Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you believe in life after death?

133 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

133 Comments
Login to comment

If you want to believe you evolved from a brainless amoeba and there was a big watermelon in the sky for no reason that exploded and thats why we are here, but cant tell me where the amoebas or the watermelon came from... you are going to be in for a shock of all eternity when you die... we came from God and life is no accident.. and we will meet him when this short and temporary life is over.. Praise the LORD..Amen !!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. I do not want to live again anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe in administrative human error, and rounding errors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This life is all we have. Let's treat each other right. The "it doesn't matter what I do, since this life is only 1/10000000000000 of the total existence of my soul" is really not good for humanity at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wasabi67,

If you want to believe you evolved from a brainless amoeba and there was a big watermelon in the sky for no reason that exploded and thats why we are here, but cant tell me where the amoebas or the watermelon came from...

You should take a little time to learn what we know about the universe before commenting; it is clear that you have no grasp of cosmology.

You don't have any answers as to what there was before the Big Bang either. And making things up to fill in the blanks is, well, the same thing in any situation: a lie.

As ppayne points out, "it's simply not good for humanity".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And you also appear to he 'evolutionary theory-challenged', too.

Learn things; you might be surprised.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh.. i have looked at everything ... real science points to a Creator.. and the most beautiful thing about this... is one day.. we will see who is right... You or Me... No wonder Japan has the highest rate of suicide in all industrialized nations..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Is the world to be understood as originating from a creative intellect or arising out of a combination of probabilities in the realm of the absurd?" Ratzinger - The nature and mission of Theology.

George Weigel says "・ . . great social and political questions are, more often than not, ultimately theological in nature".

The theologian David Hart writes, " culture--a civilization--is only as great as the religious ideas that animate it. "

The philosopher Jurgen Habermas is even more specific. He writes, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy". Christianity is the true philosophy. Philosophy can leave the questions open. However revelation aids our reason and keeps us from making up a philosophy to believe in (Who wants to believe in a man made philosphy?)

With "Secular Absolutists" taking power we can see the freedom of speech and religion coming under attack. The right to life of course has already been compromised. Nihilism is not just nothing. On the otherhand, we do have pathologies of religions which can create much harm.

I like ppayne's comment which has faith in the goodness. Not far from the truth. Remember evolutionary ethics is quite blood thirsty. Yes, let us be good to one another and not entertain the survival of the fittest ethic. We were created for union and love with one another. What a task this is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idea that a huge number of people on earth believe in life after death is truly disturbing. It is an utterly fallacious and desperately self-obsessive, self-indulgent childish fantasy. The idea that a god (or gods) created the universe billions of years ago just so that you can drink beer, drive a Prius, mess about on the internet, fall in love, marry, get broken hearted, cheat, lie, spread joy and pain and all the other complicated things that people do is the silliest possible thing you could ever imagine. The central question would be: why? It's not like we are a brilliant race; only a dominant one, and one that finds it desperately hard to appreciate each other, manage our environment and our time. We are a small minded, mostly insular race of limited intelligence. If there was a supreme being, he'd probably have come up with something far better. The God squad also have another problem; they have no evidence. Not a scrap. And if you think being part of a church is the right answer then you need only look to the colossal heap of immorality that is the Catholic church to see that answer leads nowhere. And if you think a loving God presides over us, what about the tsunami that killed 300,000 people a few years back in Indonesia? God is a simplistic answer, but it is the wrong answer. The answer is to appreciate your life, even the bad bits, and spread a little joy, and if you can't do that, try to be good and fill your life with interest. And try to veer away from the 'life is no accident, we're off to heaven' crowd of obsessive fantasists. Life is for living now, so get on with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't believe in an afterlife.

However, I had a ghost in my home from November to January. I moved in Dec and it followed us to the new place. Though it's been gone since Feb began.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

real science points to a Creator

Real science never points to anything supernatural; it is but an observation of the natural world.

Pseudoscience, on the other hand, is well equipped to prove the existence of things like gods, ghosts, and Bigfoot because that ever pesky reality can be ignored.

Take heart from the fact that there is a known afterlife to speak of: your carbon will be used elsewhere when you return to the non-existence from whence you came.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Remember evolutionary ethics is quite blood thirsty. Yes, let us be good to one another and not entertain the survival of the fittest ethic.

Ethics have nothing to do with evolution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do believe and not doing any harm to others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is either people believe in God or not. That's all that makes a difference.

Life matters. It is the in-between after birth to death that counts. It is not how a person died, but how a person live his/her life. I don't believe in reincarnation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jonswan, very well said .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hell, I don't even believe in life before death. Work work work, where's fun in that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When I die my body and spirit will become part of mother Earth and a subgroup of the universe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

we will see who is right... You or Me...

But that 'we' could remember what we were doing before we were conceived. That would explain alot about where we'll be going after we die. However, since all of the religions of the world have different interpretations as to life after death, 'we' may never know - if there is a life, will you remember this one? If there isn't a life, how will you know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in my travels I have met 3 people whom have "died" hart stopped for more than 4 minutes, and they have told me very similar stories. Believe what you may, there is Not a shred of evidence your Don't have a Soul.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An afterlife is a load of hooey, and once people broadly grasp that and then realize that this life is all there is, I'd like to think that humanity would take better care of each other and the Earth. But given the grip that the death cults have over so many people, I'm not too optimistic about that happening any time soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in my travels I have met 3 people whom have "died" hart stopped for more than 4 minutes, and they have told me very similar stories.

Yes, the brain reacts similarly in everyone as it begins to shut down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

no

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure there's life after death; just not for the dead guy! Life goes on perfectly fine whenever someone dies. By definition, death is the end of life, so it's at least grammatically impossible ^_^ Does human consciousness and personality survive physical death? We're nowhere near determining that yet. It's a question science could likely answer, but here's the problem: there are a vast array of issues more pressing that require our attention. To outright say "no" is as biased a response as to say "yes". Neither believing, nor disbelieving will alter whatever the reality of the issue proves to be. One cannot make it so by believing if the notion is false, and one cannot unmake it so, if the notion is true. Now, I've got better stuff to do than talk about a silly question we've not been able to answer in a hundred thousand years, so I'm off to take a nap.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Life after death?

I believe in death after life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm quite open-minded about this. If a clergyman can somehow convince me that cockroaches have souls, and go to heaven after I stomp them, I might start believing that humans ought to be accorded the same consideration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where are the 'I hope so' and 'Dunno' buttons?

