Leaving Jesus is not Leaving God!

[Thurisaz]

The message of Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, The Sikh Guru,

and countless others was all the same:

 

There is One God.

 

But it is not the only message there is out there. And depending on the attributes of that "god", the message can be mindbogglingly absurd.

 

How can one say there is no God?

Simply look at the sky, or the grass, or the trees.

Surely you will see God's Shine.

 

Actually, I see the irrefutable evidence for the existence of... the Aesir and Vanir pantheons. Oh, you disagree? Well, feel free to provide your evidence that there is but one Divine force out there.

 

Waiting...

 

 

 

...waiting...

 

 

I went from religion to religion, trying to find a 'home', I was a Satanist

for some time, then a general pagan. I don't dispute anyone's claims,

everyone believes what they're supposed to believe at that time.

And I don't consider my belief to be the only or right one. It's just

one belief.

 

[...]

 

Oh, and also, I AM without religion, as religion has lost the way.

I am simply with my Unseen Friend

 

Oh. I see that I may have been a bit too harsh with you in my previous comment. Unless you are a good liar here (always a possibility ) I guess a mild apology is in order...

 

So: Sorry!

[All Gods Fail]

I figure if there is anything remotely divine, it won't care if we worship it or not. It won't care if we sell it or not. And it would be intelligent enough not to torture people for not buying into the product of religion.

 

No shit - a truly good being wouldn't even want people to worship him/her/it. Why would it? It's perfect - it sure as hell doesn't need it's ego propped up by a bunch of silly primates, living on one little dust speck in the middle of nowhere...

[Open_Minded]

I figure if there is anything remotely divine, it won't care if we worship it or not. It won't care if we sell it or not. And it would be intelligent enough not to torture people for not buying into the product of religion.

 

No shit - a truly good being wouldn't even want people to worship him/her/it. Why would it? It's perfect - it sure as hell doesn't need it's ego propped up by a bunch of silly primates, living on one little dust speck in the middle of nowhere...

 

Ditto this thought process. I could never figure out the need for some Christians to "defend" God or Christ. I mean ... if one really believes Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.. than what defense is needed. It seems absurd to assume that the Alpha and Omega, should need defending anymore than the universe itself needs defending.

[Antlerman]

Ok, addressing their premise that if people only look for God they will find him. Same approach holds true for anything you want to find. Not proof God, but proof of humans seeing what they want to believe....

Such as believing there is no god

 

You want to believe there is no God that is exactly what you will find. NOTHING - NO GOD WHATSOEVER.

 

Proof of God's non-existence holds no more water than proof of God's existence. And please do not think I'm challenging you in a duel here... I don't believe in the literal bible god any more than you do.

Alright, no duel, well not too much of one anyway. I do want to point out of course the common misunderstanding that atheism is a belief. It is not a belief, nor is finding or looking for proof of the non-existence of anything logical or required. "Atheism" is the absence of belief in the absence of evidence. The "proof" is the absence. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim of supernatural, not the skeptic to disprove such claims. If pressed, I would say prove there is not a invisible gorilla living on the roof of your house. You can't prove there's not, so therefore your choosing to not see." Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? My favorite quote I heard one time, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Does this help clarify? I'm not seeing what I want to, I'm accepting nothing without good reason. That's different.

 

Note: I'm really not entierely as cynical as this, but I want to make a point that they're being just a tad overly idealistic, and unrealistic. It's just another religion with a new product to sell to this generations of consumers.

I hope not

 

I hope you can find wonder somewhere in your life, maybe in science, maybe in nature

 

When I suggested checking out World Scripture I did not suggest converting, I did not suggest that it was the end all and be all, that it had all the answers, etc....

 

I merely suggested it as a resource.

Thanks. I do. It is a struggle for me to be open spiritually without the baggage of religious doctrines and theology rearing its nagging head out of my past. I am an atheist, and from there I explore and pursue the wonders of this life we have through many avenues, contemplation, music, art, living. It does not take a religious symbol for me in order to find those things, but I do understand how those symbols operate in people’s lives for this end. My grievance is when those symbols position themselves in opposition to the rest of what makes us a whole human being, namely intelligence, reason, and freedom of choices without threats.

