Is no life-after-death, something to fear?

[lelinator]

Accept there is a very real possibility that bit isn’t a delusion ( at least concerning religious truth ) In fact there are very good reasons to believe in it.

So says IWantGod. You do understand that there are a great many rational people who would disagree.

The same is not true for the atheist. Even a person taking a leap of faith is more reasonable than a content atheist who believes in something like justice or righteousness or that life has real meaning in the absence of God.

Again, so says IWantGod. You do understand that that’s just an opinion, regardless of the supposedly rigorous reasoning that you claim to have devoted to it.

I know…you think that your reasoning is based upon irrefutable logic, and therefore beyond question. But I’m going to question it anyway.

So which one of us is more likely to be delusional, the one who’s absolutely certain that he’s right, or the one who’s not so sure?

 

[Freddy]

The same is not true for the atheist. Even a person taking a leap of faith is more reasonable than a content atheist who believes in something like justice or righteousness or that life has real meaning in the absence of God.

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s say that Atheist America has organised a cruise and the boat is packed with unbelievers. Think of a Lord of The Flies scenario when they become marooned on an island and believe the rest of the world has been destroyed.

Up steps the chairman of AA and gathers everyone for a meeting. He says that they have people there who have the necessary expertise to enable them to survive on the island and the ability to reach the mainland. From there, with luck, they can rebuild civilisation.

But of course, as there is no value to life, as there is no justice, as there is no meaning to continued existence it has been decided that we’ll just party on for a few days until the food runs out.

You think?

 

[IWantGod]

So says IWantGod. You do understand that there are a great many rational people who would disagree.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) IWantGod:

The point is, at least it’s possibly true. The views that Atheists hold about justice, moral truth, and human dignity, the whole humanistic enterprise, can only be a projection of their imagination. It holds no truth value. It’s just a romantic serenade for humanity.

 

[lelinator]

The views that Atheists hold about justice, moral truth, and human dignity, the whole humanistic enterprise, can only be a projection of their imagination. It holds no truth value. It’s just a romantic serenade for humanity.

Well, I am a solipsist after all, so in some sense everything may be an “illusion”.

What am I to do then?

 

[Mijoy2]

Interesting experiment. Not exactly sure I understand your final sentence? Was that a statement of your preference or was it a statement of sarcasm illustrating the foolishness of suggesting the “no meaning” argument? Seriously, I don’t know what you meant.

Anyway, I will answer from my perspective (and am willing to take my lumps ).

If I were near 100% a believer (I don’t believe anyone is 100% certain of anything - but that is my opinion) in a loving God and potential for eternal life, I’d do all I could and all that it entailed to maintain life on earth.

If I were near 100% an atheist - I’d party like it was 1999. I am certain of this cuz I was extremely agnostic borderline atheist for quite a few decades. Partying ran very high on my priority list.

I think you made a very interesting little experiment there.

 

[lelinator]

Because, if the atheist is correct, there is no true dignity or value in it, just the fantasies in our heads.

I raised this point in an earlier post, but you seem to have missed it. Knowing that you wouldn’t want to overlook the most important counterargument to your claim, I’ve decided to repeat it.

So what?

If dignity, and value, and meaning, and justice are all just fantasies in our heads…so what?

If that rock on the desk has subjective value to me and nobody else…so what?

Why should I care if something has objective value or not?

As far as I’m concerned, things have value because they have value to me, not because they have value to you, or to some God who’s opinion I don’t really care about.

So when you claim that things such as dignity and value are just fantasies in the atheists heads, so what?

 

[IWantGod]

Why should I care if something has objective value or not?

If you don’t care if something has a truth value or not then you are not a disciple of reason. People are free to live in a fantasy, just don’t tell anybody that they are in the wrong, or that they deserve dignity, or that there ought to be justice and expect to be perceived as a reasonable person, because what you are saying (as a naturalist) has no truth value.

Such things only have a truth value if there is a God. In other-words the world don’t revolve around humanistic make-belief, it doesn’t matter if you are an atheist or a theist.

 

[lelinator]

If you don’t care if something has a truth value or not then you are not a disciple of reason.

Oh I care if things have truth value or not, I just just think that you tend to push reasoning beyond what it’s capable of, into your own particular brand of fantasy.

People are free to live in a fantasy,

But first you have to prove which one of us is living in a fantasy. If there’s no such thing as objective value then you’re the one living in a fantasy. So prove that there’s objective value. Then perhaps we can decide which one of us is living in a fantasy.

just don’t tell anybody that they are in the wrong, or that they deserve dignity, or that there ought to be justice

Now you’ve conflated a couple of different arguments together. Right and wrong, as in what’s ultimately true and what’s not, aren’t subjective. Some things must ultimately be true. But as to whether that means that things deserve dignity and justice or not, that may be entirely subjective. And the fact that they’re subjective may be one of the ultimate truths.

It may simply be that whether things have value or not, is subjective. Whether things deserve justice or not, is subjective. And that’s one of the ultimate truths.

But that doesn’t mean that there are no objective truths at all. It may simply mean that you’re looking for objective truths where there are none.

 

[billsherman]

If there is no life after death then why waste your time being good?

You should posit this questions to members of religions that don’t believe in an afterlife. Several significant religions in world history have not had such a belief. One excellent contemporary example is Judaism - some Jews believe in an afterlife and some do not. It isn’t a meaningful part of the religion for most adherents.

The problem your criticism of atheism has, is that it doesn’t apply to atheism alone, but also to those who believe in one or more gods.

 

[Mijoy2]

Interesting, this may have just help answer a question I have as I go through Exodus (currently in a bible study). I was wondering why the Hebrews so quickly lost faith in God during the period immediately following the departure from Egypt.

They griped about being trapped between the Red Sea and the threatening Egyptian forces. (this was after witnessing the 10 plagues and the Passover).

They griped about lack of food. They griped about lack of water. (this was after witnessing the parting of the Red Sea).

Perhaps it was because all they had was this life and viewed it as being imminently threatened. Can’t say I blame them but if they had believed in an after-life, they may have behaved in a manner more like the Christian martyrs. Praising God while being eaten by lions or burning at the stake.

You should posit this questions to members of religions that don’t believe in an afterlife. Several significant religions in world history have not had such a belief. One excellent contemporary example is Judaism - some Jews believe in an afterlife and some do not. It isn’t a meaningful part of the religion for most adherents.

 

[IWantGod]

But that doesn’t mean that there are no objective truths at all. It may simply mean that you’re looking for objective truths where there are none.

You do this a lot, you create red herrings and straw-men out of the conversation. But the bottom line is, whether there is an ultimate truth or not (completely besides the point) an atheist cannot judge something as truly wrong, or something as having dignity or not, or that there can be justice. We are completely robbed of those things if the atheist is correct. In fact many of the things that motivate humans to better themselves or seek good or see the good in ones own existence becomes meaningless and delusional. In other-words the greatest things that humanity has ever done becomes meaningless because there is no such thing as greatness, or honour, or righteousness if metaphysical naturalism is true. They certainly don’t exist as truth values. In fact the very things, the most important things, become objectively meaningless.

Now if you believe in honour, righteousness, justice, even if you only believe that the human-race have actually achieved something objectively worthwhile, it’s clear that you cannot rationally remain a materialist or a metaphysical naturalist. If you do remain one, those things can only be fantasies. What you fail to realise is that most people treat these concepts as pertaining to something that is actually true about something, in fact we naturally do, and it is these ideas like dignity and justice, and inherent value, that has driven the human race too create a better world. Certainly if that is lost, then so too are we.

So you can shrug your shoulders and act like there isn’t a problem, but that just means the conversation is over, because your subjective preference takes precedent, not reason. Or maybe you have never truly believed in those things, which is sad.

 

[lelinator]

an atheist cannot judge something as truly wrong, or something as having dignity or not, or that there can be justice. We are completely robbed of those things if the atheist is correct.

Nonsense, the atheist can judge things however they want, and they can believe whatever they want. It doesn’t make any of it objectively true. But that’s the point, it may be that there’s no such thing as objective value, or objective dignity, or objective justice. Why? Because those things are subjective and it can’t possibly be any other way.

In fact many of the things that motivate humans to better themselves or seek good or see the good in ones own existence becomes meaningless and delusional.

Again, nonsense. A subjective value can motivate people just as much as an objective value can. Humanity is littered with people being motivated by what they simply believe to be true. And Catholicism is a prime example. It has changed history simply because people believed that it was true. Just as Islam did. Or Hinduism did.

Don’t underestimate the power of subjective truths.

In other-words the greatest things that humanity has ever done becomes meaningless because there is no such thing as greatness, or honour, or righteousness

But meaning itself is subjective. Things only have the meaning and value that I give them, and that’s all that matters. I don’t care if you value them. Or even if God values them. I do what’s honorable, and just, and right because I’ve decided what they are, and I’ve decided that they have value.

In fact the very things, the most important things, become objectively meaningless.

With this I agree, but no lack of objective meaning can rob things of the subjective meaning that I, and I alone have given them. These things you cannot take away, any more than I can take away your faith.

I don’t need your God, or your “objective truth” to give things value. They’re of value to me, even if they’re of value to no one else. And if that value exists in none but me, then that is enough. Just as your faith, if it exists in no one but you, still exists.

 

[Nicene]

Fear of death and non existence? No. If that’s the case you wouldn’t know anyway. Death is going to come in either case.

Fear of disappointing God now in this life? Yes.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[billsherman]

Perhaps it was because all they had was this life and viewed it as being imminently threatened. Can’t say I blame them but if they had believed in an after-life, they may have behaved in a manner more like the Christian martyrs. Praising God while being eaten by lions or burning at the stake.

I honestly don’t know. All I know is that I’ve been to dozens (hundreds?) of Jewish services of various kinds in different countries, from different movements, and they have never once mentioned an afterlife.

I do wish I knew more about Jewish theology, but I’m fairly certain the Torah never actually states that there is an afterlife. You could read an afterlife into it, but it is far from the explicit statements your find in the Gospels.

 

[Babaganoush]

There would be nothing to fear other than that life becomes just a tragedy in which we are born, we suffer and we die. If there is an afterlife then life is a comedy (not in the haha sense but in the sense that there is a potential happy ending).

 

[ProdglArchitect]

No life-after-death is the easiest and least frightening option. We simply cease to exist. Nothing we’ve done matters. No rewards, no consequences, nothing to be bothered over. It’s an empty existence. No matter what meaning we try to infuse it with, in the end it will all turn to dust and mean precisely nothing.

It’s easy, it’s clean, and it’s utterly and completely meaningless.

 

[poche]

The Jewish disbelief in an afterlife is based on the fact that after the sin of Adam Heaven was closed to everyone. No one who lived before the time of Christ could enter Heaven. Therefore for the Jews it makes sense that this life on Earth was the only one we could look foreward to.

 

[FiveLinden]

I do not agree with the underlying premise of ‘life after death’; that there is an ‘I’ in some way attached to this body that will one day die. ‘I’ am that body and the social relationships and experiences it has had. So for me there is no possibility of even considering ‘me’ having a life after ‘I’ am dead.

There is therefor no reason to fear death in itself except in that it will have negative consequences on those who despite my many failings love me or enjoy my company or benefit from my work. I can ‘fear’ for those things, but not for anything ‘I’ will, or won’t experience since ‘I’ will not exist as a self-aware organism.

 

[Jen7]

Would non-existence really be that scary?

I didn’t read the whole thread, but I feel that non existence is “scary” from a materialistic standpoint. If we cease after death, what lives on? Only our “legacy” on this earth. And if we aren’t proud of the legacy we are leaving behind? We can only die in despair. There is not repentance at the 11th hour like the Good Thief on the cross next to Christ. At the 11th hour we could try to scrap together some memorable and good legacy, like a repentant Scrooge… but we may not even have time for that. Even a person with a great “legacy” May feel depression if he sees that legacy being held cheaply by his children and grandchildren as his life ends. I think even folks to believe in heaven can struggle with this. We want to somehow “live on.” The less that desire is informed by faith in the possibility of a good afterlife provided by a gratuitous God, the more life can feel like a cruel joke as we near our end. If we just”cease” we will feel nothing (hence perhaps your statement “what’s there to fear?”) EXCEPT dread beforehand if we have not immortalized OURSELF in the hearts and minds of others before we go. I think the craving for some type of immortalization or at least rememberance-with-honor/respect for the next generation or two is universal.

 

[Freddy]

No life-after-death is the easiest and least frightening option. We simply cease to exist. Nothing we’ve done matters. No rewards, no consequences, nothing to be bothered over. It’s an empty existence. No matter what meaning we try to infuse it with, in the end it will all turn to dust and mean precisely nothing.

It’s easy, it’s clean, and it’s utterly and completely meaningless.

This can only be a retrospective view. It doesn’t make sense when you view each life as it’s lived. We could both go through our allotted time fighting for justice, giving value to things and experiencing meaning in life. In fact, at the end of our time it could be quite possible that some-one would not know if we were Christian or atheist. Our lives would appear to have been full of meaning and we would both agree with each other that it had been.

If, at the moment of our deaths, we were told that there either was or was not an afterlife, would that retrospectively change or even discount the meaning that we had each found during it?

If we both agree that something has value then it is monstrously ridiculous to say in retrospect that one of us was wrong.