Do you think there is life after death? And if so, can we prove it?

[remember_Cedric]

That's not the point of Ghaleon, I think. He was explaining the difference between spiritual and science to me and why it should be seperated. He used 'Jesus died for our sins' as an example of spiritual idea, not whether the idea that 'Jesus died for our sins' made sense or not.

I read you! I probably missed out that part he was quoting.

Did the bible specify what animals are livestock?

I vaguely remember, somewhere in the Genesis mentions the definition of livestock....somewhere in the Noah's Ark chapter. I haven't read about biblical people eating exotic creatures though.

[Ghaleon]

That's taking the easy way out. Religion and science are seperate. So, lets not talk about it, lets not question it.


No, it doesn't. If it's the truth, one will be able to prove it sooner or later. Maybe not now, but, later (if it's the truth).

It's like the case of 'wave–particle duality' in quantum physics. Both theories yield positive results in experiments and many present technologies benefited from these theories. But phycists are still trying to find a theory that can explain both phenomena (anyone can update me whether they have found it or not?).

Yes, it works well to seperate religion and science for now since human couldn't find a common ground yet, but, the best scenerio is still when religion/spirituality can agree with science and vice versa.

The notion that "Jesus Christ died for our sins" is not a scientifical statement. It's a Christian statement based on faith. Not a fact (in a scientifical sense).

Science = experiments, theories, equations, facts
Religion = faith, scriptures, religious experiences, ritual, spiritual matters, theology

They may overlap, but they are definitely different. If anything, i think philosophy overlaps with religion more than science does. Philosophy does ask some questions that do overlap into religious territory such as those regarding virtues and morals.

[Ghaleon]

I think I see what you mean in here.

It made sense to me when I take it this way: It's like our parents who died for us, simply because they love us. Would you not do them the wish, that is, to obey what was ask of them?

Yeah, and the Christian message is even stronger than your parents dying for you. It's Jesus Christ, Son of God, dying for the sins of everyone. So the love (coming from God) is even stronger for everyone. Well that's the Christian standpoint.

[Guo Xiang]

I vaguely remember, somewhere in the Genesis mentions the definition of livestock....somewhere in the Noah's Ark chapter. I haven't read about biblical people eating exotic creatures though.

Well, 'cos if they didn't state, then any animal is game.

[yittz]

It's based on faith. It's very simple. I don't know why you guys are making it so complicated. You either have faith in it or you don't. Plus what does science have to do with religious tradition? They're like two separate things. One can have both a religious and scientific viewpoint of the world. I know lot of Christians who are scientists and engineers.

The original reply was because I called faith a trump card. Instead of proving otherwise, he ended up confirming it with his points on faith.

[yittz]

I'm back and randomly picked those I can afford to revert in shortest time. But I'm not expecting any, uh, understanding

WTH is this "anecdotal evidence" you're talking about? With Christians = schizophrenics, I'm asking a question. Now you're having me thinking if you have been comprehening/approaching my question correctly.

What do you mean with that? Lying on what? If it's your failure in interpretation, it's not my problem.

Why don't you list them down in simple lines, your questions on the faith (aka Christianity) exactly, clear-cut, and simple without your ozzie style of english? I'll see if I can address them.

No, I'm going back to reply so as to give you a better picture since your picture of the religion is hopelessly broken like jigsaw. My apologies if I had a part in confusing you in the process. (or my missed punctuation, plus not reading back probably made you misinterpretated me because I was looking out for my boss. )

Don't worry about sins. I'm sure you'll be forgiven for you're still tender and naive.

My understanding of Christianity is that it isn't enough just to have faith. You cannot accept a serious criticism on pride without turning it into a smartarse reply. You can say what you like about missing a post that wasn't convenient and then hitchhiking on another post few posts down, or choosing to reply certain 'random' points that were convenient; as long as you are comfortable with it given the expectations of the religion you are in.

You hardly addressed any points that were raised in previous posts:
How is faith not a trump card
Morals and reasoning behind punishment/reward in afterlife
Relationship of wisdom and faith
Exclusivisity of the bible and its application to modern society
Altruism and proactive preaching to more people - aka 'bad Christians'
Blind faith and non-blind faith

Again, I don't need an explanation on faith, if 'faith works for people' means 'believing in it make it more believable and reinforces my belief' then so be it.

[Ghaleon]

The original reply was because I called faith a trump card. Instead of proving otherwise, he ended up confirming it with his points on faith.

Well faith is pretty much a trump card. Some people just have it and some people are born into it. It's just one of those things.... You either have it or you don't. When you do have faith, it kind of changes your whole belief system and world view.

[yittz]

Or maybe you want to make the decision? I just feel that there's much more important things the scientists should be focusing on. And if there are things already rock-casted, why don't we just move on and go on to other unexplored realms instead of staying in that small little frame? There may be doubts, okay, so leave some manpower there, instead of spending so much time and efforts in it when other areas would need those resources.

And then they tend to keep changing their minds too excessively. Yes, experiments and trial-and-error. But they keep publishing even before the facts are mature, and changed their minds only after publication, which makes us go spin rounds along with them. It's just like a company launching a product much earlier than initially planned, only to get slammed with negative reviews because the product has got many unfixed and undiscovered flaws.

And decades later, even those rock-casted facts rot away.

Apparently, science is unreliable.

I can see where you are coming from in the first point. Science is increasingly dwelling into smaller minute details, that seem irrelevant to your life. There is critism where sometimes they miss the big picture. Scientists are human, there is a limit on how and when creative experiments strike them. There is a niche system, and when those 'important' spots are filled, you will just have to research what's left. Also small research and confirmation studies add to the big picture. One isolated study means very little, but that one key information may lead to a big breakthrough. Several groundbreaking findings are on the back of laboratory mistakes for example. You have to agree 'wasting' time in these small seemlingly irrelevant studies is more useful than those people who spread pseudoscience.

Your example is one of commercial greed rather than science. Those labels on advertisement are anything but science. If you have faith in the brand, it works for you I guess. That's why there are so many 'best' products out there that promises false outcomes. Publishing is also driven by money and fame rather than science. There is always bad science out there, that's why you need a baloney detection kit.

[yittz]

Well faith is pretty much a trump card. Some people just have it and some people are born into it. It's just one of those things....

I understand it may have came across as an insult. But there's nothing wrong with it being a trump card. What's the use of faith if you can debate against science with pure evidence and reasoning.

I believe some people are born with my willingness to have faith while others are pessimistic about everything. But the upbringing and societal environment also plays a large role. Few thousand years ago, I dear say 99% of the population belonged to some sort of religious faith.

[Ghaleon]

I understand it may have came across as an insult. But there's nothing wrong with it being a trump card. What's the use of faith if you can debate against science with pure evidence and reasoning.

Some people are just drawn to it. It's kind of like love. Some people are just drawn to certain people.

[remember_Cedric]

Hopping by....

The original reply was because I called faith a trump card. Instead of proving otherwise, he ended up confirming it with his points on faith.

I actually forgot how it all started. Honest! Now that you've reminded me!

My understanding of Christianity is that it isn't enough just to have faith.

If it isn't enough just to have faith....what is it then? - The answer is, *drum rolls*, it is faith. Feel the intangible i.e.

You cannot accept a serious criticism on pride without turning it into a smartarse reply. You can say what you like about missing a post that wasn't convenient and then hitchhiking on another post few posts down, or choosing to reply certain 'random' points that were convenient; as long as you are comfortable with it given the expectations of the religion you are in.

Well, I did missed out posts. The truth is, everytime I come and reply, I don't have a long day's time. You can refuse that explanation, but it's a fact. *picks nose*

Criticism on me is fine, the religion should be respected and doesn't deserved to be compared with some nonsensical science theory by human. Leave science and Religion apart. They DON'T have to be in a same room.

I have a brain of limited ideas, if others can come up with something my mind didn't address to, certainly I support them if it make sense. Obviously.

You hardly addressed any points that were raised in previous posts:
How is faith not a trump card
Morals and reasoning behind punishment/reward in afterlife
Relationship of wisdom and faith
Exclusivisity of the bible and its application to modern society
Altruism and proactive preaching to more people - aka 'bad Christians'
Blind faith and non-blind faith

Again, I don't need an explanation on faith, if 'faith works for people' means 'believing in it make it more believable and reinforces my belief' then so be it.

The bold one - Why must 'bad Christians' be in single quotes? If there's no other meanings, it's a NO. 'bad Christians' = lazy christians who doesn't reach to more people, to save them.

For the rest, I'd be back to reply when I gain back my internet access.

P/s: your manner of lecturing is beginning to sound like a junior pastor. Keep it up! Amen!

[yittz]

If it isn't enough just to have faith....what is it then? - The answer is, *drum rolls*, it is faith. Feel the intangible i.e.

Criticism on me is fine, the religion should be respected and doesn't deserved to be compared with some nonsensical science theory by human. Leave science and Religion apart. They DON'T have to be in a same room.

The bold one - Why must 'bad Christians' be in single quotes? If there's no other meanings, it's a NO. 'bad Christians' = lazy christians who doesn't reach to more people, to save them.

First part: No I was refering to the fact that faith isn't enough, but also try to walk in the shadow of the Christ. No one in their right mind expects humans to reach his level, but my understanding is Christians should still try to.

Second part: My intention was not to bring science into thread, but it always creep in when religion is debated. I did try to keep the debate using reason and logic, rather than science showed this or proved that etc.

Third part: 'Bad Christians' was a term coined by someone else refering to those who do door to door, in your face preaching. I don't agree nor disagree with the term. In the context of this debate, it's refering to what constitutes a 'Good' Christian with regards to altruism and saving as many as possible because their faith truly believes they can save a lot of people versus Christians who let people be.

[oGaKirA]

Can we prove the afterlife using theory? For example, when water evaporates, the moisture returns to the sky and as clouds fill up, eventually we have rain. Can this cycle also suggest that reincarnation follows the same principle? The body passes, the soul leaves and enters a new-born person, all memories of the past life are cleared, but a part of the past still remains. When death occurs, the cycle is restarted.

What do you think? Is there a life after death? When our bodies pass away, does our soul depart from this world? Or do we simply pass onto a new body, erased of our memories from the past life? Are we a product of our previous life?

Soul/spirit = First law of thermodynamics: Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it changes from one form to another.

Heaven = Could possibly be one of the many dimensions theorized by physicists



Well i definately believe there is a higher power and some form of life after death. Anyone ever had a run in with a ghost?

[darkcser]

I understand it may have came across as an insult. But there's nothing wrong with it being a trump card. What's the use of faith if you can debate against science with pure evidence and reasoning.

That's probably the crux of the problem. In normal debates between adults, people expect to use reason and logic to make their case. Religion get's a "reason-free" card. It's back to those days of "just because".

Outside of some trollish entertainment value there's really not much use debating this since to have a meaningful debate you need people to participate on the reason and logic level as opposed to the "just because" level.

[Ghaleon]

That's probably the crux of the problem. In normal debates between adults, people expect to use reason and logic to make their case. Religion get's a "reason-free" card. It's back to those days of "just because".

Outside of some trollish entertainment value there's really not much use debating this since to have a meaningful debate you need people to participate on the reason and logic level as opposed to the "just because" level.

If reasoning was all there was to life, then we'll have the answers to everything.

Also adults who are religious don't reason out their faiths or debate about them with their friends. They just have it and it is already cemented in their world view.

[yittz]

If reasoning was all there was to life, then we'll have the answers to everything.

Also adults who are religious don't reason out their faiths or debate about them with their friends. They just have it and it is already cemented in their world view.

No one said reasoning is all there is to life. But that doesn't mean you don't use it for the fear of what it will deduce.

Faith in anything don't happen instantly, it's developed over time. Likewise faith is lost when there is sufficient evidence to convince otherwise. Did you not believe in a childhood story at sometime? What made you lose faith in it?

[Ghaleon]

No one said reasoning is all there is to life. But that doesn't mean you don't use it for the fear of what it will deduce.

Faith in anything don't happen instantly, it's developed over time. Likewise faith is lost when there is sufficient evidence to convince otherwise. Did you not believe in a childhood story at sometime? What made you lose faith in it?

Nobody said reasoning was bad. But at the same time it doesn't mean we should take away from the belief systems of others just because we can't prove it with evidence or reasoning. There is always room for faith.

For example, there are lot of scientists and engineers who are Christian. They have both a religious/spiritual world-view and scientific world view.

[kidd]

Yeah, that's one sticky area regarding the Bible. The fact that people in the past debated and argued which books should be canon and which should be not. Were the decisions regarding canonization divinely inspired?

Lot of Christians tackle this issue by looking at the dates of the books in the Bible. The earliest known Christian writings were Paul's letters found in the Bible. The second earliest known Christian writings were the 4 Gospels found in the Bible. So Christians put faith in the Bible because Paul's letters and the Gospels were the earliest Christian manuscripts. They believe that the other Christian writings (not found in the Bible) are not authentic because they date centuries after the death of Christ (such as the Gnostic Gospels).

What do you think of this?

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to paganize the teachings of Jesus (who preached an enlightened form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever, other than perhaps the disputed Gnostic Gospels.

While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of the faith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism. His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion. The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and other fellow Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.

So, Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. How authentic was his teaching?

Source: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

[oGaKirA]

I've posted this before. The Global Consciousness Project. This is currently running at Princeton i believe.

[kidd]

I've posted this before. The Global Consciousness Project. This is currently running at Princeton i believe.

Although you have posted it before, this is the first time I've seen it. Thanks for the link. It's very interesting.