WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DIE

Zwillinge

Hmm, I think its sleepy feeling and then noting much. But after that all that usual stuff...

My uncle passed away last year (RIP) so my aunt went to visit a psychic while in New York, where she was told that my uncle is in Donegal with his family and watches over them and is looking forward to the lambing and the turf being cut and all the farmer related joy... So from that I guessed you get to hang around with people you love and not be able to take part, but get to watch them do it.
Sounds boring/depressing.

While my friend who's father passed, her and her mother met a psychic who told them that he walks the landing at 10pm every night checking all the bedrooms (he did when he was alive) I guess your habits don't die?

RoundyMooney

Húrin wrote: »

You dismiss Catholics for having an imaginary friend, but you do not feel any need to defend the idea that there is some divine balance, measuring our deeds of good and evil somewhere, and influencing our future incarnations, if there are such things. That's what karma is.

Not just catholics, I'd apply the same bemusement to all religions tbh. If anything I'd have a certain familiarity with catholicism, simply because I was raised in a catholic family.

Obversely, I'd like to think that there is some form of karma, simply because it appeals to my sense of justice.

Húrin wrote: »

It's inevitable with this topic. Most posters are falling into line with social norms and declaring that there is nothing after death. Declaring atheism is no more neutral than claiming that afterlife exists.

So atheism is a social norm? Nah, I don't buy that. Where do all the a la carte churchgoers come from?

By your definition then, what would be a neutral viewpoint? Believing in God, but not the fact that a man in a dress can turn him into a biscuit?

Caoimhín

Zwillinge wrote: »

so my aunt went to visit a psychic while in.... her and her mother met a psychic who told them that he walks.....

I think those "psychics" should be jailed, its nothing more than taking advantage of grief stricken people. Im sure the psychic didnt offer these glimpses of the afterlife for free..

Zwillinge

Caoimhín wrote: »

Zwillinge wrote: »

so my aunt went to visit a psychic while in.... her and her mother met a psychic who told them that he walks.....

I think those "psychics" should be jailed, its nothing more than taking advantage of grief stricken people. Im sure the psychic didnt offer these glimpses of the afterlife for free..

I know, I'm not a big fan of seeing them. But it seems to give people closure and piece of mind that their loved ones and happy somewhere.
Still banking in a grief is so cruel :mad:

Craft25

ClioV6 wrote: »

Your body will decompose and be eaten by maggots.

then perhaps the maggots will do a **** and leave little bits of you in the soil, until a tree's roots draw them up as nutrients and turn you into a beautiful blossom

Any loot you're carrying is dropped and can be collected by your other party members. After a certain length of time, you re-spawn at your designated point.

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

I think that we go into physical death, but our soul remains in a coma. Then at some point in the future, the God who created the universe returns us to life in a physical resurrection. In a judgement event, those who believed in Jesus Christ in this life join him for eternal life and joy in divine communion with everything. Those who rejected Jesus meet their end in a destructive fire that terminally consumes both body and soul. Death for them is eternal. There's no hell, there's nothing.

What a crock.

Húrin

Ishaan Helpful Radiotherapy wrote: »

One of the most ignorant posts I have seen, within it contains the most annoying statements I have ever read...

"I do not care what you believe, what I believe is right, and it applies to everyone on this planet, wether you like it or not"

Comments like this, as history will prove, have slowly but surely engulfed mankind in ultimate hatred, ensued was mankinds demise and self distruction. What people do not understand, or seem to care about is that the person on the other side, the opposite religion, has the same ignorance as you, they believe that they are right and nothing can sway them from this. This will continue until the end of our reign on this earth. Religion, as some may think, was our creation, in fact it will be our descruction.

The same applies to any atheist who just dismisses religious claims as flat out wrong and deluded. They believe that they are right and nothing can sway them from this (oh yes, except 'evidence', but it has to be of the "right" kind). Atheism threatens to engulf mankind in hatred even more than religion. Atheism contains no commandment not to hate and kill, but religions mostly do.

Surely Stalin and Mao proved this.

Húrin

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Not just catholics, I'd apply the same bemusement to all religions tbh. If anything I'd have a certain familiarity with catholicism, simply because I was raised in a catholic family.

Obversely, I'd like to think that there is some form of karma, simply because it appeals to my sense of justice.

Even the religions that teach karma? What about the people who suffer in this world, like in Africa? Do they deserve it because they were evil in the last life? Doesn't seem just.

So atheism is a social norm? Nah, I don't buy that. Where do all the a la carte churchgoers come from?

These people are functionally atheist. They follow human material values. They claim to 'believe in God' (though many don't) but they don't take account of the fact that if God exists, what he has to say, if anything, is the most important thing in the world.

They live by mere wishful thinking (what they would like to think), rather than seeking what they believe to be truth.

The fact that the vast majority of posters in this thread, and the vast majority of my peers (early 20s, Dublin) are expressing atheist views, demonstrates that atheism is a social norm.

By your definition then, what would be a neutral viewpoint? Believing in God, but not the fact that a man in a dress can turn him into a biscuit?

Agnosticism is the most neutral. But it is also the most useless and ignorant viewpoint.

dr.bollocko

Húrin wrote: »

The same applies to any atheist who just dismisses religious claims as flat out wrong and deluded. They believe that they are right and nothing can sway them from this (oh yes, except 'evidence', but it has to be of the "right" kind). Atheism threatens to engulf mankind in hatred even more than religion. Atheism contains no commandment not to hate and kill, but religions mostly do.

Surely Stalin and Mao proved this.

No. No.

When people's beliefs get in the way of scientific advances, when they result in our children being taught lies in school in preference to scientific fact. When they have fractured humanity to a point where creed is a reason to hate a person you don't even know, no. I think you are wrong.
I think that given the track record of religion it is about time we gave athiesm a try.
And don't tell me that athiests are more likely to murder because they don't subscribe to a list of commandments that tell them not to.

Craft25

Einstein on God:

Einstein distinguished three styles which are usually intermixed in actual religion. The first is motivated by fear and poor understanding of causality, and hence invents supernatural beings. The second is social and moral, motivated by desire for love and support. Einstein noted that both have an anthropomorphic(envisaged in some way similar to man/humanlike) concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, is motivated by a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels ... the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religion, but as a partner of the third style.

kingtut

Your heart stops :rolleyes:

Craft25

MaryKateValenti wrote: »

Has anyone ever had any experience of a loved one lost being present?

Yes, i believe it was magic mushrooms that brought it on.. i also experienced the black guy from the matrix explain the meaning of life, the universe and everything. What a shame i couldnt remember it afterwards.

Wibbs

Húrin wrote: »

Agnosticism is the most neutral. But it is also the most useless and ignorant viewpoint.

I would take issue with that actually. I would describe myself as an agnostic. On most of these metaphysical notions I take the view that I simply don't know and some cases can't know and at best rely on conjecture until evidence if any presents itself.

I really can't see how that can be described as ignorant or useless. It may seem like fence sitting and while that's a valid accusation, I would consider it a position more open than stiffly adhered religion for which you have no direct evidence beyond the personal(which is fine).

I would also consider it a better position than the dyed in the wool strict atheist viewpoint too. Both extremes, while each having advantages, leave themselves closed off to other possibilities. Not science I hear some shriek? Yep science too can be railroaded along fashionable paths that often lead nowhere, or are taken as "gospel"(do not get me started on "dark matter" and string theory among a gansy load of other unproven or downright scientifically dubious theories). Yes science can change and adapt, but usually on the coat tails of agnostical type thinking that shakes up the status quo. religion does too BTW.

Basically as an agnostic I try to see both sides, maybe agree in different ways with both sides and I'm open to the idea I may be wrong. I'm pretty sure I am for the most part. Unwise and dangerous is the man who is convinced what he knows about the world is right and seeks to belittle others for their view. Theist or atheist, that way of thinking is what has usually led to serious cockups in humanity's past and will do so in humanity's future.

nobodythere

People who don't use Caps Lock go to heaven while the rest go to hell.

truecrippler

Zwillinge wrote: »

Hmm, I think its sleepy feeling and then noting much. But after that all that usual stuff...

My uncle passed away last year (RIP) so my aunt went to visit a psychic while in New York, where she was told that my uncle is in Donegal with his family and watches over them and is looking forward to the lambing and the turf being cut and all the farmer related joy... So from that I guessed you get to hang around with people you love and not be able to take part, but get to watch them do it.
Sounds boring/depressing.

While my friend who's father passed, her and her mother met a psychic who told them that he walks the landing at 10pm every night checking all the bedrooms (he did when he was alive) I guess your habits don't die?

Eh... no. I'm afraid not.

RoundyMooney

Nice post there Wibbs.

Húrin

dr.bollocko wrote: »

When people's beliefs get in the way of scientific advances, when they result in our children being taught lies in school in preference to scientific fact.

These are cults and I agree they are damaging.

When they have fractured humanity to a point where creed is a reason to hate a person you don't even know, no. I think you are wrong.

You think that religion is responsible for all the hatred in the world? Or even most of it?

Don't tell me that athiests are less likely to hate people.

I think that given the track record of religion it is about time we gave athiesm a try.

We already did, and the blood-soaked 20th century was the result.

And don't tell me that athiests are more likely to murder because they don't subscribe to a list of commandments that tell them not to.

No, that's clearly not what I said. Most atheists are no more likely to attack others than most religious folk. We all have a moral conscience, and it's usually reliable. But not always. Sometimes the wrong instinct gains the upper hand.

However, religions have the advantage (whether they are true or false) of having (apparently) authoritave commands to restrain aggressive urges. Atheism has no creed, so there is nothing but the conscience to restrain such urges.

javaboy

Húrin wrote: »

You think that religion is responsible for all the hatred in the world? Or even most of it?

Where did he say that?

We already did, and the blood-soaked 20th century was the result.

You think that atheism is responsible for all the violence in the 20th century? Or even most of it?

dr.bollocko

Húrin wrote: »

These are cults and I agree they are damaging.


You think that religion is responsible for all the hatred in the world? Or even most of it?

Don't tell me that athiests are less likely to hate people.


We already did, and the blood-soaked 20th century was the result.


No, that's clearly not what I said. Most atheists are no more likely to attack others than most religious folk. We all have a moral conscience, and it's usually reliable. But not always. Sometimes the wrong instinct gains the upper hand.

However, religions have the advantage (whether they are true or false) of having (apparently) authoritave commands to restrain aggressive urges. Atheism has no creed, so there is nothing but the conscience to restrain such urges.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating why I no longer get into these debates with random people on the internet.
The quotes taken out of context made me LOL quite a bit.
/bans self from rest of thread.

Piste

Húrin wrote: »

Agnosticism is the most neutral. But it is also the most useless and ignorant viewpoint.

At least it's not as arrogant ar atheism or religion.

BlitzKrieg

Wibbs summed up the agnostic point of view quite nicely. SO big thank you from me.

Spore

By dying you mean forgoing boards.ie for the rest of your mortal existence... what happens? You suddenly find loads of time on your hands for the real neccessities of life. You start meeting real people more, having real conversations, occassionally having sex, voicing an opinion that has been actually 'considered' as opposed to trolling. Being considerate in general... having genuine birthdays as opposed to the fake one that appears on'todays birthdays' just cause you like to lie on internet forums... Choose life.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Húrin wrote: »

The same applies to any atheist who just dismisses religious claims as flat out wrong and deluded. They believe that they are right and nothing can sway them from this (oh yes, except 'evidence', but it has to be of the "right" kind). Atheism threatens to engulf mankind in hatred even more than religion. Atheism contains no commandment not to hate and kill, but religions mostly do.

Surely Stalin and Mao proved this.

No no, I chose not to believe, I have never seen any evidence to prove any place exists that is occupied by spirits or what not. I won't tell you any religion is wrong, that god doesn't exist, I don't have any evidence of that. I guess I am more agnostic athiest than anything then. Evolution and Darwins theory actually put evidence down and can explain better the existance of life. Nobody can explain religion, but what people tend to do is say "if you do not belive you will be punished". It's preying on peoples ignorance, using their fear against them.

Why should a religion have to follow a set of rules, commandments or a creed? Why do you say, that because athiesm doesn't have any of the above, that athiests are more likely to be evil? I think this is utter rubbish. The rules set out by society are enough.

Religion IS a main contributor to a lot of violence which we have seen through out the world. When a religion sets out to harm another being because of their belief, it's time to stop... Kill someone because they don't believe what you do? Completely nuts. Problem with religions, they do not promote only peace. It's unfortunate. I can say that every religion is flawed in some way or another. Religion will always plague our earth, will always cause problems and is always going to be here, it's never going away unfortunately.

Flipz4Rollz

deleriumtremens wrote: »

Please may this not descend into an atheist debate. Seriously, we get it theres no God, dosent take a brainiac to figure it out!

Huh???

Acacia

Don't know about the rest of ye, but I'll be heading to Valhalla in my long boat...

sHnaCk

the only thing that happens to you when you die in a biblical sense is, well, nothing. your body rots at varying speeds depending on the level o f formaldehyde used, but, thats it.
its only at the rapture that you go to heaven, IF you are born again, and well, hades if you aint. of course this is all seamless. i.e. on your death you will either wake up in the rapture (which seems immediate to you cos you were "asleep") or wake up to your judgement. once again depending on whether or not you accepted Christ. not a whole lot more to it than that!

ART6

Húrin wrote: »

I think that we go into physical death, but our soul remains in a coma. Then at some point in the future, the God who created the universe returns us to life in a physical resurrection.

Given that the animal and, particularly, the insect population of the planet well exceeds the human, there is a better than average chance that reincarnation would result in my returning as a locust or something, in which case my daily intake of whiskey would not be readily available. Therefore I refuse to believe in reincarnation, but the 70 virgins offered by the Muslim faith, even without the whiskey, has some attraction.

Redrocket

havnt read the whole thread.....

but apparently you sh1t and p1ss yourself

Borneo Fnctn

Húrin wrote: »

They [athiests] believe that they are right and nothing can sway them from this (oh yes, except 'evidence', but it has to be of the "right" kind).

Look, I'm big into the scientific way of doing things. If somebody can come up with a proper scientific theory that does not rely on blind faith to propose the existence of God, I'll acknowledge the possibility of a God. There has been no reliable evidence to support the claims of any religion. Most All of the so called evidence put forward by theists is pure conjecture. It is the theists who refuse to look at the argument objectively. A scientist by nature will acknowledge sound reasoning. A theist by nature will reject logic in favour of blind faith.