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

[oGaKirA]

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

No problemo darlin. And yes very interesting. There is no other explanation other than, there is a higher power that ties us all together, conciousness, perhaps a God?

[NuDaFu]

Publishing is also driven by money and fame rather than science.

I always treat generalisations like myths and legends - cocktail of truths and falses (absolute amount of truths often very low tho). There are still scientists out there who do research that is not driven by money and fame. "Publishing may be driven by money and fame" may offer more courtesy.

...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.

Why shouldn't humans believe they can reach the 'level' of Christ? Depends how one interprets the NT I guess. I've always had the impression that Christ encourages us to learn from him so we can be like him, but, in our own individual way. Then again, my view is rather phasic in that regard, until I read the Bible in its original Hebrew plus the missing chapters . I know in Buddhism, self development and enlightment is encouraged as very real and possible - I like that, as it sets responsibility on self rather than on an external entity.

...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.

Well, science and Christian/Catholic religion (I don't know why it's always automatically 'religion', because many non-Christian/Catholic religions either embraces 'science' or don't give a flying cahooters about it), historically, have been at 'logger heads' with each other. It doesn't help that some leaders from the Roman Catholic faith were quite extreme in there methods to mow down the opposition, and now that the tide of power is in science, a 'score' somehow needs to be settled, hence the quibbling. I personally think it's not even about Christian/Catholic religion or science, just one fundamentalist mindset rearing its ugly head in a different power regime - the power used to be in Roman Catholic Church, now, it just happens to be in science.

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.

On the contrary, religious training does involve philosophy and theology. Fellow religious members do actually reason and debate about their own faith and its various forms. Ironically, religious members are probably the most consistently and specifically trained in the skills of logic and reasoning...more so than the average person (with the exception of scholars of Science and Philosophy and Computer Science).

Also, I don't think its about 'reasoning' and/or 'debating' to prove that either is right or wrong - although I'm sure it does happen - it's more that those skills are needed to intellectually interpret holy material.

Maybe we need to make a new debate thread: "Science vs Christian/Catholic Religion', because it seems we are really going off topic. Let me attempt to pull us back...

I personally believe there is a life after death...based on my belief on how space and time works (past, present, future all co-exist in our current conscious reality changing by drivers of will/choice). Also depends how one defines 'life' and 'death'...all part of the same and big picture to me. I'm fine with people feeling they need to prove or disprove whatever lies beyond life, but when personal conclusions/ideals/thoughts/assumptions are 'pressured' on others, either implicitly or explicitly, that I don't agree with.

[yittz]

Meh.

The context I was using it in was (if I recall correctly):
Bad science/published articles with contradicting info/bad science in published journal -> publishing is also driven by money and fame rather than science ALONE.
It was never meant to be intepreted as publishing is only driven by money and fame.

I have no problem with your other replies.

[NuDaFu]

The context I was using it in was (if I recall correctly):
Bad science/published articles with contradicting info/bad science in published journal -> publishing is also driven by money and fame rather than science ALONE.
It was never meant to be intepreted as publishing is only driven by money and fame.

I stand corrected with regard to the statement, but no, it wasn't in the context you mentioned. Not that that's worth quibbling over .

I have no problem with your other replies.

Nor should you - there's only a "problem" to a reply or is a "problem" to the reader if it's an inflammatory statement or personal attack. Otherwise, all replies/posts are views to be respected IMO, where it would be nice to 'agree' or 'agree to disagree'.

[yittz]

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.

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.

I stand corrected with regard to the statement, but no, it wasn't in the context you mentioned. Not that that's worth quibbling over .

Read it in the context. Commercial product, advertising technique and commercial interest, analogy with scientific publication. Don't tell me what I meant and didn't meant.

Not that that's worth quibbling over .

Nor should you - there's only a "problem" to a reply or is a "problem" to the reader if it's an inflammatory statement or personal attack. Otherwise, all replies/posts are views to be respected IMO, where it would be nice to 'agree' or 'agree to disagree'.

Ah the irony. Clearly the use of the word 'problem' is worth quibbling over.

I can have a problem with what you wrote, how you wrote it, why you posted or you as a poster. It would also be nice to interpret posts in context (clearly I don't have a problem with you nor do your posts have any personal attacks), and respect the way other people would like to present their ideas without nitpicking every little detail.