One of the most ancient philosophical and theological questions: What is there after death? Do you live again as another person? Do you go to Heaven or Nirvana? Can you go to Hell if you were a b*stard during your lifetime?


I admit that I don't really know. Being a Christian, I would normally say that we go to Heaven, but sometimes I think it's more a hope than an actual belief. Why would we live a few decades on Earth if, after that, we spend eternity in Heaven? What would be the point of life?

Some say that life is a test to see if you're worthy of Heaven or if you go to Hell, but I don't think so. Even though I sometimes doubt about Heaven, I'm pretty sure Hell doesn't exist. If God loves us, would He let an human, no matter how mean and evil he or she was, suffer for eternity? I think Hell was invented by the Church to make sure we stay on the right path.

I don't believe death is the end of all, either. I'm pretty sure there is a God, and if there is a God, he won't let our souls disappear just like that. Or at least, I hope so. The very idea of not existing anymore is scary. I'd still prefer Hell, I think.

Well, since I hate answering "I don't know" in a poll, I voted for B. Most of the time, I do believe in Heaven. But I'll never believe in Hell unless I go there and see by myself.



And what do you think?

Despite my being nominally Catholic, I am agnostic in belief so my answer is "I don't know".

Agnostic atheist here, so yeah, I dunno. I don't think so, but I don't know.

I don't know, and I don't want to think about it :lol:

This could be completely off the point, but isnt that an oxymoron?

No. I have faith that there is no God/higher power (atheism) but admit that I cannot know such things (agonostic).

If it wasn't for the huge number of idiots who say their atheist and proclaim it with absolute certainty, then decry relgion for being closed minded, I would be fine in merely saying "I'm an atheist." But theres a difference between that line of thought and mine.

I think its better to do the right think on earth and let whatever happens take care of itself. I said the christian (and islamic btw) belief, heaven and hell. I guess if you find out, it won't be in this life. I certainly belief in a soul and a higher power.

i think you just die. why would you live this long. what a waste of time.

or i have an alternative. you relive your life and experience's in a dream like state

Absolutely nothing at all.

If people actually believe this, what do you life for?

You eventually die, your name will be forgotten, your relatives and anyone who knew you will be long gone, and you lived for what? To be nothing? I dunno, this belief that there is nothing after death doesn't make sense. It's like saying everything anyone ever did was completely pointless. That's just a depressing idea.

This should be fairly interesting.

Yeah, hence why relgion was called the opiate of the masses. It makes you feel better about life, to believe that it has a point.

The thing is, life doesn't have to have a point beyond life itself, too many are hooked on that idea.

This is of course only in the range of hypothesis. No scientific evidence supports or disproves any particular faith.

Point?

Point was given but I'll give it again. Often people will act like science disproves religion. It doesn't.

And what does that have to do with this topic? And why did you quote me?

Heaven & Hell, But no-one is sure about this, I'll see in about 60 - 70 years if i stay healthy :P

/Hakuam

It seems obvious but I'll point it out since you asked. I quoted you because I elaborated on what you said. It has to do with the topic because we are dealing with the afterlife.

I fail to see how that in any way elaborates on what I said, but okay.

Simply living is the point of life? You live just to live? Is that all you live for? Don't you think there's more to it than just our life cycle?

There might be. But no, I don't think there is one outside of life. There are many poitns in life, sure.

I suppose the greater meaning beyond our life cycle is how we affect those who come after us.

If we want to find a purpose for everything, the philosophical discussion could go on for eternity. In the first time, what's the reason of existence? Why did God decide to create the universe?

But we can open another topic to talk about that.

Believing that it's all for nothing would make no sense though, it's a depressing "why bother" attitude that accompanies that kind of thinking.

Only if you let it. Yet again we refer back to relgion being a "feel good drug." You think it would be depressing not to have relgion, thus you further the idea that religion is an opiate. Granted, its not like that with all people, but merely looking at your statements in this thread and other threads, it seems to be a strong issue with you.

You seem to think that the "why bother" form of thinking automaticlly goes hand in hand with atheism. I disagree, looking from my personal point of view. I'm not depressed about life, and I don't think "why bother" or the like. Nor do I think its "all for nothing."

Its almost like despite whatever might be said, you will constantly come back to that single point.

I believe there is "Nothing" after we die. ;)

I am an atheist and I think death is a scientific part of a human organism's process.

When you die, your mind and being ceases, and you are dead period, with nothing else happening.

That is my stance.

I don’t view religion as any sort of feel good delusion because the alternative would be depressing. It’s more like I don’t see the reasoning behind the belief that lives are ultimately nothing. I don’t think you could truly believe that solely. Like you said, you don't believe it's all for nothing. If it's not all for nothing, you must believe you're accomplishing something or at least enjoying your life. You would have to make another reason for life such as the idea that we “live for the moment."

You're right when you go on to say that I don't either. I neither solely believe that, or partly believe that.

I have, its also "live for the future."

Just I believe that the future can be beyond oneself. It doesn't have to be me in the future, or in some "afterlife" of sorts, it can be for others as well.

Maybe I'm confused, but you've just claimed two seperate beliefs. Being Agnostic is a complete disbelief in everything, spiritual or otherwise. You don't know anything, therefore you have nothing in which to believe. Being Atheist is where you believe there is no god. You believe that the bible (or your region's equivalent) is jive, and you're pro-science.

As I use the definition, and in my theological studies its always come up as lack of belief due to the inherrent unknowingably of certain things. And thats how I use it, but I add to it the fact that at the moment, while I admit I can't know, I don't believe either.

Per definition:
Agnostics may claim that it is not possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements.

For some, its redundant, but for me its not. I use it to seperate myself form those who with absolute certainty declare that there is no God.

Although with the amount of times I have to explain myself, I think I should just stop answering such questions.

I'm also not "pro science" whatever that means. I agree with scince when it makes sense, but I don't follow it like a domagtic relgion as some seem to.

Being Pro-Science, though I do agree that some tend to treat it as such, is nothing religious. Science is everything that's been proven, much of which goes against western religion. It's kinda hard to be pro-science and religious at the same time, but it can be done.

Science tells us that the earth took billions of years to form. The Bible tells us it took seven days for civilized man to walk the earth.

To be Pro-Science is to believe in hard fact and theories that have been hypothesized in many different ways. When new evidence surfaces that may suggest that that theory was wrong, we change our views and move on. If Science was a religion, we'd all still believe that the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe.

Religon has many different meanings, it doesn't mean Christianity as you seem to think. I would say that science is a form of relgion to some, as are things like Economics. Relgion is just a group of set beilefs. Real or unreal? Well, thats oft in the eye of the beholder.

Depends on your interpretation of the Bible, but thats a different subject.

The way I define "religion" is more akin to being set in one's beliefs, to the point where you're not open to new ideas. Anything can be treated as such, but it's a dangerous way of thinking. I never denied the religion of "science," but it's also not one to which I subscribe.


And for some anecdotal evidence:

I know people who otherwise say their Atheists who will then treat celebrities as dieties, cursing people who believe differently from said celebrity (I was recently chewed out for not liking Pizza Hut, because a certain celebrity did an ad for them about 10 years ago).

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. I don't think that it's difficult at all to be "pro-science" (in the non-fanatical sense) and religious. I would generally consider myself pro-science, although I confess a general scientific ignorance. I certainly consider myself religious, and I do not see these two as conflicting. You say that science changes to suit new evidence, but I say that religion does that as well. If you asked a Christian eighteen centuries ago what the "Bible tell us," you'd get a very different answer than if you asked a modern-day Christian that question. As you pointed out, most people today do not believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, whereas this was virtually unquestioned fact in the early Middle Ages. Likewise, in the Church of the Middle Ages it was nearly universally accepted that women were in some sense inferior to men and that they certainly could not be priests. Today most Christians see men and women as equal and many denominations do allow women to be pastors (and I'd be tempted to equate churches that do not do so with modern day geocentrists in terms of intelligence). This does not mean that the mistreatment of women used to be good and that now it is not, it means that it used to be accepted and that now we can see that it is not in keeping with the Christian message. One could say the same about the truth of heliocentrism. As for the Bible telling us that the Earth was created in seven days (and if you want to get picky it's six), well, I don't believe that, and frankly, most educated Christians don't either. Granted, many educated Christians do subscribe to old-Earth creationism, which is also quite silly in my opinion, but the point is that the Bible does not contradict science per se. The way Christians interpret the Bible--now that often contradicts science. Personally, I am of the opinion that the "Bible tells us" nothing in the area of science at all--it is not a scientific textbook, and Genesis 1 no more endorses young-Earth creationism than my neighbour telling me that "the sun is rising" is endorsing geocentrism. The Bible speaks in the language of the people that it was written to, and you can't expect the ancient Hebrews to have had a knowledge of evolution, heliocentrism, the Big Bang, or what have you, and so of course the Bible isn't going to talk about those things.

Now, I might also point out that scientists can be quite dogmatic at times themselves--the initial reluctance of the scientific community to accept the Big Bang because it seemed to support the religious viewpoint that there was a first cause to the universe comes to mind. And I can't help but point out that it does take some faith to believe in science, even if it is merely the faith that your senses are not deceiving you.

You guys sort of got all off topic, so now my answer to the original post is going to seem off topic ;) . Anyway, I also answered "I don't know" to the question of what, if anything, comes after death. I had a pretty thorough Catholic upbringing, and I always said I believed in God, and Heaven, and Hell... until I recently realized that perhaps I didn't... and it was just easier to say I did, because then I didn't have to seriously examine my values. Anyway, the idea that there may be nothing after death does not disturb me as it once did, mostly because of something Delta said to me once. He told me that perhaps (and he was saying some of this in previous posts in this topic) the point of life is to do as much good as you can in this world while you're living in it. When I think about this, I realize that it's all right with me if there is nothing after... so right now, I'm on the fence. I don't know what's going to happen after my life is over... it will be interesting to see :D .

I say "Nothing".

I think this because evidence has shown that everything you observer through senses is really observed through electrical and chemical processes in the brain. When you die, those processes stop, so I fail to see how you could still exist in an "afterlife", and even if you did how you could observe it.

Yes, I'm an athiest. But I don't think life is "all for nothing". I believe you should try to improve your life while you live it, and try to improve other people's (including future generations of people) lives.

Alexander Grahm Bell is an example. Yes, he's dead, but can you imagine modern life without a telephone in existance? It'd be much different. That is his contribution, a main point to his life. I hope one day to accomplish something that will help future generations.

Even if I don't, I'm living for the moment, so I embrace it instead of wasting it. Just because I think there's nothing AFTER life doesn't mean I think there's no point TO life while it lasts.

-IMP ;) :)

I said i didnt know but then again i beleive theres a possibilitie of there being some sort of dream type thing were all your thoughts escape your body. I think theres some evidence supporting this mind escpaing things somewhere but i cant be bothered to dig it up ;)

Reincarnation for the most of us. Those who reach Enlightenment go to God, which need not be specifically "Heaven", since I don't believe in a material plane in which all of our desires are fulfilled. Going to God could entail assimilation or some other form of becoming God himself.

I voted reincarnation. Not only because my religion believes that, but it seems realistic to me. What can happen after you die? I think you can be reborn.

If that's not right, then I'm not really sure.

I believe in just being a good person while on Earth. And whatever happens afterward, somebody (God, etc.) will take care of the rest.

Nothing. Your body just starts to decompose.

Do you have a reason for why you think that?