Is there a majority Chinese perspective on afterlife?

[39degN]

it was only 30 years ago that many people thought that our solar system was unique and that planets did not exist in other star systems. But eventually, we discovered ways of finding those other planets and proving these people wrong.

hehe, i think at least it should be 50 years ago.

[Cyberian]

Thread has been hijacked by space enthusiasts.

[GuernseyMatt]

Well done to Claw for bringing in the concept of the "multiverse" which as a scientific explanation is good because it is just as full of unsubstantiated supposition as many religeons claiming the top spot as "the one and true religion!!"

I recommend considering the age of a religion before seriously going for it. How can a "new" religion possibly hold the key to a very old humanity?

I could be wrong, but I think hinduism is the oldest of the modern religions and can be traced to over 4000 years ago. (I am not Hindu)

I quite like the Bob Marley quote:-

"if you knew what life is worth, then you would look for yours on earth"

Nobody stays young and beautiful forever, we're all going to die!!!

We are only here for a short time (butterfly life spans etc...)

I bet you would be really annoyed if you spent you're whole life dedicated to a deity who upon your death you found to not exist , so I think its probably better to adopt a good blend of self preservation/philanthropic tenadancies and get on with enjoying life.

Best regards to you all

[xuechengfeng]

Creator = parents/birth-givers

Unless you going to tell me 'God' was banging my mother.

1. No proof of 'Creator'.

2. You going to tell me there is a 'Creator', then you ought to tell me who created the 'Creator'.

It's a shame you have such a hard time arguing respectfully. There is plenty of proof for a Creator, it's what you choose to believe in. There is not, of course, direct scientifical evidence, and there never will be. Why would there be, though?

Your concept of who created the Creator is rather silly. God is said to be eternal. Suppose God did create every single complexity you see today, why in the world would you suppose your feeble human mind could understand God's eternity? You can't even figure out how the universe started with great assurance yet, and you want to start delving into things like who created the person who created the universe?

Okay, I have used your reasoning. So who is the creator of the 'Creator'?

Your answer is in most religious texts; God is eternal.

Sorry Ladies... Creater does not like you! You are all an accident!!!

Sounds sexist. Might want to rephrase it in future posts.

This is a typical argument from someone who has no argument, and is a very inexperience atheist. First, you go along with the age-old, useless questions, like the former. Then, you attack minute parts that are absolutely irrelevant to anything. Haven't you ever heard someone say "mankind?"

I believe the modern word for it is 'among', Lad. ;)

Again, no argument. Look in a dictionary, LAD

[xuechengfeng]

lol, for me, the absolute complexity is created by a single individual is even more ridiculous, what do you think about science then? what do you think about the C++ ? do you think it's created by Creater but not programmer? what do you think all kind of invention? they are invented by God? if there was God, he'll be certainly getting tired right now, becuase he has to manage such a huge group of population now days, or he uses E-management maybe?

nothing is that hard to accept, the ancient europe cant accept sun is the center of universe and earth is round, what's the result?

just MHO, i mean no offence.

Yeah, well, that's because you seem to be calling God an "individual," like He is some old, gray-bearded man in the sky.

If you actual read into some materials instead of making baseless arguments, you would see the answer is God created all the tools for the universe, earth, and mankind. He then gave mankind free will, but a little guidance over time to be on the right path towards eternal life with Him. So now, God doesn't invent inventions, that's a very silly question. It's also very unfunny to talk about God getting tired because of the large population. Again, if you can assume He did create everything in this universe; things you can't and probably won't ever figure out, then why would He have a hard time with managing a population?

Your argument about the sun not being the center of the universe and earth being round are rather irrelevant because those are things that can be proved to be false. Until you can go back to the times of the creation of the Torah, New Testament, and Qu'ran, and tell me that somehow those religious texts were absolutely falsified, yet somehow managed to live on thousands of years later, you really don't have much to say. Science really isn't on your side either.

[xuechengfeng]

While true that we would very likely not be here if even a tiny cosmic variable was different, that does not logically imply that there is indeed a creator.

Let's take this argument on the scale of planets. We definitely know that our planet is very special because it has all the elements necessary for life. However, many, many, other planets are not able to support life as we know it. Does this imply that a creator specifically made Earth this way? No, because there are an almost innumerable number of planets out there, and although the probability that a planet will support life is near zero, there is a very high probability that at least one of these planets will support life (if you've taken a probability and statistics course, this will be very evident).

We can extend this argument to the scale of the entire universe. There are many cosmological constants that if changed, would make even atoms impossible to form. The fact that these constants are exactly the right values for our universe to exist does not point to the fact that a creator set them this way, but rather that our universe is only one out of many other possible universes, many of which, cannot support life. Although we don't have anything currently to prove that other universes exist, there is nothing mathematically showing they can't exist. Remember, it was only 30 years ago that many people thought that our solar system was unique and that planets did not exist in other star systems. But eventually, we discovered ways of finding those other planets and proving these people wrong.

Hey, well I'm proud you can at least handle a debate like a civilized human being!

