What happens when you die?

[limpbizkit]

"I will just live enjoying the gift of life to the full"amy dumas (lita)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

basicly i think you just live your life to the full enjoy the gift dont worry about death theres no point its a hole new adventure

 

 

 

and i came up with that in a week due to problems due to not so long ago a relatives death but shes proberly living a hole new adventure....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~kiddo

[Parabola]

you will look exactly like you did when you died for approximately 20 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did you get that information from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even with modern embalming methods, most bodies decay to a skeleton within a year

[Barihawk]

 

you will look exactly like you did when you died for approximately 20 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where did you get that information from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even with modern embalming methods, most bodies decay to a skeleton within a year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depends on the burial method. Most cemetaries just close the casket and bury it. My grandmother died this past month, and her tomb is gaurenteed to give here at least 5 years before any decomposition begins. I am sure that more wealthy patrons would be able to secure the 10 and 20 year methods.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

Depends on the burial method. Most cemetaries just close the casket and bury it. My grandmother died this past month, and her tomb is gaurenteed to give here at least 5 years before any decomposition begins. I am sure that more wealthy patrons would be able to secure the 10 and 20 year methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious as to why someone would want thier loved ones carcass intact for 20 years... do they want to actually go in thier tomb and talk to them? :-s Decomposition is inevitable either way. Dunno, just seems wierd to me.

[Errdoth]

If I had to put something non-religion (I believe in heaven, and religious stuff), I would have to go with something like in the last Narnia books (I think, read those a while ago), if anyone remembers, tell me, I just remember it being a pretty good theory.

[crimsonking]

A very common definition of religion is a set of beliefs, it wouldn't necessarily require worship of a god. The point still remains, that atheism isn't intrinsically linked with science. You're just stereotyping what the typical "atheist" would be and then claiming that scientific chat would be somehow religious by association.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine, I was wrong on Athiesm, but that is beside the point that I am making here, things have gone way off topic since my first statement, and I admit some of that is my fault.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My main point still stands though, you cannot speak of this topic without bringing religion into it unless speaking of the effects death has on the body, and that is not what was asked, so, seeing as religious discussion is banned here, this thread is against the rules, and as Astra stated, this thread should either be locked, or the ban should be lifted, though I am more for the former than the latter, seeing as religious discussion leads to, well, this.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Yes I can and it's the scientific method. If you knew about science, you would know this and that the reason why is that it is designed so that your experimental results can be replicated by anyone, thus assuring the method with undeniable integrity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you think philosophers of science do all day? Pat each other on the back for a job well done?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So who's scientific method is right? Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bloor, or one of the many others not listed? That's the problem, there isn't one design of the scientific method and thinking otherwise is quite naive at best. Chemists (experimentation), Archaeologist (collecting fragmented information), Astronomers (inference from observation) and Psychologists (statistical analysis) are four professions which highlight how one scientific method will not work for the other.

[Guest]

Well in my own opinion we're all too complex beings and the universe we live in for it all to be an accident. So something is bound to happen. Nothing much more you can say without including religion, as that's such a major factor of "the afterlife".

[assassin_696]

I appreciate that this topic is very hard to discuss without going into religion, but after reading through it the discussion has been kept nicely off the religious discussions that brought about the ban on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a good debate, and the debate as to whether or not this should be locked should be kept off this thread, it's okay. Cheers. :)

[Parabola]

My grandmother died this past month, and her tomb is gaurenteed to give here at least 5 years before any decomposition begins. I am sure that more wealthy patrons would be able to secure the 10 and 20 year methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt their claims are true - they are very easy claims to make when you know that the relatives will never be checking to see if they're getting what they paid for. What's more, decomposition happens faster in tombs above ground due to the higher temperatures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's an episode of Penn & Teller - Bullfaeces that debunks many of these myths concerning funerals/caskets/embalming.

[crimsonking]

I appreciate that this topic is very hard to discuss without going into religion, but after reading through it the discussion has been kept nicely off the religious discussions that brought about the ban on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a good debate, and the debate as to whether or not this should be locked should be kept off this thread, it's okay. Cheers. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok... So does that mean religious discussion is allowed on this thread?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, I'm done here.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

Yes I can and it's the scientific method. If you knew about science, you would know this and that the reason why is that it is designed so that your experimental results can be replicated by anyone, thus assuring the method with undeniable integrity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you think philosophers of science do all day? Pat each other on the back for a job well done?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So who's scientific method is right? Bacon, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bloor, or one of the many others not listed? That's the problem, there isn't one design of the scientific method and thinking otherwise is quite naive at best. Chemists (experimentation), Archaeologist (collecting fragmented information), Astronomers (inference from observation) and Psychologists (statistical analysis) are four professions which highlight how one scientific method will not work for the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm quite aware that not everyone thinks of science in the same way nor do they all practice it in the same way. Sorry though, i'm not to big on the philosophy of science, more on actual science. Here's a site about the scientific method, incase you're interested: The Scientific Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here's a quote from this site:

 

 

 

It took a long while to determine how is the world better investigated. One way is to just talk about it (for example Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, stated that males and females have different number of teeth, without bothering to check; he then provided long arguments as to why this is the way things ought to be). This method is unreliable: arguments cannot determine whether a statement is correct, this requires proofs.

 

 

 

A better approach is to do experiments and perform careful observations. The results of this approach are universal in the sense that they can be reproduced by any skeptic. It is from these ideas that the scientific method was developed. Most of science is based on this procedure for studying Nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me, the scientific method is simple, you dont need to overanalyse or critique the method by incorporating philosophy into it. Although it can't hurt, because while philosophers of science debate whether this or that is the best way to analyse nature, results are produced by scientists, with the scientific method.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, keep in mind I know very little about the philosophy of science, so don't take it personally.

[assassin_696]

 

I appreciate that this topic is very hard to discuss without going into religion, but after reading through it the discussion has been kept nicely off the religious discussions that brought about the ban on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a good debate, and the debate as to whether or not this should be locked should be kept off this thread, it's okay. Cheers. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok... So does that mean religious discussion is allowed on this thread?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, I'm done here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it means you can carry on discussing it as you have been.

[terley]

Nothing magical or interesting happens to you when you die, I personally think whoever thinks death leads to something else, isn't living their lives to the fullest, death isn't exactly a good thing, people die lonely, scared, unwillingly every single minute. instead of pondering a near improbability, be greatful for the gift of life and fulfill everything you ever dreamed of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sure it would be nice to know that there's something else after death, but really.. until there's something that clearly proves that im not gonna consider it. And im not willing to waste my time proving the unprovable.

[BlueTear]

Scientists indirectly make it all the time when they use the scientific method and call the results knowledge.

 

 

 

Not quite following how it means exclusion of any other source (and you still didn't actually name one).

 

 

 

That's exactly my point. If there is no other way to acquire knowledge, where did the knowledge that the scientific method is the only way to acquire knowledge come from?

 

 

 

Trial and error? Century upon century where other methods have proven to yield results that aren't nearly as accurate?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

I'm quite aware that not everyone thinks of science in the same way nor do they all practice it in the same way. Sorry though, i'm not to big on the philosophy of science, more on actual science. Here's a site about the scientific method, incase you're interested: The Scientific Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me, the scientific method is simple, you dont need to overanalyse or critique the method by incorporating philosophy into it. Although it can't hurt, because while philosophers of science debate whether this or that is the best way to analyse nature, results are produced by scientists, with the scientific method.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, keep in mind I know very little about the philosophy of science, so don't take it personally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article you linked to is a rather classical view, the most obvious failure of this view is that it doesn't explain how theories can be produced before anything is observed. For example, Brownian motion uses atoms to describe its motion before atoms were even discovered; so the idea of atoms would be from theory not observation. Not everything that you consider science follows the procedure you provided, so you can't call it the scientific method; it's that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having a simple scientific method allows more things to get away with being called or being labelled science, which leads to bad consequences. Eugenics was considered scientific and was used as the reason to sterilise hundreds of thousands of people as well as killing tens of thousands of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about astrology; people claim it as scientific, however it fails to accurately explain anything. It has the perfect excuse as well, it is impossible to get the precise location of the planets so its predictions can vary wildly; so why can't astrology be science, its predictions would be true if they can get precise information.

[eias]

you keep the best 3 items or 4 items if u used protect items pray

 

 

 

that was in runescape

 

 

 

in real life i dont know im not dead yet :

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

I'm quite aware that not everyone thinks of science in the same way nor do they all practice it in the same way. Sorry though, i'm not to big on the philosophy of science, more on actual science. Here's a site about the scientific method, incase you're interested: The Scientific Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me, the scientific method is simple, you dont need to overanalyse or critique the method by incorporating philosophy into it. Although it can't hurt, because while philosophers of science debate whether this or that is the best way to analyse nature, results are produced by scientists, with the scientific method.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, keep in mind I know very little about the philosophy of science, so don't take it personally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article you linked to is a rather classical view, the most obvious failure of this view is that it doesn't explain how theories can be produced before anything is observed. For example, Brownian motion uses atoms to describe its motion before atoms were even discovered; so the idea of atoms would be from theory not observation. Not everything that you consider science follows the procedure you provided, so you can't call it the scientific method; it's that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having a simple scientific method allows more things to get away with being called or being labelled science, which leads to bad consequences. Eugenics was considered scientific and was used as the reason to sterilise hundreds of thousands of people as well as killing tens of thousands of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about astrology; people claim it as scientific, however it fails to accurately explain anything. It has the perfect excuse as well, it is impossible to get the precise location of the planets so its predictions can vary wildly; so why can't astrology be science, its predictions would be true if they can get precise information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first bolded statement - Theory is a very broad term, so actually, a theory can be formulated without obserations. Although most are reliant on some sort of observations and evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second bolded statement - I've already said that I understand that not all science follows the scientific method, thats obvious as people who haven't heard of it or been taught the proper conventions will do things thier own way. You actually can call it the 'scientific method' as that's what it's called, it dosen't literally mean 'the one and only method in science'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third bolded statement - Quite the opposite, as I have said previously, the scientific method is designed such that experiments are replicatable by anyone, therefore anyone can determine 'right' science from 'bogus' science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fourth bolded statement - After reading about Eugenics, it would appear you are right, it was based on science but in science, morality is not considered. Think of stem cell research, for example (which I am for, but thats another topic). It's kind of flawed to blame science for the evils of man, which was what obviously saw the Nazis take eugenics to the extreme with the Jews.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fifth bolded statement - Here's an example of where science is dependant on the sophistication of the tools used to produce results. Obviously we can't manually measure the distances measured in astrology, cosmology and the like, so we need to use tools to help us, which aren't perfect, but they are getting better.

[Barihawk]

 

My grandmother died this past month, and her tomb is gaurenteed to give here at least 5 years before any decomposition begins. I am sure that more wealthy patrons would be able to secure the 10 and 20 year methods.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt their claims are true - they are very easy claims to make when you know that the relatives will never be checking to see if they're getting what they paid for. What's more, decomposition happens faster in tombs above ground due to the higher temperatures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's an episode of Penn & Teller - Bullfaeces that debunks many of these myths concerning funerals/caskets/embalming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By tomb, I was describing the Concrete and marble berth that the casket is placed into. It is still placed the traditional 6 feet underground.

[crimsonking]

 

 

I appreciate that this topic is very hard to discuss without going into religion, but after reading through it the discussion has been kept nicely off the religious discussions that brought about the ban on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a good debate, and the debate as to whether or not this should be locked should be kept off this thread, it's okay. Cheers. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok... So does that mean religious discussion is allowed on this thread?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If so, I'm done here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it means you can carry on discussing it as you have been.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to argue, but haven't we already been discussing this religiously?

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

The first bolded statement - Theory is a very broad term, so actually, a theory can be formulated without obserations. Although most are reliant on some sort of observations and evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many theories in the field of physics are formulated without observation, mainly because technology hasn't caught up with theory. A few examples would be dark matter, which was only directly observed recently. Higgs-boson (a particle responsible for mass) which has been formulated for decades and hopefully will be detected by the LHC (which should be ready by next year). Also String theory is based off mathematical models which have very difficult test conditions which will take many, many years until we can hopefully verify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore applications based on theory such as fusion power, we don't observe a fusion power plant and then explain how it was designed; many experiments aren't about copying an observation, rather trying to create a new one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second bolded statement - I've already said that I understand that not all science follows the scientific method, thats obvious as people who haven't heard of it or been taught the proper conventions will do things thier own way. You actually can call it the 'scientific method' as that's what it's called, it dosen't literally mean 'the one and only method in science'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the problem, your using the term scientific method as if it were an authoritative method of performing science, such a method doesn't exist. 'The scientific method', is a loaded phrase which is commonly known as the 100%, proper way of performing science (in a sense the perfect method). Sure you can write up a useful method of science that many people use, but it isn't THE scientific method. All you're doing is giving your half baked method of science authority and appealing to people's emotion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third bolded statement - Quite the opposite, as I have said previously, the scientific method is designed such that experiments are replicatable by anyone, therefore anyone can determine 'right' science from 'bogus' science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sciences that rely on abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) usually don't have replicable experiments. How would you go about recreating the motion of the Earth's plates or forming the Grand Canyon. How would you evaluate whether weathering or a gigantic flood created the Canyon, both are plausible and you can't physically test either conjecture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're over simplifying things to a point where isn't a valid argument (whether science is based on beliefs and should be classed as religion). The complexity of what science is and its goals are what differentiates it from religion, not that it follows an a completely subjective method of science. Your original argument was in support of the person you were trying to refute.

[Will H]

What is worrying is the thought of you just being a pair of eyes (and even not that) that just stare into black nothingness. If you talk to a person who is blind but previously had sight perhaps they can explain how it feels. I mean, are you a conciousness, can conciousness maintain existence outside a body forever? I mean, if you 'died' (Lost brain activity for a few seconds) you never remember what is the difference between the actual truth and what your brain made up. Most people talk about 'near death experiences' but this phenonemon can be explained. In school did you try a test where you find the 'blind spot' in your eye? Well, it proves that the brain is very good at filling in blank spots, wether that be sight or memory. I therefore conclude that we will never be able to prove what an afterlife consists of and be able to relay that information back to the living world.

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

The first bolded statement - Theory is a very broad term, so actually, a theory can be formulated without obserations. Although most are reliant on some sort of observations and evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many theories in the field of physics are formulated without observation, mainly because technology hasn't caught up with theory. A few examples would be dark matter, which was only directly observed recently. Higgs-boson (a particle responsible for mass) which has been formulated for decades and hopefully will be detected by the LHC (which should be ready by next year). Also String theory is based off mathematical models which have very difficult test conditions which will take many, many years until we can hopefully verify it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore applications based on theory such as fusion power, we don't observe a fusion power plant and then explain how it was designed; many experiments aren't about copying an observation, rather trying to create a new one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second bolded statement - I've already said that I understand that not all science follows the scientific method, thats obvious as people who haven't heard of it or been taught the proper conventions will do things thier own way. You actually can call it the 'scientific method' as that's what it's called, it dosen't literally mean 'the one and only method in science'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the problem, your using the term scientific method as if it were an authoritative method of performing science, such a method doesn't exist. 'The scientific method', is a loaded phrase which is commonly known as the 100%, proper way of performing science (in a sense the perfect method). Sure you can write up a useful method of science that many people use, but it isn't THE scientific method. All you're doing is giving your half baked method of science authority and appealing to people's emotion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third bolded statement - Quite the opposite, as I have said previously, the scientific method is designed such that experiments are replicatable by anyone, therefore anyone can determine 'right' science from 'bogus' science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sciences that rely on abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) usually don't have replicable experiments. How would you go about recreating the motion of the Earth's plates or forming the Grand Canyon. How would you evaluate whether weathering or a gigantic flood created the Canyon, both are plausible and you can't physically test either conjecture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're over simplifying things to a point where isn't a valid argument (whether science is based on beliefs and should be classed as religion). The complexity of what science is and its goals are what differentiates it from religion, not that it follows an a completely subjective method of science. Your original argument was in support of the person you were trying to refute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't even remember why you are trying to argue with me... Whats your beef against science and the scientific method? I've alreay said it obviously does not encompass all of science, but you just keep hacking away at it... As for oversimplifying, please, I could just as easily say you're blurring the argument by overcomplicating things. And the fact that we can't test every theory is obvious, its beyond our capacity in some instances, what more could you wan't? A time machine so I can go to a point in time where you can actually test everyting?

[insane]

Not quite following how it means exclusion of any other source (and you still didn't actually name one).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I started talking about this in response to someone saying that if anyone could say what happens after death, it is science since every other source of knowledge is based on beliefs. I was merely pointing out that belief in science as a way to truth is a belief in and of itself.

[Tigra00]

It's amazingly awesome how much you guys can talk about religion without "talking about religion". :P