[Guest]

Our brains emit electric pulses. We have complicated machines to read these pulses. I believe that when we die, the pulses from our brain reach a frequency that our complicated machines can't read. I believe this frequency matches the earth's magnetic field. In a sense, we meld with the earth. Our minds are at a higher state of awareness than normal, so it is like an everlasting shared lucid dream. This would explain many near death experiences. People in comas often report seeing heaven. This "heaven" is in my opinion, what they expect to see, and therefore, what they do see.

What do you believe?

Edited July 5, 2010 by Blablah99

[Guest]

Izzy, and Unreality, continue to believe or not however you choose. Again the choice is yours. What an awesome God, he gives you that choice.

[Izzy]

Lmao, no he doesn't. According to your god, I go to hell for not worshiping your jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

[unreality]

you said it POSSIBLY. unfortunately you will know the truth someday. might be one day to late.

Ooh if nothing else is working on the kids, tell em they'll go to hell if they don't join up! You're sad. It saddens me to see people like you. People who think they know the truth. You know what I know? I know that's impossible to know anything. There are no absolutes. That makes the world so beautiful, so complex, so alive. Your world is stale, one-purposed, singular, redundant, a pointless game wrapped in a shell of sweet quick-n-easy sells to capture unwitting persons. Religion is a beaurocratic mess. God exists in your mind because you want answers to questions that have no external answers but only internal ones.

I want you to be happy, to believe what you want to believe. But you're so backed in a corner right now that you think the answer to a silly question about dead bodies is the key to your god's existence. Your proof of a God should be so much more powerful and vibrant. But clearly it's not

[Guest]

Dang, if we can't agree that the Bible is non-fiction, then there is barely any common ground that we can argue on. Let me ask something new: what is it that holds the very fabrics of the universe together? What is it that keeps the protons and neutrons in a nucleus together? Another thing: I've heard color defined as a ray of light preternaturally predisposed to bend a certain way. Do you have a better explanation?

I believe the Bible as a history book: the OT contains the old laws and the beginning of the earth and much of history up to four hundred years before Jesus' birth. The NT contains the story of Jesus from four different writers: a tax collector, two disciples and a doctor; the acts of Christ's disciples after His death, Paul's letters, and a vision given to John. I believe that the New Testament is a non-fiction writing of the first century just as i might believe, say, the events of a day in 1770 recorded in George Washington's diary are non-fiction.

As for me, I don't put my faith in God because some person bribed me with heaven. And you're off by saying it's a religion. I love my God, the father of Abraham and his sons, and I love Jesus. I'm sure my life would be so crappy without Him. Without the love of God...meh

Cut the crap!

"petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak" -- petty is one of them more insulting things i've heard about Him. unjust, eh? justice isn't defined by the laws of this country or this world. give Him a chance to forgive you. control-freak? eh, sure He's in control by nature, nothing you can do about it, but not freaking out about it

"vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser" -- His vengeance goes to those who deny Him and never repent to Him. As for a "bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser" you've got the wrong perspective entirely.

"misogynistic": Since when does he hate women?

"homophobic": He hates the sin of homosexuality, not homosexuals

"racist": Again, since when???

"infanticidal": blaming abortion on Him? It's the woman's choice (wrong thread)

"genocidal": it's the people's choice to choose life through Him or death through he others

"filicidal": He does not deliberately kill His children, but He doesn't hold them away from hell if they choose it

"pestilential": His laws set the standards for morals today

"megalomaniacal": He is omnipotent whether you like it or not

"sadomasochistic": you think He likes seeing the world the way it is??? Heck no!!!

"capriciously malevolent bully" -- Again you have a bad perspective of our God

[Izzy]

The four forces - gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak hold our universe and govern its laws. This explains your first two questions. Physicists are currently intensely studying all four in laboratories around the world, to improve our understanding of the universe. Just because we, as a collective society, can not currently explain every infinitesimal detail of this universe at crazily meticulous standards does not mean that 1) we won't be able to some day or 2) that god did it. You're (or the public in general) lack of understanding of current science does not mean you should be allowed to take the leap from not understanding to "Oooh, God did it." That's the lame and easy way out.

The constants of the universe were defined when it came into in existence. If the constants (entirely random) would have been different at the beginning, it doesn't mean the universe wouldn't exist, things would just be very different. Light (with it's dual particle and wave properties ) behaves a certain way because that is how the universe allowed it to behave at the beginning. If this property was different, colors would be different. It's a meaningless point. You're asking why something is the way it is and asserting god did it, I'm telling you that something merely is and asking why it is at all (not to you, just in general). That's the difference between science and religions. You start with the end in mind, we start from the beginning.

