Afterlife Nonsense

[Fascist Christ]

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of other Deists.)

I believe the existence of a god, but deny the idea of an afterlife. My main reason for this is that I cannot find a single compelling purpose for an afterlife, and that a reasonable god would not provide such a system unless there was a specific benefit.

My concept of death is such that our entire being is recycled back into the Universe, or the Earth specifically. Without any special place hereafter, we all shall suffer the same fate. This makes us all equal, which is far more beneficial than a system that promotes self-exaltation.

There is no coercion to obey specific doctrine, or to believe something you otherwise would not.

As for our behavior, as long as we act through an understanding of our equality, we are much more apt to live in harmony together than if we were to classify people as hellbound or saved.

Thoughts?

 

[Faint]

I believe the existence of a god, but deny the idea of an afterlife...My concept of death is such that our entire being is recycled back into the Universe, or the Earth specifically. Without any special place hereafter, we all shall suffer the same fate. This makes us all equal, which is far more beneficial than a system that promotes self-exaltation...Thoughts?

Hmmm...curious; what happens to your 'being' after it has been recycled? Are you part of some collective being? Do you suffer mind death or turn into something like Obi Wan--part of the earth but still self-aware?

I'm also curious where you got these ideas and why you are convinced that this is what happens (opposed to, say, an afterlife).

 

[Fascist Christ]

Hmmm...curious; what happens to your 'being' after it has been recycled? Are you part of some collective being? Do you suffer mind death or turn into something like Obi Wan--part of the earth but still self-aware?

No. When I say "recycled" I mean as in worms eat you (or something like that) and you become dirt. The dirt becomes plants. Animals eat the plants, hence the plants become animals. The animals die and become dirt again. Ash to ash, dust to dust.

I'm also curious where you got these ideas and why you are convinced that this is what happens (opposed to, say, an afterlife).

Science shows us this life cycle, but not an afterlife. Thus, for there to be an afterlife, it would be an addition to the system as science explains it. I do not see the benefit of such an addition.

 

[Faint]

No. When I say "recycled" I mean as in worms eat you (or something like that) and you become dirt. The dirt becomes plants. Animals eat the plants, hence the plants become animals. The animals die and become dirt again. Ash to ash, dust to dust.

Science shows us this life cycle, but not an afterlife. Thus, for there to be an afterlife, it would be an addition to the system as science explains it. I do not see the benefit of such an addition.

Oh, by "recycled" I thought you meant "reincarnation". That's why I needed some clarification.
I think for the most part I'm on the same page. Science has no evidence for an afterlife. Zero. Nada. And some would say that if the existence of anything supernatural (like a God, for instance) was added into the equation, science would be null and void. Science does not allow for the supernatural. Therefore, next question, if you have enough respect for science to doubt an afterlife, why "believe the existence of a god"?

 

[jonny]

Interesting thoughts...

What if you were to see someone who has died? Would this be considered an afterlife to you? I say this because I know people personally who have seen relatives who have passed away. Would you say they are crazy or is there a possibility of this?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... a reasonable god would not ...

It is delusional arrogance to presume that the term "reasonable god" is cognitively meaningful. What is the criteria for 'reasonableness' when applied to the Supernatural? Does your Supernatural Diety define "reasonableness"? Is it constrained by "reasonableness"? How do you know? Revelation? Deist decoder ring? I suggest that whatever intellectual superiority that might have been claimed by the Deists of the 18th century has long evaporated, leaving little more than naive projections about some God-of-the-Gaps.

 

[Faint]

Interesting thoughts...

What if you were to see someone who has died? Would this be considered an afterlife to you? I say this because I know people personally who have seen relatives who have passed away. Would you say they are crazy or is there a possibility of this?

No--this is absolutely possible. I have seen dead relatives too, in photographs.

As for the ghosts, if they did exist outside of fantasy, then yes, that might help to prove an afterlife. Maybe your relatives aren't crazy but just have really vivid imaginations. Or maybe they seek attention by telling stories? Maybe you're related to John Edwards--that Sc-Fi "medium"?

 

[Fascist Christ]

Therefore, next question, if you have enough respect for science to doubt an afterlife, why "believe the existence of a god"?

I'm sorry, that's off topic.

 

[Fascist Christ]

Interesting thoughts...

What if you were to see someone who has died? Would this be considered an afterlife to you? I say this because I know people personally who have seen relatives who have passed away. Would you say they are crazy or is there a possibility of this?

What you are describing is not uncommon and is explained in the field of Psychology. I am no expert in the area, but apparently people tend to think they see someone who has died, but they really don't. It seems so real, but dreams seem so real too.

 

[Fascist Christ]

It is delusional arrogance to presume that the term "reasonable god" is cognitively meaningful. What is the criteria for 'reasonableness' when applied to the Supernatural? Does your Supernatural Diety define "reasonableness"? Is it constrained by "reasonableness"? How do you know? Revelation? Deist decoder ring? I suggest that whatever intellectual superiority that might have been claimed by the Deists of the 18th century has long evaporated, leaving little more than naive projections about some God-of-the-Gaps.

Please refrain from attacking my concept of god without first taking the time to understand it. My god is not a superman in the sky. I fear that this will stray too far off topic, so for the Atheists and Agnostics and the like, consider the topic in this manner:

Even if there was a god, there would still be no afterlife.

 

[Faint]

I'm sorry, that's off topic.

Not really. You believe in at least one god, but not an afterlife. On one hand you reasonably accept science as supportive of your claim that there is no hereafter, on the other hand, you reject that same science by saying you believe the existence of a god. This seems like a contradiction to me, and therefore makes your arguement for non-afterlife seem a little shaky, to say the least. I was therefore asking for more info on your part to see if you can back this up at all. If you consider afterlife "nonsense", shouldn't you likewise consider "god" nonsense as well?

 

[Fascist Christ]

Not really. You believe in at least one god, but not an afterlife. On one hand you reasonably accept science as supportive of your claim that there is no hereafter, on the other hand, you reject that same science by saying you believe the existence of a god. This seems like a contradiction to me, and therefore makes your arguement for non-afterlife seem a little shaky, to say the least. I was therefore asking for more info on your part to see if you can back this up at all. If you consider afterlife "nonsense", shouldn't you likewise consider "god" nonsense as well?

Very well. It makes more sense to me that the Universe began at some point, than to say it has always existed. I define god as the first cause, whatever that cause may be. Do not assume that this means anything more than what I have said, for I do not assume that this means anything more. If I am correct, than we can learn about god through Science. If I am not correct, there is no harm done. The observations are the same either way, I just look at it differently.

I don't think it matters if there is a god or not, and debating the idea of an afterlife is one way to show that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My god is not a superman in the sky.

No, he is a super "Legislator" who, presumably, is constrained to be 'reasonable' - or at least that is what you argue. You've yet to explain how you come to know what is deemed 'reasonable' to your Supernatural "Legislator", how or why He is constrained, or why your claim to know this is any less nonsensical than is, for example, a belief in an afterlife.

 

[Fascist Christ]

No, he is a super "Legislator" who, presumably, is constrained to be 'reasonable' - or at least that is what you argue. You've yet to explain how you come to know what is deemed 'reasonable' to your Supernatural "Legislator", how or why He is constrained, or why your claim to know this is any less nonsensical than is, for example, a belief in an afterlife.

Are the Laws of Nature unreasonable? The cause of Nature cannot be the same as the cause of an afterlife, since Nature is reasonable, and the afterlife is not. Do you agree or disagree? The existence or non-existence of a god should have no effect on this debate, since I have stated that this is how it would be with or without a god.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are the Laws of Nature unreasonable?

You tell me. By what criteria do you claim wave/partical duality, vacuum fluctuations, quantum entanglement, p-branes, and negative time "reasonable" and the afterlife "unreasonable"? Note, by the way, that you've yet to explain how you come to know what is deemed 'reasonable' to your Supernatural "Legislator", how or why He is constrained, or why your claim to know this is any less nonsensical than is, for example, a belief in an afterlife.

 

[Fascist Christ]

You tell me. By what criteria do you claim wave/partical duality, vacuum fluctuations, quantum entanglement, p-branes, and negative time "reasonable" and the afterlife "unreasonable"? Note, by the way, that you've yet to explain how you come to know what is deemed 'reasonable' to your Supernatural "Legislator", how or why He is constrained, or why your claim to know this is any less nonsensical than is, for example, a belief in an afterlife.

Yes, I get it, "reasonable" is a subjective concept. And all theology is nonsense if there is no god.

Now, back to the idea of an afterlife...

 

[linwood]

I define god as the first cause, whatever that cause may be. Do not assume that this means anything more than what I have said, for I do not assume that this means anything more.

My only objection to this is that you yourself have based the non-existence of an afterlife on the property of "reasonableness" in this god.
If god is nothing more than a first cause how can you say whether this first cause(god) is "reasonable" or not?

EDIT:
The statement above is essentially what JS is getting at.
I just have this horrible habit of opening my mouth before I read the whole thread.
My apologies.

 

[Fascist Christ]

It doesn't explain why two soldiers who had just died appeared to my mom the night of the marine barracks bombing in Beirut. She didn't hear anything about the bombing until the next day. My mom isn't the kind of person who would make up a story about something like that. I guess it's possible that it is a coincidence.

It probably is a coincidence. The fact that this happened at night hints that it may have been a dream. Did the soldiers identify themselves as coming from Beirut? Why did they want to see your mom? It is sometimes comforting to think that death is not the end, but I believe that we should accept our mortality.

 

[Fascist Christ]

My only objection to this is that you yourself have based the non-existence of an afterlife on the property of "reasonableness" in this god.
If god is nothing more than a first cause how can you say whether this first cause(god) is "reasonable" or not?

EDIT:
The statement above is essentially what JS is getting at.
I just have this horrible habit of opening my mouth before I read the whole thread.
My apologies.

I find it reasonable to say that there may be a god, or that there may not be one. Neither side is provable, and so I find debate on the matter to be pointless. I'd rather look at the proposed acts of god, such as the afterlife, and question it thoroughly.

If there was a god, why an afterlife?

 

[Fascist Christ]

They told her that they had been killed and that they were lost. They wanted to know what to do.

That is exactly what many people would think they would say, and so the brain projects such thoughts into the mouths of the subjects of our dreams.

Unfortunatly, I don't have more details that that. I don't even know for sure that "at night" means that my mom was sleeping before it happened.

Keep in mind that you don't have to realize that you are asleep to observe the effects of a dream.