Yah this will just become a random spam thread and maybe a flame one.Originally Posted by Orpheus
Reputation: 292
Yah this will just become a random spam thread and maybe a flame one.
Reputation: 10
Which article if I may ask? 93% is a high number. An argument for why a significant amount of scientists would not be atheists is that it is not difficult to think that life is simply to beautiful to merely be a coincidence.
Yes, there is no proof for the existance of an afterlife, however that does not prove the opposite is true. Whether existence ends with death, remains an opinion and not a scientific fact. Otherwise 99% of the predominant scientists would be atheists.
Reputation: 292
I am saying that there is no evidence of life after death so the claim can be dismissed until evidence is offered.
Most articles asking about a scientists beliefs are bad to use because they ask vague questions. You can still believe in a higher power but not believe in a theistic god. You can also not believe in an after life while still believing in a higher power.
What evidence do you have to assume there is anything more than this life?
Is it just wishful thinking?
Reputation: 94
When you die, you become one of my limbs.
Reputation: 182
I am immortal.
Reputation: 11
Atoms didn't die but it won't carry any of your thought, memory or consciousness meaning you will no longer exist, you are dead simple as that. Why scientist always make things hard...
Reputation: 235
That's not strictly life after death, really.
Also, to echo what's been said; if you're just going to paste shit and then suggest we discuss it, don't bother. Either post proper topics or stop posting threads.
Reputation: 235
How can "Who you are." exist without anything to express it?
It can't can it, really?
Furthermore, don't confuse life with ALIVE. Something being alive or existing does not necessarily have a life.
Fungi is alive, but it doesn't have A LIFE. It doesn't go to the store or interact with other fungi, who are fun guys.
(Had to)
Reputation: 46
Boooooo *thumbs down*.
Reputation: 235
I'm so sorry, I really had to. If I didn't, someone would have.
Either way, life after death is something that won't ever be discovered. If it DOES exist, I think the kicker is that you reach the afterlife, discover an eternal life, and you're like "Ohhh, so it IS true. I'm gonna go tell everyone.", "You can't. That's the trick.".
Reputation: 28
If someone goes to the store does that mean he has a life? if someone goes to work does that mean has a life? Our current "lifes" are nothing more than an idea of society and that what we "percieve" to be "living" is nothing more than a product of how "life" should be.
"cavemans" had the same "life" we have. Going to shops is not "living"
Fungi probably knows more of life than we humans currently do.
If you want to put it that way then we are not living , we are existing. That's why we die.
Life simply IS. How can we be more living , than being what we are and who we are here and now.
Reputation: 69
I think people get confused about what constitutes 'scientific fact'. There isn't really such thing, there are just scientific theories regarded to be true. Some are held more true than others (ie, the theory of gravity or atomic theory as opposed to the theories of time-travel).
I think most scientists would agree that this is something that is unprovable and thus outside the remit of scientific inquiry. The evidence very strongly suggests (as with the aforementioned theory of gravity) that the theory of there not being an afterlife is correct.
If you ask a neuroscientist if there is any chance that the conscious thoughts generated by the brain could continue after the brain has been destroyed (or something similar), he will not answer you "Could be! Who knows?". He will say that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this rather far-fetched hypothesis. He may add that he, in contrary to this, believes in God and thus an afterlife, but this has nothing to do with what science can or cannot prove. These beliefs (in scientists) generally come from wonder at the marvel of the universe, not the fact that they can't disprove an afterlife.
Scientists cannot disprove that the ghosts of the dead talk to me or that invisible faeries live in my garden. To imply that science holds the theory of life after death to be anything other than an unprovable fairytale is very misleading and shows a lack of understanding for basic scientific theory.
Quote for truth.
No, wait, not truth, the other one.....
Reputation: 235
Sentience is living.
That's what I meant.
Reputation: 132
Wow brutzer, nice comeback.
Reputation: 14
QFT
Science can not prove anything supernatural, religious, or anything dealing with feelings or opinions.
Also, anything you say is a fact until proven otherwise. So, until you have some proof that there is a life after death, when I die I won't continue to live. Fact is fact.
Posting Permissions
