IMMORTALITY?...you gotta be kidding!

1. 60

   qwarkposted 15 years ago

   How can so many of us "human creatures" be so easily fooled by the "promises" of abjectly ignorant ancient writers?
   Try to use "reason" when you respond..ty :-)

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Faith.. one of the greatest of human capabilities

      replyreport
      1. 60

         qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         What kind of "faith" do you refer to?...and what is this faith founded on?

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            faith is the belief in something that can not neccesarily be proven.
            
            the ability to have faith is part of the human condition.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Greek:
               There are 2 connotations of "faith."
               1. Faith based upon empirical proof/s
               2. religious faith which is based soley upon "hope."
               Which one are you referring to? Seems to me to be religious faith.
               Lets say tho that we go with your "definition," would "immortality" based upon that which cannot be necessarily proven be a "reasoned' response in reference to my question?

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  One might argue that there are truths that are, as Thomas Jefferson might say, "self evident"
                  
                  Faith the can be based on a type of inner wisdom or truth that can not be easily explained, measured or proven.   
                  
                  This need not be limited to the area of religion.. In fact, some of the greatest advances probably started off with little more than faith in an idea or a concept, without any empirical proof backing it up.
                  
                  Of course, that does not mean that this inner wisdom is at all accurate.  Then again, empirical proof once dictated that the world was flat

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     greek:
                     lolol
                     "Empirical proof" that the world was flat?...oh my gosh. IROTFL
                     Any thing that was created based upon faith, was, just a very strong "hope" that it would turn out right...
                     I can't accept your response as being well "reasoned." :-)

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Back in the day the 'proof' was that the world was flat… mind you the sources to disprove that were limited (and were often killed most unkindly) 
                        
                        Back in the day, Aristotle was thought to have known it all... later discoveries proved him wrong.
                        
                        To give another example, wasn’t it based on faith that the American colonies could separate from England.  Certainly evidence would have suggested they would lose easily
                        
                        Faith has always been a powerful component in human development and progress.  By definition it is something that does not need to rely on the type of ‘evidence’ you are looking for.
                           
                        I, for example, have faith that I will one day match Mark Knowles’s blogging revenue streams.  Based on the evidence in by bank account today, I have no proof of that.. but you never know.. he might take me under his wing

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Greek:
                           "To give another example, wasn’t it based on faith that the American colonies could separate from England.  Certainly evidence would have suggested they would lose easily."
                           That kind of "faith" ='s "hope."
                           
                           Hang in there...I hope ya make it..:-)

                           replyreport
                           1. 66

                              Greek Oneposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              You can have faith or belief that something will happen but not 'hope' or want it to happen.
                              
                              For example, I believe that my wife will cook meatloaf tonight... but i hope she doesn't

                              replyreport
                  2. 80

                     thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Actually religion once dictated the world was flat, during a time where science was well under religious control.

                     replyreport
               2. 0

                  Pani Midnyte Odinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Hope is a human emotion. Whether you are religious or not, there is always something to remain hopeful about.
                  
                  Examples: I hope I get the job promotion.
                  (You have faith in yourself, therefore you are hopeful.)
                  You can't prove you will get that job promotion until you actually get it, the same with religion of any kind. No one can prove God or the Goddess or Mohammad or whoever you worship exists until it comes time to "meet your maker" or go lie in the soil for the rest of eternity.
                  
                  Hope and faith can be completely separate from religion.
                  
                  As for religious texts, I've never had much use for them. If you put a Bible outside, the wind and the rain will dissolve its pages. The wind and rain ARE my Bible

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               faith is merely shining the flashlight on an object already there, just not visible to the optic view aka in the darkness. calling the thing forth as not, as though they are -cuz, well, they are. simple.

               replyreport
      2. 80

         thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I think fear would be more accurate, relgion helps people deal with fear, be it fear of death, fear of people, or in teh past when religion was ruled by fear.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      LOL
      
      Well - I am amazed at how many fall for this. And all because of an ancient Roman tradition of deifying the dead as a show of respect. I am sure Cagsil has more on this.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Mark:
         He may have but he must clarify his prior comment before i can agree with ya....:-)

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   3. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      BAW-HA-HA-HA,
      
      Thank you, thank you, thank you, Quark. That is THE "best" laugh today. Seriously, I so needed it. Am "literally" wiping tears of humor from my eyes.
      
      Science "understands" the concept of "reason"?!
      Interesting, cuz both sides of the "Ism" do not apply any "useful" or "rational" measure of it.
      
      The "Immortal Beloved Banter".
      I gotta tell my "phellow philos" about this one.
      It's going to be the hit of the "weekend" in the Hampton's.
      
      "Bless" you!

      replyreport
   4. 0

      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well let's see here.  If before I was alive I can assume I was well... dead, then when I die I can assume...
      
      hmmm, doth maketh me wonder. lol

      replyreport
      1. 60

         qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Sandra:
         An "assumption" is just that...lol

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly! So what exactly do you assume again?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               SAndra;
               Improbability!

               replyreport
   5. 61

      Ashmiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      There is no such thing as immortality in the sense that the same person does not live forever....However: the sense of Pure Being is immortal. And since this feeling of pure awareness is the same in all of us ..we are all immortal.

      replyreport
   6. 61

      Apostle Jackposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      They said the same thing about coming back from the dead.
      But so many times it's been proven that it do and will be done again.

      replyreport
2. 77

   skyfireposted 15 years ago

   Nope.
   
   It's real but some people managed to die and got the status of god. Anyway, it's real trust me cause book says so.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Skyfire:
      "Certainly, thou doth jest?"   lol
      Someone else pls....and try "thoughtful" reasoning this time...:-)   ty

      replyreport
3. 71

   Cagsilposted 15 years ago

   Just your words alone here, as in your topic and OP, shows you are limited in your thinking.
   
   Even Einstein said "Imagination is important than knowledge".
   
   However, even that said- Immortality is only a concept. The perceived concept is almost inconceivable, except to the imagination.
   
   All our present knowledge claims or appears to point to it not realistic, but the possibility does remain, regardless of what one person thinks or believes.
   
   Just my thought.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Cags:
      Ya have to re-write this...lol
      I'm trying to figure this out; "Even Einstein said "Imagination is important than knowledge". Did you leave the word "more" out?
      ...and what does this mean? "All our present knowledge claims or appears to point to it not realistic,..." did you leave out a word here too or did you mean: ...appears to point to it as not being realistic?
      Soooo...I'm not quite getting your point.
      Wanna try again?

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, typos. I am only human.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Cags:
            Me too!
            I'm trying to figure out if you mean by what you typed, that "immortality" is naught but an imagined concept as it relates to we humans? do I have it right?

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               My point was that you were limiting yourself to say that it was an impossibility- immortality.
               
               And, Yes- Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge". I say that because Imagination is key to exploration in all fields of science, for which, are key to humanity's understanding of itself.
               
               Immortality compared with the collective knowledge of humanity, the two put together would not compute on any level. Just the concept exists presently because our knowledge is limited.
               
               However, it cannot ever be completely ruled out.
               
               I hope that was better.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Cags;
                  What an improvement!   :-)
                  I don't think I used the word "impossible" tho.
                  How did you come up with that from my question?
                  I don't think of anything as being "impossible." Improbable? Absolutely.
                  "Immortality" as it relates to any form of life is a foreign concept to me.
                  Do you think you are able to "broaden my horizons" in ref to it?
                  My mind is seeking well reasoned "input."   :-)

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Cagsilposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank you.
                     Most average people would completely dismiss it as impossible more than anything else.
                     It is a foreign concept to most. Don't feel bad.
                     I can compare the thought of "immortality" to the thought of "world peace", both have a chance of becoming a reality, but not before a change in the way we think about these concepts come to be a reality.
                     
                     Right now, each concept is exactly that- a concept or idea. There isn't any action building either of them to be even remotely probable, much less anything else.
                     
                     There must be a change in a majority of humanity, a shift in thinking, can make it a reality.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Cags:
                        World peace and immortal life are both "improbable."
                        ty for the response.   :-)

                        replyreport
   2. 80

      thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah but Einstein also denounced religion on a myriad of occasions, although Christians do love to mis-quote him.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         It sure is funny when people quote Einstein without having a shred of an idea what he meant when he said it. 

         replyreport
         1. 80

            thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            My favorite Einstein quote will forever be
            
            "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"
            
            The funny think is when I use this rebuttal against Christians who claim einstein as one of their own, they think I am making it up!

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Amazing, isn't it? Christians make it up that Einstein was a believer when he emphatically stated he wasn't.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  No he didn't..
                  I am not Christian either.
                  He said he didn't know.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Sorry Deborah, you are stating many things that you can't back up with evidence and are just regurgitating believers beliefs.
                     
                     I didn't say you were Christian. Does that matter?

                     replyreport
            2. 0

               Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Einstein:
                   "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."(As quoted in Clark 1971:502)
               
               However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:
               
                   "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
               
                   "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh look, there they go again.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh so quoting him is incorrect?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Of course not, but the "mistransliteration" on your part is?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality,
                           
                           
                           Same as I do.
                           
                           I'm a Kabbalist

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              Good for you! 

                              replyreport
         2. 58

            Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            It is even funnier when people say things like "It sure is funny how other people don't understand these things like I do" in an utterly transparent attempt at self-aggrandizement.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Who said that?

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     You said it? Why would say such things?

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           No answer, just rolling eyes? Am I supposed to read your mind?
                           
                           Oh, I see, you are assuming I said that. Silly me not to have taken your misconstrued insult in the context it was meant. 

                           replyreport
            2. 58

               Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Yup, funny stuff.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  When you make up stuff (like you did) and then use it to put words into other peoples mouths (as you did with me), does it make it anymore valid if you re-post it again? 

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Yoor smert!

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Derision: the act of treating with contempt.
                        
                        Contempt: open disrespect for a person or thing.
                        
                        

                        replyreport
         3. 58

            Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            "It sure is funny when people quote Einstein without having a shred of an idea what he meant when he said it."
            
            But you do, right? Gosh, you're special.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               I'm not the only one who does know, there's nothing special about it, unless you are making it so.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Don't be so modest. You must be as smart as Einstein himself to have it over those "funny" people the way you do!

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Not really, I just don't make up stuff like they do to support my beliefs in a god.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        "I just don't make up stuff like they do "
                        
                        Of course not, because you're so smart you don't have to make stuff up!

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           If you insist.

                           replyreport
      2. 0

         Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Actually he said he believed in Creationism just not in a personal God.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            No, he didn't.

            replyreport
4. 0

   Pani Midnyte Odinposted 15 years ago

   From my rotting corpse, flowers shall grow and I am in them and that is eternity.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Pani:
      You speak the truth.....ty!

      replyreport
   2. 73

      earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. And so the world keeps you alive in another form.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      Sab Ohposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You don't have to wait to grow flowers. You are exchanging matter all the time.

      replyreport
5. 61

   Jeramiposted 15 years ago

   I started believing in the possability of eternal life in 6th grade when we learned that matter can not be destroyed.
   We can only change its form by allowing it to decay or burn it or combining the elements.
      We can not destroy energy but only move it from one location to another. etc.
   
     I believe our concience is energy therefore it is relocated from one place to another????????????

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Jerami:
      What do you mean: "I believe our concience is energy...?"
      Do you mean "consciousness?"
      C'mon Jerami, you are being as careless with your English as Cags was.
      What does whatever you are trying to say have to do with any life being "immortal?"

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Jeramiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Getting tired and sleepy as for the spelling I aint so good anyway.
             This is what I think don't know "HOW" true it is or not But
            Energy and matter are  as diffrent as water and rocks.
            The matter that makes up this tired old body will feed the worms some day
            I have the same amount of energy in this tired old body as I ever did, it's just getting weaker now.
            When the body dies the energy goes someplace.
            Where does that energy go after is isn't here any more?
         
            I don't know?  My science teacher said it cain't be destroy. It can be dispersed or collected That's all I know.
         I believe that cause my science teacher said it.

         replyreport
6. 0

   Deborah Sextonposted 15 years ago

   Talking about logic.
   We live in a three dimensional world.
   
   The movement that we as humans are aware of is
   
       Up and down or Height
       Back and forth or Length
       Side to side or Width
   
   Everything in our life is duality:
       Male and Female
       North and South
       Light and Dark
   Etc, Etc.
   Everything is a part of and contains it's opposite.
   
   If there is one it can only exist with it's opposite.
   Try to do away with South and it will remain until you also do away with North.
   
   If there is life, there is death
   If there is visible there is invisible
   If there is mortality there has to be immortality.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Deborah:
      You make this "absolute" statement: "If there is mortality there has to be immortality."
      Pls provide an example of life being "immortal."
      TY

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         A lot of religionists use this argument. It stems from their childish "Good vs Bad" war that they do not understand.
         
         "If there is an imperfect being (me), then logically, there is a perfect one."
         
         See how that works? This is called "logic," and sometimes "proof" and "evidence" are used to back this up. Allow me:
         
         "We have now 'proven logically' that God exists, we then discover 'evidence' of this all around us."

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Who said anything about God?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               I was merely pointing out the absolutely ridiculous nature of your irrational argument and saying that the religionists use this same argument to prove God exists.
               
               Sorry you did not understand. Hope that clears that up for you. Interesting new meaning of the word "fact" by the way.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Obviously calling what I have said "Ridiculous" tells me you lack the ability to think in logical terms.
                  
                  So far the only one who has used any logic here is most certainly me.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Sorry - I am not familiar with that usage of the word "logic," and not really interested in learning your new meaning. Sorry. Yes - ridiculous. Look it up.

                     replyreport
   2. 0

      Pani Midnyte Odinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Up and Down, Back and forth, Left to Right
      
      There ARE actually entities that do not move at all. Rocks, for instance, are forms of matter that do not move unless someone or something moves them. They don't grow, they don't shrink.
      
      Male and Female
      
      One word: Hermaphrodites
      
      North and South
      
      You forgot Northeast, Northwest, Southeast Southwest, West, East... Not everything goes in one direction or the other.
      
      Light and Dark
      
      What about that happy medium? You know, the time when it's not really dark and it's not really light. It just IS. If you're talking about color, there are very few colors that can be described simply as light or dark. There's medium light, very light, slightly light, medium dark, very dark, slightly dark.
      
      Life and Death
      
      Yes, there is death from every life. However, death can sometimes bring new life, such as flowers or herbs.
      
      Visible and Invisible
      
      Okay, you can have that one.
      
      The point I am trying to make is that there is not always a black and white answer, yes or no answer. There are shades of gray in many areas, which is why your argument is not valid.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         None of what you said disputes what I have said.
         Rocks can be thrown up/down, left/right/ back/forth..etc.
         It is about movement FACTS not about what can or can't move.
         
         
         Nothing you have said is an argument...against what I have said.
         Your statements actually enforce what I've said.
         
         For instance your statement that I "forgot Northeast, Northwest"
         and that not everything goes in one direction is exactly what I was stating when I said: "Up and down or Height, Back and forth or Length,
         Side to side or Width"
         However just because there are Middle Grounds does not mean North and South are not a part of and are extreme opposites of each other. It also does not mean that they CAN exist without each other.
         
         It only shows that they all exist as one and by nature inseparable except in mans eyes.
         
         Your statement about dark and light having a happy medium again does not take away that there is still dark and light. It only reinforces it. Because something such as dark and light being halfway means it is going to the opposite point..dark going to light, light going to dark.
         Which man has named one day. Which is a whole and is inseparable.
         
         Your statement that "
         Yes, there is death from every life. However, death can sometimes bring new life, such as flowers or herbs." Really proves my point.
         
         
         My Premise #1
         All of existence contains Dualities that are inseparable and one can't exist without the other
         
         
         My Premise #2
         Man labels these as separate yet they are actually all a whole.
         
         Conclusion
         Since the above two primes are true then it can be concluded that if Mortality exists then Immortality also exists though man can't see or prove it.
         
         Your statement that the existence of the Male and Female genders are Hermaphrodite is just weird.

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      These are called premises and aren't based on religion.
      
      Suppositions based on others like it, that are fact.

      replyreport
   4. 59

      Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      What is the opposite of a platypus?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         What is the opposite of a rock?
         
         This meaningless drivel the religionists come out with to justify whatever it is they are attempting to justify is really quite entertaining. But - it does make it impossible to have a meaningful conversation. I mean when,
         
         "If there is life, there is death
         If there is visible there is invisible
         If there is mortality there has to be immortality"
         
         is supposed to be "logic" - how can you speak to them?
         
         This one accused me of lacking the ability to think in logical terms. So - I guess by her definition of the word "logic" - I would have to agree with her.
         
         There are rocks
         logically the Pink Unicorn exists
         
         And is of course - the opposite of a Platypus.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Never studied logical conclusions using premises in Psychology?
            I didn't think so. Maybe YOU should look it up.
            
            My Premise #1
            All of existence contains Dualities that are inseparable and one can't exist without the other
            
            
            My Premise #2
            Man labels these as separate yet they are actually all a whole.
            
            Conclusion
            Since the above two primes are true then it can be concluded that if Mortality exists then Immortality also exists though man can't see or prove it.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Like I said - not really interested in your new meaning of the word "logic".
               
               1 - Ridiculous. Look it up.
               2 - Nonsense.
               Conclusion - see 1 and 2.
               
               Sorry. 
               
               ciao

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  Do you think I care even a dot what you think?
                  You're showing how much you don't know.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     I very much doubt you care what anyone thinks. You already have all the answers.
                     
                     Just remember - the ferry to Italy is not a ferry to France.
                     
                     You funny.

                     replyreport
            2. 59

               Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               A platypus and a rock have no dualities and each can easily exist without one. Your premise is wrong.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  A rock is a solid and can be beaten into powder or melted..so therefore..it's complimentary yet polar opposite

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Haha! Nice try, but no cigar.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Everything is Linear.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           And, you were wrong.

                           replyreport
      2. 0

         Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Beelzedad

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, I'm just His dad. 

            replyreport
7. 58

   Sab Ohposted 15 years ago

   You need to have a long talk with a biologist...
   
   
   
   
   
   ...and a daoist

   replyreport
8. 91

   AdeleCosgroveBrayposted 15 years ago

   Instead of looking backwards, to old philosophies and superstitions about the possiblility of immortality, how about looking forwards towards emerging/developing demonstrable scientific progress?
   
   If you care to Google Aubrey de Grey, the LEF Foundation, or the work of Ray Kurzweil, you will quickly learn that much measurable scientific progress has already been made on identifying the so-called "aging gene." 
   
   As knowledge of gene manipulation continues to expand, the possiblity of achieving immortality through science is a real possiblity - maybe even within the next couple of decades (according to those who work in this field of research.)

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Jeramiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I am not sure if that would be a good thing or not.
      This little earth is going to get very crowded if no one got old and died and everyone kept on having babies.
         Or we build a lot of busses to other planets???
         Seems like when man fixes one problem a bigger one emerges.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      The possibility does exist.
      I have written a "hub" concerning the possibility of "immortal life." It's title is; "The Reward."

      replyreport
9. 80

   thisisoliposted 15 years ago

   Einstein on several occasions point blank refused any association with religion. (See my earlier quote as an example)
   
   "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
   
   Spinoza's God is not infact creationism, and Einstein does not support creationism, but he uses the word God, as did Spinoza, to refer to god as a connection between living things. 
   
   This is why Einstein was not an Atheist, because he did not 'crusade' against religion, nor did he deny religion, he simply stated his personal view that religion was wrong, however he did not deny that their were connections beyond human understanding, to this point he was agnostic
   
   ("My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.")
   
   If you have any real desire to know for sure about Einsteins point of view on religion read some of his works.  If anything Einstein leant more towards a personal Buddhism where he focused on finding the best qualities in life.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I've already stated that he viewed God and Nature as one..as I do..

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Beelzedadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         And, Einstein also stated he didn't believe in a god. There you go.

         replyreport
      2. 80

         thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         But that is not religion, it is placing the name of God to the natural way of life.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Who mentioned religion?

            replyreport
            1. 80

               thisisoliposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Well ok, you mentioned Creationism not religion, but Einsteins view on creationism in general was much as how he talked of religion.

               replyreport
10. 68

    SparklingJewelposted 15 years ago

    immortality is of the soul, and sometimes of a certain level of light vibration of what was the physical body..lie in Jesus resurrected body and the yogis of the far East, like Babaji.
    
    People get confused thinking that they can live for ever as they are now in their human matter body, and focus on the physical sciences to maintain that body.
    
    the ancient teachings are about the soul, but shrouded in mystery, and words that can only speak literally and linearly.
    
    Humanity thinks they are expanding their consciousness by going into outer space...where as, it is inner space that needs the expansion and provides the true expansion of consciousness.
    
    immortality is not something one can find in the world of form, but only in the seeking of the inner worlds, the other dimensions not seen with the physical eyes

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Jewel:
       Pls tell me how this can be considered to be due exercise of the faculty of logical thought?
       I read what you just wrote and qualify the whole message as just being meandering, valueless opinion.
       I'm trying to understand why you even offered it...except maybe to engender comments like mine.
       After all, the forum is a form of entertainment and the "devils advocacy" attitude is certainly ok...:-)

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Ashmiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I think jewel is referring to sense of pure Being. I agree, the feeling of being is immortal as it does not depend on time and space. This feeling exists when we have let go of all conceptual knowledge. Detached from sensory experience yet  awareness of being is possible. Maybe I should write a hub about this as it keeps coming up.

          replyreport
11. 59

    SpanStarposted 14 years ago

    What mankind has been looking for since Adam & Eve is immortality.  It is elusive to mankind because we believe in only our own reality-what I can see, touch, smell or hear.  Can anyone say how long space, that's right space, not the universe but space itself has existed?-(I didn't think so) If can find how old space is then how does one know how long it's been around?  Does anyone see and end to space, will there come a time when there is no more space?

    replyreport
12. 61

    dfagerposted 14 years ago

    Logic always seems to break down in these forums as people always attempt to argue issues without any attempt to categorize the things they're arguing about.  Reason and logic would fall into the category of concepts.  Material objects would fall into an entirely different category. 
    
    In the case of immortality there's two categories:  the material body and the energy we call consciousness of itself.  Some might believe that consciousness is a chemical process, if that is the belief, then it falls into the same category as the physical body.  If not, then consciousness would fall into a category separate from the body.  So, therefore, the question shoud be something like "Is consciousness immortal?"  If so, what part of consciousness is immortal, consciousness of one's physical body and memories, or consciousness of something greater?

    replyreport
13. 61

    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Immortality only applies to Hubbers.....they will go on and on and on and on and on into cyber space for the next ten milleniumm..........................:)beam me up Scotty

    replyreport
14. 97

    Alison Grahamposted 14 years ago

    This is a fascinating topic and I have enjoyed reading responses from other Hubbers.  I am not able to give a well reasoned answer so maybe you won't like it very much.  I know that I was born 52 years ago, I know, that I will die in the future (not too soon, I hope).  Why does everyone worry about death and about being plunged into 'nothingness' when no-one worries about where they were before they were born!  Did we have an existence before, were we nothing, were we created at that moment of conception?  If we were nothing before and became what we are now, is it not logical to think that if we become nothing again at our deaths that we can 'be' again in the future?  With all the trillions and trillions of possibilities it seems to me that there is nothing that is impossible.

    replyreport