What happens to Atheists when they die??

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Frisky

Evolution seems like a very good theory to some creationists also (including myself).

But some higher power had to construct the design of it all. Starting from an amoeba all the way up to humans. Put it this way, every software program had to have a designer. Why should evolution be any different??!

Well, I don't really want to get involved in a teleological debate, because we all know how they go.

But in short, I simply don't believe that 'some higher power had to construct the design'. For one thing, it rests on the premise that the world is 'designed' simply because it is complex and ordered. Although the universe seems ordered and sensible to us (because we can describe certain natural laws) in some ways, in other ways, it is completely chaotic. It's impossible to know what an 'undesigned' universe would look like, and whether it would make any more or less sense to us, so the point is effectively moot.

If abiogenesis is a sticking point rather than evolution, then the question to me becomes: 'If everything must have a designer, who designed God?' At some point I have to accept the existence of something in an infinite or eternal sense, and I choose to stop before the step of God, because there doesn't appear to be any evidence to go that extra step to me. Adding God in as an explanation doesn't help explain anything further, in fact, it introduces a completely random and capricious element to the whole system. It just doesn't make any sense to me - which might be hard for you to understand given that obviously it does make sense to you.

But that's the thing with beliefs. You believe what you believe, not what you want to believe or think you should believe. I'm not an atheist because I'm mad at God or want to deny the existence of a creator because I lack morals and don't want to have to explain my actions or because I want to feel superior to others or because I don't want to believe in God, I'm an atheist just because on the evidence I see, it's what makes sense to me. I don't believe in spirits or astral planes or angels or star signs or fairies because they just don't make sense to me either.

That's why I don't really want to debate the rightness or wrongness of what you or I believe (I've been down that road too many times ). I accept that you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and unless one of us starts trying to impose their beliefs on the other, then all is well.

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by Indiana

'If everything must have a designer, who designed God?'

Thats a really good point, I never stopepd to think about that.
Although the Bible says God "always was, and always will be" (Alpha & Omega).

But thats too much to wrap my little brain behind

Originally Posted by Indiana

But that's the thing with beliefs. You believe what you believe, not what you want to believe or think you should believe. I'm not an atheist because I'm mad at God or want to deny the existence of a creator because I lack morals and don't want to have to explain my actions or because I want to feel superior to others or because I don't want to believe in God, I'm an atheist just because on the evidence I see, it's what makes sense to me. I don't believe in spirits or astral planes or angels or star signs or fairies because they just don't make sense to me either

Fair enough. And the fact you can debate this without throwing temper tantrums tells me you're a smart atheist

Originally Posted by Indiana

That's why I don't really want to debate the rightness or wrongness of what you or I believe (I've been down that road too many times ). I accept that you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and unless one of us starts trying to impose their beliefs on the other, then all is well

I am the same way, I never, ever force my beliefs on anyone. It doesnt get you anywhere anyways.

Cheers (I'm due for my first beer soon)

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

To add to it, I am an atheist, but I'd like to point out that much of what we experience in life as human beings transcends the material world irrespective of whether you believe in a divine God or other planes of reality. I can show up to my cousin's wedding (the material reality), but that material state does not inform me what state of being I will observe (anger, spite, joy, love) or how I will relate to my enviornment (detached, connected). These are issues of spirituality, for me.

Zeph, I'm curious--where do you think these "states of being" (i.e., anger, spite, joy, love) come from? Or, are they just emotions, to you?

[Qwuakeup]

"Being spiritual has nothing to do with what you believe and everything to do with your state of consciousness." - Eckhart Tolle

Labelling something doesn't change it, it's the state of mind. No matter what Earthly label you attach to someone (Bad, good, evil, atheist, religious), that is all it is. Merely Labels.

The state of the person's conciousness and personal experience is what determines what happens when they die, and is the result of the belief systems throughout life.

If they're atheist, but know about the afterlife, jesus, buddha (Most people have) then when they die they might be a bit confused at first, and slowly they would realize that they are dead and so they'll start asking themselves, maybe I was wrong? Then whatever belief system they change to this is the one they will experience in Death.

Remember death is just as much an illusion as "real life", and that pure consciousness is ultimately what we are.

[ZephyrusX]

I suppose, in a crude way, I would just say they are emotions. I think it might be a bit more complicated than that though as I think people adopt predominate modes of being at different stages in their life that relate to their psychological and external resources. For example, anger was the core state of being that I seemed to gravity towards during my teens and early twenties. Now, most of the time, I feel... hmmm.. neutral I guess. I can still get angry at times, but I just seem to gravitate towards... neutral feelings most of the time...

Where do you think these states of being come from?

Originally Posted by Beingist

Zeph, I'm curious--where do you think these "states of being" (i.e., anger, spite, joy, love) come from? Or, are they just emotions, to you?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Where do you think these states of being come from?

For me, states of being are not the same as emotions. Emotions originate with thoughts (i.e., anger, love, jealousy, etc.). States of being are simply that--states of being (i.e., Joy, Love, Peace, or all of those).

The reason I ask this, is because if, as I've been told, an atheist believes that humans are but "bags of water with complex chemical reactions," then how would one explain or define a "state of being?"

Another question I've always had of atheists, is where they think those "states of being" come from, and what motivates a "bag of water with complex chemical reactions" to do anything?

[ZephyrusX]

Beats the hell out of me.

May be someone else can give you a more satisfactory answer.

Originally Posted by Beingist

The reason I ask this, is because if, as I've been told, an atheist believes that humans are but "bags of water with complex chemical reactions," then how would one explain or define a "state of being?"

Another question I've always had of atheists, is where they think those "states of being" come from, and what motivates a "bag of water with complex chemical reactions" to do anything?

[Luciddd]

At times my believe in God is in God, but not in a personal God but in a non-personal God like some time of energy or something, with intelligence but its not a person.

Would that make me an atheist at those times?

[ButterflyWoman]

Technically, "atheist" literally means "without" or "abscence of" (the Greek prefix a- or an-) and theos means (god) (or it can be theoi, gods). It doesn't necessarily indicate a complete lack of experience of or belief in supernatural or metaphysical things. It just means someone who does not perceive or recognise god/s, deities.

In fact, some forms of Buddhism are technically atheist (in the sense of the word given above, not in the modern sense of the "New Atheist" movement).

Originally Posted by Luciddd

At times my believe in God is in God, but not in a personal God but in a non-personal God like some time of energy or something, with intelligence but its not a person.

Would that make me an atheist at those times?

Well, if you really feel the need for a label, I'd say "pantheist" or "deist".

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Beats the hell out of me.

LOL.
Best answer I've heard from anyone claiming to be an atheist.

May be someone else can give you a more satisfactory answer.

You sound more agnostic than atheist, to me, Zeph.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Technically, "atheist" literally means "without" or "abscence of" (the Greek prefix a- or an-) and theos means (god) (or it can be theoi, gods). It doesn't necessarily indicate a complete lack of experience of or belief in supernatural or metaphysical things. It just means someone who does not perceive or recognise god/s, deities.

In fact, some forms of Buddhism are technically atheist (in the sense of the word given above, not in the modern sense of the "New Atheist" movement).

Quite true, this. Whenever I tell the JWs that come a-knocking that I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, they often say, "oh, you're an atheist" (they have prepared lines and quotes for atheists, see). But, when I emphasize the word, anthropomorphic, they don't know what to say.

The thing is, for some time, I had a hard time even using the word, "God", though have long been quite spiritual--spirit meaning something present, but intangible. So, as far as I'm concerned, one has to reject all things spiritual and essential for them to really be an atheist.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Beingist

But, when I emphasize the word, anthropomorphic, they don't know what to say.

Well, it is a pretty big word.

Originally Posted by Beingist

So, as far as I'm concerned, one has to reject all things spiritual and essential for them to really be an atheist.

That would be more line an aspiritualist. Actually, that's totally wrong, because a- is Greek and spiritual is from a Latin root (as you well know ). Greek word for spirit is actually the same as for "breath", that is, "pneuma". So... apneumatic?

[BillyTheAdult]

Like apneumatic drill

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Well, it is a pretty big word.

That would be more line an aspiritualist. Actually, that's totally wrong, because a- is Greek and spiritual is from a Latin root (as you well know ). Greek word for spirit is actually the same as for "breath", that is, "pneuma". So... apneumatic?

"Apneumatic" would make me think you were immune (or averse) to getting pneumonia.

Armchair terminology aside, the point is that something breathes life into animate things, and I'm wondering what atheists (real, hardcore, "we're-just-bags-of-water-with-complex-chemical-reactions" atheists) think that is.

[ButterflyWoman]

Originally Posted by Beingist

the point is that something breathes life into animate things

Indeed. Probably why the Greeks used that word, actually.

Originally Posted by Beingist

I'm wondering what atheists (real, hardcore, "we're-just-bags-of-water-with-complex-chemical-reactions" atheists) think that is.

I've wondered that, too. The general response I've gotten to that question is that it's as you say, complex chemical reactions and neurons firing and so on.

I don't really "believe in" a "creator" these days. I've seen in myriad ways that Creation IS the Creator, and it is self-Creating. But that's another discussion.

Oh, and I think "apneumatic" is what happens when you've exercised really hard and you can't catch your breath.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

I agree with that. Though occasionally the get buried at sea, and I hear that green burials, where the body is put directly into the earth to decay, are on the increase, undoubtedly for atheists as well as true believers (in whatever).

I'm sure many donate their body to research or organs to the sick as well.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Armchair terminology aside, the point is that something breathes life into animate things, and I'm wondering what atheists (real, hardcore, "we're-just-bags-of-water-with-complex-chemical-reactions" atheists) think that is.

This is why I earlier said I'm mostly atheist, because although I'm not completely averse to the idea of a god I surely wouldn't view it as a creator. More as something that just is much the same way everything else just is. Which is why although I do pretty much believe the above, I never much feel compelled to ponder the question of what breathes life in. Who says there is a thing that does that.

Hawkins repeatedly says "There is no this causing a that"

Sn: Of course although I think of us as purely biological systems, that is not to say I don't believe in the idea of personal meaning. Ones life can be full of meaning and beautiful experiences, but they come about by the means of chemical reactions in the body.

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by Luciddd

At times my believe in God is in God, but not in a personal God but in a non-personal God like some time of energy or something, with intelligence but its not a person.

Would that make me an atheist at those times?

No, because thats pretty much what I believe also. I dont think God is some long-bearded guy sitting on his throne somewhere, sending Christians to heaven and atheists to hell.

I believe God is a type of energy force that occupies the entire universe(s). I also dont think you're an atheist, because technically this energy you describe would still classify as God

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Frisky

I believe God is a type of energy force that occupies the entire universe(s). I also dont think you're an atheist, because technically this energy you describe would still classify as God

I tend to think the term God is inherently anthropomorphic-- I realize that's not always how it's used, but it's deeply ingrained in the culture of the English speaking world.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Frisky

What happens to Atheists when they die?? Do they go to their own little astral section of the astral planes where all the other atheists hang out??

Is there any bad karma they will have to deal with for living an anti-spiritual life??
Or do they just go to whatever astral plane their vibration matches??

I find most atheists to be rather negative and condescending people, so I somehow doubt they'd end up in the higher astral planes, no??

I think the same thing happens to people regardless of their beliefs. Do you find me condescending and negative? I'm an atheist myself. It's not good to generalize.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Secular spirituality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like this explanation.

To add to it, I am an atheist, but I'd like to point out that much of what we experience in life as human beings transcends the material world irrespective of whether you believe in a divine God or other planes of reality. I can show up to my cousin's wedding (the material reality), but that material state does not inform me what state of being I will observe (anger, spite, joy, love) or how I will relate to my enviornment (detached, connected). These are issues of spirituality, for me.

I don't think it is possible for someone to live an anti-spiritual life. Anger is a state of being as well, and if you want to strictly define spirituality as the pursuit of 'higher' states of being, I don't think you can neatly separate human qualitites and emotions as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not. My experiences with anger, powerlessness and despair, for example, enables me to be more forgiving and empathetic.

Creating a divide between the spiritual and anti-spiritual just seems like another false dichotomy that people set up for their own self-interest (i.e pride, arrogance). For me, spirituality is an essential aspect of being human, so to say that some people are not spiritual seems dehumanizing to me.

The only way I can see justifying calling some people anti-spiritual is if you strictly define spirituality to matters relating beyond this state of reality, but then, that would seem rather disingenous because much of what people are concerned about when speaking about spirituality actually pertains to states of being (or consciousness) and the meaning of existence.





Ha! Now that I got that off my chest, I'll stop derailing your thread.

I...I think I'm in love!

This reminds me of a Zen saying someone on here wrote: ''When you see the Buddha, kill him.''

Right now I interpret it as saying something like ''Avoid deifying your fellow humans''. I love the Buddhist philosophy, it moves, inspires and motivates me to do good. I think all beliefs need to be investigated thoroughly. One needs to discard those who are founded illogically and keep the logical ones. I think the idea is to keep compassion and reason at the forefront of our intellectual considerations. There's lots of metaphors and superstitions in some versions of the Buddha story. It's best to investigate what's what and build on that.

Although I haven't read the book, I think the Dalai Lama agrees.

[BillyTheAdult]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I tend to think the term God is inherently anthropomorphic-- I realize that's not always how it's used, but it's deeply ingrained in the culture of the English speaking world.

Yes. It is inevitable.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Frisky

Evolution seems like a very good theory to some creationists also (including myself).

But some higher power had to construct the design of it all. Starting from an amoeba all the way up to humans. Put it this way, every software program had to have a designer. Why should evolution be any different??!

This very question is answered as the thesis of this book.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

I tend to think the term God is inherently anthropomorphic-- I realize that's not always how it's used, but it's deeply ingrained in the culture of the English speaking world.

Can't help but agree, there. But when the JWs come a-knocking, there's simply no avoiding it, so I cut to the chase.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

This reminds me of a Zen saying someone on here wrote: ''When you see the Buddha, kill him.''

Good one.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Zeph, I'm curious--where do you think these "states of being" (i.e., anger, spite, joy, love) come from? Or, are they just emotions, to you?

Do you mind if I answer this one? I think they come from our constant interactions with the outside world. In our unenlightened state, they're direct reactions to outside stimuli. I believe the fully enlightened individual is capable of generating any emotion regardless of circumstance.

What's your version?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

For me, states of being are not the same as emotions. Emotions originate with thoughts (i.e., anger, love, jealousy, etc.). States of being are simply that--states of being (i.e., Joy, Love, Peace, or all of those).

The reason I ask this, is because if, as I've been told, an atheist believes that humans are but "bags of water with complex chemical reactions," then how would one explain or define a "state of being?"

Another question I've always had of atheists, is where they think those "states of being" come from, and what motivates a "bag of water with complex chemical reactions" to do anything?

The answer is in the highlighted part

Atheism is just a lack of belief in a creator or creators. Any other assumption about atheists is just that, an assumption.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Do you mind if I answer this one? I think they come from our constant interactions with the outside world. In our unenlightened state, they're direct reactions to outside stimuli. I believe the fully enlightened individual is capable of generating any emotion regardless of circumstance.

What's your version?

I stated my version in an earlier post--

Originally Posted by Beingist

For me, states of being are not the same as emotions. Emotions originate with thoughts (i.e., anger, love, jealousy, etc.). States of being are simply that--states of being (i.e., Joy, Love, Peace, or all of those).

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Atheism is just a lack of belief in a creator or creators. Any other assumption about atheists is just that, an assumption.

By that definition, I'm an atheist, myself, though. And I'm not an atheist. Here, the conversation would devolve as to the definition of "creator".

(Which gives me cause to consider starting a different thread).

[Frisky]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

This very question is answered as the thesis of this book.

...a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins.

LOL

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Greek word for spirit is actually the same as for "breath", that is, "pneuma".

Interesting observation!

Originally Posted by Beingist

The thing is, for some time, I had a hard time even using the word, "God", though have long been quite spiritual--spirit meaning something present, but intangible. So, as far as I'm concerned, one has to reject all things spiritual and essential for them to really be an atheist.

Interpreting words differently from the standard meaning can lead to confusion and misunderstandings when interacting with others on the topic.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Armchair terminology aside, the point is that something breathes life into animate things, and I'm wondering what atheists (real, hardcore, "we're-just-bags-of-water-with-complex-chemical-reactions" atheists) think that is.

I think the bolded part is an unproven assumption.

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

I don't really "believe in" a "creator" these days. I've seen in myriad ways that Creation IS the Creator, and it is self-Creating. But that's another discussion.

I like that version

Originally Posted by ButterflyWoman

Oh, and I think "apneumatic" is what happens when you've exercised really hard and you can't catch your breath.

I think ''apneumatic'' is the opposite of ''asedentary''