I don't know much about other planets and how habitable they are, but I don't believe there are many, and even if we can venture out, I don't believe there will be very many. And, they probably wouldn't support human life. At this point, a multiverse isn't worth discussing (unless you would like) because there are so many holes in the theory.

Remember, it was also only a short time ago that scientists were sure that our universe was infinite, then they began pulling their hair out after somewhat validating the Bible and realizing that a Big Crunch may occur one day.

[xuechengfeng]

I recommend considering the age of a religion before seriously going for it. How can a "new" religion possibly hold the key to a very old humanity?

Are you talking about "very old humanity" as in the ape-like, human-like creatures?

[Cyberian]

There is plenty of proof for a Creator, it's what you choose to believe in. There is not, of course, direct scientifical evidence, and there never will be. Why would there be, though?

1. Choosing what to believe in is not proof. It is opinion.

2. As you said yourself, no scientific evidence. Science is what governs truth nowadays.

Your concept of who created the Creator is rather silly. God is said to be eternal.

I never said, I believed in a creator of the 'Creator' you speak of. I simply asked who the creater of the 'Creator' is, if there was a 'Creator'. I am looking at things from your prespective and applying the concept of:

the whole concept of nothing becoming something, and eventually developing into the absolute complexity... is quite ridiculous, without a Creator to me.

Suppose God did create every single complexity you see today, why in the world would you suppose your feeble human mind could understand God's eternity?

1. "Suppose", you say? That is a doubting word. I thought you do believe it.

2. If my 'feeble' human mind could not understand 'God''s eternity, what makes your 'feeble' human mind understand it? Hmm... Are you some kind of higher being than I?

You can't even figure out how the universe started with great assurance yet, and you want to start delving into things like who created the person who created the universe?

1. I never said I could.

2. Can you figure out how the universe started? If no, you are no better than I.

3. I am forbidden from questioning the so-called Creation of the Universe by 'God'?

Your answer is in most religious texts; God is eternal.

1. Religious text written by human. As you mentioned earlier, human minds are feeble.

2. The text itself is real. But proof of the information written is genuine?

This is a typical argument from someone who has no argument, and is a very inexperience atheist. First, you go along with the age-old, useless questions, like the former. Then, you attack minute parts that are absolutely irrelevant to anything. Haven't you ever heard someone say "mankind?"

1. You do not have to be atheist to be offended by such sexist remarks. One only have to respect women.

2. You are trying to avoid apologizing for the sexist remark by shifting the subject towards atheism.

3. You failed to defend your sexist remark. So you attack me by branding that I have 'no argument' and 'inexperience'.

4. I am still waiting for you to fully answer the 'age-old, useless questions, like the former'. If you can...

5. Excuse me for the 'attack minute parts', women been here as long as men have.

6. "Absolutely irrelevant to anything"? Sexist remark #2. I am sure women are very relevant in existance.

Again, no argument. Look in a dictionary, LAD

Copied and pasted from the link you have provided.

[Middle English, from Old English mang :, in; see a-2 + gemang, throng; see mag- in Indo-European Roots.]

We speak modern English nowadays, Lad.

[xuechengfeng]

1. Choosing what to believe in is not proof. It is opinion.

2. As you said yourself, no scientific evidence. Science is what governs truth nowadays.

No, you have already chosen what you believe, and are seemingly stuck in your ways. You've chosen to believe whole-heartedly in Atheism, so proof doesn't matter to you.

Science is what governs truth, but a lot of it is not sturdy. Such as the multiverse explanation of the universe. There is no proof for or against God, but of the evidence weighed, it does lean towards the existence of, and many famous scientists would agree.

1. "Suppose", you say? That is a doubting word. I thought you do believe it.

2. If my 'feeble' human mind could not understand 'God''s eternity, what makes your 'feeble' human mind understand it? Hmm... Are you some kind of higher being than I?

1. I do believe it, once again, you are playing semantics. I am saying "suppose" because I am telling you to "suppose" God is real [since you don't believe in Him.]

2. I can't understand eternity either, who said I did? Humans know time, therefore, it is impossible to physically know how eternity feels. I am merely noting that God is said to be eternal, so why are you coming up with ridiculous questions of "who created the Creator?"

3. I am forbidden from questioning the so-called Creation of the Universe by 'God'?

No, you're not forbidden from questioning, but I don't believe you are questioning and looking for answers. It's also pretty futile to question God's creation of the earth; all knowledge needed is in religious texts, and other than that, how can you know for sure?

1. Religious text written by human. As you mentioned earlier, human minds are feeble.

2. The text itself is real. But proof of the information written is genuine?

They are written by humans, but divinely inspired. God has come in dreams and reality to disperse the knowledge needed and the rules to follow.

Do you have some sort of proof that the texts are not genuine?

1. You do not have to be atheist to be offended by such sexist remarks. One only have to respect women.

2. You are trying to avoid apologizing for the sexist remark by shifting the subject towards atheism.

3. You failed to defend your sexist remark. So you attack me by branding that I have 'no argument' and 'inexperience'.

4. I am still waiting for you to fully answer the 'age-old, useless questions, like the former'. If you can...

5. Excuse me for the 'attack minute parts', women been here as long as men have.

6. "Absolutely irrelevant to anything"? Sexist remark #2. I am sure women are very relevant in existance.

