Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It is no secret, that many Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.



I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.


However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.



This is why:





Matter and Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. All States are Temporary, and the only constant is Change.



Ask yourself: If you do not beleive in a Soul or Spirit, or cosmic signature, etc....take a look at yourself. Are you static? Are you Unchanging? Is there any part of yourself which Does not change?


Clearly, the answer is No.

You are EVER CHANGING. Your body, your mind, your thoughts, mentality, emotions, size, skin color, features, shape, etc. Everything changes. As you grow, you change.


IN FACT: Every Six Months every cell in your body is replace by a new cell, through the process of Mitosis.


So, there is nothing about you that is permanent (other than your name, but even that can change). You are not the same person when you die as you were when you were born.


Note This: The atoms that make up your body are billions of years old. They have existed far before you came into being. And when you die, those atoms will still exist forever on. The energy you consist of always existed before you did, and will still exist even after you die.


After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms. You don't simply CEASE TO BE. Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how the hell can you possibly stop existing?.

There is no stop in the course of nature. Everything continues, and all states are temporary. All states change.


Life may very well be one of those states. Many beleive Death is just a part of the Life Cycle, and we all know that death contributes to allowing new life to continue.



Your body and mind continue existance in different forms. Remember that. You will STILL EXIST after death, but in other form(s). Whether you experience new life or not, is another question. Whatever the "Afterlife" is, we may not know.


But we do know, that you don't just delete from existance. You don't just cease to be. It's scientifically impossible to just stop existing. Saying that nothing happens after death defies the Laws of Physics.



Change is the Only Constant. Everything in the Universe doesn't just begin or end. It always changes. Why would we be any different ?

Change is a really, really hard concept considering that in a 4 dimensional space, with time being the 4th axis everything is static.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.



I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.


However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.



This is why:





Matter and Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. All States are Temporary, and the only constant is Change.



Ask yourself: If you do not beleive in a Soul or Spirit, or cosmic signature, etc....take a look at yourself. Are you static? Are you Unchanging? Is there any part of yourself which Does not change?


Clearly, the answer is No.

You are EVER CHANGING. Your body, your mind, your thoughts, mentality, emotions, size, skin color, features, shape, etc. Everything changes. As you grow, you change.


IN FACT: Every Six Months every cell in your body is replace by a new cell, through the process of Mitosis.


So, there is nothing about you that is permanent (other than your name, but even that can change). You are not the same person when you die as you were when you were born.


Note This: The atoms that make up your body are billions of years old. They have existed far before you came into being. And when you die, those atoms will still exist forever on. The energy you consist of always existed before you did, and will still exist even after you die.


After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms. You don't simply CEASE TO BE. Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how the hell can you possibly stop existing?.

There is no stop in the course of nature. Everything continues, and all states are temporary. All states change.


Life may very well be one of those states. Many beleive Death is just a part of the Life Cycle, and we all know that death contributes to allowing new life to continue.



Your body and mind continue existance in different forms. Remember that. You will STILL EXIST after death, but in other form(s). Whether you experience new life or not, is another question. Whatever the "Afterlife" is, we may not know.


But we do know, that you don't just delete from existance. You don't just cease to be. It's scientifically impossible to just stop existing. Saying that nothing happens after death defies the Laws of Physics.



Change is the Only Constant. Everything in the Universe doesn't just begin or end. It always changes. Why would we be any different ?

This is really just a longwinded way of saying that the water you're bathing in might once have been Jesus' piss isn't it?

It's hardly relevant to say that the matter/energy in your body won't be destroyed since consciousness ends and there is no afterlife to experience. Which if you think about it is the exact same thing as not having an afterlife.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.

Be careful with stuff like this. Atheism doesn't equal materialism. The former is a non-belief in a creator. The latter is a non-belief in anything that would be considered paranormal. It might be true that the majority of atheists believe this, but the terms shouldn't be used interchangably.

Lolz.

...generally agreeing with Alliance. I've only briefly heard the energy stuff concerning quantum particles, but if memory serves I read an article on astrophysics that used such phenomenon as a possible starting point for the universe, since "non-existence" is an unstable state (strange as it seems intuitively), so there was a quantum phase shift which created the first particles of our universe.

It's the same reason the pocket of non-existence scientists recently found in space is so startling...not just because of it's size and location, but simply because it is statistically improbable that it could exist.

As for cells being replaced, it's more like 7 years for the cells in your body to be replaced, and longer for brain cells. It's an amusing anecdote for "you are what you eat" advocates....though I'm not really sure why it would have any religious significance.

I also agree with everyhing Alliance said.

the problem with using the fact that our mlecules/energy{as in ability to do work, as in force x distance moved in direction of the force} is that our BEING is more dependant on the intigration of matter/energy into constructs as opposed to the matter itself. theres nuthing unique about the matter that makes us up physically, infcat take any other molecule and put it in the same place and state that the previous isotope of the same elemnt was and ud be no more changed or destroyed than a second before. technically, looking at it in a basic physical way, way exist because of the CONFIGURATION of the matter/energy inside us and wud cease to be if that configuration was disassembled.

ur also using different definition of enegry than the physical one. energy of the BRAIN or life energy or psionic energy is NOT the same as the potential/kinetic energy of real/virtual particles due to their velocity or place in a forcefield.

on the other hand though, ive seen enough things to have a good reason to think that we might have a soul not completely dependant or part of our PHYSICAL MAKEUP. which could/would endure even after our physical body is dead. it is energy as defined in traditional english language{e.g. auras/radiance/adrenaline/excitation/ether/vibe etc} but not energy as defined by current physics.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it is energy as defined in traditional english language{e.g. auras/radiance/adrenaline/excitation/ether/vibe etc} but not energy as defined by current physics.

Very well put.

And yay I have the support of the athiest lobby.

People want to beleive that they'll live forever, in some form or another. I say we return to whence we came...nada.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.



I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.


However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.



This is why:





Matter and Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. All States are Temporary, and the only constant is Change.



Ask yourself: If you do not beleive in a Soul or Spirit, or cosmic signature, etc....take a look at yourself. Are you static? Are you Unchanging? Is there any part of yourself which Does not change?


Clearly, the answer is No.

You are EVER CHANGING. Your body, your mind, your thoughts, mentality, emotions, size, skin color, features, shape, etc. Everything changes. As you grow, you change.


IN FACT: Every Six Months every cell in your body is replace by a new cell, through the process of Mitosis.


So, there is nothing about you that is permanent (other than your name, but even that can change). You are not the same person when you die as you were when you were born.


Note This: The atoms that make up your body are billions of years old. They have existed far before you came into being. And when you die, those atoms will still exist forever on. The energy you consist of always existed before you did, and will still exist even after you die.


After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms. You don't simply CEASE TO BE. Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how the hell can you possibly stop existing?.

There is no stop in the course of nature. Everything continues, and all states are temporary. All states change.


Life may very well be one of those states. Many beleive Death is just a part of the Life Cycle, and we all know that death contributes to allowing new life to continue.



Your body and mind continue existance in different forms. Remember that. You will STILL EXIST after death, but in other form(s). Whether you experience new life or not, is another question. Whatever the "Afterlife" is, we may not know.


But we do know, that you don't just delete from existance. You don't just cease to be. It's scientifically impossible to just stop existing. Saying that nothing happens after death defies the Laws of Physics.



Change is the Only Constant. Everything in the Universe doesn't just begin or end. It always changes. Why would we be any different ? You know what we say about God not existing? W-we use the same argument for the after-life. Oh, and please don't try and throw Buddhism down our throats. It's not only disgusting, it's hypocritical.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Atheism doesn't equal materialism.

Are you sure about that? I've never met and atheist who believes in ghosts, chi, or demons.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you sure about that? I've never met and atheist who believes in ghosts, chi, or demons.

Well, you probably have. They just don't call themself athests.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you sure about that? I've never met and atheist who believes in ghosts, chi, or demons.

So...what was you point about materialism?

Originally posted by Alliance
Very well put.

And yay I have the support of the athiest lobby.

no, i dont nearly have as much spite in me as you. n no, im an agnostic with atheistic inclinations on the concept of a traditional yet consistant god. otherwise i can get quite spiritual, and even superstitous, at times when im not dealing with arguments which require blatant sceptecism and logic.

simply put, spite, cinicism and hate is becoming an unhealthy part of materialistic "atheism"/agnostism. we dhud take materialism out of it as its giving it a not so tolerant and loving reputation at a personal level.

I do not personally beleive that any afterlike that may or may not exist after this one will have any relation to the past one, if afterlives even exist.


However, the problem becomes defining what the "self" is.


We obviously have no memory of any life prior to this one.



My point is, the matter and energy that we consist of does not simply stop existing. If Alliance would like to argue that the matter and energy we are created from does become destroyed, once we die, then by all means I invite him to do so.


As for Lord xyz, no I wasn't trying to shove Buddhism down your throats. The Reincarnation Cycle of Life is simply a beleif, not a fact, and if it sounded like I was trying to push that, then I apologize.


But I do not beleive that "nothing happens" after we die. There are numerous processes which occur with the material we are created from after we die, the same way all those atoms we consist of have been elsewhere before they became us.

That's not what I've read. Could you explain a bit further?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you sure about that? I've never met and atheist who believes in ghosts, chi, or demons.

I did concede that it might be likely that most atheists are materialists, but a differentiation should still be made. Technically, buddhists could be considered atheistic in their philosophy, but that doesn't mean they believe in nothing spiritual/paranormal.

