GRIPES

[facthunter]

I know where there's a cheap Harbour Bridge too. Religion is a product that varies depending on which franchise you  BUY it from. There's 1,000's of them and at the most only one is right. "They" are still inventing NEW ones. fitting their changing needs for  a different God. Kerry Packed died briefly and HE said "there's NOTHING THERE MATE". Nev

[onetrack]

Of course there's NOTHING THERE, for a bloke who didn't believe in God, and who worshipped money and enormous power instead. I'd be disappointed if Kerry Packer actually got into Heaven.

 

Dr Moodys book, Life after Life is a worthy read, it was written by a Doc who saw many patients return from clinical death with a wide range of experiences from "beyond the curtain".

 

He wrote that the part that impressed him was the children experiences during clinical death, because of their simple honesty and lack of life experiences, and the fact that they reported experiences that could not have been hallucinations or repressed memories.

[willedoo]

When I was down for the count it was just black, no white light at the end of a tunnel. But then again the heart was still beating I think, so not dead, just not breathing.

 

For a lot of people their reasoning is stuck around themselves. I haven't seen a flying saucer, therefore they don't exist. I haven't seen a ghost, therefore they don't exist, etc, etc, etc. It's all about me.

[willedoo]

These days the new god is science. A scientifically proven, peer reviewed god that gets us to the moon, helps fix us when we are crook and gives us great toys. It has our unwavering devotion.

[nomadpete]

I wouldn't take Packers experience as being representative afterlife information for the general public. He saw nothing. Perhaps because neither heaven nor hell wanted him.

[spacesailor]

one track .

My experience was as a child .

Then, another from that same ' experiment ' also had a death , that was recordered.

And so she claim's presidents.  On TV .

I had only my feelings/emotions.  & hearsay. 

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

Let's simplify it down, shall we.

 

Option 1: a near death experience with strange things happening in the brain can sometimes cause visions or dream sequences for some people, some times.

 

Option 2: a near death experience lets some people who believe in a god which is different and better than all the other gods that other people believe in (in fact all the others don't exist), see an afterlife which is limited to humans who believe in that god despite humans being biologically almost identical to a rat.

 

Now please check your belief system at the door, put on that logical problem solving pilot hat which I hope we all have, and choose.

[rgmwa]

The difference between being alive and not being alive is both subtle and strange. Who really knows what happens. I suspect the lights just go out, which seems a bit disappointing, however I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised one day.

 

Edited October 24 by rgmwa

[nomadpete]

Look up "John Cleese Life after Death" on youtoob.

 

A bit drawn out but unexpectedly interesting.

[facthunter]

Where is Heaven? What does it look like and what do you do there to fill eternity in and what sort of people are there with you? Many dreams and hallucinations are vivid and real . All that is written has the hand of man in it. Why trust that aspect of it.?  IF you believe that stuff FINE but don't FORCE it on me as most religions have been at some time or other.. . Freedom of Religion must include the option of freedom FROM religion. . Look how GOD comes up in WARS. The Europeans used to say It's Pointless TALKING to GW Bush as HE talks directly to god.. Numerous  groups  claim to be god's CHOSEN people. USA is God's Country etc. It gets so one group just cannot talk to another. Look at Countries where it's a THEOCRACY. Women have no rights to start with.  A bad sign. Nev

[onetrack]

No-ones forcing anything onto you, Nev. I just make it clear I believe there's an omnipotent God who made the Earth liveable for us as it is today, and he also made the Adamic creation. 

I have no problem with science continually proving that Gods Laws of Nature exist, and I believe that science reinforces the Biblical story - which is largely the story of the Adamic creation.

There are other life forms on this Earth that weren't made by God, I'm convinced of that - even human tribes.

 

But trying to convince me that a theory of an evolutionary process led to our exceptionally complex human bodies, and our life support systems from primordial ooze - all devised by an amateur scientist in an era where no major scientific instruments existed, and in an era when they didn't even understand the existence and propagation of germs and bacteria and diseases - is not something I can accept, because it is total fallacy.

I've mentioned this previously, and I'll repeat it. There are in excess of 200 life support systems in the human body. They are all necessary to sustain human life. If just one of those systems fails, we will die - not necessarily immediately, but we will certainly die.

For evolution to produce all 200 life support systems of the human body, in the correct order to sustain human life, is about as likely as me pulling 200 cards, numbered 1 to 200, blindly out of my pocket, in the correct numerical order.

 

Yet, supposedly intelligent and highly educated people continue to promote evolution as the basis for all science. It's simply not true. Evolutionary development may appear in some species, whereby they change to adapt to new conditions and circumstances - but nowhere can evolutionary science show us new life being formed from primordial ooze. It's all supposition.

 

The fact there are 100 religions all promoting different views of different Gods is simply testament to human failings, and all trying to fill a need that vast numbers of people have, to worship an omnipotent being, who supposedly controls many things.

I believe God controls very little on this Earth, he set the ball rolling, and if it wobbles or runs into an obstruction, then that's the Laws of Nature and Physics and Science at work.

 

The bottom line is that science has no answer for what lies beyond the grave, and has no answer, when someone who is recorded as clinically dead, comes back to life, and gives detailed and accurate descriptions of their lifeless body lying in a hospital bed, and clearly describing the actions the doctors and nurses carried out on them, while they were recorded as dead.

 

This is described in Dr Moodys book - and Moody was no "God-botherer", he was somewhat agnostic until he started regularly coming across patients with amazing stories of things that they saw when they were dead - and those stories contained repeated similar events, from people who had been brought up in a relatively wide range of religious belief systems.

 

I don't have a problem with people who don't believe in any kind of deity, but when I'm offered a potential free reward in the afterlife (of which I know little), simply by acknowledging and believing in the Biblical God and Jesus Christ and the Biblical story, then I'm not going to knock it back!

[rgmwa]

If there is an afterlife then I think we're all headed there, no matter what we believe. If there isn't, then we're all headed there too.

[spacesailor]

" near death " .

is not what happens.  you are past life & lifeless. 

Why put a body into a morgue ,

 if it's only near dead .(me) 

who would sign a death certificate .if not dead . (She).

Religion at 3 years old is not engraved into the mind .

A lot more weird dreams came from the opiate drugs that stopped our screaming. 

We weren't expected to survive. 

Possibly many didn't . We,  the victims have no history of those events .

But the " penicillin test " is in history. 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

The reason we are so complex is the incomprehensible amount of time we have evolved over. One break in the chain and we would not be here as individuals. We have Genes in common with many  creatures from way back. Plenty of living organisms are still evolving, even humans.. . Nev

[old man emu]

42 minutes ago, facthunter said:

We have Genes in common with many  creatures from way back.

Researchers have recently found a gene that is common to humans and chimpanzees, except for one single difference in one of the millions of Base pairs that make up the gene. They don't know how this difference creates its effects, but they have found that it is the gene that allows humans to use music and rhythm as a means to learn and remember information without writing. It is the way that for eons humans passed learning from generation to generation. Just think of Aboriginal songmen, and women using song to remember survival facts, mythology and history. 

 

The researchers have found that humans who don't carry that mutated gene are tone deaf and suffer other inabilities. It has been estimated that this gene mutated as long ago as 900,000 years ago and as a result was heavily involved in the social development of humans which has put us in our high position amongst animals. 

[Marty_d]

If evolution is too complex... who made god?

 

 

 

Edited October 28 by Marty_d

[onetrack]

That question is far beyond my pay scale and training, Marty! There's plenty our puny minds cannot grasp, when it come to what's on the other side of the curtain.

[Jerry_Atrick]

OK.. You know I am going to pick this apart... It is not anything poersonal, so please don't take it that way, but

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

just make it clear I believe there's an omnipotent God who made the Earth liveable for us as it is today, and he also made the Adamic creation. 

That is a very clear statement that this omnipotent god is here, today (otherwsie, the wording would be there was.. but then if it was a was, then there were limits to this "god's" power).

 

What evidence do you have to support this contention?

 

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

I have no problem with science continually proving that Gods Laws of Nature exist, and I believe that science reinforces the Biblical story - which is largely the story of the Adamic creation.

