Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Arguments against the Afterlife
Options
Comments
-
-
aidan24326 wrote: »It's a sop to religion that theology is still taught, but really it has no place in an institute of higher education, it being the antithesis of education.
Sounds like something that could be stuck on a protest sign. College Green awaits - although I doubt the courage of your convictions would extend that far. Baby, it's cold outside.
And you're no better with such a stupid riposte. I'm just calling a spade a spade, and you have nothing to come back with other than that?
You can vent your anti-theist spleen but there's nothing of interest in it to do very much with. What more are you saying than "God duzn't exist"?.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Sounds like something that could be stuck on a protest sign. College Green awaits - although I doubt the courage of your convictions would extend that far. Baby, it's cold outside.
Doesn't deserve a response really.You can vent your anti-theist spleen but there's nothing of interest in it to do very much with. What more are you saying than "God duzn't exist"?
Well god doesn't exist. So moving right along...0 -
-
-
-
You should -- if god has no footsoldiers, how's his meme he ever going to take over the world again?antiskeptic wrote: »I can't say I'd give a hoot. 0 -
It's a pity that what I misunderstood your descriptions - I thought that the "sliding scale" idea of an ethereal afterlife was a much more eloquent explanation. The physicality of a super-earth seems too much like a fantasy for me. How much of your thoughts are interpretive?
Everything is interpretive But what I put forward is pretty straight down the middle orthodox Christian interpretation.
The earth was one way, it fell, it will be restored to it's former glory (and then some). If you don't have a problem with the first two then the third should be a doddle.I think many here will have difficulty with this. The idea of "lost is the default position" would run contrary to the idea of an all loving and forgiving god. I would guess that examples put forward whereby people cannot reverse being lost (e.g. children/teenagers, sudden death, war, mentally deficient, self defence) would be countered with the argument about a persons consciousness or level of awareness of God.
Since nobody's death takes God by surprise, everybody can be given the same stab at salvation (if we're to couch being given a choice so). There is no problem in that assumption. There are questions about "infants and idiots" but in the main, there is no real problem for God accessing everyone with opportunity. Certainly not in your own case since you are neither of the above.This point appears to imply conscious sin.
Which is why some Christians presume all infants will be in heaven. Perhaps that's so.Yes, thank you for it. Not to pull this to off topic, I think many here will have trouble with the idea of person living a generally ethical and moral life (i.e. with a "religious" spirit) but not believing in God is condemned relative to a person believing in God but acting with sin. It would seem from what you say that the belief in God is higher than the way we live our lives.
What brings about belief in God is God turning up and making himself known - otherwise you'd have no reason to believe in God (other than perhaps, supposing in an indirect way that a god of sorts must be behind the universe).
Since he brings about belief in him in that way, there is no credit accruing to me for me believing in him.
What brought about his 'turning up' was his first saving me. And what brought about his saving me was a successful attempt on his part to bring me to my knees. I couldn't have brought myself to my knees - so the fact I found myself there is the result of his effort - not mine. Now, I could have resisted being brought to my knees - to the point where I could have died a lost man. All we can say there, is that the credit for my remaining lost, had that been what occurred, would have been mine.
God gets the credit for a man being saved. Man gets the (dubious) credit for retaining his lost-ness.
-
In God's eyes, all men are, on own merit, utterly unholy. The man who lives a "good" life and the person who lives an "appalling" life are, in righteousness terms, in God's eyes, like two adjacent grains of sand lying on a beach arguing over which of them is closer to the Sun.
That's how far we've fallen.
I can understand a person thinking heaven should be based on performance - indeed, every single world religion (including Roman Catholicism) works that way. Indeed, every single atheist who is asked the question as to how heaven (if it exists) should be accessed points to personal performance as the entry criteria. Thus them in heaven (naturally) and Hitler and the paedophiles not.
Biblical Christianity stands alone in being otherwise. Biblical Christianity says that man is unable to produce his own salvation by his own effort. That the only person who could do what it takes to save man was God. And that he did it and offers salvation as a gift to all who would accept it.
