Why there is belief in an afterlife

[WendyDarling]

Knowing God directly is better for me. God is not only about love...he is about all of the emotions for he created them all. Are you refuting the Old Testament Erik?

[URUZ]

Fixed, I agree with your thesis here. I think belief in afterlife definitely serves this function you mention. It allows us to set a higher standard for ourselves, to project our thinking and valuing further than ourselves and the immediate world around us. But it can also distort that thinking and valuing, since we actually have no real or objective or certain, rational reason to believe in the afterlife which we believe in... so errors are introduced.

There are also those strange, weird experiences that we have and that seem to imply that there is 'something more' that we do not understand... the total sphere of these "paranormal" sort of experiences seems sufficiently large, at least presumably or potentially, to justify at least a rejection of the position that there is certainly no afterlife in any form whatsoever. But that sphere is not sufficiently large (at least for me) to swing to the affirmative position that there is certainly an afterlife in some form.

So basically we cannot rationally cohere a position on either extreme, and because of this we are left in a place where it becomes unjustified to accept or reject either extreme. This ambiguous position allows the beliefs in afterlives to come into being, and then they serve that purpose you mentioned.

Beliefs are symptoms.

[Urwrongx1000]

The ideal, dream, desire, belief in an "afterlife" is the religious and spiritual concept of Redemption.

People are scared to death that you get "just one life". So people become very scared of their mistakes, errors, fuck ups, or other things that cause a lot of damage, suffering, death, misery, etc. They want to flee from the responsibility of their "evils". And so judeo-christians, long ago, formulated and injected the ideals of an "afterlife" (heaven and hell) into their theologies, as means to appeal to and appease the slave masses.

"You can be a slave all your life, but, if you are a good and dutiful slave, then you get to go to heaven when you die."


That is the original source.

[URUZ]

Yep, there's that too.

[Fixed Cross]

There is that too, but evidently that is not an evolutionary benefit, so it is recent, from when humans began to cluster in civilizations that protected them from having to be courageous.
We know the Egyptian civilization of close to or more than ten thousand years old believed in reincarnation, and predominantly for the Faraoh.

So all that slavish crap Dante seems to have been commissioned to concoct, inferno, is just a modern side phenomenon.

[Fixed Cross]

Fixed, I agree with your thesis here. I think belief in afterlife definitely serves this function you mention. It allows us to set a higher standard for ourselves, to project our thinking and valuing further than ourselves and the immediate world around us. But it can also distort that thinking and valuing, since we actually have no real or objective or certain, rational reason to believe in the afterlife which we believe in... so errors are introduced.

There are also those strange, weird experiences that we have and that seem to imply that there is 'something more' that we do not understand... the total sphere of these "paranormal" sort of experiences seems sufficiently large, at least presumably or potentially, to justify at least a rejection of the position that there is certainly no afterlife in any form whatsoever. But that sphere is not sufficiently large (at least for me) to swing to the affirmative position that there is certainly an afterlife in some form.

So basically we cannot rationally cohere a position on either extreme, and because of this we are left in a place where it becomes unjustified to accept or reject either extreme. This ambiguous position allows the beliefs in afterlives to come into being, and then they serve that purpose you mentioned.

Beliefs are symptoms.

Agreed on all counts.

I contend thus that beliefs in rewarding afterlives is the original source, because it provides for more power and determination, and that belief in hell as punishment is a sad side phenomenon that actually is the reverse of the evolutionary advantage, where it makes people unnecessarily afraid, and mostly of precisely the sort of things that made the original believers bold.

Namely exercising their will to power, going for their values, existing.

[Fixed Cross]

Kristjun afterlife is a blend of the two.
The crusaders were certainly brave, as were a lot of banding sects.
The city states guided sociological by the church are the ugliness of accumulated cowardice.



Another powerful culture of ancient lineage, but one that still holds sway and over increasingly many mind, is the old Into Aryan narrative of Karma. (I use the term Aryan here to clear up confusion - Aryans aren't Germans. They are originally proto-Persians and people from the Indian peninsula.)

The primary book of that culture, the Bhagavad Gita, starts on a battlefield, where a man is doubting his will to fight to the death people for whom he might have affection, but the God reprimands him and tells him in so many words that only dedication to standard based action matters. It is not about the result but about the intention. Because Earthly results are never attained directly. It can be seen as a trick of evolution to surpass human pettiness, the exaggerated self interest that our brain permits, and use us in a grander society-building scheme, where the norm is that strong men are willing to go to the death to protect what is sacred, which is always the survival of the women and children, the home, and if possible, the growth in power of that home.

In such vastly aspirational cultures, men are expandable. But in war, not in a cubicle.

http://www.yoga-age.com/gita/bg1.html

[URUZ]

Yes and it's interesting that at least in the Abrahamic tradition the notion of afterlife as eternal pain and punishment was not part of the original idea of afterlife. This fact supports your position here, that the belief in afterlife was originally developed to aid human courage and valuing.

[Fixed Cross]

Yes and it's interesting that at least in the Abrahamic tradition the notion of afterlife as eternal pain and punishment was not part of the original idea of afterlife. This fact supports your position here, that the belief in afterlife was originally developed to aid human courage and valuing.

Ill need to add this though: Its not Abrahamic but Hellenic.
Christianity is written in Greek. Hell was a Roman invention - only they were cruel and imaginative enough for such things. Dante came up with it.
Islam is a Hellenic, postChristian religion as well, it is a hodgepodge of Hellenic and Abrahamic and Arabic influences. It doesn't relate to the hard self-shaping of that weird family of Abraham.

The original Abrahamic writing has no notion of afterlife. This is little known, people generally assume that "heaven" is a natural extension of "God". But what heaven means in the Torah is only he sphere from which ones time can be seen as already finished.

The only afterlife a Jew has is his progeny. Thats why they're so tough on them, they need them to survive and procreate, its all there is.

Thus I see the state of Israel as a literal afterlife - the attainment of many generations of people giving themselves to the future.

[URUZ]

Thanks for the clarification, that does make sense.

On a different but related note, we are seeing the dividing of humanity into two species, as you already pointed out. This is the hidden truth behind trans gender and all that is associated to it, in particular with regard to how so many people refuse to even think about it and blindly defend transism as "why do you care what they do?" This is mind-death. So the split is occurring along the lines not of "elite vs everyone else" as might be tempting to conclude, but rather is occurring along the lines of "thinking vs unthinking reacting".

"It's hard to pick a fight with reality... you tend to lose", as JP said. The two emerging human species are being defined along these lines, more or less exactly. I mean this is a precision historical fault line, and it is only coming more sharply into focus nowadays.

This fault line will bisect every strata of society from the top to the bottom. It will also lead to the destruction of most of the western world, but not so much a destruction as such and more like a reconfiguration; Orwell was only half right, he saw the bisecting and growing elitism but he didn't see how as JP put it above, or as you put it with the comments on facing hard reality, that truth always wins in the end-- that is what reality means.

As the western world goes forward it will progressively schizophrenize and divide into these two camps I mentioned above, but one camp will naturally begin to rise higher than another when it comes to influence, success, wealth, power, industry. The group that rises will cross all socioeconomic and political strata and will be simply that of the two groups which values thinking over unthinking reacting. While it is technically possible that the lesser group will maintain enough cohesion with the upper group and keep enough upward lift to remain in contact with the upper dominant group, I count that as a very small possibility. And remember too that these groups are self-chosen allegiances, and this fact will depower the potentially limiting effects of the empathy of the higher group toward all those who insist on being left behind.

[Urwrongx1000]

Fixed Cross, you amateur.........

"Hell" comes from the Catholic catacombs, dungeons, and torture chambers, designed for criminals, punishment, and enemies of the Roman Papacy (The Holy Roman Emperor). The tortures and punishments were designed to deter and intimidate all that stood opposed to the Arch Diocese. Christianity then extended these physical realities with the "afterlife". If you disobeyed the abrahamic god (The Græco-Roman Emperor), then you would be thrown into Hell for eternity. This is the inspiration of Dante's Inferno.

This was the height, or the depth, of the European "Dark Ages". It is called dark, referring to the height of intimidation, fear, and "evil" of the Roman Catholic order. It was even illegal for commoners and peasants to become literate, without approval from the centralized church. This eventually broke into Protestantism, when Northern European pagans educated themselves, and became literate, without the permission of the central church.


You all ought to know this. You're amateurs.

[URUZ]

^ how does that refute anything he said? I don't see any serious contradictions between your two statements.

[Urwrongx1000]

It's not a refutation. It's a clarification. Fixed Cross is neglecting you and others in this thread by not going in-depth.

[URUZ]

Dante's epic work did create new depths and notions into the Roman Catholic idea of hell and the devil. The modern "devil" is an artistic, poetic invention, in this regard. And Fixed already pointed out that "hell" was created by the Romans. You are saying it was created by Roman Catholics.. are you aware that Rome became Christian? And that Christianity became... Roman? There is no disagreement in your two positions here.

Yes we know the dark ages were terribly 'dark'. That doesn't clarify what Fixed was saying, in any way.

Why don't you pick out what you think Fixed said is inaccurate or significantly insufficient, and demonstrate what is missing? Because if your claim to this effect is basically "the dark ages sucked" and "Hell was invented by Catholics and used for the purposes of social control", that doesn't disjoint with anything Fixed was saying. He already basically said the exact same thing. But you are free to actually make your case, if you want. It would be preferable for you to make the case rather than just come in here, post a couple obvious supplementary things, and then say Fixed doesn't know what he is talking about.

This, "Fixed Cross, you amateur......." is not supported by what you have written so far here.

[URUZ]

"Fixed Cross is neglecting you and others in this thread by not going in-depth."

Really?

Ill need to add this though: Its not Abrahamic but Hellenic.
Christianity is written in Greek. Hell was a Roman invention - only they were cruel and imaginative enough for such things. Dante came up with it.
Islam is a Hellenic, postChristian religion as well, it is a hodgepodge of Hellenic and Abrahamic and Arabic influences. It doesn't relate to the hard self-shaping of that weird family of Abraham.

The original Abrahamic writing has no notion of afterlife. This is little known, people generally assume that "heaven" is a natural extension of "God". But what heaven means in the Torah is only he sphere from which ones time can be seen as already finished.

The only afterlife a Jew has is his progeny. Thats why they're so tough on them, they need them to survive and procreate, its all there is.

Thus I see the state of Israel as a literal afterlife - the attainment of many generations of people giving themselves to the future.


Kristjun afterlife is a blend of the two.
The crusaders were certainly brave, as were a lot of banding sects.
The city states guided sociological by the church are the ugliness of accumulated cowardice.

Another powerful culture of ancient lineage, but one that still holds sway and over increasingly many mind, is the old Into Aryan narrative of Karma. (I use the term Aryan here to clear up confusion - Aryans aren't Germans. They are originally proto-Persians and people from the Indian peninsula.)

The primary book of that culture, the Bhagavad Gita, starts on a battlefield, where a man is doubting his will to fight to the death people for whom he might have affection, but the God reprimands him and tells him in so many words that only dedication to standard based action matters. It is not about the result but about the intention. Because Earthly results are never attained directly. It can be seen as a trick of evolution to surpass human pettiness, the exaggerated self interest that our brain permits, and use us in a grander society-building scheme, where the norm is that strong men are willing to go to the death to protect what is sacred, which is always the survival of the women and children, the home, and if possible, the growth in power of that home.

^ seems pretty in-depth to me.

You are both doing in-depth analysis here. I do not understand your unreasonable antipathy for what Fixed said. Especially since you haven't pointed out a single thing he said with which you disagree.

[Arcturus Descending]

Because it facilitates courageous behaviour, the disregarding of survival as a primary value for the sake of standard based action, which is evolutionarily favourable for conquest and procreation. Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well.

Personally speaking, I think that it all comes down to fear ~~ of one's losing self, ego, whatever you want to call it. We find ourselves very attached to this life, to our human experience.

Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well

How do you figure this, Jakob? Are you projecting again?
Many who believe in an afterlife take no time at all to question its validity, to step out on that limb and ask their selves? "But do I really believe? Is there really something after death? Or is Death the very end to me?
Then what do they do? They stifle that urge to question so that their ego may always live on in the back of their minds.


How does belief in an afterlife mark one as being more fit?
Well, I suppose that just may depend on the individual.

The way I look at it ~~ going on, living one's life while knowing that Death is always there, that one cannot escape it, and that that may very well be all there is ~~ just this one life ~~ this to me is what may make one FIT in all ways possible.

But again, I think it would depend on the INDIVIDUAL.

Of course, there is no way to prove anything either way. So we all have our own way of dealing or detaching from this and learn to live in negative capability.
We look up at the sky and the stars and come to ask ourselves: What's the difference? I am Here and Now ~~ and just Look what I have!
We flow on.

[Fixed Cross]

Fixed Cross, you amateur.........

"Hell" comes from the Catholic catacombs, dungeons, and torture chambers, designed for criminals, punishment, and enemies of the Roman Papacy (The Holy Roman Emperor). The tortures and punishments were designed to deter and intimidate all that stood opposed to the Arch Diocese. Christianity then extended these physical realities with the "afterlife". If you disobeyed the abrahamic god (The Græco-Roman Emperor), then you would be thrown into Hell for eternity. This is the inspiration of Dante's Inferno.

Obviously Dantes tortures were based on real tortures.
You missed the point of this thread about afterlife.

This was the height, or the depth, of the European "Dark Ages". It is called dark, referring to the height of intimidation, fear, and "evil" of the Roman Catholic order. It was even illegal for commoners and peasants to become literate, without approval from the centralized church. This eventually broke into Protestantism, when Northern European pagans educated themselves, and became literate, without the permission of the central church.

I don't think there is any literate who doesn't know this.
You've credibly backed up my suggestion that the Church commissioned Dantes work.

[Fixed Cross]

Because it facilitates courageous behaviour, the disregarding of survival as a primary value for the sake of standard based action, which is evolutionarily favourable for conquest and procreation. Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well.

Personally speaking, I think that it all comes down to fear ~~ of one's losing self, ego, whatever you want to call it. We find ourselves very attached to this life, to our human experience.

I can't argue with opinions.

Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well

How do you figure this, Jakob? Are you projecting again?

Arc, dont. Youre not a troll, youre not funny when you try.

Many who believe in an afterlife take no time at all to question its validity, to step out on that limb and ask their selves? "But do I really believe? Is there really something after death? Or is Death the very end to me?
Then what do they do? They stifle that urge to question so that their ego may always live on in the back of their minds.

I can accept that the is probably the case for weakened, urbanized people. However, I made a logical argument for its origin as a quality that allows for more courageous living. Id like to see my arguments addressed.

It is very easy to see the logic of how cowardice can not, in the original, uncivilized situation on Earth, have been prior to courage in the process of creating such myths.

How does belief in an afterlife mark one as being more fit?
Well, I suppose that just may depend on the individual.

The way I look at it ~~ going on, living one's life while knowing that Death is always there, that one cannot escape it, and that that may very well be all there is ~~ just this one life ~~ this to me is what may make one FIT in all ways possible.

But again, I think it would depend on the INDIVIDUAL.

I respect your opinion.

Of course, there is no way to prove anything either way. So we all have our own way of dealing or detaching from this and learn to live in negative capability.
We look up at the sky and the stars and come to ask ourselves: What's the difference? I am Here and Now ~~ and just Look what I have!
We flow on.

We can actually prove these things by logic, as you can see in this thread, where I did just that.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Trixie, Christianity is NOT sadomasochistic or anything like that. Christianity is about very beautiful love and devotion. When people kissed the hands or feet of Jesus, it was done out of endearing reverence, NOT out of sexual desire.

You should NOT make such blasphemous statements about Christianity.

Or else what? God will ruin my life? As if my life doesn't already suck?

And you're telling me kissing feet is not sexual at all? The Americanized word love implies the totality of all 6 different Greek words of Love. This includes sexual and romantic love. If heaven doesn't have sex in it, I'd don't want to go.

I reject some things in the bible, like the accounts of slaughter. These things are NOT of Christ, nor God. The bible does contain the Truth of God in it and many things inspired by God, but people need to remember that the bible was written by men. Men are not perfect they can make mistakes. This, however, does NOT mean that the bible is unreliable. Just because there are some errors in it, that does NOT mean we should do away with it. It does contain the Truth of God in it and we should continue to read it and learn from it.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And no man goes unto the Father but by him. He is the only way to God.

Seek to know him. There is nothing more beautiful than knowing God through Jesus.

The Bible says God commanded the Jews to slaughter the philistines and gentiles. What do you think of that? God is more evil than Hitler because God both genocided and created Hell, Hitler genocided, but didn't even create Hell.


Now you keep talking about this Truth thing. Truth is what is. Like, what is apparent to your waking, non-fantasy consciousness. God doesn't seem to exist, according to my waking consciousness.

[Arcturus Descending]

Fixed Cross

Hi Jakob,

Personally speaking, I think that it all comes down to fear ~~ of one's losing self, ego, whatever you want to call it. We find ourselves very attached to this life, to our human experience.

I can't argue with opinions.

Yet, don't you think that for the most part, what we are arguing about in here is just our own opinion, perspective, subjective thinking ~~ based on what we as individuals see ~~ except for what we know, what has been proven to be fact.

How do you figure this, Jakob? Are you projecting again?

Arc, dont. Youre not a troll, youre not funny when you try.

Jakob, is there a difference between affectionate teasing and trolling?
An enquiring mind would like to know. I did not see that as trolling.

Many who believe in an afterlife take no time at all to question its validity, to step out on that limb and ask their selves? "But do I really believe? Is there really something after death? Or is Death the very end to me?

Then what do they do? They stifle that urge to question so that their ego may always live on in the back of their minds.

FC said: I can accept that the is probably the case for weakened, urbanized people. However, I made a logical argument for its origin as a quality that allows for more courageous living. Id like to see my arguments addressed.

I think that that may be an individual thing. As for your so-called weakened, urbanized people, do you really believe that many of them have a belief in God, considering what their lives are? Some yes but many no. Some may believe without caring either way. But that's just my subjective thinking.

Okay, there is always another side to the coin Jakob. I have known and know some people (and I am sure that there are many) for whom their belief in God allow them to be strong and to move forward...as you say ~~ to be fit. They believe that God has given them a purpose. They believe that this God, their God, will not fail them. That kind of faith gives them the strength to go on, no matter how afraid they are, no matter what it is that is going on their lives. Pain, loss, disease. They have the will to go on because of what they believe.
So I will grant you that it does make for more courageous living.
But, what is the bottom line here?

It is very easy to see the logic of how cowardice can not, in the original, uncivilized situation on Earth, have been prior to courage in the process of creating such myths.

Aren't/weren't myths created to explain the unexplainable, the unknowable? That's not to say that there is not great beauty and meaning within myths and truths. I don't like to throw the gorgeous baby out with the dirty bath water.
As for the rest, I'm not sure that i understand what you're saying here. But then, I'm not such a logical person, as you well know.
But if I am understanding you, can we actually know this? There would be both the coward ~~ and the dreamer, the creator, the seeker after truth, the builder, ad continuum...
But show me the logic please.

The way I look at it ~~ going on, living one's life while knowing that Death is always there, that one cannot escape it, and that that may very well be all there is ~~ just this one life ~~ this to me is what may make one FIT in all ways possible.

But again, I think it would depend on the INDIVIDUAL.

I respect your opinion.

Thank you for respecting my opinion. I think that when it comes right down it, that is an important part of discussion; that is unless the opinion is really off the wall.
Then what do we do in a case like that? I'm really asking for your opinion.

Of course, there is no way to prove anything either way. So we all have our own way of dealing or detaching from this and learn to live in negative capability.
We look up at the sky and the stars and come to ask ourselves: What's the difference? I am Here and Now ~~ and just Look what I have!
We flow on.

FC said:We can actually prove these things by logic, as you can see in this thread, where I did just that.

What is it again which you have proven by logic? How people become more fit and live more courageously for their belief in God and the afterlife?
If that is the case, I don't think that this has been proven so much by logic, Jakob, but perhaps I am wrong here. Maybe I wouldn't know logic if it hit me in the face lol but I will say that the proof is in the pudding.
But I would also say that faith and belief can stand on very unstable ground.
I'm a skeptic.
But would I wish for a collapse of people's religious beliefs and faith?
No, not if it would cause them great harm and anguish...unless it would cause the same for others. I've already gone through the anguish part of it and so I know how valuable it can be to others.
We all need something that we can reasonably believe in.

Sometimes I think it would be better for me to stay out of all religion threads. I want to be a kind agnostic but sometimes I can see it not happening that way. I flare up inside. lol

Just because I am not capable of seeing something, and have my own opinion of things which I see in a certain way as not being in a certain way , and even to say *in a certain way*, do I have even have a right to express my opinion when it comes to certain *particular* ways of thinking?
I have an ego but do I have a right to topple over another's canoe? I grapple with that thought.

[WendyDarling]

Erik,
Why do I get the impression that you avoided most everything that I wrote so far?

[perpetualburn]

Because it facilitates courageous behaviour, the disregarding of survival as a primary value for the sake of standard based action, which is evolutionarily favourable for conquest and procreation. Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well.

If life is indestructible then wouldn't belief in an afterlife be anti-nature?

[Fixed Cross]

Because it facilitates courageous behaviour, the disregarding of survival as a primary value for the sake of standard based action, which is evolutionarily favourable for conquest and procreation. Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well.

If life is indestructible then wouldn't belief in an afterlife be anti-nature?

Like anti-matter?

I don't know what that means, really.
Existence is not a zero sum game, its not like for every human there is an anti-human.

[perpetualburn]

Because it facilitates courageous behaviour, the disregarding of survival as a primary value for the sake of standard based action, which is evolutionarily favourable for conquest and procreation. Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well.

If life is indestructible then wouldn't belief in an afterlife be anti-nature?

Like anti-matter?

I don't know what that means, really.If
Existence is not a zero sum game, its not like for every human there is an anti-human.

Like going against nature, negating this life. But I'm thinking of the Christian afterlife which is absolute and which completely blunders what "eternity" is.

From WTP

"The places of origin of the notion of "another world": the philosopher, who invents a world of reason, where reason and the logical functions are adequate: this is the origin of the "true" world; the religious man, who invents a "divine world": this is the origin of the "denaturalized, anti- natural" world; the moral man, who invents a "free world": this is the origin of the "good, perfect, just, holy" world. What the three places of origin have in common: the psycho-logical blunder, the physiological confusions. By what attributes is the "other world," as it actually appears in history, distinguished? By the stigmata of philosophical, religious, moral prejudice. The "other world," as illumined by these facts, as a synonym for nonbeing, nonliving, not wanting to live-- General insight: it is the instinct of life-weariness, and not that of life, which has created the "other world." Consequence: philosophy, religion, and morality are symptoms of decadence."

[WendyDarling]

Because it facilitates courageous behaviour, the disregarding of survival as a primary value for the sake of standard based action, which is evolutionarily favourable for conquest and procreation. Belief in afterlife is a mark of fitness, even though it is a function of debility as well.

If life is indestructible then wouldn't belief in an afterlife be anti-nature?

Like anti-matter?
I don't know what that means, really.If
Existence is not a zero sum game, its not like for every human there is an anti-human.

Like going against nature, negating this life. But I'm thinking of the Christian afterlife which is absolute and which completely blunders what "eternity" is.

From WTP

"The places of origin of the notion of "another world": the philosopher, who invents a world of reason, where reason and the logical functions are adequate: this is the origin of the "true" world; the religious man, who invents a "divine world": this is the origin of the "denaturalized, anti- natural" world; the moral man, who invents a "free world": this is the origin of the "good, perfect, just, holy" world. What the three places of origin have in common: the psycho-logical blunder, the physiological confusions. By what attributes is the "other world," as it actually appears in history, distinguished? By the stigmata of philosophical, religious, moral prejudice. The "other world," as illumined by these facts, as a synonym for nonbeing, nonliving, not wanting to live-- General insight: it is the instinct of life-weariness, and not that of life, which has created the "other world." Consequence: philosophy, religion, and morality are symptoms of decadence."

Why isn't this the "another world?" What makes you think that you are mortal, that your consciousness is mortal, rather than just your human body?