Are you scared to die?

Originally Posted by erinys

death is like permanent unconsciousness.

Haha, technically, I guess so. But still, there is a definitive difference: Unconsciousness still involves a working brain and body. Death does not. Therefore, the experiences would inherently be different.

oh, a clever one are you. Here, let me put this in a way you should be able to understand, and we can try again.

you are a physical being, you cannot leave physical reality. Now explain to me (erinys) how you (Lunchbox) think (since I'm sure you wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim you knew) how you (a physical being) can leave the Universe (or physical reality).

I try

I leave by dying. By dying, I could be transported to some other Universe, some other dimension. It's possible there are billions of alternate dimensions. Some may have different laws than ours does.

apparently you don't know anything about gravity. I don't blame you, I don't know much about it either. But to say no one knows what gravity is? Well, that's just plain absurd. Here, why don't you look it up on Wikipedia. Hell, I'll look it up for you. It's the Simple English Wikipedia, so even you can understand it: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

anyway, here's a simple enough explanation of what gravity is: it is the force by which objects with mass attract other objects with mass. You feel gravity all the time, by the way. You know, it's that force that pulls you towards the ground. Don't tell me you can't feel that. It's the force that makes dense things heavy, don't tell me you can't feel that. We can "weigh" gravity, since it is gravity that gives everything its weight. We can measure gravity just like any other force.

gravity is a natural physical phenomenon with physical effects on the physical world.

I think you missed my point. But that's probably my fault at not really being clear as to what I was saying (I'm ****ing horrible at that.)

Anyway, I'd like to point something out:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Gravitation is the theory that all objects that have mass try to move toward each other. In everyday life, gravitation is commonly thought of as the force that gives objects weight.

Theory? Commonly thought as? Hmm, sounds like Gravity isn't exactly known, is it? Gravity could very well not exist. Oh, wait, there's more:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In science, the terms "gravitation" and "gravity" are used differently. "Gravitation" is the theory about the attraction. "Gravity" is the force that pulls objects towards each other.

So, there's a difference between gravitational pull, and gravity. What you quoted as known was both 1. A theory (albeit overwhelmingly accepted) and 2. The wrong thing to quote. Also:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.

It seems that the theory of gravity isn't perfect. Or, if it is entirely true, there are some things that don't apply to its seemingly impossible to break rules. So even physical reality doesn't follow the rules of physical reality. Yet another paradox. Which easily allows the possibility of a God to exist.

the soul? Well, first of all, I already asked you: what the hell is a soul? I don't even know. But if a soul is not physical and does not physically effect the physical world then it cannot physically exist in physical reality. Therefore, I don't have a soul. We know what gravity is, and we know what effects it has. What effects does the soul have?

I have no idea what the soul is either. Really, I doubt it actually exists. The thing I'm trying to argue here is the possibility of it existing. The soul very well could be physical. Just because it doesn't affect us physically (which again, could be possible, we just don't know it yet) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


no, I can wrap my head around it just fine. Like I told you, however, if God exists outside of the laws of physics, then he is not physical and doesn't exist in physical reality. He's imaginary. Therefore, he has no effect on the physical world or on my physical existence and I can safely ignore him until he decides to actually exist.

on the other hand, maybe you're right. After all, you're describing a paradox. An outright contradiction. It's hard to wrap my mind around such nonsense, you could say.

Paradoxes suck.

got the statistic from Wikipedia lol.

but before you go bashing on Wikipedia and its "inaccuracies," yeah, here's the source:

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

see how that works? Wikipedia articles have to cite sources for everything they say. That way, it's accurate. You should take a lesson from that. Do you have any sources even indicating the possibility of a soul? Or a god? Or an afterlife?

I know how Wikipedia works. I know it has to have sources, but it can still be quite inaccurate. But thank you for posting the actual link.

oh, almost certainly. Americans are fed so much misinformation from their religion it's not even funny. Not even almost funny. I mean, I'm not even smiling it's so unfunny. It makes me sad to think about it even. It's sad!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_poll
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Gallup (did I say Gallop earlier? I mean Gallup) is well known for their opinion polls. They're usually considered pretty accurate, but hey, I don't know, I'm no expert.

