lit believe in god/the afterlife?

>>8323375
I don't subscribe to the false dichotomies of self/other and life/death.

>>8323393
You're like a negative Don Quixote

Stop being an idiot

That's not to say there is an afterlife, by definition that is impossible. God could be anything though it's too vague an idea

>>8323408
I'm not being an idiot, I'm just prone to unwarranted discrimination. If anything that makes me less of an idiot.

>>8323408
*tips fedora*

Heaven exists it says so in The Bible.

>>8323375
no. i believe that my brain with all my memories until my death will spontaneously re-appear out of quantum-fluctuations in the vast and empty space of the universe long after its gone completely cold. and then i'll die a horrible death again. over and over... for eternity. :)

>>8323415
*pretentious idiot. Stop reading books for a while

>>8323419
Lol

Yes. Bible-believing Christian.

File: welcome to die.jpg (160KB, 422x422px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 422x422px

No.

Everything about the afterlife relies on the single notion of not dying; that there is something after death. If there is something after death, why keep living? Why not kill yourself to be in paradise, or go in that far off supercomputer that monitors everything, or get reincarnated into a tiger?

It's boring. When you die, you lose awareness of the world and everything ends. That's it. That makes every moment left alive special and worthwhile as it only lasts for a short period. The existence of the afterlife cheapens living in the moment. Why spent around 100 years living when you can live all of eternity in space or whatever?

For those reasons, I don't believe in the afterlife.
If there is an afterlife, then I'll be pleasantly surprised, but it's not something I care or even think about. Once you no longer care about death, it becomes relaxing.

As for God, I view it as simply being another word for causality. I consider myself a pantheist but less that God is nature and that God is everything; the relationship and connection to everything. When someone prays to God, they are praying to causality influencing itself to become beneficiary to themselves. It's the same concept for Karma. The concept of God is simply a sentience that has command of causality and can break it. However, it would still be within the bounds of causality of a sentience to manipulate causality within itself, making God nonexistent. The Prime mover infers that a sentience started everything, but the paradox of what moved the prime mover is simply the chain of causality brought to its first starting point. Its beginnings do not prove that causality can be manipulated or has ever been manipulated.

And that pretty much sums up my views on God and the afterlife.

>>8323519
Not my fault nondualism is 2deep4u, m8

>>8323582
It really not, 'm8'

>>8323558
>If there is something after death, why keep living? Why not kill yourself to be in paradise, or go in that far off supercomputer that monitors everything, or get reincarnated into a tiger?
Because if the afterlife was established by a sentience with the express purpose of being attained after some sort of action or change in an individual's earthly life, then you should fulfill the purpose and acknowledge the value of your current life.
>That makes every moment left alive special and worthwhile as it only lasts for a short period. The existence of the afterlife cheapens living in the moment.
Only a type of value given to life after the fact. The afterlife is generally accepted as radically different to the experience of earthly living, anyway.
>I consider myself a pantheist but less that God is nature and that God is everything
I'm not sure what the "universe-ness" of the universe is, apart being from the composite of everything inside of it. I don't see where the origins of God or the first cause can be traced to within it. Rather it would seem that all the atoms are held in existence by a Being that is not the atoms themselves.

No.

I don't only consider it from a "could those exist?" kind of angle, I also consider it from a "would it be good if there was god/afterlife or if I believed in them?" angle.
And no, it would not be good. It would be horrible to have that kind of holy safety net under you, I want none of that. Human needs the uncertainty and the risk and the anxiety that is caused by not having such things.

>>8323657
The problem is that is has not been established and I don't care to find out which one is correct. The fact that everything relying on the afterlife relies on death not being death is what makes me think there is no afterlife.

>The afterlife is generally accepted as radically different to the experience of earthly living, anyway.
It's generally accepted as being better than the current world we live in. Unless you end up in a bad afterlife, like hell.

>I don't see where the origins of God or the first cause can be traced to within it.
That's my point, the chain of causality leads back to a Prime Mover, but we cannot identify it. A Prime Mover is not evidence that there is a sentience that can manipulate causality, only that there might have been a sentience that started causality. And because of this, it's not a proof of God.

>Rather it would seem that all the atoms are held in existence by a Being that is not the atoms themselves.
So Monads, basically. It can be argued that God is the base of all but it doesn't prove that God is above causality or that it has sentience.

no, i'm not 5 years old

>>8323375
yes and yes, because I feel that that's the only tenable view.

Not at all