[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]Doesn't that make your life meaningless? Unless your some final fantasy fanatic, who believes that you live on through peoples memories and s*** like that Hah, I could give you a total mind screw about how Heaven would really suck for personal identity. Heaven isn't exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread.I'm still exploring my own beliefs actually so i'd really like to hear what you have to say :D[QUOTE="Immortalica"]Nooooooooothiiiiiiiiiiiiing.Vandalvideo
Atheists: What do you experience when you die?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'm still exploring my own beliefs actually so i'd really like to hear what you have to say :DMind_MoverAlright. Let it be said that I'm borrowing heavily from my Metaphysics teacher and the Society of Christian Philosophers when I'm making this argument. So it isn't a Vandalvideo exclusive. With that said; The concept of heaven introduces something known as a trilemna when it comes to personal identity. These paradoxical arguments are as followers; A) Any state of being that preserves me as I am, with all my earthly desires, in a heaven from my own design, would ad naseum be hellish and tormenting; As such that no pleasure, no matter how pleasurable, in an infinite span of time would eventually become torture, as my will for desire itself would dissapear. B) Any state of being that lasts eternally, but instead grants me extra heavenly faculties such to an extent where Heaven isn't merely the sum of earthly pleasures, then as the person that I am now, such a state of non-being would not be in 'MY' best interest. C)Any state of being that lasts eternally, which would rob me of the faculties that are now my own that constitute my own, such an extent where I become a different person, I have no vested interests on this Earth in performing good deeds for the eternally bliss of this future personhood which is not my own. Following from this, as the person that I am, there is no rational reason for me to desire heaven.
if all the belivers out their want to swallow the sugar pill their religon gave them to make life sweeter and belive in a afterlife then good for you, my grandad who died last year was a catholic and he firmly belived he was going to heaven and i think he took alot of comfort from that.
personaly i belive in facts and science not myth and faith. i belive my grandad like all of us will, just died. not sat on a cloud somewhere playing the harp. just dead.
oh and i hope he didnt feel anything after he died as we burnt him.
[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]I'm still exploring my own beliefs actually so i'd really like to hear what you have to say :DVandalvideoAlright. Let it be said that I'm borrowing heavily from my Metaphysics teacher and the Society of Christian Philosophers when I'm making this argument. So it isn't a Vandalvideo exclusive. With that said; The concept of heaven introduces something known as a trilemna when it comes to personal identity. These paradoxical arguments are as followers; A) Any state of being that preserves me as I am, with all my earthly desires, in a heaven from my own design, would ad naseum be hellish and tormenting; As such that no pleasure, no matter how pleasurable, in an infinite span of time would eventually become torture, as my will for desire itself would dissapear. B) Any state of being that lasts eternally, but instead grants me extra heavenly faculties such to an extent where Heaven isn't merely the sum of earthly pleasures, then as the person that I am now, such a state of non-being would not be in 'MY' best interest. C)Any state of being that lasts eternally, which would rob me of the faculties that are now my own that constitute my own, such an extent where I become a different person, I have no vested interests on this Earth in performing good deeds for the eternally bliss of this future personhood which is not my own. Following from this, as the person that I am, there is no rational reason for me to desire heaven.
Ok really, my mind is a bit screwed, i'm assuiming that you are talking about the christian heaven right?
Well i read somewhere that a hindu god, or avatar of the main god, Krishna, is a horny fellow and likes his women, and has sex all the time. Now if i were to follow a religion youd bet your ass of that i'd be worshipping that guy :P this could make sense actually, we have sex and we get pleasure out of it, if god only wanted us to have sex to make babies, then why give us the pleasure of it?
A) Ad naseum = Ad nauseam? i assume it was a typo, are you saying that too much pleasure can become monotone and therefore loose its value as being something pleasurable (like sex) so, too much sex in the end can get boring, too much bordome will result in torture? yes my mind is screwed at trying to figure out what you was saying in point A.
B) Any state of being that last eternally, but instead grants me extra faculties such to an extent where Heaven isn't merely the sum of earthly pleasure.
What is heaven? heaven could be the sum of earthly pleasure and non earthly pleasures for all we know.
C)That is a pretty self centered statement, "rob me of my faculties, that are now my own that constitute my own, such an extent where i become a different person"
are you saying that, if you became a different person, even if it made you a better person, you wouldn't accept it because someone else could be like you and you deserve to be unique, because you worked so hard for it on earth?
A) Ad naseum = Ad nauseam? i assume it was a typo, are you saying that too much pleasure can become monotone and therefore loose its value as being something pleasurable (like sex) so, too much sex in the end can get boring, too much bordome will result in torture? yes my mind is screwed at trying to figure out what you was saying in point AMind_MoverWhat I'm really doing is doing a logic exercise, examining the three posibilities of what heaven could be. Either, in the first scenario, I go up to heaven and heaven is based on my Earthly rememberances, I go up to heaven and I am stuck in eternal reverance, or I go up to heaven and become that which I wasn't on Earth. In the first scenario, any action performed over and over, no matter how pleasurable, will eventually become torture, as the desire for such actions would innevitably vanish.
Each of these different ideas are talking about three distinct ideas of what heaven *could* be. This instance is if you were to go to heaven and you would be in pure reverance of god, such to an extent where there would be eternal reverance. The problem here is that if you're stuck in eternal reverance, then it doesn't matter if it is you or someone else. You are no longer there, and are in a state of non-being, such to an extent where the you now would not want it.B) Any state of being that last eternally, but instead grants me extra faculties such to an extent where Heaven isn't merely the sum of earthly pleasure.What is heaven? heaven could be the sum of earthly pleasure and non earthly pleasures for all we know.
What I'm saying is that, using something called Leibinz's law, is that when one changes to a certain extent one ceases to be the person they are. The stituation we're discussing here is if I went up to heaven and heaven really was a combination of Earthly and Heavenly experiences. My faculties have changed such to an extent where I am not the same person I was on Earth. The person on Earth, logically following, would not necessarily directly benefit from this, as they are no longer the same person. This is the trilemna that I was talking about. Either way you cut it; If god leaves you the same, if god takes you away completely, or if god tampers with you, the YOU on earth is at a disavantage. In the first scenario it becomes torture to be in Heaven. In the second scenario it doesn't matter if it is you or not, and you ceases to be. In the final example you change so much it is no longer you. Either way you slice it, you gets shafted.C)That is a pretty self centered statement, "rob me of my faculties, that are now my own that constitute my own, such an extent where i become a different person"are you saying that, if you became a different person, even if it made you a better person, you wouldn't accept it because someone else could be like you and you deserve to be unique, because you worked so hard for it on earth?
Each of these different ideas are talking about three distinct ideas of what heaven *could* be. This instance is if you were to go to heaven and you would be in pure reverance of god, such to an extent where there would be eternal reverance. The problem here is that if you're stuck in eternal reverance, then it doesn't matter if it is you or someone else. You are no longer there, and are in a state of non-being, such to an extent where the you now would not want it.B) Any state of being that last eternally, but instead grants me extra faculties such to an extent where Heaven isn't merely the sum of earthly pleasure.What is heaven? heaven could be the sum of earthly pleasure and non earthly pleasures for all we know.
What I'm saying is that, using something called Leibinz's law, is that when one changes to a certain extent one ceases to be the person they are. The stituation we're discussing here is if I went up to heaven and heaven really was a combination of Earthly and Heavenly experiences. My faculties have changed such to an extent where I am not the same person I was on Earth. The person on Earth, logically following, would not necessarily directly benefit from this, as they are no longer the same person. This is the trilemna that I was talking about. Either way you cut it; If god leaves you the same, if god takes you away completely, or if god tampers with you, the YOU on earth is at a disavantage. In the first scenario it becomes torture to be in Heaven. In the second scenario it doesn't matter if it is you or not, and you ceases to be. In the final example you change so much it is no longer you. Either way you slice it, you gets shafted.An interesting but strange view point, its like turning heaven into hell kinda :P i also see pessimism when you talk about "change" and not being the same person, if you had the chance to be a better and more happier person, would you not accept change? do you find "bad" things on this earth to be so "good" for you, that heaven would not benefit you?C)That is a pretty self centered statement, "rob me of my faculties, that are now my own that constitute my own, such an extent where i become a different person"are you saying that, if you became a different person, even if it made you a better person, you wouldn't accept it because someone else could be like you and you deserve to be unique, because you worked so hard for it on earth?
Most Atheists i know tell me the same thing. You will die, you accept it, you live your life to the fullest and you will never exist again because afterlife is impossible. Well, when i question them and say, if your life is so good, then why not hope to keep it forever? most of them give me the same response.We don't care, fact is we are gonna die. When interpretated, you'd think that their life is only worth it for the time it is endured, where as i think that my life is worth eternity. When i say that i think that way of thinking is sad, i don't mean it as"bad-sad"for me to think that my life is only worth the 70 years i will live, would depress me to no end. So this aparently has no effect on atheists but that just makes me question their moral and emotional feelings, i am interested and not here to judge anyone btw.Mind_Mover
Why would I want eternal life? The chances of me choosing the "right" religion are very much against me. For all we know, the "right" religion is long since dead.
I value what life I know I have a lot. Being able to accept my eventual demise and lack of life gives me the ability to appreciate every little aspect about my life experience, without worrying if I have the right religion or not. It allow me to make people around me to feel special about their lives as well.
I ask of you, why do you want to live for eternity? Why not just accept that this is the only life you know you have and be apathetic towards what may or may not come after? I think you feel depressed about a finite life span because you are scared that you may have chosen the wrong religion, you are not fulfilling your religion's tenants properly and/or that you have not come to accept your eventual demise.
Not thinking that you will live for eternity gives you more reason to live this life well and appreciate it by the moment.
[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"][QUOTE="supercubedude64"]Do you believe that Atheists live better lives because they know they only live it once? For me i see it as this, me, my world, my rules, 1 life, go wild, screw others, its not like i will be punished when i die because i won't exist.This one life is your chance to do something really special. Like Jeffery Dalmar.Funky_Llama
Doesn't that give people an excuse to do the things that they do? the greatest ambition that any person could have would be to rule the world. Isn't that something every atheist should go after, seeing as it is the best life and one should always get the best in his life.
Anyone who needs a carrot-on-a-stick to make them behave is not a good person.
I agree, it always seems that Christians (well, just the ones who argue God on the basis of morality) have this implicit fixation with punishment and reward, as though they'd commit immoral acts if there were no consequences in the afterlife. I don't think being good for a reward, i.e. an eternity in paradise in the next life is as admirable as pure altruism in this one. Part of being a mature, functional human being is realising that we have to share this life and this planet with billions of others and being good to one another is the best way to get through life, not because I'm going to be rewarded with biscuits like an obedient dog.
]An interesting but strange view point, its like turning heaven into hell kinda :P i also see pessimism when you talk about "change" and not being the same person, if you had the chance to be a better and more happier person, would you not accept change? do you find "bad" things on this earth to be so "good" for you, that heaven would not benefit you?Mind_MoverI'm relying on a philosophical foundation of what constitutes personal identity. I'm sure most people have heard of Cogito ergo sum, but few know what it means, and even fewer people know the other view points of what constitutes personal identity. There are five different view points; Mind/body dualism (Descartes AKA cogito ergo sum), Locke's memory theory, Hume's non-existance theory, Reid's Socializing theory, and Bennet's Narrative theory of the self. In every one of these instances, you have to contend with something called Leibniz's Law. It is a deminishing concept of the self as you take away any of these individual traits which these philosophers call the self. What I'm getting at isn't that it would necessarily be bad in heaven from a tabula rasa (blank slate) standpoint. That guy in heaven could very well be enjoying himself. But that guy isn't me. My actions on Earth don't benefit me in the afterlife, unless, like I said, if I keep all my cognitions, but then Heaven turns into eternal torture.
effing morons i swear to god
WE
DONT
KNOW
WHAT
HAPPENS
NEITHER DO YOU
When you die, you cease to exist. There is nothing that makes up your consciousness other than the electrical impulses in your brain, and when those are gone, so are you. To think that there is some big purpose to life, is, in my opinion, arrogance. Life of any sort is nothing more than a fluke accident created by some replicating carbon chains that linked together a certain way.Tylendal
I believe you are right although many people don't like the idea of being a brain. Death is like forever sleep just without dreams. You don't dream while you're death.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment