That variations on each exist does not change that each has a very distinct core from the other. — Lionino

Neither influences leaders to formulate benevolent policies, nor their people to stop following aggressive and avaricious leaders.

There are so few Christians worthy of the name. — Fire Ologist

I have found this too. The few I have met didn't object to my atheism, but welcomed any help in their efforts to relieve the suffering of others.
Good people behave well; bad people behave badly, whatever they profess to believe.

Now try to name one step along this road which was not bitterly opposed by the Christian religion. — alan1000

I think it's a mistake to identify the entire Christian spectrum of religions with the individual religious institutions. Like all large-scale organizations, religious institutions, especially those with political and economic power (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church) tend to be extremely conservative. They resist change of any kind, because it threatens the hold they already have on their constituency. This is why there are so many Christian cults: any large enough group of people who opposed the status quo had to break off and form their church in order to implement the changes they wanted. Individuals or small groups who dissented were harshly disposed-of. (Except that one arrogant English king... but generations of his people suffered in the subsequent civil strife.)

When you say Christians, or Christianity, it sounds as if Quakers think just like Catholic bishops and televangelists are interchangeable with the Amish elders. They don't and they're not. They all hold up a Bible when preaching (so does Trump, when shilling) but it's not necessarily the same version, and they each read (if they do read) it quite differently. I used to have Jehovah's Witnesses come around
and quote me carefully underlined verses and become quite flustered if I asked how their passage compared to another one in the same book.

Yes, the war, personal violence and vengeance, oppression, duplicity and animal sacrifice are all in there. So are the compassion, humility, generosity and forgiveness. You can find passages to support any claim you make about a god, sin, accountability and human nature. It's a book of stories - biographies, historical accounts from a single POV, legends, predictions, census surveys, admonitions, miracles, geneologies, love songs, religious codes of conduct, anecdotes, morality tales, hymns of praise and supplication, lectures and one longish drug-induced hallucination. Oddly, the passages I hear most often quoted are from the letters of Paul, who got there fifty years too late and made himself boss.

and receiving information from consciousness.

I wonder where this free-floating consciousness gets its information. Do we each have one? How do 8 billion (assuming other species have none, which is a long stretch to accept) consciousnesses keep their identity separate and how do they each know to which receptor they're supposed to convey information? Or is it one big nebula of consciousness transmitting impersonally to the world? Is all the information in the universe available to the meta-consciousness? If so, why are some of us better informed than others? Is it down to the innate quality of our equipment, and is that equipment upgraded through education?

Is Van Lommel correct or incorrect? — Truth Seeker

From that quote, confusing. When I have time to read the documentation for his research, I'll know whether he explains the mechanism.
....
Oh, seems I'd have to read his book. I did find one reference to the scientific paper - a 'prospective study' - what people did and said over a period of time - rather than a controlled experiment. But I didn't find the text even of that study.

A little more information: https://bjgplife.com/recalled-experience-of-death/

The controlled research settings for RED studies are people who have undergone a cardiac arrest. This potentially reversible clinical death state provides the best model to research RED.1 In clinical death, body and brain stem reflexes have vanished and within 15 seconds, the electroencephalogram (EEG) is flat-lined. If lifesaving techniques are not successful to revert this life-threatening situation, death is usually irreversible within five to ten minutes.2 In this context, RED is defined as “a specific cognitive and emotional experience that occurs during a period of loss of consciousness in relation to a life-threatening event, including cardiac arrest”.1

Dr Sam Parnia and his team seem convinced that the patients met the criteria for clinical death and would not have come back to life without their medical intervention. — Truth Seeker

They may be absolutely correct. A whole lot of traffic victims and people suffering heart attacks could not have survived without medical intervention. Intervention is pretty much the whole point of medicine. When somebody's approaching death, they usually keep going unless somebody else stops them. For a while. Eventually, they and we will die anyway. Then we'll stop telling stories and wondering what to believe.

when a person is in cardiac arrest, the brain is no longer functioning — Beverley

That is not the case. The brain, as I mentioned just a few minutes ago, keeps functioning for minutes and in some very rare instances, even hours, when the blood supply is cut off. (This is the idea behind cryogenics.)
My 'point of view' is the evidence-based knowledge that makes medicine, transportation and communication possible. Believe what you like, but please, if you're sick, go to a doctor, rather than a priest.

