What is Heaven?

[JoshC]

In Christian (and other religions, if you like) beliefs, what is Heaven?

Where is it? What is it? Wouldn't it get a bit boring? Isn't it just a mess up from humans' evolutionary useful fear of death and cognitive abilities?

Just wondering what peoples ideas on this.

[T-mash]

Actually, that's pure opinion and false. Even Dawkins in an interviewed leaned toward the theory that we may have the product of intellegent design. He, in no way, suggests it was by a god, but suggests it may have been another life form that planted us here. Not only is a creation / ID standpoint logical, there is overwhelming amounts of evidence for it.

Feel free to show the interview
Dawkins, like any creditable scientist in biology.. actually the creditable part is not even necessary, like any scientist in biology, knows that ID is nothing but pure religious mumbo-jumbo that is not based on anything. ID is a weak attempt by religious people that can't accept that their god didn't create them. No one takes the ID movement serious. Not even federal courts.

Dawkins makes a very strong case for evolution and that one is one that is the exact opposite of what you falsely accuse him off here. Complexity doesn't spawn, complexity comes from simplicity.

Such as the millions of transitional forms in our fossil records that should exist, but don't? Darwin himself was confounded by this fact. Reference the following quotes by Darwin himself:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Go and educate yourself. This is what is considered a "small list" of just a few of the fossils we have found.

On top of this, transitional fossils are just one of a truck load of evidence for evolution. Even if we would not have found a single fossil, we would still have plenty of evidence to support evolution.

Seems I'm not the only one who has a problem with the theory. Darwin himself had problems with it.

As JoshC has correctly shown. This is nothing but creationist propaganda. It's the same kind of trickery they use claiming Darwin had a change of heart and renounced his theory.

And yet again. Darwin could be proven to be a complete lunatic that loved lying about everything and he would therefore be discarded as a source completely. This does not even matter for evolution. Darwin was the leader of his time in showing us how things could have evolved. We never knew at the time if he was right with everything, nor did we have genetics to see if it was true. Evidence has shown him to be correct (for the most part). What makes you think our current theory and understanding of evolution is depended on Darwin? It's like claiming gravity doesn't exist if Newton was a psychopath.

Not under the belief of evolution / atheism. It makes perfect logical since under the belief in theism. Always has and I suspect it always will. The argument isn't so much if there is an afterlife as it is with the presuppositions regarding the universe and life itself (ie, origins).

What do you mean with this? Every observation we have ever been able to scientifically verify has been natural. There is not a scrap of evidence that supports to anything like an afterlife or a god or a creation. Nothing. Lets assume God exists and he didn't thought we'd be smart enough to receive his book yet 2000 years ago so he didn't give it out yet. Would you now still have anything to support your creationism? No. Nothing. Your entire view about "the universe and life itself" is build on an ancient contradictory book with flawed morality and questionable motives, written by authors we (1) don't know and (2) sometimes don't know of (some have been verified).

I believe in an afterlife due to my belief in God. I believe the Bible to be true because I believe all historical evidence points to it being accurate.

Is a flat earth historically accurate?

I also believe that science supports the theory of a young earth

You are painfully mistaken. Show me a geologist that thinks the earth is "young".

I believe we were created not by random chance, but with intended purpose

Evolution is not random chance. Evolution is the idea that life results from the 'non-random survival of randomly varying replicators'. Natural selection and chance do not mix.

I believe that history supports that Christ was both real and his death / resurrection happened.

Like Muslims believe the entire Quran and Mohammed ascending to heaven is also historically supported. Unfortunately there is no historical evidence to support this on both accounts.

If at any point the history or science can actually prove otherwise, I'll be the first to jump on it.

Prove what otherwise? That hell/heaven exists? Science does not work this way. Trying to prove a negative (fairies exists.. prove me wrong!) is a waste of time, resources and intellect since it is impossible. As far as science is concerned ideas without evidence are not worth using to explain the world around us. Your Heaven/Hell is not worth using to explain the world around us.

Do you know many theists who don't believe in an afterlife? Do you expect an explanation that would change your mind given your beliefs in evolution which seem to contradict the notion that god / afterlife exists? I guess my question is, why would a theist not believe in an afterlife??

One of the main parts of religion is trying to comfort you with answers that were made up on the spot in order for you to feel better about your life by this false hope. The thought of dying is not appealing to people, and the fear thereof quite common. The 'after-life' is one of those things that the human mind has made up to cope with their own ability to look into the near future and extrapolate what is in store for them. Is their an after-life? Maybe. Is there any reason to assume there is? None what so ever.

