Is death the end?
Show me one piece of scientific proof that supports an afterlife... Also, you can't prove I can't fly so now I can fly. SUCK IT!
Yes peeps, I'm afraid it's the end.
For those of you who feel differently, it's ok by me. I would never hate on people for their beliefs.
Likely the end unless there's some quantum entanglement with another universe or something beyond the current understanding of physics.
I belive your stable counciousness takes form of atoms and roams the multiversed god/s i spit at u!
notice how Vermont is the only one saying "yes". seems they're the only realistic ones.
Can we please just being assholes to one another and respect everyone's beliefs.
I hope not!!
heaven is not the only alternative to an end. Just because we are not living breathing people anymore doesn't mean theres nothing. The only thing that doesn't exist is nothing.
Lol people on this app are so funny ... God is just a story like Santa, we use the bible for stuff we don't have the answers to but that doesn't make the stuff true.
We don't have bodies. We are bodies.
One cannot prove that there isn't a heaven or a hell. It is all about what one believes. If you believe it, it is true to your soul and to your consciousness and no one else's. My opinion about the existence of life after death applies to no one but myself.
There is no such thing as subjective truth, at least as to actual facts, such as whether death is the end (as opposed to true opinions, such as Justin Timberlake is sexy). Whether death is the end is either true or it isn't. Belief doesn't make anything more or less true. Only in fairy tales.
Its not the end of the world but its the end of the lufe of your brain. Theres no such thing as magic (souls/god/ghosts/ et cetera) but your actions will cause ripples long after you die. Youll just have no idea, exactly like before you were born.
I don't necessarily believe in heaven and hell but I certainly believe in ghosts!
that is not congruent.
U will live on in heaven.
Stop being willfully ignorant.
I don't know. Simple as that.
This is a silly question. No one has any idea. Since the information isn't available, ill go with no until shown otherwise.
Maybe reincarnation. But no. It's the end. You're dead just like any other animal.
Could God create a stone so big that he couldn't lift it?
God can do anything that is logically possible.
So God can't do things that are logically impossible? That would imply lack of omnipotence or limitations on powers.
It does not show a lack of omnipotence. It shows a lack of common sense from the person that asked the question.
I read an article where the author asked a child this question.
"What he said was that God would have the power to be able to allow himself to be weak, so that by not lifting the stone, it was not that he was not capable of doing so. (cont.)
(cont.)He would be simultaneously capable and unable to lift the stone by exercising his power to make himself weak."
I'm sure that asking a question that renown philosophers have debated for centuries shows a lack of common sense on my part. Way to show your ignorance, fool.
I like to think that whatever happens after death is just too big for the human mind to comprehend, which is why we don't know and never will. I guess we'll just have to find out when the time comes, right?
"For God so loved the world, that He ave His One and Only Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life." "The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." Will you have Christ?
Death seems illogical to me, how could someone go from something to nothing? I believe In reincarnation, it's the only theory that sort of makes sense.
Here's hoping you come back as a cow then.
How does the fact that who "you are" is the neural connections formed in your brain as a result of your unique experiences not make sence? Brain dies, the information that is you is gone. Death. Makes perfect sence.
Well no but the idea that all of a sudden that information is lost and that your mind goes black, or not really black, I mean what does nothing look like? Nothing is as impossible as god.
Humans are born basically because two humans had sex. There is no special purpose or big plan for you. The universe doesn't care if your a murderous dictator or a pope. Your born , you live , you die. Time moves on till the universe grows cold and all life ceases. It's nihilistic but its also true.
Are you absolutely sure? God has never whispered in your conscience even a little, what is right and what is wrong? My worldview is that He does...and we tend to chose the wrong thing. Our souls need a new birth, wherein we are forgiven because another, a perfect man, suffered infinitely, for us
Look man it's a nice story. But it's not something you want to base your whole life on. It's an addiction which I understand believe me. But you need to let that stuff have a more traditional role in your life. Not an all encompassing , interfering one. Don't worship anything, just live and love.
Groucho Marx - "Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while"
... And then they are off, to go be something else for a bit.
Literally yes, but that doesn't prove it has no further meaning.
You seem cool arbor!