Regarding your question, do you think it possible that the mind 'resides' in the brain and grows/develops there, but can also exist outside the brain too when there is no longer a brain? — Beverley

Nope. Mind is not a separate entity. It is an emergent property of the brain - the result of all the activity and connectivity of all those billions of neurons - one of the two reasons those neurons exist, the other being to control the functions of the body. When they stop working, every other organ stops, waiting for instructions.

...Unless the mind has turned into a soul at some point and grown wings so it can go to heaven, or failed to grow wings, so it must plummet to hell. Or unless it becomes a free-floating ghost....

I do not really know what I believe about this at the moment. — Beverley

Of course, billions of people do believe those stories, or claim to. You'd never be lonely if you chose that option.

I mean, when the brain has stopped functioning, if people are still seeing/hearing things — Beverley

They can see and hear, if the liver or kidneys are not functioning and maybe while the heart is stopped, but can still be restarted. That's what generally happens in these near-death experiences.
In movies, the bystanders rush in, somebody holds a finger to the victim's throat for ten seconds and pronounces him "gone" . (They're sure, because it's in the script.) In reality, people can go four to six minutes of no heartbeat without serious brain injury and survive as long as ten or twelve in some condition. The rare exceptions I know were children who froze in extreme prairie temperatures, who have appeared dead for up to a reported two hours and been revived. In some cases, even the EEG fails to detect very faint brain activity.

Gordon Giesbrecht, a hypothermia expert at the University of Manitoba, told CTV News Channel that it is "very difficult to predict" whether resuscitation attempts will be successful or not.

If you don't find the head cut off, you can't always be sure someone's dead

After all, we accept that energy is all around us, and yet it does not seem to 'reside' anywhere specifically since it is not made of matter. — Beverley

It emanates from the activities of matter. It comes from the burning of the sun's gases in the form of light and heat. But, although we measure units of heat for our own convenience, we cannot discern discrete packets of heat that have names and personalities. Without matter, what would form a barrier between minds? So, all right, if energy emanates from brain activity, it must radiate outward continuously, along with body heat, evaporated fluid and scent, to mingle with all the other energy.

I am open to hearing other ideas though. — Beverley

Ideas are free; people are always eager to share them. It's facts you have to work for.

This would point to evidence for mind consciousness being separate and not dependent on body consciousness because at that stage the brain would not be functioning. — Beverley

Are you saying the brain is part of the body and the mind is not? If so, where does the mind reside? What thinks?

How do you know that the brain causes consciousness? — Truth Seeker

Alternative organs have been suggested, but they proved inadequate to the task.
Other explanations involve mysticism and magic, in which I'm not a believer.

It is impossible to prove or disprove this claim. — Truth Seeker

It's not my job to disprove implausible claims.

So, is the brain real? — Truth Seeker

Yup. Seen many; touched some; sliced a few.

Is the soul real? — Truth Seeker

I've no seen evidence of it.

Saaaayyy -- is it really truth you are seeking?

How do you know that there is no consciousness after brain death? — Truth Seeker

Isn't that a self-answering question? Brain>consciousness. Dead brain>no consciousness.
People tell all kinds of stories about things they saw and experienced while other people thought they were dead. My guess is that they were not dead, but hallucinating or dreaming - possibly during the seconds they were regaining consciousness. My reason for that guess is the number of times I've been unconscious due to anesthetic during which I experienced nothing and from which I recall nothing, until I was coming back to awareness. Some of my vivid and bizarre dreams take place just as I'm waking up. These are the dreams one is most likely to remember.

Right now, there are different ways of organizing democratic elections, any of which can be studied in practice and put into effect. Some form of representative democracy would be most practical in today's diverse populations and especially in nations with diverse regional interests. The cumbersome American one is obviously not working; even the more streamlined Canadian one falters too often. Any system where first-past-the-post represents the majority is flawed from its inception.
If the political campaigns are protracted and heavily dependent on financial support, they quite evidently favour candidates with rich supporters and who have time to devote to the sport of politicking. No working person can ever aspire beyond town council.
But you can recommend limits on campaign spending, on duration of run-ups to elections, on television advertising and smear campaigns; you can recommend town-hall style debated on non-commercial public media; you can recommend several forms of proportional representation... https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-explained/ Believe me, we have been recommending those reforms till we're blue in the face. (That look is okay for Caucasians of Celtic background, but)
They will never be implemented by a government made up winners in the established system.

