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]

He is Jewish and has shown a great deal of understanding of Hebrew in other topics....

I'm Italian, doesn't make me an expert on the language, considering I don't speak it.

Try to read past the first 3 words, please.

His display is proven wrong by the dictionary, sorry.

By what dictionary? It says exactly what he claimed...

Wrong on the Hebrew dictionary part. It doesn't agree, that's the point.

Alright, let's see.. Goat said: "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'."

Then we check the Hebrew Bible...
chuwg: a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.
duwr: a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.

Sorry. You can claim it disagrees with Goat and agrees with you all you want. It just doesn't.

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. How much emphasis you place on someone being Jewish and your display of refusing to acknowledge facts gives everyone insight on how much weight your statements carry. Which at this point, is none whatsoever.

I'm sure people will think I'm an idiot for agreeing with Goat and the Hebrew dictionary instead of taking your word for it.

Going over the way you've poorly debated thus far and seeing your age at 20, I assume you're 2 years into college and have really strong opinions on science and equally as strong, oppose religion.

I'm sure it is indeed me who is poorly debating because obviously I should have just agreed with you and toss the dictionary away and not listen to someone who has shown to be a credible source on Hebrew texts.

Still haven't been to that site. I'll take your word for it that it's pretty crazy. I have no idea why we're debating on something you went to, but don't agree with. I haven't ever heard of it and don't support it. How does this prove any of your points?

I think you forgot the subject it was about. It was about creationists not actually trying to prove their 'hypothesis' but instead just trying to kick against evolution hoping it would somehow magically break. Spreading fake stories about a dead guy just because he was the first to write evolution down more properly is one of the many things you see creationists do. That was just one of the google-links. You can hear things like this quite often from the two brilliant minds that support creationism, Ray Comfort and .. can't remember the name of the other brilliant scientist...Kirk Cameron it was apparently. Those creationists that are held in high-esteem by other scientists because of their outstanding attempts of trying to refute evolution and promote Intelligent Design ( ).

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. If it's so easy that a basic highschool biology student can explain it, then please, by all means, go ahead. I'd really like a real response to this instead of you dodging it with sarcasm and insults each time.

Your question is just meaningless until you know what defines 'life' on a biochemical level. Sorry if you see that as trying to dodge it, but it's not. I can't help you if you don't know why your question is unanswerable. I'll try to show you why: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a 'characteristic' of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena: Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, Reproduction.

That is how we currently describe life. Look for example at this: http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/ye ... slive.html

We don't know if we can really call a virus alive or not. Now interpolate evolution back to a cellular level. Do you think we can pinpoint when something is alive and when something is not? Do you think that one more 'ingredient' in a cell is the difference between living and non-living? It's not a relevant question because the definition of life does not work on that level.

It's not dodging the question, the question just does not apply.

It was stated that people (supposedly) lean towards beliefs in the after life, due to a fear of death. Hence, it was suggested that people become Christians because were afraid of death. Historically speaking, becoming a Christian meant facing being heavily persecuted, tortured and killed (death), thus reaching that which they are afraid of (death) much quicker. It has nothing to do with non-existence, but the fear of the unknown. It seems to be a giant contradiction. By that line of thinking, people would have avoided becoming a Christian because it much of the time meant certain death. If they were so afraid of it (death), they would have avoided christianity at all costs, not found something (Christianity) that brought it sooner(death).

I can see where the misunderstanding is, but the reasoning is not right. If you are afraid of dying, what do you do? You can try to convince yourself death is not for you.. but that will be very hard when everyone around you is dying and you know you will too eventually. Can you say you will live forever? Same problem. You can 'say' it but do you think you will believe it? No, because you can obviously see you won't. You get ill from time to time, you might even feel close to dying at times. You know your time will come. What is left then? Two things. One is thinking death won't be bad. For example that just before you die you only feel pleasant or..... that there is something after death. The first has the obvious problem of people who die in agony. Death is not pleasant. The second has only one problem.. it can't be proven. But if it can't be proven, you will never know if it is wrong, right? If someone promises you a life after death.. why still be afraid of dying? If I go to a paradise when I die.... I can't wait! Death can't come soon enough! What is there to be afraid off?!

[Random Mind]

Early Christians didn't chose the religion solely because of the afterlife dogma.

Agreed, but a lot of the early Christians were former Jews, who converted to Christianity. So taking that line of thinking, wouldn’t they have originally believed that anyway? Then converting to Christianity would have made it even more dangerous?

A belief in an afterlife, in my opinion, is due to a fear of death and the ability to imagine a way to lessen it. Assigning yourself to a religion is your parents' choice in most cases.

I see your point of view and if no god exists, I wholly admit you’re probably right. That would be the most logical thing, in my opinion. That being said, I recently read a theory within quantum physics that suggests we continue to live, after “death�. Link provided below. Don’t hold me to if the scientist is credible, but it’s an example that even some atheists believe in an “afterlife�. Given, we wouldn’t describe it as the same thing.

I'm focusing on the afterlife part and how the idea was originally formed when I say, "Isn't it just a mess up from humans' evolutionary useful fear of death and cognitive abilities?"

Same as above, if no god exists, I would submit it’s possible it formed for this reason.

Many cultures and religions have had the idea before world wide communication so obviously it is something in the way humans think which forms the idea. I have already made my suggestion on this.

Just to pose a question for a moment. You stated that you believe religious beliefs come from parents, in most cases. The overall question, of course, is did we come up with the theory of an afterlife to cope with our fear of death. Do you think it’s possible for a person to come up with the theory of no afterlife, simply due to a fear of the afterlife?

How do you think a belief in the afterlife appeared by the way?

I think it’s natural for most people who believe in a god of some sort to hold the position that their god has something else in store for them than this life. For a person who holds a theistic view, I think it would be odd (not impossible) for them to feel a god would have created us for the purpose of living a very small amount of years and then proceed to non-existence.

Do you feel the concept of a god or an afterlife came first? Did we form the idea of god so we could also hold the idea of an afterlife?

[Random Mind]

By what dictionary? It says exactly what he claimed...

Have you looked up the context of the word when used in the OT? Read further to see it live in action by people who spoke Hebrew.

Alright, let's see.. Goat said: "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'."

Then we check the Hebrew Bible...
chuwg: a circle:--circle, circuit, compass.
duwr: a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round about.

Sorry. You can claim it disagrees with Goat and agrees with you all you want. It just doesn't.

Here you use someone’s opinion on a definition when you should be going to how it was used in context. I could read through the dictionary all day, but until I’ve heard someone use the word in context, I can’t figure out the usage. Example I’ve already quoted, but you ignored (typical in this and other threads we’ve discovered).

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there your splendid chariots will remain—
you disgrace to your master's house!

Here duwr is translated "ball". It would easy to misunderstand this verse, but looking at the hebrew meaning of the first part of that sentence, the definition is "to wrap or wind up together" and duwr can mean either "ball" or "circle" in Hebrew. The writer is using the illustration of wrapping / winding something together in a circular motion, not anything to do with spherical objects.

tsanaph - to wrap, i.e. roll or dress -- be attired, surely, violently turn.

Here’s the other example you didn’t read, but is also straight from people who spoke Hebrew:

I will camp against you encircling you,
And I will set siegeworks against you,
And I will raise up battle towers against you.

Duwr is used for "encircling" in this verse. The intention in this one is just surrounding them from all sides, a circle.

So here we see the same word goat used to say it means “sphere�, but it’s used to describe surrounding someone.

Check the references of the definitions here if you want and as always, you could do some research for yourself in the Bible if you really want a solid answer The words are being used there in context if you’d like to see.

I'm sure people will think I'm an idiot for agreeing with Goat and the Hebrew dictionary instead of taking your word for it.

THE Hebrew dictionary? I didn’t realize there was 1 overall dictionary for this language. By all means, don’t agree with me based on my opinion, I beg you to actually research this and look it up for yourself. I couldn’t care less who you agree with on here, take it on context from the source.

I'm sure it is indeed me who is poorly debating because obviously I should have just agreed with you and toss the dictionary away and not listen to someone who has shown to be a credible source on Hebrew texts.

Credible source? He’s pulling definitions without context. In what way is that credible? At least he’s attempting though, you seem to only be capable of referencing his references! I’m asking you to do some actual research on the matter. Please, but all means, study and find out for yourself.

