Death.

[bornthisway]

What happens after death?
For those people that believe in the God of your religion, what happens? (Please state the religion that you practice)
For people who don't believe in Heaven nor Hell, what happens after death? Does your body just sit there? Does it go to some "purgatory" level?

[aussiebunnie]

My view is if you believe in God, then you die and find out there is no God you lose nothing. Whereas, if you don't believe in God an die and there is a God, he aint gonna be happy to see you.

But there is so much documented proof of "spirits' and "ghosts" that perhaps when we die thats were we are destined to go.

[Genghis Khan]

My view is if you believe in God, then you die and find out there is no God you lose nothing. Whereas, if you don't believe in God an die and there is a God, he aint gonna be happy to see you.

Sure, that may sound good to you, but it's already quite clear you're using Pascal Wager's argument. Its fallacy is it fails to take into account other religions. What if the Hindu Gods were real, what if the Zoroastrian or the Muslim or the Jewish God was real? (I'm assuming you're a Christian, forgive me if I'm wrong)

But there is so much documented proof of "spirits' and "ghosts"

Such as?

[aussiebunnie]

Sure, that may sound good to you, but it's already quite clear you're using Pascal Wager's argument. Its fallacy is it fails to take into account other religions. What if the Hindu Gods were real, what if the Zoroastrian or the Muslim or the Jewish God was real? (I'm assuming you're a Christian, forgive me if I'm wrong)



Such as?

My belief in God is totally different to yours. I believe in one God. You may call him Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, whatever.

[Korashk]

My view is if you believe in God, then you die and find out there is no God you lose nothing. Whereas, if you don't believe in God an die and there is a God, he aint gonna be happy to see you.
1 - Pascal's Wager is bullshit and you can't choose to believe in a god.
2 - There are plenty of religion where you get into the afterlife whether you believe or not.

But there is so much documented proof of "spirits' and "ghosts"
Really? Let's see some. I'll wait.

[Continuum]

My belief in God is totally different to yours. I believe in one God. You may call him Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, whatever.

Buddha isn't a God. Buddhism doesn't even have a God.

[aussiebunnie]

Well my mistake, but as I said, I don't believe in one true religion. I believe there must be some consistency to most religions (a belief in a higher being) and I sometimes wonder why that is. You may disagree, but that is what I believe.

[Genghis Khan]

My belief in God is totally different to yours. I believe in one God. You may call him Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, whatever.

I don't believe in a God or any deity.

1 - Pascal's Wager is bullshit

N'aw, don't be mean. She's learning.

Well my mistake, but as I said, I don't believe in one true religion. I believe there must be some consistency to most religions (a belief in a higher being) and I sometimes wonder why that is. You may disagree, but that is what I believe.

Just because there are different versions of the same thing does not make the claims any truer or further from false. There are different versions of Bigfoot, one being the original Bigfoot and the other two being the Sasquatch and the Yeti. None of these animals have been proven to exist, similarly God was a concept in ancient times to not only give people hope of an afterlife (although this wasn't originally the case with Judaism and its belief in hell only) but as a means of setting some kind of law in the land and answering questions that man could not answer. If you're posting your opinion you can't simply say 'this is what I believe, you may disagree but this is it', hell, everyone respects your right to, but be prepared for any opinion to be criticized or debated when you post it here.

[aussiebunnie]

I don't believe in a God or any deity.



N'aw, don't be mean. She's learning.



Just because there are different versions of the same thing does not make the claims any truer or further from false. There are different versions of Bigfoot, one being the original Bigfoot and the other two being the Sasquatch and the Yeti. None of these animals have been proven to exist, similarly God was a concept in ancient times to not only give people hope of an afterlife (although this wasn't originally the case with Judaism and its belief in hell only) but as a means of setting some kind of law in the land and answering questions that man could not answer. If you're posting your opinion you can't simply say 'this is what I believe, you may disagree but this is it', hell, everyone respects your right to, but be prepared for any opinion to be criticized or debated when you post it here.

I think your example of BigFoot cannot be equated to religion. I mean what I am saying is that at the beginning of time, there must have been one religion.

[Genghis Khan]

I think your example of BigFoot cannot be equated to religion.

