Life After Death

[Robroy]

"Especially since a good few scientists now percieve that the foundations of Darwinism were built on very shaky ground"

Baloney. Darwinism has not been seriously challenged in 150 years.

There have been multiple non-serious challenges (mostly from religious people resorting to various kinds of mental gymnastics, which always collapse under investigation). But there is hardly a qualified scientist on Earth who does not accept Darwinism. The fact that .001% of scientists question it is hardly suggests that it is invalid: about 1% of humans suffer from schizophrenia, for starters.

The fossil record on which Natural Selection rests is largely complete. The fact that we are still missing perhaps 2% of it (a few gaps in the course of several million years) simply means we have not yet found those pieces - possiby because they no longer exist. But it is seized upon by the ignorant as proof that God & his angels swooped in in these periods to wave their magic wands. I trust this level of optimism needs no further comment.

We have a credible, consistent, well-evidenced explanation of how we came to be, & can cease flailing about in search of 'further' theories. Sure, Darwinism can still be fleshed out more - so can mathematics, physics & geology. But it long ago jumped the bar of 'sufficient evidence'.

In the 5,000 years since human records began, there hasn't been a single eyewitness account that supports the God hypothesis - not a photograph, sound recording or video. In fact, not a single pulse of data in human history.

[KarenBravo]

Don't believe in Evolution?

It's going on all around you.

It's the mechanism that allows germs to become resistent to antibiotics that used to kill them before.

[Patong Bob]

i used to believe in reincarnation.

But that was in a previous life

[KarenBravo]

I'm an atheist, thank God! - Dave Allen.

[wolf5370]

IMO "There is none so adamant in their beliefs than those that believe in nothing" - Quote, me 2009

[doggie888888]

IMO "There is none so adamant in their beliefs than those that believe in nothing" - Quote, me 2009

Yeah...it's called having faith and conviction in your beliefs. Religion does not have monopoly on the word "faith".

[Huey]

Yes I do believe in life after death and reincarnation. No argument, no proof, just Faith, either ya have it or ya don't.

[KarenBravo]

Deleted.

Edited September 14, 2009 by KarenBravo

[glegolo]

Deleted.

----------------------------

Thank God, it is deleted!! I was afraid what was coming up..

Glegolo

[Lopburi99]

I hope there is life after death, and that it is good.

I wish I had been "touched by God" as some claim to have been, then I would be duly enlightened but, alas, I haven't been.

I am very much frustrated at we humans being dealt the hand of cards we have. As I say in my signature, being created imperfect then punished for it is the ultimate setup. And I don't like this game at all, we being the pawns.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Lopburi99

[camerata]

Carl Sagan made the interesting observation that we are all immortal as long as we continue to procreate because there has been a continuous stream of biological existence for each one of us from the first forms of life until now, and this will continue potentially forever. Of course, if you don't have kids, your shot at immortality goes out the window. Unless you can get yourself cloned.

It's interesting how many people in the West don't accept evolution and - presumably - accept some kind of God and afterlife.

[mauGR1]

I must say i'm surprised about the low acceptance of Evolution Theory in U.S.A.

IMO the concept of Creation and Evolution don't necessarily disagree.

[ozzieovaseas]

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.

Hehe..believe me..i am no religious nut..have you seen the film "my best friends girl"?

I've got about as much religious affiliation as the character of "tank"

Anyway, as always, you fly off on your own tangent..just from your reaction/interpretation of a few words in a post...seen it time and time again from you.

And so by my quoting that book you assume im a religious nut..well im not, but i do have an open mind and can listen to both sides of a story instead of assuming my theory is right all the time!

Actually by the title i can see how you could assume its pro-religious book but the author claims he approaches all his research from a neutral viewpoint and interviews and gathers evidence from scientists of all camps.

When the facts are put together from many different sides what comes out can be very interesting..WELL..to someone who is open minded anyway.

But not to many people like that on here though eh?

Some know EVERYTHING and will never be convinced otherwise..

[wolf5370]

See my biggest problem with the atheist argument is that they always say "I only believe in what is proven" - the problem is that NOTHING is proven. If you knew anything about science beyond compulsory education you would know that. I can not believe in Intelligent Design as I have said twice so far this thread, but I also can not grab at a theory and close my ears and mind just because it almost fits (or seems to fit most of the time) - or even because a lot of scientist tell me to accept it because we have nothing better yet (enough real science has been stifled that way for liking historically already!). My problem here is that I am not arguing pro-ID, I'm just not arguing pro-Darwin either.

[ozzieovaseas]

...<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.

Well said Wolf..that post describes the stuff that i was pondering about in an earlier post..but i admit i lack the finesse to put it into writing such you have done.

We will never have the answers in this life..and it would be sad to think that we will never know the answers..so if there is no life after death then NO-ONE will know the answers to the big secrets..EVER!...quite sad!

The thing that gets me is that the scientists still cant proove or explain how the big bang came together..just so much as they cant proove there is or is not a god or deity or intelligence or higher evolved form of energy that may have put life together.

In my opinion the hard line Darwin thinking mainstream camp shot their own theory in the foot when they deducted the big bang was fact....and this is for the reasons wolf mentioned above..

SO robblock and the others..now YOU PROOVE............

What life,what universe,what matter and what energy existed before the big bang..and what made the BB possible?

If by your logic "intelligent design" is a nonsense theory then the possibility of the earth (with such beauty and complexity) being created all in a nanosecond in time,seemingly out of nowhere is a more credible/believable explanation?

So how does "life" suddenly emerge from nothing?..scientists will never be able to explain it AND prove their findings.

Was there really enough time between the emerging of humans and apes to do all this miraculous evolving? and not like we've evolved for the betterment of life and the Earth either

Why is there millions of years of gaps in the fossil record with the species that Darwin needs for his timeline of life to work?

Interesting that a lot of the embryo drawings that Darwin used ARE NOT PROVEN to be accurate..they are merely drawings but yet they made it all the way into textbooks that were considered FACT.

The drawings were flawed and often just copied for convenience so as to provide more "evidance" for his work as it is prooven that the foetus examples shown are not similar at all stages of development..

[Lopburi99]

Good posts by Oz and Wolf.

Personally I believe without question a deity created life. The odds against evolutionism render it impossible, although the concept is highly appealing to those not wanting to believe in a higher power. So be it, that's up to them.

My problem stems from the impossibility of us understanding ANYTHING on this subject while existing in the human realm. Although I accept that, it frustrates me no end.

My nearly-savant daughter once said, at a very early age, that "time" does not exist beyond the human realm. The relevant comparison is simply "reality" or "truth". It blew me away when I heard her say that, and I have been trying to grapple with the concept ever since and I think it may make sense. It certainly helps explain infinity. The fact savants do exist, in itself, suggests some profound powers are present "out there".

Edited September 15, 2009 by Lopburi99

[mahtin]

Yes.

It's called children.

And literature, art, music, architecture, science, culture and tradition.

Edited September 15, 2009 by mahtin

[fabianfred]

well....we are really going to get intelligent answers in a forum for drinkers aren't we.....lol....(ducking from the hailstorm of throw objects..)

I replied yes because I am Buddhist. It would surprise many to know that Buddhism supports some aspects of the evolutionary theory. It doesn't believe in a God because it has a better answer.... karma. Regeneration and renewal are all around us in nature and we are all a part of that nature.

Renewal and rebirth applies to universes too. People ask where the matter and energy came from to cause the Big Bang.... we say from the last Big Crunch from an earlier universe.... a continual cycle as with all life.

From the viewpoint of the Buddha....those who believe that it is all an accident and there is no afterlife are living in delusion and ignorant of the truth....and they are destined to be reborn in the realms of suffering. So we have compassion for you.

"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"

Buddhism doesn't believe in a divine and benevolent creator.... just the absolutely fair law of karma

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 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.

Beings in the lower realms such as animals have little opportunity to create good karma....but they are paying the bill for the bad karma they created in the past. That is why Buddhism teaches that it is extremely difficult to escape from birth in the animal realms... but it will eventually happen... because of the law of impermanence... and it will then be reborn in the human or higher realms depending upon its karma.

The reason we see bad people like mafia dons having what we also perceive to be a 'good life' is that karma doesn't take effect instantly but sometimes many lifetimes pass before the conditions are right for it to give fruit.

[mauGR1]

The universal law works in the cybernetic realm too..

Like Buddha came on earth to enlighten us,Fabianfred came in the pub subforum..

Well done mate!

I wonder how many will listen.

Logic:if there is something smaller,there must be something bigger..If you cannot see it,switch on the light!!

[KarenBravo]

Beings in the lower realms such as animals have little opportunity to create good karma....but they are paying the bill for the bad karma they created in the past.

Oh dear.....the numbers just don't add up here. The human species must be outnumbered by other living beings by more than a billion to one (even more if you count bacteria). All these "lower animals" paying for bad karma in past lives as higher forms.

Nope, doesn't make any sense. Bit like most of the posters rejecting evolution. All stating that evolution "can't" be possible

but not stating why (except for the rather limp "the internet says so").

[fabianfred]

The Buddha once bent down and picked up a little dust on his fingernail....he asked his companions to compare it with the whole earth....saying that the small amount of dust compared with those beings in the human realm, compared with those beings in the realms of suffering (animals, hells, Hungry ghosts).

