If you are a scientist who believes in life after death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

No, no no no, we are not agreeing. Please read what I posted above. You are posing a strawman argument. Atheist Scientists and other Atheists don't claim things they can't prove don't exist. They just don't believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Do you understand the difference? It is not a subtle one.

It's just like you don't believe in Leprechauns, but you probably also don't make the claim they can't exist. Just that you don't believe they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science cannot explain many things.

Can science explain what causes all cancers? No.

Can science explain the etiology of an idiopathic diagnosis? No.

Do things exist that we cannot see, hear, smell, or feel? Cannot photo or video? Yes, oxygen in the air.

You know the stupidity of this argument, right?

We can demonstrate, easily and in many ways, the existence of oxygen "in the air". There was a time when we could not.

Can you demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural? Anything, any one thing. You pick it. Then get your many prizes and awards and millions of dollars and be known as the world's greatest scientist and prophet, both at the same time, as the rest of us skeptics will immediately believe.

We'll wait.

NP - This is an interesting discussion. Why do you have to be mean?

This poster is exactly why a real conversation cannot be had on this topic. Non believers are so condescendingly hateful, it's impossible not to go on the defense and want to stop engaging. They want to play a game of gotcha, not really understand.

Sorry, it is not hateful at all. I think the truth hurts you and you have no substantive response.

I concede it is condescending, but strawman statements like the one above about "oxygen in the air" deserve condescension and contempt, and nothing less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself agnostic or atheist. Really probably the latter. I do take solace in what someone else wrote above, and I have thought myself, that energy never dies. It is a constant. In that way, if a person has a "soul" it has touched many other people and things in this world. That vibration continues. The world is forever different because they lived. Now that they are dead, their soul does not exist, but its impact remains and reverberates forever -- more so if they really did a lot when they were alive, good or bad. One thing that living has taught me -- heaven and hell are on Earth, and it's pretty random which one you get to experience. Enjoy life and try to make things better for people stuck in hell. Also, luck changes and is random, so carpe diem.

Beautifully put.

It’s interesting that some find that philosophy beautiful. Personally as a (occasionally doubting but) overall religious person I find it tragic to imagine that there is no ultimate justice and that this is it.

o.k, it's tragic then. But this is a common theme: "I don't want to believe ______ ". So without a shred of evidence I'm just going to go ahead and believe what I want to believe because it makes me feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

There are also Billions of people who don't believe, and don't care.
I'm satisfied neuroscientists have tried to detect whether any substance leaves the body at death (like a soul), and have been unable to detect it. So if you believe, that's fine. But there is no support whatsoever for your belief.

I don't believe a soul leaves the body. Thus, nothing to detect! Adventist.

But you do believe in an afterlife, correct. You just have to wait patiently to be bodily resurrected when Jesus returns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

There are also Billions of people who don't believe, and don't care.
I'm satisfied neuroscientists have tried to detect whether any substance leaves the body at death (like a soul), and have been unable to detect it. So if you believe, that's fine. But there is no support whatsoever for your belief.

I don't believe a soul leaves the body. Thus, nothing to detect! Adventist.

But you do believe in an afterlife, correct. You just have to wait patiently to be bodily resurrected when Jesus returns.

Do you believe that good people go to Heaven after they die? If good people are already in Heaven, what’s the point of being resurrected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

There are also Billions of people who don't believe, and don't care.
I'm satisfied neuroscientists have tried to detect whether any substance leaves the body at death (like a soul), and have been unable to detect it. So if you believe, that's fine. But there is no support whatsoever for your belief.

I don't believe a soul leaves the body. Thus, nothing to detect! Adventist.

But you do believe in an afterlife, correct. You just have to wait patiently to be bodily resurrected when Jesus returns.

Do you believe that good people go to Heaven after they die? If good people are already in Heaven, what’s the point of being resurrected?