There are other life forms on this Earth that weren't made by God, I'm convinced of that - even human tribes.

If this god made the earth, then who would have made other forms of life on earth? Are you saying god made the earth and just Abrahamic people? And nothing else? If so, then it doesn't reinforce the bible, because isn't it in the bible that it is written that all the earth's creatures are a product of god, and than man shall have command over them:

 

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
John 1:3
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made"
Colossians 1:16
"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible"
Romans 11:36
"Everything comes from God; everything exists by his power; and everything is intended for his glory"

 

 

You can probably see, I am now starting to get sceptical.

 

But let's keep going.

 

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

But trying to convince me that a theory of an evolutionary process led to our exceptionally complex human bodies, and our life support systems from primordial ooze - all devised by an amateur scientist in an era where no major scientific instruments existed, and in an era when they didn't even understand the existence and propagation of germs and bacteria and diseases - is not something I can accept, because it is total fallacy.

I am guessing you are referring to Charles Dawrin in terms of his theory of evolution. Firstly, the wording should give you a hint. At the time, he developed a theory - he did not devise evolution, nor did he say it was the gospel (if you'll pardon the pun) truth. He came out and labelled it what it was - a theory. Like most science, it starts with an observation, then a theory is developed. Where possible, experiments are created to test the theory, and then at some stage, it is submitted to peer review. Sometimes what is theorised and then accepted as true is then later rebuked through further observation.

 

An amatuer scientist? I suggest you read a bit about  him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. Interestingly he wasn't an amatuer - he was working at universities as a researcher/scientist.. that makes him a pro. Beginning his theries in 1838 is hardly a time where no major scientific instruments existed. Yes, they were a long way off today, but they were a lot further ahead of, dare I say, biblical times, when there was what appears to be a deference to the mathematics of the time. Naturally, however, as time passed, more technological advances have been made, for example carbon dating, and yet, his theory of evolution survives today.. The atomic theory has undergone far more refinment and of course, so has physics.  And, they did understand germs and bacteria.. just not how to deal with it. In 1683, Leeuwenhoek wrote to the Royal Society in London about the small individual cells he found in teeth scrapings. He described some of the cells as spinning and others moving rapidly through water. This  is accepted as the earliest observation of bacteria.

 

But, even if bacteria and vuiruses were not yet discovered, how does that render a different type of science invalid? And interestingly, you beleive it is a total fallacy, but what proof do you havge of thatm except for a 2000 year old text that has little scientific or other evidence?

 

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

Yet, supposedly intelligent and highly educated people continue to promote evolution as the basis for all science. It's simply not true. Evolutionary development may appear in some species, whereby they change to adapt to new conditions and circumstances - but nowhere can evolutionary science show us new life being formed from primordial ooze. It's all supposition.

I am not sure the science is based on "primordal ooze". I think primordal ooze has served its purpose long ago. The But how is it simply not true? What's your evidence other than a gut feeling? Whereas, the theory has undergone continual peer scrutiny, and is still largely accepted by people who are keen to get a nobel proze for finding something else that it could be based on?

 

I believe Charnia was one of the first lifeforms to be identified on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnia

 

The development of mamals as the dominant species on the land is through to have been the result of a prehistoric squirrel or similar who fed off seeds and therefore didn't starve like the rest of the land animals, and that quite possibly, that is where we all emanate from today.. Wonder how many ribs he or she or they had: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/07/jurassic-squirrel-mammals-evolution-earth

 

You have not proffered (well as of yet) any evidence that is contrary nor anything to support your belief.

 

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

The fact there are 100 religions all promoting different views of different Gods is simply testament to human failings, and all trying to fill a need that vast numbers of people have, to worship an omnipotent being, who supposedly controls many things.

I believe God controls very little on this Earth, he set the ball rolling, and if it wobbles or runs into an obstruction, then that's the Laws of Nature and Physics and Science at work.

Therein lies the rub.,. what makes your view more correct than the many other religions that don't support your view? And if there is an omipetent god, why doesn't that god control things on earth or anywhere else thay god decided to play?  Yeah, he's not obliged to, and it is an easy cop out to say so, but how do you explain away the evidence of evolutionary biology without just saying you don't believe it? And, what evidence do you have that this god was a) alone in it all; b) omnipitent; and c) was even around? What you have is a theory, just liek Darwin's.. But I don't see the evidence nor the scientific expertise nor the scientific instruments used to validate the theory. At least Darwin had some evidence. The laws of nature and physicis seem to not quite agree with the handbook left by this so-called god.

 

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

The bottom line is that science has no answer for what lies beyond the grave, and has no answer, when someone who is recorded as clinically dead, comes back to life, and gives detailed and accurate descriptions of their lifeless body lying in a hospital bed, and clearly describing the actions the doctors and nurses carried out on them, while they were recorded as dead.

Actually, they do have a theory. The brain may generate brain oscillations that are involved in memory retrieval just before death, which could be the cause of people remembering things for a short time after they die. These oscillations could be similar to the ones reported in near-death experiences. The brain has been measured to be active after death, and while it can't be proven it does actually etch memory in the brain of actual things, it can explain why there are feelings of warmth, why they see a glow, etc. It can be argued that some people are observed to be clinically dead before they actually are. There are many potential explanations. It's easy to looky up referneces,

 

What do you mean we don't know what lies beyond the grave? Do we not eventually decompose? Ahh.. what about the "spirit"? What is the "spirit"? Our consciousness? Well, given the physcial evidence, it goes with us. Some of us are lucky to have it in tact until we die. Others, not so.. ever seen dimential sufferes, permanent vegetative state, and similar issues.. These are awful conditions, but a state of consciousness, or "spirit"  in ther terms most of us think?  Or maybe the spirit is just being alive.. When the chemcial reactions decay to the point that this can no longer be done, er, we go.. BTW, many people say when coming back from the dead, that it was dark and they couldn't see.  Again, just because we don't know if there is something beyond is not an argument for there being something beyond.. The physical evidence shows what happens - the biblical evidence - not so much.

 

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

This is described in Dr Moodys book - and Moody was no "God-botherer", he was somewhat agnostic until he started regularly coming across patients with amazing stories of things that they saw when they were dead - and those stories contained repeated similar events, from people who had been brought up in a relatively wide range of religious belief systems.

So, one person writes a book and this is real? Haven't you thought he may have just wanted to make money? Tell me how many scientists/doctors who are free from childhood conditioning of religion believe it versus those who don't... then we may have some evidence to look at.

 

On 25/10/2024 at 12:53 AM, onetrack said:

I don't have a problem with people who don't believe in any kind of deity, but when I'm offered a potential free reward in the afterlife (of which I know little), simply by acknowledging and believing in the Biblical God and Jesus Christ and the Biblical story, then I'm not going to knock it back

Seriously? Who has made you an offer of an afterlife simply for believing in a biblical story? And what is the reward? How many virgins?  76? Because that is the reward at least one Abrhamic relgion believes they are up for? Same god, apparently? Anyway, weren't the Jews the chosen ones.. you'll have to get in line.. 😉

 

Seriously, though, you're welcome to your beliefs, but the deingration of science and scientists because it doesn't fit your belief, it is hard to say that you don't have aproblem with people who don't believe.

 

As an ahtiest, I don't believe. I made that decision myself after looking at what was around, what religion coudl be used for, and how it didn't add up to me. My kids went to a christian school and often would question why does the RE class say one ting and the science class say another. I never imposed a religious belief on my childnren, nor imposed athiesm, agnostical stuff or anything else. One of my kids is a diest, and the other - to be honest, I am not sure.

 

I can understand why people do believe .. and I don't have a problem with it.. I believe stuff that is not all grounded in science, too.. I am even open to there being a person or being that started this all off, if someone can provide evidence. And of course, if our universe is so complex it required some intelligent life form to kick it all off, then presumably that intelligent life form was too intelligent to be created out of quantum physcial forces and some matter, so what created the creator of our creator? And what created the creator of the creator of our creator?