I don't believe in God or heaven or any of that religious stuff about either burning in Hell for all Eternity or coming back as a cockroach if you don't say your prayers and fill the collection box. 'Good' and 'Bad' are purely human ideas, and there is no reason at all to imagine that the universe is run purely, mainly or even partly for the benefit of humankind.

There's no scientific evidence either for or against life after death, but some of the experiences I've had make me feel deep down that there is something that continues. And if that something is limited to humans, I don't want to know.

So, live this life as if it's the only one you're going to get, but hope that it isn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think there's anyone on this thread who knows one way or the other. Why wasn't that an option to answer?

If there is no God, and if there is no afterlife, then nothing we do ultimately means anything. Ultimately, our existence would be meaningless no matter how much emotion may make us feel otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world is flat. If we don't allow for any other truth, we keep ourselves closed to it. I researched reincarnation for almost a decade. There is an enormous amount of information available but only some understands it in a way that not only makes sense but makes sense of LIFE and answers a LOT of questions. Basically, it is in the depths of your mind that all memories are stored. Life between lives is where the real you exists. Each different life is a role to learn from, and to help others learn. When you understand this, racism, sexism and any other discrimination fades. Nothing but respect and love for all remains.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo, can we put you down as 'atheist' who wishes she wasn't?

You can put me down as agnostic who hopes there is... largely for selfish reasons up front.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's no scientific evidence either for or against life after death

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie, but contrary to Mrs. Russell's teapot, many humans believe they have come to experience God through a variety of manner.

If you've come to believe that your existence ultimately means absolutely nothing... I dunno.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The search for truth will continue Nessie. The questions of life after death and why we are here? What is beauty, good, honorable and worthwhile? The scientific method cannot answer these questions. Nevertheless, we still ask them. There just may be Truth and an ethical one at that, that holds the key to life itself.

The historical method of studying the past history of humankind is useful for studying the past, but kind of keeps it there so it is seen as having no relevance for us today. It just might have some relevance for us. One example would be your speaking English. In fact, what do you have that was not given to you via the past? Your genes...from your father and mother, etc...even what you say is ...already past.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If there is no God, and if there is no afterlife, then nothing we do ultimately means anything. Ultimately, our existence would be meaningless no matter how much emotion may make us feel otherwise."

It seems to me that if there is nothing afterward, then what we do TODAY and how we do it is the only thing in our existence that has meaning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon, ultimately it has no meaning then. Any good you may do... any bad... ultimately it means nothing. It will be as if you'd never existed at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For those that have convinced themselves there is no God and no life after death, are you sure you want to spend your time on cyberspace threads? Maybe it's fitting... In a way, you've entered a form of non-existence where anything means nothing anyway. Good practice.

Heh, heh...

For those that believe in God and an afterlife, dya think He wants ya livin' the precious life he's given you here, too?

Bein' agnostic, I is perplexed by the whole conundrum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin is funny. Cyberspace is better than nothing I suppose, but is it the same as real human interaction? I do not think so, but it sure is easier. Just turn it on and off.

Nippon - the present is the past unfolding into the future - ney. Your direction is noteworthy. Each moment really is new but for how long? How many other events in history are we running into in the present? Does that event 2000 years ago have any bearing on us? Everything in history leaves its footprint. Even the beginning of the universe's footprint was found by Nasa (look up NASA - NASA Satellite Glimpses Universe's First Trillionth of a Second). We also leave our own footprint for others to deal with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We can all talk, argue or even fight over the issues surrounding religions but in the end there really isn’t a thing that anybody can say that proves the matter one way of the other. One thing that is critical to even beginning to answer such questions as this is to push the church, synagogue, Mosque or whatever out of the question. These are all man made constructs created with the sole interest of control rather revelation of truth, assuming there be a religious truth to be revealed. For me the idea of god and after life are simply man made constructs too and extremely arrogant constructs too. Simply look at the lives we all lead and you see that not one single one of us amounts to much yet many believe we are so very special that we have been created by a super being who had nothing better to do than create millions of unimportant little creatures who all run about doing totally meaningless things while also believing in HIM (sorry, or HER). Does a single bacteria get to have an after life? Well if you believe you do why shouldn’t it? Are Bacteria leading deep and meaningful lives discussing their very existence? I have to admit that I really don’t know (and neither does any one on this site), but what I do know is that all the ideas that we are trying to make sense of here are born out religions that are themselves man made constructs and not a single one of these religions (Buddhism is not a religion) give those bacteria the same value they give human kind. The question is born out teachings that are born out religion so the foundation of your thinking is already deeply suspect. I am neither so arrogant nor so insecure as to feel that we have a need to believe in such fantastic notions as god and an after life. What we can and should do is live the life we have based on a sense of self, we know who we are and what we feel so should treat others as we would our self be treated. If you feel any need to look out side of yourself for who you are that is a need born within you and such needs will always find an “answer”, any answer that is comfortable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where are the 'I hope so' and 'Dunno' buttons?

Because it is not "do you know?" question, if it is then "I hope so" or "Dunno" be valid answers.

The question is "Do you believe?" so the answer can only be plain "yes" or "no".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ronin -

If there is no God, and if there is no afterlife

Why do those two have to go together? What's wrong with considering the possibility of one without the other?

can we put you down as 'atheist' who wishes she wasn't?

Good God, no! It would be devastating and very, very frightening to believe that all we see around us is planned by some almighty allknowing celestial being, because he/she/it obviously isn't very good at it. Either that, or he/she/it has got it in for us.

Nessie -

The thing about the teapot is that whether it's there or not has absolutely no bearing on our lives, so there's no point either looking for the scientific evidence of its existence, or in wasting time trying to persuade believers that there is no scientific evidence - unless of course they think the teapot is talking to them, telling them to tell us how to live our lives and asking us for money for celestial teabags. If people find the idea of a teapot in space comforting, then that's fine for them. I'd at least need for it to start raining tea on a regular basis before I'd consider worrying about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The question is "Do you believe?" so the answer can only be plain "yes" or "no".

Nope. I'm a committed Dunno.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was recently looking at a stunning picture of the Andromeda Galaxy. It has an estimated trillion17 stars as does our Milky Way Galaxy. It looks as if planets like earth are not uncommon. And the Hubble Telescope has been able to identify 80 billion galaxies in the narrow area it can view and survy.

In 2.5 billion years, Andromeda and Milky Way will collide, and then what of earth and life?

The vastness of our Universe defies human imagination. And is it the only Universe or merely a drop of water in a great ocean?

Somehow I find it difficult to conceive that a special dispensation from annihilation has been given to us. But maybe Plato is right--that there is a non-material soul that exists and goes on separate from the Universe we know.

