The "Afterlife is a Fairy Story"

[SEC=UGA]

Religion is the Debil.

 

Catholics are just as murderous as Muslims.

 

Protestants are just as crazy as Catholics and Muslims.

 

No one is near as crazy as Mormons.

 

Jews are the cause of all of the problems in the world.

 

Hindus must have been in the bathroom while religions were being handed out.

 

Buddhists smell funny and like to roger livestock.

 

Animist religions support walking around nekkid, ignorant, and 2,000 years behind the balance of the world.

 

I really don'thave much to say about the Shinto religion, except for what Confucious say.

[Double Agent]

I'm not denigrating anyone's beliefs. I just don't understand how the point that you raise can lead to a conclusion that a god exists.

 

I don't make that conclusion. But I can certainly understand how some would.

[Ursa Majoris]

But realistically, there are no real reasons to continue believing in the concept of an afterlife other than as a balm to assuage our fears of death.

And that's pretty much it. Who wants to consider total elimination of being? Much easier and nicer to believe death is a gateway to something else rather than a total full stop.

[Azazello1313]

I find it interesting that both books speak of heaven in very earthly terms. According to the Koran, In addition to the 72 virgins, those that die in his service are now seated at the right hand of God amid "rivers of purest water, and rivers of milk forever fresh; rivers of wine delectable to those that drink it, and rivers of clearest honey" (47:15). The Bible isn't far from this description either, "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him" (Revelation 22:1-3)

 

To me, this sounds much more like men struggling to stretch their imaginations and describe the most exciting, joyous, wonderful thing they can come up with based on their very earthly experiences rather than someone with first hand knowledge of what it means to actually be there.

 

well, yeah. couple things to keep in mind, though. one is that revelation is clearly one of the most allegorical writings out there. all of those details are symbols. but all religious writing share that trait to some degree. myth and symbol and allegory and parable....these are the tools the human mind has for describing the indescribable, or, as douglas adams put it, "effing the ineffable". simpler minds take these "truths" literally. I am reminded of another new testament passage on the afterlife, it's in all three synoptic gospels:

 

Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man* shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection* whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.’

 

Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.’ (mark 12:18-27)

 

here jesus specifically warns against projecting worldly notions into the afterlife. and frankly, most new testament scripture is like this. it talks about existence on the other side of death in very vague terms. far more typical is thought like this:

 

Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die, this Scripture will be fulfilled:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is your victory?

O death, where is your sting?”

For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 corinthians 15:54-57)

...

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[a] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. romans 8:38-39

...

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. john 14:1-3)

...

What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die,* but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. (1 corinthians 15:50-52)

 

no pearly gates. no streets of gold and white robes. no fat little babies playing harps.

 

which brings me to...

But realistically, there are no real reasons to continue believing in the concept of an afterlife other than as a balm to assuage our fears of death.

 

I acknowledge and accept this point. I think that is very much what is in peoples' hearts when they contemplate the afterlife. but this gets back to my earlier point about the difference between faith and unbelief: "the man of faith looks at those horizons of what we know, ponders what is beyond, and believes there is something holding everything together. a man of unbelief looks at those horizons and sees chaos, randomness, and nothingness beyond. everything else stems from this distinction." death is the ultimate horizon. I don't know what happens when I get there, if I am conscious of it, if I see the lights go off, if I hear a trumpet. the only thing my faith really tells me about any of it is that death doesn't win.

[TimC]

Religion is the Debil.

 

Catholics are just as murderous as Muslims.

 

Protestants are just as crazy as Catholics and Muslims.

 

No one is near as crazy as Mormons.

 

Jews are the cause of all of the problems in the world.

 

Hindus must have been in the bathroom while religions were being handed out.

 

Buddhists smell funny and like to roger livestock.

 

Animist religions support walking around nekkid, ignorant, and 2,000 years behind the balance of the world.

 

I really don'thave much to say about the Shinto religion, except for what Confucious say.

 

It won't be long now. ®

[Furd]

I don't make that conclusion. But I can certainly understand how some would.

 

What is it that you understand?

[detlef]

Can't help but toss out a few thoughts here:

 

1) Catholics != Christianity. As much fun as it is to lump them all together, oddly enough many sects of Christianity don't really like each other, and much like the Judean Peoples' Front, Catholics are pretty much universally hated by them all.

2) The Bible, as a 'rule book for stateless sovereign nations', does more to spell out the rules for Judaism than for any branch of Christianity. In fact, Catholics probably have the fewest rules originating in the Bible than any sect of any Western religion.

3) Detlef must REALLY hate English Monarchs, because they too used to wield considerable power that stretched around the globe, are the leaders of their own sect of Christianity, have a history of corrupt behavior, and still retain a fancy title and sovereign nation.

1) I realize that Christianity is more than just the Catholics. It became all about Catholics because Azz was amazed that anyone would dare suggest the church is a state without borders. And, well, when there's an easy example like the Catholic church that very plainly is, they became the target. Mind you, it doesn't help that they've been gracious enough to give those of us who aren't down with big religion plenty of ammo of late. Oh, and understand that I'm not only not singling out Catholics, I'm not even singling out Christians. My distaste of large-scale religion goes for any group who looks to govern through divine authority. Which is plenty of them.

 

2) I think the biggest point of distinction for those of us who are either atheist or, in my case, simply against religion, is that we believe that the bible is of human construct. Not just written by human hands, but devised by humans, invented by humans. In other words, complete and total BS. And, the human race doesn't have a very good track record of not wanting to control other people. So it's pretty easy to look at a book that defines a higher power in very specific detail (which none of us believe you can do) that then says this specifically defined god told me to tell you that these are the things that you should and shouldn't do, as a merely a tool to govern people. Well, that and the fact that the bible (and other religious tomes) have been used specifically to do so on an enormous scale for centuries and still do to this day. Not by a token fruitcake here and there, but actually used to rule the world. For centuries. That's a pretty long track record to dismiss as readily as some here would like to do.

 

3) I think the British Monarchy is lame as cuff and would hate them if they had any influence what-so-ever on my life. If I were a Brit, I would openly despise them. Because as effed up as it is to inherit leadership of a country, it's both effed up and incredibly moronic to continue this stupid charade long after they've had any real power. That the queen's backyard is like Central Park only it's just for her. That economically ravaged populace has to foot the bill for a bunch of d-bags in stupid hats having a wedding. So, sure, screw them as well.

[Yukon Cornelius]

How much was science held back by " the church" in Europe, back in the day?

[TimC]

How much was science held back by " the church" in Europe, back in the day?

 

It still is........stem cell research.

[Azazello1313]

How much was science held back by " the church" in Europe, back in the day?

 

not as much as people often like to think

[Yukon Cornelius]

not as much as people often like to think

well, the article does not really change my mind a whole lot but i will re- word it to say that the "church dogma" held science back even when church leaders were listening to scientist of the middle ages and scientific revolution.