Ah, the good old Pascal’s Wager argument; as full of holes as Swiss cheese. To point out an obvious one, you are assuming with no evidence that your particular god and his particular rules are the correct ones. Someone else can with just as much plausibility as you claim that following your god will send anyone who does so into an afterlife of eternal suffering.
Just to add that being an atheist doesn’t mean one runs out become an evil murderer rampaging through a kindergarten or “focus on flesh” exclusively as you say. Atheism just means one doesn’t believe in god: it’s not a declaration to do bad or “flesh-y”. Atheists pretty much follow similar moral code, but without the man upstairs threatening with fire, brimstone and condemnation in hell for infinity or offering eternal heaven or whatever number of virgins if you blow yourselves up, but by themselves on their own accord without wanting some “a eternal prize” in return. It’s unconditional existence and being independent without shaking in your boots of man-made idea of some supernatural powerful being.
As far as however you view what “afterlife” is to you, you can go vote on this thread like everyone else. You are just one vote, other wise you’re preaching.
BTW, peace on earth Tom W.; I respect everyone’s view and beliefs and I wish everyone else do the same. I’m just against the order that ‘one must spread the god’s words’. That’s ignoring all other religions, all other beliefs and choices… and oh, never to question “god”; it’s somewhat like my god is more handsome than yours so he must be more powerful or mine’s better than yours therefore you must covert. It’s like an Olympic of the religion… only I wish religious folks are just fighting for gold metals…
Pascal’s Wager doesn’t even contain any practical advice. If I tell you that I will come round and kick your ass unless you start genuinely believing in Trevor the flying hamster, you may very well swiftly assess the risk and decide the best course of action is to do as the crazy man says.
But what now? Faced with the need to commence genuine belief in Trevor the flying hamster, how do you make that actually happen? If it’s by observing real evidence of Trevor’s existence, that’s great, but it means the wager was entirely superfluous.
This is the infamous “Pascal’s Wager” fallacy. Sorry to tell you, but following those “ten rules” is no safer a gamble than any other choice. What if the Muslims are right? Then your goose is cooked for not following al Qu’ran.
What if God wants you to be an atheist? What if there are a hundred gods, and you need to worship them all?
There is no safe choice. Your gamble presumes two choices. There are an infinite number of choices, all with exactly the same evidence.
I don’t blame atheists for having a low opinion of Christianity when Christians themselves trivialize it in ways such as this.
Knowing the Lord is serious shit. Really amazing shit, but nothing to take lightly. Becoming a Christian as an insurance policy is like getting married because you don’t want to be lonely. It’s a really stupid thing to do because you’re getting into something that’s a lot more than that.
I thought Jesus summed it up in just two.
What DtC said about an infinite number of choices. How many insurance policies are you prepared to buy, in order to get the one that you’re sure will cover you? It’s not like any of them has a proven track record of getting people into the afterlife.
Maybe I’m a bit offbeat as a Christian, but I do believe one of the reasons God put us here was so we could have a good time.
God gave us our bodies, and saw that it was good. There’s nothing wrong with the flesh. IMHO, God gave us our bodies so we could get around and do things, but also to simply enjoy.
I’m very much a skeptic, atheist, etc. I take pleasure in telling things as they really are, no matter how unpleasant the truth may be.
But…I wouldn’t rule out an afterlife of sorts.
There are plenty of philosophical ideas which would open the door for it. e.g. We could be in a simulation, and the beings running the simulation might reuse conscious entities.
I’m not saying I believe this, but I don’t see anything impossible about it.
And I’d be lying if I said it were only individual “what ifs” like that that give me pause for thought.
It’s the strange character of consciousness that really removes the certainty for me. It’s clearly a product of our brain, and our brain is just a machine.
But that being the case, we can just make another brain identical to mine, right? Why isn’t that me? What do we mean by me?
If my brain was put in stasis, then later restarted, is that me? How is that different from creating an identical brain?
etc etc
Living for eternity would be probably get boring after a while.
I don’t even think if we would even be aware of our own existence. Right now, I’m aware of my existence because I have the ability to make choices. These choices are made via thoughts. Without the ability to think freely or make choices, I highly doubt that I would even be aware that I was living for eternity.
