A Dire Metaphysical Warning to all Atheists!

Originally posted by Observor

Originally posted by curious7
Isn't Ricky Gervais writing a comedy based on an atheist who dies and goes to Heaven and realises he was wrong?

Anyway, I don't think atheist would be too devastated if it were indeed true because it would be a welcome revelation I'd imagine. All the worries about dying and just being in the ground eased in a moment.

But what if the atheist ends up in hell?

Would it still be a welcome revelation?

Well, I'd say not but then why is it that an atheist should be made to go to Hell just for believing a certain thing that doesn't agree with religious text?

That's the one thing that gets me about religion and you had another response to this post that is exactly what I'm talking about. That kind of "you have plenty of time to right wrongs and follow Jesus" stuff seems just as wrong and immoral as the idea that atheists should go to Hell for preferring to base their thinking and reasoning on facts and figures.

It's just so confusing, do you follow a religion, look like a crazy by saying things like that and then end up disappointed that what you thought was right is way off the mark or do you live the way you feel you should without going overboard with the bad and negativity that life brings and be surprised that you're met by a loving entity on the other side of death in paradise?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Observor

 

The problem with hell...

There is no problem with hell, not to most who believe in it. Most of those who believe in it also believe they are not going to it, only the others are. So there is absolutely no problem with it

You may have big problem with being in the hell of someone else's reality, but there is absolutely no way you are going to avoid it, since it is these other guys creating that reality that decide whether you go to it or not, not you

As you can see, if each conscious entity is going to create its own post-mortem reality, you should be worried sick about those who create one in which you go to hell for eternity. Atheists are the least of your problems, they only make your death exactly that

reply to post by Observor


You misunderstood my post. It's like I've been speaking in a vacuum.

Edit: That said, based on the argument I've been trying to put forward, those who, still in their own ignorance, would seek to cast others into hell, or assure them that that's their destination for holding the "wrong" beliefs, are sure to burn for it, at least for a while, and those often are the NDE reports of prior Christian fundamentalists and fanatics, although I'm not sure it's wise to take any comfort in that..

P.S. If I haven't said this to you already, may you too "rest in peace"..

Originally posted by curious7

Originally posted by Observor
But what if the atheist ends up in hell?

Would it still be a welcome revelation?

Well, I'd say not but then why is it that an atheist should be made to go to Hell just for believing a certain thing that doesn't agree with religious text?

That's the one thing that gets me about religion and you had another response to this post that is exactly what I'm talking about. That kind of "you have plenty of time to right wrongs and follow Jesus" stuff seems just as wrong and immoral as the idea that atheists should go to Hell for preferring to base their thinking and reasoning on facts and figures.

Perhaps it is "immoral" per you that anyone should be banished to a hell for eternity simply for his belief or lack there of.

But if you are thrilled about the possibility of a "moral" God granting you a place in heaven for eternity even though you didn't acknowledge He existed, wouldn't you be equally worried about an "immoral", according to you, God who would banish you to hell for eternity precisely because you refused to acknowledge His existence?

I mean since you don't even know this guy exists, how do you know he will be "moral", according to you, and not the exact opposite?

It's just so confusing, do you follow a religion, look like a crazy by saying things like that and then end up disappointed that what you thought was right is way off the mark or do you live the way you feel you should without going overboard with the bad and negativity that life brings and be surprised that you're met by a loving entity on the other side of death in paradise?

My personal beliefs or the lack of are completely irrelevant to the discussion, since I am not attempting to convince anyone of them nor am I basing the discussion on them.

But to answer you question as directly as possible, even if I am wrong about everything I know about the realm of the spirit and the only God that exists is an "immoral" one, as per me, and He would banish me to hell for an eternity for not acknowledging His existence or breaking some other commandment deemed important to that fellow but not me, I would have no problem going to that hell for an eternity rather than choose to acknowledge and believe what I know not exists and act in a way contrary to what I know to be moral.

ETA: I have met a lot of guys who assured me that I will go to their hell. I don't find those guys troubling in the least for such belief, I find them a great source of entertainment. The guys that scare me are those that believe they are required by their faith to "save lost souls" like me.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Observor

 

You misunderstood my post. It's like I've been speaking in a vacuum.

Edit: That said, based on the argument I've been trying to put forward, those who, still in their own ignorance, would seek to cast others into hell, or assure them that that's their destination for holding the "wrong" beliefs, are sure to burn for it, at least for a while, and those often are the NDE reports of prior Christian fundamentalists and fanatics, although I'm not sure it's wise to take any comfort in that..

