How would you react.........

[JJ50]

…...........if it could be proved beyond any shadow of doubt no god or afterlife exist, when you die you are no more?

I would be relieved that once my life is over that is it, end of story. I am of the opinion that is the case, but of course there is the outside possibility I am wrong.

I have asked this question on forums before, often the reaction from devout believers is that god/afterlife exist and there is no other possibility.

Over to you.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by 2ndRateMind]

So, all your morals are ultimately justified by what is good for you?

And what is good for others. I don't want to be punched. My neighbours don't want to be punched. Therefore, none of us punch each other, and so...no-one is punched at all.
That's it as simply as possible.
I'll also remind you of the answers I got in my Moral Question for Christians thread. I had Christians saying they would not stop the torture and execution of an innocent man because it was, to paraphrase, "good for them".
This accusation can go both ways, but from where I'm standing, it's far worse on one side. One side claims it of the other, but has themselves gone on record as saying some very eyebrow-raising lines.

Presumably, because of this kind of post-modern thinking, that is why there is still malnutrition, hunger, and even starvation so widespread in the world.

Religion is still widespread too, and that hasn't prevented malnutrition/hunger/starvation.

People mistake personal advantage for goodness.

So social animals deciding not to punch each other (without a god entity telling them so) is not goodness...?

I honestly think we need revert to the idea of being, thinking, saying, and doing the good for the sake of the good,

Which is what people like myself and benchwarmer do! We just don't need to be told to by a god. You however...do. You have gone on record as desiring ultimate justice so badly that you have let this desire lead you down a false path, instead of letting the evidence lead you where it may.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by JJ50]

The problem for me would be that, if there is no afterlife, there is no rectifying of the injustices and crimes and sins of this life. I believe that God is good, and therefore just, and that therefore there must be an afterlife, such that the last shall be first, and the first, last, as Jesus promised.

Of course, if you don't believe in God, or a final reckoning, there is no justification for this kind of reasoning. And one might as well hog all the wealth and power available to one, and deny it to others, and live this life as profligately as one can afford. But I am not sure that would be 'moral'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Why is it you say this? I do not have a belief in an afterlife, (distinct from believing there is no afterlife) but either in real life, or in this hypothetical where a non-afterlife is proven, you don't see people like me hogging all the wealth and power.
I ask you to really consider. Why toss out this tired old cliche about atheism and a hunger to do harm? Is this something you truly believe, despite the myriad number of atheists who do no harm? Or is it just a ritual phrase you toss out lazily, with no consideration for how this harms your own credibility?

Please be assured, whenever I speak, unless specifically stated, it is with present company excepted from praise or blame. I cannot, on an interweb message board, possibly know enough about you to accurately apportion either, and so the principle of charity demands that I think the best possible of you all.

But the fact is, there is enough wealth in the world to provide everyone with decent livelihoods and reasonable dignity. The problem is that some people want all that power and wealth for themselves, and do not see anything wrong in this. Why not? Maybe it has a little to do with the extant idea that 'what is good, is what is good for me'.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by 2ndRateMind]

Please be assured, whenever I speak, unless specifically stated, it is with present company excepted from praise or blame.

I am not worried about what you say regarding me, or people like me on the site. I after all have equated the Christian willingness to go along with Christ's crucifixion and benefiting from it to be aiding and/or abetting murderous bank robbers.
I asked this because you took one character trait (belief there is no after life) and immediately jumped to talking about we might as well be hogging all the wealth and power. You linked one with the other but gave no connection at all, no reason to think so, no reason to consider that one would automatically follow the other.
Would you be outraged if I said the opposite, that belief in an afterlife means one is far more likely to oppress others?
The difference between you and I in this regard is that I can provide evidence both to back up the statement I have already made (the bank robber one) and the hypothetical in the previous sentence whereas you? You didn't offer any because I don't think you can. There have been plenty of people throughout history and in modern days (think ISIS suicide bombers) who have had a belief in an afterlife and were willing to oppress and harm others.

I cannot, on a interweb message board, know enough about you to accurately apportion either, and so the principle of charity demands that I think the best possible of you all.

You've been on the site for just over two years, versus my four. Presumably, you've seen plenty of my nearly 7,000 posts to be able to make some judge of my character.

there is enough wealth in the world to provide everyone with decent livelihoods and reasonable dignity.

I'm not 100% sure on this (there are over 7 billion people after all), but let's agree for the sake of argument.

The problem is that some people want all the power and wealth for themselves, and do not see anything wrong in this.

And this line of thinking exists also in those who believe in an afterlife. So we go back again to why on a thread that asks if the non-existence of an afterlife were proven to you, you said that those who don't believe in a God or a final reckoning might as well accrue wealth and power. Why would they? Is the desire for wealth and power to be criticised only in those who don't believe in God/final reckoning? Do you acknowledge that such desires exist in theists as well?

Maybe it has a little to do with the extant idea that 'what is good, is what is good for me'.

Again, I can quote theists saying the same sentiment.

[benchwarmer]

...regarding the reasoning of atheists and their morals? We are social animals and if we want to live in society, thrive, and enjoy all the benefits of social interaction, it behooves one to want to contribute positively to society. If I want to be treated well by others, I have learned to do the same...

So, all your morals are ultimately justified by what is good for you?

Clearly you are not understanding. Perhaps this quote, which is exactly what I've said with different words, will persuade you:

Luke 6:31 New International Version (NIV)
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If neither my words nor those attributed to Jesus are convincing, I don't know what to tell you.

[Tcg]

So, I'll stay with my religion, for now, thank you.

Religion has been crafted and refined by humans into a comfort providing machine. It wouldn't be so successful if this weren't true. Many will no doubt agree with you and grasp the comfort that death denial and belief in a mythological final reckoning provides.



Tcg

[2ndRateMind]

...regarding the reasoning of atheists and their morals? We are social animals and if we want to live in society, thrive, and enjoy all the benefits of social interaction, it behooves one to want to contribute positively to society. If I want to be treated well by others, I have learned to do the same...

So, all your morals are ultimately justified by what is good for you?

Clearly you are not understanding. Perhaps this quote, which is exactly what I've said with different words, will persuade you:

Luke 6:31 New International Version (NIV)
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If neither my words nor those attributed to Jesus are convincing, I don't know what to tell you.

Sure, but the Golden Rule is a good rule. But your justification for observing it essentially seems to be that to do so is eventually going to be in your own best interests. And I would not disagree with you, and nor would I argue that 'enlightened self-interest' is necessarily immoral. But however enlightened, a system justified by anticipated self-interest is merely a form of delayed hedonism, and a somewhat shaky grounding for a system of ethics.

As alternatives, you can have deontology, particularly those systems of Kant (who emphasises reason), or the various religious faiths (who emphasise divine command). Or, you might prefer your morality to be based on a utilitarian 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'. Or you might think that individual human thriving and flourishing is the ideal, and that is best achieved by developing and promoting the development of virtuous characters, as claimed by the virtue ethicists.

Whichever you choose, the difference between all these systems of ethics and hedonism is their allegiance to the summum bonum, the common good, irrespective of one's own best interests.

Best wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 22 by 2ndRateMind]

I asked this because you took one character trait (belief there is no after life) and immediately jumped to talking about we might as well be hogging all the wealth and power. You linked one with the other but gave no connection at all, no reason to think so, no reason to consider that one would automatically follow the other.

I would have thought the connection obvious. If there were no earthly justice system, no police, no judiciary, no penal estate, why should anyone obey the law?

But all earthly justice systems are imperfect, and some are not punished when they should be, and some are punished when they should not be. So, to right these wrongs requires an afterlife, and not to right them would just be wrong. The latter is incompatible with the notion of the infinitely perfect God in which I believe.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by 2ndRateMind]

I asked this because you took one character trait (belief there is no after life) and immediately jumped to talking about we might as well be hogging all the wealth and power. You linked one with the other but gave no connection at all, no reason to think so, no reason to consider that one would automatically follow the other.

I would have thought the connection obvious. If there were no earthly justice system, no police, no judiciary, no penal estate, why should anyone obey the law?

But all earthly justice systems are imperfect, and some are not punished when they should be, and some are punished when they should not be. So, to right these wrongs requires an afterlife, and not to right them would just be wrong. The latter is incompatible with the notion of the infinitely perfect God in which I believe.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Why should anyone obey the law

Why not? Why do you take this stance that the only reason people obey the law is if there is a a police/judges/prisons. What you forget out of your calculations is that even in this world, a world that has all these things, there is still plenty of crime. Please tell me about the Christians who never break a law or a religious commandment. I won't be holding my breath though.

But all earthly justice systems are imperfect, and some are not punished when they should be, and some are punished when they should not be.

This description fits your religion as well. King David conducts a census and thousands of other people are punished in his place. The God of the Bible has a lousy justice system, even when compared to our own. When do human justice systems say "This guy we find guilty, therefore thousands of people are to be sentenced to death"?

For your criticisms to stick, they had best be accurate, and also it would help if you weren't throwing stones in glass houses.

So, to right these wrongs requires an afterlife

What's preventing your all powerful god from righting these wrongs right now? Please think about what you want to say before you say it. WHY does it require an afterlife?

In case you haven't learned this about me, I tend to question more or less everything. Statements like the above that you just throw out I will question.

The latter is incompatible with the notion of the infinitely perfect God in which I believe.

That's funny, I say something similar. How would I word it? "Christianity is incompatible with the notion of an infinitely perfect god, in terms of abilities, kindness, mercy and justice"
Again, please think about what it is you say before you say it. You call your god "infinitely perfect", but prior to this, you demand of him that he apparently is incapable of righting wrongs in this life, that he has to resort to an afterlife.
To try to give a rought analogy, it's like you're saying the US is incapable of trying someone for murder, of finding him guilty and locking him away, so therefore, they have to resort to extraditing him to a foreign country. Well...are they incapable? Does the US not have laws against murder on its books, are its courts incapable of adjudicating a murder charge?

Also just to remind you, this thread was about if an afterlife was proven to not be real. You began this latest response by talking about if there was no earthly justice system. Our justice system, our courts and police and judges, would still exist even in this hypothetical world where there most definitely is no afterlife.

[2ndRateMind]

I would have thought the connection obvious. If there were no earthly justice system, no police, no judiciary, no penal estate, why should anyone obey the law?

Why not? Why do you take this stance that the only reason people obey the law is if there is a a police/judges/prisons. What you forget out of your calculations is that even in this world, a world that has all these things, there is still plenty of crime. Please tell me about the Christians who never break a law or a religious commandment. I won't be holding my breath though...

...Also just to remind you, this thread was about if an afterlife was proven to not be real. You began this latest response by talking about if there was no earthly justice system. Our justice system, our courts and police and judges, would still exist even in this hypothetical world where there most definitely is no afterlife.

Exactly. If even Christian criminals perpetrate injustice, and commit crime, and are broken sinners, despite proximate earthly justice systems, how much more do we need an afterlife to right such wrongs? And is anyone more likely to live a better life, if it could be shown there is no afterlife?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 29 by 2ndRateMind]

If even Christian criminals perpetrate injustice, and commit crime, and are broken sinners, despite proximate earthly justice systems,

And despite their belief in a god and an afterlife and a reckoning...you left that out. When it comes to criminality, I fail to see how the existence or non-existence of an afterlife changes anything at all.

how much more do we need an afterlife to right such wrongs?

Do we need an afterlife? How would it help? Let's invert the OP. Let's say the existence of an afterlife is proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt. How would you react? How would others react? What would change?