What happens after death?

[Dark Master]

Let`s back on the theme.

 

[Elenai]

Let`s back on the theme.

You're one to talk. Conversations shift foci.

 

[Dark Master]

Easy... There is one thread to discuss about God...

 

[CMarket]

Why wouldn't he want to be praised, and loved, and to love, his creation?

He is a father, in the ultimate sense of the word. He made 'you' in his image, he brought you into life, watching over you as you grow, intervening in tiny subtle ways. Why would you not be like a son to him, even though you are not 'begotten'?

Just because he is God, and is above us, does not mean that he has to be completely polarized against us in how he works.

We are above the animals, but do we not enjoy being pet, and scratched, etc, and given a treat, or toy? (I know I do)

Well, if you think about it, he sort of is. If he is all powerful than he can't have any human attributes as humans are flawed in everything. Emotions are essentially irrational and therefore they can lead to imperfection, even the good ones. If god is perfect he can't have human emotions.

Let`s back on the theme.

You're telling us? We've been on this theme for the last 10 pages(or more). True it might not be what the title says but it's a deep and thorough discussion and we won't just end it because a guy who until recently has spammed and mocked religious people. And please, stop thinking that you are smarter than the rest of us and don't act like you have any authority over Elenai.

 

[Elenai]

Well, if you think about it, he sort of is. If he is all powerful than he can't have any human attributes as humans are flawed in everything. Emotions are essentially irrational and therefore they can lead to imperfection, even the good ones. If god is perfect he can't have human emotions.

Perhaps not 'human' emotions, but godly ones

God's emotions may be something akin to this hypothetical, (slightly utopian example xD I know adults don't always act like this, or even children, but bear with me)

"A child is happy when he gets dessert, but the adult is happy when he sees the child enjoy it."

"The child gets mad over every little thing, and is irrational and does damage. The adult gets mad, but is patient, and intelligently deals with it."

The emotions of the child (human) are lowly, and lead to flaws. The emotions of God are perfect, and high, but the emotions experienced are 'the same' in principle.

If that made sense

 

[Pyritie]

Who says?

Maybe this god of yours just got bored one day, made humans, played with them a bit, then got bored?

 

[Dark Master]

Maybe........
Maybe not.......
Oh, so many questions - Does God exist, What happens after death, who is Albert Einstein etc etc...

 

[Elenai]

Who says?

Maybe this god of yours just got bored one day, made humans, played with them a bit, then got bored?

Or not...

maybe's maybe's everywhere...maybe I am not amused, by all the maybe's everywhere, who are so very over used.

 

[Pyritie]

I'm just saying. I dunno what he's like. You have no idea what he's like. Nobody else does either, really.

 

[Tyranid]

Or not.

Or maybe he did.

 

[Elenai]

I'm just saying. I dunno what he's like. You have no idea what he's like. Nobody else does either, really.

We already argued that point. The God I am talking about, is the god I know, not an orange.

Or maybe he did.

...maybe's are not very solid things to debate with.

 

[Hakeem]

Well, I'm getting more and more confused on what the discussion is about, but, I have a question.

I have to admit, I TL;DR a bit of this thread.

If god is indeed all powerful and so on and so forth and he can do anything, knows anything, etc. why does he need a bunch of small meaningless creatures like us to worship him? Is he really that petty that he needs our worship?

"need"? "meaningless"?

If he is all powerful than he can't have any human attributes as humans are flawed in everything.

Then maybe what he has are perfect attributes.
You mean to say, "If there exists X which is imperfect, Then there cannot be a perfect version of X."?

Emotions are essentially irrational and therefore they can lead to imperfection, even the good ones.

Maybe then, his emotions are not irrational.

If god is perfect he can't have human emotions.

I have reason to believe God created us in his image. Not a photon image, the "chip off the old block" sense of the word.

Maybe this god of yours just got bored one day, made humans, played with them a bit, then got bored?

Then how is it we persist to exist?

 

[Gausslander]

"Nietzsche is dead." - God

And your quote from a magical space fairy is so much better, huh?

 

[Pyritie]

We already argued that point. The God I am talking about, is the god I know, not an orange.

