Do I need to be born again?

[Atheist-669]

mlchance:

Then you’re obviously not as knowledgeable about science as you think you are. Start with Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur for scientists who had no problem believing in God. Then segue into Dr. Stanley Jaki for a more modern figure. I recommend you start with The Bible and Science.

You can come up with ONE modern scientist who believes in god? That’s the best you can do? Of course all older scientists, which are currently dead, believed in god. They were born into a world of confirmation, weddings and all other rituals that the Catholic church held the world with. In that world you could get banned from the “good part of society” for not believing in god. Look at Karl Marx for instance, he was banned for not believing. People will not risk that because it is too dangerous, while it might, literally, destroy your life. (I do not say I support Karl Marx, I used his name only as an example).

mlchance:

Looks suspiciously like a positive truth claim. In that case, it ought to be demonstrable. So, please prove that this is your only life.

– Mark L. Chance.

Look, the one who has to prove something is the one who comes up with a statement that is not supported by facts. That person is currently you. Prove to me that there is another life, and I will believe you, but until that time I will stick to what science can tell me. Because I have not discovered proof (seen/heard/etc.) that supports your theory. I have only one condition: That you tell me about this proof right here (do not redirect me to a book or a movie or any other source because I cannot stand people who redirect whenever they cannot answer a question). If you can’t handle death, just tell me, I do respect that because I know what it is like. Just remember that it is just as amazing beeing born, as it is to die.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Atheist-669,

If Catholics came to you on the street to convert you, then you would be in a perfect position to demand of them evidence of their beliefs. But it is clear the situation here is reversed, you are coming onto their board like a raging bull with the clearly discernible purpose of “opening their eyes.” And since you are the missionary now, it’s up to you to bring evidence, positive evidence, of what you believe. As things stand in this context, the burden of proof is on you.

And I’m an ex-atheist so I know all the arguments by heart. I’m not going to take the nonexistence of deities and of life after death on your mere say-so, sorry.

 

[Riley259]

Atheist-669:

No, you can and will not be born again.
Neither have you ever been reborn. This is your only life, when you die, it’s over. Believe me on this one: Have fun while you live! You are NOT going to live again, - ever.

• MJ - Atheist -

Why do you and other atheists come to this forum? You’re not going to change alot of minds here. Most of us are faithful Catholics and alot of us have a scientific background and were once either agnostic or even atheistic ourselves. We’ve heard all of your tired, nilistic, self-centered and retread ideas before and some of us have even tried to live that way, myself included - it doesn’t work and it only leads to despair and frustration. The truth is that there is something else besides just “us” and it is hope-filled and Love and Ultimate Reality. I was once where you are now - angry, self-involved, arrogant, condescending, and convinced that I could do everything “my way” - and that I didn’t need a god to help me. When you find out the real truth, it will hit you like a ton of bricks but it will feel better than anything else you’ve ever experienced. The reason that you probably will eventually discover the real truth is that I and probably most of the other posters here are praying for your conversion. That’s probably a distasteful thought to you but it’s what we christians do. You’re probably going to respond back in a viotrolic manner and insist that we don’t pray for you but you know what? - we’re going to still do it anyway.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You can come up with ONE modern scientist who believes in god?

According to surveys, about 40% of all scientists believe in God. But that’s rather irrelevant, isn’t it? Unless of course you base your beliefs upon polls.

“The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it!’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”
– Dr. “Fritz” Schaefer, Nobel prize nominee, cited as 3rd most quoted Chemist in the world, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia

 

[Exporter]

ATHEIST 699,

You must be having fun asking unanswerable questions.

**I have one question for you. We are aware of the fact that all the celestial bodies are made of the same elements we find on the earth.The question is : Where Did These Atoms Come From? :tiphat: **

 

[Atheist-669]

Riley259:

We’ve heard all of your tired, nilistic, self-centered and retread ideas before and some of us have even tried to live that way, myself included - it doesn’t work and it only leads to despair and frustration. The truth is that there is something else besides just “us” and it is hope-filled and Love and Ultimate Reality. I was once where you are now - angry, self-involved, arrogant, condescending, and convinced that I could do everything “my way” - and that I didn’t need a god to help me. When you find out the real truth, it will hit you like a ton of bricks but it will feel better than anything else you’ve ever experienced.

You have NOT been paying attention, have you read all my posts or just that single one out? And by that single one out I mean this one:

Atheist-669:

No, you can and will not be born again.
Neither have you ever been reborn. This is your only life, when you die, it’s over. Believe me on this one: Have fun while you live! You are NOT going to live again, - ever.

I regret posting that one because you are all focusing on getting me instead of the case. And I know that it is because I was a little bit offending in that post, for that I am sorry. Please read back a little, then get down here again. Then if you still have anything on your heart feel free to tell me. If my first post (above) still bothers you, please let me know and I will delete it.

Riley259:

The reason that you probably will eventually discover the real truth is that I and probably most of the other posters here are praying for your conversion. That’s probably a distasteful thought to you but it’s what we christians do. You’re probably going to respond back in a viotrolic manner and insist that we don’t pray for you but you know what? - we’re going to still do it anyway.

No, by all means, pray for me as much as you want. As long as you are happy I am OK with it. I don’t think it is ‘distasteful’ that you pray, I can understand why you do it, I only think it is not a good enough reason to pray.

On the other hand, please tell me about the ‘Real Truth’, and the ‘Ultimate Reality’ you mentioned.

Heathen:
HEATEN DAWN:

If Catholics came to you on the street to convert you, then you would be in a perfect position to demand of them evidence of their beliefs. But it is clear the situation here is reversed, you are coming onto their board like a raging bull with the clearly discernible purpose of “opening their eyes.” And since you are the missionary now, it’s up to you to bring evidence, positive evidence, of what you believe. As things stand in this context, the burden of proof is on you.

And I’m an ex-atheist so I know all the arguments by heart. I’m not going to take the nonexistence of deities and of life after death on your mere say-so, sorry.

First of all, you have not read all my posts either. - I don’t believe! - How many times do I have to say that? And secondly, I have brought evidence all along, you should know that too if you read all my posts (except the very first one (shown above), I am sorry I posted that in the first place), or do you not find my writing sufficient as evidence? I can assure you I have written sources of high reliability. And I am usually very critical to sources.

May I ask what converted you from Atheist to Catholic? Such a dramatic change must have had a dramatic reason.

And to future posters who want to flame me; please do not start with: “Why did you come here?” I have answered the question in another post.

 

[Atheist-669]

You posted at the same time I did, so I didn’t notice your post before now: Dave1988:

itsjustdave1988:

According to surveys, about 40% of all scientists believe in God. But that’s rather irrelevant, isn’t it? Unless of course you base your beliefs upon polls.

No you are right: polls do not impress me. Still, it would be fun if you could show it to me, just for fun.

Exporter:

**ATHEIST 699,

You must be having fun asking unanswerable questions.**

I have one question for you. We are aware of the fact that all the celestial bodies are made of the same elements we find on the earth.The question is : Where Did These Atoms Come From? :tiphat:

Now the fun part is that I can actually answer that question, or at least I will try:

The most popular theory on the creation of the universe as we know it today is the antimatter - theory. Now it has been proved that anti-matter does exist, so the theory is actually quite likely to be correct.

Anti-matter is built in the exact opposite way of it’s corresponding matter. For example, if you have anti-hydrogen (that actually has been created in Switzerland) and ‘normal’ hydrogen; then you combine these two matters, these two will turn into two photons (pure energy) which will shoot out in the exact opposite direction of eachother.

Now the theory is that there has too be just as much anti-matter as ‘normal’ matter in “this” universe. If so there is an entire paralell universe (to our universe) which consists purely of anti-matter, it is therefore also exactly as big (on the atom) as our universe. Naturally this is all just theoretical, but it is likely.

Now picture yourself these two universes as two “dinner”-plates, with a rubber-band between them. Theory is that these two universes go in and out of eachother “all the time”. When they go together, they will turn into one big mass of energy. Now remember that pure energy does have a mass (!), which theoretically means we can ‘weigh’ it. Then this giant ball of energy ‘explodes’ into the two universes again, and then the story repeats itself.

Now of course there are theories on where the energy came from too, but that’s another story, and there are no proof to back those theories up yet.

So concluding this, the universe is circular, and this probably means there have been universes and “people”/intelligent human-like creatures before us too. Naturally not on this planet. The mass chaos of planets will be restocked every time two universes are created.

 

[mlchance]

Atheist-669:

You can come up with ONE modern scientist who believes in god? That’s the best you can do?

Of course I can do better. Fortunately, since you made a blanket statement to the effect of that no modern scientists believe in God, the offering a single example to the contrary is sufficient to prove you wrong.

Atheist-669:

Look, the one who has to prove something is the one who comes up with a statement that is not supported by facts.

Exactly. So, since you made this claim…

Atheist-669:

This is your only life, when you die, it’s over.

…it seems entirely reasonable that you either put up or take the alternative.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Atheist-669]

First of all, it’s not nice to see that you only pick out the sentences where I am beeing a bit offensive, but that doesn’t matter now…

You said:

mlchance:

Of course I can do better. Fortunately, since you made a blanket statement to the effect of that no modern scientists believe in God, the offering a single example to the contrary is sufficient to prove you wrong.

Are we discussing a case, or are you only interested in winning one single argument? For me, I am interested in a discussion. Still I’ll give you that - I overdid that sentence. But my point was not to discuss wheter other persons (scientists or not) support the theory about an existing god. My point is that all scientists I’ve spoken with (about eleven persons) do not support the god-theory. With the exception of one, but he was in “Jehova’s witnesses”, and a bit extreme (said god would crush all ‘rich’ countries within the next 20 years).

Later on you said:

mlchance:

Exactly. So, since you made this claim (QUOTE from Atheist-669) it seems entirely reasonable that you either put up or take the alternative.

– Mark L. Chance.

You picked that quote out of it’s meaning! I said the person who does not have the facts must explain his theory, and the CASE was ‘wheter you die when you do, or if you will be reborn’. And that question is still unanswered (because there are no evidence that you will be reborn), please tell me your opinion, and be kind enough to back it up. Or as I said (the rest of the quote):

Atheist-669:

Prove to me that there is another life, and I will believe you, but until that time I will stick to what science can tell me. Because I have not discovered proof (seen/heard/etc.) that supports your theory.

 

[mlchance]

Atheist-669:

I said the person who does not have the facts must explain his theory…

And obviously you think you have the facts. Surely you’re basing your belief on facts, right?

Well, then, stop obfuscating, and please explain those facts and how they demonstrate that this is the only life you have.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Atheist-669]

mlchance:

And obviously you think you have the facts. Surely you’re basing your belief on facts, right?

Well, then, stop obfuscating, and please explain those facts and how they demonstrate that this is the only life you have.

I tell you what I see, not what I don’t see. Either you explain to me why you believe humans are reborn or reincarnated, or I will consider humans as animals that live once, then die. I am open for suggestions.

By the way words like ‘obfuscate’ are very rare, I suggest you use more common words to make it easier to read your posts. This isn’t a fight over who has the more advanced English…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Atheist-669,

humans are technically just another animal (only more advanced than the “average”).

I have a question for you, if you have time with all the rest

I’m a spacecraft engineer and have had my fair share of science. I believe I too can be described as ‘pro-science’ as well. Yet, that doesn’t mean I’m anti-God.

Here’s my question …

Do you believe Man is merely the most fortunate animal on the planet? It seems the facts indicate man has the upper hand with regard to controlling his environment. However, do you believe that man is merely enjoying the fruits of mere random chance?