Thank you.

the question was, exactly: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? (1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. (2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

Comes closest? Sounds pretty vague to me. And this doesn't involve how old the Earth is at all. You're twisting the meaning of this poll. People can still believe the Earth is old as ****, but God created humans as they did 10,000 years ago. The third choice would be closest to what they believe. After all, evolution is still a theory. This proves nothing.

well, actually, no, but what's your point?

My point is that when a poll says a percent of a country believes this, but hasn't asked every single person in said country, the poll could very well be inaccurate.

this was a nationwide poll.

Yet you never partook in it. Nor did I. How odd.

also, really, what the hell does it matter? I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with anything, besides you trying to back up your argumentum ad populum fallacy, which is still a fallacy no matter how you look at it. Either way, I can be absolutely sure that there is a significant number of people in America who believe the world is around 10,000 years old, which is demonstrably false. We have physical evidence telling us otherwise.

This is NOT what the poll asked, as aforementioned.

I forgive you, don't worry about it. You're not the only one. Most people, in fact, don't realize this until too late.

no, but seriously, I should be the one who's sorry. I didn't realize you were so thickheaded. Please forgive me for my shortsightedness.

anyway, I don't actually have to know anything about God to say what I just said, so I'd like to see you at least try to refute it before completely ignoring it. Let me quote it again for you so you don't have an excuse to not reply again. Just to show you that it doesn't have to have anything to do with me and my limitless knowledge about God, I replaced "God" with "entity." Feel free to fill in "entity" with any given entity of your choice, be it God, Jesus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Tinkerbell, Obi Wan Kenobi, Chuck Norris, etc.

Me? Thickheaded? Noooo! We're all thickheaded.

Taking the fallacies of Gravity, a physical law of the physical universe which should be absolute, it's clear another fallacy like the existence of a non-physical God is possible. The universe is a mess of contradictions of paradoxes. Why should God existing be different than any of these? (Also, just to play devil's advocate: Maybe God is physical and is chilling on some other planet. You never know.)

then it would be true even if you didn't believe in it. Once again I repeat: your opinion doesn't effect reality.

believing in a fairy tale doesn't make it real.

True.

Originally Posted by Anann

Really so much nonsense.

Your people used to think heaven was on top of the damn clouds, what happened when flight let us shoot the crap out of that idea? You compromised. "Oh it must be somewhere else".

Truth never needs to compromise, your religion has been shot into pieces, and only manages through compromise.
It cannot be true.

If any gods were so petty, that not worshipping them equals a one way ticket to eternal suffering, then you know what? F*** them. Worship only that which is worthy.

Nothing that is that petty and that pathetic, will EVER be worthy of worship. I'm better than that, and if there is no god out there that is better a person than I am, then there is nothing worth worshipping.

Christianity is the only religion that is so petty and so much of a bully, that it needs to use scare tactics to bring in followers. The way you speak makes me feel that you only really believe out of fear.

No other religion is so lowly as to employ such underhanded tactics.

Christianity is one of the youngest religions, has had many of its views shot down. Not to mention hell was invented in the plaguetimes. Find a new religion or even better stop having one, start focusing on life, because if you waste yours, you have failed as a human being. No one is going to give a damn about someone who is wasteful.

You put out alot of christian vibes, you'd know then that once you die according to christianity that is it, you have no more business in the world. You can do no good once you die, regardless if you "survive" in some form.

It is foolish to worry about a time when you can do nothing to alter the course of your life.

Maybe you should start being concerned with driving safely, and not filling your body up with poisons, or even *gasp*, doing good things to help make the world around you a better place.

Pointless worrying will only get you a bed in a psych ward, and then you may as well be dead, or in a coma. You can do something with your life right now, right this second, stop your sniveling and do something, before it is too late.

You aren't immortal, you will die, and your time here will be over. You only get one life, no continues. I recommend you start utilizing it in a wiser manner.

Was this directed to me? If so, I laugh. If I'm giving off "Christian vibes," I'm sorry...I guess? I'm not Christian, I'm just playing devil's advocate. And I agree: It is pointless to worry about dying, but that's exactly what phobias are: pointless. It's not ruining my life; I'm not sitting in some bubble-wrap room with no corners and won't go outside because I'm scared to die, I'm just afraid of what happens when I die. Fearing something doesn't have to prevent you from doing something. And it doesn't. I'm utilizing my life quite well, thank you very much. (I also find it humorous that this "utilizing life" is coming from someone debating on the internet )

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

Haha, technically, I guess so. But still, there is a definitive difference: Unconsciousness still involves a working brain and body. Death does not. Therefore, the experiences would inherently be different.

"experiences"? Sorry, I don't understand the concept of "experience" outside of living.

I try

I leave by dying. By dying, I could be transported to some other Universe, some other dimension. It's possible there are billions of alternate dimensions. Some may have different laws than ours does.

that doesn't explain crap. How could you be "transported"? To where? Or most importantly, what part of "you" is transported?

I think you missed my point. But that's probably my fault at not really being clear as to what I was saying (I'm ****ing horrible at that.)

Anyway, I'd like to point something out:
Theory? Commonly thought as? Hmm, sounds like Gravity isn't exactly known, is it?

no. Sounds like gravity is a scientific theory. Sort of like evolution, abiogenesis, plate tectonics, and the germ theory of disease.

Gravity could very well not exist. Oh, wait, there's more:

no, that's not possible. The current theory of gravity as we know it might be incomplete (in fact, it almost certainly is) but what we do have is backed up with all the evidence.

So, there's a difference between gravitational pull, and gravity. What you quoted as known was both 1. A theory (albeit overwhelmingly accepted) and 2. The wrong thing to quote.

there's a difference between gravitation and gravity, sure. "Gravitation" describes the theory in general, "gravity" describes the actual net force that we feel every day. So, gravitation explains gravity.

to be honest I'm not sure what your point is.

Also:
It seems that the theory of gravity isn't perfect.

it seems that no theory is "perfect." Not even the germ theory of disease, which everyone seems to take for granted. Such is the nature of the scientific method. There is an infinite potential for new evidence, and therefore, no single theory can possibly account for all of it. There is always a potential for contradicting evidence that we haven't discovered yet, so no theory is absolute. However, it is perfect in the sense that a scientific theory completely accounts for all the evidence that we do have.

Or, if it is entirely true, there are some things that don't apply to its seemingly impossible to break rules.

uh, that's not what the sentence you just quoted says. If you read the list of observations after that sentence, you'll see what it's really saying. There are some things in the Universe that have not yet been fully explained, so the theories that we have now could be better than they are now.

or in scientific terms: duh.

So even physical reality doesn't follow the rules of physical reality. Yet another paradox. Which easily allows the possibility of a God to exist.

you really are pulling crap out of nowhere.

try again.

the theory of gravitation is not a rule of physical reality. It is a theory which is used to explain a force of nature. So far we have no evidence contradicting this theory and plenty of evidence supporting it. Meaning, it's a pretty good theory and you have no idea what you're talking about.

I have no idea what the soul is either. Really, I doubt it actually exists. The thing I'm trying to argue here is the possibility of it existing.

I can't consider the possibility of [object] existing until I know what [object] is. So, your argument is useless unless you explain what you're arguing and define your terms.

The soul very well could be physical. Just because it doesn't affect us physically (which again, could be possible, we just don't know it yet) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

if it is physical it affects things physically. If it is physical we would be able to detect its existence.

Paradoxes suck.

yeah, okay, so stop using them.

Comes closest? Sounds pretty vague to me. And this doesn't involve how old the Earth is at all. You're twisting the meaning of this poll. People can still believe the Earth is old as ****, but God created humans as they did 10,000 years ago. The third choice would be closest to what they believe.

well sure, okay, but to date I have met countless people (I go to a church full of them every Sunday morning) who believe the world is less than 10,000 years old, and I have never met anyone who believes God created humans 10,000 years ago as they are now but not the world.

After all, evolution is still a theory. This proves nothing.

