Why not to be a Chrstian...

[Stephen T-B]

What does being a Christian guarantee- or rather, what does it not guarantee?
History demonstrates that it does not guarantee that Christians behave more ethically than non-Christians; that they are more charitable about other people, more kindly, more generous, more reliable or more steadfast.
It does not guarantee that they will be more contented, or that their lives will be without tragedies and calamities, and that they will not die prematurely, or after prolonged and debilitating disease.
It does guarantee, or it promises to guarantee, that they will "live for ever."
But this is a two-sided promise; on one side is the promise of an eternity of heavenly bliss and on the other, an eternity of hellish torment.
"Eternity", however, is glibly referred to; it is worth considering that 100 billion years is in the same relationship to it as 100 billionth of a second. There's an infinity of both in eternity.
Also there is the underying assumption that "time" in the spirit world is the same as time in the physical world. But this cannot be the case because "time" as we know it is bound up with physical space and physical change, neither of which exists in the spirit world. To talk of "eternity" in a spiritual context is therefore meaningless.
The Christian promise has an another underlying assumption, to the effect that if your brain were scopped out and incinerated, you would continue to be aware of things, and have feelinhs of happiness and joy, or pain and anguish.
This, however, is without foundation, the only evidence for it being the dubious testimonies (many proved fraudulent or misguided) of mediums and visionaries.
The atheist's underlying assumption is that "death" is what it says it is. We accept the readily observable fact that a dead human being is as comprehnsiveley deceased as a boiled crab.
My utilitarian view as an athiest of human behaviour is that it doesn't matter what you call yourself - whether Christian, Hindu. Jew, atheist, Muslim or whatever - you will abide by the rules laid down by society if you are so inclined, and won't if you aren't, in which case expect to pay the penalty prescribed by society when you're caught.
This is in complete contrast to the view of Christians and Muslims who feel duty-bound to impose their particular religious mores on everyone else,whether they like it or not.
They do it in the hope it will guarantee that they live forever in heavenly bliss. Which, as we have seen, doesn't even begin to make sense.

[Jobar]

"Just you think about it," said Crowley relentlessly. You know what eternity is? You know what eternity is? I mean, d'you know what eternity is? There's this big mountain, see, a mile high, at the end of the universe, and once every thousand years, there's this little bird-"
"What little bird?" said Aziraphale suspiciously.
"The little bird I'm talking about. And every thousand years-"
"The same bird every thousand years?"
Crowley hesitated. "Yeah," he said.
"Bloody ancient bird, then."
"Okay. And every thousand years this bird flies-"
"-limps-"
"-flies all the way to this mountain and sharpens it's beak-"
"Hold on. You can't do that. Between here and the end of the universe there's loads of-" The angel waved a hand expansively if a little unsteadily. "Loads of buggerall, dear boy."
"But it gets there anyway." Crowley persevered.
"How?"
"It doesn't matter!"
"It could use a space ship," said the angel.
Crowley subsided a bit. "Yeah," he said. "If you like. Anyway, this bird-"
"Only it is the end of the universe we're talking about," said Aziraphale. "So it'd have to be one of those spaceships where your descendants are the ones who get out at the other end. You have to tell your descendants, you say, When you get to the mountain, you've got to-" He hesitated. "What have they got to do?"
"Sharpen it's beak on the mountain," said Crowley. And then it flies back-"
"-in the space ship-"
"And after a thousand years it goes and does it all again," said Crowley quickly.
There was a moment of drunken silence.
"Seems a lot of effort just to sharpen a beak," mused Aziraphale.
"Listen," said Crowley urgently, "the point is that when the bird has worn the mountain down to nothing, right, then-"
Aziraphale opened his mouth. Crowley just knew he was going to make some point about the relative hardness of bird's beaks and granite mountains, and plunged on quickly.
"-then you still won't have finished watching The Sound of Music."
Aziraphale froze.
"And you'll enjoy it," Crowley said relentlessly. "You really will."
"My dear boy-"
"You won't have a choice."
"Listen-"
"Heaven has no taste."
"Now-"
"And not one single sushi restaurant."