That is kind of funny and in exact contradiction to your stand so far. How could those who believe others would go to a hell (and they would not) end up in it, while atheists who believe death is the end of everything end up being dead for eternity? Why would atheists beliefs result in their realisation but not that of others?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Pascal's Wager Vs Atheist's Wager

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ as implied by the greater context of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. The Wager was set out in note 233 of this work.

Atheist's Wager

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Such faith-based propositions or "warning" (as the OP as stated) only higlights the hucksterish nature of the fanatical mind-set.

If there really is such a cosmological benevolent "judge". The entity would surely merit you for your honesty within yourself, of what you truly believe. Not because you were frightened into submission.

Faith should be despised if it is approached with such dishonesty.

reply to post by NeverForget

The Atheists' Wager misses one scenario, a malevolent God who exists and gets terribly upset with people who don't acknowledge His existence or who don't describe Him as benevolent and for failing to acknowledge His existence and describe Him as benevolent throws people in eternal hell fire

reply to post by Observor


haha indeed Although, it does include "IF a benevolent God exists.."

Maybe Christians are correct with their dogma; God truly is malevolent.

Blaise Pascal's wager misses one scenario too, that only Atheists get to go to the afterlife

okay heres one for you religous folk.

At what age is a human a human? (im not going to talk about abortion)

at the instant of conception.

at the brain foruming at whatever weeks.

at birth.

when does it develop a soul.

at what piont in its life is a young human subject to religon and god and therefore his afterlife destination?

I dont actually expect a responce to this.

reply to post by Observor


My description of hell never mentioned eternity. Please if you could go back and read my posts, you're still assuming things, and this could very well be a vital issue.

reply to post by NeverForget



Regarding the "Wagers" please read this post

post by NewAgeMan

within the context of the rest of my argument.

You are still assuming and misunderstanding, and please, everyone stop referring to any of this as "religious". Again, you're just assuming and then arguing from a totally different frame of reference which adds up to nothing more than a contemptuous bias, clouding any possibility for consideration of new ideas with an open mind.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'm not assuming anything.

You offered a metaphysical "warning" to Atheists.

I'm responding, wager or not, your tactics are that of scaremongering. Define God if you wish to criticise people's belief systems, and offer a warning in light of them.

reply to post by Biigs

We are never subject to religion which a belief about, but only to truth and reality as it really and truly is.

Regarding the soul, some say it occurs on or around the 49th day during the formation of the pineal gland, who knows?

There is also the view that.one's eternal soul identity must and can only come through a spiritual rebirth from above, removing a person's eternal self from the limitations of material existence ie: what's born of flesh is flesh, but of spirit, spirit. From this perspective, the spiritually alive to God must at some point realize a transformation ie: new wine must go into new wineskins.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


well i ask you how is a uneducated man any different from a 49 day after conception fetus?

They no not, they shall be judged not?

Sounds reasonable to me, and that opens the door just enough to slide in agnostic and atheists, they're soul is not satisfied, though either lack of knowladge or lack of experience.

reply to post by NeverForget


Did I not offer the scientific interpretation already in this thread? God is the fully informed Absolute as the first/last cause of everything there ever was is or will be.

The "warning" is based on quantum reality and is therefore ever-present and thus "dire" but I offer that not sternly, but playfully and with laughter.

This thread is about possibility, and about belief as a potential constraint to possibility.

Yes, you have assumed, and no it would appear that you are not willing to consider any new possibilities which run contrary to what you presume to already know with certainty.

There is a new, third wager being put forward here. I will reflect on it for a while and work to form it into a statement.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Wagers (including the Atheist's wager) shouldn't need to be proposed.. Believe what you will. Whether rational or not rational.

But certainly define your "God"; you say "scientific" interpretation, but I see NOTHING scientific about the OP. And certainly a scientific attempt to define reality could include many possibilities, perhaps a conscious deity being one of them.

With all of these possibilities, a warning to atheists should surely be considered big-headed, as if your explanation of reality is truly the correct one......it's just ONE theory, and some theories regarding reality are more rational than others.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Observor

 

My description of hell never mentioned eternity. Please if you could go back and read my posts, you're still assuming things, and this could very well be a vital issue.

I wasn't referring to your description of hell either. Why would your description of hell more important than someone else's? After all, it is only a matter of conscious entity projecting it, in order for it to become real, right? Isn't that what you think QM states and based your "dire warning" on?

Not sure why anyone should go on rereading your posts merely because you keep claiming they have "misunderstood" you. If you do have something to say that stands the test of logic and reason, as expected by atheists, it shouldn't be so diificult to state it in such a manner.

Let me demonstrate how a logical argument looks like.

1. QM (or whatever your imagined scientific theory) states that all of reality is a projection of consciousness.
2. Atheists project an ending of the individual consciousness after death.
3. Atheists are conscious entities.
4. So from 1,2 and 3 it logically follows that atheists will cease to exist at their death precisely because that is what they project and if they had indeed considered and projected a possibility where their consciousness did not end with the death of the physical body, that would be the reality.

That is you position as per OP. However in order to prove how stupid such an argument is I extended it further.

5. In order for 4 to be true, we must make an additional assumption that each individual consciousness is capable of creating a post-mortem reality in its entirety.
6. Since all conscious beings do not project the same post-mortem reality, and the projected reality includes the one doing the projection as well as others, there must be at least as many post-mortem realities as there are distinct possibilities accomodating all the projections.
7. So each individual, atheist or not, will simultaneously fulfil all the post-mortem realities as projected be self as well as others.
8. One such post-mortem reality is where all "non-believers" go to hell for eternity just for being "non-believers". It may not be your post-mortem reality, but is undoubtedly that of some conscious entities on the planet.

Yeah, definitely looks like garbage, but is logically inevitable from your starting point, showing that your cleverly thought staring position is garbage.

You could accept that or you could keep claiming that others have "misunderstood" your position.

By the way, being vague and imprecise may impress you fellow new-agers into thinking you are some "realised soul communicating with lesser beings", but not any atheists who you addressed this thread specifically to. When addressing rational beings, being precise and clear is what considered an argument.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NeverForget

 

Did I not offer the scientific interpretation already in this thread? God is the fully informed Absolute as the first/last cause of everything there ever was is or will be.

The "warning" is based on quantum reality and is therefore ever-present and thus "dire" but I offer that not sternly, but playfully and with laughter.

This thread is about possibility, and about belief as a potential constraint to possibility.

Yes, you have assumed, and no it would appear that you are not willing to consider any new possibilities which run contrary to what you presume to already know with certainty.

There is a new, third wager being put forward here. I will reflect on it for a while and work to form it into a statement.

It is highly irritating to see people quote QM without having an inkling as to what QM states.

QM does not state/imply that consciousness is primary. Nor does it state/imply that anything becomes a reality merely because a consciousness treats it as a possibility.

QM specifically limits the role of consciousness, while admittedly granting it a role. Prior to QM there were no limits placed in physics on what is knowable. QM, specifically Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which forms the cornerstone of QM, places limits on what is knowable. So, far from giving any exalted status to consciousness, QM limits the capability of consciousness in understanding reality. If reality were, however, to be described as what is knowable by any sort of consciousness, it can then be described as a projection by a consciousness of one of the many possible states. The possible states themselves are not projections or creations of the consciousness.

So your theory that atheists are limiting possibilities by their beliefs is trash, if you intend to use QM to support it.

reply to post by Observor


Not once did I ever suggest that another person's projection can apply to you or your own, that was your assumption. All I was alluding to was the notion that under certain circumstances, when faced with reality as it is, that our ignorance, or I should say willful ignorance, could form a self reinforcing and sustaining delusion capable of placing us at odds or at enmity with the truth and the reality as it is, and therefore as it remains. Such projections about hell for unbelievers is just that type of projection, which is why I would imagine that a lot of hell-focused people (whether for self or others) report hellish NDE experiences..

No one has the power to place another person in hell, we alone have that power according to our freedom to choose, and to be willing, and open-minded enough, to be shown the truth where we are/were in error, and on the basis that there is nothing hidden which will not be brought to light. A lie cannot sustain itself indefinitely, the truth finds it out.

I regret that the topic of hell ever came up in this thread.

The point about such a condition never being eternal is based on the idea that it's not real, not true, and is framed in and by strong delusion, where to be in hell, would be to be separated from the light of life, and from our true source, who is God AND our true self as God.

reply to post by Observor


Matter, or brain-mind as an epiphenomenon of matter, cannot actualize a possibility.