Okay, whatever. History textbooks are rewritten ALL THE TIME to keep up with current discoveries. Christians believe Noah lived to be like 700. Archeologists say it was a fact that he was like 30 (I don't remember the exact numbers, this was on the history channel). Using reason and logic, who are you inclined to believe? An old book, published during the time of witchcraft and wizardry, or someone certified in the subject with radioactive dating technology?

Okay. Why that God? Why not Apollo/Bacchus/Ceres/Damkina/Enki/Farbauti/Gaia/Helios/Ixtab/Juno/Kingu/Lakshimi/Mithras/Neptune/Osiris/Pan/Quetzalcoatl/Ra/Seti/Thor/Uzume/Vulcan/Wicca/Xipe/Yam/Zeus?

It's because of a random chance of birth in a random time period in a random geographical location that you had no control over. People existed for millions of years before the OT, they had different Gods. The Greek took their gods very seriously, and blasphemy was severely punished. We now consider their gods silly myths and do projects about them in school. In a few thousand years, I predict the circumstances will be indistinguishable from one another.

Woooh. Now for the spoiler.

Petty, because he needs our unyielding worship to be happy.

Unjust/unforgiving, for damning those that won't have his sh*t to hell.

Control-freak, for allowing the persecution of heretics for centuries.

Vindictive, if Noah's Ark is evidence AT ALL for that.

Blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser, for allowing the crusades, the holocaust, et al.

Misogynistic, because remember kids, in conservative America, women are supposed to be in the kitchen making the men sammiches. The Koran is based off of the Bible, just taken one step further. The Koran just doesn't eliminate as many laws as Christians do. For example, women are still modest in front of Gawd, hence the hijab. They are almost more family-centered. It was only recently women were given the same rights as men, because men saw it their lawful right to be "the best". After all, God made Adam specially, and Eve was only created, from his rib, so he'd have someone to chill with and bang.

Homophobic, because he doesn't want gays in heaven. Nope, he's scared, they gotta go burn. God fears sodomy.

Racist, otherwise why would he have permitted slavery, including the gruesome middle passage?

Infanticidal, for allowing the child's crusade and making abortion possible in the first place.

Genocidal. *passes you a history book* Have fun.

Filicidal. Man Gawd, stop striking us down with lighting, it's an awfully mean thing to do!

Megalomanical. It makes me wonder what's up with God's sex life. It's the he's the dom, and the world is his sub. He spat on the world and then f**ked it, literally. He reminds me of a kindergartner going through the "MINE!!!" phase. The delusion of his own power/importance is actually a symptom of a manic/paranoid disorder.

Sadomasochistic - yo. If he doesn't like what he sees, he can change it. Let's have another Noah's Ark. He was perfectly comfortable doing that the first time.

Capriciously malevolent bully - no, truth. The capriciousness accounts for changes in weather, his malevolent bulliness the reason those changes in weather turn into natural disasters.

Yeah. I realize it seems like I pretended God was real up there. Don't worry, I didn't. It was a critical analysis of the protagonist in one of the most gruesome fiction novels EVER.

[rookie1ja]

MODERATING

What happens after death? What do people believe?

Keep broader religious debate in other more appropriate threads.

[EDM]

Just because you don't understand faith and religion, doesn't mean you have to condemn it in such a lousy and sadistic way.....if you want to stay atheist, so be it.....but don't you ever talk crap to us!!!!

:mad:

sorry rookie.....

I end my conversation with this opinion: I believe (and know) that there is life after death.......

[Guest]

Thank you Rookie.

[Izzy]

Lol, the spoilers are so cute.

EDM, read the OT. You will find my analysis reflects the book faultlessly. I also have freedom of speech. Like no offense dude, but there is no such thing as a right to not be offended. If we're debating and you're telling me how awesome your god is, of course I'm going to tell you why he's and evil bastard. If you think spoilers, exclamation marks, and mad faces are going to change anything, I'm sorry, but there's no way.

/offtopic

There is not life after death. / ontopic

[Guest]

Lol, the spoilers are so cute.

EDM, read the OT. You will find my analysis reflects the book faultlessly. I also have freedom of speech. Like no offense dude, but there is no such thing as a right to not be offended. If we're debating and you're telling me how awesome your god is, of course I'm going to tell you why he's and evil bastard. If you think spoilers, exclamation marks, and mad faces are going to change anything, I'm sorry, but there's no way.

/offtopic

There is not life after death. / ontopic

Izzy, I think you're falling int your own trap...there is no evidence to support a belief in life after death. Like unreality said, we can't know one way or the other from where we are. I would say that I'm post-biotic agnostic.

[Izzy]

It makes me think of a twist off of the invisible dragon in the garage story. There's no way of knowing, but I can say I'm reasonably sure. I guess you could say we're just asking the wrong questions.. but why is life after death entirely undetectable? We're able to see super microscopic viruses, we're able to study star systems billions of parsecs away. Are we seriously unable to detect conscious entities floating around in our midst? It really just seems like wishful thinking to me. If I'm wrong, I guess I'll be pleasantly (or perhaps unpleasantly?) surprised.

So on Dawkins' scale, I'm a 6.9 post-biotic agnostic.

[EDM]

Izzy......

einstein - jewish

newton - unorthodox christian

these are just 2 out of so many other scientist and discoverers.......came out with amazing breakthroughs, all religious (or atleast accept a higher power)........then what the hell is your problem?! and for the sake of my humanity, stop the insults, please (i'm trying to keep my cool here......)

Are we seriously unable to detect conscious entities floating around in our midst?

yes....we are. There is still sooo much that can't be explained, but everything has an answer, be it scientific or higher power based.......humans are not that smart to figure out every answer in the world; and we may never be....but we learn everyday, and that's what matters. That doesn't mean we should forget about the others who care and believe in a higher power.......

and Izzy......have you read the NT? do you even know anything beyond the OT? see.....it just shows that you don't seem to kow that much about the average believer......we aren't extremists and you're talking like one......

[unreality]

i'll give you Newton but not Einstein. He was jewish yes in his early days, as far as his lineage goes, but he was not of the jewish faith. He was more of a deist/atheist/naturalist/universist type crossover that I am

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com

http://www.deism.com/einstein.htm

[Izzy]

Einstein was atheist dude, do your research before you spew random facts. Newton WAS religious, but I think it can be attributed to that time period. 7% of current scientists believe in a personal god, and the figures are probably less than that now. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

The problem is that asserting gawd did something with nil evidence to back it up is silly and entirely unscientific. Lol, what insults? If you call Hitler (lmao.. Godwin's law.. shush >_>) an evil bastard and point out why, I'm not going to be offended. (I'm not going to disagree, so that's a bad example. But you get my point.) Public figures and subject to harsh criticism. Lawl, for the sake of humanity? Lawl, just lawl.

..Yeah, you're doing exactly what makes gods such a disappointing subject. "Ooh, I can't explain this. God must have done it." Maybe if you hung around and waited for an explanation, you wouldn't have to take such a huge leap of faith.

Eugh. Yes. I've read the book all through. The point is irrelevant.

[EDM]

f9.....if Einstein was atheist, so be it......that won't change the fact that the others were religious........

[Izzy]

Lol, did you read my post? Religious scientists are very much in the minority.

[EDM]

ugh!!! i don't want to waste my time talking about religion when you keep yapping nonsense!!!! I'll do it when I'm in the mood.......till then....this conversation is over!!!

[Izzy]

Bro what nonsense? Here, lemme look it up for you and post it here. I'll bold the important bits.

In 1914' date=' eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample.[59'] Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively.[60]

In 1996, Nature repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. Then they closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and found the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience". Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on the 1996 survey, "You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge."[61] Such comments led Nature to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of "greater" and "lesser" scientists.

Nature's chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.[62][63]

Also, but OT and NT were divinely inspired by Gawd, right? *shrug* Why didn't this omniscient being with knowledge of both past, present, and future not just write it right the first time?

Edited July 8, 2010 by Izzy

[Guest]

Serious thought - When we die, it's like a dreamless sleep for all eternity.

Out of the box thought - Earth is actually the 3rd layer of hell; when we die we will go to the 4th layer.

just my 2 cents, not going to step into the whole argument.

Edited July 8, 2010 by harvey45

[Guest]

Your energy becomes part of the universe. Did you know that you are lighter after you are dead? That's mbecause some energy has mass, and therefore weight. So, in essence, you become one with the Force Whether or not said energy manifests itself as apparitions or Force ghosts, I don't know.

[Guest]

Your energy becomes part of the universe. Did you know that you are lighter after you are dead? That's mbecause some energy has mass, and therefore weight. So, in essence, you become one with the Force Whether or not said energy manifests itself as apparitions or Force ghosts, I don't know.

