What do you think happens after death?

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I'm curious what inspired Bond to make this thread or what he personally thinks.

Yeah when I was lying in bed yesterday, I suddenly wondered if Bond is dying or something.

I really don't think about GT members very often when I'm lying in bed. Seriously.

[ZebraRampage]

Originally Posted by Angrist

I really don't think about GT members very often when I'm lying in bed. Seriously.

Haha, I was actually just wondering about that.

As for what happens after death...I don't think anything happens. You just die, and that's it.

[Bond]

I am not dying! Sorry if I made anyone think this. I made this thread because "what is after death?" is a question that I have been giving much thought since my birthday (21) a few days ago. Normally I just pass birthdays by quite happily, but for some reason this one in particular gave me a sense of my immortality, and that some day I will die.

And I suppose this hit me now because it is a question I have long ignored, along with "is there a God?" I've realized these are (probably) the two greatest questions in our life, and they deserve a great deal of time and effort in addressing them.

In short, I am not sure what happens after death, which I suppose makes me agnostic, but I hope I am not a lazy agnostic. I have always enjoyed studying organized religion, its selective histories are quite fascinating and entertaining, but I have never much liked organized religion as a personal construct for myself. As much as I tried, I cannot convince myself it is right for me to join a religion.

But, of course, faith is not dependent on organized religion. I view faith as a much more personal than communal journey, but perhaps I am wrong.

I will say I think it is misguided to simply dismiss all of religion, in the view that it makes humans subservient and weak, and that the only way toward human empowerment is through a non-religious mindset. In fact, one could quite easily argue the opposite.

Mormonism - a very strict religion by any stretch of the imagination, is a collection of some of the most industrious and wealthy persons America has ever known. A coincidence? Perhaps, but I think unlikely.

In America, we seem to have a science versus religion mindset, which I think is counterproductive. It seems to me as though they would work much more effectively together than against.

[KillerGremlin]

I've been struggling with this for the past year or two. It's a tough thing to think about, and even tougher when you realize that 99% of your peers, friends and family choose to ignore the topic because it is difficult. I was raised Catholic and began to drift away from the church during high school when I began to have personal differences regarding certain topics. I also am incredibly cynical about humans in general and that has pushed me further away from religion. But I've been meaning to start reading the Bible on my own. I want to explore it on my own since I was raised on a religion that focuses on tradition and cherry picks similar passages from the Bible every year.

It's really important to have a sense of humor about life though...and appreciate the little things. Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the Comedian is the only thing that makes sense.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

But I've been meaning to start reading the Bible on my own. I want to explore it on my own since I was raised on a religion that focuses on tradition and cherry picks similar passages from the Bible every year.

This is very true. I suppose you can't fault the Catholics, as their faith has always been based more on tradition than the Bible. I remember in the high school that I attended (a Catholic one) we only had one required religious class that utilized the Bible. The interpretations were sometimes very odd and a bit erratic, but always entertaining.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Bond

In America, we seem to have a science versus religion mindset, which I think is counterproductive. It seems to me as though they would work much more effectively together than against.

This stems from the fact that the more we learn in the fields of science, the less and less we need God to explain things.

Science has already proven so many things in the Bible wrong, when they are read literally. The religious response to this was to start reading them metaphorically.

One of my favorite examples is the case of amputees. Whenever you ask most religious people if they think praying for their sick relatives and/or friends recovery actually helps them, they will all say yes. If their friend has cancer, an infection, a heart problem, etc, etc, they all believe that praying will help make them better.

But what about amputees? If you ask them if praying for an amputee will help them recover, their first reaction will be one of discomfort, then they will have to make up something far fetched like, "God has a special plan for those people."

You could argue that by being an amputee who is still alive, God has already helped you. But why, then, does god favor people with internal problems that are invisible to our eyes? Why does he sometimes help those people recover completely, but amputees are left with sometimes 4 missing limbs.

And what about victims of paralysis? These people are alive, but their limbs (or more) are unusable. People pray that they will get back their ability to use their bodies...apparently just being alive isn't good enough for these people. And if these people DO recover the use of their bodies, religious people will say "thank God." So, why doesn't your god help amputees recover the use of their bodies?

There are just so many unreasonable things about religion. The above example, as well as how obviously cross pollinated they are, yet they are all more right than the others! I think the cross pollination is proof that religions are just made up by humans throughout history, incorporating things they like, and leaving out things they don't like.

Mormonism - a very strict religion by any stretch of the imagination, is a collection of some of the most industrious and wealthy persons America has ever known. A coincidence? Perhaps, but I think unlikely.

Meh...yeah I think this is a coincidence. There are wealthy people of every religion.

[TheGame]

There's a reason science and religion has managed to co-exist this long. The fact that science cannot disprove that there's a creator, even in all of its advancements.. is the reason religion still exists.

People are free to believe what they'd like, but there's no factual evidence that disproves that there's a god.

Don't get me wrong, just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it exists. Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

What?

Not to sound like an ass, but please explain what science hasn't been able to answer.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by TheGame

There's a reason science and religion has managed to co-exist this long. The fact that science cannot disprove that there's a creator, even in all of its advancements.. is the reason religion still exists.

People are free to believe what they'd like, but there's no factual evidence that disproves that there's a god.

Don't get me wrong, just because something can't be disproved, doesn't mean it exists. Its just that religion fills in the blanks that science has never, and probably will never be able to fill.

The burden of proof is not on scientists or the non religious.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a God does exist. Saying, "You can't prove it ISN'T there" is not a logical argument. It's a fallacy.

So until someone can prove there IS god, there's no reason to believe there is one.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

What?

Not to sound like an ass, but please explain what science hasn't been able to answer.

Well for one, the origins of life. Right now science's explanation have been:

1) A mistake or coincidence (a theory even science of probabilities does not support)

2) Aliens (and in that case, who made them?)

Both of those theories are based on pretty lousy "science", to be honest. For me, science seems to create 2 questions with each answer it discovers, and even most of what is treated as proven science is actually just a leading theory. Part of my issue with the scienbtific community is how they tend to treat leading theories as facts, and I find that counterproductive to the scientific process.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

The burden of proof is not on scientists or the non religious.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that a God does exist. Saying, "You can't prove it ISN'T there" is not a logical argument. It's a fallacy.

So until someone can prove there IS god, there's no reason to believe there is one.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one:

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly. There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility). So if we are going to treat leading and established theories as facts to be disproven, and God has been the leading theory for thousands of years, that puts the burden of proof on those attempting to disprove God's existence.

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

Interesting point. I'm assuming you say this because it would destroy the need for faith, and the awe and mystery that the unknown of God creates?

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly.

I thought that the leading theory was after the Big Bang occurred the "right stuff" (which is the molecular make-up of our universe) allowed life to flourish.

http://www.livescience.com/strangene...ting-life.html:

Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.

Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.

If you don't discredit Evolution, then who is to say the right reaction could not have created life?

This evidence or theory does not rule out a divine creator setting life into motion, it is just is a very reasonable explanation for where life may have possibly originated.

There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility).

Just because it is nearly impossible does not make it impossible. I probably won't win the lottery, but it is possible. My understanding is this argument is difficult due to the unknown origins of the universe. So, what "hard science" supports God? Science is not looking for God, it is looking for understanding of the world around us.



I just want to say that science is not theology. Science does not seek out to disprove God, it seeks out to explain the natural phenomenons in our Universe. Science has very little stakes in the Ontological nature of our universe. Theories like Evolution (which is as much of a "Theory" as Gravity is) or the Big Bang do not discredit a divine creator that set things into motion.

Science has taken on this mistaken identity of being Anti-Religious because it has disproved a number of things firmly supported by the religious community; the world is flat, the world is the center of the universe, the sun is the center of the universe, the universe is a constant thing, evolution, etc.

But this ignores and negates the philosophical questions of existence and places the focus on Scripture or certain religious denominations. My beef with brilliant minds like Dawkins is that his wisdom is in science not philosophy, so he has NO business discussing philosophy.


EDIT: There is some new science looking at the Afterlife or Near Death Experiences...but I believe the Catholic's policy is the Afterlife is something that can only be obtained when you have truly passed. Also I believe the Bible describes the Afterlife as intangible to human thought/imagination.

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one:

The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly. There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility). So if we are going to treat leading and established theories as facts to be disproven, and God has been the leading theory for thousands of years, that puts the burden of proof on those attempting to disprove God's existence.

But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.

More importantly, you're comments show a big misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. You sound like the people who say, "Oh evolution! It's only a theory." Religion is not a theory, and neither is god.

Where are your statistics coming from that make the existence of an all powerful being more probable than all life being created from accident? I find the latter to be more likely - that a group of atoms combined in just the right way to form a single cell organism. At least that is explainable. The existence of a god is not explainable.

If I were to say to you, "There is a purple furred bunny with draconic wings and a lions head somewhere in the world today", then would you be obligated to believe that, just because you don't have evidence to disprove me?

I don't see how my statements lead you to believe I don't know anything about religion or religious people. I wasn't born atheist, but I have become a person of reason and fact. I understand that religion and religious people require a certain amount of spirituality - but since I do not believe in spirituality, I cannot use those terms to express my argument.

You're trying to put me into a catch 22 - I can't use reason to argue my point because it is against the nature of religion, but I can't use religion to argue my point because it contradicts my point.

[TheGame]

I'll say that I generally agree with Strangler's stance in this thread. Lately I've not been in the debating mood, so I'm not really going to sit here and go down point by point and argue with Vamp and KG.

But there's one point I want to touch on..

If I were to say to you, "There is a purple furred bunny with draconic wings and a lions head somewhere in the world today", then would you be obligated to believe that, just because you don't have evidence to disprove me?

No. Just like you're not obligated to believe that a god created us, nor are you obligated to believe in 'random chance' or evolution. It's a choice.

But the search for evidence, and the further understanding of how energy works.. usually leads back to the same fact. Its much more likely that someone or something created life. Random chance is possible, but its more of a stretch to say random chance created energy from nothing without a hand to push it in the direction it went. To me that's both illogical, and goes against what science has discovered.

I know its cliché, but what came first, the chicken or the egg? Saying god created chickens to give birth through eggs may sound crazy to you, but to me it makes more sense then saying they were created by accidents and random chance from nothing. And science has yet to find a shred of evidence that disproves my belief on the subject..