TriStar Pictures unveiled the trailer for "Heaven is for Real," which is based on the #1 New York Times best-selling book and stars Greg Kinnear. Check it out below.
Plot: The story focuses on a small-town Pastor Todd Burpo (Kinnear) and his wife Sonja (Kelly Reilly), a real-life couple whose son Colton (Connor Corum) claims to have visited Heaven during a near death experience. Colton recounts the details of his amazing journey with childlike innocence and speaks about things that happened before his birth... things he couldn't possibly know. Todd and his family are then challenged to examine the meaning from this remarkable event.
The new movie is written and directed by Randall Wallace and is set to hit theaters on April 16th, 2014.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 4:13:11 PM
^^That's not science, that's quantum mysticism.
M. Bullittwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 4:33:38 PM
Either ways, none of us will prove anything here. Not even your sidekick.
For instance, IF you would have a child and you would raise him/her by your standards beliefs, it will not guarantee you that he or she will be an atheist just like you are. My point is simple: leave it to the people who CHOOSE to believe in what they want.
I am certainly NOT convincing or even influencing anyone to believe in what I do. It's up to them just like it was up to me. It's a choice with doubts in a lifetime course but I certainly don't regret it for obvious reasons.
You on the other hands will never know the final answer when it will be too late and nobody will know that your Theory is right or wrong.
What I'm saying like millions of people said it just leave people to believe in whatever they want. Now, in America, you have the best law in the world: Any religion is by law recognised and therefore cannot be persecuted!
What I'm saying is you just can't tell people what they should believe according to your belief.
Let the people be. That's their quest, their lesson in their own life.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 4:52:30 PM
The idea that there is no afterlife is not a "belief", it's a fact suborn out and supported by a ton of scientific data, not to mention some of the simpler philosophical questions, not to mention common sense.
For example, if you live forever, what the f*ck would you do with the time? The human mind isn't remotely complex enough to handle the tedium of a few hundred years of life, much less an infinitude of time.
Then there's the other question: if humans live forever, what about all other animals? Do all dogs go to heaven too, or just humans, and if so, what the f*ck makes us special over all the other animals that don't have our unlimited capacity for selfishness and evilness? Isn't the presumption humans deserve immortality just a tad a shade of arrogance?
Finally, but by no means an exhaustive list, it's quite clear the software of consciousness is entirely dependent on the hardware of the brain, just like Adobe Photoshop cannot run on wishful thinking, so when the hardware dies and molecularly decoheres, where would consciousness go? If I blow up my hard drive, does Firefox go to software heaven? Where do we go when we sleep? In a coma?
Clearly there are states of being alive that do not equate to consciousness, so to assume we somehow continue to exist after the material of mind no longer actually exists is nothing more than the adult equivalent of a jolly fat man in a red suit slinging presents down every chimney in the world over a period of ten hours. The fat slave-driving prick would have to travel faster than light to accomplish his task, but I digress.
No, life after death is nonsense. It's the modern equivalent of other bullsh*t questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's a question for people divorced from reality, who refuse to grow up and deal with the facts, who hide from the truth because they're either afraid or willfully ignorant.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 5:03:07 PM
The biggest problem with this Lanza guy is his misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
He thinks "consciousness' collapses a waveform.
The act of observation actually interacts with the environment in ways not normally either perceived or conceived, but regardless, there's simply no physical disconnect between the act of observation and the waveform's collapse.
But Lanza's misconceptions are understandable because for all of his education, he's no more a trained physicist than most people.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 5:13:30 PM
M. Bullittwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 5:19:37 PM
I am very sorry Mink but I can't reply to you right now. I'm way too drunk thanks to that bloody good Beluga Vodka!
I will reply to you tomorrow afternoon.
people have souls you know. Some do, some don't. I know and many people have.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 6:07:34 PM
And some people have minds, and others do not.
Stapeswrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 6:27:16 PM
Saying it's a scientific fact there is no afterlife is as foolish a statement as saying it's a scientific fact that there is an afterlife.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 6:44:17 PM
You're right, of course, which means since there's no "scientific proof" of a purple frumious bandersnatch in your living room, that must mean then both possibilities (the bandersnatch exists, the bandersnatch doesn't exist) are both equally probable...
But all joking aside, sure there's scientific proof, silly. What's the proof? The proof is that the mind does not exist independently of the brain, as surgical experiments into alleviating seizures have shown. Phantom Limb Pain? Same thing. So if the "mind" is what we call our "consciousness", then how the hell does it survive the destruction of the brain? Huh? Maybe it's all magic, then, but that's neither scientific or rational.
As for a soul...lol. Sure. Whatever. Depend on the supernatural if you need to, but that's really the issue: science deals with REALITY, and as such, it really isn't equipped to investigate wishful thinking, myths and the whims of imagination.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 6:47:58 PM
Proof #27 - Think about life after death
If you are a Christian, then Jesus promises that your soul will have everlasting life. In John 3:16 the Bible says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." All that you have to do is believe in Jesus and your soul gets to go to heaven.
But have you ever really thought about your soul? Have you ever thought about how the afterlife would work? Which life forms get an afterlife and which do not?
Start with a bacterium. Does it have a soul and does it get an afterlife? A bacterium is a cell membrane filled with a variety of molecules. These molecules react together in different ways to create what we call life. Although all of these molecules are reacting in fascinating, interlocking ways, they are still nothing more than chemicals reacting. The "miracle of life" is no miracle -- it is a big chemical reaction. When those reactions stop, the cell is dead.
Now here is the question: When the bacterium dies, does it get an afterlife?
There are not many people in the United States who believe that bacteria go to heaven. The Bible does not talk about heaven being filled with all the disease, putrefaction and pestilence that bacteria cause. And what, exactly, would go to heaven? Do all of the bacterium's molecules get transported to another dimension so that they can keep reacting? If that were happening, there would be thousands of tons of chemicals leaving earth every day. Clearly there is no afterlife for bacteria cells.
What about mosquitoes? A mosquito is much more complex than a bacterium cell. For one thing, a mosquito is a multi-cellular insect with amazing capabilities. But if you look at each cell in a mosquito, it is very much like a bacterium in its basic functioning.
Do mosquitoes get an afterlife? Clearly not. Think of how many mosquitoes have lived and died over the course of millions of years. No one imagines heaven being full of septillions of everlasting mosquitoes. There is also the problem that we saw with bacteria -- the only way for a mosquito to go to heaven would be to somehow transport all the chemicals in a mosquito from earth to heaven.
What about mice? They are no different from mosquitoes. Mice are multicellular organisms, but each cell is a little chemical factory very much like a bacterium. Dogs? Ditto. Chimps? Ditto.
So what about humans?
The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?
The whole notion of your "soul" is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.
It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your "soul" truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled.
Think back to when you were a kid and you realized that Santa was imaginary. As soon as you knew it, it was obvious. Reindeer cannot fly. A man cannot slide down chimneys. There is no way for one little sleigh to carry all the toys for all the kids in the world. Etc. It is obvious that Santa is make believe.
In the same way, it is obvious that human beings are big, walking chemical reactions (see this article for a description of how the reactions work). Your "soul" is make believe just like Santa. When the chemical reactions cease, you die. That is the end of it.
Knowing this, you can see that everything about religion is imaginary. God, the Bible, Jesus, the resurrection, prayer, the Ten Commandments, the creation story, your soul, everlasting life, heaven... every bit of it is the product of human imagination. The same goes for Allah, the Koran and so on. As a species we have believed all of this religious dogma for centuries, and most of us believe it today to some degree. And yet... it is all fiction. Today's "God" is just as fictional as were the gods of the Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs.
Christians will rationalize the concept of the soul by saying that the soul is a magical element that has nothing to do with cell chemistry. God divinely "instills the soul in each of us." According to believers, the soul is of another dimension and therefore is beyond science.
Whenever you hear people talking about "magic" and "other dimensions", it is a clear marker for delusion. It is as simple as that. The soul is a completely imaginary concept, as is God.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 6:50:30 PM
I do think the above author is one of those over-reaching atheists, in that he says "every thing in religion is imaginary", which is clearly not true since the Bible at least is some kind of record of historical events which actually occurred, although one can argue the total veracity of that particular book all day long.
Stapeswrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 8:01:53 PM
Supernatural is just another word for magic. Your analogy doesnt apply, mink.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 9:28:38 PM
Religion, god, heaven, it's all bullsh*t. Applying science to any of that nonsense is like using partial differential equations to prove the Tooth Fairy wears teal socks.
minkowskiwrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 9:31:45 PM
Anyway, atheism is for pussies.
Nihilism, on the other hand, is for the real men.
Stapeswrites: on November 16th, 2013 at 9:53:38 PM
Lol, didn't I already peg you for just another nihilist sh*thead like two years ago, mink. No offense, it's a common affliction amongst those who are foolish enough to believe they know everything, and that which they don't is of no value. It's ego.
kickitwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 1:00:32 AM
I rarely post on this site, but I read just about everything. And being a fan of debate, albeit debating over a topic that nobody can actually "win" no matter how strongly they believe one way or another. It is just another example of the human's flaw in indulging himself with the evolved capability of wasting time like no other animal on the planet.
Setting aside the arguments of "life after death" I want to just throw the wrench in the hardcore nihilist or atheist belief with one simple truth. Science 101 - You cannot create something from nothing. So with that to bear in mind how is it that existence came to be? Something had to create it. Of course then you can sit back and argue "well what created that 'something.'" Either way the argument of technology comparative biology and that when the hardware dies the software or 'information' dies along with it. While this is more true than not we cannot forget that there is an almost infinit amount of software or 'information' that is not attached to any hardware. Information is constantly transmitted through radio frequencies, energy signals etc.
Also if you are a man of science then you know that all matter and existence is simply energy and mass that is either compacted closely together moving at certain speeds - or not so close but still moving at their respective speeds.
One could argue that when a human or any living thing dies its 'life energy' or 'soul' could either completely dissipate, relocate or even in some minds continue to exists in an alternate plane or dimension (and I understand how dimensions can sound very Sci-Fi but it is scientifically plausible).
Mink I feel you are a very intellectual person and have valuable insight for many topics (including this one). But as a devil's advocate I have to say, without any bias or religious constitution, that any man that is truly wise, should be accepting of the possibility of things existing beyond our concept of rational thought or "common sense." Those who are blindly zealous on either end of the spectrum are the same we all sit here and point to laugh at who 200 years ago were burning witches. Or 700 years ago thought the world was flat. Geocentricity etc. etc.
Continue to argue that you believe what you believe and why, with citing and all that interesting information. But the moment you insult, evade or simply stonewall you are just as bad as any bible-thumping conservative zealot.
minkowskiwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 4:44:01 PM
"it's a common affliction amongst those who are foolish enough to believe they know everything"
It's an even more common affliction among those who know relatively little to assume those who know a lot think the latter "know everything", when in reality they only know enough to know what's real and what's not.
Thanks anyway, though.
minkowskiwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 5:27:39 PM
@Halo: thanks for the reply.
You seem to make the same rather dishonest mistake many people make, which is to assume there are only two possible answers to a stated question, and then present one of those solutions as a caricature while concurrently elevating the other.
Regardless, taking your statement at face value, I will say only this: you claim the universe must have a creator because something cannot come from nothing (a straw man argument), but then go on to say the universe, or all of reality if you will, was created by a creator. Then when pressed to answer the question of who created the creator, you simply say he or she or it "always existed".
You fail to understand there are only two realistic possibilities, neither of which admit the possibility of a "god": either something can come from something, or something always existed (in this particular case, there is a viable middle position, unlike *your* original claim).
"But the moment you insult, evade or simply stonewall you are just as bad as any bible-thumping conservative zealot."
Right. Because if I say "the sky is blue, you f*cking idiot", such a statement puts me in the same intellectual category as the guy who claims the world is merely six thousand years old...
minkowskiwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 5:36:11 PM
"(in this particular case, there is a viable middle position, unlike *your* original claim)"
Sigh. I meant to say "there is a viable dichotomy". Should have re-edited that little part.
minkowskiwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 5:36:49 PM
Ah yes, here we go
minkowskiwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 6:47:08 PM
"Lol, didn't I already peg you for just another nihilist sh*thead like two years ago, mink."
Yes, you did, but you confuse the cliched blase anomie of the typical teenager with true philosophical nihilism, the latter of which is a system of thought that simply states that morality, meaning, purpose and social use is an artificial human construct that does not exist objectively, a claim that can be easily shown to have much merit at the scientific level.
You really should try reading a little more.
minkowskiwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 6:54:34 PM
This guy really gets it.
"There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situation."
minkowskiwrites: on November 17th, 2013 at 6:56:11 PM
*existential* nihilism, I should say, not that I am speaking to anyone at all...
I may be nitpicking at the text and possibly missing a subtext in the writing but to claim my 'mistakes' are 'dishonest' is to imply some sort of - well, dishonesty. It is simply a scientific argument - hasing nothing to do with whether or not what I'm say is a "lie." And I only state one solution that adds some indirect scientific claim to the idea of creationism while also offering up the common rebuttle. It's not that I was trying to contradict myself - i was just acknowleding the argument (which is a valid one). Also I did not go into detail but what I was more implying when coming to a "creator" doesn't neccissarily fall into any specific religious denomination of what "God" is or does. For all we know we are no more to him than plants in a garden to a gardener (sh*tty analogy I know but I'm just waking up...).
If you want to use the argument "if I say "the sky is blue, you f*cking idiot", such a statement puts me in the same intellectual category as the guy who claims the world is merely six thousand years old... wow"
Wow indeed. Especially since saying something like "The sky is blue" is an opinion that is based on your perception and is a gross oversimplification. Different people and animals see light in different spectrums so "colors" that we assign are only laman terms to describe what's in front of us. It's really ironic since this is all based on your inability to accept any possiblility beyond what YOU can't see. Are you 'wrong' to say the sky is blue? No. But you are also not 'Absolute' in that answer because it is only based on your perception which is limited (like all humans and animals). Also the sky is something that envelopes the earch and is a spectrum of colors. All you can remark on or analyze is the extremely small percentage within your relative sensual reach. I think this is much like science for our today. We have come a long way in the last 100 years alone in understanding our world in universe. This knowledge obtained has created a lot of doubt and questions in what for thousands of years was to be considered inarguable. "A God."
Unfortunately whats birthed from this new-found "knowledge" is just another example of the human ego. It's no different than the Catholic Church of old who sponsored the Crusades. Their "truth" or perception of it at least brings a sense of understanding and closure to something we all struggle with. And when you threatened that "truth" you found yourself on the wrong end of a human-campfire.
My perception of you based of my limited sensual understanding/interpretation is that you find solice in your beliefs but are either threatened by those who contradict you OR are allowing your ego in your understandings of this world to bleed into your arguments. Or maybe you just like to feel clever (as we all do) with a clever jab or quib at the competitor. ;) Science is apparently your "religion." Which is fine. But remember much of science is still theory - even the sh*t that we APPLY to other science is based off of "Theory." Gravity & electricity are still theorized concepts and phenomenon that 99% of the world believe are "Facts." But by scientific definition are not facts just the best way we can in our limited understandings and knowledge - explain them or utilize them. Not to say there aren't 'Laws' involved or mathematical forumals related to such theories but their origins/exhistence are still debated.
'This guy really gets it.'
"There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situation."
No, no. This guy realy gets YOU (lol). This is another prime tell of one's personal experience and their incapability to relate or even accept the possibility that someone else's experience can be different form their own. It's like saying "I have ticklish feet. It's a fact. So everyone must have ticklish feet- and if they say they don't they are failing to face up to the harsh reality of the human situation - and their feet."
Speak your truth so that others who can relate or find answers in it may hope to achieve something from it. But I suggest being open to any possibility, even the fantastic. You don't have to accept it in any means. But maybe, just maybe you will find something there that you never recognized or were able to even concieve before. If that went out for EVERYONE (religious, spiritual, nihilist whatever your flavor) then we would progress further in our understanding as a human intellectual race even faster than we are trying to right now... But that'd be like making Communism work >.>
This may sound a but weird or maybe off topic. I work in Public Safety and have had many encounters with every class, race and creed. But what has really opened my eyes has been dealing with mental health patients. Their "realities" are so drastically different than "normal" people. And those persons' interpretations, whether flawed or convoluted, are results of either emotional/physical trauma and/or biology. I'm not going to go into a ruge rant into why this has affected MY outlooks but I will simply say that as a whole we are all pretty much programmed the same in our biology. And even if the 'masses' can adhere or accept a possible truth no matter how absurd or logical. It's all based on our simple, sensitive biology that is either extremely advanced and without fault. Or limited and fragile... Soooo, ya, try not to hurt yourselves =p
Just so we are clear too. "Halo-stingray" is based off of the video game and my nickname - nothing religious about it, lawl. And if you muscled through my above post. I apologize for all the spelling errors. Again I'm more asleep than awake right now...
minkowskiwrites: on November 18th, 2013 at 9:39:27 AM
""The sky is blue" is an opinion that is based on your perception and is a gross oversimplification. Different people and animals see light in different spectrums so "colors" that we assign are only laman terms to describe what's in front of us"
lol. Wrong. The sky emits light at a specific frequency. We call that frequency "blue". Your eyes may be f*cked up in such a way that you perceive this visual frequency as some other color, but that only means you have visual problems.
In other words, the frequency within the visual spectrum known as blue doesn't change just someone or something perceives it differently.
minkowskiwrites: on November 18th, 2013 at 9:40:41 AM
Anyway, thanks for the input, but I don't rely on my personal "perceptions". I rely on those of empirical science instead.
minkowskiwrites: on November 18th, 2013 at 9:55:31 AM
"The retina of the eye is designed, has evolved to perceive light within a certain range. To do this the brain however has no idea about the significances of light frequencies so it does not need to know that 450-475 nm of light is the color blue. The brain recieves the implulses coming through the neurons and creates an image from them. That is as far as the sensory part goes. The rest is human interpretation, meaning the words we attach to what is contained in the image. Boxes get called boxes, cats are cats, red is red and far is not near. Some animals have different visual ranges and can therefore see things that humans cannot. "
In other words, they sky can never be objectively perceived as red, unless it is actually red, because the sky omits a light that falls somewhere between 450 to 475 nanometers in wavelength, and because we associate a specific color and name for that color to that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
It's no different than if we all agree a "chair" means a four-legged "thing" on which you sit, but because you have dysphasia, you say "car" instead, and perhaps even hallucinate an automobile where there should be a chair. In the latter case, the chair can be experimentally deduced to exist instead of a car.
In even more words....there is an objective reality out there, and we recreate it in our brains according to our biology, but that doesn't mean the "world out there" isn't concrete or that it's subjective. That's why we have science, so we can separate that which we perceive biologically from that which exists independently of the human mind.