[ARCHIVED DEBATE] A Civilized Debate on Religion

[Risottia]

Yes.
How do I have no beliefs? Simple. I reject them because they're pointless and contribute nothing to my knowledge. Beliefs are unwarranted assumptions.

And from what authority do you derive that definition of beliefs?

Some 2500 years of philosophy, including psychology, linguistics, theology and logic.

Basically, don't go weaseling around with me.

[The USOT]

Does God exist? Also what are your opinions on religion? I believe that all sides of this debate can respect eachothers' opinions and do this in a civilized fashion. We can also talk about logical fallacies, the problem of evil, Satan, Hell and other religious topics. I am, personally, an atheist and I believe that there is no god(s) or supernatural entities of any kind. I wish for us to engage in a respectable conversation on beliefs and tradition and what value god has in our modern society.
Don't turn this into a flame war... please.

First things first; I'm sorry, but this will never be a civilized debate. Why? Because humans aren't civil. Both the religious persons and atheists on this site and others act, react, and think in the most arrogant ways I can describe. Their arguments are flawed, their logic skewed, and there methods are nothing short of mental gymnastics. So long as there are uncivilized people who are allowed to hold irrationally extreme views, this argument will not be civil.

1)Does God exist? Yes and no. There is no proof on Earth to suggest one way or another that there is or is not a God, and anyone who takes this out of context needs to give their head a shake. This is NOT proof of God existing, and it is NOT proof of God not existing, and 2) NOR is it a "logical" reason for your beliefs. What you believe in or do not believe in can only be based on your personal experiences. That isn't science, so neither the religious OR the atheists can use that to support their claims.

What's my opinion on Religion? Same thing as my opinion on atheism; believe what you will, just don't force your beliefs on me. Let me believe what I believe and I'll let you believe what you believe, and as long as no one gets hurt by your beliefs, I have no reason to be against you.

3) PS. I'm going to avoid voting. From an atheist stand point, it's arrogant to assume to know something that is an unknown. From a Christian standpoint, it's blasphemous to assume to have knowledge equal to that of God. Take that as you will, I don't think I need to check a box for what I believe, nor do I think I have the right.

Just wanted to clarify a few points here which I think may lead to a misunderstanding.

1) Not knowing an answer to something does not make it a yes or no. At the most it makes it a maybe.

2) Actually there not being evidence for or against God can be a logical reason for not having a belief in a god. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, in this case the person saying that there is an entity, with not believing being the position of the null hypothesis. Note, I did not say "saying there is no such thing", but not believing and claiming it doesn't exist are two different things. However, I think this is more of a point with you because...

3) Atheism is not just gnostic atheism. I may have you wrong (for which I apologise) and this is a tired point, but generally beliefs regarding god fall into one of these categories

To further clarify...
Gnostic Theism: I know there is a god and it is provable! - Many theists fit into this category, some churches by default.

Agnostic Theism: I think there is a god, but I can't neccesarily prove it/think it makes more sense for there to be one - This is the position of most deists, and some more lax theists.

Gnostic Atheism: I know there is no god and it is provable! - Tends to be a rare consistent position beyond some halls of the internet, though most atheists will fit this category in terms of certain theological claims.

Agnostic Atheism: I don't believe in a god. - The position of most atheists and self proclaimed agnostics throughout the world. Note that not believing is not the same position as claiming the opposite of a claim.

Preparing for the inevitable complaints that usually happen when this is brought up, here are the benefits of this system...
1 - You can't be concious and not fall somewhere into that system. It describes every possible position in relation to a theological claim in a simple 4 point system, whilst most other systems don't. For instance, the classic system of "Atheist, Theist, Agnostic" tends to leave our the gnostic theists, or bunches together groups which have very little similarity in terms of their claims. The Agnostic Atheist for instance may very likely debate with and expect a burden of proof from the gnostic atheist.

2 - If we stick with the "Atheist, Theist, Agnostic" spectrum rather than the 4 point system, we have to make some rather laughable claims. For instance, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (labeled as the four horsemen of atheism) would not be atheists. All 4 of them expressed uncertainty over the question of there being a god and very much fit into the category of Agnostic.


So going back to point 1 which I adressed earlier, indeed the agnostic atheist position is supported by a lack of evidence for a deity. The agnostic atheist is not arguing that there is none, but demanding the burden of proof on those who claim there is.