It's in the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a scientist, but I consider myself agnostic or atheist. Really probably the latter. I do take solace in what someone else wrote above, and I have thought myself, that energy never dies. It is a constant. In that way, if a person has a "soul" it has touched many other people and things in this world. That vibration continues. The world is forever different because they lived. Now that they are dead, their soul does not exist, but its impact remains and reverberates forever -- more so if they really did a lot when they were alive, good or bad. One thing that living has taught me -- heaven and hell are on Earth, and it's pretty random which one you get to experience. Enjoy life and try to make things better for people stuck in hell. Also, luck changes and is random, so carpe diem.

Beautifully put.

It’s interesting that some find that philosophy beautiful. Personally as a (occasionally doubting but) overall religious person I find it tragic to imagine that there is no ultimate justice and that this is it.

o.k, it's tragic then. But this is a common theme: "I don't want to believe ______ ". So without a shred of evidence I'm just going to go ahead and believe what I want to believe because it makes me feel better.

Correct - without this human trait, religion would be nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question from a nonscientist - nonreligious person: I don't get that scientists only believe in things that they can prove (or have the potential to prove). Is that what some people think the conflict is? Wouldn't you have to be really arrogant about how much science can do now to assume it would never ever be able to prove God exists?

This is a strawman, and you have it bass ackwards.

No scientist worth a sh*t will make the claim they will "never be able to prove" a thing. You can't find me one who does, I bet.

I think we are agreeing- what I am trying to say is, what is the rationale scientists have for not believing in life-after-death, God, etc.? It seems like the answer is (and I agree it's backwards) is that you can't prove it, so it can't exist. That doesn' make sense to me.

I can't prove that there is a celestial teacup orbiting the earth. Should I expect you to believe that it's there?

If BILLIONS of people believed it is today, and humankind did for thousands of years, I might want to explore the possibility with scientific curiosity

There are also Billions of people who don't believe, and don't care.
I'm satisfied neuroscientists have tried to detect whether any substance leaves the body at death (like a soul), and have been unable to detect it. So if you believe, that's fine. But there is no support whatsoever for your belief.

I don't believe a soul leaves the body. Thus, nothing to detect! Adventist.

But you do believe in an afterlife, correct. You just have to wait patiently to be bodily resurrected when Jesus returns.

Do you believe that good people go to Heaven after they die? If good people are already in Heaven, what’s the point of being resurrected?

No, generally I do not. Except a couple people mentioned in the Bible like Moses. Elijah and maybe Enoch were taken directly without dying.

[Anonymous]

^^^ most people must wait until Jesus returns at the end time to go to Heaven

[Anonymous]

What's funny is so many scientists believe in aliens. Let me know when you have one of the big eyed green creatures LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot about near death experiences and people’s experiences around death. There’s a remarkable consistency in the stories. There’s so much to this world we don’t know, and I think it’s somewhat arrogant to assume what we can see, touch, feel, hear and taste comprise all of what exists in the universe. Dog’s hear things we can’t. Birds see things we can’t. We have this small life, we come and we go. I believe there’s something more than what we can understand and I’m open to learning as much as I can about it.

A lot of the NDE stories have been tentatively explained by neurologists who say the brain's sensory functions under stress can produce imagery that feels like tunnel vision and floating above one's body. Even seeing dead loved ones and feeling drawn to a bright light. Who knows.

My mother was in a car accident when she was 18 and had a NDE. She swears she floated above her body in the hospital room and heard the doctor telling her parents she was not likely to live. She says she knew she had a choice, and she chose to live -- although she says she did it only to stop her parents' pain. She says the alternative (dying) at the time seemed much better somehow. She knew she was giving up something wonderful to go back to living.

She isn't remotely religious, but she doesn't fear death. She says she knows it will be painless and "wonderful" in some way. But not in the sense of living another life as who she is now. More like becoming something new.