 

Where the symbols fail for me in the article you linked to was its premise of using rationality to justify it. That was my point in attacking it. I do not mean to offend your effort, but I tend to use a big stick when it comes to these issues. I do not believe it is ultimately healthy for people to use rationality in dealing with mythologies. BTW, that term is not an offensive term like calling it "a great big myth" as meaning a fabricated lie. Mythology is simply a category and there's nothing offensive about the term.

 

Does this make sense at all?

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

Thanks, Antlerman.....you spared me writing a long post saying

basically what you said!

 

[Open_Minded]

Alright, no duel, well not too much of one anyway. I do want to point out of course the common misunderstanding that atheism is a belief. It is not a belief, nor is finding or looking for proof of the non-existence of anything logical or required. "Atheism" is the absence of belief in the absence of evidence.

 

OK... and I'm just asking so that I can understand your position better Amethyst wrote the following

 

Now granted, I realize you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god doesn't exist (which is why I'm agnostic, not atheist), but I'm not going to bow down and worship something that I can't even see just in case it's there, or just in case there is some sort of afterlife.

 

So... if we are going by pure logic... no subjective reasoning or personal biases involved why do you call yourself an atheist (there is no god) rather than an agnostic (unwilling to believe there is a god because there is no logical or concrete proof). Keeping in mind here, that one's definition of "god" is a completely different discussion. If "'Atheism' is the absence of belief in the absence of evidence." then this puts you more in the category of an agnostic... does it not? From my current perspective, using only logic (2 + 2 = 4), the agnostic position is the position most based on objective reasoning rather than subjective reasoning?

 

Again, this is not a challenge. I am sincerely trying to understand the difference.

 

 

Thanks. I do. It is a struggle for me to be open spiritually without the baggage of religious doctrines and theology rearing its nagging head out of my past. I am an atheist, and from there I explore and pursue the wonders of this life we have through many avenues, contemplation, music, art, living.

 

We have some things in common. How long have you been practicing contemplation and what type of contemplation do you practice?

 

It does not take a religious symbol for me in order to find those things, but I do understand how those symbols operate in people’s lives for this end. My grievance is when those symbols position themselves in opposition to the rest of what makes us a whole human being, namely intelligence, reason, and freedom of choices without threats.

 

Again we have some things in common, it does not take a religious symbol for me to find these things either and like you I find it very frustrating that religous symbols, doctrines, theology, etc... get in the way of the full expression of our human capacities.

 

Where the symbols fail for me in the article you linked to was its premise of using rationality to justify it. That was my point in attacking it. I do not mean to offend your effort, but I tend to use a big stick when it comes to these issues. I do not believe it is ultimately healthy for people to use rationality in dealing with mythologies. BTW, that term is not an offensive term like calling it "a great big myth" as meaning a fabricated lie. Mythology is simply a category and there's nothing offensive about the term. Does this make sense at all?

 

Yes it does make sense... thank you for your explanation. And I understand your use of the term "mythology", I often find myself making that same statement to more traditionally minded Christians.

[Shadfox]

But I know that I feel God again, and this makes me happy, so

I stick with it

 

Oh, and also, I AM without religion, as religion has lost the way.

I am simply with my Unseen Friend

 

 

That's all good for yourself, but what drives you to evangelism?

[DanInPA]

Open Minded,

 

IMO if there is a god or gods, and if it/they want(s) to make itself known to us, then it/they should be able to show every person whatever proof is required to know that it/they exist(s). Not believe, but know for sure.

 

So, going by "pure logic", if a god or gods exist(s) and wanted us to acknowledge it/them, it/they would provide the means to do so to everyone.

 

If it/they cannot do this, then I submit that either there is no god or it/they do not care if we acknowledge its/their existence.

[Antlerman]

OK... and I'm just asking so that I can understand your position better Amethyst wrote the following

 

Now granted, I realize you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god doesn't exist (which is why I'm agnostic, not atheist), but I'm not going to bow down and worship something that I can't even see just in case it's there, or just in case there is some sort of afterlife.

<snip>

Again, this is not a challenge. I am sincerely trying to understand the difference.

