LibriumArcana.Games

I was talking with my mother the other day, and she mentioned how when one of my aunts was dying, her son was patting her hand and telling her that she was going to Heaven. He kept repeating 'streets paved with gold' over and over, and for my mother it was one of those 'focus on strange details' kind of moments. Specifically she started wondering about the whole concept of 'Streets paved with gold' and why that would actually be an attractive concept.

I mean obviously it's a figurative concept- gold would be a lousy paving surface and if you have enough of it to slop around paving streets it's not even valuable.

But it really does raise the question of what people would consider to be a real eternal utopia. It's a wide-open question- for the atheists, whether you'd want to or not, what would be your ideal place if you had to choose some sort of eternal life. For the believers, what do you functionally envision the eternal reward to be?

When our conversation rolled that way, the smartass answer off the top of my head was 'Somewhere with a lot of bandwidth. Plumbing that never leaks, roofs that never need fixing, and dishes that magically wash themselves.'

But as pop-off answers go, it's pretty much spot on for what I'd want. An existence where a lot of the bullshit day to day was handled. Stretching further than my own quality of life concerns, I'd want a world free of disease, starvation, contaminated water, etc.

I wouldn't want an existence that fundamentally altered the human state, though. While I'd like one that had freedom from hate, I wouldn't want to change people so they were no longer assholes, just make it so others didn't have to suffer from their assholeishness. So no child molesting and no genocides, etc.

Of course the problem with the infinite existence is that there is a finite amount of experience, but I figure we'd have a long-ass time to figure out what to do about that one.

I am an atheist, not a deist by another name. Asking atheists what their vision of "heaven" is betrays something of a misunderstanding as to the nature of atheism. It is my fundamental assertion that heaven does not exist, and thus any attempt I make to come up with one is pure fantasy informed by the cultural mythologies I've grown up around.

I have no vision of heaven that is not borrowed from some theistic conception that somebody else came up with, be it white clouds or perfect watchmakers. And even if I did have one that was wholly my own, I do not regard it as credible or real. One might as well ask Jews or Zoroastrians what their vision of Jesus' teachings are. They may well have one, but the question is irrelevant in their worldview.

Anywhere that lets me continue existing, that is not so miserable and painful i would beg for oblivion, is heaven enough for me.

I always considered the whole "paved in gold" to be along the lines of Canaan as the "land of milk & honey". Hyperbole, perhaps even a phrase of the time that we've lost the meaning for (like the "faith is like a mustard seed" bit -- culturally mustard was seen like kudzu today: useful, but you couldn't get rid of it).

I like the idea of heaven more as the Celtic Green Fields. You and your family reunited, living in a nice little community with a garden and trees and plenty of places to just sit and relax and chat and visit with friends and neighbors.
Rather like growing up in WV, actually... maybe we are Almost Heaven.

Heaven I think would be a bit like Norway, except we'd have this vast eastern coastline.

General Havoc wrote:I am an atheist, not a deist by another name. Asking atheists what their vision of "heaven" is betrays something of a misunderstanding as to the nature of atheism. It is my fundamental assertion that heaven does not exist, and thus any attempt I make to come up with one is pure fantasy informed by the cultural mythologies I've grown up around.

I have no vision of heaven that is not borrowed from some theistic conception that somebody else came up with, be it white clouds or perfect watchmakers. And even if I did have one that was wholly my own, I do not regard it as credible or real. One might as well ask Jews or Zoroastrians what their vision of Jesus' teachings are. They may well have one, but the question is irrelevant in their worldview.

Apparently I missed the download from the atheist hivemind prohibiting thought exercises.

If it helps, take the word 'heaven' out of it and think of it as 'ideal eternal existence', which I figured was articulated in the OP.

Or, y'know, spend a couple of paragraphs telling another atheist that he doesn't understand atheism.

Don't make me cite the Wikipedia definition on you.

Josh wrote:Apparently I missed the download from the atheist hivemind prohibiting thought exercises.

If it helps, take the word 'heaven' out of it and think of it as 'ideal eternal existence', which I figured was articulated in the OP.

Or, y'know, spend a couple of paragraphs telling another atheist that he doesn't understand atheism.

Don't make me cite the Wikipedia definition on you.

Oh for the love of... I never said anything about what you or anyone else is allowed to think. But you asked for atheists to post what their opinions are of a theological concept. I, an atheist, do not have one, and explained why. If you, or another atheist do, then that's fine, but the fact that I do not have one is not an attack on you or anyone else. You specifically asked for people like me (atheists) to answer you. And then when I do, you accuse me of both imposing a hive-mind on you and also with violating some wikipedia definition?

If you can find a way to square whatever you believe with the concept of heaven, just as everyone else here has, then that's fine. My beliefs preclude the existence of a heaven, even in theory, and I have no conception of one as a result. I would not even know where to begin to generate one, and even if I did manage to, it would be a false analogy derived from somebody else's beliefs or concept that I do not share. My stating all that, particularly in response to a direct question aimed at me, neither attacks you or anybody else. And if you don't want me to state as much, don't post public questions in which you ask me to do so.

One of these days, you guys are either gonna have to go out on a date or a duel. Your choice.

Both?

Josh wrote:Both?

... can... can we go to minigolf?

General Havoc wrote:

Josh wrote:Both?

... can... can we go to minigolf?

Of course you'd pick my one vulnerability- golf. And as a banker you have an inherent advantage even if you've never played.

Very cunning, fucker.

Okay, so, putters at dawn on the site of Pirates Cove Adventure Golf? Standard 18 hole minigolf: least strokes wins, and only strokes the connect with the golf ball count. Strokes connecting with things such as your opponents legs, arms, balls, or head, will not be tallied. We want a clean, by the book golf game here so no kicking, biting, or eye gauging, and no weapons allowed save the putters. Helmets are recommended but not mandatory as safety equipment, but no other armour may be worn. Is this understood? If so may the best man win.

Lys wrote:We want a clean, by the book golf game here so no kicking, biting, or eye gauging, and no weapons allowed save the putters.

We obviously have very different definitions of a 'clean game' here.

At least give me the ear-biting. It's a family tradition and I cannot dishonor my ancestors.