The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think its amusing -- and very revealing -- that even with contrary evidence in front of him -- Achy here is still busy constructing his straw-man atheist, presumably in preparation for the funeral pyre.

It's pretty disappointing, actually; whom I thought was a different sort of believer turns out to be your run-of-the-mill stereotyping apologist.

Unless this changes, I'm not going to pay attention to him anymore.  His shoes don't fit my feet, so I'm not going to wear them.

[McQ]

It's a nice idea but you haven't taken into consideratin group bias, Mcq.

What the heck is group bias as it relates to conducting a study? Do you have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about?

[Whitney]

It's a nice idea but you haven't taken into consideratin group bias, Mcq.

What the heck is group bias as it relates to conducting a study? Do you have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about?

He obviously does not know what he is talking about...but he won't be able to not say that for himself for about a week.

[Achronos]

Wasn't broken, thanks.

Quite broken. But since you are quite broken, I can see how you miss that.

I wish you could have my life.

Why? You don't want it?

You'd be happy with yourself.

I'm happy with myself now, though always interested in improvement.

No, I can tell that you've given this much thought.  I simply disagree with your results, likely because we input different starting values.

I didn't rig my results. I can't speak for you as to what exactly how you fixed yours. Have you answered yet the question about whether you admit of ultimate Truth or how it (we know He) is found?

Analogy fail.

Because you don't like it?

Gravity brooks no disobedience

Ever been on an airplane? Seen a rocket?

nor does it demand obeisance,

Jump off that cliff and see how much it doesn't.

nor does it forgive even if you repent your disbelief right before you hit the ground.

LOL. "Analogy fail," but it fails for you. You seem to have a mechanical view of Faith and repentance: were you a "Once saved always saved" Born Againer?

You may've thought much about your faith, but you've obviously not thought about gravity that much.

Oh, you didn't mention your PhD in Physics.

I stand by what I said:

You are stumbling, and quite badly.

Christianity is a self-abnegating cult of death.

This made me literally laugh out loud. Such intellectual freedom! Such reasoned and thought-out conclusions based on reality! Nope, move along folks, there's no bias or prejudice here at all! This is what any ol' person would find in an honest examination of Christianity! Nothing to see here! I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative!  Carry on!

You seem to be quite confused on Christianity in general and Orthodox Christianity in particular. Since you are in America, maybe you are aware of what a self-abnegating cult of death looks like, like the botox cult.

[Stevil]

Because believers can, and do, freely express their doubts about whether or not God exists

Don't the majority of Christians hold the belief that one must believe in the Christian god to get into Heaven? Would it be right to say if you doubt that God exists then you wouldn't be a believer? I understand that you are saying that the doubts are momentary. What if you die at a moment of disbelief or doubt?

because most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God. Unless we're arrogant and prideful, we know that we don't know everything, and that we could be wrong.

Going by this statement of yours would I be correct in saying that you are Agnostic however tending more toward the possibility of the Christian god?

[Achronos]

I'm sorry Achronos, but I've gotten really bored of the atheist makes you a miserable nihilist claim. Trying to caricature us all on Nietzsche's epistemology isn't even an argument anymore, it just shows a huge misunderstanding.

There are quite a number of former atheists, myself included, who realize that the nihilist claim is it's only logical end goal. I think you may have misunderstood as to why I 'generalized' the atheistic worldview, you may claim to certain moral derivitives in society (moral relavitism) but from what basis? I can see why it's too easy to say there is no God, considering there is this illusion of behavior which has no 'inherent' consequences and doesn't have a higher 'authority' to speak of. If there is no 'transcendent' being and we place ourselves as that higher authority, then how are we to say life is 'sacred' meaning? Who can say that you cannot take one's life away, when it is yourself who has that claim of authority to take upon such an action. It goes back to the story I posted earlier regarding the courtroom decision, where a lawyer could present a case where molecules are just moving an an inanimate object to 'kill' someone; there is no meaning whatsoever derived from the action nor the actual person itself.

If life was to grow and evolve, and we were to grow smarter and more advanced, by the time we reach a certain level of advancement, we find that the more we evolve the more disease and obstacles in life evolve with us.  We find that in the end, the universe as we know it will end and all evolution and all purpose we struggle for doesn't even matter. We are forced with one goal, that is simply to survive. But why try to survive now when it will all end later, not just your life, but even the life of your progeny? Nobody has ever given me a clear or concise answer to this, and honestly I don't really expect it.

I wish I had the time to delve deeper into this, but these are some of the thoughts I have collected from what I have seen and experienced. While I may speak for myself, I can say that I am not the only one who views the same thing.

Actually no. Richard Dawkins made a scale to rank how "sure" one is of their theism or atheism. He himself was only a six, meaning he doesn't claim to know.

In The God Delusion, p. 73, Dawkins' scale goes:

1. Strong theist. 100 % probability of God. As C. G. Jung said, "I do not believe. I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist: "I can not know for certain, but I strongly believe, and I live my life as if God is Real."

3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leans toward theism: "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. 50% probability. Complete agnosticism. God's existence is equally probable and improbable.

5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic, but leans towards atheism: "I don't know, but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but higher than 0%. De facto atheist: "I can not know for certain, but I think God's existence is improbable, and I live my life as if God does not exist."

7. Strong atheist. "I don't believe that God does not exist. I know that God does not exist."

Doubt is never forbidden among skeptics, it's simply a question of whether or not it's reasonable doubt. Doubt loses its virtue when it becomes erratic and irrational.
Why is it bad in Christianity to be a Doubting Thomas?

Can you show me in patristics where this is described as "bad"?

But yet "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Jesus doesn't want you to doubt.

Which is a blessing of those who have faith, not a condemnation of those who doubt. Nice try.

He doesn't want you to be intellectually free.

[/quote][/quote]
Perhaps because that freedom is an illusion?

"We desire our freedom. Why? In order to be slaves to our passions."

--Mother Gavriela (Papayannis)

[Sophus]

There are quite a number of former atheists, myself included, who realize that the nihilist claim is it's only logical end goal.

Precisely. Logically (I am a Nihilist myself). Yet the caricature is extended over from pedantic philosophy of epistemology (I say this only because it encompasses the nihilist view on ethics and value) to our personal lives; how we live. If those who caricature us after Nietzsche had actually invested any time in reading Nietzsche they would know he claimed that no one seeks to live as a Nihilist, and would have noticed what an obvious Romantic he was. That's the point of Existentialism. To create our own value, as he argued we all do, unwittingly or not. Your entire argument is that one should not see value because nothing can have absolute value. From a cerebral perspective that's true but no man can think only cerebral thoughts. So are you also saying nothing can have relative value? If so, on what grounds? What is a bore to some is a life purpose to others. How can you possibly claim that in a world without value defined by an invisible authority or some immeasurable rule set in the universe that value cannot relatively exist among human beings? As the cliché goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So again, merely because we acknowledge that the universe takes no stance of its own on value doesn't mean we can't. There is no rule that value has to be objective in fact it's exactly the opposite.

As far as ethics go I see no reason why something must be pronounced Right or Wrong in order to be demonstrated as detrimental to humanity. I also don't see how an objective reality can exist simply because a creator says it's Wrong. Without the creator being able to prove real consequences in the material world for "immoral" deeds he has no persuasive reasoning.

In The God Delusion, p. 73, Dawkins' scale goes:

Yes I know. Most atheists claim to be a 6.

Can you show me in patristics where this is described as "bad"?

If one Jesus story isn't enough then maybe this will help:

And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. (Matthew 21:21)

Which is a blessing of those who have faith, not a condemnation of those who doubt. Nice try.

Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:31)

Does it sound like Jesus is praising the doubters to you?

