Atheists/Agnostics & Death

[Loudmouth]

There is evidence of an after life. Some choose to dismiss the evidence or write it off as a conspiracy theory.

Then present the evidence.

 

[redleghunter]

Then present the evidence.

In order to present the evidence, I would like to know if you consider the manuscript evidence of the history of the Gallic Wars, writings of Socrates, Pliny, Homer, Aristotle and many others as reliable.

I ask because if you deny the history of the above works you will not accept any manuscript evidence from antiquity. So let's start with this preliminary.

 

[bhsmte]

In order to present the evidence, I would like to know if you consider the manuscript evidence of the history of the Gallic Wars, writings of Socrates, Pliny, Homer, Aristotle and many others as reliable.

I ask because if you deny the history of the above works you will not accept any manuscript evidence from antiquity. So let's start with this preliminary.

Can you demonstrate how these writings are historically reliable?

 

[Loudmouth]

In order to present the evidence, I would like to know if you consider the manuscript evidence of the history of the Gallic Wars, writings of Socrates, Pliny, Homer, Aristotle and many others as reliable.

I don't accept any stories in books as evidence without independent verification. Even then, I don't have a dogmatic belief in any of those historical figures. If evidence comes out showing that none of those people exist, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

Do you consider the Book of Mormon manuscript evidence for the Golden Tablets and the history that they contained?

Do you consider the Iliad a reliable history of how the pantheon of gods interacted with humans?

I have a feeling that you don't accept the same type of evidence.

 

[Cute Tink]

The math is rather simple. Everyone will have to have a religion.

Does after life exist?

In addressing the above question, there are 2 possibilities. Both require faith to believe.

1) No, nothing serious would happen
2) Yes, something serious would happen. You thus need to responsibly seek out what would happen

What about "I don't know so I withhold judgment"?

 

[redleghunter]

I don't accept any stories in books as evidence without independent verification. Even then, I don't have a dogmatic belief in any of those historical figures. If evidence comes out showing that none of those people exist, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

Do you consider the Book of Mormon manuscript evidence for the Golden Tablets and the history that they contained?

Do you consider the Iliad a reliable history of how the pantheon of gods interacted with humans?

I have a feeling that you don't accept the same type of evidence.

I wasn't addressing the theological aspects of the works I listed but the historical manuscipt evidence. To answer your question within this premise and based on the scholarship presented on manuscript evidence, I do believe Caesar wrote the tome Gallic Wars. I do believe Homer, Socrates et. al. wrote what he did. That is what I am getting at. We know these people existed in specific timeframes based on what they wrote (manuscript evidence) and on archaeological digs throughout the centuries. That is evidence.

So do you accept the scholarship of manuscript evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I wasn't addressing the theological aspects of the works I listed but the historical manuscipt evidence. To answer your question within this premise and based on the scholarship presented on manuscript evidence, I do believe Caesar wrote the tome Gallic Wars.

Can you give us an example of what this evidence is? What evidence demonstrates that Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars? What evidence verifies that what he wrote is accurate?

Added in edit: as a counterpoint, would you also agree that James Frey wrote the book "A Million Little Pieces"?

 

[redleghunter]

Can you give us an example of what this evidence is? What evidence demonstrates that Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars? What evidence verifies that what he wrote is accurate?

I think we are jumping the gun here. The first step is to determine if you would even consider the scholarship of manuscript evidence. Do you or don't you? Whether Caesar was accurate or lying about his campaign is something for later consideration. So do you trust the secular scholarship on manuscript evidence?

For example multiple scholars put the life of Herodotus: 480-425 BC. They based their judgment on the time period of his writings based on manuscripts dated 900 AD (CE) and later transcribed by monastics with multiple fragments.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think we are jumping the gun here. The first step is to determine if you would even consider the scholarship of manuscript evidence.

I am asking for the evidence, so obviously I will consider it.

What evidence demonstrates that Caesar wrote "The Gallic Wars"?

For example multiple scholars put the life of Herodotus: 480-425 BC. They based their judgment on the time period of his writings based on manuscripts dated 900 AD (CE) and later transcribed by monastics with multiple fragments.

What evidence do they have that Herodotus wrote those manuscripts?

 

[Belk]

I've lost a friend recently who was an atheist. As he would put it, a 'dogmatic' atheist.' I consider myself to have an atheistic view, but also agnostic. I was once a Christian, a very pious one. I keep wondering about an after life, since his passing. If there is one, and if there is...what might a religious person tell an atheist in such a case?

Just thinking out loud, I guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/books/review/atul-gawande-being-mortal-review.html


I am reading this now. It has some interesting insights.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To claim there is not an after life is akin to denying that Homer, Caesar and every historical figure from antiquity is fable.

???


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SteveB28]

I am asking for the evidence, so obviously I will consider it.

What evidence demonstrates that Caesar wrote "The Gallic Wars"?



What evidence do they have that Herodotus wrote those manuscripts?

His hedging around your question informs me that he is aware of the trap he has made for himself...........

 

[zippy2006]

I've lost a friend recently who was an atheist. As he would put it, a 'dogmatic' atheist.' I consider myself to have an atheistic view, but also agnostic. I was once a Christian, a very pious one. I keep wondering about an after life, since his passing. If there is one, and if there is...what might a religious person tell an atheist in such a case?

Just thinking out loud, I guess.

God has built the world in such a way that it continually points back to Him. It is very hard to ignore Him. Death inevitably reminds us of the afterlife and of God.

It has become fashionable to push the thought of the afterlife aside, to focus on the pain and the loss and the grieving process and nothing else. While this is a comfortable thing to do, it is not a particularly honest thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, the grieving process is important. But we are not just emotional beings, we are also intellectual beings. Experiences raise questions and puzzle us, and we naturally seek answers.

There is a hole in your world. It may be deeper and darker than you thought existed. It is pure absence, as if part of your entire sphere of existence was snatched away irretrievably. Indeed, it is not untrue to say that a part of you has died with your friend, and it is nauseating to think that it will never return.

So grieve. Acknowledge the loss. Weep (John 11:35). But don't ignore the obvious question. Has your friend wholly disappeared or has he been called elsewhere? Has he been snatched away to another place or hasn't he? To grieve while ignoring that question is to grieve as an animal, not as a human being. My answer should be obvious.

God bless,
zip

P.S. I also lost a friend recently, and a few weeks before the loss I read C. S. Lewis' A Grief Observed -- his diaries about the death of his wife. The diaries are so intimate that they were originally published under a pseudonym. It gave me some consolation, and may be helpful to you as well.

 

[Deidre32]

God has built the world in such a way that it continually points back to Him. It is very hard to ignore Him. Death inevitably reminds us of the afterlife and of God.

It has become fashionable to push the thought of the afterlife aside, to focus on the pain and the loss and the grieving process and nothing else. While this is a comfortable thing to do, it is not a particularly honest thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, the grieving process is important. But we are not just emotional beings, we are also intellectual beings. Experiences raise questions and puzzle us, and we naturally seek answers.

There is a hole in your world. It may be deeper and darker than you thought existed. It is pure absence, as if part of your entire sphere of existence was snatched away irretrievably. Indeed, it is not untrue to say that a part of you has died with your friend, and it is nauseating to think that it will never return.

So grieve. Acknowledge the loss. Weep (John 11:35). But don't ignore the obvious question. Has your friend wholly disappeared or has he been called elsewhere? Has he been snatched away to another place or hasn't he? To grieve while ignoring that question is to grieve as an animal, not as a human being. My answer should be obvious.

God bless,
zip

P.S. I also lost a friend recently, and a few weeks before the loss I read C. S. Lewis' A Grief Observed -- his diaries about the death of his wife. The diaries are so intimate that they were originally published under a pseudonym. It gave me some consolation, and may be helpful to you as well.

I've read A Grief Observed, and yes, it was very powerful.

Thanks for your thoughts, here.

Why do you think that death automatically points to an afterlife?

 

[zippy2006]

I've read A Grief Observed, and yes, it was very powerful.

Oh, good. Yes, I found it to be powerful as well. It was remarkable to see Lewis in that posture.

Why do you think that death automatically points to an afterlife?

Oh, I don't think it automatically points to an afterlife. My point was that you oughtn't give in to the temptation and ignore the question of an afterlife. Lewis is a good model in that he staunchly refuses the empty platitudes without ignoring the (legitimate) question.

Death doesn't always entail an afterlife. Plants and animals die and we aren't generally convinced that their death is a semicolon instead of a period. From a philosophical point of view, it is the nature of human beings, human experience, and human loss that inevitably raises the stubborn question of an afterlife. From a theological point of view, it is the scriptures and, finally, the resurrection of Christ. If Christ has not been raised, our hope is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

Yet my point to you has been neither philosophical nor theological. Regarding those topics I would defer to Lewis' diary both in style and content, especially when speaking to you. Depending on how long it's been, you might think of rereading it.

Perhaps I could offer you a small bit of aid. We weep because we love. When we have loved unapologetically, we ought to weep unapologetically. Regardless of the answers you come to, it cannot be denied that your love was real and therefore your loss was real.

Lewis concludes his book by quoting Dante: poi si tornò all’ eterna fontana. I take it to be not only optimistic, but transformative. Lewis is giving her over, relinquishing her, entrusting her, surrendering her.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think we are jumping the gun here. The first step is to determine if you would even consider the scholarship of manuscript evidence. Do you or don't you? Whether Caesar was accurate or lying about his campaign is something for later consideration. So do you trust the secular scholarship on manuscript evidence?

For example multiple scholars put the life of Herodotus: 480-425 BC. They based their judgment on the time period of his writings based on manuscripts dated 900 AD (CE) and later transcribed by monastics with multiple fragments.

Doesn't the veracity of each manuscript need to be weighed on its own?

That's the only trouble I see with your question...some ancient writings contain evidence, others don't. Some contain some historical evidence and historical fiction. Some are mostly fiction with some historical evidence sprinkled in .

That's why when you ask "do you accept manuscript evidence"? it's a difficult question. Sometimes I do....sometimes I don't. It all depends on the manuscript.

 

[bhsmte]

Doesn't the veracity of each manuscript need to be weighed on its own?

That's the only trouble I see with your question...some ancient writings contain evidence, others don't. Some contain some historical evidence and historical fiction. Some are mostly fiction with some historical evidence sprinkled in .

That's why when you ask "do you accept manuscript evidence"? it's a difficult question. Sometimes I do....sometimes I don't. It all depends on the manuscript.

I don't think he wants it critically weighed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Doesn't the veracity of each manuscript need to be weighed on its own?

That's the only trouble I see with your question...some ancient writings contain evidence, others don't. Some contain some historical evidence and historical fiction. Some are mostly fiction with some historical evidence sprinkled in .

That's why when you ask "do you accept manuscript evidence"? it's a difficult question. Sometimes I do....sometimes I don't. It all depends on the manuscript.

...or you could just invoke "Lessing's Ditch" and be done with it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think he wants it critically weighed.

I take it we're not actually talking about the Gallic Wars.

 

[Deidre32]

Oh, good. Yes, I found it to be powerful as well. It was remarkable to see Lewis in that posture.



Oh, I don't think it automatically points to an afterlife. My point was that you oughtn't give in to the temptation and ignore the question of an afterlife. Lewis is a good model in that he staunchly refuses the empty platitudes without ignoring the (legitimate) question.

Death doesn't always entail an afterlife. Plants and animals die and we aren't generally convinced that their death is a semicolon instead of a period. From a philosophical point of view, it is the nature of human beings, human experience, and human loss that inevitably raises the stubborn question of an afterlife. From a theological point of view, it is the scriptures and, finally, the resurrection of Christ. If Christ has not been raised, our hope is in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).

Yet my point to you has been neither philosophical nor theological. Regarding those topics I would defer to Lewis' diary both in style and content, especially when speaking to you. Depending on how long it's been, you might think of rereading it.

Perhaps I could offer you a small bit of aid. We weep because we love. When we have loved unapologetically, we ought to weep unapologetically. Regardless of the answers you come to, it cannot be denied that your love was real and therefore your loss was real.

Lewis concludes his book by quoting Dante: poi si tornò all’ eterna fontana. I take it to be not only optimistic, but transformative. Lewis is giving her over, relinquishing her, entrusting her, surrendering her.

You have a way with words, and have made me feel some sense of comfort. I'm of the opinion I'll need to feel this way, until I no longer do. How do you deal with your own sense of mortality? Does it ever frighten you?