"still" implies there's something after theory.

My point is that when a poll says a percent of a country believes this, but hasn't asked every single person in said country, the poll could very well be inaccurate.

statistics, my friend, statistics. I'm no expert on statistics, but I do know that you don't need to ask every single person in the country to get reasonably accurate results. It's about taking a large enough random sample of people.

from the website that had the poll on it I pulled this line: "N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3." If I'm translating this correctly, it means the sample included 1,017 American adults, and the margin of error was plus or minus three percent.

so even given the maximum amount of error, 41% is still a pretty big number.

Yet you never partook in it. Nor did I. How odd.

I don't find that odd at all. It's about sampling.

This is NOT what the poll asked, as aforementioned.

sure, but once again, what is your point?

Me? Thickheaded? Noooo! We're all thickheaded.

I sure don't think so.

Taking the fallacies of Gravity, a physical law of the physical universe which should be absolute,

there are just too many things wrong with this statement.

1: what the hell fallacies are you talking about?

2: gravity as in the force, or gravitation as in the theory to explain the force?

3: either way, it's not a physical law (although I suppose a force of nature is basically the same thing).

4: no theory can be absolute. Period.

it's clear another fallacy like the existence of a non-physical God is possible.

that's not clear at all. Try explaining how this might be possible. You know, clear it up.

The universe is a mess of contradictions of paradoxes.

source?

because all I'm thinking right now is: no it's not.

Why should God existing be different than any of these?

what does "these" refer to again? The contradictions and paradoxes that don't exist? God existing isn't any different from those. It's just another contradiction, another paradox.

(Also, just to play devil's advocate: Maybe God is physical and is chilling on some other planet. You never know.)

sure. I never argued that God couldn't be physical. This is perfectly within the realm of possibility.

I'm not really scared of death, so much as what comes after. (Or the lack of)

Originally Posted by vacumgod

Just the fact that we think with electronic signals makes me wonder that perhaps there is something else going on, not on a religious level of course.

Check out this reading and PM me your thoughts

http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

erm... no. Aspects' team is one of a good number who've demonstrated what's known as a Bell Inequality experimentally; they've shown that "local hidden variables" cannot account for our observations of reality at a quantum level. This is not an anti-relative result unless you pre-assume that QM is deterministic, which is an enormous assumption.

Bohm is a firm believer in hidden variables (/determinism) and has concluded that Bell's theorem is the death of locality and therefore relativity... but again this choice is ultimately without scientific motivation. He published a book in 1980 (two years before Aspect) metaphorically comparing the unknowable interactions of NLHVs to the information underlying a hologram. As a simple literary device this analogy does not work both ways; we can't take the properties of a hologram and apply them backwards onto reality. As the article itself points out, Bohm also used a fish-tank based metaphor... but I don't see anyone turning around and calling reality an aquarium.

The entire article is rife with Quantum Mysticism. Truth isn't based on the coolest sounding spin we can put on the evidence, its based on the evidence itself... and in this case, there is none.

I spent maybe a decimal point percentage of my time here. It doesn't take long to type.
Besides, you make yourself a hypocrite when you throw out an attempt at insult in that manner.

Fallacies of gravity? Really? You don't even know what they were talking about. Stop playing the dumb creationist, get back on topic. None of this crap has anything to do with the topic.

Maybe Anubis kicked God's ass and put his head on a stake outside his pimpdawg castle. Nobody should care, they aren't doing it here.

I admit, that I'm scared of death. Maybe I'm too young, and want to experience the world. But the dominant part of christians - it seems - aren't scared to die. Well, I am, and therefore I feel... somehow... alone. For me, after death, there is forever boredom or forever nothing. And I don't like neither of them. :<

If you trick yourself into thinking that the only thing required is to believe in something and you go to heaven, despite all the terrible crimes you commit in this life, why would you be afraid?

You should be afraid, but ignorance of reality overrides that.

The only people who should not fear are those who do no evil. No matter what happens if you do no evil, then no one except an evil entity could find justification for punishing you.