Or what of these other verses:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones. (Proverbs 3:5-8)

But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

Faith and doubt are not friends.

[Stevil]

Sorry Achronos to be using you as a tool for myself to understand these religious labels. It is something I am quite confused about.
I have also been watching the video clip posted by Recusant on the "Ask me Anything" thread
[youtube:xny2509b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk[/youtube:xny2509b]

So it seems that Agnostic means a lack of knowledge about gods, So I too would agree with Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" so I would take this to mean that most Christian Theists are Agnostic, I would also theorise that most Atheists are also Agnostic.
The strange thing about Theist label and Atheist label is that they aren't reciprocal as I have previously thought. I though Theists believe that there is a god and that Atheist believe that there is no god. But watching the video clip it seems that Atheists have no belief in a god. So in that sense I am an Atheist as well as being Agnostic. I find this a bit confusing though because I would have thought that if a person were Agnostic (accepts that there is no known knowledge of a god) that they would also be Atheist because how can you believe in something that you accept there is no known knowledge about? Unless my definition of the term "belief" is incorrect. I take it that belief means 100% certain, so to be a Theist you would need to be 100% certain that god exists. So going back to Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" but tieing that in with my definition of belief would become "most of us (Christian Theists) know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God however all of us (Christian Theists) are 100% certain that god exists" which doesn't make any sense. So I must be going astray somewhere. Can someone please explain where I am going wrong with this?

I would also be keen if someone could tell me if someone has doubts about their belief in god before they die would they go to heaven of not. Does the bible make a statement with regards to this? Would doubts equate to being a non believer (less than 100% certain)?

[Inevitable Droid]

I have also been watching the video clip posted by Recusant on the "Ask me Anything" thread -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

Yes.  I agreed with every word of that.

So it seems that Agnostic means a lack of knowledge about gods, So I too would agree with Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" so I would take this to mean that most Christian Theists are Agnostic

Agnostic means aknowledging that we neither know, nor can know, anything at all with regard to something which, not of nature, might or might not exist and might or might not have been nature's author.  Something not of nature must forever remain unknown and unknowable to any biological or technological detection apparatus.  But the underlined word is key.  A Christian is agnostic if and only if the underlined word applies to that Christian.  It is theoretically possible for the underlined word to apply to a Christian.  It is also, unfortunately, rare for a Christian to acknowledge not only privately but also publicly the unknown and unknowable status of that which, not of nature, was nature's author.

I am agnostic.

I am also atheist because I refuse to place my faith in something unknown and unknowable.  I am first agnostic, and then, as a direct result, atheist.  It makes no sense to me to place my faith in something unknown and unknowable.  An agnostic Christian would be someone to whom it makes sense to place faith in something unknown and unknowable.  An action only makes sense if it achieves, or is likely to achieve, an objective.  The Christian's objective is to get into heaven.  The Christian has been taught that placing faith in something unknown and unknowable is the method by which getting into heaven is achieved.  The Christian, having the objective, takes up the suggested method and runs with it.

The word agnostic can also be used in a more general sense, to denote the acknowledgement that any claim X is unknown and unknowable.  In this more general sense, I am agnostic toward the existence of heaven, and, even if I were to grant for the sake of discussion the existence of heaven, I would be agnostic toward how one manages to get in.  Since it makes no sense to me to place my faith in something unknown and unknowable, I place no faith in the existence of heaven, and, even if I were to grant the existence of heaven, I would place no faith in any suggested method of how to get in.

The unknown and unknowable is to be set aside and forgotten, unless and until it emerges suddenly as newly known or knowable.  Or so say I.

So in that sense I am an Atheist as well as being Agnostic.

You're probably very much like me, then, and found yourself nodding your head when you were reading what I wrote above.

Unless my definition of the term "belief" is incorrect. I take it that belief means 100% certain

If the probability of X being true is 100% then X isn't merely believed, but known.  If the probability of X being true is less than 100% then accepting X as true would be belief.  Different people have different thresholds with respect to how probable X must be before it can or should be accepted.  My own threshold is pretty high, certainly higher than 50%.

