Afterlife: Weakness or Strength?

[Prince_James]

I have often come upon the belief that to believe in an afterlife is to believe in weakness. That in order to escape the fear of death, one props up an imagined afterlife. Yet tonight I have finally asked a question that I ought to have asked from the beginning:

Is this so?

For what is strength but the desire for more life? And what is weakness but the desire for annihilation? One cannot be strong if one says "I do not want life!" for it is the fundamental foundation of weakness to cry out for reprieve from this stunningly wonderful (and terrible, also!) life in which we live. So to imagine - or to actually have - an afterlife which retains an individual ego either in a heaven or in reincarnation, would seem to be more desirous-of-life and thus, far more stronger than the alternative. That is to say, strong people would want this to be so. That it might not be so isn't changed one bit, but at the very least, if one is strong, it would seem one would want an afterlife.

 

[Plunkies]

What? We all want to live forever. Embracing a delusion for fear of the inevitable is the weakness. Believing something doesn't make it true.

 

[Prince_James]

Plunkies:

I addressed that in the last sentence.

I also never put forth that we should embrace any delusions whatsoever, only that it seems not to be weakness, but -strength- to desire an afterlife.

 

[KennyJC]

People just don't give eternal life enough thought. Forever is a long time... That sounds like hell. Even if there was a continuous supply of virgins, it'd get boring and there'd be no way out.

 

[Prince_James]

KennyJC:

Would not this then be weakness on your part? Not strong enough to live up to an eternity as yourself?

 

[KennyJC]

First and foremost, it can not be a weakness if you fear something that doesn't exist. It's blindingly obvious this is our one and only life and it will last several decades.

But as for the idea, call it weak if you want... I think even the brave would find an eternal life to be torture. If it's a case of being a sentient being, eternity can't possibly be a natural environment.

 

[c7ityi_]

if i hadn't always existed, i wouldn't exist now either.

We all want to live forever.

not people who believe in eastern religions like buddhism and hinduism. their wish is exactly the opposite: to die and become non-existent, because they believe in eternal reincarnation.

you know... you can't fear death if you believe it is NONEXISTENCE!!! fear does not exist in non-existence, it's impossible to fear something like that!!!!! it would like an eternal liberation!!!

Believing something doesn't make it true.

sometimes it can make it true, especially if your beliefs are wrong/outdated.

But as for the idea, call it weak if you want... I think even the brave would find an eternal life to be torture. If it's a case of being a sentient being, eternity can't possibly be a natural environment.

it's not so bad because we don't remember our past lives. you don't remember your past life now. you may have lived a million lives before this, yet this "eternity" doesn't seem to bother you, and you keep believing there is an end.

but now you understand why i say such crazy things sometimes. it's because i have always existed and become really annoyed by this. consciousness will always exist.

 

[Prince_James]

KennyJC:

"First and foremost, it can not be a weakness if you fear something that doesn't exist. It's blindingly obvious this is our one and only life and it will last several decades."

If you fear the idea of something which does not exist, it is still a fear, and still a weakness.

Moreover, it is not "blindingly obvious", simply "the afterlife is unsubstantiated by empirical fact".

"But as for the idea, call it weak if you want... I think even the brave would find an eternal life to be torture. If it's a case of being a sentient being, eternity can't possibly be a natural environment. "

Reincarnational processes could mitigate the ennui that would be suffered by a personality persisting without alteration to memory throughout the aeons. Similarly, what is worse? Being oneself or not existing?

 

[lightgigantic]

People just don't give eternal life enough thought. Forever is a long time... That sounds like hell. Even if there was a continuous supply of virgins, it'd get boring and there'd be no way out.

Therefore you see that there are certain qualifications to enter such realms - and desiring a truckload of virgins tends to get you relocated to a more "suitable" sphere - in otherwords the prospect of an eternal existence is more palatable when you are properly socialised around the principles it operates out of

For instance if you don't like god, or the very notion of a supreme controller makes you nauseous, then obviously there is no point you going to an eternal realm that operates out of such principles - the alternative - birth and death in a temporal world - seems to be more suited to what one is socialised around

PS - as for the truck load of virgins ..."Some of th e people all of the time but never all of the people all of the time" -lol

 

[lightgigantic]

The Buddhist concept is of "rebirth" rather than "reincarnation".

Do you understand the difference?

--- Ron.

If Cty does I don't

 

[KennyJC]

Therefore you see that there are certain qualifications to enter such realms - and desiring a truckload of virgins tends to get you relocated to a more "suitable" sphere - in otherwords the prospect of an eternal existence is more palatable when you are properly socialised around the principles it operates out of

Here is your 'qualified' fallacy again. Nobody is qualified in concepts that effecively do not exist. You are no more 'qualified' for eternal life than me, LG.

For instance if you don't like god, or the very notion of a supreme controller makes you nauseous, then obviously there is no point you going to an eternal realm that operates out of such principles - the alternative - birth and death in a temporal world - seems to be more suited to what one is socialised around

In other words if you "don't like God" (which I think you'd be more accurate in saying "don't believe in God"), then you don't get an eternal afterlife? This far-fetched assumption depends on 3 things; Existence of God, who awards people with an afterlife, but only gives this award out to those who believe in his existence. You can not even prove one of those concepts, let alone all three of them working together.

If you fear the idea of something which does not exist, it is still a fear, and still a weakness.

You can only fear it if it exists, or if you believe it exists. I don't fear the bogey man except of course when I was a child and believed it existed.

Moreover, it is not "blindingly obvious", simply "the afterlife is unsubstantiated by empirical fact".

It is blindingly obvious. Once my brain melts back into the universal ecosystem, nothing resembling me will live on.

Reincarnational processes could mitigate the ennui that would be suffered by a personality persisting without alteration to memory throughout the aeons. Similarly, what is worse? Being oneself or not existing?

Reincarnation is irrelevant. If I don't remember past lives or will become aware of future lives, then that is a different life altogether belonging to someone else.

 

[baumgarten]

You can only fear it if it exists, or if you believe it exists. I don't fear the bogey man except of course when I was a child and believed it existed.

What about fear of the unknown?

 

[KennyJC]

If I am going to fear the unknown, then I will fear what is likely to happen in an everyday basis. Like what happens if this plane I'm on crashes? It's highly unlikely, but it happens. Fear of what comes after death doesn't even register for me.

 

[lightgigantic]

perplexity

so the process beyond death is a result of conditions created by the mind before death: The craving for life causes conditions conducive to further rebirth, by virtue of the mental preconception, or the lack of it, personality being a lack of truth rather a completeness of it.

similar concept in the vedas - the person takes a birth by the vehicle of the subtle body (ie mind) - whatever one is thinking at the time of death determines one's next destination

What would determine the continuity between one life and the next in buddhism since if the mind is inextricabley connected to the body, and the body perishes (thus the mind goes with it). How would you explain the phenomena of a person recalling previous lives since they would have no "hardware" for continuity??

It is also important to note that Buddhism supposes further possibilities apart from the possibility of rebirth in terms of what one might otherwise call reincarnation, and this is all eventually amenable to scientific appreciation, except for the shortage of the scope of our present purview, with nothing "supernatural" about it in principle.

such as?

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Therefore you see that there are certain qualifications to enter such realms - and desiring a truckload of virgins tends to get you relocated to a more "suitable" sphere - in otherwords the prospect of an eternal existence is more palatable when you are properly socialised around the principles it operates out of ”



Here is your 'qualified' fallacy again. Nobody is qualified in concepts that effecively do not exist. You are no more 'qualified' for eternal life than me, LG.

can't say it better than ron

Qualified to judge that a concept does not exist but not qualified to judge that it does exist?

That is not fair.

“ For instance if you don't like god, or the very notion of a supreme controller makes you nauseous, then obviously there is no point you going to an eternal realm that operates out of such principles - the alternative - birth and death in a temporal world - seems to be more suited to what one is socialised around ”



In other words if you "don't like God" (which I think you'd be more accurate in saying "don't believe in God"), then you don't get an eternal afterlife?

no - you get eternal life in the ephemeral sphere of birth and death amongst temporal material heavens and hells - and whats more you will like it because thats the principles you are socialised around (namely sensual enjoyment through a lump of dead matter - ie the material body)

This far-fetched assumption depends on 3 things; Existence of God, who awards people with an afterlife, but only gives this award out to those who believe in his existence. You can not even prove one of those concepts, let alone all three of them working together.

And you operate out of similar assumptions
1- I am qualified to determine whether god exists or not
2 - I am qualified to determine what god can and cannot do
3 - I am qualified to determine what is permissable for god to do within his power

 

[KennyJC]

Kenny

can't say it better than ron

Qualified to judge that a concept does not exist but not qualified to judge that it does exist?

That is not fair.

Perception shows that it effectively does not exist. I stand an infinitely higher chance of being correct in assuming it's non-existence. Same as I am probably right in saying that the tooth fairy does not exist.

And you operate out of similar assumptions
1- I am qualified to determine whether god exists or not
2 - I am qualified to determine what god can and cannot do
3 - I am qualified to determine what is permissable for god to do within his power

It doesn't work that way. You are making claims despite zero evidence of it's existence. I am merely pointing out that your claims are invalid because the things you are talking about effectively do not exist.

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic


can't say it better than ron

Qualified to judge that a concept does not exist but not qualified to judge that it does exist?

That is not fair. ”



Perception shows that it effectively does not exist.

Your perception does - which raises the question of the quality of your perception

I stand an infinitely higher chance of being correct in assuming it's non-existence.

why? simply because you cannot see it - hardly surprising
Just like it is hardly surprising why a high school drop out cannot see an electron

Same as I am probably right in saying that the tooth fairy does not exist.

What you are conveniently avoiding is that scores of intelligent philosophers and scientists have attested to the existence of god while absolutely none have attested any validity to the claims of the tooth fairy

Or are you going to try and present a new angle on this hackneyed straw man by bringing up th e loch ness monster, th invisible leprechaun, th epink unicorn or the FSM?

“ And you operate out of similar assumptions
1- I am qualified to determine whether god exists or not
2 - I am qualified to determine what god can and cannot do
3 - I am qualified to determine what is permissable for god to do within his power ”



It doesn't work that way. You are making claims despite zero evidence of it's existence.

And you are making claims of its non-existence
at least I address the question of qualification - you seem to think that it is sufficient to determine whether something is real by taking a vote (BTW - which even if you did in the world it would still turn up that more people believe in god than those that don't)

I am merely pointing out that your claims are invalid because the things you are talking about effectively do not exist.

A highschool drop out could say the same thing about an electron

 

[KennyJC]

Your perception does - which raises the question of the quality of your perception

Even your perception. If this thing exists that you believe in, you in no way can observe it. It remains an in-built fantasy.

why? simply because you cannot see it - hardly surprising
Just like it is hardly surprising why a high school drop out cannot see an electron

Electrons can be observed, otherwise they would not be verified by scientific enquiry.

What you are conveniently avoiding is that scores of intelligent philosophers and scientists have attested to the existence of god while absolutely none have attested any validity to the claims of the tooth fairy

Well because of course, the existence of the tooth fairy becomes an unpopular belief when we find out our parents put the money under our pillow. There remains no way to verify the non-existence of God which allows billions to continue the fantasy... yes, just as in Astrology.

And you are making claims of its non-existence
at least I address the question of qualification - you seem to think that it is sufficient to determine whether something is real by taking a vote (BTW - which even if you did in the world it would still turn up that more people believe in god than those that don't)

Think up something in your head, something you know doesn't exist, such as a human baby with the body of a spider. You would feel safe in assuming it didn't exist except in your imagination, wouldn't you? This is the same way I feel when people postulate things which can not be verified physically.

A highschool drop out could say the same thing about an electron

An electron can be verified physically. The best minds on Earth have never found such basis for the divine.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Your perception does - which raises the question of the quality of your perception ”



Even your perception. If this thing exists that you believe in, you in no way can observe it. It remains an in-built fantasy.

How do you know that no one can know more than you?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

“ why? simply because you cannot see it - hardly surprising
Just like it is hardly surprising why a high school drop out cannot see an electron ”



Electrons can be observed, otherwise they would not be verified by scientific enquiry.

What makes you think god hasn't been observed?

“ What you are conveniently avoiding is that scores of intelligent philosophers and scientists have attested to the existence of god while absolutely none have attested any validity to the claims of the tooth fairy ”



Well because of course, the existence of the tooth fairy becomes an unpopular belief when we find out our parents put the money under our pillow. There remains no way to verify the non-existence of God which allows billions to continue the fantasy... yes, just as in Astrology.

For your analogy to be tight you would have to establish what is the equivalent of the parents putting money under the pillow - in other words you have to isolate exactly what all these philsopophers are perceiving when they come up with their apparently fantastic claims of god

“ And you are making claims of its non-existence
at least I address the question of qualification - you seem to think that it is sufficient to determine whether something is real by taking a vote (BTW - which even if you did in the world it would still turn up that more people believe in god than those that don't) ”



Think up something in your head, something you know doesn't exist, such as a human baby with the body of a spider. You would feel safe in assuming it didn't exist except in your imagination, wouldn't you? This is the same way I feel when people postulate things which can not be verified physically.

This raises the epistemological question "Verified by who?"

“ A highschool drop out could say the same thing about an electron ”



An electron can be verified physically. The best minds on Earth have never found such basis for the divine.

On the contrary scriptures and the historical precedent of associated writings are full of such findings

 

[baumgarten]

This raises the epistemological question "Verified by who?"

That isn't an epistemological question.