All the riches that God wants to shower down on people he has created, with the intention that they be elevated to be the very sons of God (for that's what God the Father is doing at the moment with us and this earth - making himself a family). All this for free. Gratis.
Too good to be true? 0 -
You should -- if god has no footsoldiers, how's his meme he ever going to take over the world again?
I'd warrant most theologians unbelievers. Certainly the theology lecturers on my mates Masters course were all unbelievers/atheists.
You're conflating religion with Christianity. I know from your perspective there is no difference but since that's not my perspective and I'm supposed to be the one that's worried..
Thus not.0 -
Of course, this is a prime argument for atheism.antiskeptic wrote: »God turning up and making himself known - otherwise you'd have no reason to believe in God
You risk being interpreted as arguing against your own free will!antiskeptic wrote: »Since he brings that belief about there is no credit for me believing in him.
This doesn't appear very righteous nor just. Many militant atheists jump on the opportunity that a god that values adoration above morals is anti-religious. My understanding is that Christ was the opposite - he appears to have been a great voice for moral guidance here on earth, and not interested in personal idolation.antiskeptic wrote: »In God's eyes, all men are, on own merit, utterly unholy. The man who lives a "good" life and the person who lives an "appalling" life are, in righteousness terms, in God's eyes, like two adjacent grains of sand lying on a beach arguing over which of them is closer to the Sun.
I now know when you say salvation you mean a belief in God, not an ethical existance.antiskeptic wrote: »Except biblical Christianity. Biblical Christianity says that man is unable to produce his own salvation by his own effort. The only person who could do what it takes to save man was God. He did it and offers it as a gift to all who would accept it.
So my comment on Christ above would apply. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course, this is a prime argument for atheism.
And ChristianityYou risk being interpreted as arguing against your own free will!
One vision of freewill see's a person in the middle of a balanced see-saw with the choice to walk either left or right. Or stay where they are. Which is three options.
- go left
- go right
- stay where you are.
Another vision off free will see's a person already rolling inexorably in one direction with the choice to be redirected into rolling inexorably in another direction. That's but two options. Two options is enough to constitute a free will in effect.
In the Christian context such a two option vision works as follows.
1) Stop resisting God's attempt to save you and he will save you. You don't have to do anything as such. Not resisting means doing nothing not doing something.
2) Keep resisting God's attempt to save you you'll be lostThis doesn't appear very righteous nor just.
What's unjust about it. The standard is the distance from here to the Sun. Men fall so far short that their relative righteousness becomes insignificant in relation to the standard that must be met.
If God gave such an impossible hurdle to jump and that was all then that might be unjust. But he didn't give just that - he provides a way of salvation outside our having to climb hurdles. And everyone can have it or no - it's up to them. Can't say fairer than that.Many militant atheists jump on the opportunity that a god that values adoration above morals is anti-religious. My understanding is that Christ was the opposite - he appears to have been a great voice for moral guidance here on earth, and not interested in personal idolation.
Since God is good (that is to say: what we experience as goodness in nature or in others derives from the very character and nature of God) to adore God is to adore goodness. They are one and the same thing.
I was a few years into my Christian walk when it struck me one Sunday morning that they hymns I was singing in praise of God weren't for God's benefit but for mine. What an existence it would be if we had no way of expressing our wonder and praise and love for another.
There is, I think, a lot of misunderstanding about who Christ was aiming his comments at. He wasn't a great moral teacher to the lost since the standard he set was impossible and the consequences he promised for not meeting the standard, dire. In so far as his comments are addressed to the lost and insofar as the lost should understand his comments then the reaction of the lost should be
"I'm bunched. If what Jesus say's is true then I'm screwed. I fall way short of that mark and haven't snowballs chance in Hell of making that mark. Woe is me!"
That is the point of God giving the Law (which Jesus merely expounded upon). To make sinners realise their sinners.
