I’d rather not become the enemy they make me out to be, like I was previously taught. I’d rather be me, and be one of the most humane, generous, caring, and considerate people you know. I want to be remembered for these traits, not something vile, rebellious, and purely dark. I want to be the light. Do I have to be a Christian in order to genuinely possess these traits? I’m tired of expectations and not knowing the truth. Someone please give me insight on the so-called ‘afterlife’. I need to know.
18 comments
Here’s some “insight”:
The “so-called afterlife” is an unverified claim, which has been discussed ad nauseam, since who-knows how-long-ago.
Is there anyone alive who is qualified to tell us about what happens to those who stay dead?
If not, who would profess to have such knowledge? And why?
Why would anyone claim to know something that is literally /impossible/ for anyone to know?
And to answer your question: No. Xianity is not required for those traits you would prefer to embrace and be known for. If not for the impacts imposed upon the real world by it’s proponents, Xianity would be entirely irrelevant.
But people don’t like the wool over their eyes pulled back. They don’t like their cozy illusory world shattered. They don’t like their bubbles burst. They don’t like their false constructs deconstructed. Many of them have only the hope of a heavenly hereafter, as consolation for the seemingly inexplicable suffering they’ve encountered in their lives. They only know how to “make sense of it all” (which it really doesn’t, if you pay attention), just that one way. So if you go exposing the religiously entrenched to “reason” and “logic,” they will not react in pleasant ways. Some will even totally FTFO and possibly attempt to harm you.
As an atheist (or, “anti-theist,” if you will), i find it ironic, frustrating, and occasionally quite silly, that i still end up spending so much of my time on the topic of “God.” That’s the whole point of crossing that line: it’s a huge waste of time. We should be attempting to understand things through means other than explaining everything with “supernatural” fantasies.
“It is only the inferior thinker who hastens to explain the singular and the complex by the primitive shortcut of supernaturalism.” – H.P. Lovecraft
The most likely “afterlife,” is that everything that makes us “us,” including our consciousness, including our ability to be aware of anything at all, simply ceases to exist, entirely.
Why is that “most likely?” Because we have no evidence to indicate that anything else happens, after the “anchors” to this world cease to function. No one comes back to tell us “hey, there’s another side! I’m still sort-of alive, but disembodied!”
With the billions of people who have already lived and died before us, it’s hard to imagine that none of them have found a way to tell us what happens after, without being revived to continue living.
“But what about ghosts?” Who knows. Energy and stuff. People have been known to hallucinate for little or no reason, or even very predictable reasons, at times.
It’s not impossible that there is some sort of ‘spirit-realm.’ It’s just that we, the living, still have no way of identifying such a thing.
The truth is, there are some things we just can’t know.
I recommend acquainting yourself with the term “phaneron.” And, hopefully, some people who are less averse, perhaps even welcoming, of your unorthodox and “newfangled” ideas about the world.
you don’t have to be a Christian to be a good person. Maybe there is a spirit realm, or maybe you get reincarnated into another life with the possibility of repeating everything you already went through, to learn your karmic lessons. Maybe we cease to exist. Either way in the end all that matters is the people you help and the people you hurt.
If we cease to exist, then “people we hurt” don’t matter. If there is no “hell,” then those who were not punished in life, “get away with it.” If there’s no “heaven,” then those who suffered unjustly, never receive anything for it. There are people in this world who are not good, who need to fear some sort of repercussions for their actions, even if they seem to have gotten away with them in life… and also, people who cannot keep going in their perpetual suffering, without believing they will reap some reward in a hereafter. Life would be pretty rough all over the world, if the wrong people thought there were no “hell,” and the unlucky thought there were no “heaven.” That’s why the whole thing exists. It’s an attempt to keep people in line. Not all of us require it. Some of us humanists will simply control ourselves, because we realize that’s just the right thing to do, without expecting neither punishment nor reward. For us (me) it’s not about fear or reward. It’s about respecting life itself, and being considerate enough to avoid causing needless suffering to others.
If we are reincarnated, it would be utterly without knowledge of anything prior. It’s an entirely new body. The memories can’t transfer. If it’s reincarnation, we won’t know. It’ll be totally fresh, like it’s the first time again.
In the end… nothing really matters, except what you decide matters to you.
If you’re fine with whatever matters to you… do you really need anyone’s approval?
Heres a review of a study you should read and a link to the study.
Criminal Behavior:
Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: “Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread.” He also states: “Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries.”
Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: “And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon.”
And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in “religious” states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).
Marriage and Family:
Zuckerman cites a 1999 Barna study that finds that atheists and agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans.
He also cites another study, in Canada, that found conservative Christian women experienced higher rates of domestic violence than non-affiliated women.
Unprotected Sex:
As for Plante’s claim that studies have “consistently ” found that religious people are less likely to engage in unprotected sex, that claim is directly refuted by a 2009 study that found the reverse – teens who make religion-inspired “virginity pledges” are not only just as likely as their non-pledging peers to engage in premarital sex, but more likely to engage in unprotected sex.
Other Findings of Interest:
Happiness: The most secular nations in the world report the highest levels of happiness among their population.
Altruism: Secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations. Zuckerman also reports that two studies show that, during the Holocaust, “the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews.”
Outlooks and Values: Zuckerman, citing numerous studies, shows that atheists and agnostics, when compared to religious people, are actually less likely to be nationalistic, racist, anti-Semitic, dogmatic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian. Secularism also correlates to higher education levels. Atheists and other secular people are also much more likely to support women’s rights and gender equality, as well as gay and lesbian rights. Religious individuals are more likely to support government use of torture.
Of course, studies can be cherry-picked to present religiosity in a better light than above, and the point of this article is not to prove the moral superiority of secularism. Nevertheless, whatever Plante wishes to cite, it is impossible to claim that studies “consistently” support his claims of positive social outcomes correlating to religion. To the contrary, the weight of most data seems to indicate that religiosity is a poor indicator of social health or personal virtue.
To Plante’s credit, he acknowledges that religion is not necessary for ethical behavior. Still, the thrust of his message attempts to make a case for religion (and implicitly critical of secularism) that simply isn’t supported by facts. Most secular individuals would not argue with him when he asserts that religion might help some to be good, and even when he argues that religious institutions can sometimes help toward that end, but such claims do nothing to justify the perpetuation of plain falsehoods regarding atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists, falsehoods that in turn perpetuate prejudice against them.
BAM! Kudos Motion City.
@clevername
Hehe thanks but it’s not my work 😛 Ive done lots of debating on Theology and my fave topic by far was morality. Ive read this article so many times.
Your work was posting it here and bringing it to my attention. Kudos. ^^
Also: yeah, i dig the morality angle. The argument for humanist morality is quite solid.
The problem, though, is that “you can’t tell these people anything.” They’ll use nasty tactics and derail the debate every time, and act like that means winning. They’ll pretend like they’ve won, even if they’re actually making your points for you.
Burden of proof on the claimant. The debate should never have progressed past that point. lol.
Some seriously genius stuff posted by CleverName and MotionCity – well done.
No need to worry about the afterlife – which there is no evidence for as stated above – and if factually considered with known and corroborated evidence (again, there is none) – there is no vessel to carry or contain our “essence” of our “being” once the physical body is terminated … it just doesn’t have any realistic ability for some “spirit” to contain out essence of being beyond the physical body … but, to be fair, science has not ruled it out… it’s just very very unlikely and as has been stated above – with such serious concern and conviction to answer such a question, it’s even less likely that in all the years mankind has existed that someone has not found a way to somehow to give us some clue as to what awaits us on the “other side”
Nope – the only place we “live on” is in the memory of those whose lives we touched … what legacy we leave is determined by how you treat people today, while you live … and that is your choice and should be your primary focus
atheist dawg
The simplest way of showing how immoral Christianity actually is and what got helped me lose my faith was this.
Hitler (sorry to bring him up i hope the thread can continue xD) was a Roman Catholic. Before he shot himself he probably repented for his sins, truly asked for forgivness for all he had done, accepted JC into his heart thus sending him into heaven.
Ghandi on the other hand, well, not once did he accept JC as his lord and savior neither did he take the holy spirit into his heart. Hes surely burning in hell for that debortuary.
Hitler – heaven + Ghandi – Hell = A just and moral system for all.
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. A world with God is better than one without; therefore, God exist.
Checkmate
“A world with God is better than one without; therefore, God exist.”
That’s not too subjective 😛
I prefer a world where eating bacon doesn’t come with the penalty for eternally burning in the flaming pits of hell … therefore, i reject your god and will decadently enjoy my bacon sammich
double reverse, off the top rope checkmate 😛
super dawg
Blasphemy
If God isnt real how did he write the Bible
Checkmate Atheists.
lol…
What does god need with a star ship … or an ink pen for that matter?
FYI – it’s documented that man edited the supposed word of god … what does god need with an editor? … if his “:word” was “all that” then how did whole books end up on the cutting room floor?
Silly Xians … always playing checkers when the game is chess 😛
King meh
double jump dawg
o-o god didn’t write it though? The oiriginal words of god were heresay.
It’s that game where someone whispers something into someones ear and then to the nxt person and by the end of it we don’t know what was said originally.
This one guy in the desert saw a burning bush and heard a voice. Maybe he was high? o-o okay sorry for mocking your ideals. I do apologize….but really…maybe it was the word originally, but it’s been so diluted and modified that it no longer has any concrete evidence for its existence
I think its more of people trying to speak for “god”, if such a thing exists. And from some unexplained event that people couldn’t comprehend, a religion was born. If you look into the history Christianity, you can see that it isn’t very “pure” religion (I’m not sure what the right word is).. but they had adopted a lot traditions and celebrations from other religions to get more followers and eventually it blew up into this big thing.
The bible, I believe, wasn’t written until after many centuries after Christ’s death. A lot of manipulation for power would have been going on so it is extremely likely that it was blown out of proportion or used as a means to control the public.. after all the law is based around the 10 commandments – which is what I find amusing as well as the fact that the majority of us measure time with regards to Christs birth and death regardless if we are religious or not.
But any religion should be kept between that person and their “god”. It’s not right to discriminate against others because of religion. There really is no “right” or “wrong”, “light” or “dark” – the lines are too blurred between these things – its just perspective and people trying to act like “god” by speaking for others like its truth.
Ignore everyone else.. if they choose to judge you by your faith rather than your amazingly good traits, then they are stupid and cannot see what is right in front of them because they are too blinded by religion.
I really appreciate the feedback guys, especially those from Motion City, Dawg, Clevername, and Theobserver. Thanks bunches:) <3 I can see you know what you're talking about, which I prize highly. I would hate to be reading comments from a bunch of ignorant imbeciles on MY blog…..(scar 504)….*cough cough*.
Like I said, thanks for the feedback.