You're acting like it's everyone's interpretation of god. Isn't that what some movement in the past or whatever was about? Having a more personal relationship with him?

 

[Elenai]

You're acting like it's everyone's interpretation of god. Isn't that what some movement in the past or whatever was about? Having a more personal relationship with him?

You on the other hand, are acting as if I know anything about my god.

 

[Aschy]

You're acting like it's everyone's interpretation of god. Isn't that what some movement in the past or whatever was about? Having a more personal relationship with him?

Well if everyone used exactly the same interpretation of Dead See Scrolls we all "should" have roughly the same interpretation of "God" else, but this is something your gonna have to take up with who published your bible.

But by reading the Bible you can read account's of people that are suppose to have had dealings with God or talked with him. If you believe the bible and prayer then you are at great advantage to finding out who God really is, and what he is like which I would think is most of the reason why he initiated the Bible.

 

[Pyritie]

But aren't you supposed to interpret the bible your own way instead of taking it literally?

 

[Elenai]

Parts of it you take literally, parts of it you take with a parable based attitude, parts of it you take with a philosophical attitude.

What God wants from someone, and requires...is usually literal...

 

[CMarket]

But aren't you supposed to interpret the bible your own way instead of taking it literally?

Actually, this is entirely correct. A priest at my church once said about the bible: "These are just stories that are meant to help people in the right direction. Love your neighbor. Be a good person. That’s it! When you start turning the stories into literal translations of hierarchies and power you end up acting like you are God's right hand man, which is wrong.", or something along those lines.

 

[Elenai]

This priest is not entirely accurate.

There are stories yes...but there is also a non-fiction section...

Parts of it are meant to be literal, the whole thing isn't just meant to be symbolic myth. I do however, not see anything mentioning hierarchies, or powers, or anyone being God's right hand, except Christ himself.

 

[Pyritie]

There are all sorts of stuff in the bible that would be controversial if taken literally.

 

[Elenai]

There are also many things that entirely lose their purpose, if they are taking symbolically.

 

[Dionesiist]

Oh wow, how did this get from "What happens after death?" to "Does God exist or not?"

 

[Elenai]

Conversations shift foci.

 

[brad.dude03]

Not really, this didn't shift, it went on a fucking rampage. But it's stayed civil, for the most part, so I'm keeping it open.

Whenever you discuss life after death, it's a matter of belief. Nobody knows what happens after we die, so it turns into speculation. Speculation that often has some root in the various religions and belief systems of the world.

Thus God gets dragged into things.

 

[Aschy]

But aren't you supposed to interpret the bible your own way instead of taking it literally?

Exactly, but if taking it literally is your interpretation then good for you cause if shit ever went down your probably good.

 

[Hakeem]

Oh wow, how did this get from "What happens after death?" to "Does God exist or not?"

When someone who had not made up their mind joined in.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Well, I'm getting more and more confused on what the discussion is about, but, I have a question.

If god is indeed all powerful and so on and so forth and he can do anything, knows anything, etc. why does he need a bunch of small meaningless creatures like us to worship him? Is he really that petty that he needs our worship? I really don't get it.

The last time I bothered to care, God doesn't need people to worship Him/Her/It. S/He/It loves us, and would like to let us into heaven, but can't unless we meet certain criteria (which do not necessarily include active worship, but do include practicing certain habits and attitudes towards people).

 

[Sharinganeye]

Nothing

I think that after death there's nothing, it's like if you were sleeping for all the eternity but without dreaming, i think that nobody can tell it to you, it's very complicated, i think that there's nothing we can call life and nothing we can call death, life's when all your organs are in fuction and they let you see, walk, think.... And death is when your organs cannot do it and you just stop, but that's only my opinion

 

[CMarket]

i think that nobody can tell it to you

Well, obviously, at least so far.

i think that there's nothing we can call life

There isn't?

life's when all your organs are in fuction and they let you see, walk, think....

I thought you said just a second ago that there isn't.

 

[Gilles]

But aren't you supposed to interpret the bible your own way instead of taking it literally?

For Luther it was, but to the Catholic Church, not so much. You don't take everything literally, but you also don't just interpret things by yourself.

