Anyone care to help me out with an essay?

[RedSided]

Assess how far belief in an after life is based on convincing evidence :D

[drache]

that's your essay subject?
wow!
what do they consider evidence?
I don't imagine that there is any evidence that's scientifically admissible
isn't it all based on reports?
I do remember reading a book once
I think it was titled "the past lives of children"
it did mention some incidences of children being able to describe places they had not been to in this life-time
that really is the extend of evidence - people having knowledge that they couldn't have acquired this time around
of course this kind of evidence is more convincing to some people than it would be to scientific researchers who will reject any evidence that cannot be empirically proven and repeated in controlled settings - lmao
good luck with your essay

[Stefan-A]

Rhea already asked the most relevant question; What's considered evidence in this case? Anything that convinced someone to believe in an afterlife, or scientific evidence? Or should the essay be about evidence versus faith versus hope? :D Do those that believe in an afterlife do it because they have seen some evidence (by any definition) or do they believe in it because it offers them hope?

[RedSided]

The evidence can be Religious evidence(which is only relevant for believers of course, and can't realy be considered convincing to an atheist or a sceptic). It could of course be considered historical evidence too, assuming you believe our dating of the bible and other religious texts to be correct and belive that at least some religious teachings are true.

Then there is personal experience, ghost stories and the like, which so far have not be scientifically proven.Then again just because we can't see it it does not mean it is non existent.The oxygen in the air sustains us but we cannot see it with the naked eye. Yet it has been scientifically proven .Perhaps it is just a matter of time before science makes a breakthrough.

Very confusing topic, this is school work :p . A-level Religious studies.

Please excuse my punctuation, not an A-level english student.

[Stefan-A]

Awful lot of assumptions there. :)

You don't have to see anything to prove it exists, everything that does exist is detectable. But you have to prove it exists nonetheless.

Science doesn't exclude the possibility of anything except the supernatural.

[Cazador]

Tim,

I'm not a "believer." I used to be... I went to church (and paid attention) every week for about 20 years. With that said, my mother-in-law, who is a devout Catholic and whom I respect very much, had a near-death experience and is completely convinced that (as I recall), she spoke with someone who had already died while she was near death.

Now days, I tend to dismiss such stories as the subconscious relaxing and recalling what one wants or expects to see (similar to, but not the same as, a dream). Of course, I have no proof of this either... it's not something I've ever explored, but I think your report will make interesting reading, and wish you much success :). I'll see if I can find the details of her story to support your assignment. Best,

Rick

[stonyloam]

Well that is a tough one. Most religions, and belief in the afterlife rely on faith. Faith being the belief in something without evidence. If someone were to show hard evidence of an afterlife, then you would have fact, and faith would not be necessary, and the afterlife would become a part of life. If faith is the foundation of belief than evidence is irrelevant (or maybe even destructive). Who the heck thought up that theme? My head hurts, I’m going down to see if the snakes are out!

[Stefan-A]

Well that is a tough one. Most religions, and belief in the afterlife rely on faith. Faith being the belief in something without evidence. If someone were to show hard evidence of an afterlife, then you would have fact, and faith would not be necessary, and the afterlife would become a part of life. If faith is the foundation of belief than evidence is irrelevant (or maybe even destructive). Who the heck thought up that theme? My head hurts, I’m going down to see if the snakes are out!

I think afterlife would be theory rather than fact, if there were evidence.

[KITKAT]

There was a book on near death experiences that examines some of this. There are other books as well, but this one is the one I remember best. I cannot remember the title, but I think the author was Elizabeth Kubler Ross. She also does a couple of books on the PROCESS of dying, explaining many of the psychological aspects of it.

Most of the other books are religious in nature, so have their own slant, but Kubler Ross is a doctor, and examines the topic in as un-biased a manner as is probably possible in western culture.

[drache]

the fact is that even reduced to absolute scientific fact, we do not completely die, or we die all the time, whichever way you look at it

our cells die all the time
every seven years or so we have a complete turn-over

and when we die, that entity we were known as, ceases to exist, but according to the laws of physics, nothing gets lost

who knows?
perhaps traces of consciousness are embedded in the very molecules we consist of
but even if they're not, undoubtedly we're meant to be recycled and live on in other organisms that are nourished by our deaths

on an ego level we die, but in reality we just become something else

I do understand that in the religious idea of life after death, one lives on sort of as the person one is here, except often without bodies

everything lives on though in some way, because it's all comprised of particles spinning with energy, combining, breaking apart, recombining, shifting energy from one form to another

in a very true sense we dissolve back into the stream of life

perhaps our consciousness fractures into something truly holographic

[Stefan-A]

I'm very sorry if I'm starting to seem arrogant here, it's definitely not my intention and I recognize that it's easy to interpret the following text the wrong way.


the fact is that even reduced to absolute scientific fact, we do not completely die, or we die all the time, whichever way you look at it
Death is the permanent cessation of all vital functions. It affects the organism as a whole, not specific parts of it.


and when we die, that entity we were known as, ceases to exist, but according to the laws of physics, nothing gets lostClose to what the laws of physics say, but not quite; Energy (in the scientific sense) cannot be destroyed.


who knows?
perhaps traces of consciousness are embedded in the very molecules we consist ofWell, no. Molecules are atoms that are held together through chemical bonds and those bonds break eventually. The microbes that break down our body once we have died, do it in the process and if you're a fan of cremation, it basically recombines the atoms to form molecules of, among other things, CO2 and H2O.


but even if they're not, undoubtedly we're meant to be recycled and live on in other organisms that are nourished by our deathsI doubt that there is any kind of meaning involved in the process.


on an ego level we die, but in reality we just become something elseWe are quite thoroughly destroyed, we don't really become anything else on a concrete level.

[Cazador]

We're talking about the first and second laws of thermodynamics as well as biochemistry. These are advanced topics that aren't going to clarified through casual discussion on this forum :o. They're complicated and take time and effort to understand.

The first & second laws of thermodynamics essentially state that 1) Energy is transferred, but it is never created nor destroyed & 2) entropy (disorder or randomness) is ever increasing.

Living systems acquire, convert, transfer, and expend energy in an attempt retain order until they are no longer capable of doing so. Memory (including thought), muscle function, neural function, respiration, digestion & excretion, circulation, etc. etc. etc. all use chemical energy in order to function. Unless you're a bacterium, plant, or a few types of protist that chemical energy comes from the break-down of high energy bonds in molecules from food and drink, and is stored in other molecules. Those storage molecules are broken to release energy to do "work." When we die, we no longer acquire energy, so we're unable to repair damaged cells or support living cells. We're no longer able to deliver oxygen to maintain existing cells, and they rapidly die. As tissues break down, the chemicals (and energy) within them disperse. In a very real sense, the Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Iodine, etc. is not destroyed but transferred into organisms that degrade our bodies; then perhaps into plants, herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores. If seen from this angle, one could say that a part of us is never really destroyed but continues to exist. Yet, that part of us was only borrowed because it came from matter our parents provided and the nutrients we acquired. We never made any of it... just gave a different level of order to it. Everything to this point can be (and has been) replicated under controlled conditions.

Just a bit of why the topic probably isn't worth pursuing very far in this format ;).

[adamanteus]

I agree to all the above! But..... The question isn't about the physical life we're living now, is it? I don't think an examination of the chemical make-up and eventual break down of an organism can prove or disprove the existance of an afterlife. Is it not some level of conciousness living on after our physical death, that we hope for? Aren't we talking about "the soul", rather than carbon atoms.

[Stefan-A]

I agree to all the above! But..... The question isn't about the physical life we're living now, is it? I don't think an examination of the chemical make-up and eventual break down of an organism can prove or disprove the existance of an afterlife. Is it not some level of conciousness living on after our physical death, that we hope for? Aren't we talking about "the soul", rather than carbon atoms.
Yeah, that was in my thoughts when I wrote that previous post. Why mix science into the question at all, considering that the debate over an afterlife definitely isn't scientific?

We do however have a fairly good idea of how humans work and it just doesn't leave much room for a consciousness after the synapses have stopped firing. If you want any other answer than "There is no afterlife.", you need to search for it in another philosophy.

[adamanteus]

I guess that as we are such intelligent creatures (well, some of us!), we are aware of our ultimate fate and, at times, consider it. If we thought too deeply about what is inevitably to come to us all, we might just think "What's the point of anything then?" and stop striving to achieve whatever it is we wish to achieve in our short lives. We need the belief that there is something else after this, or at the least, that someone will continue to care about the things we did or said during our lives. Maybe we're just looking for a purpose.

