Life After Death, proven!

[shadowprophet]

In about 7 years time our bodies will have replaced every single cell in our body. It does this every 7 years or so. It doesnt do it for fun, it does it because our cells are constantly dying and if it didnt replace them we would die as well. Our bodies are full of cell death.

I'm not saying that older people are deader, I'm just saying that once we're alive we arent getting aliver. Our bodies wear out and we die. That process starts when we're conceived.

A worn out car is still a car and a worn out person is still a person. Its just that they are clearly closer to death than a younger person. The thing is there is no gray area between life and death. You're either one or the other. But you cant say that as you live your life and your body starts getting a little behind in replacing its dying cells that you arent at least a little closer to death than you were when you were a kid.

Obviously there are other factors in the wearing of our bodies besides cell death but you get my point.

what we view as cell death, just isnt the same concept as the death of an entire person if simply "because" our bodies grow new tissues and cell mass to replace the damaged.

obviously if cells are reproducing like they should,

that act in itself affirms that life is thriving.

[ICE]

You're missing my point. I said cell death isn't the only factor. The truh is from the time we're in the world our bodies are wearing out and breaking down. It's just semantics and opinions as to what that means about life and death. I think if your body is more broken down you are clearly closer to death. Closer to death, not more dead.

[shadowprophet]

You're missing my point. I said cell death isn't the only factor. The truh is from the time we're in the world our bodies are wearing out and breaking down. It's just semantics and opinions as to what that means about life and death. I think if your body is more broken down you are clearly closer to death. Closer to death, not more dead.

honestly its not the issue of who is closer to death based on a different biological point of view,
you live closer to a nuclear power plant then i do,

therefore you are closer to death then I,
but wait. there is that swimming pool my neighbors have,
and i've never seen him clean the damned thing ,

if someone swam in that mess, they could get sick and die.
so maybe i am closer to death then you.

the point is brother, we can point and counterpoint all day.

and I admit its fun.

but it resolves nothing unless one of us folds at some point.

still, that wont be me.

i'll see your philosophy on death, and raise you two counter philosophys, and a creation theory

[bah]

Religion and logical rationalizations of our existence do not mix.
When you try to use logic to 'prove' your faith is fact you get sudo-logic that appears logical to those of similar faith and utterly nonsensical to those who do not.

Science = logic in practice, testing and either supporting or disproving a theory.
Religion = faith in the unprovable and even untestable.


Have your faith, but please don't muddy scientific debate with it. Concepts based on religious doctrine (or more commonly peoples interpretations of said doctrine) are not on the same level as those who's premise is entirely rooted in testable/disprovable scientific logic.

[ICE]

I couldnt disagree more. Einstein believed in a god and he seemed like a fairly scientific thinker. Like I said before "To me the simple odds of everything forming coupled with the fact that we have no explanation for how it formed points me towards a god. I know many of you are now shouting at your monitor "We know how it formed. The big bang!". The truth is that we have no clue why the big bang would have occurred. One very important law in nature is cause and effect. Nothing ever occurs without a cause. Not even the Big Bang.

You've all heard the things like had the expansion of the universe one second after the big bang been smaller by 1 part in a hundred, thousand, million, million the universe would have re-collapsed on itself (Stephen Hawking) or the odds that suitable circumstances for stars to exist the relevant initial conditions would need to be fined tuned to a precision of 1 followed by a thousand, billion, billion zeros or that a change in gravity or in the weak force by even 1 part in 10 to the 100th power would have prevented a life permitting universe. (P.C.W. Davies)

To me believing in God takes less faith than to believe the Big Bang occurred for no reason and that given those odds everything turned out this well."

Now they've even added another part to the big bang that they can explain even less of. Inflation. The big bang started slow almost with a little bang, for no reason mind you, then exploded in inflation again for no reason. Thats the only way the radiation in the universe could be this evenly distributed and it makes zero sense to any child with an understanding of cause and effect.

You really shouldn't throw every religion into one box and and try to tell us how they dont work. My faith is no less testable then most of the things people live their lives accepting every day without even thinking about.

[shadowprophet]

Religion and logical rationalizations of our existence do not mix.
When you try to use logic to 'prove' your faith is fact you get sudo-logic that appears logical to those of similar faith and utterly nonsensical to those who do not.

Science = logic in practice, testing and either supporting or disproving a theory.
Religion = faith in the unprovable and even untestable.


Have your faith, but please don't muddy scientific debate with it. Concepts based on religious doctrine (or more commonly peoples interpretations of said doctrine) are not on the same level as those who's premise is entirely rooted in testable/disprovable scientific logic.

I, spend a great deal of time and effort to create a thread with acceptance and tolerance for everyones beliefs.
it would be appropriate not to bash others with uninformed nonsence, so you don't share some of the others sentiment, that is fine..

But dont you dare insult someones intelligence based on their spiritual beliefs,my unserstanding of this subject matter has proven that my belief in a higher power doesn't limit my scientific mind in the slightest, and yet i have yet to see you offer anything but biased opinion,in both fields science and religion.A spiritual belief is not a weakness in an intellectual field or any other. it is a shared cultural and spiritual bond between members of said group. to assume that someone with a cultural and spiritual background would be less intelligent then someone who doesn't is ignorant, entirely inaccurate,i and some what non tolerant.

some of the greatest minds to ever grace the scientific front where devoutly spiritual..

history has so much evidence that God is real,is its staggering,is
records of the time have proven jesus was really there, his place of death is now a holy temple called the dome of the rock.

the spear used on jesus,is found.
the shroud,is found. other records point to other religious figures of the time.

the arc of the covenant and even noahs arc are thought to be found now,

no bah the problem isnt lack of proof at, the problem truly is as simple as it seems,
there will always be believers and those who don't believe, both are set in there ways, science will continue to ignore the proof as long as that proof underminds it...

The point is, the proof is there, but just because some people refuse to accept that proof, doesn't make that proof untrue.

we all have a choice after all.

but just because we made our choices, that doesn't mean others will choose to believe as you or I chosen to.

*on an unrelated side note, I never understood why it was so important for atheist's to share what "they believe".
by all means, they are righted to that.. it's just.. it confuses me,,

I was under the impression that atheists didn't really have a belief.
still yet they will argue and insult and persecute others for having a belief..
I can understand the christians side. they believe they can save a soul.
but what is the atheists angle.... why so much loathing and persecution because we believe?
i mean. if they dont really have a stake in religion as they claim..

im just saying, a whole lot of atheists sound a whole lot alike,, a whole lot of the time.
it's sounds to me like atheists share a whole lot of beliefs with one another.

almost like a religion,, when I think about it..

[bah]

Thanks for reinforcing the point made in the first paragraph of my last post.

Science can strongly demonstrate we have no evidence of god, hence no religious concepts are the most popular theory in scientific communities.
It cannot without being mangled out of usefulness 'prove' anything supernatural.


When I learned of the big bang, it was introduced as the big bang theory. It is the most supported and widely accepted theory but a better one can still come along. Science isn't about 'perfection' in 1 book, its about the evolution of understanding. We build on what we know, when things stop working we question our prior assessments.

I was taught you can either disprove or support a theory (through well designed experiments with as close to 1 variable at a time), but never 'prove' it.

Do children being indoctrinated by their parents faith get the same honesty and are they encouraged to really question what they are told, no.
Re-interpreting the old book over and over is not how to progress enlightenment.

Mangling terms like energy (now that science has given us a pretty good grasp on its manipulation for our benefit) into religious messages does not work (for anyone objective, outside of similar faith).



Einstein did not believe in the god of any doctrine, he was almost certainly agnostic. There is a much larger difference there than you may think.
Its the intellectual equivalent of saying 'We as a humans do not know'. It is no more for a god than against it.

Even high page-ranked religious rants like this seem to get that he was no religious man. 'God' can be literal 'omnipotent creator' or jut a term for 'the sum of what we do not know.
The former is the god of religious doctrine, the latter does not carry any of the harmful personified-god varying 'opinions and judgment' of the planet and its inhabitants.

Russell's Teapot sums it up quite succinctly.


Religious belief has no correlation to intelligence or lack thereof, but of course someone bringing concepts from religious faith into any scientifically based theory/discussion is going to be to the severe detriment of the validity of their stance in that particular discussion. Religion is based on the unfalsifiable, there is no logical argument that can be used for or against it therefore it has no place is a scientific debate.
Bringing science into religious theology is equally out of place and nonsensical.


Science is the understanding of how things work via observation and testing, region is musings of why things happen.
There can be non religious musings, called philosophy. There is no religion-inclusive equivalent of science. Intelligent Design is derided by anyone outside of similar religion for a reason (its a nonsensical combination).

[shadowprophet]

Thanks for reinforcing the point made in the first paragraph of my last post.

Science can strongly demonstrate we have no evidence of god, hence no religious concepts are the most popular theory in scientific communities.
It cannot without being mangled out of usefulness 'prove' anything supernatural.


When I learned of the big bang, it was introduced as the big bang theory. It is the most supported and widely accepted theory but a better one can still come along. Science isn't about 'perfection' in 1 book, its about the evolution of understanding. We build on what we know, when things stop working we question our prior assessments.

I was taught you can either disprove or support a theory (through well designed experiments with as close to 1 variable at a time), but never 'prove' it.

Do children being indoctrinated by their parents faith get the same honesty and are they encouraged to really question what they are told, no.
Re-interpreting the old book over and over is not how to progress enlightenment.

Mangling terms like energy (now that science has given us a pretty good grasp on its manipulation for our benefit) into religious messages does not work (for anyone objective, outside of similar faith).



Einstein did not believe in the god of any doctrine, he was almost certainly agnostic. There is a much larger difference there than you may think.
Its the intellectual equivalent of saying 'We as a humans do not know'. It is no more for a god than against it.

Even high page-ranked religious rants like this seem to get that he was no religious man. 'God' can be literal 'omnipotent creator' or jut a term for 'the sum of what we do not know.
The former is the god of religious doctrine, the latter does not carry any of the harmful personified-god varying 'opinions and judgment' of the planet and its inhabitants.

Russell's Teapot sums it up quite succinctly.


Religious belief has no correlation to intelligence or lack thereof, but of course someone bringing concepts from religious faith into any scientifically based theory/discussion is going to be to the severe detriment of the validity of their stance in that particular discussion. Religion is based on the unfalsifiable, there is no logical argument that can be used for or against it therefore it has no place is a scientific debate.
Bringing science into religious theology is equally out of place and nonsensical.


Science is the understanding of how things work via observation and testing, region is musings of why things happen.
There can be non religious musings, called philosophy. There is no religion-inclusive equivalent of science. Intelligent Design is derided by anyone outside of similar religion for a reason (its a nonsensical combination).

and, what part of this post isn't biased opinion ?

you call faith and religion "musings"
i call your post nonsense because it seems every word you have shared about the subject, is some what uninformed and pessimistic tword people with spiretual substance.

how could anyone see your words as anything but a struggle to disbelief.

your really gonna need better ammo for this debate bro.
using the thoughts and opinions of other athiests to reinforce
your own opinion, only proves you are indocturinated yourself.

how much of the subjecct matter have you actually studied personally? or picked up through others opinions?


who was john the baptist?
who was saul?
who was jesus and why did he have to die?
who was lot?
who was marry magdalen?

if you don't know the answers to these questions, you don't have enough information to have formed an insightful opinion
about christianity..

[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:

[ICE]

Atheist have no viable explanation that can account for how everything got here. There are just too many why's and how's for anyone with a questioning mind to buy into the big bang. I find it amusing that the people who go around tooting their horn about how much of a scientific thinker they are and about how there is no proof for a god so quickly buy into such a proofless theory.

I think it would be best if everyone kept their posts short and sweet. The longer the post the more impossible any debate comes. Point for point is better than point, point, point, point for point, point, point, point.

Oh is that video anything like that mess of a "documentary" Zeightgeist?

EDIT: Let me reword my thought. Its not that the idea of the big bang doesnt work. Its just that they cant prove how it happened, they cant prove why it happened or why or how the ensuing inflation happened. Its just a theory. An idea that is completely unproven but everyone accepts it as if some guy went out in his back yard and somehow tested it. Its not just unproven. They have no clue how or why any of it happened. Is "it just did" good enough? I guess so..