The Bloggers With The Most To Say
What's your version of the afterlife?
Everyone has their own interpretation of an afterlife. Some think people go to heaven or hell. Some would rather just believe in heaven and no hell. Some believe in reincarnation. Some don't believe in any afterlife.
I fall into the last category, thus I always get asked, "What's the point of living if there is no reward to look forward to?" Or "What's the point of being nice if there is no negative to being mean?" I tried to answer these questions in my latest post. Basically, being nice is inherently positive. It causes happiness. Happiness is worth living for. Don't need any more than that.
You?
I fall into the last category, thus I always get asked, "What's the point of living if there is no reward to look forward to?" Or "What's the point of being nice if there is no negative to being mean?" I tried to answer these questions in my latest post. Basically, being nice is inherently positive. It causes happiness. Happiness is worth living for. Don't need any more than that.
You?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Conor on -
I'll prefix this by saying I respect people's beliefs BUT:
I don't believe in an afterlife, nor do I believe that there is a spiritually utilitarian 'point'' to living a good life. As far as I'm concerned we are the results of an evolutionary process that occurred within the tiniest and most random of parameters. Being good because you believe it's the will of a 'god' or for a reward after you die is a cynical cop-out. When we die we decompose and become worm-food or our ashes scatter and diffuse, that's it.
In my opinion, living a rich, full life is its own reward and trying to be a good person is logically an obvious adjunct to reacting to the world in a positive way. You've hit the nail on the head, Mr G. Happiness is worth living for, that is sufficient for me. I don't need the human-made dogma of 'god' to be a good person.
-
Permalink Reply by Freeman Dyson on -
I don't know if there is an afterlife but I think if we make it into the future far enough we will develop the technology that allows us to resurrect every human who ever lived, and have them live forever.
"Life has always seemed to me like a plant that lives on its rhizome. Its true life is invisible, hidden in the rhizome. The part that appears above the ground lasts only a single summer. Then it withers away - an ephemeral apparition. When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux. What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains."
-Jung
-
Permalink Reply by cooper on -
Life is it's own reward. I don't have an interpretation of afterlife because I don't believe their is an afterlife. It'd be great if there were of course.
We are born we live and we die, and what we do in between birth and death is what matters.
-
Permalink Reply by Freeman Dyson on
-
That blog post is awful by the way. Just a couple strawmen you propped up and then knocked over. Popular "science" books are not "studies" either. I don't know why atheists insist on countering unfounded religious stories and subjective moral choices by creating their own.
"Riches don't matter much, he observes, but close relationships, quiet surroundings and short commutes help a lot, while meditation, cognitive psychotherapy and Prozac are equally valid remedies for constitutional unhappiness."
I didnt know "happiness" could be quantified. This is why I hate the social "sciences". It is more religion, dogma, and storytelling than science.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew G on -
You claim the arguments are strawmen because they didn't come from you, but they are arguments I've personally heard a number of times. In fact my post is nothing new in terms of counter-argument. You've probably never read the books, so why refute them? They do contain studies. Sounds like you're offended.
-
Permalink Reply by Freeman Dyson on
-
No, they are a straw men fallacy because they arent attributed to anyone and easily knocked over. Then you just pulled out an anecdotal fallacy to defend that accusation. Which only proves it is a straw man.
A counter argument from this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/...
"Something as elaborate—as time-, energy-, and thought-consuming—as religion would not exist if it didn’t have secular utility. Religions exist primarily for people to achieve together what they cannot achieve alone. The mechanisms that enable religious groups to function as adaptive units include the very beliefs and practices that make religion appear enigmatic to so many people who stand outside of them.”
"On average, religious believers are more pro-social than nonbelievers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long term planning rather than gratifying to impulsive desires. On a moment by moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and nonreligious believers are matched for the degree of pro-sociology. More fine-grained comparisons reveal fascinating differences between liberal and conservative Protestant denominations, with more anxiety among the liberals and conservatives feeling better in the company of others than when alone."
"The end state that it achieves, and I can say this with authority because I do study this, is that the average conservative religious believer is in a much happier and less stressed frame of mind than the average non-believer or even liberal religious believer. So there is a ton of evidence that religious belief is admirably designed. I say admirable even though I'm an atheist. As a biologist, when I see a beautiful adaptation — the butterfly's wing, or the shape of a fish—I just have to admire it for its design. I have the same admiration for the design of religious groups, and I also admire the degree to which they succeed at forming community among their members. "
And this guy is an atheist and die hard liberal evolutionary biologist who blogs on the Huffington Post.
-
Permalink Reply by little m on -
I cannot say for certain if there is an afterlife or not, though it would be interesting if there were.
I believe (generally) in universal energy -- no, not Karma/Dharma, specifically, but rather a non-sentient(without ulterior motives) energy (similar to the big bang), that we are all a part of. I believe in reincarnation in the sense that the elements that you body is composed of will decompose and feed the earth and thus continue to be part of the carbon cycle.
Oh yeah I know, real circle of life shit there.
I do however believe that one can be spiritual without belief in a deity or afterlife.
(No I do not ascribe to Wicca, so please do not ask).
© 2012 Created by Lisa.