I dunno.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there is a God, He has done an exceptionally good job of keeping His existence secret.

Like the Yeti and the Lochness Monster, He has believers, yet He remains elusive.

Perhaps the Yeti, the Lochness Monster and The Almighty have something else in common...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Grafton - The bacteria is taken into account, in their own capacity. Remember the present material world is just a moment of all history. It is the whole Universe that Christianity speaks about. All of history. It is certainly difficult to know for sure these things, but if it is reasonable then we can get somewhere.

There was a meeting of Greek Philosophy and Hebrew Wisdom literature in history, which set the stage for the spread of Christianity. It was an event that happened. Like a birth of a child. Joyful and it goes beyond reason. To experience? Something between the two and yet is both. Who can make such promises of life? A fictional being? Perhaps, but boy does it raise up ones spirit to great heights, even if false. And when people die, it is comforting. Maybe it is all meaningless, but I hope I never find that out. I have not been convinced on the "this is all there is" view of the world. Maybe one day, and I am sure I will cry.

You know "this is all there is" view of the world has a lot of truth to it and shows a need for "salvation" (maybe no need, except for love of others). It does one well to reflect on the seriousness of their and others shared, present state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do believe in a higher power however I'm not so certain of an afterlife. Just because there is an all powerful entity does not necessarily mean it has any interest in our activities. Certainly hope it does though, it would be such a shame for our existence to be so limited.

The question is "Do you believe?" so the answer can only be plain "yes" or "no".

If I were to do a survey on the matter I’d probably end up with most people answering in the grey area between belief and disbelief. People with an absolute belief in an afterlife and an absolute disbelief in an afterlife are going to be in the minority. Most sane people tend to keep themselves open to the possibilities while maintaining a healthy level of skepticism.

nipponreddog, sensible post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe in God, though I admit that I do doubt his existence at times...a lot, actually. I also think people take the Bible too literally. I think it's more like a book of..."lessons", maybe? It seems more metaphorical than anything.

I try not to think about what's beyond death and just live life. I don't think we're meant to know, really. Whatever your beliefs are, I think the most important thing is to be able to say you're proud of your life when you do die.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

modern man - Homo sapiens - is a stranger to Earth. Ever since Charles Darwin shocked the scholars and theologians of his time with the evidence of evolution, life on Earth has been traced through Man and the primates, mammals, and vertebrates, and backward through ever-lower life forms to the point, billions of years ago, at which life is presumed to have begun. But having reached these beginnings and having begun to contemplate the probabilities of life elsewhere in our solar system and beyond, the scholars have become uneasy about life on Earth: Somehow, it does not belong here. If it began through a series of spontaneous chemical reactions, why does life on Earth have but a single source, and not a multitude of chance sources? And why does all living matter on Earth contain too little of the chemical elements that abound on Earth, and too much of those that are rare on our planet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

life on Earth has been traced through Man and the primates, mammals, and vertebrates, and backward through ever-lower life forms to the point, billions of years ago, at which life is presumed to have begun

No it hasn't. You can't trace back to a presumption. The record is littered with more and more missing links, maybes and possiblies the further back you go. There are lots of theories, but we have not 'reached these beginnings' and probably never will.

'We don't understand it so it must be magic' is not scientific theory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, we all live, die and decompose. Death is death.

I only have one life to live so I try to spend my time wisely and not waste it. Live life to the fullest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DEAR CLEO KEEP READING!! Was life, then, imported to Earth from elsewhere? Man's position in the evolutionary chain has compounded the puzzle. Finding a broken skull here, a jaw there, scholars at first believed that Man originated in Asia some 500,000 years ago. But as older fossils were found, it became evident that the mills of evolution grind much, much slower. Man's ancestor apes are now placed at a staggering 25,000,000 years ago. Discoveries in East Africa reveal a transition to manlike apes (hominids) some 14,000,000 years ago. It was about 11,000,000 years later that the first ape-man worthy of the classification Homo appeared there. The first being considered to be truly manlike - "Advanced Australopithecus" - existed in the same parts of Africa some 2,000,000 years ago. It took yet another million years to produce Homo erectus. Finally, after another 900,000 years, the first primitive Man appeared; he is named Neanderthal after the site where his remains were first found. In spite of the passage of more than 2,000,000 years between Advanced Australopithecus and Neanderthal, the tools of these two groups - sharp stones - were virtually alike; and the groups themselves (as they are believed to have looked) were hardly distinguishable. The first being considered to be truly manlike - "Advanced Australopithecus" - existed in the same parts of Africa some 2,000,000 years ago. It took yet another million years to produce Homo erectus. Finally, after another 900,000 years, the first primitive Man appeared; he is named Neanderthal after the site where his remains were first found. In spite of the passage of more than 2,000,000 years between Advanced Australopithecus and Neanderthal, the tools of these two groups - sharp stones - were virtually alike; and the groups themselves (as they are believed to have looked) were hardly distinguishable. Then, suddenly and inexplicably, some 35,000 years ago, a new race of Men - Homo sapiens ("thinking Man") - appeared as if from nowhere, and swept Neanderthal Man from the face of Earth. These modern Men - named Cro-Magnon - looked so much like us that, if dressed like us in modern clothes, they would be lost in the crowds of any European or American city. Because of the magnificent cave art which they created, they were at first called "cavemen." In fact, they roamed Earth freely, for they knew how to build shelters and homes of stones and animal skins wherever they went. For millions of years, Man's tools had been simply stones of useful shapes. Cro-Magnon Man, however, made specialized tools and weapons of wood and bones. He was no longer a "naked ape," for he used skins for clothing. His society was organized; he lived in clans with a patriarchal hegemony. His cave drawings bespeak artistry and depth of feeling; his drawings and sculptures evidence some form of "religion," apparent in the worship of a Mother Goddess, who was sometimes depicted with the sign of the Moon's crescent. He buried his dead, and must therefore have had some philosophies regarding life, death, and perhaps even an afterlife. As mysterious and unexplained as the appearance of Cro-Magnon Man has been, the puzzle is still more complicated. For, as other remains of modern Man were discovered (at sites including Swanscombe, Steinheim, and Montmaria), it became apparent that Cro-Magnon Man stemmed from an even earlier Homo sapiens who lived in western Asia and North Africa some 2500000 years before Cro-Magnon Man. The appearance of modem Man a mere 700,000 years after Homo erectus and some 200,000, years before Neanderthal Man is absolutely implausible. It is also clear that Homo sapiens represents such an extreme departure from the slow evolutionary process that many of our features, such as the ability to speak, are totally unrelated to the earlier primates. An outstanding authority on the subject, Professor Theodosius Dobzhansky (Mankind Evolving), was especially puzzled by the fact that this development took place during a period when Earth was going through an ice age, a most unpropitious time for evolutionary advance. Pointing out that Homo sapiens lacks completely some of the peculiarities of the previously known types, and has some that never appeared before, he concluded: "Modern man has many fossil collateral relatives but no progenitors; the derivation of Homo sapiens, then, becomes a puzzle." How, then, did the ancestors of modern Man appear some 300,000 years ago - instead of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 years in the future, following further evolutionary development? Were we imported to Earth from elsewhere, or were we, as the Old Testament and other ancient sources claim, created by the gods? We now know where civilization began and how it developed, once it began. The unanswered question is: Why - why did civilization come about at all? For, as most scholars now admit in frustration, by all data Man should still be without civilization. There is no obvious reason that we should be any more civilized than the primitive tribes of the Amazon jungles or the inaccessible parts of New Guinea, But, we are told, these tribesmen still live as if in the Stone Age because they have been isolated. But isolated from what? If they have been living on the same Earth as we, why have they not acquired the same knowledge of sciences and technologies on their own as we supposedly have? The real puzzle, however, is not the backwardness of the Bushmen, but our advancement; for it is now recognized that in the normal course of evolution Man should still be typified by the Bushmen and not by us. It took Man some 2,000,000 years to advance in his "tool industries" from the use of stones as he found them to the realization that he could chip and shape stones to better suit his purposes. Why not another 2,000,000 years to learn the use of other materials, and another 10,000,000 years to master mathematics and engineering and astronomy? Yet here we are, less than 50,000 years from Neanderthal Man, landing astronauts on the Moon. The obvious question, then, is this: Did we and our Mediterranean ancestors really acquire this advanced civilization on our own?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The True -

