Meaning of life with dfeo: Do you believe in some sort of Deity / God / Afterlife?

I believe in some form of afterlife, what that is I don't know.

There should be an Option for I Don't Know - seems like the most honest position to me.

I feel like it's highly, extraordinarily improbable that there's anything after death, but who knows? We know precisely fuck all about anything really.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

IM NOT sure id describe myself as religious but I take a lot of comfort in the fact that I believe there's a heaven where everyone you miss and love go, family, dogs, pets, friends. Everyone who took a little piece of you when they went. And when you die, all these pieces will fit back together and you won't be broken anymore and you'll be happy and content forever with the people/animals that made your life good.

I don't care if it's made up and not true, I'll find out when I'm dead. But for now, I'm alive, and if believing something like this makes something hurt a little less then where's the harm?

I never understood why anyone would feel the need to take a crap all over someone else's comfort, or ridicule them, as long as nobody was being hurt.

That's kind of the crux of the issue though when it comes to religious tolerance. It's hard for people to keep it to themselves a lot of the time.

Has anyone been watching the TV show "The good place"? It's a nice little comedy about a woman who goes to heaven and then finds out that it was actually a mistake and she was supposed to go to the bad place.

I really like it. I'm an atheist but I'd like to believe that a good place exists. I just don't.

s15r330 wrote: »

Experiences and emotions and feelings etc can't be just neurons firing off each other.

They can though, and we've no evidence to suggest otherwise.

mzungu wrote: »

Indeed. Atheism takes the stance of knowing, when it reality it does not. It can no more lay a claim to truth than religion can.

Atheism just means lack of belief in a supernatural god. It makes no claims to knowing anything. On the possible existence of some supernatural creator we're all agnostic, as we simply haven't got a clue. But when it comes to the naieve version of a god postulated by the major organised religions it's not quite the same, there's good reasons why that type of god is not only improbable but actually impossible.

Some kind of supernatural creator? I've no idea. The god of the bible/torah/quran? Nothing more than a construct of human minds that simply didn't understand the world and filled in gaps with 'god did it'. The god of the christian bible is an embarrassing and malevolent idiot that you wouldn't leave in charge of a corner shop let alone the universe. A product of naieve and superstitious minds that we ought to have discarded by now.

My life -
"be a good catholic god and everyone else is watching!"
at 12 years old "Wait and minute...this makes no sense!"

At 16...in transition year, for some reason we were planting a twig around easter probably to celebrate the rebirth or whatever, I said i'd rather study as I don't believe...the religion teacher was very offended and I got lines to do. While everyone else said, "Just do it jeez"

Which further diminished my respect for religion.

Around 17 I started wondering about the meaning of life...then stopped, instead start wondering how the hell we got here WITHOUT a creator.

If there is a god and he ever intended to preach to us humans, i'm sure as **** that humans twisted and broke his message because thats what humans do.

At this point, I can't see all of this without a god but I also don't see the point. Or care. Just get on with it like? I'm kinda happy that at this young I have accepted the possibility of just dying and that being it. But it does make me sad to think about death or people in general dying. But...thats life.

I think I need to go masterbate.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But for now, I'm alive, and if believing something like this makes something hurt a little less then where's the harm?

A rhetorical question but forgive me if I answer anyway. Generally there probably is no harm. But there CAN be. It is contextual and based on each particular case really.

So the question is better asked what are the POTENTIAL harms. One is that things like grief are best dealt with sooner rather than later for a few reasons. One of those reasons being that memory fades and fresh memories are a positive when dealing with grief.

Quite often it is seen as a good thing to reduce pain and suffering. But we rarely do so at the expense of TREATING the cause of that pain and suffering. You would likely not take strong painkillers while watching a wound on your leg fester and go septic. You would treat the wound AND the suffering.

So by all means apply a placebo fantasy to the suffering of things like grief if it helps, but in those cases where people do so to the degree that they ignore treatment OF that suffering and grief.... then the potential for harm is high.

Anecdotally one of my most painful memories was of watching someone deal with grief solely and entirely through reliance on faith. They later lost that faith however and in consequence "lost" their grieved for loved one all over again.

They had merely postponed the suffering of grief until much later, without ever confronting it, working through it, treating it, or recovering from it. When the faith went, their loved one died all over again in their mind because they were no longer "out there somewhere to be seen again".

But it was WORSE this time because one thing we know about grief is that it is best dealt with at ground zero. Fresh un-faded memories are of strong utility in dealing with grief for example. So not only did they now have to deal with this postponed grief..... they had less access to the tools that would have helped them deal with it better had they done it from day one.

So what is the harm? There is none by automatic definition, but the potentials for it are certainly there. We suffer when we are recovering from things yes, but usually with good reason as the suffering is often part of the healing.

s15r330 wrote: »

But no one can be certain either way, if someone is 100% one way or the other with no evidence then they're silly.

s15r330 wrote: »

Where is your evidence that there isn"t one?

Sure, even in science we rarely, if ever, claim to know anything "100%". But equally silly is going against what evidence we do have. It is not 100% for sure. But it is not 50:50 either. Alas a lot of people SEEM to me to think that either something is 100%, or it is 50:50.

Our knowledge of the workings of experience and consciousness and sentience is certainly incomplete. But it is NOT non-existent either. We know and understand a lot about it.

And one thing we can say is that all of that current knowledge links consciousness and sentience to a living working brain. Not a shred of that evidence points to any kind of disconnect between them, let alone the continuation of one after the death of the other.

So no we can not say 100% that there is no after life but we CAN say that 100% of the current data set points to there not being one. Which, as I said, makes it far from a 50:50 choice. It is silly to claim 100% certainty as you say, but it is equally silly when given two choices to choose the one with 0% evidence and ignore the one with 100% of the current evidence.

Which all tells us nothing much except that, either way, humans are generally just silly

s15r330 wrote: »

I just think myself that the energy goes somewhere.

Which energy though? As far as I know all the energy equations are essentially balanced. We know what energy goes into the body.... in the form of our food etc.... and we know how energy leaves the body..... in the form of work and heat etc....... and to my knowledge nothing is unaccounted for.

And when a person dies we know essentially what the energy mass of their body is. And we know how it dissipates through heat loss and the consumption of it by flora and fauna. And once again to my knowledge nothing is unaccounted for.

So to which energy do you refer that must "go" somewhere? I genuinely do not know what you mean. And I would certainly put a lot more stock in the idea of a soul or after life if there was a gaping big hole in the equations where we simply did not know where some chunk of energy went.

s15r330 wrote: »

I don't understand your need to force your opinion on others.

In what way is an open conversation "force"? Is someone cajoling you against your will to read, or respond to, any post on this forum? If so they are likely committing a crime and you should report it to the cops or, at the very least, the forum moderators.

It is always unusual to me to see two people exercise their freedom to express their opinion..... and then to observe ONE of them complain the other ones opinion has been "forced" on them. Forced HOW exactly? Or does "force" now mean "I should be allowed express an opinion without ever having to hear a counter opinion"?

s15r330 wrote: »

I have already said I don't know for sure. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that there isn't one? The answer is no, you can't. The best anyone can say is they think one way or the other.

Nope, one can do better than that.... as I did above. Which is to point out that while you are right that we do not know for 100% certainty.... what we do know is that 100% of the evidence points one way and 0% of it the other. Which is a lot better than merely saying what you think. It is following the evidence where it actually leads rather than where we would like it to lead.

Arghus wrote: »

There should be an Option for I Don't Know - seems like the most honest position to me.

"I don't believe" is the same thing as "I don't know".

"I believe there is no God" is a statement of intent, it implies a level of surity.

"I do not believe in a God", is not the same statement. It does not imply that you are in any way sure about it. It simply states that you do not share the surity of others about the existence of a God(s).

Anyway, I see "spirituality", and all that stuff as an emergent property of the human mind, which is desperately sentimental and urgently searches for ways to avoid thinking about things which scare it.

Organised religion is the original mafia, a hierarchy constructed to give power to those at the top by terrifying and taking money from those at the bottom. The backstory is all just made up stuff, conveniently rearranged as necessary to hold power over the lower castes.

Tigger wrote: »

until they stop telling kids all this religion stuff

As you don't don't specify, I'm going to have to assume you mean at schools. If I send my children to a Catholic school I want my children to have a Catholic led education. Unfortunately, parents don't consider this fact when they send their child to a Catholic school just because it's the closest one to their house. Of course, then it's all high horses about forcing religion on their children.

Do you think you would get away with sending your non-muslim child to a Muslim school, then start shouting the odds about not wanting religion to be taught there?

Build more of your educate togethers instead of trying to force your views on people who want to give their children a Catholic education.

You may take it I do believe in God, but in your mind that makes me a stupid person. Quite frankly, I don't care what you think of religious people, nor do I care for the agenda you continuously seemed to push throughout this thread. The fact of the matter is, you have no hard proof no more than I do that there is or isn't a higher being. But for me at least, that comes part and parcel of my faith. Nothing you can say will discredit it.