I think you forgot the subject it was about. It was about creationists not actually trying to prove their 'hypothesis' but instead just trying to kick against evolution hoping it would somehow magically break. Spreading fake stories about a dead guy just because he was the first to write evolution down more properly is one of the many things you see creationists do. That was just one of the google-links. You can hear things like this quite often from the two brilliant minds that support creationism, Ray Comfort and .. can't remember the name of the other brilliant scientist...Kirk Cameron it was apparently. Those creationists that are held in high-esteem by other scientists because of their outstanding attempts of trying to refute evolution and promote Intelligent Design ( ).

Subject of what? The website? Again, how is that relevant here? You’re the only one who has quoted it. I never admitted to visiting or supporting this website or what it says.

Furthermore, you might want to check your sources on the supporters of Intelligent Design. It’s not limited to evangelicals. Many atheists, agnostics and a group of others have joined in supporting ID. ID doesn’t say god exists and isn’t limited to followers of religious beliefs. Maybe schools aren’t informing you properly.

Your question is just meaningless until you know what defines 'life' on a biochemical level. Sorry if you see that as trying to dodge it, but it's not. I can't help you if you don't know why your question is unanswerable. I'll try to show you why: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a 'characteristic' of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena: Homeostasis, Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, Reproduction.

That is how we currently describe life. Look for example at this: http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/ye ... slive.html

We don't know if we can really call a virus alive or not. Now interpolate evolution back to a cellular level. Do you think we can pinpoint when something is alive and when something is not? Do you think that one more 'ingredient' in a cell is the difference between living and non-living? It's not a relevant question because the definition of life does not work on that level.

It's not dodging the question, the question just does not apply.

So you’re telling me that modern science doesn’t have even one theory on how we got from the big bang to any possible description of life? Not even a vague clue? Don’t get hung up on describing what life is, please, by all means, how did any description of life begin?

I can see where the misunderstanding is, but the reasoning is not right. If you are afraid of dying, what do you do? You can try to convince yourself death is not for you.. but that will be very hard when everyone around you is dying and you know you will too eventually. Can you say you will live forever? Same problem. You can 'say' it but do you think you will believe it? No, because you can obviously see you won't. You get ill from time to time, you might even feel close to dying at times. You know your time will come. What is left then? Two things. One is thinking death won't be bad. For example that just before you die you only feel pleasant or..... that there is something after death. The first has the obvious problem of people who die in agony. Death is not pleasant. The second has only one problem.. it can't be proven. But if it can't be proven, you will never know if it is wrong, right? If someone promises you a life after death.. why still be afraid of dying? If I go to a paradise when I die.... I can't wait! Death can't come soon enough! What is there to be afraid off?!

So all in all, you believe we came up with the theory of the afterlife, which can’t be proven, but is somehow comforting (in that it can’t be proven like you’ve said) out of a fear of death? So in the uncertainty of what will happen in death, we come up with another uncertainty, based on nothing, which is the afterlife?

Wow, I think if that were the case, I’d have stuck with non-existence. That’s not a very scary notion to me. In fact, much of the world at large would benefit from knowing this. In Thailand, the poverty rate is so high, that parents often sell their children (as young as infants) into sexual slavery. Wouldn’t you say that death would be more appealing (thinking we go into non-existence) than their current state of living? If I could choose between non-existence and being raped daily from a young age, I’d definitely choose non-existence.

I guess an afterlife is pretty silly to have ever come up with, when non-existence sounds so appealing!

[T-mash]

Here duwr is translated "ball". It would easy to misunderstand this verse, but looking at the hebrew meaning of the first part of that sentence, the definition is "to wrap or wind up together" and duwr can mean either "ball" or "circle" in Hebrew. The writer is using the illustration of wrapping / winding something together in a circular motion, not anything to do with spherical objects.

Yes, just as the dictionary says it can indeed be translated as ball. Yes 'duwr' can mean both ball and circle. Just like the dictionary says. If in that translation the word 'chuwg' would have been used you would have a point. But that isn't the case. Your example just doesn't show what you think that it does. It only confirms what was said before that duwr is what should have been used if it wasn't meant the earth was flat. The Jews on this forum will quite simply tell you that the Torah was mistaken. So please don't assert that I ignore your posts or don't read them if your posts don't say what you think they say.

Duwr is used for "encircling" in this verse. The intention in this one is just surrounding them from all sides, a circle.[/

Yes. Again... like the dictionary says... 'duwr' can mean both ball and circle.

So here we see the same word goat used to say it means “sphere�, but it’s used to describe surrounding someone.

Check the references of the definitions here if you want and as always, you could do some research for yourself in the Bible if you really want a solid answer Wink The words are being used there in context if you’d like to see.

And goat was a 100% correct. The word 'duwr' means ball and circle. The word 'chuwg' does not.

THE Hebrew dictionary? I didn’t realize there was 1 overall dictionary for this language. By all means, don’t agree with me based on my opinion, I beg you to actually research this and look it up for yourself. I couldn’t care less who you agree with on here, take it on context from the source.

We just did together. Both of our 'research' shows that me and Goat are right.

Credible source? He’s pulling definitions without context. In what way is that credible? At least he’s attempting though, you seem to only be capable of referencing his references! I’m asking you to do some actual research on the matter. Please, but all means, study and find out for yourself.

You might want to first actually be correct about definitions before trying to discredit Goat. Even I can show you why you are wrong, like above. There is no doubt here, you are. You just for some odd reason seem to think your examples that work against you actually prove your point. Your example show that 'duwr' can mean both circle and ball, just like the dictionary says. Show me that 'chuwg' can mean both too and you'll be right.

Subject of what? The website? Again, how is that relevant here? You’re the only one who has quoted it. I never admitted to visiting or supporting this website or what it says.

Where did I say you did? My post was:
"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."

You then said you never heard of that particular story and called it interesting. I googled it for you to show you a link of it.

Furthermore, you might want to check your sources on the supporters of Intelligent Design. It’s not limited to evangelicals. Many atheists, agnostics and a group of others have joined in supporting ID.

Yes and many people have joined Scientology. Biologists that work with ID though?

ID doesn’t say god exists and isn’t limited to followers of religious beliefs. Maybe schools aren’t informing you properly.

According to our law system, you are wrong.

In the Dover trial it has been decided that ID is nothing more than a religious idea that should not be considered science. Judge John E. Jones III has there decided that teaching ID in schools is 'unconstitutional'. If you watch the youtube link you'd see that ID books were print-copies from creationist books but they only switched the word Creator with Designer and God with guiding force or something like that.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

So you’re telling me that modern science doesn’t have even one theory on how we got from the big bang to any possible description of life? Not even a vague clue? Don’t get hung up on describing what life is, please, by all means, how did any description of life begin?

I'm only telling you that your question has no relevance in reality. It's a nonsensical question. You tell me how we can determine alive from not-alive-yet in biochemistry and I'll answer your question. Deal?

So all in all, you believe we came up with the theory of the afterlife, which can’t be proven, but is somehow comforting (in that it can’t be proven like you’ve said) out of a fear of death? So in the uncertainty of what will happen in death, we come up with another uncertainty, based on nothing, which is the afterlife?

Not just fear, also wondering. "What happens when I die?" is also one you can ask out of curiously.

In Thailand, the poverty rate is so high, that parents often sell their children (as young as infants) into sexual slavery. Wouldn’t you say that death would be more appealing (thinking we go into non-existence) than their current state of living?

Can you explain to me why you ask that to an atheist? I do not hold your belief that those children go anywhere if we kill them. You do. So you answer it yourself. Why won't you kill them if you know God exists and is waiting for them? See I have a pretty good theory why we should not rush to our death, you don't ^^

If I could choose between non-existence and being raped daily from a young age, I’d definitely choose non-existence.

Hmm interesting point. I wonder why people never indeed try to end their life instead of carrying on living if they can't stand it. You brought up a valid counter argument here. Like you pointed out, my idea only makes sense if we'd see people that do something like.. hmm do we have a word for this.. kill yourself?.. Don't know if something like that has ever been documented too be honest.. oh wait... suicide...

I guess an afterlife is pretty silly to have ever come up with, when non-existence sounds so appealing!

