XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism
From: brianf88@bigpond.net.au
"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
news:13oaus23memte06@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "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.
>
>
> We are talking living together forever here.
Together with yourself. Others come and go.
> With much emphasis on "together..."
Which indicates your point of reference.
> How would it be conceivably possible to survive forever and ever...
> ...considering all the creating it would require...
That question is just as valid if you applied it to the current situation in
the observable world today.
As Henty Ford said "I find it no more remarkable to be born many times as to
be born once"
> ...without an infinite and good Creator somehow running the entire show?
To what extent are you running your show? Have you noticed your 'causative'
nature become more effective over the different stages of your life?
> Let alone trying to explain how to live with our enemies, forever.
Enemies are people going through mutually shared beliefs. Yet another stage
of self realization.
BOfL
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