1. This has no correlation, I'm stating that you are an inexperienced Atheist because you really aren't even bringing any sort of evidence into this thread; all you have done is make remarks about my usage of the English language, and used "inexperienced Atheist" questions, such as "who created the Creator?"

2. I don't need to apologize for the remark because it is not sexist, at all.

3. See #1

4. I have already answered your question. Nobody created the Creator. God is eternal. He has and always will Be. You cannot understand the concept of eternity because you are a human, with knowledge of what [limited] time is.

5. See #1

6. See #1

Again, haven't you ever heard of "all of mankind?" People often refer to people as "man" or "mankind." Since you are the one so up on modern English, please do further research before you make such wild claims. READ #4

4. The human race; mankind: man's quest for peace.

Copied and pasted from the link you have provided.

[Middle English, from Old English mang :, in; see a-2 + gemang, throng; see mag- in Indo-European Roots.]

We speak modern English nowadays, Lad.

I really can't believe I'm arguing this, and this is what Atheists are reduced to, but I fail to yield. Amongst is used, far less frequently, and more often in British English, but the meanings are interchangeable. read.

And I don't know what you're complaining about because nobody uses the word "lad." I've never heard it used in common speech in the twenty-one years of my life.

[Claw]

Well done to Claw for bringing in the concept of the "multiverse" which as a scientific explanation is good because it is just as full of unsubstantiated supposition as many religeons claiming the top spot as "the one and true religion!!"

I never stated the multiverse theory was correct either... I was only using the argument to show that such fine-tuning of our universe does not lead to a single conclusion that a creator was involved, but rather that there exists at least one other conclusion in which a creator is not involved.

This is actually why I am agnostic. To me, it does not matter whether or not there is a creator becuase it frankly does not affect my life. The thing that matters most is to be a good person and treat others the way one would wish to be treated. Certain atheists in some ways are just as bad as the people who are extremely religious. One party is claiming that God doesn't exist, and one party is claiming that God does exists, but both of their arguments ultimately rest in faith rather than pure reason.

This is fine, of course, since people can choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, but it is useless to bicker about it when it's obvious you are not going to change another person's faith.

[Cyberian]

No, you have already chosen what you believe, and are seemingly stuck in your ways. You've chosen to believe whole-heartedly in Atheism, so proof doesn't matter to you.

Thank you for arguing groundlessly. Why debate when you can argue for my part too!

Science is what governs truth, but a lot of it is not sturdy. Such as the multiverse explanation of the universe. There is no proof for or against God, but of the evidence weighed, it does lean towards the existence of, and many famous scientists would agree.

1. Lets take your word for it. It is 'sturdy'. No matter how sturdy it may be, it is far more reliable than religion.

2. The explainations of the universe is not sturdy, it is in the beginning stages of debate. "Rome was not built in a day."

3. So, evidence weighed as you say now. Just before that statment, you said there are no for or against. Even earlier, you said there are no evidence in to proof the existance. Coming back now, you said the evidence weighed and it leans towards the existance.

4. Where is the statistics of these 'many' famous scientists? Earlier, you told me that there is no scientific proof of 'God'. Now you backing it up telling me that there is scientists agreeing with the existance of the 'Creator'.

5. Okay, lets say there is a majority of scientists that support the idea of a 'Creator'. So what? Truth is does not depend on numbers. Science is not like an election. Prove it that 'He' does exist. One-man army like Galelio proved everyone wrong.

I am asking for proof here. Open to scientific evidence as you claim there is in your new reply. Or you going to avoid me and counter with another message like this:

No, you have already chosen what you believe, and are seemingly stuck in your ways. You've chosen to believe whole-heartedly in Atheism, so proof doesn't matter to you.

so why are you coming up with ridiculous questions of "who created the Creator?"

Because I am what I am; Homo Sapien. Translation: Wise Human or Thinking Human.

I am freely exercising my mind by asking questions.

It's also pretty futile to question God's creation of the earth; all knowledge needed is in religious texts, and other than that, how can you know for sure?

1. No point on branding me futile on my questioning. I still seek answers.

2. Again, prove that the contents of the religious books are valid.

They are written by humans, but divinely inspired. God has come in dreams and reality to disperse the knowledge needed and the rules to follow.

1. You might want to use another word. Inspiration is used for imaginations. You going to tell me 'God' is real, it should not be used with words related to imagination.

2. I am going to need proof of dreams are 'God''s doing.

3. What rules to follow? I see crimes everywhere.

Do you have some sort of proof that the texts are not genuine?

Written by humans.

1. This has no correlation, I'm stating that you are an inexperienced Atheist because you really aren't even bringing any sort of evidence into this thread; all you have done is make remarks about my usage of the English language, and used "inexperienced Atheist" questions, such as "who created the Creator?"

1. What is an 'inexperienced Atheist'? This means I am not a true Atheist because I lack the proper amount of experience to be an Atheist? But you been branding me as an Atheist throughtout the thread.

2. I don't need to bring any evidence. I am the one asking for evidence. You are the one who is suppose to prove it for me.

3. I am still waiting for the answer of who created the 'Creator'. You are avoiding the question.

2. I don't need to apologize for the remark because it is not sexist, at all.

It is voluntary; you don't have to. I cannot make you. But they are sexist.

4. I have already answered your question. Nobody created the Creator. God is eternal. He has and always will Be. You cannot understand the concept of eternity because you are a human, with knowledge of what [limited] time is.

Okay, so you finally answer with something.

1. Okay, so you claim 'God' is eternal; 'He' was always there. Back it up.

2. "You are a human, with knowledge of what [limited] time is", as opposed to you... Thou art holier than I.

Again, haven't you ever heard of "all of mankind?" People often refer to people as "man" or "mankind." Since you are the one so up on modern English, please do further research before you make such wild claims. READ #4

1. Yes, I have heard of 'mankind'. What is your point?

2. People do refer to people as 'man' or 'mankind'. I never said you were wrong about the refering part. I simply said that was sexist. Because the word itself is sexist.

Words such as 'postmen' have been replaced as 'postalworkers'. Where there has been no replacement, a counterpart has been put in place. Such as 'policewomen'.

Back in the days, women were not refered to as human. That is why only 'man' or 'men' is mentioned. Today, some people still chooses to use words like those to describe people in the past. That is what makes it sexist.

4. The human race; mankind: man's quest for peace.

I think #1 is more appropiate for the meaning: An adult male human.

1 beats 4. Sorry.

Try convincing a lady to enter a men's washroom. Tell her she is a 'man' too!

I really can't believe I'm arguing this, and this is what Atheists are reduced to, but I fail to yield. Amongst is used, far less frequently, and more often in British English, but the meanings are interchangeable. read.

1. Yes. Once again, with the 'Atheist' part. I guess you are very limited in your vocabulary. Apearantly, not limited enough for you to dig up centuries-old words.

2. I don't know why you are arguing over it. I simply said 'among' is the modern term for it. I never said you cannot use it. Use it as much as you please. Spam the thread with it; I could not care any less.

3. You changed the source to bartleby.com. What was wrong with the first source you sent me? Hmm...

I don't know what you're complaining about because nobody uses the word "lad." I've never heard it used in common speech in the twenty-one years of my life.

1. Note the italic.

2. Note the wink smilie.

3. Loosen up. It was just a joke/tease. You keep on taking everything to the extreme, you going to pop a vein.

[xuechengfeng]

Thank you for arguing groundlessly. Why debate when you can argue for my part too!

Are you telling me anything I say matters to you? I could present all the proof in the world, short of showing you God, and you most likely wouldn't listen to it because it is not 100% proof, no?

1. Lets take your word for it. It is 'sturdy'. No matter how sturdy it may be, it is far more reliable than religion.

2. The explainations of the universe is not sturdy, it is in the beginning stages of debate. "Rome was not built in a day."

3. So, evidence weighed as you say now. Just before that statment, you said there are no for or against. Even earlier, you said there are no evidence in to proof the existance. Coming back now, you said the evidence weighed and it leans towards the existance.

4. Where is the statistics of these 'many' famous scientists? Earlier, you told me that there is no scientific proof of 'God'. Now you backing it up telling me that there is scientists agreeing with the existance of the 'Creator'.

5. Okay, lets say there is a majority of scientists that support the idea of a 'Creator'. So what? Truth is does not depend on numbers. Science is not like an election. Prove it that 'He' does exist. One-man army like Galelio proved everyone wrong.

1. Why is it far more reliable than religion? Religion and science can go hand-in-hand. Read anything by Gerald Schroeder.

2. It is in the beginning stages, but at this point, again, many scientists [even those previously atheist/agnostic] have pointed towards the universe seeming to be finely-tuned by a higher force. Of course this isn't conclusive, but it seems more are swayed towards the notion of a Creator than note, and those in opposition are usually staunch Atheists who refuse to even toy with the notion.

3. What I was saying is there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence saying that YES, God is right there and it's 100% verifiable, or NO, we KNOW he does NOT exist. Again, though, the finely-tuned nature of our existence and everything around us seems to weigh towards a Creator. Of course, like you said, we're in the early stages of the science, but at this point, that's the way things look.

4. You can find them here. An example: Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

5. First you care about science because it is more reliable then religion, then I inform you many scientists [former atheists included] have concluded that within their research, they have concluded or noted towards the role of a Creator, scientists don't matter. OOOOOOOk.

2. Again, prove that the contents of the religious books are valid.

Prove they aren't. Again, plenty of scientists have shown that religion and science can co-incide. Read: Gerald Schroeder.

1. You might want to use another word. Inspiration is used for imaginations. You going to tell me 'God' is real, it should not be used with words related to imagination.

2. I am going to need proof of dreams are 'God''s doing.

3. What rules to follow? I see crimes everywhere.

aiya! Back to semantics. This is really getting boring, why do you continuously ask for proof you know doesn't exist?

Rules get broken, not everyone is a pious person, or moral. This is not God's fault, this is free will and MAN's fault.

1. Okay, so you claim 'God' is eternal; 'He' was always there. Back it up.

2. "You are a human, with knowledge of what [limited] time is", as opposed to you... Thou art holier than I.

1. Back it up? Ok, read the Bible or Qu'ran.

2. Hey, make my argument for me, why don't you? Again, I've never said I was holier than thou, I classify myself in your ranks, I am human and only know the concept of time. Eternity is incomprehensible.

1. Yes, I have heard of 'mankind'. What is your point?

2. People do refer to people as 'man' or 'mankind'. I never said you were wrong about the refering part. I simply said that was sexist. Because the word itself is sexist.

Words such as 'postmen' have been replaced as 'postalworkers'. Where there has been no replacement, a counterpart has been put in place. Such as 'policewomen'.

Back in the days, women were not refered to as human. That is why only 'man' or 'men' is mentioned. Today, some people still chooses to use words like those to describe people in the past. That is what makes it sexist.

That's a matter of [minority] opinion. I would venture to say not many people classify that as sexist.

I suppose you should stop using the word "woman" altogether, since the explanation for that in the Bible is that the name was formed like that because "woman" came out of "man."

Try convincing a lady to enter a men's washroom. Tell her she is a 'man' too!

Yaawwwwwwn. It's the way you use the word. I don't think if you go to a barber shop and ask them to cut your hair, they look for the nearest rabbit to stab.

3. You changed the source to bartleby.com. What was wrong with the first source you sent me? Hmm...

It wasn't as informative.

[xuechengfeng]

This is actually why I am agnostic. To me, it does not matter whether or not there is a creator becuase it frankly does not affect my life. The thing that matters most is to be a good person and treat others the way one would wish to be treated. Certain atheists in some ways are just as bad as the people who are extremely religious. One party is claiming that God doesn't exist, and one party is claiming that God does exists, but both of their arguments ultimately rest in faith rather than pure reason.

I respect an agnostic a lot more than an atheist. Anyways, so what if God does exist, and there is an afterlife that required you to follow His path? You don't think that affects your life, why?

[Claw]

I respect an agnostic a lot more than an atheist. Anyways, so what if God does exist, and there is an afterlife that required you to follow His path? You don't think that affects your life, why?

The question is, which path? Every single religion out there has paths which contradict each other in certain ways. How can one tell which one is the right one to follow?

For the sake of argument, let's posit for the moment that the path that Christianity puts forth is the right one (even though the different denominations contradict each other in subtle ways, but let's ignore that for the time being). Would that mean that every person who ever lived before Christianity went straight to hell? What about all the people in the world who haven't been exposed to Christianity today (like most of the population of China)? It doesn't particularly seem fair to me. I would think that a creator (or maybe creators) would make it more evident if there was indeed a path that we should follow.

Now, if you argue that choosing a specific path is not the important part, but following the overall theme of religion is the way to go, then isn't that what I am doing already? The common element that essentially all religions seem to have in their paths is to be a good person, which is what I have been striving to do all along. Why must religion come into the picture?

I guess my main point is that I don't particularly care about organized religion. They may indeed be based on writings that were truly divinely inspired, but then they are ultimately passed down by man, and man is fallible. This is why schisms have occurred in various religions in history because one group of people has one interpretation whereas another group has another interpretation (and sometimes they die for it too). In addition, translations of such divine works are never completely accurate and depend on the interpretation of whoever did the translation. Even for works that remain in their original languages (I believe the Qur'an is still in the original Arabic), the language itself changes and the interpretation of such works may change as the language evolves. And today, we have different Muslim factions because of these different interpretations.

In addition, how can you tell that a particular work is indeed divinely inspired? You have no proof other than what another man tells you. It must ultimately rest on your own faith and experience.

[xuechengfeng]

The question is, which path? Every single religion out there has paths which contradict each other in certain ways. How can one tell which one is the right one to follow?

For the sake of argument, let's posit for the moment that the path that Christianity puts forth is the right one (even though the different denominations contradict each other in subtle ways, but let's ignore that for the time being). Would that mean that every person who ever lived before Christianity went straight to hell? What about all the people in the world who haven't been exposed to Christianity today (like most of the population of China)? It doesn't particularly seem fair to me. I would think that a creator (or maybe creators) would make it more evident if there was indeed a path that we should follow.

Now, if you argue that choosing a specific path is not the important part, but following the overall theme of religion is the way to go, then isn't that what I am doing already? The common element that essentially all religions seem to have in their paths is to be a good person, which is what I have been striving to do all along. Why must religion come into the picture?

Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight, this is actually my philosophy, in a sense. I feel that belief in God is necessary [on top of leading a good life] if you want to get into Heaven. I don't necessarily believe you MUST follow a certain path because you are correct, they all claim to be right, and they were all written thousands of years ago, so how can you know? A loving God would not say that because you followed the wrong path to me, but were pious, you go to hell.

For the Muslim answer to your question about everyone before Christianity, it would be that everyone had a set of rules to follow, but God's word was corrupted over time by man, and the Qu'ran is the final, true revelation of God.

As for all the people exposed to Christianity, I believe we are slowly leading into a world where information can be learned of. Internet, school, library, church, etc. Now of course, some don't have those luxuries, and I believe the Bible says that those who really did not have the means to access Christ will be exempt, though I would presume some effort is necessary.

Overall, I think leading a virtuous life would be favorable in the eye's of God, although I would assume a belief in Him [maybe not a certain religion, but Him] would be necessary for afterlife purposes. Then again, judgment is reserved to God, not I, so maybe just leading a virtuous life is enough.

My personal philosophy has always been that religion was man-made and very old, so how do I know which is right? That's why my religious studies teacher pointed out that there is spirituality and religion, the latter being codified spirtuality; I've always found spirtuality to be much easier.

[Pravit]

Xuechengfeng, out of curiosity, what sort of afterlife do you envision for a person who does not believe in God?

[Cyberian]

Are you telling me anything I say matters to you? I could present all the proof in the world, short of showing you God, and you most likely wouldn't listen to it because it is not 100% proof, no?

1. I was simply making conversation to what you asked earlier.

What is it that makes you not believe in a Creator?

You got all psyched out when you started receiving replies. I suggest you not asking questions if you are afraid of answers.

2. I appreciate you trying very hard to somehow convince me there is a 'Creator'. But earlier you said this:

I'm not here to convert anyone, or say which religion is right or not, but personally, I've found a lot of things to point to a Creator.

Looks like you got backfired. Not only that, you also failed to keep it personal as you stated above. And started lashing out on me.

1. Why is it far more reliable than religion? Religion and science can go hand-in-hand. Read anything by Gerald Schroeder.

1. Still getting confused over it? It is called 'opinion'. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to explain it to you. Even if I do explain it to you, I highly doubt it it will calm you down. Save your hand-in-hand with someone with enjoys going nowhere.

2. Why Gerald Schroeder? He some kind of save-us-all rescuer?

Why you even trying to convert me anyways? You don't see me throwing a Karl Marx book at you, and telling you to revise, "Religion is the opium of the mass".

2. It is in the beginning stages, but at this point, again, many scientists [even those previously atheist/agnostic] have pointed towards the universe seeming to be finely-tuned by a higher force. Of course this isn't conclusive, but it seems more are swayed towards the notion of a Creator than note, and those in opposition are usually staunch Atheists who refuse to even toy with the notion.

1. Does not matter what it may be at this point. It will only matter when it comes down to the conclusion.

2. As you said, no conclusive. Whatever you said in the above is just rubish until it comes to conclusion. Be it 'Creator' or no 'Creator'.

3. You seem to have some deep hatred towards Atheists, and immediately brand all opponents of yours an Atheist whenever they disagree with you. Tell me, which Atheist in Grade 3 beat you and stole your lunch money?

Does your religion tell you to be antagonistic towards others of different religion, or rather, no religion?

4. You can find them here. An example: Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

What does this prove? Nothing.

You are showing me the experience of a cosmologist who converted from an Atheist to a believer. What is that suppose to mean to me? Should I follow him? Should I be like him too? Become a religious cosmologist and write my article?

I don't see where you are going with this. But I can tell you have a fascination with trying to convince me.

5. First you care about science because it is more reliable then religion, then I inform you many scientists [former atheists included] have concluded that within their research, they have concluded or noted towards the role of a Creator, scientists don't matter. OOOOOOOk.

1. Why do you care if I cared more about science than religion? Do you not have better things to do than caring what I care? Perhaps that banging-on-the-wall smilie can give you a clue.

2. Why do I care what former atheist scientists think? I don't even care what the last nutritionist said about eating too much cheese.

3. You have an appetite for reading chicken-scratch articles and believing it. I don't. In fact, I am likely to just read it for interest rather than gaining another -ism.

Prove they aren't. Again, plenty of scientists have shown that religion and science can co-incide. Read: Gerald Schroeder.

1. I see no 'God'. Got a phone number I can call him? E-mail? Surely Mr. Almight have these simple ways of communication. I would like to talk to 'Him' and apologize for doubting 'Him'. Still don't get why you care so much what I believe in.

2. Still at it with the scientists. You are really desperate to convert me, are you not? Initially, you told me it cannot be backed up by science. I told you that I believe in science. Now you bringing in these 'scientists' to try and convince me. Stop beating the dead horse.

aiya! Back to semantics. This is really getting boring, why do you continuously ask for proof you know doesn't exist?

Okay, now you are really confusing me.

First, you tell me it cannot be backed by science. Then recently, you started tossing in all these 'scientists'. And now you are telling me it does not exist again. Kerrism.

Rules get broken, not everyone is a pious person, or moral. This is not God's fault, this is free will and MAN's fault.

Again with the 'man' thing.

1. Back it up? Ok, read the Bible or Qu'ran.

What does that prove? Nothing. You seen to be very fascinated that reading a book will prove something to be true without a doubt. How about I throw you back a book, the Communist Manifesto. Will you become an atheist? If no, stop beating the dead horse.

Again, I've never said I was holier than thou, I classify myself in your ranks, I am human and only know the concept of time. Eternity is incomprehensible.

1. Well, you never technically said it. But you implied it very well.

2. If eternity is incomprehensible, why have you used it on me?

That's a matter of [minority] opinion. I would venture to say not many people classify that as sexist.

1. I like how you grounlessly label your oppoents' opinion as a 'minority'.

2. I would venture into your venture and tell you not to speak for the majority. Keep your opinion as a personal idea and not the voice of the majority.

I suppose you should stop using the word "woman" altogether, since the explanation for that in the Bible is that the name was formed like that because "woman" came out of "man."

1. I do not recall being governmed by the Bible. Does it matter what it says? NO! You do not seem to understand this.

2. You act as if the word 'women' is the only word around that applies. As if the that is the only book of origin. Show me how 'nu' comes out of 'nan'.

3. You are very self-centric. You like to apply Bible contents to me. You like to convince me what the Bible say is true. You like to be governmented by the Bible, and expect people like I to follow the same ideas as you.

Yaawwwwwwn. It's the way you use the word. I don't think if you go to a barber shop and ask them to cut your hair, they look for the nearest rabbit to stab.

Thank you, you finally understand: It is the way you use the word. And the way you used it was not very neutral.

...and eventually developing into the absolute complexity that is man and his mind...

Thus singling out women.

I replied with this:

Sounds sexist. Might want to rephrase it in future posts.

I simply suggested to rephrase it in the future to avoid a sexist issues entering the topic. Again, I said sounds sexist; I did not say it was sexist. Then on the next reply, you leash on me with this:

This is a typical argument from someone who has no argument, and is a very inexperience atheist.

I make a suggestion to you so you do not get bashed by feminists, and you tell me I have 'no arguement, and I am a very inexperienced atheist'. :roll:

You leash out on me for the slightest disagreement. If you are going to start a debate, you better expect different opinions.

[xuechengfeng]

Again, judgment is reserved for God. However, the most I'd be willing to say as the afterlife for unbelievers is essentially eternity away from God. I don't envision little devils dancing around and people jumping on hot coals, but it would definitely be an eternity not with God. Since God is said to be the absolute pinnacle of the feeling of love and happiness, then I would imagine this would be considered hell [but maybe welcomed since many want nothing to do with God anyways]. Now, I would like to envision that when one dies, God is very understanding and forgiving, and gives the person one last chance to repent and accept Him [if they want the eternity with Him].

[Pravit]

You see, I like some of the Christian sects that don't have people being tortured in Hell, or given one more chance. It's the fire and brimstone and golden streets ones that get on my nerves. What if I don't like gold?

About Muslims I thought they divided on who the Prophet's successor was supposd to be. But I know the Sunni and Shi'a doctrines are a bit different; maybe it stems from their interpretation of the Qur'aan.

[xuechengfeng]

You got all psyched out when you started receiving replies. I suggest you not asking questions if you are afraid of answers.

I'm not afraid of answers. I don't see anything to conclude that.

2. I appreciate you trying very hard to somehow convince me there is a 'Creator'. But earlier you said this:

Looks like you got backfired. Not only that, you also failed to keep it personal as you stated above. And started lashing out on me.

If you can label anything as "lashing out on" you, then it would be explained by your disrespect in your original post.

Unless you going to tell me 'God' was banging my mother.

This isn't the typical civilized discussion I partake in. This is a very juvenile remark. By the way, I'm not out to convert you. I don't subscribe to any particular religion at this point in my life, I'm still searching. I am simply getting annoyed with you because you, like most people, are unable to rationalize two sides of the story. You are the type who is set in their ways, and won't listen to anything; this is most visibly demonstrated in your utter disrespect when posting.

1. Still getting confused over it? It is called 'opinion'. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to explain it to you. Even if I do explain it to you, I highly doubt it it will calm you down. Save your hand-in-hand with someone with enjoys going nowhere.

I don't see how religion is complete opinion. The Bible contains many historical facts. It also goes hand-in-hand with many of the scientific concepts today. Now, you will probably respond that "I said before there was no proof of God." There isn't, there is proof that His Word has been validated in many senses.

2. Why Gerald Schroeder? He some kind of save-us-all rescuer?

This is why you're wasting my time. You have to be condescending. I tell you to read what he says because it's a well-though out, different perspective, which would actual allow you to weigh both sides of the issues instead of looking at one, and making a conclusion.

Why you even trying to convert me anyways? You don't see me throwing a Karl Marx book at you, and telling you to revise, "Religion is the opium of the mass".

Again, I'm more interested in people seeing two sides of an issue, instead of being blind and then throwing around insults as arguments, like there aren't two sides to every story.

1. Does not matter what it may be at this point. It will only matter when it comes down to the conclusion.

Good, you can find out the conclusion when you die.

3. You seem to have some deep hatred towards Atheists, and immediately brand all opponents of yours an Atheist whenever they disagree with you. Tell me, which Atheist in Grade 3 beat you and stole your lunch money?

I have a strong dislike for Atheists who are condescending and make juvenile insults disguised as arguments. I also have a strong dislike for those who can't see both sides of the issue.

Does your religion tell you to be antagonistic towards others of different religion, or rather, no religion?

I don't have a specific religion, at this point. But many religions do approve of being antagonistic towards other religions, and especially unbelievers.

What does this prove? Nothing.

Essentially, what it proves is certain scientists have done research their whole life dedicated to the subject, and have concluded, in their own minds, that there must be a higher power. They actual have some sort of knowledge, and have weighed both sides of the issue, and made a conscious decision, unlike you.

You are showing me the experience of a cosmologist who converted from an Atheist to a believer. What is that suppose to mean to me? Should I follow him? Should I be like him too? Become a religious cosmologist and write my article?

You could follow his example and learn how to weigh the issues. You're very uneducated to the other side, and show an allegiance to your own side, which makes for an utter waste of time talking to you.

I don't see where you are going with this. But I can tell you have a fascination with trying to convince me.

Again, no. I am not really worried about your salvation. I don't know you, and I surely wouldn't try to force you into something you could be smacked in the face with and still ignore.

1. Why do you care if I cared more about science than religion? Do you not have better things to do than caring what I care? Perhaps that banging-on-the-wall smilie can give you a clue.

I only care because it's ridiculous when people are so blind, and stubborn. You care about science, and not religion. I tell you scientists have done research their whole lives and made a religious conclusion, and all of the sudden science and the research isn't important because it's not what you want as a conclusion. Again, you're wasting my time, lad.

2. Why do I care what former atheist scientists think? I don't even care what the last nutritionist said about eating too much cheese.

Yeah, who cares if they have done research and made a conclusion you don't want to hear?

3. You have an appetite for reading chicken-scratch articles and believing it. I don't. In fact, I am likely to just read it for interest rather than gaining another -ism.

Any proof to lead to this conclusion? I need proof, or your conclusion doesn't exist, right?

1. I see no 'God'. Got a phone number I can call him? E-mail? Surely Mr. Almight have these simple ways of communication. I would like to talk to 'Him' and apologize for doubting 'Him'. Still don't get why you care so much what I believe in.

Who ever said that you were supposed to see God? You communicate through prayer. This is getting redundant, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN. It is NOT my goal to convert you because I don't even have a specific religion.

2. Still at it with the scientists. You are really desperate to convert me, are you not? Initially, you told me it cannot be backed up by science. I told you that I believe in science. Now you bringing in these 'scientists' to try and convince me. Stop beating the dead horse.

Again, yawwwwwwwwwn. Still at it with me wanting to converting you? Diverting the attention away from your weak arguments? I told you that it can not be backed up by science with 100% certainty. There are many instances that could lead you towards or against a Creator, but unfortunately, you only know the against side, so your arguments are ignorant. You believe in science, so why don't you listen to people who have dedicated their lives to figuring this stuff out? Oh, right, this is because you are one-sided.

First, you tell me it cannot be backed by science. Then recently, you started tossing in all these 'scientists'. And now you are telling me it does not exist again. Kerrism.

I'm telling you that scientists can give you proof that can leads you towards the conclusion of a Creator, without 100% certainty. When I say it does not exist, it means there is NOT 100% certainty, which is what you want, so it's useless telling you these things, I suppose [one-sided, again].

What does that prove? Nothing. You seen to be very fascinated that reading a book will prove something to be true without a doubt. How about I throw you back a book, the Communist Manifesto. Will you become an atheist? If no, stop beating the dead horse.

I won't become an Atheist because of Marx because his arguments were weak, and his ideas were horrible. I have read his ideas though with an open-mind and made my decision, something you should learn. I find it funny that these books have been written throughout long periods of time, but you seem to find them to be some sort of works of fiction.

1. Well, you never technically said it. But you implied it very well.

I don't mince my words, I'll tell you when I mean something.

2. If eternity is incomprehensible, why have you used it on me?

I've told you that it's incomprehensible because you continue to ask silly questions like who created the Creator.

1. I like how you grounlessly label your oppoents' opinion as a 'minority'.

I speak from experience around me. Maybe in your world, people think that's sexist, but in mine, they don't.

1. I do not recall being governmed by the Bible. Does it matter what it says? NO! You do not seem to understand this.

But it does because a lot of the concepts you deem so silly are backed up by science.

2. You act as if the word 'women' is the only word around that applies. As if the that is the only book of origin. Show me how 'nu' comes out of 'nan'.

Well, I'm not a linguistics major, so I don't know.

3. You are very self-centric. You like to apply Bible contents to me. You like to convince me what the Bible say is true. You like to be governmented by the Bible, and expect people like I to follow the same ideas as you.

No, no, no, and no.

Thank you, you finally understand: It is the way you use the word. And the way you used it was not very neutral.

Yes, yes it was.

I make a suggestion to you so you do not get bashed by feminists, and you tell me I have 'no arguement, and I am a very inexperienced atheist'.

You leash out on me for the slightest disagreement. If you are going to start a debate, you better expect different opinions.

I say you are an inexperienced atheist because you seem to be so caught up on facts, in theory, but you fail to use them in any kind of argument. You are more concerned with my usage of the English language, and making accusations that I'm a sexist. On top of the fact that you ask inexperienced atheist questions like who created the Creator, and I'm sure your next boring question is can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? When I said inexperienced atheist, it refers to your civersions, lack of any real kind of arguments for creation, blind position, and the age-old, squashed Atheist questions.