Life After Death

[Birdman]

Considering aforementioned conclusion everything is meaningless in the end. There is no purpose. If someone dies today or in 2.000 years, if you are ecstatic by winning the jack pot or you have to live in constant pain, born as Alexander the Great or as an one moment amoebae, the whole life of everyone and everything, the whole universe would not have any significance at all... if there will be nothing after death.

The only principle in the whole conceivable universe, where action has no reaction, no effect at all, would be this thesis.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Birdman

[villagefarang]

Considering aforementioned conclusion everything is meaningless in the end. There is no purpose. If someone dies today or in 2.000 years, if you are ecstatic by winning the jack pot or you have to live in constant pain, born as Alexander the Great or as an one moment amoebae, the whole life of everyone and everything, the whole universe would not have any significance at all... if there will be nothing after death.

The only principle in the whole conceivable universe, where action has no reaction, no effect at all, would be this thesis.

I'm not exactly disavowing the laws of physics as you imply with that last remark. I'm just saying I have no need to fantasize about magic or gods or some mystical purpose. For me it is enough that I am as I am, things are as they are, and one day it will all be gone and there will be no one to comment or exclaim. No witness to what if anything comes after. Just here today, gone tomorrow.

[KarenBravo]

A few comments from a hugely respected man; Sir David Attenbourough:-

On the teaching of creationism in British schools:-

"Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066. Indeed, more so, because all we have to tell us about William are a few bits of paper here or there - not very much at all. For evolution we have much more evidence: palaeontology, embryology, biology, geology. Darwin revolutionised the way we see the world fundamentally, but his basic proposition is still not taken on board by a lot of people".

Responding to religious viewers who criticise him for not crediting God in his nature programmes:-

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator"

[villagefarang]

Okay, so you can quote others. Do you have any thoughts of your own? Be brave and put something of yourself into this.

A few comments from a hugely respected man; Sir David Attenbourough:-

On the teaching of creationism in British schools:-

"Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066. Indeed, more so, because all we have to tell us about William are a few bits of paper here or there - not very much at all. For evolution we have much more evidence: palaeontology, embryology, biology, geology. Darwin revolutionised the way we see the world fundamentally, but his basic proposition is still not taken on board by a lot of people".

Responding to religious viewers who criticise him for not crediting God in his nature programmes:-

"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator"

[KarenBravo]

My views.

If you believe in evolution, which I do, then logically, if humans have life after death, then all living things do, too.

Same for reincarnation. How does a virus, germ, or, grasshopper do "good deeds"? They can't.

Therefore I don't believe in life after death in any form.

The purpose of life is life itself. To breed and continue the species.

Now that we as a species don't have to struggle to survive, we have the luxury of asking ourselves the arty farty question "What is the meaning of life"? The answer is "If you've managed to survive and reproduce, then, anything you want it to mean".

The world makes no sense if you put God in it. Good people having horrible things happen to them whilst mafia dons die in their sleep. Take God out of the equation and it all makes sense. Randomness and chance rule this existence.

How d'ya like them apples?

Edited September 11, 2009 by KarenBravo

[villagefarang]

My views.

If you believe in evolution, then logically, if humans have life after death, then all living things do, too.

Same for reincarnation. How does a virus, germ, or, grasshopper do "good deeds"? They can't.

Therefore I don't believe in life after death in any form.

The purpose of life is life itself. To breed and continue the species.

Now that we as a species don't have to struggle to survive, we have the luxury of asking ourselves the arty farty question "What is the meaning of life"? The answer is "If you've managed to survive and reproduce, then, anything you want it to mean".

The world makes no sense if you put God in it. Good people having horrible things happen to them whilst mafia dons die in their sleep. Take God out of the equation and it all makes sense. Randomness and chance rule this existence.

How d'ya like them apples?

I like, I like! and bravo to you k bravo.

[GarryP]

I only believe in life after "la petite mort". Nice.

[villagefarang]

I only believe in life after "la petite mort". Nice.

Yes but if you are premature your life after may be short and miserable.

[GarryP]

I only believe in life after "la petite mort". Nice.

Yes but if you are premature your life after may be short and miserable.

[Birdman]

Considering aforementioned conclusion everything is meaningless in the end. There is no purpose. If someone dies today or in 2.000 years, if you are ecstatic by winning the jack pot or you have to live in constant pain, born as Alexander the Great or as an one moment amoebae, the whole life of everyone and everything, the whole universe would not have any significance at all... if there will be nothing after death.

The only principle in the whole conceivable universe, where action has no reaction, no effect at all, would be this thesis.

I'm not exactly disavowing the laws of physics as you imply with that last remark. I'm just saying I have no need to fantasize about magic or gods or some mystical purpose. For me it is enough that I am as I am, things are as they are, and one day it will all be gone and there will be no one to comment or exclaim. No witness to what if anything comes after. Just here today, gone tomorrow.

You misunderstood. I am not disavowing the laws of physics. To the contrary that last remark implies also physics. Newtons law for instance explains, that for every action there is always opposed an equal reaction. In our discussion life would be the action, but if there is no life afterwards there would be no reaction...

[KarenBravo]

You misunderstood. I am not disavowing the laws of physics. To the contrary that last remark implies also physics. Newtons law for instance explains, that for every action there is always opposed an equal reaction. In our discussion life would be the action, but if there is no life afterwards there would be no reaction...

The above statement is illogical.

Life is not an action. It is a state of being for some objects.

So, your statement is a fallacy.

It takes energy to make and sustain life. This energy is released when the body rots, or, is incinerated, thus, obeying the law that energy can neither be created, or destroyed, only converted.

[robblok]

Hi orosee,

Yeh,Ok i guess the choice of words to use with this subject does make my post sound very vague.

Sorry i dont have website links as most of my reading/research has come from years of various books,both for and against the cases of evolution,theism,diesm,creation,ect ect..Its just a bit of an interest really

I havent really looked for these topics on the net as most times its subjective and the sources are unreliable and/or based on opinion...in the same way you would rightly argue my other post is!

My opinion from all ive read is that modern technology seems to have given the case of "intelligent design" just as much credibility as Darwins theories and there is evidence that the basis' of Darwins theories are at huge odds with the facts as we now know them.

Aspects of the big bang theory and long gaps in history between organisms, huge gaps and holes in Darwins evolution and fossil records, irregularities in his (sometimes doctored) embryology evidence and drawings, DNA based information on the way in which the origins of life (living cells) have supposedly formed,seemingly coming together at impossible odds..ect.

Apart from relying on memory I would have to go through my books back in Aus to give you direct names and quotes of scientists and books,but one book i remember that pretty much covers all the above topics with quotes and findings from scientists is "The Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel.

It seems the more the scientists find out the harder it is to piece it all together.

Anything else crosses into areas of faith and human belief, all of which is far from falliable.

As far as Life after death goes, no-one we know has ever died (for good) and came back to tell the story so it will always remain in the same basket as the God issue....

You can't absolutely prove..or disprove..the existence of god

Look a religious fanatic.. how cute.. i hope evolution will take care of them in the future.

There are some nice documentaries about evolution versus intelligent design.. guess who looses always. Only religious nuts call intelligent design science.

[Birdman]

My views.

If you believe in evolution, which I do, then logically, if humans have life after death, then all living things do, too.

Same for reincarnation. How does a virus, germ, or, grasshopper do "good deeds"? They can't.

Therefore I don't believe in life after death in any form.

The purpose of life is life itself. To breed and continue the species.

Now that we as a species don't have to struggle to survive, we have the luxury of asking ourselves the arty farty question "What is the meaning of life"? The answer is "If you've managed to survive and reproduce, then, anything you want it to mean".

The world makes no sense if you put God in it. Good people having horrible things happen to them whilst mafia dons die in their sleep. Take God out of the equation and it all makes sense. Randomness and chance rule this existence.

How d'ya like them apples?

Evolution and life after death cannot be related to each other, if there is no life after death. Why? Because in that case there would be an end also to evolution. It is not possible to continue the species forever. Everything which has an beginning has also an end in our material universe. So, as explained already, evolution would be completely meaningless, if you consider that it will end without coming back forever.

Reincarnation: Action and reaction would explain your example of possible 'improvement' and that principle would also explain the fantastic life of a bad person.

[Birdman]

You misunderstood. I am not disavowing the laws of physics. To the contrary that last remark implies also physics. Newtons law for instance explains, that for every action there is always opposed an equal reaction. In our discussion life would be the action, but if there is no life afterwards there would be no reaction...

The above statement is illogical.

Life is not an action. It is a state of being for some objects.

So, your statement is a fallacy.

It takes energy to make and sustain life. This energy is released when the body rots, or, is incinerated, thus, obeying the law that energy can neither be created, or destroyed, only converted.

Life is the sum of all actions which effects the person from within and from the outside during one's life period. According to the law of cause and effect, which can be seen everywhere around us and also inside us, the sum of our life's actions would not qualify to that principle, if there would not be some kind of after life effect to that.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Birdman

[wolf5370]

....<snip>....

It takes energy to make and sustain life. This energy is released when the body rots, or, is incinerated, thus, obeying the law that energy can neither be created, or destroyed, only converted.

Yes, and do we know that all the energy is released in a way we comprehend or retained as matter? How can we measure this? (Heisenberg ???) Relying on science is as floored as relying on some ancient book/document IMHO. Science asks far more questions than it answers - that's almost kind of the point of science - the more we know the more we realise there is yet to know (or perhaps, the more we find out, the more we discover that we do not understand - yet).

As to energy, there are many forms - many of which we only hypothesize that it exists (because its the only way we can make equations fit the reality we see) - more particles and theories came along almost daily, we simply do not know. For me, I love science, but like Einstein, I also believe in God (maybe not in the same way as organised religion describes 'Him') - and I believe that there is more to life than mere chemicals and 'lucky' atoms, but, hey, that's me - ever the optimist. Pascal's wager perhaps? Nah, I don't need to 'err on the side of caution', my mind in sure and has moved on to making the most of this life.

Live long and prosper!

[villagefarang]

B-man

The more you attempt to explain yourself the more convoluted and bewildering your thought process seems. Perhaps you should quit while you are behind. It is entertaining in a somewhat tortuous way, I suppose.

Edited September 11, 2009 by villagefarang

[wolf5370]

...<Snip>...

There are some nice documentaries about evolution versus intelligent design.. guess who looses always. Only religious nuts call intelligent design science.

This isn't actually as true as you state. Intelligent design may be easy to berate, but evolution has some big holes in it too - there are so many things that can't be explained by natural selection. As I said, I believe in a God. However, I do not believe in Intelligent Design either - that would also imply (infer? - always get those two the wrong way around) that fate also exists - and why would such a super intelligence set something in motion that has a known outcome (indeed, a plannable one) - rather like writing the world's biggest book and spend ingyour whole life reading to yourself.

No theory covers all bases and closes all argument, maybe one day (I doubt it though) - so there's little point standing in a corner throwing mud at each other when we are sinking in our own mire at the same time.

[robblok]

...<Snip>...

There are some nice documentaries about evolution versus intelligent design.. guess who looses always. Only religious nuts call intelligent design science.

This isn't actually as true as you state. Intelligent design may be easy to berate, but evolution has some big holes in it too - there are so many things that can't be explained by natural selection. As I said, I believe in a God. However, I do not believe in Intelligent Design either - that would also imply (infer? - always get those two the wrong way around) that fate also exists - and why would such a super intelligence set something in motion that has a known outcome (indeed, a plannable one) - rather like writing the world's biggest book and spend ingyour whole life reading to yourself.

No theory covers all bases and closes all argument, maybe one day (I doubt it though) - so there's little point standing in a corner throwing mud at each other when we are sinking in our own mire at the same time.

Intelligent design is easy to disprove. What holes about evolution so far its proven time and again.

You can believe in what you want i am an atheist, i don't believe. So far there has never been any proof of god i like things that are proven. But i dont mind people believing as long as they dont force those beliefs and morals on others.

[Birdman]

'B-man

The more you attempt to explain yourself the more convoluted and bewildering your thought process seems. Perhaps you should quit while you are behind. It is entertaining in a somewhat tortuous way, I suppose.'

No, the difficult part is to explain that in a language, which is not the mother tongue. So, if you cannot follow me, I suppose it looks like you are saying.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Birdman

[KarenBravo]

Evolution and life after death cannot be related to each other, if there is no life after death. Why? Because in that case there would be an end also to evolution.

With this statement, I know I'm talking to someone who doesn't use logic, or, know what it is.

You say life after death is not connected to evolution, then you connect them. Very silly.

Take the advice. Quit while you are behind.

Also, I'd be very interested to hear about these so called holes in the Theory of Evolution. Don't bother using the

eye as this has now been proved to be evolutionary.

Edited September 11, 2009 by KarenBravo

[Birdman]

Evolution and life after death cannot be related to each other, if there is no life after death. Why? Because in that case there would be an end also to evolution.

With this statement, I know I'm talking to someone who doesn't use logic, or, know what it is.

You say life after death is not connected to evolution, then you connect them. Very silly.

Take the advice. Quit while you are behind.

Also, I'd be very interested to hear about these so called holes in the Theory of Evolution. Don't bother using the

eye as this has now been proved to be evolutionary.

Instead asking to clear something not understandable, you start flaming. Your interpretation has a complete other meaning than mine and you did not get that.

So again in other words:

You say, that you don't believe in life after death in any form, but in evolution and in breed and continue the species. I say: Looking at the great picture from beginning of time and space to the end, if there will be nothing after death, everything is not an issue at all. In that scenario all will pass and never come back.