And yet, no matter how hard we try, committing no evil throughout our entire lives is so nearly impossible that it is almost incomprehensible. Assuming, of course, that you consider harm by accident, guilt by association, and other related things to be inherently evil. This would mean that even the stillborn could be considered "evil" by default if the complications caused by his/her death brought harm to the mother. Doing no evil also becomes exponentially more difficult if you consider the antics of the mind to be evil, i.e. fantasizing about your best friend's girlfriend or whatever, the stuff that pops into minds with little or no provocation that we can rarely shut out. This is all dependent on an individual's perception on what is evil of course...I would not assume everyone to hold the same beliefs as myself. Anyway, I digress and am severely off topic here, so I apologize.

Personally I am not afraid of death, seeing as no matter what I do I will die one way or another. A few years ago I spent time in a volunteer firefighter dept. and learned that there are many, many ways to die, some much worse than others, and very few pleasant at all. Fearing the inevitable would only hinder my enjoyment of the time I have in this life, seeing as I don't know if there is another one after this, I better do my damn best to enjoy what time I have eh?

Went I was younger I would wake up crying beacuse I didn't want to die. After awhile I have come to terms with it but I still find unnerving. I am not religious in any way because religion's are all the same boring crap spelled in a difernet way. I believe in God thats all no more no less I don't need to be part of anything to show my faith. I don't think you should be punished by being sent to hell just because you choose to live the way you wanted to with what litte time we you have on this earth. God gave humans feel will why should he punish you for using it? If God was selfish like bible say's he wouldn't have given us the ability to think freely, if he was really selfish he would have made us mindless drones to do his bidding and I find the bible hard to believe becuase of how old it is and how many times it has been re-writen sicne its conception. You know why hasn't there been any new additition's to the bible? Why would god only talk to the people of the past and not us, or maybe he does but everyone who say's they got a divine message to do something is considered crazy. If it could happen back then why not now?

I am no historian or biblical expert, but it think the reason anyone who claims to have a divine message now is considered crazy is because today's society is so grounded in science instead of faith. We now have "miracles" we can achieve with science, but before the only "miracles" came from supposed divine intervention.

The point being made about permanent unconsciousness, is that you can never recall unconsciousness.

You cannot experience death, much like unconsciousness.

That is true, it is impossible to experience death seeing as right when you would be able to experience it you are kinda...dead. But it is entirely possible to experience dying, seeing as how we all experience it every day. Unconsciousness can be experienced, as it sometimes causes vivid dreams.

Originally Posted by John

Er, no.

The..."symptoms" of a near death experience are perfectly easy to account for: It's your brain shutting down. The fact that we cannot say: "Alright, now this specific neuron has stopped firing, so they'll experience this exactly." doesn't mean we don't understand it.

Did you even look at the source? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists themselves have said time and again that through extensive research they have found nothing that even touches an honest scientific explanation. And the ones that refute this have explanations that are so absurd that it seems like they made it up through their own delusional religion to simply ease their minds.

Besides, when a person's brain has been clinically dead--DEAD--for hours, how then can they recall everything that has happened around themselves, around other places, through other perspectives through that time? It makes no sense. The brain has no impulses at that time, and even if you were alive, you could not lift yourself from your body and proclaim with accurate detail what half the people in the hospital were doing at that time. Scientists claim that this is because the conciousness is separate from the body, which is what the NDE'ers themselves claim, only they call it their soul. Basically scientists admit the existance of a soul only through other words. It may sound absurd, but we all know that truth is stranger than fiction.

My source is in the other post. Go look for it.

If people do have souls how do you explain MPD?

^multiple demons possessing you.

duh.

Or just one demon who has mpd.

Anyway, we will all die. I's just that we don't know when...

“Death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss is what dreams die when we're gone.”
I believe we are here for a purpose.

i like this quote,

"Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got a hold of for the moment,
and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations"
George Bernard Shaw : British playwright & novelist
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

So I guess I broke the soul argument.

unless someone comes in arguing in favor of demons....

or ridiculously boring semantics.

I would very much love not to die, but it's not something I'm afraid of. Just not ready for it. Anxious, then. If anything, I'm afraid of how I will die.