What comes after death? Vote then discuss!

[klyemar]

This seems to have become a bit of a heated debate, but I was hoping there might be a few things that I could add to the discussion. I grew up as a Christian, and I was pretty faithful until my later teen years. I was less involved in it in the dogmatic sense, but more in the way a kid would be enthusiastic about something he cared about. I was pretty involved in the church too, until a lot of things fell in to place (or out of place), and I find myself here as someone that doesn't believe in a god.
I've had a lot of these discussions with my lifelong atheist (to varying degrees) roommates, and usually it turns into a discussion about how religion either micromanages our lives in a moral sense, is the cause of some of the worst travesties in human history, and how it's out to get everyone that doesn't believe. Frankly, I think a lot of these feelings make a hell of a lot of sense. It's easy to hate religion because it has been the catalyst for many bad things. Then again, same can be said for the good.
I don't think religion in and of itself is anything to be loved or hated. It's just there. As far as I see it, it's a tool. It serves many purposes. For those who truly believe in their religion, it can serve as an explicit system of rules and laws, one that some people feel they need to control themselves. For others, it can answer the "whys" in life, the questions that no reasonable person can answer with any certainty. For others, it's a way to bond with a group, or to be part of a larger community. And for some, it's just a traditional belief that might give them some comfort or certainty in an uncertain world.
But, like any tool, religion can be used to build or destroy. Religion has influenced many wonderful and terrible things in our history. It's been used to justify many acts of violence, abuse, and general disgusting behaviors. Then again, so has money, lust and love, property, territory, power, emotion, and individual or group self-interest. There are a lot of catalysts for human behavior, both good and bad. The tools aren't inherently good or bad, the people that use them are. Good religious people are just as decent as good atheists, same as bad religious people can be just as big of a**holes as bad atheists.
It's a common tendency to focus on the baddest apples when making examples of a group of people we dislike. It's the same both ways. I remember learning that we should love "the world" (that's all of you heathens out there ;D) no matter what, even though they all more or less were out to persecute us. Imagine my surprise when I found myself on the other side of the fence, and suddenly I was surrounded by decent folks being persecuted by the religious. It's all group mentality. Love your group, fear the outsiders.
When it comes down to it, religion is something to be used for a purpose, and it just happens to be easy to use towards some pretty bad ends. Then again, a lot of good has come from it as well. More than anything however, I think there is a lot of fear, miscommunication, and misunderstanding, on both sides. I don't think religion or lack of religion is anything to be feared, because if religion disappeared today it would be replaced by some equally illogical entity tomorrow. It's just a human thing, and we're just illogical.

If you made it this far, thanks! That ended up being way longer than I intended originally.

[Sathor]

Most religious people (Christians) I have come to known have never really read the Bible themselves. Certainly, they claim it. They were mostly intelligent people, too. In a matter anyway. Good in school. But reading and reading are two different things, I guess. The sheet provided by whiffen provides good points, and there is much more in the Bible to be found, plus several historical and scientific facts. For example the Bible is not complete. As it is a collection of different books, it is rather obvious a lot of them were ignored, or left out, or even banned by those who had the power to influence the contents. Even today the Vatican has the power to influence the content of the Bible. One person told me once the Bible is one-to-one the word of god.
I can tolerate religion and believe. I can't tolerate the blindness to facts and science that often comes with it.
A teacher at my school was a good example of someone who shows a religious person their own insecurity. He literally took apart a student in my class, who was deeply religious. But it showed he never read the Bible word-to-word. Never thought about its content. He knew the nice parts, certainly. He had wild interpretations told to him by his mormon priest, I guess. He still failed to see.

And the points about what good religion does today. You can easily be a member of a charity organisation or have a good hard without believing. I bet my ass many humans would have grasped the concept of charity sooner or later. Without religion.

[coder0xff]

I was once a christian. In fact, I was indoctrinated through most of my child hood, became a believer in middle school, and then woke up in high school.

As an atheist, I feel it's important to help people find enlightenment, and I've succeeded in a few cases. Granted, these were people who had already decided to question what they believe and just needed guidance. Without their desire to become more aware there is little chance. You can't reason with faith.

I actually recommend to believers to read The God Delusion. Of course they reply that there's no point because it won't waiver their faith. My response is that in their duty to convert others it's in their best interest to study the position of those whom they are trying to influence. Of course, I've never actually said it like that. I say it in a way they can understand. I recommend that atheists/agnostics/whatever do the same if they hope to save others. My experience as a Christian is ammo for the arsenal.

[Nixt]

Well, what comes after death? Usually you get buried, cremated or buried at sea.

[jangalomph]

buried at sea? never heard of that one :O

[Sathor]

Uh, well, I know people get burned and the ash is thrown into the sea. I kinda like that idea, getting bound with the elements and in theory spread over the whole Earth ...

[Mr-Jigsaw]

I recommend that atheists/agnostics/whatever do the same if they hope to save others.

Believing in a higher power doesn't make one's life less worth living, hence the saving.

One person told me once the Bible is one-to-one the word of god.

Well, considering that it was men who wrote book as well as men who, at the Council of Nicea, decided what books should be included. So, even if a Christian has not read the Bible does not mean they know nothing of God(Of course, they should read it). And for that matter, not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, some are simply tangible stories reflecting less dramatic but altogether true conditions of the human mind.

I can't tolerate the blindness to facts and science that often comes with it.

Religion can teach science yeah, but why not just teach science? Why do you need the religion part added? Something that is not scientific.

Religion isn't trying to teach science, and neither does it fly in the face of science. You speak much of how science contradicts the word of religion, but I have yet to see how. And yes, evolution is real and reconcilable with faith, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Does the fact that the world was not literally created in seven days mean that spiritual forces are not at work?

It is my observation (and one shared by Richard Dawkins, not that I try to add weight by mention of the name, but simply state that I am not alone in this) that they cannot coexist. And not as you amazingly say, because religion can tolerate science! Science cannot tolerate religion! Science does not need and would be far better off without religion at all! Religious apologists such as yourself make me laugh with this becuase it sounds like you are trying to make a concession! "Oh alright then, we'll let in a bit of science too, just to make you happy!" No! Fuck that! We don't need you, we don't want you, and when you finally realise you're all barking mad and completely delusional WE will make the concessions and let you in.

Let us in what? Some club of the enlightened that only people who believe like you can be part of? And I am not making a concession. If there is indeed a God, and he created the universe, is it too hard to believe that he would make concrete rules that would govern all things, or they may simply arise themselves? To put it more simply, if God created all of this, that would include the natural laws of science. And don't think that talking about Richard Dawkins will help your argument. Many atheists complain that theists try to convert and force them to believe the word of God, then why cannot we believe what we want, free from your attempts to "convert"? Why does everyone need to agree with you. Can't you simple be smug in "knowing" that you are right and we are "stupid"?

This 'monolithic entity' as you put it is actually an extremely apt term. Monolithic, as in old and big and strong, and Entity as in something that isn't tangible.

Also monolith's don't have anything to support them!

Edit: And if you apply a small amount of pressure in the right place they fall flat!

...........did you just skirt the real issue here by building a metaphor upon my complaint of your logical fallacy? The issue here is that you find it fair to judge something as mind-bogglingly huge as religion, all religions for that matter. You speak of reason, but only an unreasonable person could justify blanket statements regarding something as large as the simple idea of religion. It's simply too big, and on this fact I will not budge.

Why not? It's supported by a massive amount of evidence. I'd say it's a fair bet that anything you bring to the table wouldn't tip the scales in your favour.

And I quote

When people impute special vices to the Christian Church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. The Church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. The Church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. The Church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself.

Unless you care to statistically analyze the world's problems and carp for a way to blame them on faith, then I will forget you ever said this. You speak of reason and scientific fact but I see no justifiable way anyone could prove that religion has in fact done much more harm than good.

How can it not disgust you? It is an insult to our ability to think! The idea that people will settle for this claptrap as an explanation instead of going out and finding out themselves is appalling! And downright lazy! A person with faith is simply one who never left the cave! (See Plato).

That's not what religion is about. It's not about taking someone else's answer and keeping it as your own. It's about knowing the lessons of your particular religion and then living your life, applying them, testing them, and correcting them when needed. Is religion not about the search for truth and enlightenment? Hmm, you speak of not settling for other people's answers rather than figuring out yourself. But you're more than willing to accept Plato's allegory of the cave rather than figuring out your own. And if you really care to make that comparison, you are stating that all of our relevant reality is that God does not exist, because a theist sees exactly what you see if you both stand on the same street. Is the absence of God all that becomes apparent when one is free of the cave? Sorry, but your comparison is faulty.

If you are religious, you are already practicing that kind of thinking, and you are more prone to apply it to other matters.

Bullshit. I have talked to psychologists and this simply is not the case. And you must take into account, not all proof is physical. Besides, religious people are just as skeptical on matters other than religion. Plus, we are condensing matters of God into matters of everything. People think differently about whether a computer is built correctly, whether pesticides were used in growing a crop, or if a politician means their word, than on mystical matters. Mysticism is a completely different bag than the physical and mundane.

Dogma is something encouraged by religion and religious faith.

This is true and false. Misled preachers and "denizens of faith" have misused the name of God in many matters throughout history. But this does not reflect the true intentions of belief. True religion is about seeking enlightenment, and enlightenment isn't following a strict set of rules to get into heaven. I hate dogma. And there's not much more I hate than fundamentalist theists, but not all theists are dogmatic, the true theists reject dogma.

I'm sorry if I seem raged, but I really dislike religion. And I don't see why people can take out parts of the bible and ignore them. If some parts are bad by today's standards why can you still keep the rest? You cant just pick and choose what parts you want to believe :/

Sure you can, it was written by men. As your pamphlet says, it is hearsay, is it so hard to believe that some parts may contradict the actual message of God? The difficult task is figuring out which parts are just.

And even then, this god puts us here and gives us no evidence of himself and by being a rational person and saying,"Well there must be no god since we have no evidence to base it off of." And for being rational god sends you to hell for all eternity. I'm sorry but this god sounds like a real dick.

I don't think that God is as vengeful as the Old Testament paints him to be. And I don't think only pious Christians will get to heaven.

Being charitable and being religious aren't mutually exclusive. Religious groups who are charitable are an example of religious people doing good things, but that doesn't mean it's all they do.

Of course they aren't, I never said that someone needed to be religious to be charitable, but it is an undeniable fact that religious groups do much good charity work. I was simply disproving the idea that religious people are more likely to leave the world as it is because they are worrying about the afterlife. And just to get you thinking, imagine all the people who have made a difference in this world, for the better, and consider how many of them are religious. It kinda disproves that idea of religious people being indifferent to real world problems, huh?

Bush would even have you think that god endorses his choices, regardless of whether they were wrong or right.

Luckily for him was right. /start new(hopeless) argument
But seriously, it is a sad but true fact that people manipulate religion for their own agenda. Yes, religion is misused time and time again, but this is not an argument. Government can be a beneficent entity, it can protect and better its people, but it can also disenfranchise and destroy in the wrong hands. A book can promote good morals and get people thinking, but it can also incite and inflame when willed. A chisel can be used to sculpt beautiful pieces of art when used properly, but one can also turn that piece of metal into a weapon, to kill instead of create. Does this mean that we should destroy the chisel? Goodness, no, but we must always keep a keen eye for the crazed sculptor. We must always remember that religion has done great things as a whole, and we cannot incessantly group the good sculptors and bad sculptors alike into one single-willed entity.

Just so you know, this is hard to do alone. And for the record, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to get a fair view of religion out there, the good and the bad.

[coder0xff]

Phew - I need a database just to keep track of the convo.

Believing in a higher power doesn't make one's life less worth living, hence the saving.

Lol. That was intended to be kinda humurous, using the lingo of the (dare I say it?) barbarians...

Well, considering that it was men who wrote book as well as men who, at the Council of Nicea, decided what books should be included. So, even if a Christian has not read the Bible does not mean they know nothing of God(Of course, they should read it). And for that matter, not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally, some are simply tangible stories reflecting less dramatic but altogether true conditions of the human mind.

Then where does one draw the line? If the Bible is not factual in its entirety then how much of it is?

Religion isn't trying to teach science, and neither does it fly in the face of science. You speak much of how science contradicts the word of religion, but I have yet to see how. And yes, evolution is real and reconcilable with faith, I don't see why it wouldn't be. Does the fact that the world was not literally created in seven days mean that spiritual forces are not at work?

Religion, in general, cannot be said to contradict anything. Only common concepts can be debated in that manner. Only by dismissing what science suggests can things like creationsim exist. I'm sure some convoluted form of creationism can be made to be reconciled with science, but if you are consciously making this effort, why not realize that reconciliation is not necessary. Still, faith is more an obfuscation of reason, regardless of which points between science and religion conflict.

If there is indeed a God, and he created the universe, is it too hard to believe that he would make concrete rules that would govern all things, or they may simply arise themselves? To put it more simply, if God created all of this, that would include the natural laws of science.

Actually, if there were indeed a God, I should expect he tailored the physical laws. Though I'm not really seeing how what you've said is an argument. The scientific communities dislike (and I'm pretty sure the intellectual elite (by offical status, not my opinion) atheists are in the majority) for faith doesn't question whether believers believe that god invented physics.

Many atheists complain that theists try to convert and force them to believe the word of God, then why cannot we believe what we want, free from your attempts to "convert"? Why does everyone need to agree with you. Can't you simple be smug in "knowing" that you are right and we are "stupid"?

Because we must stall the efforts of our opposition, lest the world abandon reason and the philosophy of deduction.

And I quote

When people impute special vices to the Christian Church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. The Church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. The Church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. The Church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself.

Unless you care to statistically analyze the world's problems and carp for a way to blame them on faith, then I will forget you ever said this. You speak of reason and scientific fact but I see no justifiable way anyone could prove that religion has in fact done much more harm than good.

This isn't a competition. Your argument defeats you, with a straight forward admission of the error of religion. Further, this quote is spoken as though non-religious people make no effort to better the world, other than reducing religion. There are problems in the world, and they should all be dealt with.
Edit: Also, I think that Chesterton guy is full of wind. The only pertinent statement he makes is on the superstition of the world. But can he tell me, broadening the concept of "church" to include any type of religious leader, when has the world ever been "left to itself?"

That's not what religion is about. It's not about taking someone else's answer and keeping it as your own. It's about knowing the lessons of your particular religion and then living your life, applying them, testing them, and correcting them when needed. Is religion not about the search for truth and enlightenment?

Yes, it is. Knowing lessons and applying them to your life is part of being a decent human being. Religion is religion because of faith, otherwise it's nothing more than a code of ethics, which would hardly be something to detest.

Hmm, you speak of not settling for other people's answers rather than figuring out yourself. But you're more than willing to accept Plato's allegory of the cave rather than figuring out your own. And if you really care to make that comparison, you are stating that all of our relevant reality is that God does not exist, because a theist sees exactly what you see if you both stand on the same street. Is the absence of God all that becomes apparent when one is free of the cave? Sorry, but your comparison is faulty.

It's not possible to know what is outside the cave. Our limited perception is the cave, and being limited and ignorant is a part of that reality.

Bullshit. I have talked to psychologists and this simply is not the case. And you must take into account, not all proof is physical. Besides, religious people are just as skeptical on matters other than religion. Plus, we are condensing matters of God into matters of everything. People think differently about whether a computer is built correctly, whether pesticides were used in growing a crop, or if a politician means their word, than on mystical matters. Mysticism is a completely different bag than the physical and mundane.

I agree with you. But what stops a mans religious leader from practicing politics? Or, a politician from asserting religious authority?

This is true and false. Misled preachers and "denizens of faith" have misused the name of God in many matters throughout history. But this does not reflect the true intentions of belief. True religion is about seeking enlightenment, and enlightenment isn't following a strict set of rules to get into heaven. I hate dogma. And there's not much more I hate than fundamentalist theists, but not all theists are dogmatic, the true theists reject dogma.

OK, so you already said what I stated just before. But this can't be an excuse. The true intentions of idealistic communism were pure. But in practice it doesn't work that way.

Sure you can, it was written by men. As your pamphlet says, it is hearsay, is it so hard to believe that some parts may contradict the actual message of God? The difficult task is figuring out which parts are just.

Stepping back again, then... It's difficult because it doesn't make sense. Something that is arrived at by logic can be recorded, recalled, and demonstrated.

I don't think that God is as vengeful as the Old Testament paints him to be. And I don't think only pious Christians will get to heaven.

Well, I guess that's nice of you. But I'm still fucked. I can't convince myself to believe something just cause I want to. I can make myself believe in god no more than I can make myself believe that I have a magical bean stalk growing out of my right nostril. Why? Because there is no evidence, and no reason.

Luckily for him was right. /start new(hopeless) argument
But seriously, it is a sad but true fact that people manipulate religion for their own agenda. Yes, religion is misused time and time again, but this is not an argument. Government can be a beneficent entity, it can protect and better its people, but it can also disenfranchise and destroy in the wrong hands. A book can promote good morals and get people thinking, but it can also incite and inflame when willed. A chisel can be used to sculpt beautiful pieces of art when used properly, but one can also turn that piece of metal into a weapon, to kill instead of create. Does this mean that we should destroy the chisel? Goodness, no, but we must always keep a keen eye for the crazed sculptor. We must always remember that religion has done great things as a whole, and we cannot incessantly group the good sculptors and bad sculptors alike into one single-willed entity.

Nice analogy . No sarcasm. It kinda made me laugh. And it's worth some real thought. I'm not so sure that it's quite accurate, though. A chisel, when used to create artwork, is a credit to intelligence and the human race. IMHO, religions creations, faith, are an insult. Further, a chisel doesn't tell the artist what to believe. People control chisels, religion controls people. Of course this is a generalization and exaggeration for that matter, but you get the point.

Just so you know, this is hard to do alone. And for the record, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to get a fair view of religion out there, the good and the bad.

I appreciate your efforts, and I have enjoyed this debate. Thanks for sticking it out.

[jangalomph]

And i quote

Men fear death as children fear to go in the dark; and as that natural fear in children is increased by tales, so is the other.

And what is IMHO?

[whiffen]

It stands for; In my honest opinion.



Yeah, good debates by everyone.

[Spike]

After death, chemicals and electric pulses stop working, so basically, you stop thinking and then it comes the Nothing.

[jangalomph]

After death, chemicals and electric pulses stop working, so basically, you stop thinking and then it comes the Nothing.

And we have a winner!
Most logical thing i believe.

[xalener]

Well. Nothing can be destroyed, just rearanged. So I imagine small parts of you will be reborn into other people, but that being will be made of other people/ things.

[coder0xff]

Well. Nothing can be destroyed, just rearanged. So I imagine small parts of you will be reborn into other people, but that being will be made of other people/ things.

If you mean parts like molecules, then yes. Otherwise, death and destruction aren't synonymous. Death is simply the change of state from living to dead - nothing added, nothing lost.

[jangalomph]

I just wonder if we know we are dead..