if not for the promise of an afterlife....

[barstool]

Are people so weak in their minds that to escape from death they turn to religion?

Why is it that all religions, that I am aware of, have an after-life clause?

Would anyone stick with a religion that does not? Probably not.

Even buddhists, who do not believe in a god, believe in reincarnation.

Does the fear of death really hang so darkly over our heads that we must spend our lives hoping for an afterlife?

I wonder if we will ever grow past this.

~Barstool

[scythekain]

@barstool

Are people so weak in their minds that to escape from death they turn to religion?

even you have religion.

Why is it that all religions, that I am aware of, have an after-life clause?

Religion was the answer to the question.

Would anyone stick with a religion that does not? Probably not.

a religion that did not answer the question does not deserve to be followed.

Even buddhists, who do not believe in a god, believe in reincarnation.

well if we do have spirits it’d be logical that they were reused, probably not infintely because no matter in the universe is immortal.

Does the fear of death really hang so darkly over our heads that we must spend our lives hoping for an afterlife?

death is what drives us. It hangs over our heads waiting patiently while life goes screaming by at the speed of light. This is what raises the question.

I wonder if we will ever grow past this.

why do you think that we need to “grow” past this. It answers a question and provides them with a momentary island of happiness.

All life is:

Momentary islands of happiness, between a large sea of depression. No one can be happy all the time, if they are, they are hiding something. But we can choose to avoid the larger islands of happiness brought about by cravings.

[von_Rivers]

i can prove without a shadow of a doubt that you will live an afterlife, in a purely secular, material, undoubtable way. it might disappoint you if you think the you ‘you’ve’ constructed here might be lost. ill do it after class

[CyruxMafia]

@Monooq

i can prove without a shadow of a doubt that you will live an afterlife, in a purely secular, material, undoubtable way. it might disappoint you if you think the you ‘you’ve’ constructed here might be lost. ill do it after class

tuche anywho how do you prove God exists? For me its simple to prove. Take DNA almost all genetisists will admit that DNA construction has a huge amount of intelligence in it. It didn’t happen by chance something created it, statistically speaking if a tornado ripped through a junkyard what are the chances it would create a Beoing 757? Thats that same statistics of DNA being made up by chance. Something created it, either it was Aliens or God. You get to choose, but please don’t start talking like those UFO freaks…

[scythekain]

@CyruxMafia

Take DNA almost all genetisists will admit that DNA construction has a huge amount of intelligence in it.

well I think DNA is a simple cluster of non-living materials that were all present at the beginning of earth. simple chemistry, there’s no intelligence in it. And I seriously seriously doubt almost all geneticists believe in an intelligent designer, quote where you saw that or something.

It didn’t happen by chance something created it, statistically speaking if a tornado ripped through a junkyard what are the chances it would create a Beoing 757?

pretty likely actually, new research shows that with the simple amino acids coming in from star dust, more complex poly peptides were formed. (Through the collision with earth.) If a simple collision can form something more complex millions of such collisions and other things once thought hostile to life are in fact not. So on a micro scale life could’ve came from a tornado of sorts.

Thats that same statistics of DNA being made up by chance.

again cite your sources you just pulling these stastics out of thin air?

Something created it, either it was Aliens or God. You get to choose, but please don’t start talking like those UFO freaks…

Aliens are honestly more statistically plausible than god

seriously with the billions of stars with trillions of planets the chances of life not being on them is very slim.

[von_Rivers]

you don’t need to prove god exists (nor can you) to prove an afterlife. it’ll just be a disappointing afterlife by your standards.

[fly_on_the_wall]

Lets have it then…

[CyruxMafia]

@scythekain

@CyruxMafia

Take DNA almost all genetisists will admit that DNA construction has a huge amount of intelligence in it.

well I think DNA is a simple cluster of non-living materials that were all present at the beginning of earth. simple chemistry, there’s no intelligence in it. And I seriously seriously doubt almost all geneticists believe in an intelligent designer, quote where you saw that or something.

It didn’t happen by chance something created it, statistically speaking if a tornado ripped through a junkyard what are the chances it would create a Beoing 757?

pretty likely actually, new research shows that with the simple amino acids coming in from star dust, more complex poly peptides were formed. (Through the collision with earth.) If a simple collision can form something more complex millions of such collisions and other things once thought hostile to life are in fact not. So on a micro scale life could’ve came from a tornado of sorts.

Thats that same statistics of DNA being made up by chance.

again cite your sources you just pulling these stastics out of thin air?

Something created it, either it was Aliens or God. You get to choose, but please don’t start talking like those UFO freaks…

Aliens are honestly more statistically plausible than god

seriously with the billions of stars with trillions of planets the chances of life not being on them is very slim.

I can’t argue with you ~_^ its just so bizare… YOUR WRONG YOU WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG!!! SERIOUSLY I"M NOT YOUR MOM DO SOME RESEARCH JUST STOP TELLING ME I"M WRONG!!!

