What does one Do in Heaven - a few answers

[sharon45]

I could make the claim that atheists can't prove of a "no such thing" as God ... but obviously this is an unanwserable question because to suggest otherwise would then be a "claim" in which atheist scientists will not do. Of course this is not evidence for theists because of "no claim".

It doesn't matter if there is a god or not, since Christianity's real argument is that we are supposed to love not just a mere god, but a monstrous one.

 

[sharon45]

Your cartoons are bad. And you should feel bad.
And your reasoning is worse.

Getting personal - that's not right. Make a case why the cartoon is wrong. Why would anyone just let you sit and do nothing for eternity? You know that in real life no one will help you for free, maybe close family but that's about it.

Because, as I keep telling you, it's a misrepresentation of Christianity. Some supposed Christians may hate life, but they aren't officially taught to in their religion.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Your cartoons are bad. And you should feel bad.
And your reasoning is worse.

Getting personal - that's not right. Make a case why the cartoon is wrong. Why would anyone just let you sit and do nothing for eternity? You know that in real life no one will help you for free, maybe close family but that's about it.

Because, as I keep telling you, it's a misrepresentation of Christianity. Some supposed Christians may hate life, but they aren't officially taught to in their religion.

That doesn't help much does it? Simply saying it is a misrepresentation or you are not reading it correctly and then not saying what is the correct representation? As for "some" Christians, sure, not all Atheists are alike, not all Christians think alike, not all muslims, not all Hindus - we can go on down the list. As a Hindu, Casteism disgusts me but if someone asked me about Caste and Hindu links, i wouldn't say it is a misrepresentation - lots of Hindus hate caste, Gandhiji almost died fighting it - but there are plenty of Hindus who do support caste, so just like any person who asks a Hindu about Caste, I am also doing the same

In fact, the question has nothing to do with a specific religion - almost all religions believe in some sort of heaven - even a lot of Hindus do as well - so the question is generic, it is for everyone.

I think all religious ideas came from earth - the powerful local king was used as a template for God. We think we have it bad now, but our ancestors have had much much tougher - back then there were no banks, so money was kept in a safe, imagine looters holding a knife to your throat and taking everything away - instant poverty. Lots of violence - easy to kill and rape back in the day. from such harshness of life came the idea that after death there would be a pleasant place - but all i am saying is that it is just a nice fantasy

It is time for a change - we can't keep hanging on to old ideas - time to stop running away and appreciate this Gift of Life

 

[Ramaraksha]

Science doesn't 'hate' ideas, it tests them and discards those that are proven to be wrong.
The source of an idea is completely irrelevant. Souls are fictional regardless of who discusses them.

I think you may be speaking for yourself when you talk about not being biased - plenty of people see an idea coming from religion and they are immediately against it - at least that is how i see it. I am trying to show them how people might have used religion to push scientific ideas. The fact that our ancients said that the Universe is about 9 billion years old or the idea of a multiverse still exist today because they used religion as a vehicle

 

[Learner]

It is time for a change - we can't keep hanging on to old ideas - time to stop running away and appreciate this Gift of Life

I'm sure theists would agree to the term "gift of life".

Remember: reincarnation IS also an old religious idea.

 

[bilby]

Science doesn't 'hate' ideas, it tests them and discards those that are proven to be wrong.
The source of an idea is completely irrelevant. Souls are fictional regardless of who discusses them.

I think you may be speaking for yourself when you talk about not being biased - plenty of people see an idea coming from religion and they are immediately against it - at least that is how i see it. I am trying to show them how people might have used religion to push scientific ideas. The fact that our ancients said that the Universe is about 9 billion years old or the idea of a multiverse still exist today because they used religion as a vehicle

Science is a methodology for avoiding bias - indeed, it's the only effective methodology we have for avoiding bias.

If someone says "The universe is about 9 billion years old" then they are either right or wrong - but if they are right, then they are also right to say "The universe is about 9 billion years old, and I know this because I applied the methodology of science to our observations of the universe, and that's the result I obtained". But they would be WRONG to say "The universe is about 9 billion years old, and I know this because it is written in my holy book" - the book might get the right answer by pure chance, but unless it was derived scientifically, there is no excuse for believing it to be true.

This is important, because if "it is written in my holy book" is a valid methodology for determining truth, then EVERYTHING in that holy book has to be true. Because if that book contains one single demonstrable error, it is ALL rendered valueless, without a methodology to determine which bits are true, and which are false. And if you have such a methodology - science, for example - the book isn't needed.

If you can prove that what it says in a book is true, then the book ceases to be an authority - the truth proving methodology is the authority, and the book is just a bunch of stuff you need to test with your methodology.

If you cannot prove that what it says in the book is true, then the book is no authority, because it might be false.

And if your truth-seeking methodology involves the contents of the book, then your argument is circular and invalid.

I am not biased against ideas from religion - I just refuse to give them any credence that they don't already have from actual methodologies for finding truth. I treat ideas from ANY source in exactly the same way, so there's no bias there at all. Nothing is sacred.

You can push scientific ideas any way you like; but using religion gives nobody any reason to believe them, so you should use science, which does give people reasons to accept an idea as true.

 

[Ramaraksha]

It is time for a change - we can't keep hanging on to old ideas - time to stop running away and appreciate this Gift of Life

I'm sure theists would agree to the term "gift of life".
Remember: reincarnation IS also an old religious idea.

So if life is a Gift, why would you refuse more of it? Growing up as a Hindu I have never heard of Life being a Sin, but that is common to hear in the west. As long as something better is to be had in the sky, why would anyone want to come back?
When a father says to his kid, "you better study hard if you want a good job", the kid understands, no kid is going to say, "i will get a million bucks after i drop out, i can enjoy the easy life, i don't have to go to school" because there is no fool giving away a million bucks, we all know that

But that is exactly what religion is promising - some magic being in the sky has nothing better to do than keep billions or is it Trillions now? in cozy comfort for eternity. That is why Life is a Sin and must be rejected - the promise of the easy life is what drives conversions and religions have been taken in by this conversions push and that is what they relentlessly push - hard to do that by saying "work hard get a job", easier if you promise, "magic being will nicely forgive all your mistakes and then you get to enjoy the easy good life for eternity"

Amazing to me that such a scam keeps giving

 

[Ramaraksha]

Science is a methodology for avoiding bias - indeed, it's the only effective methodology we have for avoiding bias.

If someone says "The universe is about 9 billion years old" then they are either right or wrong - but if they are right, then they are also right to say "The universe is about 9 billion years old, and I know this because I applied the methodology of science to our observations of the universe, and that's the result I obtained". But they would be WRONG to say "The universe is about 9 billion years old, and I know this because it is written in my holy book" - the book might get the right answer by pure chance, but unless it was derived scientifically, there is no excuse for believing it to be true.

This is important, because if "it is written in my holy book" is a valid methodology for determining truth, then EVERYTHING in that holy book has to be true. Because if that book contains one single demonstrable error, it is ALL rendered valueless, without a methodology to determine which bits are true, and which are false. And if you have such a methodology - science, for example - the book isn't needed.

If you can prove that what it says in a book is true, then the book ceases to be an authority - the truth proving methodology is the authority, and the book is just a bunch of stuff you need to test with your methodology.

If you cannot prove that what it says in the book is true, then the book is no authority, because it might be false.
And if your truth-seeking methodology involves the contents of the book, then your argument is circular and invalid.
I am not biased against ideas from religion - I just refuse to give them any credence that they don't already have from actual methodologies for finding truth. I treat ideas from ANY source in exactly the same way, so there's no bias there at all. Nothing is sacred.
You can push scientific ideas any way you like; but using religion gives nobody any reason to believe them, so you should use science, which does give people reasons to accept an idea as true.

So everything that Einstein said or wrote must be true? Speaking of books, have you even read any of these texts? These are ancient texts, don't you think all we get right now is bits and pieces? It's somewhat like finding fossils - you get bits and pieces. If tomorrow something happens to us and everything we had gets destroyed including us and an advanced civilization finds our remains and all they get is that we found that the universe is 13 billion years and not much else, would they discount that finding?

What we lack is the data as to how the ancient Hindus came up with the 9 billion figure - i am not saying they were scientifically advanced, all i am saying is that they may have used religion as a vehicle to keep such ideas alive, nothing to do with religion

 

[bilby]

Science is a methodology for avoiding bias - indeed, it's the only effective methodology we have for avoiding bias.

If someone says "The universe is about 9 billion years old" then they are either right or wrong - but if they are right, then they are also right to say "The universe is about 9 billion years old, and I know this because I applied the methodology of science to our observations of the universe, and that's the result I obtained". But they would be WRONG to say "The universe is about 9 billion years old, and I know this because it is written in my holy book" - the book might get the right answer by pure chance, but unless it was derived scientifically, there is no excuse for believing it to be true.

