Larry King on the Afterlife

[viscousmemories]

I posted this at IIDB a little while ago. It's about a Larry King show on the subject of the Afterlife, with a bunch of religious people and Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. Reprinted with my permission:

Okay, now that I've read the transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html) I wasn't completely disappointed with Ellen Johnson, she did make a couple of good points. But I thought a couple of her comments were idiotic. Like her claim that "death" is a nonsense word. I get her point, but to Joe American the claim that "death" is a meaningless word is tantamount to saying "air" or "tree" are meaningless words.

ELLEN JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ATHEISTS: The atheist accepts the reality that when you die, that is the end. That is it. Therefore when you're living, life is all we can ever know. We can't know death. Death is a nonsense word. So we have to do our part now to make this a better life for ourselves and for the rest of humanity and all of the life on this planet.

The only fulfillment, the only joy, the only happiness you will ever know is right now. Now is the time to do your part and to enjoy life. And it's a very, very good thing, because we don't take any moment for granted for that very reason.

KING: What do you mean by nonsense word?

JOHNSON: Because we cannot know death. We can only know life. So therefore, what are we talking about?
I mean really, doesn't that sound stupid? Death? Huh? What do you mean?

This part was amusing. There can be only one! (and a few others):

MACARTHUR: Well, I believe the Bible, but I believe the Bible can be defended. I believe through the centuries the Bible has stood the test of intense scrutiny, and it is the real and true revelation of God, and it speaks truly about life and death. And someone has been there and come back, and that's Jesus Christ.

KING: How come only one?

MACARTHUR: How come only one what?

KING: Person ever come back?

MACARTHUR: Well, that's because the design of leaving this world is to go into the eternal world. The only person who came from the eternal world into this world is Jesus Christ.

There have been a few others, by the way. In fact in the Old Testament, the prophets raised a few from the dead. In the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles raised a few from the dead. And at the death of Christ on the cross, the graves were open and some were raised. And that's indicative of the fact that there will be an actual physical resurrection to join with the spirits that are with God at death.

I've already said it, but this was a wrong turn for her to take, IMO, true or not:
KING: We got to take a break. Ellen, what do you believe about Jesus Christ?

JOHNSON: Well, I'm here to give the reality point of view, I guess. Because the reality is there is not one shred of secular evidence there ever was a Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ and Christianity is a modern religion. And Jesus Christ is a compilation from other Gods: Horas, Mithra, who had the same origins, the same death as the mythological Jesus Christ.

KING: So you don't believe there was a Jesus Christ.

JOHNSON: There was not. It is not what I believe. There is no secular evidence that JC, Jesus Christ, ever existed.

And I thought this was a fairly dumb response too. IMO, it would've been far better for her to say "Sure, I was raised without religion and I am therefore not religious, but millions of people who were raised with religion have since discarded those beliefs", than:
KING: You're Jewish. Ellen, were you raised Jewish, Ellen?

JOHNSON: No, my parents were not religious, of course.

KING: Why of course?

JOHNSON: If the panel at all fits. KING: They could have been and you could have broken away.

JOHNSON: Because everybody going down the panel there -- if they're religious this, they he had a religious upbringing. I'm an atheist and I was brought up in a nonreligious household.

Here, though, I thought she made a great case for atheism as humanism (although I don't know if that was her intention):
KING: Ellen, what keeps an atheist going if she or he will never be judged?

JOHNSON: Well, we get judged by our fellow human beings. We must obey human laws. We are social animals. And we want to live in a society in which is comfortable to live in it, in a world in which people do terrible things, that would be a terrible place in which to live.

We -- the normal healthy human being is happy in the face of happiness and sad in the face of sadness. I don't think it -- you know, I have to ask the question if you think that there is a God who will forgive you for what you have done wrong, how can you be ethical in that sense? We know that we have to do our part right here and now and answer to our fellow human beings.

But I also want to add, when we talk about death, these gentlemen did mention the fact that -- you brought it up, why do we fight at the very end to stay alive? We have this will to live. I think we humans know that death is the end of it. We fight it. We all fight it. Religious people fight it, too. And in fact, this will to live, this imperative is part of our genes, our bodies fight to live all the time.

[Ronin]

[I posted this over at IIDB regarding the same topic]

I think Ellen did a terrific job of presenting an atheist view against a majority panel of supernaturalists.