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/dna03.htm

“ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS.”

FURTHERMORE!!!

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/#

DUDE WHY CAN"T YOU BELIEVE ME… look maybe I am crazy but you would be crazy too if everytime you came across people saying… “God doesn’t exist” IT WOULD DRIVE YOU INSANE>>>>>!!!

[scythekain]

first crux, what’s hilarious about this, is that we are drifting off topic.

second “the collapse of darwinism” are you serious? Darwin was a christian.

LOL.

“signs of allah”

if you were christian you would’ve shown me a “signs of christ/god” sight that says nearly the same thing, except for them they believe in creation literally as it says in the bible, where you believe that god guided evolution. (why does evolution need a guide?)

gee you think they are gonna have a slight tilt in their opinion? nah not at all.

here’s some important research for you.

science.howstuffworks.com/evolution10.htm

the most important piece in there:

Perhaps the first genetic blueprint was something other than DNA.

and this:

Given that DNA was not discovered until the 1950s, the research on this complicated molecule is still in its infancy, and we have much to

in 100 years imagine what we will know about DNA, we will probably know how DNA evolved from something simpler that was in the first life on Earth.

Then read up this:

users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … hesis.html

how amino acids were formed through a chemical reaction that would be easily possible on earth.

Another thing, that was done recently (can’t find a website for it I saw it on PBS “origins”) is that they put amino acid into a projectile and fired the projectile at a solid object (simulating an asteroid strike on early earth.) They were expecting the amino acids in the bullet to break down… but what happened was far more remarkable, they formed a polypeptide.

If all these things can happen through chemical and physical reactions than a single cell isn’t too far off.

proof of the evolution of DNA without the hand of god:

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 081153.htm

I think it will be found like I said within the next 100 years. The complete origins of human life without god. I don’t expect you to do my research but I do expect you to back up claims and statistics.

YOUR WRONG YOU WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG!!!

Apparently everyone but you is wrong crux. Doesn’t that tell you something?

[CyruxMafia]

@scythekain

YOUR WRONG YOU WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG!!!

Apparently everyone but you is wrong crux. Doesn’t that tell you something?

No i’ll let you be, fine i’m wrong about everything happy? I’m born wrong everything i say is wrong.

At least i can admit i’m wrong… but you haven’t proved me wrong you just inspite of all my proof ignore what i say and present your own half truths… I went over your sites about the Quran about Evolution, its just tyring it really is. Not only are those sites wrong and don’t do anything to disprove my assertions they are infactual and misleading…

EXAMPLE. About the angels: For NONE are arrogant (before their Lord). They ALL fear their Lord, high above them, and they do ALL they are commanded. – Sura 16:49-50
And behold, we said to the ANGELS: “Bow down to Adam”. And THEY bowed down, EXCEPT Iblis. He refused and was haughty. – Sura 2:34

The command of Allah is given to the angels. Since Iblis is accused of not being obedient, he has to be one of the angels.

Contradicting 16:50, he refused = is disobedient, and is haughty = arrogant (before his Lord).

See also 7:11, 15:28-31, 17:61, 18:50, 20:116, 38:71-74.

ummm thats 100% wrong and the writter doesn’t even care its a wrong and misleading… then he goes on to say the embryo thing is wrong… Oh geez i wish i had the time to debate that debacle, he either translated it wrong, took bad facts or was in some delusional state… Any muslim child could easily refuse half of those assertions…

Evolution on the other hand, you learned nothing “Spontaneous generation in a primeval soup: Miller’s Experiment”

YOU DIDN"T LEARN ANYTHING!! ANYTHING AT ALL !!!

THIS CAN"T HAPPEN HE COULD NOT GET ALL THE NECESSARY AMINO ACIDS TO FORM A CELL IT WAS IMPOSIBLE AND HE FAILED!!

Dude if someone drove you insane by constantly brining up proven false ideologies and uneducated websites would you go bizerk?

I know your not dumb but please do not list sites that are wrong as your references its just insulting yourself.
[/quote]

[CyruxMafia]

@scythekain

proof of the evolution of DNA without the hand of god:

sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 081153.htm

thats sad really sad you say that… cuz instead of prooving your point you just destroy it…

IN THE ARTICLE IT STATES THAT IT IS 100% SPECULATION NOT PROOF…

HOLY $@(( %@()%@()(* YOU ARE SO ##@$&#$#$&*@#&%

oh i feel much better now… okay to the point… your still wrong Darwin is simply refuted scientifically you cannot mutate DNA into a benificial mutation it has never been seen to occur in a lab or nature. Not for a lack of trying they spent billions on it… only to be proven wrong…

Not only that you are 100% wrong about evolution because all creatures ALL!!! EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATURE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH came to the earth fully evolved… THERE ARE NO “INTERMEDIARY SPECIES”!!!
DARWIN HIMSELF states that in order for his theory to work every sepcies must have an intermediary species…

[scythekain]

@CyruxMafia

oh i feel much better now… okay to the point… your still wrong Darwin is simply refuted scientifically you cannot mutate DNA into a benificial mutation it has never been seen to occur in a lab or nature. Not for a lack of trying they spent billions on it… only to be proven wrong…

uh ok.

