I Won't Be "Going To A Better Place"
When I'm dead, I'll just be dead and be eaten by worms. Well, that's all there's evidence for, anyway. No evidence there's a heaven, no evidence there's a hell.
That sort of thinking is probably what motivated Arthur C. Clarke to order up a funeral without the mumbo-jumbo. I'd like the same, thanks. Ideally, later rather than sooner.
And another visonary has died leaving the world perceptively dimmer in an age where reason and foresight and imagination are almost universally scorned.
lujlp at March 24, 2008 12:17 AM
Also there is nothing on your new 'all about amy' page
lujlp at March 24, 2008 12:22 AM
Damn, wrong page
lujlp at March 24, 2008 12:24 AM
Haven't even looked at that in eons. I have to update a few things around this place. I mean, other than my blog, which is my focus.
Amy Alkon at March 24, 2008 12:30 AM
There is no need for Sir Arthur to be heralded any more than he has for what he has done. You might have noticed that due to the time difference, the man even died in the future!
Radwaste at March 24, 2008 2:59 AM
1:4:9, Sir Arthur! But let's not forget that religion has a practical side.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 24, 2008 7:33 AM
I'm pretty sure this is how I was conceived, by the way. The files at the adoption agency were heavily redacted but I can read between the lines.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at March 24, 2008 8:05 AM
No evidence of a heaven. No evidence of a hell. No evidence that it's like sleeping either though.
Maybe being dead is awesome. Maybe it sucks. Maybe its nothing. Maybe its everything.
Who knows? The dead know, but they're not talking.
flighty at March 24, 2008 2:42 PM
Its not so hard to believe there is an afterlife, sure it can be said that there is "no evidence", but that is assuming one willingly discounts the stories of those whom have come closer to death than any but the dead, and survived. Is it conclusive proof of an afterlife? No. Have all of those incidents been explainable? No.
There's alot we can't explain, and alot we may never know. Most of what I've found when it comes to the confidence of atheism, is that the absolute certainty that there is nothing more, is as great a comfort to them, as the belief that there is something afterwards, is to those of a religious mindset.
Each posseses its own brand of zealotry in the comfort that the chosen belief provides to the believer. Neither can be proven with science, because science requires the repetition of tests, and one cannot test that subject matter. The common argument "there's no proof" requires the dismissal of many testimonials to spiritual or near death experiences, this then simply means, "there is no proof that I will accept."
On the other hand, one may just as easily argue, without resorting to disputable evidence, that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, there lies basic logic. As it cannot be a science either, we are left with that which we each consider to be the truth, with the irony being that atheists are as religious in their devotion to nothingness, as those of a religious mind are to their perception of a higher power.
Meanwhile, we of the more agnostic variety, get to enjoy a private little laugh at the furor of either side, simply say, "maybe, maybe not", and be moral, even spiritual, without being obsessive. *sl*
No offense Amy. ;) Its all in good fun.
On a side note, I married a woman who is decidedly atheist, a delightful one she is, even if a bit nutty on that subject.
Robert H. Butler at March 31, 2008 2:39 AM
Leave a comment