Prediction: Religion to Disappear by 2041

[Tnnaas]

Okay, so an article popped up on my news feed...

- - - - -


Author and noted biopsychologist Nigel Barber has completed a new study that shows Atheism is most prevalent in developed countries, and, according to his projections, religion will completely disappear by 2041. His findings are discussed in his new book “Why Atheism Will Replace Religion.” A new study that clarifies his earlier research will be published in August. His findings focus on studying trends within countries around the world and the fact that “Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries”


His main thesis stems from the phenomenon of religion declining as personal wealth increases. He cites the reason as people having less of a need for supernatural beliefs when the tangible, natural world is providing for their needs. He says the majority of the world will come to view religion as completely irrelevant by 2041.

Source
(http://guardianlv.com/2013/07/religion-to-disappear-by-2041-claims-new-study/)
- - - - -

Don't worry guys, it's just a study, so it's mostly science stuff that isn't real. :v: not srs, btw

Thoughts?

I think 2041 is a bit early for a prediction of widespread atheism, knowing humanity.

[Zeph]

In 30 years I dont expect any of my family short of those around my age to be alive. That'll be the last of us that are religious or would still go to church.
In 30 years the stupids that think dinosaurs couldn't exist millions of years ago because we're on the year 2013 will unfortunately have kids and most likely grandchildren. The american public education system will have surely failed by then and some resemblance of smart will begin spawning.

I haven't been to church in quite some time, but I imagine by the prevalence of handheld electronics the young kids in my family keep with them, they'll have found crowd-sourced things to think about instead of having a religious leader try and tell them what to think.
I was never really friends with the kids I went to church with. I was the only one in my grade and they weren't the type I'd be friends with if they were. I've heard tales of their exploits and company and it's very safe to assume they, nor their illegitimate offspring, would be going to a church again.

[Bodzilla]

Ignorance is a choice in the age of the internet, i guess more people are choosing to learn.

[Higuy]

Doubt it.

[=sw=warlord]

I think a century or two may be the time scale that we'll see less and less religious folks but I'm certain something else will probably come in and fulfill the same purpose.
Probably end up worshipping aliens at some point...


Oh...wait. (http://www.scientology.org/)

[Warsaw]

Steve Jobs is the one true god. All bow to Jobs, that you may be allowed entry to the Kingdom of Apple.

[Donut]

I read 6 pages of the "Beliefs and Practices" page on that scientology website and I still don't understand any more about it than when I started.

[Warsaw]

You did, however, give them a click. YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYED!

[=sw=warlord]

http://static.tumblr.com/qzlpe6e/s1Sm9i9b1/joker_clap.gif

[Kornman00]

Religion completely disappearing in the so called developed countries, right? Not just period?

I was going to give a medium length response, but this is a rather boring topic when I think about it. Sure, most religions will probably have fewer followers by 2040 (oh oh oh, will the Pope have to file for unemployment :3) but results are going to vary by each 'developed' country, considering both their internal and surrounding culture.

Hopefully in 30 years the fucking FCC will piss off to more important shit (maybe like fining, but not censoring, 'news' broadcasters for bullshit) and the radio and TV won't be censored. I mean, a man can dream right? Or live in Europe. Or dream about living in Europe.

[n00b1n8R]

yeah nah

[Dwood]

Yeah, no. I doubt very much that Mormons won't be around. People making predictions, lol.

[rossmum]

2041 is optimistic when it's been going strong for tens of thousands of years in one guise or another.

Still, it's a nice dream. The day it is finally nothing more than a laugable curiosity long since cast aside will be a good one.

[DarkHalo003]

The conductors of these studies have apparently never visited the United States South.



I'm more interested in when people will stop using religion in an exploitative manner. Sadly, the answer may be not until the end of humanity's time. :(

[=sw=warlord]

No one ever accused the bible belt of being civilized though.
So...

[DarkHalo003]

No one ever accused the bible belt of being civilized though.
So...
What IS civilized anyways?

[=sw=warlord]

adj.1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable mentality.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

[DarkHalo003]

What's the definition for "Trying, but incapable as a result of shitty Bureaucracy?"

I ask because education is a forfront to civilization and many Southern states lack proper education outlets as a result of terribad bureacratical organizations, such as a monstrous Board of Regents and plenty of elite favoritism.

[Tnnaas]

adj.1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable mentality.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.


"Hey Cleetus, I just done fucked a chicken in the barn!" "I'm tellin' Uncle Wayne on you!"

^Uncivilized.

"Excuse me, my dear cousin Cleetus, but I would like to inform you that I recently completed several sexual actions towards poultry." "What a ridiculous remark, Roy. Despite beastiality being legal in the state of Alabama, I will still have to inform our Uncle of your actions. May your punishment be swift and just."

^Civilized.

- - - - -

Truthfully, certain pockets of the South are civilized. However, ten miles in either direction from those pockets and you're back in hick country. :v:

[DarkHalo003]

That's pretty damn true and pockets is definitely a good term to use. Racial tensions and crimes fueled by racial difference are still a big deal in Atlanta, for example. Mind you, it's nothing like it was 20+ years ago, but the poverty line mixed with bad education in the city area have led to gangs and regular crime. While it's nothing like that in Detroit, it's still pretty bad. There's a lot of crime regardless of race, but if you're White than you're easier to solo out. The worst part is that in all of these locations, the education is total shit. We know the reason why and yet our education's bureaucracy is so twisted that any chances of improvement are dictated by a shady Board of Regents (elitist assholes who only care about their wallets and their affiliates).

Elsewhere, there are pockets (like where I am from) that have decent to great education available. Unfortunately, so many are sheltered until college/uni that the education is all for not (they don't know how to use it), plus the state's regiment of education is so stupidly dull and counterproductive that students are forced to learn how to take a test rather than important life skills. Standardized testing reigns supreme, sadly, which continues to fuel the idea that one must follow the expectations of their society.

[=sw=warlord]

Relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2yhqx2X9_M

[Pooky]

the education is all for not

:raise:

[Dwood]

This may be somewhat off-topic of the thread, but is more pertinent to 'The Great Debate" than my 'hey guys' thread that went down hill as few seemed to recognize the first point that sparked the whole God/No God debate thing.

I think the problem is that we don't currently have actual proof of the non-existence of God. I personally feel that the idea that God does not exist is primarily superimosed on those who seem to think religion is the problem, when in reality it's not the religion that's the problem. It's the people within it that are blindly following their leaders.

I also don't feel that the ability to explain something that we once didn't know before (for example, the processes involved in the development of fetus's) means there is a lack of a God.

It seems to be mostly advertisement and social pressure- assuming there is no God, and ridiculing those who do believe in there being a God. (aka who is the loudest gets heard)

[Donut]

Just want to start this off by saying that this is in no way a personal attack on you. I'm just throwing some facts out there because it seems like you're misunderstanding the point of atheism.

I think the problem is that we don't currently have actual proof of the non-existence of God. I personally feel that the idea that God does not exist is primarily superimosed on those who seem to think religion is the problem, when in reality it's not the religion that's the problem. It's the people within it that are blindly following their leaders.
Atheism is not and never has been about proving the non-existence of a god. People identify as atheist because they feel there is not compelling evidence to support the existence of a god. Some people (note how I didn't just single out atheists) feel that religion is a problem because religious people try to force other people to live by their religious guidelines. Case in point, the debate on abortion. The biggest argument against abortion is purely religious. In this case, people are acting on their religious beliefs, so to differentiate between those people and religion itself is a moot point. The issue here is that people who don't necessarily follow religious beliefs are being forced to live by them.



It seems to be mostly advertisement and social pressure- assuming there is no God, and ridiculing those who do believe in there being a God. (aka who is the loudest gets heard)
Not a single American president has ever identified as non-religious, and I cannot think of any members of Congress, the Senate, etc... who do. If wikipedia is to be believed, only 13% of people in America identified as non-religious as of 2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States). I don't think 13% of people with no governmental representation are putting any sort of social pressure on people.

[Bodzilla]

This may be somewhat off-topic of the thread, but is more pertinent to 'The Great Debate" than my 'hey guys' thread that went down hill as few seemed to recognize the first point that sparked the whole God/No God debate thing.
Fair enough lets see what you have to say


I think the problem is that we don't currently have actual proof of the non-existence of God. I personally feel that the idea that God does not exist is primarily superimposed on those who seem to think religion is the problem, when in reality it's not the religion that's the problem. It's the people within it that are blindly following their leaders.
1. The evidence for something being that under it's defined characteristics of it being unknowable and beyond our understanding and all that rubbish can and has been explined as a deeply flawed analytical perspective. You can using the right words argue for literally anything is possible, regardless of how ridiculous it is. And numerous examples have been shown and used as examples to explain this to people. I refuse to believe that at this stage you havn't heard the mock arguments for the "flying spaghetti monster" or the invisible pink unicorn, or russells celestial teapot or anything that holds to the same standards.
it is not an argument for the existence of ANYTHING ever period, because it's really dumb. There is a reason the burden of proof rests on the people making claims, because without that fundamental key component, rational analytical thought doesn't exist.

2. There are isotopes who believe random shit, yourself included but at this stage in our evolution it's completely and historically known the negative effects religion has had on our species progression.
example you may not have heard of.
fDAT98eEN5Q

I also don't feel that the ability to explain something that we once didn't know before (for example, the processes involved in the development of fetus's) means there is a lack of a God.
the reason it's used as an INYOURFACE argument is because people constantly use "god of the gap" arguments, "we dont understand it, therefore god did it" the most famous example of was Bill O'Riley "tides go in, tides go out, you cant explain that" argument for the existence of god with an atheist on his program. To base an argument off of un-knowledge is a pitiful place to be, because it will always be a continually shrinking platform as our understanding of the world increase's. It's dumb


It seems to be mostly advertisement and social pressure- assuming there is no God, and ridiculing those who do believe in there being a God. (aka who is the loudest gets heard)
this is so far from correct it's not funny. Relgious pressure on political issues so vast and accepted as the norm your not even seeing it. It's impossible to be president of the United states without being a Christian. People trying to teach creationism in SCIENCE class rooms, Abortion clinc protests the list goes on and fucking on. If you think it's the norm to be an atheist your dumb in any sense of the word EXCEPT online.
And the reason is this, if i say something wrong or dumb, you can and should research the issue yourself, point out my mistakes and reply to me quickly but not in real time. This forces people to become better educated, because they CANNOT continually spew their nonsense without being called out on it. And all research has shown that the more educated you become, the less religious and susceptible to boogieman you become.

[=sw=warlord]

It seems to be mostly advertisement and social pressure- assuming there is no God, and ridiculing those who do believe in there being a God. (aka who is the loudest gets heard)
Wait, wait, wait, Atheism is exerting social pressure and advertises it self a lot?

Doctor killed by Abortion protester
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/abortviolence/stories/gunn.htm)
More recently, abortion protests
(http://rt.com/usa/texas-north-carolina-abortion-protesters-860/)
Let's not even begin to discuss what the biggest argument was about banning gay marriage.
I'm not gay but that doesn't mean I think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, sexuality has little to no bearing on whether you actually are affectionate to your partner, unless you're mookz in which case I'm not so sure a Leopard would be quite as caring (http://www.cinemablend.com/images/sections/33599/leopard_33599.jpg) in return.
Point is the biggest argument going about banning such things has been that it "offends" peoples religious "faiths", it offends me further that there are people out there who will ostracize perfectly good knowledge and medical help and then claim their faith in "God" will cure all their diseases and ailments, people have died because this stupid perception (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/03/19275007-homicide-convictions-upheld-for-wisconsin-parents-who-treated-dying-daughter-with-prayer?lite).

As for mass adverting, see below:
This is Brazil yesterday when the Pope showed up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23480707
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68986000/jpg/_68986741_018787842.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/68987000/jpg/_68987277_5j3wzfyi.jpg


I'll come back to this to edit once I've actually woken up, I'm sure I've worded a few things wrong somewhere.

[rossmum]

I think the problem is that we don't currently have actual proof of the non-existence of God.
Lack of proof against something is not proof for it. Of course, you could argue the other way to a certain extent, but I think by this point it's pretty obvious to all but the most helplessly indoctrinated that some invisible sky-man doesn't give a fuck about your day to day petty problems and sure as fuck isn't going to do anything about them. The rest kind of flows on from there.