I think that article proved beneficial genetic mutation. if you don’t see that maybe I can help point it out.

“Colobines are different from other monkeys in that they primarily eat leaves rather than fruit or insects, and leaves are very difficult to digest,” he explains. But the monkeys manage with a digestive system similar to a cow’s. Bacteria in the gut ferment the leaves and take up nutrients that are released in the process.

The monkeys, in turn, digest the bacteria to recover the nutrients, such as protein and ribonucleic acid (RNA), a particularly important source of nitrogen in leaf eaters.

Zhang and colleagues were particularly interested in a pancreatic enzyme, RNASE1, which breaks down bacterial RNA. Most primates have one gene encoding the enzyme, but the researchers found that the douc langur, a colobine monkey from Asia, has two—one encodes RNASE1, and its duplicate encodes a new enzyme, which they dubbed RNASE1B.

The duplication occurred about 4 million years ago, after colobines split off from the other Old World monkeys, Zhang’s analysis showed. Through a series of computations and experiments, the researchers determined that the original gene encoding RNASE1 remained unchanged after duplication, but its twin, which encodes RNASE1B, changed rapidly.

Furthermore, the changes were not random; most caused the enzyme to become more negatively charged, which could affect its interaction with the RNA it degrades.

Next, Zhang’s group tested the activity of RNASE1 and RNASE1B at different levels of acidity (pH). In the small intestine, where the enzymes do their work, pH levels range from 7.4 to 8 in humans and most monkeys, but the levels are more acidic—around 6 to 7—in colobines.

Interestingly, the researchers found that the original enzyme works best at pH 7.4, but the new enzyme is most effective at pH 6.3—the acidity of the colobine small intestine. In fact, RNASE1B works six times better than RNASE1 under the more acidic conditions.

“Our results suggest that this is an adaptation to the more acidic environment of the small intestine in colobine monkeys,” says Zhang. But if the new enzyme is so much more efficient, why has not natural selection done away with the old one? Apparently, it still performs an important function, Zhang speculates.

“We know that in humans, RNASE1 has two functions: to digest dietary RNA and to degrade double stranded RNA, perhaps as a defense against double-stranded RNA viruses,” says Zhang. In the douc langur, RNASE1B has become super-efficient at the first job, but has lost the ability to do the second, his research shows. RNASE1, though upstaged in the first role, still carries out the second.

“So now they have different jobs to do,” says Zhang. “Before the duplication, you have one enzyme doing two jobs. After duplication, you have two enzymes, each doing just one job, but doing it better than the other.”

Zhang’s analysis shows that the duplication occurred some six million years after colobines began eating leaves. “So leaf-eating did not depend on the new gene, but the new gene apparently improved the efficiency,” he concludes.

As for the evolutionary forces involved in adaptation to a changing environment, scientists have debated whether positive selection for a new function is more important than relaxation of the selective pressures that maintain an old function. The new research suggests that, at least in this case, both were necessary.

[barstool]

Hmmmm…

So no one agrees that only the hook of an promised golden ring, which is an afterlife, is what keeps people in religious bondage.

Ok, not a problem.

BTW, that other shit is just wierd.

~Barstool

[scythekain]

well I kind of vaguely answered that, religion answers the question as to why we are here, and as doing so until something better comes along it’s what we’ve got, you don’t have to be a “slave” to the machinery of religion, no one forces you to believe in god.

but yes the promise of an after life does lure many to believe in religions that otherwise are extremely questionable. (judaism didn’t have an afterlife though.)

[barstool]

@scythekain

even you have religion.

Im not certain I follow your reason for making this statement. It seems that you have a definition of religion other then the normal.

re·li·gion n.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

You would be mistaken to assume I have religon.

~Barstool

[scythekain]

I think you would have #4 at least if not also #3. Your spiritual leader being someone important to you.

[Hatsu]

Scythekain:
judaism didn’t have an afterlife though

really? you mean the jews in getto who turned into ashes doesn’t have a chance of afterlife?

Interesting…

I believe the true Almighty Creator states fair and compassionate verdict regardless of your religion especially for the people who suffered agony deeply.

Furthermore most people assume that afterlife is boring. But personally I believe the afterlife is exceptionally complicated and interesting in comparison to our life here.

[scythekain]

well not that I’ve seen in the torah, they don’t really talk about “heaven” just the “pit” sheol.

[barstool]

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Hehe, I’ll give you some credence. I am searching but not for a spiritual leader or a cause to proclaim my devotion.

I am searching for understanding - a very rare comodity.

But then I wake up another day and carry on with the business of living.

Nope no religion here

~Barstool