I think that goes to the conservation of energy model -- our "soul" is the energy that makes us alive. When we die, it leaves our body and dissipates, eventually becoming part of something else. So, in a sense, yes. There is life after death.

There was an interesting book a few years ago written by a neurologist studying NDEs, only he looks for those rare episodes when people are truly clinically dead and then are resuscitated. So people with zero brain activity. Rare, but apparently happens. And in some of the episodes of people having no brain activity they are able to recount specific conversations that happened in the room after their brain stopped, or they described things they only could have seen from above. So not the typical NDE tunnel and light. So this scientist has set up studies in trauma bays with images that can only be seen from above. It was an interesting book.

Nothing leaves our body at death. If it was true, neuroscientists would be able to detect it and they haven't. And if they haven't, you can't say any detectable energy, or soul, leaves our body. Anyone who says so is making this up.

Have you ever watched person take their last breath and see their eyes change? Life energy leaving a body is detectable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting for scientists to prove how 2 rocks banged together to start a life. Sugar and spice and all things nice, stirred in a pot? Lol! There is no scientist who can take rocks, sticks, dirt and start a life.

Science can better explain how it happened though than invent some invisible man in the sky

No religion believes there is an invisible man in the sky, and when you suggest so you reveal either that you are supremely ignorant of theological academia or not really interested in this whole discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm waiting for scientists to prove how 2 rocks banged together to start a life. Sugar and spice and all things nice, stirred in a pot? Lol! There is no scientist who can take rocks, sticks, dirt and start a life.

I made amino acids in a lab in high school...which at least starts to explain how natural conditions can create the chemistry needed for life.

The physical building blocks, but not the animation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read a lot about near death experiences and people’s experiences around death. There’s a remarkable consistency in the stories. There’s so much to this world we don’t know, and I think it’s somewhat arrogant to assume what we can see, touch, feel, hear and taste comprise all of what exists in the universe. Dog’s hear things we can’t. Birds see things we can’t. We have this small life, we come and we go. I believe there’s something more than what we can understand and I’m open to learning as much as I can about it.

A lot of the NDE stories have been tentatively explained by neurologists who say the brain's sensory functions under stress can produce imagery that feels like tunnel vision and floating above one's body. Even seeing dead loved ones and feeling drawn to a bright light. Who knows.

My mother was in a car accident when she was 18 and had a NDE. She swears she floated above her body in the hospital room and heard the doctor telling her parents she was not likely to live. She says she knew she had a choice, and she chose to live -- although she says she did it only to stop her parents' pain. She says the alternative (dying) at the time seemed much better somehow. She knew she was giving up something wonderful to go back to living.

She isn't remotely religious, but she doesn't fear death. She says she knows it will be painless and "wonderful" in some way. But not in the sense of living another life as who she is now. More like becoming something new.

I think that goes to the conservation of energy model -- our "soul" is the energy that makes us alive. When we die, it leaves our body and dissipates, eventually becoming part of something else. So, in a sense, yes. There is life after death.

There was an interesting book a few years ago written by a neurologist studying NDEs, only he looks for those rare episodes when people are truly clinically dead and then are resuscitated. So people with zero brain activity. Rare, but apparently happens. And in some of the episodes of people having no brain activity they are able to recount specific conversations that happened in the room after their brain stopped, or they described things they only could have seen from above. So not the typical NDE tunnel and light. So this scientist has set up studies in trauma bays with images that can only be seen from above. It was an interesting book.

Nothing leaves our body at death. If it was true, neuroscientists would be able to detect it and they haven't. And if they haven't, you can't say any detectable energy, or soul, leaves our body. Anyone who says so is making this up.

Have you ever watched person take their last breath and see their eyes change? Life energy leaving a body is detectable.

Fine, you see something -- that doesn't mean it's the soul leaving the body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's funny is so many scientists believe in aliens. Let me know when you have one of the big eyed green creatures LOL

so many? Really? Name them. So I can look them up.