[Stefan-A]

I guess that as we are such intelligent creatures (well, some of us!), we are aware of our ultimate fate and, at times, consider it. If we thought too deeply about what is inevitably to come to us all, we might just think "What's the point of anything then?" and stop striving to achieve whatever it is we wish to achieve in our short lives. We need the belief that there is something else after this, or at the least, that someone will continue to care about the things we did or said during our lives. Maybe we're just looking for a purpose.
Who's "we"? ;) I just think life beats the alternative.

And if there was an afterlife, what would make this life worth living?

[adamanteus]

This seemed somehow fitting.

But where are you now, my noblest treasure sharer?
I cannot look upon these ruined walls and not cry out
Where are they now?
Where the feasting faces round this table?
Where the many matchless heroes?
Where the proud horsemen and their steeds?
Under these skies, fate's will alone endures
Here wealth is lent us
Freinds are lent us
Heroes are mortal and kinsfolk pass away
And here, at last
The Earths wide frame itself shall come to desecration.

[drache]

ah, the soul
is that the one that only humans, made in the image of God, have?
or do other beings have them too?
and if so, only mammals?
or everything, down to single-cell organisms?
flowers are said to possess soul
only flowers, or other plants too?
or perhaps only the beautiful ones?
sort of like only white people used to have souls

sorry
I realize that I do not believe in absolute answers about anything
even scientific "facts" change

but as to whether life is worth living
ought not to have that much to do with an afterlife

[drache]

On a lighter note

what did the buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

"make me one with everything"

[suzoo]

Hi ya! I was just in Calif. to my Grandmother's funneral, so I may be a little biased :)
Here's my input; Biblical info, Jesus was crucified, and 3 days later rose from the dead, and was seen by over 500 people and recognized. Now, I had a teacher in the 8th grade(yes, hearsay) that said she had several historian and scientist friends search historical findings and literature to disprove this. To their horror, they only found proof of these things to be TRUE! After this, she said they became "christians", and also found they had literature other than the Bible, that spoke of how Lazerus had also died and been brought back to life by Jesus. And don't I wish I knew where to find, and what literature this was!!!!
I have heard of lots of people who try to prove the Bible wrong, and to date, (2000 years or so), no one has been able to. Even non-Christian historians say, "It's a great history book". So if in 2000 years, no one can prove it wrong, then perhaps it is true. If so, there IS an afterlife, and a "Great History Book" to back up this claim.
On a personal note, I have had very real proof in my life that God exists. So, if anyone wants to hear about that, feel free to ask or pm me.

[Stefan-A]

I never put much stock in what teachers claim, especially when it's a matter of hearsay even when they repeat it. I prefer doublechecking everything they say.

The only "evidence" of somebody called Jesus from that area is in fact a few mentions written down as hearsay several decades to several centuries after his alleged resurrection. There are photos of Elvis stone dead in the morgue and people still think he's still alive. His life and death are well documented, but there are still some pretty fantastic stories going around regarding his supposed fate. There's a reason why anecdotal evidence isn't considered reliable.


I have heard of lots of people who try to prove the Bible wrong, and to date, (2000 years or so), no one has been able to. Even non-Christian historians say, "It's a great history book".Seriously, apart from the obviously unprovable parts of the bible, there are numerous factual errors, including historical ones. The quickest way to find them, is to surf the net and look up sites that are critical of the claims made in the bible. I really don't like mocking people's faiths, but the fact of the matter is that the bible doesn't contain much history (if any).

I too have carried my share of caskets these last few years (my own grandmother's just over a year ago), but I'm no closer to having faith.

[Cazador]

We're treading into dangerous waters here, since many people devote their entire life and existence toward their beliefs (Christians, Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists, etc.). Discrediting these beliefs can be akin to saying that their purpose in life is without merit. So with mutual respect for everyone, I'll simply offer Tim the story that my mother-in-law considers evidence of an afterlife from her personal experience.

Several decades ago, my mother-in-law was undergoing a hysterectomy. The anesthetic began to wear off, and she could hear the physicians and nurses saying that she needed more anesthetic quickly. They gave her more anesthetic, and she lost awareness again. Then she had another complication. When they were sewing some blood vessels together, their permeability increased. The doctors were having great difficulty sewing them together because they kept tearing, and she began to bleed out.