If X is not only unknown but unknowable, then its probability of being true can never be assessed.  It is my position that if the probability of X being true can never be assessed, then the probability of X being true should be treated as if it were zero.

It is also my position that the desire that X be true should never be factored in when deciding whether or not to treat X as true.  Truth is one domain, and desire is another.  The two domains do not at all intersect.  They are 100% incongruent.  Accessing one domain for purposes of ascertaining the contents of the other domain is illegitimate.  Desire does not and cannot determine truth, and truth does not and cannot determine desire.  What is undesirable can be true, and what is untrue can be desired.

Incidentally, the desire for something that is currently untrue but which is deemed possible has a name, and that name is hope.  It is my position that hope should be placed in X only if X is at least theoretically knowable, for if X isn't knowable, then one will never know if X has been achieved or encountered, and hope will never be satisfied.

[Stevil]

Thanks very much for your explanation Inevitable Droid, I very much enjoy reading your posts.

One thing though

If the probability of X being true is less than 100% then accepting X as true would be belief.

It would seem very odd for a person to be able to say I believe in X but I have some doubts

As I take it there are two faucets to belief:
1 - The believer must accept that there isn't demonstrable proof, otherwise it would be fact for all observers
2 - The believer must be 100% certain despite the lack of fact in regards to accepting X as true otherwise a person such as myself would say something like "there is a high likelihood of X being true" rather than saying "I believe X is true".

But definitions of English words can often be different from person to person. Some people may suggest that when they say "I believe..." that this is analogous to saying "there is a high likelihood of x being true". I prefer the more strict approach because otherwise how can the audience know what the speaker is saying if they don't know what the speaker's threshold is and whether that threshold is in effect or not? To me there is a huge difference between saying I know for certain or saying there is a likelihood, and this goes towards my view of the credibility of the speaker with regards to how it relates to me. At least if they say there is a likelihood I can then respond with a "How likely?" question and "What is that based on?" question. If they say I believe, then I just need to accept what they say as their own personal belief which isn't necessarily based on anything tangible.

[McQ]

I just have to acknowledge and thank Sophus for his participation on the forum. And his ability to explain things.
If I had to pick anyone to explain nihilism, or any of those concepts he laid out in the last post, it'd be him.
 

[Croaker]

Also Croaker I have a question for you which you may choose to answer honestly if you like. How do you feel about the nihilistic world-view? That is, there is no ultimate purpose for living, given that the universe will just end up suffering an eventual heat death and everything you did or ever will do does not matter in the grand scheme of things? I was once like you, a strident atheist, but I eventually realized that this world-view of atheistic nihilism was utterly unnacceptable to me, and rendered all life ultimately meaningless and without purpose.

I kind of chuckled at LegendarySandwich's response again, you want to take Him for granted like an adulterer, and then complain when He leaves you.

Sorry about the delay in responding to your comment, Achronos.

I think, honestly, that I would agree with a few of nihilism's ideas - lack of ultimate purpose being one of them. I feel that I do not need a purpose to live my life - every morning when I wake up, I don't feel a purpose driving me forwards beyond the simple needs of the day. There's no overarching goal for my life, beyond providing for my children, loving my wife and advancing my career and hobbies. I want to see new things, experience new stuff, and that's what drives me forward. I know that the world will end someday, everything I ever made will be gone - but that's what defines us as humans, our lack of permanence. I believe it is the end that gives the whole thing meaning, the border on the painting that gives it a focus. Some people have a drive for their lives to have meaning, but I'm just glad that my genes turned up out of the mind-bogglingly large number of possible DNA sequences.

First off, God searches the hearts. No one is condemning you to hell. I was joking with you that last post.

I don't know the exact beliefs of Orthodoxy, but I don't think this is true. The Bible is pretty explicit in stating that you have to know Jesus to get to heaven - John 3:16 and John 14:6 off the top of my head. If we entertain the fact that you can get into heaven without knowing Jesus, then you start to call into doubt the entire purpose of Christianity. If God will just search my heart, than all I have do is live a moderately good life and I'll be cool. If he's searching their hearts, however, for belief in him, though, and not necessarily 'Jesus,' then we still have the same problem, due to the infinite number of potential gods you could believe in.

You have to look at a certain perspective here. It would be understandable that your attack on God's love doesn't make sense for a place of possible eternal punishment. I must also say from my perspective, your love of your present existence also doesn't make sense for an end of sure non-existence. So, it was a matter of choice. For you, because you're so turned off by God, probably angry at God, you made sense out of your present existence without taking the logical leap, it's probably better I wouldn't have been born. For me, because I'm so turned off by any lack of God, and I can't imagine life without having a relationship with this God, a relationship where I can grow, then for me, it didn't matter what afterlife there was. I knew if I at least try and pray, I know I'm heading in the right direction.

The logical leap for humans is not to kill themselves - that's a rather odd take of things. I like my life, I like drinking coffee, writing novels, playing video games, laughing with my kids - these things are fun. They'll end someday, sure, that's what happens - and I'm fine with that. It's what makes these moments special, since I can't experience them again. Immortality takes that away - it says, 'Don't worry about doing anything cool now, you've got eternity to do it.' It takes away any motivation to do anything meaningful, because as I said earlier, due to the simple logical nature of immortality, your entire existence is spent in heaven. What's the point of earth? Just because we know some things will end doesn't mean we can't enjoy them. How could you get enjoyment out of anything in life with the attitude that "from my perspective, your love of your present existence also doesn't make sense for an end of sure non-existence". Things end. It's what happens.

It should be noted that Heaven is earth restored. It will be life as it was meant to be. We won't be floating around on clouds somewhere "up there" in "heaven."

That's why the key is resurrection. It's not a disembodied existence. It's the body you have now, raised back to life to a restored creation. Sounds pretty damn good to me...

What, then, is life supposed to be, beyond merely my wishes for a life without pain and end? Will my new body 'age'? If it does, to what age? What about unborn children? If I can't age, then they won't either - will I be surrounded by heaps of immortal, unborn fetuses? What about the elderly, what age will they be rewound to? Who picks? At first I though that an earth restored would be a difficult thing (where do you put everyone?) but then I remembered the vast majority of people are going to hell.

I'm not really interested in the specifics of heaven, i.e. what am I doing year 3x10^24, I'm more concerned about the fact that a lot of Christians aren't bothered by the notion of someone still being punished that same year for having had a lack of belief at some point, the duration of which was countless orders of magnitude less than the duration of their suffering. Take it even further - I believe there is no crime possible that would warrant eternal punishment. Sure, people will bring up ridiculous examples, but the point is that eternity is a grossly unbalanced punishment for any crime, no matter how grotesque.

[Achronos]

The strange thing about Theist label and Atheist label is that they aren't reciprocal as I have previously thought. I though Theists believe that there is a god and that Atheist believe that there is no god. But watching the video clip it seems that Atheists have no belief in a god. So in that sense I am an Atheist as well as being Agnostic. I find this a bit confusing though because I would have thought that if a person were Agnostic (accepts that there is no known knowledge of a god) that they would also be Atheist because how can you believe in something that you accept there is no known knowledge about? Unless my definition of the term "belief" is incorrect. I take it that belief means 100% certain, so to be a Theist you would need to be 100% certain that god exists. So going back to Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" but tieing that in with my definition of belief would become "most of us (Christian Theists) know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God however all of us (Christian Theists) are 100% certain that god exists" which doesn't make any sense. So I must be going astray somewhere. Can someone please explain where I am going wrong with this?

It's a matter of faith.  Faith is the construct by which you put your trust in a certain manner of thinking things through.

Here's how I would group people:

A. People who tend to treat materialistic matters as the only truth.
B. People who are open to the idea that life is more than just what we can sense, but are highly skeptical enough to be agnostic.
C. People who tend to treat materialistic matters as in unity with a more transcendant understanding of the cosmos and themselves.

Therefore, A goes by the faith of what they only sense and the empirical.  B goes by no faith at all.  C goes by a faith of transcendant realms.

You see, you interpret faith and doubt as different things.  In my view, one things leads to another. A faith in something does not let you doubt it. On the contrary, you trust it, especially when it's built out of your own personal experience. You see, atheists don't like the word "faith" and attribute the meaning to something you trust that is supernatural. It's not that at all. When the Scriptures talk about faith, it talks about the Christian faith, that is the Christian way of thinking. Faith is a way of thinking and trusting that thought. B has a way of thinking and has no trust whatsoever. A and C have little to no doubt (perhaps those with little doubt develops more humility in their arguments, and those with no doubt at all tend to be quite arrogant). B is filled with doubt.

[Stevil]

Thanks Achronos, you are certainly helping me better understand the Christian side of things.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wasn't broken, thanks.

Quite broken. But since you are quite broken, I can see how you miss that.

Personal attacks are not only against the rules, they are the surest sign of a defeated argument.  Attack my argument, not me.

I wish you could have my life.

Why? You don't want it?

I seem to have found one limit to your understanding, right here.  Perhaps you're smart enough to figure out what your error here is.

I'm happy with myself now, though always interested in improvement.

Your interest is a good thing.

No, I can tell that you've given this much thought.  I simply disagree with your results, likely because we input different starting values.

I didn't rig my results. I can't speak for you as to what exactly how you fixed yours. Have you answered yet the question about whether you admit of ultimate Truth or how it (we know He) is found?

You'll notice that I didn't say you rigged your results.  And I didn't notice you asking such a mundane question.  Please define what you mean by "ultimate truth".

Analogy fail.

Because you don't like it?

Protip:  Read entire post before responding.

Gravity brooks no disobedience

Ever been on an airplane? Seen a rocket?

Apparently you don't understand aerodynamics.  Gravity is not being disobeyed; it is being outdone by different forces.

nor does it demand obeisance,

Jump off that cliff and see how much it doesn't.

That, my friend, isn't a demand for obeisance -- it is not telling me to behave in any particular way; it is merely exerting brute force.

nor does it forgive even if you repent your disbelief right before you hit the ground.

LOL. "Analogy fail," but it fails for you. You seem to have a mechanical view of Faith and repentance: were you a "Once saved always saved" Born Againer?

No.

You may've thought much about your faith, but you've obviously not thought about gravity that much.

Oh, you didn't mention your PhD in Physics.

That's okay.  You didn't mention you masters in theology.  Or you doctorate in bullshit, for that matter.

I stand by what I said:

You are stumbling, and quite badly.

I'm happy to let the readership decide.  

Christianity is a self-abnegating cult of death.

This made me literally laugh out loud. Such intellectual freedom! Such reasoned and thought-out conclusions based on reality! Nope, move along folks, there's no bias or prejudice here at all! This is what any ol' person would find in an honest examination of Christianity! Nothing to see here! I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative!  Carry on!

Wait, you came here not expecting an expression of opinion? Really?

I'm unsure how old you are, but I'm willing to bet that I've considered this matter longer than you've breathed air.

You seem to be quite confused on Christianity in general and Orthodox Christianity in particular. Since you are in America, maybe you are aware of what a self-abnegating cult of death looks like, like the botox cult.

Agreed, like faith, it is largely a superficial phenomenon, which is performed for the sake of appearance, and doesn't outlive the person.  Also, the two are similar in that they are a result of an overweening concern with conformity and the opinions of others, and an attempt to defy the reminders of mortality.  

This comparison is more apt than you realize.

Carry on!