She was polite, reasoned and allowed others to present their views in the open marketplace of ideas for viewers to assess.

As an added bonus, my ten year old son was very happy to see a "TV" personality present similar ideas he has been hearing from dear old Dad for so many years.

My view is that the contention presented between religious concepts (asserting one must believe in Jesus to get a posthumous reward, etc) spoke louder for the atheist position than presenting an atheist position itself.

Ellen's comments simply confirmed how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective.

A Buddhist and a Wiccan would have really kept it humming.

Maybe next time.

[Sweetie]

KING: Isn't it true, Father Manning, that all religion is really based -- if we didn't die there'd be no religion. All religion is based on fear of dying?

This is leading, and it's loaded and it also wasn't given enough time to be countered.

And I can't accept something because I think the outcome is -- I can't accept something that's not believable because I think the outcome is desirable. It's not believable. It's not acceptable. When you die, that's it.

Well yes, that is natural, not to believe something just because it feels good, reality acts that way when we grow up. We can continue to believe that money grows on trees if we wish, but that is not living in the real world.

The problem is, what if we are believing something and the outcome isn't desireable? Does that not speak a little differently about the intentions of the one doing the believing?

And she does not know that when you die, that's it.

And the whole concept of death being a nonsense word is ridiculous along with several other Buddhist concepts of the like I've encountered. I understand the concept, I just think the way she uses the truth of the concept is ridiculous.

KING: Mary Ann, isn't that a safe thing to say? It makes you feel good?

WILLIAMSON: Well, first of all, the fact that something makes you feel good hardly means that it's less true.

Believe it or not, some people have trouble concluding that what they see is true because it makes them feel good. It's an almost if this makes me feel good then it can't be true. Why not? There's no rational connection between it feels good therefore nonsense.

WILLIAMSON: Well, I agree with what was just said, that God was working with all of the people who perpetrated the act. But I also believe that God gave us free will. And God himself will not violate that law.

At the same time I think that 9/11, and any tragedy such as that, does not come out of a vacuum. And there are many ways that all of us have to look into our hearts about what each of us might have contributed to create a world in which such things as this are happening at all.

So I think that all of us have to ask a little bit more about the darkness in our own hearts. And how we might not do everything we can to make this world what it should be.

I think that was very well put.

"any tragedy such as that, does not come out of a vacuum."


JOHNSON: If you are a person who thinks that there is a creator who is -- it is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and then you make excuses for this all-powerful being for allowing 9/11 to happen, for allowing TWA flight 800 to plunge into the Atlantic Ocean, for allowing over 100,000 people to die in -- with the tsunami. If you can then excuse your God for being asleep on the job, then when a member of the clergy, the same members of the clergy ask you to pray, to pray for anything because God answers prayers, forget about it. These people...

JOHNSON: I don't think we're going to forget about it.

JOHNSON: There was no God to save them.

Of course, God is only there to save if He saves everybody from any and every tragedy. That's ridiculous. Eh, well, when your scope of vision is narrowed to naturalism then what else are you supposed to be able to see?

[Sweetie]

But I also want to add, when we talk about death, these gentlemen did mention the fact that -- you brought it up, why do we fight at the very end to stay alive? We have this will to live. I think we humans know that death is the end of it. We fight it. We all fight it. Religious people fight it, too. And in fact, this will to live, this imperative is part of our genes, our bodies fight to live all the time.
Her arguement is that we fight to stay alive because we fear non-existence, we fear the end? We are fearing because we know it's the end?

How about we just fear the unknown?

I just, that doesn't necessarily make any sense to me. From there I'd start walking down a nihilisitic path most likely, instead of a necessarily humanistic one.

We fear death because we:

fear the unknown.
because we somehow intuitively know it's the end according to Johnson. (might as well be arguing out the other side of her mouth that we just know intuitively that God exists, right?)

LOL, let's get real crazy and throw in another possibility, maybe we know instinctively that we will be held accountable for our actions and we fear consequence and that's why we fear death?

If the only reason to continue existing for a rational creature is to continue to exist and breed no matter how unhappy it makes one, then there is no reason not to override the ingrained instinct to live, because according to her theory, it is just an instinct, it's hard-wired in our genes, but to no valuable human rationalistic purpose.

