The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Inevitable Droid]

Achronos, just to clarify, are you Greek Orthodox?  You may have provided this information earlier, but I'd appreciate if you could clear this up.

Nov. 13 5:51 AM, on the "Does religion offend you?" thread, Achronos wrote, "I go to a Greek Orthodox Church and my friend we could spend at quite a length discussing how important Orthodoxy is and my disdain with the other denominations, such as those which misinterpret Scripture. Greek, Russian, Antiochian, are still the same church but just in different jurisdictions."

[Cycel]

Agnostics can still believe in God, they just recognize that they cannot be one-hundred percent certain that he actually exists. So, honest theists.

I accept that within the parameters of the definition an agnostic might lean toward belief in a deity, but the moment he starts making proclamations as to the nature of God he quickly moves from agnosticism toward theism.  The agnostic holds that it is wrong to claim an objective truth about God unless he can produce evidence, but agnostics assert that God is unknowable precisely because they think that nothing can be known about God.  Presumably they don't accept the reliability of the theists' sources for knowledge about God.  I think agnostics, as per the definition below, are 100% certain that nothing can be known about the nature of God, should he exist.  

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God (OED, 2006).

If a person makes the following statement, 'God exists', then have they had already stepped beyond the bounds of agnosticism into theism?  I think they have.  An agnostic is more likely to assert, 'I don't know if God exist.'  He might then add the corollary, '... but I am inclined to think he does/doesn't'; so long as he makes no assertions about the nature of God.

Changing the definition, or adding to it, makes it difficult to carry on a discussion when the discussion makes use of terms that are not agreed upon. The definition above works for me.  

[AverageJoe]

I would have a fear of an eternal afterlife.
What exactly are you going to do forever?

Quite. Everything has to have a beginning and an end, even stars.

Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

[AverageJoe]

As a Christian, if the afterlife does not exist then I would be fine because all my thoughts and memories would be 'erased'. What if there was an afterlife though and you could not enter because you rejected God? While my argument is weak to purport that I am fine believing in God and finding out nothing exists after life, but I will say it's better than not believing in God and finding out He does exist.

If God does exist, he'll know I've led a good life, and thus will not chuck me out of Heaven. If he would stop me entering Heaven then he's not quite the guy you all think he is - a god shouldn't really hold grudges, being perfect and all? If he'd prevent me from entering his Kingdom, then do I want to know him at all? Nope.

I can go throughout my life not believing in this deity because he is nothing more than a fabrication of men. If he did turn out to be real (not going to happen, but theoretically if) then I can still go throughout life not believing because he should in theory forgive me anyway.

Cheers God!

My issue would be I couldn't reference any good excuse to not believe God existed. Maybe I can ask the guy behind me for an excuse.

Furthermore is it selfish of me to say that I kind of like the idea that I could live for eternity?

I'd like to live longer, a lot longer, but eternity is just too long maaaaan. I think fear of death meaning everything ending for ever is quite a frightening concept and therefore a big motivating factor to believe in God and heaven. That does not make it real unfortunately. If It did, I'm sure most people would jump on the bandwagon.

It is hard to accept the finality of it all. Even as an atheist, the ending of it all bothers me somewhat.

[Cycel]

Achronos, just to clarify, are you Greek Orthodox?  You may have provided this information earlier, but I'd appreciate if you could clear this up.

Nov. 13 5:51 AM, on the "Does religion offend you?" thread, Achronos wrote, "I go to a Greek Orthodox Church and my friend we could spend at quite a length discussing how important Orthodoxy is and my disdain with the other denominations, such as those which misinterpret Scripture. Greek, Russian, Antiochian, are still the same church but just in different jurisdictions."

Merci ID, that clears up my confusion.  

[Asmodean]

Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

Wouldn't you say that depends on the quality of those years though..?

[Cycel]

I would have a fear of an eternal afterlife.
What exactly are you going to do forever?

Quite. Everything has to have a beginning and an end, even stars.

Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

Ditto, ditto, and ditto.

I quite agree.  It doesn't matter how long we are here.  I think few of us want our time to come to an end. I have no fear of being dead, but I don't like the idea of dying -- it might not be pleasant.  I certainly am not terrified at the thought of not living forever, and as the previous quote suggested, what could we possibly do with ourselves in an afterlife that lasted forever?  Even back in the days before I lost my belief in God I couldn't quite imagine what I was supposed to do during the afterlife.  One thing I knew for certain, I didn't want to spend all my time praising God.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

[AverageJoe]

Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

Wouldn't you say that depends on the quality of those years though..?

70 quality years could be classed as better than 140 absolutely horrific years - and let us never forget that some people (atheists and theists alike) for one reason or another have a terrible and painful time on earth.

I dunno, we are an intelligent species that is capable of so much advancement scientifically, it bothers me somewhat that Parrots can live as long and Tortoises can live twice as long.

So, just my opinion, 70-80 years, quality or otherwise, just doesn't seem too long.

[Asmodean]

So, just my opinion, 70-80 years, quality or otherwise, just doesn't seem too long.

