Beliefs on the afterlife

[Marmoot]

One thing I can't stand is when someone of different religion trying to preach to me and convince me of what they belief is true...

Another one that's just as bad is also when an atheist trying to preach to me and convince me of what they belief is true...

Those atheists, jehovah's witness, jihadists and some christians can be as bad as each other at times

[Sanx]

Humans are so arrogant thinking that they have the best intellect and can explain/prove any theories or otherwise the theories do not hold true.

There's another species that does better? Humans in general are not arrogant; they're inquisitive. People like to understand how things work: from the way chemicals in the body interact to how the seasons affect nature to the meaning of life. To question is not to criticise (though religion in general does not appreciate either).

In reality, the odds of human understanding divine issues most likely to just be as big the odds of a particular ant deep in African jungle understanding grammatically-correct English language.

You're analogy fails on the simple assumption that there is a 'divine' for it to have issues. The question is much more fundamental than that.

He may not believe in the existence of human beings, let alone one that speaks English, but that does not make humans non-existent. And when the two get to meet, good luck trying to appeal to the human and not get squashed.

He? Who is 'he'? If it's the god you believe in, then - provided you also believe that god created man in his image, god must be remarkably stupid or remarkably forgetful for him to not believe in his greatest creation.

And again, you've assumed too much by saying 'when they get to meet'. 'If' would be more accurate as it does not assume there is a god.

Disbelieving something does not make it disappear, as much as believing something may not make something appear either.

Throughout the ages, humans have attributed that which they cannot understand or explain to higher powers, usually deities. Not so long ago in evolutionary terms, humans prayed that the sun would rise every morning and light would return, and prayed that the seasons would appear in the right order. Humans attributed almost all natural events, from the passing of the tides to thunder storms to earthquakes on a selection of deities. But thanks to humans' inquisitive nature and their desire to understand, we now know that the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon, thunderstorms are caused by a build up of static electricity caused by excited water molecules bumping against each other and that earthqakes are caused by tectonic plates moving against each other.

Any true scientist will admit that there are things they don't know about how the universe works. For some reason, there also seems to be a primal desire amongst some to attribute that that is not known to some higher power, rather than simply just accepting there are things that are unknown. But science also teaches us to look for proof and despite many many many years of looking, no-one's ever come up with any evidence (that stands up to the most basic elementary examination) that any form of higher power exists. The absence of proof cannot be taken as proof of non-existence - to do so is a logical impossibility - but the chances of a higher power existing lessen with each new scientific advancement.

But in the end, if there is God, I probably have a better chance of a million years of happiness than you.

Perhaps, religion is something of an insurance.

Pascale's Wager, then...

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is...

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.


Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."


Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.


"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

Stating a belief in a god is a form of insurance is nothing new, since Pascale proposed his wager sometime in the last five years of his life - between 1657 and 1662. Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (who died in about 1080) also gave a similar argument. But Pascale's wager was not intended to be an encouragement to believe, but rather an indication of what happens when reason and logic cannot be trusted. He starts with the premise that if there is a god, he is sufficiently different from us as to be incomprehensible. (God works in mysterious ways.) His wager assumes a number of stock Judeo-Christian (specifically, Catholic) beliefs: that there is only one god or that if there is more than one, you've picked the 'right' one to believe in; or that upon death, one enters an afterlife where one spends all eternity; and that one must decide between faith and atheism as agnosticism is not an option. It should also be noted that Pascale does entertain the notion of a hell; the eternal life he mentions is only for believers. Punishment of those who don't believe is death or limbo, not an eternity of torment.

Richard Dawkins suggests that Pascale's wager also does not contend with the notion that a god would reward honest attempts at reason and instead punishes blind faith. This argument was further expanded by Richard Carrier thus:

Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

Pascale himself did specifically state, however, that application of his wager rests on the premise that 'honest attempted reason' about god's existence is impossible.

Other subtleties exist too. Should belief in the wrong god be punished by a vengeful god (as the god of the old testament most certain is), it can be argued that belief in Christ, Allah or Jehova - given that they're all derived from the god of Abraham - are all mutually acceptable. Apologists of the wager have also stated that only belief in another god that awarded a heaven-like state of eternal life create a problem, so that the finite afterlife or semi-blissful promise offered by Kali or Odin drop out of consideration.

And then there's the biggest assumption Pascale makes; that the one loses nothing if they believe in god during their lifetime. I'd argue that by believing and following the particular religion's rules, one loses the very essence of humanity - the ability to come to your own decisions and exercise free will; ironically, the very thing that is often described as god's greatest gift to mankind.

[avgas]

Imagine theres no heaven,
its easy if you try,
no hell below us,
above us only sky........

[avgas]

There's another species that does better? Humans in general are not arrogant; they're inquisitive. People like to understand how things work: from the way chemicals in the body interact to how the seasons affect nature to the meaning of life. To question is not to criticise (though religion in general does not appreciate either).

Sadly part of Marmoot says is true.
Learning how the universe fits together Man has "created" solutions to make the puzzle pieces fit.
Universal Global Constant i found was the most confusing of the lot to get my head around.........its like they had the answer, the question - but couldn't join the 2.

[Lissa]

I myself am not sure if there is a god or even a heaven so I must be agnostic? There are some things that have happened in my life that I believe that someone/something was looking out for me in some way. I also believe that god doesnt make things happen, we do, we make the choices in the way we live.

My nine year old doesnt believe in god, ever since he fell over and hurt his leg, he said if there was a god then he wouldnt have made him fall over I tried to make him understand that God doesnt generally work in that way. What makes me sad is he also believes that when we die, thats it, we no longer exist and we have no soul.

