Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

recedite wrote: »

You're welcome to interpret it any way you like. That's the great thing about the bible.
I just question whether there is anybody else who shares this doctrine of your denomination though, and whether it can even be called a Christian denomination?

I'm Roman Catholic. Most roman Catholics tend to have a unique outlook on the bible themselves. Your outlook does not solely determine your denomination. Protestants have an EXTREMELY different outlook than Catholics, and Orthodox alike.

recedite

donaldtramp wrote: »

I'm Roman Catholic.

OK, well in that case, this is officially your doctrine;
Faith + Good Works = ticket to heaven.

If you have any more questions about "interpreting" the bible, please see your parish priest. He is there to read the bible, so you don't have to

recedite wrote: »

OK, well in that case, this is officially your doctrine;
Faith + Good Works = ticket to heaven.

If you have any more questions about "interpreting" the bible, please see your parish priest. He is there to read the bible, so you don't have to

I'm assuming you're an atheist, and I really don't care what your interpretation of my denomination's belief is. We are free to exercise our own ideas, beliefs and opinions within the solid boundaries of the denomination itself. There are fundamentalist Catholics, who believe the bible literally & word-for-word. On the other hand, there are those like me, who believe that the bible is full of mystery and carries it's own metaphorical message.

donaldtramp wrote: »

Most roman Catholics tend to have a unique outlook on the bible themselves.

Most Roman Catholics have probably never opened a bible.

hinault

donaldtramp wrote: »

. You don't have to go to church or pray to get into heaven

If you are Catholic, you have to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day. To deliberately not do so, is a mortal sin. You die in a state of mortal sin, you go to Hell.

Lads

Atheists who'd like to consider the question of a belief in the afterlife might want to use this thread to develop the idea.

Consistently engaging with evangelists for Catholicism (I'm being kind here tbh, the behaviour exhibited seems to me to be more of a 'troll any atheist willing to be trolled') in order to discuss Christian beliefs regarding the afterlife is pretty much the opposite thing. And an entire forum exists for that.

Thread question: nothing in atheism precludes thoughts on the afterlife. Nothing in rational thought suggests any evidence for it, but you can believe in it and still be atheist.

hinault wrote: »

If you are Catholic, you have to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day. To deliberately not do so, is a mortal sin. You die in a state of mortal sin, you go to Hell.

You might want to take your tiresome arguments to the christianity forum.

NIMAN

hinault wrote: »

If you are Catholic, you have to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day. To deliberately not do so, is a mortal sin. You die in a state of mortal sin, you go to Hell.

No exceptions?

What if you miss 1 deliberately and you live to 90yrs old? Is that guaranteed hell?

If so, I'd say that's a damn harsh god you follow.

hinault wrote: »

If you are Catholic, you have to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day. To deliberately not do so, is a mortal sin. You die in a state of mortal sin, you go to Hell.

Could you explain how this is a fair rule?

What about missing mass justifies eternal torture?

hinault wrote: »

If you are Catholic, you have to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day. To deliberately not do so, is a mortal sin. You die in a state of mortal sin, you go to Hell.

Okay, first fo all:

- Mortal sin wrecks your relationship with god, however you can still repair said relationship, it's obviously worse than a venial sin and I accept that it can send you to hell, Mortal sin is not, not attending mass every sunday?

Think you get that from the 10 commandments mate, which were written by Moses, and although they're holy - and so are the 617 jewish laws before them - they're not valid in the eyes of Christians today.

Jesus said: There is only one commandment thou must follow, love God and love thy neighbour.

Zubeneschamali

It is possible to be a Buddhist atheist who believes in an afterlife.

Kind of.

It doesn't line up very well with the Western God/No God Heaven/Hell/Nothing systems.

Of course it's possible to be a Buddhist atheist. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. You can be a Buddhist Christian you should have to believe in the Buddhist fundamentals but follow Jesus.
Not sure what your point is; if you care to elaborate on it?

Zubeneschamali

donaldtramp wrote: »

Not sure what your point is; if you care to elaborate on it?

The subject of the thread is: "Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?"

I am pointing out that Yes, at least some Buddhists are atheists (in the sense that they do not believe in any gods, not that they call themselves atheists necessarily) and some of those Buddhists believe in a form of reincarnation which we Westerners might interpret as an afterlife.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The subject of the thread is: "Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?"

