What happens after we die? - Page 2

Yes, all emotions can be explained by evolution, but there is one particular thing that surpaces ordinary emotion, that is, true love. Not love as in loving your girl friend, but love between you and God, between you and reality, one that emerges when you get in touch with your soul.

What is the soul and what is universal love, as I call it, if it is not energy?... Can you define it as something other?

I'm still stuck on the fact that you communicate the way that you do yet you don't believe there is energy.

that and what is love between you and god, or reality, love BETWEEN, indicates a returned love, love at all though, why would you even use this term, it is seemingly out of context and without purpose other than trying to make purpose out of none.

Interesting discussion and good points on all sides. I especially agree with DumbTeen and Leftwood. Before I continue I'd like to make clear that this isn't an attack on secret07's position, I speak forcefully simply out of conviction.

One thing I don't agree with is that religion and science are basically the same when you "get down to it". It is true that both are attempts to explain the world around us, however there is a very large difference. This is something I have talked about several times in other places. The thing is Science attempts to take as little as possible, preferably nothing, on face value. Now of course you can't start with absolutely nothing so certain things are taken for granted, things such as the basic arithmetical rules like 1+1=2. However everything else we build up from observation and experimentation. Religion on the other hand takes the entire world at face value. That is it states "god created the world and man in his image" this we can not argue with. While a cursory glance might tell you that these two are in some way compatible the truth is they are not. Religion and Science are completely separate topics and are worlds apart. They have their own sand boxes if you will and neither one should be found playing in the others sand box. So for purposes of discussions like this it is important to separate the religious issues from the scientific issues. The danger with religion is that it all too often feels threatened, when it need not be, by developments in science and hence tries to argue against these developments. But like I said above the two are completely separate topics, one trying to talk about the other is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Like it or not religion can't topple scientific edifices like evolution, only science can do that. The truth is that there is an enormous consensus in the scientific community that evolution is correct. Yet at the same time science being what it is, is continually looking for cracks in their own logic, if they find one they don't say "it's all a sham' but instead they ask hmm.... looks like we don't fully understand this lets investigate deeper. Unfortunately it seems that organized religion has this idea that they can tackle evolution with a cursory understanding of it, or little better than cursory, hence the emergence of intelligent design. I would not expect to be able to walk into a graduate level theology class and argue persuasively with the professor. So why should people think that anything should be different with evolution. The truth is that evolution is more, MUCH more, than simple "survival of the fittest", to fully grasp it and attempt to try and knock holes in it would take years of research. That doesn't mean of course that people can't talk about it in day to day situations. It just means it's presumptuous when you see web sites and religious groups arguing for creationism over evolution. The two are not in any wall equal.

Now about where we go when we die. Well this again goes back to my point about science and religion being fundamentally separate fields. Science says your brain activity stops, your body rots and the chemicals that make up your body are recycled. For me that's enough of an explanation. What happens to my "soul" you ask, well first I don't believe in a soul, but as for my consciousness I believe it just stops. What happens to the light from a light bulb when you turn off the switch, same thing with consciousness. It may not be comforting but really nothing religion has offered has ever seemed any more comforting to me, heaven and hell are like leftwood hinted abstract ideas created to assuage peoples fears of death and don't hold much water on closer inspection. Not for me anyways.

As for what separates man and animals, I think my feelings have been well covered by others. The only reason we see ourselves as different from other animals is (1) Religion and (2) the very consciousness that we claim makes us human. I'm sure a dog sees almost no similarities between itself and a bear. It's solely because we can categorize the world into dogs, bears, humans, and other more abstract concepts that we have difficulty accepting that we are part of the animal world. On closer inspection though it is obvious that we are. From a scientific perspective this is hardly worth mentioning. All life on earth is made of DNA, including human kind. We share over 90% of our DNA with our closest evolutionary relatives. And for those who argue "why are we so different from each other if genetically we are so similar". That's because genetics is a very complicated subject, as others have said just about every trait can be said to have genetic roots. However our genes are just a blueprint which our cells use to operate off of. Part of that genetic makeup involves "programs" that allow for adaptation to our environment, hence the endless variety of just about every trait you see around you.

