Where do you think we go when we die?
- Thread starter Pyromanga
- Start date
you die... but you're still here, and will ever remain here...
I'm not talking about your soul, or anything else like it. What I say is that your body is compund by atoms, most of them Carbon, Oxigen, and Hydrogen. All the things you think and feel are electrical impulses working on your brain, partially like the computer almost "thinking" in front of you, right now. so, when your brain vanishes, all of these thing will vanish, too.
Where a computer goes when it is destroyed? to heaven? hell? I think you believe it simply doesn't have a soul, and by that you mean he ain't going nowhere. So why should we? since we are destroyed just like it?
Well, that's my opinion... It's difficult to change what I think, but you could give it a try(XD). Seriously... All the opinions I show to others are thoughs of mine, created after at least a year of study... As I believe you shouldn't change your opinion in believing that 2+2=4, when it's been a year you saw it... It's like the same...
I'm not talking about your soul, or anything else like it. What I say is that your body is compund by atoms, most of them Carbon, Oxigen, and Hydrogen. All the things you think and feel are electrical impulses working on your brain, partially like the computer almost "thinking" in front of you, right now. so, when your brain vanishes, all of these thing will vanish, too.
Where a computer goes when it is destroyed? to heaven? hell? I think you believe it simply doesn't have a soul, and by that you mean he ain't going nowhere. So why should we? since we are destroyed just like it?
Well, that's my opinion... It's difficult to change what I think, but you could give it a try(XD). Seriously... All the opinions I show to others are thoughs of mine, created after at least a year of study... As I believe you shouldn't change your opinion in believing that 2+2=4, when it's been a year you saw it... It's like the same...
ixis;156114 said:
I'm am a minister in my church, and that is very true. The people who believe they can sit on their butts all day and watch t.v., 'knowing' that God will supply all their needs, are foolish. The people who have utter faith in God for him to do all, but don't do anything, expecting God to do everything for him, are foolish.
What God does is push us in the right direction. If we stray, that's our fault. But if he did everything for us, then why would there be free will?
Anyways, I just wanted to comment on how true that was. But never go to pokemonelite2000.com
I don't have a problem with aethiests, to me, they're just people who aren't sure on things. But this forum brings it to a whole nother level. Man! If there are any people here who are aethiests, go to that forum. You'll probably convert to a religion.
But, that's off the subject. People always think that if you're good, you'll go to Heaven. You're bad, hell. That is a childish way to think of it. Heaven is for the people who accept God truly. Most people get sarcastic and say that right before a murderer is executed, they'll fake a "Sorry God" and go to Heaven. I hate it when people do that.
Khengi;156475 said:
Are you for real? Are you from the 17th centuary or something?
Khengi;156475 said:
There is no free will in religion! Everything you do is somewhat connected to try to please God.
Khengi;156475 said:
To me, religious people aren´t sure of them selves. They have to grab on to believes that there are some divine power that looks after us. They don´t take responsibilities for their own lives.
Khengi;156475 said:
Yeah, you really hate it when people who are about to be executed are praying...sigh... You seam to be a nice minister.
No, you read that wrong (and I typed it wrong). I meant that I hate it when people get sarcastic on that. If a murderer is being executed and he prays, I don't have a problem as long as it's not his idea of a loophole or last resort. God should be your first resort, not your "Crap.. I'm dyin' in 5 minutes for rape... better pray that I get in good."
Bryta;156457 said:
Existence can contain fun, but "fun" by itself is short lived. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Personally, I don't like human existence, it feels so insubstantial when compared to naturalism and the heft of the universe. Do you truly feel that anything in this world has permanence or meaning? No, it's humans that give things meaning and create ideas. Compared to everything else we're unnatural.
Furthermore what's the point of an everlasting bliss or torment in heaven or hell in the afterlife? It's a mental impossibility (as I doubt the physical realm has little to do with heaven and hell.) Reincarnation is an interesting course, but that would be ignoring the great number of human lives we have now as compared to thousands of years ago. It'd be foolish to think we have the same amount of life on the Earth now as we did millions of years ago.
Really, the only reason we feel there's meaning to life and things worth living is because we've thought that up.
And for the record, I'm 22. It was a mistake to say everything sucks, however with the joke about psionics and creepy bug-eyed magic I figured the idea of "hey, this is all a joke" would somehow get across. I apologize, I'll use more smilies next time. ;D
Shadow_Strike
Member
That's not very nice.
Roman Candle
Member
But neither is it not nice.
Actually isn't it agnostic people who aren't sure on things? Although, i suppose that aethiests don't know for sure God doesn't exist, because we know, like at absolute most 1% of all of the knowledge in the universe, and who is to say absolute proof of God isn't in the other 99%?
And before someone says it who says absolute proof he doesn't exist isn't in the other 99%? I guess it depends on how you view the evidence on earth, cos that is all God has given us.
And again, it comes down to faith.
And before someone says it who says absolute proof he doesn't exist isn't in the other 99%? I guess it depends on how you view the evidence on earth, cos that is all God has given us.
And again, it comes down to faith.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Agnostic - in the sence of the word, can mean "aren't sure on things", but in the classical and more influencial meaning it's someone who believes that things are unknowable or that certain ultimate powers or mysteries can not be explained, learned, or experienced by us mere mortals.
Agnostics also, historically, tend to be more into the mystery itself rather than a "lesson" learned. To use a horrible example, it's not important to go and get communion, as it's important to learn why one would go and receive communion. Learning the ritual isn't half as important as learning about the ritual.
Also, in many sences of the word, an agnostic can also be a way to describe someone's own personal way of belief - not just that they are an agnostic. For example an agnostic can be like an independent voter - you may not be part of the independent party. A person of the Jewish faith can be rather agnostic if they tend to question, without judgement or bias, there own belief and/or others in an attempt to learn from the answers they may receive. Even if it forces one to come to a possible road of faith or dissillusion with it that they themselves are uncomfortable with, or would rather not think about.
I think I already posted in this thread, me I think when we die it doesn't really matter what we think or want to happen. I don't mean that in a condescending fashion, just that if there is something, then it's there. I don't prescribe to the idea that rules or laws make someone a good person worthy of some reward as opposed to situations and experiences that you could never lay down into rules or laws. I'm basically just not worried about it.
Agnostics also, historically, tend to be more into the mystery itself rather than a "lesson" learned. To use a horrible example, it's not important to go and get communion, as it's important to learn why one would go and receive communion. Learning the ritual isn't half as important as learning about the ritual.
Also, in many sences of the word, an agnostic can also be a way to describe someone's own personal way of belief - not just that they are an agnostic. For example an agnostic can be like an independent voter - you may not be part of the independent party. A person of the Jewish faith can be rather agnostic if they tend to question, without judgement or bias, there own belief and/or others in an attempt to learn from the answers they may receive. Even if it forces one to come to a possible road of faith or dissillusion with it that they themselves are uncomfortable with, or would rather not think about.
I think I already posted in this thread, me I think when we die it doesn't really matter what we think or want to happen. I don't mean that in a condescending fashion, just that if there is something, then it's there. I don't prescribe to the idea that rules or laws make someone a good person worthy of some reward as opposed to situations and experiences that you could never lay down into rules or laws. I'm basically just not worried about it.
I don't know where you read the definition of agnostic sixtyandaquarter or if I just didn't really get it, but Agnostic is what we may call a "new" word: it was created by Huxley in the 19th century. And it mean 'who doesn't possess the knowledge" gnosis being the Greek word for knowledge, and "a" being an anti-prefix.
It was based on Kant philosophy, who stated that we will never know what is transcendental.To put it more bluntly it's a modern version of skepticism applied to metaphysic and theology.
A agnostic is ideally someone who can't pronounce itself on the existence of god,because God existence is unknown, so he considers that it is unnecessary to give him a cult or to follow a moral that he would have dictated to men.
It was based on Kant philosophy, who stated that we will never know what is transcendental.To put it more bluntly it's a modern version of skepticism applied to metaphysic and theology.
A agnostic is ideally someone who can't pronounce itself on the existence of god,because God existence is unknown, so he considers that it is unnecessary to give him a cult or to follow a moral that he would have dictated to men.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Because this is off topic I shall put it in a spoiler.
Agnostic has, by most dictionaries, as a noun, 3-6 definitions. Dictionary.com i think carries 4. The one I expressed, the whole "mystery" portion of my post, is the 4th in the dictionary I keep in my desk here.
Your definition is the 2nd on mine, and probably 1st on others. My first definition deals with the grouping of agnostic with athiests (which is untrue - though an agnostic can be without faith).
The term has several meanings. It can apply to a personal faith itself, a way of expressing and dealing with one's faith, or someone who is without knowledge. It can also mean a questioner, a quester of knowledge, or even as an insult to someone of religious standings, someone who seems to know little about the things they preach. In my families church they used to drag me to all the times, Father Pouchi would always call this other father an agnostic. When I asked about it, being a tiny kid and not knowing, he told me it was a joke, that he "talked out of his shoe" (he'd always say that instead of "talked out of his ass").
But true, your definition is probably more accurate. And I know what the word means (though I didn't know what the root gnosis meant specifically) and that it is a new word. But it wasn't just the Kants. Almost all forms of early Christianity is grouped into gnostic or agnostic my religious historians. Mainly because "you had two groups, one who said they knew what was, and others. Funny, because our entire church is built on the others. Tribes who wondered and tried to figure it all out. Thats why we have a holy mystery after all." - Father Doyle before he would become a monseniour (sp?).
I'm not arguing if it sounds like I am, if so I apologize. I'm just hyper and have no place to go or nothing to do for 2 hours.
And thanks for telling me who phrased the word, I knew it was new but I didn't know (Robert is it?) Huxley was the one.
Your definition is the 2nd on mine, and probably 1st on others. My first definition deals with the grouping of agnostic with athiests (which is untrue - though an agnostic can be without faith).
The term has several meanings. It can apply to a personal faith itself, a way of expressing and dealing with one's faith, or someone who is without knowledge. It can also mean a questioner, a quester of knowledge, or even as an insult to someone of religious standings, someone who seems to know little about the things they preach. In my families church they used to drag me to all the times, Father Pouchi would always call this other father an agnostic. When I asked about it, being a tiny kid and not knowing, he told me it was a joke, that he "talked out of his shoe" (he'd always say that instead of "talked out of his ass").
But true, your definition is probably more accurate. And I know what the word means (though I didn't know what the root gnosis meant specifically) and that it is a new word. But it wasn't just the Kants. Almost all forms of early Christianity is grouped into gnostic or agnostic my religious historians. Mainly because "you had two groups, one who said they knew what was, and others. Funny, because our entire church is built on the others. Tribes who wondered and tried to figure it all out. Thats why we have a holy mystery after all." - Father Doyle before he would become a monseniour (sp?).
I'm not arguing if it sounds like I am, if so I apologize. I'm just hyper and have no place to go or nothing to do for 2 hours.
And thanks for telling me who phrased the word, I knew it was new but I didn't know (Robert is it?) Huxley was the one.
woo lets go with the off topic spoiler thing!
Taken from http://www.religion-cults.com/heresies/first.htm. Yeah, it is a christian site (i think...) but it sums up what gnostics believe quite well. Gnosticism is not a different from of christianity, as is shown by the quote in the spoiler.
Oooh, and check out the last page of the Religion thread in the stickies at the top of the symposium, we are sort of having a discussion about how it isn't by works we are saved, but by the grace of God. (so it isn't good guys go to heaven, bad guys don't, it is guys who have accepted forgiveness from God go to heaven, others don't. One of my earlier posts on this thread deals with it (it was a BIG post, you can't miss it!).)
Gnosticism:
"Gnow", "to know", pre-Christian but adapted after Christ, they say "secret knowledge is what saves", a kind of secret knowledge of Christ, like some modern visionary mystics. Dualism of good and bad is another aspect of Gnosticism. 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted
The gnostics were a sect older than Christianity itself. They had already used Jewish faith as a basis with which they mixed many eastern myths as well as Greek philosophy (gnosis = knowledge).
Due to the multitude of influences, gnosticism varied largely in its forms. With the emergence of Christianity bits and pieces of Christian faith were integrated into gnosticism.
The main differences with Christianity and gnostic belief were that God, who was purely good, could not have created the world, as the world contained evil. Hence gnosticism created a mythology much like Greek mythology in which numerous other forces were the children of God. These children in turn created our world. One such child was Christ who descended to earth to share his knowledge, some secret knowledge of which the gnostics claimed to be only part of their religion (the unwritten, verbal knowledge passed on by Christ). Also associated with gnosticism are the beliefs that all matter was evil, including the human body and that Christs' divine spirit only descended into the man Jesus with his baptism and left him before his crucifiction, leaving the man, not the Messiah to suffer on the cross.
The greatest challenge to traditional Christianity posed by gnosticism was by Marcion (AD 100-160). The son of a bishop, probably even a bishop himself, Marcion came to Rome somewhen after AD 138. With his expulsion from the church for heresy, his followers formed themselves into a separate body, calling themselves the Marcionites, though they are also known as the first Dissenters.
Gnosticism survived long into the middle ages, and echoes of it are still to be heard in the teachings of the current day theosophical movement. (Marcionism survived until about the fifth century AD.)
The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins.
"Gnow", "to know", pre-Christian but adapted after Christ, they say "secret knowledge is what saves", a kind of secret knowledge of Christ, like some modern visionary mystics. Dualism of good and bad is another aspect of Gnosticism. 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted
The gnostics were a sect older than Christianity itself. They had already used Jewish faith as a basis with which they mixed many eastern myths as well as Greek philosophy (gnosis = knowledge).
Due to the multitude of influences, gnosticism varied largely in its forms. With the emergence of Christianity bits and pieces of Christian faith were integrated into gnosticism.
The main differences with Christianity and gnostic belief were that God, who was purely good, could not have created the world, as the world contained evil. Hence gnosticism created a mythology much like Greek mythology in which numerous other forces were the children of God. These children in turn created our world. One such child was Christ who descended to earth to share his knowledge, some secret knowledge of which the gnostics claimed to be only part of their religion (the unwritten, verbal knowledge passed on by Christ). Also associated with gnosticism are the beliefs that all matter was evil, including the human body and that Christs' divine spirit only descended into the man Jesus with his baptism and left him before his crucifiction, leaving the man, not the Messiah to suffer on the cross.
The greatest challenge to traditional Christianity posed by gnosticism was by Marcion (AD 100-160). The son of a bishop, probably even a bishop himself, Marcion came to Rome somewhen after AD 138. With his expulsion from the church for heresy, his followers formed themselves into a separate body, calling themselves the Marcionites, though they are also known as the first Dissenters.
Gnosticism survived long into the middle ages, and echoes of it are still to be heard in the teachings of the current day theosophical movement. (Marcionism survived until about the fifth century AD.)
The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins.
Oooh, and check out the last page of the Religion thread in the stickies at the top of the symposium, we are sort of having a discussion about how it isn't by works we are saved, but by the grace of God. (so it isn't good guys go to heaven, bad guys don't, it is guys who have accepted forgiveness from God go to heaven, others don't. One of my earlier posts on this thread deals with it (it was a BIG post, you can't miss it!).)
Afro Samurai
Member
Underground. Simple.
Well, not really. You are buried, that's for sure. But then you are decomposed, witch is the same thing of being eaten by millions of little animals. This animals transform part of what we were to energy for themselves, and "throw away" the part they aren't using(witch means now we're excrements). Then the plants use us to gain their energy, and now we are nothing but energy. Soo this energy will end and all the atoms of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. we had are now back to the planet.
That's where we go. Back to the planet. We are nothing less than atoms, and we will always will be atoms. Dying or not, we don't change a bit, we just are "spread away".
That's what I think.
That's where we go. Back to the planet. We are nothing less than atoms, and we will always will be atoms. Dying or not, we don't change a bit, we just are "spread away".
That's what I think.
I just think it depends on what you believe. Their is no right or wrong answer here. It's like trying to prove the existence of that persons faith deity or God. If you believe you have a soul, then it would be unlikely that you just get covered in dirt. What I personally think is depending on your moral beliefs their is a afterlife. But I'm not sure anymore. I think it's what people believe is what makes it seem real. Because people believe in a afterlife it may seem real to them while to us it would seem ridiculous. I think the hope of a afterlife continues because people want more then just getting buried when they die and that's it. It is pretty boring to just you die you get buried and your body gets decomposed to return your nutrients and organic substances back into the enviroment.
Nidhogg;184657":3gqn7h3u said:
Not only is that true, but we also came from plants and animals and even atoms from other deceased individuals. The planet is in a constant cycle of reuse. Atoms travel, as you said, from the person into the soil, into the plants, into animals as they eat the plant. People eat the animal (or the plant) and absorb the atoms. Then, the person's body absorbs the atoms, and uses them to assemble the growing fetus inside them. Which is birthed, grows up and then comes onto RMXP.org!
We are all in a constant cycle of death and rebirth, in a sense. As Einstein said, matter cannot be created or destroyed. Only reordered.
Nidhogg;184657 said:
I think the topic's main choice is the 'conciousness' thing. I'd find it hard to believe that someone would disagree with your general thoughts there, as it's just sort of you know, how it happens. But there's no way to prove what happens to our thoughts or whatever, unless there's some definititive finding that proves our thoughts are merely a natural outcropping of our physical build. Or whatever. EDIT: who we are, i.e. our personality and conciousness is supposedly unique across the board (we're told so often as children it's hard not to believe it), rather than just a result of how our brain happens to shoot electrons around. Like our physical structure affects our being, but isn't the end-all reason for it. You know what I mean, a soul, that cute little thing people think pops out of our body after we die and floats up/down to who knows where, and is the essence of who we are instead of the realistic view of we being who we are. I mean, those little images of the soul popping out even argue against themselves, why would your soul look exactly like your person if the soul is your 'true self', why would they even look like a person in the first place? Why am I rambling so much in a little edit to clarify my thinking, really just making my logic harder to follow?
I think people find a hard time believing that they won't be able to think after they bite the bucket(lol accidently used two), that there won't be a 'them' to think.
It's my opinion that I don't have an opinion one way or another, and in the case of the one I'd like the most (reincarnation, karma style), I wouldn't even know after death anyways. Wee