Sometime during this event, she saw "the bright light," and it gave her a sense of peace, warmth, comfort, etc. As she approached the light, she basked in its glow and enjoyed the experience. Then she realized what was happening, and SHE told it that she couldn't come "now" because she still had a young teenager at home who needed her care. Then the light seemed to become smaller, and the vision faded away. She says that the light was very warm and inviting, and she wanted to go; but felt her obligation was to her young teenager at home. She survived the operation and interprets this experience as evidence of the afterlife.

Yes, there are many other possible interpretations, but this is the closest thing I have toward fulfilling Tim's original request.

Rick

[KITKAT]

(Snippet 1:)The only "evidence" of somebody called Jesus from that area is in fact a few mentions written down as hearsay several decades to several centuries after his alleged resurrection.

(Snippet 2:)I really don't like mocking people's faiths, but the fact of the matter is that the bible doesn't contain much history (if any).


I told myself when this thread started, that I would stay off of the religious themes and what I know about them... but did want to respectfully disagree with the two snippets quoted above.

First, Josephus records the history of the very early church. Josephus was a Jew, and not a believer in Christianity. One thing is clear from his writings... the people who were living immediately after the claimed ressurrection did question the validity of what Jesus had taught during His life, but they did not question that his death and subsequent appearing before many people was a hoax. In addition, we have actual whole copies of New Testament writings in posession today, which are carbon dated at 60 A.D, which would be 30 some years after Jesus died.

In the second snippet, however, my disagreement is more immediately and easily provable. Archaeologists are STILL finding, and CONSTANTLY finding, lost cities and civilizations that they find based upon Biblical text. The clues provided in the Bible have always been accurate enough that the archaeologists are able to find the lost city, the burned library, and etc. by starting with the Biblical text as a reference point. The Bible is very much FULL of history.

But I agree with Cazador that near death experiences seem to be the most unbiased and modern examples which suggest evidence for an afterlife. Some things about near death experiences that interest me are that:

1. Everyone in a true near death experience sees some version of the light tunnel, and the light tunnel seems to be hard-wired into the brain.

2. Everyone in a true near death experience has the feeling of being "out of body" and this sensation also seems to be hard-wired into the brain.

(These two experiences can be duplicated during brain surgery by stimulation of a certain area of the brain.)

3. Some people who have had near death experiences have reported events that surrounded their near death... that they could not have known. For example, a child reports that he travelled toward a light, out of his body, floated up to the ceiling, floated out into the waiting room, and heard Aunt "Gertrude" say something that he could not have heard from the treatment room where his body lay.

4. Reports of events outside the room are rare, and cannot be duplicated during brain surgery.

5. Near death experiences sometimes report meeting someone at the entrance to "heaven", meeting relatives who have died, and so forth. There are one or two reports of someone meeting a dead relative that the reporting person did not know was dead at the time... such as a boy who met his dead parents after a car crash.

6. When the person with the near death experience meets a religious person that is central to his faith, that religious person tends to be the one that is associated with the faith of the person making the report... for example, Christians see Jesus, Jews may see Moses, Buddists may see Buddah, etc.

[Stefan-A]

I told myself when this thread started, that I would stay off of the religious themes and what I know about them... but did want to respectfully disagree with the two snippets quoted above.
I told myself the same thing when I first came to this forum, it's guaranteed to be controversial. Feel free to disagree, I don't mind at all. :) But I'm not that easily convinced, either. There will be a lot of issues to cover, so I'll keep my comments short.


First, Josephus records the history of the very early church. Josephus was a Jew, and not a believer in Christianity. One thing is clear from his writings... the people who were living immediately after the claimed ressurrection did question the validity of what Jesus had taught during His life, but they did not question that his death and subsequent appearing before many people was a hoax.It appears to me that the vast majority of the population in that area dismissed the story of his resurrection as BS from the very beginning. Not that it matters, it's still argumentum ad populum.


In addition, we have actual whole copies of New Testament writings in posession today, which are carbon dated at 60 A.D, which would be 30 some years after Jesus died.Several decades (Elvis died about 30 years ago). It's still anecdotal and hardly evidence of anything, least of all that the events they describe are factual.


In the second snippet, however, my disagreement is more immediately and easily provable. Archaeologists are STILL finding, and CONSTANTLY finding, lost cities and civilizations that they find based upon Biblical text. The clues provided in the Bible have always been accurate enough that the archaeologists are able to find the lost city, the burned library, and etc. by starting with the Biblical text as a reference point. The Bible is very much FULL of history.Such as?
That somebody who looks for something actually finds something is hardly surprising. I remember this one guy, who tried to find a western route to India.. You know the rest. What accurate clues are there in the bible and what lost cities and civilizations have been found specifically thanks to these clues? How many false leads have there been?

