Atheism and the Afterlife?

[Sherman]

For me believing in Heaven, gives me hope that one day
I will see again relatives and friends who have died. Especially
my grandparents who I still miss terribly even they have been for
gone over 20 years now.

My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need
to see loved ones again who are now gone?

I know some "Christians" will asked what if they are not heaven?
Well if my grandparents are not heaven then it would not be heaven to me.

[UrbanChic]

For me, at least, there's no "obvious need". For one thing, due to my relative youth, I haven't lost anyone who was very close to me.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Sherman
My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need
to see loved ones again who are now gone?

I can only speak for myself here, but -- why is this need obvious? I miss my grandparents terribly, but I have grieved and moved on. I wish they were still with me, and in a way, they are. They live on in my heart. Am I sad they are gone? Sure, but that is more than outweighed by the happiness that they were ever here in the first place.

[Revtim]

Not all belief is driven by what people want to be true.

[andros]

People go away. Sometimes they never come back.

It sucks. I wish to hell it didn't happen that way. But it does.

I'd like nothing more than to be out on the pond fishing with my grandfather one more time. But I don't think it'll happen. I'm not going to start believing in heaven or hell just because I want to see my friends and family who have died. Sure would be nice, and I'm not completely ruling it out as a possibility until I find out firsthand. I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

I want to see my dead loved ones again. I don't have a need to.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Sherman
My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need
to see loved ones again who are now gone?

I'm going to have to agree that this is not an "obvious need". Sure, it would be a wonderful thing to be able to see my dead loved ones again, but that's not going to happen.

To me, the concept of heaven seems like a type of crutch, a way to avoid really saying "goodbye".

I know some "Christians" will asked what if they are not heaven?
Well if my grandparents are not heaven then it would not be heaven to me.

So if I were a Christian, and I decided it wouldn't be heaven without everyone who had ever died being there, then would everyone go to heaven?

[Kalhoun]

As others have said, you're confusing need with desire. I wish I could see my mom again. I'd much prefer she never died to seeing her as a death ghost.

I'm cool with the cycle of life. Things live...things die. Many, many people go through life knowing this to be true. Life is a nice ride, but it eventually ends. That's all.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Revtim
Not all belief is driven by what people want to be true.

Thanks for mentioning that.

Some long time ago I asked H4E what would be so bad if evolution turned out to be true. She replied that it would mean that God was not real, and that thought terrified her. It was made very clear to me at that time that so much of faith can be conjured up by wishful thinking. (Not for everyone, of course, but for an alarming number.)

[jjimm]

What Kalhoun said.

[CalMeacham]

Some long time ago I asked H4E what would be so bad if evolution turned out to be true. She replied that it would mean that God was not real, and that thought terrified her.

Why would evolution being true eliminate God? I can as easily posit that evolution is the means by which God produces change. Or that God set up the physical universe with a set of physical rules that resulted in the macroscopic process of evolution, and in which He tinkers little, if at all. There are other possibilities , as well, in which God and Evolution are not incompatible concepts.

[Darkhold]

Well as another poster said I haven't had anyone really close to me die so unfortunately my concern is a little more selfish. MY death and the end of my existence is what I'm worried about and is the main reason I held onto faith long after I couldn't logically justify it anymore. Then I realized that believing just b/c you want it to be true was foolish.

It's a real annoyance to me when someone comes along and tells me I should believe 'just in case' (I'm not accusing you of that it seems like you have a serious question and aren't trying to convert anyone) I always thought if a god punished me for valid doubt but rewarded someone for insincere faith then he wasn't worth worshiping anyway.

[tdn]

Originally posted by CalMeacham
Why would evolution being true eliminate God? I can as easily posit that evolution is the means by which God produces change. Or that God set up the physical universe with a set of physical rules that resulted in the macroscopic process of evolution, and in which He tinkers little, if at all. There are other possibilities , as well, in which God and Evolution are not incompatible concepts.

That's going off topic a bit, but at the time of that thread, the same point was brought up. And it's a good one. But take it at face value that H4E viewed the situation as an either/or matter, and thus rejected evolution due to wishful thinking.

[Marley23]

My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need to see loved ones again who are now gone?

I might want to see a loved one, but that doesn't mean I can't face the fact that someone who's dead is, in the most literal senses, gone.

I might also point out that you just *think* you'll see your loved ones when you die. That doesn't mean you actually will.

[panache45]

The important thing isn't missing the people you've lost. The important thing is to live your life in such a way, that the people you leave behind will miss you.

[Jpeg Jones]

What makes you think you would remain "you" when you go to Heaven? With the same personality and everything.

Personally, if I were to die soon, I would want nothing more than to return and be with my family. Being away from Earth would be pretty hellish and I'd hate it. Not really my idea of "Heaven".

And if I still had my own personality and my own wits about me in Heaven, you can be sure I'd be trying to find a way to get back to Earth. And I don't think I'd be the only one, either.

So, has anyone who's died but wanted to stay alive been able to return? Nope. There's a pretty good clue to me that it's all BS.

If (and that's a big if) there was to be some form of afterlife I could be convinced of, it might be along the lines of a general "soul recycling" deal. You don't get to keep any of your personality or sense of humor or anything like that. Your life force gets sort of absorbed and re-used. Certainly, you don't get to go fishing with Granddad again.

[panache45]

Regarding the OP: If there is a heaven, what makes you think that theists go there and atheists don't? Maybe it's all a cruel hoax, and only atheists go to heaven.

The bottom line is: nobody knows, and life's too short to worry about it.

[Eonwe]

Originally posted by Sherman

My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need
to see loved ones again who are now gone?

Well, I can always go dig them up whenever I want to see them.

Honestly, you miss the point. I can't see them 'alive' again because they're not. That's what being 'dead' means.

[threeorange]

My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need to see loved ones again who are now gone?

As there is no guarantee of any afterlife (or that I'll experience it if there is one), I have to be content with my memories of those I've lost.

Regarding the OP: If there is a heaven, what makes you think that theists go there and atheists don't? Maybe it's all a cruel hoax, and only atheists go to heaven.

I read a short story based on this very premise once, but I can't remember the title or author. Has anyone else ever heard of this?

[Ptahlis]

Sherman, there are times when I really would love to have the comfort of unquestioning belief in an afterlife. Unfortunately, I can't pretend that any of it makes sense to me. It's definitely not easy when someone dies, knowing that you'll never see them again, and it's not pleasant to think that someday the universe will roll along without me in it, but such is the way of things

[cajela]

Same again, there's no "obvious need" to me. Wishes aren't needs.

I would ask the opposite (to stir up, not to insult): Why do theists insist on remaining stuck in the denial phase of grieving?

[Black Train Song]

In a way I think you're doing yourself a disservice by deferring feelings you have about departed loved ones in the hopes of seeing them at the big get together. Why not rather pause each time you remember someone (family or not) who has died and recognize that they DO live on in those moments. They live on in YOU and help shape the individual that you are. Why can't that be enough? After all, what’s the purpose of having these goofy bodies? Existing.

[Marley23]

Why do theists insist on remaining stuck in the denial phase of grieving?

I'm not sure that's really fair. Some people do get stuck, but I think plenty are able to accept that their loved one is gone and move on with their lives. They just hope to catch up with them later.

[andros]

Yup. It's a coping mechanism. I don't see the harm.

[Seven]

Originally posted by Sherman
My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need
to see loved ones again who are now gone?

I know some "Christians" will asked what if they are not heaven?
Well if my grandparents are not heaven then it would not be heaven to me.

I don't need to see anyone again. Being an Atheist means I accept this simple fact: When you die, that's it. Game over.

I'm not sad about this. It doesn't scare me. I just accept the fact you have one shot at life, you live it to the fullest and try to leave something behind for the generations that come after you.

Yes it sucks to loose someone you loved, but that's how the game is played. There are no winners.

Then you die, the lights go out and your body becomes worm food. End of story.

What I don't get is people who believe in an afterlife being afraid to die. If it's all roses and dead family members why aren't Christians all involved in uber-dangerous activities hoping to bring on death?

Why morn the loss of someone AT ALL? It should be cheered. The news of someones death should be the happiest day for Christians.

"YEAH! Little Billy bite the dust. Good for him. He's in heaven now. God I hope I'm next!"

Why should they pray to make people better when they get sick? Shouldn't they be praying for God to kill them, end their pain and take them to heaven where they live forever in happy tulip land?

If I truely believed in an afterlife I'd wake up everyday wishing it was my (and everyone I loved) last on earth.

"Please Jesus. Let mom get caught up in some stray drive-by bullet fire. And let sister get hit by a car and please make a plane fall from the sky and nail daddy in the brain. And please give the guy who threatened my life in the parking garage the courage to go though with 'breaking my neck and killing me where I fall'. Thanks, Love and kisses. Amen"


I mean, around 80 years on earth and then the rest of forever in heaven? Seems like Christians would be looking to get those earth years over with as quick as possible.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Sherman
I know some "Christians" will asked what if they are not heaven?
Well if my grandparents are not heaven then it would not be heaven to me.

Could we not extend this for everyone? - seems to me that this is the strongest argument for universal salvation (except that you first have to assume there is an afterlife, which could present a problem):

If everyone I have ever known or heard about isn't there, I'll notice them missing and be sad.

If this is taken care of by wiping sections of my memory, then I won't be me.

But you can do the same with:
I like beer
If there is no beer in heaven, it won't be heaven
If I am changed so that I don't like beer, I won't be me anymore.

So much for trying to apply logic to the idea.

[Shade]

Obligatory nitpick: it's possible to be an atheist and believe in an afterlife. It's just far more common that a belief in an afterlife goes hand-in-hand with that in a God.

Anyway, we mostly just deal. We don't have a hell (PI) of a lot of choice. Though obviously a few people go to option (2) go mad or commit suicide or (3) convert to a religion.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Shade
Obligatory nitpick: it's possible to be an atheist and believe in an afterlife. It's just far more common that a belief in an afterlife goes hand-in-hand with that in a God..

Please explain. Are you using some different version of atheism that I'm not cognisant of?

[Shade]

I was using what I thought was the standard definition "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

So someone who believes in an afterlife not created by a God could still be an atheist. I don't know if there are such people, but I wouldn't be surprised considering some of the new age crap some people, including atheists, believe.

I wish all atheists were completely rational and skeptic of all supernatural beliefs but afaik that's not quite the case.

[jjimm]

Eeeenteresting, I've never considered that before.

So belief in some new-agey sort of amorphous metaphysical jelly could be consistent with atheism, because it's not actually a "god".

I suggest maybe we need to redefine the term...

[Shade]

IIRC some buddhists consider themselves atheists and believe in reincarnation. But don't quote me on that yet.

How would you define atheist? I mean, the word is 'a-theist' = not-theist' (Uh, or something. Latin dopers, help?)

As "doesn't believe in anything without convincing evidence"? I'd like to use the word 'skeptic' or similar, but the trouble is that man people disagree that god is such an unsupported belief.

My, and I hope most atheists', position could be best described two-fold: "there is no convincing evidence for God" and "I don't believe in things there is no convincing evidence for" but I'm not sure of appropriate words.

[rklewis2]

I don't understand the purpose of this thread...

The subject itself is a contradiction.

Having no belief in an afterlife, how would they have an obvious need to see anyone?

[SentientMeat]

Those loved ones exist in time. That time is not now, nor is at any point in the future, nor any point in those billions of years before their birth.

This is the nature of time. I cannot change this any more than my inability to fly like Superman, regardless of my desire or need that this be so.

I am happy, nonetheless.

[booka]

panache45 said:

The important thing isn't missing the people you've lost. The important thing is to live your life in such a way, that the people you leave behind will miss you.

Wow - this stopped me in my tracks. Well said.

[catsix]

Shade said:
IIRC some buddhists consider themselves atheists and believe in reincarnation. But don't quote me on that yet.

Siddharta believed, or so it is written in the Tripitaka that if there were gods, their lives were much like those of man's: full of desires, therefore full of dukkha, only much longer than a human life.

Buddhism itself (at least of the Therevada variety) doesn't even ask the question of whether or not there might be such a thing as a god, because it's not relevant to the philosophy.

It also doesn't accept the exact same idea of reincarnation that the Hindu religion does, because one of the main principles of Siddharta was impermenance. There was no such thing as a permanent soul; the human was made up of the five aggregates (one of which is karma) which do exist beyond death and can be recombined with each other in new and unique ways. So if you died, you wouldn't really be reincarnated, your aggregates would get mixed up with other aggregates and 'return' in different people, either further ahead or behind on the path to nirvana than you were before you died. If you had somehow reached nirvana (enlightenment) in your life, you would exist until you burned off all your karma and at the moment of death reach parinirvana and be no more.

Again this is specific to what I know of Therevada Buddhism, which is not the same as all the other sects of Buddhism. Originally there were, after Siddharta's death, 18 sects. Now there are probably as many types of Buddhism as there are Buddhists.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by Sherman
My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need to see loved ones again who are now gone?

The fact that I don't believe in an afterlife or any other sort of mystical continuation of existence following death makes it easier to deal with loss. People are gone, period, and if I want to live normally in whatever time I have remaining, I must cope with the grief and get over it. Seems to me that the constant dream of seeing lost loved ones in a few years or decades would be a distraction and a hindrance to the healing process. But that's just me, I know. Someone paralyzed with grief may need the dream to stay sane; that's not me.

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by Mangetout
But you can do the same with:
I like beer
If there is no beer in heaven, it won't be heaven
If I am changed so that I don't like beer, I won't be me anymore.

So much for trying to apply logic to the idea.

traditional polka (public domain)

In Heaven there is no beer
(No beer?!)
That's why we drink it here
And when we're all gone from here
Our friends will be drinking all the beer.


In Heaven there is no wine
(No wine?!)
So we drink till we feel fine
And when we leave this all behind
Our friends will be drinking all the wine.

[Shade]

Originally posted by catsix
Siddharta believed, or so it is written in the Tripitaka that if there were gods, their lives were much like those of man's: full of desires, therefore full of dukkha, only much longer than a human life.

Thanks. I know I should have looked that up, but I just knew someone would come along and explain it.

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

Close friends, relatives, and mentors in my life have all died. While they were alive, they were good company and significant developing forces in my life. Now, they are daffodil fertilizer. They are missed, certainly, but seeing them again would serve what purpose? When I die, I will not care to see them again, or for that matter, care about anything at all.

[godzillatemple]

For me, believing in hell gives me hope that one day all those who have wronged me during my life -- whether it be the jerk who cut me off on the way to work, the telemarketer who calls me at 5:30 PM right when I'm sitting down to dinner, the people who send me spam e-mail, or Osama Bin Laden -- will suffer an eternity of pain and torment. In fact, my belief in hell is all that keeps me from going out and buying Ak-47 some days and wreaking a little "divine vengeance" on my own.

My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need to see bad people get what they so richly deserve? It's obvious that they won't all get punished during their lives, so there HAS to be a Hell or else the universe is just unfair.

I know some "Christians" will ask what if they are not in hell? Well if these people are not in hell then it would not be hell to me.

Regards,

Barry

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

Originally posted by godzillatemple
...there HAS to be a Hell or else the universe is just unfair.

Guess what?...

[Shade]

Originally posted by Fuji Kitakyusho

Guess what?...

Can I steal that for a sig?

[Cervaise]

No, because life isn't fair.

[Shade]

If life was fair they could stop me. MWHAHAAA!

In fact, this is one problem with believing an afterlife. There's less incentive to make the world as fair as possible now.

[Marley23]

For me, believing in hell gives me hope that one day all those who have wronged me during my life -- whether it be the jerk who cut me off on the way to work, the telemarketer who calls me at 5:30 PM right when I'm sitting down to dinner, the people who send me spam e-mail, or Osama Bin Laden -- will suffer an eternity of pain and torment. In fact, my belief in hell is all that keeps me from going out and buying Ak-47 some days and wreaking a little "divine vengeance" on my own.

If you're serious about this, get therapy. Soon. I think the reason people came up with the idea of hell was for just this reason, but this sounds unhealthy to me.
What do I think? I think "what the hell is fair?" Because I think somebody did something wrong, the universe should punish them? We'd all be in deep crap if that was how things worked. Whose conception of fair should we work according to? Mine? Yours? Whose is superior?

My question is how do atheists get passed this obvious need to see bad people get what they so richly deserve? It's obvious that they won't all get punished during their lives, so there HAS to be a Hell or else the universe is just unfair.

You learn to let go of things, which is an ability all people need. Some people will get theirs in some sense or other. Some won't, and there's nothing I can do about it. You get mad, talk it out or do something, if you can, deal with it, and move on. I'd say there's one person on earth who I'd really want to get that kind of revenge on, and I'll probably never even see his face. I try not to carry that weight around with me.

I know some "Christians" will ask what if they are not in hell? Well if these people are not in hell then it would not be hell to me.

See above. What's the point in being that vindictive?

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by Shade
In fact, this is one problem with believing an afterlife. There's less incentive to make the world as fair as possible now.

This is quite a legitimate point.

"Global warming? Ozone hole? Who gives a shit what the world will be like in a hundred years? I'm gonna be in heaven, and besides, Jesus'll be along any day now."

I'm not saying all or even most Christians (or other religious people) are like this. However, it's uncanny how many of them seem to manage to get themselves into positions of power.

[godzillatemple]

Originally posted by Marley23
What's the point in being that vindictive?

I think Steve Martin's character in Roxanne said it best:

Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was getting tired of being stared at.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Cervaise
"Global warming? Ozone hole? Who gives a shit what the world will be like in a hundred years? I'm gonna be in heaven, and besides, Jesus'll be along any day now."

I'm not saying all or even most Christians (or other religious people) are like this. However, it's uncanny how many of them seem to manage to get themselves into positions of power.

Case in point: Secretary Of Interior under Reagan, James Watt. He said something to the effect that since Jesus is coming there's no reason to protect the environment. The Secretary Of Interior said this!!

Google "James Watt" jesus for cites.

[RexDart]

Life sucks, and then you die. Missing loved ones, and the inevitability of your own eventual non-existence, are just the terrible things we shove away so we can get on with our own business.

Though the existentialists encouraged us to confront death, the fact is that most of us do so only rarely. Confronting death is a paralyzing experience. We simply wouldn't be very good at survival if we thought about our own death alot, so we create defense mechanisms. For some, there's the notion of an afterlife, and the accompanying coping mechanisms for the death of relatives.

Myself, I haven't had a close relative die yet, and am somewhat afraid that when this occurs I might fall into the trap of lying to myself and winding up religious through intellectual dishonesty.

At any rate, I have serious doubts that personal identity can survive a nonmaterial existence (the existential equivalent of "the medium is the massage" ), so a spiritual afterlife isn't that appealing to me, so long as I remain grounded in reason.

[John Mace]

Marley23:

I think you missed the whoooooshing sound.

[Largo62]

Originally posted by CalMeacham
Why would evolution being true eliminate God? I can as easily posit that evolution is the means by which God produces change. Or that God set up the physical universe with a set of physical rules that resulted in the macroscopic process of evolution, and in which He tinkers little, if at all. There are other possibilities , as well, in which God and Evolution are not incompatible concepts.

I agree. Evolution and God are not necessarily mutually exclusive ideas. Though neither is necessarily evidence of the other, the one (evolution) could simply describe the method of the other (God). That said, in my atheist mind there is abundant evidence of evolution, but insufficent evidence of God.

As to an afterlife, I think evidence is lacking. But what I consider evidence certainly isn't universal. Many people are satisfied with "evidence" that would not satisfy me. As far as the OP is concerned, I don't think that the desire, or the longing, if you will, to see departed loved ones again is quite the same thing as a need. I desire to to see my mother again, and to win the lottery, but I certainly don't need either. And the liklihood of either occurrence is virtually equal.