What happens when you die?

[Albatross]

i canot imagine the other side,not that i`m a atheist, but the other world sure must function on totally different laws.how can someone living in time imagine eternity?
i suppose eternity is something timeless rather than infinite time otherwise we`ll all be bored to death.so going further and picturing hell or heaven is not in my grasp.
i was reading in Jung`s memoirs about his near death experience and he wrote that he felt an objective existence,he didn`t desire anything he was just aware.
also i think the Bible says that this isn`t the final human condition:something along the lines "what we will be it`s not shown up yet" "we now see through a glass,darkly",so probably one day we will be able to apprehend the invisible world.
just my random thoughts,and english is not my first language.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dornick
c'mon, there's gotta be somebody who wants to discuss my Hell philosophy

On what basis do you think that the biblical description of hell is symbolic?

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dornick
c'mon, there's gotta be somebody who wants to discuss my Hell philosophy

On what basis do you think that the biblical description of hell is symbolic?

well, for starters, there obviously isn't a physical fire pit that souls get thrown into...

 

[Isla]

Part of the problem with the Bible is that Jesus didn't speak Greek orHebrew... he spoke Aramic. So when the various books of the Bible were put together, a lot of personal interpretations got included. They HAD to choose certain interpretations of words over others... and Aramic is a richly symbolic and many layered language that isn't easily translated.

For example, the word Jesus used for Creator was more equivalent to 'parent' or mother/father... yet somehow it ended up being "Our Father". And "Who Is In Heaven" is also something men twisted up because--- yup, the Aramic word that was actually used meant 'sky'. Not some other place! Just 'above'.

People who really want to follow Jesus should take the time to study Aramic. But instead they bone up on Greek and Hebrew... it's like translating Japanese to English!

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: joshw10
Nobody knows.

However, the idea of an eternal "Heaven and/or Hell" afterlife seems like far-fetched fantasy to me. Occam's Razor tells us the simplest explanation is the most likely - this would be that when you die you cease to exist.

If people used Occam's Razor all the time, we would still use Newtonian physics, think everything revolved around the Earth, and have a very, very different picture of life. Claiming some sort of absolute principle that is constantly contradicted is no excuse to say something doesn't exist.

Not true. Occam's razor comes in two parts. All things being equal (Part one), the simplest answer is usually correct (Part 2). Relativity was not equal to Newton, it was greater than Newtonian Physics. It described phenomena we could observe that did not fit under Newton's laws. Same goes for geocentrism.

Secondly, anyone who understands the razor will not say it is absolute. It is a probabilities analysis and nothing more. What it says is that you have better reason to accept theory X over theory Y because X has fewer assumptions needed to work. What it does not say is that theory X is right and theory Y is wrong. It merely states X is the more logical approach to take.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: joshw10
Nobody knows.

However, the idea of an eternal "Heaven and/or Hell" afterlife seems like far-fetched fantasy to me. Occam's Razor tells us the simplest explanation is the most likely - this would be that when you die you cease to exist.

If people used Occam's Razor all the time, we would still use Newtonian physics, think everything revolved around the Earth, and have a very, very different picture of life. Claiming some sort of absolute principle that is constantly contradicted is no excuse to say something doesn't exist.

Not true. Occam's razor comes in two parts. All things being equal (Part one), the simplest answer is usually correct (Part 2). Relativity was not equal to Newton, it was greater than Newtonian Physics. It described phenomena we could observe that did not fit under Newton's laws. Same goes for geocentrism.

Secondly, anyone who understands the razor will not say it is absolute. It is a probabilities analysis and nothing more. What it says is that you have better reason to accept theory X over theory Y because X has fewer assumptions needed to work. What it does not say is that theory X is right and theory Y is wrong. It merely states X is the more logical approach to take.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say: that it doesn't say anything about whether something is right or wrong. I was under the impression you wanted to reject the afterlife for the sole reason that it's simpler to assume it doesn't exist.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: joshw10
Nobody knows.

However, the idea of an eternal "Heaven and/or Hell" afterlife seems like far-fetched fantasy to me. Occam's Razor tells us the simplest explanation is the most likely - this would be that when you die you cease to exist.

If people used Occam's Razor all the time, we would still use Newtonian physics, think everything revolved around the Earth, and have a very, very different picture of life. Claiming some sort of absolute principle that is constantly contradicted is no excuse to say something doesn't exist.

Not true. Occam's razor comes in two parts. All things being equal (Part one), the simplest answer is usually correct (Part 2). Relativity was not equal to Newton, it was greater than Newtonian Physics. It described phenomena we could observe that did not fit under Newton's laws. Same goes for geocentrism.

Secondly, anyone who understands the razor will not say it is absolute. It is a probabilities analysis and nothing more. What it says is that you have better reason to accept theory X over theory Y because X has fewer assumptions needed to work. What it does not say is that theory X is right and theory Y is wrong. It merely states X is the more logical approach to take.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say: that it doesn't say anything about whether something is right or wrong. I was under the impression you wanted to reject the afterlife for the sole reason that it's simpler to assume it doesn't exist.

I see.

Occam's razor doesn't actually falsify things. What it does do is place recommendations on where to place belief. While Occam' Razor doesn't actually show the afterlife does not exist, what it does do is show us that it is irrational to say it does because a simpler theory explains everything observable just as well. In other words, it doesn't say it doesn't exist, it says it is more logical to assume it doesn't.

EDIT: How it applies to this is Occam's Razor tells us it is irrational to believe in the existance of the afterlife and rational not to. Since science is itself supposed to be rationality applied to the world around us, scientifically the afterlife must be rejected because it does not live up to the standards set forth for a rational theory.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Everyone that I personally know that has died, has gone through a process of
the body core temperature dropping to ambient, and rigor mortis setting in.
Followed rapidly by decay - unless embalmed or creamated.

I know of no exceptions.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Isla
Part of the problem with the Bible is that Jesus didn't speak Greek orHebrew... he spoke Aramic. So when the various books of the Bible were put together, a lot of personal interpretations got included. They HAD to choose certain interpretations of words over others... and Aramic is a richly symbolic and many layered language that isn't easily translated.

For example, the word Jesus used for Creator was more equivalent to 'parent' or mother/father... yet somehow it ended up being "Our Father". And "Who Is In Heaven" is also something men twisted up because--- yup, the Aramic word that was actually used meant 'sky'. Not some other place! Just 'above'.

People who really want to follow Jesus should take the time to study Aramic. But instead they bone up on Greek and Hebrew... it's like translating Japanese to English!

Jesus was at least trilingual: he spoke and read Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Some Jews at that time were also conversant in Latin so he may have known Latin too.

My understanding is that the Gospels were written in Greek.

 

[Insomniak]

Burn that bridge when I get there.

 

[imported_Condor]

The IRS takes any estate that the nursing home hasn't already gotten.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Isla
Part of the problem with the Bible is that Jesus didn't speak Greek orHebrew... he spoke Aramic. So when the various books of the Bible were put together, a lot of personal interpretations got included. They HAD to choose certain interpretations of words over others... and Aramic is a richly symbolic and many layered language that isn't easily translated.

For example, the word Jesus used for Creator was more equivalent to 'parent' or mother/father... yet somehow it ended up being "Our Father". And "Who Is In Heaven" is also something men twisted up because--- yup, the Aramic word that was actually used meant 'sky'. Not some other place! Just 'above'.

People who really want to follow Jesus should take the time to study Aramic. But instead they bone up on Greek and Hebrew... it's like translating Japanese to English!

Jesus was at least trilingual: he spoke and read Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Some Jews at that time were also conversant in Latin so he may have known Latin too.

My understanding is that the Gospels were written in Greek.

But the New Testament was written quite some time after the life of Jesus, correct? So who knows what he actually said, etc.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Isla
Part of the problem with the Bible is that Jesus didn't speak Greek orHebrew... he spoke Aramic. So when the various books of the Bible were put together, a lot of personal interpretations got included. They HAD to choose certain interpretations of words over others... and Aramic is a richly symbolic and many layered language that isn't easily translated.

For example, the word Jesus used for Creator was more equivalent to 'parent' or mother/father... yet somehow it ended up being "Our Father". And "Who Is In Heaven" is also something men twisted up because--- yup, the Aramic word that was actually used meant 'sky'. Not some other place! Just 'above'.

People who really want to follow Jesus should take the time to study Aramic. But instead they bone up on Greek and Hebrew... it's like translating Japanese to English!

Jesus was at least trilingual: he spoke and read Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Some Jews at that time were also conversant in Latin so he may have known Latin too.

My understanding is that the Gospels were written in Greek.

But the New Testament was written quite some time after the life of Jesus, correct? So who knows what he actually said, etc.

Here's a good starting point if you are really interested in the topic:

The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? By F. F. BRUCE, 1943

Here's a snipet that addresses your question:

"The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards.

But even with the later dates, the situation' encouraging from the historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at least would still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written."

There were people who were witnesses to Christ who were alive when the Gospels were written. Surely, if the Gospels were inaccurate, they would have been exposed as fraudulent.

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: joshw10
Nobody knows.

However, the idea of an eternal "Heaven and/or Hell" afterlife seems like far-fetched fantasy to me. Occam's Razor tells us the simplest explanation is the most likely - this would be that when you die you cease to exist.

If people used Occam's Razor all the time, we would still use Newtonian physics, think everything revolved around the Earth, and have a very, very different picture of life. Claiming some sort of absolute principle that is constantly contradicted is no excuse to say something doesn't exist.

Not true. Occam's razor comes in two parts. All things being equal (Part one), the simplest answer is usually correct (Part 2). Relativity was not equal to Newton, it was greater than Newtonian Physics. It described phenomena we could observe that did not fit under Newton's laws. Same goes for geocentrism.

Secondly, anyone who understands the razor will not say it is absolute. It is a probabilities analysis and nothing more. What it says is that you have better reason to accept theory X over theory Y because X has fewer assumptions needed to work. What it does not say is that theory X is right and theory Y is wrong. It merely states X is the more logical approach to take.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say: that it doesn't say anything about whether something is right or wrong. I was under the impression you wanted to reject the afterlife for the sole reason that it's simpler to assume it doesn't exist.

I see.

Occam's razor doesn't actually falsify things. What it does do is place recommendations on where to place belief. While Occam' Razor doesn't actually show the afterlife does not exist, what it does do is show us that it is irrational to say it does because a simpler theory explains everything observable just as well. In other words, it doesn't say it doesn't exist, it says it is more logical to assume it doesn't.

EDIT: How it applies to this is Occam's Razor tells us it is irrational to believe in the existance of the afterlife and rational not to. Since science is itself supposed to be rationality applied to the world around us, scientifically the afterlife must be rejected because it does not live up to the standards set forth for a rational theory.

Well now, it seems you're going back to saying the afterlife doesn't exist simply because Occam doesn't think so. The Razor does not "place recommendations on where to place belief". As you said before, it is nothing more than a probability engine, it says nothing about whether a theory is true. Therefore, it's ridiculous to say it's irrational to believe in something because it is somewhat complicated. There were plenty of points in the past when the Razor was violated, was it irrational to believe the truth then? In short, you can apply rationality or irrationality on nothing more than a probability.

BTW, while I disagree with your use of the Razor, I agree with most of that last edited sentence. The problem though is that science can neither accept nor reject the afterlife because it isn't physical (where is heaven?) Science cannot say anything about it.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Isla
Part of the problem with the Bible is that Jesus didn't speak Greek orHebrew... he spoke Aramic. So when the various books of the Bible were put together, a lot of personal interpretations got included. They HAD to choose certain interpretations of words over others... and Aramic is a richly symbolic and many layered language that isn't easily translated.

For example, the word Jesus used for Creator was more equivalent to 'parent' or mother/father... yet somehow it ended up being "Our Father". And "Who Is In Heaven" is also something men twisted up because--- yup, the Aramic word that was actually used meant 'sky'. Not some other place! Just 'above'.

People who really want to follow Jesus should take the time to study Aramic. But instead they bone up on Greek and Hebrew... it's like translating Japanese to English!

Jesus was at least trilingual: he spoke and read Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Some Jews at that time were also conversant in Latin so he may have known Latin too.

My understanding is that the Gospels were written in Greek.

But the New Testament was written quite some time after the life of Jesus, correct? So who knows what he actually said, etc.

Here's a good starting point if you are really interested in the topic:

The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? By F. F. BRUCE, 1943

Here's a snipet that addresses your question:

"The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards.

But even with the later dates, the situation' encouraging from the historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at least would still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written."

There were people who were witnesses to Christ who were alive when the Gospels were written. Surely, if the Gospels were inaccurate, they would have been exposed as fraudulent.

Of course they would of been of old age, so I would think there would be inaccuracies in the Gospels. However we will never know, which is why I don't think the Bible can be taken literally. As far the as the Gospels written later, it's like that telephone game, the story changes as it gets passed down. Not only that but many things have changed in the Bible, AFAIK due to the Church's intervention, etc.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Surely, if the Gospels were inaccurate, they would have been exposed as fraudulent.

Wow. This is the worst logical fallacy I've seen in a while. I highly recommend you google for logical fallacies, riprorin.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Isla
Part of the problem with the Bible is that Jesus didn't speak Greek orHebrew... he spoke Aramic. So when the various books of the Bible were put together, a lot of personal interpretations got included. They HAD to choose certain interpretations of words over others... and Aramic is a richly symbolic and many layered language that isn't easily translated.

For example, the word Jesus used for Creator was more equivalent to 'parent' or mother/father... yet somehow it ended up being "Our Father". And "Who Is In Heaven" is also something men twisted up because--- yup, the Aramic word that was actually used meant 'sky'. Not some other place! Just 'above'.

People who really want to follow Jesus should take the time to study Aramic. But instead they bone up on Greek and Hebrew... it's like translating Japanese to English!

Same thing with the english/urdu/persian translations of the Quran. Arabic is a rich language and anone following it should learn it. Obviosly the word of God would still be higher than what a typical person could understand.

 

[kage69]

The comparison of Aramic-to-Greek/Latin to Japanese-to-English is bang on the money IMHO. A lot of creative license and cultural commentary can (and usually does) find it's way into translations when converting a many-layered, almost esoteric language into a more rigid, structured language.



Nihongo wa totemo muzukashi desu ne!




As to what happens when we die, I feel short of embalming or cremation, bacteria and worms hasten our reunion with the elements. The fancies and fears of men struggling to place an image on their place in the cosmos matters nothing in the great scheme of things.

 

[The Green Bean]

The big question here is do do beleive in souls or not?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Surely, if the Gospels were inaccurate, they would have been exposed as fraudulent.

Wow. This is the worst logical fallacy I've seen in a while. I highly recommend you google for logical fallacies, riprorin.

Volumes have been written on the reliability of the Gospels. I gave you one source if you are interested in the topic.

I'll let you do the googling.

I thought that my point was clear, but if not. I'll try again:

There were witnesses of the life/ministry of Christ who were alive when the Gospels were written. If the Gospel writers' accounts were inaccurate or untrue, surely those who witnessed the events would have spoken out and the documents would have been exposed as fraudulent.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Surely, if the Gospels were inaccurate, they would have been exposed as fraudulent.

Wow. This is the worst logical fallacy I've seen in a while. I highly recommend you google for logical fallacies, riprorin.

Volumes have been written on the reliability of the Gospels. I gave you one source if you are interested in the topic.

I'll let you do the googling.

I thought that my point was clear, but if not. I'll try again:

There were witnesses of the life/ministry of Christ who were alive when the Gospels were written. If the Gospel writers' accounts were inaccurate or untrue, surely those who witnessed the events would have spoken out and the documents would have been exposed as fraudulent.

A writing from 1943 is your proof? Do you not realize the advances that have been in just the last 20 years alone in Biblical research?

Apparently not.

Go on living your life with your head in the sand but, please, PLEASE keep your bigoted ignorance out of everyone else's lives. It's bad enough you have children that are going to be sent out into the world having learned from you and your hatred.


BTW, here's some reading for yourself:
Who Wrote The Bible?

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

The Illustrated Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed

The Nag Hammadi Library in English: Revised Edition

Gnostic Gospels

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Surely, if the Gospels were inaccurate, they would have been exposed as fraudulent.

Wow. This is the worst logical fallacy I've seen in a while. I highly recommend you google for logical fallacies, riprorin.

Volumes have been written on the reliability of the Gospels. I gave you one source if you are interested in the topic.

I'll let you do the googling.

I thought that my point was clear, but if not. I'll try again:

There were witnesses of the life/ministry of Christ who were alive when the Gospels were written. If the Gospel writers' accounts were inaccurate or untrue, surely those who witnessed the events would have spoken out and the documents would have been exposed as fraudulent.

A writing from 1943 is your proof? Do you not realize the advances that have been in just the last 20 years alone in Biblical research?

Apparently not.

Go on living your life with your head in the sand but, please, PLEASE keep your bigoted ignorance out of everyone else's lives. It's bad enough you have children that are going to be sent out into the world having learned from you and your hatred.


BTW, here's some reading for yourself:
Who Wrote The Bible?

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

The Illustrated Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed

The Nag Hammadi Library in English: Revised Edition

Gnostic Gospels

The funny thing is I think that you're serious.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: joshw10
Nobody knows.

However, the idea of an eternal "Heaven and/or Hell" afterlife seems like far-fetched fantasy to me. Occam's Razor tells us the simplest explanation is the most likely - this would be that when you die you cease to exist.

If people used Occam's Razor all the time, we would still use Newtonian physics, think everything revolved around the Earth, and have a very, very different picture of life. Claiming some sort of absolute principle that is constantly contradicted is no excuse to say something doesn't exist.

Not true. Occam's razor comes in two parts. All things being equal (Part one), the simplest answer is usually correct (Part 2). Relativity was not equal to Newton, it was greater than Newtonian Physics. It described phenomena we could observe that did not fit under Newton's laws. Same goes for geocentrism.

Secondly, anyone who understands the razor will not say it is absolute. It is a probabilities analysis and nothing more. What it says is that you have better reason to accept theory X over theory Y because X has fewer assumptions needed to work. What it does not say is that theory X is right and theory Y is wrong. It merely states X is the more logical approach to take.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say: that it doesn't say anything about whether something is right or wrong. I was under the impression you wanted to reject the afterlife for the sole reason that it's simpler to assume it doesn't exist.

I see.

Occam's razor doesn't actually falsify things. What it does do is place recommendations on where to place belief. While Occam' Razor doesn't actually show the afterlife does not exist, what it does do is show us that it is irrational to say it does because a simpler theory explains everything observable just as well. In other words, it doesn't say it doesn't exist, it says it is more logical to assume it doesn't.

EDIT: How it applies to this is Occam's Razor tells us it is irrational to believe in the existance of the afterlife and rational not to. Since science is itself supposed to be rationality applied to the world around us, scientifically the afterlife must be rejected because it does not live up to the standards set forth for a rational theory.

Well now, it seems you're going back to saying the afterlife doesn't exist simply because Occam doesn't think so. The Razor does not "place recommendations on where to place belief". As you said before, it is nothing more than a probability engine, it says nothing about whether a theory is true. Therefore, it's ridiculous to say it's irrational to believe in something because it is somewhat complicated. There were plenty of points in the past when the Razor was violated, was it irrational to believe the truth then? In short, you can apply rationality or irrationality on nothing more than a probability.

BTW, while I disagree with your use of the Razor, I agree with most of that last edited sentence. The problem though is that science can neither accept nor reject the afterlife because it isn't physical (where is heaven?) Science cannot say anything about it.

You are correct and at the same time missing what I am saying. Yes, it is a probability engine and by that mechanism that is how it places recommendations on what to believe. Why do we believe in electromagnetic forces instead of magic pink faries disguising themselves as electromagnetic forces? Why is one a superior theory than the other when they both would explain things equally well?

The answer is Occam's Razor for both of them. Electromagnetic foces are observable, any pink faries behind them are not, the pink faries are an added assumption not needed for the theory to work, the Razor cuts the faries. The razor does not prove they don't exist, it can't, but what it does do is tell us it is more probable that EM forces are what we see them as.

It doesn't prove the afterlife doesn't exist, as I said earlier, it shows the afterlife is less likely to exist than simply rotting in the ground. It places the recommendation on what to believe based on the probability of it being true being greater. That is what science uses it for. It doesn't prove anything, it just sorts theories by probability. By the Razor, the Afterlife is less probable than no Afterlife. I'm not saying the Razor tells us it doesn't exist, I'm saying the Razor tells us it probably doesn't exist.

 

[Promethply]

We'll get recycled and elements contained in our body will be reincorporated into other living beings, including trees.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: dornick

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dornick
c'mon, there's gotta be somebody who wants to discuss my Hell philosophy

On what basis do you think that the biblical description of hell is symbolic?

well, for starters, there obviously isn't a physical fire pit that souls get thrown into...

Obviously, hell is not a place of literal fire. You can't have fire without light and hell is described as dark so obviously its not fire as we know it.