The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Cycel]

The way we attain faith in the Christian understanding is by the trustworthiness and consistency of prayer and spiritual exercises.

I've heard this from others.  I have just never had the experience.  Prayer never worked for me, or perhaps I for it?

The way we attain faith in the scientific method is by personal experience of it and its trustworthiness and consistency to attain materialistic data.

You are saying our confidence in the scientific method is derived from our success in attaining data, but I think greater than that is the technological success we see around us.  Every aspect of our modern lives is touched by the fruits of the scientific revolution.  The method by which we gather knowledge of it clearly works.  It has transformed the world and our understanding of it.  What equivalent transformation has prayer brought in the thousands of years its been practiced?  What clear evidence is there that it works?  Everyone, everywhere, can clearly see the benefits wrought by science, I observe nothing equivalent coming from prayer or spiritual exercises.  I can understand how meditative experiences might benefit individuals, but society as a whole sees nothing transformative.  

I must be honest.  I don't see that faith plays a role in science.  We say we have faith in God, but then we don't have physical evidence of God, so we require faith.  I don't require faith in the internal combustion engine, I can see that it works.  It powers my car.  Faith is a requirement if we wish to believe in something for which we lack physical evidence.  The 2nd OED definition defines faith as a "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." This "spiritual conviction rather than proof' is the hallmark of religious faith.  Spiritual conviction does not provide answers to scientific issues.  I have faith, perhaps, that the ISS will remain in orbit, for now, but faith is useless to keep it in orbit -- for that we need to use applications developed by the scientific method.  

There is, however, a larger issue.  If you've attained "... faith in... Christian understanding" through the "trustworthiness and consistency of prayer and spiritual exercises" then how is it that there are so many Christian denominations and sects?  If "prayer and spiritual exercises" provides "trustworthy" results how are all the discrepancies in religious belief around the world and through time explained?  Where is the evidence that transcendent sources provide consistent results?

[Cycel]

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.

I like your giant alphabet idea, but I think I'd get bored after about two weeks.  Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?  Jehovah's Witnesses, I think, expect heaven to be like Earth, but with all the problems resolved.  Lions will lie down beside lambs -- that sort of thing.  I guess the lions' teeth and gut will be modified to resemble that of sheep and perhaps their paws will be turned to hoves.  What about us?  Will we too be forced to become vegetarians or will we just not have to eat? -- being dead and all.   Aside from that I don't think life in heaven is something Christians give much thought too, or am I wrong?

[Achronos]

Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?

Hang on for a second there. Are these Christians Orthodox? Does it matter what they say? I could say, if I wanted to, that heaven is a facsimile of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, with no evidence to the contrary. My fantasies over what Heaven could or could not be is irrelevant. What matters is what Heaven is. Heaven is the unescapable presence of God as experienced by a repentant person trodding the narrow path.

Jehovah's Witnesses, I think, expect heaven to be like Earth, but with all the problems resolved.

Does the perception of JWs on matters of theology matter to an Orthodox? I am not a JW, and they are not me.

Aside from that I don't think life in heaven is something Christians give much thought too, or am I wrong?

It seems to be a topic quite popular with people who believe in neither Heaven nor Hell.

Prayer never worked for me, or perhaps I for it?

What exactly were you lacking that would make prayer "work?"

What equivalent transformation has prayer brought in the thousands of years its been practiced? What clear evidence is there that it works?

Prayer is a practice whereupon its effects can only be seen in its absence.

Everyone, everywhere, can clearly see the benefits wrought by science, I observe nothing equivalent coming from prayer or spiritual exercises. I can understand how meditative experiences might benefit individuals, but society as a whole sees nothing transformative.

Just because you can't perceive something, doesn't mean it's not there. The blind may lack sight, but that doesn't mean all the rest of us are all blind.

[LegendarySandwich]

Prayer never worked for me, or perhaps I for it?

What exactly were you lacking that would make prayer "work?"

Probably the ability, or lack of will, to fool himself into thinking that he was talking with a supernatural being in his mind.

[Heretical Rants]

...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.

I don't see how you're equating "I will use these things to my furthered amusement" to "I will set these things up as idols and worship them."

If you get an artificial heart transplant, do you idolize and worship the doctor, the engineer, and the mechanic? How about the anesthesiologist?

[Ihateyoumike]

Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?

Hang on for a second there. Are these Christians Orthodox? Does it matter what they say? I could say, if I wanted to, that heaven is a facsimile of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, with no evidence to the contrary. My fantasies over what Heaven could or could not be is irrelevant. What matters is what Heaven is. Heaven is the unescapable presence of God as experienced by a repentant person trodding the narrow path.

Hang on for a second there. You just essentially shot down all non-orthodox christian views of heaven. Then, you proceeded to give us your (the orthodox) version of heaven as the truth.

Honest question here: How does that make any sense at all?

Here we go. It doesn't matter to me what other people say the Moon is. If I wanted to, I could say the moon was a giant rock orbiting the Earth. My fantasies over what the Moon is or isn't is irrelevant. What matters is what the Moon is. The moon is a giant ball of cheese in the sky and is the place fairies go to die when you stop believing in them.

I really would like to know how any of that made any sense at all.

And yes, if you're wondering, I do think it's more likely that heaven would be a facsimile of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. Simply because in light of absolutely no proof or even evidence of heaven existing, I'm simply going to go with what sounds good to me. And I'll be damned if I don't like chocolate.

[Inevitable Droid]

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

This intrigued me a great deal so I went googling and found this article, which confirms what you say, Achronos, and fleshes it out nicely, as I hope you'll agree.

Salvation and Atonement - http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/

I recommend the above article to anyone curious about Greek Orthodoxy.  I look forward to hearing Achronos's opinion of the article.

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.

I agree with all of that.  Rather than the self's dissolution, I pursue its actualization.  I would like to be more me today than yesterday, and more tomorrow than today.

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.

I agree!  But somehow some atheists satisfy themselves otherwise.  As noted in quite a few posts recently, I reject any notion of objective morality, and since I see no point in a subjective morality, I reject the whole kit and kaboodle, and focus instead on good and evil as defined by practicality rather than morality; I.e., as providing earthly benefit to earthly creatures for the sake of some of that benefit accruing to myself directly or indirectly, and also for the sake of the sense of accomplishment I get from making a positive material difference here in the material world.

You would have no right to force it on others

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I, for my part, announce it as a triumph of reason.

and certainly no reason to proclaim anything outside your own experience to be right or wrong.

Like it's a bad thing, you say that.  As a triumph of reason, I, for my part, announce it.  I want a Yoda icon.

Thus, you are left with no possibility of moral outrage at the events which took place at Auschwitz, Dachau, the GULAGs, etc.

Since moral outrage neither fills my belly nor beautifies my days, I don't miss its absence.

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.”

I agree with his statement.  Eating people is grotesque and vile, however.  Yuck.  Incidentally, we don't need morality to deter people from what Dahmer did.  We have legislation and enforcement.  Bullets in a cop's gun and meeting Bubba in the prison shower are prospects more real and sobering by far than any imagined hellfire.
 

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.

No need to worship them.  Just employ them and partake of their fruits.

[Achronos]

Thanks for your reply Achronos.  The time you took is appreciated.

Sorry about not addressing this sooner, and it's my pleasure to respond. May I ask what made you change your beliefs from "strong atheist" to just "atheist" under your avatar?

I think you have reshaped the meaning of agnostic.  You see it as a middle ground between our two positions, accepting neither one: expressing skepticism on both the transcendent and materialist world views, agnostic to both; but that is not the original meaning, nor is it the Oxford dictionary definition.
 

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

To my way of thinking the word agnostic implies skepticism toward the legitimacy of the sources of knowledge used to prove the existence of God. That is its meaning. It does not imply skepticism to anything else. The agnostic may be skeptical of other things, but the only thing you can know for certain is that he remains unconvinced that anything can be known for certain about God. Agnosticism does not imply skepticism toward science, the scientific method or those things examined by this method.

I think you have taken the word agnostic and modified its original meaning so that it implies skepticism toward all things. I suspect most who call themselves agnostic have no difficulty perceiving materialistic explanations as trustworthy. I don't think they doubt the 'materialistic worldview.' I suspect most agnostics see the material world as the only certain source of knowledge that we possess.

*******
Are there any agnostics present who could way in and lend their view?

By your definition really most atheists are not really atheists in the extreme sense, but agnostics. Nevertheless, they've redefined atheism as a way of thought. Most agnostics also who call themselves agnostic are really atheists.

In the old arguments against atheism, one would say, "It takes much more faith to not believe in God." But atheists today tweek this. Yes, they don't believe in God, but not in the sense that they are absolutely sure. They're simply skeptical, and have a way of thought.

So in the old definition, faith meant a leap in belief without proper investigation. But that's not really how faith I believe has been used in the Church. Faith has been synonymous with theology, or a Christian way of thinking, or as you put it, an epistemology. That really is the more accurate understanding of "faith." Faith is what shapes our actions, and not just merely a belief.  We can say for instance, Satan believes that God exists, but he has no faith.

These definitions change all the time. Oxford dictionary or no oxford dictionary, to be honest, you have to use the word within its context. I think a lot of Christians really sullied the understanding of faith. Therefore, to be consistent, "agnostic" a true agnostic is someone who is skeptical but open to the possibility of the transcendental. For an agnostic to be just skeptical to the transcendental just teeter-totters one on the side of atheistic thinking. Richard Dawkins redefined atheism as a way of thought really, not necessarily a label of firm belief.  So if anything, my definition of agnosticism is really no different than Dawkins' "4 scale."

Do you challenge these doctors to their face or simply publish critical judgement on public forums?

I'm working with these doctors. Well actually to be more precise, I am being apprenticed by them. Not all of them of course are arrogant. But the more successful ones usually suffer the God-complex issue, or at least they pretend they care in front of you.

I'll add one more group of people. Christians can be a bunch of Pharisaical arrogant hypocrites.

Since I belong to a group of physician-gonna-bes and Christians, I think I am entitled to give my opinion of my experience.

I am going to play the old dictionary game again.  The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) offers two definitions for faith:

i) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

ii) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

When you admit to seeing the world through Christian eyes your are admitting, it seems to me, seeing the world through the doctrines of a religion.  I would think you might also acknowledge basing your beliefs on spiritual convictions, thought I think you are less likely to admit not having proof.  This latter point, I think, is where you might have the biggest hang-up for the definition.  This 2nd definition, for me, is the one that immediately comes to mind when I think of the word faith.  You can see, then, why I would probably object myself to any assertion that I possess faith.

So you don't trust the scientific method?

The second definition stems from a culture of atheistic misunderstanding of what faith really means. It's no different than the bastardization of the word "theory" by creationist groups, misunderstanding its scientific usage. So I'm here to tell you, the second definition is not true, at least for true Christians. Since spirituality is by definition a certain transcendant way of life that materialism is not able to test, then the scientific method is not even valid to judge it to begin with. There's a different way to "prove" it.

Though I do see the world through a lens based on evidence constructed from the physical world, I don't recognize this as a matter of faith.  Your faith, it would seem to me, precludes change.  You might correct me on this if I am wrong.  Because of spiritual convictions I imagine you are locked into believing the same things over time.  New evidence doesn't cause you to modify your beliefs about God, or does it?  Those, like myself, who rely on physical evidence from the world to establish our perceptions of it, change our views when conflicting evidence comes available.  I don't think that anyone who maintains views of the world based on physical evidence would ever insist they had complete trust in any scientific claim, as per the 1st definition.  My world view prevents me from having complete trust and so is the opposite of having faith.

But you do have faith. You have faith in what you see, hear, touch, etc. I have no problem with that, but the proof for my faith is the incompleteness and inconsistency of such a thought for the general human nature. Human nature is more than an animal. Human nature is a phenomenon that is capable day by day to subdue all other nature around it more and more.  Human nature is an ever-growing powerful force. While Nature may have been taken part in making us, we certainly take part in now shaping it. Therefore, I don't have faith in scientific methodology alone, but also in transcendant force that allows human nature to be quite unique from everything else in this world at least. This allows me to investigate in a different manner the many beliefs that seem to me most compatible with this truth, and how we are connected to a much higher purpose.

Dogma is tied closely to claiming possession of absolute truth.  Let's look at the dictionary again.

dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That -- incontrovertibly true -- part, is an integral part of dogma. This is what sets scientific theories apart from religious doctrine. The demand that something is incontrovertibly true is never heard in science. Conservative Christians frequently make much of the observation that hypotheses in science are often here today and gone tomorrow. They perceive change in science as proof that scientists don't know what they are talking about.

There's some truth in what you say, but truly practically, scientists today have now dogmatized many theories.  For one thing, evolution is considered both a theory and a truth. It is now the driving force to learn all biology and other life sciences. It has truly become dogma even if it's considered "falsifiable." The idea now is that evolution occurs and it's definitely beyond a doubt now a TRUTH.  How evolution occurs is the falsifiable part of science, and this is not dogma.

So I don't know about you, but scientists have already dogmatized it whether they want to admit it or not. It has stood the test of time, and it is pretty much have been far more established with better foundations than the theory of gravity. The only way in which one can prove evolution is wrong is if one can prove I am not related to my parents or sister or cousin using the same DNA techniques (which in a sense makes it falsifiable, but at this point, about .0000001% falsifiable). So since that has now been established truth, then you can't tell me there's no dogma in science. There's even dogma in the how life is described, i.e. a degree of homeostasis, organization of cells, metabolism, growth, adaptation and response to stimuli, and reproduction.  Anything mathematical seems to be dogma to people anyway, which leads many to worship the field of mathematics, and probably theoretical physics.

I can say the same about Church dogmas. The Church in a practical sense have already firmly established "theories" that help best explain their faith and spirituality.  Therefore, since the dogmas have firm grounding in our understanding of spirituality, there is truth in them.

I recognize that dogma is tied up with faith which is another reason I object to the assertion that I possess faith.  I hold that one species may evolve into something different, but  give me good reason to believe this view is wrong and I will change my mind.  I am not locked into an incontrovertible truth.  My views are not dogmatic.

Indeed you might think you're not dogmatic, but practically, you make it impossible for yourself to think in any other way than with the senses. You've essentially dogmatized that life is nothing more than your material senses, and your faith is nothing more than in not taking life for granted, for I will cease to exist eventually.

[Sophus]

Indeed you might think you're not dogmatic, but practically, you make it impossible for yourself to think in any other way than with the senses. You've essentially dogmatized that life is nothing more than your material senses, and your faith is nothing more than in not taking life for granted, for I will cease to exist eventually.

Empirical evidence is the only proof. That's why faith is defined as believing without proof. Requiring empirical proof can't be dogma because dogma rests entirely on an authority's assertions. I really can't even begin to express how ironic it is to call the scientific method or way of thinking a "faith" as an insult.

[Achronos]

It's a method to me too.  But it rest on an epistemology, logical empiricism, which I think you would classify as my faith.  Since I place my trust in it, it would be tediously pedantic for me to split semantic hairs with you, so I won't.  Certainly I place my trust in logical empiricism.

Ya, we'll get into semantics. I think by now, you understand what I mean when I say science to you is both a method and faith. Science to me is a method, but the faith lies in Christianity.  I suppose when I do science, I do it as a way of praising God. I know it's trivial to you if I in the end end up helping somebody along the way. But this is a form of a Machiavellian philosophy, i.e. that the ends justify the means. As I am reading this message, that's the impression I'm getting.

Scientists, and I along with them, would claim a distinction between utility and truth.  A concept can be true yet lack utility in a particular circumstance.  Likewise, a concept can be false yet in a particular circumstance be highly utile.  If a lie is the only, or the best, tool currently available, one may legitimately employ it, but one would hopefully retain some reservations about doing so, and be on the look-out for a truth that one could employ instead, one with equal or greater utility.  After all, lies can be found out, at which point their utility evaporates.  I'm having this exact discussion on my thread about atheism and the 12 step movement.

Where's this discussion?  What's the 12 step movement?

I would say instead that logic and emotion govern separate domains. Aesthetics is largely emotional for most people, and certainly for me. Arguments as to why it's illogical for me to like a particular song will fall on deaf ears. I don't care about logic when listening to a song.  Likewise, I don't care about emotion when assessing a proposition about causality.  

Forgive me, I don't mean to say that emotion justifies my faith. Logic justifies science.  Emotion justifies morals. Logic and Emotion together justifies the transcendant in my opinion.  I like what Archbishop Rowan Williams says here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBKL0zHZyc

Beauty is an emotion. It is an idea that we cannot prove scientifically, but while there might be some scientific principles of beauty, certainly science can only go so far, and emotion can only go so far as well. I think both combine to develop the sense of the truth of beauty.

I've heard from many Christians, even ancient ones, that the spirit is the intellect. I think there's more to the spirit than just intellect or emotion. It's the means of transcending both, and bridge to the divine. We can scientifically explain intellect and emotion. But we also can see beauty in them. To turn it into something meaningless as long as we can get practical results is essentially ignoring Nature's cry and praise.
 

You may have noticed that I'm a big fan of robots.

But this is the point. It's not that I want the Universe to have a will. I truly believe the will is programmed in us. The truth of this will what I investigate. I believe that a lot people seem to bank on living longer as an ultimate purpose. But living longer is only a means of the ultimate purpose, and that is the communion with God. I am convinced that communion with God is an experience that allows me to forget about everything else behind me, a true "high" so to speak, and I seek it because it's the same high I achieve when selfless love is given to me, and I give back. If life was merely about trying to strive to live longer, then really, there's no point in faith in God unless there's no hope for man to achieve this, and even if there isn't hope, as you personally see it, you find no difference in living forever in God or dying forever because you don't understand what communion in God really means and really feels like.

Terrifying to you, trivial to me.  The universe may or may not have a will, but you have a will, and I have a will.  You have reasons and I have reasons.  If the universe has a will, my own must align with it, since I'm part of the universe, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this would likewise fulfill the universe's will.  If the universe doesn't have a will, then my own is as good as any other, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this will make me happiest.  Thus, once again, as is always the case, the question of God's existence is irrelevant, and I am therefore apathetic toward it.
 
Yet the Earth abounds with purpose, and scientists acknowledge it.  I mean the purposes of earthly creatures.  Everywhere living beings pursue their goals.

If all purposes seem to lead to non-existence as an ultimate end, there's really no point.

Usually what happens is a tap on the shoulder from death.  Suddenly mortality is brought into sharp focus, and up pops fear.

But Christianity in its essence is totally against this. "Oh Death" says St. Paul, "where is thy sting?" Christians in history, true Christians, have been shown to be fearless to death.

No.  I'm trying to understand you.  Not your Christian beliefs.  You.

I don't feel it is relevant to the discussion.

I don't.  But I think we humans can agree to be good to one another for practical reasons.

You know, the best salesman is one who believes in the product he sells.  If the salesman simply pretends and is indifferent, or worse, actually hates the product, he may be practical for himself for a while, but eventually, when the drive and passion is not there, you tend to hate it or drive yourself crazy.

If life is nothing more than practical, then those who are passionate about it really are just wasting their passion. And certainly, there are those who definitely wish to choose, if won't choose, to do the opposite of what is considered good to certain others.

It seems to me also, the drive to be practical is fear of chaos, and fear of death. I see more fear in this than in believing in the transcendant.

The ultimate reality of a perfect life is a life with no laws, where all truly live with understanding and love and a way to move forward fearlessly. This is not just a spirit of practicality, but in essence a passion that aids in enlivening practicality. Practicality is dead without actually feeling the necessity of its practicality.

That's because very few people are willing to admit that there is no such thing as objective morality, and so they project their subjective preferences onto the universe. and imagine their own wills to be the will of God.  The only reason Christianity makes sense to you is because selflessness makes sense to you.

However, for practical reasons, you believe that we should do good to others. First, that's assuming that everyone agrees what good means. I think your intention was believing in the golden rule, "Do unto others as you want others to do unto you." Even the golden rule becomes an objective morality now. Practically speaking, we have to live as if there exists objective truth.

You mean morally good, which to me is irrelevant.  Practical results are what matter.  Help me for selfish reasons and you have still helped me.  I don't need you to be selfless.

There's that Machiavellian idea again. The ends justify the means. I know you don't take this idea strictly, because you still believe that there is a "good" man does, and that is this golden rule. But I say practicality can also mean that if I have to kill a few people to get somewhere faster, I think this world would be up for some competition of traits once again. Subjectivity only exists in an abstract sense it seems when looking at the world with its different cultures and rules. Objectivity exists in a concrete sense when looking at the need to survive as a group, and so to make this practical, you also need to make it feel practical. What this indicates to me is not the existence of subjectivity, but rather the existence of true objective rules and false ones, one that can stand out and invalidate all other rules.

[Achronos]

I just wanted to add one more thought that came to my mind. It helps a lot at least in terms of practicality that people can help those who are in need. Unless, one believes it's impractical and a waste of time to help them anyway. But assuming practicality, we have to admit, a huge majority, even among the educated masses, are very impractical at best.

[Stevil]

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.

