life after death

We don't understand religions fully but that doesn't make me scared of them, I don't fully understand all scientific thesis yet I am not scared of them.

Since the first page was all about Pascal's Wager, God's mercy, etc., I'd just like to insert this nice quote from The Kingdom of Heaven:

"God will understand, my lord. And if he doesn't, then he is not God and we need not worry."

I'm atheist, therefore I of course think that when we die, there is nothing. There is no proof to say otherwise. The Bible is not proof of an afterlife, nor is any other religious text or teachings.

The idea of a religious afterlife seems underpinned by the idea of humans possessing "souls". If they exist, why have we not discovered them? If our soul is us, then why can changes to the neural connections or chemical balances in our brains significantly alter our personality?

Morality is not uniquely human. There is growing evidence to suggest that other animals have morals and social rules that allow them to live in communities. Quick search article here.

Oryx said:

Just because life is complex doesn't mean it has to be created.

Click to expand...

As an engineer, the opposite is true for complexity. I would argue that we are too complex to have been intelligently created.

A Shadow's Soul said:

We don't understand religions fully but that doesn't make me scared of them, I don't fully understand all scientific thesis yet I am not scared of them.

Click to expand...

I'm failing to see your point.

Phantom said:

Religion is merely training wheels to make people feel more comfortable in this crazy ride called life. Once we remove them, we should be able to progress even further, unhindered by the stigma's and dogma of structuralized religions.

Click to expand...

I'd like to remind you that a lot of what we see in modern science came from the direct contributions of medieval Christian scholars and the Islamic world. The father of genetics was a monk named Gregor Mendel, and the founder of the big bang theory was a Belgian priest named Georges Lemaitre. Chemistry as a science was institutionalized in the form of alchemy under various Arab scholars during the Fatimid dynasty.

In the present day, organized religion tends to delve deeper into science as well. The Vatican has its own Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and the Dalai Lama spends a lot of time with scientists and even wrote: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation. If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

Lotus the Cat said:

The idea of a religious afterlife seems underpinned by the idea of humans possessing "souls". If they exist, why have we not discovered them? If our soul is us, then why can changes to the neural connections or chemical balances in our brains significantly alter our personality?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "discover"? Almost every faith describes soul as immaterial, and thus unobservable by physical technology. The soul is more than just consciousness and psychological behavior -- it is the person's actuality, essence, and psyche.

Lotus the Cat said:

Morality is not uniquely human. There is growing evidence to suggest that other animals have morals and social rules that allow them to live in communities. Quick search article here.

Click to expand...

I refute this conclusion: you cannot say that morality is not unique to humans when there is no absolute proof that animals have morals. There is no verdict from the scientific community as a whole, and it is possible that animals observed to have shown actions similarly agreeable to human morality could be a mere combination of instinct and emotions, which do not necessarily equate to morality.

Lotus the Cat said:

As an engineer, the opposite is true for complexity. I would argue that we are too complex to have been intelligently created.

Click to expand...

Interesting statement; would you mind expounding a bit?

The Void said:

What do you mean by "discover"? Almost every faith describes soul as immaterial, and thus unobservable by physical technology. The soul is more than just consciousness and psychological behavior -- it is the person's actuality, essence, and psyche.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how the soul can make sense as the essence of a person without a direct relationship to someone's personality. If they are separate, what is a soul? If your soul goes somewhere after death, but is not your personality, what is it? What exactly do you mean by essence?

The word psyche does not make any sense here. It either translates to soul (so cannot be a descriptor for soul), or as mind. As mind it is also subject to alteration from physical and chemical changes in the brain.

The Void said:

I refute this conclusion: you cannot say that morality is not unique to humans when there is no absolute proof that animals have morals. There is no verdict from the scientific community as a whole, and it is possible that animals observed to have shown actions similarly agreeable to human morality could be a mere combination of instinct and emotions, which do not necessarily equate to morality.

Click to expand...

There is only no absolute proof because that would require being capable of talking to animals. Observation is all that is available to us. The examples provided in the article suggest moral behaviour to me. If you want to argue, feel free to provide counter arguments for coincidence of behaviour using the cases mentioned in my link.

The Void said:

Interesting statement; would you mind expounding a bit?

Click to expand...

I won't pretend to be a biologist, so it is not the details of the biology I will comment on, but the argument. Intelligent design produces the simplest means to achieve a goal: not the most complex. Arguing that there must be a god because of the complexity of the human eye argues against itself. The complexity of the eye is due to an imperfect process: i.e. evolution.

