It is difficult to come to terms with the idea of nothingness...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Yeah, but for a theist this "loss" is very temporary. It isn't really a loss at all actually, so there's not much reason to feel sad. I guess you'd mourn because you have to wait all of those years on the human scale until you're dead too, but when I watch theists grieve it seems like more to me. It seems like you feel somewhere in your heart that you might never see your loved one again. So does that mean that you feel nothingness might be a possibility?

---

The idea of nothingness can be comforting too. It means no more hardship or suffering. The other thing about it is that you'll be going back to where you were before you were born when all the world was happening without you.

For myself, this is a bottom line comfort - at least we've been in that situation before. But I have been attracted to reincarnation since i was a child. It just seems to make more sense to me, though the more you look into reincarnation, the less comforting it can seem.

It makes more sense to me than a once only chance at life from one of the theistic religions where so much is down to chance - culture, finanaces, accidents, poverty etc. How easy is it for things to go horribly wrong, and how fair is that?

On the other hand, with more information on reincarnation beliefs, the propect of rebirth as an insect, animal or another unfortunate type of being is not very comforting. Even rebirth as a relatively fortunate human still involves the usual sufferings of life - ageing, sickness and death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

For myself, this is a bottom line comfort - at least we've been in that situation before. But I have been attracted to reincarnation since i was a child. It just seems to make more sense to me, though the more you look into reincarnation, the less comforting it can seem.

---

Yeah man, same here. I'm pretty much with The Comedian and Daniel in that the only thing that I know is that I'm here right now, and whatever the answers to the secrets of the universe are I'm pretty sure that we have no idea... but if I were to guess, given the limited knowledge that we as a species have, I'd say that reincarnation makes the most sense. Just ending seems logical, but I think that there's something more to our existance that we don't know yet. Everything seems just too complex to be a random accident. I find the concept of heaven and hell silly, because like you said, one shot and that's it? Plus, wouldn't it get crowded?

And yeah, just ceasing to exist might be more comfortable than being born a lab rat or something. Hey, isn't that a Bhuddist thing? Like, the highest level of existance is a kind of "nothingness," a complete loss of self when you merge with the universe/god/whatever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I would hate to see this thread turning into another "my religious belief vs yours" thread.

---

Heh, yeah. I'm trying to keep it existential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Yeah man, same here. I'm pretty much with The Comedian and Daniel in that the only thing that I know is that I'm here right now, and whatever the answers to the secrets of the universe are I'm pretty sure that we have no idea... but if I were to guess, given the limited knowledge that we as a species have, I'd say that reincarnation makes the most sense. Just ending seems logical, but I think that there's something more to our existance that we don't know yet. Everything seems just too complex to be a random accident. I find the concept of heaven and hell silly, because like you said, one shot and that's it? Plus, wouldn't it get crowded?

And yeah, just ceasing to exist might be more comfortable than being born a lab rat or something. Hey, isn't that a Bhuddist thing? Like, the highest level of existance is a kind of "nothingness," a complete loss of self when you merge with the universe/god/whatever?



Heh, yeah. I'm trying to keep it existential.

---

The highest level in Buddhism is freedom from rebirth - birth ageing sickness death. It's difficult to describe - not nothingness, but another kind of existence. :smile5:

As I understand it - mystic terminology aside - the Buddhist concept is more an explanation of the cycle of energy and matter than a suggestion of immortality. If your personal consciousness is dissipated then 'you' are in fact dead. You're no more alive than a cow that's been turned into burgers and distributed amongst the fast-food diners of Chicago. So, for me at least, the highest level of Buddhism is personal extinction.

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Exactly, and that's why 15% of the population want to kill everybody :rolleyes:

---

LOL, you are talking as if the only bad thing that a human can do is murder…There are many awful crimes, and I was referring to every shameful act you can think of not only killing and it is not attached to certain sect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

The yearning to kill is not a yearning of any sort of normal person (theist or atheist), it is the yearning of a sick and lunatic mind. Are you saying that all atheists are sociopaths?

---

No, I never said that. And I agree that either theist or non theist would do such horrible acts due to the sickness in their minds. But tell me if there was no worldly punishment for any crime, who would not still commit crimes? The believer in afterlife, or someone who doesn't believe in it?!

And please don't tell me human compassion and so on....As we all can see the horrible wars all over the world, and we see no compassion or anything like that. In fact one self is more important than that compassion (in case that person didn't reinforce that passion through Divine Justice).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

I'm still missing your point. How is a limited life equivalent to a miserable one? If a belief in heaven stems out of wishful-thinking, then I don't want any part in it.

---

My point is that belief in afterlife would give those oppressed the strength to accept their fate in this limited life, and try to do their best to live honorable life in the next life. That belief is not a "wishful-thinking" it is a certainty: Belief in God + Good deeds=Paradise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

In the end, doesn't a cruel, indifferent universe that causes mass natural disasters like Haiti merely by its own logic sound more benevolent than a conscious universe with a God who causes the deaths of thousands for . . . . .what? If there is anyone more oppressing it is God.

---

First of all, I want to express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the Haitians. In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence. They are also tests of faith, helpfulness, brotherhood, sincerity and so on of humans. They are not simply a sort of punishment, but rather a test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Again, your concept of justice is a Platonic one and you treat it as if it were a material thing.

---

I didn't know that:D…But would you please elaborate on the Platonic Justice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Most of us feel an adherence to justice because we're human.

---

And because we are humans, we should adhere to justice in all cases. We have to believe in a just life after a life full of hypocrisy and oppression, with a slight ray of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

You aren't contextualizing the former, it is a purely selfish act. Oh and don't give me crap like it's a modified ethical egoism.

---

Well, we should first define "ethical egoism" to know whether what I'm saying is modified or not.

"Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism)[1] is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest." Ethical egoism

Why is it modified? Because a believer is doing something against his own interest in this life (ethical altruism)…But due to Divine Justice, his good deeds will not go with the wind. Instead, he would be rewarded for that (modified ethical egoism).
I think it is quite clear that the two concepts are kinda different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

Also, you didn't answer my question; what makes a believers saving of a drowning person better than a nonbeliever saving a drowning person?

---

Sorry, it is not intentional; I didn't see your question, really:)

They key word in your question is "Believer" that's the difference. A believer would do that and waiting the reward in the afterlife, while a non-believer would be waiting it in this life. And both of them would get what they wanted (The Divine Justice)!

Quote:

---

In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence.

---

So he terrorises people just because he can, and he wants to make sure we know it.

If a ten-year-old acted like that, you'd send him to bed with no dinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

However, that does not make it any less true, in my opinion.

---

How so? I believe if it was unfair concept from the beginning, then it is not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

This is a sad question. Humans are not animals; our minds have developed enough that we can differentiate between right or wrong.

---

Agreed!

But who would set the rules of the right and the wrong? What was believed wrong and shameful yesterday, is considered great and correct today. And the question is why? Perhaps because human interests play great role in determining the right, and the wrong thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

We can be aware that our actions have results that can hurt other people, and we can choose not to do them because we care for others....

---

Exactly, that's why I said that people would feel free to do what they desire to the limits that others would let them to do. Due to that thing, there should be a fixable guide for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

So he terrorises people just because he can, and he wants to make sure we know it.

If a ten-year-old acted like that, you'd send him to bed with no dinner.

---

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything? Search in your life, and you will find a balanced amount of fear and love in everything we do. So why do you want it different in our relationship with our creator?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercy_mankind

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything?

---

No, I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

No, I don't.

---

Why? for example, we work hard because we want to achieve success to a certain degree, and also because we fear failure, and the consequences of it. Correct?!
Also the relationship between a child and his parents is based on love and fear, so can you deny that a chid sometimes fear his parents if he did something wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercy_mankind

...the relationship between a child and his parents is based on love and fear, so can you deny that a chid sometimes fear his parents if he did something wrong?

---

I think I'd be concerned for the welfare of any child who was afraid of his parents.

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I think I'd be concerned for the welfare of any child who was afraid of his parents.

---

It would be more accurate to say that fear is required in some situations, not the base of the relationship. Anyway what you said doesn't answer my question!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

---

Can you refer to the post where I said that thing?! I said earthquakes, and such disasters are tests for us, in fact the whole life is a test!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercy_mankind

Can you refer to the post where I said that thing?

---

Yes, I can. You said,

earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence

And when I said that it was a bit much of God to bully people in that way, you replied,

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything?

I'm assuming you don't feel the earthquakes are intended to inspire love - so they must be intended to inspire fear.

But we'll agree to differ on this - you think that God is entitled to remind us of His Majesty by flattening cities, and I think that even God can't come up with an excuse for that.

I'm much more interested in soliciting responses to the point I made in an earlier post - to wit:

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

As I understand it - mystic terminology aside - the Buddhist concept is more an explanation of the cycle of energy and matter than a suggestion of immortality. If your personal consciousness is dissipated then 'you' are in fact dead. You're no more alive than a cow that's been turned into burgers and distributed amongst the fast-food diners of Chicago. So, for me at least, the highest level of Buddhism is personal extinction.

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

---

You're right about the cycle of energy, but not about extinction, which is specifically denied in the teachings. The energy - positive and negative propels the person into the next life. Personality is regarded as insubstantial, and this can be seen in the experience of feelig the same, but actually, over time, changing attitudes, habits, opinions etc.Though we might feel a continuity of individuality, we change all the time.

The point of the teachings is to effect a positive outcome for rebirth and ultimately Enlightenment. Otherwise if it's about dissipation then what would be the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercy_mankind

LOL, you are talking as if the only bad thing that a human can do is murder…There are many awful crimes, and I was referring to every shameful act you can think of not only killing and it is not attached to certain sect.



No, I never said that. And I agree that either theist or non theist would do such horrible acts due to the sickness in their minds. But tell me if there was no worldly punishment for any crime, who would not still commit crimes? The believer in afterlife, or someone who doesn't believe in it?!

And please don't tell me human compassion and so on....As we all can see the horrible wars all over the world, and we see no compassion or anything like that. In fact one self is more important than that compassion (in case that person didn't reinforce that passion through Divine Justice).



My point is that belief in afterlife would give those oppressed the strength to accept their fate in this limited life, and try to do their best to live honorable life in the next life. That belief is not a "wishful-thinking" it is a certainty: Belief in God + Good deeds=Paradise.


First of all, I want to express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the Haitians. In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence. They are also tests of faith, helpfulness, brotherhood, sincerity and so on of humans. They are not simply a sort of punishment, but rather a test.



I didn't know that:D…But would you please elaborate on the Platonic Justice?



And because we are humans, we should adhere to justice in all cases. We have to believe in a just life after a life full of hypocrisy and oppression, with a slight ray of justice.



Well, we should first define "ethical egoism" to know whether what I'm saying is modified or not.

"Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism)[1] is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest." Ethical egoism

Why is it modified? Because a believer is doing something against his own interest in this life (ethical altruism)…But due to Divine Justice, his good deeds will not go with the wind. Instead, he would be rewarded for that (modified ethical egoism).
I think it is quite clear that the two concepts are kinda different.



Sorry, it is not intentional; I didn't see your question, really:)

They key word in your question is "Believer" that's the difference. A believer would do that and waiting the reward in the afterlife, while a non-believer would be waiting it in this life. And both of them would get what they wanted (The Divine Justice)!

---

There is no doubt that religous ethics and law are he basis of laws modern laws, but in modern secular societies the legal sytems have encompassed and superceded religious laws which are inadequate in dealing with modern problems.

These are the laws that dissuade the poential transgressor from committing all manner of crimes, but the fact remains that these people are in the minority. As such I don't see why there needs to b the idea of supreme judgmental God. In fact a lot of atheists must be thoroughly decent people.

I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving creator God with the vengeful tester of faith such a in Haiti. Like Mark, I could not respect a God that inflicted suffering to make a point, and you on't need to delve very far to see awful sufering all around, let alone in earthquake zones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

You're right about the cycle of energy, but not about extinction, which is specifically denied in the teachings. The energy - positive and negative propels the person into the next life. Personality is regarded as insubstantial, and this can be seen in the experience of feelig the same, but actually, over time, changing attitudes, habits, opinions etc.Though we might feel a continuity of individuality, we change all the time.

---

I'd say the continuum is memory - the ability to track ourselves by our experience. My contention is that if we lose that contiguous experience of ourselves, we're dead. In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I'd say the continuum is memory - the ability to track ourselves by our experience. My contention is that if we lose that contiguous experience of ourselves, we're dead. In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

---

There are meditaton practices that whereby the practitioner can track back through their former memories, though I don't know how useful that is.

You've been to some great parties I see.:biggrinjester:

:smilielol5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

---

:cornut:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

You've been to some great parties I see.

---

Speaking of which, if there were an afterlife, this is how it ought to work.

I would like to ask you, do you agree with the statement that "Everything has a source"? To me the this is the most simple... it seems people may have overlooked it.

Everything does have a source. It's a law of the universe. :p

Just like the source of all life on Earth is the Sun.

The nature of everything is light... all forms are but forms of light.

Duality is an illusion. In the highest stage one realizes, one is not separate from the source. How can we be separate from our source? In that state, one realizes that all is of the same source...

Realization of non-duality is what the mystics have sought after... interestingly from different cultures and times they came to the same conclusion: Laoze, Black Elk (from North America..), Alan Watts, Swami Vivekananda... all had a similar experience of oneness with the universe. Black Elk said, "Only when men know that they are one with the universe shall they know peace in their souls"...

And why? Well - if duality is a false idea, and non-duality is the truth; then everything which exists coming from the source mind which is under the illusion of duality; that is also an illusion. To realize you are one with the universe therefore means to wake up from a dream. You realize that everything else you thought had been nothing. You were, that is, never bound, not really.

Mystics all over have said a similar thing; they saw that the source of existence was truth; or God; it was infinite joy, peace, knowledge...

Enlightenment is higher consciousness, it is divine consciousness. It is meaning. What is the meaning of being? Any being in the universe, and all beings; are of one continuous wave with the universe. The depth of the being of an ant is no less than the depth of being of the earth or the stars. Within every being is the Source of Being, the "I Am."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Speaking of which, if there were an afterlife, this is how it ought to work.

---

:biggrin5: Superb

The scientific perspective on where we get our morality is simple... sweet, sweet evolution. Humans don't have claws, or sharp teeth, or fur... while other species can use conflict to obtain the resources that they need, we have to rely on cooperation to survive. Rules of right and wrong ensure that our species continues to exist. Behaviour which is beneficial to the group is sustained, and that which harms the group is selected against (we kill the offender, or put them somewhere where they won't be able to reproduce, like prison). Behaviour which we now consider "bad" is that which harms the group, and that which harms the group tends to debilitate either ourselves or our offspring in the long run. That's why the majority of people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering. That's where morality comes from. We don't need the idea of a god to instruct us, it‘s just common sense.

Don't get me wrong, people still do bad things; however, some system of laws and morality has existed in every culture, and arose because of the group's need to cooperate.

Besides, religious people do bad things ALL THE TIME. Spanish inquisition, anyone? And, Hitler thought that he was doing God's work. Yeah, religious people are always sweethearts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

The scientific perspective on where we get our morality is simple... sweet, sweet evolution. Humans don't have claws, or sharp teeth, or fur... while other species can use conflict to obtain the resources that they need, we have to rely on cooperation to survive. Rules of right and wrong ensure that our species continues to exist. Behaviour which is beneficial to the group is sustained, and that which harms the group is selected against (we kill the offender, or put them somewhere where they won't be able to reproduce, like prison). Behaviour which we now consider "bad" is that which harms the group, and that which harms the group tends to debilitate either ourselves or our offspring in the long run. That's why the majority of people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering. That's where morality comes from. We don't need the idea of a god to instruct us, it‘s just common sense.

Don't get me wrong, people still do bad things; however, some system of laws and morality has existed in every culture, and arose because of the group's need to cooperate.

Besides, religious people do bad things ALL THE TIME. Spanish inquisition, anyone? And, Hitler thought that he was doing God's work. Yeah, religious people are always sweethearts.

---

A bit of a generalisation, but it seems so. I think religious people who do bad things become more high profile because we experct them to be good/ better(?) for being religious. It is especially disappointing for such a person to flaunt the law/ morality.

There have been quite a number of scandals, child abuse, corruption, double standards and so on, but there are lots of religious people out there quietly doing good - helping the homeles, Haiti etc,etc. It is a shame to tar these people with the same brush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

The scientific perspective on where we get our morality is simple... sweet, sweet evolution. Humans don't have claws, or sharp teeth, or fur... while other species can use conflict to obtain the resources that they need, we have to rely on cooperation to survive. Rules of right and wrong ensure that our species continues to exist. Behaviour which is beneficial to the group is sustained, and that which harms the group is selected against (we kill the offender, or put them somewhere where they won't be able to reproduce, like prison). Behaviour which we now consider "bad" is that which harms the group, and that which harms the group tends to debilitate either ourselves or our offspring in the long run. That's why the majority of people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering. That's where morality comes from. We don't need the idea of a god to instruct us, it‘s just common sense.

---

Group selection is kind of a weak hypothesis, it isn't really supported by any substantial evidence. It makes logical sense, but there are better explanations. I would go with kin-selection and reciprocal altruism to explain the evolution of morality in humans. Selection working on the level of the individual rather than the group is better supported by the evidence.

Individuals who are moral and cooperate better with others will have a higher chance of survival, thus genes that promote cooperation, thus moral behavior, get selected for. I'm just nitpicking but I prefer to crack down on group selection whenever I see it prop up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I've always been fascinated by the atheist's concept of death. The atheistic belief is that when you die, that's it. It is the end of you, the end of your person, end of story. This is a difficult idea to cozy up to. Personally, I think that it takes a lot of courage. So here's what I want to know:

Atheists: How do you come to terms with death? The actual idea that you will end? What do you think it'll be like, to not exist (that's a weird question, but go with it)? Do you have any hope that your consciousness will continue in some form? Why are we concious in the first place (why do these little atoms and cells come together to make the humans that we are, if you get my meaning. Why are we ourselves)?Are you afraid?

Theists: I want to know what you think about this. I don't just want to hear "that's not possible, I KNOW that there's an afterlife because I believe in my god and have faith," I want to know how you feel about the supposition of cessation. Do you think that loss of consciousness is a possibility? Do you think that atheists are doing a disservice (causing damage, or whatever) by teaching their children that death is the end? Are you afraid?

---

As a theist I do envy them to think of death as the end of everything . It is a great relief .For the theist death means " time is out " ; you cannot repent anymore ; it is a new beginning for a new life .
From my own experince I found out that there are many meanings and purposes to our life . In this light I cannot say that an atheist cannot have his / her own meaning , purpose or morality . The religious meaning is the " Ultimate one " you can reach in your life ; it gives you additional or higher motives but is not everything .
On the personal level it gave me extreme peace and pleasure I couldn't reach with anything else .

On the other hand , I think there is an atheist within every theist .There come many moments in our life when we behave , think , and response as an atheist . Life is a struggle ; this struggle is part of the meaning itself .It is not human to stick to one way in each moment of your conscious life .

Quote:

---

From my own experince I found out that there are many meanings and purposes to our life . In this light I cannot say that an atheist cannot have his / her own meaning , purpose or morality . The religious meaning is the " Ultimate one " you can reach in your life ; it gives you additional or higher motives but is not everything .
On the personal level it gave me extreme peace and pleasure I couldn't reach with anything else.

---

People like you inspire others to be more supporting of everyone's beliefs. Thank you!

:grouphug:

I believe there is nothing after personally. I HOPE there is no after life. In Christian terms, the idea of heaven and hell sound utterly ridiculous. In hell, you suffer. In heaven, basically you serve a god for eternity. Yeah, it's described as a pretty place, no suffering, and luxury... but everything in there is described to honoring God and Christ. (Revelation 4:8-11) ;

There is no fear, sadness, anger, or any of the "dark" emotions that complete our humanity. (Revelation 21:4)


The bible says we should "long for heaven" , or in other words, wish to die. (Phil. 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:8).

Everyone will end up in the same white robes, and so forth. (Dan. 12:3; Matt. 13:43; Rev. 3:4; 6:11) I'd say everyone would be the same, but God plays favorites in heaven. (Matt. 6:19-25; 25:20-21; Luke 19:17-19; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 2 Cor. 5:9,10). Moreso, certain people will be given crowns. the crown of life (James 1:12; Rev. 2:10), the incorruptible crown (1 Cor. 9:24, 25), crown of rejoicing (1 Thes. 2:19; Phil. 4:1), crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:1-4), and crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:6-8).


Sounds like a place that's all fine and dandy, but it's all happiness. You can't even FEEL sadness or anything. The very dark side of the mind that gives us our complete humanity is gone. It's a contradiction to the will to life (suffering is needed to promote survival, hunger, for instance). And this will never stop. The same robotic worshiping christ, and feasting for eternity.

I don't mean this so much as an attack on Christianity, but the idea of heaven does not sound appealing at all. I

Been thinkin' more about this, and the more I do, the more I come back to the subject line of the post: "It is difficult come to terms with. . .". How true. Paulclem in several of his posts has expressed this difficulty. And I think I may have been too quick and dismissive in my initial post on the topic.

I think whether we are atheiest or theists, we all seek shelter from the prospect that there is nothing, that we will be nothing. Of course, I will argue strongly that just because "nothingness" is scary, doesn't mean it's the truth. I think that many of us (myself included) are too quick to equate bad news with the truth.

Sometimes the prospect of nothingness makes me want to cry like a little girl. I want to cry because, when faced with the horrible prospect of nothing, I become filled with regret: I wish that I had better spent my brief time here better (not more indulgently, but with a mind of poignancy and an eye for simple beauties). It makes me want to say "sorry" to a hundred people. Maybe this is the origin of atonement and the Jewish high holiday of Yom Kippur. And even the true presence of nothingness does not kill meaning and purpose: meaning and purpose become isolated moments, bursts, hugs & kisses -- not interconnected chains.

But as others have expressed here, such as NikoliI: just because the prospect nothingness appears to us doesn't make it real. Our perception of "nothingness" could simply be, in reality, a transition: into light, a cockroach, a bit of stardust, a ghost, or something else entirely for which we have no word and no wisdom to describe.

Okay, I'll sign off on this speculative rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I've always been fascinated by the atheist's concept of death. The atheistic belief is that when you die, that's it. It is the end of you, the end of your person, end of story. This is a difficult idea to cozy up to. Personally, I think that it takes a lot of courage.

---

But the courageous part is living. Without the certainty of a prescribed moral code and the threat of punishment after death, what are we supposed to believe? How are we supposed to act? The nothingness isn't just after death, it's throughout our lives. It's no wonder some people can't accept it.

Quote:

---

Atheists: How do you come to terms with death? The actual idea that you will end? What do you think it'll be like, to not exist (that's a weird question, but go with it)? Do you have any hope that your consciousness will continue in some form? Why are we concious in the first place (why do these little atoms and cells come together to make the humans that we are, if you get my meaning. Why are we ourselves)?Are you afraid?

---

Death is part of life. Why should not being alive anymore feel any different than not being born yet?

Those why questions are the ones that can't be answered honestly. What answer would you conceivably accept?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Without the idea of an afterlife, then what's the point of doing anything while we're alive?

---

I think of it completely differently. If there's no afterlife, that makes it all the more important to do meaningful things while we're alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

I HOPE there is no after life...the idea of heaven does not sound appealing at all.

---

I don't share that hope. I think it's understandable that the suffering of the innocent and the unfairness of life make people wish for justice in some afterlife. But just wishing for it doesn't make it plausible. And the empty promise of an eternal reward has caused incalculable misery on Earth.

Regards,

Istvan