So there has been an evolution in a certain amount of time. But if everyone will be dead and there will be nothing, it will be absolutely meaningless.

[KarenBravo]

Meaningless? Yes, of course.

It is only humans that subscribe to "meaning". It is a man-made idea just like right and wrong, good and evil.

The universe is unfeeling and uncaring. You are not looking at the big picture. You are looking at it from the perspective of a human.

If there is a meaning at all, then it is existence for existences sake.

No small thing.

Anyway, these "holes" in the Theory of Evolution you mentioned?

[Birdman]

Back to the poll:

In the beginning Life After Death (LAD) did good, but soon No Life After Death (NLAD) has gained the upper hand and leads until now ~60:40. Actually a not too bad result for LAD so far, considering that poll is done in the entertainment forum.

[mauGR1]

There is a new religion which seems to be trendy these days.

Its dogma:If i can't see or touch,it does not exist.

Like any other religion it has prophets,teachers,temples,followers,fanatics and critics.

It gives you freedom to adore anything you like,but curiously most people choose to adore money.

Life after death does not exist because there is no proof,so enjoy life as much as you can,who cares for the consequences.

PS there are huge flaws in the evolutionary theory,just google it...

[robblok]

There is a new religion which seems to be trendy these days.

Its dogma:If i can't see or touch,it does not exist.

Like any other religion it has prophets,teachers,temples,followers,fanatics and critics.

It gives you freedom to adore anything you like,but curiously most people choose to adore money.

Life after death does not exist because there is no proof,so enjoy life as much as you can,who cares for the consequences.

PS there are huge flaws in the evolutionary theory,just google it...

Sure we trust in GOOGLE.. come up with some scientific proof. Fact is no self respecting scientist will go for the intelligent design theory. Any idiot can put a website together.. but real scientific debate and proof is lacking. I got a nice documentary about it if you like to see it.

Religion is used to control people it always has and always will be used for that. Of course you shoud enjoy life to its fullest much better as being born with the idea you cant enjoy life but will enjoy your death. I must say religion must be the best scam ever invented so many people fall for it and there is just no proof.

[mauGR1]

There is a new religion which seems to be trendy these days.

Its dogma:If i can't see or touch,it does not exist.

Like any other religion it has prophets,teachers,temples,followers,fanatics and critics.

It gives you freedom to adore anything you like,but curiously most people choose to adore money.

Life after death does not exist because there is no proof,so enjoy life as much as you can,who cares for the consequences.

PS there are huge flaws in the evolutionary theory,just google it...

Sure we trust in GOOGLE.. come up with some scientific proof. Fact is no self respecting scientist will go for the intelligent design theory. Any idiot can put a website together.. but real scientific debate and proof is lacking. I got a nice documentary about it if you like to see it.

Religion is used to control people it always has and always will be used for that. Of course you shoud enjoy life to its fullest much better as being born with the idea you cant enjoy life but will enjoy your death. I must say religion must be the best scam ever invented so many people fall for it and there is just no proof.

Look at a Watch,an Airplane or Notre Dame Cathedral..Intelligent design..Right?

Now look at the Human Body,the wonderful complexity of the Eco-system,or the Charme of a beautiful Lady..Intelligent design..not?

While i agree that Religion has been used and misused to control the masses,do you really think the world would be better without any ethics?

While i am not scientist,and not all scientists agree on the "Evolutionary Theory" or "Big Bang Theory",i claim the freedom to think with my own brain,and decide for myself,if you want to disagree i'll respect you.

PS Not only BS on Google..

[robblok]

There is a new religion which seems to be trendy these days.

Its dogma:If i can't see or touch,it does not exist.

Like any other religion it has prophets,teachers,temples,followers,fanatics and critics.

It gives you freedom to adore anything you like,but curiously most people choose to adore money.

Life after death does not exist because there is no proof,so enjoy life as much as you can,who cares for the consequences.

PS there are huge flaws in the evolutionary theory,just google it...

Sure we trust in GOOGLE.. come up with some scientific proof. Fact is no self respecting scientist will go for the intelligent design theory. Any idiot can put a website together.. but real scientific debate and proof is lacking. I got a nice documentary about it if you like to see it.

Religion is used to control people it always has and always will be used for that. Of course you shoud enjoy life to its fullest much better as being born with the idea you cant enjoy life but will enjoy your death. I must say religion must be the best scam ever invented so many people fall for it and there is just no proof.

Look at a Watch,an Airplane or Notre Dame Cathedral..Intelligent design..Right?

Now look at the Human Body,the wonderful complexity of the Eco-system,or the Charme of a beautiful Lady..Intelligent design..not?

While i agree that Religion has been used and misused to control the masses,do you really think the world would be better without any ethics?

While i am not scientist,and not all scientists agree on the "Evolutionary Theory" or "Big Bang Theory",i claim the freedom to think with my own brain,and decide for myself,if you want to disagree i'll respect you.

PS Not only BS on Google..

Ok of course you can decide for yourself, its your right. I think ethics did not originate from religions but from the goodness of people. Religion just coined it out explain to me else why most religions have the same values.

I can only say your arguments are really weak and don't really hold up. But if you want to believe in it that is your right and i wont change that.

[Lelipad]

The man, alone among all the other animals, knows he has to die. A dog does not know he will die and it never thinks to the death. But the man knows he will die since when he become “homo sapiens” as he saw his neighbors to die. When he understood that he also will die, the terror invaded him and he shared his discovery with his neighbors and all started to cry foul and terrorized. In that moment a Holy Man (the Humanity has always had Holy men) raised up and said: “Don’t cry my friends; the death is nothing, just the beginning of a new and better life, of course if you have behaved well in this present one” It was the origin of a crazy thing as the religion and of the never-ending humanity’s hope in a next life.

[wolf5370]

...<Snip>...

There are some nice documentaries about evolution versus intelligent design.. guess who looses always. Only religious nuts call intelligent design science.

This isn't actually as true as you state. Intelligent design may be easy to berate, but evolution has some big holes in it too - there are so many things that can't be explained by natural selection. As I said, I believe in a God. However, I do not believe in Intelligent Design either - that would also imply (infer? - always get those two the wrong way around) that fate also exists - and why would such a super intelligence set something in motion that has a known outcome (indeed, a plannable one) - rather like writing the world's biggest book and spend ingyour whole life reading to yourself.

No theory covers all bases and closes all argument, maybe one day (I doubt it though) - so there's little point standing in a corner throwing mud at each other when we are sinking in our own mire at the same time.

Intelligent design is easy to disprove. What holes about evolution so far its proven time and again.

You can believe in what you want i am an atheist, i don't believe. So far there has never been any proof of god i like things that are proven. But i dont mind people believing as long as they dont force those beliefs and morals on others.

Yes, but don't you see, this is the point of my post - there is no proof. I don't believe in ID as I already said, but I can't completely endorse or believe in Darwinism either - neither can be proven and both have condradictions. This makes me disbelieve both for the same reason - science say there is no absolute proof only as disproof - something is fact only as long as it is not disproved. Newton was 'correct' for 400 years until the turn of the 20th century (Einstein wasn't the first to blow him out of the water, but he perhaps is the most famous). Everything from super-sting theory to dark matter/energy has been thrown on the drawing board and we still can't prove any of it. That is what science is - a foundation ("I stand on the shoulders of giants") that we build on, we narrow, discard and improve - we will never get perfection ("Perfection is the realms of the gods, man can at best reach a consensus until the next contentious consensus 'disproves' it!").

As to the 'holes' there are many - mostly to do with the requirement for mutation and natural selection to cater for evolutionary changes - but there have been many observances where either it happened too quick for mutations to be possible or it didn't happen at all when natural selection should have made a difference. You can check this easy with some goggle research (ignoring the whacko sites of course!). The main problem though is how it all started - natural selection or evolution can not explain how an exact set of amino acids managed to line up perfectly and 'create' life - there has never been a reasonable answer to this and scientists mostly ignore the question or try and pretend that statistics account for it (where they actually don't - think of the amount of elements there are, then look at the carbon chains that make the amino acids CTAG - the chances of these individual acids building up is extremely remote - in fact we have never seen it anywhere else in the universe - yet all four managed to luck it out here and then join up and create life. The chances are statistically so remote that it is almost an impossability and then compound it by allowing that tiny new life to survive an universe that isn't set up for it and to evolve and not be destroyed along the way - it becomes a mathmaticians nightmare. So, we are rational and given two choices - some guy with a long white beard making the calls or a set of lucky atoms, we choose the latter.

Personally, I think the problem is the limitation to two answers, and its that that we should be seeking an alternative for - and maybe one day we will have one (or a billion) and the whole argument will water itself down.

[glegolo]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

WE ARE JUST ANIMALS, WE ARE BEING BORN, WE LIVE, AND WE DIE. THEN WE ARE EATEN BY WORMS. THE END

CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WE PEOPLE NEED SOMETHING, SO WE JUST NOT ALONE

HERE IN THIS WORLD. A GREATER BEING. BUT IT IS JUST BALONY AND NOT WORTHY

US HUMANS TO BELIEVE THAT KIND OF TRASH.

GLEGOLO