Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[Gim]

No one knows what happens after death.

Knows? No. Reasonably predict? Yes.
Heaven and Hell aren't possible without basically breaking the laws of the universe. So either everything we know about the universe is flawed (which is possible, I'll grant, but not likely), or heaven and hell are just carrot and stick fairy tales made to keep people in line.

What if, after death, the laws of the universe do not apply?

[Alvecia]

Knows? No. Reasonably predict? Yes.
Heaven and Hell aren't possible without basically breaking the laws of the universe. So either everything we know about the universe is flawed (which is possible, I'll grant, but not likely), or heaven and hell are just carrot and stick fairy tales made to keep people in line.

Out of curiosity, what about reincarnation?

Falls over at the same hurdle of conciousness after death.
Everything we know about conciousness tells us that it is inherently tied to the brain. Without a functioning brain, it cannot exist, so there's no feasible method for it to transfer to a future life.

[Internationalist Bastard]

No one knows what happens after death.

Knows? No. Reasonably predict? Yes.
Heaven and Hell aren't possible without basically breaking the laws of the universe. So either everything we know about the universe is flawed (which is possible, I'll grant, but not likely), or heaven and hell are just carrot and stick fairy tales made to keep people in line.

I often consider it a spiritual rather then physical thing. Like, I don't actually believe Lord Tengri is the sky, I think he's a spiritual manifestation of it

[Twilight Imperium]

Knows? No. Reasonably predict? Yes.
Heaven and Hell aren't possible without basically breaking the laws of the universe. So either everything we know about the universe is flawed (which is possible, I'll grant, but not likely), or heaven and hell are just carrot and stick fairy tales made to keep people in line.

Out of curiosity, what about reincarnation?

What about reincarnation?

[Alvecia]

Knows? No. Reasonably predict? Yes.
Heaven and Hell aren't possible without basically breaking the laws of the universe. So either everything we know about the universe is flawed (which is possible, I'll grant, but not likely), or heaven and hell are just carrot and stick fairy tales made to keep people in line.

What if, after death, the laws of the universe do not apply?

What if pigs could fly?
It's a fun thought experiment, but there's no reason to suspect that is the case. Why worry about it?

[Gim]

Out of curiosity, what about reincarnation?

Falls over at the same hurdle of conciousness after death.
Everything we know about conciousness tells us that it is inherently tied to the brain. Without a functioning brain, it cannot exist, so there's no feasible method for it to transfer to a future life.

You don't transfer the brain that has completed a single life cycle to the next, reincarnated being. You start over from the beginning of a brain existence.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Out of curiosity, what about reincarnation?

Falls over at the same hurdle of conciousness after death.
Everything we know about conciousness tells us that it is inherently tied to the brain. Without a functioning brain, it cannot exist, so there's no feasible method for it to transfer to a future life.

But it's not conciousness. Even the Dali Lama, who's traced back centuries, isn't actually aware of his past lives. It's all a spiritual concept, one that we can't really detect right now

[Alvecia]

Knows? No. Reasonably predict? Yes.
Heaven and Hell aren't possible without basically breaking the laws of the universe. So either everything we know about the universe is flawed (which is possible, I'll grant, but not likely), or heaven and hell are just carrot and stick fairy tales made to keep people in line.

I often consider it a spiritual rather then physical thing. Like, I don't actually believe Lord Tengri is the sky, I think he's a spiritual manifestation of it

Spirituality is all well and good, but as soon as it impacts physicality, it can be measured. If it can be measured, we can begin to make more certain statements about it's existence.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I sometimes do. But in the wise words of SouthPark, "Believing in something just because you fear the consequences of not believing in something is no reason to believe in something."

[Twilight Imperium]

But it's not conciousness. Even the Dali Lama, who's traced back centuries, isn't actually aware of his past lives. It's all a spiritual concept, one that we can't really detect right now

That seems a lot like just plain dying to me.

[Alvecia]

Falls over at the same hurdle of conciousness after death.
Everything we know about conciousness tells us that it is inherently tied to the brain. Without a functioning brain, it cannot exist, so there's no feasible method for it to transfer to a future life.

But it's not conciousness. Even the Dali Lama, who's traced back centuries, isn't actually aware of his past lives. It's all a spiritual concept, one that we can't really detect right now

But you'e implying, as does the concept, that it is in some way the same person/soul/spirit. For that to happen, something would have to carry over from the previous life, and there is no evidence that anything does.

[Gim]

But it's not conciousness. Even the Dali Lama, who's traced back centuries, isn't actually aware of his past lives. It's all a spiritual concept, one that we can't really detect right now

But you'e implying, as does the concept, that it is in some way the same person/soul/spirit. For that to happen, something would have to carry over from the previous life, and there is no evidence that anything does.

There is no evidence that nothing does.

[Alvecia]

But you'e implying, as does the concept, that it is in some way the same person/soul/spirit. For that to happen, something would have to carry over from the previous life, and there is no evidence that anything does.

There is no evidence that nothing does.

Burden of proof lies with the positive claim

[Internationalist Bastard]

But it's not conciousness. Even the Dali Lama, who's traced back centuries, isn't actually aware of his past lives. It's all a spiritual concept, one that we can't really detect right now

But you'e implying, as does the concept, that it is in some way the same person/soul/spirit. For that to happen, something would have to carry over from the previous life, and there is no evidence that anything does.

That's basically my argument yes. Frankly, there is no scientific proof of a soul or spirits. However, they are common concepts throughout the world. Which means that while it's fair to be skeptical, we can't truly know until it's proven or disproven.

[Erinkita III]

Not any more than I worry about any random, unsupported proposition.
I'd be very disturbed to find out that an empire of technologically advanced mole people was planning to invade the surface world and enslave us all to toil in their mushroom farms, but since I have no reason to think there is such an empire, I don't give it much thought.

[Gim]

There is no evidence that nothing does.

Burden of proof lies with the positive claim

What proof?

[Alvecia]

Burden of proof lies with the positive claim

What proof?

Exactly. You say "X exists", you have to support that claim. I'm not obliged to give credit to an unsupported claim.

[Gim]

What proof?

Exactly. You say "X exists", you have to support that claim. I'm not obliged to give credit to an unsupported claim.

I'm just givng you an ambiguous answer. I don't know what's the truth, but I'm saying there's no evidence what you're saying is true.

[Alvecia]

But you'e implying, as does the concept, that it is in some way the same person/soul/spirit. For that to happen, something would have to carry over from the previous life, and there is no evidence that anything does.

That's basically my argument yes. Frankly, there is no scientific proof of a soul or spirits. However, they are common concepts throughout the world. Which means that while it's fair to be skeptical, we can't truly know until it's proven or disproven.

Well at that point I'd bring up Carl Sagan's Garage Dragon thought experiment.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

[Ashmoria]

Knows? No. Reasonably predict? Yes.
Heaven and Hell aren't possible without basically breaking the laws of the universe. So either everything we know about the universe is flawed (which is possible, I'll grant, but not likely), or heaven and hell are just carrot and stick fairy tales made to keep people in line.

Out of curiosity, what about reincarnation?

there is no mechanism for reincarnation.

[Alvecia]

Exactly. You say "X exists", you have to support that claim. I'm not obliged to give credit to an unsupported claim.

I'm just givng you an ambiguous answer. I don't know what's the truth, but I'm saying there's no evidence what you're saying is true.

I'm not saying anything is true, I'm saying that there's nothing to support what you say is true.
Rejection of a claim is not a claim itself.

[Gim]

I'm just givng you an ambiguous answer. I don't know what's the truth, but I'm saying there's no evidence what you're saying is true.

I'm not saying anything is true, I'm saying that there's nothing to support what you say is true.
Rejection of a claim is not a claim itself.

I know. Anything about it is beyond our comprehension.

[Trumpostan]

After reading about Pascal's wager, do atheist worry about eternal damnation, or the possibility of it occurring (according to the bible)?

Personally, fear of eternal damnation is not my reason for belief in the bible however how can people be so dismissive of infinite loss compared to finite gains? Even though you may not accept the bible, does it not worry you slightly?

Pascal's wager seems to assume that the monotheistic "god" concept that is most commonly bandied about is the only possible option.

You could counter it with another wager, what if there is a god, or there are multiple gods but it isn't the one that the majority of the world's population seems to claim to believe in (at least to some degree).
What if it turns out that you did believe in a god, but it was the wrong one, wouldn't you be better off not having believed in any god? At least you'd be able to say that well OK I didn't believe in the real god but at least (unlike those others) I didn't believe in a false god either. I would err on the side of caution.

[Alvecia]

I'm not saying anything is true, I'm saying that there's nothing to support what you say is true.
Rejection of a claim is not a claim itself.

I know. Anything about it is beyond our comprehension.

Then, as per the Dragon example, there is no difference between it's existence and non-existence.

[Alvecia]

After reading about Pascal's wager, do atheist worry about eternal damnation, or the possibility of it occurring (according to the bible)?

Personally, fear of eternal damnation is not my reason for belief in the bible however how can people be so dismissive of infinite loss compared to finite gains? Even though you may not accept the bible, does it not worry you slightly?

Pascal's wager seems to assume that the monotheistic "god" concept that is most commonly bandied about is the only possible option.

You could counter it with another wager, what if there is a god, or there are multiple gods but it isn't the one that the majority of the world's population seems to claim to believe in (at least to some degree).
What if it turns out that you did believe in a god, but it was the wrong one, wouldn't you be better off not having believed in any god? At least you'd be able to say that well OK I didn't believe in the real god but at least (unlike those others) I didn't believe in a false god either. I would err on the side of caution.

The only correct wager to take is to simultaneously believe in all gods and pantheons.