Indeed it is not...

What I am saying is that this time, even if relatively short, can be enough for someone who has lived a fulfilling life - or too much for someone who got nothing but crap out of it.

[Stevil]

I think agnostics, as per the definition below, are 100% certain that nothing can be known about the nature of God, should he exist.  

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God (OED, 2006).

and to quote Achronos yet again

most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

I can understand your confusion Cycel, this is my confusion as well, however I am trying to run with it rather than apply my own logic to it.

The problem with applying my logic to Achronos is that we both operate off a different set of principles (epistemology as Inevitable Droid has highlighted) and word/term definitions, I have had many a discussion with Achronos on this thread. Although not addressing all of my points Achronos has certainly been very forthcoming with much information. In this way I have learnt some things about Achronos. Mostly that I find him difficult to understand and that my logic doesn't apply to him. His principles are based on that of the Christian Orthodoxy and in that world I gather logic is a completely different beast from my world.

With that all said there are two possibilities:
1. We are incorrect in applying our logic to Achronos to deduce that the definition of theory A coupled with statement B from person C means that C belongs to A. Just because someone states that they can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God it doesn't meant that they can't 100% believe that God exists. Belief overrides our logic and fact.
2. Achronos was incorrect in his statement, actually he does know 100% that God exists.

In subsequent posts Achronos stated

But Orthodoxy does not lead to agnotiscism, because God has revealed Himself.

This was stated as the stance of the Orthodoxy but is not clear whether this is the stance of Achronos himself

Achronos also went on to post a quote with regards to some details about the person that coined the term Agnostic

As for reshaping "the meaning of agnostic," perhaps it would pay to look at its creator.

In my mind this has no relevance with regards to the definition of the term "Agnostic", however potentially in Achronos' logic based on the Orthodoxy principles, maybe this is very relevant and modifies the definition such that Achronos is not Agnostic. I don't know and would simply be guessing here. As far as I can see Achronos has not simply come forth and made a clear outright statement as to whether he is Agnostic.

[Croaker]

I'd like to live longer, a lot longer, but eternity is just too long maaaaan.

I've been trying to think of things you can do, and here's one that would take a while. First, learn how to sculpt stone, then make a representative 'alphabet' of highly intricate statues, each one representing one letter, and each one taking a few years to complete - I'm thinking SUV size or something similar. Then, convert the entirety of humanity's written works into your statue alphabet.

That should take a few solid million years or so.

After that, well, crap, I don't know. I mean, even though it's a few million years, it's a fraction of infinity and you're back at square one - you still have all of infinity ahead of you.

I guess you could then repeat that conversion, once with every possible combination of every other inhabitant of heaven (they're probably looking for something to do, as well) and that'd take an obscene number of millions of years.

But then you're still only using a fraction of infinity and you... ugh, this is getting ridiculous. Can I just opt out of this 'eternity' thing?

[Inevitable Droid]

If we're talking about immortality on Earth, via reincarnation or transhumanism, then sign me up.  On a planet where new books are continually being written, new movies made, new gadgets, toys, and games invented, and new social constructs attempted, I don't know why I'd want to leave if I still had a strong and agile body, or why I wouldn't want to reincarnate if I could.  Couple that with the possibility of genetically enhancing other species all the way to sapience, developing robots all the way to sapience, and maybe encountering sapient extra-terrestrials, and the mighty cornucopia of books, movies, gadgets, toys, games, and social constructs just spirals into such myriad multiplicities as to transcend the limits of language's ability to describe.  Only some horrific nightmare scenario would make me want to die or not reincarnate.

[Cycel]

I think agnostics, as per the definition below, are 100% certain that nothing can be known about the nature of God, should he exist.  

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God (OED, 2006).

and to quote Achronos yet again

most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

I can understand your confusion Cycel, this is my confusion as well, however I am trying to run with it rather than apply my own logic to it.

The problem will applying my logic to Achronos is that we both operate off a different set of principles...

I've encountered that problem in the past while having discussions with others.  I know what you mean.  This, in large part, is why I like to make the attempt to nail down definitions.  I recognize the effort may not always meet with success.

Just because someone states that they can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God it doesn't meant that they can't 100% believe that God exists. Belief overrides our logic and fact.

I do understand the logic of this statement.  An individual might be 100% certain of the existence of God, but less than 100% sure they understand God.

In subsequent posts Achronos stated "... Orthodoxy does not lead to agnotiscism, because God has revealed Himself."
This was stated as the stance of the Orthodoxy but is not clear whether this is the stance of Achronos himself.

I was a bit confused when I first read this comment of his.  However, I may have heard other Christians say similar things.  For example, it is sometimes claimed that atheists, who formerly were Christian, were never really true Christians, because had they truly known God they could never have become atheists in the first place.  Is this what Achronos is saying: 'Those who are Orthodox -- ie. true Christians -- can never become agnostic, or atheist, once God has truly revealed himself to them'?  This would imply that Achronos is certain of God's existence, if I'm interpreting his statement correctly.

Achronos also went on to post a quote with regards to some details about the person that coined the term Agnostic

As for reshaping "the meaning of agnostic," perhaps it would pay to look at its creator.

First, Huxley's definition of agnosticism doesn't match the one Achronos uses.  I'm certain of that.  This morning I read an explanation by Huxley, printed in Britannica, of his understanding of the term he coined to describe himself, and he meant it to apply to the existence and nature of God.  Achronos wishes us to understand agnosticism as a skepticism of both forms of knowledge:  transcendent and materialistic (that is, knowledge derived from the physical world).  Huxley called himself, 'Darwin's bulldog', that's how confident he was in regard the physical data Darwin had collected.  Those are not the words of a man who thought agnostics should not be confident of such evidence.  Achronos may be attempting, through the back door, to legitimize skepticism of science.  Of course I may be wrong.  He might now come forth and declare his acceptance of the theory of evolution. That would blow my theorizing out of the water.  

In my mind this has no relevance with regards to the definition of the term "Agnostic", however potentially in Achronos' logic based on the Orthodoxy principles, maybe this is very relevant and modifies the definition such that Achronos is not Agnostic. I don't know and would simply be guessing here. As far as I can see Achronos has not simply come forth and made a clear outright statement as to whether he is Agnostic.

Well then, perhaps now he will.

[Cycel]

If we're talking about immortality on Earth, via reincarnation or transhumanism, then sign me up.  On a planet where new books are continually being written, new movies made, new gadgets, toys, and games invented, and new social constructs attempted, I don't know why I'd want to leave if I still had a strong and agile body, or why I wouldn't want to reincarnate if I could.

I'm with you, except for the reincarnation part.  Don't think I'd want to reincarnate as an untouchable in India.

[Achronos]

Appreciate the responses in this thread, I'll have to get back to them at a later time. I do feel I need to address a few of the misconceptions being present. It seems to me that the understanding of "Christianity's" Heaven would somehow negate the wonders of human ingenuity and culture?

I have the feeling that Christianity assumes everyone is selfish...

The Church knows that most people will be selfish. The Church also knows that God is merciful and desires the salvation of all.

and hence dangles the carrot of eternal love and happiness for being good and eternal torment for being bad.

The aim of the Church is not to make bad men good but to make dead men live.

Perhaps a little research would go a long way in dismantling this "feeling" of yours.  This only serves the oft-put-forward notion that you know next to nothing about authentic Christianity/Orthodoxy.

so long as you add belief in the Atonement as at least equally important, if not more so, depending on the denomination.

The vast majority of Orthodox believers reject Atonement as a false concept.

Moreover, an atheist could preach selflessness without engaging in contradiction.

To an atheist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of the self into nothingness, aka nihilism. To a theist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of one's self into God, while at the same time revealing the true self.

Lack of belief in a deity doesn't stop us from believing in the moral good,

With no higher power/deity, your concept of a moral good can only be based on your opinion, shaped as it is from your own opinion. You would have no right to force it on others, and certainly no reason to proclaim anything outside your own experience to be right or wrong. Thus, you are left with no possibility of moral outrage at the events which took place at Auschwitz, Dachau, the GULAGs, etc.

Or to quote Jeffrey Dahmer:“If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.”

If God does exist, he'll know I've led a good life, and thus will not chuck me out of Heaven.

The issue is that the experiences of Heaven and Hell for each person, are not the fault of God, but of that person. God does not change. He is the same for St John the Theologian as He is for Hitler or Lenin or anyone else. But how a person experiences God is wholly dependent on themselves. You yourself disbelieve in God. You have closed the door and barred it from the inside, refusing to let God in. Your morality hardly factors into it.

If he would stop me entering Heaven then he's not quite the guy you all think he is - a god shouldn't really hold grudges, being perfect and all? If he'd prevent me from entering his Kingdom, then do I want to know him at all? Nope.

He does not stop you from entering into His Kingdom. You refuse to enter. He merely accepts your will. God refuses to override what you have chosen for yourself.

I can go throughout my life not believing in this deity because he is nothing more than a fabrication of men. If he did turn out to be real (not going to happen, but theoretically if) then I can still go throughout life not believing because he should in theory forgive me anyway.

God forgives everyone. The issue is that not everyone thinks they need that forgiveness in order to repent and accept it.

...immortality on Earth, via reincarnation or transhumanism, then sign me up. On a planet where new books are continually being written, new movies made, new gadgets, toys, and games invented, and new social constructs attempted, I don't know why I'd want to leave if I still had a strong and agile body, or why I wouldn't want to reincarnate if I could. Couple that with the possibility of genetically enhancing other species all the way to sapience, developing robots all the way to sapience, and maybe encountering sapient extra-terrestrials, and the mighty cornucopia of books, movies, gadgets, toys, games, and social constructs just spirals into such myriad multiplicities as to transcend the limits of language's ability to describe. Only some horrific nightmare scenario would make me want to die or not reincarnate.

So you are saying that you won't worship God...but you have no problem setting up science, technology and the human mind as idols and worshipping them? Gotcha.