How so?

I mean what I am saying is that at the beginning of time, there must have been one religion.

The beginning of time was when the universe expanded. This was way before humans evolved from Hominidae.

[RoseyCadaver]

"We're all climbing different mountains to get the same moon."

I believe mind goes and exist in to another form I don't think we just go blank,but then again what do I know,I haven't really died yet.

[Amnesiac]

What happens after death?

Decomposition.

[RoseyCadaver]

Decomposition.

Yeah that too.Unless you're stuffed like a turkey on thanksgiving with preserves and Formaldehyde and all that fake stuff that harms the earth :rolleyes:.

[Amnesiac]

Yeah that too.Unless you're stuffed like a turkey on thanksgiving with preserves and Formaldehyde and all that fake stuff that harms the earth :rolleyes:.

You'd still decompose, eventually.

It seems some of the people in this thread don't understand that, after death, the organic material that is your body is decomposed by various lifeforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Human_decomposition), which returns various nutrients to the soil and gases to the air and whatnot.

You don't fucking go anywhere. No, your body is eaten by maggots in the coffin. If that isn't a pretty enough ending for you, I'm sorry, but dreaming up something nicer-sounding is just a waste of time.

[RoseyCadaver]

You'd still decompose, eventually.

It seems some of the people in this thread don't understand that, after death, the organic material that is your body is decomposed by various lifeforms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition#Human_decomposition), which returns various nutrients to the soil and gases to the air and whatnot.

You don't fucking go anywhere. No, your body is eaten by maggots in the coffin. If that isn't a pretty enough ending for you, I'm sorry, but dreaming up something nicer-sounding is just a waste of time.

Well it takes longer X]!I want to be cremated and put my ashes in a garden,so in a weird twisted way,my nutrients are in the flowers and I'm living again xD.

I do believe some people can be over the top with a heaven,but I say let them believe,no harm in it.

[Amnesiac]

Well it takes longer X]!I want to be cremated and put my ashes in a garden,so in a weird twisted way,my nutrients are in the flowers and I'm living again xD.

Smart idea.

I do believe some people can be over the top with a heaven,but I say let them believe,no harm in it.

Sure, they have the right to believe it, but it irks me when people come into threads like this and talk about death as if they know exactly what happens after it. The only thing we know about death is its causes and what happens to your body. There's nothing to support anything concerning souls and the afterlife. From what's been observed, activity in the brain ceases upon death. Therefore, the conscious does as well.

[Genghis Khan]

I want to be cremated and put my ashes in a garden,so in a weird twisted way,my nutrients are in the flowers and I'm living again xD.

Dude...

[Neverender]

Dude...

There's nothing wrong with what he said, or what he wants. At some point we're all giving back to the earth again.

[slappy]

Well, I believe death happens when your brain shuts down and tour eyes can no longer received any visual. of any thing around. You can no longer hear or smell or feel, you you have no mental knowledge of anything. Beyond that, I don't know and I don't want to find out any time soon

[RoseyCadaver]

Dude...

Whats wrong with that O.o.I'd take that any day then slowly rotting in the ground or quickly rotting via maggots.

[Genghis Khan]

Whats wrong with that O.o.I'd take that any day then slowly rotting in the ground or quickly rotting via maggots.

Nothing, I just felt like saying it.

[RoseyCadaver]

Nothing, I just felt like saying it.

Lol.

[Wicked_Syn]

Ok..I'll try and explain this best - sober. I've had this conversation before with my friends when we were high.

Anyway. I believe that there is an after life. Like when we die, we turn into another star out in the sky, or we turn into another planet or we turn into a tree or a brick - anything.
I just don't think that our soul's and spirit's sit there in our lifeless body. I believe they go and inhabit some other object/life form

[Portable Desert]

I don't know, we all find out when we get there, right?

[embers]

-Sorry for this post, this is Rawal, I had posted something thinking it was from my account. Apologies for the random post-

[aussiebunnie]

How so?



The beginning of time was when the universe expanded. This was way before humans evolved from Hominidae.

Well BigFoot doesn't have scriptures underpinning it's existence.

[Hatsune Miku]

Nobody knows. People need to stop predicting this kind of stuff because the reality of it is, nobody knows and nobody ever will. You can't ask a dead person what its like to be dead, and if you're dead your brain stops functioning so even you won't know.

[HaydenM]

Well BigFoot doesn't have scriptures underpinning it's existence.

look up the flying spaghetti monster, it has scripture and is it real?

And my opionion is the exact opposite to your OP.

I would rather live my life how i live it , do what i want and die a happy man rather than live to the constraints of religion and then be proved wrong. If i died after an athiest life and were sent to hell i would rather that than being in a hole unconscious for eternity.

[aussiebunnie]

look up the flying spaghetti monster, it has scripture and is it real?


So your saying the flying spaghetti monster has scriptures as old as the Bible? Proof?

[Korashk]

So your saying the flying spaghetti monster has scriptures as old as the Bible? Proof?
So you're saying a scripture's age has anything at all to do with its validity? Proof?

[HaydenM]

So your saying the flying spaghetti monster has scriptures as old as the Bible? Proof?

by saying that you would imply that scriptures and religions older than your own would be more valid no?

[Genghis Khan]

Well BigFoot doesn't have scriptures underpinning it's existence.

Are scriptures the only way of proving the existence of a myth? There are videos, pictures, documented clues such as exceptionally large footprints, these are all over the net, and although I don't regard that as solid proof, some people do, just like you think scriptures from 3 ancient books can prove God exists.

So your saying the flying spaghetti monster has scriptures as old as the Bible? Proof?

Fallacy: Argument from Age.

If I write on toilet paper that unicorns exist and give a full lengthy description of how this unicorn came and saved my life from eternal torture and anyone who tries refuting this through simple logic is promising themselves an eternity of torture, does it make any difference if this claim has been made now or thousands of years from now? Will that make it any more realistic?

[Ryhanna]

My opinion, as morbid as it is, is that there's nothing.

We just die. We fall into an eternal sleep.

I believe that heaven and the afterlife are just ficticious places we create to make ourselves feel better and not fear death. But there's really nothing to fear about death... We all have to go through it. We only fear it because we don't know what happens after we die.

[Curious S]

Well i think that if you believe God and have given your life to hin and stuff you go to Heaven ;) im Christian btw ..and i love gaga too lol

[aussiebunnie]

If I write on toilet paper that unicorns exist and give a full lengthy description of how this unicorn came and saved my life from eternal torture and anyone who tries refuting this through simple logic is promising themselves an eternity of torture, does it make any difference if this claim has been made now or thousands of years from now? Will that make it any more realistic?

I would suggest there would be no unity in your toilet paper theory. The scriptures I am talking about were written by around 40 writers, in different circumstances, by different people of different hierarchy (Political leaders, kings, fruit pickers, shepherds) over 1,600 years over different continents. And yet through all of that, the scripture does not contradict itself.

[Korashk]

And yet through all of that, the scripture does not contradict itself.
Excuse me while I die of laughter. The Bible contains hundreds of contradictions.

[Philleeep]

Im not religious and i don't have a huge view on it as I am thinking of now and the few years ahead.
A quote from one of my favorite films, by Miss White - Clue "Life after death, is as improbable as sex after marriage."
Although yes i think your body just stays there if it is buried but it decomposes anyway, but I think that you unknowingly come back as another person which is why we have de-ja-vous.
But your view is your view no need to change it for anyone.

[aussiebunnie]

Excuse me while I die of laughter. The Bible contains hundreds of contradictions.

And yet you failed to mention one.

[Genghis Khan]

the scripture does not contradict itself.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Was Abraham justified by faith or works?

He was justified by faith.

Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.

He was justified by works.

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?

Jesus told his disciples everything.

John 15:15
For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Jesus didn't tell his disciples everything.

John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Did Abraham have one son or more than one son?

Abraham had one son.

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son.
Genesis 22:2
Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering.

Abraham had two sons.

Galatians 4:22
Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman.

Genesis creation account contradictions:

The first man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Humans were created after the other animals.

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Humans were created before the other animals.

Genesis 2:18-19
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

There are hundreds of other ones I could pick out but so far these have served my purpose fully.

Source: Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm).

[Korashk]

And yet you failed to mention one.
*sigh*
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

Good enough?

[Genghis Khan]

*sigh*
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

Good enough?

I think judging from the names of those websites she's very likely to say its biased.

[Korashk]

I think judging from the names of those websites she's very likely to say its biased.
Probably. That doesn't change the fact that nearly the entirety of the content on those pages are direct quotes from the Bible.

[aussiebunnie]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Was Abraham justified by faith or works?

He was justified by faith.

Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.

He was justified by works.

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?

Jesus told his disciples everything.

John 15:15
For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Jesus didn't tell his disciples everything.

John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Did Abraham have one son or more than one son?

Abraham had one son.

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son.
Genesis 22:2
Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering.

Abraham had two sons.

Galatians 4:22
Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman.

Genesis creation account contradictions:

The first man and woman were created simultaneously.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

Genesis 2:18-22
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Humans were created after the other animals.

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

Humans were created before the other animals.

Genesis 2:18-19
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

There are hundreds of other ones I could pick out but so far these have served my purpose fully.

Source: Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm).

You are pointing out errors and discrepancies in fact which does not alter the meaning of the proposed statements.It does not give a new meaning to the sentence. For example:

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

The purpose of the statement is to profess that God had created man and animal. The main clause of the statement is that "God created man in his own image". It does not change the meaning by pointing out whether animals or man came first. It is differing interpretation. It would be a different case say if the "contradiction" was that God had created animals in his own image. There is a new meaning which undermines the original main clause.

Look at the way for example how this sentence is formulated:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The part of the sentence "male and female........" taken out of that sentence would not undermine that sentence as "God created man in his image" is the man clause of that sentence. However, if you took "God had created man......" out of that sentence and left "male and female created.." then it would violate the laws of grammar. This is because the second part is incidental to the main clause. It does not qualify the meaning. It does not abrogate the meaning if taken out.


Another example from the "infidels" website:

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

The purpose of the sentence here is that Trees and Man were both created.

The definition of a contradiction (as per Oxford) is:

a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another

The definition of a statement is:

definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing

The definition of an idea is:

a thought or suggestion

A number, name of a place, the number cows someone had, or incidental subordinate clauses do not qualify to be a statement.Therefore to meet the definition of true contradiction the "idea" or "statement" must be opposed to each other. This would also result on a different meaning to the sentence. The idea or statement entails the purpose and meaning of the sentence.

It would be a contradiction therefore If one statement says Man was created before animals, and another would say, Man was created. The two sentences have two underlying purposes now. The second gives a different meaning.


I am not saying this is the same for all which are listed in those websites. Others are due to different interpretations of fact. Differing viewpoints between writers and transcribers. Translation.

Suppose I believe that A2, A3 and (A2+A3) these beliefs are not contradicting. This is not the same if I believe that (A2+A3) and believe that ~(A2+A3), this is a contradiction. The very definition of a contradiction is "two or more beliefs that contradict each other". Using the example God created the birds first(Y) then man(X), then another God created man(X) first then birds (Y) would be (X+Y) = (Y+X). Until you can prove that the statement claiming to be contradictory such as ~(X+Y) in which case no birds or man was created, it is not a contradiction, but a mistake of fact.

I would say most of what was pointed out (as inconsistencies not contradictions) does not undermine the purpose and conclusion of the sentence or the meaning of what the author or transcriber is trying to portray. The inconsistencies do not apply a different meaning to the sentence. The meaning is still the same.

[Genghis Khan]

The purpose of the statement is to profess that God had created man and animal. The main clause of the statement is that "God created man in his own image". It does not change the meaning by pointing out whether animals or man came first.

Maybe it doesn't change the meaning but the order is either one or the other. You cannot simply use the excuse that 'oh well, at least they have the same message and the order mix up is just a different interpretation'. 2 comes after 1, 102 comes after 101, you cannot just say 'it's a different interpretation, the point is the numbers are there'. Either one comes first and the other comes second and the text presented is consistent with that claim or it is contradicting itself when it mixes the two up.

It is differing interpretation. It would be a different case say if the "contradiction" was that God had created animals in his own image. There is a new meaning which undermines the original main clause.

That is another example of inconsistency.

The purpose of the sentence here is that Trees and Man were both created.

Again, you're making the same fallacy.

a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another

Right, and this is the exact problem with the claims of the Bible, only somehow you think the order of which something happened does not determine its inaccuracy but rather that's a different interpretation.

The definition of a statement is:
Quote:
definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing
The definition of an idea is:

Quote:
a thought or suggestion

Right, and something in the Bible is always contradicting another.

A number, name of a place, the number cows someone had, or incidental subordinate clauses do not qualify to be a statement.

If I say to one person I have 5 dogs, and then say 'I have 1 dog' to another, isn't my new statement contradicting what I said previously to the other person? If at a party one person says 'Dan arrived before Dave' and then says 'Dave arrived before Dan' his new statement is contradicting his antecedent. You can not simply say 'the point is, they both came'. Or in the initial case, the point is, he has dogs.

It would be a contradiction therefore If one statement says Man was created before animals, and another would say, Man was created.

No. That wouldn't be a contradiction because regardless of what happened subsequently the initial statement clearly states that 'man was created'.

Differing viewpoints between writers and transcribers. Translation.

How is it a differing viewpoint? If a translator read the original text and (assuming he knew the language well) wanted to translate it he wouldn't read it as 'man was created after animals' and say 'Well, you know, my opinion is man was created before animals, so let me just post my viewpoint on it'. That is carelessness and being apathetic to what the original text says, it is incorrect translation. You'd have to be really bad at translation to say the complete opposite in the same book.

The inconsistencies do not apply a different meaning to the sentence.

Yes. They do. Game over.

'I went to the bathroom 5 times'
'I went to the bathroom 2 times'

Different statements. You either went 2, or 5 times, you cannot go 2 and 5 times.

'I threw up before John'
'I threw up after John'

You can't throw up before and after. You either threw up before OR after OR at the same time, these events are NOT mutually exclusive. They do not require interpretation either.

[aussiebunnie]

Yes. They do. Game over.

'I went to the bathroom 5 times'
'I went to the bathroom 2 times'



No it does not, changing the number of times you went to the bathroom does not change the meaning that "you went to the bathroom". It is an inconsistency, which is different to a contradiction.



Different statements. You either went 2, or 5 times, you cannot go 2 and 5 times.

'I threw up before John'
'I threw up after John'

You can't throw up before and after. You either threw up before OR after OR at the same time, these events are NOT mutually exclusive. They do not require interpretation either.

That is incorrect also. The statement that You threw up before John does NOT change the meaning if John threw up before you. It would be different and changing the meaning if it was "I threw up before John which caused him to throw up". There you have a nexus between to predicates which makes them inseparable. The fact that you or John threw up in which ever order does not change the fact that you both thew up.

[Genghis Khan]

Wow. I really don't know how else I can explain what a contradiction is to you, but fine, I'll play your game. If you think none of the examples I posted serve as contradictions maybe these (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1268678) will.

[Death]

Well i think that if you believe God and have given your life to hin and stuff you go to Heaven ;)

God only accepts Christians into Heaven? What a vindictive bigot.

im Christian btw

Wow, I'd never have guessed.

..and i love gaga too lol

Relevance?

[RoseyCadaver]

Well i think that if you believe God and have given your life to hin and stuff you go to Heaven ;) im Christian btw ..and i love gaga too lol
SO If I become Chirstian I get a free ticket to heavan?!?!?SWEEEEET!



It's very pathetic how some churches use the extreme(or just not happy) hell propaganda to you to join their wonder church.THEY know the way,you don't!YOU Must folow their ways or burn in a pit of fire :devil:.

[Genghis Khan]

It's very pathetic how some churches use the extreme(or just not happy) hell propaganda to you to join their wonder church.

Inciting fear is a powerful tool, and usually the most effective.

[RoseyCadaver]

Inciting fear is a powerful tool, and usually the most effective.

Very well put.I don't fear weapons of mass destruction,but weapons of mass deception.

[Death]

Inciting fear is a powerful tool, and usually the most effective.

That doesn't justify it.

[Genghis Khan]

That doesn't justify it.

I was stating why, not why it's justifiable.