Epicurus The Greek Philosopher

If you don't know who this is, he lived from 341–270 BC

His ideology was still in practice well into the 1st century as his followers are actually quoted in the bible by the Apostle Paul.
He is perhaps one of the very first known ashiest's

On life after death this was the ideology.

1.Death is annihilation.
2.The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn’t be alive).
3.Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)
4.So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)
5.For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.
6.The dead do not exist. (from 1)
7.Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)
8.Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7)

If you would like to learn more about him and his idea's it can be found here
Epicurus

I think the 21st century evolutionist has much in common with the Epicureans.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
Well, he didn't have me to debate with otherwise I would have said " you're wrong on 3. and 4. therefore 5. 6. 7. 8. are moot points". Death does affect the living and death is bad for the living. Why?
Because death cuts short the living part (in answer to 3.) and in doing so death is bad for the living ( in answer to 4.).

Not sure how to get around the whole "energy cannot be simply created or destroyed" thing. If it's proven otherwise I'd give the idea of death being "annihilation" more credit.

a reply to: crayzeed

My only point with this, is this ideology is going in the correct direction.
Compared to the middle century clergy of Christendom which scared people with hellfire and purgatory.

Some of that is still with us today.
I personally believe # 6, but with a hope.

Death is like being stuck in the buffer zone of a Stargate, being completely broken down to the atomic level you can't be alive in those moments.

When you figure out God has the ability to hold you within that buffer zone of death for millenniums, and re-assemble you just like stargate tech at his given time.
Explained here at about 5:30

Death is.


Duh.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
Sitting here in limbo.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

When the bible describes “hell” as a fire and people are thrown into the fire, the person is consumed, destroyed, like chaff, no more, nothing.
The Greeks were pretty big on eternal life pre christianity, contrarily Judaism didn’t acknowledge an afterlife
It wasn’t till christianity was greekified that eternal punishment became popular, like as you say “middle century clergy” made eternal hell popular
Biblically I can’t find any evidence hell is eternal for humanity

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

What's an ashiest?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Catholics on the first day of Lent.


Boom..chhh.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

What's an ashiest?

I guess my spell checker died, and doesn't exist anymore.......atheist

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
There is no death to come.......
This is life/death.

Kahlil Gibran.....On Death.

Then Almitra spoke, saying, We would ask now of Death.
And he said:
You would know the secret of death.
But how shall you find it unless you seek it in the heart of life?
The owl whose night-bound eyes are blind unto the day cannot unveil the mystery of light.
If you would indeed behold the spirit of death, open your heart wide unto the body of life.
For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one.

There is more to this poem:
On Death by Kahlil Gibran - Poems | Academy of American Poets
poets.org...

Since this is an Epicurus thread, it's only appropriate to drop a relevant quote from his publications.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

a reply to: TzarChasm
What is appearing as reality is more powerful than any thought that says it could or should be different.

King Canute was a king and he could not stop the tide from coming in.