Are atheists who think there is no afterlife comfortable with the thought of annihilationism?

[Neithan]

The more I think I about it the deeper my conviction becomes that neither possibility, oblivion or ceaselessness, is the least bit appealing. Annihilation is not a particularly comforting thought, dwelling on it too much starts to deprive things of meaning. Conversely, I don’t desire an eternity of bliss and most definitely not an eternity of torment, an eternity of anything is a hell in itself. Endlessness seems as horrifying to me as the nihilist’s abyss. I think of Herman Melville’s quote " what is man that he should live out the lifetime of his God?" Heaven- the frightening monotony of eternal worship, but frankly, I rarely think of heaven; but my mind, heart, soul, and everything in me revolts against the possibility of an eternal hell. It seems immensely unfair, the most obvious injustice of it being, as many have noted, infinite punishment for finite crimes. Also, for many people this life is a hell. Hundreds of millions of people in this world must their whole lives suffer the dehumanizing conditions of dire poverty, and to think that there are people who have endured so much misfortune and misery in this life will have an eternity of horror awaiting them in next life is monstrous. For some, first an earthly hell, then an eternal one? I don’t want to sound pessimistic, but this is a dreary subject for me. I prefer the idea of reincarnation where existence is cyclical, multiple lives and multiple bodies rather than one life in a linear eternity. Unfortunately, I don’t believe in reincarnation, I just prefer it as a theory.

Ironic then that belief systems based on reincarnation (Buddhism, Hinduism) are seeking to escape it!

 

[devoutchristian]

Sidetrack, Catholicism rejects the notion of a before life.

 

[Publisher]

Seems to me, the reason some believe is to make sure they have a great “fire insurance policy”. From what I gather, some only believe because they want some type of eternal bliss…or escape a punishment of some kind.

Why not believe in God because believing makes THIS LIFE better? Why must the “after life” be of importance? Why isn’t being a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth in this life not reward enough? To find peace in this life, to believe that no matter what the future holds, whether I am conscious after death or not is of no real meaning…isn’t the “real meaning” of life be that I am consciouos NOW…I should make my world a better place NOW.

Didn’t John the Baptist speak of “making straight the road” for God’s Presence in this life? Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God as a present reality to be lived NOW…this Kingdom was within us…among us…around us NOW. “I have come that you may have life and have it more abundantly.” An abundant life NOW…care for those in our midst NOW…love the unloveable NOW…clothe the naked among us…NOW…feed the hungry among us…NOW.

The afterlife, if it even exists will take care of itself…just as the “before life” took care of itself…we fret so much about “What will happen when we die.” Yet we never…or rarely fret about our existence before we were born.

My thought if I worry about the after-life…I don’t pay attention to the “this life”…If I only am concerned of my place in the “next world”…I lose sight of the impact I might make in this world.

I believe we are to make this world a fit habitation for our God…we are to strive for a new world where “justice rolls down” upon all. Where the “lion lays with the lamb” NOW.

I must confess, ceasing to exist when I’ve breathed my last would be of little or no concern to me if I lived a full and fruitful life NOW…as a Wiccan friend of mine was fond of saying about those who thought it’d be better in the “next life”…“This is the next life.” To me, that little phrase “This is the next life.” is one of the deepest and most profound religous statements I’ve ever come across…I guess as a Friend, the God I believe in is the Friend of Mankind…the Lover…the Caregiver…the One Who Bears our burdens unasked…the One who know us best and loves us most…“take not thought of tomorrow, for who can add a day to his life with worry?”…maybe He meant that…the Kingdom of God is present among us now…Eternity is in our hearts…no some far off etherial plane of existence.

Just my take on it.

 

[tafan]

Chesterton said that the next preferable theory to orthodoxy was atheism; but he lived in days of intellectually honest and thoughtful atheist, who are few snd far between.

At any rate, there is a perfectly satisfactory answer a atheist could have, IMO, about the afterlife:" why should I be scared of the year 2112, I missed 1912 and it didn’t bother me".

Here is the point, I am really happy about the prospect of eternity with God in heaven; but that is not why I am a catholic. I am a Catholic because it is the truth. I love the truth of Catholicism, but the great joy I find in it, the graces I receive to help me, the sacraments, all of this is in one sense secondary. If they were not true, did not come from the truth, I would not be catholic.

Many ancient Jews did not believe in an afterlife, yet they were still religious. Why? The desire for truth.

 

[buffalo]

The are OK with it. What they fear is that they are wrong and thus spend their life in hell.

 

[tafan]

The are OK with it. What they fear is that they are wrong and thus spend their life in hell.

I think this is often the case nowadays. It goes hand in hand with the intellectually weak nature of present day atheism. It is demonstrated by their abject hatred of religion.

 

[buffalo]

I think this is often the case nowadays. It goes hand in hand with the intellectually weak nature of present day atheism. It is demonstrated by their abject hatred of religion.

You are right about the - “intellectually weak nature of present day atheism”.

Atheism is today a rejection of anything moral, they worship the dictator of relativism.

Most want license to do as they please, not as they ought.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think this is often the case nowadays. It goes hand in hand with the intellectually weak nature of present day atheism. It is demonstrated by their abject hatred of religion.

What about those that have apathetic feelings about religion? (I expect that classification to be underrepresented since apathetic people don’t express their apathy frequently or loudly).

 

[Bradski]

The are OK with it. What they fear is that they are wrong and thus spend their life in hell.

Do you personally know any ‘fearfull’ atheists? I could no more be scared of the Christian version of hell then I could be of the Hindu version (Naraka, apparently).

 

[buffalo]

Do you personally know any ‘fearfull’ atheists? I could no more be scared of the Christian version of hell then I could be of the Hindu version (Naraka, apparently).

OK.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Do you personally know any ‘fearfull’ atheists? I could no more be scared of the Christian version of hell then I could be of the Hindu version (Naraka, apparently).

He gets special feelings from God that tell him these things maybe?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Atheism is today a rejection of anything moral, they worship the dictator of relativism.

Most want license to do as they please, not as they ought.

I think this is far from true. Within the western world you’ll find that many (though not all) people are supportive society imposing some type of restriction on the behaviours that one can follow. Restrictions against theft, perjury, and libel are among these. Among people that don’t agree with some of these restrictions you won’t necessarily find a high concentration of atheist. In the USA atheist (if you use the definition that includes a spectrum of non-religious dispositions, including agnostic) only account for 14-16% of the population, account for less than 1% of those in prison (according to the Federal Bureau). So there’s not information that shows that atheist/non-religious reject anything moral.

I think I can understand how one might be led to believe what you had said. There is an expressed desire and supporting actions from those that want to be free from some of the restrictions of various religions and denominations. But this desire isn’t just coming from non-religious people, but also from religious people. I know it may sound counter intuitive that religious people are included in those that don’t want to be restricted by religions. But not all religious people are of the same religion. Even many that identify as the same denomination don’t necessarily agree in which matters fall within the domain of their religion or on the interpretations of their holy text and how they apply to a situation. Within my lifetime and where I live there have been religiously inspired laws that have been revoked as early as during my infancy and as recent as the past few months. These laws were revoked because a majority of the voting community was in agreement on it. Not because the 14% was pushing for it.

If I were to grant that there exists an objective morality (a term which I think to be either badly defined or a concept poorly labeled) and if I were to only consider that which religious people ahve to say on it I also find there’s not total agreement on what is “objectively moral.” It seems to be something for which there is variance across people, places, and time. Without the ability to come to an agreement on issues that are thought by some (but not all) to be moral issues I think it likely that even among people of various religions within the same country you’ll find both religious and non-religious people that will “reject” some laws/rules that some within the group think to be moral rules.

 

[Sair]

You are right about the - “intellectually weak nature of present day atheism”.

Atheism is today a rejection of anything moral, they worship the dictator of relativism.

Most want license to do as they please, not as they ought.

It’s strangely satisfying to be vindicated in my opinion that threads that tend towards rubbishing atheism get a free pass on these forums, while those that purport to seriously discuss it get shut down!

Be that as it may, just to help balance the ledger, I’ll throw in a question - is it the atheists who are currently taking superficial insults as an excuse for murder and sundry other violent acts, or is it the “true believers” taking offence on behalf of their imaginary gods? If this is the opposite of moral relativism, I know which I prefer…

 

[buffalo]

I think this is far from true. Within the western world you’ll find that many (though not all) people are supportive society imposing some type of restriction on the behaviours that one can follow. Restrictions against theft, perjury, and libel are among these. Among people that don’t agree with some of these restrictions you won’t necessarily find a high concentration of atheist. In the USA atheist (if you use the definition that includes a spectrum of non-religious dispositions, including agnostic) only account for 14-16% of the population, account for less than 1% of those in prison (according to the Federal Bureau). So there’s not information that shows that atheist/non-religious reject anything moral.

I think I can understand how one might be led to believe what you had said. There is an expressed desire and supporting actions from those that want to be free from some of the restrictions of various religions and denominations. But this desire isn’t just coming from non-religious people, but also from religious people. I know it may sound counter intuitive that religious people are included in those that don’t want to be restricted by religions. But not all religious people are of the same religion. Even many that identify as the same denomination don’t necessarily agree in which matters fall within the domain of their religion or on the interpretations of their holy text and how they apply to a situation. Within my lifetime and where I live there have been religiously inspired laws that have been revoked as early as during my infancy and as recent as the past few months. These laws were revoked because a majority of the voting community was in agreement on it. Not because the 14% was pushing for it.

If I were to grant that there exists an objective morality (a term which I think to be either badly defined or a concept poorly labeled) and if I were to only consider that which religious people ahve to say on it I also find there’s not total agreement on what is “objectively moral.” It seems to be something for which there is variance across people, places, and time. Without the ability to come to an agreement on issues that are thought by some (but not all) to be moral issues I think it likely that even among people of various religions within the same country you’ll find both religious and non-religious people that will “reject” some laws/rules that some within the group think to be moral rules.

Sure - atheists are not born in a vacuum. They are moral by osmosis. It is my experience that atheists are very vocal about things like homosexual marriage and abortion. They are certainly very vocal about licentiousness.

 

[buffalo]

Be that as it may, just to help balance the ledger, I’ll throw in a question - is it the atheists who are currently taking superficial insults as an excuse for murder and sundry other violent acts, or is it the “true believers” taking offence on behalf of their imaginary gods? If this is the opposite of moral relativism, I know which I prefer…

I am not sure what you are getting at here.

 

[sidetrack]

Many ancient Jews did not believe in an afterlife, yet they were still religious. Why? The desire for truth.

Your referring to the Sadducees and not just ancient Jews in genral,aren’t you?.You know I’ve wondered that.How and why is it that they believe in God but not an afterlife?:ehh:.I think that might even subtly contribute to this talk we’re all having.

 

[Faithdancer]

It’s interesting how the unbelievers misunderstand the Catholic beliefs about Hell. It is not devils with pitchforks. No, it is much worse- eternal separation from God or from anyone else. It is eternal isolation, with full consciousness of one’s isolation. God never rejects or “tortures” anyone. The unbeliever rejects God in life. There is infinite opportunity to turn toward God in life, but after death this opportunity is forever lost. The fault is not God’s, but the unbeliever’s.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Sure - atheists are not born in a vacuum. They are moral by osmosis. It is my experience that atheists are very vocal about things like homosexual marriage and abortion. They are certainly very vocal about licentiousness.

Only from what I’ve seen there are religious and non-religious people that are in support or against those things that you’ve mentioned. None of the above seems to support your statement that “Most [atheist] want license to do as they please, not as they ought.”

 

[tafan]

Your referring to the Sadducees and not just ancient Jews in genral,aren’t you?.You know I’ve wondered that.How and why is it that they believe in God but not an afterlife?:ehh:.I think that might even subtly contribute to this talk we’re all having.

By the time of Christ, it was the Sadduccess. But the Pharasee belief in the ressurection of the dead was certainly a newer belief than that of the Sadducees. The farther back you go, the less and less reference you will find to an afterlife in ancient Judaism. For much of their history they had a vague notion, at best, of any afterlife.

It does contribute to this talk we are having, more than subtly IMO. The Jews did not have faith in God because of the hope of an afterlife, The had faith because they sought the truth. The truth, through revelation from God, told them how to live and that is what they did.

We should be very very happy God created us with immortal souls and gives us the choice of spending eternity with Him. But He did not have to do so. In a very real sense, that should not be the reason behind our faith. Our faith is based on the truth.

While I do believe many modern day atheist are worried about annihilation; they have a very simple answer which satisfies their belief system and should not be a concern to them at all. That does not make their belief system true. But we are not going to convert any atheists by telling them how wonderful heaven is.

 

[interestedman]

I mean we all know of tons of negative moments when life seems very dismal but why would they ever deny themselves the possibility of entering Heaven for oblivion?.If you cant make it to Heaven does the cessation of any further existance actually seem better then the infernal place?.Has the apparent bleakness of this reality seeped into them so much that Heaven doesn’t even look like an escapist * pie in the sky* but just something not true that was never there?.Even if that were the case,it kind of seems like your shooting yourself in the foot if your cutting off an avenue out of such a bleak place.

Do you understand atheism at all? Atheists “deny themselves the possibility of entering heaven” because they don’t believe it exists. It would be like asking why would someone deny themselves of the possibility of getting presents from santa clause…it is because people don’t believe Santa exists.

I would say the same thing to those who think that this (and maybe some quantum stuff which is still undivine) is all reality is on the basis of scientific materialism.Are you honestly okay with hardly living more or less a century before poof nothing but unsentient ashes as a subject for the law of the conservation of energy?.By corollary is that what you think the mind is?.A bunch of “talking sparks” going around in brain cells?.

Personally I would even say that the annihilationist alternative for humans (is arguably) the infernal place.

Am I ok with life being all there is? Yes I am.