Apocalypse / end of the world etc.

Butterfly said:
I seriously try to do the same. It doesn't always work for me, though.

Having said that, the end of the world, the apocalypse, etc., isn't one of the things I spend time worrying about.
Click to expand...
OTOH, the Rapture is a different duck.
 
Those who make such predictions usually have personal monetary gain in mind - they're selling something, sometimes redemption but often a book.

There are some things we're not meant to know and I think this is one of them.
 

Removed original content as intended as a bit of levity, but possibly offensive to some. One can never be sure in a forum where we don't know the people well enough to make that call...

But to add to the discussion, I am curious about what does (or doesn't) happen after death and find it even more interesting how many beliefs people conjure to explain what we can't possibly know.

A real brain scientist I know has commented that much of what people describe who died and were revived, is really symptomatic of the brain being starved of what it needs to continue to function, and is in the process of shutting down. As to how or why people can see long lost relatives at the end of that long tunnel of light, there has been scientific explanation for that for many years. Experiments in which the brain is stimulated with a probe in certain areas, have clearly demonstrated that a person relives past situations as if it were happening now.

So here we have both the scientific explanations based on empirical evidence and all the various spiritual belief systems to explain the same phenomena. I took a class on philosophy in college for curiosity sake. The professor posed an interesting situation for us to ponder:

In a village by a lake, a dog runs into the lake and comes out biting people, who then die. Scientists explain about rabies, while the villagers explain that the lake is evil and the dog took in one of the evil spirits in the lake.

Which of those two explanations (or both) is (are) right or wrong, and how can we know for sure? When you get to the college and university level, there do not need to be cut and dried answers for everything as there usually are in classes in grade school and high school. We are supposed to be thinking...

In my personal opinion, I can see credence for both. The scientific approach takes into account bacteria and that kind of causation seems solid enough and even has supporting evidence. However, to me anyway, the further I have gotten into science and technology, the more difficult it is for me to attribute the perfect complexities that occur naturally and that we so poorly try to replicate through technology, to some sort of "happy accident". So I do choose to believe that there is a strong probability that there is more in the universe than we can possibly know. To me, an educated person (whether through formal schooling or just being interested in the world around him or her) would recognize and respect that we simply don't know what we don't know, and can therefore never play the role of the "know-it-all", but instead always remain curious and open to new ideas and information.

Tony
 
Last edited:
tbeltrans said:
Removed original content as intended as a bit of levity, but possibly offensive to some. One can never be sure in a forum where we don't know the people well enough to make that call...

But to add to the discussion, I am curious about what does (or doesn't) happen after death and find it even more interesting how many beliefs people conjure to explain what we can't possibly know.

A real brain scientist I know has commented that much of what people describe who died and were revived, is really symptomatic of the brain being starved of what it needs to continue to function, and is in the process of shutting down. As to how or why people can see long lost relatives at the end of that long tunnel of light, there has been scientific explanation for that for many years. Experiments in which the brain is stimulated with a probe in certain areas, have clearly demonstrated that a person relives past situations as if it were happening now.

So here we have both the scientific explanations based on empirical evidence and all the various spiritual belief systems to explain the same phenomena. I took a class on philosophy in college for curiosity sake. The professor posed an interesting situation for us to ponder:

In a village by a lake, a dog runs into the lake and comes out biting people, who then die. Scientists explain about rabies, while the villagers explain that the lake is evil and the dog took in one of the evil spirits in the lake.

Which of those two explanations (or both) is (are) right or wrong, and how can we know for sure? When you get to the college and university level, there do not need to be cut and dried answers for everything as there usually are in classes in grade school and high school. We are supposed to be thinking...

In my personal opinion, I can see credence for both. The scientific approach takes into account bacteria and that kind of causation seems solid enough and even has supporting evidence. However, to me anyway, the further I have gotten into science and technology, the more difficult it is for me to attribute the perfect complexities that occur naturally and that we so poorly try to replicate through technology, to some sort of "happy accident". So I do choose to believe that there is a strong probability that there is more in the universe than we can possibly know. To me, an educated person (whether through formal schooling or just being interested in the world around him or her) would recognize and respect that we simply don't know what we don't know, and can therefore never play the role of the "know-it-all", but instead always remain curious and open to new ideas and information.

Tony
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Unless the end of the world comes in about ten years, I ain't gonna be here for it. Somehow I can't all passionate at what will happen after I'm gone.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top