Life After Death, proven!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beetroot bertie

Before this turns into a slanging match, and I hope it won't do as I'm finding this discussion quite interesting, I'd like to say I can see where Bah is coming from.

I don't find insulting each others beliefs or intelligence to be particularly helpful but I can see how difficult it is for religion and science to co-exist together particularly when the two have such (in my eyes anyway) a dichotomous relationship.

There was a programme shown over here on Channel 4 a while back which discussed this from the Athiest's (and scientific) viewpoint. It probably won't sit well with those of you who do have firm spiritual beliefs but if you can take the time to watch it I would be really interested to hear the views of those who are religious to it.

It's very biased but it does deal with facts and he (Dawkins) makes a lot of interesting and valid points about how science and religion are difficult to relate to one another.

I hope some of you find it interesting. Even if you disagree wholeheartedly it would be good to hear why.

There's 2 parts about 50 mins each:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...84641446868316
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...32438954&hl=en

---

it's one of the reasons religious topics are taboo.

most ppl myself included have a hard time being open minded to topics that contradict their beliefs.
ultimately, nothing can come from exchanging and expressing spiritual beliefs but. bitter feelings,

I tried my best to be as accurate and civil as I could, but we are all human. and religion is just too sensitive a subject, to openly discuss amoung mixed company.

I knew from the start this thread would fail, all religion threads do. the human population is simply too diverse for great masses of people to all share the same views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadowprophet

I knew from the start this thread would fail, all religion threads do. the human population is simply too diverse for great masses of people to all share the same views.

---

Its not a fail, its got everyone thinking and that should be more than you can ask for. I for one am glad that we all have different views. It is just a shame we can't all co-exist without bickering.

One nation under groove:cool:

I agree. Just because we all have different feelings on the subject doesn't mean we can't discuss it and try to be as tolerant as possible. I certainly don't think the thread failed just because people disagree. This is what these forums are for anyway - just a means for folks that are likeminded in some respects to exchange thoughts and views on stuff. It always going to be a touchy subject but that's what makes it such a good one to talk about.

@ ICE - I never saw the Zeitgheist documentary, but the links I posted show a man who despite being anti-religious would be prepared to consider other things should he be proved wrong - in the goal of finding the truth. Not many religious people would be prepared to do that. Most of it was about how science sets theories and then tests them until they are proven wrong, questioning them and reassessing. If I remember correctly I even think he questioned the actual big bang himself somewhere in it and was happy to admit we don't know it all, but did feel that evolution and natural selection were thoeries that based on our current knowledge have sound proof and scientific backing.

I'm not normally a praying man, but if your up there.... superman..... please help!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beetroot bertie

@ ICE - I never saw the Zeitgheist documentary, but the links I posted show a man who despite being anti-religious would be prepared to consider other things should he be proved wrong - in the goal of finding the truth. Not many religious people would be prepared to do that. Most of it was about how science sets theories and then tests them until they are proven wrong, questioning them and reassessing. If I remember correctly I even think he questioned the actual big bang himself somewhere in it and was happy to admit we don't know it all, but did feel that evolution and natural selection were thoeries that based on our current knowledge have sound proof and scientific backing.

---

You know things like believing in a god and believing in the big bang and evolution are entirely possible. Due to the time when most religious texts were written none of them had any clue about the concept of billions of years or evolution. I think god uses logical methods to do things most of time and the bible doesnt say any different. You just have to put it in the context of the time in which it was written.

I do love a good documentary. I might have to check it out later.. I just have a very sour taste left in my mouth by Zeitgeist.. lol

EDIT: OK so I have expressed my thoughts on the number of open unanswered questions in regard to the big bang theory and its causeless completely spontaneous nature but how about this. If there is no god how did life spring up? How did we go from a completely inorganic world to the world we live in now?

1. on the three metamorphoses

Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.
There is much that is difficult for the spirit, the strong reverent spirit that would bear much: but the difficult and the most difficult are what its strength demands.
What is difficult? asks the spirit that would bear much, and kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded. What is most difficult, O heroes, asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon myself and exult in my strength? Is it not humbling oneself to wound one’s haughtiness? Letting one’s folly shine to mock one’s wisdom?
Or is it this: parting from our cause when it triumphs? Climbing high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this: feeding on the acorns and grass of knowledge and, for the sake of the truth, suffering hunger in one’s soul?
Or is it this: being sick and sending home the comforters and making friends with the deaf, who never hear what you want?
Or is it this: stepping into filthy waters when they are the waters of truth, and not repulsing cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: loving those who despise us and offering a hand to the ghost that would frighten us?
All these most difficult things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel that, burdened, speeds into the desert, thus the spirit speeds into its desert.
In the loneliest desert, however, the second metamorphosis occurs: here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master in his own desert. Here he seeks out his last master: he wants to fight him and his last god; for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon.
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? Thou shalt is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, I will. Thou shalt lies in his way, sparkling like gold, an animal covered with scales; and on every scale shines a golden thou shalt.
Values, thousands of years old, shine on these scales; and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: All value of all things shines on me. All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more ‘I will.’ Thus speaks the dragon.
My brothers, why is there a need in the spirit for the lion? Why is not the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, enough?
To create new values—that even the lion cannot do; but the creation of freedom for oneself for new creation—that is within the power of the lion. The creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred No even to duty—for that, my brothers, the lion is needed. To assume the right to new values—that is the most terrifying assumption for a reverent spirit that would bear much. Verily, to him it is preying, and a matter for a beast of prey. He once loved thou shalt as most sacred: now he must find illusion and caprice even in the most sacred, that freedom from his love may become his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.
But say, my brothers, what can the child do that even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child? The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yes. For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred Yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers his own world.
Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I have told you: how the spirit became a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.
Thus spoke Zarathustra. And at the time he sojourned in the town called the Motley Cow.

All I'm going to say on this topic is that I'm a Christian and believe in God.

I'm not going to convert you, and in return I don't want to hear about how much of "an indoctrinated fool" I am.

Let's just leave it at that, alright? ;)