[viscousmemories]

My view is that the contention presented between religious concepts (asserting one must believe in Jesus to get a posthumous reward, etc) spoke louder for the atheist position than presenting an atheist position itself.

Ellen's comments simply confirmed how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective.
I agree that the contention eroded some of the credibility of the religious arguments, and that Ellen's comments supported the argument that atheism is a more realistic position.

At the same time, though, I think that overall it might have done more harm than good that she was the only one claiming any unwavering knowledge of the Truth. All the religious people prefaced their answers about things that are imo unknowable with disclaimers of "I believe", "I'd like to think...", "I hope..." etc. whereas Ellen answered with "There was not [a Jesus Christ]", and "The atheist accepts the reality that when you die, that is the end. That is it." I think most people intuitively understand that nobody can speak with authority on these things, and will naturally distrust anyone who claims to be able to.

[viscousmemories]

WILLIAMSON: Well, I agree with what was just said, that God was working with all of the people who perpetrated the act. But I also believe that God gave us free will. And God himself will not violate that law.

At the same time I think that 9/11, and any tragedy such as that, does not come out of a vacuum. And there are many ways that all of us have to look into our hearts about what each of us might have contributed to create a world in which such things as this are happening at all.

So I think that all of us have to ask a little bit more about the darkness in our own hearts. And how we might not do everything we can to make this world what it should be.
I think that was very well put.

"any tragedy such as that, does not come out of a vacuum."
If you mean well-put in the sense of "so ambiguous it appears to answer the question without committing to a particular viewpoint" I agree. :P

In other words if she meant that 9/11 was the result of many socio-economic factors that each of us played some degree of role in, I think it's a reasonable statement. If she meant that it was the result of a chain-reaction that started with original sin, I completely disagree.

Of course, God is only there to save if He saves everybody from any and every tragedy. That's ridiculous. Eh, well, when your scope of vision is narrowed to naturalism then what else are you supposed to be able to see?
Of course saying her scope of vision is "narrowed to naturalism" begs the question that there is something more than naturalism, which I don't think you can prove. So that's not much of a rebuttal of her argument. (Which isn't to say I agree with her statement either, really.)

[Sweetie]

Ellen's comments simply confirmed how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective.

In what way? Why? Which contentions? From this transcript, I would have to say that neither position was well defended but it was short so.

[slimshady2357]

Her arguement is that we fight to stay alive because we fear non-existence, we fear the end? We are fearing because we know it's the end?

How about we just fear the unknown?

I agree, I think that's part of it as well. We do 'know' it's the end of something, the end of this earthly existence. The end of the only existence we've ever known. Of course we don't know it's the final-end, that there is truly no existence after death, but I think we can safely say it's the end of this kind of existence. That's not something I'm looking forward to! :)

I just, that doesn't necessarily make any sense to me. From there I'd start walking down a nihilisitic path most likely, instead of a necessarily humanistic one.
Perhaps you would, others wouldn't. I think Humanism is a quite natural result of such musings.

We fear death because we:

fear the unknown.
because we somehow intuitively know it's the end according to Johnson. (might as well be arguing out the other side of her mouth that we just know intuitively that God exists, right?)

LOL, let's get real crazy and throw in another possibility, maybe we know instinctively that we will be held accountable for our actions and we fear consequence and that's why we fear death?

Both are quite possible, I think that if someone asserts either (that we fear death because we know it's the final end or because we know we will be judged), they are standing on about the same shakey ground. But we do know it's the end of this existence, something to be feared in itself, in my opinion.

If the only reason to continue existing for a rational creature is to continue to exist and breed no matter how unhappy it makes one, then there is no reason not to override the ingrained instinct to live, because according to her theory, it is just an instinct, it's hard-wired in our genes, but to no valuable human rationalistic purpose.

:tmcnfusd: huh?

If there is nothing that makes you happy, then you (edit: 'you' generic, not 'you' specific) probably should over-ride the instinct to survive at all costs. But there are loads of reasons for a rational creature to survive that work well with the instinct to survive. The things that make you happy, that make life enjoyable. For all we know, this is the only life we get, I've seen no evidence that has convinced me otherwise, why would I want to give up this existence? It's all I have! :D

Adam

[Sweetie]

Of course saying her scope of vision is "narrowed to naturalism" begs the question that there is something more than naturalism, which I don't think you can prove.