That's a very hefty copy-and-paste you've got there, but it has nothing to do with 1) your earlier claim that life on Earth has been traced through Man and the primates, mammals, and vertebrates, and backward through ever-lower life forms to the point, billions of years ago, at which life is presumed to have begun and 2) the topic of the thread, which is life after death.

You're also confusing civilisation with technological know-how. I consider myself a pretty civilised kind of person, but left to my own devices I could not put a man on the Moon or even whip up an internal combustion engine. On a one-to-one basis, individuals in the West are more or less on a par with our cousins in the Amazon and the inaccessible parts of New Guinea.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

when did i said that i writer it?

just keep reading!!!

more is Coming!!

We were make by the Anunnki!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

here is more dear!

Though Cro-Magnon Man did not build skyscrapers nor use metals, there is no doubt that his was a sudden and revolutionary civilization. His mobility, ability to build shelters, his desire to clothe himself, his manufactured tools, his art - all were a sudden high civilization breaking an endless beginning of Man's culture that stretched over millions of years and advanced at a painfully

slow pace. Though our scholars cannot explain the appearance of Homo sapiens and the civilization of Cro-Magnon Man, there is by now no doubt regarding this civilization's place of origin: the Near East. The uplands and mountain ranges that extend in a semiarc from the Zagros Mountains in the east (where present-day Iran and Iraq border on each other), through the Ararat and Taurus ranges in the north, then down, westward and southward, to the hill lands of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, are replete with caves where the evidence of prehistoric but modern Man has been preserved. One of these caves, Shanidar, is located in the northeastern part of the semiarc of civilization. Nowadays, fierce Kurdish tribesmen seek shelter in the area's caves for themselves and their flocks during the cold winter months. So it was, one wintry night 44,000 years ago, when a family of seven (one of whom was a baby) sought shelter in the cave of Shanidar. Their remains - they were evidently crushed to death by a rockfall - were discovered in 1957 by a startled Ralph Solecki, who went to the area in search of evidence of early Man (Professor Solecki has told me that nine skeletons were found, of which only four were crushed by rockfall.) What he found was more than he expected. As layer upon layer of debris was removed, it became apparent that the cave preserved a clear record of Man's habitation in the area from about 100,000 to some 13,000 years ago. What this record showed was as surprising as the find itself. Man's culture has shown not a progression but a regression. Starting from a certain standard, the following generations showed not more advanced but less advanced standards of civilized life. And from about 27,000 B.C. to 11,000 B.C., the regressing and dwindling population reached the point of an almost complete absence of habitation. For reasons that are assumed to have been climatic, Man was almost completely gone from the whole area for some 16,000 years. And then, circa 11,000 B.C., "thinking Man" reappeared with new vigor and on an inexplicably higher cultural level. It was as if an unseen coach, watching the faltering human game, dispatched to the field a fresh and better-trained team to take over from the exhausted one. Throughout the many millions of years of his endless beginning, Man was nature's child; he subsisted by gathering the foods that grew wild, by hunting the wild animals, by catching wild birds and fishes. But just as Man's settlements were thinning out, just as he was abandoning his abodes, when his material and artistic achievements were disappearing - just then, suddenly, with no apparent reason and without any prior known period of gradual preparation - Man became a farmer. Summarizing the work of many eminent authorities on the subject, R. J. Braidwood and B. Howe (Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan) concluded that genetic studies confirm the archaeological finds and leave no doubt that agriculture began exactly where Thinking Man had emerged earlier with his first crude civilization: in the Near East. There is no doubt by now that agriculture spread all over the world from the Near Eastern arc of mountains and highlands. Employing sophisticated methods of radiocarbon dating and plant genetics, many scholars from various fields of science concur in the conclusion that Man's first farming venture was the cultivation of wheat and barley, probably through the domestication of a wild variety of emmer. Assuming that, somehow, Man did undergo a gradual process of teaching himself how to domesticate, grow, and farm a wild plant, the scholars remain baffled by the profusion of other plants and cereals basic to human survival and advancement that kept coming out of the Near East. These included, in rapid succession, millet, rye, and spelt, among the edible cereals; flax, which provided fibers and edible oil; and a variety of fruit-bearing shrubs and trees. In every instance, the plant was undoubtedly domesticated in the Near East for millennia before it reached Europe. It was as though the Near East were some kind of genetic-botanical laboratory, guided by an unseen hand, producing every so often a newly domesticated plant.

Religion is to control the weak!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From what I see this is a body of mostly scientific theories and facts peppered with some wild speculations and suggestive questions. This is the same technique of validating fiction as used by religious cranks and charlatans. Is it going anywhere, True? What are you trying to say? If it's that we still don't know everything about our origins, I agree. If it's that we were 'make by the Anunnki' (do you mean: 'made by the Anunnaki'?), I say it's a lot of codswallop.

At any rate I don't see how this has anything to do with a belief in the afterlife. Oh, sorry. I see now. Both belong to the realm of fiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin.

The 12 Planet by Zacharia Sitchin.

PleasureGelf! try to read the Book before typing

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know, but many people believe in God (and probably an afterlife that follows) because of a sincere belief in their own experience, not just because of what 'religion' tells them to believe.

Those 'miracles' at Lourdes and Fatima... Doubters who weren't there say all those folks were experiencing the same delusions at the same time. I don't know, but I'm skeptical of an explanation that writes off such complex events so easily.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True, I'm not interested.

In that vein, I won't recommend you read any book on critical thinkin'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like the Bible?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What about the Bible?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin, you have every right to be skeptical, but why not be skeptical both ways? I say most explanations a rational thinking doubter may come up with are still more likely than a divine miracle. Something akin to the placebo effect for starters.

For True - 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond pretty neatly explains why civilization took off in the Middle East and not in the jungles of South America. Read more science and less science fiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The book full of tales from the Sumer.

that book is full of lies. since you ca do more critical thinkin than I. then give me the answer to this.

Book of Genesis - purportedly exalting the achievements of a sole Deity - uses the plural Elohim (literally, "deities") to denote "God," and reports an astonishing remark: And Elohim said: "Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness." Whom did the sole but plural Deity address, and who were the "us" in whose plural image and plural likeness Man was to be made? The Book of Genesis does not provide the answer.

waiting for your answer.

Moderator: Readers, please do not turn this into a debate just on the bible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The belief in an afterlife is probably the creation of ancient religions to deal with the fear of death. For me personally, I hope there is life after death because I also am afraid and aspire to something better. But if there is, it is beyond our comprehension, which is why these questions always generate endless debate and rancor. If there is an afterlife, it would be like us trying to explain to an amoeba what our life is like.

By the way, if I may be flippant, what happens if a man or woman remarries after the death of a spouse? In heaven, who gets to be with who?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True, I don't know enough about the Bible to debate it one way or the other.

Why did your critical thinkin' tell you otherwise?

You want to attack people of faith and religion in general, True. I get that much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The belief in an afterlife is probably the creation of ancient religions to deal with the fear of death. For me personally, I hope there is life after death because I also am afraid and aspire to something better. But if there is, it is beyond our comprehension, which is why these questions always generate endless debate and rancor. If there is an afterlife, it would be like us trying to explain to an amoeba what our life is like.

Well Said!

By the way, if I may be flippant, what happens if a man or woman remarries after the death of a spouse? In heaven, who gets to be with who?

lol!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brainiac, LOL. It's gonna be a massive soul carnage in heaven.

True, even assuming that whatever you're saying about the Bible is true (and I hope it is) it doesn't make whatever else you're saying - true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You want to attack people of faith and religion in general, True. I get that much.

no! no! no! i am not! then i am attacking my own Family since they are devote Christians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps the Yeti, the Lochness Monster and The Almighty have something else in common...

Ahem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie, but contrary to Mrs. Russell's teapot, many humans believe they have come to experience God through a variety of manner

And that belief is as justifiable as the belief in Russel's teapot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The thing about the teapot is that whether it's there or not has absolutely no bearing on our lives, so there's no point either looking for the scientific evidence of its existence, or in wasting time trying to persuade believers that there is no scientific evidence - unless of course they think the teapot is talking to them, telling them to tell us how to live our lives and asking us for money for celestial teabags. If people find the idea of a teapot in space comforting, then that's fine for them. I'd at least need for it to start raining tea on a regular basis before I'd consider worrying about it.

Worrisomeness has no bearing on truth.

There is an afterlife, or there isn't. There is a teapot, or there isn't. We have as much reason to believe there is an afterlife as we have to believe in the teapot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll go further to say that the fact that we are invested in the answer to the question of an afterlife makes any comforting answers all the more suspect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have as much reason to believe there is an afterlife as we have to believe in the teapot.

I think many people would be more comforted by the idea of an afterlife than they would by the idea of a celestial teapot. A reason for wanting to believe isn't the same as a reason for believing of course, but I for one wouldn't try to convince anyone who did believe that they were wrong. Especially if they were likely to find out for themselves quite soon, and very especially if they were worried about it.

Unless their belief included gore, explosions, raisins and/or virgins. Then I would do all in my power to convince them that they were wrong, hitting them over the head with a teapot if all else failed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What is Truth?" Sad part about that question is that it is also an answer. However, we see such wonderful, joyful, and good things in life that I must keep moving towards whatever that is. We also see the irrational elements such as violence, suffering and death; which crys out for justice and healing. Can whatever that is have a solution for the otherside of the coin of life. At times I sense this to be true and historical events point, that indeed it is true. "What is Truth?", perhaps an opening of the heart. We are pilgrims getting only a glimmer of any Truth, lying between absurdity and religious fanaticism. Oh well, time to make supper for the beautiful children. Reality is, what it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What was life like before you born?...that is what death will be like. One big nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo you are funny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it is getting to be an accepted idea. We are what our soul tries to realize through our body and mind. And more often than not the attempt fails or ends unsatisfactorily.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anyone know someone who has had a near death experience?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I for one wouldn't try to convince anyone who did believe that they were wrong. Especially if they were likely to find out for themselves quite soon, and very especially if they were worried about it.

Yeah, well I'm not one of those who's going to try to deconvert the near dead either. Diminishing returns and all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anyone know someone who has had a near death experience?

I do.

I'm not one of those who's going to try to deconvert the near dead either.

I suppose we're all pretty much 'near dead' anyway, aren't we? What's a hundred years in the grand scheme of things? (Assuming there is a grand scheme (debatable) and that we get the full 100 years (improbable)).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The belief in that you have a soul that will exist beyond death is an entirely unfounded speculation.

If you have that belief, bully for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The belief that you have a soul that will exist beyond speculation is an entirely unfounded speculation"

Dang...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to think there is an after life except for the simple fact that we WANT one. None of us wants to die, except we see proof everyday that no matter what, we are not immortal and we die en mass every day. Well... "if we can't die, then I sure HOPE there is an afterlife. There is no way to prove or disprove that... so sure I will believe it." Whatever. Believe in it or not. There either is, or this isn't. I personally don't believe, I in turn live my life knowing this is the only one I am getting. I live my life to the fullest, and treat others peoples lives the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. There is no proof but to think that there is nothingness after you die is very scary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know ther is something after death because of a strange eperience i had from someone i knew who had just died. I believe said goodbye and it was very surreal because he was an old friend i hadn`t seen for years and i started thinking i had to phone him. I did and learnt he had died a few hours before, gave my wife the creeps especially as she was really surprised why i wanted to call him after all that time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The scarier thought is: where were YOU before you were born? It's the same question. Is there life before birth?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hori:

" The scarier thought is: where were YOU before you were born? It's the same question. Is there life before birth? "

Those two concepts are connected. You can not believe in one without believing in the other.

Personally, I don´t give a thought to it. I will find out soon enough. One thing is for sure... I will not go to muslim paradise, and thank all the gods for that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those two concepts are connected. You can not believe in one without believing in the other.

I don't think it's a good idea to be too absolute about what people can and can't believe in, especially when the topic is something that can never be proved anyway.

I suppose it's possible to believe that this is the first life any of us have ever lived and that when we die we'll go to heaven (if we've been good) and live in eternal blissful boredom.

That's not the same as believing in the Buddhist idea of reincarnation, where the soul supposedly gets recycled over and over, coming back as a higher being if we've been good and finally attaining enlightenment or whatever (which sounds suspiciously like eternal blissful boredom...) or as a lesser being if we fail to make the grade.

The problem of course is the definition of 'good' and 'bad'. It's easy enough in human terms, I suppose.... but what kind of life does, say, a cockroach or a sandeel have to lead to be reincarnated as a higher being? How bad do you have to be to come back as an amoeba, or a germ, or a goose on a foie gras farm?

And why does the Dalai Lama keep coming back as himself?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo:

" I don't think it's a good idea to be too absolute about what people can and can't believe in, especially when the topic is something that can never be proved anyway. "

I forgot to add that I mean it is impossible logically to believe that. If you set an "after" you imply that there has to be a "before" too.

That many religious believers surrender their capacity to think at the door I don´t doubt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB -

Well you could say that it's impossible logically to believe anything for which there isn't tons of data and peer-reviewed publications. (Some people don't believe stuff for which there is tons of data and peer-reviewed publications, but that's for another thread.)

I don't think the Bible implies a life before birth, yet the God Squad are insistent that there is a life after death and they know what kind of life it is.

You could just say that you can't logically believe in one, never mind the other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When you are dead, you are dead! That is all there is to it. Heaven? Hell? Reincarnation? Spirits? Souls? Have a look in the library for more information. You will find them in the fiction section.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well you could say that it's impossible logically to believe anything for which there isn't tons of data and peer-reviewed publications

I don't need a peer-reviewed paper to tell me water is wet, Cleo. Extraoridinary claims, on the other hand, require extraordinary evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't need a peer-reviewed paper to tell me water is wet, Cleo

-Which is the whole point, Nessie. 'Logical' and 'science' have little to do with belief. That's why it's called belief and not common sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The belief in that you have a soul that will exist beyond death is an entirely unfounded speculation.

So are several theories in the fields of physics and psychology. The fact of the matter is that all things are well within the realm of possibility not because all scenario's are likely but because we simply don't have the appropriate science, technology, or conceptual understanding to say that they are not. Just look at how many alternative theories there are for something as deceptively simple as gravity.

Heaven? Hell? Reincarnation? Spirits? Souls? Have a look in the library for more information. You will find them in the fiction section.

I once worked in a library so I can say with some degree of certainty that they are not located in the fiction section. Rather they occupy the area between philosophy and social sciences. If you've found any religious works in the fiction section I would recommend raising a complaint with the head librarian, some little prankster is messing with the system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact of the matter is that all things are well within the realm of possibility not because all scenario's are likely but because we simply don't have the appropriate science, technology, or conceptual understanding to say that they are not.

You're teetering on the edge of argumentum ad ignorantiam here. Lack of evidence against =/= evidence for.

So are several theories in the fields of physics and psychology.

Please name them.

Scientific theories don't come into being based on "unfounded speculation".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have a question for all of you who voted NO: why then don't you go on a crazy binge for whatever comes to your mind, if you have no responsabilities after this life? Why don't you make your wildest dreams come true at any cost? Happines and sadness we may afflict to other people are not our responsabilities, if we don't have to answer for them after we die.

I have an answer: we don't go crazy the way we may want because there's something deep inside our hearts that warns us that, yes, there'll be something waiting for us. Something bigger than we may guess and this scares us. And even if some of us don't believe in life after we die, all of us feel that "thing" will ask you and me of our past acts.

I certainly feel this inside me. This is what stopped me from taking the ultimate "act of freedom and disbelief in life after death", to kill myself. And I think this is what stops other people too, even if they are not believers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have a question for all of you who voted NO: why then don't you go on a crazy binge for whatever comes to your mind, if you have no responsabilities after this life?

What do you have in mind? A killing spree? This has to be just about the stupidest argument for an afterlife that I have ever heard.

I certainly feel this inside me. This is what stopped me from taking the ultimate "act of freedom and disbelief in life after death", to kill myself. And I think this is what stops other people too, even if they are not believers.

You obviously have guilt issues, my friend. Put simply, whether I do or do not do bad things in this life has no bearing at all on whether there is a life after death. Why don't I go on a killing spree? Because I have too much respect for human life, not because I fear punishment from your god. I choose not to believe in a celestial insurance policy that supposedly offers me a wonderful eternity in a make believe afterlife at the expense of enjoying the very real life that I have here now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why then don't you go on a crazy binge for whatever comes to your mind

Because of internally evolved morality and externally imposed social sanction. It's really not that hard to explain.

Check out Sam Harris' TED talk on science and morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww&feature=player_embedded

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, Nessie, then what would be this "internally evolved" morality? where does it come from?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have a question for all of you who voted NO: why then don't you go on a crazy binge for whatever comes to your mind, if you have no responsabilities after this life?

The only thing that stops you going on a crazy binge is fear of the afterlife??

That is really, really sad, and rather mediaeval.

If this is the only life we've got, why on earth would you want to waste it on a crazy binge?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're teetering on the edge of argumentum ad ignorantiam here. Lack of evidence against =/= evidence for.

Give me concrete proof for or against the existance of a higher power and/or afterlife and I'll consider altering my stance. As it stands I do believe in a higher power while recognizing that I have no unquestionably logical base for such a belief.

Please name them.

Dark energy and dark matter have long been assumed despite the fact we have no evidence of their existence and some believe that the necessity of dark energy is due to a failure in the general theory of relativity to operate on a large scale. Plus there are still a couple odd physicists that attest to some version of Luminiferous aether despite the fact it has been largely written off since its fall from prominence.

