Would you prefer an afterlife, nothingness, or reincarnation after death?

Its trendy and they also have no hope in their soul

 

There is a difference in belief and faith, and knowledge. I don't know what happens when I die. I have my beliefs and faith. Atheist more often than not will not acknowledge that their "knowledge" is just belief and faith in their own ability to perceive. I think it is silly and arrogant.

If there is one thing that man has proven over time it is that he has a very limited view from which to perceive anything, much less life, death and the cosmos. Thus, he is usually wrong about these things.

I appreciate that the famous atheist above, acknowledges his faith in his religion.

 

I don't see it as a choice. I can't choose faith over science. I wish I could, but I can't. I would love, more than just about anything, for god to exist. There is an infinitely insurmountable gap between what we currently know through science about the universe and the universe itself. Science doesn't fill in these holes with religion and stories, science admits the void and seeks to solve it.

Since discovering the truth in myself that I do not believe in god it has completely changed my view on EVERYTHING. I know that I am an animal made of stardust. I know that I am only alive here for an exponentially tiny blink of an eye. I am flying on an 8,000 mile wide spaceship (Earth, I am not on drugs, the universe is expanding) that is flying around a star. The Milky Way alone has hundreds of BILLIONS of stars. There are billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and hundreds of billions of planets. I know that these things are beyond amazing. I hate to interject with an off topic statement but I know that if there is a God that created all of this do you really think he gives a **** if 2 dudes want to be in love or that you want to eat pork or work on Sunday?

I mean absolutely NOTHING to the universe. I am as ignorant and dumb as a box of rocks when I realize how much I do not know about it. I have nobody to answer to but myself. The purpose of my life is to be free and to be happy and to enjoy my brief time here. There is no time for hate or war or discrimination. I want to live my life like it is the last day of summer. In my view, a lack of religion does not mean that we live a purposeless life. In fact, it means you create your own purpose. The purpose of your life is to live for you, not play by the rules of some mystical being in the sky.

Get some Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in your life . They are my prophets.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KeJoVeKSsyA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

None of what you say conflicts with believing in a God or an afterlife. You can appreciate the wonder of this world and how life is fleeting and precious while still believing in a higher power or a life after this one.

 

You are right, I CAN but I don't. We can prove these things about the universe but as it stands you can't prove god. If someone could prove the existence of god to me, then that would literally be the most incredible thing in the history of the world. I want god to exist. Currently, the only proof of god I have come across is what other people tell me about him and the fact that his existence can't be disproven. You can't disprove a negative. While the concept of god does not conflict with any of these things about life and the universe ... bigfoot, Krishna, Allah, the chupacabra, and the lost city of Atlantis also do not conflict with them either and their existence cannot be disproven. To you this may be a ludicrous and offensive (apologies if it is) statement but to me it is relevant and true.

 

Alan Watts can answer better than anyone here:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/L3MA0n4jEXk?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Damn that was awesome.

 

Instead of trying to disprove the existence of a maker God why not try to prove, or at least consider it as a theory? It seems at least as plausible as "poof" the universe exists because something from nothing is better than the existence of a creator. I don't think it should be excluded because it is uncomfortable for atheist science.

Similarly, believers in a creator are being asked to accept the possibility that there is no creator. I guess it is possible that something came from nothing but it certainly defies most science.

The universe came from the unknown, I think we can all acknowledge that.

 

What do you mean by "atheist science"? How is that different from the "regular science"?

 

Why does something must comes from nothing? What the heck is nothing if something can comes from it? It's got to be something. Couldn't it just be that there was always something and what we have now is just that, something. Or if nothing is what it is than what we have now, is still nothing.

 

Nothingness is the neutral choice. It could be chosen because there is no negative component. If you have a negative perception of life and it's hardships or always live in fear of your death, neutral is better than negative.

 

I actually don't see that much of a difference between nothingness and reincarnation (w/o memory). Nothingness -- no brain fx, non-existence. Reincarnation - also no brain fx and YOU also no longer exists. What you reincarnated into is something completely new. In nothingness, the material that makes you up still exists and they will become part of something, perhaps even another life form. The difference I see is that perhaps with reincarnation, although your memory doesn't get carries on, maybe some pattern of you does get carry on.

 

In the scientific community it is not acceptable to believe in God for the most part. IMO regular science should allow for the possibility of a creator not exclude that possibility as a matter of fact. Thus, atheist science. I guess you could have "God science" too if you exclude the possibility that a creator doesn't exist which would be just as bad.

 

I think you need to do a little more research because it seems like you just invented that terminology. There are plenty of scientists out there that are able to balance their religion and scientific work. Scientists don't care what you believe in, they care about what you can prove.

If you can scientifically prove the existence of god, I guarantee you, science will be the first one to embrace it.

 

No I don't find that offensive but I do find it rather limiting. I myself choose not to limit my view of existence to only what can be proven empirically.

 

Reincarnation would be nice if you could keep your experiences and memories- you know, keep on improving until you've mastered life.

 

I'm not sure where you are getting your scientific knowledge from but it is definitely acceptable to believe in God(s) in the scientific community. The issue is how much you count on God(s) in scientific theories.

The existence of God isn't a scientific question. Scientifically the theory of the Big Bang isn't eliminating the existence of God by saying the Universe came from nothing but instead stating that based on our best knowledge we don't know what the Universe came from. God could exist but there is no way to consider that existence from a scientific standpoint. Because there is no way to consider the existence of that factor it cannot be considered part of scientific understanding.

To put it simpler. Science is neutral about God. It neither disproves God nor does it rely on God.

 

That's sort of the idea behind the zodiac. Each house represents a stage in the soul's journey that must be perfected before moving to the next house. The purpose is for the soul to prefect each stage until it reaches the last house (Pisces) and eventually reach nirvana.

Or so they say. I'm a Pisces, so I'm looking forward to it.

I usually stay out of these threads because, really, no one can answer the question truthfully. I ascribe to the old BS&T lyric.

"Now troubles are many, they're as deep as a well.
I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell.
Swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell,
But I'll never know by living, only my dying will tell."

 

Where did god come from? Did he just poof into existence? Turtles all the way down? And arguments from incredulity aren't very strong, you know. Also, theory has a certain meaning in science. Don't dilute it by trying to apply it to matters of faith. Give me a testable hypothesis regarding a creator god.

Also, saying the universe just poofed into existence isn't anywhere near current theory. For example, Hawking and Hartle proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with nothing before it. In other words the universe doesn't really have a beginning. According to the theory and equations, the universe isn't exactly eternal, but there wasn't a single (poof) creation event either. As you go farther back in time, classical models break down (around 10^-43 seconds) the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely, with the whole picture dissolving into quantum ambiguity. In Hawking's own words, the Universe "would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." Perhaps the universe itself is god?