I am completely ignorant to all things related to any religion, so based on what I do know about the concepts of Heaven and Hell, I don't believe in, nor do I want an afterlife. By that, I don't mean "please don't give me eternal bliss and peace", I just have no problem believing there is nothing after death - the life I have now is good; it's enough, and I intend to make the best and most of it.

Also, to me, the concept of Heaven and Hell just sounds like a way of persuading and scaring people into staying in line and being moral during their lives. I don't need that - I will and can be a good person without the promise of a prize or fear of punishment at the end of my life.

Lotus the Cat said:

I don't understand how the soul can make sense as the essence of a person without a direct relationship to someone's personality. If they are separate, what is a soul? If your soul goes somewhere after death, but is not your personality, what is it? What exactly do you mean by essence?

The word psyche does not make any sense here. It either translates to soul (so cannot be a descriptor for soul), or as mind. As mind it is also subject to alteration from physical and chemical changes in the brain.




There is only no absolute proof because that would require being capable of talking to animals. Observation is all that is available to us. The examples provided in the article suggest moral behaviour to me. If you want to argue, feel free to provide counter arguments for coincidence of behaviour using the cases mentioned in my link.



I won't pretend to be a biologist, so it is not the details of the biology I will comment on, but the argument. Intelligent design produces the simplest means to achieve a goal: not the most complex. Arguing that there must be a god because of the complexity of the human eye argues against itself. The complexity of the eye is due to an imperfect process: i.e. evolution.

Click to expand...

Can you explain to me how it argues against itself exactly. This specific complexity of the eye alone should be more then enough proof. Are you saying it was an accident we came into existence or that our sight was an accident realistically what is the possibility of that happening. Also it is called the evolution theory not evolution fact. I could also argue to say that this is a weak explanation as this specific theory came to be as a way to explain something that could not be understood by the scientist so this is their speculated answer.

elnoor said:

Can you explain to me how it argues against itself exactly. This specific complexity of the eye alone should be more then enough proof. Are you saying it was an accident we came into existence or that our sight was an accident realistically what is the possibility of that happening. Also it is called the evolution theory not evolution fact. I could also argue to say that this is a weak explanation as this specific theory came to be as a way to explain something that could not be understood by the scientist so this is their speculated answer.

Click to expand...

The thing about complexity that Lotus was talking about is that an intelligent being usually finds the simplest way to do or make something. So if there is a God, why would it bother with making something complex like the human body? Why not do something simpler and more efficient?

Also....there's a difference between the use of the word "theory" in science and by the average person. A scientific theory is:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Click to expand...

Whereas the layman's definition of a theory is basically an educated guess.

Zekrom said:

The thing about complexity that Lotus was talking about is that an intelligent being usually finds the simplest way to do or make something. So if there is a God, why would it bother with making something complex like the human body? Why not do something simpler and more efficient?

Also....there's a difference between the use of the word "theory" in science and by the average person. A scientific theory is:



Whereas the layman's definition of a theory is basically an educated guess.

Click to expand...

Ok DNA in all living organisms are made of the same four nucleotide, this provides simplicity and organization that is impossible to argue as a mistake. The human body is made of trillions of these much simpler cells that implement this DNA. As for the theory lets go with the scientific use of it, how was evolution tested and proved over and over? Why did all the monkeys all of a sudden stop evolving. Why can we not get a talking Ceaser.

elnoor said:

Ok DNA in all living organisms are made of the same four nucleotide, this provides simplicity and organization that is impossible to argue as a mistake. The human body is made of trillions of these much simpler cells that implement this DNA. As for the theory lets go with the scientific use of it, how was evolution tested and proved over and over? Why did all the monkeys all of a sudden stop evolving. Why can we not get a talking Ceaser.

Click to expand...

Denying evolution is pointless. We know it is real. The only reason it is still a theory and not a law is because the specific details of how it has fully progressed is still being figured out. Evolution is very slow and takes millenia. Who says monkeys have stopped evolving? You should really read up on evolution and the scientific method before you dismiss it.

Also yes, it is an accident (or rather lucky cooincidence) that I exist. I think that is what makes nature and life so amazing.

Anyway this is going off topic now. Someone please explain how the soul works to get us to an afterlife if our 'self' is fragile and affected by chemical and physical changes in the brain.

Lotus the Cat said:

Denying evolution is pointless. We know it is real. The only reason it is still a theory and not a law is because the specific details of how it has fully progressed is still being figured out. Evolution is very slow and takes millenia. Who says monkeys have stopped evolving? You should really read up on evolution and the scientific method before you dismiss it.

Also yes, it is an accident (or rather lucky cooincidence) that I exist. I think that is what makes nature and life so amazing.

Anyway this is going off topic now. Someone please explain how the soul works to get us to an afterlife if our 'self' is fragile and affected by chemical and physical changes in the brain.

Click to expand...

How can I just believe in "we know it is real" with no proof. If it is an accident someone is existing than there is more than 7 billion accidents that exist in the world, which is very unlikely. I am trying to understand but you are not convincing me by brushing it off. This is actually is not going off topic as without believing in a creator who created everything how can we possibly understand the after life.

elnoor said:

How can I just believe in "we know it is real" with no proof. If it is an accident someone is existing than there is more than 7 billion accidents that exist in the world, which is very unlikely. I am trying to understand but you are not convincing me by brushing it off. This is actually is not going off topic as without believing in a creator who created everything how can we possibly understand the after life.

Click to expand...

You don't need to believe, there is strong evidence to support it.

These include:
1. Fossils (including their distribution in time)
2. Similarities between species - both chemical and anatomical (e.g. you mentioned the thing about DNA)
3. Artificial selection/selective breeding.

This site sums it up very quickly and simply.

Most breeds of dogs we know today have been created by selective breeding in the last two hundred years. Therefore, it is absurd to think given millions of years that a similar diversity cannot occur naturally.

Also, on the note of the eye, it is a flawed design. The position of the optical nerve means we have a large blind spot at the rear of our retina. If a creator did exist he dun goofed.

Lotus the Cat said:

You don't need to believe, there is strong evidence to support it.

These include:
1. Fossils (including their distribution in time)
2. Similarities between species - both chemical and anatomical (e.g. you mentioned the thing about DNA)
3. Artificial selection/selective breeding.

This site sums it up very quickly and simply.

Most breeds of dogs we know today have been created by selective breeding in the last two hundred years. Therefore, it is absurd to think given millions of years that a similar diversity cannot occur naturally.

Also, on the note of the eye, it is a flawed design. The position of the optical nerve means we have a large blind spot at the rear of our retina. If a creator did exist he dun goofed.

Click to expand...

Do you know what would happen if a human breeds with an ape? Do you know what would happen if we were to get a transplant from apes? Humans should not be compared to animals as we are clearly designed with something they lack the ability to think. How can you say that the eye is flawed when if put on scale it alone is worth so much more than anything anyone can offer you in this world. The eye is flawed yet can you imagine a day without that eye. I guess we are looking at this from two different views, while you try portray what is supposed to be perfection I m looking at it as I'm grateful I can even see. No one can even create something close to it and how do you know it was not by design it was created that way.

elnoor said:

Do you know what would happen if a human breeds with an ape?

Click to expand...

Probably nothing, seeing as how members of different species usually can't breed.

Do you know what would happen if we were to get a transplant from apes?

Click to expand...

Body would reject the transplant. Hell, even between other humans the body might still reject a transplant.

Humans should not be compared to animals as we are clearly designed with something they lack the ability to think.

Click to expand...

I don't see what's so terrible about being compared to other animals. Some of them are pretty cool. Just because we're the only species with this level of cognitive function doesn't automatically mean that someone designed humanity.

How can you say that the eye is flawed when if put on scale it alone is worth so much more than anything anyone can offer you in this world. The eye is flawed yet can you imagine a day without that eye.

Click to expand...

The eye does have a flaw, and Lotus explained what that flaw is. But that doesn't mean that the eye is worthless either. Nobody's saying that.

No one can even create something close to it and how do you know it was not by design it was created that way.

Click to expand...

How do you know that it was designed? Your job to provide the proof of that, not us. And an answer along of the lines of "oh, it's so complex and pretty" is not an answer. I mean, if you could come up with some good proof for that, we could end this part of the debate.

Zekrom responded to most of your points, but:

elnoor said:

No one can even create something close to it and how do you know it was not by design it was created that way.

Click to expand...

Considering there are scientists working on the bionic eye, I beg to differ. However I very much doubt when the scientists have their meetings they're discussing what prime place they should intentionally place a blind spot.

Humans should not be compared to animals as we are clearly designed with something they lack the ability to think.

