God and heaven and hell in the After Life: if it turns to be true of false?

[LuisDantas]

How does it hurt your ability to have hope in humanity?

By enabling so many people to neglect their rather clear responsibilities because their hubris on their certainty of another life gets the best of them, mainly.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's an interesting idea.. disgusting? Why is a belief in an afterlife disgusting?
Maybe you could elaborate.

Because it is so alienating and so easily misused. Not too few people actually bet that behaviors that they might otherwise recognize as immoral will eventually pay off because they are so certain that there will be a reward or compensation in an afterlife.

It is a singularly obscene situation, occurring with an obscene frequency.

 

[Augustus]

How could I truly be eternally happy in an afterlife if, say, my children were not there with me?

If the islamo-christian heaven is true, you would be happy there. You don't have to believe it's real, but I don't see how anyone could imagine that an all powerful God promising eternal bliss to His followers wasn't one step ahead of you.

Problem with that is that if I'm an atheists, and I consider the WAGER.. and I BET on heaven so that I can avoid Hell... and that's the ONLY reason I choose to believe?.... ah...... I'm not too sure that St.Peter is going to let me through dem pearly gates...

So, I'd better be able to convince myself that I believe when i really don't... IN A HURRY... because I can get hit by a bus...
Or is God really that shallow, according to Christians who think Pascal had a good idea?

Who said anything about Pascal's wager? Given the op it's better to be an incorrect believer than an incorrect disbeliever. They were the 2 options.

You still have to be a genuine believer though rather than a pragmatist.

 

[George-ananda]

In the post, the author asks "So why aren’t scientists taking Stevenson’s data more seriously?"

- Maybe it's NOT due to some bias against reincarnation, but for his methods. We know that children are easily influenced, and that false memory can't be ruled out, for example.

He and everyone is aware that children can have imaginations. That is why he also focuses heavily on verifiable specific facts that are not reasonable to believe the child could have learned through normal sensory input. I have read his book cover-to-cover and concluded that something not understood by science does occur in these cases. Read and form your own opinion.

Prior probability says that science is rigorous in it's evaluation of data, and that no evidence for any afterlife exists so far. The author of the blog wonders if science is TOO skeptical. Well, science usually fails ONLY when it is NOT.

So, it's no use complaining that Stevenson's data gets dismissed too easily. IT HAS TO. Otherwise, we would believe in way too many bogus claims of all sorts. And that doesn't help Stevenson's credibility ONE BIT. may he rest in peace.

You are saying what science could and should accept should be the extent of human's understanding. Your position sounds like scientism.

Science can not confirm or deny reincarnation. And that should be science's position at this point in time. But I, as an individual, will consider all evidence (for and against) and conclude what I feel is the most reasonable understanding. I believe reincarnation exists as the most reasonable understanding when everything from all sides is considered.

Science must restrict its beliefs to what it can prove. I, as an individual, believe what I find most reasonable to believe (knowing I can't prove it).

Say a murder trial jury determines 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. Can they scientifically prove their determination; No. Can they still call it the most reasonable determination; Yes.

 

[sun rise]

In the post, the author asks "So why aren’t scientists taking Stevenson’s data more seriously?"

- Maybe it's NOT due to some bias against reincarnation, but for his methods. We know that children are easily influenced, and that false memory can't be ruled out, for example.

We have to believe a huge bias against some position from all of science and NOT believe that Stevenson's data is bogus.

Prior probability says that science is rigorous in it's evaluation of data, and that no evidence for any afterlife exists so far. The author of the blog wonders if science is TOO skeptical. Well, science usually fails ONLY when it is NOT.

So, it's no use complaining that Stevenson's data gets dismissed too easily. IT HAS TO. Otherwise, we would believe in way too many bogus claims of all sorts. And that doesn't help Stevenson's credibility ONE BIT. may he rest in peace.

If someone makes an extraordinary claim as in this case, extraordinary proof is needed. The issue is not that his methods and data should not be rigorously reviewed and serious attempts at replication made. The issue is that his and followup findings are being ignored. If you go to Google Scholar as I have done and search on reincarnation for the past few years, you won't find any other site trying to replicate his results or to do research that deals with any methodological issues that some have found.

But I do agree with you on the point of being skeptical in the sense that evidence-based skepticism in science is essential. But sometimes it crosses the frontier to denial. And that gets to the old joke that a new discovery is never accepted until a new generation of researchers comes along. So when I read "skepticism" in that posting I read it that way.

 

[Pegg]

We can live with hope in things that we know are possible.. and we can stop hoping for things that we can't possibly know are possible. We don't have any reason to believe in a heaven or a hell or anything else after we die.

To me, it's utter foolishness to hope for something that we can't possibly know is even real. TO ME.. that's like hoping for Santa .. or any other ungrounded belief..

Please understand. When I say your god beliefs are like believing in Santa, I am not trying to offend. I am saying that TO ME and to many atheists, an unfounded belief is as good as any other unfounded belief, and that is .. not at all good.

Hi Blastcat,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that if something is totally impossible, then its foolish to hope in it.

But people who put such hope in the bibles message do so because the people who penned the bible did have such proof of the things that would normally be impossibe for us to know. The proof offered to them may seem like heresay to us because we were not there to witness any said proofs ourselves, so i understand why its easy for some to hold the view you do. This is why its a matter of faith really.

I think the difference between you and I might be what we can accept as evidence. I think you lower the bar way too low so that you can allow even what I would consider the worst kinds of evidence serve for your beliefs. And so you believe in it all.. and I don't believe in it AT all...

AND.. you seem to imply but don't actually spell out that people who don't believe what YOU do about the afterlife have to live without hope of any kind... is that what you mean?

The kind of hope we are holding is the one testified to by people of the past. I can understand why that is not sufficient for many reasoning minds today. What happened 2,000 years ago should not concern us at all. However, when i studied the bible, i found that what is recorded in the bible has a direct bearing on our day today and the very things foretold have seen fulfillment and continuing to be fulfilled today.

Thats why I believe the bibles message and have put my hope in it. There is no way that people 2,000 years ago could have predicted the things we are seeing today. But I appreciate your sentiments and I know them well because my husband is also an athiest and feels exactly as you do.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think believing is not bound to possible or impossible.

 

[Ashraf]

Please explain how.

If there is no god, then theists will lose nothing since there will be no judgment day or anything. But if there is god whom atheists deny his existence, then they will be in extreme loss when they are faced with his judgment in the hereafter

 

[LuisDantas]

If there is no god, then theists will lose nothing since there will be no judgment day or anything. But if there is god whom atheists deny his existence, then they will be in extreme loss when they are faced with his judgment in the hereafter

I couldn't disagree more.

On the one hand, theists often lose a lot because they misplace their priorities out of attachment to the idea of an afterlife.

On the other, it is all-out absurd, if not blasphemous, to suggest that an atheist would be in trouble in a hypothetical afterlife just out of being an atheist - or for any other reason, really.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have no worry. I have absolute faith in the God below - Narayan Sai. The second image is that of the Father. Father testifies that the Son is God, Asa Ram. The third image is of the Father's 'leela' (play). The Father was a boot-legger at one time. They guarantee everlasting life and stay in heaven, though presently both are in jail on rape charges. Why not put your faith in a living God?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Atheists will be the biggest losers in your scenario

If god is just, Agnostics will be the biggest winners.

Losing your mind and emotions...quite something else.

Our mind and emotions are tied to our brains.

Next life is mind to mind....heart to heart.
We share our dreams.

How do you know this?

 

[Thief]

If god is just, Agnostics will be the biggest winners.

Our mind and emotions are tied to our brains.

How do you know this?

I think the really big winners are the ones who do unto other s as they would have it done unto them.

Picture that.
I do one clever thing for someone else.
Upon my arrival (hope I make it) in heaven......
everyone returns the gesture in the same proportions....times however many participants there may be!

If our thoughts and feelings are tied to our brains......dust....in a box.....in the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.

As for sharing dreams.....
Isn't heaven the place where your dreams come true?
and you want to do that by yourself?

