Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ice Blue

What Is Your View On Death?

Recommended Posts

"I see a light at the end of the tunnel"

 

Common saying right? The people who are dying claim their is a white light in front of them, and in most cases, people say don't go near the light, assuming it means death.

 

 

Turn that around, say the light means new life? Perhaps that light is our entrance into paradise, Heaven, whatever it is you believe in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And how can you assume that they dont know that they are in a coma?

 

In 100% of patients they havewoken up and have no idea that they were in a coma. I'm sorry, where is your evidence to back up that idea?

 

I can provide 300 million loopholes to anything you say about death being the end of a finite life

 

Ok here is something I say: Death is the end of consciousness because consciousness is the result of computational pathways of neurone pulses. When these neurones die, so does a your consciousness. This can be supported by the lack of brain function remianing in stroke patients.

Also, you appear to strongly believe in a 'soul' as your idea of an infinite life, I assume, or perhaps an afterlife?

There is no evidence of a 'soul' in any way, shape or form. It's equivalent to me suggesting there is in fact an elephant in the room you are in. But you can't see it and you can't detect it. Thus for all intensive purposes it does not, but you are suggesting it might based on NO EVIDENCE.

 

Occam's razor: Nothing should be presumed to exist more than necessary.

The presumption of an afterlife or a soul is thus illogical.

In 100 Percent of Patients they have woken up and knew that they were in a coma in actuality. (source of your claim?, I didnt make the claim you did)

 

there is no evidence against a soul, and it can only be believed. I know a lot about beliefs and the human mind, but I dont want to talk about it. I have deduced that belief is better than nonbelief. and nothing should be presumed to exist more than necessary is basically saying all particle physicists and macro-physicists should quit their jobs because there is no reason except pure intelligence to their findings as we are fine in our current state today on earth. but then you can also say that our world is deteriorating etc etc, but that can be fixed by "earth scientists" if we really wanted to.

 

Wow, I'm sorry your opening statement is simply, WRONG.

 

You claim that belief is better than no belief, using perhaps Pascal's famous wager. However this is somewhat idealistic and is based on the fact that religion has no other effect on somebody's life other than belief. However religion does affect people, it casues wars, social segregation and turbulance. In fact religion has probably caused more problems than it has solved and 'belief' without evidence is the first step towards this.

 

I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression. Particle physicists are essential for the creation of the internet, the use and refining of electricity, the building of houses and structures etc I really don't want to have to explain how much the idea of 'belief' has held back humanity, technologicaly speaking.

 

Your last argument about 'earth scientists' makes no sense to me. Please explain what an 'earth scientist' is and how the earth is 'deteriorating'. I'm sorry but this does not make semantic sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one actually knows exactly what will happen when they die. No one does.
What about the people who die and then come back from death? Surely they know? :(

 

Those people claim they "saw" heaven when really, it's just their imagination going into over-drive.

No, no, no, no no. There imagination is something driven by the brain. Something that doesn't function when dead.

 

Don't brains continue functioning a few minutes after death?

A person is not declared dead if they have brain function. You can technically have brain function minutes after death but as it stands you cant "officially" be dead until it stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression.

Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages. Johannes Gutenberg did. Without his printing press the ideas of people like Galileo and Newton would never see the light of day, we wouldn't have American democracy and we'd still be thinking that diseases are caused by demons. Scientific discoveries are worthless if they're not published.

 

It's one of the most significant inventions in the history of the Western world.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see reincarnation as being highly possible. would be awesome if i came back to be a panda or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression.

Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages. Johannes Gutenberg did. Without his printing press the ideas of people like Galileo and Newton would never see the light of day, we wouldn't have American democracy and we'd still be thinking that diseases are caused by demons. Scientific discoveries are worthless if they're not published.

 

It's one of the most significant inventions in the history of the Western world.

 

Walking doesn't take us forward, our feet do!

 

They're one of the most significant body parts in the history of the Human Anatomy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression.

Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages. Johannes Gutenberg did. Without his printing press the ideas of people like Galileo and Newton would never see the light of day, we wouldn't have American democracy and we'd still be thinking that diseases are caused by demons. Scientific discoveries are worthless if they're not published.

 

It's one of the most significant inventions in the history of the Western world.

 

Walking doesn't take us forward, our feet do!

