What would you lose?

Whether you follow a religion or if you follow science, each one has theories about death.....
Science is really depressing..... It says that if you die, you stop existing, You stop living, and
you completely evaporate....... You will never smile again.... You never think again......
You cease....... Isn't that just sad.......

But if you believe in a religion.... You have afterlife..... Things will get better...... You will
always exist..... Whether you reincarnate or go to cloud 9........ You have something to
hope for..... You don't fear death..... You don't worry about nonexistence....

If you follow a religion instead of science...... And science is right and you do cease to
exist.... What would you have lost? At least you would have not feared death.....
But if you believe in science and a certain religion turns out to be right......

You might wake up in hell or be reincarnated into a pig or something.....
So religion gives you peace and science is constantly changing.....
What would you have lost by believing in a religion?

 

um, I'm not exactly getting the question, but here's my best try at figuring out what you mean.

Well, I believe both science and religion. you die. you never smile again. but I do think that there's a bit of a difference. I don't exactly think you evaporate, because memories are left behind, in our minds, and in our hearts. we can't evaporate anyway, because of our remains, whether they are cremated or buried [famly's choice], they will still always be there. I highly doubt your soul evaporates. as a question of science, I'm actually questioning if we really have a soul, or do we all just believe we have one...?


anyway, I doubt you would lose anything, it all depends what you believe. you can be like me and believe in both, or you can believe in one or the other. it seems that both can be partially accurate, but not fully. plus, you died. there's nothing more to lose than your life, so that wouldn't matter much to you by then either.


I hope I answered your question. sorry if I didn't.

 

My main problem with your theory is that it approches religion with a "Why not?" mentality. You're not doing good things because you want to, you're doing things because you are affraid of what will happen if you don't. That defeats the purpose of many religions and the ones that it doesn't it wouldn't be affect on if you beleive in it or not most of the time.

 

There's already a thread on this. The one that asks you what death would be like. Also I wasn't aware that we only had two choices in the matter. Many of the greatest scientists in the world are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. You name it. They're not all trying to disprove religion, faith, or a god. Most realize that such feats are simply impossible. Science simply exits to further the betterment of humankind. it changes because we change and learn more about ourselves and the world around us.

 

I prefer to view the world with a scientific mind. One of those things is to say that simply with the evidence that is there, I do not yet -know- what happens when I die. I've been pretty close to death a few times and can say that I don't fear it though, even if it is the end. -Dying- hurts but death doesn't seem to. Having no way to know for certain what comes next, many people decide to look into religions, and I did too; just about every one, much to the dismay of my very Protestant Christian mother. However, the -absolute- answers of religions just aren't getting it for me and where some find truths, I find holes or deceptions. This is my POV and I of course don't speak for anyone other than me with it. I am content to rely on the 'personal' fact that life at this time is more important to live and whatever happens, I want to be the best person I can while alive because that is more what I feel I should concern myself with. I don't require a religion to promise me eternal afterlife to be a decent human being, and it can be a minor annoyance that many religious people cannot think of how this is even possible. We've been raised to think that humans can't function without religion to be decent and benevolent people and it is a hard pressed issue that is always brought up by fundamentalists. They are always trying to say that those who do not believe in a religion are more likely to do heinous things but the facts do not stand up. There are those without conscience and damaged frontal lobes, serial killers and spree killers that are religious too and even kill for those reasons or make other people's lives miserable.

I also don't consider that saying there just may be no afterlife is depressing. In fact, I think it frees me of the troubles that many friends experience and also saves me from getting anxiety about 'sins' instead of seeing errors I make, working to fix them and improving myself. It's more the responsible thing to be held accountable for actions and to work on stopping what I see is having a negative impact because I have a conscience and well, I don't have to answer to a higher force above law or what I feel inside, or to friends etc. There is no dilemma of thinking I am going to Hell. My problem was made on earth so I can fix it on earth.

-Some- scientists say nothing happens after you die. Some are religious. Some are like me and just feel that we don't know what transpires as we haven't made enough progress in studies to know the answers. You say that religion gives people hope that life goes on after they die, but I would say for -some- people it does. For others, it gives nightmares and a constant life of working to ensure they don't go to the bad place because it's really painted out pretty hellacious. In some versions of Christianity even now, they try to say there's no such thing as Hell, because of seeing that it causes people to do dramatic things. There are just too many contradictions and interpretations and this is why so many people are Agnostic anymore; because they want to believe in a 'God' and afterlife but not the way this being is painted.

So, you say that if you believe in 'science', you don't believe in an afterlife and therefore if there is, you might be in some trouble with whatever deity is there. Science, for one thing, is not a religion. There are scientists who are religious and believe in afterlife etc. Also, quite a few scientists are like me and do not choose to answer the question of what happens after you die because there is a lack of evidence to say directly that there 'is' no afterlife. We just do not believe in the concepts out there by mortal men.

However, if a person does not believe in an afterlife and there is an afterlife, but the person was a good person in life, if a deity condemned them to an afterlife of suffering, that deity sucks. A thinking rational person who lives his/her life to doing things out of their own hearts instead of a promise of an afterlife would seem a better person to me than someone who did it for reward. If the person goes on to a positive place or is reincarnated or whatever, well at last the person has the answer and isn't being condemned because of a question that could not be answered.

If a religious person dies and there is no afterlife, he or she had been lied to and wasted valuable time believing in something that is not true. That life therefore may have been a lie and the promise was broken. Fortunately for those living, none of these people can come back and tell us, can they? So we won't know and it keeps the question open. To me, this is the sadder more depressing thing. Especially with all the hard work some people do in hopes. To have that squashed is nearly -evil- in my mind.

I suppose in conclusion, I do not support religions really at all, but hold nothing against people who follow them until they try to tell me that I am going to their 'bad' place because I have a different opinion. I think they are great for people who like answers and can't live with an open ended question such as 'What happens when I die?' but I can't live my life that way. If I cannot have the answer, I cannot and when I die, well, I'll have it. I do not like the idea of committing and wasting my life for the promise of an afterlife that is supposedly better than what I have. I'd prefer to do each deed in this life because I 'want to' rather than because I feel compelled to or I don't get a reward. Rewarding for good behavior is something you do with children for positive reinforcement. It doesn't work all the time in the adult world as we can do good deeds and yet still come out losing. I think my life has been much more wholesome since I gave up on worrying what happens when it's 'over' and decided to stay living in the moment, prepare for a future of what happens in a life time and well, stopped fearing going to Hell etc. People -can- be good without a reward at the end of the day, just as they can be decent without a reward promised at the end of life.

 

i would follow reilign because if u think about it what happens while your dead??? do u just sleep forever or is there a heaven or just be born into a baby and have yur memory earsed??????? maybe science because one expirment back in the 1700 was choping of some one head but a scientest asked him to blink and see if your alive so they cut off his head and he was blinking for 1 min.

 

ummm well... I never really thought about things like this. Well, you could start by, no, you're not sleeping forever, because your brain isn't still functioning.

Um. also, Heaven is just a belief so far as to what anyone in the world knows. and you can't argue with me there, because you're not dead. Who knows if there really is even a god? He's just something we believe in, but we don't know if he's real.

as to being born again, No one really even knows that, it's just one of those wonders to life, but it sounds fun =) If I could go back and relive my life, I would try to be a better person than I am. It is believed by other cultures that you are reborn, that you don't go to heaven and so on. If you died and have unfinished business, that would probably be another reason to be reborn. some people think you just get reborn period. otherwise, you could go to heaven and hell =/ who really knows? only "god" knows.

 

You're talking about science as if a religious person can't "believe in" science, which is definitely not the case - science can't be compared to a religion. Science finds explanations to the things we don't understand whereas religion tries finding answers to things we simply can't understand so a religious person can follow science without there being a contradiction.

I, personally, do not believe in any kind of afterlife. Some people say they find it easier to deal with death if you believe that you won't just cease to exist, but for me it's the complete opposite. I for one do not like the idea that when I die, I will be judged by every little mistake I've ever made during my lifetime and if I haven't been perfect, they'll just tell me "You screwed up, buddy" and will send me to eternal suffering. I agree with Repliku, if there is an afterlife, I don't see why those who do good deeds to get rewarded would be more deserving to live an eternity in happiness than those who do good deeds because they genuinely want to make others happy. I help others and act friendly because I want to and I would find it extremely unfair if those who do the same just so they can live in eternal happiness would get what they want whereas I, who help people for the sake of brightening up someone else's day, would be condemned to suffer for all eternity just because I didn't believe in afterlife.

So yeah, if there was an afterlife and if all of us were to be judged, I'm more inclined to to believe that those who act unselfish because they care, not those who do it to be rewarded afterwards, will live in happiness. But since I don't believe in afterlife, I don't have to worry about that. I believe that when we die, we simply don't exist anymore and since something that doesn't exist cannot feel anything, there's nothing to fear - it won't feel boring and it won't be painful because we simply cannot feel. To me, it is enough to make me feel at ease to know that I'll still be remembered once I die, and as long as you're remembered, you're practically not completely gone.

 

i know heaven and stuff like that r beliefs but it is so cunfuuzling.........but i wonder about the people how have died then have been revievd by docters (dead for 2 hours) have told anybody about they said what happend while being dead??

 

It was interesting someone brought up the cutting off of the head incident. It was to show that guillotines in France were cruel punishment and not more humane than hanging. A scientist told his student since he was condemned to be guillotined, to run up and grab the basket and count how many times his eyes blinked. It was to prove that even though the head was severed, people did not die instantaneously. He blinked for 1 minute afterwards. Good point to bring up.

As for those who had 'near death experiences' or 'died' and were brought back, there are varying things. I can say in my experience that things just didn't hurt anymore. I was beyond pain, and I saw white and speckles and stuff and well, it was kind of peaceful compared to what had gotten me to that state. I really can say I don't fear it. Some people say they see -visions- and stuff but I'm inclined to feel that it was -before- they were 'dead' or at that state. The mind is a funny thing and it still doesn't offer much proof of anything after really. People also can be pretty delusional with medications and stuff or drugs and 'see' things without being near death, so I don't really think this is really changes much.

 

Hmm actually you have it backwards. You explain science as if it is a truth in itself. Which is not true, it is there to find the truth. It changes because it is always finding new things, new discoveries, etc...

And to be honest I feel far more comfortable knowing a one-and-only, real possibility when I die. I'm much happier knowing the answer of me just rotting than fearing a place in hell.

It is very possible that reincarnation could be real, however, the 4th dimension is a real thing so it could be that most things we interpret to be wrong are just because we can't possibly see it, or that we're ignorant of it. Take the movie flatland as a perfect example. Little 2-D living creatures that are in total denial of the 3rd dimension. But in the end it ends up happening that the 3rd dimension real *does* exist. Same could apply to life-after-death, just not as simple as it is explained in most religions.

In the end, you could lost either way. If you're a big-head on religion, then nothing happens after death and you're just dead, whether or not consciousness is present or not, you were wrong. I don't know if you can be aware of *anything* after death, but if you could, you'd certainly be far more upset about there not being a heaven or hell.

However if you're atheist and you die, the consequences are hell. But in the end that's a HUGE relief if hell truly existed, because most casual livers would end up going to hell anyway. And if it's just a plain of non-existence, you'd have a pretty set after-life. lol And I'd be fine with that, as long as I am still able to think and operate myself like I can in the real world (if there is an after life of course).

This is why I choose to be more agnostic. I don't know so I don't make decisions on the matter. It's far more than just some superficial concept to grasp. I live and hope, but not believe entirely. I may expect, but in the end I can only hope. And maybe I'm right, if not, oh well. :3

EDIT: Holy crap, Repliku, you posted a **** load. XDDD

 

Relegion has it benfits and so does Scienece, you need both really to understand either side.

Science has knowledge about many things, such as how things work and ways to cure peopel but still why it has to discredit relegions and keep telling them their god is wrong is worse than any relegion i've seen. But it is only my opinion.

Relegion has a belief system, a way to live and discipline in the eyes of their god(s), it has a goal of trying to keep people in a continous routine, whther right or wrong, and relegion it self also wishes to discredit some of sciences knowledge such as creation of life, and also tries to persuade people to join them.

Relegion gives a way of life while Science gives knowledge of life. If people could practise science on the outside and relegion on the inside, everyone could get the benfits of both sides.

 

Well it isn't really even about practicing religion and science in tandem to get the best of both worlds. If anything it is simply the ideals that they stand for. Religion sells the afterlife and soul in so many ways that we can concern ourselves with more differences than similarities, but in the end what we take away from it is a form proper conduct, an example to live by on some common ground of morality and well-being in the current world. Science in many respects shares these similarities. While it does not prescribe morality and conduct of life, it is an endeavour of knowledge in and of itself. We learn about ourselves within the world, our place in it, and where we can go from there.

 

Well, I think my freedom^^
A different way of viewing life.
Neutrality. They ability to think think freely and respect the beliefs of everyone else.
Open mindedness^^
The mystery of what is after tomorrow^^

 

Science isn't a religion. Science is a series of studies to support a given criteria as a truth with factual evidence.

Also, science has never blatantly said all other religion is wrong. It has merely been implied by the remarkable amount of evidence and such that it has gathered.

It will often disregard things because it can't find any possible way of finding out if that is the way it happened.