Suppose It Was Revealed To Mankind There Is In Fact No After Life, What Then?

[Andalublue]

Nope. Without an infinite framework and context, you and all other life in just a thin slick film on the surface of a rocky planet, and none of your art, philosophy, learning, accomplishments, loves, hates births or deaths are anything more than a mild agitation in that effluvia. Soon to be gone as though it had never been.

That thin, slick film will be gone whether we believe in something greater or not. Even if you believe in an afterlife, the physical reality of life on Earth remains unchanged. The beliefs of the thin, slick film are irrelevant.

 

[Paschendale]

A sad enough condemnation of the Atheist position as one could possibly muster.

Yeah, it is really sad to make the most of your life. And it's not really a "position". Your consciousness will disappear upon death the same as mine will. I just haven't deluded myself into thinking that it's okay to sacrifice my hopes, dreams, and desires because there's a magic reward waiting for me later. We both each get one chance. I'm going to make the most of it. Deep down, you know this. Otherwise you'd just spend this life in pursuit of a future one, not risking anything that could jeopardize an eternal future. That would be the only reasonable choice to make if one really believed in an eternal afterlife and judgment. So you don't actually have a different "position" from me. You know as well as I do that this is it. And you know as well as I do how important it is to make it count. Maybe that bothers you and makes you sad. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Nope. Without an infinite framework and context, you and all other life in just a thin slick film on the surface of a rocky planet, and none of your art, philosophy, learning, accomplishments, loves, hates births or deaths are anything more than a mild agitation in that effluvia. Soon to be gone as though it had never been.

By the way, Atheists may have ethics, but they don't have true morals. Ethics are rules, generally cultural. True morality though, assumes a transcendent framework of right and wrong, good and evil, that can't exist in a machine universe. In such a framework murdering a child is no more weighted by morality than kindness to the sick. Both are just miniscule and utterly transitory currents in the biological slime that will coat the planet for a little while.

Searing, lingering pain and the pleasure of a caress are both empty chemical phenomena is such a framework, about which we have no need to concern ourselves, for there is no need, there is not even an "us," in any meaningful way. Meaning itself in a delusion experienced by natural evolved software in such a model, and has no more validity than a computer program running to produce results about which no one will ever care.

How exactly does someone call atheism a nihilist philosophy and not something like this? This kind of thing is the most nihilist assertion I have ever come across. Nothing we do matters at all outside of some super being's decision that it matters? There is no inherent worth to life, to experience, to love, to joy, to kindness, nothing... except the worth that a king attaches to it? That is a kind of nihilism and self-hatred that I cannot even fathom.

 

[Oftencold]

Absolute rubbish. If you only have morals because you fear punishment and seek reward then you have NO morals.

Morals are independent of reward or punishment. No one can make an evil act good by rewarding the transgressor for it. Didn't you know that?

I'll try to simplify.

For morality to exist, there must be a standard outside ourselves against establishes them. otherwise what we have are rules, laws, customs, ethics, caprice.

This is why it's som very amusing when self proclaimed "athiesists," announce to all the world that they "know what right and wrong" are. That there could be such things requires an infinite framework and a standard utterly beyond reproach. But what can we expect? There is no religion more constrained by its faith (and temerity) than Athiesm.

 

[maquiscat]

Nope. Without an infinite framework and context, you and all other life in just a thin slick film on the surface of a rocky planet, and none of your art, philosophy, learning, accomplishments, loves, hates births or deaths are anything more than a mild agitation in that effluvia. Soon to be gone as though it had never been.

By the way, Atheists may have ethics, but they don't have true morals. Ethics are rules, generally cultural. True morality though, assumes a transcendent framework of right and wrong, good and evil, that can't exist in a machine universe. In such a framework murdering a child is no more weighted by morality than kindness to the sick. Both are just miniscule and utterly transitory currents in the biological slime that will coat the planet for a little while.

Searing, lingering pain and the pleasure of a caress are both empty chemical phenomena is such a framework, about which we have no need to concern ourselves, for there is no need, there is not even an "us," in any meaningful way. Meaning itself in a delusion experienced by natural evolved software in such a model, and has no more validity than a computer program running to produce results about which no one will ever care.

I know many incorrect people will disagree.

To which I reply....again...:

it would depend upon one's worldview.

Simply put for all that you call others incorrect, your premise has no standing except upon your own worldview and faith. You simply cannot claim that my acts would be meaningless. Well you can claim it, but that claim only holds true for you and any that share your worldview. Since they would hold meaning for me and for those who share my worldview then they have meaning.

 

[Quag]

Morals are independent of reward or punishment. I'll try to simplify.

For morality to exist, there must be a standard outside ourselves against establishes them. otherwise what we have are rules, laws, customs, ethics, caprice.

This is why it's som very amusing when self proclaimed "athiesists," announce to all the world that they "know what right and wrong" are. That there could be such things requires an infinite framework and a standard utterly beyond reproach. But what can we expect? There is no religion more constrained by its faith (and temerity) than Athiesm.

Morals do not require any kind of belief and are in dependant of any god(s).

 

[Oftencold]

That thin, slick film will be gone whether we believe in something greater or not. Even if you believe in an afterlife, the physical reality of life on Earth remains unchanged. The beliefs of the thin, slick film are irrelevant.

This is rather like saying that your past has no bearing upon your present or future.

 

[Oftencold]

To which I reply....again...:


Simply put for all that you call others incorrect, your premise has no standing except upon your own worldview and faith. You simply cannot claim that my acts would be meaningless. Well you can claim it, but that claim only holds true for you and any that share your worldview. Since they would hold meaning for me and for those who share my worldview then they have meaning.

Bravo! Except that in a mechanistic universe meaning itself is a delusion. Just some atoms bouncing about here and there in your skull, soon to be erased. In a mechanistic universe there is no possibility of any philosophical "meaning" at all. There are just transitory physical state. In such a creation the reflection in the mirror is just as meaningful, or rather meaningless as the original. If you insist on having meaning, you need a larger framework.

 

[maquiscat]

Bravo! Except that in a mechanistic universe meaning itself is a delusion. Just some atoms bouncing about here and there in your skull, soon to be erased. In a mechanistic universe there is no possibility of any philosophical "meaning" at all. There are just transitory physical state. In such a creation the reflection in the mirror is just as meaningful, or rather meaningless as the original. If you insist on having meaning, you need a larger framework.

Per your worldview.

 

[Oftencold]

Morals do not require any kind of belief and are in dependant of any god(s).

I'm sure such a misconception is comforting for some.

Morals can no more exist with out a spiritual and infinite framework than words can exist without language.

 

[Andalublue]

This is rather like saying that your past has no bearing upon your present or future.

We have no past, back beyond the day of our birth, only history that was written without our input. We have no future beyond the day of our death.

 

[Oftencold]

Per your worldview.

No, that would be per physical science. With out a spiritual context, you and everything else that ever lived are just a temporary set of state changes in energy and matter. Really, no more relevant than a rock slide. Once you claim meaning, you perforce assert that you exist in a transcendent framework. You shouldn't be so afraid of that you know.

 

[Oftencold]

We have no past, back beyond the day of our birth, only history that was written without our input. We have no future beyond the day of our death.

Such a tiny thing you imagine yourself to be. So then, you must agree that there can be no actual morality in the universe you posit? If not, then could you give me some physical parameters for right and wrong?

 

[Quag]

I'm sure such a misconception is comforting for some.

Morals can no more exist with out a spiritual and infinite framework than words can exist without language.

That is your completely unsupported position an I am sure it is comforting to you to believe it.

 

[specklebang]

Actually not true. Historically, there was a division among the Jews, most notably embodied in the Sadducee and the Pharisees. Today there are indeed Jews and Jewish sects (denominations, whatever they are called) that believe both ways. What is agreed upon is that the Torah/OT doesn't really say a lot on Heaven/the afterlife.

Jewish Beliefs on the Afterlife - ReligionFacts
Jewish Views of the Afterlife - The Afterlife in Judaism

I never spoke to the Sadducee and the Pharisees. Neither have you. This is my source VARIETIES OF JEWISH BELIEFS. Are there sub-sects of Judaism that believe in an after-life? Sure. There are always sub-groups that believe anything their minor leaders say. I'm referring to mainstream modern. I think it's logical and I greatly respect the concept.

Once I die, you'll see if I can keep posting or not and the mystery will be resolved.

