Infinite Reward

[Helm]

Just a slight niggle I have with immorality and continual existence for an infinite period of time into the future is would you eventually become bored of it after one hundred billion trillion googolplex years? This is concerning the classic physical afterlife most people generally believe in. You may like chocolate cake but would you would want to have to eat million tons worth of it?

[Ancient Aliens]

Just a slight niggle I have with immorality and continual existence for an infinite period of time into the future is would you eventually become bored of it after one hundred billion trillion googolplex years? This is concerning the classic physical afterlife most people generally believe in. You may like chocolate cake but would you would want to have to eat million tons worth of it?

No, because in Yahweh's magical sky kingdom all bad things (including boredom) are vanquished. For some reason he was unable to do that on Earth, however.

[Helm]

It does seem like a daunting prospect to me. Though it could be some kind of mystical existence outside of time where is won't be an issue.

[Lordinquisitor]

I assume that if a omnipotent god would exist he also would have the power to remove boredom.

[Helm]

I dunno I'm just not comfortable with the concept of an eternal afterlife, particularly if it involves God tampering with your mind.

[Akar]

I dunno I'm just not comfortable with the concept of an eternal afterlife, particularly if it involves God tampering with your mind.

Well then according to your faith you could always burn in hell for eternity. Would help with the boredom?

[In3x]

Well Helm, a lot of people seem to relishing this prospect.

[Helm]

Well Helm, a lot of people seem to relishing this prospect.

What do you think the main appeal is?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A bit of Father Ted here.

[In3x]

What do you think the main appeal is?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A bit of Father Ted here.

I honestly don't know, I can't see the appeal at all. I guess it stems from people being afraid of their own mortality and an everlasting afterlife would give them time to do everything they would want to do. I'm guessing most people would end up like this:

[Helm]

I honestly don't know, I can't see the appeal at all. I guess it stems from people being afraid of their own mortality and an everlasting afterlife would give them time to do everything they would want to do. I'm guessing most people would end up like this:

That kind of heaven is more or less mentioned in the Quran for martyrs (72 of them) but this would be going on for literally billions of years without end. Chances are you will become tired of everything you ever liked in life and that's not a particularly good way to end up.

[Col. Tartleton]

People want to let other people control their lives. This is well demonstrated. People are fully willing to abandon their common sense as a trade for a lack of responsibility. If this wasn't the case I don't think we would believe in the traditional monotheistic God, let alone honor such a being.

[Marechal Ney]

Camus wrote about this in the Myth of Sisyphus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Sisyphus

[Himster]

An infinite existence is beyond absurd, it defies the most basic law of reality: All that begins must end.
Does the realisation of the absurd require suicide? Those who abandon reason and turn to mysticism seem to think so.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

it defies the most basic law of reality

By stating that, you gain no ground in any argument. Reality has nothing to do with any theism .

[Nietzsche]

Just a slight niggle I have with immorality and continual existence for an infinite period of time into the future is would you eventually become bored of it after one hundred billion trillion googolplex years? This is concerning the classic physical afterlife most people generally believe in. You may like chocolate cake but would you would want to have to eat million tons worth of it?

I realize the EMM is mostly an atheist or anti-theist echo chamber, but I believe nearly every religion that includes a concept of afterlife assumes an existence of a different "state" than this one. Therefore, it's rather impossible to comment on a realm in which you know nothing of which details are little known. Thus your entire argument is completely absurd. Let's go back to the silly statements about god making rocks bigger than he can lift, being a rapist, etc etc...

[Ancient Aliens]

Let's go back to the silly statements about god making rocks bigger than he can lift, being a rapist, etc etc...

Why is illustrating the absurdities and the paradoxical nature of certain of theological concepts a poor line of reasoning?

[Nietzsche]

Why is illustrating the absurdities and the paradoxical nature of certain of theological concepts a poor line of reasoning?

I see nothing paradoxical about the concept of afterlife. Nor do I see any with regard to different states of being. I'm open to the idea that consciousness may have different levels.

To illustrate: there are have been billions of people, but only one Mozart, Dali, Ronaldo, Michael Schumacher, etc. There is intelligence, there is talent, and there is genius. Similarly, I see the possibility of consciousness having tiers.

When we hamstring our imaginations out of disrespect of a specific kind of belief, or, to be more direct- religious belief, we rob ourselves of a wealth of possibilities. We may not need to believe or even understand the statements and seeming counter-positions arrayed in old books; but I think it very important that we extend our imagination and allow into our understanding the possibility that the material world is not all.

Material description cannot explain all the wonders of this world. If reduced to cold logic and measured instrumentation, the world is found heartless. It is the perception of paradox that frees the mind and imagination to create and to reflect. It is the apprehension of other worlds that helps us embrace the vastness of the universe. I refuse to limit myself to the thought strains of but one small part.

[Helm]

If reduced to cold logic and measured instrumentation, the world is found heartless.

I don't think anyone does that not even Richard Dawkins. But he does think "A garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it" which is a good point.

[Ancient Aliens]

I see nothing paradoxical about the concept of afterlife. Nor do I see any with regard to different states of being. I'm open to the idea that consciousness may have different levels.

To illustrate: there are have been billions of people, but only one Mozart, Dali, Ronaldo, Michael Schumacher, etc. There is intelligence, there is talent, and there is genius. Similarly, I see the possibility of consciousness having tiers.

When we hamstring our imaginations out of disrespect of a specific kind of belief, or, to be more direct- religious belief, we rob ourselves of a wealth of possibilities. We may not need to believe or even understand the statements and seeming counter-positions arrayed in old books; but I think it very important that we extend our imagination and allow into our understanding the possibility that the material world is not all.

Material description cannot explain all the wonders of this world. If reduced to cold logic and measured instrumentation, the world is found heartless. It is the perception of paradox that frees the mind and imagination to create and to reflect. It is the apprehension of other worlds that helps us embrace the vastness of the universe. I refuse to limit myself to the thought strains of but one small part.

Interesting thoughts from a person with "Nietzsche" for an account name.

By paradoxical, I was refering to the concept of omnipotence (which you made reference to with the "God creating a rock heavier than he can lift", example).

[Nietzsche]

Interesting thoughts from a person with "Nietzsche" for an account name.

By paradoxical, I was refering to the concept of omnipotence (which you made reference to with the "God creating a rock heavier than he can lift", example).

Even Nietzsche would be highly critical of people all too quick to dismiss "religious" ideals outright. I think Nietzsche's criticism of "enlightened" thinkers and secularists was as potent as his diatribes against religion. The overman is free of the petty constraints of dogma; atheist or no. The importance of opportunity and variety, in my eyes, is of great concern here. The overman, specifically, is one who does not conform to the slavish ideals of culture and populism. Both of which, in my mind, are at the heart of anti-religion argumentation among moderns.

I don't think anyone does that not even Richard Dawkins. But he does think "A garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it" which is a good point.

And he would be aesthetically correct. However, my objection to Dawkins and his ilk, which doesn't need to be elaborated here, is that he entirely misses the point of the wonder of faith and other stretches of the imagination. Certainly a well tended garden pleases the senses, but the fairies that live in the bottom represent the breadth of the human spirit to create worlds beyond what is seen. Nothing, to me, is more important than that.