What do athiests belive happens after death.

[The Jackle]

As a christian, I have a strong belive in heaven and hell ect. Yet I'm rather curious to know what athiest's belive happens after death. To me its unimaginable to think that when our bodies cease to sustain us upon the world, thats it. If you do belive that life ends with death then isnt that rather sepressing and what are your thoughts about death. All replys welcome. Thank you for reading.

[RabbleMaster]

As some one who is a firm believer in God, though you probably wouldn't consider me a Christian, I think it is rather arrogant to believe that we are so important that there MUST be something after death. However, for your second point, I don't understand how believing that there is nothing after death suppresses one's thoughts on death. Coming to the conclusion that there is nothing after death, at least for me, was something I came to after several long sessions of thought on the subject. (Most likely having largely due to the fact I live in a heavily traditionalist Christian area... the south.)

[kilted exile]

We die. We decompose. The nutrients produced by our decomposition are used by trees/bacteria/plants and we all go on as part of this circle. Why is it necessary to believe that there is anything more? Is there anything more when any other living organism dies? Do amoeba go onto anything else? How about flies? Trees? Cats? Dogs? elephants? fish? Why should we be any different?

It doesnt depress me because I have no worries/fear concerning death. It is completely natural, and I prefer to focus on living.

[aeroport]

We die. We decompose. The nutrients produced by our decomposition are used by trees/bacteria/plants and we all go on as part of this circle. Why is it necessary to believe that there is anything more? Is there anything more when any other living organism dies? Do amoeba go onto anything else? How about flies? Trees? Cats? Dogs? elephants? fish? Why should we be any different?

It doesnt depress me because I have no worries/fear concerning death. It is completely natural, and I prefer to focus on living.

Likewise...

[B-Mental]

Oh man, Kilt you got me thinking about this book I read called Stiff (can't think of the author) Its all about what they do to your body after death. They have this process where you can be freeze dried, then crushed, and composted. I want to be nutrients for a sequoia that will live for thousands of years

[kilted exile]

that sounds like an interesting book.....

[Liarue]

I would agree with kilted exile. I couldn't imagine a life after death as a real possiblity, it would be so boring, unless off course there was a life after that..
I could live with that.

I'm just going through life happy in the knowledge that my last thought could possibly be a dirty joke.

[Redzeppelin]

I would agree with kilted exile. I couldn't imagine a life after death as a real possiblity, it would be so boring, unless off course there was a life after that..
I could live with that.


Depends on what you think "life after death" consists of. If it's simply more of this current life, then yes - why bother? But what if it is Life to its fullest, most enjoyable extent? What about that?

[JGL57]

Oh man, Kilt you got me thinking about this book I read called Stiff (can't think of the author) Its all about what they do to your body after death. They have this process where you can be freeze dried, then crushed, and composted. I want to be nutrients for a sequoia that will live for thousands of years

The book is indeed entitled "Stiff" and it's by Mary Roach. She is a professional writer and is funny in the vein of Dave Barry, P.J. O’Rourke, Bill Bryson, Florence King, etc. You can get it used for about seven bucks on Amazon. It sounds morbid but it is awesomely funny.

For a more edifying book on being dead vs. the "soul" I would recommend "Brain and Belief" by John McGraw - a used copy from Amazon is about eight bucks. It goes into the various western concepts of the "soul". Quite interesting - I had never thought about it, but he shows that the bible gives two conflicting variants of life after death - soul sleep and resurrection as one type, and immediate transfer to heaven or hell upon "bodily" death as the other type. IOW, it turns out christians can't even come up with a consistent theory of what a spirit is, how it functions in relationship to the "physical" world, etc.

Belief in some continued existence after obvious death is obviously a childish wish-fulfillment fantasy belief. People are scared of non-existence, they are unhappy with this life and desire a better one, they like this one and wish it to continue indefinitely, etc.

If a person didn't exist before he was born, then why would he believe he MUST continue to exist after he dies? The eastern reincarnationists get around this illogic, but westerners are just unsophisticated children when it comes to conjuring up fantastical scenarios of eternality for themselves. The Hindus and Buddhists have been blowing christians out of the water for millennia on this one. :lol:

[Wintermute]

As a christian, I have a strong belive in heaven and hell ect. Yet I'm rather curious to know what athiest's belive happens after death. To me its unimaginable to think that when our bodies cease to sustain us upon the world, thats it. If you do belive that life ends with death then isnt that rather sepressing and what are your thoughts about death. All replys welcome. Thank you for reading.

Hi Jackle,

As an agnostic I'm uncertain about everything. Yet, I'm rather curious to know what Christians belive happens after death. To me its unimaginable to think that when our bodies cease to sustain us upon the world, that something called our soul continues to exist for infinity...I mean, that's a really long time. What do you think heaven is like? Specifically. Will you remember your time on earth--your loved ones--your pets--anything? My grandma imagined beautiful green hills with pretty houses and all of her kin around her. To me this may be closer to hell--particularly after the first billion years or so. Can you define, in really specific terms, what you think heaven will be like? What will hell be like? All replys welcome. Thanks for reading 8-).

[manyreddevils]

There's only so much we can really say/know about life after death (and it's not much), because if there is any kind of eternal existence it would exist outside of time. It's not so much an infinite progression of years, days, etc. as an infinite present. You can see where the problems arise. It's not exactly something within our experience. Personally, I tend to think that as a Christian a person's focus should be on God's kingdom in the present, since it is all humanity is guaranteed. It is more important that heaven should exist than that man should ever get there.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

We die. We decompose. The nutrients produced by our decomposition are used by trees/bacteria/plants and we all go on as part of this circle. Why is it necessary to believe that there is anything more? Is there anything more when any other living organism dies? Do amoeba go onto anything else? How about flies? Trees? Cats? Dogs? elephants? fish? Why should we be any different?

It doesnt depress me because I have no worries/fear concerning death. It is completely natural, and I prefer to focus on living.

No, no, no...You're missing something. We die. We decomposed and...Sometimes our dead rotten carcass is eaten by...Umm...I don't know...Something? Hey, there's gotta be something that eats us after we're dead! I just don't know all the details. At least, that's what I've heard.:D

Sorry, Jackle. I ain't an atheist. Just wanted to point out something about dead bodies.:D

[metal134]

I'm not an atheist, but here's my opinion on it. I just don't know. Maybe there is some kind of afterlife, I just don;t think there is any real way to know if there is one or what it is until you're dead. I'm not sure how I feel on the possibilty. On the one heand, it is kind've a nice thought to have some kind of paradise upon death. On the other hand, as Wintermute said, eternity is a long time, and I'm not sure I want to exist forever and ever and ever, paradise or no.

[Lily Adams]

There's this part in my physicks book that talks about how we don't "own" our atoms. As said before, we just die and "become" something else through natural recycling. We're nothing special. We just die and that's it.

If you want to talk about souls, they don't really exist, either. It's just a part of our complex brain, which is a physical thing, and that means it dies along with us.

Depressing! :D

[JGL57]

Maybe there's a life after death that is a take-off on MST3K. (Say there is an infinite number of bad movies, and you get to sleep a thousand years between each one.)

That would be cool.

I may need some South Park, though. And something like Steven Colbert. :D

[Lily Adams]

Maybe there's a life after death that is a take-off on MST3K. (Say there is an infinite number of bad movies, and you get to sleep a thousand years between each one.)

That would be cool.

I may need some South Park, though. And something like Steven Colbert. :D

:lol:
Nice. But I'd need Servo, Crow, Joel, or (and?) Mike to help me keep my sanity (Or insanity? Yeah. That's more like it.) Dr. Forrester could be the devil and send the cheesy movies. All the rest of the baddies could be little demons or something. (Maybe Pearl could be a she-devil...the devil's mom.)

I'd need so many things to "watch". I'm obsessed with so much stuff. It's scary.

[ADFP]

I've always found this to be a funny issue. Why do Christians believe in an afterlife? Jesus talked about 'The Kingdom of God', but from reading the Bible, I didn't take it to mean an afterlife, more a kind of rebirth into this one, except all rinsed and wrung out, spiritually speaking.

My own view, and this is from experience, is that there is no such thing as death, because the concept of 'i' as something separate from the rest of the world is a nonsense, as any fule can figure out for his/herself, as soon as we stop listening to all the self-proclaimed authorities on the subject, ie. evangelists, teachers, anyone who claims to know what the bible 'really' says or means, yours truly, etc.

Your experience of this moment is real, but the framework of ideas and concepts which surrounds it is just that: a frame built out of ideas. It takes a little practice to try and figure out where one begins and the other ends, though.

The concept of a soul is a tough one, as well. All that personality stuff is so... impermanent. The part of the self that lasts beyond death is probably not the part you'd recognize as being you. It's also the part that was around before you were born, and which your life hasn't really had much of an effect on.

As for my belief system (or, my B.S.), it's a custom-model, built mostly from scratch. I've tested a few of-the-shelf models, but they all tend to be a little awkward to handle in the real-world. Don't get me wrong, they're fine for armchair forums like this, but once you get 'em outdoors, they'll crash 9 times out of 10, and usually on the first big obstacle in the road.

You can call me an atheist though, if you like. I don't believe in the big-guy-in-the-sky, but i've seen his place a few times. It's alright, but i wouldn't want to live there.:D :D :D :D

[hyperborean]

I was brought up Roman Catholic, but I no longer follow the church. I do believe there is a higher power of divinity, but none of that really matters. We must live our lives as if God doesn't exist...granting us complete freewill.

An afterlife would be nice, but if everyone knew for certain that there was an afterlife people would become nihilistic and not care for earth (sort of like christians in ancient rome).

I'm also surprised no one commented on eternal recurrence yet.

[JGL57]

...Why do Christians believe in an afterlife? Jesus talked about 'The Kingdom of God', but from reading the Bible, I didn't take it to mean an afterlife, more a kind of rebirth into this one, except all rinsed and wrung out, spiritually speaking.

My own view, and this is from experience, is that there is no such thing as death, because the concept of 'i' as something separate from the rest of the world is a nonsense, as any fule can figure out for his/herself, as soon as we stop listening to all the self-proclaimed authorities on the subject, ie. evangelists, teachers, anyone who claims to know what the bible 'really' says or means, yours truly, etc.

Your experience of this moment is real, but the framework of ideas and concepts which surrounds it is just that: a frame built out of ideas. It takes a little practice to try and figure out where one begins and the other ends, though...

This part of your statement is pure Alan Watts - the essence of eastern thought traditions such as Vedanta (Hindu), Taoism, and Buddhism. I find his writings much more inspiring than any of the many extant so-called Nondualist "gurus".

[mS_?]

"We spend our whole life trying to stop death. Eating, inventing, loving, praying, fighting, killing. But what do we really know about death? Just that nobody comes back. Then there comes a point - a moment - in life when your mind outlives its desires, its obsessions, when your habits survive your dreams, and when your losses... Maybe death is a gift."

[metal134]

My own view, and this is from experience, is that there is no such thing as death, because the concept of 'i' as something separate from the rest of the world is a nonsense
But who is the "I" that is asserting that there is no "I"?

[ADFP]

But who is the "I" that is asserting that there is no "I"?

Good question. Language is a tool, not anything which is real-in-itself. When i use a spoon, there is no need to objectify the spoon, to believe in the spoon, or to even be consciously aware of the spoon. When i ask you to pass the spoon, however, we both need a verbal 'handle' to hold the spoon by. It is exactly the same with 'i'.

[JGL57]

But who is the "I" that is asserting that there is no "I"?

Also, it wouldn't hurt to do a some study of both Hinduism and Buddhism. It might make more sense then - and cast some light on to "whom" it is making sense. ;)

[metal134]

Good question. Language is a tool, not anything which is real-in-itself. When i use a spoon, there is no need to objectify the spoon, to believe in the spoon, or to even be consciously aware of the spoon. When i ask you to pass the spoon, however, we both need a verbal 'handle' to hold the spoon by. It is exactly the same with 'i'.
My point wasn't a linguistic one, it was merely to point out that an assertion was being made and that assertion have a point of origination and means of conveyance.

[RobinHood3000]

I'm on the nothingness side of the camp. Simply because it strikes me as most natural. Depressing, perhaps, but denying what's depressing is just pasting on rose-colored contacts.

[ADFP]

My point wasn't a linguistic one, it was merely to point out that an assertion was being made and that assertion have a point of origination of means of conveyance.

Then if you're asking who 'i' am, then things are gonna get messy. I can show you the fingers which typed that statement, the brain where the thought was formulated before being conveyed to those fingers, but i am unable to show you an 'i' that is solely responsible for that statement, because the 'i' that you're looking for is merely a linguistic construct.

I refuse to draw the boundaries between 'i' and 'not i', because those boundaries are as real as the walls between heaven and earth. outside of this little consensual matrix of subject/object definitions, 'i' has no reality. 'I' am nothing, or 'i' am everything.

[metal134]

Well, Descartes put it best, "I think, therfore, I am."

[ADFP]

Well, Descartes put it best, "I think, therfore, I am."

Yeah, but if you analyse it, it's a circular argument. Formally stated, the above statement is really;

"An entity, namely 'I', performs an action, namely 'thinks', therefore there must be an entity, namely 'I'."

It's a unnecessary statement, and, as both the 'I' and the 'thinking' are undefined terms, also a useless one.

[Jetxa]

It is my belief that life is continuous and never ending, not that it starts and stops and starts up again or that there is an afterlife. God* is Life and Life is a whole and cannot be fragmented -- into a soul or separate piece that exists after death of the body. Life exists as God is Life, therefore life exists before "birth" and exists after "death". Life does not change but matter changes.

IMO people are not afraid of so-called death but of losing that conscience part of themselves that they think is "worth" something.

*Just to clarify, I am referencing a Pagan view that God is the Source of All Life and the Univeral Energy.

[Wintermute]

IMO people are not afraid of so-called death but of losing that conscience part of themselves that they think is "worth" something.

Just speaking for myself, being agnostic, I'm terrified of death--but also curious.

I guess that's why I'm a bit envious of the Christians (and others of faith) among us, they have nothing to fear.

[hyperborean]

believing in eternal recurrence is another option if you fear death. it's just as imaginable as heaven is.

[Jetxa]

Just speaking for myself, being agnostic, I'm terrified of death--but also curious.

I guess that's why I'm a bit envious of the Christians (and others of faith) among us, they have nothing to fear.

I do not fear death as man, and all that lives, is born to "die". Therefore, I do not fear so-called death simply because it is an unknown.

It wasn't until the rise of Judasim, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few other religions that salvation became an issue at all. All of a sudden people needed saving because there was "something wrong with them".

We are too wrapped up in worrying about what happens after the big "fly away" that we forget how to live. Our whole life is spent seeking safe guards against death. Perhaps that is what is truly meant by "worrying to death".

[Pendragon]

What lies beyond death? If a Christian is totally honest, they must say they do not know, "For eye has not seen, neither hath ear heard what the Lord hath prepared for them that love and serve him." That said, do I fear death? No. I look at it this way. Life here is not forever. All comes to an end. When your time is up, nothing can keep you here. Until your time is up, nothing will take you out of here. Death can be cruel, or gentle, but it truly equalizes everyone. All will face it sooner or later. We will know what lies beyond then. I do believe in an afterlife, but I would be satisfied with a much simpler heaven than most expect. Live in my shoes for two weeks, and you might understand why. God bless.

[littlewing53]

my take..having watched death come knocking at my door gave me no peace, but as members of my family passed away i had no choice but to deal with it...some went quickly others went slowly..day by day suffering....even people who are alive are dead..so what does it all mean...who knows..what has brought me peace..there is only today...as a believer..absent from the body is present w/the lord...

[quasimodo1]

Athiesm may not be a religion but it is part of enlightenment. Most people hear that word and buzz off to Buhda world. TO HESSE it was so simple. Lay down your burden and just carry what you must have. Some people need God. Others need opium. I believe we survive as organic memories of those we have touched...as long as the memory of you lives...you live. To seek you must keep seeking. Everything you need is in front of you.

[quasimodo1]

Oh great, now I have to read Norman Cousins. Fantastic quote though.

[Wintermute]

I believe we survive as organic memories of those we have touched...as long as the memory of you lives...you live. To seek you must keep seeking. Everything you need is in front of you.

Being agnostic, I'm uncertain. But it would seem to me that an organic memory is not really surviving. Sure, people remember you for a while, but your essence--your experiences, thoughts, personal memories, are all gone. Your conciousness is no more. Your ability to make decisions, kaput. Your sexuality, your appetite, your desires, your interests--*poof*.

I wonder if, assuming we don't destroy ourselves in the interim, science and medical technology will eventually make us immortal? If so, that would make us one step closer to being Gods, no? It would certainly make long distance space travel possible. Anyway, sorry for rambling.

[RobinHood3000]

Long distance space travel: possible, sure, but boring as all get-out.

[thuraiya]

our limited imagination
our limited brain
all of these things prove
" there is god to this life "
and there is another life after this life ..

[Wintermute]

our limited imagination
our limited brain
all of these things prove
" there is god to this life "
and there is another life after this life ..

Oh? How does our limited imagination and brain prove the existance of a God? Limited how? And which God?

[Wintermute]

Long distance space travel: possible, sure, but boring as all get-out.

Exactly Robin! Makes me wonder how God kept from getting bored for gazillions of years before creating the universe 13 billion years ago. And assuming it exists, how boring might heaven get after a few trillion years?

[Isagel]

I am not really sure this question is about religious texts, perhaps it is more about philosophy? We atheist do not have religious texts.

I can´t speak for athiest as a group, but I guess that usually you do not believe in an afterlife if you do not believe in God. When my brain dies, I am gone. and as several people have pointed out there is that nasty business with decomposing and bugs and stuff.
But I think that most of us need some kind of thoughts of what comes after. Giving nutrients to a tree sounds nice. I hope that I will have created something or made some difference in this world. That is enough afterlife for me - that my life has brought somthing good to this world. For me there is a freedom in that thought. There is no God to judge or condemn me. Just me.
No hell but my own creation, and no heaven either. So I have to make the most of my one shot at getting it right. I fear pain, I fear dying, I fear being afraid at that moment. But I do not fear death itself, becuase I do not think there is anything there to fear.

[JGL57]

...There is no God to judge or condemn me. Just me.
No hell but my own creation, and no heaven either. So I have to make the most of my one shot at getting it right. I fear pain, I fear dying, I fear being afraid at that moment. But I do not fear death itself, because I do not think there is anything there to fear.

Following on your analysis, I think this dude also put the concept of fear of death in proper perspective:

"Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?" – Epicurus

[quasimodo1]

the famous quidquid recipitur passage from Cicero...paraphrased...No one recieves anything until the time they are ready to recieve it.

[Pendragon]

the famous quidquid recipitur passage from Cicero...paraphrased...No one recieves anything until the time they are ready to recieve it.
True. Which was the point I was trying to make when I said this:
That said, do I fear death? No. I look at it this way. Life here is not forever. All comes to an end. When your time is up, nothing can keep you here. Until your time is up, nothing will take you out of here. Death can be cruel, or gentle, but it truly equalizes everyone. All will face it sooner or later. We will know what lies beyond then. Now, I may believe that one might have to prepare themselves in certain ways for a better afterlife, but could I prove that to any certainty? No. Death, however, is certain. I prefer if I am in error, to err on the side of God, and to be like the old saints and hold to the faith, die in faith, and if there be no reward, I have lost nothing, for I have lived my life as I chose, not as I was made to live it. I am answerable to no man, for God alone may judge me. Basically, if people think me wrong, that is their privilege, I won't hold it against them. I judge no one.

[JGL57]

...I prefer if I am in error, to err on the side of God, and to be like the old saints and hold to the faith, die in faith, and if there be no reward, I have lost nothing, for I have lived my life as I chose, not as I was made to live it...

So, it's simply a wager or a bet - on god. – An interesting way to look at life.

But what if god condemned to hell ONLY those who believe on him on a bet - and all others, sincere believers and atheists alike, all go to heaven.

You can't prove this isn't true. It might be. And you are free to bet against it. :D

[quasimodo1]

To Pendragon: Being non-judgemental seems to be the high hurdle for most people. The ones that cling to religion and it's specific morality can be the most judgemental. The derivation of "moral" is anyone who adhered to the rules of the tribe. Hence, immoral people are living or acting in ways outside tribal acceptance. The buzzword it has become can mean anything or nothing. Not being a believer and a former catholic doesn't stop me from quoting the bible..."Judge not, less ye be judged". Write on. RJS

[JBI]

Nothing happens after death. Make the most of life while you still can. Don't go wasting your time on silly things such as religion.

This is my opinion, you are free to accept it, respect it, or disagree with it. There is no way for you to disprove my theory, so don't bother trying.

[Guzmán]

If you go to hell you are beaten all day by a woman in a leather suit with a whip.

If you go to heaven you are beaten all day by a woman in a leather suit with a whip, but you don't feel guilty about it.

[dramasnot6]

If you go to hell you are beaten all day by a woman in a leather suit with a whip.

If you go to heaven you are beaten all day by a woman in a leather suit with a whip, but you don't feel guilty about it.

:lol:

[Asa Adams]

If you go to hell you are beaten all day by a woman in a leather suit with a whip.

If you go to heaven you are beaten all day by a woman in a leather suit with a whip, but you don't feel guilty about it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I needed that!

[Isagel]

Following on your analysis, I think this dude also put the concept of fear of death in proper perspective:

"Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?" – Epicurus

How come every time I think I was smart there is always a dead greek who said it better? This is an excellent qoute that sums up what I meant, in a more elegant way. Thank you.

[Asa Adams]

How come every time I think I was smart there is always a dead greek who said it better? This is an excellent qoute that sums up what I meant, in a more elegant way. Thank you.

Oh yes. As they say "Old, dead greeks do it better" you know. :lol: ;)

[Aunty-lion]

Just speaking for myself, being agnostic, I'm terrified of death--but also curious.

I guess that's why I'm a bit envious of the Christians (and others of faith) among us, they have nothing to fear.

I can identify with this statement. I'm petrified of death. My mother says that she was only afraid of dying until she had children. Now, she is afraid of her children dying.

Maybe I should get me some rugrats....then again, maybe not yet.

However, I dunno if you can say that people of faith have nothing to fear. Maybe some of them don't, but there are some religious theories that seem to be founded on fear. I mean, aren't certain ideas about 'being a good Christian' founded on the basis that if you're not a good Christian, you'll burn in hell??? That's pretty scary. I like to think I do good things for others because it gets good results. Here. On Planet earth.

I guess I think I'm a pretty decent human being, and I don't like the idea of a God who would send me to hell even if he/she knew that I lived a morally decent life, purely because I didn't worship them. That's a bit mean in my opinion. If I met a person like that in real life I certainly wouldn't worship them.

I am fully aware though, that there are plenty of people of faith, whose various Gods are much more reasonable than that, so don't think I'm condemning religion in it's entirity.

Hmmmm...

[ShoutGrace]

“Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do?” – Epicurus


Outstanding. A truly remarkable summation, and, as Isagel observed, very elegant.


This is from Cicero's "On Old Age," which contains wisdom much more disposed towards the elderly in particular, but is of course useful for any and all:

“Now we must consider the fourth objection to being old: one which might be thought well calculated to worry and distress a man of my years. I refer to the nearness of death . . . If, during his long life, [a man] has failed to grasp that death is of no account he is unfortunate indeed. There are two alternatives: either death completely obliterates human souls, in which case it is negligible; or it removes the soul to some place of eternal life - in which case its coming is greatly to be desired.

The act of dying, it is true, may be accompanied by certain sensations, but if so these only last a very short time. After death, feelings are either non-existent or agreeable. From our youth upwards we should bear that in mind, since the thought will encourage us to regard death as of no account, a conviction without which we can have no peace of mind. For we cannot avoid dying - perhaps even this present moment. Since, therefore, death is an imminent possibility from moment to moment, you must not let the prospect frighten you, or you will be in a state of perpetual anxiety.”

I find minor fault with his conclusion that death is either "agreeable" or "negligible." He seems so certain - though he never claimed that it was anything other than his personal opinion.

[Lote-Tree]

As a christian, I have a strong belive in heaven and hell ect. Yet I'm rather curious to know what athiest's belive happens after death. To me its unimaginable to think that when our bodies cease to sustain us upon the world, thats it. If you do belive that life ends with death then isnt that rather sepressing and what are your thoughts about death. All replys welcome. Thank you for reading.

Death? Nothing to worry about. Humanity have been dead for billions of years without suffering any ill effects :-)

But to die a painful lingering death is to be avoided and with modern pain killers - death can be made very painless - which is good thing.

Does Death make a mockery of LIFE?
Nay. It is a blessing. Like sleep is a blessing.

[andave_ya]

I have to agree with Pendragon when he said on page 2, I believe, that no one, Christian or otherwise, knows what comes after death. As a traditional Christian, I believe that when I get to Heaven my body and mental make-up will change entirely. In the Bible, it says that our bodies will be healed of all infirmities and that we will spend an eternity with God, praising Him and loving Him and asking Him questions that we couldn't solve here on earth. I believe I will meet famous Christians there: C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, Mary Slessor, Winston Churchill, Ben Franklin, J.R.R. Tolkien, and countless others who have passed on. It'll be --forgive the pun--Heaven. :D

[Stieg]

If the god of the bible is real, that means there are many many people going to have a sad conclusion to their once flesh inhabiting lives.

Hell is probably the greatest museum the universe ever had and ever will which makes god (pardon the potential heresy, the greatest of all party-crashers).

I have been reading some the threads here, great responses from both sides -- bottom line, seems god doesn't mind cloaking us in darkness and doubt and ignorance, and furthermore do I really want to meet this stranger and shoot the bull with him?

[quasimodo1]

Is after death the same as before life? Atheist or Believer, you live your time, try to be useful, ethical, even altruistic. Since the only reports from beyond mortality are temporary, i.e. humans brought back from the brink, and they talk of tunnels and great white lights and universal positive feelings, what's the use of worry and speculation. If some humans do negative things, even evil things, philosophically I hope that karma will be the operative force. quasimodo1

[JGL57]

...As a traditional Christian, I believe that when I get to Heaven my body and mental make-up will change entirely...I believe I will meet famous Christians there: C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, Mary Slessor, Winston Churchill, Ben Franklin, J.R.R. Tolkien, and countless others who have passed on. It'll be --forgive the pun--Heaven...

That's nice. I'm curious though, do you "believe", or not, that the following persons will be there with you and god and the heavenly host for all eternity?:

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Thomas Paine
3. Percy Shelley
4. Albert Einstein
5. Isaac Asimov
6. Stephen Gould
7. Carl Sagan
8. The Dali Lama
9. Freddy Nietzsche
10. Albert Camus
11. Thomas Edison
12. Andrew Carnegie

- Not to mention the billions and billions and billions of other persons who were not or are not “traditional christians”.

And rather than just a naked assertion, please give the reasons for your particular belief on this specific subject, if you will.

Thanks.

[Vittoria666]

I have an Athiest friend and she believes that we just turn into worm food after we die and cremating is a waste of momey and time...well thats what shee believes!!! not my problem, i'm just sharing!!

[Lote-Tree]

I have an Athiest friend and she believes that we just turn into worm food after we die and cremating is a waste of momey and time...well thats what shee believes!!! not my problem, i'm just sharing!!

Why should it be your problem anyway? :-)

[JGL57]

Well, I suppose we should be open-minded here.

Rather than used the word "believe", I suspect quite strongly that when humans die they become worm food.

But you or I, the individual human, cannot "know" until we die - then we know. It could be that dead is just a transition into another dimension of existence for us. Wouldn't that be nice - I guess?

In the meantime both serious secular speculation on the subject as well as pious pronouncements of great "faith" about what will happen both seem equally vain (in both senses of the word).

Here's a thought - let's wait until we die to find out and in the meantime live as if this life were it. Is that a workable theory?

[TakeForExample]

Why worry about death, when death should be the one worrying about us?

[Panflute]

Why worry about death, when death should be the one worrying about us?

Because that doesn't make sense.

[Triskele]

Because that doesn't make sense.

yeah, i am in agreeance, there is no reason for death to worry about us, because death is not a sentient being, it is a part in the cycle of life... wtf mate...

[stephofthenight]

Because that doesn't make sense.

actualy it makes perfect since. we shouldnt worry about what is inevitable. but death should worry as in what to do with us, in the christian faith there is the angel of death which would be interpeted as that angel has to worry about us making the decisions while we live to determin an early death or late. and as well rather heaven or hell. its a contridicting yet complmetary statment. depending on which faith and how far you are willing to read into it. if u see it as a shallow meaningless statment then its contridicting but if you see it as deep or read into it then its complemtary...

and your lucky numbers are 6,13,69,666 <3

[Panflute]

actualy it makes perfect since. we shouldnt worry about what is inevitable. but death should worry as in what to do with us, in the christian faith there is the angel of death which would be interpeted as that angel has to worry about us making the decisions while we live to determin an early death or late. and as well rather heaven or hell. its a contridicting yet complmetary statment. depending on which faith and how far you are willing to read into it. if u see it as a shallow meaningless statment then its contridicting but if you see it as deep or read into it then its complemtary...

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in heaven, hell or angels of death. It still doesn't make sense to me, and I'm perfectly aware that if you think deep about something you can twist every statement in such ways that everything makes sense. In essence, however, most of those statements seem to me like an attempted illustration of 'look how deep and mysterious I am', but nice try, anyway.

[Vittoria666]

I guess we should wait and see but i dont think that we will know what happens to us, i mean face it... we'll be dead then!

I believe that once you die your soul hangs about in an are which means the most to you and then your soul goes into heaven.

Who believes differently, if so... what do you believe in?......... i'm intrested to know. :p

[Moira]

I guess we should wait and see but i dont think that we will know what happens to us, i mean face it... we'll be dead then!

I believe that once you die your soul hangs about in an are which means the most to you and then your soul goes into heaven.

Who believes differently, if so... what do you believe in?......... i'm intrested to know. :p

I wish i could believe that too.
But unfortunately i believe that when we die there is ....... NOTHING.

[Lote-Tree]

I wish i could believe that too.
But unfortunately i believe that when we die there is ....... NOTHING.

Not exactly NOTHING - you return to "Energy"... ;-)

[Moira]

Not exactly NOTHING - you return to "Energy"... ;-)

To himself everyone is immortal; he may know that he is going to die, but he can never know that he is dead. ~Samuel Butler

[Lote-Tree]

To himself everyone is immortal; he may know that he is going to die, but he can never know that he is dead. ~Samuel Butler

I have been dead for 14 billion years and have not felt a thing ;-)

[quasimodo1]

Since you asked the most basic question, here is "my" answer, posted before in alternate ways but refined somewhat upon some investigation that has had satisfactory and acceptable results. This doesn't mean it's written in stone; lot's of stuff was written that way and the half that is decipherable is either nonesense, primitive or maybe even correct. "The Tibeten Book of the Dead" is light reading, well, enlightening reading and from it I have been looking around the corner, so to speak, and I find that the law of conservation of energy (matter can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed), might have a spiritual corollary, i.e. consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. According to ageless Tibeten Buhdism, this is sort of thier point along with re-incarnation, which is not to say that the process is without some risk. You won't get an underwriter to go there, that's for sure. So if you are still interested, check out this URL and a little feedback would be appreciated. It is... http://www.leben-sterrben.de/cds/bardo_en/bardo_en.htm This is part of a larger website about the book mentionned earlier. quasimodo1 {there are two underscores between bardo_en/bardo_en} in case you can't click on it.

[kiobe]

Depends on what you think "life after death" consists of. If it's simply more of this current life, then yes - why bother? But what if it is Life to its fullest, most enjoyable extent? What about that?

Decomposing, giv'n it back to moma earth, what could be better than that?

[Redzeppelin]

Decomposing, giv'n it back to moma earth, what could be better than that?

Spending eternity exploring the universe, existing with a body that never sickens, tires or dies; experiencing true intimacy with people, living in daily contact with the Source of all Life; daily existence without fear, without hate, without suffering. That WAY beats liquifying into dirt.

[kiobe]

Spending eternity exploring the universe, existing with a body that never sickens, tires or dies; experiencing true intimacy with people, living in daily contact with the Source of all Life; daily existence without fear, without hate, without suffering. That WAY beats liquifying into dirt.

I wasn't aware that it was a contest. but since that is what you are making it I am changing my answer.
Ok, to start with when I die I will become 60, no 80 feet tall with an electron pulsing engine that will carry me into space at a speed very close to C, any faster and I will become infinitly heavy so to keep my svelt body I will keep it under C. I will be able to do that cool disapearing thing that the spaceship does in the game asteroids and then end up in a place i desire, not like the game asteroids. All my friends and family will be there, even family members I never met, I don't know just how I will know them....wait, all my family members will have name tags so no matter what galaxy I fly to if a family member is there I can say hi or if thier a pain in the toukus I can avoid them. I will be able to come back to earth, regular size of corse, and check up on my koi pond and make sure that the people that bought my home from my estate are doing a good job taking care of the yard, ya know, weeding, watering and stuff. I would fly around the earth protecting it from any large meteorites or comets because I still have family and friends on this little planet. I would set up a casino, non-smoking of corse, on the moons dark side, wouldn't want the people of earth to get jealous, and have regular poker games there. I would make it so that every day on earth people would wake up and forget the previous day and not care, they would live in the moment not in the past, not in the future. Then I might take a nap.

[Redzeppelin]

I wasn't aware that it was a contest. but since that is what you are making it I am changing my answer.
Ok, to start with when I die I will become 60, no 80 feet tall with an electron pulsing engine that will carry me into space at a speed very close to C, any faster and I will become infinitly heavy so to keep my svelt body I will keep it under C. I will be able to do that cool disapearing thing that the spaceship does in the game asteroids and then end up in a place i desire, not like the game asteroids. All my friends and family will be there, even family members I never met, I don't know just how I will know them....wait, all my family members will have name tags so no matter what galaxy I fly to if a family member is there I can say hi or if thier a pain in the toukus I can avoid them. I will be able to come back to earth, regular size of corse, and check up on my koi pond and make sure that the people that bought my home from my estate are doing a good job taking care of the yard, ya know, weeding, watering and stuff. I would fly around the earth protecting it from any large meteorites or comets because I still have family and friends on this little planet. I would set up a casino, non-smoking of corse, on the moons dark side, wouldn't want the people of earth to get jealous, and have regular poker games there. I would make it so that every day on earth people would wake up and forget the previous day and not care, they would live in the moment not in the past, not in the future. Then I might take a nap.

No contest - just a response.

My version comes from a book authored by a Divine Being - where's yours from?

[billyjack]

Spending eternity exploring the universe, existing with a body that never sickens, tires or dies; experiencing true intimacy with people, living in daily contact with the Source of all Life; daily existence without fear, without hate, without suffering. That WAY beats liquifying into dirt.

of course you can't deny that your physical body will return to mama earth. so no matter what you believe, you will be churned back into the "eternal recurrance"(circle of life) that believers and non-believers alike are destined for.

one thing though: your desrciption of your happy place sounds to me like a lot of it is attainable in this life. with the exception of your wishing for a world without sickness, death, fatigue, fear, hate, and suffering. (seeing how these terms only exist in relation to their contraries).

[Redzeppelin]

of course you can't deny that your physical body will return to mama earth. so no matter what you believe, you will be churned back into the "eternal recurrance"(circle of life) that believers and non-believers alike are destined for.

one thing though: your desrciption of your happy place sounds to me like a lot of it is attainable in this life. with the exception of your wishing for a world without sickness, death, fatigue, fear, hate, and suffering. (seeing how these terms only exist in relation to their contraries).

None of what I quoted can REALLY exist in this life for any sustained amount of time - the "filters" of our sinful natures, our fears and suspicions, our jealousies and hatreds (which occur in very subtle ways) would block true intimacy and joy; here on earth, these things are fleeting at best - mere glimmers of the eternal joy that God offers us.

[kiobe]

No contest - just a response.

My version comes from a book authored by a Divine Being - where's yours from?

No contest? "that WAY beats liquifing into dirt". Author? Show me a signature on the bible. If God was able to create everything we see and can't see how hard would it be to sign the thing. Oh but that's exactly what faith is based on. Ya just have to believe, don't think too hard, just believe.

[NickAdams]

What does an atheist believe? It would take sometime to answer that, but not because the answer is complicated. What doesn’t an atheist believe in? That’s easier. An atheist doesn’t believe in deities or a deity. If it’s not related to that, an atheist is free to believe it. An atheist can even believe in the Ten Commandments. How? They can believe it is an ethically strong theory that would sustain order, without believing in the deity attached to it. I believe atheists have the potential to be morally stronger than anybody who subscribes to a deity religion, because their morals are upheld without future incentives, i.e. paradise. It’s funny when a atheist is said to be confused for exclaiming, “Oh my God!” which is a phrase that has worked its way into the vocabulary of the common man, by a Christian who backslides yet still considers themselves a Christian.

[NickAdams]

Oh! I didn't see the entire thread question. What happens after death? You are buried and the sun rises and sets. Existence ends. That's why life is important. Immortality is the memory you leave the world.

[Redzeppelin]

No contest? "that WAY beats liquifing into dirt". Author? Show me a signature on the bible. If God was able to create everything we see and can't see how hard would it be to sign the thing. Oh but that's exactly what faith is based on. Ya just have to believe, don't think too hard, just believe.

A "signature"? You're kidding, right? As if the Bible ended with "God" in flowing script you'd buy that?

Try to be less dismissive of belief and faith - you use it on a daily basis. There are many things in life that you believe to be true and have faith in that you have no empirical evidence to attest to. I assume that when you get into a car that you have a fairly strong belief that you'll reach your destination (few people panic every time they drive, expecting to die); that's faith - you believe you'll reach your destination OK, even though there is no empirical evidence (beyond a reasonable inference based on inductive knowlege) that that should be so.

As well, to be an atheist requires a belief as well - a belief that nothing exists but that which can be observed, measured, etc (known as Naturalism). It takes faith to be an atheist as well.

[billyjack]

None of what I quoted can REALLY exist in this life for any sustained amount of time - .

agreed--because in reality life isnt static. yet your happy place is just that, a never-ending-static "good". strange that your ideal of heaven doesnt subscribe to the natural way of the universe. from what i've read, the only way to divert from nature is through an overactive consciousness-- (which an overwhelming majority of the human race is suffering from). making me think that the ideal of heaven is a product of just that--too much thinking and not eneough feeling.

but anyways, as far as what atheist might believe happens after death?: well, they only believe what can be experienced, so i'd hope a good atheist wouldnt pretend to know.

[kiobe]

A "signature"? You're kidding, right? As if the Bible ended with "God" in flowing script you'd buy that?

Try to be less dismissive of belief and faith - you use it on a daily basis. There are many things in life that you believe to be true and have faith in that you have no empirical evidence to attest to. I assume that when you get into a car that you have a fairly strong belief that you'll reach your destination (few people panic every time they drive, expecting to die); that's faith - you believe you'll reach your destination OK, even though there is no empirical evidence (beyond a reasonable inference based on inductive knowlege) that that should be so.

As well, to be an atheist requires a belief as well - a belief that nothing exists but that which can be observed, measured, etc (known as Naturalism). It takes faith to be an atheist as well.

You are presuposing that because I don't worry about every trip I take in the car, I have "faith". That I will arrive at my destination alive, it's not a belief or a dogmatic attitude, It's odds. Why worry about something that may or may not happen, that's all it is. When you see life through the eyes of a person like myself, free of the dependency of a Deity and all it requires of a person, then you will see that "faith" never comes into play. Each moment is what it is. A moment in time.

[Redzeppelin]

You are presuposing that because I don't worry about every trip I take in the car, I have "faith". That I will arrive at my destination alive, it's not a belief or a dogmatic attitude, It's odds. Why worry about something that may or may not happen, that's all it is. When you see life through the eyes of a person like myself, free of the dependency of a Deity and all it requires of a person, then you will see that "faith" never comes into play. Each moment is what it is. A moment in time.

If my example is insufficient, fine - but don't pretend that your life has no interaction with unverified belief or faith. It does. Not everything you believe to be true can be factually, empirically verified. That's impossible. In terms of "dependency" - you speak as if it's some sort of weakness to depend upon God; I think you severely overestimate human ability. If I have a choice of depending upon my own flawed character or that of a perfect, divine being, the choice seems obvious - kind of like the choice of me flying the 747 or the highly trained pilot, of me stopping the criminal or the police officer, of me defending myself in court of the lawyer.

[kiobe]

If my example is insufficient, fine - but don't pretend that your life has no interaction with unverified belief or faith. It does. Not everything you believe to be true can be factually, empirically verified. That's impossible. In terms of "dependency" - you speak as if it's some sort of weakness to depend upon God; I think you severely overestimate human ability. If I have a choice of depending upon my own flawed character or that of a perfect, divine being, the choice seems obvious - kind of like the choice of me flying the 747 or the highly trained pilot, of me stopping the criminal or the police officer, of me defending myself in court of the lawyer.

Look Red, believe me, no one is questioning YOUR faith, you have a strong anchored belief system in YOUR God. If I have given the impression that religious people have an inherrent weakness I apologise, that has NEVER been my take. Just as there is absolutly no way for you to really feel my feelings, you will never be able to see through my eyes. You see the world through YOUR God, I just see the world. That's atheism, and a pretty clean definition at that. I am going to ask you this one more time, do you like football?

[NickAdams]

Cognitive dissonance. :brickwall

[kiobe]

If my example is insufficient, fine - but don't pretend that your life has no interaction with unverified belief or faith. It does. Not everything you believe to be true can be factually, empirically verified. That's impossible. In terms of "dependency" - you speak as if it's some sort of weakness to depend upon God; I think you severely overestimate human ability. If I have a choice of depending upon my own flawed character or that of a perfect, divine being, the choice seems obvious - kind of like the choice of me flying the 747 or the highly trained pilot, of me stopping the criminal or the police officer, of me defending myself in court of the lawyer.

I am saying that my life as I know it has no interaction with unverified belief. If something cannot be factually, empirically verified, I let it go. I don't try to force feed a need for truth when it isn't possible to acquire it. I understand your analogies but, for instance having faith in a lawyer, the way I see it is hope not faith. I hope he passed the bar exam the first time, I hope his work load is such that he can spend the requsent amount of time on my issue, I hope he knows what he's doing, I hope he didn't piss off the judge a week ago at the golf course. Actually I'm a big beliver in hope, with actions to bring about change.

[Redzeppelin]

Look Red, believe me, no one is questioning YOUR faith, you have a strong anchored belief system in YOUR God. If I have given the impression that religious people have an inherrent weakness I apologise, that has NEVER been my take. Just as there is absolutly no way for you to really feel my feelings, you will never be able to see through my eyes. You see the world through YOUR God, I just see the world. That's atheism, and a pretty clean definition at that. I am going to ask you this one more time, do you like football?

1) You see the world through your own "filter" just as I do: mine's God; yours is Naturalism.

2) No: I don't care for football - why?


I am saying that my life as I know it has no interaction with unverified belief. If something cannot be factually, empirically verified, I let it go. I don't try to force feed a need for truth when it isn't possible to acquire it. I understand your analogies but, for instance having faith in a lawyer, the way I see it is hope not faith. I hope he passed the bar exam the first time, I hope his work load is such that he can spend the requsent amount of time on my issue, I hope he knows what he's doing, I hope he didn't piss off the judge a week ago at the golf course. Actually I'm a big beliver in hope, with actions to bring about change.

From Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

Everybody has interaction with faith of some sort in his/her life.

[kiobe]

1) You see the world through your own "filter" just as I do: mine's God; yours is Naturalism.

2) No: I don't care for football - why?



From Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

Everybody has interaction with faith of some sort in his/her life.

1. Yes , I know, I just said that and thank you for your categorizing me, I love being reduced to a single term.

2. No reason, just looking to find something in common.

One more time, I AM NOT CERTAIN OF WHAT I DO NOT SEE. Please don't correct me again. You are projecting the way you see the world into the way I see the world. Very presumptuous of you.

Hope-a feeling that what is wanted will happen. A feeling, not absolute.
Faith-unquestioning beliefe, specifically in God. Absolute.

Hope is not faith. If you tell a parishioner that you HOPE you go to heaven, they will ask you why you are not sure. Where's the doubt coming from? Don't you have faith that you will go to heaven? The terms are different and not interchangable.

[Redzeppelin]

1. Yes , I know, I just said that and thank you for your categorizing me, I love being reduced to a single term.

Relax; nobody "reduced" you to anything; you claimed I saw the world "through" God (and you are correct); I simply asserted how you see the world. No reduction of you occurred in the least.


2. No reason, just looking to find something in common.

I'm more of a basketball fan.


One more time, I AM NOT CERTAIN OF WHAT I DO NOT SEE. Please don't correct me again. You are projecting the way you see the world into the way I see the world. Very presumptuous of you.

I'm sorry - I don't recall "correcting" you in the slightest. I'm simply telling you that I believe all people have interaction with the idea of faith. You're free to disagree. I presume a certain configuration to reality just as you do - we're equally presumptuous because you presume to interpret reality correctly based on a particular world-view (the exact same thing I'm doing).


Hope-a feeling that what is wanted will happen. A feeling, not absolute.
Faith-unquestioning beliefe, specifically in God. Absolute.

I understand the difference - but I think you downplay the fact that faith is a part of everyday life. Please don't tell me that all that is not verifiable to you in life becomes a matter of mere hope; there must be some things in which you firmly believe without a shred of verifiable, empirical evidence. As well, having faith does not mean not asking questions: it means that even if our questions aren't answered, we still believe (based on the character of the Being asking us to have faith).


Hope is not faith. If you tell a parishioner that you HOPE you go to heaven, they will ask you why you are not sure. Where's the doubt coming from? Don't you have faith that you will go to heaven? The terms are different and not interchangable.

Like I said: I see the difference; I quoted the Bible to suggest the interaction between the two; I do not think hope always exists in isolation; I think it often has ties to faith.

[kiobe]

Relax; nobody "reduced" you to anything; you claimed I saw the world "through" God (and you are correct); I simply asserted how you see the world. No reduction of you occurred in the least.



I'm more of a basketball fan.



I'm sorry - I don't recall "correcting" you in the slightest. I'm simply telling you that I believe all people have interaction with the idea of faith. You're free to disagree. I presume a certain configuration to reality just as you do - we're equally presumptuous because you presume to interpret reality correctly based on a particular world-view (the exact same thing I'm doing).




I understand the difference - but I think you downplay the fact that faith is a part of everyday life. Please don't tell me that all that is not verifiable to you in life becomes a matter of mere hope; there must be some things in which you firmly believe without a shred of verifiable, empirical evidence. As well, having faith does not mean not asking questions: it means that even if our questions aren't answered, we still believe (based on the character of the Being asking us to have faith).



Like I said: I see the difference; I quoted the Bible to suggest the interaction between the two; I do not think hope always exists in isolation; I think it often has ties to faith.

But I don't project my reality into your beliefe. You say that all people have interaction with the idea of faith. I don't have that. I have never said that you or any other religious person must have some doubt, as that would be presumptous of me to interject my doubts into your beliefe.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.

[Redzeppelin]

But I don't project my reality into your beliefe. You say that all people have interaction with the idea of faith. I don't have that. I have never said that you or any other religious person must have some doubt, as that would be presumptous of me to interject my doubts into your beliefe.

Fine. We disagree. I'm asking you to not dismiss the validity of faith by trying to get you to see that it's an integral part of being alive; not every aspect of life and reality can be empirically verified; at some point, we must live in faith that certain unprovable things are true. If you believe that your life has no interaction with faith, then I'm OK with that.

[NikolaiI]

This is my first posted reply, and I will try to make it a good one!

There are so many interesting posts on this thread, I don't know which topics I want to write about first. Firstly, what is religion? Are there not two or more definitions? It can be a Church, or it can be a person's personal beliefs, as Dr. Scott Peck argues.

Is Christianity in its nature deistic, theistic, or even pantheistic or atheistic? Is Christianity based solely on the bible? There is such a multitude of different ideas and opinions. Some say it is not based on the bible, others say it is exclusively. If it is, there are different parts of the bible which point to all
kinds of religious beliefs. Consider how many different religions come from it.

And what do you people think about Christians who say they are also Buddhists? There's a guy in Kansas City, part of an interfaith community organization, who says he is Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, well, all of them really. But if you say this to an evangelical Christian, you are likely to get a complete denial of this possibility.

As for myself, I am 100% all of them that I know, I am atheist, deist, theist, pantheist (and some more than others). I'd like to mention what someone said earlier, about how there is no "I". This is definitely true in my mind. There is no seperation from a person and the world around him. I first read about that in a Buddhist book, "Entering the Stream". We are made of matter and spiritual energy, and the world around us is also made of the same things, and the only barriers are arbitrary ones that we created. Where is the barrier? The skin? We are recycled as time goes on, we are a part of the world, we are not seperate. The term is called "Duality" in Buddhism. Not "Dualism"........and they say it's something you can eventually understand by contemplating your navel.

Haha! Contemplating your navel. It sounds silly but you should try it, it's called transcendental meditation.

...

I like how in the Buddhist world you can achieve perfection.....at least, in my Buddhist world. But I am an idealist.

I think it was Werther(?) who said something like "You hold up an ideal of perfection, and bow down and worship it, yet you claim that it is impossible, and you are mean to each other because you feel you are inadequate and can never measure up, and yet you still worship this ideal." Or something like that...and maybe it was Dostoyevsky.

What do an atheist believe? Anything and everything, there are lots of atheists.

By the way, feel free to say that I can not be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time! I have been told so before! I have been told that it's good to study other religions, but to be careful not to be led away.....

...

Oh, but that brings me back to my main point. Growth! Happiness! Perfection! If my belief that people can be happy, that it is possible, is not true, then my life is in vain. But of course, (of course!!) that is not true. But then, I am young yet. But sometimes, I just see that everyone is so good, everyone around me!

Oh, but my idea comes mainly from "The Dream of A Ridiculous Man" by Dostoyevsky, only not applied to everyone but just people's individual relationships..."If everyone only agreed on it, it could all be arranged at once!"

"For I have seen the truth, I have seen it! and I know that people can be beautiful and happy and retain their ability to dwell on this earth."

I love it! And if we think how fleetingly we are on this earth, if we see things as they REALLY are, and look at the larger picture. If time is real(!!!) then we are only here for an instant! If time is not real, then the past and the future are reversed or merge... but...our lives, they are not a very long time, that drags on forever, they are actually really short!

..

Sorry. I am really into transcendental things right now...I would really really suggest "Existenz" by Karl Jaspers. Great writing...but...I find we can be healthy and happy with meditation, and by spending time in nature...then we can transcend our selves...and then life seems so good, and we can drink it and feel so full. Does anyone know what that is like, to drink life? So that it feels like one has just had some magnificent drug? Sometimes, when we are healthy and happy, then even a glass of water seems so...so... so much life?

I know, I am not really expressing it all...

But again, what is religion? It is non-existent. There are only individuals...I don't think religions really have... people coming together and being as one. Haha, what is the difference.

But yeah, there is no duality. Also, perfection is possible, people! You can be happy! You can quit smoking! You're not addicted!!

Hehe, I'm sure that no one got that, yet, and now everyone thinks I've gone too far.

...

I may-be had some other points but forgot them by now...oh yes, I do believe in God. Or Jah. Definitely I am a big, big fan of the uh...pegan god? Heh, hm. I think God is what is in us all, in every atom, and every person, every rock, all of that...and not just here on earth but throughout the universe. Is it interesting, that the biological goo of life is in us all? What makes us human is the same things that makes insects go? And trees and grass and growth...it's all from the same roots, and we have things in our DNA common with all other types of life here? I wonder what kind of life is developing elsewhere...

...
Okay, that was all to my post. I'll think of other things later. I look forward to whatever replies come my way..

And I hope, I just hope, you know..that everyone is doing alright that reads this. Have a good day.

[Dorian Gray]

Atheist believe (yay for good spelling) all kinds of things. Some indeed think there's nothing after death. But I think the soul moves on and life starts anew - only you'll be someone else.

[NickAdams]

Atheist believe (yay for good spelling) all kinds of things. Some indeed think there's nothing after death. But I think the soul moves on and life starts anew - only you'll be someone else.

What is the soul or a soul?

[NikolaiI]

Well, if I have it right, the Buddhists believe there is no soul, just as there is no ego, yet they also believe when we die there is some essenece of us that is particular to us that continues. Buddha said there is reincarnation, but no soul.

I think every atom has a soul, and a direction, which can be...altered.

[Vittoria666]

I wish i could believe that too.
But unfortunately i believe that when we die there is ....... NOTHING.

I wouldnt say that nothing happens to uus can you specify nothing

[Vittoria666]

Well, if I have it right, the Buddhists believe there is no soul, just as there is no ego, yet they also believe when we die there is some essenece of us that is particular to us that continues. Buddha said there is reincarnation, but no soul.

I think every atom has a soul, and a direction, which can be...altered.

i think that maybe you are right! i mean we all go some where after we die right?

[Moira]

I wouldnt say that nothing happens to uus can you specify nothing



Hi Vittoria,

What i meant is that i don't believe in afterlife.

If there is a 'return to energy' or something else i believe it's not remotely similar to what we experience on earth so my answer is 'I don't know'.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

'return to energy' is incorrect because all matter is a form of energy, and thus nothing to return from. This is shown in Spinoza's Ethics and Einstein's relativity.

[SFG75]

The issue here has to do with what atheists, not christians, believe happens after death. How the latter group has anything to do with this topic is beyond me.

[Literature<3]

Sorry if this offends anyone but when we die that is it, we are gone, worm food no doubt.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, but what is the difference between atheist and christian. It is a label with no apparent meaning. We are not seperate from the world, we are all part of the world, all part of the same thing, none is different from any other. Part of the world, and therefore part of each other. To say someone is atheist or christian is several levels removed from the truth.

[Bookworm4Him]

I'm not an atheist, praise God, but they think that we just die, turn into dirt (which the Bible says, may I point out), and that's the end of everything. Eat, drink, and be merry, cause tomorrow aint gonna come

[NickAdams]

The issue here has to do with what atheists, not christians, believe happens after death. How the latter group has anything to do with this topic is beyond me.

:thumbs_up


Yes, but what is the difference between atheist and christian. It is a label with no apparent meaning. We are not seperate from the world, we are all part of the world, all part of the same thing, none is different from any other. Part of the world, and therefore part of each other. To say someone is atheist or christian is several levels removed from the truth.


What's not a label? We label an animal a cow to caterogize and refer to- even label is a label. Once we communicate with language we have to accept that we are communicating with labels. It might be interesting to know what a Christian thinks when he speaks of Atheism or an Atheist think when he speaks of Christianity. When an individual identifies themselves as part of any group it is the commonality of ideas that is important. Labels are beacons. How would we have found this site if the label of literature wasn't mentioned anywhere on this site?

[kiobe]

Yes, but what is the difference between atheist and christian. It is a label with no apparent meaning. We are not seperate from the world, we are all part of the world, all part of the same thing, none is different from any other. Part of the world, and therefore part of each other. To say someone is atheist or christian is several levels removed from the truth.

It's meaning is quite apparent. While we are all part of the same universe, all made of water, carbon etc... what a person believes, how that person lives thier life, all has to do with how they see thier place in this world. And a lot of times that place that that person has carved out for themselves changes over time. Christians become athiests and visa versa. The lables we use to describe our world, be it an atheist, a paper cup, or the reaction of a croud to thier team scoring a goal, are necessary and the result of thousands of years of evolution of language. Lables are treasure of a civilized human race. What truth are you referring to?

[A MM]

Hello folks.

Needless to say, I am new here.:)

Also I have not figured out about avatars. Sorry 'bout that. Kinda ole fashioned, still, I s`ppose.

In the ole fashioned vein: Mark Twain's "Captain Stormfield's visit to heaven", written after the narrator "had been dead about 30 years" has been on my mind very much lately.

From about the time Kurt Vonnegut died actually.

Mark Twain had a fascinating way to discuss, maybe better, narrate an answer to the question of this thread.

Mark Twain was not an atheist. But he sure was not your average Calvinist, either.

Not everybody here seems to be an atheist. So I s`ppose it's ok to bring up a not strictly atheistic perspective?

[NikolaiI]

Well, nevermind then. Did you read my other post on this thread? Just wondering.

Anyway, about labels - you say a cow is a cow, and different from all other animals, and everything that's not an animal. But where does the cow end? At the skin? The cow is made up of the world, and it's not permanently a cow. It's like you take a plank from a ship and exchange it with another plank, and it is still the same ship. But when you exchange all the planks is it still the same ship?

The cow is not seperate from the world, from other things in it. It's made up of different parts - skin, legs, hoof, nose, mouth, tail, hair - and just like those parts, it is a part of a larger whole.

Yes, label is a label. I was pointing out that all labels and boundaries are abitrary - we make them up, and they don't mean anything outside of what we make of them. Words and numbers were the first ones, then we discovered algebra, which is a sort of mega-grouping. Etc, etc. - but one of the biggest arbitrary labels? - East and West.

- If you go the mathematics and physics route, around the 1920s we started discovering the tiniest of all tiny particles, and found they didn't act according to our laws of physics. Before that, we thought everything would. As one scientist said, physics was shaken to the foundation. Incipit quantum physics.

I know this has gotten off topic.

"It might be interesting to know what a Christian thinks when he speaks of Atheism or an Atheist think when he speaks of Christianity."

Yes, along as everyone agrees on certain things, like - there is such thing as an atheist, or a christian.

"Once we communicate with language we have to accept that we are communicating with labels."

Yes, we are communicating with labels. I was only pointing out that there is something more than that, that reality transcends all labels and artificial boundaries, or that they simply don't accurately depict reality. You know, there was a movement in the 60's in Russia and the U.S. and other places where people basically did away with language, or something like that. (Poole)

- Thanks for implying that I didn't know what a label was, or that our language used them, what words are.


This is in reply to NickAdams...

[NickAdams]

Nikolai,

We argued the same point, but only you were aware of it.:D

[NikolaiI]

Ha, you lost me, but does that mean you read my other post?

Sadly, what I said wasn't original at all, I got it from Ken Wilber...A. Maslow also shaped my ideas a lot.

[The Atheist]

Just to give an opinion, since it's aimed at atheists.

Atheists generally believe that consciousness ceases with death. No god, no "soul" = no afterlife. Many Buddhists are atheists, yet they do believe in reincarnation, or some other form of consciousness-continuation, but they are a minority of all atheists. I am firmly in the "dead as a dodo" camp.

And just for the difference between atheists and christians:

Atheist - lack of belief in any gods.
Christian - belief in the Abrahmic god.

Simple.

Also, I see Mark Twain referred to as "not an atheist". That argument only works if you class him as anti-theist instead of atheist as he was nobody's god-puppet and took great pains to let them know.

[A MM]

Also, I see Mark Twain referred to as "not an atheist". That argument only works if you class him as anti-theist instead of atheist as he was nobody's god-puppet and took great pains to let them know.

Hello Atheist

Thanks very much for your p.o.v.

I might say from what I have read of his stuff that he was not a theist of any particular denomination. But not anti-theist or anti-god.

A lot of what he wrote is about what religious people think about, and write about. Wasn't it?

[NickAdams]

Ha, you lost me, but does that mean you read my other post?

Sadly, what I said wasn't original at all, I got it from Ken Wilber...A. Maslow also shaped my ideas a lot.

No. Just what you posted on the previous page. I'm on during work ;) so I can't read long post.

Ah Maslow. I tried to ask my psychology professor a question concerning Maslow's hierarchy of needs: There are certain cultures, who try to reach self-actualization by neglecting the first to level of needs- fasting, venturing into wilderness or desert. Does the hierarchy of needs rely on biological sustainment to obtain the final psychological state, or is a psychological concern from the beginning?

[NikolaiI]

Well, the book I read by him didn't mention that at all, though I do remember the hierarchy of needs being attributed to him.

[The Atheist]

Hello Atheist

Thanks very much for your p.o.v.

I might say from what I have read of his stuff that he was not a theist of any particular denomination. But not anti-theist or anti-god.

A lot of what he wrote is about what religious people think about, and write about. Wasn't it?

Religion and writing on it cover a tiny part of Twain's output, but he left some vitriolic statements against religion, here are just a couple:


God's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn


I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious -- unless he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by force


Concentration of power in a political machine is bad; and an Established Church is only a political machine; it was invented for that; it is nursed, cradled, preserved for that; it is an enemy to human liberty, and does no good which it could not better do in a split-up and scattered condition

Mark Twain was a very rare bird indeed. He's now seen a Dawkins-prototype, "positive atheist", but while I love the man and his works and agree with much of his writing on religion, he was an anti-theist, not an atheist.

[JGL57]

….Mark Twain was a very rare bird indeed. He's now seen a Dawkins-prototype, "positive atheist", but while I love the man and his works and agree with much of his writing on religion, he was an anti-theist, not an atheist.

Anyone who is not an absolutist of some type could qualify as a “rare bird” in today’s America, e.g., me. LOL.

Though I’m as atheistic as the average atheist, for political purposes I tend to follow the precept of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”. OR, it could be that, in my dotage, I have finally realized that the enemies of enlightenment are not those who are defined as religious per se, but those who do or advocate really bad things, and use religion as their ultimate excuse.

Whether Twain was in agreement with Spinoza and Einstein, or Jefferson and Paine, or the Dalai Lama and Lama Surya Das, or Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts, or Asimov, Sagan and Gould – well, it’s all good. He definitely wasn’t a Falwell, a Robertson, or a foot-kisser of the pope, and he wasn’t a Marx, Rand, or O’Hair.

Thus, IMO, he was one of the really good guys. What clarifying commentary need be added?

[The Atheist]

Thus, IMO, he was one of the really good guys. What clarifying commentary need be added?

Well put!

The only reason I clarified was someone hadn't realised quite how anti-god he was.

Certainly one of my heroes.

[NickAdams]

... but they think that we just die, turn into dirt (which the Bible says, may I point out) ...

You don't need the Bible to tell you that, just watch a body decompose- it's observation.

One thing I find interesting about the Bible: it says hell is below us way before they knew about the Earth's core.

[Unbeliever]

Well, as Mark Twain said, "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."

I think our state after we die is identical to the state we were in before our birth, except for the fact that before we were born we had the potential to exist. After death I think that potential has been used up, and the likelihood of our ever existing again in any form is virtually nil. Of course, I could be wrong.

[weepingforloman]

You don't need the Bible to tell you that, just watch a body decompose- it's observation.

One thing I find interesting about the Bible: it says hell is below us way before they knew about the Earth's core.

Sorry, the Bible never assigns a geographic location to Hell (although the use of the term Gehenna refers to a geographic location, but it was understood that the literal location was not being discussed).


Just to give an opinion, since it's aimed at atheists.

Atheists generally believe that consciousness ceases with death. No god, no "soul" = no afterlife. Many Buddhists are atheists, yet they do believe in reincarnation, or some other form of consciousness-continuation, but they are a minority of all atheists. I am firmly in the "dead as a dodo" camp.

And just for the difference between atheists and christians:

Atheist - lack of belief in any gods.
Christian - belief in the Abrahmic god.

Simple.

Also, I see Mark Twain referred to as "not an atheist". That argument only works if you class him as anti-theist instead of atheist as he was nobody's god-puppet and took great pains to let them know.

There is much more to the distinction between Christianity and atheism than that (plus, Jews and Muslims believe in the "Abrahamic" God too--more generally called YHWH [Yahweh] or El-Shaddai in Judaism, Allah in Islam, and plain old God [or Christ, or the Spirit] in Xtianity).

God-puppet? Do you know anyone who would claim that title?

[NickAdams]

Tetragrammaton?

[JGL57]

Well, as Mark Twain said, "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."

I think our state after we die is identical to the state we were in before our birth, except for the fact that before we were born we had the potential to exist. After death I think that potential has been used up, and the likelihood of our ever existing again in any form is virtually nil. Of course, I could be wrong.

Pragmatically, I agree. But, to cover all bases, what of a meta-universe that forever produces universes - an infinity, or indefinite number, of big bangs? Such is possible and cannot be ruled out because it is logically conceivable and not ruled out by any present scientific theory. It would seem to be non-falsifiable and thus not qualify for the rubric "scientific theory" though there are more than a just few brainiac scientists who would argue it is science, e.g. see:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/

Look under the heading "Crazy stuff", then under "parallel universes". :D

[weepingforloman]

Tetragrammaton?

What about it? It's YHWH. That's about it.


Pragmatically, I agree. But, to cover all bases, what of a meta-universe that forever produces universes - an infinity, or indefinite number, of big bangs? Such is possible and cannot be ruled out because it is logically conceivable and not ruled out by any present scientific theory. It would seem to be non-falsifiable and thus not qualify for the rubric "scientific theory" though there are more than a just few brainiac scientists who would argue it is science, e.g. see:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/

Look under the heading "Crazy stuff", then under "parallel universes". :D

The same logic applies to God. He cannot be disproved (even if evolution is absolutely proved, God could still be the driving force behind it), because, after all, how do you measure justice or love or mercy? It is not possible to rule God out with logic (Unmoved Mover anybody?). Since I believe (based on your previous posts) that you do not believe in God, you should probably not base something else on this kind of argument.

[Lote-Tree]

He cannot be disproved


Neither can he be proved.

But we can work with probabilities instead.



even if evolution is absolutely proved, God could still be the driving force behind it)


This proves that Science is pushing back the probabilities of God even further.



, because, after all, how do you measure justice or love or mercy?


That was the ulitmate question isn't it?

But ultimately these things also seem to come from us and we measure it ourselves.



It is not possible to rule God out with logic (Unmoved Mover anybody?).


Ah the First Cause. Quantum Mechanics seems to be doing away with that too.

[SleepyWitch]

I was brought up Roman Catholic, but I no longer follow the church. I do believe there is a higher power of divinity, but none of that really matters. We must live our lives as if God doesn't exist...granting us complete freewill.



I suppose I'm an atheist, although I'm not sure what to believe about life after death.
in itself, life after death would be neat. :)
I think where it gives people hope etc it's not such a bad idea.

but I don't like it when life after death is used either as an incentive for doing good or a punishment for sinful behaviour. "We must live our lives as if God doesn't exist" and do good without hope for rewards and avoid doing bad things not becaues we fear punishment, but because we believe they are bad in themselves.

hum... I'm not sure what I believe...
Could there be a soul (possibly an immortal one) without God? or do you have to believe in God if you believe that humans have souls?
I kind of believe in the soul. So does this mean I should become a Christian?


Spending eternity exploring the universe, existing with a body that never sickens, tires or dies; experiencing true intimacy with people, living in daily contact with the Source of all Life; daily existence without fear, without hate, without suffering. That WAY beats liquifying into dirt.

wouldn't it be nice if we had those on Earth? :)
do Christians believe it is possible to have these on earth/during life?
I'm not sure it is possible to eradicate suffering and hate on earth 100%, but true intimacy? maybe it would help if people spent more time talking to each other in RL or experiencing the situation of others (like in those reality TV shows.. life swap etc)
what does the Bible say about this? I've never read it so I'm curious. Does it say it's impossible to end hate, suffering and alienation on earth?

[Redzeppelin]

wouldn't it be nice if we had those on Earth? :)
do Christians believe it is possible to have these on earth/during life?
I'm not sure it is possible to eradicate suffering and hate on earth 100%, but true intimacy? maybe it would help if people spent more time talking to each other in RL or experiencing the situation of others (like in those reality TV shows.. life swap etc)
what does the Bible say about this? I've never read it so I'm curious. Does it say it's impossible to end hate, suffering and alienation on earth?

Our sinful nature - which will only be completely changed when Christ returns to earth - prohibits any of the descriptions of heaven being realized here on earth, except in small flashes that always disappear so quickly. That yearning that you feel for beauty, for intimacy, for being loved and known for who you truly are? That's the yearning for God.

[Unbeliever]

Pragmatically, I agree. But, to cover all bases, what of a meta-universe that forever produces universes - an infinity, or indefinite number, of big bangs? Such is possible and cannot be ruled out because it is logically conceivable and not ruled out by any present scientific theory. It would seem to be non-falsifiable and thus not qualify for the rubric "scientific theory" though there are more than a just few brainiac scientists who would argue it is science, e.g. see:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/

Look under the heading "Crazy stuff", then under "parallel universes". :D

Well, if such a multiverse does exist, then, given any infinity of time and possible circumstances, the probability of specific indivuals existing more than once might well increase, but I couldn't guess just how much. I wish there were a way to test the idea, maybe someday it can be done.

[JGL57]

...The same logic applies to God. He cannot be disproved (even if evolution is absolutely proved, God could still be the driving force behind it), because, after all, how do you measure justice or love or mercy? It is not possible to rule God out with logic (Unmoved Mover anybody?). Since I believe (based on your previous posts) that you do not believe in God, you should probably not base something else on this kind of argument.

Well, if I ever decide to take logic lessons, it will not be from you, my friend.

The fact is I do not believe in the existence of a god. The operative phrase here is "do not believe", not disprove or claim to be logically impossible.

The fact that god cannot be disproved or ruled out with logic has nothing to do with my lack of belief that some god exists. I have never claimed that god can be ruled out logically in some absolutist way.

It seems that, once again, a religionist who thinks strictly in absolutes posits that those who disagree with him are just his absolutist opposites.

Wrong. Get out your Logic 101 book, study up, and try again.

[SleepyWitch]

Our sinful nature - which will only be completely changed when Christ returns to earth - prohibits any of the descriptions of heaven being realized here on earth, except in small flashes that always disappear so quickly. That yearning that you feel for beauty, for intimacy, for being loved and known for who you truly are? That's the yearning for God.

thanks, Red.
hehe, I'm not sure that I feel a yearning for the things you said, though :)
I'd rather try and help make life on earth a little better even if it can't be perfect.

when will Christ return to earth, in your opinion or that of Christians in general?

what happens to those who go to hell? do they stay in there forever?

[quasimodo1]

Let us not forget "limbo".

[The Atheist]

Let us not forget "limbo".

Quite right.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/limbo.jpg

[The Atheist]

Well, as Mark Twain said, "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."

I think our state after we die is identical to the state we were in before our birth, except for the fact that before we were born we had the potential to exist. After death I think that potential has been used up, and the likelihood of our ever existing again in any form is virtually nil. Of course, I could be wrong.

Nicely said. Bravo!

[A MM]

Thanks to

The Atheist
JGL57
Weepingforloman
Unbeliever

and others, for noticing the relevance of Mark Twin to the discussion of this thread.

And thanks very much to The Atheist for the quotes from Twain.

However, let us not forget that when Captain Stormfield was at the gates of a heaven, having a lot of difficulty trying to identify himself, and where he was from, to the gatekeepers,

So I thought the thing all over and finally sidled back there pretty meek and feeling rather stumped, as you may say.
"Well?" said the head clerk.
"Well, sir," I says, pretty humble, "I don't seem to make out which world it is I'm from. But you may know it from this--it's the one the Saviour saved."
He bent his head at the Name. Then he says, gently--
"The worlds He has saved are like to the gates of heaven in number- -none can count them.

Therefore, Stormfield, who I reckon is in part Twain, was not anti-the Saviour, as many rebels here seem to be.

Also if you read on to where he lists Abraham, Moses, Esau, Ezekiel, Shakespeare, Homer and many others in the order in which they are walking into the heaven he has found, you will find quite a few religious folks there, including a Piute Indian of his acquaintance, Buddha, Mahomet, and Zoroaster!

A wider religious perspective than that of many others of his local congregation of his time, I dare say.

To have a religious perspective is not necessarily to be a preaching type. To be learned in the books of the religion, which Mark Twain obviously was, and to have good questions about what the books teach, is also to be religious. Ain’t it?

[weepingforloman]

Well, if I ever decide to take logic lessons, it will not be from you, my friend.

The fact is I do not believe in the existence of a god. The operative phrase here is "do not believe", not disprove or claim to be logically impossible.

The fact that god cannot be disproved or ruled out with logic has nothing to do with my lack of belief that some god exists. I have never claimed that god can be ruled out logically in some absolutist way.

It seems that, once again, a religionist who thinks strictly in absolutes posits that those who disagree with him are just his absolutist opposites.

Wrong. Get out your Logic 101 book, study up, and try again.

That was not my point, my point was that the logic behind your point could also be used against you. That's all. I simply find it curious that you seem very closed to the idea of God, but ready to embrace the idea of infinite universes.

[JGL57]

That was not my point, my point was that the logic behind your point could also be used against you. That's all. I simply find it curious that you seem very closed to the idea of God, but ready to embrace the idea of infinite universes.

I am 100 per cent convinced that a monotheistically defined god does not literally exist. I find such a being implausible to the point of zero plausibility. I am aware of many reasons why belief in such a being exists. I am unaware of any good reason to take such an idea seriously.

You can replace the phrase "monotheistically defined god" in the above phrase with flying unicorns, devil possession, astrology, and an indefinite number of other concepts and allegedly existing beings. I am sure you could make your own list.

I am not "closed" to anything. You got proof of house hauntings or jehovah or a flat earth, etc. - bring it on - I will give it fair consideration.

Otherwise, what are we talking about here, if anything? We apparently are just wasting each other's time here, arguing about unproven and unprovable thingies that you believe in, for some reason or another, and that I do not believe in, for damn good reasons.

My challenge to you is to put up or - be very, very quiet.

[Unbeliever]

Therefore, Stormfield, who I reckon is in part Twain, was not anti-the Saviour, as many rebels here seem to be.

You may well be correct, but, as Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

And Samuel Clemens was very much an educated man.

[Redzeppelin]

I am 100 per cent convinced that a monotheistically defined god does not literally exist. I find such a being implausible to the point of zero plausibility. I am aware of many reasons why belief in such a being exists. I am unaware of any good reason to take such an idea seriously.

You can replace the phrase "monotheistically defined god" in the above phrase with flying unicorns, devil possession, astrology, and an indefinite number of other concepts and allegedly existing beings. I am sure you could make your own list.

I am not "closed" to anything. You got proof of house hauntings or jehovah or a flat earth, etc. - bring it on - I will give it fair consideration.

Otherwise, what are we talking about here, if anything? We apparently are just wasting each other's time here, arguing about unproven and unprovable thingies that you believe in, for some reason or another, and that I do not believe in, for damn good reasons.

My challenge to you is to put up or - be very, very quiet.

To say that God does not exist presupposes an exhaustive knowledge of the universe and its contents because such knowledge is necessary to rule out what does not exist.

If God could be proven to those who don't seek or believe in Him, they would instantly believe (they'd have no choice) but they would believe for the wrong reasons - kind of like the quandry the wealthiest man in the world would face during his dating: does she love me because I'm a good man, or because I'm a VERY rich man. God's in the same position.

Things are not valuable or true just because they can be empirically, evidencially proven. Being "open" only to that which can be proven thusly is to close oneself off from a number of profound experiences, ideas, thoughts, feelings, concepts.

[A MM]

You may well be correct, but, as Aristotle said, "It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

And Samuel Clemens was very much an educated man.

Thanks for the quote attributed to Aristotle. I will get back to that later.

Elsewhere, writing about Kurt Vonnegut who died recently I had written:
"Some may say that Kurt was not even a “religious” man. All the news reports affirm that he was “a self-described religious skeptic and freethinking humanist”. Can a religious skeptic be also well informed about answers to questions such as “Why are we in this world? Is there a presiding figure to make sense of all this, a god who in the end, despite making people suffer, wishes them well?” (Dinita Smith in a New York Times obituary on Mr. Kurt Vonnegut).

It seems to me that the Captain Stormfiled’s visit to heaven story has some interesting and novel answers to questions about what happens to human souls after death.

[Unbeliever]

To say that God does not exist presupposes an exhaustive knowledge of the universe and its contents because such knowledge is necessary to rule out what does not exist.

To say that a largest prime number does not exist presupposes an exhaustive knowledge of the universe and its contents because such knowledge is necessary to rule out what does not exist.

[JGL57]

To say that a largest prime number does not exist presupposes an exhaustive knowledge of the universe and its contents because such knowledge is necessary to rule out what does not exist.

Good point. But who here on this thread said they knew a god does not exist in the first place? I don't recall saying that. Did you?

Certainly, no one would be so uneducated and/or unintelligent to confuse "100per cent convinced" with a claim of "certain knowledge" - would they? :lol:

[Redzeppelin]

To say that a largest prime number does not exist presupposes an exhaustive knowledge of the universe and its contents because such knowledge is necessary to rule out what does not exist.

No it doesn't: such a statement presupposes a knowledge of the logic of how numbers in a potentially infinite progression works. Very different from ruling out God.


Good point. But who here on this thread said they knew a god does not exist in the first place? I don't recall saying that. Did you?

Certainly, no one would be so uneducated and/or unintelligent to confuse "100per cent convinced" with a claim of "certain knowledge" - would they? :lol:

To say something doesn't exist - whether with the qualifier "100 percent" or "certain knowledge" - doesn't change the fact that a judgment about the existence of something has been rendered. Upon what that judgment is based is the real question.

[RobinHood3000]

No it doesn't: such a statement presupposes a knowledge of the logic of how numbers in a potentially infinite progression works. Very different from ruling out God.Red is correct here. Even if I believe that God, like math, is a human construct, the nature of one (inherently unknowable and unprovable) differs from that of the other (logically pre-set to given axioms).

[Unbeliever]

I could have inserted any number of other things in place of "a largest prime number", e.g., "Santa Claus", "married bachelors", etc.

The point is, we can prove certain things even though they're negatives. If a thing cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Proving a Negative (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html)

If the attributes of a particualar conception of God are mutually exclusive, then that definition of "God" cannot be valid. That's not to say that other conceptions of a God cannot be, as long as they don't contain internal contradictions:
Incompatible-properties Arguments - A Survey (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html)

Then, there's the noncognitivist postion, which maintains that the term "God" lacks any meaningful defintion, and therefore is invalid as a concept, i.e., the term "God" is so ambiguous as to be rendered meaningless.
Noncognitivism (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_noncognitivism.htm)

[JGL57]

I could have inserted any number of other things in place of "a largest prime number", e.g., "Santa Claus", "married bachelors", etc.

The point is, we can prove certain things even though they're negatives. If a thing cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Proving a Negative (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html)

If the attributes of a particualar conception of God are mutually exclusive, then that definition of "God" cannot be valid. That's not to say that other conceptions of a God cannot be, as long as they don't contian internal contradictions:
Incompatible-properties Arguments - A Survey (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html)

Then, there's the noncognitivist postion, which maintains that the term "God" lacks any meaningful defintion, and therefore is invalid as a concept, i.e., the term "God" is so ambiguous as to be rendered meaningless.
Noncognitivism (http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_noncognitivism.htm)

Good information - thanks, Unbeliever. BTW, I'm a member of Internet Infidels myself - I've yet to peruse all the information they have - I just participate in their forums.

Also BTW, on the subject of incompatible properties - are you familiar with process theology? This is a rather new fangled way developed by very liberal or mystical theists to (in their minds) ingeniously get around all the incompatibility problems. E.g., check out:

http://www.quodlibet.net/stein-theodicy.shtml

Since these guys oppose theocratic impulses as much as any atheist, I see them as the enemy of my enemy, and thus as my friends - sort of. :)

[Unbeliever]

I have heard of process theology, but don't know a lot about it yet. I'm looking forward to reading that article when I get the time. Thanks!

[The Atheist]

Good information - thanks, Unbeliever. BTW, I'm a member of Internet Infidels myself - I've yet to peruse all the information they have - I just participate in their forums.

I'm a member there under the same name. I don't post there often, though, I'm usually at JREF or Dawkins.


Also BTW, on the subject of incompatible properties - are you familiar with process theology? This is a rather new fangled way developed by very liberal or mystical theists to (in their minds) ingeniously get around all the incompatibility problems. E.g., check out:

http://www.quodlibet.net/stein-theodicy.shtml

Since these guys oppose theocratic impulses as much as any atheist, I see them as the enemy of my enemy, and thus as my friends - sort of. :)

Sounds very much like the strain I've seen a lot of recent times and I tend to concur with the "enemy of my enemy" thoughts as well. I started a thread recently praising this attitude as the only sensible option in the face of science. The Anglican Church has almost embraced it and RCC must end up there if they adhere to Aquinas' "truth cannot contradict truth" mantra.

[weepingforloman]

First of all, you really consider us enemies? Why? What harm do we do if we believe in God? I can understand (taking on the atheist POV) pity, but hostility?

Secondly, the Catholic Church is for all intents and purposes Universalist/Unitarian-- I know, because I go to a proudly liberal Catholic school (not by choice), and from reading various statements they have made. You would find them more of an ally than you might suppose, assuming of course that conservative Christians are your "enemies."

[JGL57]

First of all, you really consider us enemies? Why? What harm do we do if we believe in God? I can understand (taking on the atheist POV) pity, but hostility?...

Good god, man, don’t you have any appreciation at all of the idea of “expressive language”, as opposed to the literal? The bible is full of such (the Song of Solomon in its entirety, for example).


Secondly, the Catholic Church is for all intents and purposes Universalist/Unitarian-- I know, because I go to a proudly liberal Catholic school (not by choice), and from reading various statements they have made. You would find them more of an ally than you might suppose, assuming of course that conservative Christians are your "enemies."

The rank and file – sure. E.g., the majority of Catholics in the U.S. use birth control and ignore church doctrine, and many aren’t that particularly anti-abortion. But certain important elements of the R.C.C. are extremely reactionary, e.g., the top echelon (pope and cardinals) and the Knights of Columbus. And they are the ones that get all the press.

Let me know when the pope gets on board with the Unitarian-Universalists – then I”LL become a Catholic.

[nomoredrama28]

Oh man, Kilt you got me thinking about this book I read called Stiff (can't think of the author) Its all about what they do to your body after death. They have this process where you can be freeze dried, then crushed, and composted. I want to be nutrients for a sequoia that will live for thousands of years


the author is mary roach. awesome book :D

[DeathAngel]

um, ok,

I don't know anything about the afterlife, as much as i'm somewhat questionable and somewhat not about the truth of god impacts that very much,
boy i dunno if that makes much sense,
there are too many options, hell, heaven, or just a long lonely big empty space that goes on forever, geez i'd go nuts...

too confusing, whoever came up with the theory of the afterlife must be in hell right now, lol...

(alot of people don't follow the bible doown to the last word, i mean alot)

muahaa...

[nomoredrama28]

who knows, why care about the afterlife if you arn't there yet.

[The Atheist]

First of all, you really consider us enemies? Why? What harm do we do if we believe in God?

You do realise that's all quite figurative in expression?

We're talking a philosophical battle here. Remember that atheists don't have a soul to tussle over.

[weepingforloman]

Good god, man, don’t you have any appreciation at all of the idea of “expressive language”, as opposed to the literal? The bible is full of such (the Song of Solomon in its entirety, for example).



The rank and file – sure. E.g., the majority of Catholics in the U.S. use birth control and ignore church doctrine, and many aren’t that particularly anti-abortion. But certain important elements of the R.C.C. are extremely reactionary, e.g., the top echelon (pope and cardinals) and the Knights of Columbus. And they are the ones that get all the press.

Let me know when the pope gets on board with the Unitarian-Universalists – then I”LL become a Catholic.

First off, Unitarianism is the most cowardly cop-out of a religion there is. Secondly, I KNOW that Song of Solomon is not literal-- neither are the Psalms, Revelations, the poetic sections of Genesis, Proverbs, the parables of Christ, the apocalyptic section of Daniel, etc. I was referring to the theologians of the Catholic Church-- many of the rank and file are more conservative than you might think. And Vatican II made the decision that Catholics should use their own judgment as regards birth control. This current pope might be conservative, but previous ones (John XXIII, John-Paul the First) were liberal.

[Redzeppelin]

We're talking a philosophical battle here. Remember that atheists don't have a soul to tussle over.


Revision: "...atheists don't [believe they] have a soul to tussle over."

[hyperborean]

...and christians believe they have a soul.

[Unbeliever]

believing in eternal recurrence is another option if you fear death. it's just as imaginable as heaven is.

Epicurus wrote
"Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not exist?"

[JGL57]

Epicurus wrote
"Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not exist?"

That quote of Epicurus, an oldie but goodie, was my previous signature before I switched to the ones of Jefferson and Hawking I use now.


the author is mary roach. awesome book :D

I have read Stiff by Mary Roach this year also, and I concur - it is quite an entertaining read. The writer's style reminded me of Bill Bryson.

BTW, I notice she has a new book entitled "Spook: Science Tackles the After Life".

Have you read that one? I have it on my wish list.

[hyperborean]

Epicurus wrote
"Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not exist?"

I never said I feared death. I was giving advice to those who do.

And Epicurus was a party boy whose philosophy plagued Roman values.

[The Atheist]

...and christians believe they have a soul.

I believe I'll have a beer.

[linz]

I'm not quite sure why there is something about atheists in the religious section, especially when the answer is simple. In death you return to the nothing that was before your own birth.

[The Atheist]

The Mark Twain answer. I've always liked it.

[weepingforloman]

I believe I'll have a beer.

"Beer. Now THERE'S a temporary solution."-Homer Simpson

[Night Closet]

As a christian, I have a strong belive in heaven and hell ect. Yet I'm rather curious to know what athiest's belive happens after death. To me its unimaginable to think that when our bodies cease to sustain us upon the world, thats it. If you do belive that life ends with death then isnt that rather sepressing and what are your thoughts about death. All replys welcome. Thank you for reading.


As a muslim, i know that death is not the end .On contrary, it's the beginning of a new life , either in hell or heaven "God willing to all of us". But according to our holy qura'an , pagans and athiests believe that life ends after death because they , simply, don't believe in God who judges people after death.

[Vittoria666]

Hi Vittoria,

What i meant is that i don't believe in afterlife.

If there is a 'return to energy' or something else i believe it's not remotely similar to what we experience on earth so my answer is 'I don't know'.
oh ok then in that case maybe you are right. i believe that we go somewhere but i dont know where.......

[JGL57]

oh ok then in that case maybe you are right. i believe that we go somewhere but i dont know where.......

I suggest you consider reading "Myths of Light" by Joseph Campbell. That might help you to comprehend a logical ontology that gives answer to great mystery.

[Vittoria666]

I suggest you consider reading "Myths of Light" by Joseph Campbell. That might help you to comprehend a logical ontology that gives answer to great mystery.

thanks for the tip, i will do so...
You on the other hand should read The God of Small things by Arunhati Roy
and bu the same person... Ordinary persons guide to the empire.

they are both about life the way we see it...
you should also read a book called The Gospel of Judas by Simon Mawer its a very good book...hope you enjoy

[apples of gold]

My high school chemistry teacher said "Hey, atoms are people too". Well, I'm a little embarassed to say just how much that statement inspired me.

Although I believe in God and life after death in terms of our consciousness surviving, I sometimes find myself musing about the alternative: ending up as a little brown pile of detritus.

The prospect doesn't really bother me.

I take a look around at nature sometimes and I think I can see the very particles vibrating in unison in a beautiful musical symphony. It's poetry! It's beautiful! It's sexy! Sigh! I read some poster somewhere describe it as majestic. I feel honored to know that when I die my body will remain, consciousness remaining or not, to be taken up with the elements to nourish this glorious sphere. (Think of it. There are no other life-sustaining planets in our system).

But I prefer to believe that consciousness remains as well.

[Triskele]

As a muslim, i know that death is not the end .On contrary, it's the beginning of a new life , either in hell or heaven "God willing to all of us". But according to our holy qura'an , pagans and athiests believe that life ends after death because they , simply, don't believe in God who judges people after death.

or, they are buddhist, and believe in a cycle of life, rather than an anthropomorphic vindicative god who, although aparently all merciful, damns people to hell for all eternity. the world of belief is not so black and white as you cut it out to be, think of the thousands of other faith traditions other than monotheistic, mesopotamia/greco-roman based faith systems...

[Triskele]

I suggest you consider reading "Myths of Light" by Joseph Campbell. That might help you to comprehend a logical ontology that gives answer to great mystery.


but if logic is self referencing, then wouldn't an ontological system based on logic necessarily be flawed in its viewpoints, a bit of a case of tunnel vision eh?

[Triskele]

My high school chemistry teacher said "Hey, atoms are people too". Well, I'm a little embarassed to say just how much that statement inspired me.

Although I believe in God and life after death in terms of our consciousness surviving, I sometimes find myself musing about the alternative: ending up as a little brown pile of detritus.

The prospect doesn't really bother me.

I take a look around at nature sometimes and I think I can see the very particles vibrating in unison in a beautiful musical symphony. It's poetry! It's beautiful! It's sexy! Sigh! I read some poster somewhere describe it as majestic. I feel honored to know that when I die my body will remain, consciousness remaining or not, to be taken up with the elements to nourish this glorious sphere. (Think of it. There are no other life-sustaining planets in our system).

But I prefer to believe that consciousness remains as well.


actually, we do not know if their are any life bearing planets in our system, it seems a bit arrogant to assume that we are the only intelligent life system in the galaxy...

[JGL57]

but if logic is self referencing, then wouldn't an ontological system based on logic necessarily be flawed in its viewpoints, a bit of a case of tunnel vision eh?

It could never offer us a guarantee of certain knowledge, sure.

So?

I'm just averring that Joseph Campbell makes a million times more sense that does the christian bible, based on my reading of both.

How's that?

[Vittoria666]

It could never offer us a guarantee of certain knowledge, sure.

So?

I'm just averring that Joseph Campbell makes a million times more sense that does the christian bible, based on my reading of both.

How's that?

i dont know how that is but you are right in a way... as yo suggested i have started reading myths of light... it is clearing my head and organising my thoughts but at the same time it is starting to show me more logic in my beliefs and i thank you for your recomendation.

[JGL57]

i dont know how that is but you are right in a way... as yo suggested i have started reading myths of light... it is clearing my head and organising my thoughts but at the same time it is starting to show me more logic in my beliefs and i thank you for your recomendation.

No, thank you. I only recommend the best. I've had zero customer complaints so far. :D

[apples of gold]

actually, we do not know if their are any life bearing planets in our system, it seems a bit arrogant to assume that we are the only intelligent life system in the galaxy...

Oh please. I said "(Think of it. There are no other life-sustaining planets in our system.)"

If I'd been arguing in the negative on the topic "Is there life on other planets" I would have been more precise with my wording and said there are no other known planets in our solar system that presently sustain life.

Keep your nit-picking in context with the thread topic and the degree of conjecture and perhaps people wouldn't take offense to your insulting comments.

[RobinHood3000]

Be nice, apples. 'Twas a minor mistake, besides which the use of the word "system" without the word "solar" rarely occurs outside of the Star Wars universe.

[Night Closet]

Hay All .....All what i want to say that this is a debated matter among all human beings for the last 16 million years .................so don't expect that we may find a resolution here or now

[apples of gold]

Be nice, apples. 'Twas a minor mistake, besides which the use of the word "system" without the word "solar" rarely occurs outside of the Star Wars universe.

I'm no longer a frequent flyer in the Star Wars Universe. I saw the first movie of last of the book series in the 70's. And then I saw some other section in the 90's?. And then the enhanced first version again I think ... I never could figure out what sequence I was watching at any point in time. I thought I could solve the confusion by reading the books, but by that time it was too late. I've gone as far as I can go. Too bad. My daughter has the both the books and the DVDs and loves to talk about them.

Granted - T'was probably misleading not to say solar, but if so minor why the insult? Don't get the need for that.

I'd rather Triskele have brought this up.

However, carry on with your good deeds Sir RobinHood3000.

[RobinHood3000]

Don't take too much umbrage at the insult, apples - the use of the word "arrogant" referred to the action (which, we've shown, you didn't perpetrate, anyway), rather than to the person.

[apples of gold]

Don't take too much umbrage at the insult, apples - the use of the word "arrogant" referred to the action (which, we've shown, you didn't perpetrate, anyway), rather than to the person.

I'd love to drop the petty little thing, but where's Triskele? I don't bite.

[Scheherazade]

Closed due to OT/personal comments.