-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    LinuxDaily.com    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   
 
Apps
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login

-
- Poll . 

Do you believe in life after death?


Posted by Yaba on Mar 20 2006
Yes, in a different dimension (chroot)35%35%35% 35%
Yes, rebirth (shutdown -r now)12%12%12% 12%
Maybe11%11%11% 11%
No (shutdown -h now)42%42%42% 42%
Votes: 940
goto page:  1  2 

-
.

 There can not be ...

 
 by Ricardo on: Mar 20 2006
 
Score 50%

IMHO There can not be any life after death. Death is end. There is no spirit. Maybe there's some power, which is called God by some people.
But i can't belive that there will be something after death. Because as it is known, everything in universe is assembled from small pieces of matrix. So we have those very small pieces which form corpuscle (atom). And atoms form molecules. So think.
Everything have got some mass and it is somehow visible and detectable. Did ever someone detected spirit or some ghost inside man? I haven't heard. So when there is no spirit, there is no afterlife.
What do you think?


peacefull debian gnu/linux

there are two states of gentoo box: compiling and turned off

Reply to this

-

 Re: There can not be ...

 
 by hotaru on: Mar 20 2006
 
Score 50%

There is no spirit.
how do you know?

Everything have got some mass and it is somehow visible and detectable.
light does not have mass. nothing except light is visible.

Did ever someone detected spirit or some ghost inside man?
yes.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: There can not be ...

 
 by abdiel on: Mar 20 2006
 
Score 50%
abdielabdiel
-
Jake Nixon 0

United States of America, Baton Rouge
Last visit May 11 2007
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

if light doesnt have mass, why is it affected by gravity?

science only can explain things to a certain point, though. there is no way of knowing how things work exactly at the quantum level. for all anyone knows, that could be what the spirit is, the force that controls the seeminlgy chaotic actions of quarks and other subatomic particles. there is no evidence for this (unless you believe in psychokinesis), but you still cant disprove it.
also consider pascal's wager.
im not trying to advocate one point of view, but consider the possibility of both; they are equally valid.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: There can not be ...

 
 by kaplun on: Mar 22 2006
 
Score 50%

if light doesnt have mass, why is it affected by gravity?

Because gravity curves the space in which the elctromagnetic waves called light travel. This is the relativistic interpretation of the Universe, which in this problem it is still valid nowadays.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: There can no

 
 by Ricardo on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%

I'd like to see photos of ghost you spoken about.


peacefull debian gnu/linux user
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: There can not be ...

 
 by watzke on: Mar 20 2006
 
Score 50%

Hmm.. and what about photos of ghosts? I believe that dead is not end...


Nejhorší IM je ICQ.com!
Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: There can not be ...

 
 by cyrtainne on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%

Life after death? Sure, why not? Does it have to be scientifically plausable for it to work? Maybe we're changed into a field of electrons when we pass on. For ghost research, visit ghoststudy.com


Reply to this

-

 Re: There can not be

 
 by ncodes on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%

There is just one GOD name Allah


>_ncodes
Reply to this

-
.

 Allah..

 
 by linuxcolor on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%

yes there is must be an another things....Cause There is one GOD name Allah


"Linux rules the heart of its users. This is enough a reason why one should embrace Linux"

Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Allah..

 
 by SeanParsons on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%
SeanParsonsSeanParsons
editor
Home
-
Sean Parsons 4

United States of America, Pittsburgh
Last visit Sep 10 2010
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

I thought everyone knew Linus was GOD!!!


Reply to this

-
.

 Life after death??

 
 by SeanParsons on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%
SeanParsonsSeanParsons
editor
Home
-
Sean Parsons 4

United States of America, Pittsburgh
Last visit Sep 10 2010
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

Ordinarily I do not respond to these type of questions, but I've decided that this might actually be a better than usual place to discuss such an issue rationally as I'm surrounded by my fellow geeks :)

My sincerest question to pose to those that believe in any particular religion is, "Where is your proof?"

I understand that there are those that will argue that faith does not require proof, but in that scenario how do you decided on which faith is correct?

Most of my observations about religion demonstrate that most people don't really choose thier faith (it seems to be more of a birthright based on where they are in the world).

Should I pray to a multiarmed elephant like the Hindu's?

Should I look to the sandscripts like the Buddhists?

Maybe I should follow the words of Moses as found in the Torah.

Maybe Muhammad was right in describing our path to Allah.

In my part of the world most people believe in Christianity, but then should I be Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, or heck -- maybe the Amish have it right (but then I wouldn't get to compile my own kernel from the comfort of my livingroom).

With all this ambiguity, I believe that IF there is a higher being that actually wants me to worship him, he has the burden of proving himself.

Does anyone have any rational discourse for this?


Reply to this

-

 Re: Life after death

 
 by ncodes on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%

i have rational discourse for this but, i have some problems in english language...

I'll never pray to a multiarmed elephant or cow or pig!! like the Hindu's
I'll don't look to the sandscripts like the Buddhists!!
i love him but dont follow, Moses

i think Muhammad was right in describing our path to Allah...


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Life after d

 
 by tigerkitty2 on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%

thinking and religion are mutually exclusive.
they tell you what to think, and they tell you how to think, in my book, that ain't thinking.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Life aft

 
 by ncodes on: Mar 22 2006
 
Score 50%

i dont think so, but if that is true, tell me what to think, and tell me how to think, what is your book? is that real ain't thinking.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Life after death

 
 by masonmouse on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%
masonmousemasonmouse
Acme F/X Industries
-
Mason Mouse 0

Acme F/X Industries
United States of America, Houston, Texas
Last visit Jul 31 2007
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

You're in luck because the proof has been given. :) Examine all the writings of the various religions. Compare them to themselves to see if there's any internal conflict. Examine the writings from secular historians and see which ones correspond. Examine the historical evidence in archaeology. Consider the lives of the followers and see which lives bear testimony to what they believe*. There is only one document that withstands such scrutiny and that is the Bible, God's written word. He humbled himself and took the form of a man in the person of Jesus to stand in our place for the punishment our actions bring us. No other religion demonstrates the love God has for us in such a way.

---

* In any belief system, there will be those who claim to follow but don't; and sadly, in often outstanding ways. So make sure you look at the examples of those who truely practice what they preach. For instance lots of people love to bring up the Spanish Inquisition as an example of why Christianity is no good. But look at the actions of those involved and you'll see that they weren't following Christian principles.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Life after d

 
 by SeanParsons on: Mar 22 2006
 
Score 50%
SeanParsonsSeanParsons
editor
Home
-
Sean Parsons 4

United States of America, Pittsburgh
Last visit Sep 10 2010
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

An interesting idea, but it stills leaves many questions. What really proves that Jesus was much more than a very devout religious martyr?

Judaism views Jesus's role as the son of God as him portraying that we are really all the sons and daughter's of God.

One thing that I do disagree with is that the bible is the word of God. I don't say that to take an anti-christian stance, but instead by looking at historical and archaeological facts. The first of the four gospels was not written till at least 35 years after the crucifixion of Jesus; and John, the last of the four gospels, wasn't written till 135 years after his crucifixion (which was radically different from the other three gospels).

The four gospels demonstrate very well that they were written by man as they include a level of antisemitism that clearly was derived from the authors and the world they were living in (I would have a hard time believing that a Jewish Rabi, Jesus, was antisemitic).

As the biological son of God, or as you believe the human incarnation of God, he should have had more foresight to ensure that his message was carried to future generations accurately. I am aware of the 'Q' sayings source that is believed to have been lost, but should the early Christians have done more to protect his sermons (most Rabis did record their sermons), or shouldn't his apostles have taken a more direct roll to record his life if they all accepted him as either God or the son of God?

I still feel that in a world with so many religons, that if GOD wants us to worship him, he should prove he exists.


Reply to this

-

 Exercise

 
 by bram85 on: Mar 21 2006
 
Score 50%

Exercise for those who think that everything will be redirected to /dev/null after your terminal breath: try to *prove* that life after death does not exist. You will end up as far as when you're trying to prove that it does exist. So anything is possible.

Personally, I believe there's so much more we can impossibly observe with our limited tools (eyes, ears, etc.).


Bram Schoenmakers
KDE Netherlands (www.kde.nl)

Reply to this

-

 Re: Exercise

 
 by blaster999 on: Mar 23 2006
 
Score 50%

In science, one needs to prove the existence of something. Until there are proofs, this something is considered to be nonexistant. Why? because else we can say there exist orcs, pink unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monster. This principle has proven to be better than any alternative, so why abandon it now. Therefore, I think there is no life after shutdown until I see clear proof.


It is not the size of the hammer that counts. It's how you wield it.
Reply to this

-

 Darwin's God

 
 by UpsilonH24 on: Mar 22 2006
 
Score 50%

This is an interesting subject. Do I know if there's life after death? No, no one can tell. Is there a somehow superior entity somewhere? This is more tricky. Let me explain my point.

First of all, understand that I fully acknoledge Darwin's theory of evolution. So, let's go back to the beginnings; bacteria. The first form of life ever was we believe bacteria, right? But then, it evolved in something more complex, which then evolved again in something much more complex. At one point, those creatures acquired abilities, such as the ability to see. This is where we're interested in.

What is the ability to see? (By the way, it could be any other sense...) The ability to see means to be able to "capture" light with eyes and then to analyse it with a brain. Now, I think we can all agree to say that very primitive creatures, with no eyes... don't see. Then, if they CANNOT, in any way, detect light, how did they evovled in something that CAN see light. (Also, I doubt this evolution happened by luck , because not only the eyes had to devellop themselves, but the brain also had to adapt itself to detect light, so let's say it was "intentional".)

Think of it this way. Imagine there was a completly unknown "domain of sense" (light, heat, sound... those kind of things). Can you imagine how it would be? No, because you have no informations about it. you have no way to interact with it. You have no way of even knowing it exists! Just go back 300 years ago; do you think humans could even conceive infrareds existed? No, they had no way of detecting those...

A very primitive creature, with no eyes, had no way of knowing of light's existence. I think we can all agree on that. Then, how did it evolved in something that not even itself, nor it's metabolism, knew about?

(This is one of the many example you could make with Darwin's theory. For example, just think about why is sex so fun? Why did the human became "intelligent" instead of becoming stronger? etc etc etc...)

Do you see where I'm trying to get at? What makes those decisions? What says "Allright, you there, you'll get stronger, so that this other creature won't ruin your life anymore..." It's as if something very brillant, with the capacity to make decision with a wealth a informations that even the evolving creature has no knowledge of, guided evolution.

This entity could be what we refer to as God, a supreme presence, but really, how can we know it's a god. Really, it could be anything. If this is right, then all the religions would be right as well about their doctrines, because they all encourage the veneration, or just the acknoledgement, of something bigger than us. This bigger thing isn't necessarly a god, it just could be a way of life, an attempt to understand a world which is much more grand than ourselves as human beings. On the other hand, this could also be the ramblings of a madman... I'm not quite sure....

Upsilon.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Darwin's God

 
 by abdiel on: Mar 23 2006
 
Score 50%
abdielabdiel
-
Jake Nixon 0

United States of America, Baton Rouge
Last visit May 11 2007
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

I think you need to learn a little more about natural selection. Features don't just spontaneously develop, they are extremely slowly to get to the point they are now in complex organisms. Plants grow toward the sun, but they dont have any eyes, or even a brain. Some simple animals can detect light with eyespots, but only enough to tell which direction the sun is in.
Natural selection means the most fit will survive. You asked why man didn't just grow stronger, instead of being more intelligent. If he had gotten stronger, would he be very much more fit to survive? Probably not, considering his predators were already several times stronger than him. Man's body shape is just not capable of fighting off predators; he doesn't have any claws or sharp teeth, and he can easily be knocked over. However, a more intelligent individual could look out for lions and protect himself by hiding or running away. Man's ancestors usually didn't even need to worry about predators, because they lived in trees where no larger animals could reach them.


Reply to this

-
.

 Anyone...

 
 by thomas12777 on: Mar 22 2006
 
Score 50%

...ever thought this allready might be hell, and we just don't know?


Reply to this

goto page:  1  2 

Add commentAdd commentall pollsSuggest new pollBack



-
-
Do you like or dislike Ubuntu Unity?
 Yes, unity is alien technology!
 It is less confusing than Gnome 3 default, shell.
 Granny thinks it is much more usable than Gnome 2
 Canonical is embarrasing itself with this split project
 Gnome 3 default shell is much better
 I dislike Unity, Gnome 3 default shell is alien technology!
 None of the above, I like the 2Gb for free and Apple alike behavior. Will post a comment instead

resultmore
 
 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Apps
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Facebook App
Content RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add App
Public API
About KDE-Apps.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2003-2014 KDE-Apps.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Apps.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.