h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi.

If there's a question on ones mind, can it be posted here and considered by the esteemed guild-members? Or does one have to join to post questions?

Thats all ready two questions, I know...

-KimotoCat

You can post here sure!!! I dunno how many people will answer - I think only 3 of us are subscribed to this page!!!

~Skenvoy

Ask away. Even if you only get a couple of replies it may be enough to point you in the right direction.

Noggin

Never underestimate the number of lurkers!

Fire ahead.

Capital Punishment

Well then...
This is not an attempt at discussing the death-sentence, rather an aspect of it that has come to my mind. I’ll try if I can put it to words:
In the USA, where the death-sentence is carried out regularly, part of the last “ceremony” surrounding it is the right for the condemned to see a priest of his or her religion. To amend, I suppose. This rite is to prepare the soul of the condemned to the afterlife. To set the way and redeem as well as one can, I suppose.
When the condemned is executed – killed – this ends that person’s life in this World of mortal men. But the soul then goes on to the afterlife, whatever that may hold. Right? Or at least, we suppose so.
But if the condemned is not religious – if he or she is a declared atheist – then what?

My philosophical question is this:
If a condemned Christian (or other religion, the belief is not the point here) is executed, that person is presumably set before his or her maker and can continue to Heaven, Hell, Nirvana, reincarnation or whatever this person beliefs in, presuming he/she is right...
BUT – if the condemned believes firmly in NOTHING, that the end of this life is the end of the individuals entire being, does that then not constitute a gross difference in the level of punishment to a, say, Christian person and an atheist?
The former has something to “go on to”, whereas the latter UTTERLY and for ever ENDS?

I’m not sure if I’ve managed to put this to words in a precise manner – I am a Dane, not a native English-speaker – but I have just been pondering this philosophical / metaphysical difference in the level of punishment as a, to me, increasingly important part of the entire death-sentence-debate.
What do you think, oh hallowed philosophers of the H2G2?

Your thoughtful - KC

Well the way I see it an atheist already accepts that there is nothing after life so therefore it is, for them, moving onto the next step.

While cristians believe in heaven and hell an atheist believes there is nothing, so they are still moving on to the next step, it is just a different step tehy believe they are moving on to. You could consider the argument is it worse for someone who believes in an after life or reincarnation? There are opposite view points here: it could be considered worse for the person who believes in reincarnation as they will believe they must come back to a world full of pain and suffering, while the person who believes in the afterlife will believe they will be moving onto a better place (or worse but most people would wish to believe they are going to a better place).

On the other hand the person who believes in an after life could be said to be worse off as they will believe that they will not be living in the world again - most people say they want more time - while the person who believes in reincarnation will seem better off as they believe they will have more time.

So it all depends on your point of view as to whether or not it is worse for an atheist. What religion are you? Talk to some atheists and ask them what they believe comes after death... I know some atheists who believe in reincarnation, or an after life though they don't believe in a god, while I know others who believe there is nothing after life. With the ones who believe in nothing after life ask them what they feel about it... you should get some interesting responses... also ask them what they feel about death anyway - many religious people say they will accept the end anyway while many atheists who believe there is nothing after life wish they could live forever...

Whatever our beliefs the end comes for us sometime... it is our belief that determines how well we accept it.

~Skenvoy

This is a beautiful question and very well put.

The trouble with believing in an afterlife is that anyone speeding you on your way is doing you a favour. The only reason not to kill people, if one has this belief, is that it is going to decrease the killer's status in the afterlife -- the victim is definitely the winner.

This should be enough to persuade governments to abolish the death sentence, as all civilised governments have done.

The rights of atheists are simply not considered. This is also an anomaly, as the effect of afterlife-belief should be to reduce the value of this life, and as you imply, to increase the atheist's valuation of this life.

However what we are talking about in talking of an afterlife is not a literal continuation. It has to do with how we live this life, not any other.

Even in countries where religion is well separated from government, an assumption is made that religious views are more sacred than non-religious views. For the anti-religious, the message is "Tough luck; you chose annihilation, that's what you get."

O sinner man where you gonna run to, all on that day?
Run to the rock, Rock won't you hide me? . . .
Rock said Sinner man you should have been a-praying . . .

The upshot is: if you don't invest in a future you have no rights. This is one reason why religion (despite the best efforts of Douglas Adams, Richard Dawkins and others) will never go away. So we'd better learn to get a handle on it.

maybe since you don't believe in anything, maybe you go to a place where nothing believes in you. (or would that be earth)

If a dead person is truly to be judged by his / her God, then imagine this:

If he has committed a henious crime and just, sooner or later, dies; will he then not be punished by his deity? (If, in deed, said deity is "into" punishment?)
But if he has done something nasty and is tortured, maimed and then executed, could we argue that just punishment has allready been meeted out and that we, mortals, punishers, thus have done our best to secure the blessings of the soul, once he stands before his Maker?

Or is this just a load of [I entered a nasty word, but I fear the Moderators just as much as any Guide-user!]?


Mind you, I am NOT pro neither capital punishment or torture under ANY form.

-KC

but shuerly if you did something evil on earth, than you would be doing the devils wishes and so when you went to hell the devil (of whatever sort) would reward you.

Hmmm...

Consider this: Even good people sometimes do bad things!

We all do, we just don't always admit it. And we surely do not all do extremely henious things.

I hope...

-KC

I think you are absolutely right to conclude that anyone who punishes a wrong-doer takes on full responsibility for his crime.

Those who make the bible the basis of their law should note that the bible specifically orders us not to punish anyone, but to leave all judgment to the Lord: Revelations 22:11.

The question assumes Terry Pratchett's doctrine that each person gets the afterlife they believe in.

If, however, everybody goes to heaven, then execution is desirable for Christian and atheist alike. If everybody faces oblivion, then execution is (usually) undesirable for both. If all murderers go to hell, same applies.

In fact the unfairness only seems to arise if the repentant Christian murderers go to heaven and the atheist murderers go to hell. Perhaps atheist murderers should be given time to convert, or Christian murderers executed before they have time to repent. Or perhaps this is getting a little bit silly.

There are three approaches to heaven:

1 It is out of this world and therefore we can make no sensible statements about it at all in this world-bound language we use.

2 It represents order, as hell represents chaos, but both are equally fatal. Life happens in the crack between order and chaos. Longing for more order is a consequence of seeing 'too much chaos' in the world. Actually there is just the right amount of chaos, otherwise we'd all have died out long ago.

3 I have privileged knowledge of heaven which I divulge to the faithful for a living.

Of these number three is false (please *don't* get in touch).

Number two is based on Stuart Kaufmann's book "At Home in the Universe" which I recommend. What he says is largely what Pythagoras said, only Kaufmann's maths is more up to date.

Number one is the attitude of Wittgenstein in his younger (Tractatus) days. It does not however make nonsense of living well in order to get to heaven, even though arriving in heaven is in no way guaranteed. The imortant thing is to live in such a way as to be *getting ever closer*. Old age is not to be backward- but forward-looking.

Beyond that, yes, it does look like getting a little bit silly.

See about Wittgenstein in A1024156 'Ludwig Wittgenstein'

<I was grasped by the phrase: (If he has committed a henious crime and just, sooner or later, dies; will he then not be punished by his deity? (If, in deed, said deity is "into" punishment?)
But if he has done something nasty and is tortured, maimed and then executed, could we argue that just punishment has allready been meeted out and that we, mortals, punishers, thus have done our best to secure the blessings of the soul, once he stands before his Maker?)

As a believer of some critised 'major' religion I do believe that some-one shall be punished by GOD (it is the shortest term for deity). So I always critise Humans punishing Humans with Capital Punishment, there I question our moral constitutions on which we base our judgements. As humans we cannot be able to oversee the concequences of our judgement, nor shall we be able to be totaly independent and unprejudicial! Sofar my attack on Capital Punishment and human ability to judge at all.

To come to the original question, I think that an atheist is not harder punished nor softer than a spiritual person (wheter the latets believe in a Heaven/Hell construction or an Reincarnation system!), there for all their common life ends, shall be continued in an eternal punishment or repeated allover again!

Caital punishment is a fascinating problem. The more you think about it the less sense it makes; its only possible justification is to save the expense of keeping convicts imprisoned. Otherwise it's simply tribal war.

It seems there is no deterrent to crime. But there do seem to be places where crime is less common; what can we learn from these? Michael Moore favours Canada. What are the Canadians doing right?

Life goes on. No place is safe, but some places are extremely unsafe.

Of course there's another attitude to heaven: denial

4 Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try

But the upshot of that is "You come from nothing, you go back to nothing, what have you lost? Nothing!"

It constitutes no grounds for claiming that atheists lose more than others when they lose their life.

Something odd about the phrase "lose their life" -- as the man said (A1024156) "Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through."

You can't lose your life the way you can lose your shirt: you're not there to miss it. The world loses you. Can your world exist without you?