XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism   
   From: chumley702@chartermi.net   
      
   "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.   
   >   
   > ---   
   >   
   >   
      
   Or we could give up on the concept all together.  Why dream about a future,   
   supposedly better afterlife at all?  I mean, what's heaven or hell got that   
   I don't have now?   
      
   Scott   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)