Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

Zubeneschamali

It is possible to be a Buddhist atheist who believes in an afterlife.

Kind of.

It doesn't line up very well with the Western God/No God Heaven/Hell/Nothing systems.

donaldtramp

Of course it's possible to be a Buddhist atheist. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. You can be a Buddhist Christian you should have to believe in the Buddhist fundamentals but follow Jesus.
Not sure what your point is; if you care to elaborate on it?

Zubeneschamali

donaldtramp wrote: »

Not sure what your point is; if you care to elaborate on it?

The subject of the thread is: "Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?"

I am pointing out that Yes, at least some Buddhists are atheists (in the sense that they do not believe in any gods, not that they call themselves atheists necessarily) and some of those Buddhists believe in a form of reincarnation which we Westerners might interpret as an afterlife.

donaldtramp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The subject of the thread is: "Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?"

I am pointing out that Yes, at least some Buddhists are atheists (in the sense that they do not believe in any gods, not that they call themselves atheists necessarily) and some of those Buddhists believe in a form of reincarnation which we Westerners might interpret as an afterlife.

Actually buddhists also believe that once you've reincarnated yourself a couple times, you reach Nirvana.

hinault

donaldtramp wrote: »

Okay, first fo all:

- Mortal sin wrecks your relationship with god, however you can still repair said relationship, it's obviously worse than a venial sin and I accept that it can send you to hell, Mortal sin is not, not attending mass every sunday?

Think you get that from the 10 commandments mate

A Catholic deliberately not attending Mass on Sunday (or on a Holy Day of Obligation) is a mortal sin.

It is a mortal sin because deliberately not attending Mass on those days
contravenes the third commandment.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

donaldtramp

hinault wrote: »

A Catholic deliberately not attending Mass on Sunday (or on a Holy Day of Obligation) is a mortal sin.

It is a mortal sin because deliberately not attending Mass on those days
contravenes the third commandment.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a3.htm


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Exactly! The '3rd commandment' which was given to Moses by God.

That's a Jewish belief mate.

And although we accept the old testament as a belief, it's an old traditional belief which is no longer really followed.

hinault

donaldtramp wrote: »

And although we accept the old testament as a belief, it's an old traditional belief which is no longer really followed.

Since when?

When was the 3rd commandment rescinded by God?

recedite

Get a room, you two!

hinault

hinault wrote: »

Since when?

When was the 3rd commandment rescinded by God?

Could you explain how breaking the 3rd commandment is worthy of eternal torture?

Its funny that you get snappy and demand answers while you have been ignore a long, long list of questions.

Hotblack Desiato

hinault wrote: »

A Catholic deliberately not attending Mass on Sunday (or on a Holy Day of Obligation) is a mortal sin.

Who is a catholic though? Once a catholic, always a catholic?

I was baptised, communed and confirmed all without my consent, on paper I'm as catholic as the Pope.

I haven't been to mass since 1989 however and renounce the RCC and regard all faiths and gods as nonsense at best and actively deleterious to humanity at worst.

There is no longer any method for people like me to 'officially' leave the RCC that we never wanted to be in in the first place

So.. am I gonna burn? :pac:

How about the Prods? Are they all going to burn too, or just the really annoying ones like the Presbyterians.

Mark Hamill

donaldtramp wrote: »

Think you get that from the 10 commandments mate, which were written by Moses, and although they're holy - and so are the 617 jewish laws before them - they're not valid in the eyes of Christians today.

Jesus said: There is only one commandment thou must follow, love God and love thy neighbour.

Jesus says they are:
Matthew 5:17-20
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

The vatican also says that you must go to Mass:

Catechism of the Vatican Church wrote:

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.") requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.

and that the 10 commandments still apply:

Catechism of the Vatican Church wrote:

following Jesus Christ involves keeping the Commandments. the Law has not been abolished,3 but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment. In the three synoptic Gospels, Jesus' call to the rich young man to follow him, in the obedience of a disciple and in the observance of the Commandments, is joined to the call to poverty and chastity.4 The evangelical counsels are inseparable from the Commandments.

Zubeneschamali

donaldtramp wrote: »

Please educate yourself on different religions, and learn more about how they work before criticizing them.

Please learn about Christianity before assuming I don't know how it works.

looksee

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who is a catholic though? Once a catholic, always a catholic?

I was baptised, communed and confirmed all without my consent, on paper I'm as catholic as the Pope.

I haven't been to mass since 1989 however and renounce the RCC and regard all faiths and gods as nonsense at best and actively deleterious to humanity at worst.

There is no longer any method for people like me to 'officially' leave the RCC that we never wanted to be in in the first place

So.. am I gonna burn? :pac:

How about the Prods? Are they all going to burn too, or just the really annoying ones like the Presbyterians.

Of course you are not going to burn, the first requirement for hell is that you believe in it.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So.. am I gonna burn? :pac:

You and me together - for our own good, of course!

bou

donaldtramp wrote: »

Actually buddhists also believe that once you've reincarnated yourself a couple times, you reach Nirvana.

Well, not exactly. You might be a particularly good buddhist and reach complete enlightenment at the end of this life. Slightly less so, you might come back once or a few times more. If you're not so brilliant, you might come back, a thousand, a billion or a googol more times. Universes might come and go many times over before you reach enlightenment.

I'm not sure how much the original question posed in this thread has been addressed by the discussion of commandments and hell.

hgfj

hinault, I don't know whether you have any children or not, but if you do I'm curious as to how you would feel if one of your children committed a mortal sin, (whether it be a murder or not going to mass on a Sunday,) and that child you love with all your heart and soul ended up in hell for eternity would you still be happy in heaven, assuming you make it to heaven yourself?

bou

The scientific understanding of consciousness and awareness doesn't seem to be nailed down. And I don't think that they are 99% confident that they have it in the bag. They have strong hopes that they are onto good strategies for nailing it down. But not everyone agrees about it.

At least, that is my understanding of it without deep knowledge of the details.

Many scientists are materialists, to some degree, so it flies in the face of that to imagine another aspect of being that isn't coming from material interactions.

I think that the understanding of consciousness and awareness are key to whether one can contemplate the possibility of an afterlife.

Buddhist hold that there is something of the mindstream that goes on from life to life but it's not the personality that we possess in this lifetime. When we die, the mind dies too. In the tradition I follow, it is considered that an extremely subtle form of awareness continues but that is extremely difficult to recognise. It is impossible to fully see it in this life though one can come to an approximation of it. It is only when all the grosser forms of consciousness die that it becomes possible to fully see it.

recedite

bou wrote: »

In the tradition I follow, it is considered that an extremely subtle form of awareness continues but that is extremely difficult to recognise. It is impossible to fully see it in this life though one can come to an approximation of it. It is only when all the grosser forms of consciousness die that it becomes possible to fully see it.

I'm just curious, Is this the buddhist "awareness" that might get reincarnated into an animal? If that happened, and the very basic awareness was not smart enough to realise what had happened to it, then what would be the point of it?
Maybe like a computer being wiped and going back to very basic default settings?

bou

bou wrote: »

Many scientists are materialists, to some degree, so it flies in the face of that to imagine another aspect of being that isn't coming from material interactions.

I think that the understanding of consciousness and awareness are key to whether one can contemplate the possibility of an afterlife.

It doesn't really follow that because we don't fully understand something it means that people can insert any idea that appeals to them and hold it up as if it were just as valid as everything else. Thor and Zeus weren't any more real 500 years ago just because we couldn't yet explain lightning.

We might not understand consciousness fully, but we can be confident that it's based in the brain and that there is no external component.

There is no plausible mechanism by which the mind can exist after the death of the brain. There is no plausible mechanism by which a pre-existing mind can insert any part of itself into a new brain.

It's not a case where your beliefs exist in the gaps of science, your beliefs are in conflict with what we do know already and will most likely contradict what we will learn in the future.

bou wrote: »

Buddhist hold that there is something of the mindstream that goes on from life to life but it's not the personality that we possess in this lifetime. When we die, the mind dies too. In the tradition I follow, it is considered that an extremely subtle form of awareness continues but that is extremely difficult to recognise. It is impossible to fully see it in this life though one can come to an approximation of it. It is only when all the grosser forms of consciousness die that it becomes possible to fully see it.

Leaving aside the issue of how you could know this based on anything besides faith, I still contend that this version of an afterlife is disgustingly unfair.

First, you seem to be saying that a person is only partially reincarnated, and that only elements of their personality return. Their memories and knowledge and big parts of their being are either erased or don't follow you back or are overwritten by the personality of the new body.
But if we assume that some memories are carried over as some believe, then we have the problem of a person who remembers a different life with different people they love who they can never see or talk to again.
All of these aspects sound horrifying and kind of worse than death.
It's made even worse if it's the case where you can be reincarnated as something not human.
It also implies that the you that exists now is not actually you, and the you that exists now is ultimately not important to the real you.

Ceasing to exist is preferable to all of these choices for me, but then do I even get the option? Or do I get reincarnated against my will?

And then we have people who claim that reincarnation cause be used to punish people/souls. Where if you are evil in one life you are reincarnated as a lower animal or a person who has a worse life. Which is patently unfair on the face of it.

So yea, to me reincarnation is just as bad as the Christian flavour of afterlife.

Hotblack Desiato

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't really follow that because we don't fully understand something it means that people can insert any idea that appeals to them and hold it up as if it were just as valid as everything else.

This x1000

bou

recedite wrote: »

I'm just curious, Is this the buddhist "awareness" that might get reincarnated into an animal? If that happened, and the very basic awareness was not smart enough to realise what had happened to it, then what would be the point of it?
Maybe like a computer being wiped and going back to very basic default settings?

Sorry for delay. Too busy too get back.
I didn't say very basic awareness but rather subtle awareness, something we don't quite recognise as we're caught up in dualistic thinking. This awareness is actually much more. It is the same awareness that a buddha has. Aware of all things. In video, Mingyur Rinpoche describes a near death experience he had recently: link (around 7 mins in). He describes mind and all senses dying and a clarity of awareness remaining.
The problem with people who have not practiced much is that they may not be able to recognise this state of being and instead move on to other dualistic appearances very quickly. Some highly advanced practitioners are said to be able to remain in this pure awareness for days after they die, during which time there is some kind of life remaining in the body and the body doesn't decay at all in that time. In Tibet there have been many stories of people like that as well as people coming back to life and recounting their experiences.

bou

King Mob wrote: »

that people can insert any idea that appeals to them

I'm quoting Tibetan buddhist thought which has been around for a long time. The sciences came later so they have inserted themselves.

we can be confident that it's based in the brain and that there is no external component

The scientific community are not agreed on this nor have they a full explanation of consciousness in all aspects. There is plenty of room for weirdness.

Back in the late 1800s most scientists were agreed that they had largely figured out the whole thing and that there were no more major discoveries to make. What was left was to go into the details and tidy everything up.
The notions of quantum mechanics, general relativity and the big bang were not yet considered. So you could say that modern physics has appeared in the gaps of classical physics.

Not all physicists are agreed that there is a material reality that we all love so dearly. E.g loop quantum gravity, holographic principle.

When you look into descriptions of these theories, the universe is more like a mathematical manifestation than an existing thing. What is the basis of that? What does it mean? It hasn't been all worked out and understood.

I've run out of time today. Perhaps I'll comment on your other points on reincarnation again.

bou

bou wrote: »

I'm quoting Tibetan buddhist thought which has been around for a long time. The sciences came later so they have inserted themselves.

That doesn't really make it any more convincing or supported. Simply because something is believed for a long time doesn't make it any more right or likely to be true than something some one plucks out of their head today.
People have believed in the Greek gods long before Buddhism formed, yet you probably don't believe in Zeus or the Elysian fields.

bou wrote: »

The scientific community are not agreed on this nor have they a full explanation of consciousness in all aspects. There is plenty of room for weirdness.

No, we are fairly confident that consciousness is contained in the brain and that there is no external component. Can you point to any neuroscientists who claim otherwise?
And again, there is no plausible mechanism for how consciousness to survive the death of the brain or to exist without it or to transfer itself into a new brain. If you believe there is such a mechanism, please explain.

However, if you are suggesting that because we don't know everything about consciousness right now, therefore there could be something new etc. then you are simply wrong.

While we might not have the full story of how it works, we know that consciousness is formed by electrical and chemical interactions from the brain. These individual processes and the physics and chemistry behind them are well understood. We can state with confidence that electrical and chemical reactions need electrical conductors and paths and chemicals to happen. Without a physical thing there for them to happen, they don't happen.

If you are going to insist that there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness, then I'm going to need to see some evidence before I can conclude that all the neuroscience we have today is completely wrong.

bou wrote: »

Back in the late 1800s most scientists were agreed that they had largely figured out the whole thing and that there were no more major discoveries to make. What was left was to go into the details and tidy everything up.
The notions of quantum mechanics, general relativity and the big bang were not yet considered. So you could say that modern physics has appeared in the gaps of classical physics.

Not all physicists are agreed that there is a material reality that we all love so dearly. E.g loop quantum gravity, holographic principle.

When you look into descriptions of these theories, the universe is more like a mathematical manifestation than an existing thing. What is the basis of that? What does it mean? It hasn't been all worked out and understood.

Utter **** I'm afraid.
You are arguing that "we don't now everything, everything might be wrong, therefore everything can be right".

Even if all of physics and science is upturned tomorrow, it won't mean that reincarnation suddenly exists. It would still need some evidence and a plausible mechanism and at the moment, you've got neither of these things.
Plus, physics is not likely to be completely overturned any time soon and reincarnation and life after death contradicts science is places that we know a lot about.

Again, Thor and Zeus did not exist 500 years ago anymore than they do today because would couldn't explain lightning 500 years ago.

But this is all an aside really. My main point is that reincarnation, like most afterlifes are terrifying, monstrous and unfair.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

And again, there is no plausible mechanism for how consciousness to survive the death of the brain or to exist without it or to transfer itself into a new brain. If you believe there is such a mechanism, please explain.[/QUOTE

However, if you are suggesting that because we don't know everything about consciousness right now, therefore there could be something new etc. then you are simply wrong.

While we might not have the full story of how it works, we know that consciousness is formed by electrical and chemical interactions from the brain. These individual processes and the physics and chemistry behind them are well understood. We can state with confidence that electrical and chemical reactions need electrical conductors and paths and chemicals to happen. Without a physical thing there for them to happen, they don't happen.

... except we have 'personhood' and 'consciousness' i.e. we may use physical and chemical processes to keep our bodies alive ... but the conscious person that we are is a different entity to our bodies. You may say that we are a chemical / electrical mirage ... but I think that we are much more than this.
We have a virtual and a physical component ... and I believe that the virtual component is eternal.

King Mob wrote: »

If you are going to insist that there is some non-physical aspect to consciousness, then I'm going to need to see some evidence before I can conclude that all the neuroscience we have today is completely wrong.

Consciousness and intelligence are both virtual phenomena ... that by definition are non-physical.

King Mob wrote: »

But this is all an aside really. My main point is that reincarnation, like most afterlifes are terrifying, monstrous and unfair.

Hell is like that ... but Heaven is eternal bliss !!!:)

J C

J C wrote: »

... except we have 'personhood' and 'consciousness' i.e. we may use physical and chemical processes to keep our bodies alive ... but the conscious person that we are is a different entity to our bodies. You may say that we are a chemical / electrical mirage ... but I think that we are much more than this.
We have a virtual and a physical component ... and I believe that the virtual component is eternal.

Great. Bully for you.
You're welcome to prove that.

J C wrote: »

Hell is like that ... but Heaven is eternal bliss !!!:)

Nope, your version of Heaven is disgusting, evil and unfair.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Great. Bully for you.
You're welcome to prove that.

Consciousness, personhood and intelligence are all virtual phenomena ... or are you arguing that they aren't?

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, your version of Heaven is disgusting, evil and unfair.

Why so?

J C

J C wrote: »

Consciousness, personhood and intelligence are all virtual phenomena ... or are you arguing that they aren't?

I'm arguing that the idea that any part of consciousness or personhood or intelligence that exists after the death of brain is nonsense.
There's no evidence for it and it doesn't make sense.

I'm not interested in debating virtual vs real with you however, as it's a semantic argument and you are a troll.

J C wrote: »

Why so?

Lots of reasons I have outlined previously in the thread.

If you believe in Hell, you believe that eternal torture is justified. The fact that some people get bliss and others don't for things like thoughtcrime and wanting to end their own life is bad enough. Adding in the fact some people will earn eternal punishment for anything makes the whole affair horrifying.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

[...] you are a troll.

