This is in no way a "this must mean that (enter God and or Gods here) is real" just something to pounder Okay so life and death, some pepole say there is nothing after death how ever a thought came to me , if we are in fact just "meet bags" then why cant we come back to life once we are dead? and i mean a few weeks dead what is missing? Provide the organ is okay it can go to another person and sometimes still work (assuming the body accepts it) and pepole live with out body parts working how ever even with all that once you "die" with a few miracles and close calls and maybe one or two few days later no one can come back So why can't we just start the heart again? Why wont the body work when in any other body it can? whats missing? I'm not saying there is a "soul" and that proves there is a God, for all I know it can be a perfectly natural thing Some of you may say that well the "brain stops" Well in that case cant we "revive the brain" to make the rest of the body work? no not if its been a bit So my thought is that something is missing a soul but I would not be surprised if its a natural thing Anyways what do you think?
As soon as your body stops receiving oxygen, it starts to deteriorate. Brain cells die, muscles and organs stop being able to operate, and you physically break down. After being without oxygen for just a few minutes, the brain can become damaged, and modern medicine simply doesn't have the faculty to repair it. So, it's possible to restart a heart or revive someone after a few minutes of death, but the longer the period without oxygen, the less likely it is that you can be successfully revived. It's possible that medicine will advance to a point where complex neurological operations are possible, and at that point, brain damage may cease to be an issue.
People expect too much of science. Life is far too complicated; evolutionary biologists have been studying the origins of life for centuries and have yet to provide monumental information. How can we possibly be expected to master death when we don't even know how the most basic organisms came to be out of lifeless matter? It would be nice, and maybe there could be a solution one day, but I think we'll have died out long before we ever find a solution for conquering death. Some people have "come back to life" after death (such as injecting the heart with certain chemicals and performing CPR), but after weeks.... good luck! The body deteriorates very quickly, and I don't think anyone could fathom a solution for reversing that kind of permanent damage. Medicine has taken us extremely far in delaying death and providing cures and solutions for countless diseases, but unfortunately we have yet to solve the problem of aging. Our organs get old and consequently develop problems which cause them to die. Replacements can help --it's why people often get transplants or man-made replacements when it comes to bones (knee and hip replacements come to mind here), but these procedures are especially difficult, and after all, would you really want to eventually be made completely from other people's parts anyway, if you could? Scientists are working on problems such as manipulating cells to continue replicate --and to replicate properly (improper replication is a big factor in what causes problems within the body) without replicating so efficiently that it causes an overgrowth of cells --that is, the development tumors, some of which can become cancerous. In fact, I think it's pretty cool (in a science-y way), the problems of aging is tied intimately to the problem of cancer. When there is a serious breakthrough in the oncology field, it is expected that there will be an equally monumental breakthrough in the field of life extension. Pretty cool!
FAIR WARNING - Religious concepts and tolerance As with every thread dealing with controversial subjects, this one will be closely watched. As long as everyone remains respectful toward everyone else's beliefs, the thread may continue. FAIR WARNING! In the past, we have simply closed the thread when it gets too heated. This time, whoever takes it to the point that requires it to be closed will also be subject to an infraction. We have had a very poor track record with contraversial threads in the past, and this is why we will follow a zero-tolerance policy on this one. So please keep the tone respectful at all times.
I'm having a hard time concentrating on what this is supposed to be about because I just keep thinking "pounder? But I hardly know her!" Sorry, I'm immature. Aside from the whole bodies deteriorating thing, which, yeah, would prevent your body from being revived several weeks after death, wouldn't there also be the issue of why the body stopped working to begin with? Bodies are kind of like cars...you can swap out organs and tinker with things all you want, but sometimes certain connections just aren't going to work and the body isn't going to function anymore. Regardless of the presence of a soul or not, your body wears out...and some things can't be swapped out or replaced.
One billion philosophers have attempted to answer this question. They have all been wrong (I think). There isn't much more to say.
What happens after we die? You know, I'd like to think we all go where we want to go- so if we WANT to cease to exist, we do. If we want to go to "heaven" then we go there. If we want to stay behind and watch over our loved ones, then we can. My philosophy behind that is that in life we can choose what happens to us (to an extent!), and if opposites are truly equal, then the same should be for death. Even if I'm wrong and after life is pre-determined, wouldn't we be happier believing we are going to a better place when we are on our deathbeds? I've taken more philosophy classes than I care to think about, but if its not going to make a difference what you believe, then why not believe in the best outcome?
To make it related to this forum, I would say that its our job as fiction writer to speculate, play around, and have fun with this in our work. And why not? Why so serious? One of the our job description as writers is to show non-writer or anyone for that matter, how far human's imagination could stretch. Beside, reality is subjective. Its open for any interpretation, and every interpretation is correct because in this world, in our modern civilization, there's only one thing certain: we'll pay our taxes On an unrelated note, I think you got a base for story here. You better turn it to something.
The problem here is that people can't choose what to believe. I'd love it if there was a heaven and a god watching over us but I simply don't believe this. One can't choose beliefs or emotions or any of that. In the other topic that was similar to this Nightshade mentioned a friend or relative who was studying this sort of thing and he believed that when you die you go into an endless dream. See when you dream it's just your brain releasing chemicals and when you die your brain releases all its chemicals. So if like small bursts of chemicals can create dreams that last for hours to the dreamer, death could create a dream that lasts a whole other life time. But to the outside it's only minutes or seconds. That's what I believe.