Ehm.. you try to imagine you don't exist. Does it work? Nope. Should I have to tell you why that doesn't work or can you figure that out by yourself?
Was this supposed to be some sort of counter-argument that people can make everything happen if they just believe in it? I have no idea what you are talking about here too be honest.

[Christanity4ever]

So defenders of Darwinism who ridicule their critics for being like believers in a flat earth are being misled by a myth that Darwinists themselves helped to create. [/b]
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinis ... arth-myth/

"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." - Ferdinand Magellan

I'll leave it up to you to guess when he lived.

** The coveted Ray Comfort Stars of Excellence
What does that have to do with the article? In fact it agrees with my take not yours! Next time take time to read the rebuttal you might learn something. You get two ray comfort stars for that comment.

Christanity4ever

[T-mash]

So defenders of Darwinism who ridicule their critics for being like believers in a flat earth are being misled by a myth that Darwinists themselves helped to create. [/b]
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinis ... arth-myth/

"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." - Ferdinand Magellan

I'll leave it up to you to guess when he lived.

** The coveted Ray Comfort Stars of Excellence
What does that have to do with the article? In fact it agrees with my take not yours! Next time take time to read the rebuttal you might learn something. You get two ray comfort stars for that comment.

Christanity4ever

The fact that you don't know says enough I suppose, but I'll explain it to you. Your claim is that after Darwin we for some reason began saying myths about the church claiming the earth is flat while they didn't.

Now I mentioned Ferdinand Magellan and I told you: "I'll leave it up to you to guess when he lived.".
I guess you didn't bother with that, but no matter, let's see.

Charles Darwin: 1809 – 1882
Ferdinand Magellan: 1480 - 1521
Born before Darwin? Oh snap! Your entire argument just fell apart
Nice try though.
Since it's worth repeating:

"The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." - Ferdinand Magellan (1480 - 1521)


Would you quite possibly like to try again?


Oh and to show that I am generous too!
** Two fine pink stars heading your way, Sir. One for Darwin and one for Dawkins.

[Random Mind]

Yes, just as the dictionary says it can indeed be translated as ball. Yes 'duwr' can mean both ball and circle. Just like the dictionary says. If in that translation the word 'chuwg' would have been used you would have a point. But that isn't the case. Your example just doesn't show what you think that it does. It only confirms what was said before that duwr is what should have been used if it wasn't meant the earth was flat. The Jews on this forum will quite simply tell you that the Torah was mistaken. So please don't assert that I ignore your posts or don't read them if your posts don't say what you think they say.

Still waiting for you to show me some context, you just keep repeating the dictionary. You've only repeated "ball" about a dozen times, but fail to realize it doesn't mean sphere anymore than chuwg. I see this is an endless debate though, you simply refuse to actually find context where it suggests sphere.

We just did together. Both of our 'research' shows that me and Goat are right.

I think I missed the part where you did research. You quoted the dictionary, but didn't show any context. Still waiting

You might want to first actually be correct about definitions before trying to discredit Goat. Even I can show you why you are wrong, like above. There is no doubt here, you are. You just for some odd reason seem to think your examples that work against you actually prove your point. Your example show that 'duwr' can mean both circle and ball, just like the dictionary says. Show me that 'chuwg' can mean both too and you'll be right.

Again, I showed you context, still waiting for yours.

Where did I say you did? My post was:
"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."

You then said you never heard of that particular story and called it interesting. I googled it for you to show you a link of it.

Um, ok? Congrats on finding propaganda?

Yes and many people have joined Scientology. Biologists that work with ID though?

Yup

According to our law system, you are wrong.

In the Dover trial it has been decided that ID is nothing more than a religious idea that should not be considered science. Judge John E. Jones III has there decided that teaching ID in schools is 'unconstitutional'. If you watch the youtube link you'd see that ID books were print-copies from creationist books but they only switched the word Creator with Designer and God with guiding force or something like that.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

So the US government defines something for the whole world? I'm confused. Does that mean a secular scientist isn't allowed to associate themselves with ID?

And yet they do! Amazing....

I'm only telling you that your question has no relevance in reality. It's a nonsensical question. You tell me how we can determine alive from not-alive-yet in biochemistry and I'll answer your question. Deal?

So then the answer would be "no, we have no clue how life formed". Thanks!

Can you explain to me why you ask that to an atheist? I do not hold your belief that those children go anywhere if we kill them. You do. So you answer it yourself. Why won't you kill them if you know God exists and is waiting for them? See I have a pretty good theory why we should not rush to our death, you don't ^^

That's kind of the point. But you must have read something wrong, I didn't say we should kill them, I suggested they might choose suicide over rape if they knew nothing happened when they died.

I asked an atheist because you have nothing to fear from death. What's the point of living in torture if you can die and never feel pain again? I'm not approaching it on the perspective of an afterlife, quite the opposite. If no afterlife exists, living for many people is pointless and more painful than non-existence.

Hmm interesting point. I wonder why people never indeed try to end their life instead of carrying on living if they can't stand it. You brought up a valid counter argument here. Like you pointed out, my idea only makes sense if we'd see people that do something like.. hmm do we have a word for this.. kill yourself?.. Don't know if something like that has ever been documented too be honest.. oh wait... suicide...

Yeah....I was suggesting suicide....You're quick!

You just proved my point, so thank you!

Ehm.. you try to imagine you don't exist. Does it work? Nope. Should I have to tell you why that doesn't work or can you figure that out by yourself?
Was this supposed to be some sort of counter-argument that people can make everything happen if they just believe in it? I have no idea what you are talking about here too be honest.

You seem to speculate quite often on what others can and can't do without any actual evidence. Can I imagine not existing? Sure I can and if i was being raped on a daily basis and didn't believe anything negative would happen when I died, I would choose non-existence over torture.

[Scotracer]

I'm only telling you that your question has no relevance in reality. It's a nonsensical question. You tell me how we can determine alive from not-alive-yet in biochemistry and I'll answer your question. Deal?

So then the answer would be "no, we have no clue how life formed". Thanks!

Actually, we have quite a good idea...

The lab of Dr J Szostak, a Nobel laureate, has done a lot of work on Abiogenesis and with some very interesting results.

Him
His lab
A very cool video outlining his work

Can you explain to me why you ask that to an atheist? I do not hold your belief that those children go anywhere if we kill them. You do. So you answer it yourself. Why won't you kill them if you know God exists and is waiting for them? See I have a pretty good theory why we should not rush to our death, you don't ^^

That's kind of the point. But you must have read something wrong, I didn't say we should kill them, I suggested they might choose suicide over rape if they knew nothing happened when they died.

I asked an atheist because you have nothing to fear from death. What's the point of living in torture if you can die and never feel pain again? I'm not approaching it on the perspective of an afterlife, quite the opposite. If no afterlife exists, living for many people is pointless and more painful than non-existence.

Firstly I don't follow the logic:

Scenario:

-Person in pain
-Afterlife

Conclusion:

-Kill self to get to afterlife quicker

Scenario 2:

-Person in pain
-No afterlife

Conclusion:

-Kill self to get away from the pain

Same conclusion - kill thy self

But even on the grounds of that you have to wonder what sort of arrogance and greed someone has to demand - nay - even hope for an afterlife.

Ms Mash has a lovely quote from Tim Minchin in her signature but unfortunately due to naughty bible verses we can't see it so I'll post:

Isn’t this enough? Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable natural world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
- Tim Minchin

Our existence is so wonderful that to ask for more is just greedy. Accept that you had the chance to experience it - trillions won't ever get that privilege.

And on the note of the afterlife itself...how is that a positive thing? Existing for eternity is not a good thing! Sure, it might be fun for the first 1,000,000 years or so...but what about the 1,000,000 after that or the 1,000,000,000 after that or the 1,000,000,000,000 after that? No end to it - no closure. With eternity to exist, everything becomes pointless - no sense of urgency and no sense of accomplishment to anything you do. I mean, you could always just do it tomorrow.

Accepting your mortality doesn't cage you in fear - it sets you free to enjoy reality for what it is...not what it might be. It doesn't remove any value or worth from your life - it's what gives it the value.

Ehm.. you try to imagine you don't exist. Does it work? Nope. Should I have to tell you why that doesn't work or can you figure that out by yourself?
Was this supposed to be some sort of counter-argument that people can make everything happen if they just believe in it? I have no idea what you are talking about here too be honest.

You seem to speculate quite often on what others can and can't do without any actual evidence. Can I imagine not existing? Sure I can and if i was being raped on a daily basis and didn't believe anything negative would happen when I died, I would choose non-existence over torture.

There is no way for a human to properly imagine not existing. Whatever you imagine it is, that is still something. It's not blackness, as you're still experiencing it, it's not sleeping, as you dream...it just is not.

[T-mash]

Still waiting for you to show me some context, you just keep repeating the dictionary. You've only repeated "ball" about a dozen times, but fail to realize it doesn't mean sphere anymore than chuwg. I see this is an endless debate though, you simply refuse to actually find context where it suggests sphere. I think I missed the part where you did research. You quoted the dictionary, but didn't show any context. Still waiting. Again, I showed you context, still waiting for yours.

You are correct. You showed me context, I didn't show you any. However the context you showed supported my point and also supported the dictionary I used and also supported what Goat said. You already found the context for me that I am right. What more is needed?

Just a quick description of how a debate works. I make a statement and you either:
1) Agree with my statement and leave it at that
2) Agree with my statement and you give even more evidence to show I am right
3) Disagree with my statement and show something to support why I am wrong

What you have done now is you disagree with me and you show something that supports that I am right. You have indeed shown me context that says I am right, you have not shown me context that says I am wrong. While I appreciate the help, if you want to make a point.. show me something that says I am wrong or drop it and agree with me.

Yup

Like? Saying 'yup' doesn't quite cut it on a debate site

So the US government defines something for the whole world? I'm confused. Does that mean a secular scientist isn't allowed to associate themselves with ID? And yet they do! Amazing....

ID is not really anywhere else but the US so why not? Evolution is accepted as fact by the majority in western countries. The US does not in general accept evolution due to religious dogma. So yes. They decided for their own country and other countries could care less about the whole ID vs. Evolution thing, because they are not clouded by religion. There is no debate in science about whether or not evolution is right.

And which secular biologist supports ID?

So then the answer would be "no, we have no clue how life formed". Thanks!

No the answer is: "You are clueless about the subject that you are asking questions about because there is no definition of 'life' that fits biochemistry at that level". And you're welcome.

But you must have read something wrong, I didn't say we should kill them, I suggested they might choose suicide over rape if they knew nothing happened when they died.

I fail to see your logic. How exactly would not believing there is an after life make you commit suicide sooner than when you do believe there is a life after your suicide? If you do not believe in an after-life, you'd realise this is your only life so you might want to put it all on trying to escape and get somewhere. If you do believe in an after-life, why not kill yourself and go to paradise?

I asked an atheist because you have nothing to fear from death. What's the point of living in torture if you can die and never feel pain again? I'm not approaching it on the perspective of an afterlife, quite the opposite. If no afterlife exists, living for many people is pointless and more painful than non-existence.

Ah, I see where you are coming from. Ask yourself this: If you would be right and there is a paradise when you die, what would you lose when you die? Now if I am right and there is no after-life, what would I lose when I die?

You seem to speculate quite often on what others can and can't do without any actual evidence. Can I imagine not existing? Sure I can and if i was being raped on a daily basis and didn't believe anything negative would happen when I died, I would choose non-existence over torture.

So you are suggesting that people who are raped can just decide to 'not exist' for a while till it stopped happening? The reason why I speculated on what you can and can't do is simple: I expect you to be able to know what the reality of your life is. Apologies if you took it offensive when I thought you'd be able to do that then. So from now on I'll just ask for the evidence first without the speculating. Do you think you have a fully functioning brain? If not, why not? If so, do you think that if you tell yourself it's snowing outside when it's summer and hot as hell you'd believe yourself? Or would you be slapped in the face by reality no matter how much you want it to snow?

[lookwhatidid]

As humans, we are way too self involved and scared shitless of our own mortality. I believe that the idea of heaven and hell was created by delusional and insecure people.
It was just too much to except the fact that you might die from some freak accident or f*** up disease and it’s lights out. No more life, no more memories, and a lot of unfinished business. I think they (believers) just want to spend the rest of eternity in relative comfort with all of the luxuries they never had on earth.

thats all heaven is.... thats what I believe