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

[LuisDantas]

You should report yourself for that remark.

Indulge me... why?

 

[Thief]

Indulge me... why?

Demeaning, unproductive.....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Aftelife beliefs are poisonous and corrupting.

How so?

 

[LuisDantas]

Demeaning, unproductive.....

Excuse me? That does not even make sense as a reply to my post, no matter how deeply we might disagree.

 

[LuisDantas]

How so?

I feel that I am repeating myself, but they are often (and in some beliefs, notably kardecist spiritism, usually) distractions from the actual situations that we face and the moral weight of our actions and decisions.

Most of all, because afterlife beliefs are so speculative and so malleable to wishful thinking, they become fertile ground for fantasies of self-justification. It get quite ugly and destructive when left unchecked, not only for the mental sanity of the believer, but also for the confort and even safety of those unfortunate enough to have to depend on his or her support and judgement.

In essence, afterlife beliefs are wild card enablers of self-justification. It is simply so very difficult for one who holds them not to project his own pet peeves and less honorable feelings into such a frame.

 

[shawn001]

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.

I am number 6 on that list.

 

[shawn001]

Smartguy, here is a thought as well, because you mentioned in the flesh.


Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones
You are more bacteria than you are you, according to the latest body census

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones - Scientific American


No matter where one would go, do you take these organisms with you which is needed in keeping the human body functioning?

 

[Smart_Guy]

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.

Thank you again.

Yes, and I respect how atheists feel. I wish we all respect each other's feelings, even if we disagree with each other's beliefs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Afterlife sure is there. Not for me, but for the atoms that constitute my body.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Smartguy, here is a thought as well, because you mentioned in the flesh.


Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones
You are more bacteria than you are you, according to the latest body census

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones - Scientific American


No matter where one would go, do you take these organisms with you which is needed in keeping the human body functioning?

Well, we are talking God, heaven and hell here. I don't think it really matter if we do or don't take those organisms if the subject supernatural things turned out to be real. Things will surely be managed some way or another.

 

[Sabour]

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.

Here is something interesting I was reading from a while,

Religion and Economic Growth

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/barro/files/religion_and_economic_growth_2003.pdf

We now consider religion’s role in the
determination of economic growth. Our
central perspective is
that religion affects economic outcomes mainly by fostering
religious beliefs that influen
ce individual traits such as
thrift, work ethic, honesty, and
openness to strangers. For example, beliefs in
heaven and hell might affect these traits by
creating perceived rewards and punishments th
at relate to “good”
and “bad” lifetime
behavior.

 

[Blastcat]

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.

I think I should thank you for this? You intend to enlighten me perhaps.. But when I pay attention and try to make sense of what you posted.. I'm dismayed. Unless you don't really care to be made sense of, to me, your words of wisdom fall flat. I thank you for your attempt, but have to tell you that at least in this instance, your efforts left me baffled, instead.

What can you possibly mean? Let me explain.. I'm not being unfair.. I would like you to understand what I mean.. If you allow me to show you how I took your words from my perspective.

So, of course, we can wait a long time for evidence if something isn't real. That's what we would expect.
I don't know what you mean by introducing the concept of faith.

Are you saying that I should adopt the method of faith in order to know if something is real or not?

I can see reality all around me.. yes.. but to say that it is a creation is hopelessly circular. We would first have to agree that what is around is IS a creation.. that something created it and so on.. I see no evidence for that. It's an unsupported hidden assumption that I have to reject. Why not go with something that is more probable.. we DO know that reality exists.. and that perfectly natural causes are the only KIND of causes that we can actually observe. So, why not go with that, instead of postulating some super being at the end of the rainbow?

So, of course, I don't have an apriori belief in a "creator".. And therefore, I cannot accept that reality is a creation, let alone this creator's creation. What if it WERE created.. we could not know what this creator WAS in any way.. Again, it's mere postulation on your part to say that it was YOUR kind of creator. Your presumption is IMMENSE...and it's not reasonable in any way.

Maybe that's why you invoke faith .. because that's all you have in the way of evidence or proof.. and I'm sorry , but your beliefs don't say anything about the TRUTH.

It's as if for some reason, the truth of this hugely important question isn't important to you at all.. and I find that surpassingly strange.

So, maybe your short hand approach needs a bit more lengthening. There's a lot that you wrote that I can't even understand. It would be great if you could explain your thoughts a bit.

 

[Thief]

ok....I will try again...

Science would have you believe that all of everything once held a common location.....a singularity.

But no sooner do you accept that notion....science fails.
For the singularity to be truly singular.....no secondary point is allowed.
The instant a secondary point forms....infinity is formed between those two points.

With only one position to describe a singularity.....there is no math.
There will be no equation.
Light as we know it, has not taken form...no light , no shadow.
There is no heat, no cold.
No movement, no time.

Void.

I then decide that science is correct.
an item at rest will remain at rest until 'something' moves it.

I then do what science cannot.....I assume Spirit first.

There is no photo, no fingerprint, no equation, no repeatable experiment.

Faith is defined as believing...though no proof is offered.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. a singularity.

I then decide that science is correct. An item at rest will remain at rest until 'something' moves it.

A singularity need not always remain a singularity (something that we cannot explain). The problem may be solved.

Nothing is ever at rest. The world of atoms is totally dynamic. That is the nature of Brahman ('what exists'). To remain at rest will be a change.

 

[Thief]

A singularity need not always remain a singularity (something that we cannot explain). The problem may be solved.

Nothing is ever at rest. The world of atoms is totally dynamic. That is the nature of Brahman ('what exists'). To remain at rest will be a change.

For movement to be noted.....you need point A and motion toward point B.

The singularity is one point.

'Let there be light'....changed that, into everything else.

 

[Blastcat]

ok....I will try again...

Science would have you believe that all of everything once held a common location.....a singularity.

No, science doesn't want us to BELIEVE in a singularity. Where do you get this?

But no sooner do you accept that notion....science fails.

All of science, or just that little bit of it?

For the singularity to be truly singular.....no secondary point is allowed.
The instant a secondary point forms....infinity is formed between those two points.

I'm sure you're right. Go discuss this with the physicists.

With only one position to describe a singularity.....there is no math.
There will be no equation.

I'm sure you're right. Go discuss this with the physicists and the mathematicians.

I then do what science cannot.....I assume Spirit first.

Oh the scientists CAN do that.. they can assume anything they want. It's just that they don't want to assume anything.
Other than science as a method actually works. Because it does. To a certain degree.. when it gets to the point where we just can't observe a phenomenon, they don't pretend they have found a truth. They either keep looking or they wait for new data.

Speculation is cheap. In the case of scientific speculation, it's not ever based on pure myth, but on what they already KNOW to be true. like physics and math. They take "educated" guessed.

what you just did is start from your conclusion that a spirit thingy exists, and THEN speculate about it. But there is NO evidence ofa spirit thingy that impacts the universe in any way. All you do have is a book.. and a belief in a book. And an interpretation of a belief about a book. All speculative, all based on very old thinking.. most of which has been proved false by SCIENCE..

But you don't accept any science, so you discard all the knowledge that science has discovered. And you seem to be fine with that..
So, you seemingly think that ASSUMING your conclusion first is going to make a good case for your conclusion. Maybe you haven't heard of how circular thinking isn't thought of as a very good method to know if anything is true or not.

And, I suspect, you are so in love with your conclusion, that methods don't really bother you. What's important here is ONLY your conclusion and NOT your methods to arrive at your conclusions.

And you are free to do that.. but don't expect anyone to be particularly impressed by your reasoning. Sorry.

Faith is defined as believing...though no proof is offered.

So believe in Santa, for I offer no proof. Just use your faith. And believe what the Muslims tell you .. because all you need is faith for that to be true as well. Have faith. If you have enough faith, every possible claim will become true.

Is that what you want me to agree with?

 

[Aupmanyav]

For movement to be noted.....you need point A and motion toward point B.

I think, that is quite Newtonian. There are perhaps other type of motions too.

 

[Thief]

I think, that is quite Newtonian. There are perhaps other type of motions too.

Rotation!

Thank you......it's the next item on the list.

Science would have you believe an object at rest will remain that way....until 'something' moves it.
I lean to saying Spirit first!
God put all things into motion.

The spin is essential.
If the 'big bang' had been a simple explosion...all of the creation would be a single pulse of an expanding sphere of energy.
No rotation.

The rotation would need to be in motion...BEFORE...the expansion begins.

You need two points for an axis.

Please consider.....and take your time.
(btw....time does not exist)

 

[shawn001]

Rotation!

Thank you......it's the next item on the list.

Science would have you believe an object at rest will remain that way....until 'something' moves it.
I lean to saying Spirit first!
God put all things into motion.

The spin is essential.
If the 'big bang' had been a simple explosion...all of the creation would be a single pulse of an expanding sphere of energy.
No rotation.

The rotation would need to be in motion...BEFORE...the expansion begins.

You need two points for an axis.

Please consider.....and take your time.
(btw....time does not exist)

First off the big bang was NOT an explosion. There were also two "let there be lights" before recombination and after recombination.

The singularity is not part of the actual BB theory which is basically it was hot and dense in the past.

Its like abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[Blastcat]

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.



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.

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?

Those images are pretty creepy, especially the weird one .. the one that depicts a sexual position.. or an actual sexual act. Whatever. I have a question though.. it says under your nick-name that you are an atheist but here you say that you believe in gods.. Which is it?