Jesus never said anything like that. Actually, he urged you NOT to worship him. Of course, you would never suspect this if you only read 4 of the 28 written gospels, i.e. the four that were approved by the Church of Rome.

You are free to think that
"there is no scientific research on people ever who came back to life after death"
but it is not a fact; actually, it is contradicted by a lot of research.
There is abundant evidence that “the world beyond” is not separated from this world by an impassable wall; in fact, a single reality embraces all worlds, all times and places.
There is strong empirical evidence that the personality survives death; if you study the 52 points of evidence I linked, it will likely convince you of that. What YOU personally think about death is not important since it is not based upon any scientific evidence. NDE research has show that your experience "up there" reflects your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now you can shape what happens after you die.

There is also some confirmation of the spiritual point of view from advances in quantum physics and consciousness research, as I mentioned earlier:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html

None of this should be used to justify "religion" or "eternal life"; I am just saying that you have to think about the evidence because it contradicts the traditional humanist assumptions.

You need a functioning brain with blood flow and electrical firing to have hallucinations and perceptions. None of that is present during brain death. So how are the perceptions explained?
In the AWARE study, the patient had true perceptions during brain death that were later confirmed by witnesses.
The neurons do not work (fire) when there is brain death. There is no sense of pain, no gag reflex, etc. Why in the world would there be perception and hallucination without even basic functions like those? It goes against everything that is understood about the brain.
Show me the evidence! Find even one neuroscientist who says that a dead brain can plausibly hallucinate.

There is quite a bit of scientific research to support veridical perception and consciousness after death, including the recent AWARE study where the patient's recollections were verified even though the patient was totally brain-dead (i.e. actually dead); here are some resources you can explore:
http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

Since man is a rational being, a creature of reason, it is obvious that GOD would want man to think. BADecker implies that thinking is a religion, but it is perfectly fair to ask BADecker "compared to what?" Another question to ask of him is "how can we know that you are not misleading us into a false religion? what is the fruit of such a belief? why should one choose a belief which is irrational and against reason, which denies man's basic virtue? is it balanced to equivocate opinion and reason?", etc.

Life is what it is; it passes into death and death passes into life in an endless cycle; rebirth is a key spiritual concept which was removed from the Bible by Pharisees; the evidence is not hard to find, but for you it may be hard to think about due to prior mental blocks and irrational devotion to authorities... It is hard to release one's fear of death because GOD is the author of goodness and life, HIS gifts are yours to enjoy in balance; similarly, it is all but impossible to release one's devotion to reason and thinking (unless you have been hypnotized, usually by an authority), and since Man is a creature of reason, and reason is another of GOD's gifts, then in any case one should be as wise as a serpent and never seek to die; GOD does not need any more martyrs and Jesus never meant to be a martyr either--he resisted his capture, but you would never suspect this if you only read 4 of the 28 written gospels, i.e. the four that were approved by the Church of Rome.

Who exactly has tried to say that no one can avoid being religious in real life??


What does moderation have to do with anything? If a homosexual moderates his desires, and yet "splurges" by occasionally having gay sex, does this make his life balanced and righteous? And why is it not "balanced" to be "devoted" to balance?? This definition only goes so far, and I will finally deconstruct it now:


You are religious only if you are "devoted". If you never "believe something too much", then you don't have a religion, then you are called "rational" since you can intelligently evaluate new ideas when presented.

If you look in the section titled "What is Atheism" in Atheism and Secularity, Vol. 1, you will see that to be "agnostic" means nothing more than to be "rational". I doubt that you will be able to transform "lack of belief" or "uncertainty about a belief" into "devotional belief" with the use of reason. But then again, I do not EXPECT you to be rational since you are more religious than me! This reminds me of Einstein's conversation with the Indian poet Tagore wherein Einstein exclaimed "I am more religious than you!"; Einstein believed in an objective order which existed independently of the mind while admitting that he did not fully understand the meaning of this mysterious belief while Tagore believed in the "universal man" who beholds all things and for whom the unknown is totally nonexistent. To be devoted only means that you go beyond what is known and what is rational; that is the essence of religion. Mere "belief" does not suffice; if you question me about the weather, I will tell you the truth with devotion; that means that my religion is truth and that it is perfectly rational to respond in defense of the truth, even if it appears a bit silly.

That question has an obvious answer:
There is only one ANYTHING, so there can be no thing outside of THAT. The Creation is a part of the Creator and the Creator a part of the Creation; Jesus stated that YOU are a Creator, so the point is to reach out and touch someone--like GOD. There can be an "invisible" or "virtual" universe "within" the universe, but certainly there cannot be a non-universe (e.g. without the universe or outside of it).

No need to use "String Theory"; Bohm's pilot wave theory suffices to explain the phenomena of Orch OR and quantum biology with the nonlocality explained by both future phase (retrocausal) and history phase (causal) waves; research is ongoing and it is certainly an exciting time to be a theorist (or even a layman)!

Have a look at Bohm's theory as summarized in the
Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Physics

"as far as you are concerned"?  
You could concern yourself with studying the Orch OR theory and THEN you would understand that QM does apply to the mind; this study of quantum biology and consciousness is actually a mature field, I saw a paper criticizing the "Myth" of quantum consciousness published in 1992 and there has been massive progress since then; notably, researchers have observed evidence which has refuted some of the key criticisms leveled against Orch OR. You do not concern yourself with the theory of Orch OR, so your opinion is not valuable for our discussion. You do not state precisely why you dismiss this theory. In fact, recent observations of microtubules definitively show that this is a very sound theory; Hammeroff considers paramecium in his writings on Huffington Post, and that is a very powerful example of quantum biology. Photosynthesis is another example of quantum biology confirmed by research; I perceive that you do not know enough about this theory (Orch OR) to say whether or not it is "veritable". I am telling you that Orch OR is a part of a sound metaphysics of mind and is being validated by findings in quantum biology; why would you express that you doubt my claim unless you had a genuine objection to the evidence thereof? I have not heard any objections to Orch OR, so I perceive that you promote a fallacy which is called "argument from ignorance" and cloak it with "point of view" instead of reading it ALL so that you can judge in wisdom of knowledge. "As far as I am concerned", you simply do not wish to study the evidence before declaring your opinion and apparent prejudice. Kindly take a look at the Huffington Post articles from Hammeroff and the associated comments; does your point of view have value when compared to the evidence of quantum biology? Let's talk about it and then maybe you can change my point of view. To be clear, I do believe that the hard problem of consciousness is solvable with the tools and theories we presently have available; some theorists have even claimed a solution!

Could someone tell me: Why do atheists hate quantum biology?  

Good. Now you have to understand how QM applies to consciousness. Enter the Orch OR theory of Penrose and Hammeroff; it is a scientific hypothesis about mind which invokes QM and it has not been defeated thus far. To understand philosophy of mind (which is really just metaphysics of mind), the first step is to realize that the materialist, reductionist framework cannot apply; this follows immediately from the Orch OR hypothesis since it can be readily seen that feelings ("qualia") came BEFORE the brain; apparently even a single-cell organism (paramecium) has rudimentary feelings and is capable of some clever behavior; according to the hypothesis, this is a result of QM interactions with the microtubules. This hypothesis has a track record and understanding it presents the most viable solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I linked to an explanation by Hammeroff and will link it again, and it is advised to follow the relevant links to understand the argument; the comments are a good read too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/more-rational-than-thou-a_b_7515498.html

It is also VERY interesting to note the correspondence between the human experience of NDE and the "quirky" principles of quantum physics:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22

More information about QM's link to the mind was posted here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11835498#msg11835498

To say nothing about "religious people", we do know one thing for sure:
Only Man or GOD could be the guarantor of knowledge and thought (reason).
Hence, all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?
At least, all rational atheists are humanists. See: "What is Atheism?" in Atheism and Secularity, Vol. 1, Page 10.
Therefore, if one understands the logic behind humanism, one can understand atheism.
If one has refuted the logic behind humanism, then it is proven that all atheists are incorrect.
Therefore, one who has refuted the logic behind humanism has more understanding about atheism itself than any atheist.
What do you think atheism actually is? Just a way to escape all labels and ideologies?

