Afterlife: Is There Life After Death?

SanteMulberry

Yes--it is a somewhat unfortunate site--just grabbed the first one I saw that looked at some of the archeological discoveries. I should have examined it more carefully--sorry. But that doesn't take away from the discoveries that the site reports on.

Well yes it does. The site tries to manipulate "findings" to their advantage. That's not objective, that's subjective.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Yes, that would be true if that is what he was doing, but I didn't see any evidence that he was doing that--seemed like just a straight report. But I have to admit that I just gave it a cursory examination after being dismayed by the sensationalistic way that the material was presented. There are a lot of better defenses of the veracity of Torah done by Israeli scholars. I have seen a number of them but did not have them at hand.

SanteMulberry

"

SanteMulberry

"Neanderthal and other human sub species died off for unknown reasons. We DO have evidence that these sub species lived (skulls, skeletons that aren't fully human). And it's not by "faith" that I believe in science...."

You are a bit behind the times. It used to be thought that Neanderthal "died out"---now we know that some of Neanderthal's genes live on in modern humans. And your faith in science is actually stronger than the faith that many scientists have in science.

twinketta

But of course, otherwise how would spiritualists converse with the dead?

How would the afterlife have been suggested?

Why would anyone suggest ghost and haunting?

Why would we care about and talk to our passed relatives?

SanteMulberry

"...and we totally have proof that that really happened.laugh And somehow Moses and Noah both lived over 500 years each. Best stories ever...."

Actually, that is incorrect. The Bible records that Moses died at 120 years. What is fascinating is that the death ages of the Patriarchs goes into sharp decline after the Flood. Why would the people have lied about that? Other pagan sources greatly exaggerated the ages of their "heros"---some pagan kings were said to have lived many thousands of years.

Gallowmere1984

Do not misunderstand where I am coming from. I am not among the 'there is no God, and I know this' people. I am among the 'you're gonna have to show me something better than a terribly documented and horribly flawed poetic novel to convince me' people.

I am generally forced to side with the atheists, because they aren't the ones making ludicrous claims and predicting the end of the world based on a book. That doesn't mean that I don't grasp the power that lack of understanding can have on people. Now, before you get butthurt over that, let me explain what I mean. I'll need to find the source, but basically there have been more than a couple of scientists who set out to prove that the beginning of all things started with whatever, yet ended up converting to Christianity or Judaism in the end. They explained this as something along the lines of it being mathematically improbable for the universe to begin without intelligent design, due to the extremely narrow parameters required for this to happen. Basically, random chance couldn't explain it.

However, I take this to mean that THEY couldn't explain it, and because man has no problem resorting to any explanation at all when there appears to be no explanation, they jumped on the Jesus train.

SanteMulberry

" * One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
* Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
* Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another,"

or "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."

The reason why Intelligent design is viewed as a pseudoscience by the scientific community, because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

Collins applies a Scientific method in his work, but chooses not to when it comes to his religious beliefs."



1) The personal belief of atheistic scientists have made "naturalism" the ruling ethos of science. Scientists of the past were quite willing to put their faith in one basket and their pursuit of science in another---why confuse the two? In saying that there is no God, that in itself is a faith statement (as you must know). Has the atheist been everywhere in the universe to be able to make that statement? Saying "But there is no evidence..." is an "argument from silence".

2) No Christian scientist that I ever knew would ever do such a thing as "omitting relevant information" but there are often atheistic scientists who seem quite willing to do that these days it seems.

And just exactly why should Francis Collins apply the "scientific method" to his own personal beliefs? You're being rather judgmental, aren't you?

SanteMulberry

"...There are of course a lot of different kinds of "intelligence", BUT THAT'S JUST SOME OF MY THOUGHTS/VALUES on the subject..."

But your thoughts and values are not everyone's thoughts and values. Your belief system should also be irrelevant to the pursuit of truth.

Gallowmere1984

I do not believe he should. In fact, I rather respect people who are able to separate the two. Not just scientists, but philosophers as well, most notably Soren Kierkegaard, who even acknowledged that for a thinking man to be a believer requires one leap of faith after another, which are prone to diminishing returns. So far as I know, Kierkegaard didn't quite live long enough for the returns to become so bad that he lost faith, but for many, that isn't the case.

Given my stance, it should come as no real shock that I have no problem with people who rely on faith for their beliefs. I do have a problem however, with people who can't separate faith from substantiated fact, and make it into positions of power. Israel, most Muslim countries, etc. are all good examples of this in action.

SanteMulberry

Do not misunderstand where I am coming from. I am not among the 'there is no God, and I know this' people. I am among the 'you're gonna have to show me something better than a terribly documented and horribly flawed poetic novel to convince me' people.

I am generally forced to side with the atheists, because they aren't the ones making ludicrous claims and predicting the end of the world based on a book. That doesn't mean that I don't grasp the power that lack of understanding can have on people. Now, before you get butthurt over that, let me explain what I mean. I'll need to find the source, but basically there have been more than a couple of scientists who set out to prove that the beginning of all things started with whatever, yet ended up converting to Christianity or Judaism in the end. They explained this as something along the lines of it being mathematically improbable for the universe to begin without intelligent design, due to the extremely narrow parameters required for this to happen. Basically, random chance couldn't explain it.

However, I take this to mean that THEY couldn't explain it, and because man has no problem resorting to any explanation at all when there appears to be no explanation, they jumped on the Jesus train.

No one comes by faith in that way. Perhaps they could come to agnosticism that way (and there are many scientists who are agnostics--the "don't know and don't care" crowd). Real faith comes from accepting the truth and surrendering to it--wherever it leads. It is by a supernatural act of God. C.S. Lewis said that he was probably the most unhappy man on campus the night that he accepted Christ---so strong was his mind's resistance to the idea of faith.

ninerbuff

You are a bit behind the times. It used to be thought that Neanderthal "died out"---now we know that some of Neanderthal's genes live on in modern humans. And your faith in science is actually stronger than the faith that many scientists have in science.

Right. Apparently I may on the ball more than you think.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/13956

And it's not "faith" that I put into science as you put it. Faith doesn't need evidence. Science does. Again, if you haven't caught on, science is based on observation and critical thinking methods. It doesn't sound like you understand what science really is and as mentioned earlier, have a tendency to try to "strawman" arguments.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

ninerbuff

Actually, that is incorrect. The Bible records that Moses died at 120 years. What is fascinating is that the death ages of the Patriarchs goes into sharp decline after the Flood. Why would the people have lied about that? Other pagan sources greatly exaggerated the ages of their "heros"---some pagan kings were said to have lived many thousands of years.

Lol, of course Pagans stated that...........their belief in mythological gods were.......well mythology. :laugh: Did you know that mythology used to be a religion?
And my bad on Moses. I should have said others like Adam, Methuselah, and Mahalalel. As for sharp decline after the flood, maybe people actually didn't buy into the stories of 900 year old people anymore since others were dying within say 40 years?:laugh:

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

quixoteQ

Afterlife: Is There Life After Death?

Let the debate begin

I'm not sure.

ninerbuff

No one comes by faith in that way. Perhaps they could come to agnosticism that way (and there are many scientists who are agnostics--the "don't know and don't care" crowd). Real faith comes from accepting the truth and surrendering to it--wherever it leads. It is by a supernatural act of God. C.S. Lewis said that he was probably the most unhappy man on campus the night that he accepted Christ---so strong was his mind's resistance to the idea of faith.

Faith comes from strong doctrines of religion. That's what faith is. Truth relies on accordance of FACT and REALITY. And testimonies aren't evidence. That's like someone saying Rasberry Keytones are why they lost weight.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

thecpommander

" * One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
* Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
* Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another,"

or "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."

The reason why Intelligent design is viewed as a pseudoscience by the scientific community, because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

Collins applies a Scientific method in his work, but chooses not to when it comes to his religious beliefs."



1) The personal belief of atheistic scientists have made "naturalism" the ruling ethos of science. Scientists of the past were quite willing to put their faith in one basket and their pursuit of science in another---why confuse the two? In saying that there is no God, that in itself is a faith statement (as you must know). Has the atheist been everywhere in the universe to be able to make that statement? Saying "But there is no evidence..." is an "argument from silence".

2) No Christian scientist that I ever knew would ever do such a thing as "omitting relevant information" but there are often atheistic scientists who seem quite willing to do that these days it seems.

And just exactly why should Francis Collins apply the "scientific method" to his own personal beliefs? You're being rather judgmental, aren't you?

"...There are of course a lot of different kinds of "intelligence", BUT THAT'S JUST SOME OF MY THOUGHTS/VALUES on the subject..."

But your thoughts and values are not everyone's thoughts and values. Your belief system should also be irrelevant to the pursuit of truth.

I don't usually do ad hominem... But you Sir are impressive in a special sort of way. Everything you say is more or less a non sequitur to my arguments, and the context in which I present them.

This quote comes to mind:

"Debating creationists on the topic of god is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

It's 01:22 AM, and I am going to copulate with my beautiful girlfriend. Good night.

richied26

no obviously not

Raerae1993

Life can be great and all....but i really hope there is more than school, work, and taxes. Fingers crossed.

Mustang_Susie

Do not misunderstand where I am coming from. I am not among the 'there is no God, and I know this' people. I am among the 'you're gonna have to show me something better than a terribly documented and horribly flawed poetic novel to convince me' people.

I am generally forced to side with the atheists, because they aren't the ones making ludicrous claims and predicting the end of the world based on a book. That doesn't mean that I don't grasp the power that lack of understanding can have on people. Now, before you get butthurt over that, let me explain what I mean. I'll need to find the source, but basically there have been more than a couple of scientists who set out to prove that the beginning of all things started with whatever, yet ended up converting to Christianity or Judaism in the end. They explained this as something along the lines of it being mathematically improbable for the universe to begin without intelligent design, due to the extremely narrow parameters required for this to happen. Basically, random chance couldn't explain it.

However, I take this to mean that THEY couldn't explain it, and because man has no problem resorting to any explanation at all when there appears to be no explanation, they jumped on the Jesus train.

I have these suggestions for you:
"The Case For Christ" and "God's Outrageous Claims" by Lee Strobel
He receieved a Master of Studies in Law Degree from Yale Law School and was an atheist.
He can provide you with a much more compelling argument than I ever could.

Gallowmere1984

I have these suggestions for you:
"The Case For Christ" and "God's Outrageous Claims" by Lee Strobel
He receieved a Master of Studies in Law Degree from Yale Law School and was an atheist.
He can provide you with a much more compelling argument than I ever could.

Thanks for these. I've added them to my 'to read' list. Headed to the bookstore tomorrow anyway, so I'll definitely see if I can find them. o/

SanteMulberry

You are a bit behind the times. It used to be thought that Neanderthal "died out"---now we know that some of Neanderthal's genes live on in modern humans. And your faith in science is actually stronger than the faith that many scientists have in science.

Right. Apparently I may on the ball more than you think.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/13956

And it's not "faith" that I put into science as you put it. Faith doesn't need evidence. Science does. Again, if you haven't caught on, science is based on observation and critical thinking methods. It doesn't sound like you understand what science really is and as mentioned earlier, have a tendency to try to "strawman" arguments.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I don't think YOU understand the reality of what science is---perhaps it is because of what you have been told by those who idolize it. Science IS based on observation and critical thinking but it is not infallible and is notoriously fickle in its beliefs. There are many scientists (in my opinion, true scientists) who love the overturning of one of their pet theories because it sets them off in another even more exciting direction. No real scientist ever thinks of ANY bit of data as "proof" of anything. They love to be confounded and amazed by the complexity and unpredictability of our world and the heavens that surround us. A quote from Sir Francis Bacon (ca.1625) "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." In Bacon's day, science was known as "philosophy" (and actually up to recent times).