This is important, because if "it is written in my holy book" is a valid methodology for determining truth, then EVERYTHING in that holy book has to be true. Because if that book contains one single demonstrable error, it is ALL rendered valueless, without a methodology to determine which bits are true, and which are false. And if you have such a methodology - science, for example - the book isn't needed.

If you can prove that what it says in a book is true, then the book ceases to be an authority - the truth proving methodology is the authority, and the book is just a bunch of stuff you need to test with your methodology.

If you cannot prove that what it says in the book is true, then the book is no authority, because it might be false.
And if your truth-seeking methodology involves the contents of the book, then your argument is circular and invalid.
I am not biased against ideas from religion - I just refuse to give them any credence that they don't already have from actual methodologies for finding truth. I treat ideas from ANY source in exactly the same way, so there's no bias there at all. Nothing is sacred.
You can push scientific ideas any way you like; but using religion gives nobody any reason to believe them, so you should use science, which does give people reasons to accept an idea as true.

So everything that Einstein said or wrote must be true?

If you are that unwilling or unable to understand what others write in response to you, then you are wasting everyone's time.

To clarify: NO!

Argument from authority is logically fallacious.

IF Einstein is right, then we can only know that he is right by doing science. As a scientist, Einstein understood that; so his work doesn't say "This is how gravitation works"; It says "This is how I think gravitation works; This is why I think that; and here is the methodology I used for testing whether what I think is true, so that anyone else can test it too".

Show me a "holy" book that explains how to test the claims it makes, and you will be showing me something useful. The value of scientific evidence is not in the findings; it's in the provision of methods for testing those findings.

The names of the researchers are irrelevant; Einstein is famous because he was right - he is not right because he is famous.

Speaking of books, have you even read any of these texts?

Yes, I have. They make claims, but provide no mechanism by which those claims could be tested, and as a result are of little worth. They leave 99% of the work undone

These are ancient texts, don't you think all we get right now is bits and pieces?

Sure. And the bits we get are the 'answers' - with no hint of the working that led to the answers. Which is valueless.

It's somewhat like finding fossils - you get bits and pieces. If tomorrow something happens to us and everything we had gets destroyed including us and an advanced civilization finds our remains and all they get is that we found that the universe is 13 billion years and not much else, would they discount that finding?

Yes, they should. Unless they have a way to test it, it is impossible for them to know whether it is true, so they should not rely upon it until and unless they have a methodology which allows it to be confirmed or refuted - and given such a methodology, the original claim is needless. It's only value is as a vague hint.

What we lack is the data as to how the ancient Hindus came up with the 9 billion figure - i am not saying they were scientifically advanced, all i am saying is that they may have used religion as a vehicle to keep such ideas alive, nothing to do with religion

The lack of that data renders their claim valueless. If they are right, then the fact that we can prove them right means that we didn't need their input - we can just use our proof. And if they are right about the age of the universe, that tells us nothing about whether they are right in any other claims they make, unless we know that they used the same methods to achieve both results. So, again, without the data as to how they came up with their beliefs, those beliefs are of no value to us.

This is why mathematics teachers demand that you show your work. Because getting the right answer by the wrong method is valueless.

16/64 = 1/4

All you need to do is cancel the 6s above and below the line.

 

[sharon45]

Getting personal - that's not right. Make a case why the cartoon is wrong. Why would anyone just let you sit and do nothing for eternity? You know that in real life no one will help you for free, maybe close family but that's about it.

Because, as I keep telling you, it's a misrepresentation of Christianity. Some supposed Christians may hate life, but they aren't officially taught to in their religion.

That doesn't help much does it? Simply saying it is a misrepresentation or you are not reading it correctly and then not saying what is the correct representation?

I have been saying, and restating, but it is largely either passed over or ignored. As an example, is what I wrote above.

As for "some" Christians, sure, not all Atheists are alike, not all Christians think alike, not all muslims, not all Hindus - we can go on down the list.

Right, which is one of the reasons why your cartoon is not a success, because it bases far too much on an idea not generally thought by Christians.

As a Hindu, Casteism disgusts me but if someone asked me about Caste and Hindu links, i wouldn't say it is a misrepresentation - lots of Hindus hate caste, Gandhiji almost died fighting it - but there are plenty of Hindus who do support caste, so just like any person who asks a Hindu about Caste, I am also doing the same

Yes, but corrupt or not, it at least is supposedly connected to the religion, yet hating life is not specifically connected with Christianity.

 

[James Brown]

Show me a "holy" book that explains how to test the claims it makes, and you will be showing me something useful. The value of scientific evidence is not in the findings; it's in the provision of methods for testing those findings.

It's ironic that when people actually do try to duplicate some of the claims in scriptures--and inevitably fail--other believers will criticize them by saying, "That's testing God."

 

[Learner]

So if life is a Gift, why would you refuse more of it? Growing up as a Hindu I have never heard of Life being a Sin, but that is common to hear in the west. As long as something better is to be had in the sky, why would anyone want to come back?
When a father says to his kid, "you better study hard if you want a good job", the kid understands, no kid is going to say, "i will get a million bucks after i drop out, i can enjoy the easy life, i don't have to go to school" because there is no fool giving away a million bucks, we all know that

Refuse more of the gift of life or running away ? How on earth do you get that from Christianity ? You must then mean that they (Christians) are "all" committing suicide willingly, as put by the erroneous logic in YOUR argument. Christians do not believe in such things as reincarnation period : the coming back as you are suggesting above.

But that is exactly what religion is promising - some magic being in the sky has nothing better to do than keep billions or is it Trillions now? in cozy comfort for eternity. That is why Life is a Sin and must be rejected - the promise of the easy life is what drives conversions and religions have been taken in by this conversions push and that is what they relentlessly push - hard to do that by saying "work hard get a job", easier if you promise, "magic being will nicely forgive all your mistakes and then you get to enjoy the easy good life for eternity"

Amazing to me that such a scam keeps giving

Still using the so called magic-being from the hypocritical stand point?

If science has now validated reincarnation then I was unaware of it and it's STILL unclear whether you actually believe in reincarnation as from the religious angle or the other ; being the philosophical idea.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Refuse more of the gift of life or running away ? How on earth do you get that from Christianity ? You must then mean that they (Christians) are "all" committing suicide willingly, as put by the erroneous logic in YOUR argument. Christians do not believe in such things as reincarnation period : the coming back as you are suggesting above.

Still using the so called magic-being from the hypocritical stand point?

If science has now validated reincarnation then I was unaware of it and it's STILL unclear whether you actually believe in reincarnation as from the religious angle or the other ; being the philosophical idea.

You are an educated, intelligent person - why are you making this so hard? What i keep saying is not that complicated - we are not talking rocket science here.

A lot of religions have created Heavens in the sky where the living is easy - no more worries, no more dealing with the pressures of life. Nice magic being will just let billions of people, now approaching a trillion? - just sit around doing nothing. Is that not a fantasy? Is that not running away from real life?

Where do you find in real life such Sugar Daddies? Someone who will nicely take you in and keep you in eternal childhood? Keep you away from having to work, make a living and deal with the pressures of life? Not in real life, we don't. Heaven is the total opposite of what God is teaching us in life. God's teachings that we in turn teach our kids - "Nothing in life is free. If you want something Earn it! Better to eat stale bread bought with our own money than beg for a 7 course meal"

Are these not the teachings that we learn in life? That God is teaching us?

Doesn't the concept of Heaven - yes it is just a concept, it's just in your mind, that's all - there is no evidence for it - contradict everything that you have learnt in life? That your parents have taught you? Free food in Heaven, nothing to do, just laze around all day doing nothing? How is that in any way possible?

God created this world for us - this earth, this sun, this galaxy, this universe, this way of life - ALL created by God - where one is expected to grow up and face the world - stand on one's own feet. Religions have created the Heavens where the living is easy - it is a total contradiction of God's creation. It won't end well

 

[abaddon]

Ramaraksha,

Do you plan to retire from work eventually?

(And btw, it'd take about 992.5 billion more people to reach 1 trillion.)

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh god! They just keep getting worse!

 

[funinspace]

992 billion bottles on the wall...

Simple really - if someone is making a claim that person must prove it, right? Theists always say Atheists have not proven there is no God but that is not correct, theists are making the claim, they must prove God exists

I could make the claim that atheists can't prove of a "no such thing" as God ... but obviously this is an unanwserable question because to suggest otherwise would then be a "claim" in which atheist scientists will not do. Of course this is not evidence for theists because of "no claim".

Similarly, they claim Heaven exists and all i am asking for are details - they make cheap easy promises of the easy good life to be had - all i am doing is asking for details - ok the easy good life - but why would God have billions of people just sitting around doing nothing? Ok, they are working - so then, on what?

Their claims start falling apart pretty quickly

You're repeating yourself again as the members of the forum have pointed out your flawed argument about details. What are the details you can tell us about the next life you will be? You have to highlight details here, if this is the argument you are using.

It is also unclear where you stand really. You are an atheist-Hindu but insist reincarnation is the better *edit: (more realistic) idea.

Do you actually believe in reincarnation or is it merely the philosophical ideas you prefer ?...its hard to tell by atheist-hindu. If you believe in reincarnation then you are religious! If you are not religious then you are arguing the philosophical ideas between heaven and reincarnation which means; both ideologies should be unreal to you regarding your physical perspective of reality.

I'd say you are a little mixed up. But taking note of what the other members have been pointed out. You can improve your "approach".

I think I'm going to go with Learner here on this. Can you state clearly whether or not you believe in some sort of reincarnation process of 'souls', whether it is some sort of naturalistic system or Hindu religious one? I see lots of words, but very little clear thought...

As you dis Christians to 'prove' their god/heaven, if you believe in reincarnation, I'd say you are in the same row boat. We know people die. What we don't know is if there is this thingy called a soul; and nor do we know anything about what happens to this purported 'soul' after death of the body. That is what atheists typically 'know'.

 

[sharon45]

View attachment 13195

The Jerry Falwell version of this was funnier.

 

[steve_bank]

One spends eternity worshiping a god...

 

[Ramaraksha]

Ramaraksha,

Do you plan to retire from work eventually?

(And btw, it'd take about 992.5 billion more people to reach 1 trillion.)

Does Heaven not seem a bit too convenient? too self-serving? Nice God will nicely forgive us after a few croc tears of remorse and then we get to go sit in his retirement home doing nothing? The retirement you get down here on earth is earned - if you run out of money in your old age, out you go into the streets. No one owes you a living in your old age

Heaven contradicts everything we have learned in life - to grow up, get a job, make a living, stand on our own two feet. Heaven says we don't have to grow up, don't have to earn a living - we can just live the easy good life while some being will provide for us

 

[Ramaraksha]

I think I'm going to go with Learner here on this. Can you state clearly whether or not you believe in some sort of reincarnation process of 'souls', whether it is some sort of naturalistic system or Hindu religious one? I see lots of words, but very little clear thought...

As you dis Christians to 'prove' their god/heaven, if you believe in reincarnation, I'd say you are in the same row boat. We know people die. What we don't know is if there is this thingy called a soul; and nor do we know anything about what happens to this purported 'soul' after death of the body. That is what atheists typically 'know'.

Of course Reincarnation simply cannot compete with the notion of Heaven - an easy life of doing nothing, enjoying the good life vs having to grow up, get a job, work to death - who wants that? I am not asking Christians to prove heaven, i already know that there is no proof, what i am asking does it make sense? Does it make sense that we think we get to sit and do nothing for eternity? some being has nothing better to do than cater to billions, keep us in comfort? And where is our self-respect in this? The only way i can think of it happening is for us to come back as pets or trees or bugs - get the easy life that we want

My point is that as Science and Atheists keep reminding us, we don't have any evidence of God or the easy life Heavens. This is ALL there is - no heaven, no hell, no God. And when we look at life down here what do we see - all animals, all creatures spend but a few years being taken care of by their parents, happy in the nest, but eventually we all have to grow up, move out of the nest, make a living, stand on our own two feet. Face the world and all its problems - Terrorism, climate change, what is going on in the nation and the world, will that nut in North Korea launch a strike?, poverty, disease - we face all that and we try our best to shield our kids from all this

Heaven says you can stay a kid forever! God will shield you from having to face life - that contradicts everything you have learned in life

So, since there is no evidence for Heaven or Reincarnation, could these just be metaphors? Heaven is the metaphor for the Womb, Childhood, the nest and the Past. Reincarnation stands for Life, REAL LIFE, Adulthood and the Future.

I am just shocked that no philosopher or psychologist has never seen the connection between Heaven and the womb, childhood. Freaks me out as i realize the power of religion to brainwash even the best of us