ukok102nak
Active Member
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientists finally prove there IS life after death
- Thread starter FearGod
- Start date
ukok102nak
Active Member
andthat's how a natural true witness works
which
seperate unto one who indicate a premise on which a statement can be based.
a truthful sworn statement that is
... . as they say
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
I don't believe in an afterlife and would need a lot more evidence to be persuaded otherwise.
ukok102nak
Active Member
. ... as they say
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Watch and pray, that all of you enter not into temptation: the spirit b indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
. . . so as it written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding.
Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.
Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will show mine opinion.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Watch and pray, that all of you enter not into temptation: the spirit b indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
. . . so as it written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty gives them understanding.
Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.
Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will show mine opinion.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Many people I believe are afraid of what will happen to them when they die, the thing is nothing will happen, just as there was nothing happening before you were born, we should learn to live here and Now, not wasting our time worrying about an after life that will probably never happen, yea so live baby.
ukok102nak
Active Member
.. . then if that's the case
then how would someone entertain
a thoughts which does not exist
for everything that is been said here
by an individual
come's from each and everyone's thought
base in their life time experienced
for life has no value at all without experiencing it first
and not anyone could thought of that . ..
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
then how would someone entertain
a thoughts which does not exist
for everything that is been said here
by an individual
come's from each and everyone's thought
base in their life time experienced
for life has no value at all without experiencing it first
and not anyone could thought of that . ..
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
ukok102nak
Active Member
. . . and
it happeneds to be that those scientists were facinated by the phenomenon in supernatural belief
which this was also known by the people with their good faith with common interest unto this thing
as what they called the life after death
situation and probably that's why
they also thought to undergo a certain
scientific afterlife reseach
so that
they may experience or be subjected
unto a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
it happeneds to be that those scientists were facinated by the phenomenon in supernatural belief
which this was also known by the people with their good faith with common interest unto this thing
as what they called the life after death
situation and probably that's why
they also thought to undergo a certain
scientific afterlife reseach
so that
they may experience or be subjected
unto a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Many people I believe are afraid of what will happen to them when they die, the thing is nothing will happen, just as there was nothing happening before you were born, we should learn to live here and Now, not wasting our time worrying about an after life that will probably never happen, yea so live baby.
What prevent it from happening for a 2nd time, while it came to existence in the 1st time?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
All creations are made of the same stuff with slight differences in the DNA.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/human-chimp-DNA.html
psychoslice
Veteran Member
There is much happening, life is ever flowing, it doesn't repeat itself, or stays stagnant just because we don't want to loose this life story that we have made.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
The prophets told us some future events that we gonna see and warned us that as we see them coming as facts
then the promise of the afterlife and the judgement day is coming as well, except if we'll just close our eyes and
say it's all coincidences in order to enjoy our life in doing things that God forbidden such as stealing, adultery.....etc
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I'm sorry but I don't resonate with that story, the Source or Consciousness allows all, be it so called bad or so called good, its all in our hands.
Ok, so you cite those who reject science, which actually proves my point. So, what are your thoughts about our species? Is science wrong, and your religious beliefs correct? Please be direct and do not attempt to hide here. Hiding is a form of lying. Be honest. Be truthful. How did our species come to be?All creations are made of the same stuff with slight differences in the DNA.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/human-chimp-DNA.html
ukok102nak
Active Member
. . . we presumed that is what they called
the very power within the grasp of any human in this world known
as freewill
as long as anyone could do the things they wanted most in limited portion of time
for example any human could work with precise and accurate details in accordance unto its understanding
and knowledge
but humans couldnt make for the lost time they've spent unto this plane of existence
meaning no human could bring itself back into their mother's womb literally
and become a newborn babe ...
as they say
as it written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when you shall say, I have no pleasure in them;
While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
it signifies that human couldnt exist all by itself without anyone brought the things
upon them such as our limitation
within this fleshly form of compulsive exercise
as a tangible or visible form of an idea, quality, or feeling
for within this manifestation the representation or expression of something in a tangible or visible form
Unto which I also labour, striving according to his working, which works in me mightily.