Probability conditioned upon prior events is still probability. If man came to have the upper hand based purely upon random probability, without any outside intervention, then why is man an extreme outlier, statistically speaking?

For example, if man is in first place with regard to the ability to dominate this planet (either positively or negatively), then where’s the second place species? Man, it seems, is such an extreme outlier statistically speaking that it brings the theory of evolution by random processes into doubt. I don’t see that random processes can account for the statistical outlier called “man.” We have been to the moon. I would think the second place species would have at least discovered how to harness and exploit fire by now.

I love science. I’ve been a missile systems engineer and spacecraft engineer for much of my military career. It is my study of math and science which confirms in my mind that there is a God, a universal first cause, an intelligent designer. The mathematical improbability that the outlier called “man” came to be an outlier without some other influence is as of yet unsatisfactorily explained by science.

Opposable thumbs fails to convince. Random probability, even event conditioned, doesn’t support the gap between first place (man) and a second place species. Given enough events, the distribution fits the process. Pure random processes have a normal or Guassian distribution, for example. Extreme outliers, from my study of probability and statistics, always have to have a cause. Random processes do not result in extreme outliers like the one called ‘man’. Therefore, man’s status as first place is no mere result of random variation, otherwise I would expect a distribution with the second place species as an outlier, but just a little less than that of man. Where is the second place species? How come we can go to the moon and the second place species have not yet navigated its way across the Atlantic (land animal), or in the case of Dolphins, found its way toward exploring the land masses?

What do you suppose the statistical distribution is? Normal curve? Poisson curve? In all distributions that I am aware of, there should be a close second, unless there was some extreme outlier which has some other external influence that was not affecting the others. I believe man is an extreme outlier. All the evidence suggests this. Therefore, I conclude that there’s some external influence which is the cause, which is not affecting the rest of the pack.

to be continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

As I said, I’m trying to approach this methodically, given the tools of math and science which I’ve come to believe. Common evolutionary theories are based upon random variation. It should then match the laws of probability. Why the extreme outlier? I read “Beginnings” by my favorite atheist, Isaac Asimov. He does a great job explaining evolution. However, his explanation lacks an answer as to why man is the quintessential extreme outlier when compared to all other animals on this planet.

Life finds away to adapt and overcome. However, man has done so much better at “adapting and overcoming” than all others that have ever lived. The theory that “man” as the first place species is keeping the chimpanzee at a distant second, for example, and not allowing the random variations to work its way forward is unconvincing. Compare man’s dominance to the status of all species before man. Before man, was there an extreme outlier? Sure there was a dominant species, however, it doesn’t seem that they were so dominant that they were clearly an extreme outlier. This is not the case with man. We’re not like the best dinosaur. We are much better equipped, more advanced, etc. In short, there is no biological precedent compared to man in pre-human existence.

Random variation would not have resulted in such an extreme outlier. Check all known probability density curves where random variation is the supposed influencing process. The gap between first and second is never great. An extreme outlier always indicates some other influence. Always. If I’m going to stick to what I learned in probability and stats, I must admit this conclusion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for surveys …

A survey first made in 1916 by Dr. James Leuba of Bryn Mawr University revealed that over eight decades ago, only about 40% of the scientists surveyed expressed belief in a supreme being.

The same survey was repeated in 1997 by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia, a professor of science law and history. Again, 40% of the scientist surveyed expressed belief in a supreme being, while 45% denied such a belief. (appearantly 5% shrugged their shoulders).

Larson (1997) found that mathematicians are more likely to believe in God, while physicists are not. In my experience, physicists are more likely to be persuaded by another’s “school of thought” than the more abstract and analytical brains of mathematicians. Plus, math guys are less likely to need to see it to believe it, as their body of study is abstract by its very nature. For example, the “moon” of the planet Pluto was mathematically proven to exist prior to our ability to verify that hypothesis through optics.

I guess I tend to think more mathematically. If the processes don’t fit the probability, then another more probable explanation is needed.

 

[mlchance]

Atheist-669:

I tell you what I see, not what I don’t see.

You haven’t actually told me anything. Please explain what the facts are that lead you to believe that you have only this one life.

Atheist-669:

Either you explain to me why you believe humans are reborn or reincarnated, or I will consider humans as animals that live once, then die. I am open for suggestions.

I have made no claims about the existence of an afterlife. You have. Please back those claims up rather than changing the subject.

Atheist-669:

By the way words like ‘obfuscate’ are very rare.

Rare to you maybe. Common to me. Please don’t change the subject.

Instead, please back up your claim that you have only this one life.

You can do that, can’t you?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Catholicvegan]

I would also appreciate your response to mlchance’s question. Also, could you explain why you are an atheist (what is your reasoning?)? I’m very curious.

 

[SCTA-1]

I find it fascinating that a bunch of biological accidents like ourselves with absolutely no reason for existence can hold such a dialogue about “being” when there is no reason for being.

 

[Riley259]

Atheist-669:

You posted at the same time I did, so I didn’t notice your post before now: Dave1988:
No you are right: polls do not impress me. Still, it would be fun if you could show it to me, just for fun.

Exporter:

Now the fun part is that I can actually answer that question, or at least I will try:

The most popular theory on the creation of the universe as we know it today is the antimatter - theory. Now it has been proved that anti-matter does exist, so the theory is actually quite likely to be correct.

Anti-matter is built in the exact opposite way of it’s corresponding matter. For example, if you have anti-hydrogen (that actually has been created in Switzerland) and ‘normal’ hydrogen; then you combine these two matters, these two will turn into two photons (pure energy) which will shoot out in the exact opposite direction of eachother.

Now the theory is that there has too be just as much anti-matter as ‘normal’ matter in “this” universe. If so there is an entire paralell universe (to our universe) which consists purely of anti-matter, it is therefore also exactly as big (on the atom) as our universe. Naturally this is all just theoretical, but it is likely.

Now picture yourself these two universes as two “dinner”-plates, with a rubber-band between them. Theory is that these two universes go in and out of eachother “all the time”. When they go together, they will turn into one big mass of energy. Now remember that pure energy does have a mass (!), which theoretically means we can ‘weigh’ it. Then this giant ball of energy ‘explodes’ into the two universes again, and then the story repeats itself.

Now of course there are theories on where the energy came from too, but that’s another story, and there are no proof to back those theories up yet.

So concluding this, the universe is circular, and this probably means there have been universes and “people”/intelligent human-like creatures before us too. Naturally not on this planet. The mass chaos of planets will be restocked every time two universes are created.
Yes, I’ve read and heard explanations about this theory but just like baby universes and the bubble theory it is highly speculative - there’s not a shred of evidence that this is what happens. Atheistic scientists pull these things out when faced with more and more evidence against their biases. Nonetheless, you could still ask the question where those processes came from and ad infinitum. The Big Bang and quantum processes in general (string theory included) actually point more to a transcendent force outside our own limited four dimensions. But be my guest and keep grabbing at straws.

 

[Atheist-669]

PLEASE. Just, ‘hold the phone’ for one second! First of all I cannot argue/discuss/talk with more than 10 people at once, actually not more than 6.

Still, I will try to give you all a decent answer, but I must wait about 7 hours from now (even though I love chatting with you I have to go to work).

So if you could all just wait for that time I would be very pleased, unless I will have to prior the more ‘extended’ discussions. And I would really hate to have to drop discussions

 

[RNRobert]

Atheist 669-

I actually DID read your passage about my freedom ending where another person begins. However, you have not answered WHY I should respect another person. You say laws are the bottom line for a civilized society. What’s so great about a civilized society? If I am powerful enough to be above the law (or better yet, BE the law) then I should be able to do whatever I darn well please, no matter who it hurts.