Life and Death

[Heavenly Spoon]

I'm greatly offended by this thread

Toughen up...
There's two words which religious people seem to use, either consciously or subconsciously, to avoid debate. Those are "respect" and "offended". When someone wears a toaster on their head because he believes it channels the spirit of mother Earth to his brain, I'd tell him he was being incredibly silly. Am I disrespecting him? Am I offending him? Or am I trying to help?
I honestly mean no harm, and just because I don't respect an idea doesn't mean I don't respect the individual, so I'm pretty sure it's the latter for me, and I think all the offending atheists in this thread will agree with me on that.
If forcing you to think about a subject makes you feel offended, then I'm sorry, but that sounds a lot like indoctrination...

TFO, science has an amazing track record, putting a man on the moon, robots on mars, Titan, sending spaceships out of our solar system, figuring out the nature of life, the universe and almost everything. Give me one instance where the belief in a supernatural entity has helped society in a positive way... Exactly. As soon as something has a reason to be believed, it will show up within the natural world (otherwise no evidence for it would exist), at which point it will be a natural phenomenon and will be approachable by science. So far we have not encountered anything which does not seem to act according the specific laws or anything which did not come about through natural phenomenon, so nothing supernatural exists as far as we know. So why would we give the world of the supernatural almost as much credibility as that the natural world?

Off-topicism FTW. Oh well, religion is bound to show up in these kinds of debates...

 

[varit]

i'd like to point out a few thing's,

how can we believe that scientist's are 100% correct in what there doing, nobody came down from anywhere and told us this stuff was correct, we just assume to know, we could be wrong.

Most christian holiday's originated from pagan belief and had nothing to do with the actual belief system as most of those holiday's (minus Easter) came after the holy crusival ,

weather or not you believe in god or not is up to you, there hasn't been to many actual verifications of god's work physically but it has been a good 2000 years and they were big on wood back in the day, and it was a big thing back in the day for people to be buried along with there possession's, so... 2000 years + wood = dirt, just sayin, in which I bet most of those thing's have been destroyed by dominating nation's, buried or is hidden in a place we just cannot find. you have to think after the time of Christ we went through these church related, brutal and bloody war's (I enjoy that part of history the most) so the actuality of thing's like the ark and so on being in existence from the time's of Christ before and after is very slim (plus the story of the ark is a good 3000-4000 years, a massive flooding came over the lands at that time so it is slightly believe-able, but on a grander scale idk, plus at that time they had no concept of how big this world is so yeah). this is what you get when you take folklore in university, you know to much about junk. cya

 

[Pokequaza]

I'm an agnostic because it isn't because I don't think about it, or that I don't care about it. It's because by logic, science can't be completely right, and neither can religion. There are some things that science cannot explain, and the same goes for religion. That's why I'm in between. Scampy hit it right on the dot:

Correction; science cannot explain some things yet. It isn't like we suddenly know everything about anything and that's it. No science is slowly growing and is able to explain more and more. Just because science doesn't know everything yet doesn't mean we can fill the gaps, we don't know yet, with fantasy.

And religion cannot explain some things? Religion doesn't explain anything. If do don't agree on this; give me one accurate explanation about anything religion has once explained. And the explanation I expect to be a detailed, testable answer. Good luck!

I'm Christian btw, so I belive in Heaven and the other place, and have heard of literature in which people have gone to both places and came back to life. I've heard of books that are about that.

Books? Like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings? Just like Odysseus went to Hell and came back in the Odyssey? Anyway, you don't have even read those books by yourself, so how can you say?

 

[42 chocolate]

i'd like to point out a few thing's,

how can we believe that scientist's are 100% correct in what there doing, nobody came down from anywhere and told us this stuff was correct, we just assume to know, we could be wrong.

Most christian holiday's originated from pagan belief and had nothing to do with the actual belief system as most of those holiday's (minus Easter) came after the holy crusival ,

We assume scientists are correct because it makes sense. The evidence supports it strongly, whereas in religion the evidence is not too strong. Science is harder to disprove than religious beliefs. I'm not saying you're wrong, though. Science is not always 100% correct and has been disproven before, mostly because there was a lack of strong evidence.

Also, I know exactly what you're talking about with that second comment. As an example, before Christmas but around that time of year, many Pagans celebrated the Winter Solstice.

 

[Pokequaza]

I was forgotten to reply on PokeChamp, so here's my reply:

My theory on death actually follows a scientific principle: energy is neither created nor destroyed. I believe that, when we die, our bodies decompose, and our atoms become something else, be it plants, water, animals, maybe even part of another human, perhaps. If this is true, do we really die? Or is death simply an illusion, merely a transformation process?

Well, like HeavenlySpoon already said if I'm not wrong, all our atoms in our body are replaced by other atoms in a few years. On atomic scale your body is replaced a few times during your lifetime. And there's a good chance that some of the atoms you are made of where once part of somebody else's body, part of a fish and possible many other life forms which have already destincted. So after your death you'll become part of the biogeochemical cycle.

Death as an illusion... It depends on your interpretating of death. What is the definition of death? When you conciousness ends perhaps? But simple one-cell organisms do not have a conciousness, but they do live and are certainly not immortal. When you see a living thing as one; yes we will die, eventually every living being will*. But all our atoms will become part of something else. It's all part of a gigantic process; the cycle of life. But there certainly is a difference between a living and a dead thing.

I have heard that when people die, there is always a difference of 0.7 grams between there weight in life and weight in death, or something close to that number (I don't know the specifics of it). This could be the soul evaporating. Perhaps, if this is true, the soul simply ends; or maybe it reincarnates into another life-form. I don't think we can know the answer in even a million more lifetimes.

This is something most people use as 'evidence' for the proof of a soul. Possibly, those 0.7 grams are just air. When you die, your muscles will relax and so pump out your last bit of air.

*There are some species known to be biological immortal, it's a species of jellyfish and another simple organism. Both can reverse their lifetime and become a polyp again by replacing its cells, so in fact, these species can live forever, but there's enough danger in nature to bring an end to their lifes.

 

[DarthPika]

Look, I don't care if you believe in religion or not, you should at least try to be respectful of those who do believe in it. *looks at spoon*

 

[Pokequaza]

Look, I don't care if you believe in religion or not, you should at least try to be respectful of those who do believe in it. *looks at spoon*

Respect in what way? If someone believes to get in heaven by killing every day 4 people, should people lock him up or let him kill 4 people a day out of respect? (extreme example :'D).

By saying someone's belief is silly, is that disrespecting? No, at least not if you give a valuable reason why you find it silly. And there's also a difference between being honest and being disrespectful. In my eyes religion in just a fantasy story based on misunderstanding, wrong assumptions and misinterpretations. If this is my opinion who keeps me from saying that? Of course there's a border which you should not cross, but that certainly didn't happen yet in this thread. Discussions can be fierce, accept it.

 

[PokeChamp]

Well, so maybe I messed up the specifics a bit. All I am saying is that I believe we are all one, so to speak. When you "die" you aren't really gone, and in the grand scheme of things you are still part of "life".

As for Christianity, I actually agree with many of its principles. If you do bad things, like committing murder, you essentially do go to hell -- but is it a physical place? -- or, rather, is it a state of mind? If you take a life, you must rest your head on your pillow every night thinking of the offense you have committed. Your life no longer becomes peaceful, and when you think about it, it is rather much like the torturous place that the Christians call he11. If you do the right thing, you get the reward of "heaven", and being able to enjoy life without your mind being demented by any foul acts you have committed.

No matter what your religion is like, you most likely believe that we are all one. And, in this way, I don't see how I can possibly disagree.

 

[Pokequaza]

Well that depends on how strong you mentally are. If you're able to hide those memories of killing that particular person I won't think you would suffer that much. Even though it's very difficult to do so, I don't think why it would be impossible.

Your reference to heaven and hell is not completely correct. You refer it as heaven or hell, in a state of mind, while you are alive. Why Christianity tends to believe in spending an eternity in heaven or hell after your life, so when you're dead.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

Look, I don't care if you believe in religion or not, you should at least try to be respectful of those who do believe in it. *looks at spoon*

How am I not?
Why is disrespectful to point at the silliness of religion? How is this less respectful than those who are vocal for the existence of God? How is this any less respectful than those here who're claiming I'll burn in Hell?

As for Death, you go to heaven or heck.It's been proved.

More to the point on the actual topic itself: Because I am a Christian, I believe that, once you die, you will either go to Heaven or He|| based on whether or not you accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

so I belive in Heaven and the other place

I respect most religious people, but this does not mean I shouldn't point out that I think what they believe is downright silly. How is it respectful of me to just ignore them when I can do people a favor? Obviously they care about the subject, otherwise they wouldn't be reading this thread...

Respect does not protect someone from criticism. The moment something cannot be criticized is the moment it gains absolute power. And that's something I especially don't want religion to have.

 

[PokeChamp]

Well that depends on how strong you mentally are. If you're able to hide those memories of killing that particular person I won't think you would suffer that much. Even though it's very difficult to do so, I don't think why it would be impossible.

Your reference to heaven and heck is not completely correct. You refer it as heaven or heck, in a state of mind, while you are alive. Why Christianity tends to believe in spending an eternity in heaven or heck after your life, so when you're dead.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that someone could do so. But they would have to make the person they killed inhuman. To kill someone and not feel that way, you have to forget that they might have had a family, children, a wife, a mother, a father, etc. You have to forget that you could have possibly created an orphan, or that you have created a widow, or childless parents. In my mind, the moment you forget that, you, too, have lost your humanity.

That is also true. But, going back to my theory about returning to Earth in "death", that would seem to imply that you don't really "die". Therefore, I think that once you have shuffled off of the coils of humanity, so to speak (which in my opinion makes a little more sense that "death"), you carry with you to your grave the crime you committed, and as such are never freed from the immense guilt and possibly even shame of taking a life. If you ask me, that is the purest, most undiluted definition of hel(l).

 

[InfinityFangX]

*Jumps in*

I feel that no matter how much we debate on this. Christians will remain Christians in the end and atheist will remain atheist.

and idk about agnostic people. -.-

and well, personally, I can't believe in religion. I just can't believe that we either go to the clouds or hell in the ground. It just doesn't make sense scientifically. Neither does any of the stories the tell. I feel like its a fictional story.

Furthermore, I feel that a lot of the reason why people turn to religion is because..
1. They were taught that way when they were born.
2. A quick simple way to explain how the universe became.
3. A sense of relief for when they die.

anywayz thats my opinion. I was born with no influence to any side. I chose my side to what was more logical. thats all.*not trying to offend anyone*

*Runs back in hole*

 

[The Fallen One]

TFO, science has an amazing track record, putting a man on the moon, robots on mars, Titan, sending spaceships out of our solar system, figuring out the nature of life, the universe and almost everything. Give me one instance where the belief in a supernatural entity has helped society in a positive way... Exactly. As soon as something has a reason to be believed, it will show up within the natural world (otherwise no evidence for it would exist), at which point it will be a natural phenomenon and will be approachable by science. So far we have not encountered anything which does not seem to act according the specific laws or anything which did not come about through natural phenomenon, so nothing supernatural exists as far as we know. So why would we give the world of the supernatural almost as much credibility as that the natural world?

I myself tend to lean towards science, but I will not say something doesn't exist if I can't prove it doesn't. One of the reasons I'm not an atheist is because right now science can't prove everything, and religion cannot be completely refuted. That's all I wanted to say.

 

[Pokequaza]

I myself tend to lean towards science, but I will not say something doesn't exist if I can't prove it doesn't. One of the reasons I'm not an atheist is because right now science can't prove everything, and religion cannot be completely refuted. That's all I wanted to say.

True, science can't prove anything yet, neither it will be able to in 100 years, I doubt if it will in 1000 years. And why would we believe in something where its existence not can be proven of. Like I claim there's a unicorn living under bed, although we cannot detect it with any of our senses and neither with specialized tools. Should we say there might be a possibility it does exist? If so, why wouldn't there also be a posibility of a not-detectable lion under my bed? Or a 6 legged crocodile?

We can say everything has a posibility of existence, even though something that undetectable is almost impossible, it would at least need matter for its existence. Anyway, we could say so, but would that have any impact on us? No. So why would we? If tomorrow a group of scientists came by with some highly advanced tools and proved to me all these monsters are under my bed are real, I would accept it. As long as the existence of it can't be detected yet I don't think it would help us to say there's a possibility.

 

[hatedisc]

ATTENTION.

Thank you. First off, silliness is not a respectful term. Insulting anyone's belief as silly is beyond the bounds of respect. To say "I do not agree with you" is perfectly respectful and honourable. Downright insults are not. Second, I have a message for any young members that are browsing this thread, hoping to find the truth. Do not. Don't found your beliefs based on what others have to say unless you know you can trust the source. Most of the people you meet--apparently including most of the people here--are far less informed than they believe themselves to be. You must escape biased points of view. Go to the original sources. Do you own research. Find the truth for yourself. Pick up a good book, whether that book may be The Holy Bible, Darwin's Origin of the Species, or the Qur'an. You can't make a decision based on one point of view. By seeing all points of view, the truth will find you.

Good day.

immortally hating of the disc,
hatedisc

 

[Noobnerd]

Give me one instance where the belief in a supernatural entity has helped society in a positive way...

As long as this argument is not rebutted Spoon has won this thread.

I'm religious myself (not quite now though, thanks hanging out on this forum), but other than the issue on respect, I feel that Pokequaza and Spoon have better points.

 

[Limitless]

Give me one instance where the belief in a supernatural entity has helped society in a positive way...

I guess it just depends on what your view on a positive outcome would be. In terms of winning battles, many leaders have influenced their army "in the name of God" or another entity. This motivation helped the armies win their battles quite decisively.

Also, whether there is a God or not, the standards and guidelines that it gives has values that have obviously influenced our world in a positive fashion. You cannot deny that people act differently when they're supposedly being watched by an outside force, and that their actions solidify whether or not they go to heaven or hell (I guess we can't say the opposite of heaven :x).

 

[PikachuFanForever]

We go to heaven of course.I believe in God but other people don`t believe in him so I am not judging them.Other people believe in different things.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

As long as this argument is not rebutted Spoon has won this thread.
I'm religious myself (not quite now though, thanks hanging out on this forum), but other than the issue on respect, I feel that Pokequaza and Spoon have better points.

Actually, I was going to correct myself there. Religion can have positive effects when it comes to certain individuals (control, obedience), as well as when it comes to cooperation within groups.
What I meant was: "Give me one instance where accepting a supernatural explanation increased our understanding of something, or at the very least not hindered us from finding the actual answer", well, except for those few instances where science does not yet have an answer, but when religion has such a terrible track record, why should we assume it's correct on those few? Surely if the supernatural is so very potent, it should've helped our understanding of at least something, right?
But, well, my previous statement still stands (maybe change "positive" into "constructive"), it might've helped organize society, but it has not helped shape it to become better (mind you, there might've been successful and growing religious societies, but that's because economic and scientific advances were tolerated by the religion, not caused by).

hatedisc, I don't just "disagree" with religion, I honestly think it's silly, which is exactly the word to describe it. I have no respect for the religion itself, but I respect those who believe in it as human beings and whatnot. Again, respect should not protect something from criticism, and my criticism is that it's silly. If that offends you, I honestly think it's the truth hurting. If you are truly convinced of the validity of your religion, my statements should do nothing to undermine or insult it. When you say I can't criticize it because it shows a lack of respect, you are avoiding discussion, which I discussed in my previous post.
But if you want a discussion on the silliness of religion, I'd be more than happy to offer you one

But anyhow, yeah, read a book, find some information, read the bible (you'll find out how silly it is), do some research. Don't just believe what I say, that'd be equally silly.
Although I must say a rational debate can indeed shed some light on the validity of religious claims, in which case discussions like this might prove to be useful.

 

[bacon]

True, science can't prove anything yet, neither it will be able to in 100 years, I doubt if it will in 1000 years. And why would we believe in something where its existence not can be proven of. Like I claim there's a unicorn living under bed, although we cannot detect it with any of our senses and neither with specialized tools. Should we say there might be a possibility it does exist? If so, why wouldn't there also be a posibility of a not-detectable lion under my bed? Or a 6 legged crocodile?

Once again, people misunderstand the Agnostic viewpoint. Nobody is claiming to believe in any of these things, but just accept them as vague possibilities. Given that a Unicorn under my bed magically appearing and disappearing pretty much violates our understanding of physics, we can reason that the chances of it being there are very small. You said yourself that science is a branch of knowledge that can never truly prove anything, so to deny something completely on the basis of scientific reasoning is foolish.

We can say everything has a posibility of existence, even though something that undetectable is almost impossible, it would at least need matter for its existence. Anyway, we could say so, but would that have any impact on us? No. So why would we? If tomorrow a group of scientists came by with some highly advanced tools and proved to me all these monsters are under my bed are real, I would accept it. As long as the existence of it can't be detected yet I don't think it would help us to say there's a possibility.

I don't get what you mean by the term "impact", so please elaborate on that.

If you mean how does this affect our scientific understanding of the world, then there is no difference between the Agnostic and the Atheist. Again,

The agnostic doesn't believe in those things though. He just accepts that it's impossible to rationally speculate on the existence of something which cannot (currently) be empirically or analytically verified.

Science is based on analytical and empirical reasoning, so here there is no difference between the Agnostic and Atheist schools of thought. So that being said, if you say "Why would we?", then I can equally ask "Why favor Atheism over Agnosticism?".