A God and an afterlife not necessarily mutually inclusive

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I would agree with you. People tend to get freaked out about where they go when they die, but never get freaked out about where or what they were before they were born. Direction is a funny thing.

I remember talking to a theist about this and she couldn't deal with the fact that she went to nothing after she died. I said to her where do you think a fly goes when it dies, she said nothing. I said do you have a problem with that. She said no. Well then why do you have a problem with you going to nothing then?

Dades

Interesting post.

I think there's more evidence to suggest that something may have had a hand in the existence of our universe. The fact that it exists, basically.

But regarding an afterlife, firstly, there is simply no evidence, and secondly it doesn't take a psychologist to point out the basic human desire to be "not dead". That double-combo speaks volumes for me.

Tar.Aldarion

If there is a 'god' that does not mean there is or is not an afterlife.
If there is a 'soul' that does not mean there is or is not an afterlife.
There is no proof of soul, god, afterlife, so do not get hung up on them.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would agree with you. People tend to get freaked out about where they go when they die, but never get freaked out about where or what they were before they were born. Direction is a funny thing.

But doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable? What I did last year is now history, but I've yet to experience what happens to me next year.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I remember talking to a theist about this and she couldn't deal with the fact that she went to nothing after she died. I said to her where do you think a fly goes when it dies, she said nothing. I said do you have a problem with that. She said no. Well then why do you have a problem with you going to nothing then?

When wild animals live to be old their teeth fall out and they slowly die of starvation. Just because it's natural and happens to an animal doesn't mean you have to be cool with it happening to you!

Hellm0

Hi there OP,
Your question kind of intregiued me. I assume your basic arguement is that the beleif in a higher being or deity does not denote the requirement for an after life. I cant really answer that question, no one truely can, but I can give you an idea as to what my personal ideas are on the matter as someone whos spent alot of time debating this issue.

For me, the existance of a higher being is rather a given. That is not to say I beleive in any church doctrine or any organised religion per say(except on purely practical grounds where the application of such ideas as "thou shalt not kill" is rather a pre requisite for modern society) but rather that I beleive in the devinity of existance itself. To say that god has expectations of us and sets down laws which can condemn us to heaven or hell is ludicrous. I beleive rather that there is a will, a driving force, and we are the manifestation of this force.

I ground this beleive in reality by linking it with modern scientific theories, such as that matter and energy are the same thing. We are energy incarnate.
Some theories in physics sudjest that there are multible dimensions(I'm not insane). These theorys say that there are more dimensions that just the temporal ones we know IE) height width and depth. Add to that list time and we have the universe we know. With time comes causality. Add another dimension and you loose causality in a sense as it is similar in a respect as us viewing a 2 dimensional being.

Imagine your live as a line, a straight line going from 1 - 100. In that line is your whole life, from a to be. This is not to pre-suppose pre-determination which is an arguement for another time, but merely to say that if you could take a step out of time and view your whole life in one continuous fasion it would look like a line.

Now imagine that you are looking at this line, you would be able to see cause and effect as one thing. Neither would make much difference to you. Causality(which is a foundation of our very existance) does not exist.

God, assuming one exists as I do, would not be a being as we understand it. An entity that exists without causality is not something we can comprehend. To think that he cares is comforting but utterly meaningless.

At higher dimensions certain forces unite, strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational all become one force. It is my opinion that at higher dimensions all consciousness is united into one. So in theory yes I do beleive in an after life but not one where I'm sitting on a cloud eating my favorite food discussing the meaning of life with my long dead relatives. Rather it would be the disolussion of the human consciousness which is linked to causality and the constant need to survive.

I know this sounds pretty out there and i may not be able to explain it as well in writing but I've spent alot of time looking into religions such as hinduism, buddhisim and a few others and this is a composite of my understanding of them. It doesnt truely have a real world application, in that I do not beleive in a higher moral directive or even any directive in life at all except the ones I choose to.


Cheerio in any case.

Hellmo

Tim Robbins

When wild animals live to be old their teeth fall out and they slowly die of starvation. Just because it's natural and happens to an animal doesn't mean you have to be cool with it happening to you!

Of course you don't have to be cool with it. But it shows something very interesting that we have difficulty realising propositions about ourselves that we can easily realise on others animals.

It also shows we have difficulty realising propositions about ourselves that are dependent on time i.e. our state before we were born vis a vi after we die.

I always would have preferred not believing in an afterlife =/ It would make things a lot simpler than coming back here over and over
I don't believe in rebirth because I want to, I believe it because I think it's true.

As for which is more likely, I don't see either as necessarily being more likely than the other
and if either is really true I suppose likeliness doesn't come into it

Hivemind187

"Hell must be a pretty swiniging joint if all these religious types work so hard to keep us out of there!" - Al Capone.

Exactly which bit carries on after death? Its nonsense. The only "eternal life" is life eternal through fulfillment of the ego i.e. making yourself famous enough to be remembered by others and propagating yourself (having kids).

All else is bunkum.

lookinforpicnic

Hivemind187 wrote:

The only "eternal life" is life eternal through fulfillment of the ego i.e. making yourself famous enough to be remembered by others and propagating yourself (having kids).

All else is bunkum.

What about "downloading" yourself on to a computer or some sort of robotic machine, eternal life without any bunkum

MrB

lookinforpicnic wrote:

What about "downloading" yourself on to a computer or some sort of robotic machine, eternal life without any bunkum

A cool idea explored and used to great effect in a number of sci-fi novels, but that is all it is, sci-fi. Until someone proves it is actually possible to upload ones self to a computer, it's just as much bunkum as the rest.

Zillah

bluewolf wrote:

I always would have preferred not believing in an afterlife =/ It would make things a lot simpler than coming back here over and over
I don't believe in rebirth because I want to, I believe it because I think it's true.

I see.

And what convinces you so thoroughly of what is, to me, a truly ludicrous claim? I'd rank this right up there with the Black Rock at Mecca and the assumption of Mary.

MrB wrote:

A cool idea explored and used to great effect in a number of sci-fi novels, but that is all it is, sci-fi. Until someone proves it is actually possible to upload ones self to a computer, it's just as much bunkum as the rest.

Problem with this is, you're just making a copy. There's no reason to believe that any such technology would destroy the original information, meaning that you make a computerised copy of yourself. Thats it. From your point of view there's some flashing lights, an electric whirring and its over, no difference from your point of view.

Of course, now theres a computer program going "I'm MrB!" and you're still trapped in your fleshy body.

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

Problem with this is, you're just making a copy.

Yeah....but try tell the copy that it is a just a copy!

Of course its all sci-fi but at least it is a possibility of eternal life without any magic.

Zillah wrote:

and your still trapped in your fleshy body

Its equally valid to say that you are now trapped in a computerised/robotic body, as why locate the you with the flesh.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Crucifix

Pff, the computer thing would just buy you a little time. The sun dies in a few billion years time, and it's goodbye so-called eternal life.

Edit: I think my sci-fi side is showing, but I can't help myself. Have you ever seen the Prestige? Well if so

remember the machine? It creates a clone, and in the trick, the original is killed. This is much like the computer thing. Everytime he got in the machine he was committing suicide, in the knowledge that another 'him', the exact same, would continue on.

. The computer (we'll imagine) could be you perfectly, the exact same, but you the human would still age and die, just knowing that the other you would go one.

Then of course, can the computer be alive? It may do a perfect impression of you...but is it really alive?

Not that it matters of course. The point of my flippant pre-edit statement is that nothing physical is eternal. Like Yossarian said "I'm going to live forever, or die trying". We'd all live forever, if it wasn't for all that stuff that causes us to die. Even if you can evade car crashs and heart attacks and so on, unfortunately our bodies degrade. But a computer would degrade too. And it would need a never ending power source. And frankly, even if it was a self-repairing solar powered robot with a spaceship, there'll always be a finite possibility of something going wrong, and over an infinite time, well you might aswell starting making funeral arrangements right now.

Zillah

Zillah wrote:

I see.

And what convinces you so thoroughly of what is, to me, a truly ludicrous claim?

