|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 17, 2022 2:54:57 GMT -5
Okay... Assuming that one believes that a spiritual part survives death and lives on, or if one believes in reincarnation (in this universe or in others), or in a future resurrection, one must admit that the person in question believes in God (or gods), doesn't it? Because such beliefs require the admission that there is some kind of miraculous intervention in the universe (or multiverse), something that simply cannot be explained through natural mechanisms. Because in a universe where there is a creator, anything is possible even if it doesn't seem to make scientific sense. (And I don't mean the belief that our matter and energy simply spreads out into the universe and becomes part of other things or beings, because that's extremely scientific). In other words the question "do you believe in life after death?" can generally be rendered as "Do you believe that there is at least one spiritual person with supernatural powers who cares about human beings enough to create a mechanism for dealing with their death?" You have a very limited definition of God and you loaded that second question with plenty of variables one doesn't have to agree with. My definition, in the broadest sense, is God as the unmoved mover (primum movens) rather than your anthropomorphized view of it. Whether the afterlife presupposes God or not really depends on one's definitions. To me, the afterlife would be a completely natural process - only a "miracle" insofar that we don't understand it, but not (necessarily) removed from nature... Strictly, I wouldn't need to believe in my (or your) definition of God in order to believe that.
|
|
|
Death
Jan 17, 2022 3:03:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 17, 2022 3:03:09 GMT -5
No, you don't have to believe it. When I mean the miraculous afterlife, I don't mean your point of view. As I said, you think that matter and energy spread out and become part of other things. There's nothing too elaborate about it. But a mechanism involving immortal soul, reincarnation, resurrection, random reincarnation into another universe, becoming a ghost, going to heaven, going to hell, or being resurrected... Those things are supernatural beliefs. And it follows that a supernatural being must exist for a supernatural process to begin.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 17, 2022 3:26:09 GMT -5
I don't think all of those those are necessarily supernatural beliefs - except, perhaps, for heaven and hell. If your definition of the afterlife involves separating it from nature, then all you believe in is a life beyond nature - that can either entail whatever you imagine God to be or not. Of course, I can see how the two beliefs are interlinked if you're going by specific Christian definitions of either one.
|
|
|
Death
Jan 17, 2022 6:51:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 17, 2022 6:51:52 GMT -5
I don't understand, Terry. In general pagan religions already believe in several gods. The Jewish and Islamic religion already believe in one God. The logic remains even in non-Christian religions.
Religious people all over the world already believe in beings beyond physical nature. For these people, the afterlife is either becoming a being beyond physical nature or a being beyond physical nature intervening to ensure the return to physical life of someone who has died.
Throughout human history, these are the concepts that have prevailed in different parts of the world. Of course, I'm not talking about what's right or what's wrong. I'm saying it at least made some logical sense. But in our time there has been a tendency for people in general to deny the existence of God (or gods) without wanting to at the same time deny the existence of conscious life after death. Many want to believe in the theory of evolution to explain life without any kind of divine intervention, and at the same time believe that there is reincarnation, becoming a ghost, or things like that. (Again, I'm not just referring to matter and energy just scattering around and being part of other organisms eventually.)
I can understand that people have the right to believe what they want. But I can also point out my beliefs about why this happens: I think many people want to lead a life without commitments to God (or gods) and that's why it's comfortable to believe that there is no such thing. At the same time, many people want to have some kind of hope after death, and so it is comfortable to believe that there is supernatural life after death. I think most people who think both ways just don't stop to think that their ideas are contradictory.
And I'm not referring to anthropomorphized ways of imagining who God is. How a person imagines his God or his gods is indifferent in my argument. The only thing that God (or gods) that a person believes (or doesn't believe in) needs to have is personality. That is, He (or they) need to be willing to create a mechanism for humans to have some sort of hope after death, which would indicate that He (or they) have some kind of love for humans (or some humans). In some ways of thinking it would be necessary for Him (or they) to have a sense of justice, as it involves judging people's actions (or creating a self-regulatory mechanism based on what He [or they] have determined to be right or wrong).
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 17, 2022 8:22:30 GMT -5
Don't worry, I wasn't talking about any specific religions, just pointing out that there is more than one way to interpret what either God or the afterlife is. I think Buddhism would be one example of a belief in reincarnation (i.e. afterlife) without believing in a creator deity... but I'm not in a position to say I'm knowledgeable about Buddhism.
I don't know the people you're talking about in your third paragraph, so I can't comment on what they do or don't believe (though I don't think there's a tendency to believe in ghosts these days). But I'll say that I wasn't just talking about matter scattering around; I was talking about our life force (what one might also call one's soul) continuing to exist on a plane that we cannot perceive, and it possibly eventually returning into physical form at another point in time... Similar, but not equal to total energy remaining constant in an isolated system. Just another perspective for you. There's many things humans don't yet understand, and I'm certain there's many more things we're just incapable of understanding with our limited senses. That doesn't mean those things are miracles or necessarily separate from nature. I don't see how me not believing in a creator would contradict that. (Even though I believe in the notion that God/the universal spirit intersects with the entire universe as well as expands beyond it.)
|
|
|
Death
Jan 17, 2022 11:47:43 GMT -5
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 17, 2022 11:47:43 GMT -5
Terry, you believe in God differently than I do, but you still believe. And you believe in things that science cannot yet explain. The only difference is that I believe that at least some of these things science still cannot explain because they are things beyond nature, whereas you believe that they are things that are in nature but still unexplained due to human or technological limitations. Be that as it may, we support our beliefs in the "unknown" and the "superhuman." You can say "the mechanics that of the afterlife were initiated by natural means of which I do not know what they are" while I can say "I believe in process through God, which I do not fully understand". Anyway, there is an internal logic sustained within the way of thinking, which in my view are very similar in essence. I don't mean who thinks that way, okay? For cases like this, I would be interested in trying to understand the reasons for thinking one way or another, but I don't think this is the time to open this discussion.
Unless you want it.
|
|
|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on Jan 17, 2022 12:01:05 GMT -5
What Terry is describing is not god Jean, the concept of god has nothing to do with the concept of other ways of existing. Following your logic, you can't believe in aliens or parallel universes without believing in god which makes no sense
|
|
|
Death
Jan 17, 2022 12:29:18 GMT -5
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 17, 2022 12:29:18 GMT -5
My definition, in the broadest sense, is God as the unmoved mover ( primum movens) rather than your anthropomorphized view of it. Terry stated that he believes in God in a different way than I do. And what I'm questioning is not a person not believing in creation. A person who does not believe that life had a miraculous origin may at the same time believe in a non-miraculous origin of aliens and other universes. This makes internal sense. But what makes no sense is to consciously believe in survival after death and a whole mechanism to ensure justice through it, without believing that there is someone with miraculous powers behind this mechanism. And with interest in putting this mechanism into operation. (And by survival, I mean conscious survival). In my case I do not believe in conscious survival after death, for the reasons I have already explained. I believe in a future resurrection. But anyway, it only makes internal sense because I believe in a being who created this mechanism out of caring about people. Note the internal logic of Terry's way of thinking: he doesn't believe there is a being with a personality who cares about people and miraculous powers. So the way he thinks about life after death does not require that the person's consciousness is mysteriously alive after brain death. There is internal logic. Of course... Maybe someone justifies conscious existence out of the body by some other non-miraculous means... And like I said, I can't understand this way of thinking. To me, this kind of mixed belief just emphasizes that the person wants to live the way they want and at the same time hope to count on living after death in some way, even if this is contradictory.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 17, 2022 13:09:14 GMT -5
i agree with you jean, in the inability to understand certain types who proclaim themselves to be "spiritual" but not "religious." it is some form of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance that, from my perspective, allows them to live freely (atheistically) while still comforting themselves with the bare minimum of supernatural belief. i'm no militant atheist though; i greatly envy those who can genuinely find comfort in a faith, because existence is to me tremendously comfortless. and it doesn't seem that people have a choice in what they believe deep down. i asked my mother once, who is one of these aforementioned "types", why she believes in an afterlife despite not being religious, and she said, "because I have to."
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 17, 2022 18:45:27 GMT -5
I have to say it's unusual but refreshing to be able to breach these heady and intensely personal big subjects that are so rarely appropriate in a social setting. I have no reason to convince anyone of what I believe, because it's just a vague distillation of my personality and my slowly but constantly evolving thoughts about existence. My belief in a God is in fact more important to me than my belief in an afterlife. The belief in being snuffed out of existence after one's corporeal death actually seems like the more comforting and easy option to me.
And I don't think I live like an atheist; Perhaps seemingly closer to an agnostic, at least from an outside perspective. The practical part of religion is just cultural traditions to nourish one's faith and worship one's God; For me that religion is the experience and practice of art - whether that's playing music, drawing, or writing. My church is any space where this is possible. It is my way of prayer and my way of communicating with a higher power than myself. I'd never call this a "spiritual" practice but wouldn't see a problem in describing it as religious. Nobody believes in Greek Gods anymore, but we are still in awe of the art they've inspired. To me, only art is able to grasp at the ineffable (and I'm fully aware that other people may have other ways of doing the same).
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 17, 2022 19:04:34 GMT -5
I also found the space created here to talk about this matter openly very good. I think it's great that at the end of the day we're mature enough to argue about what we believe or don't believe without intentionally offending other people or being ashamed of expressing our opinions or beliefs. I think that's the essence of forums, after all, something that is perhaps being lost on traditional social networks.
In few places would an avowedly Christian and an avowedly atheist agree so openly.
|
|
|
Death
Jan 18, 2022 2:09:16 GMT -5
Post by B. on Jan 18, 2022 2:09:16 GMT -5
Thanks for such good discussion guys, I don't have much to add other than I agree it's refreshing you can discuss these things openly and have a reasoned debate here.
I personally practice spirituality a bit without any organised religion- with regards to God I'd probably describe myself as agnostic. I find it a mental health thing more than anything else.
|
|
|
Death
Jan 18, 2022 9:55:53 GMT -5
Post by Reba on Jan 18, 2022 9:55:53 GMT -5
I have to say it's unusual but refreshing to be able to breach these heady and intensely personal big subjects that are so rarely appropriate in a social setting. I have no reason to convince anyone of what I believe, because it's just a vague distillation of my personality and my slowly but constantly evolving thoughts about existence. My belief in a God is in fact more important to me than my belief in an afterlife. The belief in being snuffed out of existence after one's corporeal death actually seems like the more comforting and easy option to me. And I don't think I live like an atheist; Perhaps seemingly closer to an agnostic, at least from an outside perspective. The practical part of religion is just cultural traditions to nourish one's faith and worship one's God; For me that religion is the experience and practice of art - whether that's playing music, drawing, or writing. My church is any space where this is possible. It is my way of prayer and my way of communicating with a higher power than myself. I'd never call this a "spiritual" practice but wouldn't see a problem in describing it as religious. Nobody believes in Greek Gods anymore, but we are still in awe of the art they've inspired. To me, only art is able to grasp at the ineffable (and I'm fully aware that other people may have other ways of doing the same). when i said "living freely" i didn't mean "not going to church" or practicing traditions. after all, many irreligious people go to church just for the communal aspect of it, and many very religious people don't go. i meant more of the mindset of someone who isn't burdened by certain doctrines and rules and restrictions for living, which all organized religions have, and which a religious person always has in their consciousness whether they outwardly follow that way of life or not.
|
|
|
Death
Jan 18, 2022 12:44:52 GMT -5
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 18, 2022 12:44:52 GMT -5
we're all bound by certain (political and ethical) doctrines and social restrictions for living. i don't think anybody lives "freely" in that sense.
|
|
|
Death
Jan 18, 2022 12:51:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Jan 18, 2022 12:51:24 GMT -5
But if someone is sure that he will not be punished by some kind of human justice, and he really wants to do something considered socially wrong... That person, if he doesn't believe he is being watched by God (or something higher) will act in accordance with his wishes?
In addition, there are things that are no longer considered socially wrong, but are generally considered wrong by most religions, especially Christian, Islamic and Jewish. Things ranging from eating to sexual behavior.
Maybe it's this kind of freedom, to do what society considers normal but most religions consider sin, whatever bear is referring to.
|
|