Creator does not imply afterlife.
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
If God cared enough to create us with all of this questioning and yearning about an afterlife, one would suspect God intended there to be an afterlife.
If you believe in a creator, you either believe in a continuation, or that 'he' is some sort of lunatic who, for no reason, put this "afterlife" concept(one of the most prominant in human history) into our minds. If we end, all of the questioning meant nothing. But we were created (hypothesizing) by God, for reasons unbeknownst to us, but it's probably safe to assume it wasn't because he was bored. He didn't just throw us together into some sort of nonsensical robotic being -- we have the capacity to contemplate concepts far beyond the realm of actual human understanding(e.g. "eternity").
That would seem to be a clue.
If you believe in a creator, you either believe in a continuation, or that 'he' is some sort of lunatic who, for no reason, put this "afterlife" concept(one of the most prominant in human history) into our minds. If we end, all of the questioning meant nothing. But we were created (hypothesizing) by God, for reasons unbeknownst to us, but it's probably safe to assume it wasn't because he was bored. He didn't just throw us together into some sort of nonsensical robotic being -- we have the capacity to contemplate concepts far beyond the realm of actual human understanding(e.g. "eternity").
That would seem to be a clue.
Why? Why is an afterlife necessary for us? What if God was doing a great big experiment? What if the reasons for God's behavior is beyond us to comprehend, how does that imply continuation?
Do dogs go to heaven? They bleed, they hurt, they love, they die. All that yearning, and it just ends.
Do dogs go to heaven? They bleed, they hurt, they love, they die. All that yearning, and it just ends.
The concept of absolute and permanent death is something most humans can't handle and this is why they believe or hanker after an afterlife; regardless of what religion they follow.
C
Confutatis
Guest
KennyJC said:
It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of commonsense. The sources that tell you about God are the same sources that tell you about the afterlife. It would not be illogical to accept the former and reject the latter, but it wouldn't make much sense.
Besides, people don't say that about "God", they only say it about God - no quotes. Of course the existence of a generic "god" means nothing whatsoever, whereas the existence of the Christian God would mean quite a lot. Including the afterlife.
That is silly. The book that tells you about God is the same book that tells you about the afterlife. How much more "automatically related" can you get???
tablariddim said:
One could just as well say that "the concept of absolute slavery to a privileged elite is something most humans can't handle and this is why they believe in freedom and democracy". It's really sad to see someone turn the highest human ideals into a piece of post-modern psychobabble. And it is sad not because it means the ideal is false or unattainable, but because it means they don't embrace it.
It's certainly true that people believe in an afterlife because they want it to be true. But it is ridiculous to claim that people only want something to be true precisely because it's false.
C
Confutatis
Guest
KennyJC said:
I didn't say you have to accept anything, I just said if you choose to accept part of one creed then you have to accept the whole creed. Remember, the topic of this thread is something like "even if God exists, it doesn't mean there is an afterlife". All I'm saying is that is fallacious, that there is no solid basis to accept one idea and reject the other.
To say one believes in God but not in the afterlife is equivalent to saying one accepts the truths of physics but rejects the truths of biology. It's nonsense.
Confutatis said:
Exactly, I couldn't agree with you more. Hence, we are to wonder why it is that theists do exactly what you're arguing is fallacious and nonsensical, yet their penchant for gleaning from religion only that which suits them best only serves to dilute the religion further to the point of having little or no meaning. This leads to the problem of adding confusion from so many convoluted
views that one can easily justify any action of violence in the name of their god.
C
Confutatis
Guest
(Q) said:
Again I say you are misrepresenting religion out of ignorance. There is much disagreement between the different sects of a religion when it comes to non-essential details, but there's universal agreement as to the religion's fundamental core. For instance, I never heard of a Christian who does not believe in God, or who does not believe in the afterlife.
Oh, this tiresome theme of "violence in the name of God" again...
It is true that one can distort religion to suit any selfish, evil purpose. It's also true that one can distort the Constitution to justify military invasion of a poor foreign country, restricting civil liberties, or send innocent men to prison. Are we to deny the value of having a Constitution on the sole basis that it can be misused for evil means? Are we right in claiming the Constitution is meaningless because any person can interpret it any way they want?
Where is the sense in your argument?
Confutatis said:
You just said "There is much disagreement between the different sects of a religion" - how can I be the one who is ignorant? And it is far more than just sects, it is each individual who cannot agree with the other.
Rather than jumping to conclusions and consistenty putting your foot in your mouth, spend some more time here and read the posts. Other theists here have already refuted your argument, some time ago.
One cannot argue when the other moves the goal posts? You'll now need to segway from the point and explain how exactly the Constitution is distorted to justify those things. Then you proceed to compare that to the religious attrocities of Christianity.
Oh, and the sense in my argument was agreeing with you.
C
Confutatis
Guest
(Q) said:
You have misquoted my sentence by removing half of it. Or perhaps you haven't read all of it. You will not succeed convincing me that millions, billions of people can consider themselves part of an institution without sharing the basic creeds of that institution. The idea is simply preposterous.
Agree on what? What are those contentious points you find so obvious and I find non-existent?
That is not an argument, it's just an outburst of anger. I can't reply to it except with another outburst of anger, but I'm not angry.
I didn't say it is, I said it can be. Are you saying it cannot? Are you saying some evil president cannot appeal to the Constitution of his country to send innocent people to jail? Have you never heard of Chile?
I won't enter this debate because it's way too complex, but I'll just say that those religious attrocities you are talking about, if anything, only serve as proof that Christianity is right. All Christians know that.
Roman said:
It wouldn't and if such a being existed it would be a simple matter of asking it any questions we had.
That's right. In fact, Judaism as a whole is full of shit.Confutatis said:
C
Confutatis
Guest
baumgarten said:
Yeah, but it's all Kosher shit
In any case, lest some Jew be offended, let me rephrase:
" To say one believes in the Christian God but not in the afterlife is ... nonsense "
That's more PC.
It's also not as relevant to the discussion.