THE AFTERLIFE
- Thread starter .Nicoya510::
- Start date
MEXICANCOMMANDO said:
1) i don't know how matter could always exist but Scientist swear this is truth. Remember it can't be destroyed or made. Yet it can phase in and out of existance. 
2) Yup regulators. Locc knows.
2) Yup regulators. Locc knows.
I was replying in in regard to your skepticism. I assumed since you feel no one has any way of proving any source means that you are an atheist. If you do believe in God or in the soul, then why such skepticism?
That is what I mean. We ended up in different places cuz we have taken birth in different forms. Yes, in a general sense we are all similar. We eat, sleep, mate and defend. This "magic" you refer to is often known as the soul. You are correct that the soul is the same in a tree and a man. Soul consitutes a living entity, not just humans.
Are you implying that you do in fact believe in the eternal existence of the soul? If so, I am curious to know how this fits into your skepticism of religion in general. I apologize for jumping the gun on this, but I see it common for one who is so skeptical about religion to typically be a believer in the "you die and that's it" philosophy.
Ok then, my question is why were you speaking on this when the topic of the thread is about afterlife? I was speaking in regard to the topic because I assumed you were speaking in regard to it as well. This thread is not about whether religion is really God-word or not. So when you came out with all this skepticism about religion I assumed you were speaking in regards to the afterlife. And because afterlife constitutes the existence of the eternal soul, I addressed that point, assuming you were in negation of it as well. Does this not seem reasonable? If it doesn't, please explain.
Refer to the thread topic. I was simply speaking in assumption that the thread topic was the actual conversation topic. My bad for assuming I guess...
That is what I mean. We ended up in different places cuz we have taken birth in different forms. Yes, in a general sense we are all similar. We eat, sleep, mate and defend. This "magic" you refer to is often known as the soul. You are correct that the soul is the same in a tree and a man. Soul consitutes a living entity, not just humans.
Are you implying that you do in fact believe in the eternal existence of the soul? If so, I am curious to know how this fits into your skepticism of religion in general. I apologize for jumping the gun on this, but I see it common for one who is so skeptical about religion to typically be a believer in the "you die and that's it" philosophy.
Ok then, my question is why were you speaking on this when the topic of the thread is about afterlife? I was speaking in regard to the topic because I assumed you were speaking in regard to it as well. This thread is not about whether religion is really God-word or not. So when you came out with all this skepticism about religion I assumed you were speaking in regards to the afterlife. And because afterlife constitutes the existence of the eternal soul, I addressed that point, assuming you were in negation of it as well. Does this not seem reasonable? If it doesn't, please explain.
Refer to the thread topic. I was simply speaking in assumption that the thread topic was the actual conversation topic. My bad for assuming I guess...
define "good" and "bad". If there is no punishment then why are you prone to suffer? Why have you taken birth here at all?
Which part of this corpse are you now?
When the sun's rays are coming through your window, is it so much important to know where exactly the sun is situated? Regardless, you know that the sun is there. Like sunshine is the symptom of the sun globe, consciousness is the symptom of the soul. If you negate your own concsiousness, then why should I do otherwise? Why should I even regard these things you say?
First of all, why even bring up whether animals have a soul or not if you do not accept that a soul exists at all?
Still I will answer your question... It is not a fact that only humans have a soul. Soul means life. If it lives it IS soul, not that it has a soul. It is soul. You, as a human, have the developed consciousness necessary to understand these things, whereas animals don't. That is the distinction between human and animal life. Constitutionally, consciousness is pure, but it is only used to the capacity of the body it indwells. That means the soul of a man or a dog is the same, only that one form reflects that consciousness somewhat more clearly than the other.
In this case, modern science has no position. Therefore, "discovering science" has nothing to do with your inacceptance of the soul, because science cannot prove that it does or does not exist. Just like the existence of God, science cannot touch. Oftenly because of that they jump to conclusions that because material science cannot observe it, it does not exist. They want to make all things under their jurisdiction. That is scientists trying to be God. Think about that. That is atheists trying to be what they deny exists. And then they have the audacity to continue flapping their lips all kinds of nonsense.
Unfortunately, you are not all knowing, therefore you have no power to see such "signs". It is not that you are completely without capability to see them, but that your vision is impaired.
But first just try to understand the logic...
choose your premise:
1) knowledge comes from ignorance.
2) knowledge comes from knowledge.
If you accept 1, then we can speak nothing but ignorance. Therefore, why continue?
If you accept 2, then understand that you are only somewhat knowledgable. Therefore, you cannot say that you are the reservoir of knowledge. Furthermore, you must accept that such a thing exists in some form or another. God is the reservoir of knowledge. You cannot account for your mere existence. But you must accept based on this premise that such an account exists, and that such an existence is never devoid of knowledge.
Which part of this corpse are you now?
When the sun's rays are coming through your window, is it so much important to know where exactly the sun is situated? Regardless, you know that the sun is there. Like sunshine is the symptom of the sun globe, consciousness is the symptom of the soul. If you negate your own concsiousness, then why should I do otherwise? Why should I even regard these things you say?
First of all, why even bring up whether animals have a soul or not if you do not accept that a soul exists at all?
Still I will answer your question... It is not a fact that only humans have a soul. Soul means life. If it lives it IS soul, not that it has a soul. It is soul. You, as a human, have the developed consciousness necessary to understand these things, whereas animals don't. That is the distinction between human and animal life. Constitutionally, consciousness is pure, but it is only used to the capacity of the body it indwells. That means the soul of a man or a dog is the same, only that one form reflects that consciousness somewhat more clearly than the other.
In this case, modern science has no position. Therefore, "discovering science" has nothing to do with your inacceptance of the soul, because science cannot prove that it does or does not exist. Just like the existence of God, science cannot touch. Oftenly because of that they jump to conclusions that because material science cannot observe it, it does not exist. They want to make all things under their jurisdiction. That is scientists trying to be God. Think about that. That is atheists trying to be what they deny exists. And then they have the audacity to continue flapping their lips all kinds of nonsense.
Unfortunately, you are not all knowing, therefore you have no power to see such "signs". It is not that you are completely without capability to see them, but that your vision is impaired.
But first just try to understand the logic...
choose your premise:
1) knowledge comes from ignorance.
2) knowledge comes from knowledge.
If you accept 1, then we can speak nothing but ignorance. Therefore, why continue?
If you accept 2, then understand that you are only somewhat knowledgable. Therefore, you cannot say that you are the reservoir of knowledge. Furthermore, you must accept that such a thing exists in some form or another. God is the reservoir of knowledge. You cannot account for your mere existence. But you must accept based on this premise that such an account exists, and that such an existence is never devoid of knowledge.