[Madnolia]

On that diagram, im +10 +10

[Hakio]

Thank you for defining agnosticism properly.

[Orla]

I do not, by any means have a hostility toward Atheistic people like my brother does. I am fine with them, so long as they are only indifferent to religion, it is when they are incredibly hostile toward my religion when I find them quite...unflattering.

[Orla]

I used to be agnostic, I was never Atheist. My brother Swedish Realm also used to be Agnostic, but our Father got us to go to church more, and I had become more of a believer. The best part about living in Sweden, all religions are accepted and no one can be persecuted.

[Ashmoria]

I used to be agnostic, I was never Atheist. My brother Swedish Realm also used to be Agnostic, but our Father got us to go to church more, and I had become more of a believer. The best part about living in Sweden, all religions are accepted and no one can be persecuted.

what have you come to believe now that you didn't believe when you were agnostic?

[The USOT]

On that diagram, im +10 +10

?

[New Zreuche]

I do not, by any means have a hostility toward Atheistic people like my brother does. I am fine with them, so long as they are only indifferent to religion, it is when they are incredibly hostile toward my religion when I find them quite...unflattering.

I am basically the same, only the other way round, as I was raised somewhat religiously, but am an agnostic now. I tolerate and understand people's religious beliefs as long as they respect my arguments and don't spout creationist rubbish like "Grand Canyon is direct proof for Noah's flood!" or "If evolution works, why don't cows turn into people?".

[Chinese Regions]

Do all deities have to be metaphysical and beyond reality?
If Thor or Ra turn out to be aliens would they still be considered gods or aliens pretending to be gods?

See, you're already rewriting the concept of "god" to give it a new definition. That's because the concept of "deity" is about fantasy. How it will eventually evolve in the future, is another story.

Is it really? Do all deities have to be omnipotent, can't they just be powerful beings (but not necessarily omnipotent) that are worshipped?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

If you don't mind, editing each quote is becoming time consuming so I will reference your points numerically at the end.

1) A mistranslation yes, but it gets the point of the Kalam Sutra (which it incorrectly references) well enough.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130204141603/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them."

And later of course the Buddha pointing out that reincarnation is not neccesary to the concept of enlightenment or fundamental to escape from Samsara

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him."

The first quote is relevant to the discussion, in that it states that we Buddhists believe in free inquiry, which is not what is being disputed here, but the next quote simply seems to me like a Buddhist form of Pascal Wager, possibly only more valid, given that it concerns not the belief in a diety, but in the practice of good deeds- that is, if Karmic retribution does exist, then we are rewarded for our good actions, if Karmic retribution doesn't, then our good actions are a reward in and of itself.

2) Granted, but he certainly is an authority within Buddhism. His life has been focused on it, and has been invested into open research by western philosophy and science. As authorities go that produce results, the Dalai Lama is a good one.

He is an authority within the narrower field of Tibetan Buddhism, and his interpretation, which I will readily admit I am not familiar with.

3) Some Buddhists want to transcend reality. I would argue that not wishing to accept reality as it is causes genuine harm, and that acceptance of reality as it is fits far more with removing suffering in others; with a notable history of violence caused by such things (including within the buddhist tradition) which has been antithetical to its base teachings.

Again, we Buddhists do not deny reality, we fully accept it, while, at the same time, wishing to transcend it. To want to transcend reality is not the same as to not accept reality, in fact, to transcend reality, one must first accept it, and accept the causes of Suffering, attachment to the world, and free ourselves from the three poisons.

4) I believe that the buddhist conversation on this thread has been primarily between you and I... However rebirth and reincarnation are potentially interchangable. Indeed, to many buddhists reincarnation is what is literally meant, reincarnating into other forms. It would also make far more sense to say "some buddhists" rather than "we buddhists" as the many worlds of life and death are not inherrent to all traditions and are rejected by some.

Reincarnation is an inherently western concept, perhaps first expounded by the Pythagorean, and which necessarily affirms the existence of the self and the soul, both of which we Buddhists deny. Rebirth, however, is a different concept altogether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

The belief in rebirth, perhaps not common to all Buddhists, Rebirth is a, to use a masonic term, "landmark" of Buddhism.

5) Im not too interested in pure land thought. It contains far too much of the mysticism which causes much suffering in the world.