As far as psychology is concerned some would argue that it isn't even a science even among themselves psychologists disagree with what subfields are valid and which are not. Just look at Freud whose work was deeply rooted in his own personal beliefs to the point that many modern psychologists dismiss them outright while acknowledging his impact in the field.

Despite all we've learned we still make a lot of assumptions and dismissing the possibility that there is a higher power would be quite rude...especially since there is one ;)

Scientific theories don't come into being based on "unfounded speculation".

I dunno, when it comes to some things you really have to take it on faith until the math catches up with the concept. Just look at how long it took for the scientific community to take the idea of 10 dimensional hyperspace seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

where does it come from?

After a while social animals (such as humans) tend to develop a loose code of conduct that allows them to live within proximity of one another without the immediate danger of ripping each others throats out. It stands to reason that, over time, we just got good at it (for the most part).

If this is the only life we've got, why on earth would you want to waste it on a crazy binge?

The value of life is really an eye of the beholder kind of thing. Some could view a life in middle management or one of public service as a waste. At the same time both could be considered respectable and even admirable. I may look at a meth addict and see a pathetic waste of human potential but for all I know he could be happy with his predicament...if he's still capable of being happy that is, maybe content would be a better word.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is all life on Earth eligible for life after death? If so, then we are already there. If not, then it is just rampant human imagination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no God, only science

"God" seems to be mostly a concept born of human arrogance and desperation, to reinforce our belief in ourselves as a superior species, to lessen the fear of inevitable death, to try and give meaning to the lives of those that have difficulty finding any, and as an excuse as to why people should bother to follow laws of morality and so on.

Its the 21st century, people. The earth isn't flat. Some big powerful bloke in the sky didn't create the world in about a week.

But what the heck - if fairytales make you sleep better at night, then who am I to judge?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And... Have a look at the Hubble Deep Space images, understand the VASTNESS of space, and then give me a reason that "God" would have sent "Jesus" (or whatever other prophet-based religion you follow) to this planet.

We are not special. We are an accident. A coincidence. Chance. A very very very lucky and fascinating chance, admittedly and that indeed is where the wonder comes from, but that is all we are.

Either that, or we are a shared hallucination played out on a daily basis, in which case you would have to rule out any idea of the "self", and give up on your ideas of individual sin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, Nessie, then what would be this "internally evolved" morality? where does it come from?

Empathy, reciprocity. It comes from evolved social interaction. Lower primates exhibit morality. Did God give it to them, too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheQuestion,

Dark energy and dark matter have long been assumed despite the fact we have no evidence of their existence

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. The existence of dark matter has been theorized precisely because we see evidence of its existence. It is the dark matter itself that we haven't been able to directly observe (but perhaps the good folks at CERN will get a glimpse).

As far as psychology is concerned some would argue that it isn't even a science even among themselves psychologists disagree with what subfields are valid and which are not. Just look at Freud whose work was deeply rooted in his own personal beliefs to the point that many modern psychologists dismiss them outright while acknowledging his impact in the field.

You mischaracterize what science is. The idea that scientists disagreeing with each other somehow invalidates any field is patently absurd; peer review is part of the process. Disagreements = good science.

I dunno, when it comes to some things you really have to take it on faith until the math catches up with the concept

"I dunno" is fine.

Not understanding science or willfully mischaracterizing it (not that you are doing that here) isn't fine. And doing so can't lend credence to your position in the first place. So why bother?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dismissing the possibility that there is a higher power would be quite rude

The Chinese and Hindus have believed a giant turtle supported the Earth. Is dismissing this possibility rude? If not, why not?

The answer my own question, it's not rude because science has gained the explanatory power to rule out the giant turtle hypothesis. Science continues working toward these answers. Religion thinks it has the answers, when in fact its answers have been tumbling one by one in the face of science's explanatory power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the thing with all these different religions believing in SOMETHING else, is not really indicative of a God per se, but rather the ancients had less clutter in their lives and had not been introduced to ideas of rationale, etc. They just saw things how they are.

And we know (as much as we can at present) that physical reality is supposed by a very strange, non-linear, (possibly 26-dimenional hyperspace M-Theory) grid of universally interconnected energy pockets... So to suggest it supports awareness too, is not much of a leap of faith... Energy and awareness could be fundamentals - The nature of the energy that supports the reality around us is as much of a mystery to us today as it was to the ancient civilisations; confusion pretty much always forces people to try to rationalise, or personalise, leading to the 'God' phenomenon.

What humans are probably experiencing, and fighting about, is merely just the huge complexity of the physical universe, which we are as yet not able to understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The existence of dark matter has been theorized precisely because we see evidence of its existence.

That doesn't change the fact that you're using a theoretical substance that supposedly permeates everything as a constant despite no proof of its existence except the fact that it must exist for the current model of the universe to function. Physics assumes that it exists because many equations simply won't work without it, or would require major retooling if not a complete overhaul of our, admittedly limited, understanding of the universe if it was found to be nonexistent. Just because it's supposed to be there doesn't mean that it is, we may just have it wrong and by it I mean most of our understanding in the field quantum mechanics, you know...nothing serious.

but perhaps the good folks at CERN will get a glimpse

If they ever get the 14 teraelectron volt collisions going.

The idea that scientists disagreeing with each other somehow invalidates any field is patently absurd; peer review is part of the process.

My point was that many of the accepted theories that we have today started as unfounded speculation... and somehow that segued into discussing the merits of dark energy in modern physics, but I digress. My point, way back when this started, was to point out that a higher power is not by any means outside the realm of possibility and if one wants to embrace that off chance they should be free to do so or refrain from doing so without ridicule or prejudice.

Not understanding science or willfully mischaracterizing it (not that you are doing that here) isn't fine. And doing so can't lend credence to your position in the first place.

The intent was neither to mischaracterize nor to prove my position correct. You're free to think I'm wrong on the whole God thing, I'm not, but it's certainly within the realm of conventional logic and common sense to believe that I am. I never go into these kinds of conversations to prove that I'm right, it never works and I refuse to try. Instead I try to point out that I may not be wrong, that way I can have my argument and not come off sounding like a zealot (most of the time). I’m certainly not going to start spouting fire and brimstone, what kind of Catholic would I be then?

So why bother?

Why else argue with strangers on the internet? Boredom mostly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Chinese and Hindus have believed a giant turtle supported the Earth. Is dismissing this possibility rude? If not, why not?