Thus an Atheist can perform acts of selflessness as they have nothing to gain in this life, the next life or the after life.
A Theist cannot perform acts of selflessness because their "selfless" acts "lead to the dissolution of one's self into God, while at the same time revealing the true self" hence motive, hence not selfless. I propose that Theism and selflessness are mutually exclusive terms.

With regards to our discussions on freewill

God desires our freewill for His 'miracles' and Will

Does the media, your peers, experience, or culture 'force' you into action? Free will mean you have the 'freedom' to choose. These are influences, but they do not control you. Show me which one 'makes you act', not influence, 'forces you' to act

Faith is what shapes our actions, and not just merely a belief

[Cycel]

Interesting responses Achronos, as I've come to expect.  I haven't time this evening except to make a quick reply.

Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?

Hang on for a second there. Are these Christians Orthodox? Does it matter what they say...?  What matters is what Heaven is. Heaven is the unescapable presence of God as experienced by a repentant person trodding the narrow path.

Many Christians are quick to denounce others as false Christians and as an outsider looking in I don't really take sides.  In the matter of the afterlife I see all religions as false.  In essence I see heaven as an imaginary local.  Consequently I think differing views of heaven should be common place.  Given that diversity of belief in religion is a reality I feel pretty safe taking this stand.  What surprises me is that considering the amount of time Christians expect to spend in the afterlife it isn't very well fleshed out. Is there scripture detailing daily life in heaven?  I don't think there is.  There is lots of information on how to get to heaven but not much on what to expect once you get there.

Jehovah's Witnesses, I think, expect heaven to be like Earth, but with all the problems resolved.

Does the perception of JWs on matters of theology matter to an Orthodox? I am not a JW, and they are not me.

I may be more interested the the Witnesses than most because I have family members who are counted among the 144,000.  My great grandparents were members and introduced an entire branch of my family to the faith.  So what they think matters to me.  My father wasn't converted but my mother told me that many of his religious ideas sounded very similar to that of my great-grandmother, and I got a lot of my early Christian views from him.  So, I am interested in what they think.

[Achronos]

Many Christians are quick to denounce others as false Christians and as an outsider looking in I don't really take sides.  In the matter of the afterlife I see all religions as false.  In essence I see heaven as an imaginary local.  Consequently I think differing views of heaven should be common place.  Given that diversity of belief in religion is a reality I feel pretty safe taking this stand.

Because you can't tell the difference between the imitations and the real thing?

What surprises me is that considering the amount of time Christians expect to spend in the afterlife it isn't very well fleshed out. Is there scripture detailing daily life in heaven?  I don't think there is.  There is lots of information on how to get to heaven but not much on what to expect once you get there.

LOL. You sure don't know much about Orthoodxy.

I may be more interested the the Witnesses than most because I have family members who are counted among the 144,000.  

LOL. Meaningless.

My great grandparents were members and introduced an entire branch of my family to the faith.  So what they think matters to me.  My father wasn't converted but my mother told me that many of his religious ideas sounded very similar to that of my great-grandmother, and I got a lot of my early Christian views from him.  So, I am interested in what they think.

Explains a lot.

You can be interested in your family, but as far as interest in what the Bible teaches, the JWs aren't going to help you any.

[Cycel]

Many Christians are quick to denounce others as false Christians and as an outsider looking in I don't really take sides.  In the matter of the afterlife I see all religions as false.  In essence I see heaven as an imaginary local.  Consequently I think differing views of heaven should be common place.  Given that diversity of belief in religion is a reality I feel pretty safe taking this stand.

Because you can't tell the difference between the imitations and the real thing?

If there was one truth writ large across the heavens would it not permit all seekers of religious truth to arrive at a more unified account?  The enormous diversity of belief tells me the many interpretations are arrived at very subjectively.  They are based on personal reflection, introspection, and interpretation of a bewildering variety of religious texts.  One believer's truths are another's false beliefs. It seems believers can't agree.  It should be no surprise that an atheist would shrug and declare them all false.

What surprises me is that considering the amount of time Christians expect to spend in the afterlife it isn't very well fleshed out. Is there scripture detailing daily life in heaven?  I don't think there is.  There is lots of information on how to get to heaven but not much on what to expect once you get there.

LOL. You sure don't know much about Orthoodxy.

I don't claim to know much about the Greek Orthodox Church, and I don't understand much better what your laughter signifies.  Do you mean to imply that there are numerous accounts explaining daily life in Heaven or do you laugh because the question highlights my ignorance for a different reason?