What happens when you die?

[user1234]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: bdude
I'd say the scariest possible scenario would be this: God is not all forgiving, all kind, and all benificent. He's a mean spirited bastard who enjoys watching people suffer and consequently we all go to hell no matter how "good" or "evil" you were in this life.

I'd say the scariest thing is finding out that there is no god and that spending your whole life serving this god was a waste. But if this is the case, it wouldn't matter because you'd just be dead.

pascals wager?

Is that where he says it's best to bet there is a God, because if you do and there is you gain eternal happiness, but if there isn't, you gain nothing and lose nothing?

There are, of course, two major flaws in the "reasoning" underlying Pascal's wager:

1. Let's say you "believe" and arrange your life to conform with those beliefs. As a result (let us say), you deny yourself various wordly pleasures, maybe fvck up the lives of your children in an atempt to indoctrinate them, perhaps wage a holy war in the name of what you believe. All kinds of BAD things. If you doubt that such bad things can occur in the pursuit of faith, then I suggest you consider today's radical Islamists. And just in case you think "Christian" faith is not at all like that, note that any number of horrors have been perpetrated on "infidels" and "blasphemers" down through history in the name of Christian faith.

The alternative, not believing, may lead to a much more peaceful life that doesn't infringe on or harm anyone else. And you may lead a more productive life, using your time to produce works of true worth (not wasting much of your time in the contemplation of a fantasy).


2. If the criterion is that you err on the side of the belief system that offers all the goodies, then why not believe in a faith that promises far more? For example, how about a belief system that says that to the extent that you live your Earthly existence as though you were a God (for example, treating others as though they were your inferiors, demanding service, lying, cheating, stealing), to that extent you will BE a God in the afterlife, with your choice of an infinity of virgins and other pleasures?

The argument for this more extreme belief system is that same Pascal's wager: If you believe and are correct, you get ALL the goodies; if you are wrong, you get less (and "less" is the more accurate term than "nothing", since as I've pointed out, living an optimally productive and peaceful life in a universe in which God does not exist is hardly of no value - it may, in fact, be the absolute most that is available).

hey, there's an easy way to find out what heppens when you die - unfortunately it' wouldn't be possible to share the answers with the living. Unless you find an answer to the question - how to communicate with the dead ?

 

[dornick]

Originally posted by: 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.

agreed

 

[Chinadefender]

This is the simplist and greatest philosophic question.

Millions of opinions since humans get self-consciousness............

Almost all religions and philosophic schools are based on it.

But I really do not know what would happen.........

 

[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

I'm supposed to impressed because you referenced 5 books?

Do you know how many scholarly books have been written regarding Christian apologetics?

 

[conjur]

Apologetics is fundamentally flawed and has been proven to be so. The books I referenced above are reviews/studies of actual manuscripts, tablets, etc.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur
Apologetics is fundamentally flawed and has been proven to be so. The books I referenced above are reviews/studies of actual manuscripts, tablets, etc.

Oh, I see. Guess I'll have to have renounce my faith now. :disgust:

 

[conjur]

You'd be better off, actually.


Seriously, why does your faith *require* a divine Christ? Can't you just follow his teachings since he never claimed to be divine and didn't even die on the cross?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur
You'd be better off, actually.


Seriously, why does your faith *require* a divine Christ? Can't you just follow his teachings since he never claimed to be divine and didn't even die on the cross?

You actually acknowledge that there was a historical figure named Jesus? I'm impressed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
You'd be better off, actually.


Seriously, why does your faith *require* a divine Christ? Can't you just follow his teachings since he never claimed to be divine and didn't even die on the cross?

You actually acknowledge that there was a historical figure named Jesus? I'm impressed.

Why wouldn't I? Now, answer the questions, please.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur
You'd be better off, actually.


Seriously, why does your faith *require* a divine Christ? Can't you just follow his teachings since he never claimed to be divine and didn't even die on the cross?

My faith requires it because my faith is based on truth.

On what basis do you make your allegations?

 

[Gaard]

Rip, doesn't your faith require you to have faith that what you can't prove is true?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Rip, doesn't your faith require you to have faith that what you can't prove is true?

No.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard
Rip, doesn't your faith require you to have faith that what you can't prove is true?

No.

Your faith doesn't rquire you to believe in God?

 

[sothsegger]

after i die, i'll probably turn once or twice in my grave, and then stir no more

 

[Riprorin]

The existence of the universe and the complexity of life are proof enough to me of the existence of God.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The existence of the universe and the complexity of life are proof enough to me of the existence of God.

That's what I thought.

 

[RobCur]

you'll find out when you're dead, but why try to figure it out now.
You're all jumping to conclusion for nothing.

 

[judasmachine]

the worms crawl in
the worms crawl out
..........................

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
You'd be better off, actually.


Seriously, why does your faith *require* a divine Christ? Can't you just follow his teachings since he never claimed to be divine and didn't even die on the cross?

My faith requires it because my faith is based on truth.

On what basis do you make your allegations?

From Biblical scholars, archaeological findings, new and more accurate translations, etc. Your blind acceptance of the literal translation of the Bible is not faith. It's irrational. The Bible also never shows Jesus claiming to be divine. Why can't you see the symbolism that exists in the Bible? All other ancient works have it, why would the Bible be any different? Also, many parts of the Bible are descended from older works and tales from other cultures.

A critical review of the history of the Bible and the symbolism therein shows the truth so obviously that you cannot deny it.

Again, I ask you why you cannot just live your life following the teachings of Jesus instead of the propaganda of the Church?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard
Rip, doesn't your faith require you to have faith that what you can't prove is true?

No.

Your faith doesn't rquire you to believe in God?

Common guys, it's clear. He is GOD.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Gaard
Rip, doesn't your faith require you to have faith that what you can't prove is true?

No.

Your faith doesn't rquire you to believe in God?

Common guys, it's clear. He is GOD.

uh...science requires faith, you dunces.

of course the basics can be proven, but the fact that those basics even exist requires faith. point is, neither science or religion can prove where the universe came from. science has answered many questions, but several major ones still remain.

your puny circle.... HA! pi? that's hardly a definitive answer.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
You'd be better off, actually.


Seriously, why does your faith *require* a divine Christ? Can't you just follow his teachings since he never claimed to be divine and didn't even die on the cross?

My faith requires it because my faith is based on truth.

On what basis do you make your allegations?

From Biblical scholars, archaeological findings, new and more accurate translations, etc. Your blind acceptance of the literal translation of the Bible is not faith. It's irrational. The Bible also never shows Jesus claiming to be divine. Why can't you see the symbolism that exists in the Bible? All other ancient works have it, why would the Bible be any different? Also, many parts of the Bible are descended from older works and tales from other cultures.

A critical review of the history of the Bible and the symbolism therein shows the truth so obviously that you cannot deny it.

Again, I ask you why you cannot just live your life following the teachings of Jesus instead of the propaganda of the Church?

Jesus does claim to be devine. You're starting with a false premise.

 

[conjur]

Ooof. You should really seek psychiatric help for your delusions.

He NEVER claimed to be divine.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

uh...science requires faith, you dunces.

of course the basics can be proven, but the fact that those basics even exist requires faith. point is, neither science or religion can prove where the universe came from. science has answered many questions, but several major ones still remain.

your puny circle.... HA! pi? that's hardly a definitive answer.

No, it doesn't. It requires constant doubt, but a rational acceptance of what is most likely.

The very idea of gravity is one that is merely a model, it is not a "reality." It could be disproven tomorrow. It has undergone vast changes over the last century, and those changes are still happening today.

Science is merely this:

An assembly of the models which are most accurately supported by all observed evidence. That's all it is; a bunch of models. Some of these have stood the test of time so well that we refer to them as "laws." That is at its base inaccurate. But we can be pretty sure that common everyday experience will not contradict them, so for all practical purposes we can treat them as laws. Basically, we've been looking at classical mechanics for 400 years, no one has ever found an exception (except for the documented problems at the quantum and relevatistic levels), so it's a pretty safe bet that every action you will ever encounter will have an equal and opposite reaction. So pretend it's a law. Just easier that way.

Edit: You're wrong about Pi. Pi hinges on the fundamental definition of what a "circle" is. A circle is defines as a figure where every "point" on it is equidistant from a given point. With that definition, there is a given geometric proof that the circumference (another concept that hinges on a definition) is exactly the diameter times (oops, the very idea of multiplication must be defined) Pi.

What's going on in mathematics, and all logical systems, is that a set of definitions (which may be arbitrarily set) have certain conclusions that follow neccessarily. The thing is, those original definitions are merely creations of the human brain, and as such may have nothing to do with absolute truth.

 

[jer0608]

OK, I may still be confused (see bold):

Originally posted by: dornick
I think the doctrine of Hell is one of the most misunderstood of Christianity. The Catholic Church, of which I am a member, teaches the Hell is nothing more than eternal seperation from God. Some of the popular fallacies are...

1) Hell is the universe's worst torture dungeon.

The only pain and torture inflicted on a soul in Hell is the consequence of being distant from an all loving God. The images of fire and what not in the Bible are symbols for this pain.

2) Hell is run by the Devil and demons.

While the devil would love to see everyone turn away from God, people don't go to his "kingdom" when they die. They have chosen to turn away from God but that doesn't mean Satan gets total power over them.

3) With eternal torture, everybody would repent, so they don't deserve to be there any more.

The problem here is thinking that you can repent when you're dead. Our life on Earth is the time for choosing whether we will accept God or not. Once you die, you're stuck with that choice. The souls in Hell may be in pain, but they still hate God just as much as they did when they entered Hell.
Why is being distant from/rejecting God == to hating God? My understanding of those who are not Christian, is that they perceive God differently (often with love, I might add) or not at all. In neither case is any animosity present.

4) If God were all merciful, he wouldn't send anyone away from him.

While God would love for everyone to join Him in heaven, what's he supposed to do when people tell Him they refuse and declare themselves their own god?
You and I may perceive "all loving" differently. I would classify imposing eternal retribution on doubters as "spiteful and immature" rather than "all loving".
Plus, explain how rejecting the Christian God is equivalent to "declaring themselves their own god"?

5) People get sent to Hell for their actions, especially small things like not going to Church.

People get sent to Hell for rejecting God, and treating themselves like a deity: not for the actions. It is true that it's impossible to do bad things and still accept God, but the point is it isn't the actions that seperate people from God, it's their own pride.
Again, I see rejecting the Christian God and treating oneself as a deity/having excessive pride as two very different things. What is the connection?

I hope this clears up some of the misconceptions out there, post back if you're still confused or want to argue.
Actually, regarding the Catholic interpretation of Hell, you told me some things I did not know. I thank you for that