The answer my own question, it's not rude because science has gained the explanatory power to rule out the giant turtle hypothesis.

Well, I was okay with all this skepticism until you started dissing the giant turtle, who has been supporting the Earth for so many years. All you are saying is that you can't see or measure the turtle. Having an alternate explanation is fine, but when the turtle decides to walk off the job because of all this doubt you'll be sorry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Chinese and Hindus have believed a giant turtle supported the Earth. Is dismissing this possibility rude? If not, why not?

For all I know the turtle moved. If I manage to find the thing would you be willing to apologize to it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For all I know the turtle moved. If I manage to find the thing would you be willing to apologize to it?

Now you're getting ridiculous. If the turtle had moved we wouldn't be having this conversation, but would be plummenting into the Great Void.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now you're getting ridiculous. If the turtle had moved we wouldn't be having this conversation, but would be plummenting into the Great Void.

I'm guessing you don't get much Terry Pratchett down on the farm?

The turtle moves. Pass it on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That doesn't change the fact that you're using a theoretical substance that supposedly permeates everything as a constant despite no proof of its existence except the fact that it must exist for the current model of the universe to function.

Neptune was a "theoretical substance" once.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm guessing you don't get much Terry Pratchett down on the farm? **The turtle moves. Pass it on.

Ah, I see. Another missing link in my literary education it seems. Have to remedy that.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mathematicians get knowledge of math by math. Scientists get knowledge of the logical Universe by using science. Philosophers use the constructs of philosophy. Christians use prayer. Death was swallowed up as an act of Love in prayer. Easter must be coming...speaking of/believing in life after death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neptune was a "theoretical substance" once.

Difference is that Adam's used known constants and observable deviations in Uranus's orbit to predict the existence of Neptune. We assume dark matter without any observable proof of its existence save for the fact that general relativity requires it to. If it does exist than it is certainly convenient and I have no reason to doubt its existence save for a lack of evidence but I also acknowledge that just because we need it to be there doesn't mean it is, we may just have it all wrong.

And BOOM we're back to philosophy, you can't prove a theoretical constant and I can't disprove a theoretical constant. I'm not out to prove God true I'm simply pointing out that a lack of evidence does not prove God false.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lostinagoya:

" I have a question for all of you who voted NO: why then don't you go on a crazy binge for whatever comes to your mind, if you have no responsabilities after this life? "

I have a question to you: Why should I? If you are saying that to find meaning in life you have to turn medieval self-declared prophets, I find that rather sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. Someone once said that there is absolutely no logical reason for there to be anything after death except death. I agree. Imagining that there is life after death is simply a denial (and/or fear) of reality. Remember dying means we die. It is the end of life. Nothing more nothing less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No. Someone once said that there is absolutely no logical reason for there to be anything after death except death. I agree. Imagining that there is life after death is simply a denial (and/or fear) of reality. Remember dying means we die. It is the end of life. Nothing more nothing less.

I agree with knews.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, hell no!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Neil DeGrasse Tyson:

"...The argument is simple. I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document. Indeed, I can make an even stronger statement. Whenever people have used religious documents to make detailed predictions about the physical world they have been famously wrong."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

get real people

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Cos Sam and Dean fight all those demons and angels and stuff... (Just being bored and going boke)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I paused for a minute before hitting "yes". Paused because the idea of life after death sounds ludicrous, and I'm an agnostic. So I chewed on the thought for a while....and decided, hell with it, a happier person always have some kind of unrealistic hope even in the most dismal. Denial, maybe. But none of us will ever know until we die, so why not believe in whatever we want to believe?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Believing in Life after Death somehow allows you to Do Less Here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hell with it, a happier person always have some kind of unrealistic hope even in the most dismal

This is exactly why I believe in a heaven that's wallpapered with Turkish delight and has a live feed to hell, where I can watch people who double parked get eaten by wolverines. It makes me happy, so it must be true!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Life before death (= body and mind) is something that pursues comfort, pleasure, distinction and eros. Believing in life after death is to think amid all the hustle-bustle of passions about what to do, if dare not yet pursue nothingness/emptiness and uncalculating love (agape). Rather balancing act.

I don't think it to be so preposterous to assume that consciousness is a kind of energy that subsists for a considerable time. As nemoflow said, the nature of the energy that supports the reality around us is still much of a mystery. Then the mysterious energy may support our consciousness too. I'm not so biased against Jude Currivan or Robert Monroe said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think it to be so preposterous to assume that consciousness is a kind of energy that subsists for a considerable time.

Energy is defined as the ability to do work. What work would this energy be able to do?

"Energy" in common parlance is just another word for "something I can imagine but can cant see, nor can I see its effects." It's as substantial as having an imaginary friend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It makes me happy, so it must be true!

There is a difference between belief in an afterlife and a belief in heaven, hell, and (optionally) purgatory which I like to think of as soul jail. I'm more inclined to think that any life after this one will be so far beyond comprehension that thinking about it is better left for when I actually get there.

Energy is defined as the ability to do work. What work would this energy be able to do?

For all I know it's the same mysterious energy that makes almost-expired Twinkies go great with the horrid coffee they serve at work. That bizarre but oh so common phenomenon of something utterly fantastic occurring in the most mundane places. To believe in something you can't observe isn't so strange, to believe you know how it works boarders on insanity... or enlightenment I suppose it depends on whether or not your right. As far as I'm concerned the forces that effect our daily lives are going to work regardless of our acknowledgement or approval.

It's as substantial as having an imaginary friend.

Now you're just trying to upset Harvey.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we all live a multi-plane existence with some bleed-through effect between planes, so at death there is some effect on other planes. I don't think the personality survives completely, but I think some essence survives. You may disagree with me, but I'm sure I will be more popular at parties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we all live a multi-plane existence with some bleed-through effect between planes, so at death there is some effect on other planes. I don't think the personality survives completely, but I think some essence survives. You may disagree with me, but I'm sure I will be more popular at parties.

Ever heard the one about String Theory? It's described as "not even wrong."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Difference is that Adam's used known constants and observable deviations in Uranus's orbit to predict the existence of Neptune.

Known constants? Try Newton's gravitational theory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Known constants? Try Newton's gravitational theory.

So what you're saying is that sometimes we have to take things on faith that they actually exist?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what you're saying is that sometimes we have to take things on faith that they actually exist?

Hardly. I'm saying that science isn't based on "unfounded speculation". Faith is, by definition, just that.

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. No faith required.

But you already know all of this . . . and yet you continue to misrepresent science as though it can help make your case for a god.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites