Librarium Online Forums banner

According to your beleifs, what happens when you die?

2.1K views 49 replies 17 participants last post by  Xiahou Dun  
#1 ·
According to your own beliefs, what happens when you die? There are many different things that occur in different religions when you die, please post what happens according to your beliefs and give a decent explanation why.

I ask this thread because while firmly in my own religion, I like to do occasional religious research, so I figured I'd ask the highly diversified religious members of LO what they think will happen when they die and why. Do you believe in eternity? Ressurection?

Anyone who is Humanity is superior or Aitheist is very welcome to discuss their feelings on death aswell.

Thanks in advance.
-Darien
 
#2 ·
Nice thread. ^_^

Mine: Well, I belive that if there is an afterlife, people will be sent wherever depending on their character, and what they did in thier life time. I really don't like the idea of "if your a [X religion beliver] your ok, but if your anyone else, even if your cool and nice, you go to hell." I also like the the idea of Karma, and Nirvana. Between those two, I guess. I guess, If you were to classify me as religion, I would be Humanist/Bhuddist/Agnostic.

"A good soldier never dies, he just fades away." - Last words of Douglas Macarthur.

"Death is not the end of the journey, merely another part of it" - Gandalf, LoTR.

Some nice quotes, I thought.

Cheers Darien!
 
#3 · (Edited)
Thank you Hoss, do you mind if I call you that? Thanks for your permission. I appreciate the qoutes very much, and I am happy to have learned your views.

Anyone else?
 
#5 ·
@Darien, it's actually Lord Hoss, (my nickname for him, my rules).

I believe in reincarnation and karma. Once you get a high enough karma score, you go elsewhere, (Heaven, the next layer of the onion, whatever, I'm not sure on this part).
 
#6 ·
Very well Hersh, Lord Hoss it is. :D

Reincarnation, interesting. You believe the one that you attain a higher plain of existence when you reach enough "karma" or the one you come back as a different creature in this world? I'm pretty sure the first, do you believe you retain all your memories and thoughts when your... uhh transported? to the next plain, realm? part of the onion you said?

Thanks to Hersh for sharing his views, may many more of you decide to share yours.
 
#7 ·
THE Hersh said:
I believe in reincarnation and karma. Once you get a high enough karma score, you go elsewhere, (Heaven, the next layer of the onion, whatever, I'm not sure on this part).
Really? That sounds a bit like the Rep system. When you get a high enough rep score, you go to the enhanced forum. A wonderful, magical, forum.:tongue:

But seriously, I'm with you on that, I believe in reincarnation and karma too, just not exactly like you do.

I think when you die, you come back as whatever you want to be in your next life.

And with karma, I just believe that what goes around, comes around.
If you help people, be kind etc. you get that same help and kindness back from others, but if you are mean, and hurt others, that's gonna come right back and kick you in the ass.

That's what I believe.;)
 
#8 ·
Nice question (Y)

I believe in reincarnation too. When I first got interested in Zen I thought reincarnation was a silly idea, and seemed as arbitrary and made up as going to heaven and sitting on a cloud. I thought reincarnation seemed very old fashioned, but the older I get the more I actually feel in my heart that that is what happens. And that is the only evidence anyone ever has to go on about life after death, what they feel in their heart.

I think you keep going around until you have learnt every lesson there is to learn and then you are released and become one with the universe. This is a fairly standard Buddhist viewpoint. I feel privelidged to be a human being, because it means I have successfully learnt the lessons of every other form of life and am on the home stretch so to speak. I try not to waste the opportunities I get to learn the human lessons for this reason.

To me this makes sense, though I can see how it could easily be considered idle fantasy to someone else. But I guess that's the nature of all beliefs isn't it?
 
#9 ·
The part about being reincarnated into another creature is one aspect of Buddhism that I don't buy into, (coming back as a grasshopper, who's Corn Flakes did I urinate in?). But, say you were an evil person, you might get reincarnated into a hard life, (I'm pretty sure I was a mass murderer in a past life), or (more likely IMO), you come back with a nasty Karma debt to burn, (bad things keep happening to you). It makes sense to me and it makes certain things easier to stomach, (it's why bad things happen to good people, you're working off a Karma debt from a previous life).
 
#11 · (Edited)
A beer volacano and a stripper factory? I like your idea of heaven. I may have to change my official religion to Bhuddhist-Christian-Pastaferian.

EDIT Bonjordo, how the heck am I supposed to thank you for the rep if there is no room in your inbox for a PM. Well thanx anyway.
 
#12 ·
If you suggest that your consciousness persists after your body shuts down and dies, then what is the mechanism for that? Your intellect didn't exist before you were born into existence, why should it continue after your body ceases to exist?

All the hard scientific evidence points to humans just being exceptionally well developed machines, with sophisticated computers for brains. The undeniable evidence proves that humans have evolved for many many hundreds of thousands of years - so did our ancient ancestor **** erectus ergaster have an immortal soul?

And as I say, our brains are wonderfully sophisticated computers, capable of abstract thought and with excellent imagination software upgrades. They are perfectly able to concoct and support the concept of some kind of invisible, intangible all-powerful deity to 'explain' difficult realities. So, once the computer is wrecked (by death), where does its 'program' go? And if our intellect, our 'self' can exist outside our human shells, why bother with them in the first place? They are messy and squalid, and break down far too often.

The simplest explanation is that we die after death. Our intellect dissipates as our brains die. The body switches off, and the program is lost. Anyone who tries to make you believe anything else is trying to sell you something.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Sareld
#13 · (Edited)
That's a perfectly valid belief to hold. Although I would remind you that the simplest explanation is not always the truth.

Take reincarnation for example. I am not suggesting that "I, Robotnik" continue after death. That is as you said unlikely. But is it not a scientific law that energy is never destroyed or created, just shifted around?

What is it that animates my body? What is "the spark of life," the force that exists in every living animal or plant and is absent in every corpse? It cannot, as far as I am aware, be located, and so has no physical existence in time or space. This makes it untouchable to science. What starts my heart beating as a foetus and then one day causes it to stop?

To me the most likely explanation is that the spark of life is a form of energy that we do not currently have the technology to detect. If it is energy, then it conforms to the rules of energy. This means that in a very real sense my spark of life has travelled through billions of other physical vessels since the beginning of the universe, and will continue to do so until the universe ends. This means that I am one with all of the other living creatures that have contained my spark over the aeons. In a very real sense I was them and they are me.

So from a truly scientific viewpoint, judging from what we know about the universe some variant of reincarnation is the most likely explanation.

What are you selling? ;) The idea that anything we can't see doesn't exist? That sounds like a clear agenda to me, designed to make everyone bow to scientists as the arbiters of truth.
 
#14 · (Edited)
robotnik said:
That's a perfectly valid belief to hold. Although I would remind you that the simplest explanation is not always the truth.
But usually it is. And the notion of evolution is by no means a simple explanation to grasp, especially when people with other agendas try to obscure facts and confuse the issue. Many people simply give up on the study involved and go for a cosier idea; like that we all have a soul that goes to paradise. I wish that were the truth myself, but I'm stuck with reality.

robotnik said:
Take reincarnation for example. I am not suggesting that "I, Robotnik" continue after death. That is as you said unlikely. But is it not a scientific law that energy is never destroyed or created, just shifted around?
Yes, but it does not persist in the fantastically complex array of micro-currents and chemical energy that comprises the 'life-force' that is you. Otherwise, batteries, plants, Ipods and computers would all have 'souls'. Once you die, it all dissipates as heat within a few hours, as the cells that comprise your body all shut down.

robotnik said:
What is it that animates my body? What is "the spark of life," the force that exists in every living animal or plant and is absent in every corpse? It cannot, as far as I am aware, be located, and so has no physical existence in time or space. This makes it untouchable to science. What starts my heart beating as a foetus and then one day causes it to stop?
There is potential for confusion here in the way you phrase your statement and question. You and I are both collections of cells, trillions of them. They all interact with their neighbours. Each cell interacts with its neighbours, and has specific tasks to do within the body, to act as a muscle cell, nerve cell, stomach wall cell etc. They are all dependant for their well being on having the majority of their neighbour cells function. You are an amalgam of these cells working in co-ordination to make you breathe, digest, think. There is 3 billion years of evolution behind you to make those cells of yours work so well together that you never even become aware of it (until something goes wrong like spinal damage or a stroke).

The fact that you have an active mammalian brain that can make intellectual decisions and have your body act at your will is so basic and integrated into your mental image of yourself that most of us (who are not paralysed or damaged) never even think about it. But your nervous system is subject to the laws of physics, chemicals like alcohol 'change' your personality and worldview because they affect you at the cellular level - if your personality existed despite your body, why is it so prone to changes to your body?

