Continuation of 'Going to Heaven' thread

[SorcererGaheris]

I was taking part in the discussion and bringing a pagan polytheistic perspective (which is very much a minority in these sorts of discussions.)

@Mistyglade

Speaking as a person with religious views here (I am a polytheist pagan occultist) - I personally do appreciate the planet (well, the nice bits, anyway.) A lot of Pagans enormously appreciate the beauty of the physical world, as respect for nature is built into a number of pagan practices (but paganism is so big and diverse that you don't have to venerate nature in order to be a pagan - I'm just pointing out that a love of nature is quite common.)

Regarding blowing things up, I don't think you'll find any reports of pagan polytheists doing any such thing, so...

I don't think the present is less important than the hypothetical afterlife. (I also don't believe in the concept of a Heaven/Hell or places of eternal reward or punishment.)

However, some people do like to think about the concept of a life continuing on from this one and try to formulate their perspective on it. I would argue that there are justifiable reasons to believe in some kind of afterlife; people have personal experiences which they interpret to suggest that there is some continuation of life. There are people who have experiences in which they appear to have contact from deceased spirits (mediums.) Parapsychology research into mediumship has yielded some data which suggests that at least some mediums might be communicating with something/someone beyond this world.

"Religion has caused so much harm and conflict around the world, life would be safer and happier without it."

@Parker231

The issue with making it about "religion" as a blanket statement is that I can think of various religions which have no history of causing harm or conflict around the world.

Modern Neo-Paganism
Modern Druidry
The Indigenous Fairy Faith (referring here specifically to the fairy faith of the UK/Celtic nations.)
Various Native American religions

These religions have caused no conflict or harm for the world at large, so the world could not objectively be said to be better if they were absent.

"I am happy because things are going to be great once I'm dead though I am a disgusting and worthless being right now" is quite the sell

In response to @MasterBeth 's comment above (on the other thread), I don't think I'm disgusting and worthless. I'm priceless because Jesus paid the highest price and gave his life for me.

@SorcererGaheris thank you for continuing the thread

You're welcome, I'm glad that your faith brings you such happiness. :)

I would argue that there are justifiable reasons to believe in some kind of afterlife; people have personal experiences which they interpret to suggest that there is some continuation of life. There are people who have experiences in which they appear to have contact from deceased spirits (mediums.) Parapsychology research into mediumship has yielded some data which suggests that at least some mediums might be communicating with something/someone beyond this world.

There is absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever for an afterlife of any kind.

I think that people have differing standards as to what constitutes credible evidence for them.

The forms of evidence I mentioned are not credible to you and many others.

Other people (like me) do see them as credible. Basically, we each come to our own conclusions/decisions as to what we personally define for ourselves as acceptable evidence.

We’re all priceless but some of us don’t need a god to do good things and be a great person.

What positive things have the religions you have listed given to us?

More mainstream religions have done nothing but cause conflicts around the world.

Yes. Adult morality strives towards fair, just and responsible behaviour, without the carrot of heaven or the stick of hell, or indeed the idea that some supernatural being is keeping a naughty list.

@SorcererGaheris -- 'credible' evidence isn't a subjective matter. That's one of the main points of science.

@CocklesandMuscles I would say that what different individuals consider to be credible evidence is subjective.

People define and set their own evidentiary standards. Some people will only take scientific evidence, or certain levels of scientific evidence. Other people will include non-scientific forms of evidence in their personal standards.

"What positive things have the religions you have listed given to us?"

@Parker231

Well, they naturally haven't given anything positive to people who don't believe in them or engage with them. (To those who do practice and engage with them, it's a different matter.)

Pagan religions don't exist for the benefit of non-believers and it is not their purpose to deliver anything positive to non-believers. My point is that these particular religions do not have a negative impact on the larger world or society, and so it would be incorrect to say that the world would be a safer, happier place without these particular religions. If Modern Paganism, Modern Druidry, the Fairy Faith, etc, did not exist, the world would be no better off, nor would it be worse off.

"Non-scientific forms of evidence" is quite literally an oxymoron.

If there were any credible evidence that there was an afterlife, it would have romped home with the $1m James Randi prize. Mysteriously, the prize is unclaimed.

I am deeply puzzled as to why highly religious people who believe they will go to a better place when they die still swallow pills to keep them alive, want to be resuscitated if they collapse, take active steps to live longer - strange or what?

If heaven were a real thing surely a logical god would stick us all there in the first place and cut out the middle stage ...........

@thehorsesareallidiots

In what way is it an oxymoron? Scientific evidence is just one form of evidence, there are other kinds.

In law, for example, personal experience/witness testimony is considered a form of evidence. (A weaker form of evidence, yes, but it is still considered evidence.) Witness testimony is by nature not scientific.

Are you really puzzled by this? I'm not religious but people who are tend to believe that life is god-given and precious. That life is meant to be lived and it has a purpose.

You're calling modern neopaganism a religion, but surely it's the definition of making it up as you go along? It's old paganism, but we don't like the human sacrifice side of things, so we'll leave that out. And we know how thunder and lightning are made, so we'll exclude weather gods.. . . so we'll just believe the nice bits that don't contradict science (except when we just believe it because our standard of evidence is lower than yours). At least the big religions are based on old books. Does it not just seem pointless?

But we aren't in a court of law trying to adjudicate on the balance of probabilities. We're trying to determine whether the supernatural exists or not, which is a question that requires a scientific approach to evidence. Especially given the many entirely mundane explanations for "supernatural" phenomena, like the placebo effect, and human suggestibility, and the known bug in human brains with basically not being able to cope with chaos and ascribing meaning and narrative to the totally random. All of which are... scientifically documented.

You can choose to believe without evidence, or in defiance of evidence. That's your prerogative. But claiming that there are "non-scientific forms of evidence" that support your beliefs is just what cranks and con artists have always done - basically, when challenged, shift the goalposts and retreat into untestable positions. Claim the mantle of science and throw around the word "evidence" until they're actually challenged on a scientific basis, and then suddenly science is deeply flawed and "evidence" means whatever they want it to mean.

I am puzzled still.

I see that they think Iife is god given; I am just asking why he/she/it might not cut out the middle stage and spare his chosen folk all the suffering involved in being alive. The only other conclusion is that this god sees life as a sort of test - which is simply perverse and cruel; and even I, with no belief in god, would not expect that of a "loving" and presumably vastly intelligent being. Why would they do that?

There is no point to life except that which we make for ourselves, and for me that is about care and concern for others. I know nothing about god/heaven/meaning of life and simply accept that this is the human condition. I embrace the not knowing as a simple fact and just get on with doing the best I can for those around me.

@KrisAkabusi

Modern paganism is based in older paganism, but because we live in a different society and there are gaps in knowledge of how certain ancient pagans practiced (the Druids never left written records, for example) it is only natural that we have to adapt our practice to the here and now. That's part of a living, evolving faith.

Also, the weather gods (and other gods) are not excluded. Atheist pagans excepted (and yes, atheist pagans are a thing) pagans largely believe in the existence of those gods and goddesses, we just don't believe that they control/create the weather.

This thread is so oddly timed. DH and I have very rarely spoken about this sort of stuff in 20 years!

We’re both non religious, but in the last week we have shared weird and wonderful ideas of life, origin of life and what happens next (if anything!). We have had some almighty and heavy going discussions.

there’s a lot of big words floating around on this thread and I have no idea what any of them mean. But following nonetheless as it’s fascinating!

I think it's fine to have belief in a God of your choosing and all the tenets that go with that. Belief by an individual has caused little harm, however organised religions have caused irreparable harm all over the world.

I think I am a bit spiritual, with a wonder for nature and science. I respect people's beliefs until they harm me and the world around me.

Organised religions are out for me, they are a masquerade for mysoginy and control by men.

@thehorsesareallidiots with regards to this bit: 'We're trying to determine whether the supernatural exists or not, which is a question that requires a scientific approach to evidence.'

Science studies the natural world only. It can have nothing to do with the supernatural.

@thehorsesareallidiots

I never said that science is deeply flawed. I merely said that scientific evidence isn't the only kind of evidence there is.

I don't agree that the question of deities/afterlife/magic/etc, requires a scientific approach to evidence ALONE. Scientific approaches can (and should, if possible) be included, but I think that other kinds of evidence (such as people's lived experiences) are also legitimate to take into account.

If you don't see those as legitimate, then fair enough. I am just stating that when it comes to the realm of the metaphysical/mystical, I personally see multiple forms of evidence as appropriate to take into account. Both scientific and non-scientific. Since there is currently no scientific evidence for deities, my belief in deities in based entirely in the witness testimony of others who report experiences, and my own personal experiences.

@Crispsandrubixcubes Which words/terms? I'm happy to try to add some insight, if I have an understanding of them.

@Mischance

Religious people don't all necessarily believe that life is given by the Gods.

I think that's a common view in monotheism, but as a pagan polytheist, while I certainly believe all the deities exist, I do not think they gave me (or anyone else) life in the physical realm. I don't see deities as in complete or total control (polytheist have different sets of premises regarding the Gods and don't see them as all-knowing or all-powerful, for one.)

I do think that the spirit world is probably going to be better world than this one, and in this time period/timeline, there are numerous occasions when I actively look forward to getting there.