As for chi, ghosts, and demons, those are some of the more easily debunked phenomenon that would be covered under "materialism". Personally, I'm darn close to materialism, but manage to cling to a few scattered beliefs not because I want to comfort myself but because they're backed by empirical data that is difficult to explain by other means. Reincarnation is an example, though I don't consider it a concrete "belief", simply a possible after-death scenario....though even that seems less likely to me than simply "nothing" that constitutes most atheistic belief.

Originally posted by Alliance
And yay I have the support of the athiest lobby.

Is that what we're calling ourselves?



I approve. 31

Oh NOOOOOOOO, last year we were being over run by Buddhists, now this year it's Atheists??

cry

Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh NOOOOOOOO, last year we were being over run by Buddhists, now this year it's Atheists??

cry

I think I considered myself Buddhist briefly last year.

As Digi goes, so goes KMC!

*converts to nihilism*

*then Pokemon-ism*












*dark laughter*

I'll stick to deb-ism. It's a special world..

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, i dont nearly have as much spite in me as you. n no, im an agnostic with atheistic inclinations on the concept of a traditional yet consistant god. otherwise i can get quite spiritual, and even superstitous, at times when im not dealing with arguments which require blatant sceptecism and logic.

simply put, spite, cinicism and hate is becoming an unhealthy part of materialistic "atheism"/agnostism. we dhud take materialism out of it as its giving it a not so tolerant and loving reputation at a personal level.
I wasn't including you in my lobby

And I'm generally not hateful or spiteful. I just come off that way on line to people who generally cannot make points.

...and since I often fend against radical athiests who treat religion like sh*t, I'd say your assessment is wrong.

Also, materialism doesn't exclude spirituality and shouldn't be confused with economic materialism. You should make that distinction.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
My point is, the matter and energy that we consist of does not simply stop existing. If Alliance would like to argue that the matter and energy we are created from does become destroyed, once we die, then by all means I invite him to do so.

First off, make the distinction between physical energy and spiritual energy. Physical energy obey natural laws. Spiritual energy seems to be nothing more than a product of our own thoughts, which stop once we fail to maintain proper ion gradients in our bodies. This fake spiritual energy that you talk about is not a natural force, its a perception. It doesn't go anywhere when you die, because it never existed. Even if you claim it exists, its not physical, so enough of your bastardization of the conservation of energy.

Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant. If have one of the same carbon atoms as Hitler, Hitler does not live on in me by any stretch of the imagination. Your position becomes even more absurd when you realize that the carbon atom, when it was formed, belonged to nothing in particular. Hitler just borrowed it, as am I. Thus, you make a rediculous distinction.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Is that what we're calling ourselves?



I approve. 31

I'd prefer a limestone lobby. Marble is overused.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh NOOOOOOOO, last year we were being over run by Buddhists, now this year it's Atheists??

cry
Jut be happy its not the Chick Tract crew.

It's a very depressing though, I know I think about it nearly everyday, but hey..... if we rot in the dirt.... we rot in the dirt.

Whats depressing about it? Its only natural.

You simply have to realize that you are more than your body and that if its rotting, you've already gone.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I think I considered myself Buddhist briefly last year.


BUDDHISM????

Only pure atheists in our lobby!!!

Originally posted by Alliance
First off, make the distinction between physical energy and spiritual energy. Physical energy obey natural laws. Spiritual energy seems to be nothing more than a product of our own thoughts, which stop once we fail to maintain proper ion gradients in our bodies. This fake spiritual energy that you talk about is not a natural force, its a perception. It doesn't go anywhere when you die, because it never existed. Even if you claim it exists, its not physical, so enough of your bastardization of the conservation of energy.

Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant. If have one of the same carbon atoms as Hitler, Hitler does not live on in me by any stretch of the imagination. Your position becomes even more absurd when you realize that the carbon atom, when it was formed, belonged to nothing in particular. Hitler just borrowed it, as am I. Thus, you make a rediculous distinction.



I'd prefer a limestone lobby. Marble is overused.


Jut be happy its not the Chick Tract crew.

forgetting holographic interactions. also forgetting the fact that a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem to begin with. those can not not be explained by your purely materialistic definition of science. what we know is little, what we dont is infinite.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
also forgetting the fact that a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem to begin with.

Err. That's just a statement of yours. It's not a fact at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err. That's just a statement of yours. It's not a fact at all.


yes it is. to an extent. content vs context dillemma. content can not exist without context. yet context has no existance outside of prior content making it up. first cause etc. it has serious implication on how physically we can have a contruct which is AWARE OF THE EXISTANCE OF ITS OWN AWARENESS.

a topic not given enough emphasis in science i think.

and no, this isnt psuedoscience. it just SOUNDS more phylosophical than physical, but it has serious physical implications.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes it is. to an extent. content vs context dillemma. content can not exist without context. yet context has no existance outside of prior content making it up. first cause etc. it has serious implication on how physically we can have a contruct which is AWARE OF THE EXISTANCE OF ITS OWN AWARENESS.

a topic not given enough emphasis in science i think.

Pseudoscience.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Pseudoscience.

huh? how is it psuedoscience. its a well known fact that computers only SEEM to computer information from the persepctive of a human being. when infact its doing nuthing other than changing and chanelling states of entropy with no more uniqueness to them than anyrock being destroyed. only inside CONTEXT and in a perspective does it seems like the things we type are not just electrical pulses but actual information. try and generalise that to the connection between 1st generation languages{0s and 1s} and languages based on c++. youl see that at a basic template level there is hardly any recogniseable uniqueness to it but at the higher interpetive level it becomes sumthing almost abstract and completely making sense. now think about this, is the computer really processing and INTERPRETING zeros and ones or ur sending only two types of electrons down the paths of leasts resistance into a circuit which changes theis states and transfers energy etc??? is the computer/calculater really THINKING? or does it only give the IMPRESSION that its thinking??

furthermore, is giving the IMPRESSION of thinking{behavioural/physical consequence}, the same as thinking???? which would require that you{a unity entity} yourself are aware that you are thinking?{referring to the same entity}

Are we actually thinking or do we only give the impression?

Also, what are you trying to achieve in drowning me in pointless and off-topic posts?

in my personal expirience. we{or rather "i" as i can only give personal testimony} are actually thinking, because i am actually aware of my own existance and aware of my ability to be aware. i suppose in one degree or another it is the same for all humans. currently i can not see a machine being able to do that. even if we program a machine to emulate the characteristics of thinking, it would just be, FOLLOWING ORDERS and acting like a thinking person would. but it wudnt be its own thoughts guiding it but the order.

i think for a machine to do sumthing like taht{my words for a physical model} its code would have to write its own code, or a different original code not coming from the outside at all.

this isnt offtopic. i think it is a relevant critique of the claim "conciousness is just complex interaction of particles" thing. im not trying ot drown u into anything.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in my personal expirience. we{or rather "i" as i can only give personal testimony} are actually thinking, because i am actually aware of my own existance and aware of my ability to be aware. i suppose in one degree or another it is the same for all humans. currently i can not see a machine being able to do that. even if we program a machine to emulate the characteristics of thinking, it would just be, FOLLOWING ORDERS and acting like a thinking person would. but it wudnt be its own thoughts guiding it but the order.

i think for a machine to do sumthing like taht{my words for a physical model} its code would have to write its own code, or a different original code not coming from the outside at all.

this isnt offtopic. i think it is a relevant critique of the claim "conciousness is just complex interaction of particles" thing. im not trying ot drown u into anything.

But, you do realize that is absolutely only your opinion. And in no way a fact? Not even a scientifically very accepted opinion either.

sigh. did u not see the challenges presented by me as an implication of just believing the materialistic model of the mind? it is an attempt at trying to accept that pure materialism can not account for all the phenomenon displayed by human life. and the fact that im really thinking is not an oppinion.

it supports my previous claims of holographic principle and refutation which u also said were nuthing more than oppinion.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
sigh. did u not see the challenges presented by me as an implication of just believing the materialistic model of the mind? it is an attempt at trying to accept that pure materialism can not account for all the phenomenon displayed by human life. and the fact that im really thinking is not an oppinion.

it supports my previous claims of holographic principle and refutation which u also said were nuthing more than oppinion.

Actually, yes the "fact" that you are thinking is an opinion. You are indeed "attempting" to show that pure materialism can not account for human life, it is not conclusive and has no support. You typed up a bunch of stuff, that shows nothing.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
As for Lord xyz, no I wasn't trying to shove Buddhism down your throats. The Reincarnation Cycle of Life is simply a beleif, not a fact, and if it sounded like I was trying to push that, then I apologize. You said it in bold. You only do that for obvious facts. As if Buddhism is a fact. But I accept your apology.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, yes the "fact" that you are thinking is an opinion. You are indeed "attempting" to show that pure materialism can not account for human life, it is not conclusive and has no support. You typed up a bunch of stuff, that shows nothing.

yes it does. it shows that materialism as percieved and defines by us right now can not account for self awareness. merely saying it shown nuthing doesnt really disprove or debunk anything i said.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes it does. it shows that materialism as percieved and defines by us right now can not account for self awareness. merely saying it shown nuthing doesnt really disprove or debunk anything i said. No, you say it can not. it doesn't show anything.

i didnt just say it can not. i explained WHY it can not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i didnt just say it can not. i explained WHY it can not. No, you didn't. You stated a theory of yours. Without any evidence.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
also forgetting the fact that a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem to begin with.

Bardock's coverd most of this, so I'll just say:

That is a personal theory of yours. Neruoscience seems to be leaning in the oppisite direction.

Also, in relation to your other comments, may I point out that science (reductionsism, materialism, whatever you want to throw in there) is here to provide the most FACTUAL model of your world. This is because these methods are the best way to obtain FACT. Science never was intended to give us the most wholistic/integrated/feel-good model of anything.