Anybody care to give Jesus' divinity a try?

[FitnessFreak]

I never put much stock in what teachers claim, especially when it's a matter of hearsay even when they repeat it. I prefer doublechecking everything they say.

The only "evidence" of somebody called Jesus from that area is in fact a few mentions written down as hearsay several decades to several centuries after his alleged resurrection. There are photos of Elvis stone dead in the morgue and people still think he's still alive. His life and death are well documented, but there are still some pretty fantastic stories going around regarding his supposed fate. There's a reason why anecdotal evidence isn't considered reliable.

Seriously, apart from the obviously unprovable parts of the bible, there are numerous factual errors, including historical ones. The quickest way to find them, is to surf the net and look up sites that are critical of the claims made in the bible. I really don't like mocking people's faiths, but the fact of the matter is that the bible doesn't contain much history (if any).

I too have carried my share of caskets these last few years (my own grandmother's just over a year ago), but I'm no closer to having faith.

jesus christ of nazareth(i think its how it is spelt) is not only recorded in the bible, he is recorded in roman history

whether or not he was god's son, i do not know. but there is substantial evidence that he did exist.

[Stefan-A]

jesus christ of nazareth(i think its how it is spelt) is not only recorded in the bible, he is recorded in roman history

whether or not he was god's son, i do not know. but there is substantial evidence that he did exist.
I assume you are referring to Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, who weren't even born until well after Jesus' death and could not possibly have had any first hand knowledge.

[FitnessFreak]

I assume you are referring to Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, who weren't even born until well after Jesus' death and could not possibly have had any first hand knowledge.

ya but dude come on jesus did exact it is almost fact.

whether or not he was the son of god is debatable but whether or not he existed really isn't.

[Snaky]

I've never done any historical checks myself, but have been told by historics that there are to many evidences found that there was indeed someone called "Jezus" and that he lived during that time. Now that said, I don't think the bible is a history book and it has never had the intention to be one. In my eyes it's more like a guideline and something to think about. It's about persons who indeed lived during that time, but was written by stories that where told and remembered.

About the afterlife I strongly believe there is none. I think once you died, you're dead. The whole functioning of our body and what happens when we die is already nicely described in previous posts, so no need to repeat. I only think that we've evolved so much, that we needed a reason to accept death. But in my eyes you don't need a reason, accept life and live it to the fullest. I know that a lot is spoken about a white light, hearing something in the next room, ... while having near death situations. But I think this is no prove of anything. The white light can only be a last reaction of the brains, some kind of dream like when you sleep. The same with something told, it can be that by accident somebody else heart, told it while you could hear it or that something like that happened before and you're recalling that memory and changing it to something that happened today... There are endless possibilities, but it can never be said that something like that is prove of an afterlive, it's not a fact.

Well, I never thought I'd post something like this on a forum... This is only my opinion, I hope I'm not offending somebody as these kind of things can be very personal to some.

[RedSided]

yikes, that was a lot of reading. Obviously this is something that many of you are able to contribute to :D. Cheers. There is a lot to consider, as all of you have a different perspective on things.

[RedSided]

Remeber try not to let it cause tension, I can already see divisions in belief.There are some very good points.I my self stand on the middle ground,

Yes death is enevitable, we rot and produce gas and we smell bad,various reactions take place and we cease to be.You can't argue about that.

What is arguable on many levels is the validity of near death experience, ghosts, and other phenomenon associated with the afterlife.

These are the things we cannot prove indefinately either way, is it real or is it simply a trick of the mind?


As for the bible, I will offer my opinion. It is perfectly valid to say that Jesus my well have exsited and he may have done all these amazing things,or he may not have.I am willing to accept either if there is sound proof.The fact that the bible contradictics its self in many ways is inevitable, with so many large accounts having translated into english from ancient texts and so on.

Something I just want to touch on lightly now is UFO's .Someone mentioned this to me a while back and im not usualy big on conspiracy theorys and UFO's so im just testing the water with this one.

He said, in some parts of the bible God is described as what we would say if we saw today , a UFO. I think somewhere I mentions wheels of fire within wheels of fire, please by all means tear it to pieces if it is way off the mark because I have not read up on it my self.

[Cazador]

I completely believe in "unidentified flying objects." I've seen many objects that were unidentified to me... and they were definitely flying :D. Sorry, that's all I have on that subject. Who's up for a Bigfoot conversation? :)

[adamanteus]

Who's up for a Bigfoot conversation? :)

I knew this girl once..her feet were so big! She had to pull her pants on over her head!

[Cazador]

:cool: Wooooooo, man, that was a good one!!! Where's that banana icon when you need it?




Just kidding, Stefan :eek:.

[Stefan-A]

I completely believe in "unidentified flying objects." I've seen many objects that were unidentified to me... and they were definitely flying :D. Sorry, that's all I have on that subject. Who's up for a Bigfoot conversation? :)
Even if that's all you have to say, you still have a point there. They would indeed be called ufos. Whether or not the observer would believe that they are aliens or a sign from a deity, is a different matter.



:cool: Wooooooo, man, that was a good one!!! Where's that banana icon when you need it?




Just kidding, Stefan :eek:.
Dammit, Rick.

[Stefan-A]

I knew this girl once..her feet were so big! She had to pull her pants on over her head!
Was she covered in fur and did she communicate through grunts? Are all videos of her out of focus?

[RedSided]

Well that last post of mine certainly layed the headstone of this thread :D.Cheers all.

[suzoo]

I never put much stock in what teachers claim, especially when it's a matter of hearsay even when they repeat it. I prefer doublechecking everything they say.

The only "evidence" of somebody called Jesus from that area is in fact a few mentions written down as hearsay several decades to several centuries after his alleged resurrection. There are photos of Elvis stone dead in the morgue and people still think he's still alive. His life and death are well documented, but there are still some pretty fantastic stories going around regarding his supposed fate. There's a reason why anecdotal evidence isn't considered reliable.

Seriously, apart from the obviously unprovable parts of the bible, there are numerous factual errors, including historical ones. The quickest way to find them, is to surf the net and look up sites that are critical of the claims made in the bible. I really don't like mocking people's faiths, but the fact of the matter is that the bible doesn't contain much history (if any).

I too have carried my share of caskets these last few years (my own grandmother's just over a year ago), but I'm no closer to having faith.

I am not offended, nor trying to offend anyone. However, the sights you mentioned, (and yes, I've done lots of reading last night & today), have no facts or proof that the Bible is wrong either. They are as much heresay and speculation as my 8th grade teacher's story. So, since you mentioned websites, I thought I would too, such as About the Bible - Christian Answers® WebBible™ (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html) and www.geocities.com/worldview_/science.html (http://www.geocities.com/worldview_/science.html) you may be suprised. The only reason I brought it up in the first place was as a reference for afterlife for Red-sided's essay. Yes, I believe in it, but it was not my intention to cram my faith down anyone's unwilling throat! :D I truely hope I have not offended anybody!
OH, and Bless you Kitkat!:D

[Stefan-A]

However, the sights you mentioned, (and yes, I've done lots of reading last night & today), have no facts or proof that the Bible is wrong either.
To prove the bible wrong isn't necessary, you need to prove that it is right. Until it has been proven to be right, there's absolutely no logical reason to assume that it is. In fact, it's a logical fallacy to do so.

Your second link says: "Sorry, the page you requested was not found."

[suzoo]

Sorry the correct site is Science Facts Confirm the Bible (http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/science.html) there is an underscore after worldview that you can't see and then the number 3.
Also, if it can't be proven wrong in over 2000 years, then I can't see how it is a fallacy to believe it. And I don't believe in unicorns or fairies, but I do believe its possible for there to be life on other planets. I believe in ghosts and you can make fun of me all you like, because I believe you can choose to believe in, or not believe in whatever you choose.

[adamanteus]

I believe you can choose to believe in, or not believe in whatever you choose.

I couldn't agree more. Belief is a very personal thing, and requires no proof.

[Stefan-A]

Sorry the correct site is Science Facts Confirm the Bible (http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/science.html) there is an underscore after worldview that you can't see and then the number 3. Also, if it can't be proven wrong in over 2000 years, then I can't see how it is a fallacy to believe it. And I don't believe in unicorns or fairies, but I do believe its possible for there to be life on other planets.
You probably view those arguments quite differently, but I find them poorly justified to say the least.



I believe in ghosts and you can make fun of me all you like, because I believe you can choose to believe in, or not believe in whatever you choose.I couldn't agree less, but I'm definitely not going to make fun of anybody, because I don't believe that you can choose to believe or not believe in something.