I saw that in Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol, but I don't know. It kind of says you join a mass of all dead souls ever (which is God, according to the book). It might be better than simply disappearing, or it might be worse. I guess we'll have to wait until we die to find out. By the way, I didn't use spoilers because this is just a concept from the book, not part of the plot itself.

[unreality]

that was his worst book by far but not because of that

[Guest]

I believe my mind is my soul; my connection to "source energy" or as some might call: God. My mind/soul can and does leave my physical body while I am still breathing; for example when I go to sleep and dream. It has also left my body while I was awake, unintentionally, which scared the hell out of me. So in very simple terms that may or may not be true for everyone, but seems to make sense to me is that when my physical body dies my soul/mind including my memories and of course my unique personality (consciousness) return to source energy and experience a sort of bliss unlike anything I might have experienced while amongst the living. And it is good. Amen.

[Guest]

I saw that in Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol, but I don't know. It kind of says you join a mass of all dead souls ever (which is God, according to the book). It might be better than simply disappearing, or it might be worse. I guess we'll have to wait until we die to find out. By the way, I didn't use spoilers because this is just a concept from the book, not part of the plot itself.

Hey I'm reading that book! Haven't gotten that far yet. I got to the masonic meditation chamber, and the unfortunate squid-room incident, but then I temporarily put it down. I personally think that it's a good book, unreality

Edited August 2, 2010 by NickFleming

[unreality]

I believe my mind is my soul; my connection to "source energy" or as some might call: God. My mind/soul can and does leave my physical body while I am still breathing; for example when I go to sleep and dream. It has also left my body while I was awake, unintentionally, which scared the hell out of me. So in very simple terms that may or may not be true for everyone, but seems to make sense to me is that when my physical body dies my soul/mind including my memories and of course my unique personality (consciousness) return to source energy and experience a sort of bliss unlike anything I might have experienced while amongst the living. And it is good. Amen.

I hope that comes true for you. And seeing as sleep and dreams are still scientifically unexplained (at least not completely) I suppose that's a valid assumption, although your individual assumption here can't really be correct because of brain activity experienced during dreams in REM sleep. Ironically last night (while I couldn't sleep) I read a lot of national geographic articles on sleep as well as a short book about sleep, dreams and biological rhythms.

Brain activity lights up like crazy during REM sleep (which is when we dream mostly) as opposed to the gentle calm of deep wave sleep. The suggestion is that in dreams, the brain is attempting to understand/categorize/etc the experiences it's had during the day.

Because of the nature of going limp and unaware of surroundings for many hours, sleep - and all that time required for the sleep - has to be extremely advantageous and necessary for survival otherwise evolution would have quickly weeded it out. And we do know (from sleep-awakeness studies with rats and to a lesser extent with humans; and from studying human patients with FFI (fatal familial insomnia)) that if we don't sleep we die.

It probably serves all kinds of functions among them: revitalizing, resting certain organs, processing chemicals, understanding and categorizing information, etc.

But as to how exactly dreams happen well a chemical is secreted during the REM that paralyzes our muscles. I don't know if a study has been done to counteract this to see what would happen but the assumption at least is that we would act out our dreams if we weren't paralyzed. There is some evidence that this may be what's happening with sleepwalkers. Studies like this could have the potential of directly disproving your theory that the mind is elsewhere while dreaming.

Not to mention that we've linked certain areas of the brain to certain thoughts, emotions, desires, needs, personality traits, etc. And many of these light up during our dream experiences. One part of the brain (the thalamus maybe?) blocks incoming sensory data during sleep so as to not distract our minds from things it's doing.

Also not to not-mention but a chemical tryptamine called DMT excreted during sleep may be the cause or catalyst (or something) of the visual/audial/etc simulation of our dreams.

There are other chemicals that can influence the brain into thinking it's "out of itself" as well while all the while just altering the senses of vision, hearing, sensation, even taste, etc and the kinesthetic/vestibular ("where are my body parts in relation to me") sense.

Hey I'm reading that book! Haven't gotten that far yet. I got to the masonic meditation chamber, and the unfortunate squid-room incident, but then I temporarily put it down. I personally think that it's a good book, unreality

I never said it wasn't good; i said it was Dan Brown's worst. Although all of his books are highly formulaic and not very original (as well as full of misleading "facts"), i'd have to say that 'Digital Fortress' or 'Angels & Demons' are his best. He's a really good suspense writer.