I am happy to say that I am still here, looking forward to the rest of my life, and glad to say that I have a 13-month-old granddaughter with the second one to be born about July 17, 2019.

I mean if all of a sudden scientists started bringing everybody that died back to life, then the world would soon become a very very crowded place, i’m not trying to be morbid about it, but it makes no logical sense to bring every person that dies back to life.

Also as regards to passing away and then coming back & the psychological implications it may have; i believe that if during an operation for example the blood of the heart is being warmed, but the person is technically dead, then the mind(being as powerful as it) is will recognize this and surely go into some form of shutdown, when the patient is awoken i believe the strange feeling can either be one of interruption of the minds shutdown process or the awakening of a brain that has already shut itself down. Think of it like a computer, the heart is still pumping via machines, the brain knows the heart is not pumping by itself so therefor thinks that it should enter some form of rest, or shutdown, so the mind shuts the rest of the body down, effectively, the person & brain is dead. Then an electric pulse is sent to the nerves in the heart(Restarting the computer) and all of a sudden it starts pumping again, and the brain has to turn itself back on again(Start up process), hence causing the strange feeling. I am no doctor, i am no scientist, i study engineering, but nevertheless this all makes logical sense to me, flame me if you must but i am always open to opinion.

[quote]HiEv said: “You might, yes, but you might add what is written in Harry Potter novels as well.”[/quote]

“To the well-organised mind, death is but the next great adventure.”

There is much wisdom in Harry Potter novels. That particular quote was from Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, Order of Merlin, First Class, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, I am a nerd. I probably shouldn’t have expressed my nerdliness quite so much, lest you lot take me less seriously, but there you have it.

The point being – and I don’t just get this from Dumbledore, I assure you, we just happen to have similar views) – I kind of agree with Spencer in being more excited for than afraid of death, but the thing is, it’s the last great adventure – no more afterward. There are so many things I want to do, adventures, big and small, I want to have, before I go, that I’m glad I’ve still got several decades left if all goes well.

Yay, Philip K. Dick!

I think you mean “transposed,” not “juxtaposed.” To juxtapose two things is to place them next to one another. To transpose them is to reverse their order (as in theater/theatre). Sheesh.

Simply put, science works. If you get sick or badly injured, do you go to a priest, or a doctor? And when you go to that doctor, do you use a vehicle brought to you by science, or by prayer? Science exists to test explanations of the facts like evolution, and evolution passes every test. So why do some people think that religion trumps science when it comes to evolution? Wishful thinking and blind faith seems to be the reasons why, and those are pretty poor reasons.

[quote]Zed Oud said: “If we didn’t believe that other people have a concious and that we are unique in the universe when it comes to ‘thinking’ and ‘existing’, wouldn’t there be a maelstrom of immorality, a lack of order, and no structure to society, (let alone society existing?)”[/quote]
Except for the first point, no, none of that prevents the existence of morality or social order and structure. Of course we need to believe that others are conscious feeling people, but it’s not like that requires “blind faith” to believe. One can simply observe the people around you to determine that their reactions require consciousness.

The fact is, there are many people who don’t believe that we are unique in the universe, and that has in no way prevented them from being moral, law abiding, pro-order, pro-society human beings. Go ahead and check out your prisons, you’ll find that they’re brimming with theists of various religions, not atheists. Then check out secular humanism and you can see that a belief in deities isn’t required for people to understand and want morality, ethics, and justice, though they want them to be based in reason, not dogma.

[quote]Zed Oud said: “‘Blind faith’ is neccesary for almost all aspects of life, because, I don’t know about you, but I don’t check every morning to see whether or not I’m still breathing and my heart is still pumping,”[/quote]
You seem to be rather confused. “Blind faith” requires believing in something based on no objective evidence, and there is plenty of objective evidence that people who don’t breathe or have brain function are dead. If you wake up in the morning, then that is your evidence that you’re still alive and breathing. Facts like that don’t require an MRI for verification. In other words, believing those things is most certainly not “blind faith”, rather, it’s called “not being a complete moron.”

[quote]Zed Oud said: “I assume in [i]blind faith[/i] that everything is what I percieve it to be to the best of my knowledge”[/quote]
Well, that would be a bad assumption. If you’ve ever been fooled by a magic trick then you know that everything you perceive is not entirely accurate. This is why objective testing and statistics are used in science, to help eliminate human errors in perception.

[quote]Zed Oud said: “And come on, don’t be so upset about religion, what did you meet a bad Catholic priest when you was witty-bitty boy.”[/quote]
Charming.

No, I’m not upset with religion, I’m upset with people. People who try to denigrate all of the useful work done in science which has, for the most part, bettered human life and understanding, all because they’re afraid that people finding facts and scientific explanations for those facts that don’t agree with their particular dogma will somehow destroy the tapestry of their religion and the belief in their particular deity. A deity who, for all practical purposes, seems to have no testable effect at all upon anything.

Now, if people want to believe their blind faith-based religion, fine. I have no problem with that. However when people try to force their religious beliefs in the guise of science upon others who may not share their faith, especially naïve children, then that’s just dishonest and wrong. If you want to believe that we have to pray to the moon to keep it from hitting the Earth and that babies are brought by storks, fine, just don’t insult me by telling me that’s science or try to force me to believe you if I happen to not share your silly blind faith.

The priests and pastors I knew back when I was a Christian all seemed to be fine people, and never did me any wrong, other than trying to shove their particular brand of religious nonsense and creationism down my pre-adolescent throat, most of which I swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Fortunately, at around 12 years old or so, I simply realized that the universe works exactly as it would if there were no gods. At that point I could no longer see a reason to believe gods exist, let alone worship them.

Still, I find it rather ironic that you claim that religion somehow prevents immorality in one sentence, and then allude to the numerous child molestations by Catholic priests in another sentence. If I thought your first claim had any merit, I might point out that your later attempt at an insulting dismissal of my motives actually damages your own argument. ;-)

Have a nice day!

Look, all religions claim to have some notion of what happens to the soul when you die, all claim to be right, however what they claim varies from religion to religion. That is a contradiction, so most or all religions must be (at least partially) wrong. None of them have any greater evidence supporting their claims regarding souls than any other religion either. Heck, there isn’t even good evidence a soul exists, so debating about what happens to your hypothetical soul when you die is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Your religion may make you feel like you have the answers, but that’s only due to blind faith, not objective evidence. Those kinds of claims are not particularly convincing to others who do not share your faith, unless they are the kind of people whom are easily swayed by people who speak with nothing more to support their argument than a blind faith that they’re right.