Poll: Is there an Afterlife?

[Killer]

religion n.

1.

...

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion


.atheism
n.
-Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
-The doctrine that there is no God or gods. -Godlessness; immorality.
<!-- end ahd4 --><!-- begin wn --> <!-- google_ad_region_start=def --> atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods





Looks pretty clear cut to me.


​

Me too. You are still wrong. (second)

 

[Killer]

But I'm guessing you guys are all far more intelligent and educated than this guy... so OBVIOUSLY you are right...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

I don't base desisions on what others think, at least when it comes to this kind of thing.

 

[TurfBurn]

Me too. You are still wrong. (second)

That's fine... But regardless of the "religion" term... atheism is a belief... much like theism is.. down to that they are equivalent... theism isn't necessarily a religion from the standpoint you are taking, and that I can see and agree... splitting hairs in the end.

 

[TurfBurn]

I don't base desisions on what others think, at least when it comes to this kind of thing.

My point was going back to the statements earlier about "which magic and etc" comments... My personal beliefs are because of what "I" see as scientific and mathematical and empirical data that results in it being more LOGICAL to conclude that a god (not THE God, or a Christian, or islamic or whatever god) exists than to conclude that one does not. And my point was this gentleman also came to the same conclusion based on his years of study and devotion. Trying to argue that it is not the case that there is scientific support for it to be more logical of a choice, is to say on your or someone elses behalf that you are more knowledgeable and understanding of the topic than that gentleman who was internationally recognized and obviously quite educated (per where he was a professor etc).

 

[FL_PR5]

i would like to believe in an afterlife. to me it would be a shame to just end it all on one turn. there is so much i havn't experienced and i am only 17. so thats not to mention all the other kids/teens/young adults who have died and not had to the pleasure to experience many of the finer things that life has to offer. it would just be wrong for their life to end at 18 for example and not be able to enjoy anything because of a drunk driver or a heart attack. i do believe in an afterlife and hope there is a God or Angel watching over me when i need them. to me it seems like a cushion that when i die i will be at rest and among the finer and most beautiful objects, people, and places. if there is not a afterlife then what is this life really for? if there is no afterflife then why would we fill our lives with worthless possessions that will get us no where? is it just to enjoy life to the fullest while we can? i hope that is so and that it carries over with us with our good deeds and travels with us and our souls.

so all in all to me it would be a shame if there is no afterlife where we can live in paradise, our own paradise. i just hope we find peace one way or another in a divine place.

 

[novAKs47]

Well...can't really say. No one can really answer that I guess. You have to die in order to find out but you can't really tell anybody since you're dead. Let's just leave it as: I have a life to live, and if it's there, it's there. If not, then it's not.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[pingdum]

You all missed the point, I don't mean doing drugs or having lots of crazy sex (which by the way certain religions do espouse). I mean if you spend your Sundays in church instead of having a picnic or making love to your wife (an activity frowned upon by some religions), then you could be wasting years of time if your only going to church to hedge your bets on it all being true.
And I am not insulting your particular crazy story. Do you believe Zeus sits on a mountain throwing lightning bolts at people? Well that story used to be believed by millions of people who would have thought you crazy if you had mentioned you believe there was only one God.

 

[TurfBurn]

I'm going to church, having fun, hanging out with people I like, and overall probably being more social, and getting up earlier than if I didn't have church on Sunday....

 

[FL_PR5]

i agree with both of you. do what makes you happy and whatever helps you fullfill your life with your loved ones and the ones you hold the closest. because you never know when those moments will be the only thing you have left of them. so enjoy what you have before it's gone. it's just different from persson to person on what they consider important or a fullfilling experience. so do what you can while you can, live it up, have fun, experience all that life has to offer, enjoy life.

- FL_PR5 (usa)

 

[Killer]

My point was going back to the statements earlier about "which magic and etc" comments... My personal beliefs are because of what "I" see as scientific and mathematical and empirical data that results in it being more LOGICAL to conclude that a god (not THE God, or a Christian, or islamic or whatever god) exists than to conclude that one does not. And my point was this gentleman also came to the same conclusion based on his years of study and devotion. Trying to argue that it is not the case that there is scientific support for it to be more logical of a choice, is to say on your or someone elses behalf that you are more knowledgeable and understanding of the topic than that gentleman who was internationally recognized and obviously quite educated (per where he was a professor etc).

What does education have to do with it. I am educated, degreed, I taught classes at a JC for 2 years when I was in my late twenties. Education has nothing to do with this. Either you believe in the invisable man in the sky or you don't. I don't.

 

[TurfBurn]

What does education have to do with it. I am educated, degreed, I taught classes at a JC for 2 years when I was in my late twenties. Education has nothing to do with this. Either you believe in the invisable man in the sky or you don't. I don't.

Have you studied DNA strand makeup and evolutionary probability? I certainly haven't...

 

[Killer]

Have you studied DNA strand makeup and evolutionary probability? I certainly haven't...

No, just an engineer. But honestly...you actually believe in an invisable man in the sky? Where does that fit into ANY type of realistic reality? When was the last time a man died, came back to life 3 days later? Or got 2 of ech species of animal on the earth and put them on a boat?

I mean really...Its just (lol2)

 

[TurfBurn]

No, just an engineer. But honestly...you actually believe in an invisable man in the sky? Where does that fit into ANY type of realistic reality? When was the last time a man died, came back to life 3 days later? Or got 2 of ech species of animal on the earth and put them on a boat?

I mean really...Its just (lol2)

I'm an engineer as well...

First of all there is no way I can make you believe, nor will I really try. I can only say that you need to explain things for yourself... There is far too much in the world that doesn't fit with out conventional explanations... here are a few examples

1) Why if advanced thought and self awareness is such a massive evolutionary advantage as is proved by our human expansion, did no other creature develop it? Almost all other evolutionary advantages are expressed in multiple species, yet the most significant of all advantages is only expressed once in one form... why?

2) Water is less available than many other substances in the ground and air as a whole (and even more rare in the early formative years of the earth)... yet water is the initial medium of evolution and with the exception of some theories about sulfur bacteria etc. Water is also the only substance in the natural world that becomes less dense when transitioning to a solid, thus causing large bodies of water and the like to never freeze solid and thus further facilitated throughout ice ages and many varied circumstances for life to continue to evolve or grow and not be destroyed or terminated (no way to pursue food/energy when immobilized, etc.) So why is water different? Or if you prefer, why is water the basis (it is responsible for conveying nearly every chemical reaction in life forms and chemical transport etc) of life on the earth?

3) Where did the big bang come from, what material, why, how, where did the energy come from?

4) Why do so many people and cultures with NO interaction to one another to some degree or another at such a consistent level come to the conclusion and develop elaborate ritual and belief to a supreme being? Are humans hard-wired to do so? If so why?

5) With all the variation and differences of life and organisms and the mechanisms involved do all forms of life carry DNA structure based on the same chemical chaining helixes? Why not other ways of carrying the same genetic material? Why not 10,000 different types of "data storage" for life forms? Certainly has been enough time to develop.

I can keep listing stuff, but you maybe see my point... while you MAY be able to explain each one individually, explaining all of them together only has one rough explanation - something of intelligence or constructive power likely drove all of the above. And before you try to argue away the intelligence/constructive power, explain the 5 points above... confirm those issues rather than immediately attacking the result that they would yield in theory.

 

[pingdum]

Noone is saying there arn't unanswerable questions. Why do you think you're smart enough to have figured out the simple answer? I admit I don't have a clue what's going on with the universe and stuff, and I'm fine with that.

 

[TurfBurn]

Noone is saying there arn't unanswerable questions. Why do you think you're smart enough to have figured out the simple answer? I admit I don't have a clue what's going on with the universe and stuff, and I'm fine with that.

Never said I was smart enough... my point was that given that set of questions, to ME there is only one logical or rational choice of any resonable probability. Whether MY logic or rationalization is correct I don't know and I don't put forward (hence I was open to whatever opinion you had on the questions etc to see another viewpoint). Just simply I know what it means to me. I also know that having not always been a religious person, and being one now, I also know that for me my life has been much better, happier, and more enjoyable because of my faith. Therefore, regardless, I'm in a win, win, win situation... life is better, I'd be "safe" in the bet, and I've benefited greatly socially and personally from that situation and belief.


But most people say they rule out God existing because of a "lack of evidence." My point is that per those questions I could argue that evidence exists... For comparison purposes consider anit-matter... it's an accepted and "proven" scientific theory that anti-matter exists... but it has never been observed or measured directly.... but you certainly do think scientists are completely off their rocker for establishing a theory and belief that anti-matter exists.... so why the double standard when it comes to there being a supreme deity?

 

[Rickman]

How is a higher being the most rational excuse for anything? In a universe of infinite possibilities I'm not denying that it could possible, but saying it's the only explanation is just daft.

 

[TurfBurn]

How is a higher being the most rational excuse for anything? In a universe of infinite possibilities I'm not denying that it could possible, but saying it's the only explanation is just daft.

See I exactly predicted someone would do this :

And before you try to argue away the intelligence/constructive power, explain the 5 points above...

I also didn't say it was the only explanation:

given that set of questions, to ME there is only one logical or rational choice of any resonable probability. Whether MY logic or rationalization is correct I don't know and I don't put forward

Rather emphasized that it was MY only explanation based on MY logic.

So, before you call it daft I challenge you to offer a plausible explanation for all 5 of the previously stated "questions of interest" or find a way to render them as questions that are not of interest or value by being of nature false or inaccurate.

 

[Rickman]

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[TurfBurn]

http://www.venganza.org/

Sure... and your point? I never said it was "God" who was the answer... but my opinion was that it was an intelligent designer/force. Your FSM would fit that... but again like those who don't want to make an intelligent argument you chose not to address the questions posed but see if you can make light of or fun of what you assume is my belief.

You have yet to provide in any way YOUR answers for the 5 questions.

 

[pingdum]

You have yet to provide in any way YOUR answers for the 5 questions.

Saying "Here's a wild expaination and I dare you to disprove it." or "Well, let's hear you come up with a better idea." is not the way science works. Scientific theory is based on observations first. Not by coming up with an idea and then challenging others to refute it.