Life after Death?

[Ruby]

So I have a legitimate question for Christians, definitely relevant to the topic title. Last night I attended a little kids' musical at a "community" church. The very first song was "Tell The World".

What I was thinking during that song was, no matter how many Christian evangelicals you have, you're not going to be able to reach your message to everyone in all the continents. It would be utterly impossible to spread your message of Jesus to /everyone/ who's never heard of it - in South America, China, the Middle East, Africa; population growth of 'heretics' alone ensures that. Some people think babies are automatically saved because they... haven't had the chance to know him, so they belong with him by default? The other side to that issue is all deceased babies tortured for eternity, which sure doesn't seem like the actions of an everloving benevolent god.

Why doesn't the same hold for grown, morally good people who haven't heard the message either? Either they go to him from their ignorance - in which case no one should ever hear the message because just hearing it gives them a chance of going to hell - or they're sent to hell without a chance, which, again, isn't much good publicity for an everloving omniscient being. Besides the fact that most of them have their /own/ religion, so unless the message is 'it doesn't matter who you believe as long as you believe' - which isn't the message of most of that sort - whether they tell them or not, it won't do any good.

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this question, but I don't have the mindset and my parents... don't like any reminder that I'm not 'one of them'. So?

(My answer to the topic title, btw: I /know/ there is only obliteration after death... but I'm human, and can't get over wanting, hoping for something else. [Mostly fictionalized accounts of the afterlife - Everlost, TWEWY, and I especially like Discworld's "you just go where you most want to go".] Also, this is awesome and quite relevant as well.)

Arguing about theological nonsense like this is just pandering to them. The case for any sort of Godlike thing is weak. There is no case at all for the God who appears in the Bible. Once you've established that, using the usual arguments, there's no point in also picking out the millions of inconsistent and unexplained workings of Heaven and Hell. They are only a diversion.

 

[Clover]

I'm not arguing about anything. I'm honestly curious about the answer, and once I get one, I shall say, "ah, I see. thank you!" and nothing else.

/I/ know all that, and I don't like to get into adversarial debates on the topic. So.

 

[Ruby]

I'm not attacking you, by the way, and if you're genuinely interested, fine. It's just that it's annoying when atheists get stuck in fruitless arguments.

 

[see ya]

I think most Christians take the stance that anyone who hasn't heard of the Abrahamic God gets to heaven anyway, as long as they don't go around raping babies or whatever.

Maybe so, but that's not what the Bible says.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I also remember reading and being told in church explicitly that no matter good a person is, Jesus is the only way to Heaven, and everyone else goes to Hell. And I attended churches of multiple dominions. It was actually this tidbit of information that started my path away from Christianity. Even as a little kid, the idea that someone could be the best person in the world and still be tortured for eternity once they died just blew my mind.

Anyway, no. I don't believe in life after death. A part of me is scared by this, but the rest of me loves this concept. I can enjoy life and the time I have without the feeling that I'm just waiting for something better. Without an afterlife, one can focus on the time they have and make the most of it.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

But that's so unfair on the people who've never even heard of him.

EDIT: does this mean that technically Jerry Fallwell is in heaven and the Dalai Lama will burn in hell forever :c

 

[Dannichu]

Maybe so, but that's not what the Bible says.

I also remember reading and being told in church explicitly that no matter good a person is, Jesus is the only way to Heaven, and everyone else goes to Hell. And I attended churches of multiple dominions. It was actually this tidbit of information that started my path away from Christianity. Even as a little kid, the idea that someone could be the best person in the world and still be tortured for eternity once they died just blew my mind.

Actually, the Bible's pretty unclear (shocking, I know); there are passages that state, yeah, the only way to heaven is through Jesus, etc., but there are also parts (The Parable of the Sheep and Goats, for example) that can easily be interpreted as "be good, do good to others and you'll end up in Heaven".

Personally, I think the second interpretation's pretty nifty, since it slots in perfectly with (not neccesarily religous) ideas of karma/the general spreading around of joy if you take "heaven" to mean "a (not neccesarily physical) place of happiness".

 

[see ya]

Actually, the Bible's pretty unclear (shocking, I know); there are passages that state, yeah, the only way to heaven is through Jesus, etc., but there are also parts (The Parable of the Sheep and Goats, for example) that can easily be interpreted as "be good, do good to others and you'll end up in Heaven".

Personally, I think the second interpretation's pretty nifty, since it slots in perfectly with (not neccesarily religous) ideas of karma/the general spreading around of joy if you take "heaven" to mean "a (not neccesarily physical) place of happiness".

...And that's the other thing that turned me away from the religion: The Bible was rarely consistent about anything. One page Jesus would say something like the aforementioned parable and the next he's saying:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it."

Really, Jesus could be kind of an asshole sometimes. But anyway, even when it was consistent, the passages are so unclear and disjointed that there's dozens of ways to read and interpret them. If God can't even write a decent, well-structured book, why should I believe in his afterlife?

 

[M&F]

Warning: I'm not smart. This post may contain utterly crappy logic. Feel free to correct me aggressively.

At any rate. I don't honestly believe you just shut down when you die. I don't honestly believe in reincarnation either. Same goes for heaven and hell.

What I do believe in is that there are many mysteries mankind will never solve, and this is one of them. Each one of us could spend weeks arguing and defending the side of the story we believe, but, in a debate where neither side has any hard evidence, it's nigh impossible to come to a conclusion everyone agrees with.

I'm not saying I think it's impossible that when we die we just do. I'm also not denying reincarnation or heaven/hell. My point is that man (and woman of course) will never know, for sure, what happens after one dies. It could be anything that was said here, it could be something else entirely different.

And, lastly, while there are some people who choose a belief merely because it's the most comfortable to believe, it's a pretty huge generalisation to claim that all believers of a specific idea are believing in it just because the want to.

 

[Tarvos]

There isn't really any reason to believe that isn't fallacious in some form or shape. Therefore it's almost impossible to believe religiously unless you've been either talked into it (indoctrinated) or talked yourself into it (whatever reason you have).

 

[ultraviolet]

it's nigh impossible to come to a conclusion everyone agrees with.

So? Why is that so important?

why do people think debates are pointless when they come to no conclusion? :c

 

[M&F]

So? Why is that so important?

why do people think debates are pointless when they come to no conclusion? :c

Well, it is true that it makes a good debate, but it tends to get to the point where both sides are repeating the same points over and over.

 

[FireChao]

I think most Christians take the stance that anyone who hasn't heard of the Abrahamic God gets to heaven anyway, as long as they don't go around raping babies or whatever.

yeh pretty much - if they don't know right from wrong, they go to heaven ( so anyone who dies very young goes to heaven)

EDIT:

...And that's the other thing that turned me away from the religion: The Bible was rarely consistent about anything. One page Jesus would say something like the aforementioned parable and the next he's saying:



Really, Jesus could be kind of an asshole sometimes. But anyway, even when it was consistent, the passages are so unclear and disjointed that there's dozens of ways to read and interpret them. If God can't even write a decent, well-structured book, why should I believe in his afterlife?

yeah, the bible is pretty crazy - I'm a christian and I can admit that. I think christians learn to ignore parts of the Bible...

or maybe that's just me...

 

[opaltiger]

I think christians learn to ignore parts of the Bible...

Of course! And that's the problem. The whole idea of the Bible as a book that guides people morally etc etc. falls apart if they are free to ignore any bits they don't like (and I sincerely doubt there is one person in the world who doesn't ignore parts of the Bible.

 

[Eeveelution]

Actually, that is my biggest fear. Whatever comes after death is unknown, so I'm always a bit worried about it. I'm a Catholic, but sometimes I wonder if it's a different religion that follows the correct God. (If I become Atheist, it will be because I don't know which religion is correct.) With all the different religious beliefs about what comes after death, I don't know whether I'll be okay there, or if it even exists. I hope that reincarnation is real for those whose lives were wasted for the sick amusements of others, such as slaves or young children who were kidnapped. I hope that Hell is real so that people like Hitler never get a chance to return. Either way, all I know is that at one point, death becomes permanent, or at least according the religions I know of. Even if the religions that claim we'll "live happily ever" for all of eternity after dying are correct, I'm worried. What would we do for the rest of eternity!? The human mind can only think so far ahead...

As I like to say: "Eternity is forever, and forever is a long time."

 

[opaltiger]

I hope that Hell is real so that people like Hitler never get a chance to return.

I would propose it is marginally more likely to return from Hell than to return from not being.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I would propose it is marginally more likely to return from Hell than to return from not being.

I second the proposition.

Anyway, my thoughts on the matter beyond the brief post I made earlier in the discussion.

There are only two absolutes in our world, existence and non-existence, and any attempts to find other absolutes in life are futile, since it is completely impossible to prove that our world is simply not an illusion of the beholder without experiencing another person's thoughts (which is nigh impossible because our "thoughts", i.e., sounds and images in our heads, are most likely optical and auditory illusions we create ourselves, and each tiny part of such an illusion would be a tiny, momentary electrical pulse passing between two nerve endings, meaning that the only way to "read" thoughts is to intercept that specific signal, among the millions that are moving through our brain at any given milliseconds and somehow convert that electrical signal into information readable to humans). However, the fact that such an illusion can be experienced means that from one's own point of view, one must exist, and logic dictates that existence cannot be eternal, therefore there is non-existence.

If we assume cyclical reincarnation* (that when something dies, it is reborn and then dies again, and then is reborn, ad nauseam) is true, then it denies the existence of non-existence. But something has to non-exist before it can exist, because something has to be created before it can exist. Therefore, cyclical reincarnation is illogical.

If we assume singular reincarnation* (that when something dies, it is reborn and lives an eternal life) is true, then it claims that one something exists, it exists forever, therefore, that everything has or will exist forever. But for something to exist, it must consist of something, energy or matter. But since energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from on to the other or into different forms of each other, energy and matter must be finite. If everything exists forever, it must retain some energy or matter, but since the energy and matter of dead things is present after death and is henceforth recycled to produce new living things, there cannot possibly be singular reincarnation.

I simply believe that when I cease to exist, I will not exist, just like I didn't exist before I did. My body will continue to exist, will gradually be broken down and recycled by other living things to create new living things, but I will cease to exist, electrical signals will no longer pass through my brain, the stream of thoughts that make up my personality, my demeanour, my behaviour, will no longer exist.

*These are most likely not the actual terminology for the concepts, I'm just giving them names for the purpose of this post.

 

[FireChao]

something has to non-exist before it can exist, because something has to be created before it can exist. Therefore, cyclical reincarnation is illogical.

but how did the first thing begin to exist then?

 

[Tarvos]

it always did, the matter was always present, just not arranged to be animate

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

I think by "thing" he means the literal first object ever.

Well, basically, in the Big Bang, all the energy in the universe was created and gradually, some energy turned into matter, as energy was wont to do in the early days of the universe. It was then that the first things came to be, although it was all hydrogen back then.

 

[opaltiger]

Well, basically, in the Big Bang, all the energy in the universe was created and gradually, some energy turned into matter, as energy was wont to do in the early days of the universe. It was then that the first things came to be, although it was all hydrogen back then.

Violation of the law of conservation of energy.

There must be something in the universe that either a) hasn't got a cause or b) exists eternally. My money is on the latter.