• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If an entity offered you as an atheist an after life after you lived, would that interest you

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Or maybe I would just wonder what the point of asking me would be. Is that heaven reached by moral achievement, or is it by giving some form of proper answer instead?

I wonder how I would come to conclude that I am dead yet conscious. It is anyone's guess, I suppose.

Yes, well those are really quite human sorts of things to wonder. The importance of this moment right now as it relates to the universe is anyone's guess, it's not more of anyone's guess out there beyond the curtain of corporeality. You don't really know how you reached your current state, do you. You don't really know how you are conscious right now. The entity recognizes something worthy in your experience of human activity, and merely offers you continuance. By inference, you should sort of know a few things about what you are getting into, as existence is not new to you.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Not really. I could conceive being altered in such a way where eternal bliss without end wouldn't get boring and stagnant, but it wouldn't be me anymore. It'd be a cowish version of me.

What if your 'soul' was in such a position that it simultaneously felt all the disparate senses of every living creature on a planet? Like you were the sense center of all of that biomass, a mind or soul in the middle of a planet.. That would be cowish in the most interesting way possible, possibly
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Perhaps it figures that if you're too unsure what with all the living you've done already, then maybe you don't really want it.
Maybe the life of the individual of any species is built around the same basic formula ─ survive long enough to reproduce, and you've done the only thing important in the longer run that you'll ever do. For example, the only reason you and I are here is because every single one of our ancestors got that part right across three and a half billion years of life on earth.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Not really. I could conceive being altered in such a way where eternal bliss without end wouldn't get boring and stagnant, but it wouldn't be me anymore. It'd be a cowish version of me.

As one who believes in eternal life and that we will be happy and busy and not bored forever, I'll admit I've thought about what you just said. What could be so wonderful that one would never get bored? Afterall, forever is a long, long time. I don't believe the answer is in being altered to become someone who we are not now. I believe it has to do with the fact that we are eternal beings, now having a temporary mortal experience. We now live in a finite and mortal realm which is not our natural home. When we die, we will see and understand eternity much better, without becoming a new person. It will be more that these temporary mortal blinders have been removed. My two cents on the mysteries of eternity.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Yes, well those are really quite human sorts of things to wonder. The importance of this moment right now as it relates to the universe is anyone's guess, it's not more of anyone's guess out there beyond the curtain of corporeality. You don't really know how you reached your current state, do you. You don't really know how you are conscious right now. The entity recognizes something worthy in your experience of human activity, and merely offers you continuance. By inference, you should sort of know a few things about what you are getting into, as existence is not new to you.
To be sincere, I think that such an entity would be far too humanlike to be trustworthy, at least at first.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
The big problem is that infinity is a very longtime. :)

Imagine living a million years for every possible rearrangement of the atoms of the universe. To me, that would be pure torture.

I'm not sure exactly what the tolerable upper bound is. I'm thinking somewhere around 10,000 years. If the afterlife is *really* good, maybe 100,000. Much past that and it will seem like an eternity. ;)

So...you really don't want to meet your progeny, continuing on and on ? Only for '100,000 years'?

I find it hard to believe that.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
So...you really don't want to meet your progeny, continuing on and on ? Only for '100,000 years'?

I find it hard to believe that.

Well, I have one daughter who isn't genetically mine. So I have no 'progeny' and am quite happy about that fact.

I am more interested in what the math will look like in 300 years than I am in any progeny I would have. I am not particularly interested in my ancestors, either.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Then you didn't understand the article

Dark matter can be measured indirectly.

I'll go further. We measure dark matter by its gravitational interactions. I would consider that as *direct* a measurement as when we detect a neutrino from its interaction with chlorine atoms to give a flash. In both cases, our detection is based on an interaction that tells us information about the target.

For that matter, when we see a star, that is also 'indirect' because it is the interaction of the matter of the star with electromagnetism and the propagation of the light to us that gives us the information. In this sense, *all* detection is 'indirect': all detection is based on some interaction.

Now, what we *don't* know is the *composition* of dark matter. We *do* know where it is, how massive it is, that it doesn't interact with electromagnetism strongly, and several other things about it. We just don't know what it is made from.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I'll go further. We measure dark matter by its gravitational interactions. I would consider that as *direct* a measurement as hen we detect a neutrino from its interaction with chlorine atoms to give a flash. In both cases, our detection is based on an interaction that tells us information about the target.

For that matter, when we see a star, that is also 'indirect' because it is the interaction of the matter of the star with electromagnetism and the propagation of the light to us that gives us the information. In this sense, *all* detection is 'indirect': all detection is based on some interaction.

Now, what we *don't* know is the *composition* of dark matter. We *do* know where it is, how massive it is, that it doesn't interact with electromagnetism strongly, and several other things about it. We just don't know what it is made from.

That deserves a winner a like an informative and a useful but could only give it one frube.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I'll go further. We measure dark matter by its gravitational interactions. I would consider that as *direct* a measurement as when we detect a neutrino from its interaction with chlorine atoms to give a flash. In both cases, our detection is based on an interaction that tells us information about the target.

For that matter, when we see a star, that is also 'indirect' because it is the interaction of the matter of the star with electromagnetism and the propagation of the light to us that gives us the information. In this sense, *all* detection is 'indirect': all detection is based on some interaction.

Now, what we *don't* know is the *composition* of dark matter. We *do* know where it is, how massive it is, that it doesn't interact with electromagnetism strongly, and several other things about it. We just don't know what it is made from.

That deserves a winner a like an informative and a useful but could only give it one frube.
^^ Ditto
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
I think eternal bliss is a quicker way towards stagnation, and I talk about it because it's the most popular afterlife special.
yeah, but the question Scott asked was whether you could conceive of *any* eternal existence you’d like.

But it would be achieved all the same in any sort of eternity. Eventually meaningful experience would be exhausted and I would want it to end. The only way to help it would be to make me no longer me. Either by removing memory after a time or by making me no longer care about new experience. Either way "I" would be lost.
How do you know meaningful existence would be exhausted? In my scenario, I hypothesized that at the ultimate end of experience, you merge with a universal consciousness, just enjoying the bliss of being. But what if you are given another alternative? After experiencing everything there is to experience in this universe, you are then given an infant universe to create as it’s god. The possibilities are truly endless— so again, I ask, is it just lack of imagination?

And again, why worry about “I” eventually being lost? You lose “I” either way. The only difference is that you can either lose it now, immediately, or in like a couple hundred thousand years (if at all— you are turning down eternal existence on an *assumption*). If you believe you will ultimately lose it, why not enjoy being “I” for a little longer?
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
yeah, but the question Scott asked was whether you could conceive of *any* eternal existence you’d like.


How do you know meaningful existence would be exhausted? In my scenario, I hypothesized that at the ultimate end of experience, you merge with a universal consciousness, just enjoying the bliss of being. But what if you are given another alternative? After experiencing everything there is to experience in this universe, you are then given an infant universe to create as it’s god. The possibilities are truly endless— so again, I ask, is it just lack of imagination?

And again, why worry about “I” eventually being lost? You lose “I” either way. The only difference is that you can either lose it now, immediately, or in like a couple hundred thousand years (if at all— you are turning down eternal existence on an *assumption*). If you believe you will ultimately lose it, why not enjoy being “I” for a little longer?
The question is then, can you eventually get bored of being at the highest level joyful for eternity? Having the same feeling for all eternity might not be all that great. Keep in mind that no matter what new experience you get, the feeling of being joyful is the same.
 
Top