Which also begs the question of the fact of naturalism too, no, which is something that also cannot be proven. I don't even agree that it is the most rational assumption though many people are convinced it is. :P

As far as that goes, all I meant was that it seems she is unwilling or even unable to theorize outside of the scope of naturalism.

[Sweetie]

Perhaps you would, others wouldn't. I think Humanism is a quite natural result of such musings.

Why?

Both are quite possible, I think that if someone asserts either (that we fear death because we know it's the final end or because we know we will be judged), they are standing on about the same shakey ground. But we do know it's the end of this existence, something to be feared in itself, in my opinion.

Yes, I agree.

If there is nothing that makes you happy, then you (edit: 'you' generic, not 'you' specific) probably should over-ride the instinct to survive at all costs. But there are loads of reasons for a rational creature to survive that work well with the instinct to survive. The things that make you happy, that make life enjoyable. For all we know, this is the only life we get, I've seen no evidence that has convinced me otherwise, why would I want to give up this existence? It's all I have! :D

We should live as long as there is something to make us happy? Why? What value, happiness? Or even, what is happiness?

[slimshady2357]

Why?
Well I think there can be more than one line of reasoning, and they would be just as complicted as you trying to explain why you would go towards a nihilistic path. But a short answer would be that I enjoy living, I enjoy being happy and I see other people are mostly the same as me. Since we're all together here on this planet, I would want to work together with them to bring as much happiness to each other as possible. Not only do I feel empathy for them, but it's also the best way to maximize my own happiness.
We should live as long as there is something to make us happy? Why?
Well my own personal answer is that I enjoy being happy, it's a good reason for living, experiencing the 'happiness'. I like to experience certain things, sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc... and I need to live to do that. If there was nothing I enjoyed, I would probably just end my life.
What value, happiness?
I'm not sure I understand the question, what do you mean by 'value' here?
Or even, what is happiness?
What is happiness? :tmcnfusd: The state of being happy. "What is 'seeing red'?", you can't describe the qualia if you've never experienced it. I assume you have experienced happiness, so I have little doubt you know what it is.

Adam

[Sweetie]

Well I think there can be more than one line of reasoning, and they would be just as complicted as you trying to explain why you would go towards a nihilistic path. But a short answer would be that I enjoy living, I enjoy being happy and I see other people are mostly the same as me.

Since we're all together here on this planet, I would want to work together with them to bring as much happiness to each other as possible. Not only do I feel empathy for them, but it's also the best way to maximize my own happiness.

I suppose my question was, what did she say to make you respond that humanism greatly reflects such musings?

What is happiness? :tmcnfusd: The state of being happy. "What is 'seeing red'?", you can't describe the qualia if you've never experienced it. I assume you have experienced happiness, so I have little doubt you know what it is.

Just curious as to your definition. Happiness to me is a question of degree so I don't know that I ever could say that I was happy and most of the time I'm neither happy nor unhappy so sometimes or most of the time happiness means one degree above unhappy. Having a cold makes me happier than having a flu. I am happy if I have neither a cold nor a flu, etc.

[Ronin]

Ellen's comments simply confirmed how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective.

In what way?

In the same way any group argues about how their imaginary friend is the only real imaginary friend and then suddenly someone says...I don't see any evidence or need for any imaginary friends at all.

Why?

In Humans We Trust.

We trust them to grow and deliver our food, to build our homes and communities, to heal our sicknesses and broken bones, to protect and serve us, to critically study nature and the universe so that we can bring comfort to ourselves and to others and to really love us.

That perspective needs more of a voice and I think that anyone willing to promote that view is important.

Which contentions?

MACARTHUR: Depending upon your personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is according to the Bible the only way to enter heaven.

KING: So therefore a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist will not go to heaven?

MACARTHUR: Christian theology and the scripture says that only through faith in Jesus Christ.

vs:

KING: Father Manning, what happens when you die?

FATHER MICHAEL MANNING, ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST: I think we're going to encounter God. I find God the one that I'm longing for. I'm longing for truth. I'm longing for honesty. I'm longing for peace. I'm longing for love. And it's very incomplete in this world. And I believe that moving into heaven into the experience of God will be the fullness of that.

KING: You will meet him in what form?