Who knew Groucho was so deep?
@IcePrince the question wasn't about meaning, but even so, it makes me sad that you see no meaning in the cooperation of several billion cells for a temporary moment in time. Don't care if you think a God directed it, or Nature evolved it, either way it's pretty damned magical.
All energy is neither created nor destroyed, simply transferred.
You have a great point. We become fossil fuels:)
Yeah...... Transferred from usable energy to unusable energy.
I hope there is something else, some other plain of existence, but it is unlikely. However, just because its more then likely not true doesn't mean I will stop being a "good" person. It's the only thing that sets us apart from most animals. It took a long time evolutionary speaking to get here.
Being moral does not set us apart from all animals. It not us and them. We are animals. Every single hunan emotion/behavior is also found in the animal kingdom. Dolphins name eachother, elephants mourn eachother, even cuddlefish have language. We as a species need to quit sniffing our own farts.
No... One knows.
They say its not over till the fat lady sings, so unless there is a fat lady singing when you get to the light at the end of the tunnel!!!
It's only the beginning
I think people WANT their to be an afterlife because they're scared but the circle of life is sadly, birth, life and death. I saw a commercial the other day and the boy asked his grandad "where do we go when we die?" "In the ground." Lol it's true.
So people try to be "good" and achieve "great" things all for nothing?
They do because we have laws on many of these things. It's apples to oranges. You don't need religion to be a good person. That's ludicrous.
They do good things "because we have laws on these things"?
Classic example of a liberal who replaces God with the state. God isn't the law-giver, the state is; and it is sublime!
We don't need a silly God to be moral, but we sure as hell need Big Brother!
What?! "You don't need God to be a good person."? Where the heck does "good" come from then? You are saying that "good" is relative and what is right to one person, may not be right to another. You are saying that there isn't absolute right and wrong.
Without absolute right and wrong there are no good people because there is no "good" period. This is so painfully obvious and yet it keeps coming up again and again.
Good, bad, moral, immoral, ethical, unethical are all human constructs. They don't exist anywhere else in nature and they certainly don't come from any omnipotent sky daddy.
So what you are saying is, Adam Lanza's shootings for example, is not wrong, it's just our opinion?
Scotts: If morality is just opinion, then it's meaningless from a prescriptive standpoint. As Rocker just demonstrated with his example.
So you've proven my point: Without an external reference (call it "God" or whatever) then there is no "good" and therefore no good people.
It was wrong based on the fact that he took away other people's right to live not an ancient book
That example proves nothing. Bad, immoral, unethical things are the ones that hurt other people, not according to your vision of an omnipotent god.
You're wrong that its only a human construct. Studies show that animals understand as well. That's why some warn their mates/pack or whatever when danger is around. Self-preservation would have them hide and be silent.
Hahaha tell these religious nuts Scott!!
Scott: Do where do you get the idea that hurting people is wrong? Lots of other people and cultures disagree with you. Can you prove them wrong? Demonstrate your morality in a lab?
And certainly all of these things that are judged to be bad, immoral and unethical are circumstantial. Otherwise, we would not punish killing by killing. Many Christians have divorced and remarried which Jesus said was adultery. Times, cultures change and morality changes too
Lol, "you tell them Scott!"
I haven't heard of two male animals ever mating. Only in humans. So Scott, you do agree there is a right and a wrong? You said it is "wrong, he took away their right to live." What determines right and wrong in your mind?
Preservation of your species is morality.
What determines right and wrong is your action's effect on other people
Rocker homosexuality has occured in nature. Look it up.
Two human males cannot mate either
God has feeling also Scott. He cares for us as a Father for a child. Have you not heard the two commandments by which we (Christians) are supposed to live?
Yes I'm familiar with gods commandments. I don't disagree with all of them, but I believe they're all made up by humans
We? I am not Christian. I do not live by your laws. I live by society's laws.
Scotts: What makes "Preservation of species" and "actions effect on others" moral truths? None of these can be scientifically demonstrated, and seem equally open to criticism as the idea of God which you so abhor. The concept of "good" is not and never will be a scientific one.
Scott: the Bible is the inspired word of God, written down by humans. Please note that we didn't create it.
