Science proves life after death

[_SPG]

Scientific methodologies have helped us to experience the invisible. Many things like spirit or God are not well defined to really test to see if they exist. Science doesn't have areas it is not allowed to evaluate. If spirits really exist it is a question science could answer. That it hasn't yet is because most believers have not defined it well and so run to every hole to hide in.

So in a way, you are agreeing with me, that science is really just something born out of religion and is an improved method of looking at things.

See, Truth Happens. There is no way around it. If something happens, there rules and laws were followed. Science takes a closer look at SOME of things. Science tells us, no two snow flakes are exactly alike. Even though every snowflake is labelled a snowflake, that the subtle differences in water and environment allows that every snowflake is unique.

Now humans are sort of the same. Mormons are a product of group of common characteristics, as you said. But no two are exactly the same, but not one broke the rules in becoming that. But. . . . which one is right? Which snowflake is the right snowflake?

Every experience makes a person a little bit different and thus a little more unique. To a UT snowboarder, every snowflake probably looks that same. And in a scientific perspective, people are the same too, so sort. Because science looks for things in common, mostly. Like, we all have a brain, eyes, hearts, etc. But to the people, it makes a different to them whether you are Mormon or Catholic. Such differences can have a major impact relationships.

Some atheist science promoters think that we should all just be blended up into a beige skin tone, while some religions want to hold onto identity.

Ultimately, identity is what it is all about. How a person feels about who they think they are is = sign of why we do what we do.

I continue to insist that modern science groupies want to take away too much identity and put us all in jump suites.

And there are dozens of area of science that people are basically forbidden to go.

[_Themis]

So in a way, you are agreeing with me, that science is really just something born out of religion and is an improved method of looking at things.

No science wasn't born out of religion. Many of the early science was done by people who belonged to a religion, but I wouldn't give the credit for everything a person does to the religion they belong to. No religion came up with the rules and methodologies we see today in science.

Some atheist science promoters think that we should all just be blended up into a beige skin tone, while some religions want to hold onto identity.

What atheists? I have never heard this before.

I continue to insist that modern science groupies want to take away too much identity and put us all in jump suites.

What science groupies? I have never heard this before.

And there are dozens of area of science that people are basically forbidden to go.

What areas and who is forbidding people to go there? You make a lot of statements I have never heard before. Please provide references for your claims above. I know there are ethics in science about what kind of experiments we should not be allowed to do. I know there is concerns about A.I. research in the military and allowing machines to make decision on killing in the battle field. But I sense these may not be the kinds of things you are referring to.

[_SPG]

I have never heard this before.

And I don't fault you for that. I don't walk the normal paths.

I'm not blaming science for the restrictions. As you pointed out, it's unethical to do a lot of research that could otherwise be done. Including some stem cell research, mind control, and such.

But like merfolk. Some very interesting evidence has recently come to light and the science community absolutely crushed it. Faith healing is crushed at every possible point, even through evidence of its power is revealed in almost every scientific study. And divining, a method and science using intuition to get otherwise hidden information. Though people use it everyday, and have very accurate results, it doesn't pass the doubt blind tests. I think I know why, but that isn't here nor there.

In general, I love science and use it everyday. But, it has become a weapon of mass mind control. Not to so say religion doesn't do the same, because it does. But who controls it? I personally am aware of a least two life changing invention that have been silenced/crushed by corporate greed. The science community is a cult, and they have leaders and propaganda. That doesn't make science wrong, but the people that control the technology are just as compelled to control the world as religion is.

You mentioned early people contributing to science, but you don't credit religion. That is because you really have a distrust and hate for religion. If you found a child playing in the street, you probably would give any credit to the mother. But everything is connected. There are a lot of "things" that people do that might not be tried directly to religion. Like when I pee, I find a quiet place where no one is looking, and pee. That I pee is purely natural, but that I have modesty is more religious.

The early scientists, like Galileo were actually quiet religious. Their education was probably made possible by monks. I think written language can be traced to religious intentions. The whole of ancient Egypt was built upon religion and the idea of resurrection, even though they have awesome science. When the religion died, so did the culture and the science was lost.

[_Themis]

But like merfolk. Some very interesting evidence has recently come to light and the science community absolutely crushed it. Faith healing is crushed at every possible point, even through evidence of its power is revealed in almost every scientific study. And divining, a method and science using intuition to get otherwise hidden information. Though people use it everyday, and have very accurate results, it doesn't pass the doubt blind tests. I think I know why, but that isn't here nor there.

This is just an assertion. I call BS. I asked for references. CFR. Please provide actual evidence the scientific community has done any of this.

You mentioned early people contributing to science, but you don't credit religion. That is because you really have a distrust and hate for religion. If you found a child playing in the street, you probably would give any credit to the mother. But everything is connected. There are a lot of "things" that people do that might not be tried directly to religion. Like when I pee, I find a quiet place where no one is looking, and pee. That I pee is purely natural, but that I have modesty is more religious.

Sure you may have been taught your modesty from religion, but religion didn't teach the methods and rules we see in science. Religion has even done a lot to hinder science. The dark ages were all about a religion hindering scientific discovery.

The early scientists, like Galileo were actually quiet religious. Their education was probably made possible by monks. I think written language can be traced to religious intentions. The whole of ancient Egypt was built upon religion and the idea of resurrection, even though they have awesome science. When the religion died, so did the culture and the science was lost.

I am not aware where Egyptian religion taught or came up with the rules of science. I understand religion has been a big part of human life long before civilization came along. Religion is basically the beliefs and practices of an individual or group. I just don't see where it came up with the rules of science we have today. Certainly not from the Bible or Koran.

[_SPG]

I am not aware where Egyptian religion taught or came up with the rules of science. I understand religion has been a big part of human life long before civilization came along. Religion is basically the beliefs and practices of an individual or group. I just don't see where it came up with the rules of science we have today. Certainly not from the Bible or Koran.

It is because of your hatred of religion.

This whole argument reminds me of a common legal battle, where the wife works to support the husband going to school, and then once he gets the degree he divorces her. While he implies that he did all the work to get his degree, the wife claims she helped.

I don't have prove anything here. I know the idea of merfolk is wild, but when a man actually provided evidence the science crushed him. Personally, I think the Navy shut him down, so maybe it wasn't "science."

I wasn't there to build in Egypt, (or at least that I remember.) But to say religion didn't build Egypt is just plain D'Nile.

[_Themis]

I am not aware where Egyptian religion taught or came up with the rules of science. I understand religion has been a big part of human life long before civilization came along. Religion is basically the beliefs and practices of an individual or group. I just don't see where it came up with the rules of science we have today. Certainly not from the Bible or Koran.

It is because of your hatred of religion.

This whole argument reminds me of a common legal battle, where the wife works to support the husband going to school, and then once he gets the degree he divorces her. While he implies that he did all the work to get his degree, the wife claims she helped.

I don't have prove anything here. I know the idea of merfolk is wild, but when a man actually provided evidence the science crushed him. Personally, I think the Navy shut him down, so maybe it wasn't "science."

I wasn't there to build in Egypt, (or at least that I remember.) But to say religion didn't build Egypt is just plain D'Nile.

I don't hate religion, but I see when people have no substance they always run away from backing up their assertions, while at the same time saying things like I hate religion to justified why they wont put up. All talk, no substance.

[_SPG]

I don't hate religion, but I see when people have no substance they always run away from backing up their assertions, while at the same time saying things like I hate religion to justified why they wont put up. All talk, no substance.

Religion doesn't have to be "substantiated."

God is an invisible force that rules the universe. It's what make laws like gravity, motion, and motivates all living things. But we don't actually understand it, we do see it. It's alive and it communicates with it's creations. But whether we call it Osiris, Zeus, Jesus, Thor, Buddha, or what ever is just our best effort to describe it. But its something more then what just one person can describe. Its a what causes us to want to be live together, and what causes us to want our personal space. And the balance of it might different from people to people. For example, in post Victorian Era morals, its a sin to see a woman naked, but almost some Eskimo culture, they might be offended if you don't ask to have sex with the wife. But, whatever makes the culture work is alive.

Like the science of a transistor, there are ratios between the gate current and main current. You can create any number of combinations to get the current you want, but there is a science that makes it work. But. . . .with God, that science is alive and conscious. It seeps into people to the point a soldier might throw himself onto a bomb to save the lives of his friends.

But it is a science. Like, you cannot make a community if people are too selfish. And you cannot have independence if people are forced to give back to the community. There is a lot of leeway to remain functional, but still, rules apply. That is why religion has been such a big part of life. Religion a is vessel for the group consciousness to take form. Modern society has managed to take on some of the functions. There might even become sort of umbrella religion that requires universal human rights, but it will require a set of beliefs.

[_Themis]

I don't hate religion, but I see when people have no substance they always run away from backing up their assertions, while at the same time saying things like I hate religion to justified why they wont put up. All talk, no substance.

Religion doesn't have to be "substantiated."

You need to back up your assertions. Like say merpeople or religion giving birth to science. If you really believe this what is your evidence for such beliefs? I suspect you don't have any which is why you run away when asked to back up what you claims.

[_SPG]

You need to back up your assertions. Like say merpeople or religion giving birth to science. If you really believe this what is your evidence for such beliefs? I suspect you don't have any which is why you run away when asked to back up what you claims.

No. I don't have to back them up. I can believe what I want, without defending it. But. . . .

Let's try this. I believe in unicorns.

Ok, why? Because we have pictures and legends of unicorns. Even if unicorns are not physically real, they are spiritually real. They have influence. Children love to think of unicorns and use them to ride into imaginary realms. And not just children, but adults too. Adults love what unicorns stand for, their beauty, their mystery, their emotional security.

But, why do I believe in unicorns. I believe in something I call the "5th dimension." Now, this isn't necessarily a real scientific dimension. It is a spiritual, idealistic realm, made mostly emotional energy. Emotional creatures can exist here, they can exist in humans in emotional form. They can pass from human to human through the subconscious, or through art or story form. What they do is influence humans. . . . they make them feel things, feel safe, feel brave, etc.

Fear creatures can move the same way. Now, most of what these creatures do is also in tune with what the human has experienced.

Now, I can see why you might say I'm full of crap and that unicorns don't really exist, but I can explain with a fairly decent level of accuracy how feelings, such as love and fear can spread through human with these ideas. My subconscious already uses similar symbols to communicate with me in dreams. So I have a decent confidence that any child I meet will respond in some form to the idea of unicorns.

So, I don't need to back up my belief that unicorn are real, because I can explain how their influence is real. And you might say, "It's just a figment of imagination that doesn't mean anything." But, obviously, it does have influence. Would you read stories of spiders killing their mates to your children? No, that is scary, but it is physically real.

My point, I don't have to back up my beliefs to have them be effective. They can be effective, regardless of the reality or science behind them. Belief in God saves thousands of alcoholics, regardless of whether God is real or not.

[_LittleNipper]

You need to back up your assertions. Like say merpeople or religion giving birth to science. If you really believe this what is your evidence for such beliefs? I suspect you don't have any which is why you run away when asked to back up what you claims.

No. I don't have to back them up. I can believe what I want, without defending it. But. . . .

Let's try this. I believe in unicorns.

Ok, why? Because we have pictures and legends of unicorns. Even if unicorns are not physically real, they are spiritually real. They have influence. Children love to think of unicorns and use them to ride into imaginary realms. And not just children, but adults too. Adults love what unicorns stand for, their beauty, their mystery, their emotional security.

But, why do I believe in unicorns. I believe in something I call the "5th dimension." Now, this isn't necessarily a real scientific dimension. It is a spiritual, idealistic realm, made mostly emotional energy. Emotional creatures can exist here, they can exist in humans in emotional form. They can pass from human to human through the subconscious, or through art or story form. What they do is influence humans. . . . they make them feel things, feel safe, feel brave, etc.

Fear creatures can move the same way. Now, most of what these creatures do is also in tune with what the human has experienced.

Now, I can see why you might say I'm full of ____ and that unicorns don't really exist, but I can explain with a fairly decent level of accuracy how feelings, such as love and fear can spread through human with these ideas. My subconscious already uses similar symbols to communicate with me in dreams. So I have a decent confidence that any child I meet will respond in some form to the idea of unicorns.

So, I don't need to back up my belief that unicorn are real, because I can explain how their influence is real. And you might say, "It's just a figment of imagination that doesn't mean anything." But, obviously, it does have influence. Would you read stories of spiders killing their mates to your children? No, that is scary, but it is physically real.

My point, I don't have to back up my beliefs to have them be effective. They can be effective, regardless of the reality or science behind them. Belief in God saves thousands of alcoholics, regardless of whether God is real or not.

I would rather doubt that anyone would die for a belief in unicorns. And yet clearly people have died for their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. And it could be argued that unicorns will not empower anyone to excell in anything because they do not exist --- let alone have power to save anyone. Yet, people have been empowered to give up drink, drugs and sexual abuse and to by the power of the Holy Spirit.