I beg to differ. Yes you can. You can choose your own path. I was raised in the church, to believe in God, go to church every Sunday, to believe in Heaven and Hell. I've read the bible. I believe none of that now. I don't push my views on other people but despite how I was raised, I CAN choose my beliefs. You always have a choice. In everything. Apparently you chose this, so you disagree with yourself?
I think you've misunderstood me a bit. What I should have said that only your subconscious decides. I'm an atheist right. Now as much as I would like to believe in god and heaven I can't just say right now I'm a Christian. Well I could but just because I've said all that doesn't mean I'd believe any of it. Beliefs can change or stay put but you don't get to decide when this happens. As an allegory I knew someone who was bi. He was completely in denial and told me he had decided to be straight. You can't do this though anymore than you can decide religion. A gay person could choose to never act on their feelings and an atheist could pretend to be a christian. But it wouldn't change who they were. Hope that made sense.
I'm sorry, but to me, personally, sexual orientation and religion are two completely different things (and one of them really has no purpose in this thread, imo). You are who you are, sure. You can however decide that the fundamentals of a religion simply don't make sense to you, can you not? That's what I did. I was raised to believe in it. I researched it and it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not putting anyone down who does believe in it, who it does make sense to, but it doesn't make sense to me. I made a conscious decision to find out what made sense, then I conciously weighed the facts, the pros and cons, etc. There was nothing subconcious about it.
The gay thing was just an allegory. But really when you studied religion it didn't make sense to you right? But if something like that doesn't make sense to someone they don't decide whether or not it makes sense. It just doesn't or does. So you were making a conscious decision on a subconscious decision. Ok I have an idea. Right now I want you to change your religion, become a christian. If you can choose what to believe than you should be able to become a devout christian on the spot. Not just saying you are but actually believing in a god. Can you do that?
When I read the bible I began reading it as a part of my religion, not with the intent of it not making sense or the desire to debunk it. As I found more things that didn't add up I continued looking for more sources, trying to figure it out. Logical decisions based on intelligent fact finding are not subconcious. I'm sorry. Sure, something could happen and I could throw myself into a belief in Christianity again. I don't see that happening, but never say never. There would need to be a catalyst because I've already made my choice. Without a catalyst (I need a more significant one than some random person on a forum telling me to, sorry. If it didn't work for my parents I don't think it's going to work for you) I wouldn't even try because our beliefs are US. They are our entity. They are what defines us. It is not only religion (though it's a handy go-to). It is our stance on stealing, cheating, lying, how we raise our kids, what you would do if you saw someone beating a dog, a woman, a man, or a child on the street, and, yes, religion and where you believe you will go when you die. I believe I don't care. I'll be dead so what does it matter? That's just me though. I would no more go rob a bank or stand by and watch someone be beaten to death because you told me to than I would turn to Christianity on a whim. Simply put, I would no longer be me and I'm pretty happy at the moment.
Okay now you're blatantly dodging my question. I wasn't telling you to convert to Christianity, it was a hypothetical situation. Basically if your theory was true that we can choose our beliefs, you would be able to turn to christianity right now, without any catalyst or anything. You can't do that though can you? And you just contradicted yourself. You say you can choose what to believe but now you just said you would need a catalyst to change your faith (or rather lack of it.). So please just answer me this plain and simple. If you wanted to, would you be able to choose to become christian again right now, without any persuasion or anything? Single sentence will do because it doesn't require anything more. Also I think we've derailed this thread somewhat.
I did answer you, quite clearly I think. Maybe you should read it again. I've dodged nothing. The point was I have no reason to change so why would I. It wouldn't be just changing my faith (or lack of it though I certainly have faith just not in organized religion) it would be changing ME. I was clear.
Right well basically your answer to that was no, you can't change back to christianity on a whim yes? So erm that means that you can't decide your beliefs which is what I was saying all along. So case closed.
Fascinating that that's what you got from that, and no, that's not really what I said. I didn't say I couldn't I said, in simpler terms, what kind of person would I be if I WOULD? If I could just hop the fence to whatever looked better at the moment? To whatever would get me the most recognition, the most money, the most friends? Not anyone I would want to be near that's for sure. It would be like choosing to be devout an hour before The Rapture is scheduled. Looks funny in the movies, but damn man... where's your conviction? If you can't stand tall in your own beliefs, defend them, assert them, live them, you've got nothing. So I COULD, yes, but then I would be a fake poser. I ask again... why WOULD I?
I think you missed my point. For the purposes of this argument it doesn't matter if you would or not (I wouldn't either.). I was asking if you could. Forget all the moral implications for now it's only hypothetical. Also I think you've mistaken pretending to have a certain faith to actually believing it.
So if you wanted to you could become a christian on the spot and sincerely believe in god? well you must be something special because I certainly can't and don't know anyone else who can either.
I think the problem here is the concept of "on the spot". Just because someone makes a rational choice about his/her beliefs doesn't mean it is done "on the spot". On the other hand, the fact that someone chooses to believe something does not equate to someone else telling them what to believe. In fact, the concept of self-determination would seem to suggest that telling someone to believe something is a very good way of assuring they won't (or, if they do, they will at some future point choose not to). As it happens, I am currently reading David Eagleman's "Incognito", which discusses in part how the unconscious mind affects what we consider to be entirely conscious, rational decisions. I highly recommend it.