[Random Mind]

Hm, you've seemed to describe absolutely nothing there. Interesting. None of those things were my intent. Good try though.

On what grounds could you then conclude the view of there not being an after-life until proven otherwise is ridiculous?

When you say "until proven" I suspect you mean "until someone can convince you regardless of what evidence has already been presented". Just want to verify this is true before I answer that.

Mocking how completely ridiculous the concept of Heaven/Hell is is not closed mined. Following a ridiculous claim because you read it in a book is.

So then we should define your ridiculous (since you seem to be basing it off of speculation at this point) claim that there is no after life as close minded, I assume? It's not a book, but we are reading it. Thank you, point proven. Furthermore, the theory that everything in existence happened by a random series of chances that span over how many billion years? Read about that claim in a book, sounds pretty ridiculous, must be close minded to believe such a claim. Appreciate the definition, thank you!

You do not seem to understand the definition of close-minded and make the ridiculous claim that if you do not believe in all superstitious nonsense floating around you are close minded?

Feel free to quote where I said that.

Well now that we've gotten this out in the order it actually happen, lets analyze it. You said following claims (by speculation you said ridiculous but didn't back it up) because it was in a book, was close-minded.

Then, I followed your line of thinking and made the statement that it must be close minded to believe you since you made a ridiculous claim and we read what you wrote down.

Then you said I didn't understand the definition (even though it was yours), but added on to it that I suggested everyone needs to believe in superstitious nonsense or else they were close minded, which we can all see I didn't (I was only following the directions you gave me).

Again, please quote me where I made the claim that being gullible is equal to being open minded and on top of that, a virtue. I'm very curious to see where all these quotes are that I'm missing! I must have multiple personalities.

So then we should define your ridiculous (since you seem to be basing it off of speculation at this point) claim that there is no after life as close minded, I assume?

Yeah....even the quotes didn't clear up where you got half of your comments. In context, I followed your line of thinking and then you somehow got out of it that I was saying being gullible is an open minded virtue? You'll have to give the readers and I more insight into how you're getting such things.

How you would profess to actually know I believe these things is beyond me. I haven't stated these are any of my beliefs, yet you somehow have spoken as if it's fact.

I suppose the word 'imagine' is beyond you too

Again, what a display of the intellectual ability to effectively debate. All your insults and very poor attempts at twisting my words are noted though. Maybe your intention was to insult me so I wouldn't come back? Not sure what you're going for here. You've given less 'proof' of why or why not an afterlife exists than anyone so far. Care to share your evidence? I'd love to debate actual evidence here. Although, the OP posted on Christian beliefs in Heaven, so I'm not sure why you're here anyway.

When in reality, it wasn't the Bible that led me to my belief in Creation, but Evolution that did. As I got older, I discovered Evolution was very intriguing / convincing. I studied it heavily, only to be disappointed to find out that it's all based on theories that are so far fetched, it's outside the realm of possibility for me. It just isn't probable.

Incorrect. Even if evolution would be wrong, this does not prove creation and it certainly is not a scientific substitute as the very core of it is scientifically incorrect. Evolution didn't lead you to creationism. Your misunderstanding of science and evolution combined with your gullibility to believe supernatural claims lead you to creationism. If you rejected evolution for whatever reason in the face of more evidence than you could ever have possibly studied in your current life time, that is your choice. However asserting that you went to creationism after is in stark contrast with everything science stands for.

Point proven here, I need to be a little more specific. My study of science led me to Evolution. My study of Evolution led me to believe it's mostly made up with theories stacking on theories and very little hard evidence. My continued study of science kept bringing up the fact that ID / Creation is a more plasible alternative.

But I must correct you on your outlandish claims of how / what led me where. Again, you seem to have the tendency to just make stuff up and write it off as fact. Nothing you said after the first few sentences is based on anything but pure speculation.

Your last sentence is the most comical . Science doesn't stand for anything other than the pursuit of knowledge through systematic study. By saying that Science stands for Evolution, you're showing you have no clue what science is in the first place. Now if you changed that to "creationism is a stark contrast with everything evolution stands for" you would be correct. But Science is purely the pursuit of knowledge through observation / experiment.

So I still love Science, because of these revelation and believe heavily in the advancement of it.

Creationism however does not stand for your "love of science and heavy believe in the advancement thereof". Quite the opposite.

Again, maybe you should get out those dusty old books you've been talking so badly about and look up the definition of science.

I'm open to whatever theories may come up, I've just yet to see any posted here in this thread.

Why you would think you'd find that in a topic like this I don't understand. Try the Religion and Science section of the forum

And yet you keep asking me. Amazing. Who has the wrong forum again? I thought this topic was on why Christians believe in an afterlife and what that looks like to them.

All I saw was an OP who said he couldn't believe anyone didn't see things his way. Did I miss something?

Your criticism of such a viewpoint would be correct. Saying: "you feel are ignorant / brainwashed / unintelligent (overall just less advanced than you)...Christians must definitely be the close minded ones. Good post, I hope one of them thar Christians is dumbs enough to come argue this mock fest!"

..however is putting words into the OP's mouth that I definitely not saw him use.

Please refer to the area of the thread where the OP and I got this cleared up. Do you just hate reading or what? I find it fun, but maybe that's just me.

Sorry to disappoint, I know you wanted me to hold up the Bible and say "I believe because it says so!!". Alas, I believe based on the historical / scientific data and most importantly, logical thinking.

And this historical and scientific data supporting heaven can be found where?.....

I was referring to Creation. Doesn't really surprise me you took that out of context. I've just yet to figure out if it's on purpose or you have trouble reading all the way through.

Regarding the scientific data of Heaven.....Oops, sorry bout that. Missed that part in the OP's question. Lets review the question and then come back:

In Christian (and other religions, if you like) beliefs, what is Heaven?

Where is it? What is it? Wouldn't it get a bit boring? Isn't it just a mess up from humans' evolutionary useful fear of death and cognitive abilities?

Just wondering what peoples ideas on this.

Hm...that's odd, your question isn't in there.....

Oops, looks like not everyone thought that.

Do I really have to show you what a circle is? Or can you figure that one out by yourself? (hint: a circle is flat)

OOOHHHH a FLAT circle...THAT makes so much more sense!

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH:

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"

Feel free to try again. I'm sure your bible said the earth was an oblate spheroid. That is why Galileo's ideas where loved by the church when he mentioned it.

Yeah....wow. Not sure where to start here. You seem to have cherry picked a bunch of verses that seem to suggest "all of the earth". Great job, that must have taken you forever, too bad you didn't bother to read through the suggestions. The hebrew word translated "corner" has about 15 meanings and is used as an illustration of how you would pick up a garment and shake it out. The four corners reference in Isaiah also has a hebrew meaning of "X quarters" in this case 4. Generally understood by scholars as the four directions. All in all, great attempt though.

Moral high-ground? The things you get out of what people say is so interesting. I think it's grounds for research really. If the OP posted because he wanted to know, why didn't he just say so? Very curious indeed....maybe he could repost and actually ask! Eh, maybe that's too logical.

I was talking the fact that you didn't give any argument and only tried to discredit. Yes Moral high-ground.

Oh I see. Yes, I was confused what the question was sense it seemed to be more phrased as a statement and I assumed due to other statements he made that he was more proving a point than asking a question. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'll make sure and take the moral low ground with you next time.

[Scotracer]

...this is not a good way of denying my original thought because the theory of evolution holds a lot more weight in the scientific world than the theory of creation, because the theory of evolution has evidence.

Actually, that's pure opinion and false. Even Dawkins in an interviewed leaned toward the theory that we may have the product of intellegent design. He, in no way, suggests it was by a god, but suggests it may have been another life form that planted us here. Not only is a creation / ID standpoint logical, there is overwhelming amounts of evidence for it.

It's logical to invoke magic in science?! Are you KIDDING ME?


Oh and that "interview" was mined for Ben Stein's expelled movie...which, luckily for the general public, was panned as it deserved to be. Dawkins doesn't believe that but it is a possibility. And it certainly makes more sense than a god hypothesis.

No because the theory contained is supported by evidence.

Such as the millions of transitional forms in our fossil records that should exist, but don't? Darwin himself was confounded by this fact. Reference the following quotes by Darwin himself:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 179.

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 124-125. (emphasis added)

Seems I'm not the only one who has a problem with the theory. Darwin himself had problems with it.

That was in the section about the problems he found with the theory. That was over 150 years ago! Might I remind you this was before the discovery of most dinosaurs species we have today (only a couple had been found at that time)...and we've found thousands of species of them in that short time. Maybe you should do some research into recent palaeontology. T-Mash has linked to some transitional fossils - all of which were found after Darwin published so no wonder he didn't mention them.

The point of the default position is we can assume something doesn't exist until it is supported by significant evidence. Again I ask, do you have any evidence for an afterlife?

Not under the belief of evolution / atheism. It makes perfect logical since under the belief in theism. Always has and I suspect it always will. The argument isn't so much if there is an afterlife as it is with the presuppositions regarding the universe and life itself (ie, origins).

I believe in an afterlife due to my belief in God. I believe the Bible to be true because I believe all historical evidence points to it being accurate. I also believe that science supports the theory of a young earth, which I believe confirms what I believe to be true about the Bible. I believe we were created not by random chance, but with intended purpose. I believe that history supports that Christ was both real and his death / resurrection happened. Due to that, Christ’s teachings on life / death and after life I believe are truth. The only visible evidence we will have will have to be proven when I die, I assume. If all else points to Christ being who He said He was, then I believe there is an afterlife.

I assume you won't hold any of those beliefs in much regard, but in an incredibly (too) short condensed explanation, that's why I believe in Heaven / Hell. If at any point the history or science can actually prove otherwise, I'll be the first to jump on it.

Do you know many theists who don't believe in an afterlife? Do you expect an explanation that would change your mind given your beliefs in evolution which seem to contradict the notion that god / afterlife exists? I guess my question is, why would a theist not believe in an afterlife??

What evidence backs it up? Where is Nazareth? Where is the evidence to back up what is said to have happened in Exodus? The NT has some factuality to it but so do many other works of fiction.

Evolution isn't a belief, it's a fact of nature. I am really getting sick and tired of having to explain it and it shows how pitiful science education is on this planet. No wonder we're all going to roast to death. Also how is evolution synonymous with atheism? Is your god incapable of being able to have descent with modification in his system? Not smart enough? Out of everyone who accepts evolution, the majority are theistic.

[Random Mind]

If you went on to read the rest of the book, even chapter (which I'm now sure you haven't and have just quoted from some YEC propaganda website) Darwin answers the questions.

It was this underground movement suggesting Darwin was an atheist catholic muslim. Kidding of course. It's from the book, thought I gave those page numbers....

On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

Fascinating that all the evidence just **poof** disappears. I assume this is what worried him since we find so many fossils and so little that link them to a cross species mutation.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote...

Notice the lines I put in bold. Seems like solid research there. All those speculations without any evidence. Good stuff.

Richard Dawkins is not the ultimate authority figure to atheists (there isn't one). I doubt he said what you are suggesting anyway (could you quote your sources?).

I'll try and find a short youtube clip on the interview. I'll link it to you when I get home, I'm sure someone has posted it. Beautiful interview.

[T-mash]

When you say "until proven" I suspect you mean "until someone can convince you regardless of what evidence has already been presented". Just want to verify this is true before I answer that.

I am not aware of any objective and verifiable evidence that supports an after-life, let alone a heaven or hell. So no I did not mean that. I mean 'until proven". This means any evidence what so ever that you can use to prove for an objective person that an after-life exists.

Well now that we've gotten this out in the order it actually happen, lets analyze it. You said following claims (by speculation you said ridiculous but didn't back it up) because it was in a book, was close-minded.

I did not say everything in books is nonsense. I said ". Following a ridiculous claim because you read it in a book is [close-minded]". Do you disagree?

Again, what a display of the intellectual ability to effectively debate. All your insults and very poor attempts at twisting my words are noted though. Maybe your intention was to insult me so I wouldn't come back? Not sure what you're going for here. You've given less 'proof' of why or why not an afterlife exists than anyone so far. Care to share your evidence? I'd love to debate actual evidence here. Although, the OP posted on Christian beliefs in Heaven, so I'm not sure why you're here anyway.

I state that "(I imagine you believe in that anyway)", something that seemed logical to me and also now appears to be true. You claim that I am saying I know what you believe in (I clearly didn't say that) and that it was also not accurate (contrary is shown). Saying that "I imagine" something is not a statement of fact, but a statement of assertion. Therefore blaming me for saying I "know" what you believe is just not correct. Sorry if this has offended you though.

At any rate I'd like to leave both of these subjects behind, since you appear to have a lot more content than I first thought, so these two pointless debates about who said what is not getting us anywhere, hope you agree

You've given less 'proof' of why or why not an afterlife exists than anyone so far. Care to share your evidence?

I have already stated it to you, though it might be in another topic, not that sure. To relapse, asking for "proof" of the non-existence of an imaginary thing is illogical. Prove to me that the colour red is round would be an equally valid challenge.

My study of science led me to Evolution. My study of Evolution led me to believe it's mostly made up with theories stacking on theories and very little hard evidence. My continued study of science kept bringing up the fact that ID / Creation is a more plasible alternative.

I wonder how you study ID/creationism through science when it's not considered part of it? ID/Creationism has even be labelled by court that it is not science but religion.

Watch this for example if you please:

Your last sentence is the most comical Laughing . Science doesn't stand for anything other than the pursuit of knowledge through systematic study. By saying that Science stands for Evolution, you're showing you have no clue what science is in the first place. Now if you changed that to "creationism is a stark contrast with everything evolution stands for" you would be correct. But Science is purely the pursuit of knowledge through observation / experiment. Again, maybe you should get out those dusty old books you've been talking so badly about and look up the definition of science.

Wow, someone who agrees with me on this that's rare.
Yes, you are a 100% right that science is the objective systematic study based on empirical or logical evidence. Creationism tries to sneak their way into say schools by completely avoiding the need of any " objective systematic study based on empirical or logical evidence" and by trying to sneak past the entire system of peer-review. Therefore Creatonism is in contrast with everything science stands for. You claim that science only stands for that? It's the very thing Creationism is incompatible with. What experiment has Creationism done that has lead to the conclusion that "God did it", I wonder? How many biologists accept ID as a valid second option do you reckon? How many scientific studies have been done in ID, how many scientific articles have been presented in support of ID? How many fields of science do you think support ID?

You answer that and then you can say whether or not my statement was comical and whether or not I know anything about science

I was referring to Creation. Doesn't really surprise me you took that out of context. I've just yet to figure out if it's on purpose or you have trouble reading all the way through.Regarding the scientific data of Heaven.....Oops, sorry bout that. Missed that part in the OP's question. Lets review the question and then come back:

Well that's one way to show you don't have anything I suppose..

OOOHHHH a FLAT circle...THAT makes so much more sense!

Please tell me that was sarcasm....
Circles are in fact flat yes....
....

No I'm sure you knew this and this was just sarcasm and you are very much aware that a circle is flat. Guess that means we agree the bible stated the earth is flat at least. Either that or you will say you do think circles are not flat which is just... no let's not go there.

Yeah....wow. Not sure where to start here. You seem to have cherry picked a bunch of verses that seem to suggest "all of the earth". icon_blink Great job, that must have taken you forever, too bad you didn't bother to read through the suggestions. The hebrew word translated "corner" has about 15 meanings and is used as an illustration of how you would pick up a garment and shake it out. The four corners reference in Isaiah also has a hebrew meaning of "X quarters" in this case 4. Generally understood by scholars as the four directions. All in all, great attempt though.

Thanks. Good that you agree with me
Of course you can deny it all you want, but the bible is filled with this. Seeing the entire world from a mountain top because it's high.. something descending out of the sky that everyone on earth can see yadda yadda.

I'll ask it to you again. What was so bad about what Galileo said if he merely agreed with the bible?

[Goat]

Do I really have to show you what a circle is? Or can you figure that one out by yourself? (hint: a circle is flat)

OOOHHHH a FLAT circle...THAT makes so much more sense!

To be more precise, the word in Isaiah when describing the world is "chuwg", which is also a 'circuit, or 'a compass'.. .i.e.. flat.

If he wanted to use a 3-D model , he would have used the term duwr, which is translated as 'ball'.

[JBlack]

Actually, that's pure opinion and false. Even Dawkins in an interviewed leaned toward the theory that we may have the product of intellegent design. He, in no way, suggests it was by a god, but suggests it may have been another life form that planted us here. Not only is a creation / ID standpoint logical, there is overwhelming amounts of evidence for it.

Feel free to show the interview

Yes, please show this interview.

OOOHHHH a FLAT circle...THAT makes so much more sense!

There's a such thing as a circle that isn't flat?

Do you know many theists who don't believe in an afterlife?... I guess my question is, why would a theist not believe in an afterlife??

Jews are theists.
Jews don't believe in an afterlife.

Do you expect an explanation that would change your mind given your beliefs in evolution which seem to contradict the notion that god / afterlife exists?

Why does evolution contradict the notion that God exists?

[Paul2]

JBlack,

Jews don't believe in an afterlife.

Orthodox Jews believe in an afterlife.
Ultra-Orthodox Jews believe in an afterlife.
Reform Jews believe in an afterlife.
Karaite Jews believe in an afterlife.


Paul

[JBlack]

JBlack,

Jews don't believe in an afterlife.

Orthodox Jews believe in an afterlife.
Ultra-Orthodox Jews believe in an afterlife.
Reform Jews believe in an afterlife.
Karaite Jews believe in an afterlife.


Paul

Ok... thanks for the info.
I based my statement on what I've heard before from a Jew and some things I've read. I guess the existence of an afterlife is something Jews don't all agree on.

[Goat]

Jews are theists.
Jews don't believe in an afterlife.

Correction, not ALL Jews believe in an afterlife. Many do. Many do not. It is not part of the religious dogma needed to be Jewish though.

Some Hasidic Jews believe in reincarnation.