The 'great nothing', vs heaven or hell: which is better?

[Hawkins]

Which is better?

Which is true?

It's all about how humans can get to a truth.

If hell is true then how possible is it for humans to get to this truth? That's the question. One possible way is to boost up our technology level, such that we can prove it's absence. A very strange fact is that long before the emergence of human science, ancient humans seemed to have already defined hell/soul and etc. don't lie inside our realm (our space/time). How possible is it for our science to prove the absence of such things lying outside of our living realm (space/time).

Maybe to the atheists' surprise, our science has gone that far yet! It simply means we can't rely on our technology to examine hell's existence, or to go outside of our space/time to gather evidence of such an existence. Science is not the way to prove or disprove such an existence, not within your life time anyway. So the question remains, "do you still want to know the answer within your life time on what could possibly happen after your death?"

Now an alternative way to possibly get to this truth. If a God exists and He chooses to tell humans, then humans can thus get to this truth. But how? Of course if the God is willing to confront humans and to tell them directly, then humans will know. If on the other hand, if the God has a good reason to hide behind, then what will be the possibilities for humans to get to the truth?

The most fundamental way for humans to get to a truth is by faith in human testimonies. We (humans in majority) don't need to acquired evidence of black holes to confirm their existence. Instead, we have faith in our scientists such that we know the existence of black holes without any single piece of physical evidence. Our scientists act as credible eyewitnesses accounts to testify the truth of black holes for us to reach this truth.

Similarly, we can look into the credibility of human eyewitnesses accounts testifying the truth of God, then for us to consider the message conveyed in this God's holy book. This actually remains the only way for humans to get to the truth of hell. (though it demands not only faith, but also wisdom)

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, as often brought up, we will use guatamas example, meditation of the [awakening, for him and his religion.

However for theists who believe in an afterlife, heaven and hell,

Which is better?

Which is true?

To an atheist, guatamas soul wrenching meditation, is incredibly foreboding. An awakening, if you will. Faced with the great nothing , an annihilation, this is of prime importance to atheist religions.
The anguished cry of a mortal screaming at an uncaring universe.

•

To theists, who have an afterlife, heaven and hell, so forth. This means nothing.
Facing heaven or hell is thusly an important factor, so forth. The line between this world, and the next, or other realms, is willow o the wisp at best, there is is no distinction, often times.

•
Totally different perceptions of the self, and the 'universe'.

To an atheist, guatamas soul wrenching meditation, is incredibly foreboding. An awakening, if you will. Faced with the great nothing , an annihilation, this is of prime importance to atheist religions.
The anguished cry of a mortal screaming at an uncaring universe.

As soon as I read 'atheist religions' it became obvious that you are absolutely clueless about what you're talking about. Lacking a belief in something is NOT a religion. And ALL an atheist lacks is belief in is any god or gods. It does NOT mean that ALL atheists believe that there isn't some sort of existence after death. It would simply be an existence that has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of a god entity.

 

[Desert Snake]

To an atheist, guatamas soul wrenching meditation, is incredibly foreboding. An awakening, if you will. Faced with the great nothing , an annihilation, this is of prime importance to atheist religions.
The anguished cry of a mortal screaming at an uncaring universe.

As soon as I read 'atheist religions' it became obvious that you are absolutely clueless about what you're talking about. Lacking a belief in something is NOT a religion. And ALL an atheist lacks is belief in is any god or gods. It does NOT mean that ALL atheists believe that there isn't some sort of existence after death. It would simply be an existence that has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of a god entity.

You probably mean buddhism, which, although I used atheist religion idea, there, may not agree with that description.

In another argument, buddhism was presented in the manner of a [non theistic idea[presumably, that was never clarified, , guatama finding lucifer[presented as an idea correlating somewhat to the description I used, basically.

So, buddhism might be not the greatest example, however then other arguments concerning that should be argued, so you aren't or others aren't, representing buddhism in a manner that doesn't match their ideas.

 

[Desert Snake]

Premise has been worded now to just atheism, rather atheistic religions that match this, not buddhism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Someone has no idea about atheism but hey, ho, whats new?

I wrote atheistic religions, not 'atheism'. You might not be aware of such, so what, that's your own perspective.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have never studied Buddhism have you ?

There is nothing ‘foreboding’ in Gautama’s teaching.

“The anguished cry of a mortal screaming at an uncaring universe”.

Umm...no. Buddhism teaches loving kindness and compassion. Gautama affirmed, in the way he lived his life, that humans can be wise, kind and moral without the gun of religiously induced fear held to their head.

Buddhists are moral and kind because they realise the truth of cause and effect - karma -not because they are trying to do a deal with an imaginary God to save their illusory ego. which is a pretty tacky, ignorant and selfish motivation IMO.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think you need to be a Buddhist to realise that.

Great, the premise has been changed to atheistic religions, which since you aren't familiar with, you should just present your own perspective, instead of generalizing.

 

[blü 2]

To an atheist, guatamas soul wrenching meditation, is incredibly foreboding. An awakening, if you will. Faced with the great nothing , an annihilation, this is of prime importance to atheist religions.

The anguished cry of a mortal screaming at an uncaring universe.

First, death is the irreversible cessation of life, and happens to everyone. We've evolved to want to stay alive, and dying may or may not be unpleasant, but being dead is simply nothingness. The idea of eternal life is an incoherent fiction, however charming.

Second, I appear to be in a caring part of the uncaring universe. the part where people care for each other. I would neither expect nor desire the universe to have an opinion about H sap sap, one of the perhaps millions of earth bioforms, let alone any particular individual among its many billions of examples.

Third, in the Kalama sutta Gautama says (with my emphasis added),

'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.'
This is the first assurance he acquires.

" 'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.'
This is the second assurance he acquires.

(tr Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
​

In other words, with or without heavenly rewards, treat your fellow humans with decency.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You probably mean buddhism, which, although I used atheist religion idea, there, may not agree with that description.

In another argument, buddhism was presented in the manner of a [non theistic idea[presumably, that was never clarified, , guatama finding lucifer[presented as an idea correlating somewhat to the description I used, basically.

So, buddhism might be not the greatest example, however then other arguments concerning that should be argued, so you aren't or others aren't, representing buddhism in a manner that doesn't match their ideas.

I'm not talking about Buddhism, though there may be Buddhists who fall into this category. I'm talking about people who do NOT believe in any sort of a god being (thus making the atheist), but who DO believe that there is some sort of existence beyond death.

And why would you use 'atheist religion idea' when atheism is NOT in any way shape or form a religion?

 

[Desert Snake]

Someone has no idea about atheism but hey, ho, whats new?

That's vague,
If you disagree with my description, then why don't you just say that, and present your own perspective?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not talking about Buddhism, though there may be Buddhists who fall into this category. I'm talking about people who do NOT believe in any sort of a god being (thus making the atheist), but who DO believe that there is some sort of existence beyond death.

And why would you use 'atheist religion idea' when atheism is NOT in any way shape or form a religion?

Why don't you actually answer the premise, like what you disagree with, so forth? Then present your own perspective.

 

[ChristineM]

That's vague,
If you disagree with my description, then why don't you just say that, and present your own perspective?

I have done below. And my comments here stands on its own

 

[Desert Snake]

I have done below. And my comments here stands on its own

No, you really didn't answer the premise.

 

[Desert Snake]

•presumption there is no soul, [or heaven & hell

• agree or disagree with the perspectives presented

• why is either belief, of the options, better

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why don't you actually answer the premise, like what you disagree with, so forth? Then present your own perspective.

That's what I've done. I've pointed out that you start with a faulty premise, that being that all atheists do not believe in some sort of an afterlife. I also pointed out that the the phrase 'atheist religion' is completely moronic. It's impossible to properly answer the premise until you fix the flaws in your premise.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's impossible to properly answer the premise until you fix the flaws in your premise.

Ok, just going to ignore anything you say.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Ok, just going to ignore anything you say.

ROFL Okay... I guess that's one way to avoid acknowledging the flaws in your premise.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

Since nobody knows, perhaps it’s either best to theorize about all potential scenarios (although a somewhat closed mind won’t be able to do this).... or just try not to think or worry about any of them.

Anyone could have once been in a nothingness void, peaceful own dream world only to get claw machined out of it without consent and thrown into a random, auto-genetic meat suit on Earth for something’s pleasure, comedy, harvesting, and entertainment and are trying to return to that state. Who knows.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let me run a possible scenario by you.

Imagine that God, the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe is evil. This life only exists so that we have at least some concept of comfort and the ability to hope. After death, everybody goes to a place of unimaginable suffering for eternity. Doesn't matter what you did in life or who you were, everybody is damned. There's no hope of release and no way to fight back against an omnipotent creator.

If we don't know what the afterlife holds, then that scenario is a possibility. Perhaps you haven't envisioned an afterlife that you're completely at ease with, I can accept that. I'll also hold my hands up and admit that saying "most comforting" was a poor choice of words. I would still suggest though that your beliefs are preferable to entertaining the possibilities an unknown afterlife could hold.

That's by no means a criticism by the way. I can't contemplate the scenario I outlined above for too long and I don't believe it would be healthy to do so.

First, there is no evidence, thus no reason to believe, that God is evil.

Second, all accounts of the afterlife that we have depict it as a life far preferable to THIS life, except for those who are destined for a hellish state of existence.

The so-called afterlife is simply a continuation of this life so we will be in the same state of mind that we were in in this life. In short, we reap what we sow.

What I was just reading in The Afterlife Revealed says it well:

As the soul lives in the earth-life, so does it go to the spirit-life. Its tastes, its predilections, its habits, its antipathies, they are with it still.

All indications are that we do take all our earthly concerns, anxieties, regrets, addictions, obsessions and unfinished business with us to the afterlife and therefore it behooves us to leave this life with as few unresolved issues as possible.
(Michael Tymn, The Afterlife Revealed, p. 137)

The primary difference between THIS life and the NEXT life (afterlife) is that the next life is a spiritual world so we will not have a physical body and there will be nothing physical. The spiritual world is simply a timeless and place-less extension of this world, another realm of existence.

 

[Howard Is]

First, there is no evidence, thus no reason to believe, that God is evil.

You’re kidding.
The whole creation constantly suffers pain, illness, death, grief, hopelessness, madness, war, hunger, hatred and loneliness.

 

[Howard Is]

The primary difference between THIS life and the NEXT life (afterlife) is that the next life is a spiritual world so we will not have a physical body and there will be nothing physical. The spiritual world is simply a timeless and place-less extension of this world, another realm of existence.

Escape fantasy.
Understandable, but it just makes things worse.