MANNING: I don't know. I'm going to be a spiritual form. I'm not going to have a body. It's -- we talk of spirits when we speak of angels and so there's a reality of something there. We say that I'll see God and I'm not going to have eyes like I had, but there will be a knowledge. There will be a completeness of all of these longings that I've had to be able to be now satisfied in the presence of God.

vs:

MARVIN HIER, FOUNDER, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: When you die, God created Adam, escorted him into the Garden of Eden. When he sinned, he took him out of the Garden of Eden. But God never destroyed the Garden of Eden and held up the hope that people who live righteously, with righteous conduct, go to the eternal world, the world of the soul.

And admission to that world is based on righteous conduct and not based on any specific religion. A righteous person of any religion and a righteous person who may, in the fact, be irreligious...

vs:

DR. MAHER HATHOUT, MUSLIM SCHOLAR: We really do believe that when we die, the spirit would be liberated from the limitations of the body.

KING: And?

HATHOUT: And then it will go through eternity after a process of accountability and judgment. And people will go to heaven in eternity or to face consequences of punishment.

KING: Like hell?

HATHOUT: Like hell. And this depends on the good deeds, on the belief in God, and on the belief on accountability, that every person is responsible and is accountable for what he or she will do during this earthly life.

vs:

KING: Mary Ann, what do you think happens?

MARY ANN WILLIAMSON, AUTHOR/LECTURER ON SPIRITUALITY: I agree with what Father Manning said, that all of the love that we've longed for all of our lives, we find it. We're there. I think that only love is real. And we can see it once we've died.

I think that this earth is like a veil of illusion. The mortal mind obfuscates the spiritual truth, which is the love of God. And I think that when we die, the veil falls down, the filter is gone, and we're in that state of pure love which is God.

KING: And it's not -- it's in a spirit state, right?

WILLIAMSON: Yes, I mean...

KING: Not a physical state.

WILLIAMSON: ... You can apply -- yes, of course, not the physical state. But all concepts like where do we go, space and time don't exist in God's eternity. So it's a state of awareness and knowledge and experience of pure love, which is God, which is the true life.

I think at death we find that. And I think that we long for that all our lives and at death we find it. It's a reward. It's not a punishment.

From this transcript, I would have to say that neither position was well defended but it was short so.

Buddists and Wiccans should make a fine addition to the next panel.

[Ronin]

I suppose my question was, what did she say to make you respond that humanism greatly reflects such musings?



JOHNSON: Well, we get judged by our fellow human beings. We must obey human laws. We are social animals. And we want to live in a society in which is comfortable to live in it, in a world in which people do terrible things, that would be a terrible place in which to live.

We -- the normal healthy human being is happy in the face of happiness and sad in the face of sadness. I don't think it -- you know, I have to ask the question if you think that there is a God who will forgive you for what you have done wrong, how can you be ethical in that sense? We know that we have to do our part right here and now and answer to our fellow human beings.

[Sweetie]

MACARTHUR: Depending upon your personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is according to the Bible the only way to enter heaven.

KING: So therefore a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist will not go to heaven?

MACARTHUR: Christian theology and the scripture says that only through faith in Jesus Christ.

vs:

KING: Father Manning, what happens when you die?

FATHER MICHAEL MANNING, ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST: I think we're going to encounter God. I find God the one that I'm longing for. I'm longing for truth. I'm longing for honesty. I'm longing for peace. I'm longing for love. And it's very incomplete in this world. And I believe that moving into heaven into the experience of God will be the fullness of that.

KING: You will meet him in what form?

MANNING: I don't know. I'm going to be a spiritual form. I'm not going to have a body. It's -- we talk of spirits when we speak of angels and so there's a reality of something there. We say that I'll see God and I'm not going to have eyes like I had, but there will be a knowledge. There will be a completeness of all of these longings that I've had to be able to be now satisfied in the presence of God.

vs:

MARVIN HIER, FOUNDER, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: When you die, God created Adam, escorted him into the Garden of Eden. When he sinned, he took him out of the Garden of Eden. But God never destroyed the Garden of Eden and held up the hope that people who live righteously, with righteous conduct, go to the eternal world, the world of the soul.

And admission to that world is based on righteous conduct and not based on any specific religion. A righteous person of any religion and a righteous person who may, in the fact, be irreligious...

vs:

DR. MAHER HATHOUT, MUSLIM SCHOLAR: We really do believe that when we die, the spirit would be liberated from the limitations of the body.

KING: And?

HATHOUT: And then it will go through eternity after a process of accountability and judgment. And people will go to heaven in eternity or to face consequences of punishment.

KING: Like hell?

HATHOUT: Like hell. And this depends on the good deeds, on the belief in God, and on the belief on accountability, that every person is responsible and is accountable for what he or she will do during this earthly life.

vs:

KING: Mary Ann, what do you think happens?

MARY ANN WILLIAMSON, AUTHOR/LECTURER ON SPIRITUALITY: I agree with what Father Manning said, that all of the love that we've longed for all of our lives, we find it. We're there. I think that only love is real. And we can see it once we've died.

I think that this earth is like a veil of illusion. The mortal mind obfuscates the spiritual truth, which is the love of God. And I think that when we die, the veil falls down, the filter is gone, and we're in that state of pure love which is God.

KING: And it's not -- it's in a spirit state, right?

WILLIAMSON: Yes, I mean...

KING: Not a physical state.

WILLIAMSON: ... You can apply -- yes, of course, not the physical state. But all concepts like where do we go, space and time don't exist in God's eternity. So it's a state of awareness and knowledge and experience of pure love, which is God, which is the true life.

I think at death we find that. And I think that we long for that all our lives and at death we find it. It's a reward. It's not a punishment.

:chin:

This confirms how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective? Why?

What is unrealistic about the idea of a being existing that is greater than us?

What is unrealistic about purpose to life?

What is unrealistic about the concept of the afterlife?

What is unrealistic about the concept of a spiritual realm?


Buddists and Wiccans should make a fine addition to the next panel.

Why? This panel sucked, those would just add more confusion although there were some Buddhist concepts offered in this one.

[Sweetie]

I have to ask the question if you think that there is a God who will forgive you for what you have done wrong, how can you be ethical in that sense?

:chin:

We know that we have to do our part right here and now and answer to our fellow human beings. [/i]

Who doesn't? :chin:

[viscousmemories]

:chin:

This confirms how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective? Why?
No, that was his response to your asking "Which contentions?"

[ChuckF]

Wow. I'm honestly surprised that Larry King took a break from his usual diet of pet psychics and UFOlogists to do a show on the afterlife.

[Sweetie]

Ellen's comments simply confirmed how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective.

In what way? Why? Which contentions? From this transcript, I would have to say that neither position was well defended but it was short so.

Which contentions/comments confirmed how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective?


Which contentions?

MACARTHUR: Depending upon your personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is according to the Bible the only way to enter heaven.

KING: So therefore a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist will not go to heaven?

MACARTHUR: Christian theology and the scripture says that only through faith in Jesus Christ.

vs:

KING: Father Manning, what happens when you die?...............

[viscousmemories]

Which contentions/comments confirmed how much more realistic atheism is as a perspective?
Ronin said:
My view is that the contention presented between religious concepts (asserting one must believe in Jesus to get a posthumous reward, etc) spoke louder for the atheist position than presenting an atheist position itself.
You asked which contentions, so he quoted a bunch of them.

I think his statement that Ellen's perspective showed how much more realistic atheism is, which came after that, was a separate thought.

[justaman]

I mean really, doesn't that sound stupid? Death? Huh? What do you mean?
She's trying to rationalise her way out of nihilism.

You could discuss this over in the nihilism thread. Come along. It is what you want.

:rif:

[Dragar]

You could discuss this over in the nihilism thread. Come along. It is what you want.

Maybe it's time to try and put this down in a more 'step by step' format, Justaman, and start a new thread? I think the 20+ pages are rather intimidating to other posters.

[justaman]

Maybe. Sounds like it would require work...

[lpetrich]

KING: Isn't it true, Father Manning, that all religion is really based -- if we didn't die there'd be no religion. All religion is based on fear of dying?

This is leading, and it's loaded and it also wasn't given enough time to be countered.
I will concede that I am inclined to agree with Sweetie there -- that's too simplistic. Some religions do not seem to have been in the business of promising Pie in the Sky when you Die. In Hellenic paganism, most people lead a shadowy existence in Hades, with only very good people going to the Elysian Fields and only very bad people going to Tartarus. Sheol in the Old Testament was much like Hades, as far as can be determined; the author of Ecclesiastes seemed to think that we don't survive death.

Which makes me think that Ellen Johnson ought to have mentioned that she agrees with that part of the Bible. Perhaps as part of saying that she doesn't consider the Bible absolutely evil and worthless.

And she does not know that when you die, that's it.How so?

And the whole concept of death being a nonsense word is ridiculous along with several other Buddhist concepts of the like I've encountered. I understand the concept, I just think the way she uses the truth of the concept is ridiculous.I don't see how that is a Buddhist concept, but I will agree that it's absurd to consider death a nonsensical concept.

WILLIAMSON: Well, I agree with what was just said, that God was working with all of the people who perpetrated the act. But I also believe that God gave us free will. And God himself will not violate that law.What a wimpy being! :P

At the same time I think that 9/11, and any tragedy such as that, does not come out of a vacuum. And there are many ways that all of us have to look into our hearts about what each of us might have contributed to create a world in which such things as this are happening at all.What does that mean? That those kamikaze hijackings had been caused by our bad karma? :huh?:

JOHNSON: If you are a person who thinks that there is a creator who is -- it is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and then you make excuses for this all-powerful being for allowing 9/11 to happen, for allowing TWA flight 800 to plunge into the Atlantic Ocean, for allowing over 100,000 people to die in -- with the tsunami. If you can then excuse your God for being asleep on the job, then when a member of the clergy, the same members of the clergy ask you to pray, to pray for anything because God answers prayers, forget about it. ...

Of course, God is only there to save if He saves everybody from any and every tragedy. That's ridiculous. Eh, well, when your scope of vision is narrowed to naturalism then what else are you supposed to be able to see?Is that too hard for an allegedly omnipotent being?

Especially a being that can create Heaven, a place that is allegedly free from such calamities. Are there kamikaze hijackings in Heaven? Plane crashes? Devastating tsunamis?

But I also want to add, when we talk about death, these gentlemen did mention the fact that -- you brought it up, why do we fight at the very end to stay alive? We have this will to live. I think we humans know that death is the end of it. We fight it. We all fight it. Religious people fight it, too. And in fact, this will to live, this imperative is part of our genes, our bodies fight to live all the time.
Her arguement is that we fight to stay alive because we fear non-existence, we fear the end? We are fearing because we know it's the end?Yes, that's right.

How about we just fear the unknown?
Not very convincing to me -- if one seriously believes that one will wake up in Heaven, then one ought to look forward to dying and to celebrate deaths as arrivals in Heaven.

But whoever makes their last words "See you in Heaven"?

LOL, let's get real crazy and throw in another possibility, maybe we know instinctively that we will be held accountable for our actions and we fear consequence and that's why we fear death?So the only reason to fear death would be fear of being sent to Hell?

If the only reason to continue existing for a rational creature is to continue to exist and breed no matter how unhappy it makes one, then there is no reason not to override the ingrained instinct to live, because according to her theory, it is just an instinct, it's hard-wired in our genes, but to no valuable human rationalistic purpose.Except that there are other possible "reasons to live", like pleasurable experiences. Call that a pig's philosophy, but I think that that's a good reason.

As far as that goes, all I meant was that it seems she is unwilling or even unable to theorize outside of the scope of naturalism.Be careful of what you wish for, because you might actually get it.

I'm not sure who'd enjoy Ellen Johnson talking about how she and her fellow capital-A Atheists will be rewarded in the next world by some law of karma while their opponents will be punished by that law.

[viscousmemories]

How about we just fear the unknown?
Not very convincing to me -- if one seriously believes that one will wake up in Heaven, then one ought to look forward to dying and to celebrate deaths as arrivals in Heaven.

But whoever makes their last words "See you in Heaven"?
Just to play God's Advocate here ( :wink: ), I don't think most Christians would deny that the "flesh" will want to continue living (what I would call the biological instinct to survive) even though they want to get into heaven with all their "heart and soul". So I can see how they wouldn't see it as a contradiction to struggle to live despite a strong belief that dying will bring them eternal peace.

[Sauron]

LOL, let's get real crazy and throw in another possibility, maybe we know instinctively that we will be held accountable for our actions and we fear consequence and that's why we fear death?

Then why do animals fear death?