (along with other Eastern religions) saw the brain as a sense organ and mental processes (including those that contributed to other senses) as a type of "sense", and this mental "consciousness" he described, he also saw as a sensory process, which arose, changed, and faded away in response to the presence or absence of sense objects within its range.

He explicitly denied, with respect to his OWN teachings, asserting any sort of "consciousness" that survived death. He also explicitly refuted the idea of a "soul" (the foundational doctrine of anatta), stating that no matter where one looked, such a thing could not be found.

This blows HUGE holes in any assertions that might be made about Buddhists having any sort of NDE "afterlife experience ", and points directly to confirmaiion bias.

It is true that many forms of Buddhism espouse consciousness surviving death, however, this is due to the influence of Brahminism and Hinduism which have largely swallowed Buddhism and turned it into something entirely different. This also holds ramifications with respect to the experiences of Buddhists who report NDEs, thier confirmation bias, and the confirmation bias of those who draw conclusions based on these reports.

[Colanth]

The Near Death Experience has been very well documented ever since Raymond Moody's release of "Life after Life". NDE's raise some of the most interesting questions about the nature of mind and strongly suggest the continuation of consciousness after physical death. Materialistic theories appear wholly inadequate in explaining all the various features of the process.

Anoxia is more than sufficient to explain NDE, unless you're a proponent of woo-ness.