But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him
this is one of many reason why we couldnt think more
than the things we dont know yet
like what will happen if we slept as what we meant by this is are we certain that after we sleep literally
we could always woke up as we always wanted to be
like in spiritual sleep which we defined as death
could we make our selves live again after so many years
from the buttom of piles of dirt
and that is why
as a human we highly accepted the fact that
we are not all knowing
although becoming a human is the greatest dream of every living being in this planet
because human learned to love truthfully
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
the very power within the grasp of any human in this world known
as freewill
as long as anyone could do the things they wanted most in limited portion of time
for example any human could work with precise and accurate details in accordance unto its understanding
and knowledge
but humans couldnt make for the lost time they've spent unto this plane of existence
meaning no human could bring itself back into their mother's womb literally
and become a newborn babe ...
as they say
as it written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when you shall say, I have no pleasure in them;
While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
it signifies that human couldnt exist all by itself without anyone brought the things
upon them such as our limitation
within this fleshly form of compulsive exercise
as a tangible or visible form of an idea, quality, or feeling
for within this manifestation the representation or expression of something in a tangible or visible form
Unto which I also labour, striving according to his working, which works in me mightily.
But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him
this is one of many reason why we couldnt think more
than the things we dont know yet
like what will happen if we slept as what we meant by this is are we certain that after we sleep literally
we could always woke up as we always wanted to be
like in spiritual sleep which we defined as death
could we make our selves live again after so many years
from the buttom of piles of dirt
and that is why
as a human we highly accepted the fact that
we are not all knowing
although becoming a human is the greatest dream of every living being in this planet
because human learned to love truthfully
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
No one rejects science here, we even respect science more than those who believe that
things came as to be without any study, any plan and without any design, that's never
the language of science regardless of the excuses they made which is always silly ones.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't it just be a simple matter of recording brain activity, preferably in a way that tells you the locations of said activity and syncing up the reports?
Once one considers carefully what is meant by "life after death", it is very difficult to avoid the realization that if it exists at all, it must be exceedingly rare or else leave virtually no detectable trace whatsoever "in this world".
Follow with me.
In the literal sense, sure, there is life after death. Hardly anyone disputes that people die, yet life goes on. Nor is the issue whether there can be some period of consciousness after the heart and lungs have stopped.
While there those are who believe in the literal ressurrections of the body in this world, it seems fairly well-established that even the most extreme forms of such a belief accept that it is exceedingly unusual in both the past and the present. Perhaps the ancient Egyptians believed differently; I am not sure. I will leave that aside for now.
So I think we can agree that for the purposes of this thread the question in full is whether it is possible and/or usual for people who have gone through irreversible brain death to somehow retain or renew consciousness after death, either as some form of astral body, through reincarnation, or perhaps in a whole separate realm that can not usually be perceived from this world. Or some combination of those scenarios, perhaps.
Assuming that we can agree on that hypothesis, it seems to me that it almost completely blocks any possibility of actual scientific evidence, although it has been attempted nonetheless. Claims of the paranormal would be necessary for all the hypothetical situatins except reincarnation, and such claims can hardly ever be falsifiable, mostly because there are no means to establish that they are genuine and correctly interpreted.
That leaves us with attempts to establish that reincarnation exists. While there are those who do not hesitate to say that it has been done, mostly by referring to the work of Ian Stevenson and to claims about Tibetan, Egyptian or Japanese beliefs, that is tentative at the very best, and vanishes entirely once one considers the logical consequences of actual reincarnation.
To witness, reincarnation claims are at their core appeals to the belief that people "come back in another body" after dying, often by proposing that there is some form of immortal soul that is the person's "true self".
Such a claim, of course, is impossible to disprove. A literal infinity of claims is similarly impossible to disprove, many of those being ludicrous and/or meaningless. But we don't need to go there. Let's instead consider the practical consequences if meaningful reincarnation existed.
One possible scenario, one that by my understanding is actually held as true by many Hindus, is that reincarnation does not involve memories of past lifes to any significant degree, even if the soul/Atman is presumably the very same. Far as I can see it is impossible to evidence for or against such a hypothesis. For all practical purposes, such a scenario is completely indistinguishable from what one would expect from a "materialistic" view. People die. People are born. The world that they exist at is influenced by their existence in various ways. And after that it is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. So it is a resilient view, but not really a demonstrable one.
A slightly bolder proposal would go along the lines of traditional Tibetan beliefs, which say in short that Reincarnation exists, and memories are preserved, but only in very exceptional cases and perhaps after considerable care to awaken those memories is taken. While that view raises a lot of enthusiasm in many people, it must be noted that it is both self-limiting in its practical significance and still very difficult to evidence either for or against. To the best of my understanding it is such a view that Ian Stevenson hopes to have provided evidence for, although the statistical validity of his claims is strongly disputed.
Then there are the views typical of the French-Brazilian Spiritism that so plagues this accursed land where I live.
Hippolyte Rivail, a frenchman who lived in the troubled 19th century, convinced himself that he was a Druid reincarnate, styled himself as "Allan Kardec" accordingly, and wrote a half dozen books of unashamed wishful thinking that could make HPB pale by comparison. His "doctrine", for lack of a better word, is little more than a manic insistence that death is an illusion and that all people reincarnate time and again, in ever more refined and capable bodies, until they eventually attain enough "spiritual evolution" to "be together with God".
As beliefs go, it is really pissy-poor even when it is not actively toxic. It appeals to people who feel miserable and helpless and lack the means to learn better, or who are simply too emotionally immature to deal with reality in a healthy way. It is just a small, often-taken step away from decreeing that people should surrender to what I call "Green Lantern Syndrome", which is the compulsion to decide that reality is not to be taken seriously if one feels passionate enough about how they want things to be. Systematic self-delusion disguised as a religious faith, as a matter of fact.
It is little wonder that even the Spiritists themselves claim that most mental hospices hold a fair number of "mediums", as they call the people who can supposedly perceive "the other side".
Brazil is the last surviving stronghold of Kardecist Spiritism, with at least three million Spiritists in Brazil (almost 2% of our population), although their influence goes way beyond what that number would suggest. Their doctrine appeals to the Brazilian affinity with self-pity and delusions of grandeur, for Spiritists are all but assured that their "true merits" go far beyond that can be gauged in this world. It is a recurrent joke that everyone in Brazil is the reincarnation of some grand figure of some sort. Many people believe such claims, nonetheless. Which leads one to wonder what meaning there is to the whole idea of reincarnation. The obvious answer is: not much at all.
Follow with me.
In the literal sense, sure, there is life after death. Hardly anyone disputes that people die, yet life goes on. Nor is the issue whether there can be some period of consciousness after the heart and lungs have stopped.
While there those are who believe in the literal ressurrections of the body in this world, it seems fairly well-established that even the most extreme forms of such a belief accept that it is exceedingly unusual in both the past and the present. Perhaps the ancient Egyptians believed differently; I am not sure. I will leave that aside for now.
So I think we can agree that for the purposes of this thread the question in full is whether it is possible and/or usual for people who have gone through irreversible brain death to somehow retain or renew consciousness after death, either as some form of astral body, through reincarnation, or perhaps in a whole separate realm that can not usually be perceived from this world. Or some combination of those scenarios, perhaps.
Assuming that we can agree on that hypothesis, it seems to me that it almost completely blocks any possibility of actual scientific evidence, although it has been attempted nonetheless. Claims of the paranormal would be necessary for all the hypothetical situatins except reincarnation, and such claims can hardly ever be falsifiable, mostly because there are no means to establish that they are genuine and correctly interpreted.
That leaves us with attempts to establish that reincarnation exists. While there are those who do not hesitate to say that it has been done, mostly by referring to the work of Ian Stevenson and to claims about Tibetan, Egyptian or Japanese beliefs, that is tentative at the very best, and vanishes entirely once one considers the logical consequences of actual reincarnation.
To witness, reincarnation claims are at their core appeals to the belief that people "come back in another body" after dying, often by proposing that there is some form of immortal soul that is the person's "true self".
Such a claim, of course, is impossible to disprove. A literal infinity of claims is similarly impossible to disprove, many of those being ludicrous and/or meaningless. But we don't need to go there. Let's instead consider the practical consequences if meaningful reincarnation existed.
One possible scenario, one that by my understanding is actually held as true by many Hindus, is that reincarnation does not involve memories of past lifes to any significant degree, even if the soul/Atman is presumably the very same. Far as I can see it is impossible to evidence for or against such a hypothesis. For all practical purposes, such a scenario is completely indistinguishable from what one would expect from a "materialistic" view. People die. People are born. The world that they exist at is influenced by their existence in various ways. And after that it is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. So it is a resilient view, but not really a demonstrable one.
A slightly bolder proposal would go along the lines of traditional Tibetan beliefs, which say in short that Reincarnation exists, and memories are preserved, but only in very exceptional cases and perhaps after considerable care to awaken those memories is taken. While that view raises a lot of enthusiasm in many people, it must be noted that it is both self-limiting in its practical significance and still very difficult to evidence either for or against. To the best of my understanding it is such a view that Ian Stevenson hopes to have provided evidence for, although the statistical validity of his claims is strongly disputed.
Then there are the views typical of the French-Brazilian Spiritism that so plagues this accursed land where I live.
