This is the first in what hopefully will be a series of posts critically examining some bullshit arguments people are using to turn you into faith. Whether they try to prove the existence of a god, try to convince you that you’re better off with faith than without or simply appeal to authority, they all fall short of convincing people to believe in their religion. The reason why is clear: their arguments are bullshit. They’re worthless, and here’s why. Episode one considers two arguments that try to convince you that you should believe in a god but don’t concern themselves with the existence or non-existence of a god directly.
Pascal’s Wager
This argument tries to convince you that you’re better off with faith than without. It goes like this:
If God exists, there are two possibilities:
- You believe in God and win big time (go to heaven).
- You don’t believe in God and lose big time (go to hell).
If God doesn’t exist, there are also two possibilities:
- You believe in God, but you don’t lose that much.
- You don’t believe in God, but you don’t win that much.
Obviously, you’re better off believing in God than not. Therefore, you should believe in God.
Does that look like a good argument to you? It certainly doesn’t to me. Let’s examine the faults of this wager, one by one.
First of all, it doesn’t state which god to believe in. The assumption is that the only god possible is the God in the particular religion the evangelist is trying to convert you to. Clearly, this is not the case. Since we have no conclusive evidence for a god, there could be any number of gods, and each one is equally improbable. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn aren’t any more or less probable than the Judeo-Christian God. Following this line of reasoning, you’d have to examine each and every possible god and choose the one with the worst hell, to minimize suffering. If the Pink Unicorn’s hell is worse than the Judeo-Christian God’s hell, you should believe in the Pink Unicorn rather than the Judeo-Christian God.
Second, it assumes that the only possible god is one who acts exactly as described in the scripture of some particular religion. Again, since there’s no conclusive evidence for a god, we have no idea how a god might act. Perhaps God created religions as a test to see who would follow others blindly and who would rely on their ability to think critically to decide what to believe in. Such a god might punish those who believe blindly and reward those who think critically.
As you can see, the wager sets up a false dichotomy. Either God exists, and God is like this, or God doesn’t exist. There’s also the option that God exists, but God isn’t like this but like that. This option is completely ignored. The argument tries to make it seem like there’s only two choices, and two different outcomes of each, and each choice is equally likely. In reality, there is an infinite amount of choices and an infinite amount of outcomes of each. Not even your imagination can limit the choices. But wait, there’s even more faults to this argument!
The wager assumes that one can easily convince oneself to believe in something that one doesn’t really believe in. I can tell you, convincing yourself to believe in something you don’t believe in by pure power of the mind is, well, hard. The only one you’re fooling is yourself, and deep down inside you’ve still got the feeling that this isn’t right. Even if you managed to totally convincing yourself, presumably God would recognize this false belief and punish you for it. Of course, some of the gods in the infinite set of all gods wouldn’t, but would you take the chance? That’s a whole ‘nother wager.
Further, the wager fails to take into account costs related to belief. If you spend time, effort and money on a god that doesn’t exist, you’ve missed out on a lot. This is a risk worth taking, in Pascal’s view, for the infinite reward in heaven and for avoiding the infinite suffering in hell. But what if there is no god, and you’ve wasted all your life on faith? The scenario that you’ve wasted your only life with faith and have nothing left is completely ignored.
As we’ve seen, Pascal’s wager is as ignorant as the most extreme religious extremists.
Einstein believed in God
Einstein’s religious views have been widely misused on both sides (i.e. by both atheists and theists), so this is not a strawman. Einstein undoubtably was a very intelligent man, but how the hell does his religious views affect the truth or falsity of the preposition “There is a god”?
Einstein believed in God. Einstein was a prominent scientist and a very intelligent man. You believe in science, right? Therefore, you shoud believe in God.
This is useless appeal to authority. Einstein’s accomplishments in physics make him a good site for building Faith Castle upon Authority, a city (read: argument) built totally on the authority of which its name speaks. Rip away the authority, and Faith Castle comes tumbling down to the ground in a thousand pieces. Einstein’s religious views are not science, nor did he ever claim they were. This is exactly the same as appealing to the authority of an ancient Holy Booktm. It’s as if I were trying to convince you 1 + 1 is 3 by saying, “But mommy told me so! Mommies never lie!”. Once you understand that, you’ll also understand that the atheists who have taken Einstein’s views in defence of their own have made the exact same mistake.
Also, it is simply not true. Einstein did not believe in a personal god, which is what the evangelist is claiming. Einstein said this about his religious beliefs:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
I believe in Spinoza’s god who reveals Himself in orderly harmony that exists, not a God who concerns Himself with fates and actions of human beings.
Admiration for the structure of reality as revealed by science is not what I would call religion by any stretch of the imagination. Theists have no monopoly on this feeling; anybody can have it.
Filed under: agnosticism, atheism, bullshit arguments, religion, superstition, theism | 17 Comments
-
Recent Comments
angie on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Ereredync on Empire State Building, Evoluti… phil on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Avil on The Blog Is Dead Kevin Trudeu on Starting Your Own Religion: a …
Well, both of those argument was quite bad. Because you are not suposed to bellieve in God because it would make you look better IF he excisted, nor should you belive in God because Einstein did. So as a christian I can confirm, that was two bad arguments and should not be used for evangelism…
What about this argument?
It’s more likely there is a God, than there is no God.
What do you think about that?
That is a bad argument because it asserts something (”It’s more likely that there is a God than that there isn’t”) with no justification whatsoever. If you could give me a reason why the likelihood of there being a god is larger than the likelihood of there not being a god, it might be better. But the fact is, there’s no evidence for a god whatsoever. In the absence of any evidence, the likelihood of your assertion is as small as the likelihood of my assertion that an Invisible Pink Unicorn created the world.
Yes it’s true, but that’s why it is call believing.
Hi there.
I read you post and I see many good arguments. I’m a christian myself and I’m convinced that Jesus did walk on earth, died and rose again, therefor I do not agree.
I have some questions for you:
1. Do you think there is a “power”, whether it’s the invisible pink unicorn or the christian God that’s behind the unvivers or is it a simple convinience with nothing blowing up to become everything? Do you not think there has to be something behind the nature and it’s wonders?
2. Do you deny the existance of the human beeing Jesus?
3. Do you think Aristotoles and Sokrates existed?
4. Do you have any experience with Christianity, other than the service you migth attend at christmas and easter? And when you were there did you already set you mind: “This is bullshit for mentally ill and weak people”, or did you come openminded?
5. Do you celebrate Christmas? In that case why, seeing the reason we do so is that Jesus was born.
I’ll be waiting for your respond eagerly
Regards, Karl-Oskar
1. I don’t think there’s a conscious power behind the universe. At the conception of the universe, things were profoundly different from what they are in the observed universe almost fourteen billion years later. Our laws of physics don’t apply at the Big Bang. There are theories, but we cannot claim to know anything, at least not yet.
But as I said, there’s no consciousness to it. I find the claim that there’s somehow a conscious being responsible for the universe to be even more far fetched. How can a conscious being come out of nothing? If a conscious being can, then so can the universe. There are certainly challenges in the search for the ultimate understanding of the universe, but challenges can be overcome. Proposing a “God of the Gaps” is not a good explanation. It has no explanatory power whatsoever. In other words, it’s a cop-out.
2. I’m not sure there was ever a single man upon which the Jesus myth was built. There’s no agreement here, but that’s not to be expected seeing as two billion people self-identify as followers of Jesus as Messiah. That there have been purported prophets in Israel at the time isn’t so far fetched; even today, cults develop around special personalities. Also think about this: the instant a source begins telling about supernatural phenomena, it becomes less valuable because science has shown such things to be impossible. Even if the other stuff in the source is true, it is less to be trusted because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and such evidence was sparse at the time the Gospels were written.
Remember, at the same time people were explaining thunder with the god Tor riding across the sky in his chariot pulled by magic, flying goats. If these writings can’t be trusted, why should the Gospels? They were written with a goal in mind: to celebrate Messiah. One needs to consider that when reading them.
3. Aristotle existed. We can be as certain of that as we can be on anything from that period. That a philosopher would have come up with those ideas at that time, in Greece, is not terribly difficult to imagine. It requires no supernatural magic pixies or sons of God.
Socrates is different because of the so-called “Socratic problem”: Plato wrote dialogues in which Socrates appear, but where Plato had almost certainly made up some of the material. In effect, Socrates became a literary device. Because of this uncertainty, we can’t know for sure what material originated from the original Socrates and what was attributed to him later. This is a problem in the Bible, too: some things are attributed Jesus, David and others which almost certainly were said or done by others.
4. I took a Christian confirmation, even though there was the option of a secular version of the ritual which is more of a “coming of age” thing. There was some education on Christianity and so on in the year before the actual ritual. At that time I had pretty much decided that I didn’t believe in God, or rather, found out that I couldn’t get myself to believe in God whether I wanted to or not. I did it mostly because most people I knew did it, but I also had in mind that even though the teachings didn’t come from God, they might be sensible. Sadly, that turned out not to be the case.
I am a restless seaker of the truth, and as such I would become a believer at the point where God was proven. At that point, ironically, faith would become irrelevant, preachers would become obsolete, and a science of God would probably arise. I oppose every system that prevents me from finding the truth, and sadly most religions do.
5. Yes, I do celebrate Christmas. Didn’t you know that Christmas was originally a pagan ritual? Here in Norway, Christianity shamelessly stole the celebration of the winter solstice and the offerings to the old Norse gods and put their saviour in instead. So I might instead ask why you celebrate Christmas, seeing as you don’t believe in the gods that the celebration originally honored. Christianity has borrowed heavily from other religions, so don’t for a second think that it is somehow original. Even the word for Christmas, jul, has no connection whatsoever to Christianity.
Even if Christmas was somehow an original thought of Christianity (which it is clearly not), it has long since passed from being a religious ritual to being a cultural custom. Jesus is not what Christmas is “all about”, neither has it ever been. It is a cultural custom involving family, free from work, gifts and good food, and it has a lineage to the time before Christianity.
Thank you for your answers. I’ll try to put in some reasonable arguments for my view of the case. I see that you are an intellectual man, with, most likely, more knowledge about circumstances around certain rituals and such than me…
1. What I think is not that there came a conscious being, God, out of nowhere and created the universe. I think that God has always been there. This, on the other hand, I think will never be proven, seeing we are not even capable of understanding what eternity is (I do at least not
). But religion is a matter of faith not facts, is it not?
I find it very hard myself to imagine that everything around us developed from nothing at all, without a conscious power being behind it. The nature is full of wonders, the human body is full of wonders, it’s all so complex that the thought of all this becoming what it is today, just by itself, is completely insane (to me that is).
But how can God have created the universe and the earth we live on? There’s many scientific evidence that the earth is older than the bible says! No way was the earth created in 7 days! And it doesn’t have to. The bible says that God created the earth in seven days, but it also says that 1 day in God’s eyes is a thousand years for men (this, of course, being a metaphor, not a specific number): 2. peter 3, 8: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” God is not like us humans, neither in time perspective.
2. The fact that the man Jesus lived and walked on the earth is not denied by science, but proved. There are more facts that Jesus lived than both Aristotle and Socrates, even Napoleon. The New Testament is written between 40-100 AC. The oldest scripture of the New Testament is from 350 AC, making the oldest copy be not more than ~300 years younger than the original, also there is a fragment of a copy of the gospel from Johannes that’s from ca. 130 AC. There are also 5000 manuscripts of the New Testament written in Greek, 10 000 written in Latin and 9300 in other languages. Also there is 36 000 quotes from the New Testament in other scriptures than the bible. It’s written about Aristotle only ca. 9 places, so the question about Jesus’ existence is not deniable, looking at these facts.
The bit about Jesus that there is more debate over is if he resurrected the third day. But there are dozens of facts proving this as well. Just for instance, how did Jesus’ body disappear? Did the disciples steal it? No, they did not. The roman army had the highest moral possible. They were extremely well trained, not to consider afraid of their life: Sleeping on duty caused death penalty. The stone that were placed outside the grave opening were also way too big to move, without the “sleeping” guards (that were not sleeping) waking up. And not to mention the disciples were scared to death at that point, hiding not daring to step outside their houses…
Also about the gospels and the stories about Thor, Odin and that bunch: The gospels were written by 4 different people. They have different views of the case, but the story is the same. They did very good research:
Luke, 1.1-4: “Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught”
And the information came only from trustworthy eyewitnesses.
3. Ok.
4. Romans, 8.24: “For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees?”
Hebrew, 11.1: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see.”
5. And about Christmas your right, but the celebration of Jesus on that date was not stolen by the church, but given by the roman emperor Constantine, as a “birthday party” for Jesus. It was before a celebration for the sun god, Sol invictus, at the 25. December. Jesus’ birth was before that celebrated the 6. January in the east, this date was set in 274 AC, by the roman emperor Aurelius. Around 400 AC Christmas was celebrated, also here, the 25. December.
Christmas spread to the west quickly, and the oldest writing of Christmas in the west is from Gallia in 361 AC, found in a church calendar.
So you are correct, the celebration at the 25. December was not made by Christianity, but it was not taken with force either… It was before the celebration of the roman sun god and the celebration of winter solstice.
And why do I celebrate Christmas? Because it’s a normal thing to do, even thought I do remember Jesus being born at that time, even though I have conversations with him every day, all day long. He’s my friend and it’s just normal I attend his birthday party.
– Karl-Oskar
Hello,
I am going to interject something here for both sides because I am not a Christian and I am not an Atheist, I don’t really have any religion because I believe in Psychology. Anyway, for the Atheist think about this:
We are essentially living Artificial Intelligenc(what an oxymoron lol), but you get the picture. We are living androids, our brain is the most powerful computer that(to our knowledge) has ever exhisted. We know scientifically that something can never come from nothing, it is impossible. So many people who are non-Christians claim to “know” so well that so many things that they believe in are so “scientifically” founded when in reality a lot of what scientist find is based off of theories and sound educated guesses(theory of Electricity). My point is that I can’t claim that there is a god and I can’t claim that there isn’t. It is impossible to absolutely claim either way that one way or the other is absolutely true(and I think that you aren’t guilty of this in this blog unlike most Atheist), but I am saying that in general. All Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, so on and so forth, just by virtue of their “faith in the absolute” do nothing but tell lies because “evidence” of their beliefs is a matter of interpretation. For instance, if I said that due to all the laws of nature, the fact that our brains work the way that they do, something outside of us had to have created us because of the fact that if we all disappeared from the face of the earth, and nothing was left but our technology, it would be like an alien race coming to earth not finding skelatons or fossils of humans and bickering neverendlessly about wether something had created all the computers/movies/etc etc, but saying that that fact alone “proved” that something had to create us. Also, at the rate we are going, we will probably in the next 500-1000 years create a human from raw material(not cloning). But again, I am not arguing for the existance of god here, just pointing out a few facts that I think are difficult to merely explain away, but still are merely coincidental.
To the Christian:
all I will say is that in Christianity, it is all fear based. Wether the glass is half empty or half full still doesn’t change the water level in the glass. It seems to me just from reading what you had to say that you probably already suspected that and that you aren’t a fundamentalist. I do know that there is a behavioral circle from what I have seen that defines behavior for a lot of Christians, just something for you think about:
1.The bible says that human beings are totally and irrefutably evil, sinners. People sugar-coat “sinner”, but the reality according to their doctrine, is that the punishment for “sinning” is going to hell and since all human beings are “sinners” we are all going to hell. I mean an eternity in hell, that’s a really grave punishment for simply “missing the mark”, or being “a little less than perfect” and whatever other non-provable arguments many Christians use for people like me. I will say the same thing that I said before, all the evidence for the exhistance of God is essentially consequential.
2.Motivated by fear and then “hope”(which wouldn’t be there unless the fear was in place because if the fear wasn’t in place the hope couldn’t exhist), the person gives up there will to the bible. The person then asks Christ into there heart and begs for forgiveness for their “evil” deeds(and I’m not downplaying Murderers, or rapeists, or other VERY sick people) but according to the bible me saying “fuck it” is just as evil as murdering someone.
3.Person then feels on top of the world, believes they are right with God, then along comes that little temptation to look at porn, or smoke a cigarrette, or smoke a joint, whatever, and they fail. Then a lot of times they later on say “oh if only the devil hadn’t tempted me.” or the classic “Pastor, when will we not have to deal with that devil anymore? Well, when your dead.” AKA-the devil made me do it, it wasn’t me(sounds like a 4 year old).
4.The behavior PROVES how evil they are, more cementing the fact that they need to keep asking God for forgiveness without really looking at WHY the behavior happened in the first place because they believe deep down inside that they are evil, they don’t HAVE any real reason to look at the behavior in the first place.
Their whole faith essentially hinges on the fact that they are EVIL! Don’t tell me about “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind”, or the fact that in Romans it makes the principal crystal clear about the fact that when the command came forth the desire to do the opposite of what the command stated sprung forth making them a slave to do the opposite of the Law. So if a person crucifies themselves with Christ on a day to day basis the sinful desire falls away because they are dead to the law, it has no power over them anymore.
THIS DOESN’T WORK! Because the belief that Christianity hinges on, is totally dependent on, can’t exhist without, is that human beings are irrefutably, inexonerably, amazingly EVIL FROM BIRTH…
I know from personal experience, talking to Psychologist, reading about the human mind, studying many religios theories, so on and so forth, that whatever the brain is told the most, wether it be a thought, something heard, a feeling, etc etc, even if it is a LIE, that will be what the subconcious accepts as fact and then the subconcious will do everything that it can(within the laws of Physics) to make that reality, reality. My point is that the good conduct that the bible speaks of as “good Christian morals”, not lying, not stealing, not lusting(and I say this in terms of criminal behavior because I’ll be damned if I am not going to look at a hot woman with desire, all churches can kiss my ass because I LOVE SEX, and I LOVE LOOKING AT WOMEN!!!), so on and so forth. The morals that Christians strive for so fervently, they will NEVER ATTAIN just because of the way the human brain functions…..
something to think about,
David
Howdy
enjoy lol.
first to all im from puerto rico and my main lenguage is spanish that mean that my english is not so good as yours so please try to understand and sorry if you couldnt
Simen says: ( I’m not sure there was ever a single man upon which the Jesus myth was built)
why do people try to deny the existence of jesus crist so much O.o and can belieave that Aristotle and Socratic lived, they having much much LESS legal document accepting their existence in the otherhand Jesus has over thousands of legal document accepting his existence and legal documnt that says that he died and arose from death and that more than 500 people saw him. we have something for certain that no atheist cant deny that that man realy existed cuz thats history and that man its in alot of documents. then well you may say well yeah he existed but some one took his body and make up a history saying that he arose from death, in that case u should study how was roma in those day and what they used to do when some one lied, they torture them but in a real bad way untill they say the truth. but they couldnt deny what they saw. what im saying have nothing to do with faith and belieave its just history and documents. there is this guy call Pedro from the bible this is history too, that guy deny jesus 3 times >.
CONTINUE……….times >.
CONTINUE……….times and all suddenly when jesuscrist dies he was willing to give his live for christ for something that did not happened? because it is not that he was rase it to belieave in God as many religions that they are willing to sacrafise their live for their gods. Pedro was just a normal man that didnt belieave in jesus’s divine till he died and arose from death. also we have another man in this case an intellectual well educated man Pablo (better knows as saulo de tarso). some one that had a great education, rich, fariseo of fariseo like above from them and more cualities, this man chased christian and killed them cuz remember jewish didnt belieave that jesus was God and now day they still no belieave it well the thing is that all of a suddenly God apears to him and he all of a suddenly was willing to risk his life, his wealthy, his positions, everything he had for a lie? for something he made up ? and remember this guys wasnt either raised to belieave that jesus was God, im saying this cuz ppl are born and ppl makes them think whats the “truth” is and they belieave it cuz they say so but theses guys that im talking about they didnt and thats history and legal document u cant deny what is history. i dont realy use the bible to talk to atheist cuz they can easly say ahh how can u belieave what the bible say cuz a man wrote it and some other say, u belieave in the bible but i beieave in the koran other belieave in vetas or betas not sure how it is says and so, i only try to use history, document and logic, i could write a lot of stuff about that man call jesus christ cuz ther are so many document itll take a lot to says it all haha
but there is a good book call: THE CASE FOR CHRIT (for lee strobel) if u are that intellectual u should read it but with a open mind as i did and yeah there is already books against about what he wrote in that book as usual cuz remember people will try to deny jesuschrist’s divine at all cost thats funny. im only 21 years old i live in Puerto Rico and my life hasnt been all easy i have gone tru a lot of things that u would never imaging and the only thing that have keep me in my feet is jesuschrist i knew him like 5 years ago. people think that been christian mean no more problem, prosperity and thats not true that doesnt happend all the time cuz the point is not that u wont have problem and u will have properity is the relation with jesuschrit what matter most people think is religion but more than a religion is relation. of something im very sure that he is always besides me and he will never leave me cuz i have seen it in my life and the people around me and outside my country. have u gone out of your country in a misionary yurney where are peopl with a lot of needs? u should, u will be amaze and your life will change for ever. well read the book that i say and let me know what u think. remember use your own critic and open your mind and also your heart, if your realy are intellectual u will accept his existence if not then its like saying 1+1= 2 and u will say that is not true and thats sad cuz there is a lot of people that they will see 1+1 to be 3 instead of 2. my faith is based IN A FACT that jesuschrist lived, died for us for love and beat the death and promised us that where he’ll go we will go if we belieave him and accept him. my faith is not a blind faith as much people always say cuz they dont know well. ahh and also i have try many religion studying them and no one seen righ untill i found jesuschrist.
Simen says: (I am a restless seaker of the truth, and as such I would become a believer at the point where God was proven. At that point, ironically, faith would become irrelevant, preachers would become obsolete, and a science of God would probably arise. I oppose every system that prevents me from finding the truth, and sadly most religions do.)
well christian does not . and if some church does then they are doing it wrong. remember this if one or two or so prevents you to finding the truth it doesnt mean that all christian chruch does the same thing they are just wrong, and to that chruch you shouldnt go, that simple the evil is everywhere and it will makes u think the worst of christians. hmm by the way why this webpage name common bullshit used to turn u to faith O.o so history and document are bullshit? and we dont obligate people to turn to faith at least the real christians people, cuz there will be people saying that they are christian and they are not anyway the thing is why you have to insult to the real christian like that? if we do not do such a thing plus we do not insult people, do u belieave in etic and moral? that what we only do teach those thing created by a man? wrong a man cant invent absolute moral and dont say that there is nothing as a absolute of anything like truth, moral cuz if u say that there is no absolute then what u saying is an absolute then its a lie too hahaha. so yeah you are free to find the truth but try Jesuschrist with a open mind and accept what u cant deny. ( see both thing bads and goods) and judge i just did and i dont regret it .
(Yes, I do celebrate Christmas. Didn’t you know that Christmas was originally a pagan ritual?)
that like perifelar from the subject that we are talking about. if we are talking about God’s divine guys u shouldnt been talking about christmas eve. a lot of atheist know how to defend themself from that question even religion says the same thing as he said like jehova’s witness they use that a lot this will be for another class.
and remember they thinking that they were intellectual they made themself….in from of God. even the most humble guy and not so intellectual can change some one’s life by the way they live and he wont even have to say anything to an atheist. sorry guys i couldnt find a fancy word for that so i wrote a lot of period
sorry for my grammar i tried my best.
Regards
Ruben
Simen says: (If God exists, there are two possibilities:)
You believe in God and win big time (go to heaven).
You don’t believe in God and lose big time (go to hell).
just think about this hmm ok u dont belieave in God and you may not know whats next after death, then I i dont have to be afraid because there may no be any hell cuz you dont belieave in hell maybe i wont feel anything cuz we may vanish after death and stop from existence. but if christians are right you gotta be very worry because when you will open your eyes after death you will see something realy bad but I wont have to be worry either ways if there is hell or not cuz it wont affect me cuz if there is hell and heaven ill go to heaven and if there is no God i wont feel a thing or i may vanish beacuse an atheist cant explain whats next after death and thats pittyfull.
regard
Ruben