Its once thing to say that a scientific model is personally unfulfilling or has yet to capture the fill picture (which is it always will be unable to do), its quite another to say that a scienctific model CAN'T solve a given problem, especially since, as you pointed out, we know so little. We might as well be as confident as we can knowing what we know is fact.

Also, don't confuse a very large number with infinity. They're not the same thing.

Originally posted by Alliance
First off, make the distinction between physical energy and spiritual energy. Physical energy obey natural laws. Spiritual energy seems to be nothing more than a product of our own thoughts, which stop once we fail to maintain proper ion gradients in our bodies.



Spiritual energy ? I don't beleive in that.

I beleive physical energy and "spiritual" energy is the same thing. It's all just energy, there's nothing deeper than that (as far as we know).


The energy that our bodies and minds consist of does not cease to exist. What we consist of has existed far before us, and will exist far after us. Do you agree or disagree ?



Originally posted by Alliance
This fake spiritual energy that you talk about is not a natural force, its a perception. It doesn't go anywhere when you die, because it never existed. Even if you claim it exists, its not physical, so enough of your bastardization of the conservation of energy.


I never said anything about "spiritual energy". That is a misintepretation on your part.

Secondly, you need to calm down. You obviously haven't read my opening post with open eyes, instead you have supplied it with your own bias against me, which is rather immature. Please try to stay objective.




Originally posted by Alliance
Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant.


Matter is constantly changed. That's what I have been saying. But the forms energy takes change as well. Matter is condensed energy.

My point is everything is ever-changing. Nothing is permanent.


The beleif that "nothing happens after we die" is false in my opinion, because it suggests that we simply delete from existance, which is no the case. Everything we consist of continues to exist.

There are processes which will occur with our material for as long as the universe exists.




Originally posted by Alliance
If have one of the same carbon atoms as Hitler, Hitler does not live on in me by any stretch of the imagination. Your position becomes even more absurd when you realize that the carbon atom, when it was formed, belonged to nothing in particular. Hitler just borrowed it, as am I. Thus, you make a rediculous distinction.


I never suggested that you belong to another person. Again, a misintepretation on your part. I hope it's not intentional. You tend to do this a LOT...I will say one thing, and you translate it to suit your argument better.


What I am saying is that we are all created from the same stuff. This "stuff" from which we all consist of does not die out. We continue existing but in different forms.


I personally beleive, All Life is One. The "Individual" is temporary and is just a product of our mind. Everything is interdependent, and nothing truly exists on its own. We all come from the same source-matter and energy, which this Universe is made of.


Let's put it this way: When someone dies, does that mean they no longer exist ?


If so, how can that be ? We have the bodies of Pharoahs preserved for millenia. How can they be non-existant, when their bodies are still intact ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Spiritual energy ? I don't beleive in that.

I beleive physical energy and "spiritual" energy is the same thing. It's all just energy, there's nothing deeper than that (as far as we know).


The energy that our bodies and minds consist of does not cease to exist. What we consist of has existed far before us, and will exist far after us. Do you agree or disagree ?






I never said anything about "spiritual energy". That is a misintepretation on your part.

Secondly, you need to calm down. You obviously haven't read my opening post with open eyes, instead you have supplied it with your own bias against me, which is rather immature. Please try to stay objective.







Matter is constantly changed. That's what I have been saying. But the forms energy takes change as well. Matter is condensed energy.

My point is everything is ever-changing. Nothing is permanent.


The beleif that "nothing happens after we die" is false in my opinion, because it suggests that we simply delete from existance, which is no the case. Everything we consist of continues to exist.

There are processes which will occur with our material for as long as the universe exists.







I never suggested that you belong to another person. Again, a misintepretation on your part. I hope it's not intentional. You tend to do this a LOT...I will say one thing, and you translate it to suit your argument better.


What I am saying is that we are all created from the same stuff. This "stuff" from which we all consist of does not die out. We continue existing but in different forms.


I personally beleive, All Life is One. The "Individual" is temporary and is just a product of our mind. Everything is interdependent, and nothing truly exists on its own. We all come from the same source-matter and energy, which this Universe is made of.


Let's put it this way: When someone dies, does that mean they no longer exist ?


If so, how can that be ? We have the bodies of Pharoahs preserved for millenia. How can they be non-existant, when their bodies are still intact ? You need to calm down. You obviously haven't read his post with open eyes, instead you have supplied it with your own bias against him, which is rather immature. Please try to stay objective.

He said: Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant.

Therefore, he agrees that your energy goes somewhere and changes whenyou die. I think everyone who has gone to school knows that. When you die, you become the Earth. The Earth then becomes something else. And so on.

When he said spiritual energy, he is refering tothe whole "soul" thing. That is a lie and doesn't exist. There is no soul. Well, there is, but that soul is your internal organs, not some form of energy that keeps you alive then passes directly to another person, as the myth goes.

Alliance sometimes you are kinda full of self contained crap as if you are all knowing...ya know?

Well, i don't know what you're trying to say, so no...I don't.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Alliance sometimes you are kinda full of self contained crap as if you are all knowing...ya know? Or maybe he simply supports the position that if the soul actually exists it is not measurable by science at this point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you probably have. They just don't call themself athests.

How can someone believe in demons but not God? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Alliance
So...what was you point about materialism?

Atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

Originally posted by Alliance
Bardock's coverd most of this, so I'll just say:

That is a personal theory of yours. Neruoscience seems to be leaning in the oppisite direction.

Also, in relation to your other comments, may I point out that science (reductionsism, materialism, whatever you want to throw in there) is here to provide the most FACTUAL model of your world. This is because these methods are the best way to obtain FACT. Science never was intended to give us the most wholistic/integrated/feel-good model of anything.

Its once thing to say that a scientific model is personally unfulfilling or has yet to capture the fill picture (which is it always will be unable to do), its quite another to say that a scienctific model CAN'T solve a given problem, especially since, as you pointed out, we know so little. We might as well be as confident as we can knowing what we know is fact.

Also, don't confuse a very large number with infinity. They're not the same thing.

nauroscience seems to be leaning in the opposite direction?!?!?!?!

r u serious? well then im sure your not aware of the brain hemisphere deconnection studies conducted on patients whove had their two hemispheres completely disconnected physically from each other{i mean cutting of the corpuss collosum and commisuiry fibres}. in this state it was proven from experimentation that the two halves of the brain have absloutely NO{as in ZERO} "physical" way of contacting with each other and sending information. in other words they can not COMMUNICATE, and it was also proven that they have their own perception and phenomenology. now the most commonsense implication of this is that there two different BRAIN/PERSONALITIES in that person.

HOWEVER, such a person can function pretty much normally and very much retain a SINGULAR personality with memories etc and all other components of a personality and the only difference are lack of SENSUAL awareness concerning the basic senses when and only when perception was emperimentally limited to nerves bringing information to one part of the brain. and even that was overcome in a while while the person STILL retained a whole personality.

there is other evidence, in that in experiments, different parts of rat brains were removed in the same rats and different rats to try and make them forget about certain learned behavious but they cud not make the rats forget. making them think that the behavior wasnt retained just in the physical brain.

more? how about the fact that it is physically deemed impossible right now that human beings can recall entire expiriences and formultate complex thoughts requiring information from all around the physical brain, in the time frames that humans do it, given the speed of electron transfer and the probability of physical processing/logci gates ec in the human brain.

theres a lot of evidence to suggest{the first example being the most well documented, respected and easy to look up} in neuropsychology that there is more to the brain than just the physical makeup. the holographic theory might be able to explain such stuff. but current physics and science can not. im not dissing science at all, im all for it. but we shudnt be close minded about possibilities. current purely MATERIAL constructs of conciousness etc can NOT account for many of the chracteristics of it while thinking physically in established confines.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or maybe he simply supports the position that if the soul actually exists it is not measurable by science at this point.

Exactly.Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

Usually.

Not referring to economic materialism of course.Originally posted by leonheartmm
nauroscience seems to be leaning in the opposite direction?!?!?!?!

Well, if you actually cited experiments that were less than 100 years old you might have a different position.

Trying to describe neuroscience by preforming lobotomies is as about as effective as trying to cut a diamond with a sledgehammer. Molecular physiology is where its at. If you'd like, I can point out some interesting papers for you.

Also, as you fail to understand my previous point. Just because science has yet to show an answer to a complex problem, doesn't mean its can't. There is no reason to assume any sort of mystic overtones to the human brain. That is simply your way of expressing awe for something that you (or anyone) cannot yet understand. You have simply jumped to a conclusion because of a lack of evidence in this complex problem. That's not a very factual method and historically, such conclusions have been proven wrong.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How can someone believe in demons but not God? That makes no sense.



Atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

Didn't I address this already. They don't.

It might be the case that they usually do, but to assume that one follows the other is erroneous. Btw, there's a lot more to a materialist belief than "demons", as there are dozens of supposedly paranormal phenomenon with more credibility than the vague moniker of demons. Further, some would even consider the idea that consciousness might be of a different nature than material reality to be "beyond materialism" and similar points of view in the field of consciousness study are actually well-supported by legitimate scientists (though the debate continues and nothing concrete has been established about this "hard" problem of consciousness).

In any case, quit making generalizations about groups of believers (or non-believers, as the case may be) when you're being told by people who know these things better (atheists themselves) that you're wrong. Making generalizations based on statistical study or empirical evidence is one thing, but grouping all atheists together is just as bad as, say, grouping all Christians together. There's lots of variation in both.

Originally posted by Alliance

Usually.

Not referring to economic materialism of course.



Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Alliance
Exactly.

Usually.

Not referring to economic materialism of course.

Well, if you actually cited experiments that were less than 100 years old you might have a different position.

Trying to describe neuroscience by preforming lobotomies is as about as effective as trying to cut a diamond with a sledgehammer. Molecular physiology is where its at. If you'd like, I can point out some interesting papers for you.

Also, as you fail to understand my previous point. Just because science has yet to show an answer to a complex problem, doesn't mean its can't. There is no reason to assume any sort of mystic overtones to the human brain. That is simply your way of expressing awe for something that you (or anyone) cannot yet understand. You have simply jumped to a conclusion because of a lack of evidence in this complex problem. That's not a very factual method and historically, such conclusions have been proven wrong.

sigh. re read what i wrote.



first off its more like 50 years old. and no there is no new story, the fact about the deconnection remain and they were the most extreme ones attempted medically/willingly thus far.

secondly im saying, SCIENCE AS IT STANDS TODAY. personally, in all likelyhood, the DICIPLINE, called science, as a WHOLE, will change and encompass real explanations of such phenomenon later on. im saying, that from a CURRENT scientific standpoint, it isnt possible to explain such things. as i said, the holographic principle has potential. besides, whats so bad about thinkingabout a little wonder at times? this world is miraculous in ways, bautiful and mysterious. its anything but an attack on science. im saying we shud be broad minded. {think of the flexibility in predictibility brought upon by quantum mechaninc/wave function/reletivity etc. which wasnt present in the clasical newtonian model of classical materialistic predetermination.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Please elaborate.

On the "usually" or the "economics"?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
first off its more like 50 years old. and no there is no new story, the fact about the deconnection remain and they were the most extreme ones attempted medically/willingly thus far.

No new story? Like the fields of molecular physiology, neurochemisty, and genetics? Now new disciplines like molecular-cellular cognition? No new techniques like neuroimaging?

And lol at your "most extreme" comments. Those tell us as much about brain function as cutting off your arm tells you about blood flow. "Extreme" is hardly ever good for scientific experiments. Again, its like trying to cut a diamond with a sledgehammer.

Basically, you need to update your knowledge. I'm no authority in the field, but you're way behind the modern science.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im saying, that from a CURRENT scientific standpoint, it isnt possible to explain such things. Seeing as your model is so outdated, its no wonder you hold this position.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im saying we shud be broad minded.
People are. Just don't confuse being "broad minded" with accepting irrational explanations. Regardless of what you think the evidence suggests, jumping to conclusions is just bad form. Your repeated comment that "there is more to the brain than just the physical makeup" is not theory, its not based on fact, its based on your, at least, partially uninformed opinion.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or maybe he simply supports the position that if the soul actually exists it is not measurable by science at this point. Well what I meant is that he seems to think he knows all the answers to everything when nobody can. What we call a soul, we don't really understand the depth or meaning of that. We don't even know what it consists of, but only what we are, or have been, told it means. And to what scope is this thing? Is it measurable? Is it some type of electrical field? Is it measurable thought as some sciences have theorized? What if it is more than some religious teaching. If so, then could it be connected to other sub particles that we now know as waves that ripple and interact? If they interact and are manipulable as some experiments have shown like the non locality studies, then there are things we cannot say for a certainty that there is nothing to our bodies but flesh and bones and brain electrical activity. That's all I'm saying. Not really meaning to poke at him, but just stating that there are always new theories just as there were old theories that have and could be proven. To state for a fact that we know it all is just as bad as religious people stating that they know all.

paperbag3

Originally posted by Alliance
Then, there is nothing special about the electrochemical energy in your mind. Whats all this new age cr*p about "the energy of your mind lives on." What about the energy in my ass? Because its there too. Does this wonderful ass energy live on too? What about the energy from when I was 5. Your body is not a closed system, energy flows in and out your entire life.


1) I never said there was anything special about it. The energy that the mind consists of, is the same your body consists of, and neither dies out.

2) The "New Age" crap is your sad misintepretation of what I said before.

3) The energy in your ass is the same as the energy in your mind: Stubborn and irritable

4) Yes, on your last sentence I agree Your body is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM, or a "permanent" end all-be all one. The energy flows in and out your entire Life.

Finally, you have something USEFUL to say

I'm proud of you Alliance





Originally posted by Alliance
Why is it when you die, energy is magically released? What about the heat I transferred to my mother when I was in the womb, do I live on in her? What about the heat I'm radiating now? Is my "person" spreading throughout the air. What about the skin cells that I'm shedding as I type this? Is my person all over the keyboard?


Who said energy is magically released ? Are you being intentionally dense ?


You are totally taking what I said out of context, and replacing it with your own unfounded intepretation

Read what I said again




Originally posted by Alliance
You're making several stupid claims. Your statements like:



are total crap. Here are the flaws with your argument.

1. You have yet to show that the "person" exists in this fantastic "energy of the mind" and "atoms of the body."



I never said the "person" exists. I do not beleive in a Soul.


However, everything you consist of does not simply delete from existance. Like I said before, I beleive All Life is One.

The Identity you inhabit now is temporary. It doesn't last forever. However, I think it is a false idea to think of ourselves as separate and independent from all else.



Originally posted by Alliance
And objective? I'm not the one saying "you're always biased against me."



But you ARE.


You're entire argument was non-objective. Anyone with eyes can see it was an attack mixed with a half assed excuse for an argument.

You are biased against me, and have been ever since our little "Islam" debate. I don't care,because that's okay with me, but don't deny it. Do not pretend that you take an objective stance whenever it comes to something I have to say.


I will answer the rest of your rant in a second...brb

He's just stating generalized opinions without using unbiased facts to back them up.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.



I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.


However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.



This is why:





Matter and Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. All States are Temporary, and the only constant is Change.



Ask yourself: If you do not beleive in a Soul or Spirit, or cosmic signature, etc....take a look at yourself. Are you static? Are you Unchanging? Is there any part of yourself which Does not change?


Clearly, the answer is No.

You are EVER CHANGING. Your body, your mind, your thoughts, mentality, emotions, size, skin color, features, shape, etc. Everything changes. As you grow, you change.


IN FACT: Every Six Months every cell in your body is replace by a new cell, through the process of Mitosis.


So, there is nothing about you that is permanent (other than your name, but even that can change). You are not the same person when you die as you were when you were born.


Note This: The atoms that make up your body are billions of years old. They have existed far before you came into being. And when you die, those atoms will still exist forever on. The energy you consist of always existed before you did, and will still exist even after you die.


After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms. You don't simply CEASE TO BE. Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how the hell can you possibly stop existing?.

There is no stop in the course of nature. Everything continues, and all states are temporary. All states change.


Life may very well be one of those states. Many beleive Death is just a part of the Life Cycle, and we all know that death contributes to allowing new life to continue.



Your body and mind continue existance in different forms. Remember that. You will STILL EXIST after death, but in other form(s). Whether you experience new life or not, is another question. Whatever the "Afterlife" is, we may not know.


But we do know, that you don't just delete from existance. You don't just cease to be. It's scientifically impossible to just stop existing. Saying that nothing happens after death defies the Laws of Physics.



Change is the Only Constant. Everything in the Universe doesn't just begin or end. It always changes. Why would we be any different ? Sadly, that still does not prove an afterlife, there is no actual proof that we still retain consiousness after death, I personally believe in one.

Originally posted by debbiejo
paperbag3

I never stated anyhting about my own opinoin. I never stated anything conlcusive. I stated that supernatural theories are not scientific and they are not acceptable answers to scientific questions. I said science is the best way to be factual.

What you have simply done is taken my statements, made them the extremes of what I actually said, and then criticiesed me for fallacious claims that I never made.

Originally posted by debbiejo
He's just stating generalized opinions without using unbiased facts to back them up. Better than your random spewing of "generalized opinions without using unbiased facts to back them up."

Which of my facts are "unbiased." Please point them out.

And what's wrong with generalized opinions? They tend to be more factual.

Even if your claims were true, its better than stating narrow opinions with no facts to back them up..something that happens all to frequently.

Plus Alliance has angst.

angst about what?

Science and the public. Don't lie I know the truth.

He posted my bag head..cry

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Sadly, that still does not prove an afterlife, there is no actual proof that we still retain consiousness after death, I personally believe in one.

There's only one way to know if there's an afterlife or not. Get crackin!

no, i meant no new scientific explanation for the PHENOMENON IN QUESTION. the only one proposed is a holographic brain but u dont consider that science. and again, how do any of the fields you mentioned account for the phenomenon i described in the confines of science????? please elaborate.



lol, thats like saying smashing up particles in hedron colliders and particle acceleraters tells us as much about the particle in question or the nature of the universe as cutting of an arm tells us about blood flow. how can you be so narrow minded. the experiment in question tells us that the two hemispheres can chare information and refrain from becoming individual entities{which in all physical likelyhood they should} even when they are completely disconnected from each other and have their own phenomenology /memory and perception seperate physically fromt each others.



no alternate explanation based in physics exists currently in psychology. if you find one please let me know{good luck on that cause its a well known fact that another doesnt exist}. your dismissing things without even looking them up. i thinkthat is close minded. the seperation of hemishperes is still practiced.




i didnt jump to conclusions, unlike sum people. i just said, physics as it stands cant explain it. and a purely MASS/MATTER based interacting system of bodies can not account for such phenomenon. similar to how matter based physics could not account for the double slit diffraction experimets which roved quantum theory. {and no, purely coincidential quantum phenomenon can not explain the collective results and random tendencies in the things i described either}. be my guest and look it up if u think im lying. i dont think im uninformed on the subject, but again, ur welcome to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Sadly, that still does not prove an afterlife, there is no actual proof that we still retain consiousness after death, I personally believe in one.


1) Proving an afterlife was not my intention.


2) You can believe whatever you wish, and talk about whatever you believe. This is the Religion forum.

The problem is however, that our thinking tends to be too linear, which concept of afterlife cannot be understood as such.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The problem is however, that our thinking tends to be too linear, which concept of afterlife cannot be understood as such.


But since we don't understand it, how can we claim there is or isn't one ?



I think Atheism/Materialism is just as invalid as Christian/Judeo/Muslim perspective of Death, because neither can be supported.


Atheists and Materialists assume that after we die nothing happens, because they can find no other answers.




It's impossible for "nothing" to happen, since many numerous processes occur after death to our bodies. I personally think the problem is that we think of ourselves as independent individual lives disconnected and separate from everything else.

The Identity of one persona is what's at question. Does one person go to Heaven or Hell after they die, or does one person become another person afterward?

I beleive All Life is One. Sounds cliche, but I don't beleive our identities continue after death. This life, in my perspective, is temporary and who we are now lasts until death (or atleast until all memory of us is gone).

Our bodies decompose and go on to create all other life. Death is a part of life, death serves to make space for new life. We all know this.

Our bodies continue existing in other forms, the energy we borrow and use is also borrowed and used by other life forms, and has always been and will always be. In that sense, one can say that we do continue existing..but as other things other than what we are now.


The problem this idea poses is that it forces people to think of other people they do now know as relative to them. It's hard to hate someone else, realizing that we all come from the same source, and that we are, in fact, related.


To go even further, the problem Reincarnation poses is that people are then pushed to beleive that in every new life, they will have a new family, and the old one will be gone. That forces you see and treat other people as you would your family.



Not a lot of people are willing to do that. Our individual identities are too precious for us to see others in equal value to ourselves and loved ones.


It's easier to just not care.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Atheists and Materialists assume that after we die nothing happens, because they can find no other answers.

I'm getting tired of the generalizations. Materialists usually think they can justify their claims of believing in nothing, they don't assume anything.

Also, most of the atheists (those who go the extra step beyond murky agnosticism) will never tell you they can prove there is no God/afterlife/etc. Hell, the world's most outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins) doesn't call himself a "100% atheist"...someone who can say "I know there is no God". It's just extremely improbable.

Now, apply this to the afterlife, or anything. We have probable hypotheses, or improbable ones (most of religion's ideas of the afterlife) but all they ask for is evidence before they believe.

It's not assuming anything, and it's not tacitly stating that there definitely isn't any afterlife. It's only believing what there can be credible evidence for, while searching for the empirical answers that you accuse them of not being able to find. Big difference.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm getting tired of the generalizations. Materialists usually think they can justify their claims of believing in nothing, they don't assume anything.

Also, most of the atheists (those who go the extra step beyond murky agnosticism) will never tell you they can prove there is no God/afterlife/etc. Hell, the world's most outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins) doesn't call himself a "100% atheist"...someone who can say "I know there is no God". It's just extremely improbable.

Now, apply this to the afterlife, or anything. We have probable hypotheses, or improbable ones (most of religion's ideas of the afterlife) but all they ask for is evidence before they believe.

It's not assuming anything, and it's not tacitly stating that there definitely isn't any afterlife. It's only believing what there can be credible evidence for, while searching for the empirical answers that you accuse them of not being able to find. Big difference.




Atheists still make the assumption that there is no afterlife, based on what they experience.

It's their personal conclusion. I think you got offended by the term "assumption", and I meant no offense by it.


I didn't say they are wrong for that, nor do I ask any Atheist or Materialist to prove it. I just don't beleive the same thing.


Materialism doesn't make sense to me, and I explained why. I don't expect you to think the same way.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Atheists still make the assumption that there is no afterlife, based on what they experience.

It's their personal conclusion. I think you got offended by the term "assumption", and I meant no offense by it.


I didn't say they are wrong for that, nor do I ask any Atheist or Materialist to prove it. I just don't beleive the same thing.


Materialism doesn't make sense to me, and I explained why. I don't expect you to think the same way.

Fair enough, none taken. I just still think it's the wrong word to use, because treating something as a probable hypothesis (in this case, no afterlife) is a lot different than assuming no afterlife based on lack of evidence. Because we can't prove no afterlife doesn't mean the opposite should be assumed. On the contrary, the burden of proof would be elsewhere than the materialists because they work with what we can know.

To use my personal example, I'm "open" to the idea of an afterlife, I would just need to see a valid reason to put aside my disbelief. Dr. Ian Stephenson's research on reincarnation has actually come the closest, and I hold it as a definite possibility (though still not terribly likely). But that's the kind of thing I'm talking about that is needed before belief should be established.

As for materialism, I think most materialists definition of their beliefs would simply be close to a definition of determinism or causality. Anything that might be considerred paranormal or outside causality wouldn't be included. So you probably aren't too at odds with materialists (though I can't say for certain...they're even more rare than atheists).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough, none taken. I just still think it's the wrong word to use, because treating something as a probable hypothesis (in this case, no afterlife) is a lot different than assuming no afterlife based on lack of evidence. Because we can't prove no afterlife doesn't mean the opposite should be assumed. On the contrary, the burden of proof would be elsewhere than the materialists because they work with what we can know.

To use my personal example, I'm "open" to the idea of an afterlife, I would just need to see a valid reason to put aside my disbelief. Dr. Ian Stephenson's research on reincarnation has actually come the closest, and I hold it as a definite possibility (though still not terribly likely). But that's the kind of thing I'm talking about that is needed before belief should be established.

As for materialism, I think most materialists definition of their beliefs would simply be close to a definition of determinism or causality. Anything that might be considerred paranormal or outside causality wouldn't be included. So you probably aren't too at odds with materialists (though I can't say for certain...they're even more rare than atheists).



To me, Agnosticism makes the most sense, because in all honesty, no one can truly know what happens after death, and to claim such a thing is ludacris. On both sides.


If Reincarnation is true, then how come I don't remember my past lives ? Will I remember this one ?


I reject the ideas of Heaven and Hell, I have already explained why.


Wiccans have a beautiful mythos about Earth as well, but it doesn't do much to explain afterlife. I think they also beleive in reincarnation of some form.


My personal beleif:



All Life Is One. Our lives and identities now are temporary, and only last in memory.

We are made of the same atoms, same structures, same designs, we just feel we are separate because we have separate conciousness. Both our bodies may have been used by the same people or animals in the past, the atoms and energy we consist of will be used/occupied in the future by other living and non-living things.


Life is far more complicated than we can imagine. Plants are alive, but are they concious ? Bacteria are also alive.

Before we existed, the Earth and Sun were just masses of gas. Imagine all that matter and energy going into a series of life cycles. Dinosaurs existed before we did, and perhaps many other animals will exist after us.


I do not beleive in a moral afterlife. Animals die too, where do they go? I beleive that when I die, my body and last remnants of energy will go into creating other life. Other people, other animals, other plants. Those lifeforms will exist using the atoms I used to exist once. Through them, I will exist.

Thus, no memory of this life now.


This pretty much forces me to respect all other life, but you know what ? I'm okay with that

This is where most atheists would technically be "Tooth Fairy Agnostics". We can't disprove God (just as he can't be proven either). Atheist doesn't mean we can prove his absence. But it's so logically improbable as to be on the same level as Stana Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Thus the moniker.

Also, agnostic can mean many things, including "I believe in a deity but not those of religions".

So yes, technically maybe Tooth Fairy Agnostic is better for me and others, but "atheist" gets the point across better.

...

As for your questions about reincarnation, those are some of the issues it has to grapple with to be accepted, and also part of the reason I don't fully believe in it (among other reasons). But I can't rationally sweep away the evidence of Dr. Stephenson's findings, so I remain neutral to it for the time being, considering it a possibility but not a "belief".

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is where most atheists would technically be "Tooth Fairy Agnostics". We can't disprove God (just as he can't be proven either). Atheist doesn't mean we can prove his absence. But it's so logically improbable as to be on the same level as Stana Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Thus the moniker.

Also, agnostic can mean many things, including "I believe in a deity but not those of religions".

So yes, technically maybe Tooth Fairy Agnostic is better for me and others, but "atheist" gets the point across better.

...

As for your questions about reincarnation, those are some of the issues it has to grapple with to be accepted, and also part of the reason I don't fully believe in it (among other reasons). But I can't rationally sweep away the evidence of Dr. Stephenson's findings, so I remain neutral to it for the time being, considering it a possibility but not a "belief".


I don't beleive in a literal afterlife. I just don't beleive "nothing happens" either. That's not possible, things are always happening with or without our notice.


I beleive in a cycle of life, sort of. After one's demise, he or she does not come back as another human being, but rather as many living or non living things. My atoms, for example, will go on to create new plants, other living animals, even other people. Through them I continue.

"I" is an illusion. The "self" is temporary, atleast as far as I beleive. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate myself. I see myself as more precious, if I am temporary. Everything is more precious when temporary.

I know it's confusing, but that's how I kinda piece it together.

In reality, though, nothing is forever. All states are temporary.

The Earth will not last forever. Neither will the sun. They, will both, one day be gone. But not in a end-all-be-all kind of sense.

They will exist in other forms. The matter and energy they consist of cannot be destroyed, so they will not truly be destroyed, only change.


That's how I see life. That's how I see us.

We change, and life and death are just small processes of that eternal cycle of change.




Just ask yourself....if the planet and sun will not last forever, than what makes us think that we will ?

Question: If you have a generator that is producing energy and then it runs out of gas what happens to the energy that it was producing?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Question: If you have a generator that is producing energy and then it runs out of gas what happens to the energy that it was producing? Nothing happens to the energy. It's just the potential that goes away.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you are talking about potential energy. If you put the generator in a sealed box and weighed it while it ran and then while it was off, the weight would never change. The mass would not change, and we all know E=MC2. That would be if the box could contain all the energy and matter and let none of it dissipate but the human body is far from a sealed container. The energy that we produce on a daily basis is converted to other forms and dissipated from our body every second of the day.