I am pointing out that Yes, at least some Buddhists are atheists (in the sense that they do not believe in any gods, not that they call themselves atheists necessarily) and some of those Buddhists believe in a form of reincarnation which we Westerners might interpret as an afterlife.

Actually buddhists also believe that once you've reincarnated yourself a couple times, you reach Nirvana.

hinault

donaldtramp wrote: »

Okay, first fo all:

- Mortal sin wrecks your relationship with god, however you can still repair said relationship, it's obviously worse than a venial sin and I accept that it can send you to hell, Mortal sin is not, not attending mass every sunday?

Think you get that from the 10 commandments mate

A Catholic deliberately not attending Mass on Sunday (or on a Holy Day of Obligation) is a mortal sin.

It is a mortal sin because deliberately not attending Mass on those days
contravenes the third commandment.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

hinault wrote: »

A Catholic deliberately not attending Mass on Sunday (or on a Holy Day of Obligation) is a mortal sin.

It is a mortal sin because deliberately not attending Mass on those days
contravenes the third commandment.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Exactly! The '3rd commandment' which was given to Moses by God.

That's a Jewish belief mate.

And although we accept the old testament as a belief, it's an old traditional belief which is no longer really followed.

hinault

donaldtramp wrote: »

And although we accept the old testament as a belief, it's an old traditional belief which is no longer really followed.

Since when?

When was the 3rd commandment rescinded by God?

recedite

Get a room, you two!

hinault wrote: »

Since when?

When was the 3rd commandment rescinded by God?

Could you explain how breaking the 3rd commandment is worthy of eternal torture?

Its funny that you get snappy and demand answers while you have been ignore a long, long list of questions.

hinault wrote: »

A Catholic deliberately not attending Mass on Sunday (or on a Holy Day of Obligation) is a mortal sin.

Who is a catholic though? Once a catholic, always a catholic?

I was baptised, communed and confirmed all without my consent, on paper I'm as catholic as the Pope.

I haven't been to mass since 1989 however and renounce the RCC and regard all faiths and gods as nonsense at best and actively deleterious to humanity at worst.

There is no longer any method for people like me to 'officially' leave the RCC that we never wanted to be in in the first place

So.. am I gonna burn? :pac:

How about the Prods? Are they all going to burn too, or just the really annoying ones like the Presbyterians.

Mark Hamill

donaldtramp wrote: »

Think you get that from the 10 commandments mate, which were written by Moses, and although they're holy - and so are the 617 jewish laws before them - they're not valid in the eyes of Christians today.

Jesus said: There is only one commandment thou must follow, love God and love thy neighbour.

Jesus says they are:
Matthew 5:17-20
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The vatican also says that you must go to Mass:

Catechism of the Vatican Church wrote:

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.") requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.

and that the 10 commandments still apply:

Catechism of the Vatican Church wrote:

following Jesus Christ involves keeping the Commandments. the Law has not been abolished,3 but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment. In the three synoptic Gospels, Jesus' call to the rich young man to follow him, in the obedience of a disciple and in the observance of the Commandments, is joined to the call to poverty and chastity.4 The evangelical counsels are inseparable from the Commandments.

Zubeneschamali

donaldtramp wrote: »

Please educate yourself on different religions, and learn more about how they work before criticizing them.

Please learn about Christianity before assuming I don't know how it works.

looksee

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who is a catholic though? Once a catholic, always a catholic?

I was baptised, communed and confirmed all without my consent, on paper I'm as catholic as the Pope.

I haven't been to mass since 1989 however and renounce the RCC and regard all faiths and gods as nonsense at best and actively deleterious to humanity at worst.

There is no longer any method for people like me to 'officially' leave the RCC that we never wanted to be in in the first place

So.. am I gonna burn? :pac:

How about the Prods? Are they all going to burn too, or just the really annoying ones like the Presbyterians.

Of course you are not going to burn, the first requirement for hell is that you believe in it.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So.. am I gonna burn? :pac:

You and me together - for our own good, of course!

bou

donaldtramp wrote: »

Actually buddhists also believe that once you've reincarnated yourself a couple times, you reach Nirvana.

Well, not exactly. You might be a particularly good buddhist and reach complete enlightenment at the end of this life. Slightly less so, you might come back once or a few times more. If you're not so brilliant, you might come back, a thousand, a billion or a googol more times. Universes might come and go many times over before you reach enlightenment.

I'm not sure how much the original question posed in this thread has been addressed by the discussion of commandments and hell.

hgfj

hinault, I don't know whether you have any children or not, but if you do I'm curious as to how you would feel if one of your children committed a mortal sin, (whether it be a murder or not going to mass on a Sunday,) and that child you love with all your heart and soul ended up in hell for eternity would you still be happy in heaven, assuming you make it to heaven yourself?

bou

The scientific understanding of consciousness and awareness doesn't seem to be nailed down. And I don't think that they are 99% confident that they have it in the bag. They have strong hopes that they are onto good strategies for nailing it down. But not everyone agrees about it.

At least, that is my understanding of it without deep knowledge of the details.

Many scientists are materialists, to some degree, so it flies in the face of that to imagine another aspect of being that isn't coming from material interactions.

I think that the understanding of consciousness and awareness are key to whether one can contemplate the possibility of an afterlife.

Buddhist hold that there is something of the mindstream that goes on from life to life but it's not the personality that we possess in this lifetime. When we die, the mind dies too. In the tradition I follow, it is considered that an extremely subtle form of awareness continues but that is extremely difficult to recognise. It is impossible to fully see it in this life though one can come to an approximation of it. It is only when all the grosser forms of consciousness die that it becomes possible to fully see it.

recedite

bou wrote: »

In the tradition I follow, it is considered that an extremely subtle form of awareness continues but that is extremely difficult to recognise. It is impossible to fully see it in this life though one can come to an approximation of it. It is only when all the grosser forms of consciousness die that it becomes possible to fully see it.

I'm just curious, Is this the buddhist "awareness" that might get reincarnated into an animal? If that happened, and the very basic awareness was not smart enough to realise what had happened to it, then what would be the point of it?
Maybe like a computer being wiped and going back to very basic default settings?

bou wrote: »

Many scientists are materialists, to some degree, so it flies in the face of that to imagine another aspect of being that isn't coming from material interactions.

I think that the understanding of consciousness and awareness are key to whether one can contemplate the possibility of an afterlife.

It doesn't really follow that because we don't fully understand something it means that people can insert any idea that appeals to them and hold it up as if it were just as valid as everything else. Thor and Zeus weren't any more real 500 years ago just because we couldn't yet explain lightning.

We might not understand consciousness fully, but we can be confident that it's based in the brain and that there is no external component.

There is no plausible mechanism by which the mind can exist after the death of the brain. There is no plausible mechanism by which a pre-existing mind can insert any part of itself into a new brain.

It's not a case where your beliefs exist in the gaps of science, your beliefs are in conflict with what we do know already and will most likely contradict what we will learn in the future.

bou wrote: »

Buddhist hold that there is something of the mindstream that goes on from life to life but it's not the personality that we possess in this lifetime. When we die, the mind dies too. In the tradition I follow, it is considered that an extremely subtle form of awareness continues but that is extremely difficult to recognise. It is impossible to fully see it in this life though one can come to an approximation of it. It is only when all the grosser forms of consciousness die that it becomes possible to fully see it.

Leaving aside the issue of how you could know this based on anything besides faith, I still contend that this version of an afterlife is disgustingly unfair.

First, you seem to be saying that a person is only partially reincarnated, and that only elements of their personality return. Their memories and knowledge and big parts of their being are either erased or don't follow you back or are overwritten by the personality of the new body.
But if we assume that some memories are carried over as some believe, then we have the problem of a person who remembers a different life with different people they love who they can never see or talk to again.
All of these aspects sound horrifying and kind of worse than death.
It's made even worse if it's the case where you can be reincarnated as something not human.
It also implies that the you that exists now is not actually you, and the you that exists now is ultimately not important to the real you.

Ceasing to exist is preferable to all of these choices for me, but then do I even get the option? Or do I get reincarnated against my will?

And then we have people who claim that reincarnation cause be used to punish people/souls. Where if you are evil in one life you are reincarnated as a lower animal or a person who has a worse life. Which is patently unfair on the face of it.

So yea, to me reincarnation is just as bad as the Christian flavour of afterlife.