Sex in heaven, yes!

[NMSquirrel]

Only if they are all of high value. Crappy housing, clothes and food not to mention a slow but free internet would leave us all cold.

Be careful what you wish for said the last communist.

i think of it like my cable, i only need the basic (it has scyfy channel)
if i wanted more i could trade/work for it, i don't expect to get everything for free, but the basics should be, especially in a society that claims it cares.

as far as crappy housing..i can fix it, i'm a contractor,i can make it quite comfortable..

 

[Rav]

critical examination of what, you're imagination? lol...

Of the claims made by many theists.

 

[rjr6]

Of course. You already believe so you don't feel the need to engage in critical examination. But again, critical examination is par for the course around here.



Striving to become a better person and seeking knowledge through critical examination are not mutually exclusive goals.

How does one critically analyze what 'life' is after death? It's interesting to imagine sex and being human in the afterlife, but surmising would be the best we could accomplish no matter what the view.

Your use of the word 'absurd' and the idea that humans experience nothing that is eternal (at least in the terms of our existence here) is what caught my interest. A cat is eternally a cat so long as it is a cat, it does not experience being a mouse.

 

[Rav]

How does one critically analyze what 'life' is after death?

Like I already said, I am examining claims about the afterlife.

Here, take a look at this. Pay attention in particular to the "Afterlife" column. Notice how many different claims there are about what it is (or isn't)?

Although you yourself may not be making any specific claims about the nature of life after death (if there is such a thing), many others are. Once a specific claim is made, it's open to critical examination, just like anything else.

Your use of the word 'absurd' and the idea that humans experience nothing that is eternal (at least in the terms of our existence here) is what caught my interest. A cat is eternally a cat so long as it is a cat, it does not experience being a mouse.

If you read my initial post carefully, you'll notice that I wasn't saying that the idea of an afterlife was absurd. For the sake of argument I have assumed that such a thing may be possible. What I did do was attempt to point out the incompatibility between a proposed state of eternal bliss (which is just one of the many different claims about what the afterlife is) and the basic psychological makeup of an average human being.

 

[Lori_7]

Of the claims made by many theists.

based on what, their imaginations?

critically examine this...

unless you're dead, there's no way you're going to know a damn thing about it. and to my original point, why is this something worth examining now? how is it relevant to someone who's alive? doesn't it make a lot more sense to examine this existence while alive, and examine the next when you get there?

 

[wynn]

What is important about the afterlife that isn't important now?

Are you saying that everything that is important now is also important about the afterlife?

 

[Lori_7]

Are you saying that everything that is important now is also important about the afterlife?

why wouldn't it be?

 

[wynn]

Job, insurance, house, car, family ...? In heaven?

 

[wynn]

doesn't it make a lot more sense to examine this existence while alive, and examine the next when you get there?

For a Buddhist, perhaps.

 

[rjr6]

Are you saying that everything that is important now is also important about the afterlife?

You could ask 'is everything that is important in the afterlife important now?'.

 

[Lori_7]

Job, insurance, house, car, family ...? In heaven?

if that's what you're attached to here then who's to say you won't be attached there?

perhaps that's how people end up in hell?

 

[Lori_7]

For a Buddhist, perhaps.

or for a human. why does everything have to come down to religion with you?

 

[wynn]

What I did do was attempt to point out the incompatibility between a proposed state of eternal bliss (which is just one of the many different claims about what the afterlife is) and the basic psychological makeup of an average human being.

There is the idea that spiritual bliss in different than the bliss we commonly experience.

Namely, the bliss we commonly experience has to be structured and limited, otherwise we get bored of it or even become ill from it.

On the other hand, spiritual bliss is said not to have such drawbacks, as it is based on other principles than the bliss we commonly experience.

 

[wynn]

You could ask 'is everything that is important in the afterlife important now?'.

This exchange started off with my pointing out that if we don't care about the afterlife, then Pascal's Wager and similar arguments from the importance of afterlife are irrelevant in regard to how any why a person becomes a believer/theist.

Pascal's Wager focuses on the afterlife and posits that the main reason for believing in God is the concern for afterlife.

(MindOverMatter is an avid supporter of Pascal's Wager, so it would be good to have him here.)

But if, along with you, we are to neglect concerns for the afterlife - what is your reasoning for why a person should believe in God?

 

[wynn]

For a Buddhist, perhaps.

or for a human. why does everything have to come down to religion with you?

I said for a Buddhist because the Buddhist stance allows for "examining this existence while alive, and examining the next when you get there" - given that Buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation and no monotheistic God.

But as soon as linear time, monotheism, and one-lifetime-for-action are on the table, "examining this existence while alive, and examining the next when you get there" would be irresponsible.
Unless, of course, one would somehow manage to ease into the prospect of being burnt alive for all eternity because one has not chosen the "right religion" or didn't have "the reight belief in God".

 

[rjr6]

Like I already said, I am examining claims about the afterlife.

Here, take a look at this. Pay attention in particular to the "Afterlife" column. Notice how many different claims there are about what it is (or isn't)?

Although you yourself may not be making any specific claims about the nature of life after death (if there is such a thing), many others are. Once a specific claim is made, it's open to critical examination, just like anything else.



If you read my initial post carefully, you'll notice that I wasn't saying that the idea of an afterlife was absurd. For the sake of argument I have assumed that such a thing may be possible. What I did do was attempt to point out the incompatibility between a proposed state of eternal bliss (which is just one of the many different claims about what the afterlife is) and the basic psychological makeup of an average human being.

You've actually just made an argument for God being responsible for the bible.

 

[wynn]

You've actually just made an argument for God being responsible for the bible.

How?

 

[Lori_7]

I said for a Buddhist because the Buddhist stance allows for "examining this existence while alive, and examining the next when you get there" - given that Buddhists believe in karma and reincarnation and no monotheistic God.

But as soon as linear time, monotheism, and one-lifetime-for-action are on the table, "examining this existence while alive, and examining the next when you get there" would be irresponsible.
Unless, of course, one would somehow manage to ease into the prospect of being burnt alive for all eternity because one has not chosen the "right religion" or didn't have "the reight belief in God".

it's not the religion's fault or god's fault for that matter, that you're so inclined to be spoon fed and brainwashed by other people.

for example god told me "there is no time here", and there's no indication that we have only one "lifetime" as you're calling it. quite the opposite actually. eternity's a long lifetime imo.

also, from what i understand hell is an existence that arises from the rejection of god. it really doesn't have anything to do with religion. that should be very clear to you right now.

 

[rjr6]

This exchange started off with my pointing out that if we don't care about the afterlife, then Pascal's Wager and similar arguments from the importance of afterlife are irrelevant in regard to how any why a person becomes a believer/theist.

Pascal's Wager focuses on the afterlife and posits that the main reason for believing in God is the concern for afterlife.

(MindOverMatter is an avid supporter of Pascal's Wager, so it would be good to have him here.)

But if, along with you, we are to neglect concerns for the afterlife - what is your reasoning for why a person should believe in God?

spiritual growth ought to be your goal as it (spirit) is constant. the 'afterlife' is not a retirement home. Apparently there is sex in retirement homes though so maybe that will be the same.

 

[rjr6]

How?

paraphrasing what was said, man is not suitable for eternal bliss with his 'psychological makeup', thus needing religious or Godly intervention. Rav is not saying this, I know, but his statement could be taken from a Christian's preacher sermon.