 

They're one of the most significant body parts in the history of the Human Anatomy!

Without feet, how do you walk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression.

Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages. Johannes Gutenberg did. Without his printing press the ideas of people like Galileo and Newton would never see the light of day, we wouldn't have American democracy and we'd still be thinking that diseases are caused by demons. Scientific discoveries are worthless if they're not published.

 

It's one of the most significant inventions in the history of the Western world.

 

Yes you are very right. But it is science that has advanced us. Simply inventing a printing press would not then be enough to take us out of the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression.

Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages. Johannes Gutenberg did. Without his printing press the ideas of people like Galileo and Newton would never see the light of day, we wouldn't have American democracy and we'd still be thinking that diseases are caused by demons. Scientific discoveries are worthless if they're not published.

 

It's one of the most significant inventions in the history of the Western world.

 

Walking doesn't take us forward, our feet do!

 

They're one of the most significant body parts in the history of the Human Anatomy!

Without feet, how do you walk?

The gas pedal??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And how can you assume that they dont know that they are in a coma?

 

In 100% of patients they havewoken up and have no idea that they were in a coma. I'm sorry, where is your evidence to back up that idea?

 

I can provide 300 million loopholes to anything you say about death being the end of a finite life

 

Ok here is something I say: Death is the end of consciousness because consciousness is the result of computational pathways of neurone pulses. When these neurones die, so does a your consciousness. This can be supported by the lack of brain function remianing in stroke patients.

Also, you appear to strongly believe in a 'soul' as your idea of an infinite life, I assume, or perhaps an afterlife?

There is no evidence of a 'soul' in any way, shape or form. It's equivalent to me suggesting there is in fact an elephant in the room you are in. But you can't see it and you can't detect it. Thus for all intensive purposes it does not, but you are suggesting it might based on NO EVIDENCE.

 

Occam's razor: Nothing should be presumed to exist more than necessary.

The presumption of an afterlife or a soul is thus illogical.

In 100 Percent of Patients they have woken up and knew that they were in a coma in actuality. (source of your claim?, I didnt make the claim you did)

 

there is no evidence against a soul, and it can only be believed. I know a lot about beliefs and the human mind, but I dont want to talk about it. I have deduced that belief is better than nonbelief. and nothing should be presumed to exist more than necessary is basically saying all particle physicists and macro-physicists should quit their jobs because there is no reason except pure intelligence to their findings as we are fine in our current state today on earth. but then you can also say that our world is deteriorating etc etc, but that can be fixed by "earth scientists" if we really wanted to.

 

Wow, I'm sorry your opening statement is simply, WRONG.

 

You claim that belief is better than no belief, using perhaps Pascal's famous wager. However this is somewhat idealistic and is based on the fact that religion has no other effect on somebody's life other than belief. However religion does affect people, it casues wars, social segregation and turbulance. In fact religion has probably caused more problems than it has solved and 'belief' without evidence is the first step towards this.

 

I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression. Particle physicists are essential for the creation of the internet, the use and refining of electricity, the building of houses and structures etc I really don't want to have to explain how much the idea of 'belief' has held back humanity, technologicaly speaking.

 

Your last argument about 'earth scientists' makes no sense to me. Please explain what an 'earth scientist' is and how the earth is 'deteriorating'. I'm sorry but this does not make semantic sense.

the opening statement wasnt meant to be taken literally, look at what you said and what I said.

 

And saying religion causes wars is true, but belief doesnt. I am not part of any formal religion, but I have beliefs.

 

Using your razor you love to quote, why is the job of particle physicists necessary to human society?

 

Earth scientists simply was a term I used to signify scientists who work with earth related things, like geologists and botanists etc. For the earth is deteriorating thing, I was saying that "earth scientists" can solve our problems based on the deteriorating environment (global warming, lack of land on earth, lack of food in the future) and we dont need some kind of solution from macro and micro physicists using your logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, your point about particle physicists quitting their jobs does not make sense. Simply because they have created a logical, working, yet incomplete, model of how matter interacts, does not mean they are useless in their jobs. Without particle physics, or science for that matter, we would still be in the dark ages of scientific repression.

Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages. Johannes Gutenberg did. Without his printing press the ideas of people like Galileo and Newton would never see the light of day, we wouldn't have American democracy and we'd still be thinking that diseases are caused by demons. Scientific discoveries are worthless if they're not published.

 

It's one of the most significant inventions in the history of the Western world.

 

Walking doesn't take us forward, our feet do!

 

They're one of the most significant body parts in the history of the Human Anatomy!

Without feet, how do you walk?

 

By saying "Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages, Johannes Gutenberg did." you effectively state that Scientists are less important to the development of Science than the printing press. How can this be true when science developed for quite a while pre-printing press? The differences in humans from when they first existed as humans to when the printing press existed is astronomical.

 

Obviously, without the printing press, we could not have progressed as rapidly as we did, but the idea that Scientists are inferior to the printing press purely because without it they can't share their ideas? Laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By saying "Scientists didn't get us out of the dark ages, Johannes Gutenberg did." you effectively state that Scientists are less important to the development of Science than the printing press. How can this be true when science developed for quite a while pre-printing press? The differences in humans from when they first existed as humans to when the printing press existed is astronomical.

 

Obviously, without the printing press, we could not have progressed as rapidly as we did, but the idea that Scientists are inferior to the printing press purely because without it they can't share their ideas? Laughable.

I'm not saying they are inferior. My point is that all those scientific discoveries would have been worthless without the ability to propagate them. Einstein would have been unable to develop his Theory of Relativity without being able to access the work of previous physicists, and Steven Hawking's intellect would have been wasted if he did not have access to the works of Einstein.

 

Scientific discoveries would have been irrelevant if they weren't put to print. Just think about what happened to the Library of Alexandria. They even had designs for steam engines there. How much more advanced would we be now if those works had been reprinted en masse? Instead we had to wait until the 17th century for steam power to be rediscovered.

 

Yes you are very right. But it is science that has advanced us. Simply inventing a printing press would not then be enough to take us out of the dark ages.

Science would also be unable to do that. Without mass printing, Copernicus would be a footnote in history and Galileo just another heretic.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why talk about death when you can never share what it is like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On topic:

 

cDg8K.jpg

 

And I hereby declare that you all suck for not referencing that. :(

 

Theking: But isn't print - and, arguably, writing - a product of science itself? It's pretty much recursive, just like pretty much all of science. Or, if you want, parts of Gutenberg's printing press were made in lead and iron, two metals that science (albeit primitive) allowed to separate from their alloys and minerals. :D

Edited by Arianna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theking: But isn't print - and, arguably, writing - a product of science itself? It's pretty much recursive, just like pretty much all of science. Or, if you want, parts of Gutenberg's printing press were made in lead and iron, two metals that science (albeit primitive) allowed to separate from their alloys and minerals. :wizard:

Yes it is, but then we could argue that human reproduction is also a product of science.

 

My point is that print is essential to the propagation of more complex ideas that can't be passed down through word-of-mouth or written down by hand.

 

Also, since you like xkcd comics so much:

 

the_difference.png

 

 

 

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is, but then we could argue that human reproduction is also a product of science.
Hey, you! Drop your pants. FOR SCIENCE!

 

My point is that print is essential to the propagation of more complex ideas that can't be passed down through word-of-mouth or written down by hand.
Fair point (though the whole issue is near-irrelevant).

 

Also whaddayamean "like xkcd comics so much" - you ain't goin' around blowing in people's faces because they like breathing so much

 

Actually, I can hold my breath for a couple minutes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is, but then we could argue that human reproduction is also a product of science.
Hey, you! Drop your pants. FOR SCIENCE!

 

My point is that print is essential to the propagation of more complex ideas that can't be passed down through word-of-mouth or written down by hand.
Fair point (though the whole issue is near-irrelevant).

 

Also whaddayamean "like xkcd comics so much" - you ain't goin' around blowing in people's faces because they like breathing so much

 

Actually, I can hold my breath for a couple minutes

Oh, the xkcd comic was one that came to mind when I read this thread, and I found it quite amusing when I first read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

 

- Mark Twain

 

Death itself is not something that should ever be feared.

 

Religious statements are welcome, so please anyone who are non-religious or disagree with anothers opinion, keep it to yourself.

Haha, no.

 

sheep.jpg

technically, we weren't "dead" before we came to earth, we just weren't alive. we were spirits waiting to be put on earth. not dead, waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Religious statements are welcome, so please anyone who are non-religious or disagree with anothers opinion, keep it to yourself.

Haha, no.

 

sheep.jpg

Hee hee! People with different opinions and perspectives than me are sheep! And I see the need to point this out with no provocation whatsoever!

 

The debate about the relative value of the printing press and the value of science overall seems quite unimportant. Of course without the sharing of ideas, scientific progress from the 1450s onward would have been crippled, and of course science itself is invaluable to humanity. Both of those statements are practically unassailable. I'm not sure what they have to do with the topic at hand, though.

 

When it comes to my views on death, as most of you guys know, I believe in God and I believe in the eternal souls that He has given all of us. The people who have come back from death and claimed to have seen heaven - there is no empirical evidence suggesting either that they were correct or that they were mistaken. My take on the matter is that it would be difficult for most of them to have been able to relate such extensive detail, especially detail that often differs radically from the stereotypical perceptions people often have about Heaven, without having experienced it in actuality. But I acknowledge that the human mind is complex and may be capable of more elaborate deceptions than we often expect. And people do, of course, consciously and deliberately lie. Nothing is definitive when faith and science collide. I find that logic, rather than science, is the best way to approach faith-related subjects on the intellectual level, a subtle but important distinction from a science-based approach. With science few things can be taken for granted (the bare minimums, such as "I think therefore I am" and "the universal is not playing practical jokes on me today"); with faith more things must be taken for granted. But logic can be applied to all intellectual spheres of life.

 

I do not fear death. I fear dying a bit, I must confess; I regard the idea of being robbed of all my future years and causing my friends and family endless anguish with all the distaste that is reasonable. But like the apostle Paul, although I always attempt to live life full-bloodedly, to "run the race with joy," I also look forward to what lies at the end: perfection. I like to think that when I'm lying on my deathbed, the hope will be stronger than the fear. But in the meantime, I live for hope.

Edited by Emanick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think death is when the state of consciousness permanently leaves the body. I do not think that someone who is brain dead, but has a living body (aided by machine or not) is alive. Consciousness is kind of hard to define as a thing, so who can say what happens next. I do not have much faith in the stories of those who have near death experiences. Chemicals secreted into the brain upon death (e.g. ketamine, possibly DMT or endorphins), stimulation of brain lobes, lack of oxygen, can all bring about very realistic hallucinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think death is when the state of consciousness permanently leaves the body. I do not think that someone who is brain dead, but has a living body (aided by machine or not) is alive. Consciousness is kind of hard to define as a thing, so who can say what happens next. I do not have much faith in the stories of those who have near death experiences. Chemicals secreted into the brain upon death (e.g. ketamine, possibly DMT or endorphins), stimulation of brain lobes, lack of oxygen, can all bring about very realistic hallucinations.
I think you are going by two very different meanings of living. You are thinking of living a good life, if someone doesn't have that much function in their brain then they are not living a good life. Also, you cannot be completely 'brain-dead' as you put it, you'd literally be a zombie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living is a feature of life. Death is in the same boat. Death is just another part of life. Many find themselves dwelling on such an issue. Death is a person's final demise, which can not be calculated or changed. Death is abrupt on purpose. Many have numerous speculations on the after life or other supernatural states we find ourself in when we die. Many theories have come up by tradition and deemed appropriate throughout the years about the afterlife. But, it is not possible to know the exact truth since no one has regained life. Some rely on religion or the supernatural to help with what the afterlife is composed of. Life is a spectacular gift that some take for granted. It can not be given back but can be taken away unexpectedly. Live life to the fullest and cherish every moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the evidence I have seen so far, death is simply the stopping of one's heart and the permanent loss of consciousness. A bit anti-climactic, perhaps, but I don't think it has to be depressing.

 

Religious statements are welcome, so please anyone who are non-religious or disagree with anothers opinion, keep it to yourself.

Haha, no.

 

[img]http://ocw.usu.edu/University_Extension/sheep-and-lambing-management/sheep.jpg[/img]

Hee hee! People with different opinions and perspectives than me are sheep! And I see the need to point this out with no provocation whatsoever!

I'm not sure, but I think Kwinten's post may have been directed toward the part of the comment that read "so please anyone who are non-religious or disagree with anothers opinion, keep it to yourself."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.