To atheist: what will you feel AFTER death

[Ahimsa]

UnknownCloud:

I know its somewhat futile to argue over what Buddhism holds as actual (I guess I can’t call it truth), but I would like to know how Buddhism could claim ‘no soul’ or ‘no self’ when such an idea is so rigidly impressed upon us, and so intangible in its nature that no one really knows what a ‘soul’ actually is, how can such a thing be negated if it is, in essense, misunderstood to begin with? Surely, one must know what it is he is avoiding if it is to truly be avoided.

Pax

The Buddhist idea of “anatta”, or “no-self”, is actually not a doctrine or view in which one has to believe. Anatta is rather a strategy to approach everything that one experiences.

By “self”, or “atta”, the Buddha meant anything that you could grasp and cling to and call “I” or “me” or “mine”. Now, sure, we do that all the time – we say “I”, “me”, “mine”. But the Buddha’s point was that that process of clinging is the source of dukkha. So if you want to call your body your “self”, fine, go ahead – but it will lead to dukkha. If you want to call your thoughts your “self”, as Descartes did, fine, go ahead – but it will lead to dukkha. Because your body changes, your thoughts change, your feelings change, your consciousness changes. To cling to what changes is dukkha, source of dissatisfaction.

Anatta is a strategy: whatever you want to cling to (money, job, sex, spouse), “anatta” reminds you that it all changes and that it should be grasped lightly, and with a willingness to release it when the times comes.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

@CARL: Yes, fear will keep them in line.

@SPOKENWORD et al: I do not fear your god, and I do not listen to your god’s adversary. Just as you do not fear the wrath of Thor or listen to the deceptions of Loki. You can only impress people with that kind of reasoning who are part of your belief system. It does not work on outsiders.

You can say that now because all that is required is you lips,BUT you will stand before Him on judgement day and there its your soul that will be trembling,not your lips. I notice you did not remark about your God given conscience? What gives there?

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

There have been over many years many statistical studies of atheist and theist rates among prisoners. None of them are valid because they seem not to take into consideration the various variabale of definition for atheist and theist.

What I have noticed as a prison ministry volunteer is that the vast majority of prisoners in the two prisons I serve do not attend chapel services. This does not mean they are all atheists. What it does mean is that those among the vast majority who call themselves members of some organized religion are not really religious. They identify themselves as religious for various reasons: the desire to improve their chances of parole; some kind of loyalty to their parents and childhood upbringing; etc.

The prisoners who do attend chapel express to me their concern about those who do not. They (the ones who do not) seem to hold on to the values that got them into prison in the first place: namely and most of all, no fear of judgment and punishment.

True, everything I’ve said is anecdotal, rather than statistical. But I can refer you to statistical studies (inconclusive as they are) if you like. So far as I know, there is no prison ministry for atheists to minister to other atheists. I’m not trying to be sarcastic here. Why would atheists bother to minister to other atheists? Why would they bother to encourage them to fear judgment and punishment when they are always bragging to Christians that they do not fear judgment and punishment themselves?

 

[AnAtheist]

If you put it that way, I can live with it.

Perhaps we agree upon these definitons: An atheist rejects the notion of a personalised diety and higher powers (usually after careful consideration), while a non-religious person just doesn’t care or hasn’t really thought about the subject. Ok?

By that definition non-religous is not the same as atheistic.

Now to the “bragging”: I was merely stating a fact. I have the distinct feeling that many theist mix up cause and effect when they comment about the atheist’s way of thinking. It is not that we do not believe in God because we do not fear him. It’s just the other way round. We do not fear him, because he doesn’t exist.

 

[Carl]

It is not that we do not believe in God because we do not fear him. It’s just the other way round. We do not fear him, because he doesn’t exist.

How do you know God doesn’t exist?

 

[AnAtheist]

It is not that we do not believe in God because we do not fear him. It’s just the other way round. We do not fear him, because he doesn’t exist.

How do you know God doesn’t exist?

God explains nothing, yet everything can be explained without him. Beside that, an omni-anything being is impossible. But we had this discussion already… quieta non movetur

 

[ahimsaman72]

AnAtheist:

I guess he hasn’t: Here is some interesting statistic on the religion of prison inmates in England and Wales: adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html

Check out the 31.3.2000 e.g.:
0.2% Atheists
17.3% Roman Catholics

Now what?

Granted there are 0.1% Agnostics and 31.6% “no religion”, whatever that means. The report states it is most likely a calculation error, but anyway let’s assume for a minute they are all atheists… Makes 31.9% atheists and thus 68.1% criminals believing in some sort of god.

Excuse me for a minute while I laugh.

oh my…

 

[Carl]

Makes 31.9% atheists and thus 68.1% criminals believing in some sort of god.

Oh my, indeed.

Since the general population is usually given as, at most, 10% atheist, atheists are a good deal more likely to end up in prison than theists.

Wonder why?

Very little education or discipline in morals, perchance?

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist
We do not fear him, because he doesn’t exist.

Well, you opened the door … but you’re right … that doesn’t mean you have to move on through it.

 

[UnknownCloud]

The Buddhist idea of “anatta”, or “no-self”, is actually not a doctrine or view in which one has to believe. Anatta is rather a strategy to approach everything that one experiences.

With respect to you entire post Ahimsa, I see that it is a matter of words and what they mean. Theologians distinguish ‘soul’ from ‘self’ - a soul is a being and a self is the idea of what a being sees in himself, a self-image. However, we sometimes use ‘self’ and ‘soul’ interchangably.

Thanks for the response.

AnAtheist:

Because you don’t believe something doesn’t mean you suddenly remove its objective existence. Believing that you won’t fall off a cliff doesn’t suddenly mean you can jump and land safely in mid-air. I’m afraid your approach sounds just as egocentric as ‘religious’ people - your mind and your decisions don’t change facts. You cannot prove there is no God, therefore, you cannot be certain there is not one, therefore, you cannot certainly deny it. You don’t know what will happen when you arrive at irreversable loss of brain function, therefore, you cannot decide what you will or will not feel or experience after ‘death’.
I must remind you, it seems, that you should realize you don’t know everything, for if you did, you would certainly convince us that you did (but you obviously haven’t).

 

[AnAtheist]

UnknownCloud:

AnAtheist:

Because you don’t believe something doesn’t mean you suddenly remove its objective existence. Believing that you won’t fall off a cliff doesn’t suddenly mean you can jump and land safely in mid-air. I’m afraid your approach sounds just as egocentric as ‘religious’ people - your mind and your decisions don’t change facts. You cannot prove there is no God, therefore, you cannot be certain there is not one, therefore, you cannot certainly deny it. You don’t know what will happen when you arrive at irreversable loss of brain function, therefore, you cannot decide what you will or will not feel or experience after ‘death’.
I must remind you, it seems, that you should realize you don’t know everything, for if you did, you would certainly convince us that you did (but you obviously haven’t).

What you say is all true, but it works the other way as well. Just because you believe something, doesn’t mean that it exists. Believing that you can fly won’t stop your fall off the cliff. Of course my “decisions” do not change facts. What I have done is, I have observed the facts and based my decisions upon that.
Surely I do not know everything, just as everybody else on this planet. I just do not assume a god filling the gaps of my knowledge. So far science has filled all the gaps, one or more gods used to fill in the past.
I cannot rule out the possibility of supernaturual forces completely, but the probability is so incredibly low that is safe to say there are none. Just as the probability of a stone starting to fly due to thermodynamic movement is not zero, I would bet anything that some arbitrary stone will not fly - never ever. And besides, if your argument is valid, you cannot *know *that Odin and a bazillion of other deities do not exist.

 

[AnAtheist]

Makes 31.9% atheists and thus 68.1% criminals believing in some sort of god.

Oh my, indeed.

Since the general population is usually given as, at most, 10% atheist, atheists are a good deal more likely to end up in prison than theists.

Ok, let’s do more statistics (source: vexen.co.uk/religion/rib.html):

• “55% of British public do not believe in a higher being” 1. New Scientist Poll, 2002 Autumn]
• 40% do not believe in God: 12% said they were sure there was no God and another 14% said they’re unconvinced that one exists. In a similar question (on the same poll but phrased differently) 29% said that they do not believe in God, and 60% said they did 9. Moril poll, 2003 Aug]

There are roughly 2 Million Roman Catholics in the UK, that is not even 5% of the total population, compared to 17% in prison.
Let’s compare (I tend to trust the Meril poll stated above, as the New Scientist poll is not that close to reality I guess, as the atheist ratio is higher among scientists):

• no belief in God ~ 30% – in prison ~ 30%
• die hard atheists (sure, there is no God) ~ 12% – in prison 0.2%
• Roman Catholics ~5% – in prison ~17%

Oh my, indeed.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Makes 31.9% atheists and thus 68.1% criminals believing in some sort of god.

Oh my, indeed.

Since the general population is usually given as, at most, 10% atheist, atheists are a good deal more likely to end up in prison than theists.

Wonder why?

Very little education or discipline in morals, perchance?

Again, you are making assertions and assume things that may not be so. The athiests and agnostics I have spoken with personally about morals and ethics definitely have a moral code and conscience. They are generally very intelligent, articulate and firm in moral standards.

I have found them to be just as compassionate and open-minded as those who are supposedly Christian. You should keep wondering and seek the real truth instead of going on assumptions. We should destroy some of our notions and beliefs especially when they are not based on truth.

Peace…

 

[Carl]

*I have found them to be just as compassionate and open-minded as those who are supposedly Christian. *

Ahem.

No doubt that would be the case with some of them. The some of them that I have observed to be in this category, I think upon further investigation, will be found to be people whose parents and/or grandparents were religious and inculcated their children with a moral code and a strong sense of justice and mercy.

Bertrand Russell, for example, might fall in this category. His upbringing was in a strict religious household, and he had a powerful moral sense throughout his life even though he fell intellectually into atheism. The same would be true for Clarence Darrow, whose father in his youth was deeply religious and doubtless passed on his powerful sympathies for the underdog to his famous atheist son.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

no belief in God ~ 30% – in prison ~ 30%
die hard atheists (sure, there is no God) ~ 12% – in prison 0.2%
Roman Catholics ~5% – in prison ~17%

All you have demonstrated is that these statistical studies in America and England cancel each other out and prove nothing.

Now go into a prison and work with prisoners. Go to chapel and see how many of the total prison population show up (relatively few). See for yourself, instead of relying on skewered statistics, the correlation between lack of devotion to a Higher Power and crime.

While you’re at it, go to an AA meeting and find the correlation between those who are present and those who acknowledge a Higher Power.

“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Disraeli

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

Another instance of skewered statistics:

According to this web site account, England has 8.45% Catholics, not the 5% you indicated. So how many other errors are there in your study?

catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc2.html

Carl

 

[ahimsaman72]

Carl:

AnAtheist

no belief in God ~ 30% – in prison ~ 30%
die hard atheists (sure, there is no God) ~ 12% – in prison 0.2%
Roman Catholics ~5% – in prison ~17%

All you have demonstrated is that these statistical studies in America and England cancel each other out and prove nothing.

Now go into a prison and work with prisoners. Go to chapel and see how many of the total prison population show up (relatively few). See for yourself, instead of relying on skewered statistics, the correlation between lack of devotion to a Higher Power and crime.

While you’re at it, go to an AA meeting and find the correlation between those who are present and those who acknowledge a Higher Power.

“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Disraeli

This wasn’t directed at me, but I will say that I’ve been to AA and NA meetings myself. One of the steps deals with a “higher power”. It’s a concept in the program itself. All involved in the program have to deal with the “higher power”.

I’ve been there done that. I"ve seen moral people raised Christian, moral people raised agnostic and atheist sitting beside me in such meetings. I know - I was incarcerated at a young age at a rehab center for some time. I got to know those people. They all had hopes and dreams just like me. They came from homes that were warm and fuzzy like mine and from broken homes.

And I’ve also been to prison and held services there. The inmates who came were a mixed bag of folks. Some found religion inside - others had religion when they committed their crimes. One guy who led our singing lead singing at his church and at the same time was molesting children.

Now, I see you have changed to “devotion to a higher power” instead of acknowledgement of a higher power.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

*I have found them to be just as compassionate and open-minded as those who are supposedly Christian. *

Ahem.

No doubt that would be the case with some of them. The some of them that I have observed to be in this category, I think upon further investigation, will be found to be people whose parents and/or grandparents were religious and inculcated their children with a moral code and a strong sense of justice and mercy.

Bertrand Russell, for example, might fall in this category. His upbringing was in a strict religious household, and he had a powerful moral sense throughout his life even though he fell intellectually into atheism. The same would be true for Clarence Darrow, whose father in his youth was deeply religious and doubtless passed on his powerful sympathies for the underdog to his famous atheist son.

So, then you would admit they have some morals. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Some certainly have none. But then, some of the Christians I have dealt with in my life have been worse infidels than any atheist I’ve come across.

Peace…

 

[Carl]

Now, I see you have changed to “devotion to a higher power” instead of acknowledgement of a higher power.

Yes, there is most certainly a difference. People who acknowledge a higher power do so with their heads. People who devote themselves to a higher power do so with their hearts.

I’ll take the heart over the head every time.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

AnAtheist

Another instance of skewered statistics:

According to this web site account, England has 8.45% Catholics, not the 5% you indicated. So how many other errors are there in your study?

catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc2.html

Carl

It is not my study. I just found it on the Internet. 8.45% - fine with me.
ahimsaman72 is quite right.
You make an assertion from personal experience, which is even less valid than a skrewed up statistic. Wait, that is a skrewed up statistic, the data base is too thin.

And the worst thing one can do is to use statistics and apply it to a special case. Assuming an atheist is automatically a bad person is as rubbish as regarding a catholic a bad person without knowing him. Real bad examples can be found everywhere.
Out of my head I can remember two atheist and two catholic mass-murderers. Does that teach me anything about the guy next door? No.