The Afterlife - a possible scenario

[Hope]

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

Arhh.  That would explain why so often your posts seem to be so irrelevant to what I say   

Very obviously so.  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"?

One doesn't 'declare victory' in a situation like this (though the fact that you use the phrase seems to suggest that you think that one can).  Remember that one can lose an argument - or a battle - without the other side necessarily winning.  Instead, everything is left as at the start.

As for going back and looking at the questions, they are no different to the questions that have been asked over the last 30-odd years that I've been involved in this debate, and which I have answered rationally and reasonably on a host of occasions - both here and elsewhere.

[Shaker]

Arghh.  That would explain why so often your posts seem to be so irrelevant to what I say   

That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense. You made a series of assertions about which I asked a number of questions - questions that you can't answer.

One doesn't 'declare victory' in a situation like this (though the fact that you use the phrase seems to suggest that you think in that way).

No - that's you, actually; I was merely echoing your usage of terminology such as "a debate that they seem keen to lose."

[Hope]

That doesn't even begin to make any kind of sense. You made a series of assertions to which I asked a number of questions - questions that you can't answer. 

You mean questions that I have answered numerous times, and from numerous posters, here and elsewhere.  That is all I ever get from the likes of you - repeated questions as if you think that if you ask the same quetions often enough you'll get a different answer.

No - that's you, actually; I was merely echoing your usage of terminology such as "a debate that they seem keen to lose."

Well they seem to do so, by simly asking the same questions thread after thread.  Its rather like some of Floo's threads that ask the same question, but are worded fractionally differently each time.  Farmer G/Judder Man/whatever the current monicker is - does the same.  Even ~TW~ sometimes.

[Shaker]

You mean questions that I have answered numerous times, and from numerous posters, here and elsewhere. That is all I ever get from the likes of you - repeated questions as if you think that if you ask the same quetions often enough you'll get a different answer.

I haven't seen the first set of answers yet, though it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you're trying yet again to fob us off by claiming that you've already provided them. Whereabouts have you answered those questions here (elsewhere doesn't matter), and what happened to the answers this time?

[Hope]

I haven't seen the first set of answers yet, though it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you're trying yet again to fob us off by claiming that you've already answered them. Whereabouts have you answered those questions here (elsewhere doesn't matter), and what happened to do the answers this time?

On other threads on the subject - both directly and indirectly (there often are unrelated threads, as you know, that will include an excursion onto the subject).  I don't spend my time checking up on the continued existence of those threads, nor do I feel it necessary to take copies of everything I write so as to be able to reinstate it whenever threads drop out of use.  If you want me to change my opinion, you need to provide a convincing argument for me to do so, something that was beginning to develop on a forum I used to post on, until one of the more outspoken supporters of gay rights on the board turned the thread into an abuse-fest.  Even 2 or 3 of those who argued for gay rights stated that his tirade had made them doubt their own judgement.

[Shaker]

If you want me to change my opinion, you need to provide a convincing argument for me to do so, something that was beginning to develop on a forum I used to post on, until one of the more outspoken supporters of gay rights on the board turned the thread into an abuse-fest.  Even 2 or 3 of those who argued for gay rights stated that his tirade had made them doubt their own judgement.

There's nothing entailed in changing your opinion that you don't already know through having been told repeatedly by umpteen other posters - Professor Davey invariably makes his case especially well. So long as you entertain the beliefs you do this is highly unlikely to happen.

Justifying your opinions and backing up your assertions is quite another matter, however.

[Rhiannon]

Hope, you always offer evidence by anecdote. Debate on other fora that make pro-gay pee turn anti-gay. Atheists you know who are anti-gay, historical persecution of gay people that happened 'with good reason'. And I don't believe a word of it. Oh sure, there's probably the tiniest smigeon of something that gives you enough so that you can pretend to yourself that you aren't lying. But you are. Everyone can see that you are.

[Shaker]

Hope, you always offer evidence by anecdote. Debate on other fora that make pro-gay pee turn anti-gay. Atheists you know who are anti-gay, historical persecution of gay people that happened 'with good reason'.

Ah yes, those damned, elusive "good reasons" ...

[Owlswing]

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.

Too !"£%$%^&*()_)(**&&^%%$$££""£%$^&*(_)(*&^%£"!"$&(*)___)(*&&^$£" right it would be!

[Owlswing]

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

Gonnagle.

Thanks Gonners, I'll take a large glass of either Moniak or Lindisfarne mead; the true and literal golden nectar!
 

[Owlswing]

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.

For a supposedly intelligent man you can come out with some right royal tripe.

JeremyP correctly pointed out, as I did, that I meant that they would take the matter in a philosophical manner - hey, we were wrong; now let's see what good we can get out if it.

But you, as always, are looking for a fight because you do not like my distaste for your religion, which WAS my religion until I was 15 and took off the blinkers of my upbringing of unquestioned acceptance of my father's interpretation of Christianity, much like yours and others here, and some of the crap - see your homophobia - the you post here.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Well old Shake is trying to turn this goofy thread into an attack on Hope for his posts on other threads and not on this topic.

Matty, are you saying that atheists believe in a soul that lingers after death for a spell and then fade out? I never knew that about atheists. I always thought they believe when you die, you are dead, no soul floating around for a day or whatever. I think a monkey sitting on a rock would have a good laugh at you messed up "possible scenario".

[Owlswing]

Well old Shake is trying to turn this goofy thread into an attack on Hope for his posts on other threads and not on this topic.

Matty, are you saying that atheists believe in a soul that lingers after death for a spell - atheists do not believe in god, this does not preclude them from believing in a soul - and then fade  - this should be spelt fades - out? I never knew that about atheists. I always thought they believe when you die, you are dead, no soul floating around for a day or whatever. I think a monkey sitting on a rock would have a good laugh - this should read "I think like a monkey sitting on a rock and would have a good laugh - at you - this should be spelt your - messed up "possible scenario".

[BeRational]

Well old Shake is trying to turn this goofy thread into an attack on Hope for his posts on other threads and not on this topic.

Matty, are you saying that atheists believe in a soul that lingers after death for a spell and then fade out? I never knew that about atheists. I always thought they believe when you die, you are dead, no soul floating around for a day or whatever. I think a monkey sitting on a rock would have a good laugh at you messed up "possible scenario".

It isn't possible for you to know what any atheist thinks, other than they do not believe in any gods.

They may have nothing else in common.

[Shaker]

You mean questions that I have answered numerous times, and from numerous posters, here and elsewhere. That is all I ever get from the likes of you - repeated questions as if you think that if you ask the same quetions often enough you'll get a different answer.

Given your extensive history of turning Nelson's eye to any questions you can't answer (typically questions about your penchant for the bald assertion and inability to back any of them up), repeated questions yielding any answer at all from you would be a refreshing change.

[ad_orientem]

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.

Angry, bitter man. It's no way to live your life. You really should get rid of that chip on your shoulder.

[Leonard James]

My view is that should an afterlife exist, it will be a surprise for everybody. A mild one for those atheists who admit the possibility but think it improbable, and a shocking one for all god believers who find out that it ain't what they have believed in all their lives. 

[Sriram]

I think our religious beliefs here will not matter in the after life. They are just a way of growing up.

Just as we believe in many fairy tales when we are children and when we grow up we stop believing in them.....but we never the less realize their value and beauty.  We make it a point to teach our children the very same fairy tales that we stopped believing in.

Its the same with religious beliefs.  As long as they have helped us develop spiritually...our after life will be just fine!

[torridon]

I think our religious beliefs here will not matter in the after life. They are just a way of growing up.

Just as we believe in many fairy tales when we are children and when we grow up we stop believing in them.....but we never the less realize their value and beauty.  We make it a point to teach our children the very same fairy tales that we stopped believing in.

Its the same with religious beliefs.  As long as they have helped us develop spiritually...our after life will be just fine!

And 'afterlife' is another religious belief that we grow out of eventually.

[Sriram]

And 'afterlife' is another religious belief that we grow out of eventually.

Actually....belief in an Afterlife, reincarnation, Liberation etc....are not really religious beliefs. They are philosophical concepts that try to explain certain observations & experiences. They are secular hypothesis quite independent of religions. 

Religious beliefs are more about stories, legends, ancient heroes, rituals and social norms......that are woven around the above fundamental philosophies...so as  to appeal to people and to help them stay on the straight and narrow path.

[Rhiannon]

What is so frightening about ending up as worm food or smoke and ashes? I just don't get it.

[Shaker]

Angry, bitter man. It's no way to live your life. You really should get rid of that chip on your shoulder.

... says our resident anti-Semite and conspiracy loon who thinks only he has a handle on "the truth" while everybody else is duped by the media. Riiiight.

[Shaker]

What is so frightening about ending up as worm food or smoke and ashes? I just don't get it.

Me either.

I suspect that for many it's the prospect that that's all they'll be after death - in other words, that'll be the end of conscious awareness for ever, and a decomposing corpse is the only (quite quickly disappearing) sign of their existence. To me, returning to the natural elements of the universe is comforting, but for many the prospect of not being anywhere or rather not being aware of being anywhere is terrifying. Philip Larkin expressed this in 'Aubade', usually regarded as his last great poem:

I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Arid interrogation: yet the dread
Of dying, and being dead,
Flashes afresh to hold and horrify.

The mind blanks at the glare. Not in remorse
- The good not done, the love not given, time
Torn off unused - nor wretchedly because
An only life can take so long to climb
Clear of its wrong beginnings, and may never;
But at the total emptiness for ever,
The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This ties in with a concept known as Terror Management Theory about which I've been meaning to construct a post recently, so I should get on with it.

[torridon]

What is so frightening about ending up as worm food or smoke and ashes? I just don't get it.

I think it is a testimony to the overwhelming power of the illusion of self and personhood. We can see organic things live and they die and thats it, but we can't help believing that we are persons, something distinct from our physical bodies although nonetheless intimately associated with it; a 'person' is not something made of flesh and blood so how can it 'die'.

[Rhiannon]

I understand the fear of loss. I don't understand the fear of one's own death, although I'd prefer it to be as painless as possible.