To scientific atheists: What prevents the formation of self replicating RNA from it's base components today
Nimrod - You claim that the article was biased and poorly written but you not only fail to refute the position or information presented in the article but you actually use that same information in the second and third paragraphes of your own argument (i.e.- oxygenation and bio competition). I am saying that we know these are factors which could prevent the original formation of life and we have eliminated these factors in laboratory experiments yet still we fail to reproduce the event. I do not assume or assert that these reactions are "robust" or "easy to repeat" at all. It is however becoming clear to me that not only is this process NOT robust but perhaps it is impossible to repeat against reasonable expectations. I understand both the benefit and drawbacks of using Wikipedia as a source reference. To be sure, I am only interested in facts and logical assertions. Wiki is a clearinghouse so to speak, easily accessible and widely used and cross-referenced. That is why I use it.
Isn't reincarnation technically correct?
If you're bringing Buddhism into this, understand this point: we are not atoms. We are not anything. There is no reincarnation because there is no self. Rebirth just means that the stream of consciousness arises and ceases over and over again in each moment because it's being sustained by the fuel of ignorance. Each moment you're aware of conditioned phenomena because you don't understand reality. The non-plural aspect of "each moment" is important. One moment arises then ceases, and another moment arises. That is impermanence, and if consciousness goes from one moment to the next, that's rebirth. Nirvana is the ending of rebirth because the consciousness becomes so refined that it stops being aware of conditioned reality and goes towards unconditioned reality (Nirvana). It is timeless because there is nothing to be aware of besides nirvana (which is impossible to describe in conventions). The common idea of rebirth involves bodily death. That's just the death of a vessel, nothing more. The body is just something for the consciousness to attach to, it's not us. This death of the body and the arising of consciousness in a new one is the superficial kind of rebirth. It's just something that occurs in one moment. So in conclusion it has nothing to do with atoms being redistributed. If this were the case, chairs would be reincarnated into desks and whatever. That's just misunderstanding rebirth and intellectualizing about it. What reaffirms rebirth is the fact that the mind is grasping at phenomena every passing moment without even being aware of the whole process of grasping. You can see this yourself, and seeing things for yourself is what Buddhism is all about.
When is the earliest recorded evidence of atheism? When was it founded?
Do you understand what atheism is? You question is a clear indication to the contrary. Atheism, like theism is a word for an individual with a characteristic. It isn't a name for a group. Theism is different from Christianity, that it is merely an indicator of a cognitive emotional stance:Theism - holding the belief there is a higher power (not any specific one)Atheism - holding no belief whatsoever that there is a higher power (any specific or non-specific one).Anti-theism - someone falling with the specification of atheism, but also actively confronting those who have been indoctrinated into any kind of theism.Superstition - someone believing that there are things unseen and sentient deliberately acting to hurt you or help you.False positives - the human brain is evolved from instinctive behavior. It requires patterns to determine the trigger mechanisms. This cause old obsolete instincts to trigger on patterns that are unrelated and the cognitive mind and emotions will try to make head or tails of it. Causing superstition. Have enough superstitious individuals talk about it and a cult is born. Have enough people join the cult and a religion is born.Cults are founded, definitions are not. Atheism is a definition. It wasn't founded, it was defined after its aspect of commonality. At some point in history theism was the norm, after learning causality, atheism evolved from enlightenment.
Does Aura really exists even after death?
Every being in mother nature is made out of 5 elements and so is the human, all different kinds of energies in physicality are due to a combination of 5 elements and so is every human body, 2 different forms of energies works in this case which is aura as well as magnetic energy(different kind of energies exists too),after the soul has skipped out of the body ,the aura and the soul still remains attached to the body as the 5 elements are not yet detached from each other because of which the body still exists ,though with time the aura gets weaker but is still attached, the attachment of the aura is due to the magnetic pull of the soul and the body towards each other as magnetic energy’s existence in physicality is due to the combination of five elements especially one of the element ie. fire, though the body becomes cold but still does not reach such kind of temperature that we can say that the element ie. fire is totally vanished and if the fire and the other four elements stay together then the magnetic pull of the soul and the body will exist , if the magnetic pull of the soul and the body still exists then the aura still exists around the body, one more main reason because of which the magnetic energy still exists in the body is due to the iron in the body as iron contains magnetic energy in it,this is the main reason in indian culture ,the body is burnt and then the ashes is poured into the water so that the 5 elements are detached from each other and returned to the 5 elements of nature so that the soul and the aura can detach from the body due to lac of magnetic pull in between soul and the body , hence the soul and the aura can find the next body attachment.please read this about the detachment of the 5 five elements from each otherSachu Singh's answer to What is the one thing we take with us when we die?
How can you cope with death if you do not believe in an afterlife?
The excellent thing about being a religious scientist/student of science is that you have two weapons at hand to deal with things that are beyond your control, including your own mortality.From a scientific/logical standpoint, I cope with death by focusing on the fact that —If death means the cessation of my sense of self, then I had been “dead” for 13 plus billion years and it didn’t bother me in the slightest. I had no sense of self and perception of reality before my birth. I would simply lose them again when I am dead.Death exists only when I am not existing. As long as “I”(that is my sense of self) exist, death does not exist. Why bother worrying about something that only exists when “I” am not existing ?From a religious/philosophical standpoint, I see even less reason to worry about death, since —I did not ask to be born. If my parents had not married, or had decided against having children, “I” would not exist. Since I have no intention of committing suicide, that would mean that my death would also occur of it’s own accord. Why worry about things in which I had/am going to have no say/hand in ?As a Hindu belonging to the Advait Vedanta sect, I firmly believe in the words, “Aham Brahmasmi”— “I” am “that”. Advait Vedantins believe that the universe, including all conscious beings, are not “creations” of God, rather are a part of God. Brahman, or the eternal consciousness, is like an infinite ocean of consciousness and is all that exists. “I” am nothing but one of the waves splashing on the shore for an instant. When I will die, I will simply lose my “self” and merge back with the ocean.I don’t even want my sense of self to continue after my death. Sequels, after all, rarely measure up to their first parts.