It's mods who make that judgement.

Thanking youze.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

I'm arguing that the idea that any part of consciousness or personhood or intelligence that exists after the death of brain is nonsense.
There's no evidence for it and it doesn't make sense.

Virtual phenomena are no less real than physical phenomena.
Virtual phenomena have the potential to exist outside of the physical realm.

I accept that proving the eternity of consciousness, personhood and intelligence may be difficult ... but it is equally difficult to disprove it.
... so you can 'pay your money and take your choice', I guess.:)

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not interested in debating virtual vs real with you however, as it's a semantic argument

It's an important argument ... Virtual phenomena are no less real than physical phenomena - and Virtual phenomena have the potential to be immortal and they exist outside of the physical realm.

King Mob wrote: »

Lots of reasons I have outlined previously in the thread.

If you believe in Hell, you believe that eternal torture is justified. The fact that some people get bliss and others don't for things like thoughtcrime and wanting to end their own life is bad enough. Adding in the fact some people will earn eternal punishment for anything makes the whole affair horrifying.

I think it has more to do with the type of God that one believes in ... Jesus Christ is a God of love and mercy as well as a God of justice and judgement.
If we ask for His love and mercy ... we can spend an eternity of bliss with Him in Heaven
... and if we want to take Satan's side and receive God's justice and judgement ... we can spend an eternity with Satan in Hell.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Virtual phenomena are no less real than physical phenomena.

If you continue to misuse words in this manner how can anyone continue to have a discussion with you?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you continue to misuse words in this manner how can anyone continue to have a discussion with you?

I think that your mistake is the supposed distinction between virtual and 'real' phenomena ... when the correct distinction should be betwen virtual and physical phenomena ... both of which are real.

... unless you're claiming that posts on the boards.ie aren't real ???:eek:

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

I think that your mistake is the supposed distinction between virtual and 'real' phenomena ... when the correct distinction should be betwen virtual and physical phenomena ... both of which are real.

... unless you're claiming that posts on the boards.ie aren't real ???:eek:

Are you claiming that the afterlife or human consciousness is just a bunch of boards posts?

Am I doing it right?

My dreams seem virtually real. They are not real.

Virtual reality != reality

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Are you claiming that the afterlife or human consciousness is just a bunch of boards posts?

Am I doing it right?

My dreams seem virtually real. They are not real.

Virtual reality != reality

I'm pointing out that there are virtual phenomena that are real ... even virtual reality is real ... as it exists.

Dreams exist ... and thus area real virtual phenomena ... its just the contents of dreams that aren't real.

... its the same with movies ... and, dare I say it ... some posts on the Boards.ie :eek:

looksee

Mod: The contents of some posts on Boards are definitely unreal JC, maybe edging away from semantics and back to the topic would be better for the health of the thread.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Mod: The contents of some posts on Boards are definitely unreal JC, maybe edging away from semantics and back to the topic would be better for the health of the thread.

This isn't semantics ... virtual and physical realities both exist ... our minds/personalities/consciousness/spirits are virtual phenomena and our bodies are physical phenomena.

Our bodies are mortal ... but our minds/personalities/consciousness/spirits may be immortal ... they certainly feel immortal to me.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

...they certainly feel immortal to me.

This tops all the meaningless bullsh1t you've posted.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

This isn't semantics.

If we can't agree on the meaning of words, like 'virtual', then the discussion is entirely semantic.

J C

J C wrote: »

Our bodies are mortal ... but our minds/personalities/consciousness/spirits may be immortal ... they certainly feel immortal to me.

As has been no doubt explained to you several dozen, if not hundreds of times and as simply as possible: It is not our job to disprove your claims, you have to prove them. Otherwise, your assertions can be dismissed.

On top of that, I have pointed out several issues with the notion that the mind is immortal, namely it goes against what we know about it now and that no one has or can produce a possible mechanism by which it could work. You have not addressed this in any meaningful or coherent way.

And then, as I pointed out, your afterlife includes torture. You believe that torture can be justified. Therefore your afterlife is disgusting and unfair. You have proved my point.

I don't think there's much more to discuss.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

As has been no doubt explained to you several dozen, if not hundreds of times and as simply as possible: It is not our job to disprove your claims, you have to prove them. Otherwise, your assertions can be dismissed.

I don't think either of us can prove our respective assertions ... that the mind/spirit of a Human is immortal/not immortal.

... so we'll have to agree to differ on this.

King Mob wrote: »

On top of that, I have pointed out several issues with the notion that the mind is immortal, namely it goes against what we know about it now and that no one has or can produce a possible mechanism by which it could work. You have not addressed this in any meaningful or coherent way.

If we have a Divinely Created eternal mind/spirit ... this could be immortal.
If we are only a complex chemical and electrical entity ... then when we die, we probably die.

King Mob wrote: »

And then, as I pointed out, your afterlife includes torture. You believe that torture can be justified. Therefore your afterlife is disgusting and unfair. You have proved my point.

It's not 'my' afterlife ... and the torture experienced by the un-saved is due to their fraternising with Satan and his demons.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

This tops all the meaningless bullsh1t you've posted.

Using bad language doesn't add anything to your point.
It's probably impossible to prove the immortality of the mind/spirit ... but like the OP is suggesting, a belief in the possibility of an immortal aspect to each person isn't unique to Christians ... although a belief in immortality, fits in more with a Theist worldview.

looksee

It's not 'my' afterlife ... and the torture experienced by the un-saved is due to their fraternising with Satan and his demons.

I am really glad I am an atheist, so I can just forget I read things like that.

J C

looksee wrote: »

I am really glad I am an atheist, so I can just forget I read things like that.

There are many uncomfortable realities in this life (and the next).

Some people don't want to face these realities ... and that is fair enough.

If there is a God (who is the personification of all goodness) and a Devil (who is the personification of all evil) ... then choosing to side with the Devil will result in significant torture in both this life and the next.

Of course, if you believe that neither God or Satan exists, then you can believe that there is an end to both evil and good, when you die ... but you could be wrong in this belief.

looksee

I think these notions are a bit sick to be honest, and I am very happy to live a life where the vast majority of people are essentially good, we get one go at this life, do our best with it, and that's the end of it.

J C

J C wrote: »

I don't think either of us can prove our respective assertions ... that the mind/spirit of a Human is immortal/not immortal.

... so we'll have to agree to differ on this.

No, that's not how it is JC. You are asserting something. I am rejecting your assertion because it is baseless and nonsensical.

You cannot provide any evidence for your assertion, then everyone is free to reject it without evidence.

This basic concept of rational thinking has probably been explained to you ad nauseum.

J C wrote: »

If we have a Divinely Created eternal mind/spirit ... this could be immortal.
If we are only a complex chemical and electrical entity ... then when we die, we probably die.

These two things are not equal. It is wholly dishonest of you to pretend they are.

You cannot explain any mechanism by which a mind can exist without a brain. Saying "God does it by magic" is not a mechanism.

J C wrote: »

It's not 'my' afterlife ... and the torture experienced by the un-saved is due to their fraternising with Satan and his demons.

It is your afterlife. There are many different ideas for an afterlife, all as equally valid as yours.
Your afterlife requires you to believe that torture is justified and that some people deserve it.
This is disgusting.

The fact you believe that some people earn their eternal torture for temporal thoughtcrime makes it even more disgusting.

J C

looksee wrote: »

I think these notions are a bit sick to be honest,

It doesn't help our discussion by labelling ideas under discussion as 'sick'.

Is there evil as well as good ? ... the answer is yes ... not sick.

Does evil and good continue beyond this life ... it can't be proven either way ... but if we have an eternal dimension to us ... then evil and good will be likely found in that eternal dimension ... and will likely manifest themselves in something like Heaven and Hell.

looksee wrote: »

... and I am very happy to live a life where the vast majority of people are essentially good, we get one go at this life, do our best with it, and that's the end of it.

There is good and evil in everyone.
We do only get one go at this life .. and we should do our best with it ... but there may also be an eternity awaiting us all.

You are free to discount/disregard this possibility ... but those of us who don't do so aren't any 'sicker' than those who do.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

If there is a God (who is the personification of all goodness) and a Devil (who is the personification of all evil) ... then choosing to side with the Devil will result in significant torture in both this life and the next.

Of course, if you believe that neither God or Satan exists, then you can believe that there is an end to both evil and good, when you die ... but you could be wrong in this belief.

Sounds like a variation on Pascal's wager.

To use a horse racing analogy: Catholics believe there is one horse in the race and it is certain to win. Bet everything on it!

In reality, there are 3000 horses in the race and none of them have a chance of even finishing. But go ahead, put everything you have on one horse...

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No, that's not how it is JC. You are asserting something. I am rejecting your assertion because it is baseless and nonsensical.

You cannot provide any evidence for your assertion, then everyone is free to reject it without evidence.
This basic concept of rational thinking has probably been explained to you ad nauseum.

... but there are logical arguments to support our having a mind/spirit from observing living Humans ... and from the posited existence of a God who created the first Humans ... who were given the power to produce new Humans with new bodies and new spirits.

You are quite entitled to not believe this ... and indeed this might be a logical follow-on, on your part, from your belief that God doesn't exist.

King Mob wrote: »

These two things are not equal. It is wholly dishonest of you to pretend they are.

You cannot explain any mechanism by which a mind can exist without a brain. Saying "God does it by magic" is not a mechanism.

... I cannot explain how a mind can exist outside a brain ... and you cannot explain how a mind exists within a brain.

... and just saying its the result of inordinate complexity ... is just as big a 'non-explantion' as saying that God does it.

King Mob wrote: »

It is your afterlife. There are many different ideas for an afterlife, all as equally valid as yours.
Your afterlife requires you to believe that torture is justified and that some people deserve it.
This is disgusting.

It would be disgusting, if I was justifying eternal torture by God ... but I'm not doing so ... the torture is entirely self-caused ... and the alternative is available right up to the point of death.
What God appears to have done with Hell is to isolate eternal evil to it ... thereby isolating eternal good to Heaven.
On Earth we have a mixture of good and evil ... and this causes physical death ... and all of the good and bad things we see around us.

King Mob wrote: »

The fact you believe that some people earn their eternal torture for tem poral thoughtcrime makes it even more disgusting.

People choose eternal torture because they want to associate with torturers rather than God.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Sounds like a variation on Pascal's wager.

To use a horse racing analogy: Catholics believe there is one horse in the race and it is certain to win. Bet everything on it!

In reality, there are 3000 horses in the race and none of them have a chance of even finishing. But go ahead, put everything you have on one horse...

The beauty of Paschal's Wager is that you don't have to put everything on the Christian 'horse' ... you actually need to do nothing more than trusting in Jesus Christ to Save you ... and living a good and wholesome life ... that will bring you every good thing, in this life even if there is no next life.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

The beauty of Paschal's Wager is that you don't have to put everything on the Christian 'horse' ... you actually need to do nothing more than trusting in Jesus Christ to Save you

That's the same as betting on the Christian 'horse'.

... and living a good and wholesome life ... that will bring you every good thing, in this life even if there is no next life.

Tell me, when god was arranging for the slaughter of the innocents did he feel that they hadn't lived a good and wholesome life in this life?

J C

J C wrote: »

... but there are logical arguments to support our having a mind/spirit from observing living Humans ...

The mind being immortal and carrying on after the brain is not observed. There is zero evidence this happens or could happen.

J C wrote: »

and from the posited existence of a God who created the first Humans ... who were given the power to produce new Humans with new bodies and new spirits.

Again, another baseless assertion that I reject due to it's lack of evidence. It does not support your case. Backing up baseless assertions with baseless assertions doesn't help.

J C wrote: »

... I cannot explain how a mind can exist outside a brain ... and you cannot explain how a mind exists within a brain.

Yes we can explain how a mind exists within a brain.

J C wrote: »

... and just saying its the result of inordinate complexity ... is just as big a 'non-explantion' as saying that God does it.

No it's not. A physical explanation leads to testable hypothesises that can be verified or falsified leading to new discoveries. Your explanation is: "magic - end of thought."

J C wrote: »

It would be disgusting, if I was justifying eternal torture by God ... but I'm not doing so ...

That is exactly what you do.
You believe torture is justified. That is a disgusting belief. Trying to hand wave and shift responsibility just makes you and your god look worse.