Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[AnnaG]

IMO, people aren't dead until there is no possible way for their cells to begin a recovery. One can obviously be organ dead (no activity in any organ except the brain) for a short period of time and still be revivable. When there is no firing of a synapse anymore, then it is dead. Till then, the lack of oxygen being pumped around makes neat hallucinations.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Suppose I say that on the dark side of the moon (the side that nobody can see) there is a two storey house made of Swiss cheese with a pool in the backyard filled with maple syrup (all enclosed in a bubble)."

Poor analogy,

I think that is a very good analogy, it vividly demonstrates why you have to prove that afterlife exists, and why I don’t have to prove that it doesn’t exist.

Poor analogy, we know there are people who have in fact been brought back from the dead, after having no pulse, no breathing and no other obvious signs of life. So it is plausible that what they've experienced is real.

We don’t know that, it can be interpreted in several different ways. Here is another basic, fundamental scientific tenet for you. When two explanations are available, one must always choose the simplest one. So if what they saw can be explained rationally (dream, hallucination etc.), without involving supernatural, then that explanation must be accepted (at least according to science). So that is what I do.

I doubt that short of being there personally and experiencing it that it is something we'll ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt,

Now you are getting the hang of it, JLM.

but as we make many life altering decisions based on suppositions with much less proof, it may be less arrogant to say "that's one possibility" rather than to just dismiss it as B.S. When you do that you are only setting a trap for yourself.

Maybe you do, but I don’t. I don’t make decisions based upon somebody’s say so. I need to see something concrete.

 

[lone wolf]

Can you prove you exist?

 

[JLM]

Can you prove you exist?

Absolutely- just don't pay a bill that's due.

 

[JLM]

"Maybe you do, but I don’t. I don’t make decisions based upon somebody’s say so. I need to see something concrete."

YOu are very lucky, you'll never be accepted for jury duty.

 

[lone wolf]

Absolutely- just don't pay a bill that's due.

True ... but Jesus saves. Churches don't pay taxes

 

[AnnaG]

hhhhmmm Wandered off topic. Sorry.So courtesy has become a rarity, cars aren't generally stylish, healthcare is bigger and technologically advanced, but people suffer while waiting for it and catch bugs when they do get it, the planet is dirtier, megacorps are engineering our foods, McDuh's and others still exist, species becoming extinct by the hundreds, religious nuts still doing their thing, wars are weird, etc. Yup, the world couldn't be any better. lmao

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's pretty interesting - in a nutshell, it states that there are 3 parts to maintaining oneself in a healthy and worthwhile condition:
1. The body
2. The personal energy (one example being Reiki but there are more)
3. The spiritual part of oneself

The first one is important, of course. There may be something to the second one. Many times the state of the mind influences the illness. As to the third one, spiritual part, I think that is total bunk and I disregard that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Maybe you do, but I don’t. I don’t make decisions based upon somebody’s say so. I need to see something concrete."

YOu are very lucky, you'll never be accepted for jury duty.

As a matter of fact I was called once. But I lucked out, I was rejected.

 

[lone wolf]

The first one is important, of course. There may be something to the second one. Many times the state of the mind influences the illness. As to the third one, spiritual part, I think that is total bunk and I disregard that.

I bet you're going to be the one in there wailing the loudest when it all falls down about you. There are no atheists in foxholes....

 

[lone wolf]

As a matter of fact I was called once. But I lucked out, I was rejected.

All you have to be is highly opinionated....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In what particular form would you want to see the proof, just out of curiosity.

I cannot think of any, countryboy. I really cannot think of any proof that will prove beyond any doubt, prove convincingly that there is an afterlife and that God exists.

That is why I take the position that there is no afterlfie and there is no God.

 

[AnnaG]

I think that is a very good analogy, it vividly demonstrates why you have to prove that afterlife exists, and why I don’t have to prove that it doesn’t exist.



We don’t know that, it can be interpreted in several different ways. Here is another basic, fundamental scientific tenet for you. When two explanations are available, one must always choose the simplest one.

When people noticed that there were no new deciduous shoots growing in CO, someone suggested a disease was affecting the trees so they couldn't seed. Another reason is that people in CO had killed all the wolves. Which explanation would you pick? The answer is that the wolves weren't around to keep the caribou herds from overpopulating and that resulted in them eating every new shoot in sight. So much for the simplest explanation.

So if what they saw can be explained rationally (dream, hallucination etc.), without involving supernatural, then that explanation must be accepted (at least according to science). So that is what I do.

... in a primitive manner.

Maybe you do, but I don’t. I don’t make decisions based upon somebody’s say so. I need to see something concrete.

After you run headfirst into it. lmao :banghead:

 

[countryboy]

Here is another basic, fundamental scientific tenet for you. When two explanations are available, one must always choose the simplest one. So if what they saw can be explained rationally (dream, hallucination etc.), without involving supernatural, then that explanation must be accepted (at least according to science). So that is what I do.

And that is science as we/you know it. Good, conventional science. Well, I'm simply not appropriately qualified to discuss science here, as I am not as highly educated in that field as you obviously are.

So alas, I am at a disadvantage here. I do have a question though...doesn't "science" contain some sort of theories too? (Those would be things that are not made out of concrete so you can't touch them, measure their weight, etc.)

And, I know you are forced to choose the simplest of two explanations based on how you believe so strongly in science, but is that because the average scientist can't cope with a more difficult one, or is simply a matter of not being bothered to look at other one seriously?

 

[AnnaG]

I bet you're going to be the one in there wailing the loudest when it all falls down about you. There are no atheists in foxholes....

This agnostic will be in one saying, "Toldja the gods don't care".

 

[JLM]

As a matter of fact I was called once. But I lucked out, I was rejected.

Duh, I wonder why................:lol::lol::lol::lol:, Next time you get called just put them in touch with me, I'll vouch for you that you aren't qualified...........:lol::lol:

 

[JLM]

"Maybe you do, but I don’t. I don’t make decisions based upon somebody’s say so. I need to see something concrete."- What would you have been able to see 150 years ago to know there are waves that would transmit your voice for thousands of miles? So you would probably have said "rubbish- impossible - highly unlikely".

 

[countryboy]

I cannot think of any, countryboy. I really cannot think of any proof that will prove beyond any doubt, prove convincingly that there is an afterlife and that God exists.

That is why I take the position that there is no afterlfie and there is no God.

There are certain religious groups that would be quite offended by that remark. In fact, quite likely all of them. Some would even be motivated to do something about it, in a physical sense. Some of them have different standards of debate rules too, which can make life interesting, if not shorter.

Which could be why my Granny always used to say, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all." She said that around '59 as I recall, so we're still on topic.

But of course, I'm a Christian so I in fact respect your right to believe in nothing at all, spiritually speaking.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So alas, I am at a disadvantage here. I do have a question though...doesn't "science" contain some sort of theories too? (Those would be things that are not made out of concrete so you can't touch them, measure their weight, etc.)

Science contains nothing but theories, countryboy. Theory of evolution, theory of Relativity, electromagnetic theory and so on. However, theory has a totally different meaning in science that it does in common language.

Indeed, that is where Creationists display their ignorance of science, they claim that evolution is just a ‘theory’. In common language theory essentially means a hypothesis, a pie in the sky scheme, something somebody came up with without any evidence for it.

And that is why Creationists disparage evolution as just a ‘theory’. Well in science, theory has a totally different meaning. When somebody first proposes a mechanism, a way to explain something, it is just a hypothesis. Then it is tested with experimental evidence. When experimental evidence shows that there may be something to it, then it becomes a theory.

As more and more experimental evidence piles up in support of the theory, the theory becomes more and more valid. E.g. the Big Bang Theory is now almost universally accepted in science.

However, no matter how much experimental evidence piles up it still remains a theory. A theory can never be proved, no matter now much evidence is for it. However, it can be disproved, by a single experimental observation against it.

And that is why evolution, Big Bang etc. are called theories, but they are well established, almost universally accepted science. And science is full of nothing but theories.

 

[JLM]

"Here is another basic, fundamental scientific tenet for you. When two explanations are available, one must always choose the simplest one. So if what they saw can be explained rationally (dream, hallucination etc.), without involving supernatural, then that explanation must be accepted (at least according to science). So that is what I do."

How many times have you made yourself sick worrying about a situation because you jumped on what you THOUGHT was the simplest explanation that came to mind? After having done the worrying did you ever find out you were wrong? Most people would learn something from that.