Click to expand...

But we, humans are technically animals. We evolved from monkeys, just like every other animal that currently exists evolved from something. Just because we conquered the entire world and built cities, doesn't mean we aren't animals.

This is the definition of the word "Animal" according to Biology-Online.org, which means it is the raw, unbiased, and purely scientific definition of Animal:

noun, plural: animals
A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:
(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions)
(2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

Click to expand...

Just felt like getting that out of the way. This is pure Biology, not opinion.

Humans meet every single criteria for this definition. Therefore, we are animals.

Zekrom said:

Probably nothing, seeing as how members of different species usually can't breed.

Body would reject the transplant. Hell, even between other humans the body might still reject a transplant.

I don't see what's so terrible about being compared to other animals. Some of them are pretty cool. Just because we're the only species with this level of cognitive function doesn't automatically mean that someone designed humanity.

The eye does have a flaw, and Lotus explained what that flaw is. But that doesn't mean that the eye is worthless either. Nobody's saying that.

How do you know that it was designed? Your job to provide the proof of that, not us. And an answer along of the lines of "oh, it's so complex and pretty" is not an answer. I mean, if you could come up with some good proof for that, we could end this part of the debate.

Click to expand...

Thank you zekrom for answering the first few questions. Just to also add do you know how fast the body will reject it, a lot faster than any human. So far I have tried my best to come up with actual facts that have been brushed off, I am surprised the DNA is not convincing enough but ok we will keep going no problem just remember none of you have provided facts for this evolution or that we were created from nothing/accident( 0+0 dies not equal 1) . As for the eye your correct it does have a blind spot no arguments there. This blind spot you speak of is less .25 % did you know that? Just let me know how many people have been effected by. Now this would be considered a flaw if humans were created with only one eye, yet we are created with two to ensure that this so called blind spot is taking care by the other eye. By the way the blind spots so called flaw is also all the theoretical not factual one again.

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/is-our-inverted-retina-really-bad-design/

Shiny Bunnelby said:

This is the definition of the word "Animal" according to Biology-Online.org, which means it is the raw, unbiased, and purely scientific definition of Animal:


Just felt like getting that out of the way. This is pure Biology, not opinion.

Humans meet every single criteria for this definition. Therefore, we are animals.

Click to expand...

I specifically said we need to stop comparing humans to animals as their is a clear difference.

Shiny Bunnelby said:

This is the definition of the word "Animal" according to Biology-Online.org, which means it is the raw, unbiased, and purely scientific definition of Animal:


Just felt like getting that out of the way. This is pure Biology, not opinion.

Humans meet every single criteria for this definition. Therefore, we are animals.

Click to expand...

I wanted to also add that is the definition for a lot of living things so do you want say that all animals including the humans evolved from a single animal and became all these different animals. Or should we use this same definition to show an organized creation that has been created. Lol by the way all this evolution makes me think we might be Pokemon.

Roaming Murkrow said:

But we, humans are technically animals. We evolved from monkeys, just like every other animal that currently exists evolved from something. Just because we conquered the entire world and built cities, doesn't mean we aren't animals.

Click to expand...

Is this something you want to believe or is it actual fact?

elnoor said:

I specifically said we need to stop comparing humans to animals as their is a clear difference.

Click to expand...

We can't compare humans to animals because we ARE animals.

Now if you're insisting on comparisons to differing species, then be my guest. That would be the correct route. It doesn't change the fact that we still are animals. But we aren't chimpanzees or dogs.

However, where is your proof that evolution is as flawed as you think it is? Evolution was never intended to explain the origin of life, but it does explain the fact that we adapted from our ancestors differently, which is why we still exist and they are extinct. It is all adaptation, not some miracle transformation. Do you really insist that you are not only more intelligent than over 90% of scientists, who I might add have RESEARCHED this time and time again for over a century, but also have all the answers? Intelligence Design is all talk and no proof. Evolution has troves of evidence backing it up and we keep finding more. Several people in this thread have given you several examples of proof, which you only debunked with your opinions, but I have yet to see any from you.

The burden of proof is on you. The only thing you have is a bible and citations pointing at it. The problem is this, the Bible is your claim. You cannot use your claim as evidence. That is a logical fallacy known as Circular Logic. To leave any mark in a debate, you have to provide evidence outside of this claim. That evidence is to be used to back up your claim. Without evidence, your opinions mean nothing.