What do you think?

[-EnVus-]

I know there is a heaven and i'm a strong believer of my faith. I don't try to argue with people about if its real or fake and if god does or don't exist. That isnt what he wants nor is the bible about. I just can say this when i die id rather be at peace knowing or believing there is a better place for me in the after life. That heaven and my family is waiting for me. Why would i wanna be a nay sayer what does that do for me when its my time. Those are the ones who will worry and be scared the most. When you have no hope or dreams of what is for you to come. That is what will be the scary part of dieing.
I know ill be going happy and at peace i just pray for the ones that will be lost and damned for eternity.

[quickdodge®]

I know there is a heaven and i'm a strong believer of my faith.

I know you believe strongly in your faith so you might not see my point (and I'm not trying to conflict you), but there is a difference in "knowing" and "faith." You don't "know" that there is a heaven. You faith allows you to believe there is a heaven. And I find nothing at all wrong with that. It's great to have something to believe in. A belief of an afterlife where you could spend a happy eternity. I honeslty hope that that is how it ends and I'd want to be a par of that. However;

Why would i wanna be a nay sayer what does that do for me when its my time.

Not "knowing for sure" what is to become of us, it can be hard to say. Some people live their life on facts. Not one human being on this Earth knows for a fact that there is a heaven. I strive to do good in my life so that if that time comes and if there is Heaven that will allow me to enter, then I'll be glad to. I follow the 10 Commandments to a tee (aside from the dreaded GD word which I hate myself for using each time i do) and hope that my actions on Earth will be rewarded nicely when I'm not of this Earth. I guess we'll see, huh. Later, QD.

[BluesClues]

and hope that my actions on Earth will be rewarded nicely when I'm not of this Earth. I guess we'll see, huh. Later, QD.

x2

[bu villain]

I know there is a heaven and i'm a strong believer of my faith. I don't try to argue with people about if its real or fake and if god does or don't exist. That isnt what he wants nor is the bible about. I just can say this when i die id rather be at peace knowing or believing there is a better place for me in the after life. That heaven and my family is waiting for me. Why would i wanna be a nay sayer what does that do for me when its my time. Those are the ones who will worry and be scared the most. When you have no hope or dreams of what is for you to come. That is what will be the scary part of dieing.
I know ill be going happy and at peace i just pray for the ones that will be lost and damned for eternity.

I agree that believing in heaven may make the end of life easier for some however some of us don't feel that just because we want it to be true makes it so. We aren't trying to be "nay sayers" we are just admitting our own ignorance...also known as humility.

[_Christian_]

I know there is a heaven and i'm a strong believer of my faith. I don't try to argue with people about if its real or fake and if god does or don't exist. That isnt what he wants nor is the bible about. I just can say this when i die id rather be at peace knowing or believing there is a better place for me in the after life. That heaven and my family is waiting for me. Why would i wanna be a nay sayer what does that do for me when its my time. Those are the ones who will worry and be scared the most. When you have no hope or dreams of what is for you to come. That is what will be the scary part of dieing.
I know ill be going happy and at peace i just pray for the ones that will be lost and damned for eternity.

That's fine if it makes you more comfortable with death, however that doesn't add any truth value nor does it provide any evidence for the existence of a god. Non-believers can't just choose to have blind faith in something that makes no logical sense to them...except for maybe Kirk Cameron, but not the case with the majority of atheists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that either there's no god or the Christian god is a false dichotomy. What if you're worshiping the wrong god? There are many religions that damn all nonbelievers, so the odds of the Christian god being the right one, if there is a god in the first place, are very slim.

If they was a way to prove that God doesn't exist and that when we die thats it done and over would we wanna live in that world ?
I mean we have a sinful world now full of hate crime and death if they knew for a fact and if they was no God then we would have all been dead and gone long ago from the craziness of our ways of living and the people of our world.

There doesn't have to be an invisible guy looking over everyone's shoulder for people to do good things. If I know that this is the only life I'll get, it has much more value than if I know I will live infinitely past my death. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." When looking at the whole timeline of human evolution, religion only came into existence in our most recent ancestors. We did just fine up until that point. Religion is purely man made.

I believe that when your body dies, your mind follows suit and returns to a state of nonexistence, just like before your birth. There's no good evidence to suggest that a soul transcends the body or that there is any sort of afterlife. I think believing otherwise is just wishful thinking. When you die, you're dead. That's it, no escape to a magical sky kingdom, no eternal suffering. Feeling this way makes me realize just how precious life is and how privileged I am to be a part of it.

[BABY J]

There doesn't have to be an invisible guy looking over everyone's shoulder for people to do good things. If I know that this is the only life I'll get, it has much more value than if I know I will live infinitely past my death. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." When looking at the whole timeline of human evolution, religion only came into existence in our most recent ancestors. We did just fine up until that point. Religion is purely man made.

I believe that when your body dies, your mind follows suit and returns to a state of nonexistence, just like before your birth. There's no good evidence to suggest that a soul transcends the body or that there is any sort of afterlife. I think believing otherwise is just wishful thinking. When you die, you're dead. That's it, no escape to a magical sky kingdom, no eternal suffering. Feeling this way makes me realize just how precious life is and how privileged I am to be a part of it.

SUCCESS!!!!!!!!

[sport_122]

There doesn't have to be an invisible guy looking over everyone's shoulder for people to do good things. If I know that this is the only life I'll get, it has much more value than if I know I will live infinitely past my death. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

So please, define good, because there are plenty of "good" people doing evil things that are not people of some sort of faith. My point is that I do not consider myself good nor do I consider myself religious. Religious to me defines a person who believes that their goodness or lack of determines their sanctity. If I could honestly look at my life and consider myself to be "good" then there is a problem with my own view of myself. I have lied, I have stolen, I have hurt other people...so how can I qualify myself as good? All it takes is one time. The question of morality is right and wrong...it is yes or no...you either are good or you are not. If you have any wrong in you then you cannot be good. I could have lived a great life and my only wrong doing was murder...am I still good? I only did one wrong thing...why would I be bad? What is your definition of good vs bad? Do you think its a scale...the amount of good vs the amount of bad...now how do you know if your "good" deeds in and of themselves did not cause bad results? Are they still good if they do?

My point is that this statement assumes a universal definition and understanding of good. We do not carry one, yet we have a morally understood code, which Weinberg denies...well this is a philosophical problem. We do not have a definition of good yet we can call the acts of a man good or evil...This statement doesn't really make sense in his world view because good and evil are relative constructs of human intellect, and there is no ground for you to judge my good or bad because it is just as valuable as yours. When we prosecuted the generals of Nazi Germany this was not a suitable defense "in our country, doing what we did was legal therefor you cannot punish us for what we did in service of our country under our countries law" they made this argument and we said, yes we can because the laws that you violated were laws against all of mankind and the laws of man condemn you.

When looking at the whole timeline of human evolution, religion only came into existence in our most recent ancestors. We did just fine up until that point. Religion is purely man made.

that is false. We do not have records of any society that was religion/faith free. Not a one. Now if you are talking about organized widespread religion then that is a different story...the mega churches and cultural priorities that infiltrate faith systems is damaging and that is something that happened in the last 3000 years.

But I actually find it interesting that you said the wrong God vs the right God. For instance when you address the Judeo-Christian God vs Zeus and Thor, you are now talking about something much different. You are talking about something that has been argued with evidence vs something that has none to support the existence. This is a very significant that should be addressed.

You are right though about some people taking more evidence to believe. I am one of those people, and it took tons of evidence for me to believe what I believe, but I will say that the evidence is there and I believe it is an act of God to open hearts to understanding of such things, because in the hardness of our hearts we can deny anything regardless of evidence...

But back on topic,
The question about what happens after you die is not just a Christian question, but so many approach it that way when just about every religion contributes its understanding of morality to some sort of after this life reward. Now my beliefs are that the Christian faith has the best evidence laid out that if you were to bring the case to a court there could be no wrong, just as there was no wrong in Christ.

How do you give account to the enumerable religions that all have beliefs in the afterlife, and how do you account for the studies that have been done and the paranormal to support such beliefs? I don't believe that the thousands upon thousands of accounts of paranormal activity are all wrong. In fact all it takes is one account to be true, just like with UFO's, Jesus.

[bu villain]

But back on topic,
The question about what happens after you die is not just a Christian question, but so many approach it that way when just about every religion contributes its understanding of morality to some sort of after this life reward. Now my beliefs are that the Christian faith has the best evidence laid out that if you were to bring the case to a court there could be no wrong, just as there was no wrong in Christ.

This isn't evidence for an afterlife. It is evidence that religions understand a promise of reward/punishment helps to change behaviors.

How do you give account to the enumerable religions that all have beliefs in the afterlife, and how do you account for the studies that have been done and the paranormal to support such beliefs? I don't believe that the thousands upon thousands of accounts of paranormal activity are all wrong. In fact all it takes is one account to be true, just like with UFO's, Jesus.

One of the main purposes of religion is to answer the scary and difficult questions in life in order to make people feel better or more comfortable. If a religion claimed there were no afterlife it sure would be harder to control people's behaviour.

Even though I don't necessarily agree I will concede there are legitimate paranormal phenomenon for the sake of argument. That still doesn't prove an afterlife. We certainly don't understand such phenomena (if they exist at all) so I think it's rather premature to use them to claim it proves an afterlife. For example, it could be a lingering energy thats like a snapshot of a person's thoughts before they died. It hardly proves they still have consciousness. Also, there is absolutely no reason to believe its for eternity either.

[sport_122]

This isn't evidence for an afterlife. It is evidence that religions understand a promise of reward/punishment helps to change behaviors.

One of the main purposes of religion is to answer the scary and difficult questions in life in order to make people feel better or more comfortable. If a religion claimed there were no afterlife it sure would be harder to control people's behaviour.

Even though I don't necessarily agree I will concede there are legitimate paranormal phenomenon for the sake of argument. That still doesn't prove an afterlife. We certainly don't understand such phenomena (if they exist at all) so I think it's rather premature to use them to claim it proves an afterlife. For example, it could be a lingering energy thats like a snapshot of a person's thoughts before they died. It hardly proves they still have consciousness. Also, there is absolutely no reason to believe its for eternity either.

Gary Schwartz's study demonstrated that something is left of the consciousness of people who are deceased. He of course gets flaked for it because it is not mainstream, but none-the-less he provided hard data that when looked at objectively makes a good case for something going on that is legitimate.

Also, the idea of whether or not there is an eternity is a different discussion, we can go into that too, but I thought this thread was simply about what we thought happens when you die. Even if that afterlife is only for a couple of moments to a couple of decades there is still something left to be understood about what makes us who we are.

Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual. We possess something that cannot be measured through hard science and numbers because these things transcend the physical. To understand their existence and to define them scientifically are two different things. I am suggesting that there is life...I am not suggesting that we have been able to scientifically pen the specifics of the transition into that life after life.

[BABY J]

Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual. We possess something that cannot be measured through hard science and numbers because these things transcend the physical. To understand their existence and to define them scientifically are two different things. I am suggesting that there is life...I am not suggesting that we have been able to scientifically pen the specifics of the transition into that life after life.

Where is your proof that all humans are spiritual???

[sport_122]

Where is your proof that all humans are spiritual???

as always, nobody can prove anything to anyone. The evidence is listed numerous times in these threads. Our greater connection to one another, research demonstrating a spiritual existence of people long deceased...if you want to look for evidence and you are serious there are TON of resources at your local bookstore, google, etc etc...but the evidence of a great human character that is not physical is plentiful to say the least.

[bu villain]

Gary Schwartz's study demonstrated that something is left of the consciousness of people who are deceased. He of course gets flaked for it because it is not mainstream, but none-the-less he provided hard data that when looked at objectively makes a good case for something going on that is legitimate.

Link to said study? I would be interested in reading it.

[sport_122]

Link to said study? I would be interested in reading it.

this is a synopsis. You can get the finer details of the study. Of course there are still the skeptics, but read his research for yourself to determine whether or not you think his team covered the bases.

The studies are continuing under a new name.

also Victor Zammit. check him out. he offered a challenge to skeptics to join him is study. A challenge of which nobody stepped up to.

but anyway.

http://www.thepsychictimes.com/artic...fter_death.htm

[_Christian_]

So please, define good, because there are plenty of "good" people doing evil things that are not people of some sort of faith. My point is that I do not consider myself good nor do I consider myself religious. Religious to me defines a person who believes that their goodness or lack of determines their sanctity. If I could honestly look at my life and consider myself to be "good" then there is a problem with my own view of myself. I have lied, I have stolen, I have hurt other people...so how can I qualify myself as good? All it takes is one time. The question of morality is right and wrong...it is yes or no...you either are good or you are not. If you have any wrong in you then you cannot be good. I could have lived a great life and my only wrong doing was murder...am I still good? I only did one wrong thing...why would I be bad? What is your definition of good vs bad? Do you think its a scale...the amount of good vs the amount of bad...

You aren't necessarily evil because you have done those things. Whether you are good or not has less to do with the quantity of evil deeds and more to do with the impact of those deeds on other people. If you murdered someone than you have caused the ultimate harm to that person. That makes you more evil than liars or thieves because you have inflicted the worst possible damage upon your fellow man.

The bible says it's a sin to lie, but what if I lived in Nazi Germany and was hiding Jews in my home. Then one day the Gestapo comes by and asks if I'm harboring Jews. In that case would lying be immoral? Would I be a better person for telling the truth?

now how do you know if your "good" deeds in and of themselves did not cause bad results? Are they still good if they do?

You don't always know. Sometimes what seems like the right thing to do can be wrong, in that case the deed is no longer good. However that doesn't make the person bad if they really meant to do good, it just means they made a mistake. I still think people should be held accountable for all their actions regardless of intent.

My point is that this statement assumes a universal definition and understanding of good. We do not carry one, yet we have a morally understood code, which Weinberg denies...well this is a philosophical problem. We do not have a definition of good yet we can call the acts of a man good or evil...This statement doesn't really make sense in his world view because good and evil are relative constructs of human intellect, and there is no ground for you to judge my good or bad because it is just as valuable as yours. When we prosecuted the generals of Nazi Germany this was not a suitable defense "in our country, doing what we did was legal therefor you cannot punish us for what we did in service of our country under our countries law" they made this argument and we said, yes we can because the laws that you violated were laws against all of mankind and the laws of man condemn you.

While I don't think there is an absolute objective good or evil, modern society has a fairly universal understanding of morality. We may disagree on some things but we have a general concept of what's right and what's wrong. Like I said above, it's based on how your actions effect those around you.

that is false. We do not have records of any society that was religion/faith free. Not a one. Now if you are talking about organized widespread religion then that is a different story...the mega churches and cultural priorities that infiltrate faith systems is damaging and that is something that happened in the last 3000 years.

Please show me evidence of religion in Homo habilis or even Homo erectus...

But I actually find it interesting that you said the wrong God vs the right God. For instance when you address the Judeo-Christian God vs Zeus and Thor, you are now talking about something much different. You are talking about something that has been argued with evidence vs something that has none to support the existence. This is a very significant that should be addressed.

They are all unfalsifiable and there is no evidence to support the existence of any god.

You are right though about some people taking more evidence to believe. I am one of those people, and it took tons of evidence for me to believe what I believe, but I will say that the evidence is there and I believe it is an act of God to open hearts to understanding of such things, because in the hardness of our hearts we can deny anything regardless of evidence...

If that's the case you should publish a peer reviewed scientific journal with all of your "evidence."

But back on topic,
The question about what happens after you die is not just a Christian question, but so many approach it that way when just about every religion contributes its understanding of morality to some sort of after this life reward. Now my beliefs are that the Christian faith has the best evidence laid out that if you were to bring the case to a court there could be no wrong, just as there was no wrong in Christ.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

How do you give account to the enumerable religions that all have beliefs in the afterlife, and how do you account for the studies that have been done and the paranormal to support such beliefs? I don't believe that the thousands upon thousands of accounts of paranormal activity are all wrong. In fact all it takes is one account to be true, just like with UFO's, Jesus.

Consensus does not equate truth.

[sport_122]

Sorry OP but this post is almost completely off topic.

Christian, there are plenty of other threads that this type of conversation could live in. but here is my response none the less.

You aren't necessarily evil because you have done those things. Whether you are good or not has less to do with the quantity of evil deeds and more to do with the impact of those deeds on other people. If you murdered someone than you have caused the ultimate harm to that person. That makes you more evil than liars or thieves because you have inflicted the worst possible damage upon your fellow man.

So... you also said this

I believe that when your body dies, your mind follows suit and returns to a state of nonexistence, just like before your birth.

Well if this is the case then how do you rationalize penalties for murder. If life has no value save for a little bit of fun, then why does it have value should it be taken? Why does the individual life, in your world view, warrant protecting? If once a person is dead, they have not cognitive or conscious existence then why are they valuable?

The bible says it's a sin to lie, but what if I lived in Nazi Germany and was hiding Jews in my home. Then one day the Gestapo comes by and asks if I'm harboring Jews. In that case would lying be immoral? Would I be a better person for telling the truth?

Again this question is misrepresenting the foundations of the Christian world view. As I stated in a previous post, you cannot be a better person either way, whether you tell the truth this time or whether you lie. It is very clear that the Bible states that none of us are good people. So in my worldview the only thing that can justify your actions, as loving actions, to save the lives of those you are harboring, is Christ, as his life is the only one that I believe to have ever been truly good.

Also, you misrepresent the commandment of lying. The commandments are about the condition of the heart during the deeds written with in. In other words, there is a very distinct difference between lying to save because of love, and lying to lie because of self preservation or malice intent. The condition of the heart in either of these opposing deeds is completely different. In the book of Samual God tells Samuel to be careful how he looks upon David (who would later be king), do not judge him based on his appearance because I have already rejecting him based on this, and then God tells Samuel, "but I am not a man, and what I am looking at (when looking at David) is his heart".

This is important, because as men we often try to judge whether or not we are "good" based on the outward. We do the same thing when we look at the character of God. But we cannot understand God therefore we are not able to give judgement toward him, yet we are given the

You don't always know. Sometimes what seems like the right thing to do can be wrong, in that case the deed is no longer good. However that doesn't make the person bad if they really meant to do good, it just means they made a mistake. I still think people should be held accountable for all their actions regardless of intent.

While I don't think there is an absolute objective good or evil, modern society has a fairly universal understanding of morality. We may disagree on some things but we have a general concept of what's right and what's wrong. Like I said above, it's based on how your actions effect those around you.

If there is no absolute morality, then how do you justify punishing anyone? If there is no absolute then how can you justify debating things in this thread? In saying there is no absolute, then you remove the validity of any statement that you make because you admit that what you say is not necessarily true, but its your opinion and anything you do is okay as long as it is your rule for yourself. This is where you lose the ability to punish those who do wrong because they are doing what is within their moral compass.

My christian world view, holds this accountability. How, because I believe that God is just, and that nothing can escape his justice and nothing can escape his law. I believe that his law is the absolute of which all men have built into the very DNA that identifies us. Outside of this worldview is relativism. You have just demonstrated relativism by saying that a persons actions can be bad, the person can be good, and they should be punished still.

Please show me evidence of religion in Homo habilis or even Homo erectus...

This question assumes that I believe in this type of evolution. I don't. But I can say that in all of our history and pre-history, every man that we can truthfully understand their ways of life, had some sort of understanding of our extra-physical existence. Which is why I said religion/faith. Because in all of our existence we have always known there was more, but we do not truly "know" God until he reveals himself to us.

You can know that something is there but now "know" the specifics of that thing.

They are all unfalsifiable and there is no evidence to support the existence of any god.

If that's the case you should publish a peer reviewed scientific journal with all of your "evidence."

The evidence is great. Its your ability or desire to really try to understand it that is lacking. Only a person in denial makes a statement like that. You see, I believe that all men know that there is a God, and we know that we have a set of rules of which we should live by that transcend our societal understandings of law. I think that is one of the reasons why people spend so much time trying to refute the evidence that is presented.

Much like your mother telling you to clean your room and you hear her calling your name ,but you simply ignore it. You know that she has the authority over you, yet you ignore her. You know that she can come into the room and punish you, yet you ignore her for the sake of your own foolishness, because you realize that your mother eventually will come and will set forth her authority over you. This is an example of the denial that I think some men demonstrate. You know in your deepest core that God is real, and so desperately we want to do our best to try to put him out of our minds because we also know that he is just and that he is powerful and that we have been running from him.



"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."


Consensus does not equate truth.[/quote]

I agree... so how can you be a relativist? Now remember that same thing when you try to argue evolutionary stand points and when you try to explain away morality. How do you suppose this statement to be true in your world view...in mine, Truth exists, in yours how does it? how do you have absolute truth in a world of relativism?

My point in all of this is that in order to even begin to make statements to support your world view, you have demonstrated that we must take away ideas from the Christian world view. You mentioned justice, you mentioned truth, you mentioned law...and all of these things have no grounding in anything if they are seen purely as constructs of men and products of culture in society. If that were the case, then your world view also believes that you are foolish for wasting time discussion these things of which you do not believe to be true/real.

[bu villain]

I'm glad you brought up the issue of taking the bible literally (e.g., think that all lying is equally bad) but unfortunately many people seem to take everything in it literally:

God made man is his own image = God looks like a human
The universe was created in 7 days = Universe created in 168 hours

Except of course when it comes to things like stoning people, women talking in church, etc.

Anyways I would like to respond to a couple points.

Well if this is the case then how do you rationalize penalties for murder. If life has no value save for a little bit of fun, then why does it have value should it be taken? Why does the individual life, in your world view, warrant protecting? If once a person is dead, they have not cognitive or conscious existence then why are they valuable?

Life not having a "purpose" is not the same as having no value. Most atheist believe life is very valuable, not because of God but because it has intrinsic worth. If we would like to live then by definition life has value. We protect life because if we do not, then it is more likely that our lives in turn will not be protected. That is also why we value animals lives less than our own. There is much less danger for humans by not protecting animal life.

If there is no absolute morality, then how do you justify punishing anyone? If there is no absolute then how can you justify debating things in this thread? In saying there is no absolute, then you remove the validity of any statement that you make because you admit that what you say is not necessarily true, but its your opinion and anything you do is okay as long as it is your rule for yourself. This is where you lose the ability to punish those who do wrong because they are doing what is within their moral compass.

Actually punishment is not based on morality always. Running a red light is not immoral, especially if you make sure the intersection is clear first but we punish people for it because it makes the streets safer. From a Christian perspective, why should anyone be punished by other people? I thought the Bible says not to judge others and that God is responsible for justice.

[sport_122]

Actually punishment is not based on morality always. Running a red light is not immoral, especially if you make sure the intersection is clear first but we punish people for it because it makes the streets safer. From a Christian perspective, why should anyone be punished by other people? I thought the Bible says not to judge others and that God is responsible for justice.

All laws flow from an understanding of morality. The government is charged with a moral obligation to protect and enforce rules that will protect citizens.

Now of course this is not the same kind of universal morality that we normally speak of. But for the believer, breaking the red light law, is an immoral act against the laws of God. Because we are commanded to follow the laws of God and the laws of the authorities placed over us (as long as they do not conflict with the laws of God), then we are responsible for obeying traffic laws, and following the legal framework as laid out by the authorities that God has placed over us.

I also believe there is a difference between our internal moral code and our development or the revelation of laws in our universe. One is embedded and we do not need to discover it because it is already within us, and the other needs to be revealed and can be very subjective based on an infinite number of factors.