 

I know it won't change your mind, and I neither want to nor expect to.. but don't try and tell me that just because you believe it a) it is true and b) science doesn't know what it is talking about..  There is a prominent evolutionary biologist who says on the evidence, it is extrememly unlikely there is or was a god.. but it hasn't been entirely disproved either. Is it Richard Dawkins? Will have to look it up.

 

 

Edited October 28 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

Really, Jerry.

Every body is entitled to a belief structure that works for them.

You dont have to go to such great length to justify your own, nor to impose yours onto others.

We each will never know the answer (if there is one) until after we take our last breath.

 

Whatever the origin of matter and the  the universe is, it would totally amaze us wherever we stand on the god issue - we have no terms of reference nor the mental capacity to cope with any of the possibilities.

 

[spacesailor]

Thanks Jerry .

That. Is a dam good writeup .

That's why I never imposed religion onto my children. 

Now some of my grandies are not even  baptised.

Then again. That religious sect will not get any moneys 

Out of us . ( taxman gets it ) .

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

You dont have to go to such great length to justify your own, nor to impose yours onto others.

We each will never know the answer (if there is one) until after we take our last breath.

Yes..  after all, I may well be a nitwit: 

 

[facthunter]

Genes tell us more than the religions do. Their Manuscripts are compiled by MAN  and then INTERPRETED by more men, More than JUST ANOTHER "Belief" as that notorious anti Science and Suppository of wisdom T aBot famously said. He's one of the best examples of what  a science free Education???? can produce. We share Genes with very Basic life forms and this all happens over a period of TIME so great we really have no comprehension of it and we can't contemplate the size of the universe we are a miniscule Part of much of it is violent and hostile to life place.. Way back GODS were Invented to explain things and events in the absence of any better knowledge. Mostly the churches (religions) opposed the "Intrusion" of scientific revelations like  the earth is NOT flat and is not the centre of the Universe. Frankly a lot of them are just Cults and I'm amazed so many just accept them as Gospel truth in these days when  specialised knowledge is so much a part of the way we live. Conspiracy theorists thrive among us. People like Trump get traction!!!.  Nev

 

[nomadpete]

I wasn't taking sides and that was my only point.

 

 I am athiest. That works for me. But until science can provide concrete proof of what brought about the Initial Singularity, science cannot answer the eternal question, either.

Edited October 29 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

 Energy and mass are interchangeable. I'm and atheist too after being an agnostic after being  a very  active Christian till about my mid 20's. I can now think more clearly and not live burdened with unnecessary GUILT about my thoughts.  I'm also prepared to accept that I'm not so important that I must not die like most living things do. Humans are just another animal with  a brain  too capable for our own good but not capable of  handling perceived threats. I do however believe in ESP and premonitions which have saved my life and others.  Time might have something to do with that. It's like your brain gets there before you do . Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

14 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Really, Jerry.

Every body is entitled to a belief structure that works for them.

You dont have to go to such great length to justify your own, nor to impose yours onto others.

We each will never know the answer (if there is one) until after we take our last breath.

 

Whatever the origin of matter and the  the universe is, it would totally amaze us wherever we stand on the god issue - we have no terms of reference nor the mental capacity to cope with any of the possibilities.

 

Now that I have a keyboard, I will respond more fully..

 

Everyone is entitiled to a belief strcuture - I don't deny that.. And If i caused offience, I apologise... However I was not justifying my beleif system.. nor was I imposing it on anyone else. Statements were made that of beliefs that were stated as absolute fact  - which is that contex in which I quoted the snippets of the post.. For example the scientist (I still guess Darwin) was an amateur and devised evolution; They clearly are not true.. maybe the selection of "devised" was an accident, but in the context of "because it is total fallacy. , which is a statement of fact, makes me think it wasn't necessarily a mistake.

 

I merely pointed out mistakes of fact guiding a beleif.. I may have overdone it, but thats fine. The quip at getting a place in life after death was an attempt at humour (and a touch of sarcasm).

 

I am not using it to justify my beliefs, which I admit are beliefs, and am open to them being changed, with enough evidence apart from intuition.

 

@onetrack - If I caused offence, I truly apologise.