Aug 172012
 

Question by r u randy?: This one has got to go around again, doesn’t it?
(Asked prevoiusly)

Theists, God-believers… are you prepared to answer?

Human consciensious, (i.e., our ability to experience through our senses and reason with our minds,) has a yet undescovered physical and chemical nature to it. These questions of physics are likely to be solved or at least become much better understood following a few more decades of research.

How will you respond when science tells you with certainty that physical death includes a definitive end to consciensious? Will you still insist that “life after death” is possible? Will you continue to claim that there is a “soul” and a “spirit” with the ability to live on after all conscious ability is obliterated?

If consciousness depends on physical and chemical support to exist, (which it does,) then how could it ever exist without a living body to maintain it?

Best answer:

Answer by karen_03625
Being strong in my belief, I know it will never be proven that when we die, we just die…. I know for a fact, I will live on forever in the Kingdom with God.
question for you >> With your beliefs, how would you explain this theory to Jesus?

Give your answer to this question below!

Jul 262012
 
Physics and Consciousness
by Alin S

Question by : a question that probably doesnt have an answer?
this is very interesting if you read it. but you probably wont understand it. because im not entirely sure how to ask it so you understand but here it goes.
i believe that consciousness is caused by interaction of the particles in the brain in an organized way. (every component of the brain is a part of the big system) (different systems will create different sensations) for example if you are hurt you feel a pain sensation. if something good happens to you you get a happy sensation. all these different sensations are different possible types of consciousness. we always associate things that are good for us in the real world i.e. winning money with a happy sensation and the opposite. but what if things that were good for us in the real world happened to give the conscious part of us a bad sensation. physics would force us to continue doing what we are doing but in the theoretical world of consciousness we would be in pain. turns out it didnt happen that way. the only explanation i can think of is that there is some kind of cosmic corespondent between “good” in the “real world” and good sensations that we get in the conscious world.

believe me, if you were me you would know exactly what im talking about but im hoping you can too.
and btw ive ruled out the possibility of god(s)
but what if a system that does work happens to give the observer a bad sensation anyway. you think well then the system would correct itself (like you would if you had a bad sensation so you have a good one but what if the bad sensation that the system is feeling isnt necessarily a trigger to do something about it?
thinking about it now, maybe a good sensation actually comes from the lack of need to make a change in the physical world.
like i said i dont know how to tell you what im talking about. reading your answers i know what you think im saying but you actually are understanding me wrongly. what weve got here is a failure to communicate. thats my fault
no… like i said any system that is able to make a computation is conscious… intelligence, artificial intelligence, dog’s brains, cats, flies, and anything like that. and because all of those work differently, even amongst themselves they create different types and LEVELS of consciousness. a dog sees the world very differently from us.
and it seems to me like you are saying that there can be consciousness without computation. let me ask you something have you been doing drugs lately?

Best answer:

Answer by Juicy
It’s simple actually. Action and re-action. We aren’t born knowing that winning money(as in your example) is a good thing. We learn the value of money, we learn reactions from the action.

What do you think? Answer below!

Jun 122012
 

Question by haringmarumo: when a woman you like tells you that she doesnt want to get married or to have kids in the future?
what do you say, like if you just reached that point or topic in your casual conversation and a 20 year old woman tells you she would rather tour the world and have an adventure of a lifetime and that if she was ever going to be your lover then she doesnt like to get married and would not like to move in with you because she wants mystery and the fun of it, like can you stick with that kind of situation if you loved a woman?
does she become more interesting as she continuosly insists that she likes to be single.

Best answer:

Answer by abominusprime
well if she keeps insisting that shes single then you’re not really dating her, are you? in that case, you’re wasting your time. forget it and move on.

Give your answer to this question below!

Jan 062012
 

Question by Seeker: If a person doesn’t want to discuss his beliefs or have them challenged, is it okay to do so anyway?
Here, in the religion section of Answers, we expect to have our ideas challenged. But in the world at large, people often don’t like to defend or explain their beliefs; perhaps because they’re not good at debate or because their faith is based more on visceral rather than logical reasons and is therefor hard to defend with logic. In other word, sometimes one’s faith is personal or private in nature.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an agnostic and believe agnosticism is the only truly logical choice; given the more-than-meets-the-eye strangeness of reality revealed by quantum physics. A world defined by quantum probabilities that collapse to a single state UPON OBSERVATION. Human consciousness affects reality at the quantum level. With this element of the mystical revealed by quantum physics, the possibility of a cosmic God (not one of religion) seems more viable.