Another way was this.... if all the beings in the human realm were stood upon the head of a pin...then the surface of the earth would be covered by beings in the higher realms (heavens etc.)...but if all the beings in the higher realms were stood upon the head of a pin then the surface of the earth would be covered by beings in the lower realms.

Human rebirth is rare and precious .... do not waste it searching for such ephemeral things as fun.

[WhiteShrek]

Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, Yes - my opinions over the last 900 years

[FarangRed]

Would be good if you choose next time what to be when you come back, I'm going to be the biggest tart around

[idrankwhat]

I reject the idea of anything from god(s) to reincarnation without solid scientific evidence. I do not believe in anything "supernatural", only the natural and I believe that mathematically there is a greater chance of life on other planets than there is a creator. I use the term atheist to describe myself but that is incorrect as an atheist rejects certain beliefs where as I reject them all. I never argue this point because instead of using reason my opposition uses scripture, insults, name calling and threats rather than trying to reason. I believe "God" rather religion in general is responsible for the majority of problems in the world from famine, war, poverty even the current world financial crisis.

[endure]

I reject the idea of anything from god(s) to reincarnation without solid scientific evidence. I do not believe in anything "supernatural", only the natural and I believe that mathematically there is a greater chance of life on other planets than there is a creator. I use the term atheist to describe myself but that is incorrect as an atheist rejects certain beliefs where as I reject them all. I never argue this point because instead of using reason my opposition uses scripture, insults, name calling and threats rather than trying to reason. I believe "God" rather religion in general is responsible for the majority of problems in the world from famine, war, poverty even the current world financial crisis.

[idrankwhat]

I reject the idea of anything from god(s) to reincarnation without solid scientific evidence. I do not believe in anything "supernatural", only the natural and I believe that mathematically there is a greater chance of life on other planets than there is a creator. I use the term atheist to describe myself but that is incorrect as an atheist rejects certain beliefs where as I reject them all. I never argue this point because instead of using reason my opposition uses scripture, insults, name calling and threats rather than trying to reason. I believe "God" rather religion in general is responsible for the majority of problems in the world from famine, war, poverty even the current world financial crisis.

What? If you have something to say please do.

[endure]

I reject the idea of anything from god(s) to reincarnation without solid scientific evidence. I do not believe in anything "supernatural", only the natural and I believe that mathematically there is a greater chance of life on other planets than there is a creator. I use the term atheist to describe myself but that is incorrect as an atheist rejects certain beliefs where as I reject them all. I never argue this point because instead of using reason my opposition uses scripture, insults, name calling and threats rather than trying to reason. I believe "God" rather religion in general is responsible for the majority of problems in the world from famine, war, poverty even the current world financial crisis.

What? If you have something to say please do.

I just did

[mauGR1]

Would be good if you choose next time what to be when you come back, I'm going to be the biggest tart around

Probably you will..

That's why they say:Be careful of what you wish,because it may become true

[Moonrakers]

The above video is just one reason why I am never likely to believe in creationism. If anything the guy is making a strong case for evolution yet to him it is absolute 'PROOF' of creationism. Evolution is recognised as fact yet creationists still try to deny it, they quote "missing links", for example, as PROOF that the evolution theory is wrong. Of course just because a link might be "missing" might just mean that it hasn't been found yet, such logic often doesn't sit well with creationists however. Also, carbon dating has proven that the Earth is a lot older than Christians believe and by some margin, but of course this is also dismissed by the church as rubbish.

However, one thing that we do know for sure is that we know very little about the universe. We don't even know where the majority of mass comes from and we are trying to make that discovery. The LHC at CERN, if it ever becomes fully functional, could lead to the discovery of previously unknown dimensions and in turn lead to a whole new level of understanding. Maybe, just maybe such a discovery either at CERN or another future project could give us an insight into another form of existence in a different dimension.

Maybe one day science can disprove or even prove some form of life after death. Such a discovery, should it ever happen, is a long way off though and extremely unlikely to occur in my lifetime and so I'll go with the explanation that makes the most sense to me and it isn't religion. As for what happens to me when I die, will it's inevitable that I shall find out at one point but I am in no hurry to find out for myself.

*EDIT

The video didn't seem to work, here the link:

Edited September 26, 2009 by Moonrakers

[INTLMEDICS]

Science can see the human body and mind working, but not the memory, which in many terms is our soul.

You can split an atom, and it appears and dissapears.

Everything is made of atoms, and an atom cannot die, thus our souls cannot die.

Your soul is your memory, you can kill my body but my soul will live on.