Belief in afterlife

[PureX]

You dressed the idea up in more language than was necessary, but I assure you, you DID state pretty plainly that atheists are incorrect when stating that they "do not believe in god," and that YOU know better, claiming instead that they actively "reject god" (see the blue highlighted text in the quote below).

What I wrote was that stating what one does NOT believe is just as egocentric as stating what one DOES believe, except that it's even less informative.

Granted, you also talked about theists being "wrong" about saying they "believe in God," but claim that they instead "accept God."

How is a theist saying "I believe in God" wrong? Who would know what they believe but themselves? All I was saying is that it's irrelevant and confusing to be proclaiming our beliefs, and "un-beliefs". Mostly, no one cares what we believe or don't believe but ourselves, and even that's mostly just egotism.

This is you PRETENDING that you are being impartial by appearing to have a "chastisement" for both sides. However, you know damn well that NO theist is going to take exception to that framing of the situation because, no matter what, it ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD - which theists all love to do anyway. My main point being that in casting atheists as "rejectors of god" you still assume god's existence! Much like the theist who says "I think everyone believes in God, some are just in denial."

Wow! That defensive bias has really warped your comprehension! I'm an agnostic theist. I have no illusions at all about being right or wrong regarding the existence or nature of god. I'm only interested in the positive function of placing faith in a god of my own choosing. Which I fully understand is not going to be transferable to anyone else.

Note that you clearly assume that "God [affects] the human experience" - because you claim that if He didn't, then there would be no point in considering the nature of God's existence ...

All I wrote was that the proposition of the nature and existence of God/gods is irrelevant if the proposed deity has no discernible or appreciable effect on us. How is this untrue, or deceptive?

- which also assumes (with no credible basis whatsoever) that because some of us do consider the nature of God's existence, that this means He must "affect the human experience."

You assumed this, perhaps, but you really have no idea what I was thinking. However, it is logical to consider that even if "God" does not exist as an 'external deity', the idea of God still does exist, and it still does effect us quite significantly. Thus, it could be called an 'internal deity'.

Note that you do not specify that merely "the idea of god" affects the human experience, but that "god affects the human experience."

Well, since you seem to want to get into this, I would say that the "idea" of everything effects us. Since everything we experience and respond to is being experienced and responded to as idealized phenomena. "Wetness", and "heat", for example, are idealized phenomena. So are love, and beauty, and justice, and even mathematical equality. These are all ideals from and through which we understand our experience of existing. And in that sense, the ideal of "God" is no different and no less significant.

This is grossly fallacious, circular reasoning - to posit that God must exist, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about Him, and that because we talk about Him then it means He must exist.

But I have not posited the idea that "God must exist". Though I would posit that God does exist as a conceptual ideal, just as love, beauty, justice, and mathematics exist as ideals. And as conceptual ideals they certainly do effect us, and effect the world we live in, through us.

The same could be said for ANYTHING. Some people genuinely talk over the existence of vampires. So, because there are people contemplating the existence of vampires, and therefore vampires "affect the human experience" it must mean that vampires themselves are what are affecting the human experience! Right?! I mean... this is YOUR logic I'm using here... so it must be correct!

I think you're missing the whole issue if you think it's about the "existence of vampires" rather than the recognition of "vampirism". Vampires are mythical representations of an anthropomorphized conception of parasitism. Vampires are (de-)humanized human parasites. The fascination with them as mythical creatures is really a fascination with parasitism between and among humans.

The same is true of the many various depictions of gods. The real issue was never that they "exist" or not. The real issue is what ideals they represent to us, and how they effect us, as conceptual ideals.

And then the second item in red: "the validity of the ideal being proposed" - clearly claiming that the ideal of "god" is valid - and this in the context of acceptance or rejection of god.

No, it's the context of the philosophical/theological proposition. Philosophy does not propose that gods exist. It proposes the ideal that many humans can and do accept; that God/gods exist. Theology, then, is the sub-category of philosophy through which these god-ideals are clarified, studied, and debated. The actual existence of gods is NOT what any of this is about. What it's all about is the idealization, and how that idealization of "God" effects us. "Theism" and "atheism" are primarily philosophical terms. And they are not about what anyone chooses to or not to "believe in".

Meaning that anyone who rejects god (which is the ONLY thing you want to afford atheists [see blue quote] specifically to be able to parade out this agenda of yours) is rejecting something valid, implying that they are therefore in the wrong, and denying "the truth."

The subject of the idealization of God/gods is real, and is valid. So much so that philosophers and theologians have been studying and debating it for many centuries. I'm sorry if that flies in the face of your anti-religious bias, but that's your problem to deal with, not mine. I, personally, don't care much for religion, either, but I recognize how and why it may be necessary and meaningful to a lot to other people.

 

[QuestioningMind]

According to the definitions I could find, an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God (or gods).
-> please correct me if I'm wrong

I would like to know if Atheists believe in the afterlife.
What about agnostics?

It's certainly possible. There's nothing about a lack of belief in god(s) that precludes a belief in an afterlife.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What I wrote was that stating what one does NOT believe is just as egocentric as stating what one DOES believe, except that it's even less informative.

And how is what one "accepts" or "rejects" so much more informative? Or was this not something you said either? I'm starting to wonder if you actually said anything at all.

How is a theist saying "I believe in God" wrong? Who would know what they believe but themselves? All I was saying is that it's irrelevant and confusing to be proclaiming our beliefs, and "un-beliefs". Mostly, no one cares what we believe or don't believe but ourselves, and even that's mostly just egotism.

Along the lines of the above - if it is irrelevant to proclaim what you do or do not "believe", then how is it so much more relevant to state what you do or do not "accept"?

Wow! That defensive bias has really warped your comprehension! I'm an agnostic theist. I have no illusions at all about being right or wrong regarding the existence or nature of god. I'm only interested in the positive function of placing faith in a god of my own choosing. Which I fully understand is not going to be transferable to anyone else.

In the end, you should just know that I reject your rejection that I am able to affect something other than "rejection" of god. And before you go into another "I never said that", please remember that you explicitly stated that atheism is not about one believes or doesn't believe, and showed favor toward the accept/reject paradigm. You did. You didn't simply call it "irrelevant" to talk about beliefs, you stated that for atheists to say that they "do not believe" is a false interpretation of their own ideas. And with that I'd like to point you to the quote of yours I colored in purple above... "Who would know what they believe but themselves?" Is that quote only applicable to theists? Does it simply not work for atheists? Do you feel that you know better in the case of atheists?

All I wrote was that the proposition of the nature and existence of God/gods is irrelevant if the proposed deity has no discernible or appreciable effect on us. How is this untrue, or deceptive?

And here again... deception. THIS is what you wrote:

That is the theistic proposition that God/gods exist and that the existence of such effects the human experience. (If "God" didn't effect the human experience there would be no point in considering the fact or nature of "God's" existence.)

Note that you DID NOT reference the "proposition of the nature and existence of God/gods," but "God," and this RIGHT AFTER stating that the theist position is that "God/gods exist and that the existence of such effects the human experience." So you set up the context of "God's existence", and then you push right into a statement saying that if God didn't affect the human experience, there would be no point considering the FACT (nice word choice here, BTW) or nature of God's existence. Since we humans obviously "consider the "fact or nature of God's existence" then it is supposed to be obvious that "God affects our existence." Now... if that, instead, were written the way you try to portray it NOW, such as: "the proposition of the nature and existence of God/gods affects our existence", THEN I could agree with you. Yes, the idea or proposition of God certainly affects our existence. No question. But "God?" BIG QUESTION.

You assumed this, perhaps, but you really have no idea what I was thinking.

Ahh... so you aren't necessarily in the habit of writing what you are thinking, or is it that you enjoy leaving things up for interpretation? Or you didn't realize it could be interpreted any way but the way you meant it in your head?

However, it is logical to consider that even if "God" does not exist as an 'external deity', the idea of God still does exist, and it still does effect us quite significantly. Thus, it could be called an 'internal deity'.

Which I would argue is a useless distinction. You're a human being. Perhaps get used to it?

Well, since you seem to want to get into this... [something, something, something... vamipirism is a metaphor for the human fascination with parasites.]

Well that went nowhere fast. Thanks for that.

The actual existence of gods is NOT what any of this is about.

Odd how very many believers would disagree with you on this point.

 

[WalterTrull]

It's certainly possible. There's nothing about a lack of belief in god(s) that precludes a belief in an afterlife

I really have nothing to add here other than that sometimes our differences in defining God is quite jarring.

 

[Jadamas]

I don't find D'Souza odious at all.

He is smart and articulate. He has an interesting background and perspective.

I don't always agree with him by any means. I think much of the attention he gets is due to having an unusually politically correct melanin level for someone so conservative. But the main reason people consider him odious is because he is so good at articulating politically incorrect views.
Tom

I could read that D’Souza is a political commentator, now I understand better the comments about him (sorry, I live in Europe and just don’t knoa who is this guy)

Do politicians use to write books about afterlife or religion?

 

[PureX]

And how is what one "accepts" or "rejects" so much more informative?

It requires a clear proposition for acceptance and elicits a clear line of reasoning for rejection. It's based on a stated philosophical/theological proposition, not whatever someone happens to "believe in" at any given moment.

Along the lines of the above - if it is irrelevant to proclaim what you do or do not "believe", then how is it so much more relevant to state what you do or do not "accept"?

It's based on intellect/reasoning rather than personality/ego.

 

[ChristineM]

According to the definitions I could find, an atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God (or gods).
-> please correct me if I'm wrong

I would like to know if Atheists believe in the afterlife.
What about agnostics?

No, not in the way religions say.

Death is the end of a personal life.

From death the body decomposes to its constituent molecules and atoms. At some point in the future some of those atoms may go to make up another living person

Its interesting to note that due to this natural recycling process we are all made up of dead people.

Another point, at some time in the far distant future your atoms could help produce another sun. Now aint that reality better than being stuck for infinity with a load of god believers?

 

[ChristineM]

hey Artist,
As to the Muslims….the afterlife is where they keep all the virgins isn't it ?
I don't know how they get there, but there's a lot of them there, seven per man ?
I'm not too sure, ask Allah !

Its 72. Obviously not thought through very well. Who in their right mind would want to spend eternity with 72 perpetual virgins each chattering away in a language indecipherable to normal, aging human beings while they send text after text after text to their besties who happen to be standing right next to them.

 

[The Anointed]

No, not in the way religions say.

Death is the end of a personal life.

From death the body decomposes to its constituent molecules and atoms. At some point in the future some of those atoms may go to make up another living person

Its interesting to note that due to this natural recycling process we are all made up of dead people.

Another point, at some time in the far distant future your atoms could help produce another sun. Now aint that reality better than being stuck for infinity with a load of god believers?

This body that you see It isn't really me
It's but the womb in which I'm being formed
For I am Spirit, I am mind and it's the only place you'll find
'Who I Am' until the day I'm finally born
For I will not be free until this body that you see
Has returned to the dust from which it came
It's then that I'll be born from this womb in which I'm formed
To continue on in lifes eternal game...…….The Anointed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It requires a clear proposition for acceptance and elicits a clear line of reasoning for rejection. It's based on a stated philosophical/theological proposition, not whatever someone happens to "believe in" at any given moment.
It's based on intellect/reasoning rather than personality/ego.

For the purposes of religious/spiritual/god-based "acceptance", I might argue that "belief" and "acceptance" are nearly one in the same. In either case you, personally, remain agnostic, do you not? Although, thinking on it in the agnostic light, to say you "accept that God exists" would actually sound more fallacious for you - as if you know that there is something there to accept, wouldn't it? To say that you "believe that God exists" does not connote the egotistical stance of implied "knowing". Couldn't one argue that it is actually more humble to admit that what you have is merely a "belief," rather than an acceptance of some fact or proposition of knowledge?

Or is your statement on the matter merely that you accept the idea of God? I mean... that is a rather pointless statement to make, after all. Even a knowledgeable atheist accepts the idea of God - otherwise how could they purport to not believe after having been exposed? They have to know and accept what the concept entails, even if they ultimately reject the existence of such a being.

 

[ChristineM]

This body that you see It isn't really me
It's but the womb in which I'm being formed
For I am Spirit, I am mind and it's the only place you'll find
'Who I Am' until the day I'm finally born
For I will not be free until this body that you see
Has returned to the dust from which it came
It's then that I'll be born from this womb in which I'm formed
To continue on in lifes eternal game...…….The Anointed.

Provide evidence for a spirit,
and/or eternity and I'll listen to your lyric

 

[Jadamas]

Its interesting to note that due to this natural recycling process we are all made up of dead people.

Can you elaborate on that? i didn t get i.
We are made up of dead people?

 

[`mud]

Everyone that dies is made of some remains of dead people.
Some is waste from, some is blood from, and eventually flesh from.
If cremated, the gases from the body whole, or the blood from an undertakers tubes,
where does that blood go, or rotting in a grave, and it takes a while, but it does.
From body to body and eventually into the air and the Cosmos itself.

 

[`mud]

I might add...from ashes to ashes and then some !

 

[`mud]

Take a breath...there's some gas from some person in that breath !

 

[`mud]

People came from the Cosmos....and they return to the Cosmos.

 

[`mud]

Life is Stuff...and it becomes more Stuff.
NuffStuff

 

[`mud]

ChristineM said: ↑
"No, not in the way religions say.

Death is the end of a personal life.

From death the body decomposes to its constituent molecules and atoms. At some point in the future some of those atoms may go to make up another living person

Its interesting to note that due to this natural recycling process we are all made up of dead people.

Another point, at some time in the far distant future your atoms could help produce another sun. Now aint that reality better than being stuck for infinity with a load of god believers?"
~
Thank you ChristneM….well intended...but as I do sometimes...I embellished .

 

[ChristineM]

Can you elaborate on that? i didn t get i.
We are made up of dead people?

Every particle in your body has been in existence since the beginning of the universe. Hydrogen and helium atoms formed from these particles which formed in 1st generation suns, these suns created the lighter elements. The heavier elements (above iron) were formed in dying stars. Our sun and Earth formed from these atoms over 4.5 billion years ago. This process can be observed occuring in nebulas (star nurseries) across the universe.

Those atoms are used and reused over the eons. Around 100 billion people have lived and died. Their atoms are reused to help form new objects (in this case, people). Chances are that some of those reused atoms will make up a proportion of your body.

 

[osgart]

There is something about a living creature that makes them uniquely them. In me there is an inextinguishable essence that makes me me. It goes well beyond description, and as i sense it, it feels totally unlike molecules and atoms.

Why are most atoms and molecules non living anyway, and per chance life makes an experiencer out of a void of such life?

What is the spark that lights the fire called being alive? Depth of cares, and depth of understanding, if one becomes as such. What use to survival is the ability to love care, that it dont also bring suffering?

I never understood why people would not want to live forever. I do understand that those same people appreciate this life as the all of all, and can so easily, when its time, let go of it all.

Once you love forever, its as if death itself is totally distasteful and a bitter pill.

Those that grow tired of living have deep cares no doubt, but love perhaps fades into a fond memory, and a temporal life is sufficient. Its interesting that people feel this way.

Who knows? An afterlife seems quite possible to me. i would like to know exactly how the life essence actually becomes non existant. Though it seems it most surely will, i dont see that it has been proven to happen. Other times it seems totally impossible that life at its essence is extinguishable.