I don't think imagining or dreaming of one's death is anything like dying. In actual death, the body is involved: most fatal processes are painful. Pain doesn't leave much room in one's mind for any other thoughts. On the verge of actual death, people either struggle to avoid it or surrender to it as a release from suffering.

There is this issue of political practicality, how can consensus be built to the optimum end. — Pantagruel

Sound education and responsible mass communications media would go a long way toward making that possible. Unfortunately. both institutions are money-directed, and money flows in mysterious paths. A truly independent judiciary would also be helpful: it would be good to eliminate some of the egregious injustice perpetrated by the present, political and economic, mode of law enforcement.

And then there is the associated question of the effectiveness of the apparatus of government, — Pantagruel

Itself annually paralyzed by disagreement over its funding. In the USA, the entire structure was badly designed: overcomplicated, inefficient, with too many weak points prone to corruption and internal conflict. (It's not the founder's fault, exactly. First, they assumed that governance would always be in the purview of their own tight little club. Even though they disagreed among themselves, they could reason and compromise; they spoke the same language and shared the same interests. They failed to foresee the advent of disparate elements and the reign of galloping unreason.)

Are the existing voting practices even democratic? — Pantagruel

How could they be? The original practice was anything but. In spite of amendment after amendment, it has never been truly democratic, because there has never been equality of rights, freedoms or political power since that sentence of the declaration. It's rated in the world index as the first "deficient democracy", just below Israel, the last "working democracy" (one might question that). https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking There are elements in the US that wield actual power that would push it relentless toward "hard autocracy".

Suggestions? — Pantagruel

As I've stated earlier: catastrophic collapse and the necessity of starting over. This happens from time to time in every civilization: it's overcome by climate change, war - civil or external - or the economy becomes so top-heavy that it keels over like a tree with root-rot. Currently, we are closing on all three scenarios, so it shouldn't be too long.

I wonder if it would be possible to effect a fundamental break from outmoded traditional political categories in aid of an agenda of enlightened universal inclusion? — Pantagruel

Not without a catastrophic disruption of the status quo. No vested interest is going to relinquish political power without a struggle, and the established elites are better placed and better armed than their adversaries. It will take more than a clear vision and good intentions to dislodge them.

but are the voters not largely to blame for their lethargy, short-term thinking and self-interest? — Tom Storm

Sure. Add stupidity and complacency. We can work backward through their history, circumstances, education and sources of [dis/mis]information, as well as their myopia, self-importance and trust in bad leaders.

If I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then everything would be perfect for everyone. Sadly, I can't do it. — Truth Seeker

Keep practicing!

I think the Earth should be one egalitarian country where everyone's Human Rights are protected and there is a separation between government and religion. — Truth Seeker

That would be nice. But somebody still has to conceive of, define and articulate those human rights. The UN would be my choice, since I agree with their charter and the vast majority pf people on earth would benefit from it. But there will always be a minority that wants religion -their own, of course - making the rules for everybody, and a minority that wants special privilege, and a minority that demands a right to pursue activities that are harmful to other people and the environment. Those minorities would still feel oppressed. It's an imperfect world, growing less perfect every day.

Isn't democracy just majority rule where the 51% takes away the rights of the 49%? — Truth Seeker

If you take the dimmest possible view of humankind. It's never even close to 51% of the population that wants to take rights away from their fellow citizens; it is at most 10 or 15%, and in a reasonable society, those ambitions are curbed. The US is ranked at 36th in the world, is a flawed and corrupted democracy; therefore hardly a benchmark for the form of government. The real power in a capitalist country, whatever its form of government, resides in the to 0.1% wealthiest.
Most people are content to let other people get on with their lives, so long as they don't pose a threat to their fellow citizens. One large problem is that most people, especially in times of high anxiety, can be convinced that it's an identifiable group of their fellow fellow citizens that pose a threat, to direct their attention away from the actual cause of their anxiety.

We clearly don't live in an ideal universe. — Truth Seeker

I think most of us were already aware of this - hence the attempts to organize ourselves in societies for mutual protection. I think most of us are inclined to be peaceful and co-operative most of the time, since we know we can't successfully fend for ourselves.

So, yes, rule of the majority. And it is tyrannous if the basis for that interference with 'transgressors' is violent or restrictive — AmadeusD

That 'if' clause holds true of any kind of governance. If a theocracy is violent and restrictive, it's likely that many harmless acts are considered to be transgressions. If a monarchy, military or populist dictatorship is violent and restrictive, many acts that are not in the least socially disruptive are considered transgressions and harshly punished. At least a democracy, even a flawed and corrupt one, tends toward less autocratic laws - and makes it easier to change the laws.

Sports have been badly neglected by this miniTrump's administration. Among other things, like freedom of speech. Hungary stands #3 in fencing (although it seems the women are coming up. News to me; I never gave it a thought before.), #4 in water polo and a shameful 27th in soccer - all sports they used to dominate. That's how it goes, innit: big shot one day, insignificant also-ran the next. I'm almost embarassed to own my native land these days - but that would be as silly making a virtue of it.

There is never going to be a consensus. There is going to be a majority rule. — AmadeusD

True, of politics and legislation. But societies generally adhere to a single set of basic values, though the members may disagree on detail and there will always be transgressors who have to be dealt with in order that the society may continue to function.

I cannot see my way to thinking that's the best possible outcome. — AmadeusD

I cannot see a viable alternative.

Particularly if we reject moral objectivity. — AmadeusD

How's that supposed to work? How is the 'factual' right and wrong arrived-at? Papal decree? Been tried; didn't prevent crime and punishment.

That's never a hard sell! — Vera Mont
Why do you think that is? — AmadeusD

People love to be ever-so-much more righteous than and punitive toward whatever or whomever they're afraid of, and they can be persuaded to fear pretty much anything. Vaccines, immigrants, spiders, old women, cats - anything.

I won't complain if you say he wasn't a very nice man, or that this is not a very appropriate monument.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437693657509256942/
And I don't mind who says what about the present government (ugh!)
Nevertheless, Budapest is beautiful and many Hungarians are worth knowing.
This one is a poet - and a better statue.

That's how it's presented by the vested political interests that have been exploiting the prejudices and fears of the inhabitants. That's never a hard sell!

We are all ill, damaged, evil and in error as judged by the perspective of those who are unable to relate the justifications of our actions, as seen from our own perspective, to their own perspective and form of life. — Joshs

That's right. And this is why the framing of laws and moral strictures should not be left to a short-sighted, invested individual (like a prelate or monarch) who can't see another person's POV. It should be done by a consensus of the community. Nevertheless, many communities are bound by tradition or religion or ethnic bias and don't tolerate any different perspective. If the majority of your fellow citizens consider your actions to be wrong, it doesn't matter what your self-justification is: they won't allow you to act that way.

Welcome to red state and blue state America. — Joshs

That rift was never about morality or justice.

Concepts like forgiveness depend on the prior assessment of blame and guilt. Who says the person who does harm is ‘damaged’ and in need of ‘repair’? I’m guessing it’s not the person who committed the ‘wrongful’ act. — Joshs

I was suggesting approaches different from the present system of punishments.
Who says? The community says how it regards the responsibility and liability of its members. The person who commits a wrongful act is subject to judgment by his society; it's not up to him to decide whether he's ill or damaged or evil or in error.

Fantasy is also the first step in changing reality for the better. You imagine what you would like it to be and then work toward that ideal. (in theory...)

But we’re so overwhelmed by the effort to answer it that we throw up our hands and fall back on a concept of blame. — Joshs

I think this goes back to the patriarchal societies and their religions. Reward and punishment is one way to maintain social order, but it's not the only way. It might be possible to approach harmful actions from a perspective other than assigning guilt. We might look at the person who committed a harmful act as damaged and in need of repair. Or we might consider whether that individual is able to make some kind of restitution and win forgiveness from the victim. We might look at justice from the First Nations' POV:

The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged.

I am so sorry that Michael and Ann were hanged. — Truth Seeker

It was in the 1700's. Since most hangings were for murder, I assume they killed a younger sibling, since they were hardly big enough to kill an adult. It was not uncommon in those days to hang teenagers; quite a few in their early teens. Mostly boys, and without doing extensive research, I'd guess they either fought back against a father or master - there was a good deal of open abuse. Or they were caught stealing and lashed out - lots of people were poor to the point of starvation; lots of people were desperate. On the other side, the children grew up fast in those conditions; they were not the innocent bairns we pamper nowadays.

How would we work out to what degree who is culpable? — Truth Seeker

Judges usually have quite broad discretionary power - if their hands are not tied with mandatory minimum sentences.
A thoughtful and well-informed person can look through the evidence, consider the culprit's circumstances, capabilities and motivation, what pressures and influences were at work on him, whether the illegal act was spontaneous or premeditated, what damage it caused, whether he did it on his own, or other people were involved - all kinds of factors come into such a judgment.
I'm not saying every jurist has the patience or tolerance or inclination to weigh each case on its merits, only that in theory, they can and should. So should jury members: that's their assigned task.

I'm terribly sorry you felt attacked. Carry on!

Since morality itself is an exclusively human concept, it follows that only humans can be moral or immoral, according to their own rules of right conduct. We generally excuse the feeble-minded, insane and very young, due to their lack of judgment.
though it was not always so:

The youngest person confirmed to have been hanged in England was Michael Hamond, aged just seven. He was hanged in King's Lynn, Norfolk, next to his sister Ann, who was 11 at the time

However, the degree of culpability is probably different in each case.

I am not talking to you, and I think it is bad manners to mind other people's businesses, — javi2541997

And here I was, under the impression that's it's an open thread! Sorry to intrude on your private business of resenting someone's 'tone' in their own blog.

If we just consider elementary and secondary school, the idea is not to prepare students for a career or even a job. It's to prepare them for a life in the society and open the possibility of more specalized learning. Had I been left to my own devices, I'd have taken only English, French, art and history. The school system insisted that I acquire basic numeracy and at least a glance into the sciences - both of which have stood me in good stead through working and private life. Some of my classmates would barely be able to read if they were not forced to - and the poor schools do release illiterate graduates - let alone become acquainted with world of literature or have an inkling of the past events which determined our present.

A comprehensive education, even if it's quite shallow, must necessarily be formal and structured: knowledge has to be built up from fundamentals. I can't be grabbed willy-nilly out of random websites.
That said, decently stocked public libraries a great boon to learning.

Which parts were not true?

And, of course, some presidents are more knowledgeable than others; some presidents get better advice than others; some have more and some less constructive approaches. Watching Bush II stumble around, hurling bombs hither and yon was embarrassing ... until we witnessed.... *groan!*.

Oh, Lucky Man!

What? :gasp: How about the civilizations that came to an end? War leads to war and if the cause of war is not resolved, civilizations fall. — Athena

Yup. That's a great way to waste the bottom tier of their population.

Absolutely. Only when leaders can convince the masses they are fighting for a good cause, will the masses be mobilized for war. That does not mean the leaders are telling the truth about the war. — Athena

So? How does that promote or protect democracy?

PS I forgot the children in school. Have you visited inner city schools? I attended schools that became the subject of news reports about teachers suffering battle fatigue. I should say this was not the children's fault but poverty is cruel. — Athena

No shit!

What happened doesn't magically unhappen because somebody doesn't want to own it. My ancestors were as aggressive and violent as any other peoples, and if their past is cited, I don't yell "Victim!".

I want to argue your point about being able to waste a portion of our human resources. The idea that we can waste human potentially is totally opposed to the reason for having a democracy. — Athena

That's never stopped any civilization.

Our wars are about defending democratic principles and everyone's human dignity. — Athena

Sure, you can buy that...

Teachers would be ecstatic if students were eager to learn. — Athena

All children are eager to learn. It takes some effort to turn them off learning. All children, like all dogs, want to be "good", valued and appreciated. It takes some effort to convince them that they are bad, unworthy, stupid and useless. Still, we manage.

So, the answer is to knock down the system and start over? That will probably happen on its own pretty soon.