Life after Death?

[Zuu]

I would think that the irrationality would come from a deep (though not necessarily strong) fear of death. Maybe it isn't the case for everyone, but I would think that our theory stands.

 

[Tarvos]

How can you just say that whoever believes in the afterlife is secretly frightened of dying? Why it is any less likely that they think irrational thoughts and really believe them?

It depends on the level of gullibillity. The first person is just a moral coward, not able to face the facts, so invents a story to keep themselves sane. The second is just plain ignorance, and can be taught how to think for themselves. In other words, the second isn't as much of a problem, because you can educate and raise awareness.

However you can't do anything against the first.

 

[Minish]

It depends on the level of gullibillity. The first person is just a moral coward, not able to face the facts, so invents a story to keep themselves sane. The second is just plain ignorance, and can be taught how to think for themselves. In other words, the second isn't as much of a problem, because you can educate and raise awareness.

However you can't do anything against the first.

...that has to be one of the most arrogant paragraphs I've ever read.

Why can't someone 'face the facts' and still personally believe in an afterlife? I personally believe a variety of possibilities could be correct, and I'm rather fond of the 'life energy reincarnation' thing, and it's probably the most prominent one I think about. But I wouldn't mention it much in a social situation, I'd just talk logically about so-called life after death, that there most likely isn't one to speak of.

Why can't someone just personally think there's an afterlife, and not out of fear or because they aren't ~facing the facts~? You might think them illogical or contradictory, but why can't a person believe in a god, or believe in the afterlife, purely because that's just what they think and feel?

 

[Tarvos]

Because you're deluding yourself that what you want to feel is true. Desirability does not imply truth. It can soothe your conscience, keep your anxiety at bay, but you're not doing it because it's right; you're doing it because else you'll be a sad sack without purpose.

What you think and feel has a reason, too, even if you're not aware of it. "Emotional reasoning" is entirely bullshit. It validates the notion of doing things just because we feel like it, even when they are entirely retarded actions. By the same logic, I could ask: why can't a person murder their neighbour, because it's just what they think and feel? Whatever you think and feel is NOT a rational reason to do anything at all. Realise that there is a large discrepancy between what your emotions tell you and what is actually right. I'm trying to do what is actually right, instead of assuaging my emotions with some cock-and-bull-story.


I could believe in God or in an afterlife, but I would like to have some thorough evidence for it. I like living in reality, you know; I dislike pretending. It is not prudent, or pragmatic, or useful in any way to believe in an afterlife. It is an entirely irrelevant concept to believe in? Why would you believe in something, even if it's just what they think and feel, when the whole concept is a meaningless, ill-defined, garbled mess that has no sort of evidence or backing to it? What purpose does that serve? Why would you put yourself through the hell of wasting time and energy on a completely vacuous, purposeless concept, when you could be spending it on something useful?

 

[Music Dragon]

it's not too much of a stretch just to suggest that the essence of whatever makes us conscious, different from plants or AIs (call it a soul, idk), goes on and inhabits another organism.

Personally, I'd say it is a bit of a stretch, actually.

Because you're deluding yourself that what you want to feel is true. Desirability does not imply truth. It can soothe your conscience, keep your anxiety at bay, but you're not doing it because it's right; you're doing it because else you'll be a sad sack without purpose.

What you think and feel has a reason, too, even if you're not aware of it. "Emotional reasoning" is entirely bullshit. It validates the notion of doing things just because we feel like it, even when they are entirely retarded actions. By the same logic, I could ask: why can't a person murder their neighbour, because it's just what they think and feel? Whatever you think and feel is NOT a rational reason to do anything at all. Realise that there is a large discrepancy between what your emotions tell you and what is actually right. I'm trying to do what is actually right, instead of assuaging my emotions with some cock-and-bull-story.

Hurr. Why are you posting this? Why are you on this forum? Why are you even alive?

On the contrary, Watershed, "whatever you think and feel" is the only rational reason to do things. Well, you can scratch "rational" if you want, but it's the only reason. What else would it be? And, for that matter, what is "actually right"?

 

[Tarvos]

i'm alive because biology said so

i'm on this forum because i like social interaction

i don't know what actually right is but i know what is wrong

i could go into a detailed explanation of my concept of right and wrong if you'd like but it'd be a dry load of boredom

 

[Ruby]

On the contrary, Watershed, "whatever you think and feel" is the only rational reason to do things.

But you can think rationally, or not. Watershed is not suggesting an alternative to thinking. He just wants people to think rationally.

What are you and he even arguing about? Whether it is wrong to delude oneself?

 

[Music Dragon]

But you can think rationally, or not. Watershed is not suggesting an alternative to thinking. He just wants people to think rationally.

What are you and he even arguing about? Whether it is wrong to delude oneself?

I suppose, yes. I've said it a million times before and I'll say it again: truth has no inherent value. I don't see the point in thinking rationally when it comes to death and the afterlife. What you believe in will not change the truth of it; it only affects what you feel while still alive. If something "can soothe your conscience" and "keep your anxiety at bay", then it's all good. And as for "not doing it because it's right" - I don't really believe rights and wrongs exist beyond the realm of "whatever we think and feel".

Why would you put yourself through the hell of wasting time and energy on a completely vacuous, purposeless concept, when you could be spending it on something useful?

The answer in your case is apparently:

i like social interaction

...which is not significantly more satisfying than Cirrus' post. Something simply being enjoyable is a valid reason for posting on TCoD, and it's also a valid reason for believing in an afterlife. In any case, I doubt she would be much happier if she shared your point of view.

Although I would find it very interesting to learn of your idea of right and wrong, I'll spare you the hassle if you'd rather it.

 

[Ruby]

To say that deluding oneself into happiness is 'all good' is no better than saying it is 'all bad'. You and Watershed both are just guessing what would happen if lots of people deluded themselves in this way, and presenting each guess as a fact. Admit that nobody could possibly know whether it would be good or bad.

 

[Tarvos]

I consider truth preferable to lies...I feel like John the Savage now.

 

[Ruby]

But we all constantly lie to ourselves.

 

[Tarvos]

Do we, now?

 

[Music Dragon]

To say that deluding oneself into happiness is 'all good' is no better than saying it is 'all bad'. You and Watershed both are just guessing what would happen if lots of people deluded themselves in this way, and presenting each guess as a fact. Admit that nobody could possibly know whether it would be good or bad.

Yes, but that's pretty much the case with this whole afterlife discussion, isn't it? I can't know for sure, but I can make a pretty good guess.

I think the key word here is "happiness". I honestly can't picture a scenario where something goes terribly wrong with everyone being very happy. You might not agree, but personally, I doubt any human being really values anything else.

Of course, it would be different if a happy delusion led to great unhappiness later on, but that's not necessarily the case, and certainly not when it comes to the afterlife.

 

[Ruby]

Would you say the same thing to people who say that faith in God brings them hope and happiness and meaning, MD? My point is that I have no evidence that people who believe in the afterlife are happier - happiness can not be measured any way - or that widespread belief in the afterlife, as we have now, has not caused war, terror and the cheapening of lives.

A much better guess can be made whether there is an afterlife than whether believing in it is good.

 

[Tarvos]

atheists describe themselves as happier than religious people

 

[Music Dragon]

Would you say the same thing to people who say that faith in God brings them hope and happiness and meaning, MD?

I think one of my worse qualities is that I am never very consistent in what I stand for... mostly because I enjoy debates and arguments. But hope, happiness and meaning are good things. Of course, faith in God may very well lead to horrible things too. And I'd rather people managed to get by without it. But it's not always a bad thing.

My point is that I have no evidence that people who believe in the afterlife are happier - happiness can not be measured any way - or that widespread belief in the afterlife, as we have now, has not caused war, terror and the cheapening of lives.

A much better guess can be made whether there is an afterlife than whether believing in it is good.

I'm quite sure most people who believe in an afterlife are not inclined to cause war and terror. I admit, though, that it's hard for me to know whether or not such faith makes you "happier" - but I can only assume that it arises and sticks in the first place because the thought of it brings you some sense of comfort, security or satisfaction. Of course, it may still have less-than-desirable consequences... but, once again, that's a possibility - maybe even a probability - but not an inevitability.

I know many non-religious people who believe in some kind of afterlife. They tend to sound a little worried when I say that I don't think one exists - they sometimes ask me if my life doesn't feel empty and meaningless - and I presume that's how they might feel if they lacked their "faith", or whatever you want to call it. But somehow I don't think their lives are significantly affected by believing in an afterlife; it doesn't seem to interfere with their productivity, their rationality in other situations, or their inclination to do the right thing. It simply lets them live their lives without worrying about the ultimate futility of everything.

atheists describe themselves as happier than religious people

Maybe, but I doubt that's true for everyone, and I'm guessing there are plenty of people who believe in an afterlife but wouldn't call themselves "religious". Besides - in many cases I think unhappiness leads to religion, not the other way around, but that's a different topic.

I'm not a huge fan of the afterlife myself, and I do realise that religion is responsible for quite a few great tragedies, and many more small ones. But I dislike things because of what they cause, not because of what they are. As long as believing in the afterlife is completely harmless - as is presumably the case with Cirrus - I don't have a problem with it, and I don't see why anyone else should either.

 

[Clover]

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.)

 

[Tarvos]

GOD HAS A PLAN FOR EVERYONE

 

[xkze]

God sure is a busy fellow

 

[#1 bro]

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.