Is The Afterlife's Rational Conceptualization Impossible?

psychostasis

psychostasis

Registered Member
Hi

The existence of the dinosaurs does not fit in the anthropocentric perspective of an earthly paradise.
If the initial purpose of the God of the Bible was that man was the center of the world, what function would have played the dinosaurs?

The Mormon religion believes that after death people reincarnates in ''worlds'' with different levels of spirituality, some more paradisiacal than others, in proportion to compliance of religion rules.

But, if a man is killed by a lightning, what transgressions he could have done in his previous life to deserve such punishment?
Maybe he electrocuted some innocent person? But, what if at that time there was no electricity yet?
 
AlexG said:
If there's an after life why bother with life?
Click to expand...

The intrinsic impossibility of rationalizing the Afterlife concept (as well as all the others: Original Sin, Omniscience, etc) suggest atheism is a basic ingredient of a secular education and must be taught in Schools?
 
psychostasis said:
The intrinsic impossibility of rationalizing the Afterlife concept (as well as all the others: Original Sin, Omniscience, etc) suggest atheism is a basic ingredient of a secular education and must be taught in Schools?
Click to expand...
Whut?
Please explain the logic in that.
I fail to see how a disbelief in something that is - as you say - "intrinsically impossible" needs to be taught.
And, FYI I'm not aware of any schools that "teach atheism" per se.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Whut?
Please explain the logic in that.
I fail to see how a disbelief in something that is - as you say - "intrinsically impossible" needs to be taught.
And, FYI I'm not aware of any schools that "teach atheism" per se.
Click to expand...
There are Atheist ''Churchs'' in Europe. I would have loved to learn about atheistic philosophers as Spinoza, in my religion clases.
 
psychostasis said:
There are Atheist ''Churchs'' in Europe.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but
A) they're a fairly recent idea - last 6 years or so - which means that atheism probably wasn't taught to the people that attend.
B) they don't "teach" atheism so much as provide a meeting place for atheists who want a sense of community.

I would have loved to learn about atheistic philosophers as Spinoza, in my religion clases.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should have taken philosophy classes.

Regardless, you haven't explained the logic as asked.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Regardless, you haven't explained the logic as asked.
Click to expand...
Instead of teaching tirelessly unintelligible theological concepts and ''unknowable mysteries'' should promote critical analysis of both the ethical problems and our spiritual needs.
 
It seems very obvious to me that an individual's memories & thought processes are due to activities taking place in that person's brain.

When the brain no longer functions due to death, those memories no longer exist & all thought processes cease.

If there is a soul, it is some mystical entity with neither the memories nor the thought processes of the person.

There is a story about an individual whose soul is taken prematurely by the angel of death. It seems strange to me. At the end of the story, the soul is given to another body which will live for perhaps 50 more years. The memories & thought processes are to be those of the original owner of the body.

It seems to me that the original owner of the body got the extra 50 or so years, not the individual whose soul was prematurely taken.

The story seems to be attempting to imply otherwise, which seems absurd.
 
psychostasis said:
The intrinsic impossibility of rationalizing the Afterlife concept (as well as all the others: Original Sin, Omniscience, etc) suggest atheism is a basic ingredient of a secular education and must be taught in Schools?
Click to expand...

In this era of ideological etiquette enforced by litigation, that could be construed as subjecting juvenile classrooms to multi-cultural insensitivity. To so study / cover indigenous and geographically transmigrated beliefs in anthropological, sociological, and historical contexts -- and then debunk them or outright classify the surviving ones as myth. [As opposed to deftly skirting around any judgement-making either way due to the vaunted "inter-tribal respect" reasons, which would include not dissing a locally dominant belief system.]

Alternatively adding active[*] atheism in a passive manner to the mix -- in hopes that a mere elaboration upon it (like the rest) might covertly inject a skeptical meme in regard to Euro-Semitic or Western faiths -- might have the consequence of seeming to justify exactly what some theists claim: That atheism itself is a belief stance.

In school situations of introducing atheism [for some strategic reason?] where religion is both topically and constitutionally absent or subdued... That would take some interesting pedagogic acrobatics, to discuss atheism meaningfully without any mention of theism. Theism does not need atheism to substantiate its identity, but atheism is always part of a dyad. "Under A Rock Dwellers" who never heard of gods and the people who believe in them, would not invent and distinguish themselves with any formal label in that regard. Even if the "rogue nation" of Texas had eliminated its partition of religion and tax-funded institutions, an introduction of atheism elsewhere, when there is no outspoken Abrahamic presence, would seem to be placing the cart in front of the horse.

- - - - - - -

[*] Which is to say, the kind which consists of commenting / lecturing upon religion rather than being content with simple "I lack belief".
 
C C said:
In school situations of introducing atheism [for some strategic reason?] where religion is both topically and constitutionally absent or subdued... That would take some interesting pedagogic acrobatics, to discuss atheism meaningfully without any mention of theism
Click to expand...
I think it is paradoxical from a scientific point of view because the philosophy of science teachs there are rational arguments to support atheism, but no one rational argument in favor of theism.

Because the nature of the ethical problems is extremely complex (corruption, gender equality, euthanasia, conflicts of interest in scientific research, etc.) theism would be a sort of fast food of the philosophical ethics, the formula of lowest cost to educate young people in morality.

I speculate the profound nature of theism could be a sociopathological response to minimize the moral problems, a reluctance to solve them.
 
C C said:
In school situations of introducing atheism [for some strategic reason?] where religion is both topically and constitutionally absent or subdued...
Click to expand...
It's not unconstitutional to teach about religions in school.
 
C C said:
That atheism itself is a belief stance.
Click to expand...
By itself, it isn't. But modern atheist movements are often concerned with other issues, and it is a belief system. There's nothing wrong with belief.
 
spidergoat said:
By itself, it isn't. But modern atheist movements are often concerned with other issues, and it is a belief system. There's nothing wrong with belief.
Click to expand...

Yah, I gather the "atheism just means I lack belief without additional commentary" crowd has thinned in recent years on the web-forum landscape. As well as Sam Harris's apathy about "atheist" having a function still not catching on much. Probably due to there being no disbelieving minority that has to distinguish itself from a contemporary believing majority when it comes to those items. ["Nearly everyone rejects the existence of vampires, leprechauns, Zeus and countless dead gods of antiquity, and yet no one feels the need to name these as conditions of unbelief.".]

spidergoat said:
It's not unconstitutional to teach about religions in school.
Click to expand...

When, as initially mentioned, it's "about" as in study of religion (anthropo-socio contexts) or a factor in history / politics -- rather than practice / celebration / promotion / recruitment. There should be little need to introduce irreligious activism in the classroom as a counter or balance to such salesmanship when the latter is absent.

Though "atheism" as a belief system or a Fellowship Church of the Unbelieving or a philosophical school or a heavymetal cult of the Anti-God, etc (IOW, whatever atheists are expandingly willing to conceive their "-ism" as these days) could be passively added as another member of the overall belief mix examined. Needless to say, some of the potential strains of atheism in that open-ended sequence might not qualify for the same studies that theism happened to arise subject-wise in or was natively featured among.
 
AlexG said:
If there's an after life why bother with life?
Click to expand...
Not all religions are framed around preparing oneself for the afterlife. Mine, for instance, largely views the afterlife as plain, rather boring or bland, but certainly not abhorrent nor something we can really alter. We're all going to die; we all end up in Hades' custody. Life isn't about finding the "best" existence after bodily death; rather, a good life is its own reward. Life, and your purpose, is whatever you make of it.
 
Physicist Sean Carroll is convinced that there is no life after we die.

We are made of atoms and we know pretty well how atoms work. In fact, the atoms that we are made of were once in the core of stars so the atoms in my right hand probably came from a different star than the atoms in my left hand.

There was an article about this subject in Scientific American in which Sean Carroll explains quite well why there is life after death:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

 
pluto2 said:
Physicist Sean Carroll is convinced that there is no life after we die.

We are made of atoms and we know pretty well how atoms work. In fact, the atoms that we are made of were once in the core of stars so the atoms in my right hand probably came from a different star than the atoms in my left hand.

There was an article about this subject in Scientific American in which Sean Carroll explains quite well why there is life after death:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

Click to expand...

Sean Carroll is a physicist , he is not a biochemist , he might know about stars and subparticle but about life I question . He probably doesn't know about Ribose how is made or how an enzyme is put together,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top