Nothing convinces me of it. I just think that it is true. I guess it makes sense to me. I wasn't brought up with the idea, but when I read it, it was like remembering some old fact I guess. Or realising something. I just took it for granted.
All entirely baseless, yes.

And nothing is going to convince you either, don't expect me to try.

MooseJam

Hellm0 wrote:

Hi there OP,
For me, the existance of a higher being is rather a given. That is not to say I beleive in any church doctrine or any organised religion per say(except on purely practical grounds where the application of such ideas as "thou shalt not kill" is rather a pre requisite for modern society) but rather that I beleive in the devinity of existance itself. To say that god has expectations of us and sets down laws which can condemn us to heaven or hell is ludicrous. I beleive rather that there is a will, a driving force, and we are the manifestation of this force.

You can't call something ludicrous only to follow it with an equally ludicrous proposition

Zillah

bluewolf wrote:

And nothing is going to convince you either, don't expect me to try.

But you do appreciate that it is a very bizarre claim about the nature of the universe that has no evidence? I assume you can understand why, from my point of view, such a claim is no better than the assumption of Mary, or the immortal Muslim soul? The kind of people we usually make light hearted fun of...?

jtsuited

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If there is a 'god' that does not mean there is or is not an afterlife.
If there is a 'soul' that does not mean there is or is not an afterlife.
There is no proof of soul, god, afterlife, so do not get hung up on them.

I'm gonna print this and keep it in my wallet. Well said!:)

Zillah

Zillah wrote:

But you do appreciate that it is a very bizarre claim about the nature of the universe that has no evidence? I assume you can understand why, from my point of view, such a claim is no better than the assumption of Mary, or the immortal Muslim soul? The kind of people we usually make light hearted fun of...?

Bizarre to you, yeah
and yes I realise all that

Galvasean

People seem to be afraid of there being nothing once you die. its not like nothing means you wake up in darkness screaming. It means you cease to exist. it wont bother you in the slightest when it happens because you won't exist anymore.
Embrace the oblivion! Finally a chance to get some shut eye.

lookinforpicnic

Crucifix wrote:

Have you ever seen the Prestige? .

I was thinking of that film myself, good film...

Crucifix wrote:

Then of course, can the computer be alive? It may do a perfect impression of you...but is it really alive?

I'd say yeah it is alive, but depending on the type of robot/computer it might not fullfill the standard characteristics associated with life but then it might (it might be an artificial biological device of sorts!), but if such a thing was possible cyborgs would be so common place maybe the characteristics/definition of life would be completely changed. And i don't know what "really" alive means, we are just biological machines after all, definitions surrounding life are always going to be pragmatic.

Crucifix wrote:

And frankly, even if it was a self-repairing solar powered robot with a spaceship, there'll always be a finite possibility of something going wrong, and over an infinite time, well you might aswell starting making funeral arrangements right now.

Maybe not eternal then, but possibly a very very long time....

lookinforpicnic

bluewolf wrote:

Bizarre to you, yeah
and yes I realise all that

Bizarre full stop:p

Tar.Aldarion

jtsuited wrote:

I'm gonna print this and keep it in my wallet. Well said!:)

Ah, another of my posts now available in wallet size.

CiDeRmAn

The notion of an afterlife is just some child like filling the unknown with something familiar, and no, it is inextricably linked to your faith in a god, so how can "heaven", "reincarnation" or whatever you reckon the human spirit or soul be a reasonable construct outside of religion? Unless you subscribe to one of these a la carte faiths that cherry picks the most relevant to you pieces of the earths many belief systems, a path taken by a great number of folk.
But it is still a juvenile thing, a hope that the end is not the end, and that all you have accomplished, all you have learned is not scattered to the four winds at your demise, also childish is the idea of the afterlife as some great reward or even punishment for a life of grace and charity or a life of selfish self fulfillment.
Nope, not for me, I'm happy enough having one life and making the most of it for my family and those I care about, one time around is enough, and i don't see how a figure to judge me on the last days will make me any more or less a good father and husband and friend.

Afterlife, a fairytale, a whimsy nothing more.