The saved are a different category. They are given this impossible standard but are not required to meet it in order to go to heaven. Rather, they are shown something of the holiness (cleaness, goodness) of God and are exhorted to work towards becoming more godly themselves. It's like a personal race to be run. You are competing against yourself to be as rid of as much of your old self as you can rid yourself of. Before you die. The prize? More of God.I now know when you say salvation you mean a belief in God, not an ethical existance. So my comment on Christ above would apply.
Salvation means a suite of things. Yes, God turns up (so to speak) and so I can now be fully confident that he exists. But I also get his Holy Spirit taking up residence in me to exhort per above. I might be healed of addictions or sickness. I don't fear death. I know where I'm going and have that to look forward to. I can understand the Bible in a way impossible before - this fascinating and infinitely large mechanism called the Kingdom of God is revealed therein to an extent I could never exhaust. I will one day be rendered unable to sin - all those motivations that currently bog me down will be gone.
I could go on.. 0 -
If you read my posts carefully, you should notice that I generally refer to "religion" in the widest sense possible where the topic under discussion permits. I generally only refer to christianity, or any of its thousands of descendant religions, where I need to.antiskeptic wrote: »You're conflating religion with Christianity.
I don't conflate them at all -- you above all people should be able to notice that 0 -
-
My mother has been invited to a house that is supposed to have 2 ghosts in it and i hope i will get invited as well to really find out, i can't wait . Is there a life after death? i don't know but there has been sighting and stories of ghosts for 1000's of years, so there has to be something to it. 0
-
-
People have also been getting abducted by aliens for years. Must there be something in that, too?RufustheKing wrote: »Is there a life after death? i don't know but there has been sighting and stories of ghosts for 1000's of years, so there has to be something to it. 0 -
RufustheKing wrote: »My mother has been invited to a house that is supposed to have 2 ghosts in it and i hope i will get invited as well to really find out, i can't wait . Is there a life after death? i don't know but there has been sighting and stories of ghosts for 1000's of years, so there has to be something to it.
I worked in a hotel for two years, which was apparently haunted and had all these ghost sightings etc. Funnily enough, I never saw anything. Neither of my two sisters who also worked there saw anything. None of my workmates saw anything. The majority of the guests never saw anything. Yet some guests, who already believed in ghosts (and yes, I did talk to some of them (guests, not ghosts)), seemed pretty convinced they saw ghosts.
Funny how some people who already believed in ghosts thought they saw ghosts in a place which has a reputation for ghost sightings even though they were only there for one night, yet no-one who worked in the place (even those who believed in ghosts) day-in day-out never saw anything.
You're right, there has to be something to it. It's called imagination.0 -
-
Interesting reading. Antiskeptic,
Thanks..
On a macro front (the existence of God-of-the-bible (Old Testament and New), the general nature of the mechanism of salvation, that I'm sure of heaven when I die)?you seem very committed to your beliefs. Do you have any self doubt on these issues?
Not a single iota of doubt.
On a micro front (the precise tipping point into salvation from the position of being lost, the nature of heaven and hell, whether Adam walked the earth and encountered a talking serpent in fact)?
I'm engaged, in effect, in the dissection of a mechanism (the Kingdom of God) so complex and so wide ranging that there is no way to be sure sure that I'm bang on. Approaching it as the mechanical engineer I am, I recognize parts that seems to connect well with each other and which carry out clear function and lead me downstream to the next bit of the mechanism. And I also recognize when spanners appear to lie in the works (such as Calvinism's claim that God has predestined some to salvation and others to damnation - without the people themselves having any input whatsoever).
This understanding is under construction, the conclusions tentative and open to reworking. But the emerging "theory" seems to cope reasonably well with with the various objections raised and so I conclude myself reasonably on track. I hold that Adam walked the earth as described not because it is scientifically possible that he did but because the mechanism works best so. Once you know God exists then the idea of talking serpents can't be considered much of an obstacle
Have you yourself got anything specific you'd like to ask. Objections-R-Us 0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement