How would the be without no life after death belief?

[Skhandelwal]

Would everyone be selfish? Would there be patriotism? What would happen? I believe right now athiest are nonselfish because they get love which was started by theistic so once the wheel gets rolling trust revolves around. However, from the beginning, if nobody believed in the concept of sin or Karma, how would the world be like?

 

[mgb_phys]

Imagine all the people Living for today...
Imagine all the people Living life in peace...
Imagine all the people Sharing all the world...

 

[LostInSpaceTime]

Imagine all the people Living for today...
Imagine all the people Living life in peace...
Imagine all the people Sharing all the world...

Are you saying that no life after death would result in world peace? I don't think so. There's always something to war about.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe right now athiest are nonselfish because they get love which was started by theistic so once the wheel gets rolling trust revolves around.

That's a pretty shaky claim.

 

[Pythagorean]

I personally find everyone to be selfish. In fact, I think if you supplicate too much, you become a spineless twit. (Of course, their's negativity involved in becoming too selfish, too)

The whole reason the free market system is better than the mercantile system is because people are selfish. That's what Adam, Locke, and Hobbes all played on when they conceptualized the new system.

That's what being fair is all about. You want something and so does whoever you're transacting with: whether it be company, validation, money, essentials, supplies, satisfaction, or entertainment.

I tend to find honest, selfish people make the best company, since they lay out their expectations a lot better than dreamy altruistic types who are generally lying to themselves.

 

[JoeDawg]

Would everyone be selfish?

Everyone already is selfish. They do what makes them feel good, some act for long term benefit, some think short term. Doing nice things for other people, or for society makes people feel important. We have evolved altruism because it benefits our family groups long term. There is no religious component necessary. I suggest you read Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene".

People who do heroic things, like risk their lives to save someone from drowning, or whatever, always say, they didn't think, they just did it. Its instinct, something we evolved because it benefits our family groups and if our family group benefits, then our genes survive, even if we don't. Because its an instinct however, its not a precision effect, so in larger groups... nationalism, religion, it gets applied to things that are effectively outside our family group. Same principle, same instinct, just over-applied.

 

[chroot]

Human morals and standards of ethics can (and do) exist entirely independently of any religion. Any attempt to relate them is a strawman argument. There is no reason to suspect that people would necessarily act any differently towards one another if no one had ever come up with the idea of a deity.

- Warren

 

[Gokul43201]

Would everyone be selfish? Would there be patriotism? What would happen? I believe right now athiest are nonselfish because they get love which was started by theistic so once the wheel gets rolling trust revolves around. However, from the beginning, if nobody believed in the concept of sin or Karma, how would the world be like?

The believer in life-after-death is being altruistic only to secure a favorable place in the afterlife. That, is as clear an example of selfishness as you'll find anywhere.

 

[mgb_phys]

Are you saying that no life after death would result in world peace? I don't think so. There's always something to war about.

I am inclined to agree, those were John Lennon's words not mine - I thought that was the song the OP was referring to in his thread title.

 

[Moridin]

Religious morality is an oxymoron. Secular ethics informs religious morals, not vice versa. Being moral in order to suck up to deities, karma laws etc. is actually immoral.

 

[Skhandelwal]

Isn't this argument a little biased here though, suspecting from everyone's tone, I feel like I am the only religious guy here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Isn't this argument a little biased here though, suspecting from everyone's tone, I feel like I am the only religious guy here.

It is not unusual to have a higher than average concentration of religious skeptics on a physics board, yes. I have noticed this as well.

Though an atheist, I still like to engage in academic discussions. But sometimes it seems like many around here treat discussion of religious issues as an opportunity to grind an atheistic axe. To be fair, mostly they're being simply dispassionate - logical - about the subject, but it's a fine line. Plainly put, it's a topic that is very hot and generates strong opinions on both sides.

You might want to test the thickness of your skin before opening that door...

 

[JoeDawg]

Isn't this argument a little biased here though, suspecting from everyone's tone, I feel like I am the only religious guy here.

If your arguments stick to the topic, and are solid and logical, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Gokul43201]

Isn't this argument a little biased here though, suspecting from everyone's tone, I feel like I am the only religious guy here.

Oh! In that case, your "argument" (haven't seen one yet) is indeed a little biased.

 

[Astronuc]

Isn't this argument a little biased here though, suspecting from everyone's tone, I feel like I am the only religious guy here.

How is one defining religious? Even an atheist can be religious!

Each has a unique perspective to offer in response to the OP question.

For me, I don't worry about life after death - I will die soon enough. This life keeps me very busy and there is so much to do.

The fact is - none of us 'knows' about 'life after death'. We can only 'speculate', because as far as we know, it's a one-way door.

I think the term selfish is being used a bit loosely to include self-interest. Having a self-interest is not the same as being selfish. By convention, selfish implies "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others". It is the 'disregard for others' that is the key condition, in addition to having an excessive self-interest, for being selfish.

There are many people who are concerned about the welfare, well-being and rights of others.

 

[Pythagorean]

How is one defining religious? Even an atheist can be religious!

Each has a unique perspective to offer in response to the OP question.

For me, I don't worry about life after death - I will die soon enough. This life keeps me very busy and there is so much to do.

The fact is - none of us 'knows' about 'life after death'. We can only 'speculate', because as far as we know, it's a one-way door.

I think the term selfish is being used a bit loosely to include self-interest. Having a self-interest is not the same as being selfish. By convention, selfish implies "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others". It is the 'disregard for others' that is the key condition, in addition to having an excessive self-interest, for being selfish.

There are many people who are concerned about the welfare, well-being and rights of others.

good point. In my post, substitute selfish for self-interest.

 

[Skhandelwal]

Well, ofcourse people have their own philosophy, but the similarity we find in philosophy, we classify them to be agnostic, athist, religious, etc.

I am saying, looking statistically, normally, when two people are arguing, the one who wins is not always the one who is right, but the one is better at arguing.(sorry for not providing date here but hopefully most of you will agree)

Basing on that, let's ASSUME, if I was the only religious guy, and was right, against the whole forum, probably, I would loose, even logically, b/c I havn't covered all the grounds of the topic...I have a life. Its really simple actually... 3 on 2 is called unfair and 3 on 3 is called fair.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you make a correct, logical argument, it doesn't matter if there's a million people opposing.

 

[Skhandelwal]

lol, I am not talking about that, I am saying, I may no a counter to one argument, but not to another, I may have incomplete information, but my buddies might not in a debate... get it?

 

[out of whack]

It's always possible to locate a forum where most participants already share your views on at least some topics. Debating those who disagree then becomes easier given abundant backup. But it's not necessarily eye opening since this lowers the odds of learning something new. Also, winning a debate while outnumbered is pretty exciting.

 

[Skhandelwal]

If you can pull it off, besides, even when you win, a lot of time, people sometimes don't like you...that is why I don't debate but rather reason...it reaches to a solution rather than saying I AM RIGHT. As the saying goes..."the more arguments you win, the less friends you have". Besides, its meaningless to spent that much time on something I don't even care about, I didn't post this thread to teach you guys a class, but to find out the truth. And believe me, I have a life...I wouldn't want to go searching and start digging up old post just to prove a point.

All I wish is for you guys to have an open mind for us religious guys rather than defending yourself and criticizing us. Who knows...there might be a day when religion and science will unite?! That way, we can truly reach a solution.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I didn't post this thread to teach you guys a class, but to find out the truth...

I think you will find that most people feel that religion and truth are two different worlds. Religion is, by definition, subjective (the key word being "faith"). This is also one of the main reasons why, cool heads or no, it is, generally, pointless to discuss.

 

[Skhandelwal]

So I guess what you are saying is that everyone follows some kind of faith toward their philosophy, hence it is pointless to discuss b/c everyone is pursuing toward their rightness. So do you mean it is pointless to discuss?(proving Buddhas right, the truth lies within...meditation is the key)

 

[setAI]

I would say that beyond just the mystical concepts of an afterlife there is the greater consideration of oblivion vs. existence- that is if observers and worlds are truly mortal- that is they are made of some kind of unique magical stuff that can and will never be reconstructed or duplicated again anywhere else in the universe and when they die information is lost and they un-exist into oblivion- then it could reasonably be said that- as the saying goes- 'none of it mattered'- this state of affairs would cause extreme existential cynicism because it would not have mattered if you were a saint or a serial killer- whether you lived a day or a century- because oblivion un-exists the PAST as well as the future- you cannot say 'but life goes on so what I am and did does matter' because eventually Life would NOT go on- and oblivion destroys the past- so it wouldn't have mattered that Earth ever existed- or the universe- or anything-

in fact one could say that if anything can be mortal- then Nothing really exists- the net result is null-

but obviously regardless of superstition- science tells us that while there is likely no 'afterlife' life is made of the same stuff as everything else and it has limited combinations- so nothing made of matter and energy can really be mortal since it can be reconstructed and re-simulated- science may not support an afterlife but it at least suggests that you can live on in re-runs

 

[JoeDawg]

then it could reasonably be said that- as the saying goes- 'none of it mattered'

This begs the question, mattered to whom?

 

[granpa]

If you make a correct, logical argument, it doesn't matter if there's a million people opposing.

in the middle ages it was thought that if you were right then you couldn't lose in combat. i see not much has changed.

 

[madphysics]

Take a look at the thread I s God A safe Subject. It is related to the selfish and God debate.
Selfishness is a base of human life and no amlunt of religion will erase it.

 

[Skhandelwal]

The aim of the religion is to become selfless...so all the followers follow it to some extent unless they are hypocrites.

 

[JoeDawg]

Take a look at the thread I s God A safe Subject. It is related to the selfish and God debate.
Selfishness is a base of human life and no amlunt of religion will erase it.

The god debate really has little to do with this. Selfish/Selfless is a false dichotomy based on a superficial observation of human behavior.

 

[Math Jeans]

I think that no life after death would mean that almost everyone would believe that death is oblivion. With that being the case, many people would want their lives to be the best possible. I truly believe that this would reduce war.

 

[Skhandelwal]

What about dictatorships? Funding organizations?

 

[JoeDawg]

I think that no life after death would mean that almost everyone would believe that death is oblivion. With that being the case, many people would want their lives to be the best possible. I truly believe that this would reduce war.

Or increase it, as everyone fights and struggles to get as much as they can out of this life.

Religion was always the tool of dictators, it makes the peasants and slaves feel good to think they will be 'rewarded' eventually by an all powerful arbitrator.

 

[Skhandelwal]

So there won't be planned wars but local violence will increase a lot. And to oppose dictatorship, people have to sacrifice their life, would that happen?