[quote]pushharder wrote:
Always interesting to see the devout anti-faith/anti-religious/anti-God folks flock to threads like this one so as to express their faith.
Like moths to a light.[/quote]
Please, do provide your opinion, Push.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Always interesting to see the devout anti-faith/anti-religious/anti-God folks flock to threads like this one so as to express their faith.
Like moths to a light.[/quote]
Please, do provide your opinion, Push.[/quote]
I just did.[/quote]
No, as usual, you didn’t. Shooting barbs at other posters is not telling us your opinion on the thread topic.
interesting thread. there seems to be a few people that get quite disturbed because someone believes in something after death. why do so many people that seem to disbelieve become so nasty and vitriolic. you can state your opinion without calling someone a coward or stupid. when I hear or read such statements it really seems that you’re trying to convince yourself that you’re right.
as for proof that there is an afterlife I’ve also yet to see dark matter in a bottle, the center of a black hole, or the strings of string theory(from physics not the concert series).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Always interesting to see the devout anti-faith/anti-religious/anti-God folks flock to threads like this one so as to express their faith.
Like moths to a light.[/quote]
Please, do provide your opinion, Push.[/quote]
I just did.[/quote]
No, as usual, you didn’t. Shooting barbs at other posters is not telling us your opinion on the thread topic.[/quote]
Oh, you want to know if I believe in life after death? The answer is yes.
Are you satisfied?[/quote]
Yes, I am and if you feel the urge to handle the second part of the thread topic I’m interested in hearing that as well.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well, if you’re that interested I reckon I’ll have to git er dun. Watching the Broncos 49ers game now.
In the meantime what is your answer (first and second part)?[/quote]
I was avoiding putting my two cents in on this subject as the original poster asked for the opinions of those who do believe in life after death. But since you asked, no, I do not believe in life after death. While human beings are high functioning biological creatures we are still ultimately just biological creatures and so I hold humans to the same standard as I would anything else. Death is final and I haven’t seen any evidence from the religions of the world or my own experiences to change my opinion.
One thing I can’t help but notice in atheists is intellectual dishonesty. To be fair, with most atheists they’re not deliberately deceptive; it’s just that they haven’t actually examined the implications of their position. For those who have, they fall back upon rationalism as the ultimate authority. But as we’ve seen rationalism can only answer the “how” not the “why.” Further, they gloss over sovereignty - usually by appealing to the abstract notion of authority deriving from “the people” - many theists do the same. Sovereignty and its legitimacy may at first appear to be a political question but it is in fact metapolitical by which I mean it says nothing about how men should be governed but rather attempts to define what “governing” actually is.
Apologies for being abstract. I’m trying to keep it simple but failing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]silverblood wrote:
interesting thread. there seems to be a few people that get quite disturbed because someone believes in something after death. why do so many people that seem to disbelieve become so nasty and vitriolic. you can state your opinion without calling someone a coward or stupid. when I hear or read such statements it really seems that you’re trying to convince yourself that you’re right…
[/quote]
This.
The reason you see this is because the anti-faith bunch indeed have faith that their anti-faith is The Answer. They believe it religiously and devoutly to the extent that they are more than willing to go to verbal blows, and yes, condescension, to advance their creed.
To them it is a battle of religions whether they recognize it that way or not. The proof is in the pudding. They fiercely defend their position – a position that is ultimately rooted in faith – and launch veritable crusades against their opposition. It’s uncanny.
[/quote]
Another alternative is that some of us have been religious, gone through the process of losing faith, and see the things that people do in the name of faith, as well as beliefs held as a result of faith as more harmful than not, to the individual, to the environment, and mankind as a whole.
Since this is directed at me, let me explain my motives. As someone who doesn’t believe in God there is a general idea that non believers buy into ideas of Nihilism, it’s possible for someone who doesn’t believe in God to subscribe to Nihilism but it isn’t necessary.
What’s interesting is that the deep belief in God and the process of shedding such beliefs and investments has been described via Sartre’s Existentialist process, and for those losing deep faith Existentialism seems to be a requirement so long as the faith includes stories and investments into things like an afterlife/heaven, Justice doling Omni god.
Knowing that aspects of the process of Existentialism include things that I have talked about, and knowing that people who are educated for the most part KNOW people are subject to that process, I recognized that it’s actually cruel to make someone go through that process that can be avoided. And, once you recognize it this way, I believe it’s arguably a cowardly thing to continue on with the process of passing on the sorts of religion to children and the otherwise unwitting.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Another alternative is that some of us have been religious, gone through the process of losing faith, and see the things that people do in the name of faith, as well as beliefs held as a result of faith as more harmful than not, to the individual, to the environment, and mankind as a whole.
Since this is directed at me, let me explain my motives. As someone who doesn’t believe in God there is a general idea that non believers buy into ideas of Nihilism, it’s possible for someone who doesn’t believe in God to subscribe to Nihilism but it isn’t necessary.
What’s interesting is that the deep belief in God and the process of shedding such beliefs and investments has been described via Sartre’s Existentialist process, and for those losing deep faith Existentialism seems to be a requirement so long as the faith includes stories and investments into things like an afterlife/heaven, Justice doling Omni god.
Knowing that aspects of the process of Existentialism include things that I have talked about, and knowing that people who are educated for the most part KNOW people are subject to that process, I recognized that it’s actually cruel to make someone go through that process that can be avoided. And, once you recognize it this way, I believe it’s arguably a cowardly thing to continue on with the process of passing on the sorts of religion to children and the otherwise unwitting.
[/quote]
The ego will always try and find a way to survive its own mortality if it ever could. Heaven, consciousness, re birth, whatever it is. That which seeks life after death is not even ultimately real. You can reject all religion, theology, spirituality, and philosophy as well. However even then the thing that “dies” is not even anything more then a personal sense of “self”. What is ultimately real and true is there always. Death means nothing to eternity, try to kill existence see what happens. You can quite literally die before you die as well. Having the death of the ego it is like you are still in this world and part of it. Inside though there is nothing at all,no one home, just silence. It’s a feeling of complete and total alone ness which can feel disturbing even at first. It is quite literally simultaneously being nothing ness and everything ness at exactly the same time. There is no such thing as seperation. Beyond of course perception of such belief from conditioning and the forming of a sense of identity at an extremely early age.
�¢??The Kingdom of Heaven Is Spread Upon The Earth But Men Do Not See It.�¢??
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]silverblood wrote:
interesting thread. there seems to be a few people that get quite disturbed because someone believes in something after death. why do so many people that seem to disbelieve become so nasty and vitriolic. you can state your opinion without calling someone a coward or stupid. when I hear or read such statements it really seems that you’re trying to convince yourself that you’re right…
[/quote]
This.
The reason you see this is because the anti-faith bunch indeed have faith that their anti-faith is The Answer. They believe it religiously and devoutly to the extent that they are more than willing to go to verbal blows, and yes, condescension, to advance their creed.
To them it is a battle of religions whether they recognize it that way or not. The proof is in the pudding. They fiercely defend their position – a position that is ultimately rooted in faith – and launch veritable crusades against their opposition. It’s uncanny.
[/quote]
Another alternative is that some of us have been religious, gone through the process of losing faith, and see the things that people do in the name of faith, as well as beliefs held as a result of faith as more harmful than not, to the individual, to the environment, and mankind as a whole.
Since this is directed at me, let me explain my motives. As someone who doesn’t believe in God there is a general idea that non believers buy into ideas of Nihilism, it’s possible for someone who doesn’t believe in God to subscribe to Nihilism but it isn’t necessary.
What’s interesting is that the deep belief in God and the process of shedding such beliefs and investments has been described via Sartre’s Existentialist process, and for those losing deep faith Existentialism seems to be a requirement so long as the faith includes stories and investments into things like an afterlife/heaven, Justice doling Omni god.
Knowing that aspects of the process of Existentialism include things that I have talked about, and knowing that people who are educated for the most part KNOW people are subject to that process, I recognized that it’s actually cruel to make someone go through that process that can be avoided. And, once you recognize it this way, I believe it’s arguably a cowardly thing to continue on with the process of passing on the sorts of religion to children and the otherwise unwitting.
[/quote]
So atheism doesn’t necessarily lead to moral nihilism huh? Interesting. Do you know where and how Pol Pot developed his ideology? He sat in on lectures by French Communists and Jean-Paul Sartre in particular. While Sartre spewed out his moral nihilism Pol Pot sat there taking notes and internalised it. So using Sartre’s concept of the “blank slate” Pol Pot developed his theory - “give me a man for an hour and I’ll give you a Communist”. This is the theory he used to take every single man, woman and child in Phnom Penh, march them into the forest and tell them to become good Communist peasants or die trying. That’s where Jean-Paul Sartre’s nihilism ends: in the killing fields of Cambodia. Sartre’s “blank slate” ends in a mountain of skulls.
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Another alternative is that some of us have been religious, gone through the process of losing faith, and see the things that people do in the name of faith, as well as beliefs held as a result of faith as more harmful than not, to the individual, to the environment, and mankind as a whole.
Since this is directed at me, let me explain my motives. As someone who doesn’t believe in God there is a general idea that non believers buy into ideas of Nihilism, it’s possible for someone who doesn’t believe in God to subscribe to Nihilism but it isn’t necessary.
What’s interesting is that the deep belief in God and the process of shedding such beliefs and investments has been described via Sartre’s Existentialist process, and for those losing deep faith Existentialism seems to be a requirement so long as the faith includes stories and investments into things like an afterlife/heaven, Justice doling Omni god.
Knowing that aspects of the process of Existentialism include things that I have talked about, and knowing that people who are educated for the most part KNOW people are subject to that process, I recognized that it’s actually cruel to make someone go through that process that can be avoided. And, once you recognize it this way, I believe it’s arguably a cowardly thing to continue on with the process of passing on the sorts of religion to children and the otherwise unwitting.
[/quote]
The ego will always try and find a way to survive its own mortality if it ever could. Heaven, consciousness, re birth, whatever it is. That which seeks life after death is not even ultimately real. You can reject all religion, theology, spirituality, and philosophy as well. However even then the thing that “dies” is not even anything more then a personal sense of “self”. What is ultimately real and true is there always. Death means nothing to eternity, try to kill existence see what happens. You can quite literally die before you die as well. Having the death of the ego it is like you are still in this world and part of it. Inside though there is nothing at all,no one home, just silence. It’s a feeling of complete and total alone ness which can feel disturbing even at first. It is quite literally simultaneously being nothing ness and everything ness at exactly the same time. There is no such thing as seperation. Beyond of course perception of such belief from conditioning and the forming of a sense of identity at an extremely early age.
�?�¢??The Kingdom of Heaven Is Spread Upon The Earth But Men Do Not See It.�?�¢??
[/quote]
Reminds me of some Buddhist, “No Self” ideas.
I’m not really averse to people having strong self identities. I’ve also been saying that we can and should find our own purposes and values as individuals, with various REASONS and reason based discoveries to guide us.
When it comes to how we should treat one another, why not use empathy and what we have learned quite recently about Mirror Neurons?
It seems very elementary to me that we can base an entire Ethical system on Empathy alone if the information is correct about Mirror Neurons.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]silverblood wrote:
interesting thread. there seems to be a few people that get quite disturbed because someone believes in something after death. why do so many people that seem to disbelieve become so nasty and vitriolic. you can state your opinion without calling someone a coward or stupid. when I hear or read such statements it really seems that you’re trying to convince yourself that you’re right…
[/quote]
This.
The reason you see this is because the anti-faith bunch indeed have faith that their anti-faith is The Answer. They believe it religiously and devoutly to the extent that they are more than willing to go to verbal blows, and yes, condescension, to advance their creed.
To them it is a battle of religions whether they recognize it that way or not. The proof is in the pudding. They fiercely defend their position – a position that is ultimately rooted in faith – and launch veritable crusades against their opposition. It’s uncanny.
[/quote]
Another alternative is that some of us have been religious, gone through the process of losing faith, and see the things that people do in the name of faith, as well as beliefs held as a result of faith as more harmful than not, to the individual, to the environment, and mankind as a whole.
Since this is directed at me, let me explain my motives. As someone who doesn’t believe in God there is a general idea that non believers buy into ideas of Nihilism, it’s possible for someone who doesn’t believe in God to subscribe to Nihilism but it isn’t necessary.
What’s interesting is that the deep belief in God and the process of shedding such beliefs and investments has been described via Sartre’s Existentialist process, and for those losing deep faith Existentialism seems to be a requirement so long as the faith includes stories and investments into things like an afterlife/heaven, Justice doling Omni god.
Knowing that aspects of the process of Existentialism include things that I have talked about, and knowing that people who are educated for the most part KNOW people are subject to that process, I recognized that it’s actually cruel to make someone go through that process that can be avoided. And, once you recognize it this way, I believe it’s arguably a cowardly thing to continue on with the process of passing on the sorts of religion to children and the otherwise unwitting.
[/quote]
So atheism doesn’t necessarily lead to moral nihilism huh? Interesting. Do you know where and how Pol Pot developed his ideology? He sat in on lectures by French Communists and Jean-Paul Sartre in particular. While Sartre spewed out his moral nihilism Pol Pot sat there taking notes and internalised it. So using Sartre’s concept of the “blank slate” Pol Pot developed his theory - “give me a man for an hour and I’ll give you a Communist”. This is the theory he used to take every single man, woman and child in Phnom Penh, march them into the forest and tell them to become good Communist peasants or die trying. That’s where Jean-Paul Sartre’s nihilism ends: in the killing fields of Cambodia. Sartre’s “blank slate” ends in a mountain of skulls.[/quote]
It isn’t necessary that one becomes Pol Pot as a result of accepting the fact that existence precedes essence. What he found value in, and his endeavors were his own.
I only recognize Sartre’s existential process as a process of emotions people go through as a good explanation for losing religion. Otherwise there are no ideologies of his that I’m knowingly buying into.
Apart from that, instead of subscribing to Nihilism, I subscribe to Virtue Theory, which is what your value system based itself on.
^^ - Keep in mind the different types of “empathy:”
-
pro-social behaviour - willingness to help people out, hospitality to strangers, acts of compassion.
-
cognitive empathy - capacity to see things from another person’s perspective and to understand how he or she feels.
-
affective or emotional empathy - capacity not only to understand how another person feels but also to experience those feelings involuntarily and to respond appropriately. Failure to help a person in distress can trigger a self-destructive sequence: anguish, depression, suicidal ideation.
Only 3 can be said to authentic empathy. To even begin to create a universal system of ethics based upon empathy you will need to show that 3 is universal. And if you actually look at human nature…well, it doesn’t look good. If authentic empathy is universal then we wouldn’t actually need an ethical system. In fact, if it was universal or near universal then the world wouldn’t experience the level of conflict that it does. For a rationalist you seem to have a very naive and idealistic view of human nature.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Another alternative is that some of us have been religious, gone through the process of losing faith, and see the things that people do in the name of faith, as well as beliefs held as a result of faith as more harmful than not, to the individual, to the environment, and mankind as a whole.
Since this is directed at me, let me explain my motives. As someone who doesn’t believe in God there is a general idea that non believers buy into ideas of Nihilism, it’s possible for someone who doesn’t believe in God to subscribe to Nihilism but it isn’t necessary.
What’s interesting is that the deep belief in God and the process of shedding such beliefs and investments has been described via Sartre’s Existentialist process, and for those losing deep faith Existentialism seems to be a requirement so long as the faith includes stories and investments into things like an afterlife/heaven, Justice doling Omni god.
Knowing that aspects of the process of Existentialism include things that I have talked about, and knowing that people who are educated for the most part KNOW people are subject to that process, I recognized that it’s actually cruel to make someone go through that process that can be avoided. And, once you recognize it this way, I believe it’s arguably a cowardly thing to continue on with the process of passing on the sorts of religion to children and the otherwise unwitting.
[/quote]
The ego will always try and find a way to survive its own mortality if it ever could. Heaven, consciousness, re birth, whatever it is. That which seeks life after death is not even ultimately real. You can reject all religion, theology, spirituality, and philosophy as well. However even then the thing that “dies” is not even anything more then a personal sense of “self”. What is ultimately real and true is there always. Death means nothing to eternity, try to kill existence see what happens. You can quite literally die before you die as well. Having the death of the ego it is like you are still in this world and part of it. Inside though there is nothing at all,no one home, just silence. It’s a feeling of complete and total alone ness which can feel disturbing even at first. It is quite literally simultaneously being nothing ness and everything ness at exactly the same time. There is no such thing as seperation. Beyond of course perception of such belief from conditioning and the forming of a sense of identity at an extremely early age.
�??�??�?�¢??The Kingdom of Heaven Is Spread Upon The Earth But Men Do Not See It.�??�??�?�¢??
[/quote]
Reminds me of some Buddhist, “No Self” ideas.
I’m not really averse to people having strong self identities. I’ve also been saying that we can and should find our own purposes and values as individuals, with various REASONS and reason based discoveries to guide us.
When it comes to how we should treat one another, why not use empathy and what we have learned quite recently about Mirror Neurons?
It seems very elementary to me that we can base an entire Ethical system on Empathy alone if the information is correct about Mirror Neurons. [/quote]
How bout just being a decent and kind human person? You don’t need books, science studies, or religion to be a genuine and good natured human being. You can inherently feel when you do something that is right or wrong, it doesn’t take any kind of learned knowledge to notice that.
Regarding the buddhist thing yes, thats a part of it. However some of it gets too washed away of the essence or heart of the Buddha scriptures. One huge example is Budda saying okay there is NO SELF, its the entire core of the teaching right? Yet a lot of buddhist scholars are obsessed about reincarnation. If there is no self then there is no re incarnation. Nirvana is coming out of the wheel of dharma. There is nothing to be re birthed if there was nothing there in the first place. Real spiritual practice is about shift in identity, if you could sum up the entire experience of samsarna it is all in identity itself. Shifting identity from the limited mind made sense of self to truth. That is the main purpose behind any true and practical spiritual teaching.
Of course not. Who first proclaimed that existence precedes essence? Soren Kierkegaard: a devout Christian. What I’m saying is that the moral nihilism of Sartre(the attempt to create new values uncoupled from traditional values) cannot lead anywhere. You can annihilate traditional values but you cannot create new values from the wreckage.
“There is nothing new under the sun” - Ecclesiastes
Any ethical system must be based upon authentic values that already exist.