Do you believe in the afterlife/souls/heaven and hell
| The weird thing about atheism is that it does not necessarily discount the concept of an afterlife. Consider Buddhism, a religion that does not acknowledge anything that is inherently divine, essentially making it atheistic. It is believed that Karma is built into the workings of the universe, along with the cycle of death and rebirth. Mind you, I'm a strict atheist and refuse to believe in the mystical unless there's definitive evidence of it (no matter how cool some of it might be). Kibura_Iburasa said: But then where do all the calculators go!? They just die. |
| Somewhere, there is an unplugged toaster sitting on a Coleman stove. Does it feel lonely? |
Regicide said: The question was more along the lines of "do you think theres any cognitive dissonance in believing in an afterlife yet being atheist+agnostic" although reading the poll results it seems like no one is actually like the surveyed results which strikes me as quite interesting e:whoever you are synthesizer i have my eyes on you for making me edit this I think the poll is skewed here because many who are strong atheists are very vocal about their beliefs and would thus be happy to show it in the poll. I could and may very well be wrong though. To answer your question though, I don't think such people are showing signs of cognitive dissonance. According to Google, an atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.". This does not disregard the belief in an afterlife or souls and the like necessarily, and as such is not contradictory, even though it may seem so. Kyonyo said: Hisoka_Judal said: That is so bs. If you look at the internet and look at who's extremely vocal, it might not seem so much like bs. In real life I can see that many religious people are not very tolerant, but online it seems like atheists are the least tolerant. In both cases, I suspect its just people being vocal about their beliefs and neither is representative of the majority. |
TrishaCatMar 7, 2014 9:43 AM
Hisoka_Judal said: In today's society people like me - religious people (who is more tolerant than most atheists) - get bashed and fronted really hard. You seem to support the discord though. |
Chili-Changa said: From now on, I will call you The Texas Sharpshooter.If you look at the internet and look at who's extremely vocal, it might not seem so much like bs. In real life I can see that many religious people are not very tolerant, but online it seems like atheists are the least tolerant. In both cases, I suspect its just people being vocal about their beliefs and neither is representative of the majority. |
 |
| It's nice that there's a "not sure if I believe in the above". Whooo~ A little bit surprised there's only 2 agnostics. Perhaps people have their definitions wrong. |
Chili-Changa said: If you look at the internet and look at who's extremely vocal, it might not seem so much like bs. In real life I can see that many religious people are not very tolerant, but online it seems like atheists are the least tolerant. In both cases, I suspect its just people being vocal about their beliefs and neither is representative of the majority. Its the net most people here are either yolo-ing savages on instangram, reddit using hipsters, or edgy assholes. |
| Agnostic here. I can't prove whether there is an afterlife or not, but I live my life under the assumption that neither god nor the afterlife exists. It's an interesting thought, though. |
Chili-Changa said: If you look at the internet and look at who's extremely vocal, it might not seem so much like bs. In real life I can see that many religious people are not very tolerant, but online it seems like atheists are the least tolerant. In both cases, I suspect its just people being vocal about their beliefs and neither is representative of the majority. I bet most of places where you visit on internet are places where most of people agnostic/atheist. Not to add how young most of certain sites/games users are (teens are so well know for being tolerant). Which why you don't need even more than few % of atheis/agnostic to act badly and it seems like atheist/agnostic would be less tolerant. If you feel like this what I'm saying is false go to some forum where most of people are religious and tell there that you don't believe in god and see how they react. |
| The afterlife consists of a 3 Day, 3 Night challenge in which you must capture a leprechaun's Lucky Charms. The level of speed, and gymnastic showmanship which you employ to acquire these charms, will determine how many virgins you are allotted afterwards. |
| Atheist and believe in the above. He said half of all the atheists and agnostics in the survey said every person has a soul, that heaven and hell exist and that there is life after death. Not necessarily contradictory. Atheism is about not believing in god. Souls, a place like heaven or hell and life after death are not exclusively Christian concepts. One in eight atheists and agonistics even believe that accepting Jesus Christ as savior probably makes life after death possible. Key word "probably". |
 |
BatoKusanagi said: Atheist and believe in the above. He said half of all the atheists and agnostics in the survey said every person has a soul, that heaven and hell exist and that there is life after death. Not necessarily contradictory. Atheism is about not believing in god. Souls, a place like heaven or hell and life after death are not exclusively Christian concepts. One in eight atheists and agonistics even believe that accepting Jesus Christ as savior probably makes life after death possible. Key word "probably". If there is no god then how were souls created? |
Kyonyo said: If there is no god then how were souls created? Perhaps souls themselves simply exist to people who believe this in the same way God simply exists to some people. Or maybe its something else. It depends upon the beliefs of the person stating it. |
| What is a soul? Is it consciousness or something else? |
  |
Kyonyo said: If there is no god then how were souls created? Please refer to my post about Buddhism. If there already exists in the universe a mechanism for something to occur, then a god isn't needed for that part of the equation. |
| Somewhere, there is an unplugged toaster sitting on a Coleman stove. Does it feel lonely? |
Nonyflah said: Kyonyo said: If there is no god then how were souls created? Please refer to my post about Buddhism. If there already exists in the universe a mechanism for something to occur, then a god isn't needed for that part of the equation. Hmm, yeah that is good point. Buddhism is pretty interesting religion. |
| Life as in, conscious "I was as I lived" after death is rather unlikely It'd be nice if it was like that, but I find it more probable that whatever energy it was that made me alive just goes wherever that goes, if I imagine conservation of energy, it goes and makes something else alive |
| Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
| Stupid atheists, Heaven is for kids. On the subject of the OP though, I see this shit all the time. It comes from the whole "I'm an individual and my beliefs are just as valid as anyone else" bullshit that we pound into our kid's heads these days. NO! Your beliefs are stupid and contradictory! |
| Let's go bowling. |
| I didn't get the gist of the topic completely , but I do believe in life after death . If we are born and destined to die , then what is the purpose of it in first place ? Nothing is in vain. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Right and this has what to do with the topic at hand?Stupid atheists, Heaven is for kids. |
| Sup People and yes I am the physical manifestation of Shinji Ikari's Balls And this what elite-sama says to incest elite-sama said: I'm against it because I don't have a sister. It's not fair. |
| "I don't believe in the way religion has those rules like if you're wearing too short shorts you're going to hell with a skin wearing cannibal. "- Animeoppai Where did this come from? "On the subject of the OP though, I see this shit all the time. It comes from the whole "I'm an individual and my beliefs are just as valid as anyone else" bullshit that we pound into our kid's heads these days. NO! Your beliefs are stupid and contradictory!"- SDAB I agree. |
| I think this is why Americans tend to embrace contradictions: The U.S. is a place of total truth distortion.It is like they are isolated in their own world.Of course we can only blame the U.S. media which is controlled by lobyist groups. Even common political terms are confused.Americans consider individualism to be a conservative thing,while everywhere else individualism is tied to the political left.Americans think their democrats are leftists,they are not,not compared to the rest of the world.The democrates are just a little less right wing than the republicans. Some american think their country is always right,but what they don't know is that a lot of political experts estimate that america has the strongest and best working propaganda machine of them all. Even the current situation in Ukraine shows it.Some of you may think the Russians are the bad guys there,but most of you probably don't know that a nazi political party took over the Ukraine and they threatened the local Russian minority in the Ukraine.Also the Russian army has not yet fired a single bullet in there.Btw. I of course hope there won't be any conflict there.But none of the sides in that conflict are innocent. Well sorry I probably went way off topic. |
| "Efficiency is not king, efficacy is." Post a comment on my profile. Profile comments are fun. |
bluedragon777 said: Orly?Well sorry I probably went way off topic. |
 |
| If the reason why you became an atheist is because of holy religions' lack of evidence or lack of logic, then it's contradictory to believe in a god or afterlife. I'm agnostic. I feel(or hope I'm not sure) there should be some form of afterlife but it's not strong enough a feeling to call a belief. |
skuka said: “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” - Stephen Hawkings That quote summarises my entire thoughts on "life after death". Yeah that's pretty much where I am too. It's kind of sad, but then not really because you don't know that you're dead once you're dead haha. Just like you don't know that you're unconscious when you're in a coma. & if you look at it from the perspective of nature, you get to become a part of the soil & help beautiful flowers grow using your decomposed body parts ^_^ |
 |
| I believe in life after death. As decomposed carbon atoms taking part in other life and the atmosphere (law of conservation of mass baby). Human beings are just full of themselves, thinking they follow a different set of rules from all over living things. |
| There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked. |
| What I consider myself to be is irrelevant in my opinion, I don't speculate on the metaphysics of some arbitrary entity that is just another entity among entities that has equivalent existence insofar as it can be related as an entity. In other words, god is just another entity among entities that has qualities that resemble the human ontological status but are just extrapolated to infinitude, e.g. omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. I regard this view as naive insofar as I have never met a religious individual who bases their faith on the ontological argument for the existence of god, the epistemological argument for the existence of god, the argument from design, the kalam cosmological argument etc. These arguments are only ever postulated after the fact and presuppose the said individual's existential reasons for believing in god(s). What is at heart here is the structural qualities of human existence that influence or direct us in positing a great Other. An Other who cares about us in some fashion or allows us to get up in the morning. Or directs our moral dilemmas. It resembles the statement that God is Dad, in the sense that God functions as an moral and existential guidance that can either be deleterious or positive to society as a whole. Nevertheless, to disregard such as view as just idiotic, is an act of superficiality as it disregards the more fundamental roots of religion e.g. teleological(purpose-oriented), axiological(value-laden) or existential reasons, over and against the metaphysical aspects. There was a period in time where Islam functioned as the heart of scientific, mathematical, and philosophically rigorous study. The same can also be said about movements within the Judeo-Christian belief systems. This phenomena of fundamentalism within America is something that I would consider as a modern phenomena, not a movement that strands the whole of religious history. However, I also don't regard the view, as some have on this post, that postulates the human being as reducible to a function of its parts, e.g. a computer as somehow getting at the heart of reality comparatively to the religious. We fundamentally don't experience ourselves as such, we don't comport ourselves to the world as a computer, we don't treat other human beings or even animals as just a function of a computer system. It contradicts our whole world in our approach to science, as we approach neuroscience, as we approach any field, we are assuming the structure of how we care about our existence and the goals we want to achieve. For example, If we take a neuroscientist who is investigating another's brain for the sake of understanding what constitutes this individual, he is presupposing a whole lot, since it is only on the basis of our concern for the fact that we are, that we can pose questions such as, "What is it about human consciousness that allows us to function in X way?" That isn't to say that we have a soul, or have some weird metaphysical way of existing. What I am getting at isn't adjusting itself to be supernatural or theological claim. Instead, I am trying to convey how we expose ourselves, how we comport ourselves, how we appear in our day to day existence, and why we do the things we do. In essence, my argument is that the human being isn't reducible to what some others have said, e.g. the claim that we can account for every human emotion, experience, logical operation through reducing the brain to its parts. That isn't to say neuroscience is useless, or that I am just being hyper-skeptical to the point of ridiculousness, I am merely attempting to get at the core structural aspects about human existence and taking them at face value philosophical, rather than attempting to reduce them into oblivion. Anyways, don't get the impression I believe in an afterlife, or a soul. I am strictly what may be called an atheist, or an agnostic atheist, but honestly, I don't give a shit anymore. My world does not revolve around claiming myself to be a theist, atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist etc. I don't comport myself on those beliefs, and find them to be irrelevant positions in the way that I am the way that I am. |
CitizeninsaneMar 7, 2014 5:27 PM
yogotah said: To a certain degree I agree, however, if we look at the function of the science and the implications of science in general, I think I might be able to express my point in a more convincing fashion. I ask, what has science changed about human existence that has radicalized the way that we value the things we value? I consider myself a student of physics and philosophy, however I would never say that physics has changed what it means to be in a relationship with another. Or what it means to be in love. Also, don't think because I invoked such an emotional language, that this only applies to some sort of mystical, gushy, experience. Rephrasing it more abstractly, science has not changed how experience things as temporal or spatial, it has, however, changed the accessibility in predicating phenomena temporally and spatially. However, it has never risen to answering why it is that way as such. It has not redefined the structural requirements in how we convey ourselves rationally, e.g. logic. It has not somehow challenged the logical operations that are utilized in our use of language. Science has, more specifically the study that I am much more familiar with, physics, created models of reality that provide predictable utility. However, that is where it stops. The Newtonian paradigm was created on the basis, and therefore Nature was thematized, to ascertain the motion of the planets through the invention of calculus. However, several paradigm shifts have occurred since then to address new issues within classical mechanics. Namely, the problem of black-body radiation lead the postulation of quantization, and lead to the birth of quantum mechanics; the assumed postulate of an ether, which was disapproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, lead to the need of relativity and how light functioned as a constant without the need of a medium. All this progress, however I ask again, what has changed about the human condition? Granted, we have cellphones, better access to medicine, etc. Nevertheless, do not think I am claiming that science isn't useless, on the contrary, it is the very definition of utility. However, what does that change about me? You brought up Albert Camus, so I think you would appreciate the following passage. "Yet all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it. You enumerate its laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart its mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multicolored universe can be reduced to the atom and that that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron, [you can add elementary particles, the point still stands]. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know..I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that, apprehend the world." |
CitizeninsaneMar 7, 2014 7:19 PM
NebulaC3I said: A lot of religions think showing off too much skin is a sin. That's what I mean."I don't believe in the way religion has those rules like if you're wearing too short shorts you're going to hell with a skin wearing cannibal. "- Animeoppai Where did this come from? |
yogotah said: In that sense, I see your point. I agree to the extent that I should of rephrased and restricted my claims. I brought up the example of a cell-phone to emphasis the fact that we still aim for communication even it is through the use of a cell-phone. The fact that we communicate hasn't changed, but the medium through which communication is accomplished differs. Nevertheless, I think I can still retrieve some basic constituents of my argument for the reason that you pointed out that science obviously has a cultural impact and therefore shapes how we think about ourselves, e.g. the example you gave about medication. Nevertheless, If I restrict claim to an extent, science does not change the underlying ontological structure of the human being which was my main point and criticism. It is only on the basis of these ontological structures of how we are e.g. spatial, temporal, that something that you described can occur. It is only the basis of our human condition that we can develop in such a way as to basically treat ourselves as a mechanistic thing. However, the view of ourselves as caring about existence and the like still underlies your claim in a primordial way. Science has allowed for the possibility for a re-definition of what means to relate to myself in the way that you described, however does it address what I utilized the Camus' quote for, does it address the existential issues that we all encounter, but tend to forget about insofar as we don't want to address them given the absurdity of the issue? And fundamentally, I don't think science needs to rise to that task, don't think I am saying science ought to being answering these questions. I aim this critique at those who think everything ought to be reducible to a science, e.g. scientism. Edit: P.S. I plan to read I and Thou later this spring, I have the book atm, but was reading Spinoza first given the Jewish tradition they both share. |
CitizeninsaneMar 7, 2014 8:21 PM
| Hawking's analogy with computers was mainly to draw a similarity between the mind/body relationship to the software/hardware relationship. In computers, we generally understand that software cannot function without the hardware to process it, and likewise the mind cannot live without the body. The point is to show the double standard that we assume the mind can just magically continue to persist after the body has ceased to function when all evidence points to the contrary, yet we don't make this same baseless assumption with computers when the hardware fails. I don't think it's an analogy meant to reduce the totality of human existence to a computer, but rather to address a specific similarity that reveals some cognitive dissonance that often occurs with our way of thinking. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
yogotah said: Well, If I may ask, what do you see as the underlying ontological structure of humans? I have the feeling that you are saying that though science may change our methods, it ultimately has not changed our human nature. I can't really agree or disagree until you specify what the human nature is...different people define it as different things. That is a tall order lol. People have written whole books in the name of that project and I don't think of myself highly enough to really engage a proper account of human ontology. But what I don't intend to say, is the claim that human's have this metaphysical essence that constitutes what it means to be a human being and persists indefinitely independent of time. Instead, I am pointing to the structures of what it means to be and have a world where we experience entities as such. To give a expression of this claim it would be as follows, "Why is that we experience entities as existing rather than not-existing? What are the structures for the possibility of experiencing things as such? Why is that we convey ourselves through care, care in the sense that we care about existence (that care can manifest in a nihilistic fashion or a theological one, or a secular one, however it is only on the basis that we care to begin with that we can pose such a question or statement "Life has no meaning" or "Life has some grand purpose via a designer"). I would refer you to Martin Heidegger, as he has influenced me the most in this respect, and if you want the roots of those aims then you can also look into Aristotle's notion of the practical philosophy, e.g. action and production (praxis and poeisis), and Kant's schematism. I would first direct you to those authors, since they deal with issues such as ontology, the "subject" (or Dasein, which translates to human existence, for Heidegger), and human action, much more eloquently than I could ever hope to. yogotah said: I think you will enjoy the I-thou book by Martin Buber, he really has an axle to grind when it comes to the way we treat each other, and as a man living near the Holocaust periods, he really had a first hand experience in the entailment of the I-It method of viewing relationships. I'm currently delving into Thomas Hobbes, and his view of the selfish nature of man. I'm already seeing some major problems with his views (not any original problems of course) but I still see his writings as fascinating. Yea, I am pretty sure I will. For some reason, I think philosophy is the only topic where I enjoy reading everything, including things I don't necessarily agree with. For example, I don't mind reading Leibniz, even though I vehemently disagree with him, or even modern theologians such as Alvin Plantinga. Above everything else, I enjoy immersing myself in the discussion of philosophy, which is why I decided to double major in philosophy, (I don't think my physics professors are very happy about that decision lol). |
| You missed at least one option: "I am nonreligious and I believe in all the above." Thus I did not vote. |
| okey well i just wrote a ton then i went like no well i am none of the above so yeah. yeah i rewrote in a smaller format outline 1 no religion not atheist cuz I think you are better off no religion than atheist meaning no matter what you won't believe I hate the definite due to the fact they are harding to keep. A promise where you stay I will get An A+ is harder than I promise to try to do my very best. (as in you won't do it just attempt it and not getting A+ just doing the best you can even if it is f-) 2 think heaven and hell shouldn't exist instead goes for and equal but different gray for everything like when you die you just go to a parallel world and continue life without your prior memories as a baby 3 religion is gay, because I hate judgment, why? Because that is a unfair right. In my religion this is removed completely. Because I don't like it. (stealing from the rich to donate to the poor is wrong, but also right. Just how you are looking at it. Entropy which is increasing. So that is why a few rich people pop up then get killed by the majority just to cycle over, cuz entropy some may try to decrease it but most try to increase it.) 4 if you harm a being with plan to kill it, it is only to increase entropy and make equal. (doesn't really apply with lessor without break the thought more brain storming in the future.) |
redmoth11Mar 7, 2014 10:26 PM
| anime with cute girls is my thing. |
| i believe that life itself has no limits |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| I am nothing and believe in nothing |
| There is so much wrong here that I do not know where to start Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same meaning as being with non religious. You can be a religious atheist or agnostic. Being a Theist is ot the same meaning as being religious. You can be a non religious Theist. Religion is a group of beliefs. Obviously being an atheist or agnostic and believing in something metaphysical is not a contradiction at all. As well as being a theist even a religious one at that and not believing every bit of a religion. However if you are religious for example a Christian who believes in jesus and reject the Bible (the only thing that really talks about Jesus) then THAT is a contradiction. I've heard of people like this before. "clearly a large portion of atheists still believe in life after death, even though that is purely a religious benefit" Its not associated with any specific religion. That is not a religious belief. That is a metaphysical or spiritual belief. The beleif in the afterlife could also be considered philosophical. Religion is a group of beliefs not a single belief. Now if an Atheist believed in Divine Punishment/Reward then THAT is a contradiction since divine punishment requires a god. (keep in mind karma is not divine punishment) . Afterlife or other beliefs predates organized religion. "to what extent is religion shaping our beliefs? or is religion a creation of our perception in the first place?" Hard to say. All I know is some religions seems to have partially created a damaging mindset of non-action by just praying things away. "Do we naturally believe in life after death?" Hard to say really because of how big an impact religion has on society. Hard to imagine without it. Obviously the belief came from somewhere. I think some are inclined while others are not. I recall reading an article before about how skepticism is partially an inborn trait. |
animeoppai said: There should be another option for "I am Agnostic and I'm not sure". +1. There's no way to know, therefore no commitment to either side. Monad said: There is no such thing as agnosticism. Atheist are pretty much agnostic. Agnostic is just a term that people invented so they can say they don't believe in God without being attacked. Well thanks for dictating my beliefs to myself, as you clearly know them better than me. I may dislike being intentionally hostile in a serious way, but that statement seriously feels like a personal insult. |
 |
| Do I even have to mention there are agnostic atheists as well as agnostic theists? Because I forgot that since its so obvious and common knowledge although most miss out on it |
| I don't believe in life after death, as in an extension of your current existence, but I cannot disprove reincarnation, or even alternate realities, so to think that death is eternal nothingness is rather silly. Just cause you loose your memories, that doesn't mean you can't possibly exist ever again. Just think about it for a second. What exactly are you? Do you even know? Sure, you have your physical body, and your sensory input, and you experience it all as a result of everything your brain does... but what exactly does it mean to experience it? |
| As far as god goes... Perhaps the supposed "proofs of god's existence" eg: traits that aren't easily explainable by survival of the fittest, are actually just lingering archaeological evidence of an ancient extinct species that was equal to or even superior to our own intelligence, selectively breeding those traits for their own purposes. Or maybe aliens did it. |
| i am an agnostic believer because i do want to believe there is something more to this world that can not be seen, wether that be "the human soul" or maybe "god" nobody knows. i also actually believe that pretty much everyone is agnostic too, no one can believe in something for 100% we all have that 10-20% of doubt left in our "hearts".. although most people tend to ignore that (hard atheists, jehova's witnesses) and push their believes on to you (has happened to me alot!) in the end people should just have the freedom to believe what they want to believe and let others do the same. |
| Imagine books and music and movies being filtered and homogenized. Certified. Approved for consumption. People will be happy to give up most of their culture for the assurance that the tiny bit that comes through is safe and clean. White noise. --Chuck Palahniuk |
More topics from this board
» Do you enjoy nature?Kamikaze_404 - 14 minutes ago |
1 |
by cody
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» What do yall collect? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )bevarnow - Jan 25 |
307 |
by AverageRiceFan
»»
30 minutes ago |
|
» What's the best way to translate Yu-Yu-Hakusho's titleAlphaMaleScotty - Yesterday |
8 |
by AlphaMaleScotty
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » thoughts on social experiments?deg - 7 hours ago |
7 |
by Kamikaze_404
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What if Burger is on a stick?Dragevard - Feb 10, 2022 |
12 |
by tsukareru
»»
2 hours ago |