Rocker please do t embarrass yourself. www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Over 1500 species in the animal kingdom that practice some form of homosexual behaviour.
Liberal: I know you aren't, I was just saying that there are two commandments by which Christians ought to live. Scott is bringing the second greatest commandment into play which is: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Rocker that's your opinion and we respect it but nobody saw god either writing the book or speaking to those that did, ergo, it's not provable.
Sorry I meant preservation of your species is NOT morality
I don't think Scott is Christian either.
Ifb2: I agree good and bad cannot be proven because they DO NOT exist outside of the human brain. My concept of morality is certainly different than yours and that exactly my point. Morality is not divine.
I don't recall saying that animals never engaged in homosexual behavior, I just said I haven't ever heard of it. @liberal
Laliberal: I'm not Christian. I don't believe a bit of the bible was divinely inspired. Yet, I'm still a nice guy and have never killed or maimed. And when I die, ill rot in the ground like everyone else. And miraculously, I feel life is still worth living
There are two camps: God's and Satan's. If your father isn't God you will not believe what He says is right. If your father is God, you will be able to easily discern right and wrong. What I am saying is that morality is not relative.
Scott. I know. :) I didn't say you were and neither am I and I don't think for one moment I'm going to "burn forever"
What if I don't believe that the laws of gravity should apply to me if I don't believe in them. So I should be able to jump off my roof and nothing will happen. An extreme example, but it points directly to what I am saying. Whether or not you believe it, it is so.
Morality is absolutely relative. Take the idea of killing. It's right sometimes and wrong sometimes. Self defense is right, cold blooded murder is wrong. Capital punishment, war, abortion? Right or wrong? Stealing a loaf of bread for your children to eat, right or wrong? It's ALL relative
Scotts: So you agree that morality without God is meaningless. You say "I'm a nice guy, I haven't killed or maimed" but Hitler is equally "nice" by his own (equally valid) set of rules.
Satan, Lucifer, the devil - it's all made up too. If lucifer was once an angel and was in heaven and there's no sin in heaven, how did he sin? Doesn't make sense. The allegory needed a contrast. God is good, sin (devil) is bad. Do what I say is good, you get heaven, if not, you get hell.
Scotts: Circumstantial does not equal relative. Science is circumstantial e.g. Does wood burn at 500 degrees? Depends on the other conditions ... But it's not relative per se e.g. "I don't think wood should burn, so it won't."
Scott, how would you know if cold-blooded murder is wrong?
Ifb2: I think I said earlier that I base morality on its effect on others. Hitler clearly effected others in a negative way. He was certainly entitled to his morals, and others were entitled to disagree
Rocker: it's wrong because they took away others right to live
Ifb2: semantics. In this case relative to the situation and circumstantial are interchangeable.
Scott: I have wondered that same question myself. And me being incapable of understanding it on my own, just further proves my faith in an omnipotent, omniscient God.
Rocker... Gravity is provable, god is not. That's really apples to oranges and unfortunately for you you didn't make a point.
Scott, do you believe that same sex marriage is wrong. Do you think it affects others in negative ways?
Liberal, my point was that if I fail to believe what you consider proof for gravity, then the rules shouldn't apply to me. That is what you are saying here. What would you consider "proof" for my God? Healings, books written about people's experiences with both Heaven and hell?
Scotts: The idea that my actions' effects on others ought to influence me is in itself a moral idea, and hence circular reasoning for the source of morality.
An intellectually honest atheist is a nihilist.
The attempts by posters here to have morality (i.e. shooting innocent kids for no reason is wrong) without an objective standard has failed.
It's the classic "is vs. ought"; "value vs. fact".
Only nihilism is compatible with atheism (which is fine).
Ifb2: if you judge my care for others as moral, fine, but it certainly doesn't prove god as a source of absolute morality. You're kind of pissing in the wind
Rocker: I'm fine with same sex marriage
Scotts: I wasn't trying to prove God as a source, only that a source is needed. See Ayeyguy's post above. Case closed.
Ayeyguy: I'm fine with that characterization for the most part
Ifb2: I'm fine with that. I began with saying that all these things are human constructs and don't exist anywhere else in nature.
Scotts: Okay, so if you were to have lunch with a Jewish person, would you order a pork sandwich being completely aware that it is against his beliefs? Could it affect him negatively to see you eating something that he considers unclean, even though you know it is permissible to eat it?
I would be comfortable eating pork in front of a Jewish friend. I don't think it would affect him/her in a negative way. I would assume he would know I eat pork or we would go to a kosher restaurant. I wear clothes of mixed fabrics too and don't observe the Sabbath.
No, Scott, some animals exhibit moral behavior. It's not strictly human. Stop saying that.
Ok kscott, I will stop saying it, although I believe it. I'm getting good at this morality stuff.
Scott, do you think that disrespect could affect a person negatively in any way? By the way, Christians are allowed to wear clothes of mixed fabrics.
A gorilla once saved a boy from other gorillas that fell into the zoo's enclosure until a worker came and got him. That is a moral decision.
Bible days you're not supposed to wear mixed fabrics in the same exact book it says "homosexuality is wrong" proof Christians cherry pick their rules.
Liberal: no, the mixed fabrics scripture is Deuteronomy 22:11 and homosexuality scripture is Leviticus 18:23. Look at the verses surrounding that verse and look at the principle behind it. The Israelites were not supposed to look like the Pagans, so they weren't supposed to wear mixed fabrics...
But we (Christians) aren't supposed to act or appear like heathens, rather we are to be sanctified. In Leviticus 18:23 the principle has remained the same. In the NT, Jesus speaks against Sodom and Gomorrah. The main sin of those cities was homosexuality. Both cities were destroyed.
You know what? 58% of Americans support gay marriage. It was in the 30s at the beginning of the last decade. Gay marriage WILL become legal in all 50 states. I suggest you get on the right side of history and stop being a bigot. It's rather sad that Christians can't separate church from state.
Rocker: I was giving an example of Jewish laws I don't obey with the mixed fibers. When I'm talking about negatively affecting others, I'm talking about their right to do things. My hypothetical Jewish friend is free to leave
You are making it obvious you don't want God here in America, that means His blessing will go with Him. Notice how the unemployment rate has plummeted since America kicked God out.
Kscott: Sounds like a nice monkey
I thought we all were allowed the pursuit of happiness @ Scotts
Gorilla with morals. Must've read a law or philosophy book because he sure wouldn't figure that out on his own.
La, you're a hypocritical bigot that you want everyone to allow you to marry your partner but that believers should be persecuted because you don't agree.
Christians aren't the ones with a problem of separation of church and state. The liberals want to force religious-based business entities to provide birth control even against their religious beliefs.
Rocker you really sound crazy. Take it from somebody looking in from the outside. God has nothing to do with our country's success or failure.
Rocker: I can't see how I would be denying my hypothetical Jewish friend his right to pursue happiness. He doesn't have to eat with me
Kscott: your example, if true, sounds like nice story and I certainly can't account for all animal behavior worldwide, but I fail to see how your baby saving gorilla proves animal morality.
Why would a gorilla bother to save another species? It's not part of instinct and serves no purpose for survival. So what is it?
I don't know why the monkey did it. Neither do you. Whatever it is, it doesn't mean that the monkey was acting morally. Just because it can't be explained doesn't mean it's morality.
The love you have for your family is a human construct of chemicals in your brain. Hmmmm I think it's something more.
It ends only if you die in Delaware? Watch out J. B.
I think youre concious experience doesnt just stop. It probably continues in some odd form. Or god takes care of it.
It's your call. Just sharing some wisdom guys. It sounds like you're halfway there. I think being good & productive is a prerequisite to getting in to heaven.
If your idea of Heaven is from the Christian worldview, then faith in Christ, not good deeds, is the prerequisite.
I never stated which God.
There's only one God
@Rocker Of course.
I believe there's no god. My opinion.
Death is the end. We go nowhere else but into the ground.
I love you Delaware
Atheism went down? Last time it was closer to 40%.
“I would rather live my life as if there is a god and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.” -Albert Camus
When you die, you won't find out anything because your dead and that's it...oh, besides getting eaten by bugs and bacteria!
I would rather live my life in a way that is good, productive, and fulfilling rather than spending a moment of precious time worshipping a thing that probably is not real and that almost certainly would know I only showed fealty out of fear of eternal damnation and wouldn't have me anyway.
Camus and his existentialism...he actually condemned religion, so that's a weird quote. Shows the triviality to him of there being a god.
I believe Mr. Camus came to this conclusion later in his life. Kind of like myself. When the people you love start going away you search for a way. The only conduit I see right now is believing, like they did. Just a thought.
It's your call. Sharing a little wisdom. But, it does sound like you're halfway there because being good & productive is a prerequisite for getting in to heaven.
I appreciate that. I should also say that I don't want to worship a god who will cast me into eternal suffering for exercising the powers of reason he gave me to conclude that he probably did not exist. Such an act of petty malice is not deserving of adulation.
I would rather sit in hellfire with the condemned than in the good graces of such a wicked being. Thus, if god is worth serving he will understand why I never served him.
I believe this quote is Pascal, not Camus
@Pirate that's cool, it's your choice.
@pappal the quote is Camus. Pascal's Wager is several possibilities put forward by him in which he asks which makes the most sense for an individual to choose. I don't think he ever picks one. Although the one where God exists makes the most sense. Camus appears to make that choice & summed it up.
Pirate, you are confusing my God with your god. My God is not the wicked being, yours is.
No. The human brain produces electricity. You can not destroy energy. We are all energy. This is a fact.
The energy that your body contains goes into feeding all the little critters who eat you after you die. The bits they don't eat lose energy through radioactive decay over time.
Cowboy, just wondering, are you a Christian?
I ask because I see you posting often and a lot of what you say makes sense.
Heaven & Hell.
That is all.
From derp...that is all
No, our atomic particles live forever. (:
I think the question is asking if death is the end of life, not if death is the end of our matter. Our atomic particles do go on long after we are gone, a fact I find some comfort in, but those particles are not "alive." Life is occurring at a cellular level.
Hey if the universe is infinite-which is hard for me to get my mind around I believe anything is possible
I definitely believe death is not the end. I have had ghostly experiences due to where I lived as a kid until the age of 6. I believe in reincarnation though but I think the 'rules' are different for everyone.
Miso, where did you live as a kid?
if this map is true, why do so many people say YOLO?
Because everyone who says YOLO or SWAG is working at McDonalds or has about 20 children from 7 different girls to take care of.
Being dead is no different than before you were alive. Nothingness. There is no after life. People need to grow up and stop comforting themselves with fairy tales.
Why? What purpose would that serve?
It wound mean that more people would realize that it's the "here and now" that's important. You have a limited time with the people you love. I know someone who feels guilty that they don't spend more time with their grandmother, but has told me that it's ok. She'll get to spend eternity...
...with her in heaven.
So in my experience, the "afterlife" is just another excuse for "the faithful" to act like douchebags because they kiss up to their mystical "sky daddy".
So what's your excuse then, Rand? Why do you act like a douchebag in the here and now?
I don't act like a douchebag. How is pointing out the utter fallacy and hypocrisy of deism a bad thing? Education and knowledge are the remedy for the disease that is religious belief.
How is religious "faith" ANY different than schizophrenia or other mental illnesses?
You talk to people that do not exist. You have no ability to take in and comprehend new information. You cannot view reality for what it is. And are frequently a danger to yourself and others.
That's why religious institutions should be banned and their members required to undergo psych evals.
Tell you what, lets hear your belief of how old the earth is and how humans got here. You've already made it clear you have no knowledge of the disease process so I don't care what you have to say on that subject. Everything else you said past that is just spewed hatred and ignorance.
I've been wanting to know...which Rand are you a fan of? How old are you? Occupation?
How is pointing out facts "spewing hatred"? You are the one who supports hatred. Denying health care, human rights, etc. all based upon the barbaric scribblings of semiliterate misogynists 2000 years ago. Try empathy and education of dogma, bigotry, and ignorance.
Let's see... The earth is 4.54 billion years old. The animals we refer to as human beings evolved from (I suppose if you went far enough back) single celled organisms. I'm a fan of the novels of Ayn Rand, but not a dogmatic follower of Objectivism. And I'm a jeweler.