 

[Blastcat]

Thank you for your feedback.

The poll is basically to know if it is worth it wasting time believing in God if He didn't exist with the stipulation:


If yes it is worth it, then it is the option #1, and of no it's not worth it, it is not worth it, it is option #2.

My own choice was that yes it is worth it if my believing in God was for nothing as I won't be losing anything if I die, while if I didn't believe in him and He turned to be real, I'd go to hell. I know other scenarios exist, but I'm interested in these two only. Simply put, it is as if you are an atheist came to me, a Muslim, asking me "what if your God turnes out to be not real and you wasted you time worshiping him resulting in you don't go to heaven?" (for option #1), then I reply to you: "it is better than not believing in Him like you do and He turns out to be real resulting in you going to hell" (for option #2). Of course I'm not judging that non Muslims will certainly go to hell, I'm only giving it as an example.

I didn't say it was to engage atheists. I wanted to know their opinion along with the opinions of believers.

Please keep in mind that I'm not claiming that the poll is perfect. I do look at it from time to time and do fixes to it.

I love getting feedback too. So you are very welcome.

My criticism of the poll was in it's structure. I don't think that you're going to get what you seem to be asking for.
I believe that you should fix it. It's not refined enough.

Allow me to re-iterated your question in order to demonstrate what I mean:

Which case scenario do you think is better?

1. Believing in God and the after life, but it turns to be not real.
2. Not believing in God and the after life, but it turns to be real.

You neglected to give us the option to pick from at least 4 other possible cases:

3. Not believing in God and the after life, and it turns out to be not real.
4. Not believing in God and the after life, and it turns out to be real, but not the way the theist expects.
5. Believing in God and the after life, and it turns out to be real, but not the way the theist expects.
6. Being honest, and not actually form a belief based on something that can't possibly be verified.

To me, these are perfectly good cases.You can clearly see that at least I can think up a few more. Maybe others could come up with more options than those. In any case, it seems to me that when you insist that we answer your question with the only options are the two you offered, it makes a false dichotomy in the assumption that there can only BE those two options.

And I have another criticism about your question. The religious position that we would go to heaven or hell based on our BELIEF of heaven and hell is.. very difficult to reconcile with the idea of a sane god. Why would it matter to a god if we believe in it or not?

Worship of burn.. very odd. I can't see this as moral or reasonable. I certainly can't see it as a loving stance, either.

So, what kind of god are you describing here.. some kind of evil, unreasonable, unloving god?

AND another thing.. which you didn't address... the whole question of this demanding, vengeful, all knowing god who insists on total devotion and belief would ever be IMPRESSED by a belief founded on some kind of statistical opinion?

Your holiness, I chose to believe because it was a better BET?.. That's a fatal flaw in my opinion about Pascal's wager. Accepting the wager would mean that the belief in question would be grounded on something like an understanding of a probability.. I don't really think that's what the Bible says that God is all about.. God is mostly concerned about our ability to put our eternal soul down on some bet?

So, life is a gamble, life is a game of chance, God and Satan really DO make bets like it describes in Job, you claim to have won, and that we have all lost that bet? And we can't know if we won lost or that there is no game whatsoever until we are dead?

To me, that's describing a god who really doesn't want the most people in heaven. It seems to me that it describes a god who wants the MOST people in hell..

That could describe a perfectly evil being.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I love getting feedback too. So you are very welcome.

My criticism of the poll was in it's structure. I don't think that you're going to get what you seem to be asking for.
I believe that you should fix it. It's not refined enough.

Allow me to re-iterated your question in order to demonstrate what I mean:

Which case scenario do you think is better?

1. Believing in God and the after life, but it turns to be not real.
2. Not believing in God and the after life, but it turns to be real.

You neglected to give us the option to pick from at least 4 other possible cases:

3. Not believing in God and the after life, and it turns out to be not real.
4. Not believing in God and the after life, and it turns out to be real, but not the way the theist expects.
5. Believing in God and the after life, and it turns out to be real, but not the way the theist expects.
6. Being honest, and not actually form a belief based on something that can't possibly be verified.

To me, these are perfectly good cases.You can clearly see that at least I can think up a few more. Maybe others could come up with more options than those. In any case, it seems to me that when you insist that we answer your question with the only options are the two you offered, it makes a false dichotomy in the assumption that there can only BE those two options.

And I have another criticism about your question. The religious position that we would go to heaven or hell based on our BELIEF of heaven and hell is.. very difficult to reconcile with the idea of a sane god. Why would it matter to a god if we believe in it or not?

Worship of burn.. very odd. I can't see this as moral or reasonable. I certainly can't see it as a loving stance, either.

So, what kind of god are you describing here.. some kind of evil, unreasonable, unloving god?

AND another thing.. which you didn't address... the whole question of this demanding, vengeful, all knowing god who insists on total devotion and belief would ever be IMPRESSED by a belief founded on some kind of statistical opinion?

Your holiness, I chose to believe because it was a better BET?.. That's a fatal flaw in my opinion about Pascal's wager. Accepting the wager would mean that the belief in question would be grounded on something like an understanding of a probability.. I don't really think that's what the Bible says that God is all about.. God is mostly concerned about our ability to put our eternal soul down on some bet?

So, life is a gamble, life is a game of chance, God and Satan really DO make bets like it describes in Job, you claim to have won, and that we have all lost that bet? And we can't know if we won lost or that there is no game whatsoever until we are dead?

To me, that's describing a god who really doesn't want the most people in heaven. It seems to me that it describes a god who wants the MOST people in hell..

That could describe a perfectly evil being.

Thank you for the informative response. The subject turned out to be much bigger than I expected. Which one of the possibilities you provided would you choose?

 

[averageJOE]

If there is no god, then theists will lose nothing since there will be no judgment day or anything. But if there is god whom atheists deny his existence, then they will be in extreme loss when they are faced with his judgment in the hereafter

Judgement from which god? Yours? Jehovah? Krishna? See how that works? A Jehovah's Witness has the same level of faith in the existence of their god as you do, however both are very different. IF there is a god, you could very well be worshiping a non-existent version giving you the same chance as an atheist.

Also, "judgement" is a human trait that is useless to a god. Not every theist believes in a god that judges, much less a judgement day.

 

[Sabour]

Because it is so alienating and so easily misused. Not too few people actually bet that behaviors that they might otherwise recognize as immoral will eventually pay off because they are so certain that there will be a reward or compensation in an afterlife.

It is a singularly obscene situation, occurring with an obscene frequency.

I don't think there exists an immoral act that would pay off with a reward, but putting that aside, the way I see it is that the idea of an afterlife deters people from doing bad things more than what you have mentioned.

 

[Blastcat]

Thank you for the informative response. The subject turned out to be much bigger than I expected. Which one of the possibilities you provided would you choose?

3, 4 or 6.. not necessarily in that order.. probably 6 is the most rigorous as we can know nothing at all about either gods, heaven or hell.

Remember, that to an atheist like myself, there is no evidence that a god exists of any kind. And, that heaven and hell all pretty much seem like fictions.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think there exists an immoral act that would pay off with a reward, but putting that aside, the way I see it is that the idea of an afterlife deters people from doing bad things more than what you have mentioned.

We will have to agree to disagree, then. My personal experience is very much at odds with such a belief. Aftelife beliefs are poisonous and corrupting.

 

[Thief]

We will have to agree to disagree, then. My personal experience is very much at odds with such a belief. Aftelife beliefs are poisonous and corrupting.

You should report yourself for that remark.

 

[Thief]

3, 4 or 6.. not necessarily in that order.. probably 6 is the most rigorous as we can know nothing at all about either gods, heaven or hell.

Remember, that to an atheist like myself, there is no evidence that a god exists of any kind. And, that heaven and hell all pretty much seem like fictions.

No need to wait for evidence....there will never be any.

Faith is about the way you think and feel.
Faith needs no proving (see Webster's).

You can see the creation all around you.
You can know a Creator by His creation.