That’s just a subjective romantic fantasy. If the goal is to be rational then you will at least accept the objective reality of your own beliefs and the logical and metaphysical consequences that proceed such a belief.
And is precisely why i reject metaphysical naturalism or the idea that we are going to cease to exist.
So tell me, what new experiences will you have after a billion years, or a billion billion years, because you’ll still have an eternity to go?
No, I am talking about the length or duration of ANYTHING. Just because it is final, it is not meaningless or valueless. Try to define what “dignity” might be. Obviously we all value positive, biologically pleasant experiences, and do not value useless, meaningless pain or suffering. Well, there are some strange people who like “flagellation” or have themselves crucified to offer up their suffering for Jesus. Let’s see if they are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
…and I will reciprocate this assessment. But if you wish to show that you are serious, that you really mean that this “dignity” will help you to endure suffering, let’s get together, and I will gladly give you all the pain and suffering, and then wait to see until you scream for release. And I can predict with absolute certainty that you will reach that level. Room one-oh-one catches up with everyone.
Again, this is just a subjective ideal based on very limited information. I’m more interested in making logical sense of the human experience and why such a thing would exist as a possibility. The very fact that we experience meaning is evidence that life is more than just physical objects. From the moment we are born we are learning something about our reality that transcends the fleeting activity of physical objects. Thus to conclude that we are just going to cease to exist doesn’t makes rational sense of that “experience”
If we cease to exist, then are existence was pointless and meaningless. Any attempt to apply value to it is purely a subjective activity and doesn’t reflect objective reality.
I think the biggest thing that Dawkins misses (I’m assuming you are stating his point accurately - it’s been a very long time since I’ve read him), is that not every religion has a concept of an afterlife. The best example is Judaism. It has no cohesive vision of an afterlife, and there are plenty of Jews who don’t believe in one in any form. There are also other examples - early Egyptians believed only the Pharaoh experienced an afterlife, early Sumerians probably didn’t have an afterlife at all.
And I happen to know a lot of Jews who believe we cease to exist, and they assuredly don’t believe our lives are without objective value.
It’s not a matter of belief, it’s a question of what follows true as a result of that belief.
But if life is eternal as you believe, then you can never ever have those experiences again. You can never have the naivete of a child.You can never experience your first love. And you can never have the fulfillment of watching your children and grandchildren grow up.
I am not trying to reject the importance that some people hold for their beliefs, i am simply following their beliefs to it’s rational conclusion. That seems to be lost on a lot of people.
I don’t know what you mean by that. Did i make a claim about what life after death is?
Consensus in philosophical matters is often (I understand - I am certainly not a philosopher) illusive and difficult to attain. But probably not a waste of time discussing unless one has something better to do
I used to think this way. Then I became to look at it differently. I began to think that anything temporary was without any real meaning. Brief temporary pleasures became more and more valueless.
I think about this too. However when I contemplate the marvel of the world God created (let alone what lies out in the universe) I suspect His plan includes infinite wonders to explore.
But if life is eternal, then there must come a time when you can never experience anything new. That time has already passed for your childhood, and probably your first love, and will eventually pass for everything.
I don’t know what life after death is. If it’s just more of the same experiences then maybe you have a point. But there is no reason to conclude that’s how life after death will be, just a repeat of fleeting experiences.
Yes, our understanding of “life” and consciousness is so very limited and in no way can be compared to the infinite creativity of God. Even time itself is a created concept.
Incorrect. Shakespeare ceased to exist a long time ago. But his works exist and are valued by everyone who can read and appreciate it. The inventions of Edison keep on existing and we build on them.
Indeed, and that is a given. Therefore to place “value” on something that you know nothing about, is irrational.
You have a subjective preference. That doesn’t mean that his existence or anyone’s existence had any objective value. In other word’s it’s in your head and is not a true reflection of what humanity is really worth. You value it for the pleasure it gives, the psychological utility, but that doesn’t change the fact that if there is no God, purpose, or significance, beyond what we imagine, then our continued existence is objectively meaningless and pointless.
Only because you believe it is “your child”, “Your family”, and that these concepts still have objective meaning even if these is no God. If only physical things exist, a child is essentially a physical object living off another physical object which is facilitated by biochemical reactions. What rational justification does a naturalist have for viewing the situation as being anything but that?