What facts? "Fallacy, hypocrisy, religion is a disease"? Lol, and how did you come up with 4.54 billion years?
The age came from google. And as I've stated before, how else would you describe a person that talks to imaginary beings, ignores objective facts, attacks others for failing to embrace their own unproven delusions? Religion is a virus that is spread by the ignorant.
How about Googling "Flaws with radiometric dating". They make assumptions about the beginning of the earth based on their biased assumptions that its billions of years old. Half-lives of radioactive material occurs over millions of years. Who was there to measure the chemical makeup? It's flawed
just like your logic. You have no facts, only saying how religion is a "virus" and that Christians talk to imaginary beings. If you want objectivity then read something from the other side of your argument for once. I'm not trying to convince you to believe, I'm proving you only believe what you're
told. You sound like an ignoramus in every post I've read. It's always how right you think you are and everyone else is an idiot. How many years did you spend in college or doing an independent study on religion, biology, geology, or anything related to what were talking about. Facts, you're a joke!
So because the current methodology is not yet advanced enough to give you the day of the week, that means your insane belief system is dogmatically correct?
Anyone who rejects the Big Bang in favor of myth is a complete moron. Countless evidence, not just carbon dating, proves the universe is billions of years old. Otherwise we couldn't even see Andromeda. My brother works at CERN. Scientists are smarter than ancient sheep herders.
Why place any special value in the bible? It is just an old collection of stories of an evil fictional character it calls god. What makes it different than the odyssey? At least the odyssey hasn't been edited, changed, and subjected to political manipulations.
I didn't say that Rand. I asked how old the earth was. And the methodology can NEVER be accurate because it still lacks the starting measurement of the chemical composition.
There are several ways to gauge the age of the Earth. All point to billions. A small margin of error may exist, but it is enough to prove it is billions of years old. Rejecting science for myth and saying only thousands is beyond insane and stupid. That is like saying N. America is 8 yards wide.
I've spent 8 years between high school and college with comparative religion classes. Additionally, 8 years of science classes. To be honest, not too much in advanced biology (I'm not a fan of squishy stuff)
A "BIg Bang" is not contradictory to the Bible. But what created the initial, infinitely dense material in the first place before the explosion? In an explosion you don't get order. Laws of thermodynamics. But I guess your smarter brother can tell you that. You can't get a pile of bricks, explode
But anyone with even a basic reading of the Christian bible could see its contradictions.
them, and expect to have a building. Scientists can't explain the order of the Universe so they try to make their data fit their theories. Like, why is the background radiation uniform if all matter radiated from a common center? Scientists have changed their theories many times and still can't
explain it. A truly intelligent person knows when to say "I don't know"
At least scientists are asking questions and seeking truth. They reason it changes is they accept new data when it is proven. Just because we don't know everything doesn't render it false nor does it validate any deity, let alone the Christian one.
Believing in something just because it can't be disproven or we don't know everything so it might be possible is childish at best. We don't know everything, but we know enough. Including universal constants and math.
That's not science. Science changes their theories to fit the data. Science is all about saying "I don't know". But also followed by "I'm going to find out". Religion is all about "the sky daddy did it, so I don't need to use my brain".
Science is about learning and discovery. Religion is about Boeing and scraping to the ramblings of 2000 year old mystics who were too stupid to know why the sky was blue, much less the nature of matter.
RElmer, the systems used for gauging the age of the earth, all of them, lack a starting measurement and therefore they cannot extrapolate any sense of a ballpark guess. The elements used for gauging age all have half-lives on the order of billions of years. So unless you find someone that old that
happened to measure the starting chemical makeup then it's all flawed. Ask your brother if I'm wrong. I'm not even relating this to religion, so you can stop using your "religion is insane" argument as a rebuttal.
Then if you understand math then you know you can't get an answer without subtracting one number from another. We're missing the starting number.
So now you admit science changes all the time and is constantly wrong! New evidence proves their last theory wrong so why are you gripping so tight that "this time they got it right!"?
The non-religionists back then didn't know why the sky was blue or the nature of matter either. Religion and science are not opposites anyway. There are lots of scientists that are Christians.
RandFan clearly has zero understanding of epistemology.
(This is specific to him and his arguments, not something I'm tossing on all atheists.)
You simply demonstrate your total lack of reason and logic. Religion has been constantly shown to be nothing but fraud and lies, does nothing to change in the face of objective evidence, but yet you still cling to it. Why?
No one has ever given me a concrete reason to justify their "beliefs". I wouldn't mind so much, but those same "believers" use their cultist systems to pursue an agenda of bigotry and misogyny.
I may get irate at the stupidity of the "faithful" but at least I never use discredited storybooks to force rape victims to carry their attackers spawn. I don't condemn people for loving the the same gender, and I don't subvert the educational process by introducing mysticism as fact in school.
When are you going to explain the difference between religious belief and schizophrenia?
Or are you unable to because there isn't one?
Where's my lack of reason and logic, Rand? I've proved how you're wrong but you can't prove the opposite, only just say that I'm wrong bc i don't agree. I wasn't even bringing religion into it. And I don't go to church therefore I don't belong to any cultist system as you say.
Well, jackass, one is a disease that consists of social and occupational functioning that affects speech and cognition. You're wasting my time with off-topic distractions that you obviously have no understanding of.
No you haven't. You somy demonstrated you have no understanding of the nature of science. When new evidence is discovered, understanding grows, and the hypothesis is altered.
When there is a discovery that contradicts religion, the discoverer is attacked. It used to be the discoverer was murdered, but now they are just called names. So I suppose that is some progress.
In most cases there are too many careers on the line, money at stake, for them to admit they're fallible and can't prove the age of the earth. We would have to completely rewrite the textbooks. Then who would you trust? Don't be a sheep
I actually have a degree in biology, Rand. What's yours in? What do you think I studied for years in college? And I have a minor in chemistry. Asking you for answers on this is like asking a fish for directions. You have no idea.
What school did you get your degree in? How can you possibly be a biologist when you believe the "sky daddy" created everything? And most importantly, how can you continue believing in ancient BS when you have objective evidence right in front of you?
Univ of South Florida. Was only a few classes from getting my Masters in Public Health when I changed directions in career. How does biology fly in the face of religion? Philosophy question for you: if you believe in evolution or the Big Bang or whatever, who or what created the initial matter?
Here's the thing, Rand. I'm not trying to convince you to believe in God or any religion for that matter. But if you want to use science, which I know a TON about, at least be honest and say that scientists don't have all the answers. Bc if the answer was soooo irrefutable then there'd be zero
disputes, right? Like I said, I'm not a religious fanatic. I don't go to church, my stepbrother is homosexual, and i don't agree with any organized religion. Most churches today are money whores and are hypocritical. But science has not disproven ID.
I've never said that science has ALL the answers right now. However, science does have the methodology to search for the answers. All religion has is the same tired lies and hypocrisy it's spouted for thousands of years.
It's human hubris that decided that a "who" created the matter.
If you're not a fanatic, why are you defending the most destructive force human beings have ever created?
Then simple methodology would show you can't determine the age of the earth using an element with a half-life over a billion years of you don't know the starting point. It's simply not possible, not by a long shot. Please research what I'm telling you.
I said "who or what". It wasn't hubris. And I'm not defending the actions of millions that fight and kill over their beliefs. It's really sad and not a teaching in the Bible. In fact, just the opposite. Many religions found a way to make money off of people's fears and killed to maintain that flow
of money. Those are the hypocrites that even I despise. No matter what you're feelings on religions are, and its not my business, you have no right to say that my beliefs are insane and unfounded. You want freedom for the lgbt community but not for Christians?? Who's the hypocrite?
So you simply choose to ignore the symptoms of religion to make ourself feel better? Because there is not currently enough information, there must be a deity creating and controlling everything? And you claim that belief is not crazy? Please!
There is massively more evidence for evolution that there is for creationism. There is no objective evidence for the existence of a deity of any kind. None. No experiments that have verifiable and repeatable results.
You don't think that "belief" in the nonexistent demonstrates a failure of cognition?
I'm not ignoring the symptoms of religions. How do you propose I do something about it? I can't save the world.
You haven't answered where the original matter came from...
Simple. Stop supporting and defending religion. Use logic, reason, and empathy in making your life choices. And encourage other to do the same.
The before is irrelevant, gravity distorts space and time. . Cycles of big bangs or a finite one. Space and time is infinite.
You appear to be an intelligent person. Stop believing in fairy tales and acknowledge reality.
And the vast majority believed the earth was flat for decades until it was proven wrong. It was blasphemous. One simple, tangible proof is who/what created the initial matter? Answer that. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, right? Science
RElmer, the before IS absolutely relevant. Go ask your brother how the initial matter came about. He must be more intelligent than you. Cycles only occur after something sets them in motion.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The tenets of religion have been constantly proven wrong for centuries. We just haven't been at it long enough to have all the answers yet.
But not one claim of the bible has been demonstrated to be true.
I will always support and defend Christianity and the Bible. That's unwavering. Organized religion is not my concern. Do some research on www.earthage.org. You can say its biased all you want but find a scientist that can say its wrong.
There isn't even any first account evidence of the existence of Jesus. Any logical analysis of religion tears it to shreds. And all religion has to defend itself is.... Nothing.
The Flood has been proven to be true by science. Look it up. That's just one example. I don't have time to go through them all. And you can't prove a "faith" of religion of any sort to be untrue. I don't follow organized religion but so understand that.
Your opinions are not logical arguments against faith. You still have not provided proof that there isn't a God. And still no answer to what came before the Big Bang or whatever you believe. Saying its crazy bc you can't test it is not a logical argument.
This is no longer productive for us to debate as neither of us will change our minds. Lets agree to disagree.
I suppose I engage in these discussions because I struggle to understand how people can believe in something that is demonstrably false in a world filled with information.
I can respect that you don't always understand someone else's beliefs. And obviously you haven't been shown or found any evidence to point to a God. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the opposite is true. And you don't have to be nasty about it.
Rand: So you think that religion is like schizophrenia? Despite the lack of disorganized thought, negative symptoms, etc. You seem to have a radical opinion distinctly different from all psychiatrists, doctors, the APA, etc. Who's making up pseudo-science now?
Death is not the end. Because if it is, why work? Life would then be a 24/7 party. There would be no wars and peace would be throughout the world.
There needs to be a "Who knows?" option.
That's dark, Delaware
If death is the end, why live?
Because you're alive now! So you're saying the only purpose in life is to suck up to the "sky daddy" and hope he'll let you in to the exclusive "after life" club? That's even more depressing
70% denial in this country... live for those that are left after you're gone because the end is not for everyone.
Regardless of your beliefs, live like it IS the end because you never know.
Cognito ergo sum. Dead people don't think.
Neither do some live people
While technically untrue, I completely agree.
I understand the technical part but it sure seems to fit
I hide, therefore I am? ;)
Gotta love it.
The sad part is that there are so many people so concerned about what might come after and all the rules for getting there that they make life here miserable for anyone who doesn't agree with them, not to mention for themselves...no sex before marriage...seriously??
What matters is the here and now. Period. Everything else is fantasy.
This is all we know. Why waste it on something we believe?
Why is it that sex is always the one topic that so many seem to think is the most important in the world. There are things that are much more important. By waiting and presenting yourself as a gift to your spouse makes thinhs far more meaningful and enjoyable. Life after death absolutely.
But you're missing the point- sex can be meaningful and that's great. But it can also be fun, exhilarating, meaningless but sensational. You're losing out on all the other aspects of sex. It's not the only point- but it's just one to demonstrate the silliness of religion.
@colemats Check the stats & talk to people who lived that way for a while. Their usually broken, confused & afraid to admit because the world at large tells them it's all realitive anyway.
What if the person you save yourself for just happens to be the same sex as you? Is that less special? Oh , those pesky rules getting in the way if common sense and decency. I don't proclaim absolute knowledge of what comes after, but I'm not going to waste this life worrying about what might be.
@shoppe4u Yeah they're happy because it's the best sex they've ever had... because they've never had any other sex