Our minds are imperfect, and we have an overwhelming desire to stay alive, even to the point of absurdity. If we can't physically make this a reality, we'll invent our own reality.

Leaving biology aside, is there a rational reason to fear death?

For personal reasons dealing with your own consciousness and life, there doesn't seem to be.

In the end it's an opinion and not a logical conclusion or the product of reason.

On the other hand, others are still experiencing the world, and their experiences are significant. There's logical footing in the statement that staying alive for others makes more sense than staying alive for yourself. The first makes sense because it affects the world of others, while the second makes no sense because on death there is nothing for a person to experience anymore.

And when they in turn die, whatever significance was in their lives, or your death, means nothing.

It is a philosophical dead end.

Your effect on the lives of those that live directly after you changes some aspect of them. Having bumped into them in a mall likely means little but the effect of a parent on the way a child lives their entire life is significant. What that child does in their life in turn has an effect on those after them. It is another form of what is better known as "The Butterfly Effect."

So now I must posit the question to you. Why jump to meaninglessness so quickly and easily? It took me all of 5 seconds of reflection to think of the above response. This is a common theme I have witnessed among the religious. Without their belief they immediately jump to everything being meaningless. Why?

Especially since the post had nothing to do with the effect people have but on its significance.

Now, were I one to make broad brushed statements, as you did with "among the religious", I might ask why "among the nonreligious" finding meaning in the moment is a common path to finding meaning in life. That is, among those who say there is a meaning.

But since I'm not, I'll limit that observation to you.

If the worth of things were determined by the time of their existence, absolutely everything would be determined to be totally useless, including our Universe (which will cease to exist in about a Googol years).

Technically, time is infinite. A Googol years from now, "space" will still be there - we just won't.

Also, think about the inventor of the wheel - even if it's a complete stretch of an analogy - their contribution thousands of years ago gave us the car. While their invention may not matter to them anymore because they're dead, they created an object that is the foundation to modern society.

In a Googol years, the invention of the wheel won't matter anymore, but who cares? Since our time is limited anyhow, might as well live in the moment and base the worth of our lives on how we live and not how we'll die.

People's actions affect the world long-term. And the actions of those who remain, affect those who will come after them.

I don't think it's necessary to believe in a personal afterlife but, in the face of a transient, indifferent universe, finding ultimate meaning or significance is a daunting task.

Belief is that instinct in action, and religion is that action given meaning by us humans.

Knowing one's religion is an instinctual reaction to the fear of death and questioning the rationality of that goes right back to the point the OP may be trying to make.

There is no rationality in a response to death.

I think it says more about what death means to you than anything else.

Rationalize the responses if you like.

Maybe in the next minute from an aneurism, maybe in 60 years from other natural causes, maybe in 200 years with certain medical advances. Whatever.

I can also rationalize the deaths of others. No problems at all. I think it helps that my parents didn't hide things from me, or lie to me, when I was a child. When I was 5, and grandpa died, they told me the truth. (And no angels bullshit either, just dead.) One of many in a long list of things to thank my parents for.

Though, it cost them at the time. All the other parents elected to lie to their kids, and I, being a child, like all children, speak the truth at the most hilarious of times, broke the news to all my cousins. (The others had agreed to tell the kids that Grandpa was just in the hospital, and would be for a while, and we couldn't see him.)

As for my own death when it arrives, I won't need to rationalize it, because I won't need or be able to do anything at all.

Have you read any of Marcus Aurelius?

"Mark how fleeting and paltry is the estate of man - yesterday in embryo, tomorrow a mummy or ashes. So for the hairsbreadth of time assigned to thee, live rationally, and part with life cheerfully, as drops the ripe olive, extolling the season that bore it and the tree that matured it." Meditations, Book I, 48.

One of my favorite philosophers, yet he vacillated between acceptance, joy and sadness.

"As for life, it is a battle and a sojourning in a strange land; but the fame that comes after is oblivion." Meditations, Book II, 17.

I am prepared to struggle to protect my existence, but the actual end itself, doesn't really concern or depress me in any way.

It is the price of having lived at all. Much to do, in the meantime.

If its not all true, then everything becomes up for grabs. If one piece isn't historically true, other parts might not be ... and who decides?

Once you have people deciding for themselves which parts they think are true, the religious / social power structures break down.

And in some churches you get excommunicated or shunned or whatever. JWs and Mormons and Catholics.

I had a totally negative fundy tell me that I was "ruined" because I graduated from an excellent Presbyterian college and took religion courses. They were required of everyone, not just seminary students. This school now has an Institute of Asian Studies within the religion department. I was not told what to think. The courses were not about theology or doctrine. They were about history, philosophy and sociology of religion.

I got my mind opened up and he thought that was BAD.

I had a Baptist inform me, after I told her I was Jewish, that I wasn't to worry, because God forgives all sins.

I think that was the point that I realized that all religion was a fantasy.

There are rational and consistent moral philosophies but they are afraid to think and explore.


Two I know about: Secular humanism and Buddhism. No gods needed.

and people who live rational lives keep religion compartmentalized behind one of those "break glass in case of emergency" shields. It's a system to keep them feeling safe enough to be functional when the world has fallen apart around them. It's very useful that way.

Questioning it strikes at their notion of being safe no matter what happens. Of course they're going to resent it. Keeping it relies on being completely unquestioning.

I've seen even fundy religions that I'd consider very damaging to human beings be a source of considerable comfort when a friend or family member is in the ICU.

On an individual level, I simply consider it none of my business. However, when it invades politics and civil law, I will fight it with everything I've got.

My thought is if something can not stand up to questions then it is bordering on a falsehood ............

I may not fully understand atheists but I do understand it has to be annoying to be continuously asked by the faithful "But have you ever really tried to pray?"

By the same token it is irritating as a believer to be asked regularly "But hasn't it occurred to you that it's all a bit silly? Have you ever really examined your faith?"

Bryant

of people who are actually fearful to question Christianity?

Seems you'd be more likely to get a valid answer that way.

came back to earth you would reject it with a wry smile, especially when you learned there was no evidence to speak of that it was so.

On the other hand, if as a young child and then adolescent you were repeatedly told the same, made to indulge in rituals with friends and family to that end, made to repeat over and over that you believed it, made to behave with awe and respect toward that belief, and told that great rewards or punishments hung on that belief, you might begin to believe it. During that long period of 'education' (perhaps including a bit of discipline) you would be likely to begin to fear to question.

Questioning is more for the brave ones.

criticized his jeep that was a fight.

It's just emotional involvement. They're so into it they take criticism personally.

People will defend all kinds of things they are attached to emotionally - religion is just one example

Still, there is that one datum messing up an otherwise flawless conclusion.

Look, there are millions of people who call themselves Xian.

I've known people who weren't afraid to have it questioned. They considered it blasphemy. They're different kinds of things. They believe and see no need to question it.

I've known people whose faith was fragile, and they were afraid to question any part of it.

In some cases they had their beliefs structured in such a way that if one bit failed, then the entire structure would need revision--and they weren't up to it, or suspected the structure would crash. (These are, of couse, two different scenarios.)

There are other people who perceive such questioning by people who don't believe as simply insincere. It's like the believer who goes up to a non-believer and asks, "Do you know where you'll go after death?" Doesn't matter if you have an answer--they want to change your mind because they think they're far superior, whether you want to change your mind or not.

In other cases, the insincerity of the question has more to do with belittling the person. If they already feel persecuted or put down for any reason--their beliefs, their skin color, their education--that's just one more way of kicking them, they feel. In the end, such a question leads to condescension and the assertion of their inferiority or your superiority.

It's a common human reaction to being downtrodden--assign a primary cause for that and make sure it's something that you bear no responsibility for, but if somebody picks on you because of it it's a Bad Thing. Then make every instance of being put down that can be put into that particular pidgeonhole fit. I've seen people do it with race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age. Once they're in that mindset, it's impossible to dislodge them. That's the reason the guy cut them off in traffic, the reason for not getting a promotion, the reason they weren't invited to lunch, the reason that they didn't hear about some party, the reason Mathilda failed to greet him/her in the hall, the reason Adbul Mammon failed to hold the elevator door.

Sometimes we bend over backwards to make sure that such a loon feels justified and secure in their persecution complex. Sometimes we bend over backwards in the other direction. We're flexible. (Then again, so are most people, at least in this regard.)

non-believers and issues that have nothing to do with belief.

Others leave themselves wide open to new ideas and like to have their positions questions.

That's just variation between people and how they deal with things The reasons are, of course, multifactorial.

We see this all the time on DU. If someone, particularly a newbie, questions the party line of the left, they are often called trolls or worse. I ran into this when I first started posting here because I was fiercely opposed to John Edwards. I am also a fan of medical liability reform, a position that often brings out the venom from others.

You use terms like cognitive dissonance, afraid, bubble, pretend, fantasy, nonexistent, sky kingdom and conclude with a statement that no one can verify. You seem pretty sure about your own conclusion that this is it. Do you think you are afraid of having your belief that there is nothing more after death questioned?

If someone were to have proof (other than a personal experience) that heaven does exist, I would happily consider it.

On the other hand, with no offense to believers, the entire story sounds like nonsense.

Was you OP a sincere question or had you already made up your mind about it?

No one needs to prove anything to you. You don't believe. That's cool. Others do and it's not necessarily because they are damaged or because you are superior.

This thread is an alternative look at Christianity, or after-life oriented religions in general, and why people get angry when inconsistencies about them are talked about.

It's also my opinion about some Christian beliefs. Feel free to agree or disagree.

all kinds of reasons.

You concluded that in this case it is all about fear of dying. That's way too simplistic, imo.

What about this. Maybe some people get defensive, which you interpret as fear, because of how they are approached with the questions.

If the questioner uses terms or expresses ideas like you did in the OP (which I outlined in my initial response), perhaps their only fear is engaging in a debate with you.

Possible??

If someone believes, who cares what I have to say about their religion? Does it matter if I mock the concept of heaven, arbitrary judgment of one's eternal fate, or the afterlife in general? Who cares if I point out that there probably wasn't a great flood, or evolution makes a lot more sense than the Adam and Eve story?

That's the point of the OP - It asks a question - why is there an apprehension to tearing the Bible to shreds with fact-checking? How is it disrespectful to religion? Finding the truth is disrespectful? Why would someone think such a thing, and for what reason?

Is the prospect of it not being true too much for some people? Would some people just rather not know?

And I would guess, but could be wrong, that if those are mocked, you might take offense or get angry.

If I have data to prove you wrong, that's one thing. So I would support you when you say you challenge creationism.

But If I don't have any data to prove you wrong and continue to insist that you are, that might make you angry or defensive.

Your question wasn't about fact checking the Bible or being disrespectful. It was a hypothesis about why Christians get defensive when challenged.

Bottom line is this - you don't hold any more of the truth than they they do. Being open minded is the only road to travel, imo. Being judgmental about other people's beliefs when you have nothing solid to challenge them with is just obnoxious, but not necessarily disrespectful.

Anyway, you aren't going to find many fundamentalist christians here, so you are unlikely to get any real answers (if that was, in fact, what you were looking for).

But If I don't have any data to prove you wrong and continue to insist that you are, that might make you angry or defensive.

-snip-

Bottom line is this - you don't hold any more of the truth than they they do. Being open minded is the only road to travel, imo. Being judgmental about other people's beliefs when you have nothing solid to challenge them with is just obnoxious, but not necessarily disrespectful.

Here's the problem - nobody can disprove certain parts of religion - it's impossible. I have "nothing solid to challenge them" because there's literally is nothing to actually prove religion either. You can't disprove something that has no evidence of existence.


Your question wasn't about fact checking the Bible or being disrespectful. It was a hypothesis about why Christians get defensive when challenged.

I don't understand how this is different. Fact-checking the Bible would constitute challenging it, would it not?


And I would guess, but could be wrong, that if those are mocked, you might take offense or get angry.

-snip-

Anyway, you aren't going to find many fundamentalist christians here, so you are unlikely to get any real answers (if that was, in fact, what you were looking for).

While I might not agree with those people, I wouldn't demand that they think like I do. Take offense or get angry? That would be a waste of time. What would be the point?

I have an issue with these types of debates, though - there's literally nothing to talk about in them. That's why debating religion stinks. There's no real physical evidence to discuss the legitimacy or significance of. If you've ever seen a pro vs. anti-religion flame war, they can be summed up as two sides screaming their own beliefs at each other without any real points being made (except maybe debates on evolution vs. creationism, but even those are bad).

Debating a fundie is impossible and pointless. The evidence against you, in their mind, is their religion itself. Their arguments are all circular, because their beliefs prove that their beliefs are correct.

I totally agree with your last paragraph, but think there are atheist fundamentalists who are equally impossible to debate with.

ANYWHERE. And the only reason that religionists have trouble debating with atheists is that they have no fucking evidence worth beans to support their claim that their "god" exists. They just keep rehashing the same tired, discredited arguments over and over and over, or worse yet, deny that they have any burden of proof in order to have their fantastical claims taken seriously, or simply resort to tone trolling, as if that were an argument for anything.

Show us the evidence, cbayer...it's a very, very simple request that all rational people should respect. Your usual lame (and oft discredited) statement that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god is just empty, intellectually bankrupt rhetoric. Show us the evidence, or stop wondering why the claim of a god gets treated with scorn and dismissal.

as an atheist "fundamentalist". There's atheists who act irrationally, are ignorant, etc but this fundamentalist atheist is simply a made up person to argue against. It's a lie made up to establish a false equivalency.

readings of religious documents. The insist that they are right and that only they are right. They have no tolerance for differences in beliefs. The say things like "Religion ruins everything".

They are no better than right wing fundamentalists, imo. While claiming to base their world view on reason and rational thinking, they draw conclusions without a shred of scientific evidence to back them up.

You can call them whatever you want. I choose to call them fundamentalists.

They exist mostly on the internet and have a celebrity leader or two, but they definitely exist.

BTW, I think they are fringe extremists and not at all representative of the average atheist.

You proved his last sentence perfectly. Well done, cbayer!

Unless "few" has suddenly become a synonym for "none".

Hint: re-read the last sentence of post #46.

My statement stands. Perhaps you need to re-read.

You take care!

that everything is complicated, nothing can be known, understood or proven, and that believers and non-believers are absolutely equal on both sides of all things. And see the reaction.

For me, I was afraid of being completely ostracized from my family and social group. There's also a worry of some about violence or threats of violence, but that wasn't an issue for me. Basically, I'm a lonely person who doesn't want to be more lonely. Some could also have career issues if public criticism of religion got back to their employer. Semi-anonymous internet postings are my only real safe outlet for now.

Who has time for such nonsense?

the nature of their religion (and other) is domination. They HAVE to challenge everything that threatens it. It's in their nature.