Heaven, Hell, and The Afterlife

[tragula]

I have this rather simple philosophy about The Afterlife. (I'm not sure where it came from or how original it is--it's something I've believed for a long time now.)

I basically have a materialistic view of life--soul=brain, etc. So I don't think that your spirit actually lives on, though of course your energy and molecules are all recycled, right?) But everything we DO has an impact on the universe that continues after our death. It's amazing how even little senseless things, like buying some grapefruit juice, change the world and the future permanently.

So, being a moralistic kind of person, my view of Heaven and Hell boils down to the idea that-- if you change the world for the better then your good deeds live on for eternity. And that is like Heaven. The reverse applies for bad deeds. And death is really just a pretty meaningless event because it can't erase in any way the impact we've had on the world. It only means that we stop making new impacts.

(note--Eternity may be too strong a word, depending on whether the consequences of our actions are totally erased by the destruction of our planet or universe. But, nevertheless--a really really long time.)

[Garyincinci]

I don't believe in the existance of any of the above except in regards to your legacy in the folds of history. I do not believe in fate or some greater purpose to life. I do not believe in an afterlife or reincarnation except in the sense that matter is constantly recycled in nature so that the matter which made you up may become a plant, animal or perhaps somehow even a human. The thoughts and that which is conotated with a soul (I don't believe in those either) is not connected to the matter...it is simply recycled matter...no longer what it was, now something new and different.

You can achieve a historical immortality of sorts. If you some how achieve greatness or do something particularly dispicable, you're name will be remembered for generations, perhaps even milenium...such as Ceaser, Buddha, DaVinci...these are names which will be remember possibily till the end of our time. And names like David Koresh, Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper...these names will undoubtadly come up in conversations for at least several generations. That is the only true afterlife...the effects of your actions during life on the ripple of time.

[cjs55]

Looks like we've asked the same question and came up with the same answer.

[tragula]

I think perhaps people underestimate causality. Fame is simply fame, and not really a good measure of someone's impact in life.
For example, right off the top of my head:
What if someone chopped down a tree in their yard for landscaping reasons. And that tree was home to some sort of rare beatle. And that tree was literaly the straw that broke the beatles back and it ends up going extinct. And somene was unable to discover that some chemical secreted by that beetle was a cure for cancer....

Or you make a random turn walking down the street and never bump into that old friend that was walking in your direction....
Or you have spinach stuck in your teeth on a date and the girl you might have ended up marying and having kids with decided you are a dork and blows you off!
Etc etc. Complicated stuff with huge implications for the future is happening all the time!

[Pierce]

I basically have a materialistic view of life--soul=brain, etc. So I don't think that your spirit actually lives on, though of course your energy and molecules are all recycled, right?)

I think if you reject God, you will naturally and logically arrive at that conclusion -- it's flawless. The question is not with the end of your equation, but the begining. Your a priori begining must be that God does not exist. If your begining acknowledged God, your conclusion would be much different.

[jjt]

I think we've come up with a view of an afterlife because we, as thinking beings cannot imagine that there is nothing. (Which is what I believe) It seems inconceivable to have no ongoing thought for the majority of people. So the afterlife has been constructed to resolve this.

I think our different views of the afterlife being heaven or hell come from seeing others as they lie taking their last breath and possibly imagining how we would feel in that situation.

We all as we lay dying taking our last breaths we will probably reflect on our lives and what we have used them for. Did we make a positive impact on the people / society / world? Or did we lead a life with wasted time, damage other people, leave with relationships not sorted. Depending on how you look back, I think one may feel guilty with unfinished business (hell) or satified, clear and happy with how we are leaving this world (heaven).

[euterpenc]

I reject heaven and hell. I Think your soul might live on, because the body is just lements and such, what gives it life oevr a rock? A soul. At least, that's what I think.

[Google Monster]

I believe there could be a god. But I also believe in no afterlife. Death is relativly the end of thought, pretty simple to me.

[Clara]

You people have never known, or known of, a person dying as they were conscious, awake, and talking?

[tragula]

I think if you reject God, you will naturally and logically arrive at that conclusion -- it's flawless. The question is not with the end of your equation, but the begining. Your a priori begining must be that God does not exist. If your begining acknowledged God, your conclusion would be much different.

Who says I don't believe in God? HA HA. I may simply define God very differently. The multiverse, cosmic energy, Fate... all these things are like God to me... Do people have to have non-materialistic Gods?

[Pierce]

Who says I don't believe in God? HA HA. I may simply define God very differently. The multiverse, cosmic energy, Fate... all these things are like God to me... Do people have to have non-materialistic Gods?

Yes, I suppose you are right. You could also define god as a peanut, in which case your philosophy would take some interesting turns -- all perfectly logical (after the peanut assumption). Alas, it's of little use to redefine words that already have meaning; you might try, "God is dead; long live Cosmic Energy!" That would be less confusing, should you ever want to start a religion.

According to Webster:

Main Entry: 1god

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

[QrioCT]

blah, the best atheist argument ive seen is about the brain thing. there are people who's alive that's braindead. and there the ones who never really had a brain to start with...lol
they dont feel or think anymore. where the hell is their soul? maybe it exists but cant feel or think...i dont know.

by the way, this is an agnostic talking.

[Google Monster]

I think god just sits on his ass and does nothing for 40+ billions of years and only does something every now when he has no choice.

[Google Monster]

Not really accurate to say these braindead people dont feel or think anymore. Maybe they are just physically and emotionally unable to communicate even the simplest thoughts they do have. the brain has to do something in order to keep alive and that would probably be a deep subconsious part of the brain.

[tragula]

Yes, I suppose you are right. You could also define god as a peanut, in which case your philosophy would take some interesting turns -- all perfectly logical (after the peanut assumption). Alas, it's of little use to redefine words that already have meaning; you might try, "God is dead; long live Cosmic Energy!" That would be less confusing, should you ever want to start a religion.

According to Webster:

Main Entry: 1god

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


LOL. I have never thought to define God as a peanut. Could be an interesting starting point. Possibly a good cult idea! I wonder if INTPeanut.com is registered? :)

Now, a little more seriously, regarding the definition you quoted-- "the supreme or ultimate reality". I could take THAT as confirmation of my materialistic definition of God.... hmmm.

[Dman]

Regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife, who cares if you can't consciously be aware of it? Meaning that if you were re-born, but you don't know it, what's the difference? Who you were is dead. There would have to be some type of conscious memory for it to have any meaning. Same with the "legacy" thing. It feels good now to know your actions may have a positive impact in the future, but once you're dead, who gives a rip?

Maybe the best you can do is hope that our DNA somehow has some type of conscious buried in it, and at some point will become aware of it's entire lineage of existence. Hell would be it looking back at all the horrible things it caused along the way, Heaven would be the opposite.

[tragula]

People focus way to much on consciousness too I think. Our consciousness changes so much throughout our lives... and our memories may very well disappear long before we die.
I think it's much better to define who we are by the ways in which we change the world...

[tragula]

Interesting thought--People get very caught up in the whole body/spirit duality. Many NFP types make decisions with their hearts, and always picture the decision coming literally out of their chests. Of course they would be better off picturing it coming from a different corner of their brain, a non-rational one.
I read/heard somewhere that the ancient Greeks thought the brain was just a cooling mechanism for the body. So they pictured thought as coming from the chest or stomach or something... kind of funny!

[jjt]

You people have never known, or known of, a person dying as they were conscious, awake, and talking?

Well I am speaking from experience as well what I've read, as a nurse I have watched people die. I have spoken to people who have had near death experiences, I heard the impact it makes. I've watched close relatives die, I've heard them speak their thoughts. I've also imagined what it might be like for myself if I knew I had a week to live. I've been in a potentially fatal car accident.

This is just my theory as to why we have constructed a heaven and hell and afterlife.

[Garyincinci]

You people have never known, or known of, a person dying as they were conscious, awake, and talking?My neice died from some form of cancer at age 16. I was there up until the time that they actually turned off the life support at which point only the sister (neices mother) and my other neices (neices sister) where allowed to remain in the room. My sister says that as my neice died, she began speaking in tongues.

[Clara]

Thanks, jjt :) I've been trying to contort my thoughts around entering this discussion - because my thoughts veer sharply away from "arguing" about beliefs... I have a strong sense that if there's argument happening, then "belief" isn't actually the topic.

I think that we use terms (that don't really mean the same thing) interchangeably more often than we realize - sometimes it matters little, of course. But sometimes it does, if it means that we erase whole concepts from our thought-vocabulary.

For instance, "as to why we have constructed a heaven and hell and afterlife" - with which I'm NOT arguing (nor agreeing)... presupposes that we have indeed constructed them. No, wait. I do argue with it. Just as I argue with the notion that when I close the door, everything on the opposite side of the door disappears... and then, reappears, down to the dirt in the corner that I must remember to wipe up, next time I'm walking by with a wet rag.

[Clara]

Well, I've heard of people (closely related enough to know the stories are true) saying things like, "Well, I have to go now, dear, they're waiting for me..." as they died - and the person nearby (sometimes agnostic, or atheist - and continuing still to believe or disbelieve as before...) merely reporting what they witnessed...

You see, I think the famous INTP doubt is a very good and useful thing... I just don't perceive that it's being applied often enough - or sufficiently, for that matter.

(And, I still don't think that "argue" and "belief" can work together... because, I think "belief" is a further step along from "perceive." If, while I was waiting for new eyeglasses, someone said, "Look over there," - I would see, at best, a blur. If they started arguing with me about it, they would get an argument, but we would be arguing about their attitude, not about what they'd been pointing to, at the beginning.)

Edit : maybe it'd be useful to add : I - personally - distrust the "speaking in tongues" kind of (what, religious practice?). I do believe that anything (including that which can only be experienced through belief) true, can be experienced as being true through a variety of ways. And, that untruth masks itself as truth, often enough that those various ways are a good thing, and necessary. If something is important for me to know it, then I will have some way to A/ know it; and B/ know that it's true. And, I believe the same is true for all of us... (just that the details of exactly how we come to know what we know to be true vary)

Edit again: Those who ever read the New Testament, did you ever think about the role of Thomas - that maybe his doubt wasn't what you might have been taught? That, maybe, he's in the story (life is a story, too) to include him -- and those of us (e.g. me) that are somewhat like him?

[jjt]

Edit : maybe it'd be useful to add : I - personally - distrust the "speaking in tongues" kind of (what, religious practice?). I do believe that anything (including that which can only be experienced through belief) true, can be experienced as being true through a variety of ways. And, that untruth masks itself as truth, often enough that those various ways are a good thing, and necessary. If something is important for me to know it, then I will have some way to A/ know it; and B/ know that it's true. And, I believe the same is true for all of us... (just that the details of exactly how we come to know what we know to be true vary)

Actually I agree with what you are saying here.
By the way I have spoken in tougues, I went through a very penticostal Christian experience in my late teens. My husband thinks it's just echolalia (meaningless repitition of speech). (He also had a similar religious experience in the past) I'm inclined to agree, it certainly seemed like a garbled nonsense talk, but at the time I spoke in tongues I was filled with a religious emotion and the experience was highly meaningful.

[Clara]

My husband thinks it's just echolalia (meaningless repitition of speech). (He also had a similar religious experience in the past) I'm inclined to agree, it certainly seemed like a garbled nonsense talk, but at the time I spoke in tongues I was filled with a religious emotion and the experience was highly meaningful.I added the "edit" because... I think it's possible that it is echolalia (and maybe it's not) - and maybe it's echolalia and the people who believe they're experiencing a highly meaningful moment, are indeed. :)

I do believe that just because one wants something to be true, doesn't make it false. BUT, I also think, if one doesn't use some kind of "Is this true?" sense (doubt, verification) - then how does one discern a lie that seems like a truth?

[Warrior413]

I've thought that perhaps afterlife is just you seeing your life repeated over and over. If you led a good life then you could consider that heaven, if you led a bad life then you could consider that hell. But in the end, I really just decided that the only way to find out is by dying, so why bother worrying about it?

[jjt]

I added the "edit" because... I think it's possible that it is echolalia (and maybe it's not) - and maybe it's echolalia and the people who believe they're experiencing a highly meaningful moment, are indeed. :)

I'd agree, meaningful is in the experience of the individual. A moment in time happens, in this case strange sounds coming out of my mouth, intense feelings, and the meaning is added in the mind of the person a nansecond later. (For me it was - I decided that I'd had a close encounter with God) Is the the truth - did I really have a close encounter with God? Or was that just in my interpretation of the moment?



I do believe that just because one wants something to be true, doesn't make it false. BUT, I also think, if one doesn't use some kind of "Is this true?" sense (doubt, verification) - then how does one discern a lie that seems like a truth?

Good question. How do we discern what is true? Many things in our culture are true, because we all agree. Not because they are 'true' nesessarily.

[PsiKik]

My theory about heaven and hell is that the concept of 'Hell' is nothing less than a mind control technique, carefully thought out and refined. I am thinking here in reference to the 'fire and brimstone' sermon etc.
I wonder if any scholars here can elaborate on the origins of this terrible construct. Truly hells are man made, including the 'Hell'.

[intpgolfer]

Provided we are not just food for worms.

a. I believe the Father [whatever you call him] puts his arm around us - Hitler and me and you - then gives us infinate understanding.

b. And we spend Hell pondering all of the turns we should have made, and the lives we could have led but for our stupidities.

c. Then we get to see how others lives would have been better - Imagine Hitler, with perfect understanding reviewing the lives of his millions - one at a time - with their lost hopes and lost children and lost potential.

Is this just an INTP Hell - Worse than fire & brimstone - I think so?

[panda]

the Father
Who? I hope he's nothing like my father.

[NoahFence]

One vote for afterlife. I think of Heaven and Hell as adjectives, not places. I doubt you sprout wings/horns and hang out in clouds/flames with a harp/pitchfork. Just as I doubt you get a harem.

And God is a peanut. Just not exclusively.

[NightCrawler]

What if someone chopped down a tree in their yard for landscaping reasons. And that tree was home to some sort of rare beatle. And that tree was literaly the straw that broke the beatles back and it ends up going extinct.
I thought Yoko was the straw that broke the Beatles' back.

[NightCrawler]

One vote for afterlife. I think of Heaven and Hell as adjectives, not places. I doubt you sprout wings/horns and hang out in clouds/flames with a harp/pitchfork. Just as I doubt you get a harem.

And God is a peanut. Just not exclusively.

I believe in an afterlife of Heaven and Hell. Notice how it never says anywhere in the Christian Scriptures that dead people sprout wings or grow horns, depending on their respective afterlives. That is man-made fiction.