life after death

[Lightnix]

...and there is a good chance you won't get caught. Does that mean you got away with it? There are also cases where someone might be falsely accused of murder and be punished by mistake? There is also the case that someone might 'kill' someone else by accident, maybe a doctor operating on someone who makes a mistake, or someone in a car accident which wasn't there fault, and they are punished severely because of it, is that fair?

As a muslim I believe that, ultimately everything will be balanced out. Things go on that are unseen to us, but they are all seen by God. Nothing goes hidden and nothing will be forgotten, and in the end no one will feel an injustice has been done because everything will be brought forward. This concept makes the most logical sense to me.

It's a nice notion I agree, sure, but I can't see it actually happening. I mean if I were an all-powerful deity that's probably how I'd like to set things up. As you say though, things aren't always fair - they aren't now and I'd be surprised if they are when we die.

 

[Participant]

The problem with using nothing but human logic on dealing with the unknown is that it basically denies the possibility of things outside of human knowledge and understanding.

While its obviously understandable why everyone lives by this logic, I also think its arrogant to blatantly dispell the possibility of an after-life just because we have no knowledge of it or its beyond our human understanding.

Hundreds of years ago people thought the world was flat, and that you would simply "fall off the edge." People understood the world and the concept of it in that way, which was a mental limitation of the times, just like mankind has limitations today; things that are simply beyond our current comprehension.

How else do you suggest we deal with things? That everything we don't know could possibily be true?

Hey all I'm a god, bow down and worship me. Could be true so NERRR.

I am constantly staggered as to the number of people I come across that believe in the ridiculous hocus pocus that is: religion.

 

[QlimaxUK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2f4heaG288&feature=channel

like this

 

[Carzy]

How else do you suggest we deal with things? That everything we don't know could possibily be true?

Hey all I'm a god, bow down and worship me. Could be true so NERRR.

I am constantly staggered as to the number of people I come across that believe in the ridiculous hocus pocus that is: religion.

I'm staggered at how utterly sure you are of yourself - it's an almost religious certainty!

 

[Participant]

Crazy, lay your cards on the table. Do you believe in higher powers, or not?

 

[Missing.String]

I'm staggered at how utterly sure you are of yourself - it's an almost religious certainty!

Certainty isn't irrational and unlikely, how dare you.

 

[Carzy]

Crazy, lay your cards on the table. Do you believe in higher powers, or not?

Whoops, I nearly forgot to congratulate you on your fantastic discovery that switching two letters in my user-name changes it from Carzy to Crazy. Bravo.

And to answer your question, I am unsure, though I lean towards thinking there isn't a higher power. I certainly don't deny the possibility however and after reading up on the subject I definitely don't believe being religious makes someone an idiot or insecure about their own existence. I see no difference between an outright atheist and an outright theist. Both are equally indefensible in my view. Although I think that organised religion is a wholly different matter (of which I disapprove in many ways).

 

[Participant]

Whoops, I nearly forgot to congratulate you on your fantastic discovery that switching two letters in my user-name changes it from Carzy to Crazy. Bravo.

Cheers. And I think it suits you quite well.

And to answer your question, I am unsure, though I lean towards thinking there isn't a higher power.

So you can't make up your mind. Admirable! Just think to yourself: which is more likely, as that's all anyone has to go on.

Spirituality - against the laws of physics.

 

[Carzy]

Cheers. And I think it suits you quite well.



So you can't make up your mind. Admirable! Just think to yourself: which is more likely, as that's all anyone has to go on.

Spirituality - against the laws of physics.

I didn't realise I had to make my mind up regarding something about which there is no substantial evidence either way? Are we picking sides now? And what do the laws of physics have to do with anything?

Your atheist surety requires a leap of faith just as a religious viewpoint does.

 

[Participant]

But one is more likely (by far) than the other, and you seem reluctant to say which .

 

[Carzy]

But one is more likely (by far) than the other, and you seem reluctant to say which .

Why is one far more likely than the other?

 

[singist]

You see, it's total w****** on whichever side, that **** up civilised debate.

Enough with the personal ****, how about some decent, civilised chat about a subject that has no definate answer?

I'm with the 'can't prove one way or the other' brigade but would be happy to find out what others thought, without the **** comments.

 

[eggyoke]

How else do you suggest we deal with things? That everything we don't know could possibily be true?

I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out an obvious and arrogant flaw in peoples logic regarding the topic of "life after death."

Hey all I'm a god, bow down and worship me. Could be true so NERRR.

Oh come on, its not like we're discussing whether or not unicorn run, magical tour clouds exist. The concept of life after death has been such a huge and important influence on the world since the dawn of mankind. You cant simply pair it together with the telly-tubby's or a talking penguin named Pingu.

I am constantly staggered as to the number of people I come across that believe in the ridiculous hocus pocus that is: religion.

Well thats upto you how you feel about it. I just find it silly that people dismiss it because they claim to KNOW otherwise using there vast human knowledge and understanding when in fact humans not so long ago believed in things which today would seem as equally "hocus pocus".

All I am saying to people is, dont be so quick to come to an absolute conclusion based on what mankind knows so far regarding the idea of whether life goes on after death or not. No one knows for sure. Some scientists deny it, some say it is possible based on newly discovered theories and some simply say they don't know. Its a grey area that is truly one of the most facinating subjects and thats why I think its important that people dont dismiss it.

 

[Skully]

Not read the whole thread because I can imagine it's just people arguing.

Just asked my girlfriend if she thought it was scary that there probably won't be anything after I die and she replied with the following..

'There is heaven and hell we have a lot more after death we live forever its just different that why you have to be good.'

Asking her, 'But what if there isn't?'

'I know there is, says so in the Bible.'

I sort of believe in Heaven and Hell but sometimes I doubt, especially as I think I could die any time crossing the road! (No, I am not going to live in a bubble, doesn't worry me that much!).

 

[Missing.String]

Oh come on, its not like we're discussing whether or not unicorn run, magical tour clouds exist.

Pretty easy to do really; none of them have evidence to support them.

It'd be rather hard to go and disprove everybody's random ideas, the best we can do is say "there's no evidence for it, so the chances are less likely".

I know there is, says so in the Bible

Age and widespread popularity != validity.

 

[iamTakeo]

I cant believe no-ones said it... you respawn

Srsly tho, no brain, no consciousness, the question wont even matter by then.

BUT, who here can explain what it is to be conscious. HOW DID I GET INTO THIS BODY?!

 

[manic111]

There is a ridiculous amount of dogma in this thread.

Robbie G; all that Carzy is saying is that there is not enough evidence either way to suggest the existence or non-existence of life-after-death. As somebody has already pointed out, your being so adamant that there is no life-after-death is bordering on religious fervour - as much, in fact, as the religious posts in this thread.

You are basing your "reasoning" on two things; physics and human logic. Both of these facets of thought are as self-contained and circular as the Bible and religious belief, and are in no position to provide evidence either way in an argument about religion.

You also criticise Carzy (Crazy, ho ho ho) for not having made up his mind. Again, I fail to see the problem with this, it implies that he is working through the problem in his own way and his own mind. You, on the other hand, seem to have taken on the Dawkinsian dogma of today, that religion is idiocy, and that anyone who so much as hints at believing must be a tool as well.

(Before we go down this avenue I am agnostic; I believe that there is no possible way to prove or disprove God's existence).

The point about "100 years ago" is this: many of you are appealing to common sense to disprove God. In this regard, though, common sense is nothing more than the belief of the masses. 100 years ago (we can bring this back further if we need to, the actual date is irrelevant to the point), religious belief was still the majority, "common sense" view. As common sense is nothing more than the dogma of the present, it is not a valid argument for the existence of an eternal, such as God.

The only point that I've seen against this is that "100 years ago people were stupid". I think the simplest way to contradict this is through naming some of the greatest visionaries our world has ever seen, whether religious or not:

Einstein, Hume, Kant, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Curie, Mendeleev, Locke, Darwin, Newton, Gallileo, Edison are just a few people that existed 100 years ago or earlier, and certainly can't be considered stupid. Common sense is not a reasonable or valid answer to the question of God's existence, or the existence of life-after-death.

 

[Missing.String]

There might be no way to prove it but does that mean we should be absolutely open minded towards everything?

There is a small possibility that a magical teapot is the cause of everything. Should I base my thoughts around this when there is no evident effect of its existence?

 

[eggyoke]

...

Very good post

There might be no way to prove it but does that mean we should be absolutely open minded towards everything?

There is a small possibility that a magical teapot is the cause of everything. Should I base my thoughts around this when there is no evident effect of its existence?

We're not talking about "everything." We're talking about something that has been one of the most important subjects to humanity since the beginning, you cant pair the title of this thread to the idea of a magical teapot. Remember we're not talking about any specific religion here, we're talking about the possiblity of life after death.

Also no one is asking you to base your life around it, but simply dismissing it is rediculous.

 

[manic111]

There might be no way to prove it but does that mean we should be absolutely open minded towards everything?

There is a small possibility that a magical teapot is the cause of everything. Should I base my thoughts around this when there is no evident effect of its existence?

Your example falls apart because, Christians will say, there is evident effect of God's existence in the world that we live in. Most will say that these effects are down to physics, but there is no reason why that view should hold more water than the view that God made the world. They are two opposing views, with completely opposing evidential systems, that can never clash with each other. The most that science can do is to show that it is sufficient to explain the world's existence. It cannot show that God does not exist, merely that the world does not need God to exist.

There might be no way to prove it but does that mean we should be absolutely open minded towards everything?

Yes: we should be open-minded. You are taking this to mean that we should behave as though God exists. That is no what I mean. We must merely put everything in its respective place, and accept that our scientific reasonings have only got limited (while still wide-ranging) use. Science is valid and useful, but only as a tool in a scientific context. We must be open-minded in not trying to cross religion and science.