Life After Death?

[Villan_of_oz]

No life after death. 

That is just as much hope as belief, on current form I will be quite exhausted after this life, I think I shall rather enjoy a good rest after it. Like an eternity of rest. 

[Phumfeinz]

My favourite "spirits caught on camera" pics are those ridiculous orb pics.

 

It's dust, yo. Dust.

[ml1dch]

32 minutes ago, Brumerican said:

Post a few dude. Let's have a look .

[MakemineVanilla]

The question is whether the next life will be about the same as this one, a bit worse, or better.

Will you be stuck with your relatives for eternity? And eternity is a very long time.

How good would it have to be for you to have it confirmed and think it was good news? 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Some say its a "kids story" then how did we get here? Big bang, evolution ? Are yhese theories kids stories as well? 

No, obviously not. They are scientific theories based on research, study and things like fossil records. 

There is absolutely no comparison to be made.

[mjmooney]

To get this thread away from religion and ghosts, have a think about how there might be a way for your consciousness to live on after your body goes the way of all flesh. 

Perhaps some way of uploading your knowledge, memories, etc. into computerised storage? 

This is science fiction, but an intriguing thought. 

[Demitri_C]

30 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

No, obviously not. They are scientific theories based on research, study and things like fossil records. 

There is absolutely no comparison to be made.

Theories = ideas, opinions so solid evidence

There is no evidence suggesting god did or not create the big bang. So same. So the theories are jjst as much of a "story" to put in the context of some others words.

[Brumerican]

15 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

To get this thread away from religion and ghosts, have a think about how there might be a way for your consciousness to live on after your body goes the way of all flesh. 

Perhaps some way of uploading your knowledge, memories, etc. into computerised storage? 

This is science fiction, but an intriguing thought. 

I think in theory it's doable. It's just transferring electrical signals from a biological computer to a non biological computer.

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Theories = ideas, opinions so solid evidence

There is no evidence suggesting god did or not create the big bang. So same. So the theories are jjst as much of a "story" to put in the context of some others words.

That's not what theory means in scientific terms.

[Brumerican]

2 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Theories = ideas, opinions so solid evidence

 

You need to understand the difference between "Theory" in scientific terms and "theory" in laymans terms .

This is the most common mistake made when trying to understand how science operates. 

[MakemineVanilla]

21 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

To get this thread away from religion and ghosts, have a think about how there might be a way for your consciousness to live on after your body goes the way of all flesh. 

Perhaps some way of uploading your knowledge, memories, etc. into computerised storage? 

This is science fiction, but an intriguing thought. 

I thought that is why people have children?

[Ginko]

Another one in the 'once you're dead you're dead' camp and you return to the nothingness you didn't know before you were born. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Gives me an excuse to post my favourite song from The Book of Mormon, though:

 

[Straggler]

15 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

To get this thread away from religion and ghosts, have a think about how there might be a way for your consciousness to live on after your body goes the way of all flesh. 

Perhaps some way of uploading your knowledge, memories, etc. into computerised storage? 

This is science fiction, but an intriguing thought. 

This is the stuff of both dream and nightmare for me.  There has already been companies in the news with services that make your digital footprint live on after you are gone

http://eterni.me/

Quote

You could live on forever as a digital avatar?

And people in the future could actually interact with your memories, stories and ideas, almost as if they were talking to you?

To me the service I have posted here is creepy as all hell and is of course nothing like the idea of having your consciousness live on after you.  It is quite one thing to create a bit of software that can imitate how you behave online well enough to fool a relative and a totally different thing to transfer the contents of a brain into a computer well enough to convince the brain that it is still the same person and functioning consciousness as was in the fleshy packaging.  How can you ever know if it is truly successful as we can hardly define what it is to be us at the moment never mind test a successful transfer of what constitutes us into computerised storage?  It reminds me of the philosophical argument regarding teleportation and if the original "you" that goes into the transporter is disassembled have you "died" and as a new perfect copy created is it still you or is it something new and separate?  I don't know. 

There is a book I read years ago that deals really nicely with the idea of people taking teleportation for granted, then it turns out they really are being killed and replaced with more compliant versions of themselves.

[TrentVilla]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Theories = ideas, opinions so solid evidence

There is no evidence suggesting god did or not create the big bang. So same. So the theories are jjst as much of a "story" to put in the context of some others words.

Honestly, this sort of thing leaves me aghast and not just for the reason already pointed out about the differing definitions of theories.

I find it increadible that those of faith seek to shift the onus of proof onto those without faith, frankly it's absurd.

Effectively what you are saying is you believe something to be true, something that has no factual foundation only a book that is some 2000 years old and has been subject to numerous edits, translations and additions by others unknown. 

You then try and equate the lack of evidence to support your belief with a lack of evidence to disprove it. 

I find it quite incredible when people of faith raise this sort of objection to those who don't have faith seemingly unaware of the great irony in their stance.

There is lots of evidence to support theories (scientific rather than theological, see previous difference) such as evolution and the Big Bang. 

They are far more evidential than the bible, which fails to mention either I might add because they were not conceived by man when they wrote the various books.

If the bible was the word of God and God was responsible for the Big Bang surely he would have thought to mention it? But no the bible offers creationism, which shockingly some still firmly believe.

The bible, like people of 2000 years ago also has no clue that the world is spherical. Odd that if it's the word of the man that created it.

The onus of proof, of evidence isn't on those without faith it is on those of faith but we all know that there is no proof of God in biblical terms. Just as there is no proof of the multitude of other gods created through the ages by various cizilisations to try and give answers and a sense of meaning to the various questions of life.

It is science not religion that has and continues to provide those answers. Obviously science doesn't yet have all the answers and likely never will but it's a darn sight more reliable, more tangible and evidenced than the stories of goat hurders passed on over centries before being harnsed by the rich to control the many.

Even the bloody Pope now accepts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution!

I absolutely respect people's right to hold beliefs but I don't respect those same beliefs.

 

[NurembergVillan]

Dinosaurs. Yes or no?

[TrentVilla]

Just now, NurembergVillan said:

Dinosaurs. Yes or no?

Depends, what you got and how much? 

[Straggler]

8 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Dinosaurs. Yes or no?

Yes, mine is the one wearing a digital watch.

[NurembergVillan]

[MakemineVanilla]

51 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Honestly, this sort of thing leaves me aghast and not just for the reason already pointed out about the differing definitions of theories.

I find it increadible that those of faith seek to shift the onus of proof onto those without faith, frankly it's absurd.

Effectively what you are saying is you believe something to be true, something that has no factual foundation only a book that is some 2000 years old and has been subject to numerous edits, translations and additions by others unknown. 

You then try and equate the lack of evidence to support your belief with a lack of evidence to disprove it. 

I find it quite incredible when people of faith raise this sort of objection to those who don't have faith seemingly unaware of the great irony in their stance.

There is lots of evidence to support theories (scientific rather than theological, see previous difference) such as evolution and the Big Bang. 

They are far more evidential than the bible, which fails to mention either I might add because they were not conceived by man when they wrote the various books.

If the bible was the word of God and God was responsible for the Big Bang surely he would have thought to mention it? But no the bible offers creationism, which shockingly some still firmly believe.

The bible, like people of 2000 years ago also has no clue that the world is spherical. Odd that if it's the word of the man that created it.

The onus of proof, of evidence isn't on those without faith it is on those of faith but we all know that there is no proof of God in biblical terms. Just as there is no proof of the multitude of other gods created through the ages by various cizilisations to try and give answers and a sense of meaning to the various questions of life.

It is science not religion that has and continues to provide those answers. Obviously science doesn't yet have all the answers and likely never will but it's a darn sight more reliable, more tangible and evidenced than the stories of goat hurders passed on over centries before being harnsed by the rich to control the many.

Even the bloody Pope now accepts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution!

I absolutely respect people's right to hold beliefs but I don't respect those same beliefs.

 

The Pope is a Catholic and not a postmodernist.

A postmodernist would reject your rationalism and your truth because they claim that "truths" are not absolute, "truths" are social constructions, depending on race, class, gender and generally power-status.

Postmodernists claim that reason is a tool by means of which certain empowered groups retain their hegemony, oppressing other groups; the emotions and experiences of such groups,   are to be valued over rational argument. 

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, TrentVilla said:

Honestly, this sort of thing leaves me aghast and not just for the reason already pointed out about the differing definitions of theories.

I find it increadible that those of faith seek to shift the onus of proof onto those without faith, frankly it's absurd.

Effectively what you are saying is you believe something to be true, something that has no factual foundation only a book that is some 2000 years old and has been subject to numerous edits, translations and additions by others unknown. 

You then try and equate the lack of evidence to support your belief with a lack of evidence to disprove it. 

I find it quite incredible when people of faith raise this sort of objection to those who don't have faith seemingly unaware of the great irony in their stance.

There is lots of evidence to support theories (scientific rather than theological, see previous difference) such as evolution and the Big Bang. 

They are far more evidential than the bible, which fails to mention either I might add because they were not conceived by man when they wrote the various books.

If the bible was the word of God and God was responsible for the Big Bang surely he would have thought to mention it? But no the bible offers creationism, which shockingly some still firmly believe.

The bible, like people of 2000 years ago also has no clue that the world is spherical. Odd that if it's the word of the man that created it.

The onus of proof, of evidence isn't on those without faith it is on those of faith but we all know that there is no proof of God in biblical terms. Just as there is no proof of the multitude of other gods created through the ages by various cizilisations to try and give answers and a sense of meaning to the various questions of life.

It is science not religion that has and continues to provide those answers. Obviously science doesn't yet have all the answers and likely never will but it's a darn sight more reliable, more tangible and evidenced than the stories of goat hurders passed on over centries before being harnsed by the rich to control the many.

Even the bloody Pope now accepts the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution!

I absolutely respect people's right to hold beliefs but I don't respect those same beliefs.

 

All opinions not really facts. Therefore it's your opinion it's fantasy and a story. I'm not trying to convert or make you believe not really my intention. My argument is your belief is as good as mine. Everyone is entitled to believe in what they wish to.

if Trent wants to believe no god that's fine

if dem wants to believe in god that's fine

if nv wants to believe in the tooth fairy ( which I'm sure he does) that's fine too.

its just the dismissive attitude I dont agree with. Comments like I can't believe  x amount of people a story, or it's made up etc. believe or not to believe that's everyone's choice I just don't agree with the belittling of those who choose to believe.