Presumtion of 'Heaven'

[Constantinopolis]

If hell exists than there is no way I could be happy in heaven, knowing there are people in hell. So either I am unhappy and heaven is not heaven, or "I" am happy, meaning I am no longer the person I was when I was alive.

You sure about that? There are people suffering horribly in our world right at this moment. Somewhere, right now, someone is getting murdered, and someone else is getting raped, and some children are being abused, and someone just got torn apart by bombs or bullets in some war, and someone just lost the only person they ever loved.

There are already people in hell, right here on Earth, and you already know they exist. Is this preventing you from being happy?

The only way you'd have so much compassion in Heaven that you wouldn't be able to stand the thought of any people being in hell is precisely IF your personality got altered to make it far more compassionate than is normally possible for a human being.

[The Isles of Lux]

Even if what you are someone who goes down in history, you still don't matter. The recognition of the community does not matter at all when looked at in this sense, because the community does not matter. Even something which could last for all of time and reach out across all of infinity would not matter, because all of time and all of infinity does not matter either.

Well... *head scratch* it's a nihlistic view, certainly, but in the context of the discussion it's technically valid... Obviously, since I believe in an afterlife I don't agree that's what's going to happen, but it is the logical view of it.

The only way out of this mess is to impose your own will on reality, and to craft a sense of meaning out of the meaninglessness, like Nietzsche asserted we should do. But when considering this, I am once again faced with the fact that I can't even verify the realness of reality.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

If hell exists than there is no way I could be happy in heaven, knowing there are people in hell. So either I am unhappy and heaven is not heaven, or "I" am happy, meaning I am no longer the person I was when I was alive.

You sure about that? There are people suffering horribly in our world right at this moment. Somewhere, right now, someone is getting murdered, and someone else is getting raped, and some children are being abused, and someone just got torn apart by bombs or bullets in some war, and someone just lost the only person they ever loved.

There are already people in hell, right here on Earth, and you already know they exist. Is this preventing you from being happy?

The only way you'd have so much compassion in Heaven that you wouldn't be able to stand the thought of any people being in hell is precisely IF your personality got altered to make it far more compassionate than is normally possible for a human being.

Heaven is supposed to be a perfect utopia, not just "pretty nice".

[Godular]

Well... *head scratch* it's a nihlistic view, certainly, but in the context of the discussion it's technically valid... Obviously, since I believe in an afterlife I don't agree that's what's going to happen, but it is the logical view of it.

The only way out of this mess is to impose your own will on reality, and to craft a sense of meaning out of the meaninglessness, like Nietzsche asserted we should do. But when considering this, I am once again faced with the fact that I can't even verify the realness of reality.

You're thinking too hard.

Either there is nothing after you die, in which case you'll be too dead to care, or there is an afterlife and you'll get a pop-tart.

Well, I know *I* will.

[Jolet]

Uh. Perhaps I'm being a bit thick at the moment, but your third statement- the bolded one, there- makes little sense. I'm not arguing causality here, I'm arguing whether or not it matters. And I think that, without something after it, what you do now and before you die doesn't matter, ultimately. Does that make sense?

You assert that an afterlife is required to make life meaningful, important, etc. I say that's really idiotic and backwards. Tell me how a thing can become more valuable the more plentiful it becomes.

In any case, you never said WHY meaninful, remembered, permanent were in any way things that measure the worth of our lives. Once again, i'm calling bullshit on your very metrics. You assert, but do not demonstrate, their relevance to the discussion.

Firstly, view the edit I made to my post. Answers the question, I think.

Secondly, you're being unclear again. More valuable the more plentiful it becomes? To what are you referring? Either make the point or don't speak vaguely, you're being obfuscatory. State your issue or don't.

[Constantinopolis]

You sure about that? There are people suffering horribly in our world right at this moment. Somewhere, right now, someone is getting murdered, and someone else is getting raped, and some children are being abused, and someone just got torn apart by bombs or bullets in some war, and someone just lost the only person they ever loved.

There are already people in hell, right here on Earth, and you already know they exist. Is this preventing you from being happy?

The only way you'd have so much compassion in Heaven that you wouldn't be able to stand the thought of any people being in hell is precisely IF your personality got altered to make it far more compassionate than is normally possible for a human being.

Heaven is supposed to be a perfect utopia, not just "pretty nice".

Indeed, although "perfect utopia" is a really vague description that could be applied to all sorts of different things.

In Orthodox Christianity, Heaven includes "partaking of the divine nature" - a kind of spiritual union with God, perhaps to the point of sharing thoughts with others who are in this state, but not to the point of losing one's individuality.

[The Isles of Lux]

The only way out of this mess is to impose your own will on reality, and to craft a sense of meaning out of the meaninglessness, like Nietzsche asserted we should do. But when considering this, I am once again faced with the fact that I can't even verify the realness of reality.

You're thinking too hard.

Either there is nothing after you die, in which case you'll be too dead to care, or there is an afterlife and you'll get a pop-tart.

Well, I know *I* will.

Simply asserting that if reality is one way it won't matter because it is that way is not enough to kill my curiosity as to whether or not reality is in fact that way. My thoughts and distress over my inability to know whether or not anything at all in this universe that I inhabit even exists, let alone matters, will not go away until I have an answer. What would be to do if I actually came to the apathetic conclusion that you propose? How would I go on living my life if I was only waiting for death to take me, and then I might have a chance to see whether I'm right or wrong, or I might just fade to exist?

[Arach-Naga Combine]

You assert that an afterlife is required to make life meaningful, important, etc. I say that's really idiotic and backwards. Tell me how a thing can become more valuable the more plentiful it becomes.

In any case, you never said WHY meaninful, remembered, permanent were in any way things that measure the worth of our lives. Once again, i'm calling bullshit on your very metrics. You assert, but do not demonstrate, their relevance to the discussion.

Firstly, view the edit I made to my post. Answers the question, I think.

Secondly, you're being unclear again. More valuable the more plentiful it becomes? To what are you referring? Either make the point or don't speak vaguely, you're being obfuscatory. State your issue or don't.

Your edit still demonstrates nothing, but unsurprisingly asserts much. No points.

You say that an infinite afterlife is the only reason life matters. You believe life never ends, is infinite in quantity. Try to explain how the years of a life go from being meaningless to meaningful when you add INFINITY to them.

[Jolet]

I don't like the numbers game. Simply saying, "Well, you're unique because the stars aligned on the day you were conceived and then nine months later you were born on the night of a blue moon" does not make it so.

Except for the fact that it IS so. You are choosing the glass half-empty approach. I'm choosing the 'get a smaller glass' approach.

And that is a choice, and another way to approach it. Assuming that there's nothing on the other side is inherently negative- who wouldn't want to continue existing, after all? Obviously there are a lot of people terrified of oblivion. Why is it a good thing, then?

Everybody else is special too- some more special than others, whether that be exceptional or aberrant- but in the end, without an afterlife, it all becomes moot. Doesn't matter- we all end up dead.

Your error here is in thinking that the situation is otherwise in the event an afterlife should happen to exist. Or that the afterlife will be exactly the thing that you expect and prepare for. For all we know, the afterlife could just be... hup you got born again, damn but this game has a long tutorial stage. The fact of the matter is that your life is what you make of it. If you choose to believe that living a 'virtuous' life is a good life based on >insert reason here<, gg brah more power to ya. If you choose to be an asshole and spend the remainder of your life either having struck it rich and learning the true meaning of the phrase 'money can't buy happiness' or sitting in a jail cell staring at three concrete walls and one set of bars and some big guy named Ben, that's your risk to take.

But either way, you are the arbiter of your own destiny.

Subjectivity is bliss, it seems. Unfortunately, subjectivity is also invalid in a logical discussion. What you do with life is, without something after this, irrelevant. And even existing again would count as something after this, as you pointed out.

That is the short view. Communities generally don't last longer than 40 or 50 years- the most exceptional ones have never lasted longer than a millenium, and we're talking about the Holy Roman Empire at that point. In the end, time levels any and all marks you attempt to make on history- unless you're Jesus. He's sort of the exception to the rule, which is a little odd. At least, right now, anyway. Who knows if that'll continue. But I digress.

On the small scale, a community will not remember you after you're gone for good. Give it a few years- maybe ten, twenty- and then if you were to come back you'd find that you'd been forgotten. That's how life works- ever chugging forward, writing the future over the memories of the past.

The argument that people matter also doesn't hold water. Believe it or not, they're going to be dead too. That happens enough times and any impact that you goes up in smoke, eventually. Therefore, your contributions, in the long run, do. Not. Matter. At least, not without an afterlife or something along those lines that makes it worth remembering.

But the influences live on, and they DO matter. The things learned before build the foundation of what rises after. Oh sure if you want to get into it, chances are we'll be stuck in this solar system until the sun goes Red Giant and obliterates all semblance of human existence, but then that's getting worked up over nothing. Some guy named Tolkien wrote a few books. We seem to remember him pretty well. Some guy named Confucius tried his hand at self-help. We remember that guy pretty well. Some woman named Cleopatra did something involving fancy hair.

Nobody knows who the fuck came up with Egyptian culture, or who built the first boat, or who spat on a pile of leaf mulch and realized it could be flattened and written on. Those folks remain unnamed, but what they did... THAT shit lives on.

Just because that doesn't mesh with your small-minded idea of what it is to be remembered does not mean that it automatically does not matter.

Conceded. However, as technology and literature move on, things will be outdated, removed from usage or not commonly known, and then become somewhat eclectic and/or unused, and therefore rendered irrelevant and forgotten again. You can't beat the march of time, my friend.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

You're thinking too hard.

Either there is nothing after you die, in which case you'll be too dead to care, or there is an afterlife and you'll get a pop-tart.

Well, I know *I* will.

Simply asserting that if reality is one way it won't matter because it is that way is not enough to kill my curiosity as to whether or not reality is in fact that way. My thoughts and distress over my inability to know whether or not anything at all in this universe that I inhabit even exists, let alone matters, will not go away until I have an answer. What would be to do if I actually came to the apathetic conclusion that you propose? How would I go on living my life if I was only waiting for death to take me, and then I might have a chance to see whether I'm right or wrong, or I might just fade to exist?

You can never answer your question, so it can never inform you. Try coming up with any situation which your decision would be altered by knowing "if reality is real"(or whatever nonsense). I believe you will fail. It is an inherently useless proposition that can do nothing but derail reason with a massive non sequitur.

Subjectivity is bliss, it seems. Unfortunately, subjectivity is also invalid in a logical discussion. What you do with life is, without something after this, irrelevant.

Oh, the irony. Have you no self-awareness?

[Lady Scylla]

While listening to music a few hours ago and playing Tetris I thought of something.

Why, at least in the Christain faith, is it presumed 'Paradise' or 'Heaven' is the same place for everyone. Let me explain, for instance why is it that Heaven/Paradise is assumed to be this peaceful perfect place. Now of course I understand the reasoning behind it by I mean literally. Why is it that everyone assumes heaven is a place free of hate and war and all these things, which of course it should be.

But what if to someone else that would be hell? I will use myself as an example, for me going to heaven and seeing dead relatives and living in peace and harmony forever would be horrible since I am assuming that means no fornication, drugs, alcohol or what have you since these things are typically things used to point you to hell.

And what if I met a fellow angel and felt like doing the do and the next day I see a different one? Is this suddenly not allowed even though we were both apparently good people and got into heaven?

For me heaven would be relaxing in a lake with some music going getting shit faced drunk everyday being able to rest and relax and bury my face into whatever narcotic I felt like or whatever woman I felt like. Obviously wanting these things may preclude me from the entrance into the imaginary sky land in the first place...

What I am asking is that why is Heaven/Paradise always considered the same for everyone with the typical 'No sex' no this no that rhetoric?

We've got more vivid depictions of hell than we do of heaven. Such a concept seems alien to humanity, probably because we're far more acquainted with the latter. (And most likely incapable of functioning in such a utopia)

[The Isles of Lux]

Simply asserting that if reality is one way it won't matter because it is that way is not enough to kill my curiosity as to whether or not reality is in fact that way. My thoughts and distress over my inability to know whether or not anything at all in this universe that I inhabit even exists, let alone matters, will not go away until I have an answer. What would be to do if I actually came to the apathetic conclusion that you propose? How would I go on living my life if I was only waiting for death to take me, and then I might have a chance to see whether I'm right or wrong, or I might just fade to exist?

You can never answer your question, so it can never inform you. Try coming up with any situation which your decision would be altered by knowing "if reality is real"(or whatever nonsense). I believe you will fail. It is an inherently useless proposition that can do nothing but derail reason with a massive non sequitur.

How depressing.

[Godular]

You're thinking too hard.

Either there is nothing after you die, in which case you'll be too dead to care, or there is an afterlife and you'll get a pop-tart.

Well, I know *I* will.

Simply asserting that if reality is one way it won't matter because it is that way is not enough to kill my curiosity as to whether or not reality is in fact that way. My thoughts and distress over my inability to know whether or not anything at all in this universe that I inhabit even exists, let alone matters, will not go away until I have an answer.

Then me pointing out that we're all just made of photons probably won't help, will it? We're all just holograms! Woooooooooooooo... *wavy fingers*

What would be to do if I actually came to the apathetic conclusion that you propose?

Get a pop-tart? Go skydiving? Think of a good joke and make people laugh? It's your life. Do something with the thing you got lucky enough to have.

How would I go on living my life if I was only waiting for death to take me, and then I might have a chance to see whether I'm right or wrong, or I might just fade to exist?

Do not go gently into that good night. Was it you that quoted that bit?

Anyway, you misunderstand me. I relegate it to that perspective simply because my personal philosophy is not to get worked up over things outside my control. Sure, this death thing approaches inexorably, as it does for us all. Doesn't matter to me any.

I do want to go to antarctica and go penguin-watching though. That's a definite bucket-list entry for me.

[Dushan]

While listening to music a few hours ago and playing Tetris I thought of something.

Why, at least in the Christain faith, is it presumed 'Paradise' or 'Heaven' is the same place for everyone. Let me explain, for instance why is it that Heaven/Paradise is assumed to be this peaceful perfect place. Now of course I understand the reasoning behind it by I mean literally. Why is it that everyone assumes heaven is a place free of hate and war and all these things, which of course it should be.

But what if to someone else that would be hell? I will use myself as an example, for me going to heaven and seeing dead relatives and living in peace and harmony forever would be horrible since I am assuming that means no fornication, drugs, alcohol or what have you since these things are typically things used to point you to hell.

And what if I met a fellow angel and felt like doing the do and the next day I see a different one? Is this suddenly not allowed even though we were both apparently good people and got into heaven?

For me heaven would be relaxing in a lake with some music going getting shit faced drunk everyday being able to rest and relax and bury my face into whatever narcotic I felt like or whatever woman I felt like. Obviously wanting these things may preclude me from the entrance into the imaginary sky land in the first place...

What I am asking is that why is Heaven/Paradise always considered the same for everyone with the typical 'No sex' no this no that rhetoric?

We've got more vivid depictions of hell than we do of heaven. Such a concept seems alien to humanity, probably because we're far more acquainted with the latter. (And most likely incapable of functioning in such a utopia)

Why this does makes me think at the "first" Matrix and Agents Smiths talk about it? Also Dantes Inferno comes to mind.

[Jolet]

Firstly, view the edit I made to my post. Answers the question, I think.

Secondly, you're being unclear again. More valuable the more plentiful it becomes? To what are you referring? Either make the point or don't speak vaguely, you're being obfuscatory. State your issue or don't.

Your edit still demonstrates nothing, but unsurprisingly asserts much. No points.

You say that an infinite afterlife is the only reason life matters. You believe life never ends, is infinite in quantity. Try to explain how the years of a life go from being meaningless to meaningful when you add INFINITY to them.

Firstly, ease off. You sound pissed, and I'm not exactly sure what I did to incur your wrath.

Secondly, we're debating the existence- and indeed, the relevance- of something that has no physical basis, and therefore, no proof. If you're looking for scholasticism, go read Aquinas or Augustine. I'm sure they have logical proofs for the existence of the afterlife, especially Aquinas.

Thirdly, you are making the assumption that when life ends, the afterlife remains the same. That's not the case. The assumption I am making is that the life you lead now determines the state of eternity afterward, thus relevance, thus importance, thus right and wrong, thus thus thus thus thus etc. Place an afterlife that's determined by behavior in the picture, and suddenly morality and the significance of one's decisions makes sense. Without it, there's no point in bothering. You can be as large of an asshole as you like, if that's what you're into, and it won't matter because in the end you're dead and so's everyone else.

[Southerly Gentleman]

Well... *head scratch* it's a nihlistic view, certainly, but in the context of the discussion it's technically valid... Obviously, since I believe in an afterlife I don't agree that's what's going to happen, but it is the logical view of it.

The only way out of this mess is to impose your own will on reality, and to craft a sense of meaning out of the meaninglessness, like Nietzsche asserted we should do. But when considering this, I am once again faced with the fact that I can't even verify the realness of reality.

What does one mean by "realness", anyway? As far as we know, there is nothing behind the physical universe, other than the apparent laws whose derivation is unclear or meaningless. Without evidence to the contrary, one may well conclude that our reality, our experiences are "real", in the sense that there is really nothing else.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Your edit still demonstrates nothing, but unsurprisingly asserts much. No points.

You say that an infinite afterlife is the only reason life matters. You believe life never ends, is infinite in quantity. Try to explain how the years of a life go from being meaningless to meaningful when you add INFINITY to them.

Firstly, ease off. You sound pissed, and I'm not exactly sure what I did to incur your wrath.

Secondly, we're debating the existence- and indeed, the relevance- of something that has no physical basis, and therefore, no proof. If you're looking for scholasticism, go read Aquinas or Augustine. I'm sure they have logical proofs for the existence of the afterlife, especially Aquinas.

Thirdly, you are making the assumption that when life ends, the afterlife remains the same. That's not the case. The assumption I am making is that the life you lead now determines the state of eternity afterward, thus relevance, thus importance, thus right and wrong, thus thus thus thus thus etc. Place an afterlife that's determined by behavior in the picture, and suddenly morality and the significance of one's decisions makes sense. Without it, there's no point in bothering. You can be as large of an asshole as you like, if that's what you're into, and it won't matter because in the end you're dead and so's everyone else.

I get frustrated when people assert things after I repeatedly ask for justifications rather than unsupported fairytales.

Bold: a thing that is by definition unobservable, is by definition not real. If the afterlife cannot by definition be demonstrated, then it necessarily does not exist. You can't prove that a thing exists by logic, you must do so by demonstration. And of course, a couple of ignorant monks have absolutely nothing to show there.

I made no such assumption. The state or relative scale of life/afterlife is irrelevant because you made one INFINITE. It doesn't matter if that afterlife is pretty awful, you made every individual experience meaningless. I reject your assumptions about the afterlife(which you made the sentence after you strawmanned me for those I didn't make), and ask that you DEMONSTRATE that your metric(s) for valuation of a life are anything other than trash.

[Godular]

And that is a choice, and another way to approach it. Assuming that there's nothing on the other side is inherently negative- who wouldn't want to continue existing, after all? Obviously there are a lot of people terrified of oblivion. Why is it a good thing, then?

If it is the case, it is unavoidable. It is neither good or bad, but a simple fact. What you choose to do in the face of that fact is what makes your life either pleasant or unpleasant. Your life is what you make of it.

Subjectivity is bliss, it seems. Unfortunately, subjectivity is also invalid in a logical discussion. What you do with life is, without something after this, irrelevant. And even existing again would count as something after this, as you pointed out.

But it would not be what you expected, would it? It would not mesh with your subjective view of what the afterlife should consist of. In this situation, what the hell did you act all 'virtuous' for? Well, I'll tell ya: That was your impression of what makes a good life. That's the point of existentialism, really. Your life is what you make of it.

Conceded. However, as technology and literature move on, things will be outdated, removed from usage or not commonly known, and then become somewhat eclectic and/or unused, and therefore rendered irrelevant and forgotten again. You can't beat the march of time, my friend.

An abacus isn't used in practical terms anymore, but it helped bring about that which is used. The slide rule. The calculator. The microchip. If I helped pave the way for those who come after, and even made it so that people behave even a microscopic amount less shitty to each other in the coming eons... that works for me.

Not that I'll care at that point.

[Mega City 5]

you assert that an afterlife is required to make life meaningful, important, etc. I say that's really idiotic and backwards. Tell me how a thing can become more valuable the more plentiful it becomes.

In any case, you never said WHY meaninful, remembered, permanent were in any way things that measure the worth of our lives. Once again, i'm calling bullshit on your very metrics. You assert, but do not demonstrate, their relevance to the discussion.

There are different ways to analyze the proposition "Life is meaningful if and only if there is an afterlife."

In one sense, we can understand it in the following way: "A thing fully achieves its 'meaning' if it attains the end to which it is ordered." Thus, to make a seed "meaningful, important, etc," it must grow up into a tree. In this sense, man's end (the face to face vision of God's essence) is a supersensible, not sensible end, and, furthermore, an end which exceeds the natural capacities of his nature. As such, cannot be achieved in this state of life. If there is no afterlife, then it is impossible for man to achieve this end, much like a seed which can never mature into a tree, or a caterpillar into a butterfly.

I think that this sense probably approaches truth, and is confirmed by what Hell is. Hell is full of people who are utterly wretched and miserable precisely because they have rendered themselves incapable of ever achieving their end or final perfection (i.e., the face to face vision of God).

[Godular]

you assert that an afterlife is required to make life meaningful, important, etc. I say that's really idiotic and backwards. Tell me how a thing can become more valuable the more plentiful it becomes.

In any case, you never said WHY meaninful, remembered, permanent were in any way things that measure the worth of our lives. Once again, i'm calling bullshit on your very metrics. You assert, but do not demonstrate, their relevance to the discussion.

There are different ways to analyze the proposition "Life is meaningful if and only if there is an afterlife."

In one sense, we can understand it in the following way: "A thing fully achieves its 'meaning' if it attains the end to which it is ordered." Thus, to make a seed "meaningful, important, etc," it must grow up into a tree. In this sense, man's end (the face to face vision of God's essence) is a supersensible, not sensible end, and, as such, cannot be achieved in this state of life. If there is no afterlife, then it is impossible for man to achieve this end, much like a seed which can never mature into a tree, or a caterpillar into a butterfly.

I think that this sense probably approaches truth, and is confirmed by what Hell is. Hell is full of people who are utterly wretched and miserable precisely because they have rendered themselves incapable of ever achieving their end or final perfection (i.e., the face to face vision of God).

I for one don't find acceptance into the God Fan Club a particularly enticing afterlife.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

you assert that an afterlife is required to make life meaningful, important, etc. I say that's really idiotic and backwards. Tell me how a thing can become more valuable the more plentiful it becomes.

In any case, you never said WHY meaninful, remembered, permanent were in any way things that measure the worth of our lives. Once again, i'm calling bullshit on your very metrics. You assert, but do not demonstrate, their relevance to the discussion.

There are different ways to analyze the proposition "Life is meaningful if and only if there is an afterlife."

In one sense, we can understand it in the following way: "A thing fully achieves its 'meaning' if it attains the end to which it is ordered." Thus, to make a seed "meaningful, important, etc," it must grow up into a tree. In this sense, man's end (the face to face vision of God's essence) is a supersensible, not sensible end, and, as such, cannot be achieved in this state of life. If there is no afterlife, then it is impossible for man to achieve this end, much like a seed which can never mature into a tree, or a caterpillar into a butterfly.

I think that this sense probably approaches truth, and is confirmed by what Hell is. Hell is full of people who are utterly wretched and miserable precisely because they have rendered themselves incapable of ever achieving their end or final perfection (i.e., the face to face vision of God).

Well at least you gave an argument. But it's still a terrible one, as all the premises are various degrees of blatant falsehoods or mere assumptions.

[Mega City 5]

Well at least you gave an argument. But it's still a terrible one, as all the premises are various degrees of blatant falsehoods or mere assumptions.

There are several assumptions. And I'm afraid I can't really do much better in the course of a thread.

I would literally have to give you a lecture series on the subject for it even to begin to make sense to you.

No offense to you, of course.

It's just that the nature of the subject matter is obscure and takes a lot of philosophical "work" to understand.

[Jolet]

Firstly, ease off. You sound pissed, and I'm not exactly sure what I did to incur your wrath.

Secondly, we're debating the existence- and indeed, the relevance- of something that has no physical basis, and therefore, no proof. If you're looking for scholasticism, go read Aquinas or Augustine. I'm sure they have logical proofs for the existence of the afterlife, especially Aquinas.

Thirdly, you are making the assumption that when life ends, the afterlife remains the same. That's not the case. The assumption I am making is that the life you lead now determines the state of eternity afterward, thus relevance, thus importance, thus right and wrong, thus thus thus thus thus etc. Place an afterlife that's determined by behavior in the picture, and suddenly morality and the significance of one's decisions makes sense. Without it, there's no point in bothering. You can be as large of an asshole as you like, if that's what you're into, and it won't matter because in the end you're dead and so's everyone else.

I get frustrated when people assert things after I repeatedly ask for justifications rather than unsupported fairytales.

Bold: a thing that is by definition unobservable, is by definition not real. If the afterlife cannot by definition be demonstrated, then it necessarily does not exist. You can't prove that a thing exists by logic, you must do so by demonstration. And of course, a couple of ignorant monks have absolutely nothing to show there.

I made no such assumption. The state or relative scale of life/afterlife is irrelevant because you made one INFINITE. It doesn't matter if that afterlife is pretty awful, you made every individual experience meaningless. I reject your assumptions about the afterlife(which you made the sentence after you strawmanned me for those I didn't make), and ask that you DEMONSTRATE that your metric(s) for valuation of a life are anything other than trash.

Ohhhh lordy, you're one of those people, eh? You must get along with Zoice and Risotta pretty well, I bet. Even got the whole anger thing down, too.

Well, I can already tell you that you've made up your mind, and nothing I or anyone else says is going to change that conclusion. Closed minds make for insular discussions.

It's silly that you're looking for "proof" of a fucking religious concept that is a matter of belief, NOT physical proof, as otherwise it's not religion, it's fact. I fail to understand why people can't seperate the two. If you cannot believe something without needing proof, then you lack faith, and that's all there is to it. Matters of faith are, therefore, not something you should even think of presuming to understand jackshit about, as you clearly can't even bring yourself to believe something you don't see in one form or another. If you want to stick to your logic and reasoning and metrics and measurable instances, that's fine. Go right ahead. But it's two very, very different playing fields, my friend- they are not equal.

As for "DEMONSTRAT"ing the metrics of how one values life, I have to point out that you can't. Nobody can. It's too damn subjective. Someone who spends their entire life combing the beach for driftwood to whittle and sell can be just as happy with their life as someone who makes seven figures, has a big, fancy house, multiple cars, a happy family, whatever you want to call it. It's not quite as black and white as "good life/bad life".

As for strawmanning you, go back and look at your post, in context. Do it now. Do you see why I may have made the conclusion that I did? It's not strawmanning if my explanation made sense from my perspective, it's misunderstanding on my part, one that I heartily apologize for. If you feel slighted, I'm sorry. Welcome to the Internet.

Now, can we try to be civil? Is that too much to ask for? Or are you going to go angry agnostic on me?

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Well at least you gave an argument. But it's still a terrible one, as all the premises are various degrees of blatant falsehoods or mere assumptions.

There are several assumptions. And I'm afraid I can't really do much better in the course of a thread.

I would literally have to give you a lecture series on the subject for it even to begin to make sense to you.

No offense to you, of course.

It's just that the nature of the subject matter is obscure and takes a lot of philosophical "work" to understand.

Your primary failure is not one of philosophy, unless you're extending the umbrella over history and/or science. You're asserting things that must be demonstrated, and cannot be deduced. You would inevitably fail in an attempt to demonstrate them, because they were invented hundreds to thousands of years ago by several cultures of varying levels of ignorance. You won't demonstrate a god, so your argument cannot be accepted as a sound one. It's that simple.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If hell exists than there is no way I could be happy in heaven, knowing there are people in hell. So either I am unhappy and heaven is not heaven, or "I" am happy, meaning I am no longer the person I was when I was alive.

You sure about that? There are people suffering horribly in our world right at this moment. Somewhere, right now, someone is getting murdered, and someone else is getting raped, and some children are being abused, and someone just got torn apart by bombs or bullets in some war, and someone just lost the only person they ever loved.

There are already people in hell, right here on Earth, and you already know they exist. Is this preventing you from being happy?

The only way you'd have so much compassion in Heaven that you wouldn't be able to stand the thought of any people being in hell is precisely IF your personality got altered to make it far more compassionate than is normally possible for a human being.

Though I do not wish to presume anything, I would venture that Gon is not experiencing perfect bliss, and I am quite certain that the people suffering today are not suffering eternally, with no hope of reprieve because their suffering has been ordained by an omnipotent being.