The Afterlife... (And a little bit about human nature, too)

[evenwolf]

I tend to agree with Helm on this strange side argument.   In anything with a capacity.  For instance a garbage can.   The work of emptying is done by the filling.  Wait...

OK, whoever's talking just needs to shut up.

[Raggit]

Children, as of today, pretty much need to believe in an afterlife.Ã,  Ã,  To get by.Ã,  Ã, To answer the usual questions about existence.Ã, 

What do you mean exactly? 

Are you saying that life is more difficult today than it was when you were a kid?

(I'm not arguing, I'm sincerely interested here.)

[evenwolf]

No.    I don't imply that in a matter of fifteen years anything has changed.   I was hinting at the possibility of a future where communities (hell, even a world community) find a common bond in science.  If children are encouraged in the sciences early on   (my first real science class was in the 6th grade) I'm inclined to believe that even more enthusiasm will grow towards intelligence.  Towards truth.  Towards the arts.   Away from guilt, insecurity, fears of Hell and the ideals of puritans..

Because many kids (and not just Bible Belt folk) are raised by fundamentalists who are doing nothing more but running a marketing campaign for their own souls.  And the evidence of fossil records, for instance, becomes a test placed by God.   "God is testing us with some silly rocks!  Who are you going to believe?  The man upstairs or some silly rock?  Hell just yesterday them rocks was saying birds come from dinosaurs!"

Yes, sometimes rocks tell stories more compelling than a list of do's and don'ts.

[Andail]

If faith helps you get through the night, then fine. If you use faith to justify actions against other people, not fine. If you use your faith to prove another person's faith wrong, not fine. If faiths prevents you from seeking a method of explanation that is closer to us, more wordly, more practical, more human, not fine. Many things need to be viewed and investigated by the tools which we are granted; the mind and the senses. To circumvent this system of investigation with truisms, grand phrases and quotations from the scriptures is just a sign of laziness and negligence. I'm not saying we must be scientifical or logical, I'm saying we must start with trying to explain things around us with terms that are compatible to ourselves, to roll up our sleeves and really dig into the problem with our own sore hands, and perform a labour that we can be proud of afterwards.
If you, after this meticulous spiritual research, reach the conclusion that you need a diety somewhere in the far end of the cosmic thread we're clinging onto, then fine.

[Nostradamus]

Evenwolf:  Jewish Jesus?   Muslim Jesus?  Buddhist Jesus?  Egyptian Jesus?...
Jews don't believe in persons who lived in are divine, only the one god, no "son of god". Muslims do have Muhammad, but it's not a "localized Jesus", he's not a son of god in Islam, just his divine prophet. Buddhism is an utterly different kind of religion than the Jewish\Christian\Muslim trio. Egyptian mythology had many gods, never one saviour. You should really learn more about toher religions than you're own dude. Christianity isn't the first religion ever existed on Earth that eveyone copyed and had "their own Jesus".
You should really learn more about other religions than your own.
Or maybe you just tryed to explain a point just didn't know how. I believe your point is that it makes no sense that one god would send differnet sons\prophets to differnet peoples and make them interpret them their own way and believe in different religions causing them to fight each other, and what only would make sense is that one prophet will lead all people of Earth\the Universe to belive in the true god, instead of the above. Now with that I agree. Good point.
However the Bible says god picked Abraham to father his chosen people because he was pure and whatever and they will be his chosen people and only them deserve the true faith and only them will remain after the messiah comes.
Then in Christianity only Christians could go to heaven because god changed the religion through his son. Then in Islam god chose Ishmael's descendantns (muslims) and not Isaac's descendants (jews) [Isaac and Ishmael the sons of Abraham) and only muslims could go to heaven.
Basically Christianity said god fixed and changed Judaism to Christianity by sending Jesus and Muslims says god corrected\disowned Judaism and changed it and picked the other people by sending Muhammad.
So all those 3 religions have their justification in their holy texts why god chose only them and not the others.
Does that prove you wrong? hell no. It's propaganda needed to base the religion in the eyes of its believers. But it shows you how these religions can exist but not co-exist in the eyes of their religious leaders.
This even makes your point stronger - why would one god lead different peoples in differnet religions to think THEY are the chosen people, they are right and only they will go to heaven etc. because it would make them fight for everyone to have "the true faith' etc.
So either it proves that one religion of the three is right and the others wrongly changed it (never ending arguement) or that all of them are just made by man and changed and brached to different religions in man's interests. And if that is so there couldn't be no afterlife.

So I hope I helped explain your point, because I really hated your "Jewish Jesus, Muslim Jesus, Buddhist Jesus" etc. statements, and so I hope I explained your point in a more true ot the source light. If you helped you understand other religions better good, if you already knew this then I hope I just explained it better in a way that wouldn't put other religions in a bad light because you presented them like they were Christiniaty copycats.

And I agree with Andail.
Faith is OK if it helps people live their life and be good people. Blind faith is dangerous. Blind faith where the believer never asks "how" or "why" and choose ro ignore scientific facts. People who for them the only answers to "why" are "because god said so" "because god wants so" "because the holy book said so" or "because the priest\rabbi\other religious leaders said so". Even if it's completley against facts and logic. And so they also do whatever that holy book or religious leader tells them do because they said so. And there's no need in repeating what that can lead to.

[Babar]

As far as I'm aware, Nostradamus, Christianity doesn't believe that only Christians go to heaven, in fact, Christians all seem to agree with the "Chosen People" status of the Jews. Also, I seem to remember reading that the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Islam as a religion of God (although I'm sure they consider them to have a few things wrong). Also, Islam accepts the validity of Christianity and Judaism (as well apparently any religion/person, nonwithstanding that they might be a few things wrong if they aren't Muslims) who believes in God (to them, the "covenant" wasn't with only the line of Ishmael/Isaac's family, but with all who accept it), and they all get a chance to go to heaven. Also, I recall that both these religions (I don't think Judaism has a heaven/hell) say that if the person didn't have proper knowledge of the message of God, they will go to heaven depending on their actions.

As far as questioning your faith, I think that should be done constantly! If you have to hide/ignore facts to retain your faith, I wouldn't consider it a very stable faith at all. However, I don't think there should be a schism that everyone feels like making between science and religion. Why does being religious have to mean you aren't logical or scientific? Why does being religious mean you're only in it "Just incase it's true, and then I won't go to hell?". That's the stupidest reason to believe in God.

About the original question, it really, really, can't be answered while one is alive, and once you are dead, it can't be answered either. One can only go on what one believes.

[Helm]

Many things need to be viewed and investigated by the tools which we are granted; the mind and the senses.

Sensory perception lies a lot. 'Logic' fails us. Looking at someone pointing at a map and going to that foreign land isn't the same thing. We fail at experiencing truth, we fail at inspecting our own inner workings. It is like teeth trying to bite themselves.

I can understand why people turn to the fantastic and the divine.

[evenwolf]

Nostradamus, thanks for helping to flesh that out in a more mature way than I did.

You would have had to have followed the Martian Jesus thing and given me a little creative license there. With each of the divinities mentioned, I was simply trying to make it more and more absurd that God or Jesus existed and simply appeared in that people's image.

Christians:   Go ahead and ask your peers about other planets, and if they must accept Jesus Christ to be saved.  Because if there is a God and the key to understanding him is through one human being such as Jesus-  firstly only humans can be "saved".   If the answer is "God sent other planets a Jesus-like prophet in their form" then why wouldn't he do that with the seven continents of Earth?  Wouldn't God have to send messengers even to the smallest, most remote tribes in the wilderness?   Different messengers for different cultures and peoples?

And so if this is what God has done, he actually failed to harmonize anyone and instead has caused wars and mass bigotry.   Like you said Nostradamus, most religions have their own answers for why they alone will be saved.  The chosen people.

I argue that these ideas exist not because people are selfish, but simply because religious fanatics cannot come up with an answer to "what about all the little babies born where the word Jesus can't be pronounced?"

[lo_res_man]

It was just an idea I had, a long time ago. of course, right  now, I don't know what to think, so, take the idea or leave it. I ain't no fanatic.

[Blackthorne]

You're just not thinking 10th dimensionally.


Bt

[Raggit]

Blackthorne, the video on that site is mind bending!

Very thought provoking!

[MrColossal]

People without faith can do bad things just as well. Eric, for example the Nazis (do I win this internet argument now?!) killed millions of gupsies, jews, communists, homosexuals, whatevers based on philosophical grounds, not religious. In fact, I'd say all the bad things you attribute to faith-based beliefs are actually using faith to justify their atavistic (that is purely instinctual, animalistic) ignorance, fear, need for control and domination.

I can't accept that every bad thing that was attributed to faith was actually just a knowing or unknowing cover for something else. Unless you can accept that faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalist and instinctual deeds.

"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination." I would say that is a direct link to faith. If someone searched out faith with the purpose of justifying their hate of gay people then sure, but I highly doubt that's the norm among religious people.

And if people create religions and beliefs then they are creating them to justify certain things they want or don't want. So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?

biothlebop:

I think I understand what you mean but I don't know how it applies to my quote really.

I was talking about unknows, mostly. Not about every choice in life. "What do you want for dinner?" "I don't have enough input to offer a proper answer!" "Well then, you're getting hotdogs." "I am having hotdogs for dinner." Not like that at all.

Again, "I don't know, yet." isn't a dismissive "Put it on the back burner" statement to me.

I don't expect people to make decisions only when they have 100% of all the evidence needed to make one. I make decisions all the time not knowing what I'm doing 100% [like getting involved in internet debates!] but I don't have to resort to faith in something to make a decision. If one were to over stretch the definition of faith and say "But you have FAITH that your car will start each morning or FAITH that the sun will come up!" sure, but that's silly. I have a pretty good idea how cars work and a pretty good idea of why the sun does what it does but for things like the afterlife... I don't know. There is only one path of least reistance that would force me to make up my mind about the afterlife. Then again, taking all the evidence we currently have about religions, various beliefs about the afterlife, the human body, how the body dies and what happens to the brain when we die... It is, in my opinion, very safe to assume that when you die you cease to exist as a concious thing and stop existing out-right. However, I'm still accepting evidence.

But anyway, excuse me if I was confusing, I tend to get confusing if I write more than a paragraph.

lo_res_man:

"What I find flawed about the 'soul' concept, is that people explain human conciseness, an almost irreducibly complex concept, with somethingÃ,  simpleas a vaporÃ,  or a liquid. or ectoplasmic goo. an infinitly branching tree would be more likely."

Be more likely? How? If you have evidence of the sort I'd like to hear it! Also, how conciousness is irreducable.

Raggit:

If only string theory ment anything...

[Andail]

Homage to Ghormak:

[biothlebop]

MrColossal:
As I see it, I (sort of) make all my decisions based on faith (and in situations involving unknowns) and do not see the stretching of the definition of faith to everything as very silly.
This sterns from my problem with authorities/truths, some (science) are harder to work around/dismiss, while some (religion) are easier.
I have more faith in science, since I feel it relies on less assumptions than religion and therefore is a more solid base to choose my actions upon. I still see science as a neccesary evil (authority), but a much smaller one than religious faith, especially organised religion, since organisation requires cooperation therefore organised religion always influences society (for good or bad).
What science cannot explain, I have no trouble letting religion or "I don't know yet." fill. A large part of the world as I percieve it remains still in the dark and even the parts I think I know don't quite fit.
Taking the leap from nothing (no assumptions) to establishing science requires a leap of faith, as well as the leaps to "I don't know" and "God" ("I don't know" being perhaps the smallest and "God" being the greatest).
I am also sadly in the "nothing happens after death" camp, but I guess this is still an area for me where "I don't know" takes the lead, so God won't sneak into other areas of my universe, create paradoxes and contradict him/herself.
Regarding evidence, I don't believe anything can be proven true (even having some minor problems with I think, therefore I am), but due to stretching faith to encompass everything, small amounts of faith help me function in this world and accept assumptions as truths.

I don't think I am very far from your line of thinking, this side discussion is more of a definition-of-faith thing than a argument about religious faith.

Now on to my opinion on some points you directed at helm:
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination."
How about this version of the argument?
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because it is not natural reproductive behaviour."

So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?
Yes, I see my faith having it's origin in my fears and desires, I believe I am almost incapable of unselfish action.

[deletethisprofile]

I find reading about Out of body experiences intruige me greatly,
so, I think that the afterlife would be almost identical to out of body experiences, apart from you'd be in a different world...
but since I'm Christian I feel somewhat limited of thinking about life after death...But WHO KNOWS???

[boojiboy]

Ok, I don't really think about it but if I had to give my opinion I'd say that I don't believe in an afterlife. The reason I don't think about it is because it's just meaningless pondering. Some religion's ponderings are reasonably harmless but others can be fairly dangerous.
I know a few people who believe in reincarnation (no not one of the dangerous ones ), reason being? We get another chance to correct our wrongs. How about we just focus on the life that we have and do our best not to make wrongs in the first place?
How amazingly privelaged are we to just have the 80 odd years of life that we have? Do we really need more? Sometimes I think hoping (or believing) in an afterlife is just greedy. Maybe there is one. Most logically there isn't. So what either way? Let's just make the most out of real life.

[Dmitri]

A scientificish way of loking at this.

Before we were human beings, we were sperm and eggs and after we are human beings, we get broken down by bacteria and grow into something else, like grass, then we get eaten, possibly by a cow, and the cow uses us to grow new cells, maybe she uses thosecells to make milk, maybe a human drinks the milk, and the benefits from that milk help to make new sperm or eggs, and then another human being. That is how I see the circle of life or whatever.

What I mean by nothing before or after, i mean for our consciousness. That is just electronic impulses in our heads giving us thoughts and feelings. Once we die, these impulses stop, and our existence as a sentient being stops. I guess what I'm saying in a convoluted way, is that I don't belive in the soul, or at least a soul that can carry on without our body.

I hope tha made sense to someone.

If you want... our atoms have exited for BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of years, and we're all about the same age.

Babar: It says several times in the Catholic bible (I CBA looking for exact quotes) that if you don't accept Jesus as the ONE TRUE son of God (moslems and Jews don't) then you're knocking on the door of damnation. Also, Moslems believe Christians are fundamentally and irrevocably wrong about Jesus being God and think Christians are going to hell for glorifying him. And Jews think everyone after the prophets were sorcerors acting in the name of God.

Also those who don't know the message of God are unjudged and drift in the eternal limbo of death.

general comment: If there wasn't any religion, what would the internet argue about? Therefore there's a reason for religion.

[MrColossal]

I don't think I am very far from your line of thinking, this side discussion is more of a definition-of-faith thing than a argument about religious faith.

Probably, however it seems like you'd like to believe in god from some of the things you said? That's probably the biggest difference keeping us from being indistinguishable as different people on the street!

Now on to my opinion on some points you directed at helm:
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination."
How about this version of the argument?
"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because it is not natural reproductive behaviour."

Unacceptable to me. If you believed that then that gets rid of fertility clinics, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, in vitro fertilization and adoption [make a baby, don't claim one already made! SPREAD YOUR DNA!]. Sterilization and hysterectomy are out too, probably.

To further fall into the "It's not natural" mindset there goes plastics, silicone, some vaccinations and geneticall modified foods. Way to ruin it for everyone, the gays!

So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?
Yes, I see my faith having it's origin in my fears and desires, I believe I am almost incapable of unselfish action.

And in the process of designing your faith based off of fears and desires and selfishness, you've never done anything bad as a result of your faith? Even if you haven't, no one else has in the history of the world?

[Helm]

I can't accept that every bad thing that was attributed to faith was actually just a knowing or unknowing cover for something else. Unless you can accept that faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalist and instinctual deeds.

Sure. Faith is animalistic and instinctual and leads people to do animalistic and instinctual deeds.

"Gay people should not be allowed to marry/make love/adopt/exist because God says it is an abomination." I would say that is a direct link to faith.

I'd say it's a direct link to instinct, mistrust, fear and disgust of that which is different. Faith is just a conduit for that sort of thing, like a lot of other stuff people do.

And if people create religions and beliefs then they are creating them to justify certain things they want or don't want. So faith is based on human fears/desires/ignorance?

Sure, yes, I think so.

[MrColossal]

So... then faith can motivate people to do negative things?