Re: Do you believe to the other life?? (After Death)
Now before going back to my reply to Andreas I have to comment this.
Actually to make it simplier I will divide it to pieces.
So you bring in the meaning of life? It is quite difficult to use it to back up ones point for then you would have to define it and I can tell you it is not easy. (well a lot of people settle for creating happiness but I can show you that it is wrong in case you want to know why)
Well I think so too but that is the result of a thinking process. (Materia as it is can't be destroyed so how could it have been created. I believe materia is either eternally existing or that the time is cyclic. I might give another answer another day.)
If ones thinking process leads to conclusions like this then thinking can't be useless but instead it has just proven it's worth.
Thinking hurts doesn't it. That is the point where most people stop thinking in. Yet Philosophical matters might seem irrelevant or useless but in the end they define all our actions.
To make things simple (I really hope you read this) Even though we simply believe in things ( I for example believe that sciencentific method leads to truthful information of the world we live in and that there is no god and no spirit, only materia) But we choose what we believe in for a certain reason. We don't pick things we believe in randomly and thats why it is not inconsequential what we choose to believe in.
Now a few notes I think are very important for you to aknowledge:
1. Philosophy is not meaningless. It is behind your every action and every thought. The society you live in is like it is because of philosophy (Human rights, Democracy, Economy...) and it could just as well be different (Well compare it to Soviet Union which was based on different views of philosophers and especially Karl Marx). And the classic paradox of philosphy is that it can't be useless. If you can effectively and undeniably prove that philosophy is useless you have just used it and therefore proven that it is not useless (as you just could prove you point by using it).
2. Science is a reliable base for ones beliefs. Scientific method gives us information of the world as it is and it is used in understanding the world. It is quite ironic that some of you don't believe in scientific thinking and you express that by writing it using your computer
to send that information to thousands online
You live in a world of technology and science fixes our problems. Modern medicine can heal almost anything and for example the stem cell research will enable us to grow new organs. If I lose an arm I can grow a new one, if my heart is bad I can grow a new one. So at least science is useful.
Science is reliable because of many things. To make things short I took this list out of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
-Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
-Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
-Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
-Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
-Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
-Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. ("Robust", here, refers to stability in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.) See Correspondence principle
-Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
-Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.
This is what grabbed my attention and I will get back to it later.
For now I will spare you of the rest of my thoughts.