If you are a scientist who believes in life after death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do you. If you believe you have an afterlife and it turns out to be true, that is awesome. If it turns out that the lights go off and then you rot in the ground, that’s okay too. You won’t know about it anyway. If you don’t believe in an afterlife, you’ve probably already come to terms with the finality of your life, and if it turns out you were wrong, then wow! Who cares, really?

IF the Christian version is correct, then you care a lot, because you end up in Hell for eternity because you didn't believe that Jesus Christ was Lord!

Different Christians don't necessarily share the same beliefs. For example, Universalists don't believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do you. If you believe you have an afterlife and it turns out to be true, that is awesome. If it turns out that the lights go off and then you rot in the ground, that’s okay too. You won’t know about it anyway. If you don’t believe in an afterlife, you’ve probably already come to terms with the finality of your life, and if it turns out you were wrong, then wow! Who cares, really?

IF the Christian version is correct, then you care a lot, because you end up in Hell for eternity because you didn't believe that Jesus Christ was Lord!

Different Christians don't necessarily share the same beliefs. For example, Universalists don't believe that.

This is the fallacy of all organized religions. A loving God is not exclusionary. That stuff is people created. It just is.

[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.

You are wrong!

Not life per se, but the building blocks of it. Not only was it done, it was done nearly 60 years ago, proving you are either dishonest or uninformed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Someday we will fully solve the abiogenesis mystery, the way we solve all of them. Just because we haven't yet doesn't mean anything, just like before we knew what caused lightning some people thought it was Zeus' weapon.

Do you think lightning is Zeus' weapon?

Someday we will fully solve the mystery of the afterlife the way we solve all of them. Just because we haven't yet doesn't mean anything

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

First of all, define "God."

Second, the question in the thread is the afterlife. At this time it is unproven; whether it will ever be determined to exist or not speculation.

No one said science assumes it will never be able to prove God does or doesn't exist. As far as I know, science isn't concerning itself at all with that question.

[Anonymous]

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?

First of all, define "God."

Second, the question in the thread is the afterlife. At this time it is unproven; whether it will ever be determined to exist or not speculation.

No one said science assumes it will never be able to prove God does or doesn't exist. As far as I know, science isn't concerning itself at all with that question.

should be: "whether it will ever be determined to exist or not is speculation.

[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.

Allegedly, my grandfather was trying to solve some equation or variable maybe for "life" leading up to his death, and I don't have his papers. Does that mean anything to you?

^^ oops I meant this for the math or scientist poster

Do you mean he was trying to model his life to try to predict his death?

Poor transposing on my part. He was trying to solve an equation or variable for "life," but suddenly died and I don't have the papers. He was a famous physicist/rocket scientist I suppose.

[Anonymous]

And deeply religious

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

After all these pages, it seems like we have not found a scientist who believes in an afterlife. So there you go.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

????? If it can't be proven, then it is utter and total speculation, and falls into the realm of "belief." Anyone can go ahead and believe if they want to, but there is no basis for it.

[Anonymous]

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.

????? If it can't be proven, then it is utter and total speculation, and falls into the realm of "belief." Anyone can go ahead and believe if they want to, but there is no basis for it.

no different really from Santa Claus or the easter bunny.

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

Thank God for the scientists who wanted to disprove disbelief. Such as proving the Earth was round. To me, atheists seem like the flat earthers hundreds of years ago. It can't be, it can't be if it has not been proven yet and beyond comprehension.