Again, you reject Pure Land thought on the basis of it being 'mystical', that is to say, incoherent within the framework of your materialistic interpretation of Buddhism, when the Pure Land tradition is much more founded upon Buddhist sutras than your own materialistic Buddhism.

How is Pure Land Buddhism any more mystical than, say, Zen, in which one must search oneself for one's Buddha-nature?

6) I had already explained this...
A choice could not be made because Adam and Eve had no context or possible way of discerning anything. They were told not to do an evil act, literally not having any context for what evil is untill they had done the act. The modern equivelant would be like saying a baby that pushed a bowling ball onto an adults head chose to murder the man. They can't have chosen anything because they had no ability to choose, not having any context or possible way to contextualise what they were doing was evil.

Only, that is not what the Bible says, in which God told them that they may eat of any fruit "but the tree of knowledge", which they disobeyed. This is a free choice on their part, and their disobidience, according to the myth, is that which leads to evil, death, and suffering, and a seperation from God.

In terms of "not being punished in this life" that doesn't match up well to christian theology. Indeed, the whole idea of the problem of evil and attempts to answer it revolve around the fact that we can recognise people are actively harmed beyond their influence (i.e. earthquakes).

Theodicy nicely divides evil into 'moral evils' (evil which people do to one another) and 'natural evils' (evil resulting from natural causes), and the Free Will defense, while not answering the second, is commonly used to answer the first, the success of which (especially in its total dependence on Libertarian Free Will, which is incoherent in and of itself) is debatable, but some Christians, following Augustine, holds that both moral and natural evil occur as a result of our disobidience of God during the fall, which led to both natural evils, death, and moral evils.

[Dalcaria]

PS. I'm going to avoid voting. From an atheist stand point, it's arrogant to assume to know something that is an unknown. From a Christian standpoint, it's blasphemous to assume to have knowledge equal to that of God. Take that as you will, I don't think I need to check a box for what I believe, nor do I think I have the right.

You could always vote "I don't know", it seems to be the least arrogant option

Believe me, that is nowhere's near as arrogant as other things that have been said in these debates.

[Dalcaria]

Just wanted to clarify a few points here which I think may lead to a misunderstanding.

1) Not knowing an answer to something does not make it a yes or no. At the most it makes it a maybe.

I wasn't implying it was a definitive yes or no, only that you can honestly say yes or no, it really has no definitiveness to it because it's only an opinion, not a fact.

2) Actually there not being evidence for or against God can be a logical reason for not having a belief in a god. The burden of proof is always on the claimant,

Here's the problem with that; not everyone that believes in God claims God is real. They simply believe he is there, but that is a belief, not a claim. Contrary to that, you will hear many atheists say belief in God is irrational, illogical, etc. and place their evidence on a few facts that basically amount to inconsistencies and lack of evidence from the other side. What it lacks is any conclusive evidence on whether there is or is not a God. Why you decide to believe or not believe in God is entirely up to you, but your reason is only as logical as opinions equal facts. Opinions do not equal facts though. Likewise, your reasons to believe or not believe may very well prove or disprove God to you, but that doesn't make it a scientific fact, just your opinion. Opinions are not the basis of science, facts are, and since no facts exist either way, we can assume the only logical conclusion to our question is maybe.

in this case the person saying that there is an entity, with not believing being the position of the null hypothesis. Note, I did not say "saying there is no such thing", but not believing and claiming it doesn't exist are two different things. However, I think this is more of a point with you because...

Not believing is not the same as the null hypothesis. This exists only in scientific debate, and although many seem to have forgotten this, religion falls into a philosophical debate. But besides that, the fact remains that now both sides have stuck themselves in yet another game of mental gymnastics. Are atheists just the null hypothesis, or is it an actual belief? Frankly, if someone is sitting here trying to show why belief in God is irrational, I think it's safe to say they believe there is no God. Someone who isn't sure would typically try and see how both sides see. But on the topic of scientific debate, again evolution and the big bang are nowhere's near sufficient enough to prove there is no God. Religious people just as easily will turn and say that God was behind that, and what evidence is there to prove them wrong? True, there is no evidence to prove them right, but this debate essentially becomes a cycle of "who do we get to pin the burden on?" I'm sorry, but that isn't a logical debate, that's a waste of time perpetuated by two sides that cannot accept that their beliefs are (in scientific terms) equal in credibility. But nobody wants to accept the other side has credibility, because that means they might be wrong. It's a very arrogant way of thinking if I may say.

3) Atheism is not just gnostic atheism. I may have you wrong (for which I apologise) and this is a tired point, but generally beliefs regarding god fall into one of these categories
(Image)
To further clarify...
Gnostic Theism: I know there is a god and it is provable! - Many theists fit into this category, some churches by default.

Agnostic Theism: I think there is a god, but I can't neccesarily prove it/think it makes more sense for there to be one - This is the position of most deists, and some more lax theists.

Gnostic Atheism: I know there is no god and it is provable! - Tends to be a rare consistent position beyond some halls of the internet, though most atheists will fit this category in terms of certain theological claims.

Agnostic Atheism: I don't believe in a god. - The position of most atheists and self proclaimed agnostics throughout the world. Note that not believing is not the same position as claiming the opposite of a claim.

I'm glad you brought this chart in because this was what I was referring too. However, I must disagree with your definitions. The definitions given on the chart are accurate, so let me rephrase this for you.

Agnostic Theism: 100% certainty there is a God or gods.

Gnostic Atheism: 100% certainty there is no God or gods.

Agnostic Theism: Believes in a God or gods, but doesn't claim to know with 100% certainty. Often what I hear from people like this is they are more "open" about the topic, willing to change their mind if there is reason too.

Agnostic Atheism: Lacks belief in a God or gods, but doesn't claim to know with 100% certainty. Likewise, I've heard from one good friend of mine like this that he would be open to believing in God, if there was reason too.

Now the problem is that many atheists over the past few years "changed" their beliefs from believing there was no God to "not believing" in any God. Essentially, this is just redefining things and playing mental gymnastics to avoid having to disprove God. On the religious side though, they've taken the side of defining atheism as needing "faith", which scares atheists because (argument wise) it lowers them to the same level as the religious. Likewise though, some Christians also claim logic is not needed for them to prove their point. Both sides play horrible mental gymnastics, and I'm sorry but redefining their own beliefs (on the atheist side) is just as bad as religious persons using strawmans. And it brings up the point, if someone doesn't believe one way or the other, why do they act as if they do? Why do they call religion illogical? The statement isn't a scientific one, it's a personal view, an opinion, and an emotional one at that. That says to me they don't believe in God or gods, not that they lack a belief. Either way though, it's all mental gymnastics, all empty rhetoric, and it's all done for the same reason; to justify not having any proof or a better argument to make up for that. I should also mention, I'm not saying agnostic atheists won't debate, just that it makes no sense for them to call themselves that if their opinion so blatantly leans towards gnostic atheism.

Preparing for the inevitable complaints that usually happen when this is brought up, here are the benefits of this system...
1 - You can't be concious and not fall somewhere into that system. It describes every possible position in relation to a theological claim in a simple 4 point system, whilst most other systems don't. For instance, the classic system of "Atheist, Theist, Agnostic" tends to leave our the gnostic theists, or bunches together groups which have very little similarity in terms of their claims. The Agnostic Atheist for instance may very likely debate with and expect a burden of proof from the gnostic atheist.

2 - If we stick with the "Atheist, Theist, Agnostic" spectrum rather than the 4 point system, we have to make some rather laughable claims. For instance, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris (labeled as the four horsemen of atheism) would not be atheists. All 4 of them expressed uncertainty over the question of there being a god and very much fit into the category of Agnostic.

I don't disagree with these points at all, only that I should mention that this debate is horribly muddled due to the fact that some atheists have "changed" their beliefs on the sole basis of making the debate more in their favor. Or then again, maybe they're all a little uncertain at the core, but it then leaves the rest of us wondering why it is they fight so hard against religion. And I suppose the same can be said for the religious side as well, I suspect some of them have been in the exact same position as some of the atheists I mentioned, only most of them don't voice it (likely because they think it would be damaging to the argument). Either way though, this all is essentially mental gymnastics and is not logical at all. If either religious or non-religious people have a point to make, they should make it and stop making excuses for not having proof. At the end of the day (and I don't care who disagrees with me because all that is is more mental gymnastics being thrown in to "defend" their side) both belief in religion and non-belief in religion are on equal footing. Both have made claims at one point or another, and neither has provided proof. This debate cannot be treated like any other debate because this is the one debate that totally lacks any way of proving a side. You can say all you want that that means the default is that there is no God, or that their might not be a God, the only "default" answer is maybe, whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not. Some like to draw similarities between this debate and Santa being real or not, but the issue with anything like that is the premise that Santa is a physical being, which can be measured, sensed (by sight, sound, etc), or tested in some method. The same is not true for God or gods, the premise is they are (usually) outside our physical realm. Therefore, we cannot treat this like a regular scientific debate. And it is on this note that I say, how is it possible people can still consider dragging this debate on? We know it will go nowhere, we know it will prove nothing, and if we were all being brutally honest, we would know that one side's belief is no more logical or illogical than the others.

So going back to point 1 which I adressed earlier, indeed the agnostic atheist position is supported by a lack of evidence for a deity. The agnostic atheist is not arguing that there is none, but demanding the burden of proof on those who claim there is.

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:08 am
"All gods can be rendered mundane, tautologous, or impossible.
So either your god doesn't exist, or it isn't a god."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this person considers him or herself an "agnostic" atheist. Well, he or she just claimed all gods can essentially be disproven. Well, burden of proof is on her. As you said earlier, the burden of proof is on the claimant, NOT on the person who claims "there is". That's more mental gymnastics "agnostic" atheists created to distance themselves from the burden of proof. As I already said, there are claims on both sides, so I think I, as a neutral party, am entitled to proof. From both sides. I do not care about empty rhetoric or mental gymnastics. I want proof, I want evidence, I want facts. I do not want any more excuses. This debate has been dragged on long enough, and since I'm sitting here on no ones side, and since I'm calling out both sides for their claims, I think now is a perfect time for people to prove there side.

But you know what? It isn't going to happen. People are going to use empty rhetoric, mental gymnastics, strawmans, and every other excuse possible not to disprove God or to prove him, but to avoid the burden of proof. This isn't a debate about if God is real or not, it's a debate about who has to proof him or disprove him. Nobody is going to because it is physically impossible, and I'm fairly sure even the Bible says this. I don't care if you think that's just an excuse for not being able to prove God, as far as I'm concerned it makes about as much sense as the universe willing all matter and particles into existence. Now, I think I'm done with this debate, and I think everyone else is too. There is no debate anymore, just petty counter arguments that lead to nothing. Good day.

[Frials]

To me, it doesn't matter whether people do or don't believe in a god. What matters to me is what kind of morals they have. However, I am against religion in general because I feel it doesn't promote critical thinking and questioning (not denying) everything that is said, if what is said doesn't make sense. I am also opposed to certain concepts of god, like Jehovah and Allah, who I see as not nice role models for people when said nicely. To put it bluntly, if they existed, they would be psychopathic massmurderers whose worshippers are either ignorant about their god or have morals unacceptable in a modern society.

[New Zreuche]

To me, it doesn't matter whether people do or don't believe in a god. What matters to me is what kind of morals they have. However, I am against religion in general because I feel it doesn't promote critical thinking and questioning (not denying) everything that is said, if what is said doesn't make sense. I am also opposed to certain concepts of god, like Jehovah and Allah, who I see as not nice role models for people when said nicely. To put it bluntly, if they existed, they would be psychopathic massmurderers whose worshippers are either ignorant about their god or have morals unacceptable in a modern society.

Ditto, why is worshiping god important?

Surely what is more important is simply the teachings and morals of doctrines.

Look at Jesus, in my opinion, all he was, was a good man, who simply wanted to remove corruption from the world and spread morals and structure.

And yet we have fought so many historical wars, and committed atrocities that would likely make him feel ashamed of himself, but moreso, ashamed of us

That Mankind has not understood the word of god. Whether god exists, meh, pointless argument, however "The word" despite it's flaws and some outdated elements, it's a pretty good guide, so let us take this back to a civilised debate about religion, as opposed to equally ignorant theists and atheists shouting nonsensical arguments that make so many assumptions Occam would throw up.

Let us have a civilised debate, in the word of the philosopher Didactylos, "“Yes, But What’s It Really All About, Then, When You Get Right Down To It, I Mean Really!”

[Hakio]

To me, it doesn't matter whether people do or don't believe in a god. What matters to me is what kind of morals they have. However, I am against religion in general because I feel it doesn't promote critical thinking and questioning (not denying) everything that is said, if what is said doesn't make sense. I am also opposed to certain concepts of god, like Jehovah and Allah, who I see as not nice role models for people when said nicely. To put it bluntly, if they existed, they would be psychopathic massmurderers whose worshippers are either ignorant about their god or have morals unacceptable in a modern society.

Ditto, why is worshiping god important?

Surely what is more important is simply the teachings and morals of doctrines.

Look at Jesus, in my opinion, all he was, was a good man, who simply wanted to remove corruption from the world and spread morals and structure.

And yet we have fought so many historical wars, and committed atrocities that would likely make him feel ashamed of himself, but moreso, ashamed of us

That Mankind has not understood the word of god. Whether god exists, meh, pointless argument, however "The word" despite it's flaws and some outdated elements, it's a pretty good guide, so let us take this back to a civilised debate about religion, as opposed to equally ignorant theists and atheists shouting nonsensical arguments that make so many assumptions Occam would throw up.


Let us have a civilised debate, in the word of the philosopher Didactylos, "“Yes, But What’s It Really All About, Then, When You Get Right Down To It, I Mean Really!”

I agree, if god was so awesome as to create the entire universe he should worship himself.

[Frials]

I do not, by any means have a hostility toward Atheistic people like my brother does. I am fine with them, so long as they are only indifferent to religion, it is when they are incredibly hostile toward my religion when I find them quite...unflattering.

If your religion is neither Christianity nor Islam you have nothing to worry about if you and me would have a chat about religion. If it were either of those, you'd hear me scolding your god or scolding you for worshipping that god. I am against religion in general, but not as much as Christianity and Islam in particular. The question is... how would you feel about me?

[Frials]

Look at Jesus, in my opinion, all he was, was a good man, who simply wanted to remove corruption from the world and spread morals and structure.

Jesus of Nazareth was a pretty decent person. Jesus Christ however was a sociopathic massmurderer that deceived many people into believing that he, God, was loving and caring.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I used to be agnostic, I was never Atheist. My brother Swedish Realm also used to be Agnostic, but our Father got us to go to church more, and I had become more of a believer. The best part about living in Sweden, all religions are accepted and no one can be persecuted.

Just because you were agnostic, it doesn't make you a non believer, it just means you recognize that you don't know if your position is true.

So either you were atheist and indoctrinated, Agnostic Theist, or Were going through some tough times as a Theist.

Personally my problem mainly lies towards Gnostic positions and then whether a person is a theist or not.

[Adin]

I have a question for the atheists which is if there is no divine being and no afterlife then what happens after you die? Just your thoughts on this subject.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I have a question for the atheists which is if there is no divine being and no afterlife then what happens after you die? Just your thoughts on this subject.

Your consciousness ceases and your body rots, assuming some form of afterlife either artificial or not doesn't exist.

Personally I don't think there is a divine being with an after life and all that, I'm open to the creation of some sort of pseudo-afterlife in the future, assuming we don't blow ourselves up.

And yeah, I would love to experience a fake after life scenario, being open to trans humanism I can only hope.

Bu the thing is I don't lie to myself and pretend there is one already open for me....unless aliens touch down tomorrow and say "Oh, we solved that shit, we'll hook you guys up, no problem." Then we have to handle it ourselves :/

[Ashmoria]

I have a question for the atheists which is if there is no divine being and no afterlife then what happens after you die? Just your thoughts on this subject.

when youre dead youre dead.

not unlike what you were before you were ever born.

[Sun Wukong]

I have a question for the atheists which is if there is no divine being and no afterlife then what happens after you die? Just your thoughts on this subject.

Nothing about atheism necessarily prohibits the possibility of an afterlife. There could be an afterlife and no god, just as their could be a god and no afterlife. The two things are unrelated.

Having said that, most people who dismiss the theistic proposal also dismiss an afterlife, and for the same reason.

[Menassa]

Look at Jesus, in my opinion, all he was, was a good man, who simply wanted to remove corruption from the world and spread morals and structure.

Jesus of Nazareth was a pretty decent person. Jesus Christ however was a sociopathic massmurderer that deceived many people into believing that he, God, was loving and caring.

I don't see the difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus anointed.

[Adin]

So if you die, you die. I would rather believe in a god and an afterlife than believe that I'm going to rot and be a corpse. My opinion people.