An atheist way of looking at death (and life)

Obliq

Just spotted this on the AI facebook page, and it's a truly lovely piece of writing, to my mind.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/atheists-death_b_4134439.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

By Ali A. Rizvi, and contained in it is this passage from Aaron Freeman:

You want a physicist to speak at your funeral. You want the physicist to talk to your grieving family about the conservation of energy, so they will understand that your energy has not died. You want the physicist to remind your sobbing mother about the first law of thermodynamics; that no energy gets created in the universe, and none is destroyed. You want your mother to know that all your energy, every vibration, every Btu of heat, every wave of every particle that was her beloved child remains with her in this world. You want the physicist to tell your weeping father that amid energies of the cosmos, you gave as good as you got.

And at one point you'd hope that the physicist would step down from the pulpit and walk to your brokenhearted spouse there in the pew and tell him that all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you. And as your widow rocks in the arms of a loving family, may the physicist let her know that all the photons that bounced from you were gathered in the particle detectors that are her eyes, that those photons created within her constellations of electromagnetically charged neurons whose energy will go on forever.

And the physicist will remind the congregation of how much of all our energy is given off as heat. There may be a few fanning themselves with their programs as he says it. And he will tell them that the warmth that flowed through you in life is still here, still part of all that we are, even as we who mourn continue the heat of our own lives.

And you'll want the physicist to explain to those who loved you that they need not have faith; indeed, they should not have faith. Let them know that they can measure, that scientists have measured precisely the conservation of energy and found it accurate, verifiable and consistent across space and time. You can hope your family will examine the evidence and satisfy themselves that the science is sound and that they'll be comforted to know your energy's still around. According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly. Amen.

I think that's a very beautiful way of looking at death/life, as is the whole article. Might be helpful to have up here on A&A for people with questions about how some atheists cope without recourse to the notion of an afterlife.

smacl

No offence, but the thought of a physicist spouting on about the laws of thermodynamics at my funeral, or the funeral of anyone I loved would not be welcome. I like the idea of a good old Irish wake where everyone gets absolutely shít faced, with glasses of whisky sitting atop the coffin perched on the kitchen table. Sitting around, eating, drinking, reminiscing, telling stories, sobbing and laughing all work just fine for me. And decent music at the cremation place, no suits, ties, or over priced flowers. And no bloody priests.

smcgiff

In fairness, it's a bit soulless.












I have my coat, thanks.

magicbastarder

the way i'd read that is that the physicist would have explained to the congregation that you increased the entropy of the universe.

Obliq

smacl wrote: »

No offence, but the thought of a physicist spouting on about the laws of thermodynamics at my funeral, or the funeral of anyone I loved would not be welcome. I like the idea of a good old Irish wake where everyone gets absolutely shít faced, with glasses of whisky sitting atop the coffin perched on the kitchen table. Sitting around, eating, drinking, reminiscing, telling stories, sobbing and laughing all work just fine for me. And decent music at the cremation place, no suits, ties, or over priced flowers. And no bloody priests.

I reckon my Dad (physicist) would like it! My whole family would relate to that, I'd say. Plus, how would this passage or similar stop anyone from having an Irish wake? That's par for the course too, in my book, as are your last 2 lines

boatbuilder

In that article he didn't mention that scientists do not have the answer to everything; there are massive holes in scientist's knowledge and much of it is based on hunches and theories. It makes sense to me that yes, a lot can be explained by science up to a point, but it is a step too far for me to say that science is the only explanation for life without first having a "creator" to set things in motion in the first place. Science has yet to come up with an answer to that one. Having said that, its a free world and I respect your right to believe what you want
*getting my coat as well*

Sycopat

I've always liked this way of looking at things.

Although I think I'd prefer to be buried under a tree than cremated.

smcgiff

boatbuilder wrote: »

without first having a "creator" to set things in motion in the first place.

Sound logic. Now, who created the creator?

