XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism
From: brianf88@bigpond.net.au
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote in message
news:47855c95$0$3431$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...
>
> ---
>
> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
> promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
> from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
> maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve
> or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in
> a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get
> it, later, if you pass some post-death test.
>
> What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality
> is simply another natural part of a mysterious
> natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces-
> sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a
> different naturalistic experience?
>
> Certainly, selling immortality as the ultimate drug,
> the ultimate high, the unltimate in pleasure, if you
> jump through the 'right' religion's hoops, that has
> enormous appeal. The threat side, not so much.
>
> But, is religion really necessary for immortality?
> What -if- immortality is as natural as any other
> event in this particular naturalistic realm we are
> familiar with, and it's not earned, and no one is
> excluded from it, and everyone and everything
> is a part of it? What if all that is natural is part
> of some naturalistic realm in which a continua-
> tion of possibilities is the ultimate reality?
>
> Just a thought, for those of you who, like me,
> find the immortality promise of religion to be
> its most seductive feature, but who have been
> taught that if you disbelieve or doubt, you either
> get eliminated from existence forever, judged
> and punished and eliminated from existence
> forever, or judged and punished forever.
>
> A naturalistic immortality, in my view, offers
> a far more attractive alternative to religion than
> has been posited 'til now, not only by religions
> and their followers which equate naturalism
> with oblivion, but also by disbelievers and
> doubters who've bought into the religious argu-
> ment that's it's their way -or- no way, dismis-
> sing any possibility that a naturalistic immor-
> tality is even possible.
>
> Just saying, within the unknown realm of the
> totality of that which is natural, pondering a
> naturalistic immortality is a potentially power-
> ful concept, and worthy of consideration until
> or unless the totality of naturalism is known
> to exclude the possibility of *any* immortality.
>
What you say makes perfect sense, and is something I started to investigate
thirty about years ago, always previously, having a similar view to you.
Basically this is what I discovered.(With the emphasis on "I")
The position we each take up life by life is based on our accumulated
experiences.A process of graduation.
The religious 'authors' as opposed to followers, cover this with their
parables and directives, such as "as ye sow also shall you reap" which, at
first appears to contradict "the sins of the fathers will be revisited on
the sixth and seventh generation". Of course the laws of karma are familiar
to a large % of the world population.
The religions were and are a batch of guidelines to help those who are at
the stage where need such direction. Where they have not yet matured enough
to "stand alone".
Like children, they sometimes need to be motivated by fear of consequence.
Don't kill or you will be killed etc.
I have zero doubt that someone who has come up with this understanding as
you have, would need any one of the "ten commandments" spelling out no more
that an advanced mathematician would have to repeat his 'times tables'.
When you are ready.... always part the natural process.
BOfL
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