Hippolyte Rivail, a frenchman who lived in the troubled 19th century, convinced himself that he was a Druid reincarnate, styled himself as "Allan Kardec" accordingly, and wrote a half dozen books of unashamed wishful thinking that could make HPB pale by comparison. His "doctrine", for lack of a better word, is little more than a manic insistence that death is an illusion and that all people reincarnate time and again, in ever more refined and capable bodies, until they eventually attain enough "spiritual evolution" to "be together with God".
As beliefs go, it is really pissy-poor even when it is not actively toxic. It appeals to people who feel miserable and helpless and lack the means to learn better, or who are simply too emotionally immature to deal with reality in a healthy way. It is just a small, often-taken step away from decreeing that people should surrender to what I call "Green Lantern Syndrome", which is the compulsion to decide that reality is not to be taken seriously if one feels passionate enough about how they want things to be. Systematic self-delusion disguised as a religious faith, as a matter of fact.
It is little wonder that even the Spiritists themselves claim that most mental hospices hold a fair number of "mediums", as they call the people who can supposedly perceive "the other side".
Brazil is the last surviving stronghold of Kardecist Spiritism, with at least three million Spiritists in Brazil (almost 2% of our population), although their influence goes way beyond what that number would suggest. Their doctrine appeals to the Brazilian affinity with self-pity and delusions of grandeur, for Spiritists are all but assured that their "true merits" go far beyond that can be gauged in this world. It is a recurrent joke that everyone in Brazil is the reincarnation of some grand figure of some sort. Many people believe such claims, nonetheless. Which leads one to wonder what meaning there is to the whole idea of reincarnation. The obvious answer is: not much at all.
You respect science more by rejecting the Theory of Evolution as practically all branches of science teaches and confirms as true? This is what I hear you are saying here. In this sentence you are saying science that teaches evolution does not have a prior "study, plan, or design" is not science. Correct?
Let me ask the question another way. Do you believe science is only valid science when it confirms and validates your religious beliefs? Yes, or no? Can science tell you that how you have believed is incorrect? Yes, or no?
To me, if I hold a belief to be true, and science tells me that we did not come into existence magically out of thin air, then I need to reevaluate that belief I previously had to fit with the data such as it screams at us. I do not instead try to make my prior beliefs correct by denying science's discoveries. That's BAD faith. That to me is anti-faith.
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I didn't say so, that'snot true.
If science can prove with no doubt that the universe had come to existence when there was nothing existing and
that matter became alive due to some known chemical reactions that we can do in the lab and that creating
organisms is very easy job, then at that point why not to believe science.
I investigated the holy book(the quran) and there's no single error, for example if the quran challenged us that humans
will never be able to fly a thing as the birds do, then at that point I'll dismiss the quran because it was proven wrong,
so no, don't think we're blind believers and don't think that we're living in the dark ages.
I missed this question before, but I want to address the error in your thinking. This response was to me asking if you need the bones of your 23rd great grandmother to accept that she existed, or do you rely on other proofs. You did not answer my direct question, but evaded it with this response.
But let's go with you logic here. No, what bacteria we have today is not necessarily the same bacteria that existed before. Life evolves. Previous life forms become extinct. There are countless cases of fossils of species that no longer exist today. But we know they did because we have evidence. Sometimes that evidence is not in the form of fossil proofs. Sometimes it can legitimately be inferred based upon what we are able to know about how things work. You can with great confidence say, "Yes, it is valid to say my 23rd great grandmother actually existed historically, despite the fact I have no physical evidence of her actual body. I exist, and I could not exist if she had not because babies require mothers in order to be born." So, how are you denying that we had a common ancestor shared with the chimps when we can see we are in fact genetically close together in the tree of life? We share a relatively close common ancestor.
Let's be clear about that. ALL life is related genetically, but not all life is closely related, like chimps and humans are. It's no different than you and I are related genetically too, but we are related very far back historically as opposed to my 2nd cousins. You and I are probably like 400th cousins. The chimp and the human are cousins too, but much more closely related to each other than we are to say a sea sponge. We are related genetically to the sea sponge too, but it's like a 100,000,000,000th relative, as opposed to a 20,000th relative, or 5000th relative, or a 1000th relative. The markers prove chimps and humans are closely related with a common ancestor. It's no different than if you and I compared our DNA tests and it show where in history our common ancestor may have lived. How far back did you and I share a common parent? Same thing with humans and chimps.
How is it you deny such things?
Last edited: