What happens after death?

[Gausslander]

I guess you didn't read the part where he said he's not agnostic.

I did I just made a small typo. I edited it right before you posted

 

[Arvedui]

I did I just made a small typo. I edited it right before you posted

ah ok. sorry

 

[Cyb3r]

"What happens after death?"

I don't care, just hate to waste time with this question.
Remembers me of a naruto episode, Kakuzu said
"even hell runs on money" xD

 

[Gausslander]

"What happens after death?"

I don't care, just hate to waste time with this question.
Remembers me of a naruto episode, Kakuzu said
"even hell runs on money" xD

Naruto? Seriously? You realize every noob on this site is absolutely obsessed with that TV show. But, given that no money makes its way to either hell or heaven, that comment is completely irrelevant.

 

[Pyritie]

that comment is completely irrelevant.

Look who's talking.

 

[Aschy]

How can you love Agnostics and hate Atheists?
That's like loving bread abut hating butter.

And I know you're not Agnostic, but the fact that you hate one point of view and love the other doesn't make any sense. We're so closely bonded to each other that hating one and not the other doesn't make any sense.

All we do is publicize our disbelief in god, rather then shadowing it in uncertainty.

I'm no scientist, but aren't those who are Agnostics believe that there is a God but that he doesn't interfere with human's?

If so, you can eat your bread and throw out the butter.

 

[Elenai]

There are some people who are intolerant of butter, and other milk products.

 

[PurplePoot]

I'm no scientist, but aren't those who are Agnostics believe that there is a God but that he doesn't interfere with human's?

If so, you can eat your bread and throw out the butter.

Agnostics are fence-sitters. Technically we're all agnostic to some degree - for example, as I usually say, I'm agnostic, leaning atheist (since I do not by any means think there is definitely no god, but I see it as being more likely that there isn't).

 

[Gilles]

Fence sitting seems like a weak stance. I can understand if you don't know, but isn't this something that people should strive to find out quickly? It's a matter of life and death. I just find some people sue it as a way out.

 

[Gausslander]

I'm no scientist, but aren't those who are Agnostics believe that there is a God but that he doesn't interfere with human's?

If so, you can eat your bread and throw out the butter.

Actually you're wrong. Keep the butter.
Agnostics stance is they just don't know if there is a god or not, you assumer.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Agnosticism is an open acknowledgement of a lack of information. If agnosticism were to be a formal stance on God or gods, it would be that agnostics have beliefs about God (one way or another), but do not have definitive claims.

 

[PurplePoot]

Fence sitting seems like a weak stance. I can understand if you don't know, but isn't this something that people should strive to find out quickly? It's a matter of life and death. I just find some people sue it as a way out.

But you can't find out, that's the point...

Society has a horrible misconception these days that admitting that you don't know the answer is a bad thing, even when it is by far the most rational explanation.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yeah, I'd have to agree with Poot here. People have to realize now that you can't have everything. You can't know everything. there's some stuff that we'll NEVER know the answer over.

I don't know the answer, I don't think anyone knows the answer. We're not supposed to know the answer, that's why we're flawed and imperfect.

 

[Lohengrin]

If you ask me, agnosticism is boring.

Of course there are no definitive claims about an idea that was accepted and remained unsubstantiated for millennia.

The sun will burn out before we have any definitive claims, though that doesn't stop me from denying dubious ideas.

 

[Aschy]

Fence sitting seems like a weak stance. I can understand if you don't know, but isn't this something that people should strive to find out quickly? It's a matter of life and death. I just find some people sue it as a way out.

Well yes it is pretty weak, but its more if you were a theist before when you were a child and an atheist now. It usually means that you don't want to repent, or have been hurt by your current religion depending if you believed in your religion in the first place.

 

[Hakeem]

All we do is publicize our disbelief in god, rather then shadowing it in uncertainty.

I do not consider the people shadowing it to be agnostic.

Technically we're all agnostic to some degree

This is why I do the above and consider you atheist. If we say that everyone is at least a tiny bit agnostic, then the group of agnostics becomes synonymous with the group of everyone, and becomes another synonym.

If you're debating one way or the other, your are not agnostic. To be agnostic, you must debate that it is possible that God does or does not exist, depending on the original statement that you are replying to. It does no good to debate one possibility with another.

You can't know everything. there's some stuff that we'll NEVER know the answer over.

Everything happens, if you wait long enough.

I think it's unhealthy to say that we cannot know, that it cannot be done. Of course, the naysayers wont stop the people doing stuff by their words alone. Where would we be today if we listened to the naysayers? We wouldn't be in outer space, the sky, across the ocean...

 

[CMarket]

I think it's unhealthy to say that we cannot know, that it cannot be done. Of course, the naysayers wont stop the people doing stuff by their words alone. Where would we be today if we listened to the naysayers? We wouldn't be in outer space, the sky, across the ocean...

We might only be able to prove that god does not exist in time, if we truly find out the reason for creating matter. However, other than the circumstance that god actually shows up, there won't ever be a definite proof that god exists.

 

[Aschy]

We might only be able to prove that god does not exist in time, if we truly find out the reason for creating matter. However, other than the circumstance that god actually shows up, there won't ever be a definite proof that god exists.

Well there is prophecy's in the bible to look out for if you believe them.

 

[Hakeem]

We might only be able to prove that god does not exist in time, if we truly find out the reason for creating matter. However, other than the circumstance that god actually shows up, there won't ever be a definite proof that god exists.

You've got that backwards. We may be able to find proof that he does exist, but to know that he does not exist, would, as Elenai said, require omniscience.

We may be able to search every inch of Pluto for a heart shaped rock, but no matter how far we search the cosmos, we can never be sure we didn't miss a spot, or that there isn't more beyond us that we don't even know about.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[PurplePoot]

This is why I do the above and consider you atheist. If we say that everyone is at least a tiny bit agnostic, then the group of agnostics becomes synonymous with the group of everyone, and becomes another synonym.

If you're debating one way or the other, your are not agnostic. To be agnostic, you must debate that it is possible that God does or does not exist, depending on the original statement that you are replying to. It does no good to debate one possibility with another.

Fair enough. I'm really opposed to organized religion in particular though.

 

[Lohengrin]

You've got that backwards. We may be able to find proof that he does exist, but to know that he does not exist, would, as Elenai said, require omniscience.

We may be able to search every inch of Pluto for a heart shaped rock, but no matter how far we search the cosmos, we can never be sure we didn't miss a spot, or that there isn't more beyond us that we don't even know about.

Though if, in due time, we discover some sort of non-sentient entity that is proven to be capable of creating worlds and the seeds of life, and we also discover solid traces which prove that this certain entity created us and our world, well, one could still argue that their God exists but upon this discovery, the way in which individuals and religions define God would drastically change, no? If it wasn't your God who created you and your world then... what?

 

[Hakeem]

It would be pretty significant, to say the least.


Relevant to the original topic, it'd also be interesting to find a physical afterlife.

 

[Gausslander]

It would be pretty significant, to say the least.


Relevant to the original topic, it'd also be interesting to find a physical afterlife.

It'd be practically impossible, however if some 'being' was consuming our energy, basically eating us, it'd be very interesting.

 

[brad.dude03]

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves."
- Bill Hicks

Bill Hicks had a lot of good ideas like this. You're not supposed to take it literally. But there is a point. Why is this young man on acid any less right than anyone else? He could be right. We don't know the answer to these questions. His guess is as good as yours, or mine, or anyone's.

 

[Gilles]

It's self-evident that he isn't right. Almost all logic and reason leads to him being wrong.

 

[PurplePoot]

It's self-evident that he isn't right. Almost all logic and reason leads to him being wrong.

Think about what you just said.

 

[Gausslander]

It's self-evident that he isn't right. Almost all logic and reason leads to him being wrong.

You just stated what we believe to be our point of view about you, you realize this right?

 

[Gilles]

Think about what you just said.

You mean that I contradicted myself? Whoops.

You just stated what we believe to be our point of view about you, you realize this right?

Huh?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

You just stated what we believe to be our point of view about you, you realize this right?

Not having a logical reason to think one thing is not a logical reason to think its opposite. I prefer cold-cut combos to ham sandwiches at Subway, but I do not dislike ham sandwiches.

 

[PurplePoot]

You mean that I contradicted myself? Whoops.


Huh?

I mean what scyth said. People easily criticize the flaws in others' beliefs while assuming their own is infallible.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes, there is no logic or reason to believe that Christianity is the real deal. No more logic or reason than there is to believe that anyone else is right. I'd really like to hear some logical and rational reasons as to why anyone's belief is completely infallible, and definitely the way things are, period, end of story. Here's another example:

"The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think that it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly coloured, and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question - is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us. They say 'Hey! Don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride.' And we...kill those people. Ha ha ha. 'Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride. SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and family. This just has to be real.' It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter because: it's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings, and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourselves off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what you can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defence each year, and instead spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, for ever, in peace."
Bill Hicks

 

[Gausslander]

Listen, I'm unreligious because I do not believe in the Christian god, or the Hindu Gods, or any other deity currently in circulation.

So I don't believe in the Christian god, and the whole reason I'm unreligious is because people say that they know what the true religion is and they know that the Christian god is the true god. I guess I've been contradicting myself in saying that I'm an full-on atheist, I'm a little bit in between Agnostic and Atheist in the way that I put myself out in public, I just don't associate with any religion because there is so much evidence against it.

 

[Hakeem]

People easily criticize the flaws in others' beliefs while assuming their own is infallible.

I've noticed this in a generalized form in debating anarchy and agalmics. When provided an alternative, people try to find flaws in the alternative, but will easily overlook the fact that the current thing they have has the same flaws.

I'd really like to hear some logical and rational reasons as to why anyone's belief is completely infallible, and definitely the way things are, period, end of story.

I submit unto you a book: The Qur'an.

I then challenge you to find a flaw in it.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I'd really like to hear some logical and rational reasons as to why anyone's belief is completely infallible, and definitely the way things are, period, end of story.

The cake is a lie. The robot got it, but I didn't. And what sort of robot eats real cake?

 

[xRikkux]

The cake is a lie. The robot got it, but I didn't. And what sort of robot eats real cake?

i dont know,but if you find this robot please let me know, i want to take him home as a pet and feed him cake ^-^

 

[brad.dude03]

I submit unto you a book: The Qur'an.

I then challenge you to find a flaw in it.

It's well known that Islam doesn't exactly champion women's rights. I tend to respect equality rather than an overly masculine society, or an overly feminist backlash.

 

[Elenai]

Hmmn...

Ever read 'the butter battle book' by Dr. Seuss?

I know it is a child's book...and seems rather random. BUT! there is a point.

I challenge you to find a flaw in it's message

 

[brad.dude03]

Dr. Seuss was a crazy psychologist, so no surprise.

 

[Gilles]

I mean what scyth said. People easily criticize the flaws in others' beliefs while assuming their own is infallible.

I didn't say mine was infallible, and I was talking mostly about the "life is only a dream", and "there is no such thing as death". If we don't accept existence, there's not a whole lot we can accept, so I feel it is self-evident that we exist.

Yes, there is no logic or reason to believe that Christianity is the real deal. No more logic or reason than there is to believe that anyone else is right. I'd really like to hear some logical and rational reasons as to why anyone's belief is completely infallible, and definitely the way things are, period, end of story.

My reason is based largely on experience.

It would be easier for you to point out something in the Church, than for me to try and reason it's infallibility.

 

[PurplePoot]

I didn't say mine was infallible, and I was talking mostly about the "life is only a dream", and "there is no such thing as death". If we don't accept existence, there's not a whole lot we can accept, so I feel it is self-evident that we exist.

You have to exist to dream.

My reason is based largely on experience.

Elaborate. The interesting thing about this argument is that people still apply it even though people of most opposing beliefs do as well.

It would be easier for you to point out something in the Church, than for me to try and reason it's infallibility.

Didn't we just spend some huge amount of pages discussing the church?

 

[Gilles]

You have to exist to dream.

That's true. Then what exactly was he talking about?

Elaborate. The interesting thing about this argument is that people still apply it even though people of most opposing beliefs do as well.

I can't possibly elaborate in this small paragraph.
One thing I've found throughout my short life, is that I've been happier the closer I am to God. Perhaps this is brainwashing, or I just feel good about myself since I'm doing what I'm told is the right thing, but it's something that has kept me within the Church lately (among other things of course).

Didn't we just spend some huge amount of pages discussing the church?

Exactly?!

 

[PurplePoot]

That's true. Then what exactly was he talking about?

This world, I imagine.

I can't possibly elaborate in this small paragraph.
One thing I've found throughout my short life, is that I've been happier the closer I am to God. Perhaps this is brainwashing, or I just feel good about myself since I'm doing what I'm told is the right thing, but it's something that has kept me within the Church lately (among other things of course).

That has nothing to do with reality, but if it works for you then fair enough.

Exactly?!

So why are you asking about it again?

 

[Gilles]

This world, I imagine.

Alright, what evidence does he have for his statements? I know they weren't meant to be taken literally, and he was trying to make a point, but I don't think he has a point since there's no evidence there.

That has nothing to do with reality, but if it works for you then fair enough.

I believe it has everything to do with reality. I think God is real, and the closer we are to him, the happier we will be, that's how he created us to be. For you, it's not reality, since you don't believe in God.

So why are you asking about it again?

brad, I think, asked me to reason why I am Catholic, or something. Since the Church has stated it's stance, and reasoning on almost everything, it would be easier for people to ask me questions, than for me to try and reason my belief as a whole.

 

[Hakeem]

It's well known that Islam doesn't exactly champion women's rights.

Most things well known tend to be false.

 

[brad.dude03]

Or common knowledge. I know Muslim women, and I know how their society treats them.

 

[PurplePoot]

Alright, what evidence does he have for his statements? I know they weren't meant to be taken literally, and he was trying to make a point, but I don't think he has a point since there's no evidence there.

What evidence do you have for your statements? None. That doesn't stop you from believing them.

I believe it has everything to do with reality. I think God is real, and the closer we are to him, the happier we will be, that's how he created us to be. For you, it's not reality, since you don't believe in God.

Then they do not exist, since that which is subjective does not exist objectively.

 

[Gilles]

What evidence do you have for your statements? None. That doesn't stop you from believing them.

The Bible, and passed down tradition?

Then they do not exist, since that which is subjective does not exist objectively.

Perhaps you're right. I hate using objective and subjective since they're such general, and to me, confusing words. I'll take it that objective truth is that which is discovered, not created (taken from Wikipedia).

Isn't it arguable that Jesus Christ and the bible are objective truth to God? If Jesus really did live, and everything in the New Testament is true, then it wasn't something "created", it was "discovered", right?

I'll admit I'm a bit confused, I'll think about it some more.

 

[PurplePoot]

The Bible, and passed down tradition?

Neither of those are evidence.

• If I say that I am right, that is not evidence that I am right.
• Many things have been passed down, and I'm sure you would agree the ones not pertaining to catholicism (like the old wives tales) are bullshit.

Perhaps you're right. I hate using objective and subjective since they're such general, and to me, confusing words. I'll take it that objective truth is that which is discovered, not created (taken from Wikipedia).

Isn't it arguable that Jesus Christ and the bible are objective truth to God? If Jesus really did live, and everything in the New Testament is true, then it wasn't something "created", it was "discovered", right?

I'll admit I'm a bit confused, I'll think about it some more.

If they were completely accurate, then yes, it would prove it, but there is no evidence to show that they are, and thus no reason to state that they prove it. Objective truths are properties of objects, for example: hydrogen has one proton. Subjective truths are properties we give to objects, for example: iron is hard, or dandelions are yellow, as both of these words only mean anything in the context of the person who said them. Taking subjective evidence (experience, feeling, etc) and applying it to an objective fact (in this case, a property of the universe - the existence of a god) is obviously invalid.

Consider this example: if you had two cultures, one in which everyone was 'tall' and the other in which everyone was 'short' (relative to you) the first culture would consider you short and the second would consider you tall, though your height (the objective property) would in fact be the same. As such, subjective interpretation cannot be applied to objective properties (which is one of the major reasons why science is always approaching the truth, but never certain - even a diverse community agreeing on something may still not come upon the reality of that thing).

 

[Gilles]

Neither of those are evidence.

• If I say that I am right, that is not evidence that I am right.
• Many things have been passed down, and I'm sure you would agree the ones not pertaining to catholicism (like the old wives tales) are bullshit.

Why aren't they evidence?
Your first point doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
Your second point doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Sure, lot's of things passed down are bullshit, but you yourself insinuated that not all are. I consider it to be evidence therefore.

If they were completely accurate, then yes, it would prove it, but there is no evidence to show that they are, and thus no reason to state that they prove it. Objective truths are properties of objects, for example: hydrogen has one proton. Subjective truths are properties we give to objects, for example: iron is hard, or dandelions are yellow, as both of these words only mean anything in the context of the person who said them. Taking subjective evidence (experience, feeling, etc) and applying it to an objective fact (in this case, a property of the universe - the existence of a god) is obviously invalid.

Consider this example: if you had two cultures, one in which everyone was 'tall' and the other in which everyone was 'short' (relative to you) the first culture would consider you short and the second would consider you tall, though your height (the objective property) would in fact be the same. As such, subjective interpretation cannot be applied to objective properties (which is one of the major reasons why science is always approaching the truth, but never certain - even a diverse community agreeing on something may still not come upon the reality of that thing).

Ahh, that makes sense, fair enough.

I'll go back then. You said: "That has nothing to do with reality..."
What exactly did you mean? Does reality only contain the objective?

 

[PurplePoot]

Why aren't they evidence?

Because of the points I gave.

Your first point doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

Yes it does; I was referring to the bible. Just because the bible says it is the word of god does not mean it is the word of god. As such, the bible is not evidence.

Your second point doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Sure, lot's of things passed down are bullshit, but you yourself insinuated that not all are. I consider it to be evidence therefore.

If it's evidence, it's too weak to matter, due to the fact that we can both agree that stories passed down are no reliable source of information.

I'll go back then. You said: "That has nothing to do with reality..."
What exactly did you mean? Does reality only contain the objective?

Physical reality does. No matter what you believe, you won't ressurrect if consciousness is simply a chemical process. No matter whether god is "subjectively true" to you, s/he/it cannot affect anything due to the fact that it is not objective and thus has no relation to the world as we know it.