John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
If advances in health sciences allow us to live indefinitely, would that be the end of religion?
Living Forever - the end of God?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
certainly it would be a victory for those who propound atheism - given the impossibility of the task however they usually cop out with sour-puss comments as below
Victory??? LOL Does that mean when I die and go nowhere, that believers have scored one off me?
Why?
John J. Bannan said:
Living forever doesn't disprove religion so I wouldn't think so.
Cris said:
The threat of death would always be around I think. Even if fields of health/medicine got so advanced that the case were rare, what would you do if you were injured and not around the resources needed to help?
Last edited:
You people got it messed up, do you seriously want to live forever in this world? you guys are so freaked out of death is freaky. Some of us wouldn´t like the alternative of an ever-lasting life in this planet. Can you imagine the consequences in over-population of that?
I will die happy, just by knowing is not my end, that is a religion you cannot make disappear.
I will die happy, just by knowing is not my end, that is a religion you cannot make disappear.
Where do you see support for the idea of living forever in this world?
if thats a fact, yes - but given that death is the ultimate closure to empirical inquiry, its not clear how you arrive at the "fact" status
the animosity was just a reciprocation with the animosity given
as for the thread topic - I addressed it
the foundation of theistic understanding is that the conditioned soul is unable to surmount the material energy (except by surrender to god)
BG 7.14: This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.
if we could surmount this
BG 2.27: One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.
there would be no need of a dependent relationship with god or god's potencies - therefore immortality in a corporeal body is the impossible dream of atheists, both in the present and in history. Yet all that can be vouched for is sending one's ashes into space or some other foolishness in honor of Issac Asimov
in the OP of this thread for a start
No, suffering (fear, anger, sorrow, etc...) would still continue and thus spirituality and religion would thrive more than ever....
This is a good point, attachments are the reason why people seek spiritual guidance. And plus, I think we would have more wise men after all.
There would still be a search for what happened to the many that did die before such medical advances were made, so I believe religion would still be around. Also, I'm an atheist. Immortality is not my dream. And I'm fairly sure it's not a dream to the atheists I know. So I think you're wrong when you say it would be a victory for atheists.
lightgigantic said:
I see a hypothetical question, not any statement of support or want for immortality.
:bravo:
Yeah with people living for thousands of years they will likely experience highs and lows and eventually become bored and disinterested with life and realize the true purpose in life...
Ashura,
But we need to consider the nature of a society that has come to terms with open ended life spans. Today we accept that many thousands of people die every day in all parts of the world. Death is accepted as a normal frequent event and hence religion surrounds it with it superstitions and promises of something better. But won’t attitudes change when the death rate changes from instead of thousands every day to just a few every year. I would argue that the value of life would quickly be seen as extremely high and that even further precautions would be taken to ensure its safety.
Would religion survive in such an atmosphere of extremely rare death? At best I think it would just be sidelined. Without death being inevitable, it would be reduced to something most unfortunate if it ever occurs.
But what would that mean in any practical sense? The promise of every significant religion is a life beyond death, and the rules that its adherents follow is the process by which they are meant to achieve eternal life. If you already have an open ended lifespan then what would following a religion mean? Surely it would be seen as a redundant activity that offers nothing. It would die out, surely, or at least be seen as largely irrelevant?
Certainly suicide, murder, and accidents would be the primary causes of death. So it is not immortality that we are considering here.
But we need to consider the nature of a society that has come to terms with open ended life spans. Today we accept that many thousands of people die every day in all parts of the world. Death is accepted as a normal frequent event and hence religion surrounds it with it superstitions and promises of something better. But won’t attitudes change when the death rate changes from instead of thousands every day to just a few every year. I would argue that the value of life would quickly be seen as extremely high and that even further precautions would be taken to ensure its safety.
Would religion survive in such an atmosphere of extremely rare death? At best I think it would just be sidelined. Without death being inevitable, it would be reduced to something most unfortunate if it ever occurs.
Wisdom Seeker,
The alternative is non-existence, how could that ever be better?
I don’t think you have thought this through. The universe is huge, perhaps infinite, so why do you think we will always be constrained to this tiny insignificant rock? Our potential for growth and discovery is colossal, why would anyone not want to be a part of that?
Death is usually ugly, messy and painful. And you will not exist to have any thoughts on the matter once you are dead.