The Afterlife - a possible scenario

[Owlswing]

It can come as no surprise to the regulars here that I find the died-in-the-wool, locked-in-syndrome, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes of some of the religioso’s on this forum, oh dammit, let’s call a spade a spade, some Christians on this forum, together with their derogatory dismissal of any other belief more than a little irritating.
Some of the atheists here are almost as bad but only almost.

I make no mention of one poster’s sworn enemies, the anti-theists, as I see them as being a non-existent figment of an over-heated and delusional imagination.

In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing.

Now I would have no problem with this as I am, as I have stated many times before, quite prepared to find, one way or another, that my religious beliefs are, in fact, in error. To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.

However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.

That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!

I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.

I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.

I await the views of the rest of the Forum with interest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It can come as no surprise to the regulars here that I find the died-in-the-wool, locked-in-syndrome, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes of some of the religioso’s on this forum, oh dammit, let’s call a spade a spade, some Christians on this forum, together with their derogatory dismissal of any other belief more than a little irritating.
Some of the atheists here are almost as bad but only almost.

I make no mention of one poster’s sworn enemies, the anti-theists, as I see them as being a non-existent figment of an over-heated and delusional imagination.

In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing.

Now I would have no problem with this as I am, as I have stated many times before, quite prepared to find, one way or another, that my religious beliefs are, in fact, in error. To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.

However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.

That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!

I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.

I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.

I await the views of the rest of the Forum with interest.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........Oh.......Yes......what?

[Owlswing]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...........Oh.......Yes......what?

Exactly what I expected from you, Vlad, a response full of words and empty of meaning. To have meaning it would have required thought, something of which you are totally incapable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly what I expected from you, Vlad, a response full of words and empty of meaning. To have meaning it would have required thought, something of which you are totally incapable.

I'll get me coat.

[Hope]

In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing. ...
To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.

If the atheists were to be proven to be correct, would the religious of any nature - Christian or otherwise - have any idea that their ideas had been wrong?  Would atheists have any idea that their views had been correct?

However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.

That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!

They couldn't be proved correct collectively because there are enough differences amongst them to make them effectively incompatible.  Individually could occur - but then who would know?

I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.

That, of course, assumes that any Christians here or elsewhere are as certain of anything as you like to think they are.

I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.

Could you explain this in plain English, please?

[ippy]

It can come as no surprise to the regulars here that I find the died-in-the-wool, locked-in-syndrome, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes of some of the religioso’s on this forum, oh dammit, let’s call a spade a spade, some Christians on this forum, together with their derogatory dismissal of any other belief more than a little irritating.
Some of the atheists here are almost as bad but only almost.

I make no mention of one poster’s sworn enemies, the anti-theists, as I see them as being a non-existent figment of an over-heated and delusional imagination.

In a moment of introspection I pondered upon the reaction of these Super-Christians should they, after death, find that the atheists were, in fact, correct (I am making the assumption that the soul of a person, however each of us defines that article, will linger on for an unknown period of time after death) and there is nothing thereafter. No god, no Jesus, no heaven, no angels, no fanfares, and rewards for their staunch attachment to Christianity – just nothing.

Now I would have no problem with this as I am, as I have stated many times before, quite prepared to find, one way or another, that my religious beliefs are, in fact, in error. To the Super-Christians I think it would be a devastating blow to their egos.

However, I can think of one possibility that would drive the Super-Christians into a terminal state of complete, utter, and totally incurable even within the timespan of eternity, insanity.

That possibility is, of course that they find that the Pagans, the Jews, the Hindus, the Sikhs, et cetera, either individually or collectively were correct. Their whole carefully constructed, advertised, and defended edifice comes to be nothing!

I find it hard to imagine just how long I would spend laughing at the looks on their smug arrogant faces.

I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.

I await the views of the rest of the Forum with interest.

The odds for this happening are so unlikely I can't see that it's worth bothering, 2000 years, no proof or even a hint of the magical, mystical or the superstitions involved with religion, how long do you think it's worth waiting?   

ippy

[Owlswing]

I'll get me coat.

Thank Christ for that!

[Hope]

The odds for this happening are so unlikely I can't see that it's worth bothering, 2000 years, no proof or even a hint of the magical, mystical or the superstitions involved with religion, how long do you think it's worth waiting?   

ippy

Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated.  Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?

[Shaker]

Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated.  Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?

As Sam Harris said somewhere, atheism is really only the reaction of reasonable people to unreasonable claims and assertions - as such it's not a belief system but the absence of one, to wit, theism. (Clue is in the name). What you are in fact asking for here is evidence of a negative - well, given what is claimed for gods by their believers the evidence of their absence is overwhelming, I'd have thought. Theism is the positive assertion about the nature of reality (indeed, ultimate reality, according to its acolytes) and thus is the thing that stands in need of backup.

[Owlswing]

That, of course, assumes that any Christians here or elsewhere are as certain of anything as you like to think they are.

It is no assumption - you are one of the masters of assumptions!

Your certainty of anything to do with the afterlife is plastered through hundreds if not thousands of posts by those that I classify as the Super-Christians, which, no surprise here, includes you!

I do not doubt for one instant that you will now wriggle and squirm for god alone knows how many posts trying to deny your stated certainty of your, and others of your ilk, acceptance in heaven for your support oif Christianity.

Could you explain this in plain English, please?

They would take it philosophically.

[Owlswing]

Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated.  Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?

Why should we trust yours!

Because you say so?

No way!

[Owlswing]

The odds for this happening are so unlikely I can't see that it's worth bothering, 2000 years, no proof or even a hint of the magical, mystical or the superstitions involved with religion, how long do you think it's worth waiting?   

ippy

The odds of what happening? To which particular part of the OP are you referring?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Sam Harris said somewhere, atheism is really only the reaction of reasonable people to unreasonable claims and assertions - as such it's not a belief system but the absence of one, to wit, theism. (Clue is in the name). What you are in fact asking for here is evidence of a negative - well, given what is claimed for gods by their believers the evidence of their absence is overwhelming, I'd have thought. Theism is the positive assertion about the nature of reality (indeed, ultimate reality, according to its acolytes) and thus is the thing that stands in need of backup.

Sam Harris.................Happiness is a warm nuke/gun.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Sam Harris said somewhere, atheism is really only the reaction of reasonable people

reasonable people? Check this out

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2013/jan/07/sam-harris-faith-guns

[ippy]

Atheism and religiosity have been around for about the same length of time, ippy, and over that period their respective popularity has fluctuated.  Similarly, over those thousands of years, no proof or even hint of the validity of atheism has ever appeared, so why should we trust your belief system?

"Hear we Go Again Happy as Can Be, la la la la la la la"

ippy

[ippy]

The odds of what happening? To which particular part of the OP are you referring?

Go back to post 5.

ippy

[Owlswing]

Go back to post 5.

ippy

There is an exception to every rule!

I said that I thought that atheists would probably be more philosophical on the subject - you may well be the exception that proves the rule.

[jeremyp]

I would think that the reaction of the atheists would, for most, be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.

Could you explain this in plain English, please?

It is in plain English.

It means that the atheists would wake up in whichever version of the afterlife is true and say "oh fiddlesticks, we were wrong. Never mind".  Although I think the language would be stronger if the right version of the afterlife was eternity with TW.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Owlswing,

And I say, as we both wake up in Summerland, me with a glass of Glengoyne 17 year old and you with a, well your favourite tipple, that was a blast, lets do it again, but this time with feeling

When Earth's last picture is painted and the tubes are twisted and dried,
When the oldest colours have faded, and the youngest critic has died,
We shall rest, and, faith, we shall need it -- lie down for an aeon or two,
Till the Master of All Good Workmen shall put us to work anew.
And those that were good shall be happy; they shall sit in a golden chair;
They shall splash at a ten-league canvas with brushes of comets' hair.
They shall find real saints to draw from -- Magdalene, Peter, and Paul;
They shall work for an age at a sitting and never be tired at all!

And only The Master shall praise us, and only The Master shall blame;
Andd no one shall work for money, and no one shall work for fame,
But each for the joy of the working, and each, in his separate star,
Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things as They are!

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

It is in plain English.

Clearly Matt doesn't want to explain himself, so perhaps you could explain what '..., be rather pragmatic acceptance that, all same the Oxford Union, they had lost the debate.' means.  I can understand the general gist of the post, but not this particular section.  It doesn't seem to fit any rules of English. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Owlswing,

And I say, as we both wake up in Summerland, me with a glass of Glengoyne 17 year old

When I wake up in the summerland I shall beckon Richard Dawkins over and say ''Waiter, I'll have what Gonnagle's having.''