Obliq

boatbuilder wrote: »

In that article he didn't mention that scientists do not have the answer to everything; there are massive holes in scientist's knowledge and much of it is based on hunches and theories. It makes sense to me that yes, a lot can be explained by science up to a point, but it is a step too far for me to say that science is the only explanation for life without first having a "creator" to set things in motion in the first place. Science has yet to come up with an answer to that one. Having said that, its a free world and I respect your right to believe what you want
*getting my coat as well*

...as I respect your's! However, may I respectfully show you where he indicated that he is skeptical about people's (presumeably scientists as well) "facts":

"I am not completely sure what these things mean. I'm cautious about making connections between these ideas and the experience of human existence, or the process of human death. I am not a physicist, and I am skeptical of those who do make these connections as if they were facts. But this is still more compelling and awe-inspiring to me than the notion of angels, or rivers of wine, or the pearly gates, or eternal torment in hellfire."

and his own take on unanswered questions:

"For the things I don't know, I prefer saying just that -- I don't know -- instead of entertaining supernatural guesses or made-up answers from a time when humans didn't know about the carbon cycle or the structure of the DNA that your father passed on to you, his living, breathing daughter."

Obliq

Sycopat wrote: »

I've always liked this way of looking at things.

Although I think I'd prefer to be buried under a tree than cremated.

Careful though....trees can be severely held back by too much nitrogen in the soil. Better for the tree to be cremated first, then have a tree planted over your ashes! I'd be with you on that though - there's something lovely about the idea of your remains directly benefiting new life that your loved one's can appreciate as a continuing part of you....

jaykay74

I would rather someone spoke about me and what I did or meant to them at a personal human level than how my existence matters at a particle level.

smacl

Sycopat wrote: »

I've always liked this way of looking at things.

Although I think I'd prefer to be buried under a tree than cremated.

Fair point, myself as well. Donate any serviceable organs to those that aren't fussy, and effectively compost the rest under the apple tree. Might end up playing some small part in a future batch of cider, which if distilled into a calvodos would mean that I could become a genuine atheist spirit. How cool would that be?

boatbuilder

smcgiff wrote: »

Sound logic. Now, who created the creator?

Good question and the I'm not sure but I suppose if you believe in a creator, you also believe that things can exist outside of space and time (i.e. spiritual beings like a creator). So if something is outside of space and time (where time and space have no meaning), then it doesn't need to have been created at any point in the first place.

Zillah

If someone smashed my house to pieces is does me absolutely no damn good to know that all of the bricks of which it was composed still exist.

The only reason I can see this comforting anyone is if they mistake the science-word 'energy' for the pseudo-spiritual-word 'energy'. A scientist says my son's energy is still around? Can you hear me, son? I can feel his presence!

Poppycock. The dead are dead and it's horrible.

smcgiff

boatbuilder wrote: »

Good question and the I'm not sure but I suppose if you believe in a creator, you also believe that things can exist outside of space and time (i.e. spiritual beings like a creator). So if something is outside of space and time (where time and space have no meaning), then it doesn't need to have been created at any point in the first place.

Interesting use of the properties of time. Still not buying the external creator though.

smacl

Zillah wrote: »

Poppycock. The dead are dead and it's horrible.

Yes, but the living aren't, and if you think about it, being dead is only horrible to those that survive you. You then ask yourself does your duty of care to those that you love die with you. It is an entirely personal call, but for me it doesn't, and organising a good shindig to remind those that I love of how great it is to be alive is an important part of this.

Totally with you on the spiritual energy guff.

Obliq

Zillah wrote: »

If someone smashed my house to pieces is does me absolutely no damn good to know that all of the bricks of which it was composed still exist.

The only reason I can see this comforting anyone is if they mistake the science-word 'energy' for the pseudo-spiritual-word 'energy'. A scientist says my son's energy is still around? Can you hear me, son? I can feel his presence!

Poppycock. The dead are dead and it's horrible.

I don't see the pseudo-spiritual stuff in it at all, and I personally would feel comforted by this beautiful affirmation of a fact....I just like it, but then I am a hopeless romantic

"all the photons that ever bounced off your face, all the particles whose paths were interrupted by your smile, by the touch of your hair, hundreds of trillions of particles, have raced off like children, their ways forever changed by you"

and "According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you're just less orderly." - that's not spiritual, it's fact. No?

Zillah

I just can't fathom how photons having bounced off a person is in anyway comforting when they're dead. So? They're still not there with you, they don't wake up beside you anymore, they'll never make another joke or teach you anything new. Why on earth would a trillion anonymous photons have any relevance to the real fact of their absence? It's not even a memento that you can put around your neck.

Obliq

It is pretty though. Nice language, and I'd rather hear that at a funeral than "he'll never wake up beside you no more, no more". Plus, I find it a comforting thought that a person's life has forever transformed the world around them. That's my kind of afterlife.

Zillah

There's two types of things that can be said in times of grief: Wishy washy superficial shite that attempts to soothe the pain without any real basis for it (pretending they're not dead - religion - or pretty though irrelevant imagery - the above), and real stuff, like traits of theirs that have survived; lessons they've taught us or qualities in their children that they got from the departed - physical things they've left us; their art or writings or whatever, things that exist that they made or contributed to, a house or institution that they built.

That's the kind of thing that might mean something to me, not an opiate.

Knex*

When people say to me that they know such and such a person who has died is watching over them, I always get a little uncomfortable.

I personally know of a few people who will pray out loud to dead loved ones when in moments of stress and they feel the need to reach out for help.

Now, I'm certainly not going to ridicule the notion or call them up on it, if that's their method of coping, fine. I just don't think its the healthiest or most practical, but then again, coming from my perspective, I would.

However, I do maintain that when a loved one passes away, they live on in your memory, and in your essence. When a parent dies, for example, how many times do you find yourselves in a situation where you can almost hear their voice in your head and know exactly what way they would deal with what's before you.

I know that I often think back to my Granddad's outgoing nature and friendliness to everyone, including strangers, and find myself saluting everyone in the office and being extra mannerly and friendly as a result. Or I might think of my Uncle, and how he analysed things when faced with a problem. Or on the flip side, I think of an Uncle who died as a result of alcoholism, and I remind myself to be wary and stay clear of that path.

For me, those people do live on with me and help me in my day to day life. But they do so through memories. Memories, or interpretations of how they lived their lives. And from that, I'm a better person, I truly believe.

Of course, the same can of course be said for people currently alive, but the point I'm making is, just because someone has died and you don't believe in guardian angels or spirits, it doesn't mean they stop having an affect on your life.

Obliq

That sense of a person living on in their biological and behavioural legacy to their children still doesn't preclude the notion of that person's actual physical being - the building blocks and life (as energy) carrying on in other forms, and that being a comforting thought. It may be somewhat of an opiate, but I'd see it as a whole lot less "spiritual" than you're making out!

Sycopat

Zillah wrote: »

There's two types of things that can be said in times of grief: Wishy washy superficial shite that attempts to soothe the pain without any real basis for it (pretending they're not dead - religion - or pretty though irrelevant imagery - the above), and real stuff, like traits of theirs that have survived; lessons they've taught us or qualities in their children that they got from the departed - physical things they've left us; their art or writings or whatever, things that exist that they made or contributed to, a house or institution that they built.

That's the kind of thing that might mean something to me, not an opiate.

The bits of a person, the traces of their blood and spit, the genetic remnants of the viruses they gave you, the e.coli strains you shared, traces of the meals that you shared that still exist within you (massively diluted but not quite to homeopathic levels). The genes you shared if you were family. Dress it up in pretty language or not, some people will find that shared legacy more important than physical trinkets they happen to have touched.

The only thing* that gives anyone any comfort is being reminded that their loved one had an impact on the world that's not gone just because they are. Wether it's the things that they left you, or the bits of you that were once part of them, or were changed by them. Whatever gives that comfort will vary from person to person.

They're all opiates. All we can do is pick our poison.



*That's not a self-delusion that they're not really dead.

magicbastarder

Knex. wrote: »

When people say to me that they know such and such a person who has died is watching over them, I always get a little uncomfortable.

masturbation must be awful for proper christians. can you imagine having a ****, knowing your great aunts are watching from the byond?

Knex*

magicbastarder wrote: »

masturbation must be awful for proper christians. can you imagine having a ****, knowing your great aunts are watching from the byond?

Ah you see, it doesn't work like that for them. You're applying too much logic by assuming its consistent.

Geomy

I was at a funeral lately, there was no prayers or mention of God...

It was done by a priest who respected the family's wishes, he just talked about the life of the deceased and introduced people to stand up and talk about the man's life. ..

I liked the part where it was mentioned about energy being transformed into energy etc

http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html

Actually I think the guy who passed away was a member of boards.ie

krudler

boatbuilder wrote: »

In that article he didn't mention that scientists do not have the answer to everything; there are massive holes in scientist's knowledge and much of it is based on hunches and theories. It makes sense to me that yes, a lot can be explained by science up to a point, but it is a step too far for me to say that science is the only explanation for life without first having a "creator" to set things in motion in the first place. Science has yet to come up with an answer to that one. Having said that, its a free world and I respect your right to believe what you want
*getting my coat as well*

Everything you just said can be applied to religion as well. Which offers no explanation past "well god did it".

[-0-]

Can we sticky this for a while?

smcgiff

Knex. wrote: »

Ah you see, it doesn't work like that for them. You're applying too much logic by assuming its consistent.

They wouldn't need to be at all consistent to catch Magic at it

Sarky

Geomy wrote: »

I was at a funeral lately, there was no prayers or mention of God...

It was done by a priest who respected the family's wishes, he just talked about the life of the deceased and introduced people to stand up and talk about the man's life. ..

I give it a month before he's given a bollocking by some bishop or other for being so anti-catholic.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

I give it a month before he's given a bollocking by some bishop or other for being so anti-catholic.

Well see, but I think the locals and his friends had so much respect for him that it won't be an issue.

Feck it, it's good to see a misfit priest doing the right thing rather than the usual sermon. ...

If I hear anything ill let you know. ..

boatbuilder

krudler wrote: »

Everything you just said can be applied to religion as well. Which offers no explanation past "well god did it".

Well it could be argued that the "God Theory" does provide an explanation for the universe and life etc. As does science. Both have grey areas.

Sarky

"God" is a terrible explanation. There's nothing to back it up, at all. It's a very foolish 'theory' to accept. Even referring to is as a 'theory' is grossly insulting to the amount of work science has put into finding out how things work.

robindch

boatbuilder wrote: »

Well it could be argued that the "God Theory" does provide an explanation for the universe and life etc.

So does the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I wouldn't get your hopes up too much.

Sulla Felix

I know he's not everyone's favorite author, but I fell in love with the concept of a Speak for the Dead from Orson Scott Card's book of the same name.

Speakers research the dead person's life and give a speech that attempts to speak for them, describing the person's life as he or she tried to live it. This speech is not given in order to persuade the audience to condemn or forgive the deceased, but rather a way to understand the person as a whole, including any flaws or misdeeds.

boatbuilder

Sarky wrote: »

"God" is a terrible explanation. There's nothing to back it up, at all. It's a very foolish 'theory' to accept. Even referring to is as a 'theory' is grossly insulting to the amount of work science has put into finding out how things work.

Despite their best efforts, scientists can't even predict correctly what the weather will be like in a week's time so frankly I don't trust them to explain the entire existance of the universe.
I'm certainly not going to gamble my eternity on the word of scientists.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (the lazy man's argument against the existence of God) was a concept made up by a person a few years back to mock religion. That is a well-known fact. So believing in the FSM is obviously irrational. There are actually, as you no doubt know well, many reasons to believe in the existence of a creator, but you choose to dismiss them with general phrases such as "there is nothing to back it up, at all". This is because some people have already made the choice to not believe in god and have closed their minds to the concept.

Obliq

boatbuilder wrote: »

Despite their best efforts, scientists can't even predict correctly what the weather will be like in a week's time so frankly I don't trust them to explain the entire existance of the universe.
I'm certainly not going to gamble my eternity on the word of scientists.

FSM aside.....do you really think your "eternity" actually comes down to whether you believe in a God or not? Not trying to get a rise out of you (or anyone else), am genuinely interested to know.

Also, predicting weather is not like having a crystal ball and looking into the future. It's more like working out the odds on something, given what you understand to be true about it already - it can't be an exact science, nor is it claimed to be. That's got to be a very different thing to looking at the past and working out what happened already, based on what we know through evidence.

Nothing and nobody can explain the entire existence of the universe, but I still rather say "I don't know" than "God did it", as there is substantially more evidence for us not knowing than there is for god

Sarky

boatbuilder wrote: »

Despite their best efforts, scientists can't even predict correctly what the weather will be like in a week's time so frankly I don't trust them to explain the entire existance of the universe.
I'm certainly not going to gamble my eternity on the word of scientists.

Something is hard, therefore god? Oh dear.

mewso

boatbuilder wrote: »

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (the lazy man's argument against the existence of God) was a concept made up by a person a few years back to mock religion. That is a well-known fact. So believing in the FSM is obviously irrational.
.

It was a valid argument presented as a response to the standard cat call of "you can't prove there is no God". A perfectly valid and sound response if you ask me. All based on this idea that having no belief is on an equal footing with having belief when it's something with no evidence to support it apart from the writings and hopes of men. Extraordinary claims and all that.

boatbuilder wrote: »

There are actually, as you no doubt know well, many reasons to believe in the existence of a creator, but you choose to dismiss them with general phrases such as "there is nothing to back it up, at all".

There is no evidence to support the existence of a God. Nothing. You chose to have faith in the existence of one then fine. I have no beef with that but lets agree on the simple realities here.

boatbuilder wrote: »

This is because some people have already made the choice to not believe in god and have closed their minds to the concept.

There is only one closed mind here. Presented with verifiable evidence of the existence of a God I would agree that he exists while in absence of any evidence you dismiss the FSB as a tool of mockery. So again lets at least be honest here about there the closed minds are.

recedite

boatbuilder wrote: »

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (the lazy man's argument against the existence of God) was a concept made up by a person a few years back to mock religion. That is a well-known fact. So believing in the FSM is obviously irrational.

No need to get offensive, ye of little faith.

boatbuilder

Sarky wrote: »

Something is hard, therefore god? Oh dear.

No I think you've misunderstood what I was saying; that scientists are not the ultimate authority on things at least not for me anyway.

boatbuilder

Obliq wrote: »

It can't be an exact science, nor is it claimed to be.

I think this is what I meant about science in general... people take it as gospel truth which I think is a bit dodgy sometimes.
The eternity thing... well personally I think everyone has eternity but not necessarily in the nicest of places. No offense meant to anyone by all this btw.

boatbuilder

mewso wrote: »

It was a valid argument presented as a response to the standard cat call of "you can't prove there is no God". A perfectly valid and sound response if you ask me. All based on this idea that having no belief is on an equal footing with having belief when it's something with no evidence to support it apart from the writings and hopes of men. Extraordinary claims and all that.



There is no evidence to support the existence of a God. Nothing. You chose to have faith in the existence of one then fine. I have no beef with that but lets agree on the simple realities here.



There is only one closed mind here. Presented with verifiable evidence of the existence of a God I would agree that he exists while in absence of any evidence you dismiss the FSB as a tool of mockery. So again lets at least be honest here about there the closed minds are.

Well I suppose when people make their minds up about something they tend to pull down the shutters on it if they really think it's right and I don't exclude myself from that!
For me there are lots but one of the biggest evidences for the existence of god is the sheer complexity and detail of life... I just cannot believe that all the billions of variations in life etc happened by natural selection etc. So for me, I do see evidence of gods existence. It just makes sense to me but I can understand people being skeptical about it.

Knex*

boatbuilder wrote: »

I think this is what I meant about science in general... people take it as gospel truth which I think is a bit dodgy sometimes.
The eternity thing... well personally I think everyone has eternity but not necessarily in the nicest of places. No offense meant to anyone by all this btw.

Offence? I'm in stitches at the bolded part :pac:

Bravo

Obliq

boatbuilder wrote: »

I think this is what I meant about science in general... people take it as gospel truth which I think is a bit dodgy sometimes.
The eternity thing... well personally I think everyone has eternity but not necessarily in the nicest of places. No offense meant to anyone by all this btw.

Well, the nature of science (as far as I know) is that it only throws up more questions, as every piece of evidence as to the nature of things through experiments and research gives rise to the next question...I reckon the only time any one who follows science could turn around and say something is the gospel truth is when they run out of questions. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

I'd actually hate to be in your shoes tbh, believing that what I do in this life has any bearing on how things will be after I die. I genuinely believe that this life is all there is, so better make the most of it because there are no second chances. Not offended btw, you're more than welcome to your fear of hell! Rather you than me

boatbuilder

Obliq wrote: »

Well, the nature of science (as far as I know) is that it only throws up more questions, as every piece of evidence as to the nature of things through experiments and research gives rise to the next question...I reckon the only time any one who follows science could turn around and say something is the gospel truth is when they run out of questions. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

I'd actually hate to be in your shoes tbh, believing that what I do in this life has any bearing on how things will be after I die. I genuinely believe that this life is all there is, so better make the most of it because there are no second chances. Not offended btw, you're more than welcome to your fear of hell! Rather you than me

I have no fear of hell. I love life and want to enjoy it while it lasts but also looking forward to good things after!

Obliq

boatbuilder wrote: »

I have no fear of hell. I love life and want to enjoy it while it lasts but also looking forward to good things after!

Isn't that a bit inconsistant though? I mean religion is all about going to one place or another after you die (and depending on which god you've been believing in, a person could even be tempted by the promise of oodles of virgins into doing something particularly nasty, that would send them straight to "the bad place" in another religion) - surely (according to catholicism anyway) the notion of "a good place" with good things in it is only for people who have paid for their masturbation, contraceptive use, infidelity, coveting of neighbour's stuff, etc. with a painful walk or three up croagh patrick plus a few thousand hail mary's. The bad place is presumably for murderers, atheists and people believing in the wrong gods. (I generalise, I know, but what happens to sinners becomes quite clear from an early age in this country!)

See, I'm not trying to take the p*ss at all, but it confuses me thoroughly how a religious person who believes in god and an afterlife, can cherry pick whatever they want out of that religion and effectively ignore pretty much everything that religion teaches about sin/heaven/hell, all the while claiming science has less answers for creation of the universe than religion does. It seems to me that you have all the answers you want, BECAUSE you don't ask the questions, and that's a big difference between us here.

boatbuilder

Obliq wrote: »

Isn't that a bit inconsistant though? I mean religion is all about going to one place or another after you die (and depending on which god you've been believing in, a person could even be tempted by the promise of oodles of virgins into doing something particularly nasty, that would send them straight to "the bad place" in another religion) - surely (according to catholicism anyway) the notion of "a good place" with good things in it is only for people who have paid for their masturbation, contraceptive use, infidelity, coveting of neighbour's stuff, etc. with a painful walk or three up croagh patrick plus a few thousand hail mary's. The bad place is presumably for murderers, atheists and people believing in the wrong gods. (I generalise, I know, but what happens to sinners becomes quite clear from an early age in this country!)

See, I'm not trying to take the p*ss at all, but it confuses me thoroughly how a religious person who believes in god and an afterlife, can cherry pick whatever they want out of that religion and effectively ignore pretty much everything that religion teaches about sin/heaven/hell, all the while claiming science has less answers for creation of the universe than religion does. It seems to me that you have all the answers you want, BECAUSE you don't ask the questions, and that's a big difference between us here.

I think the problem is that Institutions have made a disaster of religion.
Hail Mary's, penance, paying for your sins etc and the fear-based teaching of generally being scared of slipping up in case you end up in hell is totally wrong in my opinion, so I agree with you 100% there.

The intended version is that believer's sins, past, present and future have already been paid for by Christ's death. So there is no need to be scared, no need for penance or pilgrimages up mountains that wreck your feet, no need for holy water, no need for even a single hail mary.
It has already been paid for.

Unfortunately not many people know this because they haven't read the bible for themselves. So it is totally possible (in fact this is how it was intended) for believers to live a happy life with no worry whatsoever about slipping up and sinning. Doesn't mean you can go out and kill someone for the crack though, but the idea is that if you are a genuine believer in what Christ did for us, then you will naturally want to not sin anyway, but of course we are human so we're going to sin no matter what. But the key thing is that it has already been paid for...

Some institutions have done exactly what you've said - cherry picked certain things out of context to suit their agendas and their wallets. Its time people started reading the bible for themselves.

Obliq

boatbuilder wrote: »

Unfortunately not many people know this because they haven't read the bible for themselves. So it is totally possible (in fact this is how it was intended) for believers to live a happy life with no worry whatsoever about slipping up and sinning. Doesn't mean you can go out and kill someone for the crack though, but the idea is that if you are a genuine believer in what Christ did for us, then you will naturally want to not sin anyway, but of course we are human so we're going to sin no matter what. But the key thing is that it has already been paid for...

First off, my question is why would you feel the need to inform people (with no offence meant and none taken) that most people would be going to a bad place after death if it is your belief that there are no worries about slipping up and sinning?!

Now, it is also my belief as an atheist that there are no such worries about sinning because there is no evidence to show any of these religious notions of heaven and hell are based in fact. To my mind, atheist/christian/jew/muslim/hindu, whatever - if you are a genuine human, then you will naturally not want to sin (or break the law, as most of us call it...) as we are social animals brought up to and naturally geared towards enjoying the love of other humans and feeling upset at their disapproval.

Yes, we are going to commit misdemeanors but we develop consience as a consequence of disapproval and it becomes important to aquire praise/avoid the removal of love. Religion doesn't seem to offer anything else than the introduction of fear into the equation, by saying 'god is watching and will judge you". What part of your religion offers me anything that I don't already have, bar the fear of hell or the hope for heaven?

I did say that it's inconsistant for any religious person to on the one hand say science hasn't got the answers, and on the other to not ask any of the questions of their religion....any chance you could explain why you have no fear of hell, and yet believe it is real? I don't get it.

boatbuilder

Obliq wrote: »

First off, my question is why would you feel the need to inform people (with no offence meant and none taken) that most people would be going to a bad place after death if it is your belief that there are no worries about slipping up and sinning?!

Now, it is also my belief as an atheist that there are no such worries about sinning because there is no evidence to show any of these religious notions of heaven and hell are based in fact. To my mind, atheist/christian/jew/muslim/hindu, whatever - if you are a genuine human, then you will naturally not want to sin (or break the law, as most of us call it...) as we are social animals brought up to and naturally geared towards enjoying the love of other humans and feeling upset at their disapproval.

Yes, we are going to commit misdemeanors but we develop consience as a consequence of disapproval and it becomes important to aquire praise/avoid the removal of love. Religion doesn't seem to offer anything else than the introduction of fear into the equation, by saying 'god is watching and will judge you". What part of your religion offers me anything that I don't already have, bar the fear of hell or the hope for heaven?

I did say that it's inconsistant for any religious person to on the one hand say science hasn't got the answers, and on the other to not ask any of the questions of their religion....any chance you could explain why you have no fear of hell, and yet believe it is real? I don't get it.

Well my particular reason for telling people about hell etc isn't necessarily to frighten them into believing but often thats how it comes across. You can also put a positive angle on it and say that if you are a believer, you have no worries because you've "signed up" to god's deal of your sins past present and future being forgiven by Christ's death that has already happened in the past.

Christianity says that humankind are inherently sinful beings and in our "raw" state of sinfulness cannot be with God (as he is sinless). If you think of things like addictions, obsessiveness, abusive spouses etc, stuff like that, it makes sense. Our bodies are attracted to sin. So there is a certain acceptance there that we are going to do bad things at some point because thats just how we are.

What Christianity offers you is something good after you die, also a knowledge that there is someone looking out for you who has a plan for your life if you want to go with it and that no matter what difficulties or tragedies life throws at you, you still have something great to look forward to. Science can't give you any of that.

I have no fear of hell because I know that I am a believer and that as a result have been saved from hell (remember its already been done - Christ died 2000ish years ago to pay for all believers' sin, effectively wiping away the sin so that we can be with god in heaven eventually).

I ask plenty of questions of my religion - I'd be stupid not to, but I keep finding answers...

Another thought -
Is it not much more stressful and worrying to go through life seeking and striving for the approval of other humans?
Its much easier to seek the approval of God who knows and accepts that we are going to sin and has made a provision for that by sacrificing his son on our behalf.

Obliq

boatbuilder wrote: »

Well my particular reason for telling people about hell etc isn't necessarily to frighten them into believing but often thats how it comes across. You can also put a positive angle on it and say that if you are a believer, you have no worries because you've "signed up" to god's deal of your sins past present and future being forgiven by Christ's death that has already happened in the past.

Christianity says that humankind are inherently sinful beings and in our "raw" state of sinfulness cannot be with God (as he is sinless). If you think of things like addictions, obsessiveness, abusive spouses etc, stuff like that, it makes sense. Our bodies are attracted to sin. So there is a certain acceptance there that we are going to do bad things at some point because thats just how we are.

What Christianity offers you is something good after you die, also a knowledge that there is someone looking out for you who has a plan for your life if you want to go with it and that no matter what difficulties or tragedies life throws at you, you still have something great to look forward to. Science can't give you any of that.

I have no fear of hell because I know that I am a believer and that as a result have been saved from hell (remember its already been done - Christ died 2000ish years ago to pay for all believers' sin, effectively wiping away the sin so that we can be with god in heaven eventually).

I ask plenty of questions of my religion - I'd be stupid not to, but I keep finding answers...

Well, my goodness! You certainly do keep finding answers don't you?! Science, on the other hand, gives me questions....and more questions. I look forward to a long and questioning life, with very few answers but much curiousity, discovery and wonder. It is not a belief system that tells you how to live or die, who to look up to or where to find your morals/what they are. To me, this is a far more attractive way of living than having (been given) all the answers (well, just the one answer all the time isn't it?! Because, god).

I have to say, I had a laugh at "our bodies are attracted to sin". I'm not laughing at you for believing it - anyone is more than entitled to believe a flying spaghetti monster died on their plate last night in their name if that's how they want to see it, but I giggled at how far removed from scientific understanding that statement is. Pure comedy! I think we'll have to agree to differ and go our merry ways. Sleepy here. Night.