My seven year old though believes that we get reincarnated, and when she does I have to still be her mum, but she wants blue eyes instead of brown. When I told her she might just come back as a boy, she got a weee bit upset. But my daughter doesnt like the thought of dieing, or anyone she knows dieing, so reincarnation makes her feel better about things.

I want my kids to grow up with an open mind, and whatever they believe in is ok, even if I dont believe in it myself.

[Sanx]

I myself am not sure if there is a god or even a heaven so I must be agnostic?

Nope - you're a sceptic. You haven't made up your mind one way or the other. An agnostic is, essentially, someone that accepts that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of a god. There have been a number of types of agnostic further defined; a good list of them can be found here. (The best of them - in my opinion - is the apathetic or pragmatic agnostic who holds the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.)

My nine year old doesnt believe in god, ever since he fell over and hurt his leg, he said if there was a god then he wouldnt have made him fall over I tried to make him understand that God doesnt generally work in that way. What makes me sad is he also believes that when we die, thats it, we no longer exist and we have no soul.

Your nine year old has it sorted. He's applied rational thinking based upon the Judeo-Christian definition of a god - i.e. omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent - and tried to weigh that up with what has happened to him. In his view, that a benevolent and omnipotent god would not allow him to fall over and hurt himself, so therefore this god does not exist (or at the very least does not possess at least one of the three qualities Judeo-Christian dogma assigns him). Not many kids are capable of applying such logic at that early an age, especially given the supposed importance of such a decision.

Following the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004, the BBC had a documentary where they asked a very similar question of leading clerics in the UK; Catholic, CofE, Muslim and Jewish. If god is benevolent and omniscient and omnipotent - something all three religions claim - how is it that god could let a natural disaster wipe out 300,000 people? The answers were quite funny to watch, if only to see the respondents babble incoherently before claiming, essentially, that god works in mysterious ways; the religious universal get-out clause.

I want my kids to grow up with an open mind, and whatever they believe in is ok, even if I dont believe in it myself.

Fantastic attitude. Shame more parents do not believe that and think that pushing their religious beliefs on their children is acceptable.

[Marmoot]

There's another species that does better? Humans in general are not arrogant; they're inquisitive.

Inquisitive refers to acknowledging there are things they do not know and yearn to learn about it.
Dismissing a hypothesis (in this case the existence of God) simply due to perception of no empirical evidence is an arrogance, not inquisitive nature. An inquisitive nature would motivate further reflection, study and/or discussion to pursue real knowledge.

You're analogy fails on the simple assumption that there is a 'divine' for it to have issues. The question is much more fundamental than that.

Not sure I understand what you mean, but it is irrelevant since you already assume there is no divine issues while I assume there is possibility of divine issues. Regardless what we discuss in this point it will not meet in the middle since unfortunately we are too polarized in the issue.

He? Who is 'he'?

The ant. Please read my post properly line by line.

And again, you've assumed too much by saying 'when they get to meet'. 'If' would be more accurate as it does not assume there is a god.

If, When, consequences, schmonsequences. Potatoe, potato.
I'm an immigrant and English is not my first language.

Throughout the ages, humans .....
Pascale's Wager, then...
.....
Stating a belief in ...

Too long, didn't read. My beliefs do not involve Pascale and I couldn't care less about what he believes. But great effort deserves a bling, so here you go.

[Marmoot]

Sadly part of Marmoot says is true.
Learning how the universe fits together Man has "created" solutions to make the puzzle pieces fit.
Universal Global Constant i found was the most confusing of the lot to get my head around.........its like they had the answer, the question - but couldn't join the 2.

What I don't comprehend is how can someone who sits around making crazy theories in mathematical equations that are vaguely right and only proves that x do not equal y (and does not seem to have any real world usage) gets huge sum of money while we who breaks our back on the rock gets little (and not to mention the tax! THE TAX!)

I might be able to smoke some ganja and make the same equations...

[avgas]

What I don't comprehend is how can someone who sits around making crazy theories in mathematical equations that are vaguely right and only proves that x do not equal y (and does not seem to have any real world usage) gets huge sum of money while we who breaks our back on the rock gets little (and not to mention the tax! THE TAX!)

Might be supprised to find out that the so called mathematicians of this world actually make f-all.
It is the decision makers, supposed leaders of this world that make the coin. I was fortunate enough to live by the shovel, learn by the pen - but i am shocked that the people on the highest places are not only the laziest, but the most stupid as well.
Take politicians for instance. I wouldn't let them run a dairy let alone the country. Yet look how much coin they rake in.

[Marmoot]

Take politicians for instance. I wouldn't let them run a dairy let alone the country. Yet look how much coin they rake in.

ooooo please don't get us started on this....

[fire eyes]

I was just wondering ... if you took just a minute .. and quietened all the logic in your mind ... what that little inner voice or inner knowing would say if you asked it .. "is there an afterlife"

Now that would be interesting

[Murray]

If theres "nothing" after death, isn't that something??? Therefore there is something. Bit like where does the universe end, it ends in nothing which is something!

[Number One]

If theres "nothing" after death, isn't that something??? Therefore there is something. Bit like where does the universe end, it ends in nothing which is something!

This is the song that never ends.....it just goes on and on my friend...some people, started singing it not knowing what it was...and now they can't stop singing it forever just because this is the song that never ends.....This is the song that never ends.....it just goes on and on my friend...some people, started singing it not knowing what it was...and now they can't stop singing it forever just because this is the song that never ends.....

[mstriumph]

I was just wondering ... if you took just a minute .. and quietened all the logic in your mind ... what that little inner voice or inner knowing would say if you asked it .. "is there an afterlife"

Now that would be interesting

mine would say something like "who cares? today is good"

but mebbe that's just me ........