In the case someone starts making audacious claims with no obvious factual or logical basis, like "the moon landing was a false memory implanted into humanity by reptilian overlords to control us" or "everything was created by some abstract entity except he really cares a lot about one species on one planet in an immense, almost incomprehensibly large universe, which may or may not be one of many", I think it's fair to saw the onus of proof is entirely upon the claimant.


I personally feel that the idea that God does not exist is primarily superimosed on those who seem to think religion is the problem, when in reality it's not the religion that's the problem. It's the people within it that are blindly following their leaders.
The religion itself is all about doing what your culture's particular sky-man says you should do, how is that any different? Besides which, religion is pretty blatantly a huge problem because it is inevitably exploited and used to exploit.


I also don't feel that the ability to explain something that we once didn't know before (for example, the processes involved in the development of fetus's) means there is a lack of a God.
It means there was a lack of knowledge, so that gap was filled with bedtime stories, just like knowledge gaps were in ancient times. It is no different. As we become more and more informed of our universe as a species, religion finds itself in an increasingly untenable position, because it is a bunch of fairy stories invented to exploit the ignorance humanity once had but is now losing.


It seems to be mostly advertisement and social pressure- assuming there is no God, and ridiculing those who do believe in there being a God. (aka who is the loudest gets heard)
I used to give a shit about letting people believe what they want, but then I realised that's fucking retarded and by the same logic I should let Nazis believe I have a secret hoard of shekels up my nose and was personally behind 9/11.

Fuck what people think, if there are objective facts established in the area then there is no reason anything should be thinking differently. Opinions are for matters of a more personal affair, like your favourite colour, your taste in music, or what role you like to play in MMOs with your friends.

[rossmum]

Also religion is more political than it is anything else, have fun being manipulated for the gain of whoever controls your particular sect of your particular religion I guess.

The Vatican used to be a military and political power back in the day, but it doesn't even need to be any more. Catholics the world over do its bidding for it. The same is true of Sunni Islam or the Protestant Church or any other sect.

[Dwood]

Fair enough lets see what you have to say
Since I like you and you're not being a jerk with your argument I'll respond to you.



1. The evidence for something being that under it's defined characteristics of it being unknowable and beyond our understanding and all that rubbish can and has been explined as a deeply flawed analytical perspective. You can using the right words argue for literally anything is possible, regardless of how ridiculous it is. And numerous examples have been shown and used as examples to explain this to people. I refuse to believe that at this stage you havn't heard the mock arguments for the "flying spaghetti monster" or the invisible pink unicorn, or russells celestial teapot or anything that holds to the same standards.
it is not an argument for the existence of ANYTHING ever period, because it's really dumb. There is a reason the burden of proof rests on the people making claims, because without that fundamental key component, rational analytical thought doesn't exist.

->Under that logic we come to a stand-still because atheism AND religion are both making claims and therefore both should bring evidence to the table. My argument is different from most religions, because I honestly think that if there is a God, he literally and directly responds to one's petitions, thus allowing one to gain their own conviction of His existence. Any other perception of the existence of a God that does NOT communicate with His followers besides the main leader (see: pope) is used for control and power, money, etc.



2. There are isotopes who believe random shit, yourself included but at this stage in our evolution it's completely and historically known the negative effects religion has had on our species progression.
example you may not have heard of.


I explained it to Conscars, and if you ask him on aim or whatever, because we had a bit of an interview on AIM about my religion, and especially why I am religious. If I ever felt that I was making things up in my head or things like that, I would leave the religion I'm in. With that video: 1) he's bashing on the existence of a God when he used Jews, who are a religious people, to note that they have about 1/4 of all Nobel Prizes.

Citing all the bad things a people of one group or another have done is not an effective argument because I can cite bad things done by Joseph Stalin, one of the largest atheists we've seen, who killed millions of his own people. The thing about that 'they did bad things' argument, isn't that religion's the problem, it's the hat they wore when they did it. Humans have just as much capacity to blindly follow atheists as they do any other group.

Under the idea that Religion is the cause of the problem, using religion vs atheism please explain why Russia sucked as a place to live during the Cold War and America by comparison prosper, one being a primarily atheist and the other primarily Christian?



the reason it's used as an INYOURFACE argument is because people constantly use "god of the gap" arguments, "we dont understand it, therefore god did it" the most famous example of was Bill O'Riley "tides go in, tides go out, you cant explain that" argument for the existence of god with an atheist on his program. To base an argument off of un-knowledge is a pitiful place to be, because it will always be a continually shrinking platform as our understanding of the world increase's. It's dumb


Beyond the "all religions are bad because of the evil they've done" statement, please state your proof there is of the non-existence of God? Have you tried praying to Him asking if he's there and received no answer?



And the reason is this, if i say something wrong or dumb, you can and should research the issue yourself, point out my mistakes and reply to me quickly but not in real time. This forces people to become better educated, because they CANNOT continually spew their nonsense without being called out on it. And all research has shown that the more educated you become, the less religious and susceptible to boogieman you become.

I'm saying that instead of citing facts, it's mostly social pressure- as can be a problem with any argument that encompasses society at large. I understand that America is a Christian culture, i've talked to thousands of people during my time as a missionary.

I personally have met many doctors, surgeons, and also a number of astronomers in my church who are just as convicted mormons as anyone else. Mormons are one of the groups that defy the norm, in that we don't think a better education conflicts with our faith. In fact, our church is known for getting on kids to go to college and get good educations so they can participate in the world as it grows.

http://mormon.org/values/learning
http://pef.lds.org/?locale=eng

As a side note, I am doing my best to answer statements respectfully, and for those who wish to discuss this with me, I ask that you do the same. I've got a thick skin, but these discussions go no where when we don't respond appropriately. If you feel I was being condescending you can PM me about it and I'll do my best to improve in future encounters.

[Skyline]

Could careless if god exists or not, I see no reason for worshipping it either way. Doesn't really help religion that people go around preaching that it exists with nothing but bullshit as proof.

[DarkHalo003]

:raise:
They get the education, sure, but many just see it as information that's only applicable to a testing situation. It's more or less the argument of having gone through an education versus actually being educated.

[rossmum]

Could careless if god exists or not, I see no reason for worshipping it either way. Doesn't really help religion that people go around preaching that it exists with nothing but bullshit as proof.
Bullshit doesn't constitute proof so honestly they actually have none

[=sw=warlord]

Relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oSJdSL8YOE

[TVTyrant]

Relephant:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J11s-hXrew

[Pooky]

They get the education, sure, but many just see it as information that's only applicable to a testing situation. It's more or less the argument of having gone through an education versus actually being educated.

Actually my emoticon was directed at the fact that you used the word not as opposed to naught

[DarkHalo003]

Actually my emoticon was directed at the fact that you used the word not as opposed to naught
Ooh. Yeah, now that you mention it, that would be the proper usage. I wish I had a reason to use the word naught more, its meaning can be quite powerful.

[Tnnaas]

Since we're clarifying proper usage, can we please, please, please fix this?


Could careless if god exists or not, I see no reason for worshipping it either way. Doesn't really help religion that people go around preaching that it exists with nothing but bullshit as proof.

If you could care less, it means there's room to care. If you couldn't care less, there's no room to care. I just cringe every time I see this happen. ;_;

[Matooba]

Who can dispute either argument? Religion or no Religion?
Atheism doesn't really have a good basis either.
3242

[=sw=warlord]

Except atheism isn't about everything coming from nothing, that's creationism, creationism is about some magical being who made everything in a few days.

Atheism on the other hand is coming to the conclusion there wasn't some old man with devmode enabled who made the world as a past time.

[Pooky]

Who can dispute either argument? Religion or no Religion?
Atheism doesn't really have a good basis either.
3242

Except atheism deals solely with the existence of god and has nothing to do with the origins of the universe

[Bodzilla]

Who can dispute either argument? Religion or no Religion?
Atheism doesn't really have a good basis either.
3242
it's great that we get to have people like you and me in the great debate section. We get to promote differing opinions on a whole range of topics.

Like now your promoting the idea that your dumb.

Even though we'd normally disagree with each other, the power of your argument has shed new light for me. I am compelled under your crushing empirical evidence, to accept the fact, that you are indeed dumb.

[Btcc22]

Like now your promoting the idea that your dumb.


You may as well hear it from me rather than from somebody wielding a flamethrower - you're. :ohdear:

[Bodzilla]

Wanna know why there's different languages across the world? It's because the way the message is conveyed is completely irrelevant as long as it's understood.

[Kornman00]

But bod, it doesn't help your case when you call someone's idea dumb, yet use what is essentially a dumb grammar mistake :saddowns:


In the context of Christianity, do they even talk about the universe in the bible? All I've ever heard is the topic of 'g-man created thy earth in 6 days, deal with it'.

Also, when did someone add this emot: :sbahj:

[Donut]

I think the "god creating the universe" bit comes from the creation story in genesis. "On x day god created the stars in the sky" or something like that.

Also, that emot is fantastic.

[=sw=warlord]

Let's not forget that until a century ago, the milky way galaxy was the universe from nearly all points of interest, science and religion.
Now we know our galaxy is but one of billions if not trillions, the bible more or less viewed the universe as just the earth with the stars as little more than decorations.

[Matooba]

God created all the stars in the sky, which would in turn be all the galaxys in the sky. No? I don't believe in all whats said but I still think some sort of intervention may have been the cause for rapid growth of human kind. Even a 100,000 years is nothing compared to scientific guesses of the age of everything. All data just seems to be Hypothetical. Its is only based on what we know. For that fact I just say how smart do we really think we are? Are we singular to thinking just in what we know? On another hand the bible could just be the result of a story being told over so many times, its like the pass the phrase along game and see what the outcome is. The Atheism pic was a pure pun that I thought to be a comical hit to this debate. Could have meant we are some alien experiment or we are the result of a great single cell that grew out of some mashed materials, all hypothetical.

[Matooba]

I read the bible & more or less, did not get that impression. not to say its correct or not, but i at least entertained the book enough to read it before giving it merit.

[Bodzilla]

the thing is though, it has no merit. Only someone trolling or with an absurdly poor understanding of science or the nature of things would post such a retarded picture.

This is the most informed period of human history, and our knowledge continues to grow exponentially, if you dont even have a mediocre understanding of some form of science or our history by this stage, then your an ignorant fool.

I've read parts of the bible too. Wanna cure Leprosy? Get 2 birds, kill one and split it up the middle. Then dip the live birds wings in the blood of the dead bird, and then shake the blood off onto you 7 times.
And bam your cured.
And it works great on house's as well depending on the translation.

Great book that one.

[=sw=warlord]

Science may be all about hypothetical ideas and perceptions of the world but religion is theological and for a large part theology has been wrong in one shape or another.
Oh and near life experiences is finally getting some research done as well, turns out it's not the voice of god calling you, it's your brain having one last hurrah before it kills itself. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23672150)

[Btcc22]

it's your brain having one last hurrah before it kills itself. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23672150)

I thought that'd been figured out a long time ago. Either that or I've been correct purely by luck for quite a while.

[=sw=warlord]

There's this little taboo about researching the process of death in humans.
Bit ironic given everyone dies, you'd expect someone, somewhere to want to know what processes you go through when you die.
understanding the process might make it seem less scary to people.

[TVTyrant]

People with religious views: Stop being dumb and go read a book that isn't made out of zig zag paper.

People who hate religion: Shut the fuck up. No one wants to read your annoying, repetitive rants.

[TVTyrant]

There's this little taboo about researching the process of death in humans.
Bit ironic given everyone dies, you'd expect someone, somewhere to want to know what processes you go through when you die.
understanding the process might make it seem less scary to people.
Because death is the one certain, final thing that all people must experience.

[=sw=warlord]

Which should be why more people would be interested in knowing, everyone must experience it at some point so you'd expect someone to investigate what happens other than, you're alive and now you're dead.

[Bodzilla]

I'd imagine it's a hell of alot like before your born.

[TVTyrant]

Which should be why more people would be interested in knowing, everyone must experience it at some point so you'd expect someone to investigate what happens other than, you're alive and now you're dead.
I imagine your body goes in the ground

[Tnnaas]

Sometimes people's parts get stuck in other people, legally or illegally. Or maybe your body will be inside hungry animals. Who knows?

Me? My body will probably be a few million particles inside a box. Not sure where that box will go though...