 

[maquiscat]

I never spoke to the Sadducee and the Pharisees. Neither have you. This is my source VARIETIES OF JEWISH BELIEFS. Are there sub-sects of Judaism that believe in an after-life? Sure. There are always sub-groups that believe anything their minor leaders say. I'm referring to mainstream modern. I think it's logical and I greatly respect the concept.

Once I die, you'll see if I can keep posting or not and the mystery will be resolved.

Your link doesn't work. All the link says (the actual code not the intended page) is "sadducee%20and%20the%20pharisees". As far as those two groups went I was noting a historic divide. However, I did provide links to the modern beliefs. I believe I used the sarch criteria "Jewish belief after life."

 

[specklebang]

Your link doesn't work. All the link says (the actual code not the intended page) is "sadducee%20and%20the%20pharisees". As far as those two groups went I was noting a historic divide. However, I did provide links to the modern beliefs. I believe I used the sarch criteria "Jewish belief after life."

Sorry, my screw-up. Here is the link to the book (and the Jewish Scholar) I referred to in the first place. VARIETIES OF JEWISH BELIEF.

Neither of us knows what the REAL answer is. This is just a discussion and no insult intended to anyone or any belief variant.

 

[maquiscat]

Sorry, my screw-up. Here is the link to the book (and the Jewish Scholar) I referred to in the first place. VARIETIES OF JEWISH BELIEF.

Neither of us knows what the REAL answer is. This is just a discussion and no insult intended to anyone or any belief variant.

Checking posts at my sister's house, I'll have to check out the link later.

No insults taken, at least not on my part. I was just pointing out that, from my research, the Jewish community is rather divided on whether there is an afterlife or not, which was contradictory to your statement that Jews didn't believe in an afterlife.

 

[specklebang]

Checking posts at my sister's house, I'll have to check out the link later.

No insults taken, at least not on my part. I was just pointing out that, from my research, the Jewish community is rather divided on whether there is an afterlife or not, which was contradictory to your statement that Jews didn't believe in an afterlife.

Yeah, I supposed I am not authorized to speak for entire races or religions. Too bad, I would make a wonderful Deity but you know...

I had a long discussion with the author of that book and I was very interested what he had to say. But of course, while he may have been a learned and respected Jewish Scholar, he could still only give me his opinion and there is no such thing as an opinion that everyone agrees with.

I'm glad you understand that this was not a potshot at you or at Judaism or at anybody. It seems to me that it does seem likely and if you take the whole thought - particularly including the direction of being the best you can while you are surely alive, it feels like wisdom. I've used it as my own strategy for life.

Respect,
S

 

[maquiscat]

Yeah, I supposed I am not authorized to speak for entire races or religions. Too bad, I would make a wonderful Deity but you know...

I had a long discussion with the author of that book and I was very interested what he had to say. But of course, while he may have been a learned and respected Jewish Scholar, he could still only give me his opinion and there is no such thing as an opinion that everyone agrees with.

I'm glad you understand that this was not a potshot at you or at Judaism or at anybody. It seems to me that it does seem likely and if you take the whole thought - particularly including the direction of being the best you can while you are surely alive, it feels like wisdom. I've used it as my own strategy for life.

Respect,
S

Oh just imagine the universes we could create!...hmmm on second thought.....lol

The only thing I took the original statement to be was a blanket statement that simply wasn't true. It would be different if there were just a few exceptions. I can make a blanket statement that Christians believe that Jesus was the Christ of prophecy, but I can't claim that Christians believe that God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are 3 aspects of the same being. There are two fundamental beliefs on that point, similar to there being two fundamental beliefs on the concept of an afterlife in Judaism. Now I am far from any kind of knowledgeable in Judaism. That's one of the few religions I don't have any friends or family in. Go figure. But what few salient points I know....I know.

 

[chromium]

You are missing the causal relationship in that correlation. Many inmates become religious.

And they commit more crime and go right back to jail when they get out.

 

[maquiscat]

And they commit more crime and go right back to jail when they get out.

Anything to support that? Please note that we are well aware of the general recidivism rates. I'm talking the recidivism of those who "get religion" while in prison compared to those who do not.

 

[chromium]

Anything to support that? Please note that we are well aware of the general recidivism rates. I'm talking the recidivism of those who "get religion" while in prison compared to those who do not.

Religious Programs, Institutional Adjustment, and Recidivism Among Former Inmates in Prison Fellowship Programs

At the Table 5 discussion, it seems that 1 in 3 prisoners were into bible study, but only those with "high" involvement showed less recidivism. It does not control for social/financial support or personality factors that might explain this.

But given the recidivism rate is so laughably high, there naturally will be a great deal of overlap, exceeding the general population crime rate by a large margin. To say that proof of no afterlife would lead to social breakdown, well these people believe in it and still commit crime. Then some of the most atheist parts of the world have low crime rate, certainly compared to the puritanical US. So possibly marx was wrong, at least applied to today's world - religion is not the opiate so much as material pursuits. I don't see widespread anarchy even with a revelation like this.

 

[cpwill]

And they commit more crime and go right back to jail when they get out.

Well that would be interesting. Can you demonstrate a higher recidivism rate among explicitly and actively religious convicts v their non-believing peers?

Later Edit: never mind. I now see that you posted a study demonstrating a lower recidivism rate among the actively religious. Thank you.

 

[chromium]

^I think it's more complicated than i thought before is all. I'm still not convinced that belief in afterlife is the only thing perpetuating the species.

 

[Paschendale]

For morality to exist, there must be a standard outside ourselves against establishes them. otherwise what we have are rules, laws, customs, ethics, caprice.

This is why it's som very amusing when self proclaimed "athiesists," announce to all the world that they "know what right and wrong" are. That there could be such things requires an infinite framework and a standard utterly beyond reproach. But what can we expect? There is no religion more constrained by its faith (and temerity) than Athiesm.

You're making a poorly substantiated assumption that an outside framework is necessarily a consciousness. Instead, it is the consistent nature of biological life. Because we are physical, tangible, mortal beings, and specifically communal living mammals with specific sexual habits, we don't like to suffer from pain and fear. Our notions of right and wrong are rooted in our physical nature. Selfishness, causing pain and fear, and hurting other people are things we deem wrong. Altruism, love, compassion, and kindness are things we deem right. This is wholly due to our physical nature.

It's not really an outside framework, as we are inextricably part of it. It is, however, a greater framework, in that it encompasses more than just our conscious minds. It encompasses how our bodies work, and the nature of many species besides human beings.

Morals do not require any kind of belief and are in dependant of any god(s).

Right. It comes from our physical nature.

I'm sure such a misconception is comforting for some.

Morals can no more exist with out a spiritual and infinite framework than words can exist without language.

Do you have any actual evidence to support this assertion? I and many fellow atheists are moral just fine without any kind of spiritual ideas, and we explicitly think that Christian spiritual ideas and morality (and generally any idea that is unique to religion) are wrong. Very very wrong. Sometimes downright evil.

No, that would be per physical science. With out a spiritual context, you and everything else that ever lived are just a temporary set of state changes in energy and matter. Really, no more relevant than a rock slide. Once you claim meaning, you perforce assert that you exist in a transcendent framework. You shouldn't be so afraid of that you know.

Eh... no. You're basically just discounting all forms of "meaning" outside your preferred ones. Are you suggesting that no other species' actions has meaning? I'm sure they would disagree, despite not caring about transcendence. Other species can certainly understand and appreciate affection and kindness (cats and dogs come to mind) and certainly understand and fear danger and harm.

Such a tiny thing you imagine yourself to be. So then, you must agree that there can be no actual morality in the universe you posit? If not, then could you give me some physical parameters for right and wrong?

The universe does not have morality. Biological life does. See above for parameters. I think maybe you're seeing the underpinnings of how it really works even as you argue for the opposite.

I never spoke to the Sadducee and the Pharisees. Neither have you. This is my source VARIETIES OF JEWISH BELIEFS. Are there sub-sects of Judaism that believe in an after-life? Sure. There are always sub-groups that believe anything their minor leaders say. I'm referring to mainstream modern. I think it's logical and I greatly respect the concept.

Once I die, you'll see if I can keep posting or not and the mystery will be resolved.

Based on my Jewish upbringing, I would say that Judaism is generally pretty silent on the subject of an afterlife. Even sects of Judaism that include it do not place much emphasis on it. It is not a central element of Judaism the way it is in Christianity or Islam. Even Jews that believe in an afterlife don't generally care about it. Especially since Judaism certainly doesn't involve the heaven/hell dichotomy.