-from Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

[Stephen T-B]

What an excellent excerpt.
The idea of "being somewhere" in 800 billion years time is, for me, just too horrifying for words.
100 years I could cope with, I suppose, but after three hundred years, what possible delights could still be delightful? And after 500 years? And after 1,000 years?
Perhaps the Christian God has designed the soul so that it can endure an eternity of heavenly bliss - but frankly, I find it unimaginable.
But the most horrible part of the doctrine is the bit which says that the wicked will suffer for all eternity, this being possible, obviously, thanks to the same design element.

If a Christian reads the OP, I hope s/he will think, for a moment, about what this "eternity" business actually entails.

[Rational BAC]

What an excellent excerpt.
The idea of "being somewhere" in 800 billion years time is, for me, just too horrifying for words.
100 years I could cope with, I suppose, but after three hundred years, what possible delights could still be delightful? And after 500 years? And after 1,000 years?
Perhaps the Christian God has designed the soul so that it can endure an eternity of heavenly bliss - but frankly, I find it unimaginable.
But the most horrible part of the doctrine is the bit which says that the wicked will suffer for all eternity, this being possible, obviously, thanks to the same design element.

If a Christian reads the OP, I hope s/he will think, for a moment, about what this "eternity" business actually entails.

Christian here--

Perhaps you are too easily bored.

Why could not a pretty damned powerful God

(never believed myself in an all powerful or omniscient God ---but that is just me)------

----keep any of us pitiful ding-a-ling humans, so very easily entertained humans as far as I can tell ---if you check out the Nielsen ratings or the latest in demand movie videos.

---entertained for a billion years or more?

Never believed in an eternity of hell myself.

So PHHTTT

[Stephen T-B]

Rational BAC's response above indicates to me he has not the slightest notion of what "eternity" is for the dead.
If one considers, for a moment, what the things are which make life worth living - solving problems, being presented by surprises, transient pleasures, loving and the love of another human being who continues to be slightly unpredictable and therefore interesting, the pleasures of the flesh, the pleasures of the mind - all are time-related and brain-related.
In the absence of brain function, what is left?
In the absence of time function, what is left?

Answer: oblivion

Christianity's promise looks more empty the more it is looked into.

[Oikoman]

Oh please, the real promise of Christianity is acceptance and babes (or guys, for the other half of us). The Christian teen who goes to Jesus camp because of the cute girls isn't thinking about eternity, except in the sense that it seems like it will be an eternity until he can get laid. The middle-aged woman who goes to church does so because her friends go there, and to leave the church would mean a defacto leaving of her friends and aquaintances. The only eternity she considers is the eternity it takes for the Priest to finish his sermon.


As for the relative benefits of living forever, thats an entirely different question (but one I'm willing to experiment with!).

[Stephen T-B]

I don't think eternity is something one can experiment with: one is either stuck in it - for eternity - or not.

[Oikoman]

From the perspective of a human lifespan, anything beyond a billion years is eternity. I'd be willing to live for a billion years, and then report back on whether it was worth it.

[Stephen T-B]

sorry - no deal.
If god says it's "eternity" then "eternity" it is."

[Oikoman]

I'll take those odds. Where do I sign up?

[Oikoman]

Interesting aside... theres a finite capacity to what the human brain can remember... so a person living for eternity with access to a TV, DVD player, and enough discs would never get bored.

[Rational BAC]

I think an infinity of heaven and an infinitely extremely pleasurable one would be similar to Alzheimers.----

You just forget ---and re-enjoy.

Any half-assed God could easily accomplish that.--with one hand tied behind His back.

[Milkman Dan]

I think an infinity of heaven and an infinitely extremely pleasurable one would be similar to Alzheimers.----

You just forget ---and re-enjoy.

Any half-assed God could easily accomplish that.--with one hand tied behind His back.

Yes, or even simpler: he just gives you a lobotomy and lets you sit in front of a white wall. And you gawk at that wall for all eternity and think it's the best thing you ever experienced.

[Stephen T-B]

So.
Is this what the "Christian guarantee" amounts to? (and the Muslim one, come to that)
Was it worth burning all those heretics for?
All those religious wars?

Isn't oblivion an equally attractive notion?

(For me it is)

[Oikoman]

When a Christian kills a heretic, he does him a favour, by sending his soul to God before he can commit any more heresies, thus lessening his punishment in hell.

[aperfectstranger]

When a Christian kills a heretic, he does him a favour, by sending his soul to God before he can commit any more heresies, thus lessening his punishment in hell.

I didn't know Christians could just kill... Don't know why I'm even responding. Many absurd posts in this thread.

[seebs]

What does being a Christian guarantee- or rather, what does it not guarantee?

What does any of this have to do with anything? I am not looking for guarantees; for those, go to an insurance company.

Here is a reason to be Christian:
You find the claims made persuasive.

All these claims about benefits and so on would make great sense if the term denoted a course of action rather than a belief.

That said, I don't think "guarantees" is a good way to look at things. There is no guarantee that marriage will be emotionally rewarding, but people enter into marriages because they think they are likely to be rewarding, and many people derive rewards from marriage that seem to be genuinely connected with it.

So even though marriage does not guarantee a happy romantic life, it seems to contribute for at least some people.

[Stephen T-B]

"Here is a reason to be Christian:
You find the claims made persuasive" (seebs)

sorry for being thick-headed, but what claims?

Oh - OK, that Christ gave his life for us; that his death wipes out our sin.

And to what purpose?

So that we might enjoy everlasting life (instead of not enjoying it)?

This, though, is a massive gamble, with odds stacked against it which cannot be calculated because an "everlasting life" is such an extraordinary claim as to demand rather stronger evidence for it than has as yet been provided.
In short, there is no evidence beyond the sayso of soothsayers and visionaries and people who make money out of persuading the bereaved that their dead loved ones are still somehow "alive".
The only actual certainty - however they may long for the contrary - is that they are dead.

[Rational BAC]

Being "dead" has such an awful finality to it though, don't you think?

We all would like to live forever if it was pleasurable, don't you think?

[Biff the unclean]

Being "dead" has such an awful finality to it though, don't you think?

We all would like to live forever if it was pleasurable, don't you think?
And yet we wind up in a box under a couple of yards of dirt. It's as final as it gets, and no one lives forever.

[Biff the unclean]

Interesting aside... theres a finite capacity to what the human brain can remember... so a person living for eternity with access to a TV, DVD player, and enough discs would never get bored.
Except that your human brain will have rotted and turned to dust.
If you are going to live forever then the first step is not to die

[VelociChris]

And yet we wind up in a box under a couple of yards of dirt. It's as final as it gets, and no one lives forever.

To me, that sounds like a problem looking for a solution.

Who would like a cryogenic brain freeze...anyone?

[seebs]

"Here is a reason to be Christian:
You find the claims made persuasive" (seebs)

sorry for being thick-headed, but what claims?

Oh - OK, that Christ gave his life for us; that his death wipes out our sin.

And to what purpose?

So that we might enjoy everlasting life (instead of not enjoying it)?

This is a fascinating question. I don't think salvation is exclusively about the afterlife, though. There is also the question of how we live now.

You correctly note that many people who profess Christianity nonetheless change nothing in their lives. I am not sure why they do this; it seems silly to me.

In short, there is no evidence beyond the sayso of soothsayers and visionaries and people who make money out of persuading the bereaved that their dead loved ones are still somehow "alive".
The only actual certainty - however they may long for the contrary - is that they are dead.

But I don't really even understand afterlife claims, let alone care much about them. Too weird a concept.

I have found that the closer I am to living by the Beatitudes, the better I like living.

I have found that, when I pray, I experience something that seems like interaction to me, and I currently assume that this experience, like most of my experiences, has something to do with things beyond me. In this case, I think it's God.

Since the words of Jesus in the Gospels speak to my condition in the same way, I accept the claim that this is what God would do, if God came to visit us. So I'm Christian.

I don't see why people get all caught up in promises and guarantees. There's no guarantee that telling the truth will always be financially beneficial; that's not why we do it, though, so most of us don't care much, and seek to tell the truth anyway.

Loving my neighbor works for me. Good enough!

[Jobar]

But seebs, loving your neighbor is reward enough in and of itself, without all the supernatural fooferaw attached to it by Christianity.

The provision of a good moral standard is not sufficient reason to believe in God.

[seebs]

But seebs, loving your neighbor is reward enough in and of itself, without all the supernatural fooferaw attached to it by Christianity.

I am currently convinced of this, too.

The provision of a good moral standard is not sufficient reason to believe in God.

No, it isn't. But I didn't say it was. I am convinced of that by other things.

But Stephen didn't touch any questions relating to persuasion or evidence, only benefits. And Christianity's working out just fine, so I'm happy.

[angela2]

This is a fascinating question. I don't think salvation is exclusively about the afterlife, though. There is also the question of how we live now.

You correctly note that many people who profess Christianity nonetheless change nothing in their lives. I am not sure why they do this; it seems silly to me.

But I don't really even understand afterlife claims, let alone care much about them. Too weird a concept.

I have found that the closer I am to living by the Beatitudes, the better I like living.

I have found that, when I pray, I experience something that seems like interaction to me, and I currently assume that this experience, like most of my experiences, has something to do with things beyond me. In this case, I think it's God.

Since the words of Jesus in the Gospels speak to my condition in the same way, I accept the claim that this is what God would do, if God came to visit us. So I'm Christian.

I don't see why people get all caught up in promises and guarantees. There's no guarantee that telling the truth will always be financially beneficial; that's not why we do it, though, so most of us don't care much, and seek to tell the truth anyway.

Loving my neighbor works for me. Good enough!
That's rather beautiful, Seebs.

The Beautitudes are a sometimes thing for me, sometimes beyond me.

[Anat]

Being "dead" has such an awful finality to it though, don't you think?

We all would like to live forever if it was pleasurable, don't you think?
To me being "dead" has a comforting finality to it. Deconversion has put an end to my fear of death and of "being" dead. The fear wasn't the motivation, but at some point I realised it had disappeared.

[Rational BAC]

No problem there for me. It is very good to lose fears.

But, for me at least, the idea of an eternity of joy and happiness ----which a half way decent and half way competent God ---could easily give us very easily satisfied humans (as far as anyone can tell we can be so very easily satisfied at any moment in time )--
-
Could so very easily give any us an eternity of absolute joy.====without half trying.

N'est-ce-pas?

[EarlOfLade]

I welcome death and have never feared it. The big sleep is good.

[Anat]

But, for me at least, the idea of an eternity of joy and happiness ----which a half way decent and half way competent God ---could easily give us very easily satisfied humans (as far as anyone can tell we can be so very easily satisfied at any moment in time )--
-
Could so very easily give any us an eternity of absolute joy.====without half trying.
But what if the non-decent half or the non-trying half are on duty?

[aperfectstranger]

No problem there for me. It is very good to lose fears.

But, for me at least, the idea of an eternity of joy and happiness ----which a half way decent and half way competent God ---could easily give us very easily satisfied humans (as far as anyone can tell we can be so very easily satisfied at any moment in time )--
-
Could so very easily give any us an eternity of absolute joy.====without half trying.

N'est-ce-pas?