And a cell is, once again, a beautifully evolved system to contain the mechanism of 'life'. It supports thousands of internal chemical reactions within itself - but they are all merely chemical reactions with ingredients being brought together and predictable results. Like if you put an Alka-Seltzer into water, you liberate carbon dioxide in the fizzing as it dissolves. But did you need to kick start that reaction with a holy spell or some other supernatural incentive? Nope. Same with the cell, and all its myriad reactions. And each of those reactions causes the cell to go on with its own 'life' - then to interact with its neighbours and ultimately to make its own tiny but essential contribution to the existence of you.

robotnik said:
To me the most likely explanation is that the spark of life is a form of energy that we do not currently have the technology to detect. If it is energy, then it conforms to the rules of energy. This means that in a very real sense my spark of life has travelled through billions of other physical vessels since the beginning of the universe, and will continue to do so until the universe ends. This means that I am one with all of the other living creatures that have contained my spark over the aeons. In a very real sense I was them and they are me.
Excuse me, we do have the technology to detect 'the spark of life'. You are locked into thinking at a body level, but the actual 'life' functions go on at a cellular level. Think of a factory that produces widgets - it's actually the human workers who do all the work, although we are used to thinking of the company as an entity in its own right.

robotnik said:
So from a truly scientific viewpoint, judging from what we know about the universe some variant of reincarnation is the most likely explanation.
Bollocks ;) Do some reading of physics and cellular biology books, even spend an afternoon on Wikipedia before you lay claim to 'a truly scientific viewpoint'; everything else is romantic fantasy and wishful thinking. And stop going on about "The most likely explanation" - this one is already cut, dried and hung with a nail.

robotnik said:
What are you selling? ;) The idea that anything we can't see doesn't exist? That sounds like a clear agenda to me, designed to make everyone bow to scientists as the arbiters of truth.
Who else do we have as legitimate arbiters of truth? And why paint them as power hungry ("bow to scientists")? We live in dangerous times in this modern world, when religious fanatics seek power and strive to suppress individual thought. We need clarity of thought like never before. If you buy into some wishful religious or supernatural dream, then you have effectively surrendered your intellect to people who want to

A: take your money from you

B: take away your (and your childrens) ability to resist mind control

Think!



 
  • Like
Reactions: Lord Yossanrion
#15 ·
But to label religion as a form of mind control is a bit general. If it makes someone happy, or more stable, to believe that the actions they perform are because some higher power told them to do it, then, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, more power too them.

However, I do agree that thinking for yourself, and making your own decisions is the only real freedom that any of us really has. However, this freedom is tainted by morals, beliefs and external tormentors, but that's for another thread.

Also, believing in a higher power does not mean you surrender your intelect. I am a christian, (not a particularily fanatic one, but still), and I am a scientist and I can make informed decisions. I know that the creation as explained in the bible, probably isn't how it happened, but then again, you can't prove for certain that it isn't. A leap of faith for certain things is perfectly healthy, but you shouldn't let it cloud all of your judgements.

As for reincarnation, (if i'm wrong about the whole christian thing), I would like to come back as a butterfly, because, in the immortal words of one Bart Simpson, "No one suspects the Butterfly"
 
#16 · (Edited)
gingerninja said:
But to label religion as a form of mind control is a bit general. If it makes someone happy, or more stable, to believe that the actions they perform are because some higher power told them to do it, then, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, more power too them.
Even subtle, apparently beneficent mind-control is still mind-control. It makes you more susceptible to deeper and more sinister mind-control in the future, because your intellectual defences are already breached. As for "to believe that the actions they perform are because some higher power told them to do it" that is the most appalling concept, the emotional bypassing of responsibility and empathy for arbitrary 'supernatural' reasons. Couple that with a directed hate propaganda campaign towards 'Terrorists', "the great Satan America" or the Jewish race, and you have a ready made crusade, jihad or holocaust. And, what if the most powerful man in the world starts invading countries because his god told him to? What then if the god in his head starts telling him that using nuclear weapons is his holy will? I know you qualified your statement with "as long as they aren't hurting anyone" but how the hell is that to be enforced?

gingerninja said:
However, I do agree that thinking for yourself, and making your own decisions is the only real freedom that any of us really has. However, this freedom is tainted by morals, beliefs and external tormentors, but that's for another thread.

Also, believing in a higher power does not mean you surrender your intelect. I am a christian, (not a particularily fanatic one, but still), and I am a scientist and I can make informed decisions.
I have to say here that an educated scientist would surely spell better. It makes me concerned about the learning that 'informs' your decisions.

gingerninja said:
I know that the creation as explained in the bible, probably isn't how it happened, but then again, you can't prove for certain that it isn't.
Of course I can. I would insist you look at the wealth of hard evidence that evolution has moved through multiple changes. You will note that life goes back along a timeline of into simpler and simpler forms. Ultimately, there would have been a starting point, the first 'replicator'. The reason there is no likelihood of this ever being found is not because it never existed, but because such relatively simple chemicals would have been used as food by entities that evolved later. They would not have become living fossils like the sharks or sponge family.

Just because we are at present unsure as to the exact method that chemicals first started to replicate themselves, does not make some arbitrary creation myth a feasible alternative.

Fundamentalist creationists cling to the fact that the original replicator has long since been absorbed by 'higher' creatures, and is no longer available as evidence. Ironically, they use "absence of proof" as "proof of absence" in the way they cannot abide being directed against their own faith.

(Incidentally, as far as I am concerned, the idea is named 'design'; I refuse to call it "intelligent design" - that's a marketing ploy to sell the concept. Perhaps we should start calling our evidence-based science "brilliant evolution" to better sell it to aspirational intellectuals)

gingerninja said:
A leap of faith for certain things is perfectly healthy, but you shouldn't let it cloud all of your judgements.
What leap of faith? It would take a leap of faith to get me to believe in some incorporeal spirit who never actually gets off his insubstantial butt and does anything.

gingerninja said:
As for reincarnation, (if i'm wrong about the whole christian thing), I would like to come back as a butterfly, because, in the immortal words of one Bart Simpson, "No one suspects the Butterfly"
Hehe :) I'm with you on that one!

 
#17 · (Edited)
There is a lot more to the Buddhist afterlife than just reincarnation, I think..

The final goal of reincarnation is the loss of all attachments to the world, at which point, in some sects at least, our ego dissolves and we cease to exist in the endless cycle of birth, pain and death. This is why I think the concept of a Buddhist Christian (without meaning to be offensive, you can believe whatever you want in this crazy world) is a bit wierd. How can you simultaniously exist forever at gods side, and be obliterated into the fabric of the universe?

Hard Aun said:
Of course I can. I would insist you look at the wealth of hard evidence that evolution has moved through multiple changes. You will note that life goes back along a timeline of into simpler and simpler forms. Ultimately, there would have been a starting point, the first 'replicator'.
Without any offence, I think you might have missed the point here.

There is a difference between evidence and proof. Evidence represents a probable suggestion based on the current paradigm of human knowledge. There is no such thing as a scientific proof, either, because sooner or later someone will probably come along with a brand new theory and overhaul it.

If god suddenly popped out of thin air tommorow and said 'look, how many times do I have to tell you, it happened like this.' you'd have to reinvent the scientific paradigm all over again. Can you abseloutely rule out such an event happening?
 
#18 ·
The_Giant_Mantis said:
This is why I think the concept of a Buddhist Christian (without meaning to be offensive, you can believe whatever you want in this crazy world) is a bit wierd. How can you simultaniously exist forever at gods side, and be obliterated into the fabric of the universe?
Okay, here is where it becomes a personal choice thing. I believe in god, but not God, (subtle but important difference), I believe in reincarnation and Karma, but, not Nirvana, (it just wasn't the same after Kurt Kobain died). I kind of mix and match my religions. I take what works for me and disregard the rest. It is what allows me to wake up every day and face the bovine feces that I know is coming my way. My father, (an ordained minister, in the Christian faith), helped me to achieve this.

Hard Aun, you say that scientific proof is always correct, I Beg to differ. I have scientific proof that 10 sticks of dynamite, (as created by Nobel), would destroy the planet, (precursor to the UN... League of Nations?). I have scientific proof that smoking is good for you, (Harvard, IIRC). I have scientific proof that Agent Orange has no long term effects o nthe human body, (US Military). Admittedly, these are older, but, the proof is there, (I have never found a reputable web site that posted this research, but, I have hard copy at home).
 
#20 ·
THE Hersh said:
...Hard Aun, you say that scientific proof is always correct, I Beg to differ. I have scientific proof that 10 sticks of dynamite, (as created by Nobel), would destroy the planet, (precursor to the UN... League of Nations?). I have scientific proof that smoking is good for you, (Harvard, IIRC). I have scientific proof that Agent Orange has no long term effects on the human body, (US Military). Admittedly, these are older, but, the proof is there, (I have never found a reputable web site that posted this research, but, I have hard copy at home).
In that case, its not currently scientific proof. Science is a cumulative search for truth, that is assembled by a process of analysis of evidence, usually over time. Unfortunately there is nothing to stop people who want to 'play scientists' or have some other agenda from concocting pseudo-scientific theories and publishing them. Also, if more recent science overturns spurious theories like your examples then we cannot call them scientific proof any more.

I would suggest that your Agent Orange proof is strongly slanted for miltary disinformation reasons, and the smoking proof is concocted by tobacco manufacturers to avoid lawsuits for lung damage and not to dissuade smokers from attempting to give up. If I am correct, then these are examples of pseudo-science intended to become misinformation, under the pretence of being 'science'.

Another current example is the notion of 'design' to attempt to explain life. This of course has become a cause celebre to religious zealots in the backward areas of the christian world. They have actually proposed to cloak their dogma in the guise of proper science, by labelling it 'Creation Theory', and stating that it is not inspired by the Old Testament. This is 'anti-science' and totally dispicable.

The_Giant_Mantis said:
If god suddenly popped out of thin air tommorow and said 'look, how many times do I have to tell you, it happened like this.' you'd have to reinvent the scientific paradigm all over again. Can you abseloutely rule out such an event happening?
Without going into deep philosophy about the nature of reality - that just is not gonna happen. We have at least as much objective 'proof' of the existance of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, and no-one is seriously contemplating a big entrance from them.

 
#21 ·
I think I’ll have to go with Aun on this one. I don’t believe in reincarnation, I believe in recycling. ;) My one true belief is in science, and according to the current scientific evidence what happens after we die is mostly a matter of irreversible chemical processes and biological decomposition. Eventually the body will be broken down into its component parts and re-enter the great chemical cycle of the universe. I guess some people would dislike the finality of this outlook; personally I feel there’s something almost poetic to be found in the fact that each one of us is created from the same stuff as stars and planets and all the other living organisms we share our world with, and might once again become part of them.

Perhaps there is a soul involved somewhere, I’m not entirely sure about that, but if there is I would think of it more as a form of neutral life force and doubt it will retain any impression of ‘me’ after my death. Personally I’m making sure to live now and not save all the fun for an afterlife that doesn’t come with a guarantee. ;) Besides, the only way you can make sure to life forever (or for a long time at least) is to use your life doing great things that will be remembered by your descendants. That, or do as I have done and sign up for organ donation; that way at least some parts of you will continue to live after your death. (Told you I was a great fan of recycling.) ^_^

I do believe in karma though, although not the ’I’ll get you next life, Gadget. Next life!’ kind of karma. :rolleyes: I honestly believe that if you mess with cosmic order in this life, cosmic order will find a way to get you back somehow. At the very least people will not like you very much if you aren’t inclined to behave decently towards your fellow human beings. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ wasn’t actually bad advice at all. ;)

~Grephaun.
 
#22 ·
Greph, as usual, you said it better than I. I don't believe that my ... shall we say consciouness, will be coming back, but, my, uh, life energy I guess, will.

Hard Aun, the smoking proof was an actual real study, not by the tobacco companies. It is from the 50's when they believed that if you are putting something intoyour body it is good. My point is that science evolves and changes. They used to think that wood was part fire and part stone, (it is hard therefore stone and the fire can be released). What will they "know" tommorrow. According to Einstein, travelling at the speed of light is impossible if you have mass. How long until that is disproven.
 
#23 ·
there's always the whole 'gaia' approach to it too
where there's one planet spirit who sends us into life where we gather experience and knowledge through our actions in life. then when we die, our spirits return to the planet sharing our experience/knowledge with the planet allowing itself to grow, and the process is repeatable, either stay with the earth spirit or attempt a new life again.

i think that's how it went, anyways, as for me, i'd like to think that when a person dies, he would receive some sort of fate according to his morality, whether or not he lived his life as what could be considered morally correct and not according to religion, even though some beliefs advocate this type of afterlife as well, where faith isn't needed.

a sort of judgment and reward/punishment (maybe not quite heaven and hell, maybe personally-imparted dreams/nightmares). i just don't like the thought that a person who lives his life upholding certain universal values will equally share the same fate as a person who ran amok killing hundreds.

although, then again, it could be if we die, we're just dead and nothing else happens. or maybe our mind/'spirit' never leaves the body when we die and we're stuck in some quazi-dream that never ends somewhere in the deep recesses of our cold minds.

who knows, i don't plan on finding out the answers to any of these any time soon. heh, a friend once told me that she thought this was heaven, it could be for all we know.
 
#24 · (Edited)
Wow Aun you managed to misconstrue or ignore all of my questions that can't be addressed by science. You must be a real scientist! ;)

With all of your talk of cells and evolution you failed to come to grips with what I was actually asking: What is it that makes a living cell move and a dead one decay into entropy? Where is "life," exactly? Is it, say, an electrical impulse, and if so where does it originate?

I believe in evolution. That doesn't mean I don't also believe in what Grephaun called recycling, which is in fact the best likely explanation using science, as I said.

Hard Aun said:

Excuse me, we do have the technology to detect 'the spark of life'. You are locked into thinking at a body level, but the actual 'life' functions go on at a cellular level. Think of a factory that produces widgets - it's actually the human workers who do all the work, although we are used to thinking of the company as an entity in its own right.
Where is the "life" located in a cell? What is it made of?


Hard Aun said:
Bollocks ;) Do some reading of physics and cellular biology books, even spend an afternoon on Wikipedia before you lay claim to 'a truly scientific viewpoint'; everything else is romantic fantasy and wishful thinking. And stop going on about "The most likely explanation" - this one is already cut, dried and hung with a nail.
Bollocks? Well that is a, er, salty way to express your disagreement :) I'm not talking about the results of science but it's method of truth-gathering itself, which is what we must address if we are to talk metaphysics. The mechanics of physics and such are totally irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. Try reading What is this thing called science? by Alan Chalmers. It's a basic 1st year university text book on the nature and history of the scientific method. Likewise, I suggest you read that before you start talking to me about a true scientific viewpoint.

For clarity I had better give you my definition of "science" as most likely we are talking about two different things. "Science" is the use of induction (a form of empiricism) to make predictions about the universe and record the results of experiments designed to "prove" or disprove" those predictions. I am talking about science the method. You seem (I could be wrong, please correct me if I am) to be using "science" to mean "the accumulated data gathered using the scientific method." The crux of it is this; science is one among many epistemologies. I will assume you know what an epistemology is, being a scientist, but for any younger members who may not have encountered the word before epistemology is the study of how human beings acquire knowledge of all kinds.

Science is limited to statements only about the physical world. There are long and involved logical proofs of this that I won't go into here, but read Kant if you are interested. Metaphysics (such as the discussions of life after death) is beyond science in every way, inherently and totally.

What I have done is recognize this, and applied the scientific method (which I recognize is a valuable epistemology) to metaphysical questions. Therefore I assume that "life" which cannot at present be located physically is a form of energy. I base this on inductive reasoning, as other things that cannot be detected physically yet clearly exist such as magnetism and kinetic energy are held to be forms of energy. I therefore further posit that "life" would behave like energy, i.e. it will recycle and change rather than be created or destroyed. I am attempting to use induction to explain something that is so far inexplicable, which is what science is.

What you have done is said "anything that cannot be detected by science obviously doesn't exist and therefore is a lie." This is dogmatism. This is why I said I am being truly scientific whereas you, ironically, are being more religious in your outlook.

Remember Aun that out of everyone who replied to this thread with their personal feelings and beliefs about life after death it was you, the scientist who was the first to assume an intellectual high ground and claim that anyone who held a different belief from yours was gullible, and anyone who put forward a different belief was a fraud with an ulterior motive. All I have done is point out that the ground you are standing on does not exist in this case, not for science, not for anyone.

Hard Aun said:
Who else do we have as legitimate arbiters of truth? And why paint them as power hungry ("bow to scientists")? We live in dangerous times in this modern world, when religious fanatics seek power and strive to suppress individual thought. We need clarity of thought like never before. If you buy into some wishful religious or supernatural dream, then you have effectively surrendered your intellect to people who want to

A: take your money from you

B: take away your (and your childrens) ability to resist mind control
Spoken like a true representative of the status quo. I am not trying to villify scientists, merely point out that they sometimes wrongly try to answer the same metaphysical questions as priests used to, with just as little actual justification. I wouldn't have argued with you had you said something like "this is as far as science can see so this is as far as I am willing to make concrete assertions." But you went a step further and claimed with authority that there is nothing beyond the limits of scientific enquiry. This is a false claim.


Hard Aun said:
I do. I don't "surrender my intellect" to anyone or anything, including science.
 
#25 ·
christ people, the topic says 'according to your beliefs...', everyone can have their own views on where they go when they keel over, let's not try to rebuff any thoughts people have on it.

someone's believe that science can explain death can be just as equally founded as someone who believes a giant spagetti monster watches over us all and when we die we go to a heaven where there's a beer volcano and stripper factory; and who's to say there isn't, certainly not from personal experience...