[Hope]

It is no assumption - you are one of the masters of assumptions!

Your certainty of anything to do with the afterlife is plastered through hundreds if not thousands of posts by those that I classify as the Super-Christians, which, no surprise here, includes you!

Many of those posts also include words to the effect that people are at liberty to believe what they want to, and that I don't judge them in any way on that choice.  All I say is that I believe that the message that Jesus taught was for all of humanity and for all time, and that therefore people ought to be given the opportunity to thoughtfully accept or reject it.  I realise that this kind of honesty that the vast majority of Christians on this board have espoused over the years makes it difficult for you to have a go at them; it is an issue that I've encountered on several internet forums over the years, and I tend not to take the misrepresentations that result with much worry.  You, however, seem keen to amass as many misrepresentations as you can, which is why I tend to challenge them in the way I do.

I do not doubt for one instant that you will now wriggle and squirm for god alone knows how many posts trying to deny your stated certainty of your, and others of your ilk, acceptance in heaven for your support oif Christianity.

I don't have to wriggle and squirm.  If you care to track my posts as carefully as you seem to claim to have done, you will notice that I regularly refer to the 'sheep and goats' passage in Matthew 25: 31-46 whereby followers of Christ are warned that in certain circumstances Jesus may choose not to recognise those who claim to be his followers. 

Yes, I certainly hope that in my journey of following Him, I have lived up to his standards (usually with his help) as best I can, and that this has become more and more so as I've aged, both chronologically and in my relationship with him.  One thing I don't do is feel complacent in any way, and I have certainly never stated any certainty of (my) acceptance in heaven for (my) support of Christianity. 

What is more, I don't 'support Christianity' (whatever that actually means) with the hope that it will provide me with entry to heaven.  If you think that that is why Christians seek to be 'prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks them to give the reason for the hope that they have.' (1 Peter 3:15) you have massively missed the point.  It's also worth noting that the author of that letter follows this advice immediately with 'But do this with gentleness and respect'.  I have always sought to do that, but occasionally deliberate misrepresentation and unintended but oft-repeated misunderstandings can make it difficult to stick to that resolution.

They would take it philosophically.

Thay might, or might not.  We have no example to look to.

[Shaker]

What is more, I don't 'support Christianity' (whatever that actually means) with the hope that it will provide me with entry to heaven.  If you think that that is why Christians seek to be 'prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks them to give the reason for the hope that they have.' (1 Peter 3:15) you have massively missed the point.  It's also worth noting that the author of that letter follows this advice immediately with 'But do this with gentleness and respect'.  I have always sought to do that ...

Does this "gentleness and respect" extend to your views on homosexuality, most recently expressed on the thread that you won't go back to after the drubbing you received?

[Hope]

Does this "gentleness and respect" extend to your views on homosexuality, most recently expressed on the thread that you won't go back to after the drubbing you received?

My language on that and other threads on the subject have been gentle and respectful (you can be respectful yet believe that some action or behaviour is wrong).  Compared to that of some others - on both sides of the debate - it has also been mild and reasonable.

As for any 'drubbing I received', I must have missed that post.  The reason I haven't bothered going back to the thread is because the attitude of some posters there was so irrational and abusive that I find that there is no need to return to a debate that they seem keen to lose.

[Shaker]

My language on that and other threads on the subject have been gentle and respectful (you can be respectful yet believe that some action or behaviour is wrong).  Compared to that of some others - on both sides of the debate - it has also been mild and reasonable.

And yet you seem unable to defend or justify any of it.

As for any 'drubbing I received', I must have missed that post.

Very obviously so. 

The reason I haven't bothered going back to the thread is because the attitude of some posters there was so irrational and abusive that I find that there is no need to return to a debate that they seem keen to lose.

So you're declaring victory by refusing to answer any of the questions put to you about your assertions? Genius strategy there. How about going back to the thread and seeing who will really lose the "debate"? The fact that equal marriage is a reality and is becoming so in more and more countries as time passes indicates a pretty comprehensive loss already for your miserable shower, I'd have thought.