Atheism cannot be re-defined as "a way out of any and all ideological systems" because it is actually an answer to the god-question and it is defined in the context of rationalism; to re-define atheism in this way is to declare not only the death of God but also the death of Man.

Once, atheism meant the opposition to, the resistance against god(s). Now, it only means freedom, to establish new norms and new institutions, and to tear them down and establish new ones again. I think the pseudo-skeptics are doing a disservice to atheists. Atheists should read more before coming to a faulty conclusion that is not supported by the evidence.

Thinking is man's only basic virtue, so who or what gives substance to that activity? Who is the guarantor?

Darwin doubted human reason was reliable if it evolved through natural selection. This is a key point in the argument that materialism is not a rational philosophy. If you cannot trust human reason, then it is irrational to believe anything, including materialism. It is significant that Darwin's beliefs on this subject undermine materialism because Darwin's theory of natural selection was one of the most important ideas that led to materialism and philosophical naturalism being adopted by most scientists. When you consider that Darwin believed natural laws were designed, and he did not trust human reason if it arose through natural selection, you begin to see that exploiting Darwinian theory as foundation of materialism is a huge scam.
Source

If you think that you are saved by the work of someone else, fine; feel free to sit around and wait for your savior to take you away on a cloud. It makes me sad, but it is absolutely your choice to wait around for that. I will not wait because this world needs healing, so I focus on creating the soul-ution within my being so that it may be mainfested when the season is right; God demands spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.

With good theories, you will inevitably have a workable hypothesis that you can use to create things scientifically, including technologies and inventions that can help the world's people.

For example, no amount of Biblical study has ever allowed a human to be able to create manna or anything similar, but with a workable theory it would be possible and indeed it IS possible. I do not need a Bible for that, I need a rational understanding of how it works.

Really, only a handful?

Have these events ever been linked mathematically to a theory?

1) Ancient megaliths like the Temple of the Three Windows
2) Evolution of domesticated plants: link
3) Hard problem of consciousness: link
4) Veridical perception during near-death experience: link
5) Origin of life: link
6) The top cases demonstrating the survival of the human personality after the demise of the physical body, including a chess game played with a dead chessmaster:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

I am making a correction to my statement above in bold.

A search engine can answer that question. I did a search and found that this page has some good answers; you do have to read the whole page from top to bottom (including comments) to get a real understanding, so I will not be quoting any short answers:
http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/do-the-rothschilds-own-all.html

So this monetary system is a result of peoples' human nature and the masses have brought this system upon themselves?

I have some disagreement. History demonstrates that the monetary system is a result of foreign bankers who were originally and still are concerned with the suppression of liberty, which is identified (e.g. by the Austrian school) as a human's natural right. The system was brought about as a result of directed economic attack by these foreign bankers; they hated America's freedoms and wanted to control the wealth of a free nation so they would not stop until they brought slavery into this country. You are using post-hoc reasoning to justify the existing system without any appreciation of the history or the actors involved, you do not even recognize the agenda behind the money-changers so you do not recognize the true cause. Here is a history lesson for you; the cover story is an excellent essay and if you are such an expert then you will surely not hesitate to read it.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/950307.pdf

I recognize that each one is a Creator and has the power to access one's own value if one can bear the responsibility; the problem is that this possibility has been hidden by the bankers via the monetary system which was fraudulently imposed upon President Wilson and the people, as you can see from quotes I linked to earlier. An agent (government) must disclose certain facts to the principal (people), but we are not told how to access our own value. So I am here to expand on the possibility of accessing your own value within the system so that one can behave ethically and create a soul-ution for oneself and others. With knowledge comes intelligent action, so the first step is to realize one's own situation by remembering history.

So basically you are claiming that:
"Since the economy has grown then there is nothing wrong with the system, in terms of utility."

An increase of wealth "overall" does not in fact attest to the utility of the system. For example, if a banker holds 50% of the money in the economy and earns an interest upon that, this "overall" wealth increase does not suffice to justify the system by any means (even Aristotle recognized that such an economy would be inherently unstable and unsustainable). I am entitled to ask: Cui bono?

Your claim that widespread and increasing wealth over time (which inconveniently does not exist if you start the clock during the Nixon era) is the main result of the monetary system is another case of post-hoc reasoning. Why should alleged widespread fiat wealth be the main result and not just a side-effect? A parasite may compel the host to eat more food and gain weight because the parasite does not consume everything that the host eats; mere weight gain does not prove that the parasite is not enriching itself at the expense of the host, and at an alarming rate! IN FACT, the rate and scale of the THEFT is so alarming that there has been a reduction in the wealth of most people since the Nixon era when measuring the value of labor; I have confirmed the stark reality myself through interviews; a laborer was paid much more relative to typical expenses like cars, food, rent, gas, and electricity; it used to be that a man could labor for 40 hours a week and support the household without government assistance in virtually any job but this is no longer so. All evidence points towards the value of labor diminishing in favor of capital, so wealth overall is down if you measure the value of a man's labor. Ever since the banks stole the household wealth of America by crashing the housing market, surveys show that about 50% of America's people live "paycheck to paycheck" which means that the ONLY value they can trade for money is their labor, so half of the people are provably less wealthy overall. Do you have facts to the contrary?

Anyway, I find it ironic that your argument rests on the dubious idea that there has been an increase in wealth "overall"; were you not recently arguing that this debate is purely a matter of mathematics? If so, then I would think that money velocity would be a better measure of economic efficacy; money velocity is an excellent metric of the effectiveness of the economy in facilitating trade, it is especially useful when paired with trade volume, and you have neglected money velocity completely (bitcoin has a very high money velocity, despite the limited trade volume). When you focus on the weight gain of one who is infected, you should not neglect the overall health of the patient.

I did not see you address my point that political economy is the true nature of economics and that the state cannot be separated from the economy. In the West, we have the rule of law which exists so that we can ethically judge what happens in the political economy. In Communist China for instance, there is no rule of law so the mathematics of the economy is not constrained by ethics, but the system is against man's nature because property rights are in the nature of man and the ancient concept of justice (which is really "just exchangement") is the proper goal of any political economy.
There is a famous satirical essay concerning the absurdities that result when one tries to isolate ethics from political economy, it is Swift's A Modest Proposal. The point of the essay is that Any proposal that attempts to negate the role of ethics in the political economy is invalid because it is AGAINST LIFE; life is more important than mathematics. The essay concludes that only that which is just should be given credit (belief) in the economy. An unjust system, no matter how economical, must be stopped.

Even the animals want to be free. Man's nature is freedom and with freedom comes responsibility. The tendency of man to run away from his problems is by no means an inherent feature of man's psyche; actually, man is a creature of reason and to blank-out the mind in an attempt to escape is anti-reason.

It seems that I am in great company: Jefferson, Webster, Washington, Kennedy...
all were conspiracy theorists if you actually read what they wrote!
I suspect that they did not speak idly. They were men who took responsibility for their lives and the lives of others as well. These men directed blame towards the American people AND the foreign bankers.

It is going too far to say that the economy should have ethical actors?
It is called political economy because the state is a big player and you cannot separate the politics of the state from its influence on the economy.
And in the U.S. we have illegal debtors prisons, mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and the largest population of prisoners on the planet all thanks to the bankers who brought about this system (of legalized slavery). I would post details about how exactly it got this way, but I doubt you will read any of my sources.

Yes:
http://fourhourworkweek.com/2012/12/18/hacking-kickstarter-how-to-raise-100000-in-10-days-includes-successful-templates-e-mails-etc/