Energy just changes form. We don't know what the after life can be. We only speculate. There are many theories to reincarnation as well. One theory is that that we always are in the state of creation or evolving, and would also include free will. So it could be that we choose to not remember our earlier lives for a reason. OR, we could choose to not reincarnate at all. Either way you look at it, it is still evolving, growing, changing. Or again, we could just meld into some sort of cosmic field. Sounds kinda boring......lol

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well there are many documented phenomena. They all can't be liars about all different experiences. This would tell me that there is something we don't yet understand, and since all these experiences are different, then there cannot be just one belief of what happens after we die.

Life is an illusion, so why would you expect death to be different?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life is an illusion, so why would you expect death to be different? Damn David Copperfield pitt_fist

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Damn David Copperfield pitt_fist

However, I believe we do not (never) experience death. We die... we then find our self in a womb with no physical memory of the life we had before. It is that cross over point (known as the womb real) that preloads memories from the past life. These are lost as we grow (over written). Just ask a two year old about the life they had before.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life is an illusion, so why would you expect death to be different? of course it is. We are just little bubbles in bodies....lol

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Question: If you have a generator that is producing energy and then it runs out of gas what happens to the energy that it was producing?



It no longer appears in the form you needed. It still exists though.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I believe we do not (never) experience death. We die... we then find our self in a womb with no physical memory of the life we had before. It is that cross over point (known as the womb real) that preloads memories from the past life. These are lost as we grow (over written). Just ask a two year old about the life they had before.



I find that very interesting


Where did you get that conclusion from ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It no longer appears in the form you needed. It still exists though.







I find that very interesting


Where did you get that conclusion from ?

I remember it from my past lifes...

Someone told me I was a soldier once..........But I was ousted...for a lie..crybaby

Do you remember you other names?

I think I was green before..cry

Originally posted by debbiejo
Do you remember you other names?

I think I was green before..cry

It doesn't work that way. The self is lost when you die.

Well I was green!

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well I was green!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
and misty.......lol..but another time I was a strong soldier.....but I came back and told myself something........glad I did...

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1)

Instead of engaging in the normal crap that you leak all over the forum...

Here are my criticisms. Explain them or shut up.

Originally posted by Alliance
1. You have yet to show that the "person" exists in this fantastic "energy of the mind" and "atoms of the body."

(Why is it that your person inhabits your energy and atoms? You're saying that we are simply these two things combined. I'm saying that we are more than the sum of our parts and do not exist within or are defined by energy and matter.)

2. You have yet to show why the person is contained in their magical 'energy of their mind" and "atoms of the body" throughout their life and not after their death.

(Why is it only after we die we live on, as opposed to continuously "living on throughout our lives? You say when we die, energy dissipates and decomposes. I'm saying this is a continuous process that happens throughout or life and that drawing a distinction at death is ridiculous.

3. How you distinguish one person from another.

(why is it that the slice of turkey I just ate part of me and not part of the turkey. When i sh*t it out tomorrow, is it me? or is it the turkey? or is it what the turkey ate? There is no logical way to compartmentalize an open system. You're saying that at one point, something that has long existed becomes you, but somehow stays you. I'm saying that you are defined as an entity, not as the parts of that entity.

You liar, you just posted my bag head....Close minded little box man...lol

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I remember it from my past lifes...


Do you feel you have access to your past lives ?

Originally posted by Alliance
1. You have yet to show that the "person" exists in this fantastic "energy of the mind" and "atoms of the body."


You didn't read my last quote. That's a misinterpretation on your part. The energy of the mind is the same energy in the body, just a different form.



Originally posted by Alliance
(Why is it that your person inhabits your energy and atoms? You're saying that we are simply these two things combined. I'm saying that we are more than the sum of our parts and do not exist within or are defined by energy and matter.)


I beleive the self is temporary. I don't beleive the self, or identity, we inhabit now continues after death. It only continues in memory.

It seems you do beleive in the self, or atleast an "eternal/definite" self, and that's okay. That's your beleif and you are right to it.

But, I on the other hand, beleive All Life is One- the way all your cells belong to your body, is the way we all belong to this Earth. Ofcourse it's not that simple, but that's the best metaphor I can come up with.








Originally posted by Alliance
2. You have yet to show why the person is contained in their magical 'energy of their mind" and "atoms of the body" throughout their life and not after their death.


The "magical energy of the mind" is a misintepretation on your part. The energy that our bodies and minds consist of, continues to exist, regardless of the end of the self.


Until we can prove the existance of a soul, I am not convinced that we have a definate identity which endures beyond death.

I beleive the identity is temporary, a temporary state like all things.

The Earth and Sun had a beginning, and will have an end, same with us. However, that doesn't mean we stop existing. We change, and no longer exist as what we are now.

The matter and energy that the Earth and Sun consist of will not simply delete from existance, all of that will go on to create more planets, stars, etc.

Likewise, what we consist of now, continues forward to create other life and/or non-life.

I kind of see it this way:


The only Eternal is Change. This process continues through a cycle of temporary states. Life is no exception. I don't beleive the self is a true reality for several reasons:


1) Why do I not remember existance before I was born ?

2) If I have a soul, or central self, then what about animals ? Do they have souls_? If so, where do they end up after they die ? If not, why not ?

3) We cannot be completely separate from all else, when we are all interdependent. Everything is connected, whether in a major or minute way.



Now...I find it interesting that you beleive the Self to be more than just the combination of matter/energy/conciousness elements.

I would like to know what you beleive the Self is, and why. I promise I will not simply bash your beleif, like you do me.



Originally posted by Alliance
(Why is it only after we die we live on, as opposed to continuously "living on throughout our lives? You say when we die, energy dissipates and decomposes. I'm saying this is a continuous process that happens throughout or life and that drawing a distinction at death is ridiculous.


I know that. But you misunderstand me.


To me, Death is NOT the OPPOSITE of Life. Death is a Part of Life.

The Opposite of Death is Birth


Birth and Death are both repeated routines of Life. However, they both belong to the phenomena of Life.


I see Life/Death like being awake and being asleep. Every day we have two phases of conciousness: Being awake, and being asleep. In neither phase are we destroyed, we exist either way.


Life is being awake, Death is being asleep. Death is not destruction.


The element of Self makes this difficult, because the "self" needs somewhere to go.


I beleive in Reincarnation, but in a different way. I existed as other life forms before. When I die, I will exist as multiple life forms, not just another person with another lesson to learn.

Part of me will disintegrate and become plant life. Another part of me will be eaten and become animal. Another part will mix with the death remnants of another to become another human.

I think that's beautiful. I would rather think of myself as one with all others, and not separate. In this way, I kind of have to respect others, because they are not separate from me, in fact, they are me.


This personal conclusion I got from mixes of Buddhism, Wicca, and Franciscan Christianity.

Hey, If I'm wrong, that's okay !


I would love to know that I will still exist as who I am now in another life, but I don't buy that just yet. The former makes more sense to me.






Originally posted by Alliance
3. How you distinguish one person from another.


That's a Key Question.


I beleive our minds are what give us the sense of Identity, what differentiates me from you, and etc. If we were like plant life, we would only have a body, not a mind, and neither of us would be aware that we are separate things. We would just be alive.


Like I said before, I beleive the Self is temporary. The Identity I have today (let's just say Mr. Urizen) will only exist in this lifetime, and he will not exist as Mr. Urizen after his death.

He will exist as other things, but he will still exist nonetheless.

Besides....the Self whether temporary or not, is not static. We are Every changing. You know that !



I am NOT the SAME person I was ten years ago, or even five years ago. Hell even two years agom I was very different. Does that mean my past selves are dead ?

No.


I just changed. I continue existing in different forms. New cells, new aspects of personality, new etc. Just growing from what existed last.


I don't think Death is that much different from aging itself. I don't see death as the end of my existance, just as a doorway into another life.




Originally posted by Alliance
(why is it that the slice of turkey I just ate part of me and not part of the turkey. When i sh*t it out tomorrow, is it me? or is it the turkey? or is it what the turkey ate? There is no logical way to compartmentalize an open system. You're saying that at one point, something that has long existed becomes you, but somehow stays you. I'm saying that you are defined as an entity, not as the parts of that entity.


This is a very smart argument.


And I actually agree. Like I said before, the self is temporary. The Turkey you eat becomes your muscle for a time being. The other part of that turkey you shit out no longer is linked to you.


If you lose weight, the turkey that made your muscle will no longer be part of you.

I do not beleive the body and mind are closed systems, in fact, I beleive they are entirely open, ever receptive, ever changing.

We exist through Change, not in static ranks.

i am an atheist. couple reasons for that. this may sound selfish but i dont care.

1 god stopped "appearing"
2 for all humans worship they go unrewarded, harm and death still apply to EVERYONE
3 god was an idea created because of natural disasters. how else could you explain earth quakes volcano's tornados etc.
4 for all his infinite compassion, he has shown nothing but indifference tords humans. if he hated evil he would destroy the devil(if he even exists)

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm getting tired of the generalizations. Materialists usually think they can justify their claims of believing in nothing, they don't assume anything.

Also, most of the atheists (those who go the extra step beyond murky agnosticism) will never tell you they can prove there is no God/afterlife/etc. Hell, the world's most outspoken atheists (Richard Dawkins) doesn't call himself a "100% atheist"...someone who can say "I know there is no God". It's just extremely improbable.

Now, apply this to the afterlife, or anything. We have probable hypotheses, or improbable ones (most of religion's ideas of the afterlife) but all they ask for is evidence before they believe.

It's not assuming anything, and it's not tacitly stating that there definitely isn't any afterlife. It's only believing what there can be credible evidence for, while searching for the empirical answers that you accuse them of not being able to find. Big difference.

How can you search for emerical evidence for something you cannot even define?

Again with the linear thinking.

There are things which our mind cannot comprehend at any rate, and perhaps creation of universe and afterlife are one of those things. It is false to assume that if we have not comprehended something by now, it is simply non existent.


Your Atheist belief exists only in relation to religion. The God you reject is that which Abrahamic religion created, and the afterlife you reject is that which was created by existing religions today (most notably Judaism and Christianity).

Without those religions, the idea of God you understand does not exist. That does not mean that 'it' as a phenomenon does not exist at all, nor that the afterlife whatever that may be, does not exist either.

You can claim Judeo Christian afterlife does not exist, but you have limited your understanding of afterlife to marely what Judeo-Christian theology says.

This in turns does not bring us close to any kind of truth whatsoever.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How can you search for emerical evidence for something you cannot even define?

Again with the linear thinking.

There are things which our mind cannot comprehend at any rate, and perhaps creation of universe and afterlife are one of those things. It is false to assume that if we have not comprehended something by now, it is simply non existent.


Your Atheist belief exists only in relation to religion. The God you reject is that which Abrahamic religion created, and the afterlife you reject is that which was created by existing religions today (most notably Judaism and Christianity).

Without those religions, the idea of God you understand does not exist. That does not mean that 'it' as a phenomenon does not exist at all, nor that the afterlife whatever that may be, does not exist either.

You can claim Judeo Christian afterlife does not exist, but you have limited your understanding of afterlife to marely what Judeo-Christian theology says.

This in turns does not bring us close to any kind of truth whatsoever. What an odd bunch of nonsense to type up.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What an odd bunch of nonsense to type up.

Why was it nonsense?

Originally posted by Alfheim
Why was it nonsense?

Well for one, because there is no "it" beyond our definitions. Either it fits or it doesn't. So that was one of her more stupid points.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well for one, because there is no "it" beyond our definitions.
Either it fits or it doesn't. So that was one of her more stupid points.


Well yeah....but what I thought she was saying is that sometimes athiests have limited defintions of "it" because they define "it" in relation to religon. So for example god doesnt or the afterlife doesnt exist because it cant exist they way it has been described in the bible. Thats what I thiought she was saying and I dont see why thats nonsense.....

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yeah....but what I thought she was saying is that sometimes athiests have limited defintions of "it" because they define "it" in relation to religon. So for example god doesnt or the afterlife doesnt exist because it cant exist they way it has been described in the bible. Thats what I thiought she was saying and I dont see why thats nonsense..... Yeah, that is fact. Though, I don't see nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, that is fact. Though, I don't see nothing wrong with that.

You mean you dont have a problem with the afterlife being defined in relation to religon?

Originally posted by Alfheim
You mean you dont have a problem with the afterlife being defined in relation to religon? Afterlife is not defined by Religion. I find it okay, when atheists believe themselves opposed to the definitions of God we have (through Religion, mostly). That they can't define themselves by some odd definition that we don't know but that could exist in one way or another, is what I find rather trivial. So, I found her post odd.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Afterlife is not defined by Religion. I find it okay, when atheists believe themselves opposed to the definitions of God we have (through Religion, mostly). That they can't define themselves by some odd definition that we don't know but that could exist in one way or another, is what I find rather trivial. So, I found her post odd.

Ah if you put it that way, I see what you mean but to put it another way all she is saying is be open-minded and dont restrict yourself. I would have thought that was very good advice.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yeah....but what I thought she was saying is that sometimes athiests have limited defintions of "it" because they define "it" in relation to religon. So for example god doesnt or the afterlife doesnt exist because it cant exist they way it has been described in the bible. Thats what I thiought she was saying and I dont see why thats nonsense..... Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, that is fact. Though, I don't see nothing wrong with that.

I'm glad Alfheim could simply for you what you found difficult to comprehend.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm glad Alfheim could simply for you what you found difficult to comprehend.

I am glad you didn't understand a word I said, nor how you spoke nonsense.Originally posted by Alfheim
Ah if you put it that way, I see what you mean but to put it another way all she is saying is be open-minded and dont restrict yourself. I would have thought that was very good advice. I chose to read what she actually said, instead of projecting my own believes into the crap.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.



I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.


However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.




I like this part.

besides the concept of an "afterlife" cannot be considered true when there is no evidence of souls, spirit or god. if there are no mass seeings of said god, then he is an idea. unless you believe in the karmic cycle, which was explained greatly in a deepak chopra book. the way he explains things they make sense. IMO

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This in turns does not bring us close to any kind of truth whatsoever.
Actually, eliminating one posibilty does bring us closer, even if the ultimate goal is unattainable. One step does not win the race, but you're shure as hell beating the guys at the starting line.

Originally posted by Alliance
Actually, eliminating one posibilty does bring us closer, even if the ultimate goal is unattainable. One step does not win the race, but you're shure as hell beating the guys at the starting line.


Why does it matter whose right or whose wrong ?



To me, Quality of Life matters more than the Truth.


BTW, I answered your statements before, you never got back to me on that.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Why does it matter whose right or whose wrong ?

because being correct matters. I can go around screaming that Bill Clinton killed Abraham Lincoln, that Islam is a hateful religion, or that all gays should be executed. False ideas can be dangerous. Ideas can become reality very quickly and end up hurting people.

Simply focusing on quality of life is a myopic self-indulgence that leads to dangerous mutations of individualism to the detrement of all others. We can't truely understand ourselves without the context of others.

besides, no one is interested in finding Truth, only truth.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
BTW, I answered your statements before, you never got back to me on that.

I know and I have read them, I'm simply too busy tonight to right out a full response. I'm sure you'll understand and be patient enough to give me time to adequately adress the post that you yourself took time to write.

Originally posted by Alliance
Actually, eliminating one posibilty does bring us closer, even if the ultimate goal is unattainable. One step does not win the race, but you're shure as hell beating the guys at the starting line. I like that

why do you believe in the after life? ill tell you why. because the concept is too scary to believe you could just end. of course its scary, but with no proof, and i do mean proof, not what you think, i cant accept the afterlife. i need a materialization. why can you just believe something that ppl say? if someone said godzilla is terroring downtown la would you believe them? no of course not. same type of thing

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am glad you didn't understand a word I said, nor how you spoke nonsense.

How did she not understand what you said? How was she talking nonsense?

Originally posted by Bardock42

I chose to read what she actually said, instead of projecting my own believes into the crap.

How did I project my own beliefs into the crap?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
why do you believe in the after life? ill tell you why. because the concept is too scary to believe you could just end. of course its scary, but with no proof, and i do mean proof, not what you think, i cant accept the afterlife. i need a materialization. why can you just believe something that ppl say? if someone said godzilla is terroring downtown la would you believe them? no of course not. same type of thing


You are over simplifying it. I don't beleive in Heaven or Hell, it's too conventional an idea for me.


I beleive we continue existing, but in different form(s). Afterlife may even be the wrong word, because it implies that you come back either as another person or as yourself but in a different life.

After death, you may not even continue as a human being. Or even a living thing. You may continue as something else, but everything that we know which you consist of still continues to exist.

Nothing just "ends". Things constantly change, and I see Life and Death as no different from everything else that changes.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You are over simplifying it. I don't beleive in Heaven or Hell, it's too conventional an idea for me.


I beleive we continue existing, but in different form(s). Afterlife may even be the wrong word, because it implies that you come back either as another person or as yourself but in a different life.

After death, you may not even continue as a human being. Or even a living thing. You may continue as something else, but everything that we know which you consist of still continues to exist.

Nothing just "ends". Things constantly change, and I see Life and Death as no different from everything else that changes.

the way i see it, life after death would be perhaps having a part of your soul and personality split into new children giving them similar qualities. thats as far as i can ever see it going

Originally posted by chickenlover98
why do you believe in the after life? ill tell you why. because the concept is too scary to believe you could just end. of course its scary, but with no proof, and i do mean proof, not what you think, i cant accept the afterlife. i need a materialization. why can you just believe something that ppl say? if someone said godzilla is terroring downtown la would you believe them? no of course not. same type of thing

Cause I feel like believing in an afterlife, that's why.

I don't think anything is reliable proof of anything else...physical or spiritual.

"Materialization" is reliable though, isn't it? Just ask Descartes...

Originally posted by Quark_666
Cause I feel like believing in an afterlife, that's why.

I don't think anything is reliable proof of anything else...physical or spiritual.

"Materialization" is reliable though, isn't it? Just ask Descartes...

what i meant, which i dont see why u couldnt discern this, is that a materilization of god or something otherworldly beheld by the masses, would go a long way to converting me. i want proof damn it. not "faith" this is a ploy. religion was used in the dark ages to forward the churchs will through "donations". how can u even trust the clergy after the sex scandal with the priests.

all i want is a reason a small one to believe. if there is none, then stfu. thats all

Originally posted by chickenlover98
the way i see it, life after death would be perhaps having a part of your soul and personality split into new children giving them similar qualities. thats as far as i can ever see it going



That is entirely possible, but remember, some people don't beleive in a "soul". Buddhists don't for example.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, and Native American pagans Do in fact beleive in the soul or spirit.


However, I think your intepretation is valid. Your children do compose of your DNA, and are genetic extensions of yourself. Ofcourse, they are too thier own person, but they cannot separate themselves from you genetically. No amount of plastic surgery will erase you from thier origin.


I'm hearing a lot of stories about people seeing and feeling spirits. Ofcourse I am a skeptic, but people who aren't even religious also swear they have seen, heard, or felt ghosts of some sort.


In fact, my neighbor has a son. He is very young, his name is Christopher.


When his family went to another house to search for a new home, Christopher was in the backyard. The parents weren't to interested in the new house, so they decided to get him and leave.

The little boy said he couldn't leave because he was sitting on "Micheal's" lap.

They were like "whose Micheal ?"


And Christopher told them that Micheal was the boy who died in a car accident. When the owners of the house heard that, they began crying. Michael is thier son who died long ago. They never told Christopher about him, and Chris' parents didn't even know Michael existed.


So how did Christopher see Michael ?


How did he know how Michael looked, how he died, or much less his name ?



Little Christopher, whose a little over two years old, also claims that he sees his grandmother in his room sometimes. His grandmother is dead. He tells us what she says to him with detail, and it's pretty freaky.



I don't think the little boy is lying about what he sees. He's kind of too young to make stuff up that is so detailed, dark, and violent.

And I highly doubt his parents are just trying to scare or impress us by "playing" along with his stories. I know them very well.



It just gave me something to think about. I have never seen a ghost or spirit myself, but that doesn't mean I am not open to the possibility of life after death.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
That is entirely possible, but remember, some people don't beleive in a "soul". Buddhists don't for example.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, and Native American pagans Do in fact beleive in the soul or spirit.


However, I think your intepretation is valid. Your children do compose of your DNA, and are genetic extensions of yourself. Ofcourse, they are too thier own person, but they cannot separate themselves from you genetically. No amount of plastic surgery will erase you from thier origin.


I'm hearing a lot of stories about people seeing and feeling spirits. Ofcourse I am a skeptic, but people who aren't even religious also swear they have seen, heard, or felt ghosts of some sort.


In fact, my neighbor has a son. He is very young, his name is Christopher.


When his family went to another house to search for a new home, Christopher was in the backyard. The parents weren't to interested in the new house, so they decided to get him and leave.

The little boy said he couldn't leave because he was sitting on "Micheal's" lap.

They were like "whose Micheal ?"


And Christopher told them that Micheal was the boy who died in a car accident. When the owners of the house heard that, they began crying. Michael is thier son who died long ago. They never told Christopher about him, and Chris' parents didn't even know Michael existed.


So how did Christopher see Michael ?


How did he know how Michael looked, how he died, or much less his name ?



Little Christopher, whose a little over two years old, also claims that he sees his grandmother in his room sometimes. His grandmother is dead. He tells us what she says to him with detail, and it's pretty freaky.



I don't think the little boy is lying about what he sees. He's kind of too young to make stuff up that is so detailed, dark, and violent.

And I highly doubt his parents are just trying to scare or impress us by "playing" along with his stories. I know them very well.



It just gave me something to think about. I have never seen a ghost or spirit myself, but that doesn't mean I am not open to the possibility of life after death.

although digi apparently hates him, deepak chopra has some experiences written about that are like that. read some of his books if you like that kinda thing. i dont deny the possibility that there could be something more its just its so ****in unlikely that i dont believe it. hell if i knew for sure there was a heaven id be a "better" person but no assurances= no better person. ghosts seem rediculus to me though

Originally posted by chickenlover98
although digi apparently hates him...



I actually can't remember exactly what I said about Deepak. But no, I wouldn't want to go fishing with the man.

It's not always his ideas that I disagree with (usually though) but his methods for justifying them, which usually try to appear scientific, are mostly just hogwash. He relies on vague unrelated science (usually quantum mechanics, which is just complex enough that the average person can't see through him) that he tries to connect to the spiritual.

Empirical evidence for belief in an afterlife (or other lives in this universe) CAN exist, and he alludes to some of it in his work (Ian Stephenson's work, for example) but it's usually not his own and he takes spirituality way too far in an attempt to justify his own beliefs, very few of which have any rational foundation.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


I actually can't remember exactly what I said about Deepak. But no, I wouldn't want to go fishing with the man.

It's not always his ideas that I disagree with (usually though) but his methods for justifying them, which usually try to appear scientific, are mostly just hogwash. He relies on vague unrelated science (usually quantum mechanics, which is just complex enough that the average person can't see through him) that he tries to connect to the spiritual.

Empirical evidence for belief in an afterlife (or other lives in this universe) CAN exist, and he alludes to some of it in his work (Ian Stephenson's work, for example) but it's usually not his own and he takes spirituality way too far in an attempt to justify his own beliefs, very few of which have any rational foundation.

regardless some the evidence he provides in life after death seems plausible. he justifies some of it, and most cannot be taken completely seriously. i like some of the stuff he uses. karma and the afterlife seem the most plausible to me for no particular reason. rather than a selfish god who is contradictory to everything he stands for

Originally posted by chickenlover98
regardless some the evidence he provides in life after death seems plausible. he justifies some of it, and most cannot be taken completely seriously. i like some of the stuff he uses. karma and the afterlife seem the most plausible to me for no particular reason. rather than a selfish god who is contradictory to everything he stands for

Would you mind giving me a few sources to some of the information he gives that is plausible?

for the love of god ive said read the book life after dath 20 times. ill try and find a website

http://www.deepakchopra.com/

Originally posted by chickenlover98
karma and the afterlife seem the most plausible to me for no particular reason. rather than a selfish god who is contradictory to everything he stands for




I totally agree

I might have to read his stuff in earnest, if only to understand the other side. I've read enough synopses, articles, reviews, essays and counter-arguments to have a decent grasp on his work, but it might help anyway. He's a regular contributor to Skeptic magazine, so I'm familiar with some of his work from that (though they sometimes, but not always, have counters written to him as well).

Suffice it to say that I'm being very generous when I call his supposed connections between science and belief tenuous, but I can't speak to all of his arguments just yet.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I totally agree

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I might have to read his stuff in earnest, if only to understand the other side. I've read enough synopses, articles, reviews, essays and counter-arguments to have a decent grasp on his work, but it might help anyway. He's a regular contributor to Skeptic magazine, so I'm familiar with some of his work from that (though they sometimes, but not always, have counters written to him as well).

Suffice it to say that I'm being very generous when I call his supposed connections between science and belief tenuous, but I can't speak to all of his arguments just yet.

least ur honest. i find his writing intriguing.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
least ur honest. i find his writing intriguing.

Np. And yeah, many find his ideas interesting....it can be dangerous if he's wrong, because it's so enticing, but there's no denying the intuitive allure of some of it.

Just browsing his website, it's easy to see some obvious arguments against him. Spiritual enlightenment is one thing, but weight loss? Anti-aging techniques? Self-help books for about a dozen different audiences? He's making himself into a franchise, marketing himself. His work is as much a business strategy as it is a path to spiritual fulfillment.

Another common complaint on the amazon reviews for his books is that he rarely, if ever, backs his arguments with data. Anecdotal stories are easy to find that seem to enorse ANY belief, but finding evidence should be a necessity for man who has written over 3 dozen books.

When he does provide data, usually in the form of liberally-interpreted quantum mechanics (which I can attest to a bit more confidently), the connections only exist when you pick and choose words and ideas, and ignore their fundamental differences in favor of semantic similarities. A lot of people know a little about quantum physics...which is great for Deepak, because anything besides a passing ackowledgment of it will help you realize his supposed connections don't actually exist. He's dealing with wildly different things, and turning science into psuedo-science to try to justify spiritual beliefs to a science-starved world that feels excited and enlightened to suddenly understand something like "quantum consciousness" and how physics proves our conscious minds exist outisde the material realm (it does nothing of the sort).

...

You want solid evidence for reincarnation or life after death? Read the (largely empirical) findings of Ian Stephenson. It's boring as sin, and not nearly as enticing as Deepak, but it's grounded in far more approachable logic.

The thing I don't like about atheism is that, if it's right, you'll never know it.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.



I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.


However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.



This is why:





Matter and Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. All States are Temporary, and the only constant is Change.



Ask yourself: If you do not beleive in a Soul or Spirit, or cosmic signature, etc....take a look at yourself. Are you static? Are you Unchanging? Is there any part of yourself which Does not change?


Clearly, the answer is No.

You are EVER CHANGING. Your body, your mind, your thoughts, mentality, emotions, size, skin color, features, shape, etc. Everything changes. As you grow, you change.


IN FACT: Every Six Months every cell in your body is replace by a new cell, through the process of Mitosis.


So, there is nothing about you that is permanent (other than your name, but even that can change). You are not the same person when you die as you were when you were born.


Note This: The atoms that make up your body are billions of years old. They have existed far before you came into being. And when you die, those atoms will still exist forever on. The energy you consist of always existed before you did, and will still exist even after you die.


After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms. You don't simply CEASE TO BE. Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how the hell can you possibly stop existing?.

There is no stop in the course of nature. Everything continues, and all states are temporary. All states change.


Life may very well be one of those states. Many beleive Death is just a part of the Life Cycle, and we all know that death contributes to allowing new life to continue.



Your body and mind continue existance in different forms. Remember that. You will STILL EXIST after death, but in other form(s). Whether you experience new life or not, is another question. Whatever the "Afterlife" is, we may not know.


But we do know, that you don't just delete from existance. You don't just cease to be. It's scientifically impossible to just stop existing. Saying that nothing happens after death defies the Laws of Physics.



Change is the Only Constant. Everything in the Universe doesn't just begin or end. It always changes. Why would we be any different ?

that seriously opened my mind

Originally posted by the welsh one
that seriously opened my mind


It shouldn't, far too Final Fantasy VII...besides...Big Bang...matter is created.