With all respect and appreciation to Amethyst, this is a common misunderstanding, if I am hearing that correctly, what atheism is compared to being an agnostic. I have a good friend who calls himself an agnostic, but in practice he is little different then myself. The following article on the Secular Web explains what Atheism is to my satisfaction as to what it means to me. It will save me the labor of putting all this into my words. I think you will find it informative for you:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...of_atheism.html

 

We have some things in common. How long have you been practicing contemplation and what type of contemplation do you practice?

I thought after I used that particular word it might miscomunicate what I was trying to say. I should have used the words: consideration; reflection; ponderance; etc. I don't practice any disciplined meditation myself personally, though I have been encouraged by other secular friends of its benefits. It's not that I find anything strange about it, it's just something I haven't done, and that's all. I do however find great connection and inspiration through nature: Mountains, the sky, the trees, the wind, the stars, the moon, water, the earth as I run my fingers through it, the air, light, sound, breath, and on and on. In that sense I am opening myself up to what is beyond me. I am connected to life and I feel reborn by it. Is this what mediation is? I don't know actually.

 

 

Again we have some things in common, it does not take a religious symbol for me to find these things either and like you I find it very frustrating that religous symbols, doctrines, theology, etc... get in the way of the full expression of our human capacities.

I am very happy to make your acquaintance.

Where the symbols fail for me in the article you linked to was its premise of using rationality to justify it. That was my point in attacking it. I do not mean to offend your effort, but I tend to use a big stick when it comes to these issues. I do not believe it is ultimately healthy for people to use rationality in dealing with mythologies. BTW, that term is not an offensive term like calling it "a great big myth" as meaning a fabricated lie. Mythology is simply a category and there's nothing offensive about the term. Does this make sense at all?

Yes it does make sense... thank you for your explanation. And I understand your use of the term "mythology", I often find myself making that same statement to more traditionally minded Christians.

Very cool. Again, I'm happy to hear this.

[Amethyst]

With all respect and appreciation to Amethyst, this is a common misunderstanding, if I am hearing that correctly, what atheism is compared to being an agnostic. I have a good friend who calls himself an agnostic, but in practice he is little different then myself. The following article on the Secular Web explains what Atheism is to my satisfaction as to what it means to me. It will save me the labor of putting all this into my words. I think you will find it informative for you:

 

From Merriam Webster's dictionary:

 

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic

Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

This is the definition that I go by.

 

Main Entry: athe·ist

Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist

Function: noun

: one who believes that there is no deity

- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective

- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

 

I don't believe for sure that there is no deity, because we will probably never know that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

And I don't want to call myself an atheist because everyone I know will hate me.

[Open_Minded]

The following article on the Secular Web explains what Atheism is to my satisfaction as to what it means to me. It will save me the labor of putting all this into my words. I think you will find it informative for you:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...of_atheism.html

 

Hello Antlerman:

 

I checked out the site you suggested. Thank you for providing the link.

 

The atheist perceives that history, in every branch of science, in the plainly observable realities of life and in the processes of common sense there is no place for the picture of a God; the idea doesn't fit in with a calmly reasoned' and realistic view of life. The atheist, therefore dentes the assumptions of theism because they are mere assumptions and are not proved; whereas the contrary evidences, against the idea of theism, are overwhelming. He takes a clear-cut position. To proclaim himself an agnostic, while to some if might appear more respectable and cautious, would be to say in effect that he hadn't decided what to believe.

 

Antlerman and Amethyst following is an outline of my current understanding. Feel free to pick it apart, truly I'm trying to understand this.

1. An atheist objectively looks at all the evidence available for the existence of a being somewhere in the far reaches of the universe that could be referred to as "god". And when there is an overwhelming lack of evidence, as well as an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary - then the atheist makes a decision. The decision is clear-cut - there is no god.
    
    
   
2. An agnostic objectively looks for evidence of a god and decides that even though there is an overwhelming lack of evidence in favor of god, and even an overwhelming amount of evidence denying the existence of god, still holds open the possiblity because ulitmate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.
    
    
   
3. The difference is as follows: The atheist and agnostic are looking at the same concrete facts. The agnostic does not make any definite conclusions - because the concrete facts do not prove either the existence or non-existence of a god. The atheist comes to a definite conclusion based on the overwhelming weight of the concrete facts at hand against the existence of a god?
   

Does this accurately reflect both of your understandings of anostic/atheists?

[Taphophilia]

I hope you don't mind if I jump in. I'm Agnostic. The way I understand it is that there is no evidence for a god. It is not possible to prove a negative, as in it is impossible to prove that there is no god since that is a negative and impossible to prove.

[Amethyst]

I hope you don't mind if I jump in. I'm Agnostic. The way I understand it is that there is no evidence for a god. It is not possible to prove a negative, as in it is impossible to prove that there is no god since that is a negative and impossible to prove.

 

Yes, this is also why I am agnostic. You can't logically disprove god's existence, just like you can't logically prove god's existence, although there are some here who would argue that. But there are people who would argue that there are no agnostics, just as there are those who would argue that there are no atheists. Certainly there is overlap between the two. I really think it's what you consider yourself that counts.

 

I do not consider myself an atheist yet. I will, however, say that if there is anything even remotely like a god, it's not Biblegod or one from any religion that currently exists on earth. But that doesn't mean that there can't be something else out there.

[Open_Minded]

I hope you don't mind if I jump in. I'm Agnostic. The way I understand it is that there is no evidence for a god. It is not possible to prove a negative, as in it is impossible to prove that there is no god since that is a negative and impossible to prove.

 

Yes, this is also why I am agnostic. You can't logically disprove god's existence, just like you can't logically prove god's existence, although there are some here who would argue that. But there are people who would argue that there are no agnostics, just as there are those who would argue that there are no atheists. Certainly there is overlap between the two. I really think it's what you consider yourself that counts.

 

So... to really simplify things ... again for the sake of understanding...

 

Agreeing that it is not possible to prove a negative then the agnostic is (simply put) takes the position of absolute zero?

 

On the other hand a believer or non-believer (atheist) moves off of absolute zero (or away from the concrete facts at hand) by inserting subjective reasoning - ie (the overwhelming evidence points to "no god" and so there is no god.)?

 

I will, however, say that if there is anything even remotely like a god, it's not Biblegod or one from any religion that currently exists on earth. But that doesn't mean that there can't be something else out there.

 

Back to an earlier part of this thread.... when antlerman took the time to point out a "common misunderstanding" which led to this conversation. Misunderstandings can go both ways, one common understanding that I run into, as a Christian, is that people think my belief in God is a belief in a human-like diety sitting on a throne somewhere in the outer reaches of the universe. It is possible to be Christian and have a broader understanding of God than the literal god many have been exposed to... I agree with you completely, Amethyst, there can be something else out there. I believe there is...

 

To be quite honest... if the only understanding of God available to me were the one outlined above I'd join antlerman and all the other atheists. I would not land at the position of absolute zero I would gladly make the subjective jump from observable fact to the conclusion that no god like this exists. It's laughable

 

And it's frustrating that people make the assumption that this is my understanding of God.

[Amethyst]

Agreeing that it is not possible to prove a negative then the agnostic is (simply put) takes the position of absolute zero?

 

If I understand your post correctly, that's an oversimplification.

 

The agnostic is willing to say "I don't know." We don't really take a position either way, just that it's impossible to prove either way.

 

On the other hand a believer or non-believer (atheist) moves off of absolute zero (or away from the concrete facts at hand) by inserting subjective reasoning - ie (the overwhelming evidence points to "no god" and so there is no god.)?

 

The agnostic also can use subjective reasoning, but our reasoning is that there is not enough evidence to take a position either way. I'd say that an atheist is more at "absolute 0" than anyone else.

[Antlerman]

A quick response before I have a chance to spend some time on this. This breakdown of Atheism may be helpful in definitions:

 

1) Psychological Atheism: This type of atheism is a conscious rejection of the idea of a god, but usually on irrational grounds. An example of Psychological Atheism would be someone who rejects the notion of a god and creator simply due to the fact that they were molested by a religious official. Normally, Psychological Atheism is the result of emotional or physical trauma. It must be known that the "Psychological Atheist" rejects the notion of a god without reviewing any objective evidence that may point to the non existence of a god! (Cable, L, 2001)

 

2) The Implicit Atheist: The Implicit Atheist does not believe in a God or supernatural realm, but does not consciously reject the notion of a God or supernatural realm. All human beings are naturally "Implicit Atheists". Belief in a god is taught to us (normally from parent to child). A young child who does not yet understand concepts of the supernatural and "God" is an example of an implicit atheist.

 

3) The Rational Atheist: The Rational Atheist is one who rejects the notion of a God or supernatural realm due to an objective evaluation of all of the evidence. A rational atheist is one who does not believe in a "God" and can offer a logical argument to back up his or her atheism and claim that Gods and Goddesses as well as a supernatural realm do not exist!

 

I've seen this breakdown elsewhere, but the site where this was from is: http://8theist.com/Rationalatheism.htm

 

Later....

[Open_Minded]

Agreeing that it is not possible to prove a negative then the agnostic is (simply put) takes the position of absolute zero?

 

If I understand your post correctly, that's an oversimplification.

 

The agnostic is willing to say "I don't know." We don't really take a position either way, just that it's impossible to prove either way.

 

On the other hand a believer or non-believer (atheist) moves off of absolute zero (or away from the concrete facts at hand) by inserting subjective reasoning - ie (the overwhelming evidence points to "no god" and so there is no god.)?

 

The agnostic also can use subjective reasoning, but our reasoning is that there is not enough evidence to take a position either way. I'd say that an atheist is more at "absolute 0" than anyone else.

 

Amethyst - it seems we're beginning to circle each other

 

I think I understand what you are saying though

 

To be clear when I suggested the agnostic was at "absolute zero", to me absolute zero meant the position most based on concrete facts at hand - therefore coming to the conclusion that there "is not enough evidence to take a position either way" But, I do see how an atheist can be at "absolute 0" as well

 

All in all (if the atheist, agnostic and believer are all using subjective reasoning to one degree or another) than this discussion goes back full circle to the point Antlerman made in the first place... humans see "what they want to believe".

 

And if this is where we are all at, and I do believe that humans generally see what they want to believe, then I am all the more grateful for forums - such as this - where we can learn from each other and broaden our own personal perspectives to take into consideration observations from other people (subjective - or not)

[Taphophilia]

I know people who are classified as athiests yet still subscribe to an afterlife. They consider themselves athiests because they are not Thiests which is what athiest means. They don't believe in a concept of God, but believe that conscienceness does not cease to exist after death.

[MQTA]

I know people who are classified as athiests yet still subscribe to an afterlife. They consider themselves athiests because they are not Thiests which is what athiest means. They don't believe in a concept of God, but believe that conscienceness does not cease to exist after death.

 

That's why I won't take labels, the Jury is out in many respects. If I think I 'feel' anything, like something/one other than me talking to me in my head, I think I've heard/felt from my mother's father, many times, strangely surrounding car accidents that 'felt' like someone was 'helping me' out of it, or something, I don't know. My mother, since she passed in early 2004. And also my other grandparents, all at once, once. But mainly my grandfather.

 

Is it because he was a BIG influence on me for my first 16 years? I don't know. But I'd sooner subscribe to it being him, than ever God or any Jesus. The only responses I ever got swearing it was God or Jesus was that 'The Bible is Dick and Jane for the masses' and 'keep believing what you do, you're on a great path'

 

Imagination? Direct revelation? Who knows.

 

My ultimate unconditional love and support in life came from my grandfather, and my mother, when all else felt one way, they two always bailed me out. If it's just my memory of them and a psyche out subconscious, so be it. If it's really them, great. Either way, Thanks to them for either.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Antlerman:

 

Your post came while I was responding to Amethyst:

 

A quick response before I have a chance to spend some time on this. This breakdown of Atheism may be helpful in definitions:

 

3) The Rational Atheist: The Rational Atheist is one who rejects the notion of a God or supernatural realm due to an objective evaluation of all of the evidence. A rational atheist is one who does not believe in a "God" and can offer a logical argument to back up his or her atheism and claim that Gods and Goddesses as well as a supernatural realm do not exist!

 

Earlier you stated:

 

"Atheism" is the absence of belief in the absence of evidence. The "proof" is the absence. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim of supernatural, not the skeptic to disprove such claims. If pressed, I would say prove there is not a invisible gorilla living on the roof of your house. You can't prove there's not, so therefore your choosing to not see."

 

If the burden of proof is on the one making a claim of supernatural, not the skeptic to disprove such claims then how does #3 from above, "a rational atheist is one who does not believe in a 'God' and can offer a logical argument ot back up his or her atheism..." factor in?

 

To me at this point, offering a logical argument in the "absence of evidence" is moving into subjective discussion, is it not? I'm not pointing this out as if something is wrong with subjective reasoning .... only to point out that we all believe what we want to believe. At some point, for the atheist, for the believer and for the agnostic, one moves from objective observation to belief by way of subjective reasoning.

 

And, as I mentioned in my last post to Amethyst, because we all come to our own beliefs by way of subjective interpretation of objective fact, then I am grateful for this type of dialog. It keeps my mind open to take into consideration other individual's subjective reasoning as applied to objective fact

[Amethyst]

I know people who are classified as athiests yet still subscribe to an afterlife.

 

Well, I'm open to the idea of reincarnation, but I'm not going to become a Buddhist. I respect Buddhist teachings, but it's not for me. If there is an afterlife, it's one that we all go to, not just a certain select few. Death doesn't discriminate, so why would the afterlife?

[MQTA]

I know people who are classified as athiests yet still subscribe to an afterlife.

 

Well, I'm open to the idea of reincarnation, but I'm not going to become a Buddhist. I respect Buddhist teachings, but it's not for me. If there is an afterlife, it's one that we all go to, not just a certain select few. Death doesn't discriminate, so why would the afterlife?

 

That's what I figure. If I'm gonna see anyone, or go any place, it'll be basically with the people I already know and have shared much of this life with. They say some people are instantly familiar to you in this life because you know each other a LONG time. Who knows... but we're all of the same biology and energy, so regardless of what anyone thinks, what happens is what happens to us, to all, ever since and forever more... til the planet gets blown up or the sun goes super nova. Then no more newspapers. The End.

[Vigile]

Such as believing there is no god

 

There is likely a misunderstanding in the position a lot of us take here. Wouldn't you say there is a difference between thinking that there is no god and believing that there is no god? I for example don't have faith that there is no god, I just don't see any evidence for him so I conclude based on the evidence at hand that there is no god and that it is highly unlikely that there is a god. If new evidence is presented I'll be perfectly happy to change this position.

 

You want to believe there is no God that is exactly what you will find. NOTHING - NO GOD WHATSOEVER.

 

Proof of God's non-existence holds no more water than proof of God's existence. And please do not think I'm challenging you in a duel here... I don't believe in the literal bible god any more than you do.

 

Not true for me. I would love it if there were a god and an afterlife. This would be thrilling. I just can't find a reasonable argument for why I should entertain the thought.

 

So... if we are going by pure logic... no subjective reasoning or personal biases involved why do you call yourself an atheist (there is no god) rather than an agnostic (unwilling to believe there is a god because there is no logical or concrete proof).

 

This has probably been answer already, but...

 

Do you consider yourself agnostic about Santa? I don't. If someone produces Santa I can change my mind, but I'm certainly not wondering whether he exists. Our position on god is the same. It's not reasonable to believe in some uber powerful sentient being that existed before all time and matter. This just doesn't make sense and neither does Santa.

[Amethyst]

Who knows... but we're all of the same biology and energy, so regardless of what anyone thinks, what happens is what happens to us, to all, ever since and forever more... til the planet gets blown up or the sun goes super nova. Then no more newspapers. The End.

 

Not necessarily. Ours isn't the only solar system. And for all we know, there could be other universes too.

[MQTA]

Who knows... but we're all of the same biology and energy, so regardless of what anyone thinks, what happens is what happens to us, to all, ever since and forever more... til the planet gets blown up or the sun goes super nova. Then no more newspapers. The End.

 

Not necessarily. Ours isn't the only solar system. And for all we know, there could be other universes too.

 

"For all we know"... until such a time as our knowing changes, like my ancestors, I doubt I'll ever have to worry about anything but Earth and the creatures upon it. Sure, things can change at any time, but why worry until such a time