Why can't it just be done in the first place? Why all these complicated rigmaroles and blood sacrifices? Pourquoi?

[Stephen T-B]

"Christianity's working out just fine, so I'm happy." (seebs).

My response to that is "each to his own", which means Bill doing what he finds most conducive to a congenial life and Alice doing what she finds most conducive - and neither encroaching on the space of the other.

Now, there's a problem associated with both Islam and Christianity in this respect, and it's this:
Muslims and Christians[ I]tend[/I] (and I use the word advisedly because it is only a tendency) to treat non-Muslims and non-Christians in rather the same way as an adult treats a four-year old. In other words, they are under the strong impression that they are entitled to tell them how to behave and lead their lives.

This entitlement apparently comes from the "fact" that they are in touch with the Great Law-Giver, the Fount of all Wisdom, the Source of all Good and the Creator of Morality.
They think they have the God-given right to tell me I must not seek to end my life - regardless of my own view of the matter - that my daughter must not have an abortion - regardlesss of her view of the matter - that my cousin must not endulge his homosexual tendencies - regardless of his view of the matter - that scientists ought not to engage in stem-cell research if it involves the use of human embryos - regardless of what the scientists and the rest of society thinks - and in extreme cases, that my child must not be taught in school about evolution and how it works - regardless of what I and many other parents think.

Church leaders and immams spend their time informing the rest of us what we should and should not do in order to keep within the parameters which they think their god has laid down for us.
Many of the issues they get involved in have little or nothing to do with the better management of society from humanity's point of view.
That's not what they are interested in; their only interested is in making society better from their god's point of view.

But here's the thing: they do not know what their god's point of view is. They only think they know.
So it is all speculation.
Just like heaven and hell are.

[thoughtful]

I have found that, when I pray, I experience something that seems like interaction to me, and I currently assume that this experience, like most of my experiences, has something to do with things beyond me.
You imagine "interaction" with a supernatural being? Most of your life experiences are "beyond" you? Sounds like you're wallowing in woo-woo to me. However, I have heard similar prononcements from both schizophrenics and drug adicts. Perhaps similar chemical interactions are occuring in your brain as in theirs. I'm not saying that's the case, but man....sometimes I don't know about you seebs. :eek:

[seebs]

Er, "beyond" in the sense of "external" to.

Meaning, I'm not a solipsist.

That said, I certainly do think some of the things I experience are beyond my capacity to comprehend. Are my only options now to claim that I completely comprehend the universe and all its workings, or that I'm delusional or drugged? Come on, don't be silly.

If you start with the premise that there is nothing to pray to, claims of experiences relating to prayer sound crazy, but that's just begging the question; you're starting with the assumption that there's nothing there.

I start with the observed experience, and theorize about what sorts of external realities would be experienced that way. You know, the way we deal with all our other experiences.

[steamer]

If you start with the premise that there is nothing to pray to, claims of experiences relating to prayer sound crazy, but that's just begging the question; you're starting with the assumption that there's nothing there.

That's why I start with the premise about what we know versus what we imagine. You have knowledge, however supressed, that what you pray to is something you only imagine. Either that or you make a claim that god involves himself in your imaginings, but refuses to do so in mine. I think the latter is rather pompous and absurd.


I start with the observed experience, and theorize about what sorts of external realities would be experienced that way. You know, the way we deal with all our other experiences.

Really? You started by observing that the god you imagined was something you imagined? That's a rare thing for a theist. Does it then proceed that if you found something to be inexplicable or coincidental then you also imagined that the god you imagined had something to do with it? How deep does this rabbit hole go?

[thoughtful]

Er, "beyond" in the sense of "external" to.

That said, I certainly do think some of the things I experience are beyond my capacity to comprehend.
My major source of incredulity was your use of the word "most." At least you've now reduced that from "most" to "some." I feel relieved.

Can you please relate some insightful examples of your personal experiences that, despite your best efforts, remain beyond your ability to comprehend?


If you start with the premise that there is nothing to pray to, claims of experiences relating to prayer sound crazy, but that's just begging the question; you're starting with the assumption that there's nothing there.
Actually I don't start with any assumptions, but I do have a deep understanding of human frailty, including my own. I know that my own experiences would be woefully insuficient to convince me that I had two-way communication with the supernatural. However, you appear to have convinced yourself that your own internal fantasies are actually external realities. That's quite a leap to have taken. May I please ask what profound experience caused you to do that? Was it a one time experience, or do you continue to have these experiences?

[seebs]

That's why I start with the premise about what we know versus what we imagine. You have knowledge, however supressed, that what you pray to is something you only imagine. Either that or you make a claim that god involves himself in your imaginings, but refuses to do so in mine. I think the latter is rather pompous and absurd.

How is this any more coherent than theistic assertions that non-theists are liars, and really they know that God exists?

I don't see any reason to accept this false dichotomy. I propose a third resolution: We have different experiences and reason from them as best we can, possibly in error.

It is not required that I somehow secretly know that I'm just making stuff up. It is not required that God never interact with you. All that is required for my theory to work is the possibility that we do not always correctly identify our experiences, or that our experiences are genuinely distinct.

Really? You started by observing that the god you imagined was something you imagined? That's a rare thing for a theist. Does it then proceed that if you found something to be inexplicable or coincidental then you also imagined that the god you imagined had something to do with it? How deep does this rabbit hole go?

"Imagine" doesn't come into it at all. I started with experiences and hypothesized (different, I think, from the connotations of "imagined") that these experiences were in some way caused by things external to me. As it happens, one of the things I came to think probably existed turns out to be similar enough to the way some people use the word "God" that I have adopted their nomenclature.

[seebs]

Can you please relate some insightful examples of your personal experiences that, despite your best efforts, remain beyond your ability to comprehend?

Well, uhm. Strictly speaking, all of them. I don't really understand consciousness. :)

But, as an example, although I can experiment with wires and current and magnets, I have no idea what's happening in an electromagnetic field. I can describe it, but I don't understand the mechanism. When I have asked physics geeks, they've been able to tell me a lot more about what happens, but apparently there is at least a certain amount of "we don't really know how this works" out there still.

Actually I don't start with any assumptions, but I do have a deep understanding of human frailty, including my own. I know that my own experiences would be woefully insuficient to convince me that I had two-way communication with the supernatural. However, you appear to have convinced yourself that your own internal fantasies are actually external realities. That's quite a leap to have taken. May I please ask what profound experience caused you to do that? Was it a one time experience, or do you continue to have these experiences?

I discarded solipsism a long time ago. Once I'd dropped that, my default assumption became that experiences I have are experiences of something, and that in general, things which I experience are probably external to me.

I think the actual split point between my view and that of most of the metaphysical naturalists I know is that I'm a mathematical realist. I believe that things exist independent of our perception or awareness, but that perception is how we find out about them, but I don't believe that only the physical senses are real perception; I think the perception that a given proof is correct or incorrect is just as much a real perception as the perception that a given object is red or green, and subject to the same range of caveats.

So it seems totally un-leap-like to me to make the "leap" from believing that the things I experience are external realities, to believing that the things I experience are external realities. It may be incorrect, but I have no alternatives to offer.

[thoughtful]

I don't believe that only the physical senses are real perception; I think the perception that a given proof is correct or incorrect is just as much a real perception as the perception that a given object is red or green...
So have you applied for the Randi million dollar challenge yet? If not, why not?

[steamer]

How is this any more coherent than theistic assertions that non-theists are liars, and really they know that God exists?

Unlike god, we know that imagination exists. We also know that god exists at least in the imagination. I’m sure your own integrity is important enough to you that you must admit (if not to me then to yourself) that you do imagine god. All of this is perfectly acceptable to me as I can imagine the Christian god just as well as you can. None of this says anything at all about the actual existence of this god somewhere. The main point is that the god you imagine isn’t an actual god and you have nothing in reality to compare what you imagine god to be except descriptions of a god from a book which probably are someone else’s imagination. Unless you are willing to actually assert that you have seen an actual god, your imagination could be wildly inaccurate to the point that your god is wholly non-existent and you couldn’t even know the difference.



I don't see any reason to accept this false dichotomy. I propose a third resolution: We have different experiences and reason from them as best we can, possibly in error.

There is no false dichotomy. A thing is either wholly imaginary or it has some counterpart in reality. Even if a thing exists that you have no knowledge of it, then everything you think about it is wholly imagined.


It is not required that I somehow secretly know that I'm just making stuff up. It is not required that God never interact with you. All that is required for my theory to work is the possibility that we do not always correctly identify our experiences, or that our experiences are genuinely distinct.

This seems very clear to me and I think it ought to seem very clear to you as well. Our imaginations can and do provoke some very powerful emotions. They affect our feelings. When I imagine my wife, I feel love. I expect that when you imagine god, you also feel love. The difference between my wife and your god is I can compare my imaginings to a real counterpart in reality and correct any errors. You cannot.

It doesn’t make you feelings for your god any less genuine, I think the brain uses the exact same circuitry to help you decide how you’d feel if you had such encounters as you imagine. I suspect that those emotions are probably quite pleasurable. Are they?

How is your attributing events to a god you know nothing about any different that someone claiming they have a lucky penny or a lucky rabbits foot?


"Imagine" doesn't come into it at all. I started with experiences and hypothesized (different, I think, from the connotations of "imagined") that these experiences were in some way caused by things external to me. As it happens, one of the things I came to think probably existed turns out to be similar enough to the way some people use the word "God" that I have adopted their nomenclature.

As I said, people can attribute good and bad fortune to anything at all. People can have relationships with imaginary entities as well. Since you’ve made no assertions that your experiences were in any way caused by an actual existent god then the most reasonable thing for both of us to do is assume that your imagination is all you have of any god and the events you attribute to a god are just you attributing things for some reason other than its logical to do so.

[Clivedurdle]

No mention of souls yet! For us to exist in heaven or hell requires an eternal soul, given to us by god. Btw, where were xians before they were born? Why would eternity be uni directional in time?

Tiny problem, weighing people just before and just after they died shows no difference in their weight.

St Darwin, also has not shown where or why souls evolved. His work on barnacles and earthworms did not find any proto-souls. No fossil souls in the Jurassic although we do have evidence of life back 3.8 billion years.

Star Trek treated the issues caused by omnipotence and eternity very well.

[Rational BAC]

Why would a soul, being a spiritual thing, (if it should exist), ----

weigh anything at all?

[Stephen T-B]

why would a soul exist? And if it did, how would anyone know?

[Jobar]

Can you please relate some insightful examples of your personal experiences that, despite your best efforts, remain beyond your ability to comprehend?


Thoughtful, to save seebs some time explaining things he's already done, read this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3537969#post3537969), and seebs' posts in that thread. He and I have discussed his beliefs, and why he holds them, many times in the years we've both been on II.

My objection to his belief is contained in this paragraph from that thread-

It appears to me that you aren't applying enough alternative assumptions (your #2) when you contemplate the possible explanations for the experiences which lead you to theism. You seem to ignore the simple in favor of the complex; you've seen that Occam's Razor .gif enough that I won't post it here. We skeptics have epiphanies, too, and yet we don't attribute them to any god(s) outside of ourselves. It seems far more parsimonious, far more coherent, to attribute such internal experiences to internal causes.

On this topic, though, I don't recall ever seeing any post of seebs', saying just how he pictures the afterlife (if any). Care to comment on that subject, seebs?

[TheMathGuy]

What an excellent excerpt.
The idea of "being somewhere" in 800 billion years time is, for me, just too horrifying for words.

Just as a thought experiment though, suppose we did actually live forever. Our brains are still finite. As time passes, old memories fade away and are replaced with new ones. So even if we did live for an eternity it might not seem that way from our point of view. Suppose I were to discover that my birthday was a clever scam invented to decieve me and that I had actually been born 800 billion years ago. Would I suddenly find it horrifying to learn that I am actually 800 billion years old? No, not really. At this moment I rather enjoy my life, regardless of how much of my life there may be before or after this moment. And I see no logical reason why even after 800 billion years I should stop taking delight in things that once gave me pleasure (unless of course I happened to be suffering from depression at the time--in which case there are medications for that!).

[TheMathGuy]

Rational BAC's response above indicates to me he has not the slightest notion of what "eternity" is for the dead.
If one considers, for a moment, what the things are which make life worth living - solving problems, being presented by surprises, transient pleasures, loving and the love of another human being who continues to be slightly unpredictable and therefore interesting, the pleasures of the flesh, the pleasures of the mind - all are time-related and brain-related.
In the absence of brain function, what is left?
In the absence of time function, what is left?

Answer: oblivion

Christianity's promise looks more empty the more it is looked into.

I would like to point out that the sect of Christianity I was originally raised in taught a doctrine of a physical resurrection. We took the Bible verses referring to a "new heaven" and a "new earth" as a literal re-creation of the physical universe. So as we saw it, we would have new bodies and new brains, and therefore did not see heaven as oblivion, but another physical universe (quite literally!). The whole idea was that the dead don't stay dead!

[steamer]

I would like to point out that the sect of Christianity I was originally raised in taught a doctrine of a physical resurrection. We took the Bible verses referring to a "new heaven" and a "new earth" as a literal re-creation of the physical universe. So as we saw it, we would have new bodies and new brains, and therefore did not see heaven as oblivion, but another physical universe (quite literally!). The whole idea was that the dead don't stay dead!

This new body thing seems even sillier than the magic inviso body. If god could recreate you with exactly this new body, why couldn't he have created you just as you will be in this new body without all the fuss of exploding muslims all over the place?

[angela2]

I would like to point out that the sect of Christianity I was originally raised in taught a doctrine of a physical resurrection. We took the Bible verses referring to a "new heaven" and a "new earth" as a literal re-creation of the physical universe. So as we saw it, we would have new bodies and new brains, and therefore did not see heaven as oblivion, but another physical universe (quite literally!). The whole idea was that the dead don't stay dead!
Even if we don't want to be entirely literal, Paul talks about spiritual bodies. Now I don't know exactly what kind of bodies that means, but I'm certain it means some type of bodies.

[JamesBannon]

Even if we don't want to be entirely literal, Paul talks about spiritual bodies. Now I don't know exactly what kind of bodies that means, but I'm certain it means some type of bodies.

You may be surprised to hear this Angela but I actually agree with you here. I think we have to remember that most early Christian believers came to Christianity via the OT Judaic and Roman traditions. I do not detect in either of these traditions any form of substance dualism (it is especially not present in the OT where heaven is clearly earthly and these was no firm concept of a hell). A purely spiritual resurrection seems to me to be a later neo-Platonic addition.

Besides this, the clear implication of Jesus' resurrection is defeat of death. It would make no sense to the early believers to talk about "spiritual resurrection" especially in view of the story that Jesus showed the actual wounds to Thomas. They would want assurance that they could live bodily rather than just as spiritual substance.

On hell, I think the Jehovah's Witnesses probably have it right. The wages of sin is death; i.e., rotting in the ground. The Last Judgement would then simply be the raising of the physical bodies of the believers and leaving the rest of us to rot in oblivion. On the face of it this seems to contradict Revelations (assuming Revelations is describing the Last Judgement) but there is still some controversy over whether Revelations ought to be part of the Canon.