This goes with what Dio was saying.
We would no longer be aware of our existence. If we did live for eternity, we would just be floating without thought.
“Afterlife”? I haven’t seen conclusive proof of “life”.
Since we’re dealing with an infinite amount of time, it’s 100% certain you would get bored.
However, it’s not certain that I would even be aware of my own existence or aware that I was spending an infinite amount of time in the afterlife for that matter since I would be without a brain.
**See post: **
But is it certain that you would attain an eventual state of complete and endless boredom?
Quite. It’s a bit of an “angels dancing” type of question.
If we’re talking about humans living for thousands of years (already something very difficult to imagine), then we would not necessarily get bored. There doesn’t even need to be unique experiences in that time because surely at some point human memory would be exhausted and similar experiences could feel novel again. (I’m assuming in the hypothetical we’re imaging humans much as we are now)
If we’re talking infinite then the whole thing gets silly. Any event, including arbitrary long series of events, becomes almost sure.
But notice the almost. Technically, it is not true to say any possible event is certain given enough time. Only that the possibility of it not happening tends to zero.
It’s a pointless distinction in everyday life, but then eternity is not everyday life. If we’re going to have eternity in the hypothetical, why not also imagine we’re on an infinitely unlikely “never bored” path?
I don’t “believe” in an afterlife since nobody knows or can claim to know what happens next when you die. But it doesn’t stop me from daydreaming about one or hoping real hard that there is one and it meets my wildest fantasies.
But apparently nobody likes to admit they really don’t know. It either has to be “yes, for sure” or “absolutely not”.
If you want to take that route, nobody knows that they don’t go to Valhalla, Narnia, Oz, Metropolis or The Big Rock Candy Mountain when they die…but I’m pretty sure most don’t even consider those as possibilities to ponder.
Why not? Since the entire idea of an afterlife is born out of the imagination of humans and nothing more then your options carry just as much validity as major religious visions. That is to say the odds of going to christian version of heaven is the same as that of going to Narnia.
I don’t think you can determine the nature or existence of an afterlife by rational means, but it is possible to rationally consider or speculate on the issue.
I wish people would quit saying this. It’s utter BS, as both logic and evidence clearly show. Read some Aquinas or Augustine, or some of the more modern theologians or philosophers of religion. Heck, some of the wackier religious views I’ve run across seem to be the result of applying perfectly reasonable logic to some unusual premises or axioms.
Is there such a thing as “a while” in eternity? Eternity as I understand it is not an endlessly long time but rather outside time altogether, although I admit I am unable to imagine what that would be like to experience.
No nanobot technology here, I just wish I was Duncan MacLeod.
Theistic religions are based on irrational premises with no basis in physical reality and no objective evidence to support their claims. The fact that people try to use logic to rationalize their crazy-ass beliefs doesn’t make religion logical any more than belief in monsters or pixies is logical. You can apply logic to anything, if you’re just being theoretical - hell, even schizophrenics can have internally consistent delusions; I take “there’s nothing logical about religion” to mean “there’s no rational, scientific basis for the claims”.
I don’t have a fear of death itself, I won’t be around to experience it, just like before I was born. The world is a crowded place. If I live my life to somewhere near it’s potential, die, and then someone else takes my place, there is nothing tragic about that. I’m less sanguine about the process of dying, or the possibility of living for a considerable time in ill health.
People grieve in different ways. My mum lost her sister a couple years ago, after a long illness. She does not think there is anything left of her, but as far as she is concerned, a life well lived is a life well lived. She can still remember her as she was.
But that’s different from not being logical. It is certainly logical to use logic even if you begin with incorrect premises. But you wind up with wildly incorrect conclusions, in the sense that they don’t match the real world. It is like the difference between the ancient natural philosophers and scientists. The natural philosophers were correct only by accident. It took the scientists to examine and correct the incorrect assumptions by comparing their predictions with experiment.
Religion is that branch of natural philosophy which closes its eyes and stops up its ears to avoid being falsified by nature. Now some types, like fundamentalist Christianity, are total car wrecks, and some, like deism, avoids making any predictions at all.
Any religion falls into this spectrum - none have changed their basic tenets based on the evidence.