Poll: What is your preferred afterlife
This poll is closed.
Supernatural hell: Get tortured for a hundred years, but not actually and then be turned loose to temp people. 11.76% 2 11.76%
Supernatural heaven: Supposedly your idea of paradise, but from what I saw way too cramped to spend an eternity. 23.53% 4 23.53%
Catholic idea: Burn forever. 0% 0 0%
Seperation from god for eternity. 64.71% 11 64.71%
Total 17 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2017, 12:03 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(06-10-2017 04:03 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 09:24 AM)natachan Wrote:  Eternity in any form would be torture.


How do you know? Have you done it yet? Consider

I have indeed. In the limit. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2017, 05:33 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(06-10-2017 06:49 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 04:57 AM)unfogged Wrote:  ...People don't want to be dead so they imagine that they will survive dying despite having zero evidence for that. They then realize that eternal existence would be boring so they hand-wave that away with more unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims like being "outside time"...

In the books I was talking about, the writers give arguments other than this for why they think of eternity the way they do.

I confess I don't feel comfortable psychologizing about people who lived centuries ago, or attributing unspoken motives to them.

Do you have some historical evidence that the reasons you give are the real reasons they made their conclusions? Or is it more of a guess on your part?

Since there is no evidence for an afterlife, then the people that wrote those books about things which there are no evidence for have no basis in reality.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2017, 05:35 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(06-10-2017 06:49 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 04:57 AM)unfogged Wrote:  ...People don't want to be dead so they imagine that they will survive dying despite having zero evidence for that. They then realize that eternal existence would be boring so they hand-wave that away with more unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims like being "outside time"...

In the books I was talking about, the writers give arguments other than this for why they think of eternity the way they do.

I confess I don't feel comfortable psychologizing about people who lived centuries ago, or attributing unspoken motives to them.

Do you have some historical evidence that the reasons you give are the real reasons they made their conclusions? Or is it more of a guess on your part?

IT is a summation based on decades of experience listening to and investigating claims of this type. They may present any arguments they like but until they can present evidence supporting those arguments it is all just vacuous nonsense.

I'm not comfortable taking unsubstantiated ideas from people who lived centuries ago and for which no supporting evidence has been found in the meantime and simply accepting them on face value. I have every reason to believe that people then were similar psychologically to people now and that I can make reasonable assumptions regarding obvious bullshit.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
07-10-2017, 05:47 AM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2017 05:50 AM by Belaqua.)
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(07-10-2017 05:35 AM)unfogged Wrote:  ...IT is a summation based on decades of experience listening to and investigating claims of this type. They may present any arguments they like but until they can present evidence supporting those arguments it is all just vacuous nonsense...

Well, I was asking you about the claim that people came up with all the ideas about eternity and heaven because they fear death, and that they added the part about "outside time" because heaven lasting forever sounded boring. You're making some pretty big claims, and something that it would be hard to prove, I think.

I'm not asking you if you think their beliefs are true; I know you don't. I'm asking about your claims concerning motivation.

You know how some believers make the foolish argument that atheists don't believe because deep down we hate God. This is wrong in my case, and probably in most cases. But if we deny that we hate God, the believer can just say of course we deny it, but deep down it's true anyway. This seems to me pretty equivalent in structure to your claim that people become believers because they fear death. If it's true they won't admit it, and if they don't admit it you can still claim that it's true.

It remains speculation, unprovable, and based on your assumptions about other people's unacknowledged mental states.

Since I try to base my beliefs strictly on logic and evidence, I don't see how you can hold to this claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Belaqua's post
07-10-2017, 06:13 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(06-10-2017 03:46 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 09:24 AM)natachan Wrote:  ...Eternity in any form would be torture...

But you know, right, that for theologians eternity doesn't mean an endless passing of time. That's the colloquial sense, but anybody smart [Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, et.al.] who wrote about heaven used the word eternity to refer to being outside of time.

[bolding mine]

That's pretty big claim. Have some evidence?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2017, 06:22 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
Where is Valhalla? That always seemed like fun...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2017, 06:23 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(07-10-2017 06:13 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  That's pretty big claim. Have some evidence?

"Philo of Alexandria is reckoned to be the first to ascribe timelessness to God, to the God of the Jewish Scriptures. In Plotinus (ca. 185–254) timeless eternity and life are for the first time identified together. Nous is eternal and beyond time, enjoying duration without succession."

"For Aquinas God's eternity is unending, lacking both beginning and end, and an instantaneous whole lacking successiveness"

both quotes from:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#Ety
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Belaqua's post
07-10-2017, 06:39 AM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(07-10-2017 06:23 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(07-10-2017 06:13 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  That's pretty big claim. Have some evidence?

"Philo of Alexandria is reckoned to be the first to ascribe timelessness to God, to the God of the Jewish Scriptures. In Plotinus (ca. 185–254) timeless eternity and life are for the first time identified together. Nous is eternal and beyond time, enjoying duration without succession."

"For Aquinas God's eternity is unending, lacking both beginning and end, and an instantaneous whole lacking successiveness"

both quotes from:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#Ety

Still don't see proof for anybody smart writing in such way.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2017, 01:50 PM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(06-10-2017 05:10 PM)CosmoMcKinley Wrote:  I suppose that it comes down to just how sensate and able to appreciate subtleties one is. There are very few experiences one can have that are not unique on some level. Learning to appreciate such subtleties is, I think, the key to overcoming boredom, maybe even on an infinite timeline.

Cherry pie or hair pie, every serving you're presented with can be a new experience as long as you're open to it. Smile
I think this is true to a point, the question is, where IS that point. "Forever" would be quite a brutal test of your "sensate" appreciation of "subtleties".

I do not find much of even this finite existence compelling, and I find much of it filled with deja vu as I get older. Maybe this is because I'm not sufficiently "open" or not "savoring" things enough, but I rather doubt it. I think it's actually because I AM paying close attention; I see more patterns and am better at predicting outcomes, sensing motivations, etc.

I'm not saying life is inherently not worth living or something, but I AM saying that it is only "worth it" for a time, almost no matter how you choose to look at it / frame it.

People's mileage will vary, of course. I'd expect someone blessed with a very chirpy, optimistic ability to always look on the bright side and so forth, would get on better and longer than someone who's more inherently low-energy and morose about things. But it seems like there'd have to be an upper limit somewhere. Or that there at least would be for most people.

If I found myself to be immortal after all and I managed to find that enjoyable indefinitely, of course I'd embrace it ... I just don't see how that is likely. What seems far more likely is that I can extrapolate from my own existential fatigue after a mere sixty years; understand that NOTHING about the concept of an afterlife mandates that an afterlife would be better or different than one's "current" life or specially tailored or suited to individual needs / desires / tastes; and therefore conclude that an afterlife in which I am recognizably "me" would quickly become a tedious and unwanted continuation of what already wears thin for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: Poll: What version of the afterlife would you prefer?
(07-10-2017 05:35 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I'm not comfortable taking unsubstantiated ideas from people who lived centuries ago and for which no supporting evidence has been found in the meantime and simply accepting them on face value. I have every reason to believe that people then were similar psychologically to people now and that I can make reasonable assumptions regarding obvious bullshit.
I think people were most likely psychological similar, although if you go far enough back, the unprovable hypothesis of the "bicameral mind" introduces the possibility of a rather different psychology.

Also -- while psychology may have been similar, that doesn't mean that certain concepts had been thought of and that would influence the framing (or even the ability to frame or anchor) of many concepts.

My wife and I were watching an old Game of Thrones episode the other night in which the character Sam, who is literate, is talking to Gilly, who is illiterate. He explains the history and background of some aspect of a castle and Gilly asks how he can possibly know that. He says he read it in a book. She says, you can know all that just by looking at scratches on paper? You're like some kind of wizard. So, lacking a concept of literacy or what its implications are, she would not know how to think about how one gains knowledge of the past, or even that one COULD.

There are many things like this that are prerequisites for being able to even think about or discuss many things. So while someone from the year 1500 would have the "same" psychology, they would not possess a mind prepared to comprehend automobiles, spacecraft, or computers, or at least not as anything but Magic. All you can really say is that if you took a baby born in 1500 into a time machine to the year 2017 and raised it like any other person of this era, they'd have similar mental and emotional needs and responses. But wait until 1550 and take that person at age 50 to the year 2017, and the would be totally overwhelmed and possibly driven insane.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: