Afterlife: an alternative explanation?
-
Does that mean that religion is required for morality? Are there other definitions of morality which do not include religion, or at least do not require belief in afterlife as a means of reward/punishment as a foundation of morality?
α.γεεκ
Fortune passes everywhere.
Duke Leto AtreidesJim Stewart wrote: Does that mean that religion is required for morality? hell no :) But, Stan and I were just having this very conversation. Jim Stewart wrote: there other definitions of morality which do not include religion, or at least do not require belief in afterlife as a means of reward/punishment as a foundation of morality? sure, the Golden Rule. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Jim Stewart wrote: Does that mean that religion is required for morality? hell no :) But, Stan and I were just having this very conversation. Jim Stewart wrote: there other definitions of morality which do not include religion, or at least do not require belief in afterlife as a means of reward/punishment as a foundation of morality? sure, the Golden Rule. ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
An interesting thread. So, is there an absolute standard for morality? Is there an action which can be considered good or bad for all times and for every situation?
α.γεεκ
Fortune passes everywhere.
Duke Leto Atreides -
Consider an evolutionary explanation. An afterlife is part of the reward structure of any religion. Believe what we tell you and you'll get everlasting rewards. With the inevitable converse: Doubt us and bad things will happen... Which then leads to the question of the ubiquitousness of religion. Almost all cultures have some form. Why? Could it be that when cultures were forming, those who were held together by some religious aegis were more successful? And so are we (the survivors) innately prone to be religious and consequently driven to believe in an afterlife?
α.γεεκ
Fortune passes everywhere.
Duke Leto AtreidesLet's talk reality people.... "In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered by radioactive decay. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die. " http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide[^] Later,
JoeSox
"I don't question, our existence I just question, our modern needs" - Pearl Jam Garden www.joeswammi.com www.humanaiproject.org -
An interesting thread. So, is there an absolute standard for morality? Is there an action which can be considered good or bad for all times and for every situation?
α.γεεκ
Fortune passes everywhere.
Duke Leto AtreidesJim Stewart wrote: An interesting thread. So, is there an absolute standard for morality? Is there an action which can be considered good or bad for all times and for every situation? This thread really sounds like quantum mechanics to me. It is in the observer's discretion. So only you hold that answer. Later,
JoeSox
"I don't question, our existence I just question, our modern needs" - Pearl Jam Garden www.joeswammi.com www.humanaiproject.org -
Let's talk reality people.... "In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered by radioactive decay. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die. " http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide[^] Later,
JoeSox
"I don't question, our existence I just question, our modern needs" - Pearl Jam Garden www.joeswammi.com www.humanaiproject.orgJoeSox wrote: However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die. this is the kind of stuff we would make up late at night, after we ran out of weed. ;) seriously though, i love the idea of the "elsewhere": the area outside the ever-expanding range of possibilities, the stuff outside the cone spreading out from every point in time that represents the range of possible futures. see "Brief History Of Time". -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
JoeSox wrote: However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die. this is the kind of stuff we would make up late at night, after we ran out of weed. ;) seriously though, i love the idea of the "elsewhere": the area outside the ever-expanding range of possibilities, the stuff outside the cone spreading out from every point in time that represents the range of possible futures. see "Brief History Of Time". -c ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: seriously though, i love the idea of the "elsewhere": the area outside the ever-expanding range of possibilities, the stuff outside the cone spreading out from every point in time that represents the range of possible futures. see "Brief History Of Time". I see strings going in circles:eek: http://spanky.fractint.org/pub/fractals/images/others/circles.png[^] I think way too much:doh: Later,
JoeSox
"I don't question, our existence I just question, our modern needs" - Pearl Jam Garden www.joeswammi.com www.humanaiproject.org -
Chris Losinger wrote: seriously though, i love the idea of the "elsewhere": the area outside the ever-expanding range of possibilities, the stuff outside the cone spreading out from every point in time that represents the range of possible futures. see "Brief History Of Time". I see strings going in circles:eek: http://spanky.fractint.org/pub/fractals/images/others/circles.png[^] I think way too much:doh: Later,
JoeSox
"I don't question, our existence I just question, our modern needs" - Pearl Jam Garden www.joeswammi.com www.humanaiproject.org:) (can't see your link - 403) http://www.smalleranimals.com/thumbfrax/thumbs/_index.htm :) ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Consider an evolutionary explanation. An afterlife is part of the reward structure of any religion. Believe what we tell you and you'll get everlasting rewards. With the inevitable converse: Doubt us and bad things will happen... Which then leads to the question of the ubiquitousness of religion. Almost all cultures have some form. Why? Could it be that when cultures were forming, those who were held together by some religious aegis were more successful? And so are we (the survivors) innately prone to be religious and consequently driven to believe in an afterlife?
α.γεεκ
Fortune passes everywhere.
Duke Leto AtreidesMost people would fall to their knees crying in fear if they thought that death would be the end of them. So to keep from being paralyzed they make themselves believe that there is an afterlife.
-
Consider an evolutionary explanation. An afterlife is part of the reward structure of any religion. Believe what we tell you and you'll get everlasting rewards. With the inevitable converse: Doubt us and bad things will happen... Which then leads to the question of the ubiquitousness of religion. Almost all cultures have some form. Why? Could it be that when cultures were forming, those who were held together by some religious aegis were more successful? And so are we (the survivors) innately prone to be religious and consequently driven to believe in an afterlife?
α.γεεκ
Fortune passes everywhere.
Duke Leto AtreidesOr because a lot of people need something/someone else to take ultimate responsiblity for what they do and how they live ? The tigress is here :-D
-
Consider an evolutionary explanation. An afterlife is part of the reward structure of any religion. Believe what we tell you and you'll get everlasting rewards. With the inevitable converse: Doubt us and bad things will happen... Which then leads to the question of the ubiquitousness of religion. Almost all cultures have some form. Why? Could it be that when cultures were forming, those who were held together by some religious aegis were more successful? And so are we (the survivors) innately prone to be religious and consequently driven to believe in an afterlife?
α.γεεκ
Fortune passes everywhere.
Duke Leto AtreidesIf the powers that be, ie, the secular government in cahoots with the religious power structure, can convince the rank and file that they should follow the party line in this life and they'll be rewared in the afterlife, where those in power obvioudly won't have to pay, so much the better for keeping those currently in power holding their easy positions. The ultimate buy now and pay later scheme. Of course, those buying now are too stupid to know they're never going to collect. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
