Not long ago, this was a discussion between myself and a friend, who even though Christian, has all the markers of being an intellectual juggernaut.

We spent hours over several days debating the principle from his perspective and mine.  He just emailed me about it again; from somewhere came a recognition of a major failure of his concept. It obviates, directly, what humans hold as one of the highest standards, individually and socially; quality.

Not being an expert on Christianity, a bit more familiar with Judaism, I've looked through a few online texts for clarity.  Little, if any, is to be found.  I'm familiar with Daoism, by proxy, Buddhism and Confucianism; checked what I could find in the Q'uran.

What became apparent to me was that none of the ideological systems even spare a passing glance at the issue of "quality afterlife"; I'm not certain if that makes it a foregone conclusion or simply a non-issue.

What humans are expressing most often when they say "quality of life" is the nature of experience, and consequent emotional states invoked/provoked by those experiences.  Even those experiences that create sadness, anxiety, fear, rage, etc., have the inherent ability to create a specific quality that adds to the totality of life experience.

So, even if one accepts the premise of an afterlife; what is actually gained?

The answer is rather simple; duration/immortality.  It might seem like a reward to some, I suppose.  But where is the quality?  When I asked my friend this question, he began to direct towards "spiritual life" ... ?  I'm still working through that aspect.  But, from my understanding, and what he has said; consciousness ends with the body, but the spirit remains.  The spirit has no recognition of corporeal form or its consciousness, as in there would be no recognition of others that you knew in physical life, none of the emotional attachments to those once loved ...

Simply, from my perspective, some "aspect" continues, without experience, without quality ... the afterlife is just an abysmal duration of duration.

How far off am I?

Views: 47

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Congratulations on remaining sane. ;)
I think you pretty much have it. I point out to people all of the time that without your body you aren't you anymore. Where is the sensation? Emotion, feeling etc are impossible without a body, or else our brains wouldn't bother to excrete all of those lovely feel good chemicals. (Never miiiind the fact that you ARE your body. Mind/Body should be Mind = body) To me an afterlife would seem more like a prison.

Gah, I hate afterlife concepts. Without an afterlife religion could actually be palatable - almost. But what would be the point?

Afterlife = pessimism If people would just accept the fact that death is DEATH maybe people would actually spend there temporary existence making the world a better place for there children rather than allowing the wait for death (and true life as I have heard a few baptist's say) to drain enjoyment for life. Pheh.
If people would just accept the fact that death is DEATH maybe people would actually spend there temporary existence making the world a better place

Or at least appreciate the experience of being here ;-)
Aye, at the least. Surely this would lead to the betterment of the world, at least in some areas.
Accepting death as death may actually be even bigger than acknowledging that Yeshua of Nazareth was just a man with a PR campaign working for him. Add to that the whole "True Believer" concept, which is nothing new but still pernicious, and I think even Sisyphus would say, "Screw this noise!"
To me an afterlife would seem more like a prison.

That's exactly how it appears to me. Your continuance is for the sake of ... continuing. Without any of the essential parameters that made the experiences of physical life have value; including any memory of those experiences.

It seems like quite possibly the most useless endeavor ever proposed.

"Welcome to eternity, have a seat."

"Then what?"

"What what? It's eternity, you're here, have a seat."

That is something to look forward to, the super/supranatural equivalent of the military's "hurry up and wait". It seriously fails the sniff test, and falls well short of "divine grandeur" ...

Wouldn't this be where an individual just scratches their head and says, "Excuse me, but I call unmitigated bullshit."

?
"Wouldn't this be where an individual just scratches their head and says, "Excuse me, but I call unmitigated bullshit."

A thinking individual who isn't simply out to prove what they already believe? One would hope, my friend. Sadly most religiosos (who was it that created that term the other day? hehe) have never thought critically about religion or even read more than a few snippets of whatever holy text they supposedly prescribe to and there only concept of an after life is the flowery version they've been ordered to believe in. Logical inconsistencies mean nothing to them. ...which brings me to a question I ask my self all of the time... who is the real problem? The sophisticated theologian or the typical sheepish 'believer'? Who do we have to win over? And if it is one over the other, how?
Logical inconsistencies mean nothing to them.

Sadly true.

I've sometimes felt it necessary to presage certain conversations I'm about to have with the following:

"Can we just agree that if a person believes two contradictory things then it follows that at least one of the premises they are using is not valid?"


Now you said ....

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service