Hmm it seems I've gotten carried away with myself here

"And for those who argue "why are we so different from each other if genetically we are so similar". "

to whoever argues that I'll add that I disagree that we humans compared to animals are very dissimilar at all, let alone us humans compared to other humans, all known forms of life or even what tends not to be considered alive, like the bodies of the cosmos (planets, suns, galaxie's etc) all share the common traits of reproduction, expansion (growth or spreading), and death or cease of function, energy, or form. And a common misconception or exagerated thought of people being different, be it looks or behavior, is false in respect to the fact that we all (tend) to have the same bodies, with minor differences that we become attuned to in a way we tend to underestimate or not realize and take for granted. You know the stereotype of one race saying another all looks the same, or that twins look the same, till you get a better look, right, thats how sensitive and easily thrown off a sense judgement of similarity can be, what I'm getting at is we are obviously physically similar, with animals there are simply variations of the same basis designs, including us and primates, and behaviorally, animal and human and human alike all express the same and or similar traits and actions and emotions ( even if some are discounted) and as humans we all experience the same range of feeling and emotions to differing degrees which influences all behavior, we all share the same survival needs which dictates even more including socialy, and most of us act like assholes sometimes and nice people at others, its just to differing degrees, but the bases are the same, and much behavior is influence highly by outside circumstances, such as laws, social posistions, etc.(my cat is attacking my shoe).

"The danger with religion is that it all too often feels threatened, when it need not be, by developments in science and hence tries to argue against these developments."

quite to the contrary Locuts, i have never argued against scientific "fact" though such a thing is really a contradiction. evolution is a theory, not a law.

religion and science are not at odds with eachother. i believe that eventually science will prove religion, or religion prove science. by your own admission science bases its assumptions on certain information. much of this information is man made. for instance, as i read on a thread somewhere, 2-2 does not equal 0. because matter cant be destroyed. whos to say science isnt on its way to proving God? we know so little. we've doubled, tripled, the ammount of information we have since just 50 or so years ago. how much more will we learn in the next 50 years? science cant yet tell us anything definitly, because things cannot be proven correct, only wrong. just because we dont have the alternative solution doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

likewise, im not attacking you, just arguing my point.

2-2 does not equal 0 because matter cant be destroyed.

This is assuming that you know what 0 is and means, and claims that 0 = the destruction of matter.

secret07: Well all this goes back to what I was saying in my post. Science and Religion are indeed completely separate topics and it's not possible to prove or disprove anything in either one from a basis of the other. Science is never going to prove anything in Religion and Religion is never going to disprove anything in Science. The two simply have nothing to do with each other. As for evolution being a "theory" and no a "fact" those are labels scientists use that tell you almost nothing about the validity and amount of proof behind the concepts. Einsteins general theory of relativity has been proved almost beyond a shadow of a doubt yet it is still called a theory. Is it possible that there are elements of the universe than general relativity doesn't explain? Sure and in such cases it's possible for a new theory to encompass and superseded it, however the new theory would still have to break down to essentially the same thing as General relativity in all the cases it has been applied and shown to work. And this new theory isn't going to give any important insights on religion. The fact that 2-2=0 can't be argued with because this is essentially a mathematical axiom. This has nothing to do with the conservation of mater and energy in the universe.

why is it locuts that you are so sure that religion and science cant be related?

im not going to go there leftwood

quote:

---

why is it locuts that you are so sure that religion and science cant be related?

---

First of all there really need not be any conflict because science and religion deal with fundamentally different issues. The problem arises when you try to join the two. Because the two are founded on mutually exclusive principals. Science is based on the idea of theory, experiment and when possible proof. You are correct in saying that it is difficult to prove something in science and by contrast easy to disprove something. However science is still the search for universal truths based on theory and experiment that explain the world around us. Religion on the other hand claims to already have the truth and needs no validation and or proof. So even if it were possible for science say to "Prove" religion was wrong, something that's impossible, it still would make no difference because religion is founded on a statement that is said to be true from the get go. Religion is founded purely on faith, science is founded on continually questioning ones own assumptions. Trying to meld the two is like asking an archaeologist to comment on the work of mathematicians and visa versa. Not only are they talking about fundamentally different issues they are speaking different languages.

I don't know what happens after death.
I'll tell you if I can come back here, post-mortum.

not true, there is proof for a god, as much as there is for the lack of one. science has to at some point admit to a god or deny it. if religion and science have absolutely nothing in common, then why are they always at odds with each other?

" if religion and science have absolutely nothing in common, then why are they always at odds with each other?"
They both try to explain. One pretends to know absolute truth and enshrines self-deception as faith, the other is amoral, skeptical of all human knowledge and based on observation as far as possible.

quote:

---

not true, there is proof for a god, as much as there is for the lack of one. science has to at some point admit to a god or deny it. if religion and science have absolutely nothing in common, then why are they always at odds with each other?

---

You're missing the point that Religion by its very definition needs no proof of God. Religion is founded on faith of the existence of God in the absence of proof. Science and religion are only at odds with each other because some people insist they should be at odds. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God an there are plenty others who are sworn atheists. Proving creationism to be wrong is not the same thing as proving that God does not exist, which as I said before is an impossibility by the very way religion defines God. It's the same argument as when Galileo argued the earth revolved around the sun and the church argued that the sun revolved around the earth. The fact that Galileo was proved right didn't mean the end of the church.