 

[Gausslander]

Parts of it you take literally, parts of it you take with a parable based attitude, parts of it you take with a philosophical attitude.

What God wants from someone, and requires...is usually literal...

I do not believe, because I don't want to believe.

 

[Shados]

I have free will...can I embezzle some money and get away with it?

Your example is misleading, because it is an example based on physical reality. If you agree that you are your soul, mind, whatever you want to call it, not your body, and given that free will is the ability of your mind to control itself; it would by definiton require that the mind is what it wants to be.

I seem to have misread, forgive me:

A perfect system becomes imperfect when someone 'fiddles with it' and corrupts it from its purpose.

Like: The devil introducing the concept of 'lying' to a universe where lying is not existent. (yes a somewhat diluted example, but still..)

But if that 'someone' is within the system, then they must by definition also be perfect, and hence so must all they do and make. As such, only someone outside of the perfect system could corrupt it. As far as I can see, your arguments allow only god to be outside of the system he created - who else could then corrupt it?

Which requires a starting point.

Yes, but that starting point does not in itself have anything to do with morals. We do not begin with morals, we develop them.

No.
Sin is doing wrong, doing wrong is committing a malicious action were you do not have the right to do so. It is not subjective, it is objective being based on the very nature of humankind.

...But 'wrong', 'malicious', 'rights' and the 'nature of mankind' are all subjective as well. Everyone has their own subjective interpretation, with some amount of intersubjective qualia shared between members of a group and society in order for them to function, but that does not make them objective.

Because if it never came from anywhere, it would not exist.

Only in a finite linear timeline. Either an infinite timeline or a circular or spiral timeline allows for something to have always existed. Not to mention, arguing that something must come from another thing to exist (without naming a prime cause, which in itself must have always existed) creates a vicious regression, and as such is logically impossible.

Feral children pick up the social norms and habits of the wild.

Which supports my point - we are not born with these social norms, habits and morals, we learn them from the group or society we grow up in.

 

[Hakeem]

Only in a finite linear timeline. Either an infinite timeline or a circular or spiral timeline allows for something to have always existed.

It is fallacy to give a geometric shape to a time line. It either repeats, or does not.

To say that the complete cosmos is a repeating time line, requires that the cosmos, "Just is," in its entirety.

Not to mention, arguing that something must come from another thing to exist (without naming a prime cause, which in itself must have always existed) creates a vicious regression, and as such is logically impossible.

Hence the search for a prime cause.

Which supports my point - we are not born with these social norms, habits and morals, we learn them from the group or society we grow up in.

That you can divert the stream does not mean that the previous path was as natural as the first.

That you can torture someone into admitting to something that they did not do, does not make it true that they have done that action.

You must prove the cause of morals is entirely the presence of other humans, and not an internal factor. As I said, this requires a control group. This proves extremely difficult in the field of biology. Showing that you can force water to remain a liquid at temperatures below zero degrees Celsius does not prove that water cannot freeze at those same temperatures.

 

[Shados]

To say that the complete cosmos is a repeating time line, requires that the cosmos, "Just is," in its entirety.

Hence the search for a prime cause.

If you do not accept that the universe simply is, then that property is merely shifted to whatever prime cause you name.

 

[Elenai]

Your example is misleading, because it is an example based on physical reality. If you agree that you are your soul, mind, whatever you want to call it, not your body, and given that free will is the ability of your mind to control itself; it would by definiton require that the mind is what it wants to be.

What does that have to do with your rules being trumped by God's?

But if that 'someone' is within the system, then they must by definition also be perfect, and hence so must all they do and make. As such, only someone outside of the perfect system could corrupt it. As far as I can see, your arguments allow only god to be outside of the system he created - who else could then corrupt it?

My Warcraft is perfect, until a Blizzard employee makes a faulty patch.

God is outside of his system, he is above it. Who else could then corrupt it? A creation with free will, who chooses himself over God, and then goes on a rebellious rampage.

...But 'wrong', 'malicious', 'rights' and the 'nature of mankind' are all subjective as well. Everyone has their own subjective interpretation, with some amount of intersubjective qualia shared between members of a group and society in order for them to function, but that does not make them objective.

Not quite so...

Do I own rights to your person, if indeed you have free will, and a nature of independence, (or potential for said independence) that is born into you? And therefore if I maliciously invade your rights...I am committing a wrong, which in God's eyes is a sin.

 

[Sharinganeye]

Yeah, there's nothing we can call life but I say what is more similar

 

[tomv8]

ok ma grandma had heart transplant so she experienced death heres what she said "after they cut into me i heard ringing things and then 0.0001 seconds later i woke up back 2 weeks into the future X.X" so.. there its nothing ... u just die and bai bai!

 

[tomv8]

oh and did i say u have ONLY 1 LIFE!!! so dont waste on religion!!1 do what ur heart desires! knock old ladies over!! and dont say sorry!

 

[Elenai]

And what about the hundreds of others who say "I saw the light, and felt love."?

And don't double post.

 

[CMarket]

And what about the hundreds of others who say "I saw the light, and felt love."?

Same thing as when you sleep. Sometimes you remember going to bed and 1 second later you're waking up to your alarm clock, feeling sad that you need to get ready for school while sometimes you dream a long and awesome dream and it seems like you've been sleeping for days.

Now, I'm not saying that those several people were in fact dreaming, I'm just saying it's pretty plausible.

 

[Elenai]

I was just making a tort rebuttal to his rather..."I said, I'm right" attitude.

I get what you are saying ^_^

 

[Pyritie]

My Warcraft is perfect, until a Blizzard employee makes a faulty patch.

Software is never perfect.

Bad metaphor by the way.

I was just making a tort rebuttal to his rather..."I said, I'm right" attitude.

Oh the irony.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

oh and did i say u have ONLY 1 LIFE!!! [HIGHLIGHT]so dont waste on religion[/code]!!1 do what ur heart desires! [HIGHLIGHT]knock old ladies over!! and dont say sorry[/code]!

For fucks sake, three times in one Goddamned week? I'm going to assume he can read (and that he reads other threads), stare at him, and wait for him to realise what I'm about to do to his self-esteem.

 

[Gausslander]

Elenai, your arguments are starting to ramble, and your metaphors and similies are making less and less sense the more you use them. You seem to just be agreeing with others now and restating what they said in your sort of 'haiku' style, which, is okay. But it'd be nice if you could argue the point at hand, which is none of us know what happens after death, and I know you don't because you don't have mental powers that I do not.

 

[Elenai]

Bad metaphor by the way.

...It got the point across, it is a metaphor for a reason.

Oh the irony.

I am Elenai, I am perfect, I am superior, I am always right, you are always wrong. Hows that for attitude?

Elenai, your arguments are starting to ramble, and your metaphors and similies are making less and less sense the more you use them. You seem to just be agreeing with others now and restating what they said in your sort of 'haiku' style, which, is okay. But it'd be nice if you could argue the point at hand, which is none of us know what happens after death, and I know you don't because you don't have mental powers that I do not.

I was debating with PurplePoot, and a Cmarket in a tiny little corner of what is this overarching discussion. I have a purpose in what I am/was doing. As for after death...I don't know specifically what is what...I'm making an educated guess, a hypothesis, on what I believe, and arguing from that, just as you or anyone else does.

 

[Gausslander]

As for after death...I don't know specifically what is what...I'm making an educated guess, a hypothesis, on what I believe, and arguing from that, just as you or anyone else does.

Right, educated. Most people who have the proper scientific knowledge to make a hypothesis about this have already come to the conclusion that religion most certainly is not it. Do you have any idea how many more atheist scientists there are as opposed to theist scientists?

 

[Elenai]

Right, educated. Most people who have the proper scientific knowledge to make a hypothesis about this have already come to the conclusion that religion most certainly is not it. Do you have any idea how many more atheist scientists there are as opposed to theist scientists?

A) that was very rude

B) the same reason global warming is going up in correlation to the number of ninjas going down. Statistics are not the entire story.

Atheists tend to come from usually well off families with the financial capability to send them to a good univeristy, this being said such atheists tend to become scientists more frequently than Christians, of whom being majority 'normal' people tend to follow differing professions like finance, and etc.

C) Religion is one of the biggest reasons science is even one minute increment as far as it is today.

D) Just because the majority says something is true, doesn't mean it is. However on that note, if majority rules in a vote, God does indeed exist, the afterlife does indeed exist, and Science and God are indeed compatible, and fully so, since the majority of the world believes in God, and a great many believe in Evolution as a possible way God created the world. On that note Evolution and Creationism are indeed compatible.

I was however making an educated guess about the afterlife based on my beliefs about said afterlife, and an educated guess stemming from said belief.

Just because Dr. <insert name> says there is no life after death, God, or reason to believe doesn't mean he is right, his profession is no gauge on his ability to be right or wrong. He has no more proof of Heaven than I do, no more proof of 'nothing' than you.

E) Ever consider this: We know roughly and I do pull this out of my ass, about 1-1000-billionth, of a percent about the universe. And only about 1/100th of all of that minuscule amount of knowledge that we do know about the universe is stored inside the head of any given genius at a time. They know alot yes...but they certainly do not know everything, in the least, little, teenie weenciest, itty bitty bit. And I can certainly say, they have by far not proven religions to be wrong, or their beliefs. They will certainly have a time doing so, since they have yet to know everything, and by sheer irony, and watch this:

"If they knew everything, they would be omniscient, and thus omnipresent (since in order to know everything one must be in all places at once, or have sight of everything at once) and since knowledge is power they would then be omnipotent, having knowledge over everything, thus knowing how to use it, and thus one who achieves these qualities would be by definition a god, and thus would by sheer irony exist."

Science is a great tool, and an excellent explanation for how things 'are' and how they occurred, but know this, science doesn't explain the 'why's and that is what religion is for. And don't knock the educational value, or the educated status of someone who does believe, because they are doing just as much service to the world as a godless man or woman, if not more.

And I'll leave you with that thought. Good day.

 

[Hakeem]

ok ma grandma had heart transplant so she experienced death heres what she said "after they cut into me i heard ringing things and then 0.0001 seconds later i woke up back 2 weeks into the future X.X" so.. there its nothing ... u just die and bai bai!

She came back though, didn't she? To me, that says that she was not dead.

Software is never perfect.

With that kind of delusion, you ought to give up.

Most people who have the proper scientific knowledge to make a hypothesis about this have already come to the conclusion that religion most certainly is not it. Do you have any idea how many more atheist scientists there are as opposed to theist scientists?

There are less scientists than non-scientists.
There are less theist scientists then atheist scientists?
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

If you've got a valid point to make, you don't need statistics to back it up. The point stands in its logical validity. Aside from that, what you provided was an ad hominem argument. What's more, you're coming dangerously close to the circular logic of dismissing a scientist as a scientist for the simple fact that he believes in God or divine history.

The correct stance on this issue is to not come to a conclusion. Admit that you do not know the answer. You can hypothesize all you want, but until there is an experiment you can conduct, a conclusion can never be reached. Creation of such an experiment proves nigh impossible, because you cannot create a control group of the cosmos.

 

[Gausslander]

A) that was very rude
Atheists tend to come from usually well off families with the financial capability to send them to a good univeristy, this being said such atheists tend to become scientists more frequently than Christians, of whom being majority 'normal' people tend to follow differing professions like finance, and etc.

I do pull this out of my ass

Not to be rude, but that is exactly where you pulled out that last statement. Just because people who write atheist literature are typically scientists coming from rich families doesn't mean all atheists tend to be from that same background. That's like saying all Christians tend to come from Nazareth.

The correct stance on this issue is to not come to a conclusion. Admit that you do not know the answer.

none of us know what happens after death, and I know you don't because you don't have mental powers that I do not.

You can hypothesize all you want, but until there is an experiment you can conduct, a conclusion can never be reached.

The conclusion is obvious. I don't have to disprove god, because none of you have provided any evidence of his existence. It's obvious that we cannot search every fractional inch of the universe, looking for a supreme deity, to produce a conclusion that he does not exist. But we can infer his nonexistence from a lack of action and evidence.