A Dire Metaphysical Warning to all Atheists!

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


It's a differentiation, designed to help provoke gnosis, like a Zen koan.

If you ask me again I'll have to hit you with a stick or do or say something completely unexpected, to push you from your pre-programmed, traditional stance.

Why tell me not take the unlimited more seriously than the limited, the inexhaustible than the perishable?!!! (Spoken rapid fire like the stern kung foo master).

Doesn't matter what you believe. What happens to you when you die is the same for all - whatever that may be.

Believing in a theistic God or some kind of entity or energy or aliens or whatever, does not govern what happens when we die.

If believing in something helps you live, knock yourself out. Believing in something won't help you die.

I have no idea what happens next, I don't believe in some all seeing man in the clouds, but I think it doesn't end when we die. If there is some kind of judgement or karma being an atheist is not something that will affect how I am judged. I would be judged by my actions whilst I was allive, not judged by my beliefs.

An atheist that loved and supported his family, helped in his community and was kind will do better than any Christian that left his kids without a father because they were inconvenient, hoarded money and never lifted a finger to help. Going to church on Sunday, believing in some god and saying 10 hail mary's every night will not get anyone a pass if we are indeed judged when we die.

So I give a Dire Metaphysical Warning to all Christians, Jews and Muslims - What you believe is actually meaningless. It is how you treat yourself, your family and your community that means everything. If you treat everyone well and believe in your god, then that's just awesome. Human beings first, supernatural entities second.

Peace.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Sorry.. a bit confused here...

are you saying that Atheists who are comfortable and at peace with the idea that there is no god or afterlife should be careful because by believing that, there will not be an afterlife for them?

Where is the warning here?

Although I am not an atheist, that had me really rolling in laughter.

reply to post by Logman


That's not really what this thread is for, sorry again for the hysterical title of the thread.

The purpose of the thread is to plead a case for honest consideration of alternative viewpoints, open-mindedness and mutual sharing, maybe even some authentic humor at the recognition of possible blind spots or areas of extreme prejudice or contemptuous bias prior to inquiry and investigation, an opportunity, to look again from new angles, maybe even gain new insights if such a thing were possible..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Imagine this..

What if the source of all life is, as quantum physics would suggest, a realm or domain of limitless possibility, yet a person, in their mind and nervous system and in their heart of hearts is prepared to go to any lengths to deny the possibility of either God or of life after life, and are utterly convinced, to the very core of their being that such a thing simply is not and cannot be possible, and that person dies, beleiving that it's "lights out, worm food, yadayadayada" probably in a state of panic and fear if the least bit conscious when it happens..
If God and life after life were then presented as a possibility, freely, but as something representing a loving, free gift (eternal life or life after life) requiring by neccessity, the freedom to choose (or there's no love in it) since there is and must always be choice (also at the heart of quantum physics) - would they choose oblivion, rather than be open to the possibility of God and of life meeting life in eternity? Might they or some of them argue AGAINST the presenter of this gift, and rather ague for their own non-existence, than to accept the possibility of God?
If the Tibbetans are correct, that our state of mind at the point of death matters, then such conditioning (against infinite possibility) represents the very worst possible thing a person can engage in in this life.
Thus, the (hardened) atheist is playing a very high stakes game, very possibily with his own eternal soul, but I don't mean this in the usual "fire and brimestone" sense of the Christian fundamentalists (which removes the free choice of love ie: "believe or be damned"), and yet strangely, it's something that amounts of the same thing (eternal separation from the Godhead via non-existence or non-participation) yet by choice.
I think it's a terrible thing to convince one's self of, the materialist-monist (matter alone is primary) viewpoint, to the exclusion of the possibilty of God at all cost, even if it means the ending of one's own true self, just to "prove a point"...
May they too "get" the cosmic joke prior to the point, of no-return!

as long as your god is a possibility, well, fine by me. I'll go for the idea that while it might be possible, it's totally not plausible and lacks every aspect of what comes close to prove.

the trouble is that this possibility has been abused over and over again to impose whatever on other people.
In such a case, that unproven possibility turns into a nasty game of power play. So, wanna dance for your imaginary friend? Fine, go for it. Have a good time. Just don't impose that # on others. Believers had the last 2000 years... what did they do that benefitted the human species? That's right? Nothing.

reply to post by Observor

I agree, it's hilarious, but it's funnier even than it ought to be, why is that..?

That's the humor of understanding, and it's an undercurrent running through this entire thread.

That you can't quite put your finger on it makes it all the more amuzing, imho.

And please, save the wizecracks. There's no need to ruin a good laugh just to be smug and say the same damn thing again for the millionth time, we've already heard it all.

Why not try a rebuttal of the argument being made without the loss of humor, I'd like too see that.

It would be fun to revisit this thread in a few days and discover something both humorous, creative and novel, God knows there's plenty of material to work with, or will it be just a bunch of heartless, mindless, pre-programmed responses, based largely on nothing more than assumptions about the other guy's viewpoint..

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


Religion eh?

Oh I give up. It's time for bed anyway, and some of that dreamless sleep. Until next time..

"And now I lay me down to sleep...

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Also, as an aside, some people actually do have pre-birth memories.

How do you know that memory can't be transferred through dna? In other words, how do you know that these people are remembering things that happened to their ancestors since they share the same dna? Do we know everything about dna and how it works?

Memories cannot be genetically transferred. This has been experimentally demonstrated even before Gregor Mendel's works on genetics became popular

Jean Lamarck's "Theory of Use and Disuse" as an explanation for organic evolution involved precisely that, learned useful traits being transferred to the next generation through heredity and evolution happening by accumulation of such useful traits. It was abandoned after repeated experiments on mice through 20 generations failed to produce any evidence favouring it. Of course, it was all before Charles Darwin's work and the conclusive evidence for his Theory of Natutal Selection.

Anyway, I find your explanation of his experiences rather odd and completely unscientific. If you dismissed them as imagination, as most atheists are wont to, or demanded more evidence than a mere statement, that is understandable. If you admit to them being real but as yet unexplained, that too is fine. But to claim to explain them by completely unverified mechanism (of transfer of memories through genes) because "no one knows everything about DNA" is such an unscientific explanation, I am puzzled why an atheist would mention it.

Are you, perhaps, a theist (probably of an Abrahamic faith) but strongly disbelieves in reincarnation?

"The spirit concept cannot be mechanically forced to a material mind mold."

"Beliefs may become group possessions, but faith must be personal. Theologic beliefs can be suggested to a group, but faith can rise up only In the heart of the individual religionist."

exerts from The Urantia Papers

You can check out my thread here on this source:
The Urantia Papers....

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Why not try a rebuttal of the argument being made without the loss of humor, I'd like too see that.

I actually don't see an agument to rebut.

Although I am not an atheist, I used to be one, so can present an atheist's point of view.

You start with a possibility that the universe is consciousness expressing itself. While that is certainly one of the elegant interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, it is not the only one. Consciousness was introduced in the Copenhagen interpretation to account for the collapse of the Schrodinger's probability wave function. However, there is an equally elegant multiverse explanation that states that wave function never actually collapses, but all possibilities are realised, each in its own universe.

Neither of the interpretations is verifiable. The former because consciousness is not scientifically measurable and the latter because there exists no mechanism to interact with other possible universes.

To jump from a scientifically unverifiable possibility suggested by a, no doubt, scientific theory to your pet spiritualist explanation is disingenuous and won't interest anyone remotely interested in a rational approach to the world.

ETA: As for that "theory" of yours that the possibility that someone envisages for what happens after their death is what they get, if that be the case, those who imagine nothingness are a whole lot more sensible/respectable than those who imagine a life of hedonistic pleasures for themselves and eternal fire for their "enemies".

Originally posted by Observor
Anyway, I find your explanation of his experiences rather odd and completely unscientific. If you dismissed them as imagination, as most atheists are wont to, or demanded more evidence than a mere statement, that is understandable. If you admit to them being real but as yet unexplained, that too is fine. But to claim to explain them by completely unverified mechanism (of transfer of memories through genes) because "no one knows everything about DNA" is such an unscientific explanation, I am puzzled why an atheist would mention it.

What does science have to do with atheism? I am not a scientist, I am an atheist. I was merely asking a question, how does one know that memories aren't transferred through dna? I do not know the answer to that question. Was I explaining that it was a scientific explanation? I didn't know that tests had been done on that subject. Why did I mention it? Because I thought it could be another means for someone to have these memories of another life, as I'm not sure scientists know everything about dna....just as we don't know everything about the universe. I read yesterday that a type of star was discovered that could change the way we think of how the universe was created. Who knows, it could be the same with dna someday....

Anyways, what would be the purpose of a spirit going from body to body as each one dies and a new one is born? Why even inhabit a body? To learn? Why does a spirit need to learn? How does a spirit retain what it has learned without a brain?

As another poster stated, our experiences in this life with the aid of our brain and senses, is what makes us "us". If you are out of your body, not being driven by your brain, are you no longer "you" anymore? Who do you become? Even more so if you've experienced many different lives?

Originally posted by Hydroman
What does science have to do with atheism?

My mistake. Sure we can have irrational/unscientific atheists too. Invoking an unverified possibility as an explanation is unscientific/irrational.

Anyways, what would be the purpose of a spirit going from body to body as each one dies and a new one is born? Why even inhabit a body? To learn? Why does a spirit need to learn? How does a spirit retain what it has learned without a brain?

I am going to skip those questions because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. The others who are trying to convert you out of your atheism may try, not me.

Originally posted by Observor
My mistake. Sure we can have irrational/unscientific atheists too.

Invoking an unverified possibility as an explanation is unscientific/irrational.

Is it also irrational to say that we have "spirits" as there is no verifiable proof that they are real? Isn't claiming that we have "spirits" an unverified possibility? Or has it been verified and I'm just not aware of it? What about gods? Have they been verified? Should it be labeled "irrational" to believe in such things?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

So if my mind at death means I no longer exist even in an afterlife then the difference between my beliefs in life and reality in death are EXACTLY THE SAME ! DUH !

We have one life, get on with it, try and do your best to improve this one life for others who follow. Worrying about an afterlife is a waste of time.

Try this : What if believers spend their life missing out on the best that life has to offer by worrying or preparing for something that does not exist. Just think of the regret and missed opportunity that will occur at the moment of death. Believers will die a sad death becasue of this. Non believers will pass away peacefully

Originally posted by HumansEh
I get so weary of 'believers' trying to make out that not believing in a god or other geographically inspired phenomena is tantamount to being a bad human being. Aethism is a stance on unsubstantiated belief and not a reflection of a persons moral or spiritual character. Please read 'The Book of Atheist Spirituality' by Andre Compte-Sponville (Bantam Press 2006). I am an atheist, but have a profound spiritual life, and see beauty and creation as wonderful mysteries that we cannot ever fully understand but I am touched deeply by the impermanence of all things including this tenuous life and the unknowable mystery that follows.
I am vegetarian and will never knowingly cause death or suffering to any sentient creature as I respect life in all its fragility. My heart is full of love and I view compassion as the greatest human virtue there is.
I would gladly lay down my life for my children in a heartbeat and try to live each day with no regrets by doing no harm or causing no suffering to anyone.

But because I don't believe that somebody (its always male isn't it!) created all this amazing cosmos just to force their creation to love them and worship them and he really cares what I do and who I have sex with and will damn me or reward me accordingly I am doomed.

If that is your heaven, eternity in servile submission to an omnipotent jealous petulant being.
Give me oblivion and let me enjoy my short time to love on this earth in peace.

Man oh man, You gonna burn sooo bad.


Very nice sentiments.. Ironically enough, You are doing exactly what the
biblical Jesus (or buddha and numerous other reported sages/enlightened)
requires of You. So maybe You will end up in heaven anyway, whether You believe or not!
Or maybe You already know heaven (more than most), whether there is one or not.

Originally posted by Hydroman
Is it also irrational to say that we have "spirits" as there is no verifiable proof that they are real? Isn't claiming that we have "spirits" an unverified possibility? Or has it been verified and I'm just not aware of it? What about gods? Have they been verified? Should it be labeled "irrational" to believe in such things?

Exactly my point. Responding to one unverifiable explanation with another doesn't make it any better. Why should the person choose your unverifiable explanation over one (s)he has already chosen?

It is not irrational to believe in an personal experience that is not necessarily demonstrable/repeatble to another. Otherwise everyone who claims to have a headache is being irrational, since it cannot be deonstrated to another person nor verifiable by another. However when someone claims to have a headache we don't doubt the possibility because we ourselves had such an experience sometime or the other.

Spiritual experiences on the otherhand are not universal, meaning everyone does not have them or recognise them as such. Hence it would be quite silly for anyone to insist they are real with everyone. Those who have never had such experiences cannot relate to them and if they are rational will try to find alternate explanations that relate to those within their own experience. When a person tries to deny another's spiritual experience (s)he is simply stating that such an experience is outside of his/her own range of experiences and I am perfectly OK with it. But there are others who attempt to convince others by demanding others disprove their experience, provide an alternate rational explanation or believe their experience and everything else they say regarding such, which is completely irrational.

I restrict my public discourse to what is objectively verifiable. However, I have no reason to believe that everyone with a human physical form is equally endowed to experience all things and hence do not feel the need to convince myself that my spiritual experiences are hallucinations merely because some others find themselves to have never had such experiences. At the same time, I am not stupid enough to demand others accept as evidence my experiences that they themselves are not capable of.

So while I am no atheist, I don't feel threatened by the existence of atheists that I feel compelled to label them or convert them (there are no means except blind faith in my experiences which I would never demand of any).

As a former atheist, I feel everyone should be an atheist until they personally experience the realm of the spirit or encounter a person of unimpeachable integrity and sanity who says (s)he does.

reply to post by Observor


Point taken.

Originally posted by malcr
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

So if my mind at death means I no longer exist even in an afterlife then the difference between my beliefs in life and reality in death are EXACTLY THE SAME ! DUH !

I do believe that was the point of the OP, at least in part, but think it all the way through on the basis of the argument that that isn't the only possibility, even according to science.

I tell you, if this thread continues to it's logical if not supra-rational conclusion, one among you, who think like I used to think, will slam your hand down on the desk where you sit and bust a gut laughing for all the right reasons and for no "reason" at all based solely on the knowledge of experience. And if you won't, or can't, I'll do it for you.

Originally posted by Logman
Doesn't matter what you believe. What happens to you when you die is the same for all - whatever that may be.

Not according to quantum reality and a monistic idealism framework, where consciousness is primary at the very ground of all being, and becoming. What we observe, what we think, believe, how we judge, and the content of our mind, and our innermost self and it's qualia does determine reality to a very large degree, if not entirely. Now, therefore is the time to re-evaluate, if there ever was one thus the word "dire" in the title..