A question for Christians (and others who believe in heaven)

[michel]

If you believe you will go to heaven when you die, why would you fear dying and try to prevent it from happening?

I don't fear dying - maybe the phisycal pain of it though. Try to prevent it from happening ?
I tried to make it happen.

 

[Todd]

According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour; yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better; Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. Phillipians 1:20-24 Therefore we are alway confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord; (For we walk by faith, not by sight We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. II Corinthians 5:6-8

Well put. I hold to this belief also.

Most Christians I know (including myself) don't fear death. We might fear the pain right before death, but not death itself. Even Jesus feared the physical pain before death, but he didn't fear death itself because he new he was going to paridise in heaven.

 

[laughingcoyote]

I'm not a Christian, except by birth through my Quaker parents. I have faced death and really thought it was coming as I plunged into unconsciousness 10,000 feet in the Sierra Sawtooth mountains with pneumonia. Strange to say, my death had no significance. What I did feel was a profound sense of loss for the people that I was departing from, followed by the hiss of oxygen into my face (how many hours later I have no idea), at the bottom of the mountain. Yes, departure is what it felt like.

 

[Snowbear]

... why would you fear dying and try to prevent it from happening?

I don't.
I'm looking forward to it.

 

[robtex]

Be cool to get a muslim(s) perspective on this question. Good thread Rich.

 

[s2a]

[Apologies for the tangential post, but some mischaracterizing comments just can't go unanswered . ;-)]

Hello Merlin,

You said:

Atheism is a very hard religion to be sure about.

I am sure that atheism is not a religion by any definition or standard. If you are unsure as to what atheism is or is not, here is some previous clarifying commentary I lent on the subject here:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=195851#post195851 ]
...with follow-up here:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=197193#post197193 ]

Conceding the low probability that time and opportunity may afford you to read the provided referenced posts (offered as a preservation of bandwidth within this thread) , you could pursue the alternate course of simply and concisely illustrating how atheism fits within the dictionary definition of religion, as such:

religion n.
"1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

...and....

"1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2: institution to express belief in a divine power"
Source: WordNet

-------------------------

If atheism is a religion, then please enumerate and specifically provide:

1) Of which/whom supernatural power that atheists revere and regard as creator and governor of the universe.
2) Of which/whom supernatural power that atheists worship.
3) Of which/whom spiritual leader's teachings of beliefs/values that atheists are adherent
4) Of which/whom supernatural power(s) that atheists claim as controlling human destiny
5) The named atheist institution that expresses belief in a divine power.

If you find available examples lacking, then perhaps you'll do yourself (and everyone else) the courtesy of not repeating absurd inferences (ie., "atheism = religion") that have no basis in merit or fact.

it is not unusual for people who would like to prove religion and/or God does not exist to ask these impossible questions.

Perhaps, but I'm not one of those people. I retain no interest in "disproving" any god or religion. I simply do not accept the claims of religion that suggest supernatural cause/effect explanations or god(s) as existent in a natural cosmos.

The "questions" are only "impossible"...if "I don't know" is unsuitable to your sensibilities and reason as a qualifying and acceptable answer.

Clearly nobody knows as an absolute certainty what will happen after we are all dead.

I personally know a few god-fearing Christians that would strongly disagree with your assessment, and it would seem that there are plenty of Muslim fundamentalist jihadists that suggest otherwise as well.

If, for example, we simply were moved to a 'higher plane of existence', then we would experience much more wonderful things and be freed from most of the restrictions under which we now live. Would that be heaven? Who knows?

No one "knows", because there's no credible empirical evidence to support the notion of a "higher plane of existence". Claims and beliefs are neither evidence nor proof...except as evidence of claims and beliefs themselves. Only faith can provide existential certitude of such a concept.

For what it is worth, you are statistically better off believing in God than being an atheist.

Um, there is a 99.9999% probability that your sentiment has no value, or logical merit at all (unless I received a nickel every time someone made an allusion to "Pascal's Wager" - then I would at least have a lot of nickels).

An answer as to why your premise is flawed and logically worthless, with relevant (and referenced) third-part rebuttals/refutation/debunkings within the linked post below:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=185833#post185833 ]

 

[Merlin]

If you believe you will go to heaven when you die, why would you fear dying and try to prevent it from happening?

I am amazed people do not see atheism as a religion. Being an agnostic is not. they acknowledge that something might exist, even if they think it probably does not.

But to believe absolutely (with not proof) that NOTHING exists needs faith; and a very deep faith. Nobody can be absolutely sure that nothing supernatural exists, but some people believe with all their hearts that this is true. That is a religious belief.

Statistics are much easier. There are only 2 possibilities.

1. There is a God
2. There is no God

There are 2 human positions

A. I believe
B. I do not believe.

If someone believes then they have a 50:50 chance of being right and finding 'salvation'.

If someone does not believe then they are damned whether there is or is not a God. In other words they have reduced their chances from 50% to zero.

That is why you must have a seriously strong faith to believe absolutely in nothing.

Merlin

 

[Merlin]

[Apologies for the tangential post, but some mischaracterizing comments just can't go unanswered . ;-)]

Hello Merlin,

You said:


I am sure that atheism is not a religion by any definition or standard. If you are unsure as to what atheism is or is not, here is some previous clarifying commentary I lent on the subject here:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=195851#post195851 ]
...with follow-up here:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=197193#post197193 ]

Conceding the low probability that time and opportunity may afford you to read the provided referenced posts (offered as a preservation of bandwidth within this thread) , you could pursue the alternate course of simply and concisely illustrating how atheism fits within the dictionary definition of religion, as such:

religion n.
"1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

...and....

"1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2: institution to express belief in a divine power"
Source: WordNet

-------------------------

If atheism is a religion, then please enumerate and specifically provide:

1) Of which/whom supernatural power that atheists revere and regard as creator and governor of the universe.
2) Of which/whom supernatural power that atheists worship.
3) Of which/whom spiritual leader's teachings of beliefs/values that atheists are adherent
4) Of which/whom supernatural power(s) that atheists claim as controlling human destiny
5) The named atheist institution that expresses belief in a divine power.

If you find available examples lacking, then perhaps you'll do yourself (and everyone else) the courtesy of not repeating absurd inferences (ie., "atheism = religion") that have no basis in merit or fact.



Perhaps, but I'm not one of those people. I retain no interest in "disproving" any god or religion. I simply do not accept the claims of religion that suggest supernatural cause/effect explanations or god(s) as existent in a natural cosmos.

The "questions" are only "impossible"...if "I don't know" is unsuitable to your sensibilities and reason as a qualifying and acceptable answer.


I personally know a few god-fearing Christians that would strongly disagree with your assessment, and it would seem that there are plenty of Muslim fundamentalist jihadists that suggest otherwise as well.


No one "knows", because there's no credible empirical evidence to support the notion of a "higher plane of existence". Claims and beliefs are neither evidence nor proof...except as evidence of claims and beliefs themselves. Only faith can provide existential certitude of such a concept.


Um, there is a 99.9999% probability that your sentiment has no value, or logical merit at all (unless I received a nickel every time someone made an allusion to "Pascal's Wager" - then I would at least have a lot of nickels).

An answer as to why your premise is flawed and logically worthless, with relevant (and referenced) third-part rebuttals/refutation/debunkings within the linked post below:
[ http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=185833#post185833 ]

You say "No one "knows", because there's no credible empirical evidence to support the notion of a "higher plane of existence".

Quite right. Where is the credible empirical evidence to support the notion of no "higher plane of existence"

How is it that 'no proof' only works against believers in God, and never against blievers in nothing. It is also just that, a belief, not a fact.

 

[Merlin]

If you believe you will go to heaven when you die, why would you fear dying and try to prevent it from happening?

Isn't it intereresting how my casual comment hit such a raw nerve with so called atheists? They must be insecure in their faith..

After all, if there is no God, why engage in these debates. It would be a real sterile waste of time. Of course all religions have evangelists, and we seem to have tripped over at least one.

Incidentally, the definition of a religion is any belief system related to the afterlife which requires faith to believe in it (i,e, for which there is no proof). Atheism meets this criterion.

 

[karmel19]

Well, as a Baha'i my understanding is that "heaven" is not a literal place, but a condition of closeness to God, and "hell" is not a literal place either, but a condition of remoteness from God. It is possible to be in either condition in this world as well as in the world to come. As far as fear of death--well, the Baha'i Writings use an analogy of the baby growing in the womb of the mother; it is growing eyes, ears, legs, arms, and everything that it will need for life in this world, but because it is not yet ready to use these things, it cannot know yet what they are for. In the same way, part of the purpose of our life in this world is to acquire virtues or spiritual qualities. These virtues: truthfulness, love, compassion, generosity, mercy, justice, forgiveness, etc., etc., are the qualities that will be needed for life in the world to come, and if we have not acquired them, when we arrive in that world, we will be like a child who is born blind, deaf, or crippled. Therefore, if I fear death or wish to delay it, it would be because I fear not having developed my spiritual qualities to the best of my ability. However, fortunately we are told that we continue to progress in "all the worlds of God" through His bounty and mercy.

 

[michel]

Isn't it intereresting how my casual comment hit such a raw nerve with so called atheists? They must be insecure in their faith..

After all, if there is no God, why engage in these debates. It would be a real sterile waste of time. Of course all religions have evangelists, and we seem to have tripped over at least one.

Incidentally, the definition of a religion is any belief system related to the afterlife which requires faith to believe in it (i,e, for which there is no proof). Atheism meets this criterion.

Sorry, that is wrong; at least look at s2a's post; atheism is a way of thinking. It is not a belief in something; if anything, it is a philosophy.

 

[s2a]

Hello Merlin,

You said:

I am amazed people do not see atheism as a religion. Being an agnostic is not. they acknowledge that something might exist, even if they think it probably does not.

I am not particularly "amazed" that you did not indulge the time or effort to read the referenced postings I provided. If you had, perhaps your level of "amazement" would have been appropriately mitigated. If the "devil is in the details", then you may think of me as Beelzebub.

But to believe absolutely (with not proof) that NOTHING exists needs faith; and a very deep faith. Nobody can be absolutely sure that nothing supernatural exists, but some people believe with all their hearts that this is true. That is a religious belief.

You operate from a failed misconception borne of your own craft (Hello, Scarecrow!). Faith is predicated upon belief/trust in the absence of evidence, not upon the preponderance of evidence. It is quite illogical to presume that "absence of evidence", therefore legitimates a claimed "evidence of absence". Gee whiz, if not "A", then "B"...MUST BE TRUE!

Um...no.

The errancy of your supposition is readily deconstructed if we merely apply contemporary/critical measures of acceptable/reasonable burdens of proof.

If you posit (claim)...say, that an invisible elephant has taken residence in my living room (or perhaps..that, "The Easter Bunny is REAL!"), whom bears the greater burden of proof? The claimant, or the unwitting and unsuspecting victim of an invisible (and implied) intrusive Elephas maximus upon his fragile furniture? How much "faith" must I muster and (in abject denail) employ to "disbelieve", and subsequently conclude that your claim is unsupported, inevidenced, and therefore "unbelievable"?

Would you assign absolute credibility to a claim of Leprechauns abiding in restful residence in your abode? If you could not abjectly "disprove" such a claim, would you consider the claim therefore legitimate, plausible, or even, most probable (merely due to your impotence in "disproving" such a claim)?

Atheists operate within realms of reason, and burdens of proof predicated upon available/empirical evidences. Ir require no "faith", nor auspicious aspects of "denial"...to conclude "beyond a reasonable doubt"...that claimed/attributed supernatural cause/effect explanations of comprehensible phenomena are unsupported, inevidenced, and "unbelievable".

I never say "there is no God (big 'g' or little 'g')", I merely state that "I don't accept your claims of a deity/force/god".

If I (and others of similar bent and persuasion) were to abide your fallacious rationale of some erstwhile consciously "applied faith (of belief/disbelief)", then it would be incumbent of me to accept (as concomitantly equal) claims of an existent Tooth Fairy...merely because it is beyond my capacity to "disprove" (by means of empirical evidences) the utter improbability and unlikely "existence" of a veritable Tooth Fairy. To "not accept" the earnest/sincere claims of an existent Tooth Fairy, by your extended rationale...is to therefore rely upon some "faith" that dogmatically proscribes that existent "Tooth Fairies" are "impossible". And so, by your logic, anyone that either does not accept the claims of a Tooth Fairy, or can not "disprove" the plausibility/possibility of a veritable, existent, Tooth Fairy...is therefore a religious adherent and practitioner (of some sort) of some "alternate" faith/RELIGION.

As you indulge in fallacious argument below...

Statistics are much easier. There are only 2 possibilities.

1. There is a God
2. There is no God

Gee whiz. What are, specifically, the statistical representations of those two possibilities within each potential person?

There are 2 human positions

A. I believe
B. I do not believe.

Um, can you even spell (much less, more succinctly illustrate a) "False Dilemma"? Howzabout...
C. "I don't know".
D. "I don't care"
E. "Where's the Beef?"

If someone believes then they have a 50:50 chance of being right and finding 'salvation'.

Incorrect again. Obviously, you did not avail yourself of the links I provided for your introspective evaluation and prospective rebuttal. Acknowledging your deferential status as expert statistician of probability and statistics, that you undoubtedly master of your own volition, perhaps you would care to challenge and rebut the proffered (and referenced) commentaries that allude to substantially differing conclusions.
\\QUOTE]If someone does not believe then they are damned whether there is or is not a God. In other words they have reduced their chances from 50% to zero.
[/QUOTE] Those must be the "damned lies" I've heard of as being associated with statistics.

That is why you must have a seriously strong faith to believe absolutely in nothing.

This is why willful mischaracterizations of atheism can not be permitted to go unaddressed/unanswered. How facile and childish must one be to conclude that non-acceptance of a particular (or even generalized) claimed deity is equivalent to a "belief in nothing"?

But even if we extend you the undue and unearned deference of allowance in consideration of such an absurd and unfounded conclusion, then perhaps you could define how a "belief in nothing" requires "seriously strong faith"? A strong "faith in nothing"? How does this absurd concept reconcile with the very dictionary definition of "faith" itself?

----------------

You say "No one "knows", because there's no credible empirical evidence to support the notion of a "higher plane of existence".

Yep. The evidnece awaits today's sunrise as well...

Quite right. Where is the credible empirical evidence to support the notion of no "higher plane of existence"

Unsupport of a proposed notion does not require empirical evidence. If a homicide defendant in a court of law claims that "God told me to do it!", whom then retains the burden of "proof" or "disproof" as to the defendant's claim? If the empirical evidence suggests (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant was the direct perpetrator of the crime, is it also incumbent upon the prosecution to concurrently discredit/disprove the defendant's claim of intervening divine purpose/motivation? Again...whom bears the greater burden of proof? The claimant, or the skeptic?

How is it that 'no proof' only works against believers in God, and never against blievers in nothing. It is also just that, a belief, not a fact

I dub this a new fallacy as..."Argument from Injustice". Well, OK...it's "Special Pleading" too...but I find the inferred argument of unequal standards of irrationality and illogic as being ironically humorous. No doubt that David Berkowitz felt the same injustice dealt upon him from the prosecutor's inability to "disprove" his claim that "God told me to do it" (one would, after all, either have to disprove "God's" veritable existence, or [at very least] disprove that God couldn't channel His thoughts/wishes through a domesticated canine). Courts and jury left in such an obvious dilemma of contradictory claims and lacking disproof, were only left to logically conclude that Berkowitz was acting on God's behest, and set him free. The religion of Berkowittz was established on that day, because any lacking "disproof" of any claim constitutes an absolute converse certitude, and requires "seriously strong faith" to support and maintain amongst it's nascent faithful adherents.

-------------------

Isn't it intereresting how my casual comment hit such a raw nerve with so called atheists? They must be insecure in their faith..

Is it really important that a lack of belief and non-acceptance be considered "religious"?

After all, if there is no God, why engage in these debates. It would be a real sterile waste of time. Of course all religions have evangelists, and we seem to have tripped over at least one.

Why indeed?

Because, perhaps, religions and superstitions promote fear and ignorance over objective fact and empirical evidence? Because "well-meaning" adherents can say and do things that they may later regret, but haven't the stones to either acknowledge or recant?

Incidentally, the definition of a religion is any belief system related to the afterlife which requires faith to believe in it (i,e, for which there is no proof). Atheism meets this criterion.

Please cite (I double-dog DARE you) the credible reference/source that defines "religion" as such. After which, please reference ANY ascribed atheistic literature/commentary that even remotely alludes to some "afterlife".

Most predictably, you either could not (or would not) provide ANY (to highlight the glaring paucity one again...ANY!) applicable comparisons of atheism to the provided dictionary definition(s) of religion...and your impotent inability to substantiate any implied/inferred claims (beyond "The Word of Merlin") should serve to inform others as to the veritably insipid and otiose foundations of argumentation....upon which your vacuous assertions seek vainglorious unmet validation.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

You probably meant no intentional harm or offense in this quote's signatory useage, but such an attribution and sentiment is insulting to the many military patriots that served or died in combat on foreign soil to preserve religious freedom and liberty for all US citizens.

The signature simply means that everybody is probably praying to somebody if they're about to die.

Your signature ("There has never been an atheist in a foxhole at a battle." -Oliver Rainey) is meant to imply that no atheist would stick to his/her nonbelief in God if faced with an imminent threat of death. I personally know that to be untrue. Many years ago, I was almost certain I was going to drown. I did, however, have time to ponder my atheism, and decided that I was 100% at peace with my atheism, and had no interest in seeking "deathbed salvation." I am quite sure there have been many atheist soldiers who felt the same way when under fire.

Well...ok. If you say so. You really had time to "ponder" while you were drowning? I mean, I'm not saying your story is untrue, just asking.

Anyway, the meaning behind the signature is still relevant.

 

[SaraLee]

I don't fear passing on to what ever comes next but I do fear the act of dying. Does a person suffer pain as they die? That is the question that plagues me.
SaraLee

 

[s2a]

The signature simply means that everybody is probably praying to somebody if they're about to die.

The tendered rebuttals (along with linked testimonials as support) were offered to dispel that wishful thinking. Thanks for ignoring that which was provided for your erudition.

Well...ok. If you say so. You really had time to "ponder" while you were drowning? I mean, I'm not saying your story is untrue, just asking.

Does it require less time to pray than it does to "ponder"?

Anyway, the meaning behind the signature is still relevant.

Anyway, be advised that your continued use of the quote will still offend many men and women in uniform that risk their lives, and stake their personal honor and integrity in defense of your life and liberty. Hopefully, you will find that fact "relevant" too.

 

[Merlin]

The tendered rebuttals (along with linked testimonials as support) were offered to dispel that wishful thinking. Thanks for ignoring that which was provided for your erudition.


Does it require less time to pray than it does to "ponder"?


Anyway, be advised that your continued use of the quote will still offend many men and women in uniform that risk their lives, and stake their personal honor and integrity in defense of your life and liberty. Hopefully, you will find that fact "relevant" too.

Atheist easilly get upset, I have noticed. Maybe it is because they have rejected their GOD, and feel so alone?

 

[robtex]

Where is the current proposal on the physical location of Heaven?

 

[michel]

Where is the current proposal on the physical location of Heaven?

Just about where you are standing now, Rob, but in another dimension.:biglaugh:
Waatch that cat's tail ! - you nearly stepped on it.

 

[robtex]

Just about where you are standing now, Rob, but in another dimension.
Waatch that cat's tail ! - you nearly stepped on it.

I am thinking you are serious when you say another diminsion. May I ask how you came to this conclusion? How many dimensions are they that you are aware of , what are there names and which one is heaven in?

 

[s2a]

Merlin said:

Atheist easilly get upset, I have noticed.

Oh?

I should infer that believers...I suppose, are immune from, or less readily "upset". Hmmmm, I recall some unlovely sentiments expressed by some belivers that have accepted your God (perhaps for another thread at another time...).

I have noticed your continuing evasion of salient points extended for reply/rebuttal. Perhaps your "calm" demeanor is cause. Word has it that Viagra is an effective short-term remedy. Ask your doctor.

Maybe it is because they have rejected their GOD, and feel so alone?

I kinda doubt it. But if it pleases your sensibilities to think as much, then I would not presume to deny you your own self-serving and supercilious sentiments.

[Note: I am not "alone", and in (appx.) two weeks will celebrate my 17th wedding annivversary with my lovely, first, and only wife. In light of this happy event, I leave you to ponder just why it is that self-professed atheists retain the lowest percentages of divorce rates, while evangelical Christians evidence amognst the highest rates* (of which 90% of divorces occur after**, not before, being "born again"). Maybe belief in your God, even abetted by an especially ardent piety and faith in HIm, insures/guarantees neither happiness nor freedom from anger (or solitude) of any tangible benefit over unbelief. As always, your mileage may vary...]
*Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
**Source: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=95