Many people seem to think that it’s okay to challenge the beliefs of those who don’t want to be challenged. Do you? And why?
Movedby . . .

A cosmic God may simply be an intelligence woven into physical reality. A life-force, if you will. The role of consciousness in quantum physics implies this mystical element.

A religious God is one defined by a religion; such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam. These religions impute and attribute moral and spiritual qualities and demands of or from God. Most importantly, these religions claim exclusive authority between God and humanity. I have problems with this.

Perhaps the best way to explain the problems with the God of religions is to use 2 of Albert Einstein’s quotes:

“My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God.”

“Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust – we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.”
Occam’s Pig.

Your comment about agnostics and atheists is just plain wrong.

The agnostic position is that there is insufficient direct evidence for OR against God, so making a choice, EITHER way is abandoning logic in favor of faith.

The atheist position is that the existence of God is a non-question. He simply does NOT exist. Period. They feel it is no more illogical to deny God than the tooth fairy. There is no evidence to suggest a tooth fairy . . . and God, to them, is the same.

I’d be atheist — if it weren’t for some of the things science points out. Things like:

1.) Like the interplay of consciousness and physical reality at the quantum level.

2.) The mathematical odds against biogenesis (life springing from inanimate organic matter).

Given the scale of time and space manifest in the universe, I can concede that the odds for biogenesis, though great, are not impossible. However, the intrusion of consciousness into quantum physics is mystical indeed!!

Best answer:

Answer by vinslave
Anyone can challenge my beliefs any day, and they’ll either get the logic of what I believe or they won’t… no skin off of my nose.

_()_

Add your own answer in the comments!

Nov 072011
 

Question by frozen-heart: Doesn’t this sound like a scientific experiment?
I mean people now are “dead”, and when they get back, they tell the doctors what was happening when they were unconscious. Now, I know that lights and “Angels” (In Islam, they are the same; We Muslims believe, as the Qur’an states, that Angels are created from light) maybe due to more Carbon dioxide in the blood, but what science can’t explain is the fact that those people tell others what was happening when they were “Dead”. I don’t base my knowledge of God on such things. In fact, I don’t even need the Qur’an to know that there is a God, but the evidence is overwhelming, especially now that there are very known non-religious Neuroscientists talking about out-of-body consciousness.

Now let’s get to the question.

In Physics, we know that Dark Matter and Energy must exist, although we don’t see them; we know them by their effects, but nobody says: “We don’t see them, so they don’t exist”. Doesn’t the same thing apply here: We don’t see the out-of-body-consciousness, but we have its effects. When a Doctor is faced by his ex-”dead” patient telling him about everything that happened when he was Physically unconscious, why do you think we should eliminate the option that an out-of-body consciousness can be responsible for that? In fact, it’s the only comprehensive explanation.

Best answer:

Answer by The Least of Jesus’ Brothers
We cannot see/measure the effects. It comes down to a bare assertion fallacy.

No fMRI testing has backed up an un-dead person’s claims.

Key science words here are:
1. Falsifiable (these claims are not)
2. Verifiable (these claims are not)
3. Repeatable (good luck with this one)

What do you think? Answer below!

Mar 232011
 

Question by squggily line: What would you call someone who doesnt belive in god but believes in astrology?
i find no sense in religion but i find so much truth in the zodiac, so is my religion astrology? or something or am i an atheist that belives in astrology? the only thing that cant be proven that i belive in is astrology so what am i?

Best answer:

Answer by Womanizer
Astrologer

What do you think? Answer below!

Jan 142011
 

Crazy Voodoo Cat 3
voodoo

Image by Cecilia Espinoza

David Bentley would like to assure you he doesn’t idolize Beckham
David Bentley has long been billed as the next David Beckham and for just as long, he’s come up short of those crushing expectations. And now, as Spurs ship Bentley out to Birmingham City on loan and bring Davey Becks in to train with them, Bentley would like to assure you that he does not, in fact, idolize Goldenballs. From the Guardian : They have the same initials, both are renowned for their …
Read more on Dirty Tackle

The 50 Weirdest Superstitions in Sports
We’ve all seen it before: A football player who warms up the same way every single game; a basketball player who makes the same motion with his hands before every free throw he attempts, a hockey goalkeeper who knocks his stick against the side posts before every face off.  Superstitions and rituals like these have been a part of sports since we started playing them. People have been wondering …
Read more on Bleacher Report

Nov 212010
 

Question by AlieP: What religion besides Wicca or Witchcraft doesn’t threaten women for being lower in class?
I have the feeling that only women know about certain topics, such as witchcraft, that I would not like most people to know. I’m talking especially people who claim Christianity and practice meditation (or the like..) at home.

Best answer:

Answer by Fireball
isalm and hindus….jewish? maybe

What do you think? Answer below!

Oct 142010
 

Why Doesn’t He Call?
Women love this book! With personalized customer service to answer all their questions refunds are practically NON-existant! I work with clients on a personal basis. I do all the work. Just bring traffic. http://why-he-doesnt-call.com/affiliates.html
Why Doesn’t He Call?

Cataclysmic Wow Gold – The First Updated Wow Gold Guide!
Check out this Red Hot Wow Gold guide and see how well it converts with secrets for the new expansion that people are going Mad about! Try us out and start making Huge CB cheques!
Cataclysmic Wow Gold – The First Updated Wow Gold Guide!

Aug 302010
 

Question by ina_nutshell: Jesus a recycled pladgerized copy of older pagan mystery cult dieties? What youd church doesn’t want you hear!
“We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.”
- St. Ignatius Loyola
A fair number of people are aware of the pagan origins of many Christian rituals. A couple of the better known ones are a celebration around the winter solstice that involves symbols of life (evergreens in the dead of winter), and a celebration around the spring equinox that involves fertility symbols (rabbits, eggs).

So, surely, if I was talking about a God in the middle east that was born of a virgin birth on December 25th, was visited by shepherds and magi, traveled the countryside, performed miracles including casting out devils, healing the lame and restoring sight to the blind, had a group of twelve disciples, was known as the “Light of the World,”
of whom it was said that if you drink of his blood you will have eternal salvation, who was persecuted, had a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb, rose from the dead around the spring equinox, was worshipped by the Roman Empire and whose worship spread far around the world, whose followers worshipped on Sunday, believed in baptism and were led by a pope who ruled from Vatican hill and celebrated a sacrament of bread and wine with candles, incense and holy water, I suspect you’d know who exactly who I was talking about. Yes, I’m talking about Mithra.

Mithra (or Mithras) was first worshipped as a minor God in Persia as long ago as 2000 BCE, and later as a God who lived in human form from 272 to 208 BCE. Mithra was the God of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, and it was not until 358 CE that followers of Mithra began to be persecuted under the new state religion, Christianity. Here’s another story:
“In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven.”
Again, I suspect you know who I’m talking about – that’s right, Apollonius, who died around 98 CE. The quote is from Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms.
There are similarities with many other previous and concurrent Gods as well. A couple of other names that might be familiar include Dionysus, Osiris, and Krishna, but there are many more. Jesus and these other Gods often fall under a broad category author Robert Price calls a “mythic hero archetype,” where “a divine hero’s birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.”
The notion of virgin birth, god incarnated into human form, heaven, hell, baptism, eucharist, eternal life, the soul, salvation, one god, worship of sun-gods on Sun-day, you name it, it’s all been done before. Sorry to say, there is not much that is new or unique about Jesus. Like other successful religions, Christianity gained the authorization of a powerful state and was institutionalized.
“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.”
- attributed to Carl Sagan
Ultimately there is no solid evidence for the existence of Jesus. No one who was alive at that time wrote of him. Jesus starts showing up one or two centuries later in Christian literature, as the movement builds. Even Paul, who was the main promoter of Christianity, seems curiously unaware of the miracles Jesus supposedly performed or even of the basic events of Jesus’ life. As a salesman, these would have made some great selling points, but he doesn’t seem to know about them. The gospels tell us that Jesus was widely known among the “multitudes” from numerous cities and that even high ranking officials like Herod and Pilate supposedly knew of him, yet somehow the historians of the day were unaware of his existence.
The gospels themselves do not seem to be eyewitness accounts. The gospel of Luke actually admits this up front. They were written in the third person (hearsay) at least 40 years after the supposed events. John may have been written as late as 90 years after the “fact.” And they come to us through the hands of Christian scribes who were well known (even Christian scholars admit this) to commit fraud to further their cause.

Best answer:

Answer by chained6002
Doesn’t the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?

http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers