It is difficult to come to terms with the idea of nothingness...

[JuniperWoolf]

I've always been fascinated by the atheist's concept of death. The atheistic belief is that when you die, that's it. It is the end of you, the end of your person, end of story. This is a difficult idea to cozy up to. Personally, I think that it takes a lot of courage. So here's what I want to know:

Atheists: How do you come to terms with death? The actual idea that you will end? What do you think it'll be like, to not exist (that's a weird question, but go with it)? Do you have any hope that your consciousness will continue in some form? Why are we concious in the first place (why do these little atoms and cells come together to make the humans that we are, if you get my meaning. Why are we ourselves)?Are you afraid?

Theists: I want to know what you think about this. I don't just want to hear "that's not possible, I KNOW that there's an afterlife because I believe in my god and have faith," I want to know how you feel about the supposition of cessation. Do you think that loss of consciousness is a possibility? Do you think that atheists are doing a disservice (causing damage, or whatever) by teaching their children that death is the end? Are you afraid?

[BienvenuJDC]

This is the only thing I can think to contribute. If there is nothing more than our existence here, while we are alive, then there is no purpose for morality. I can do whatever I want and there is no purpose otherwise to convince anyone that it should/should not be done. My life has no purpose, nor does yours. Our whole fabric of laws and morality disintegrate at the core. The whole existence of human kind could without any consequence. The one thing that is absent from this scenario of life with a finite end is the lack of connection of the emotion of love.

[JuniperWoolf]

Well right, that's a good point. Without the idea of an afterlife, then what's the point of doing anything while we're alive? Even if you believe that you can be a moral human without the concept of an afterlife, what if other people can't? Doesn't that make religion a necessity for our society to function properly even if you don't believe in it?

[DanielBenoit]

If you want to know my atheistic perception on death and nothingness, then go to Camus, if you want to know my theistic perception of nothingness go to Kierkegaard. Because I simultaneously agree with both.

Atheistic: Death is the end all of everything. We are here for hardly the single blink of God's eye (excuse the irony) and life is cruelly, terribly short and delicate. What are we then to do once we recognize the meaninglessness and indifference of the universe. Recognizing this is what Camus considered man's feeling of absurdity. How are we to deal with our disconnection to the cares of the world, against the frigid coldness of nature's wrath? To become to accept our environment, our absurdity. To become used to our own existence is to live, in either mode of existentiality (whether with a belief that life has purpose or no purpose) we soon enough become accustomed to it and live with it. I end with Hamlet: "We defy augury; there's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all."

Theistic: With open-eyes, the absurdity of our relation with the universe is just as clear. We are like Job, for which in all his virtue is still under God's wrath. And yet he still believes. Why? Out of the absurdity of it all. Kierkegaard once said that the greatest thing a man can do is to be able to recognize the hopelessness of our existence, and still find hope. It takes (to use Kierkegaardian jargon) a knight of resignation to become resigned to the fact that all will soon be lost, but it takes a knight of faith to know that all is lost, and yet still believe that all still is not lost (and thus a paradox, incapable of being concieved in full terms, and resolved only until death). Kierkegaard considers the very best of men to be able to be the former (such as in fiction, Hamlet), but considers those transcendent of themselves and all humankind to be the latter (such as Abraham). I end with a quote from Fear and Trembling: ""I believe nevertheless that I shall get her, in virtue, that is, of the absurd, in virtue of the fact that with God all things are possible."


This is the only thing I can think to contribute. If there is nothing more than our existence here, while we are alive, then there is no purpose for morality. I can do whatever I want and there is no purpose otherwise to convince anyone that it should/should not be done. My life has no purpose, nor does yours. Our whole fabric of laws and morality disintegrate at the core. The whole existence of human kind could without any consequence.

Sorry dude but it this is not an ontological argument as it is an inability to accept the absurdity of our existence (or make an argument against the reality of those conditions). And I don't blame you. Who else truly can?


The one thing that is absent from this scenario of life with a finite end is the lack of connection of the emotion of love.

Actually no. . .. ..you are treating love as a Platonic form. Also, how did you come to that conclusion? I would be willing to say that love is far more powerful with the recognition that it could end, and thus all the more to cherish it.


Well right, that's a good point. Without the idea of an afterlife, then what's the point of doing anything while we're alive? Even if you believe that you can be a moral human without the concept of an afterlife, what if other people can't? Doesn't that make religion a necessity for our society to function properly even if you don't believe in it?

Yes, that's just what Hamlet meant by to "lose the name of action".

As far as society goes, we already are vicious enough with moral standards. It's human nature. What a lack of hope would bring about in a society would be at worst a bunch of apathetic induviduals unable to come to terms with their existential condition and "the name of action". As a society we need meta-narratives to survive, as most humans aren't strong enough to accept their condition, much less still have faith after accepting it.

[Paulclem]

The Buddhist position is that there is reincarnation, but that none of the personality of an individual survives the process.

The classical analogy is that a lit candle lights a new candle. The first candle is then blown out. the second candle is not the first, but was caused by it.

So there is momentum, but not survival of the consciousness, as this is considered to be an amalgam of conditions that give the impression of a substantial I.

It is neither annihilation, nor the survival of a soul.

[The Comedian]

I guess I wiggle out of this whole polemic -- maybe I'm just being an intellectual weakling about it -- but my idea is that, really, nobody the hell knows what happens after we die. The atheists are just guessing: I've never heard any atheist prove that there isn't some sort of afterlife or reincarnation or what not.

And religious folks have a faith in a system of beliefs about an afterlife. But really, they're hardly any different than an atheist: they're just guessing too.

As for how this all relates to morality, I don't think any sense of whether there's an afterlife makes one lick of difference about how we should act here. Because this is what we know: we're alive. Right now. Here. We owe it to ourselves and to each other to make this small spar of existence as beautiful and complete as we can. And adultery, thievery, rape, murder, famine, self-love. . . .they're all ugly and repugnant and make our brief time living the lesser.

[papayahed]

This is the only thing I can think to contribute. If there is nothing more than our existence here, while we are alive, then there is no purpose for morality. I can do whatever I want and there is no purpose otherwise to convince anyone that it should/should not be done. My life has no purpose, nor does yours. Our whole fabric of laws and morality disintegrate at the core. The whole existence of human kind could without any consequence. The one thing that is absent from this scenario of life with a finite end is the lack of connection of the emotion of love.

You are religious so why don't you answer the question from a theist standpoint instead of trying cast atheists as moral degenerates? I lean towards no afterlife and I reject your notion that my life has no purpose and I don't mind saying I'm slightly offended by your suggestion.

[BienvenuJDC]

You are religious so why don't you answer the question from a theist standpoint instead of trying cast atheists as moral degenerates? I lean towards no afterlife and I reject your notion that my life has no purpose and I don't mind saying I'm slightly offended by your suggestion.

I am sorry that you are offended. I actually did answer the question from a theist's point of view. I just didn't take it to the point of saying this...without God there is no source of morality. It seems to me that atheists never want to argue fairly...they always want to seemingly discredit or ignore every argument set forth by the theists. So what is the point in offering a theistic argument?

It seems that the blogger removed the option of "faith". Atheists have just as much faith, but their faith is in that leap that scientists make. I can also say that I am typically offended by almost every statement that the atheists here make.

[DanielBenoit]

I would like to add, that I think simply greater meaning can be made out of our lives once we discover the inevidibility of death. We know that this is all going to end someday, and so we might as well cherish it the best we can.

I agree greatly with The Comedian's seemingly agnostic standpoint. We do not know what lies ahead. This uncertainty is the thing that drives us into despair. It is not particularly the concept of nothingness (unless your an atheist) that fills us with fear, but the uncertainty, for at the center of all of us, no matter how much faith the pious may have, we still have this internal anxiety in our uncertainty.

That said, I'm sure the most pious man in a monestary died more happily than one who had no faith, for at least he went to sleep certain that he was going on to paradise. I think that there is nothing wrong at all with piety, for in the end in all honesty, what does science and ontology have to do with anything in our lives. I do not mean sociologically or technological, but personally and inter-philosophically. I am willing to go against Enlightement values and say that the most ignorant, and yet pious and devout man on a mountain will probably die more comfortably than most of us scientifically-cultured, cyber-techno culture people of society ever will.

In a sense, why must we worry in anxiety over our philosophical and ontological obsessions? Is there a God or not? Is there a Hell I will go to if I disbelieve? Will I die realizing that I have wasted my life in piety? Endlessly, we worry over the inevidible. This is the comfort that we need; a surrender to the uncertain, and even a joy in its absurdities and life's absurdities. This is why I find Hamlet to be the most moving of all works of literature. For he died fully conscious of his death and yet with comfort and complete resignation.

I myself find it most comforting that all ends at death. It makes me remind myself that this second will soon be gone, and that with each minute, I'm inching closer to my death. What greater feeling in the world must it be to be on your deathbed knowing that you have done everything there was to do with your life, and drifting off to sleep, as if after a long day. I look forward to that feeling, for the emotion must be transcendent.

[papayahed]

I am sorry that you are offended. I actually did answer the question from a theist's point of view. I just didn't take it to the point of saying this...without God there is no source of morality. It seems to me that atheists never want to argue fairly...they always want to seemingly discredit or ignore every argument set forth by the theists. So what is the point in offering a theistic argument?

It seems that the blogger removed the option of "faith". Atheists have just as much faith, but their faith is in that leap that scientists make. I can also say that I am typically offended by almost every statement that the atheists here make.

You miss my point. You are making a statement about my beliefs and my life based on your belief system.

You said:


My life has no purpose, nor does yours.

I think the part that ruffles feathers is your claim that because I don't believe as you I have no purpose. There are countless belief systems and millions upon millions of people who don't share your views and live happy, fulfilled, purpose-filled lives. I have made my choice, I believe my life does have purpose and there are reasons for morality and goodness that don't have to be tied to any supreme being therefor your whole argument kinda crumbles.

[billl]

It has always seemed to me that we get morality from the parent-child relationship (I know this isn't a new idea). It works in that case, and it continues to work when we apply the ideas to the greater community. I know that Christianity, for example, promises punishment to those who do bad things, and I guess Heaven is held up as a reward. But I think that the love and empathy (and the Bible promotes these ideas as well) that people learn as they grow up in healthy families and communities is enough for morality to develop and continue on. The Golden Rule just makes sense to most people and communities, I think.

[BienvenuJDC]

I have made my choice, I believe my life does have purpose and there are reasons for morality and goodness that don't have to be tied to any supreme being therefor your whole argument kinda crumbles.

If that is what you believe, then why does my beliefs bother you?

I can say the same thing about your beliefs about a supreme being. That is your beliefs, so I just go on. It is totally my opinion that without God, there is no purpose. If you don't want to believe that...that is your thing. If you are going to come to a thread like this, don't be so easily offended by someone else's opinion and beliefs.

[DanielBenoit]

If that is what you believe, then why does my beliefs bother you?

I can say the same thing about your beliefs about a supreme being. That is your beliefs, so I just go on. It is totally my opinion that without God, there is no purpose. If you don't want to believe that...that is your thing. If you are going to come to a thread like this, don't be so easily offended by someone else's opinion and beliefs.

Yes, but please allow us to debate your opinion.

We criticize and tear apart opinions, not entirely for the sake of the opinionator, but usually out of disagreement itself, which is why arguments such as these become so infuriated.

Yes it is totally your opinion to state without God life has no purpose. But please allow us to debate it without assuming we are making an attack on your person. Ideas here are not private property ;)

[papayahed]

If that is what you believe, then why does my beliefs bother you?

I can say the same thing about your beliefs about a supreme being. That is your beliefs, so I just go on. It is totally my opinion that without God, there is no purpose. If you don't want to believe that...that is your thing. If you are going to come to a thread like this, don't be so easily offended by someone else's opinion and beliefs.

oh goodness. Perhaps I shouldn't have said I was offended because, after all this is just a message board. Your belief in God is not what I am talking about. I think you have strong convictions and live your life to the best of your ability, your purpose obviously comes from your belief in God. I don't doubt that or have anything to say about that. But to say that *I* don't have purpose because my lack of belief is a little wanky. It makes no mind to me if you believe I have no purpose but I'm just telling you it's incorrect.

[mercy_mankind]

The concept of Afterlife is very important in establishing a peaceful society in this life. If we looked around us we would see many atrocities and corruption on earth due to the lack of this concept in people's minds. Everyone is trying to live an excellent life and seeks to have everything, even if it costs other innocents' lives, but why would they care? If it was only one, and very short life? And after that there would be no judgment for what they did!

On the other hand, what would those oppressed people do in this life, while they are not able to take their rights back, and in most cases criminals got away without punishment? So there would be no justice, many people would live oppressed, poor, helpless, and finally they would be equal to those criminals, and oppressors. Is that really logical? I don't think so...

I believe that life is just a test, and a preparation for eternal life. This concept encourages a person to lead a good life on earth, since he knows the fate awaits him if he did any corruption.

[BienvenuJDC]

oh goodness. Perhaps I shouldn't have said I was offended because, after all this is just a message board. Your belief in God is not what I am talking about. I think you have strong convictions and live your life to the best of your ability, your purpose obviously comes from your belief in God. I don't doubt that or have anything to say about that. But to say that *I* don't have purpose because my lack of belief is a little wanky. It makes no mind to me if you believe I have no purpose but I'm just telling you it's incorrect.

Again, I am sorry that you took it so personally, especially since I was writing in generalities. It wasn't meant to portray that thought, but the thought that there might be someone out there (like a serial killer) who might believe such things. If there is no God, then who is to say anyone is wrong for anything? You took my comments too personally, but I take responsibility to not conveying my thoughts well enough.

[mercy_mankind]

..... I have made my choice, I believe my life does have purpose and there are reasons for morality and goodness......

Well, it is natural to know that there is a purpose behind our life. Or to have other reasons for doing good deeds without belief in the creator (Humans always think of a motive before doing a certain thing). But it doesn't mean that the purpose people believe in is correct, or those motives would make them good individuals..For example someone helped another one, this of course apparent to us as a good deed. But if we knew the intention (reasons, motives) of that person, perhaps he is doing so to be praised, or helping others is something makes him happy. Now what if he wasn't praised, and no one thanked him? What if the thing he is going to do would cost him his life? Do you think that this example would continue in doing the goodness, whatever were the consequences?! I personaly don't think so, because the reasons for doing so doesn't exist!

[raena_writer711]

i'm not sure what it technically means to be atheist but i dont htink that there is life after death so maybe i am one?

[Katy North]

To be an atheist means that you do not believe in a god. I am an atheist... I cannot believe that the Bible trumps Evolution or most scientific theory. I cannot believe that there is a great being dictating my life, and dangling an afterlife in front of my nose as a reward for being good.

That's not to say I don't try to be moral. However, I choose to be moral, not because of a god, but because I enjoy seeing happiness in other people, and treat them as I want to be treated. I do not dislike or hate other groups of people on grounds of their religion or lifestyle, I only dislike them if I see a lack of morality in them.

The thought of nothingness used to bother me... the thought that one day I would no longer have conciousness. I still get a little nervous when I ponder death, however it is more in the context of being afraid I won't accomplish everything I want to in my lifetime, and less worried about what will happen to my body. It will go to the earth, leaving memories of me in the people who love me.

[OrphanPip]

That's not to say I don't try to be moral. However, I choose to be moral, not because of a god, but because I enjoy seeing happiness in other people, and treat them as I want to be treated. I do not dislike or hate other groups of people on grounds of their religion or lifestyle, I only dislike them if I see a lack of morality in them.


This is essentially where morality comes from. One need only look at other ape communities, like the bonobo chimpanzee, to see that primates have regulating systems of behavior. Bonobos will ostracize others that act "wrongly", so if chimps do it we probably did it too at a simple level as well. Altruistic behavior will be selected for in communities where it starts to be seen as an appealing characteristic. Do mole rats live in life-long monogamous relationships because it is the right thing to do, or because it has been selected for by evolution? The answer is evolution, you can alter their brains to make them be polygamous.

There is nothingness in the afterlife because my mind, which is essentially what composes "me", will not survive without my brain. The mind is created out of the physiological interactions of the brain. This is obvious if you look at the fact that a person's behavior, memories, preferences, and such can be altered by altering the structure of the brain. If we were something more than our body, if there was something more mystical present that made us who we were, then we have no way of knowing that mystical us because it is apparently different from the us that is effected by the physical environment. When the brain stops functioning, the mind goes away. Without my mind, I don't exist anymore. Plain and simple, there will be nothingness, and I won't be aware of it because I'll be dead.

[DanielBenoit]

The concept of Afterlife is very important in establishing a peaceful society in this life. If we looked around us we would see many atrocities and corruption on earth due to the lack of this concept in people's minds. Everyone is trying to live an excellent life and seeks to have everything, even if it costs other innocents' lives, but why would they care? If it was only one, and very short life? And after that there would be no judgment for what they did!

What an ingenious statement :rolleyes: Yes, I just want to go out and start killing people . . . .because I want to live an excellent life. . . . .yes, that's it!


On the other hand, what would those oppressed people do in this life, while they are not able to take their rights back, and in most cases criminals got away without punishment? So there would be no justice, many people would live oppressed, poor, helpless, and finally they would be equal to those criminals, and oppressors. Is that really logical? I don't think so...


Where the hell did this come from? If you are arguing against the context of an atheistic universe; then what would it matter to the oppressed if they are given justice or not? They're dead!


Well, it is natural to know that there is a purpose behind our life. Or to have other reasons for doing good deeds without belief in the creator (Humans always think of a motive before doing a certain thing). But it doesn't mean that the purpose people believe in is correct, or those motives would make them good individuals..For example someone helped another one, this of course apparent to us as a good deed. But if we knew the intention (reasons, motives) of that person, perhaps he is doing so to be praised, or helping others is something makes him happy. Now what if he wasn't praised, and no one thanked him? What if the thing he is going to do would cost him his life? Do you think that this example would continue in doing the goodness, whatever were the consequences?! I personaly don't think so, because the reasons for doing so doesn't exist!

Of course, obviously. An atheist who gives money to the poor is never ever as good as a Christian who does, because the Christian believes in a God!

Well let us see .. ... .let's analyze a theist's intentions . .. . .hmmm .. . .well there's the eternal reward in Heaven, so there's a, shall we say, un-selfless intention. Dude, I would be willing to insist that theist's (or anybody who believes in an afterlife) are more motivated by self-interest to be praised. Hell, they get the Greatest kind of praise imaginable.

I think the problem with your reasoning is that you assume all moral acts are based on metaphysical beliefs. They're not. For how would a man like Oskar Schindler, a Nazi mind you, find enough compassion in him to want to save 2,000 Jews? It's human compassion that drives the best of us to act morally. Of course there are those who merely act out of goodness so as to be praised or rewarded, but I know, that whenever I see a random act of kindness, whether if it is by me or someone else, it is for the most part out of the goodness of their heart and their care for that person. No not goodness in some religious sense, but goodness in a purely human and psychological sense. Am I or most other people more likely to act goodly to those whom we love as oppose to those whom we are indifferent towards? Sure. We are all selfish to an extent. Get over it.

As a matter of fact, I'm willing to state that any act with a clear reason is in the end, selfish. Take even the most seemingly altruistic acts; my wife is drowning, I save her by sacrificing my life. That was selfish, for the only reason why he would save her would be because he loved her and couldn't go on living without her. But wait, what if he hated her? Well maybe he did it out of spite to make her feel guilty? Maybe he did it out of an expectation of reward in the afterlife because he was following Christ's examples? Maybe he did it out of a longing for a feeling of Christain goodness when he died? All of these reasons are at core, selfish. Even if he drowned hating himself for dying for someone he hated, the only reason why he would ever find reason to do so would be out of his masochism. The only selfless act he could've taken, would be if he was utterly and completely indifferent towards his wife dying, and yet still saved her out of utter goodness. The only truly good man can be one who has no emotion, no motives and no will.

[Katy North]

Exactly. There is no reason to fear something you will not be aware of. It's like the quote from "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" that I will paraphrase poorly here... the thought of being trapped in a box underground is terrifying, but if you're dead, you won't be aware of it. So, why be frightened?

We're so focused on our own awareness, that it's hard to imagine ever being completely unaware. As long as we are aware, there will not be nothingness, and even when we die there will not be nothingness... there just won't be us. And, since there will not be us, we will not be aware of it.

[Paulclem]

What an ingenious statement :rolleyes: Yes, I just want to go out and start killing people . . . .because I want to live an excellent life. . . . .yes, that's it!



Where the hell did this come from? If you are arguing against the context of an atheistic universe; then what would it matter to the oppressed if they are given justice or not? They're dead!



Of course, obviously. An atheist who gives money to the poor is never ever as good as a Christian who does, because the Christian believes in a God!

Well let us see .. ... .let's analyze a theist's intentions . .. . .hmmm .. . .well there's the eternal reward in Heaven, so there's a, shall we say, un-selfless intention. Dude, I would be willing to insist that theist's (or anybody who believes in an afterlife) are more motivated by self-interest to be praised. Hell, they get the Greatest kind of praise imaginable.

I think the problem with your reasoning is that you assume all moral acts are based on metaphysical beliefs. They're not. For how would a man like Oskar Schindler, a Nazi mind you, find enough compassion in him to want to save 2,000 Jews? It's human compassion that drives the best of us to act morally. Of course there are those who merely act out of goodness so as to be praised or rewarded, but I know, that whenever I see a random act of kindness, whether if it is by me or someone else, it is for the most part out of the goodness of their heart and their care for that person. No not goodness in some religious sense, but goodness in a purely human and psychological sense. Am I or most other people more likely to act goodly to those whom we love as oppose to those whom we are indifferent towards? Sure. We are all selfish to an extent. Get over it.

As a matter of fact, I'm willing to state that any act with a clear reason is in the end, selfish. Take even the most seemingly altruistic acts; my wife is drowning, I save her by sacrificing my life. That was selfish, for the only reason why he would save her would be because he loved her and couldn't go on living without her. But wait, what if he hated her? Well maybe he did it out of spite to make her feel guilty? Maybe he did it out of an expectation of reward in the afterlife because he was following Christ's examples? Maybe he did it out of a longing for a feeling of Christain goodness when he died? All of these reasons are at core, selfish. Even if he drowned hating himself for dying for someone he hated, the only reason why he would ever find reason to do so would be out of his masochism. The only selfless act he could've taken, would be if he was utterly and completely indifferent towards his wife dying, and yet still saved her out of utter goodness. The only truly good man can be one who has no emotion, no motives and no will.

Funnily enough HH The Dalai Lama says, if you're going to be selfish - be skillful and do good deeds, because you get a lot more credit for that than the more obvious selfish deeds. You get lots of friends who are similarly selfish in helping you out when you need it. An interesting idea I thought.

There is nothingness in the afterlife because my mind, which is essentially what composes "me", will not survive without my brain. The mind is created out of the physiological interactions of the brain. This is obvious if you look at the fact that a person's behavior, memories, preferences, and such can be altered by altering the structure of the brain. If we were something more than our body, if there was something more mystical present that made us who we were, then we have no way of knowing that mystical us because it is apparently different from the us that is effected by the physical environment. When the brain stops functioning, the mind goes away. Without my mind, I don't exist anymore. Plain and simple, there will be nothingness, and I won't be aware of it because I'll be dead. - Orphanpip

I think this is a little optimistic about the understanding of the mind/ brain relationship. I'm no scientist like you Orphan, but this is by no means a settled idea.

The Buddhist idea is that the mind operates through the brain which is not the mind itself but the physical vehicle for it.

I can't prove it in scientific terms, and I have no anecdotal experience to back it up, but am willing to accept it until it is proven otherwise. It is a useful fiction for a Buddhist until they can gain their own understanding of it.

Is'nt science also often a series of useful fictions where research is going on, and thus accepted until a better explanation can be found. Like I said, I'm not a scientist, but Newtonian physics - I've heard - is still taught until a certain level where more modern physics theories take over. Is that a useful fiction too?

[Katy North]

I can't prove it in scientific terms, and I have no anecdotal experience to back it up, but am willing to accept it until it is proven otherwise.

The quintessential difference between a theist and an atheist is that this sentence logically makes sense to a theist, while it makes no sense at all to an atheist.

[Paulclem]

The quintessential difference between a theist and an atheist is that this sentence logically makes sense to a theist, while it makes no sense at all to an atheist.

You may be right, but there is an element of faith in scientific discovery - faith in a system/ explanation until a better one can be formulated. This works of course.

[JuniperWoolf]

Without my mind, I don't exist anymore. Plain and simple, there will be nothingness, and I won't be aware of it because I'll be dead.

Are you nervous about it? And how do you grieve/console yourself when someone that you care about dies? That's what boggles my mind.

[mercy_mankind]

What an ingenious statement :rolleyes: Yes, I just want to go out and start killing people . . . .because I want to live an excellent life. . . . .yes, that's it!

Okay, just tell me what is wrong with that statement?! Wouldn't people feel free to do whatever pleases them; at least to the limits that other people would set for them, or enforce them to do, if there were nothing to control their desires like the belief in the afterlife?


Where the hell did this come from?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, don't atheists believe that there would be no life after death? So what about those who had no opportunity in living a decent life? Is it fair to live a life full of sufferings and then be nothing?


If you are arguing against the context of an atheistic universe; then what would it matter to the oppressed if they are given justice or not? They're dead!

Yes it would matter. It would make a reflection on their actions in this life.

Also why people would act justly, if the whole thing is unjust process? When the oppressed and the oppressor are equal after death, then the concept of justice would be meaningless in this life too, because there are some would not feel accountable for the deeds that are hidden from the knowledge of society.


The only truly good man can be one who has no emotion, no motives and no will.


I'm not arguing that someone should be totally selfless to be a good person, but I believe that we should act between ethical egoism (attached to the Divine Justice), and ethical altruism. For instance, a Believer will have a very good reason to sacrifice his life for the sake of acting morally towards someone he doesn't know. In that case it would be altruism, as he did an act against his own interest in this life, at the same time it would be a modified ethical egoism (as it is attached to belief in Afterlife), as this Believer has a very good reason to do such a sacrifice. I believe that the practical altruism should have a reason, a very good reason which wouldn't contradict the nature of humans.

[NikolaiI]

Nothingness is just part of the whole picture, it is just one aspect... it's opposing aspect is everything. Nothingness and everything are like yin and yang.

You can understand about God if you think about whether or not everything has a source. Of course everything does, and the source of the universe is God. When I first thought of this I was happy because I thought I could share it with atheists.. but never any such luck!

So I came to the conclusion just by reasoning... what is existence? What is the source of existence? And I came to the conclusion that the source of existence must be somehow closer to the absolute reality, or the ground of reality... and I suppose it is the same.

[MarkBastable]

And how do you grieve/console yourself when someone that you care about dies? That's what boggles my mind.

Well, not by telling myself that they aren't really dead. I think atheists grieve because something has gone; and the consolation is that it was once here.

What boggles my mind is why people who believe in an afterlife grieve at all when someone dies. Why don't they have a celebratory party? "Whoo-hoo! Granny's in everlasting paradise! Lucky Grandma!"

[DanielBenoit]

Okay, just tell me what is wrong with that statement?! Wouldn't people feel free to do whatever pleases them; at least to the limits that other people would set for them, or enforce them to do, if there were nothing to control their desires like the belief in the afterlife?


Exactly, and that's why 15% of the population want to kill everybody :rolleyes:

The yearning to kill is not a yearning of any sort of normal person (theist or atheist), it is the yearning of a sick and lunatic mind. Are you saying that all atheists are sociopaths?



Please correct me if I'm wrong, don't atheists believe that there would be no life after death? So what about those who had no opportunity in living a decent life? Is it fair to live a life full of sufferings and then be nothing?


Again, that is something we must learn to accept; that there is no certain justice beyond our delusions. It may be possible, but due to the merciless indifference of the universe already observed, it's unlikely that this God, if there is one, is benevolent.

I'm still missing your point. How is a limited life equivalent to a miserable one? If a belief in heaven stems out of wishful-thinking, then I don't want any part in it.

In the end, doesn't a cruel, indifferent universe that causes mass natural disasters like Haiti merely by its own logic sound more benevolent than a conscious universe with a God who causes the deaths of thousands for . . . . .what? If there is anyone more oppressing it is God.


Yes it would matter. It would make a reflection on their actions in this life.


Also why people would act justly, if the whole thing is unjust process? When the oppressed and the oppressor are equal after death, then the concept of justice would be meaningless in this life too, because there are some would not feel accountable for the deeds that are hidden from the knowledge of society.

Again, your concept of justice is a Platonic one and you treat it as if it were a material thing. Justice itself is merely a human construct to satisfy our sense of causal morality and humane dignity. Most of us feel an adherence to justice because we're human. Whether certain justice is good or not cannot be derivative of nature, rather than from our instincts; for how can nature be so just when it acts so randomly and indifferently?

Believe me, just because I state that justice and all of morality is merely a human construct with no objective basis, doesn't mean that I don't believe in justice and human dignity.



I'm not arguing that someone should be totally selfless to be a good person, but I believe that we should act between ethical egoism (attached to the Divine Justice), and ethical altruism. For instance, a Believer will have a very good reason to sacrifice his life for the sake of acting morally towards someone he doesn't know. In that case it would be altruism, as he did an act against his own interest in this life, at the same time it would be a modified ethical egoism (as it is attached to belief in Afterlife), as this Believer has a very good reason to do such a sacrifice. I believe that the practical altruism should have a reason, a very good reason which wouldn't contradict the nature of humans.

You aren't contextualizing the former, it is a purely selfish act. Oh and don't give me crap like it's a modified ethical egoism. What about the person who has no belief or expectation of an afterlife, and yet still saves someone out of his own human dignity? Yes, his act is selfish too because it involves his own internal emotions, but it is one of the least selfish acts because he acted out of his instinct for at least a little human justice.

Also, you didn't answer my question; what makes a believers saving of a drowning person better than a nonbeliever saving a drowning person?

[Katy North]

Perhaps I should say that being an atheist is not easy... there is no otherworldly comfort. I personally believe that there is no heaven, and because of this, yes, it is hard to come to terms with the fact that a loved one is dead, especially if it seems they did not live a full and happy life. I try to live a happy life, so that when I am about to die I have as few regrets as possible. I still mourn when someone I love dies, and sometimes I also imagine I'm talking to them, although I know this is my imagination and they are not angels.

The reason I am an atheist is because it seems right and real to me, not because it is more comfortable, or because I feel that I can relax my morals since I don't believe in hell.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, don't atheists believe that there would be no life after death? So what about those who had no opportunity in living a decent life? Is it fair to live a life full of sufferings and then be nothing?

You are correct. We do not believe there is life after death. It is not fair to live a life full of suffering without a reward on the horizon. However, that does not make it any less true, in my opinion.


Also why people would act justly, if the whole thing is unjust process? When the oppressed and the oppressor are equal after death, then the concept of justice would be meaningless in this life too, because there are some would not feel accountable for the deeds that are hidden from the knowledge of society.

This is a sad question. Humans are not animals; our minds have developed enough that we can differentiate between right or wrong. To suggest that without the reward/punishment factor of life after death humanity would break down and become murdering, thieving scoundrels discredits humanity. We are bigger than this. We can be aware that our actions have results that can hurt other people, and we can choose not to do them because we care for others, not because there is an omnipotent being waving tickets to the afterlife under our noses.

I will say that perhaps Christianity was a necessary step for humanity. Perhaps we needed that reward system 2000 years ago to learn the difference between right and wrong. There is nothing wrong with the philosophy of "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek", and "be charitable to the poor". Although I doubt Jesus was actually the son of God, and the result of a virgin birth, he may have lived, and if he did he was a very wise, good man. I do not disrespect Christianity, I just don't believe in it.

[Paulclem]

Well, not by telling myself that they aren't really dead. I think atheists grieve because something has gone; and the consolation is that it was once here.

What boggles my mind is why people who believe in an afterlife grieve at all when someone dies. Why don't they have a celebratory party? "Whoo-hoo! Granny's in everlasting paradise! Lucky Grandma!"

Perhaps because they'll miss them?

[MarkBastable]

Perhaps because they'll miss them?

Well, fair enough. But you'd think that that was a pretty minor consideration compared with the loved one going on to eternal bliss - especially as you're going to be there with them in what amounts, in eternity terms, to a minute or two from now.

[Paulclem]

Well, fair enough. But you'd think that that was a pretty minor consideration compared with the loved one going on to eternal bliss - especially as you're going to be there with them in what amounts, in eternity terms, to a minute or two from now.

Yes I know - for theists that is - but after years of companionship? I think in the long term people are comforted by this thought. but they have to get over loss.

[MarkBastable]

Yes I know - for theists that is - but after years of companionship? I think in the long term people are comforted by this thought. but they have to get over loss.

You're right, of course. Despite all the promises of eternal life and unalloyed bliss in the hereafter, human beings live life on a human scale, in a timeframe they can understand, dealing with the circumstances that face them in the present.

And as an atheist, I think that's the right thing to do. Eternity is just no help at all.

[Haunted]

You're right, of course. Despite all the promises of eternal life and unalloyed bliss in the hereafter, human beings live life on a human scale, in a timeframe they can understand, dealing with the circumstances that face them in the present.

And as an atheist, I think that's the right thing to do. Eternity is just no help at all.

We grieve because we have feelings.

The thought of the loved one going on to eternal bliss, or believing in the promises of eternal life and unalloyed bliss, that doesn't shut off our feelings. We still feel the loss.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah, but for a theist this "loss" is very temporary. It isn't really a loss at all actually, so there's not much reason to feel sad. I guess you'd mourn because you have to wait all of those years on the human scale until you're dead too, but when I watch theists grieve it seems like more to me. It seems like you feel somewhere in your heart that you might never see your loved one again. So does that mean that you feel nothingness might be a possibility?

[alexar]

I love this bit of 12th Night:

FESTE
...Good madonna, give me leave to prove you a fool.
OLIVIA
Can you do it?
FESTE
Dexterously, good madonna.
OLIVIA
Make your proof.
FESTE
I must catechise you for it, madonna: good my mouse of virtue, answer me.
OLIVIA
Well, sir, for want of other idleness, I'll bide your proof.
FESTE
Good madonna, why mournest thou?
OLIVIA
Good fool, for my brother's death.
FESTE
I think his soul is in hell, madonna.
OLIVIA
I know his soul is in heaven, fool.
FESTE
The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother's soul being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen.

[Haunted]

Yeah, but for a theist this "loss" is very temporary. It isn't really a loss at all actually, so there's not much reason to feel sad.

Feelings are spontaneous, it's an outpouring of emotions. It's not controlled by reason, it can't be helped. A temporary loss won't work as a reason for me not to feel sad.


I guess you'd mourn because you have to wait all of those years on the human scale until you're dead too, but when I watch theists grieve it seems like more to me.

It's true, all those long years...but even if I know I'll die soon I'll still be mourning. But there's another layer to it too. We live in a physical world defined by sensory experiences. Death is the end of all physical contact and social interactions with the departed: we miss not being able to see them anymore, not being able to hear them talk anymore, and not being able to touch them and hug them anymore.


It seems like you feel somewhere in your heart that you might never see your loved one again. So does that mean that you feel nothingness might be a possibility?

I believe I'll see them again. I also believe in spirits and I have experiences that are too personal to share here. Yes, nothingness would bother me very much but it's not the case with me.

[Scheherazade]

R E M I N D E R

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be deleted without further notice.

I would hate to see this thread turning into another "my religious belief vs yours" thread.

[Paulclem]

Yeah, but for a theist this "loss" is very temporary. It isn't really a loss at all actually, so there's not much reason to feel sad. I guess you'd mourn because you have to wait all of those years on the human scale until you're dead too, but when I watch theists grieve it seems like more to me. It seems like you feel somewhere in your heart that you might never see your loved one again. So does that mean that you feel nothingness might be a possibility?

The idea of nothingness can be comforting too. It means no more hardship or suffering. The other thing about it is that you'll be going back to where you were before you were born when all the world was happening without you.

For myself, this is a bottom line comfort - at least we've been in that situation before. But I have been attracted to reincarnation since i was a child. It just seems to make more sense to me, though the more you look into reincarnation, the less comforting it can seem.

It makes more sense to me than a once only chance at life from one of the theistic religions where so much is down to chance - culture, finanaces, accidents, poverty etc. How easy is it for things to go horribly wrong, and how fair is that?

On the other hand, with more information on reincarnation beliefs, the propect of rebirth as an insect, animal or another unfortunate type of being is not very comforting. Even rebirth as a relatively fortunate human still involves the usual sufferings of life - ageing, sickness and death.

[JuniperWoolf]

For myself, this is a bottom line comfort - at least we've been in that situation before. But I have been attracted to reincarnation since i was a child. It just seems to make more sense to me, though the more you look into reincarnation, the less comforting it can seem.

Yeah man, same here. I'm pretty much with The Comedian and Daniel in that the only thing that I know is that I'm here right now, and whatever the answers to the secrets of the universe are I'm pretty sure that we have no idea... but if I were to guess, given the limited knowledge that we as a species have, I'd say that reincarnation makes the most sense. Just ending seems logical, but I think that there's something more to our existance that we don't know yet. Everything seems just too complex to be a random accident. I find the concept of heaven and hell silly, because like you said, one shot and that's it? Plus, wouldn't it get crowded?

And yeah, just ceasing to exist might be more comfortable than being born a lab rat or something. Hey, isn't that a Bhuddist thing? Like, the highest level of existance is a kind of "nothingness," a complete loss of self when you merge with the universe/god/whatever?


I would hate to see this thread turning into another "my religious belief vs yours" thread.

Heh, yeah. I'm trying to keep it existential.

[Paulclem]

Yeah man, same here. I'm pretty much with The Comedian and Daniel in that the only thing that I know is that I'm here right now, and whatever the answers to the secrets of the universe are I'm pretty sure that we have no idea... but if I were to guess, given the limited knowledge that we as a species have, I'd say that reincarnation makes the most sense. Just ending seems logical, but I think that there's something more to our existance that we don't know yet. Everything seems just too complex to be a random accident. I find the concept of heaven and hell silly, because like you said, one shot and that's it? Plus, wouldn't it get crowded?

And yeah, just ceasing to exist might be more comfortable than being born a lab rat or something. Hey, isn't that a Bhuddist thing? Like, the highest level of existance is a kind of "nothingness," a complete loss of self when you merge with the universe/god/whatever?



Heh, yeah. I'm trying to keep it existential.

The highest level in Buddhism is freedom from rebirth - birth ageing sickness death. It's difficult to describe - not nothingness, but another kind of existence. :smile5:

[MarkBastable]

As I understand it - mystic terminology aside - the Buddhist concept is more an explanation of the cycle of energy and matter than a suggestion of immortality. If your personal consciousness is dissipated then 'you' are in fact dead. You're no more alive than a cow that's been turned into burgers and distributed amongst the fast-food diners of Chicago. So, for me at least, the highest level of Buddhism is personal extinction.

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

[mercy_mankind]

Exactly, and that's why 15% of the population want to kill everybody :rolleyes:

LOL, you are talking as if the only bad thing that a human can do is murder…There are many awful crimes, and I was referring to every shameful act you can think of not only killing and it is not attached to certain sect.


The yearning to kill is not a yearning of any sort of normal person (theist or atheist), it is the yearning of a sick and lunatic mind. Are you saying that all atheists are sociopaths?

No, I never said that. And I agree that either theist or non theist would do such horrible acts due to the sickness in their minds. But tell me if there was no worldly punishment for any crime, who would not still commit crimes? The believer in afterlife, or someone who doesn't believe in it?!

And please don't tell me human compassion and so on....As we all can see the horrible wars all over the world, and we see no compassion or anything like that. In fact one self is more important than that compassion (in case that person didn't reinforce that passion through Divine Justice).



I'm still missing your point. How is a limited life equivalent to a miserable one? If a belief in heaven stems out of wishful-thinking, then I don't want any part in it.

My point is that belief in afterlife would give those oppressed the strength to accept their fate in this limited life, and try to do their best to live honorable life in the next life. That belief is not a "wishful-thinking" it is a certainty: Belief in God + Good deeds=Paradise.


In the end, doesn't a cruel, indifferent universe that causes mass natural disasters like Haiti merely by its own logic sound more benevolent than a conscious universe with a God who causes the deaths of thousands for . . . . .what? If there is anyone more oppressing it is God.
First of all, I want to express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the Haitians. In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence. They are also tests of faith, helpfulness, brotherhood, sincerity and so on of humans. They are not simply a sort of punishment, but rather a test.


Again, your concept of justice is a Platonic one and you treat it as if it were a material thing.

I didn't know that:D…But would you please elaborate on the Platonic Justice?


Most of us feel an adherence to justice because we're human.

And because we are humans, we should adhere to justice in all cases. We have to believe in a just life after a life full of hypocrisy and oppression, with a slight ray of justice.


You aren't contextualizing the former, it is a purely selfish act. Oh and don't give me crap like it's a modified ethical egoism.

Well, we should first define "ethical egoism" to know whether what I'm saying is modified or not.

"Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism)[1] is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest." Ethical egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)

Why is it modified? Because a believer is doing something against his own interest in this life (ethical altruism)…But due to Divine Justice, his good deeds will not go with the wind. Instead, he would be rewarded for that (modified ethical egoism).
I think it is quite clear that the two concepts are kinda different.


Also, you didn't answer my question; what makes a believers saving of a drowning person better than a nonbeliever saving a drowning person?

Sorry, it is not intentional; I didn't see your question, really:)

They key word in your question is "Believer" that's the difference. A believer would do that and waiting the reward in the afterlife, while a non-believer would be waiting it in this life. And both of them would get what they wanted (The Divine Justice)!

[MarkBastable]

In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence.

So he terrorises people just because he can, and he wants to make sure we know it.

If a ten-year-old acted like that, you'd send him to bed with no dinner.

[mercy_mankind]

However, that does not make it any less true, in my opinion.

How so? I believe if it was unfair concept from the beginning, then it is not true.


This is a sad question. Humans are not animals; our minds have developed enough that we can differentiate between right or wrong.

Agreed!

But who would set the rules of the right and the wrong? What was believed wrong and shameful yesterday, is considered great and correct today. And the question is why? Perhaps because human interests play great role in determining the right, and the wrong thing!


We can be aware that our actions have results that can hurt other people, and we can choose not to do them because we care for others....

Exactly, that's why I said that people would feel free to do what they desire to the limits that others would let them to do. Due to that thing, there should be a fixable guide for everyone.


So he terrorises people just because he can, and he wants to make sure we know it.

If a ten-year-old acted like that, you'd send him to bed with no dinner.

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything? Search in your life, and you will find a balanced amount of fear and love in everything we do. So why do you want it different in our relationship with our creator?!

[MarkBastable]

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything?

No, I don't.

[mercy_mankind]

No, I don't.

Why? for example, we work hard because we want to achieve success to a certain degree, and also because we fear failure, and the consequences of it. Correct?!
Also the relationship between a child and his parents is based on love and fear, so can you deny that a chid sometimes fear his parents if he did something wrong?

[MarkBastable]

...the relationship between a child and his parents is based on love and fear, so can you deny that a chid sometimes fear his parents if he did something wrong?

I think I'd be concerned for the welfare of any child who was afraid of his parents.

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

[mercy_mankind]

I think I'd be concerned for the welfare of any child who was afraid of his parents.

It would be more accurate to say that fear is required in some situations, not the base of the relationship. Anyway what you said doesn't answer my question!

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.

Can you refer to the post where I said that thing?! I said earthquakes, and such disasters are tests for us, in fact the whole life is a test!

[MarkBastable]

Anyway - whichever way you cut it - you say that God kills and maims a few thousand people every so often just to frighten the survivors. And I say that if you're right, and if such a God exists, I will have nothing to do with him.



Can you refer to the post where I said that thing?

Yes, I can. You said,

earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence

And when I said that it was a bit much of God to bully people in that way, you replied,

Don't you think that humans need both fear and love in almost everything?

I'm assuming you don't feel the earthquakes are intended to inspire love - so they must be intended to inspire fear.

But we'll agree to differ on this - you think that God is entitled to remind us of His Majesty by flattening cities, and I think that even God can't come up with an excuse for that.

I'm much more interested in soliciting responses to the point I made in an earlier post - to wit:

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

[Paulclem]

As I understand it - mystic terminology aside - the Buddhist concept is more an explanation of the cycle of energy and matter than a suggestion of immortality. If your personal consciousness is dissipated then 'you' are in fact dead. You're no more alive than a cow that's been turned into burgers and distributed amongst the fast-food diners of Chicago. So, for me at least, the highest level of Buddhism is personal extinction.

What I really don't understand in these debates, though, is the a priori assumption that a universe with a God necessarily gives meaning to human existence, and that a universe without a God is necessarily incapable of giving meaning to human existence.

Why should that be so? What is it about God that gives life meaning? He might give life rules, and he might even reward those who stick to them, but why is that meaning? And why is it the only meaning that means anything? The theist argument seems to be that if life is a short game, it's pointless, but if it's an eternal game, it's valid.

Actually, I'd tend to say the opposite was true.

You're right about the cycle of energy, but not about extinction, which is specifically denied in the teachings. The energy - positive and negative propels the person into the next life. Personality is regarded as insubstantial, and this can be seen in the experience of feelig the same, but actually, over time, changing attitudes, habits, opinions etc.Though we might feel a continuity of individuality, we change all the time.

The point of the teachings is to effect a positive outcome for rebirth and ultimately Enlightenment. Otherwise if it's about dissipation then what would be the point?


LOL, you are talking as if the only bad thing that a human can do is murder…There are many awful crimes, and I was referring to every shameful act you can think of not only killing and it is not attached to certain sect.



No, I never said that. And I agree that either theist or non theist would do such horrible acts due to the sickness in their minds. But tell me if there was no worldly punishment for any crime, who would not still commit crimes? The believer in afterlife, or someone who doesn't believe in it?!

And please don't tell me human compassion and so on....As we all can see the horrible wars all over the world, and we see no compassion or anything like that. In fact one self is more important than that compassion (in case that person didn't reinforce that passion through Divine Justice).



My point is that belief in afterlife would give those oppressed the strength to accept their fate in this limited life, and try to do their best to live honorable life in the next life. That belief is not a "wishful-thinking" it is a certainty: Belief in God + Good deeds=Paradise.


First of all, I want to express my deep sorrow and sympathy with the Haitians. In fact; earthquakes and such universal phenomena are signs and indications of God's Majesty, it is a reminder for us that no matter the scientific level we reached, we are still within His power and omnipotence. They are also tests of faith, helpfulness, brotherhood, sincerity and so on of humans. They are not simply a sort of punishment, but rather a test.



I didn't know that:D…But would you please elaborate on the Platonic Justice?



And because we are humans, we should adhere to justice in all cases. We have to believe in a just life after a life full of hypocrisy and oppression, with a slight ray of justice.



Well, we should first define "ethical egoism" to know whether what I'm saying is modified or not.

"Ethical egoism (also called simply egoism)[1] is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest." Ethical egoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism)

Why is it modified? Because a believer is doing something against his own interest in this life (ethical altruism)…But due to Divine Justice, his good deeds will not go with the wind. Instead, he would be rewarded for that (modified ethical egoism).
I think it is quite clear that the two concepts are kinda different.



Sorry, it is not intentional; I didn't see your question, really:)

They key word in your question is "Believer" that's the difference. A believer would do that and waiting the reward in the afterlife, while a non-believer would be waiting it in this life. And both of them would get what they wanted (The Divine Justice)!

There is no doubt that religous ethics and law are he basis of laws modern laws, but in modern secular societies the legal sytems have encompassed and superceded religious laws which are inadequate in dealing with modern problems.

These are the laws that dissuade the poential transgressor from committing all manner of crimes, but the fact remains that these people are in the minority. As such I don't see why there needs to b the idea of supreme judgmental God. In fact a lot of atheists must be thoroughly decent people.

I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving creator God with the vengeful tester of faith such a in Haiti. Like Mark, I could not respect a God that inflicted suffering to make a point, and you on't need to delve very far to see awful sufering all around, let alone in earthquake zones.

[MarkBastable]

You're right about the cycle of energy, but not about extinction, which is specifically denied in the teachings. The energy - positive and negative propels the person into the next life. Personality is regarded as insubstantial, and this can be seen in the experience of feelig the same, but actually, over time, changing attitudes, habits, opinions etc.Though we might feel a continuity of individuality, we change all the time.



I'd say the continuum is memory - the ability to track ourselves by our experience. My contention is that if we lose that contiguous experience of ourselves, we're dead. In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

[Paulclem]

I'd say the continuum is memory - the ability to track ourselves by our experience. My contention is that if we lose that contiguous experience of ourselves, we're dead. In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

There are meditaton practices that whereby the practitioner can track back through their former memories, though I don't know how useful that is.

You've been to some great parties I see.:biggrinjester:

[Michael T]

:smilielol5:
In previous lives, me and Buddha used to argue this one out late in to the night. Oh, how we laughed.

:cornut:

[MarkBastable]

You've been to some great parties I see.

Speaking of which, if there were an afterlife, this is how it ought to work (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50726).

[NikolaiI]

I would like to ask you, do you agree with the statement that "Everything has a source"? To me the this is the most simple... it seems people may have overlooked it.

Everything does have a source. It's a law of the universe. :p

Just like the source of all life on Earth is the Sun.

The nature of everything is light... all forms are but forms of light.

Duality is an illusion. In the highest stage one realizes, one is not separate from the source. How can we be separate from our source? In that state, one realizes that all is of the same source...

Realization of non-duality is what the mystics have sought after... interestingly from different cultures and times they came to the same conclusion: Laoze, Black Elk (from North America..), Alan Watts, Swami Vivekananda... all had a similar experience of oneness with the universe. Black Elk said, "Only when men know that they are one with the universe shall they know peace in their souls"...

And why? Well - if duality is a false idea, and non-duality is the truth; then everything which exists coming from the source mind which is under the illusion of duality; that is also an illusion. To realize you are one with the universe therefore means to wake up from a dream. You realize that everything else you thought had been nothing. You were, that is, never bound, not really.

Mystics all over have said a similar thing; they saw that the source of existence was truth; or God; it was infinite joy, peace, knowledge...

Enlightenment is higher consciousness, it is divine consciousness. It is meaning. What is the meaning of being? Any being in the universe, and all beings; are of one continuous wave with the universe. The depth of the being of an ant is no less than the depth of being of the earth or the stars. Within every being is the Source of Being, the "I Am."

[Paulclem]

Speaking of which, if there were an afterlife, this is how it ought to work (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50726).

:biggrin5: Superb

[JuniperWoolf]

The scientific perspective on where we get our morality is simple... sweet, sweet evolution. Humans don't have claws, or sharp teeth, or fur... while other species can use conflict to obtain the resources that they need, we have to rely on cooperation to survive. Rules of right and wrong ensure that our species continues to exist. Behaviour which is beneficial to the group is sustained, and that which harms the group is selected against (we kill the offender, or put them somewhere where they won't be able to reproduce, like prison). Behaviour which we now consider "bad" is that which harms the group, and that which harms the group tends to debilitate either ourselves or our offspring in the long run. That's why the majority of people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering. That's where morality comes from. We don't need the idea of a god to instruct us, it‘s just common sense.

Don't get me wrong, people still do bad things; however, some system of laws and morality has existed in every culture, and arose because of the group's need to cooperate.

Besides, religious people do bad things ALL THE TIME. Spanish inquisition, anyone? And, Hitler thought that he was doing God's work. Yeah, religious people are always sweethearts.

[Paulclem]

The scientific perspective on where we get our morality is simple... sweet, sweet evolution. Humans don't have claws, or sharp teeth, or fur... while other species can use conflict to obtain the resources that they need, we have to rely on cooperation to survive. Rules of right and wrong ensure that our species continues to exist. Behaviour which is beneficial to the group is sustained, and that which harms the group is selected against (we kill the offender, or put them somewhere where they won't be able to reproduce, like prison). Behaviour which we now consider "bad" is that which harms the group, and that which harms the group tends to debilitate either ourselves or our offspring in the long run. That's why the majority of people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering. That's where morality comes from. We don't need the idea of a god to instruct us, it‘s just common sense.

Don't get me wrong, people still do bad things; however, some system of laws and morality has existed in every culture, and arose because of the group's need to cooperate.

Besides, religious people do bad things ALL THE TIME. Spanish inquisition, anyone? And, Hitler thought that he was doing God's work. Yeah, religious people are always sweethearts.

A bit of a generalisation, but it seems so. I think religious people who do bad things become more high profile because we experct them to be good/ better(?) for being religious. It is especially disappointing for such a person to flaunt the law/ morality.

There have been quite a number of scandals, child abuse, corruption, double standards and so on, but there are lots of religious people out there quietly doing good - helping the homeles, Haiti etc,etc. It is a shame to tar these people with the same brush.

[OrphanPip]

The scientific perspective on where we get our morality is simple... sweet, sweet evolution. Humans don't have claws, or sharp teeth, or fur... while other species can use conflict to obtain the resources that they need, we have to rely on cooperation to survive. Rules of right and wrong ensure that our species continues to exist. Behaviour which is beneficial to the group is sustained, and that which harms the group is selected against (we kill the offender, or put them somewhere where they won't be able to reproduce, like prison). Behaviour which we now consider "bad" is that which harms the group, and that which harms the group tends to debilitate either ourselves or our offspring in the long run. That's why the majority of people don't go around stealing, raping and murdering. That's where morality comes from. We don't need the idea of a god to instruct us, it‘s just common sense.


Group selection is kind of a weak hypothesis, it isn't really supported by any substantial evidence. It makes logical sense, but there are better explanations. I would go with kin-selection and reciprocal altruism to explain the evolution of morality in humans. Selection working on the level of the individual rather than the group is better supported by the evidence.

Individuals who are moral and cooperate better with others will have a higher chance of survival, thus genes that promote cooperation, thus moral behavior, get selected for. I'm just nitpicking but I prefer to crack down on group selection whenever I see it prop up.

[caddy_caddy]

I've always been fascinated by the atheist's concept of death. The atheistic belief is that when you die, that's it. It is the end of you, the end of your person, end of story. This is a difficult idea to cozy up to. Personally, I think that it takes a lot of courage. So here's what I want to know:

Atheists: How do you come to terms with death? The actual idea that you will end? What do you think it'll be like, to not exist (that's a weird question, but go with it)? Do you have any hope that your consciousness will continue in some form? Why are we concious in the first place (why do these little atoms and cells come together to make the humans that we are, if you get my meaning. Why are we ourselves)?Are you afraid?

Theists: I want to know what you think about this. I don't just want to hear "that's not possible, I KNOW that there's an afterlife because I believe in my god and have faith," I want to know how you feel about the supposition of cessation. Do you think that loss of consciousness is a possibility? Do you think that atheists are doing a disservice (causing damage, or whatever) by teaching their children that death is the end? Are you afraid?


As a theist I do envy them to think of death as the end of everything . It is a great relief .For the theist death means " time is out " ; you cannot repent anymore ; it is a new beginning for a new life .
From my own experince I found out that there are many meanings and purposes to our life . In this light I cannot say that an atheist cannot have his / her own meaning , purpose or morality . The religious meaning is the " Ultimate one " you can reach in your life ; it gives you additional or higher motives but is not everything .
On the personal level it gave me extreme peace and pleasure I couldn't reach with anything else .

On the other hand , I think there is an atheist within every theist .There come many moments in our life when we behave , think , and response as an atheist . Life is a struggle ; this struggle is part of the meaning itself .It is not human to stick to one way in each moment of your conscious life .

[Katy North]

From my own experince I found out that there are many meanings and purposes to our life . In this light I cannot say that an atheist cannot have his / her own meaning , purpose or morality . The religious meaning is the " Ultimate one " you can reach in your life ; it gives you additional or higher motives but is not everything .
On the personal level it gave me extreme peace and pleasure I couldn't reach with anything else.

People like you inspire others to be more supporting of everyone's beliefs. Thank you!

:grouphug:

[Nietzsche]

I believe there is nothing after personally. I HOPE there is no after life. In Christian terms, the idea of heaven and hell sound utterly ridiculous. In hell, you suffer. In heaven, basically you serve a god for eternity. Yeah, it's described as a pretty place, no suffering, and luxury... but everything in there is described to honoring God and Christ. (Revelation 4:8-11) ;

There is no fear, sadness, anger, or any of the "dark" emotions that complete our humanity. (Revelation 21:4)


The bible says we should "long for heaven" , or in other words, wish to die. (Phil. 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:8).

Everyone will end up in the same white robes, and so forth. (Dan. 12:3; Matt. 13:43; Rev. 3:4; 6:11) I'd say everyone would be the same, but God plays favorites in heaven. (Matt. 6:19-25; 25:20-21; Luke 19:17-19; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 2 Cor. 5:9,10). Moreso, certain people will be given crowns. the crown of life (James 1:12; Rev. 2:10), the incorruptible crown (1 Cor. 9:24, 25), crown of rejoicing (1 Thes. 2:19; Phil. 4:1), crown of glory (1 Pet. 5:1-4), and crown of righteousness (2 Tim. 4:6-8).


Sounds like a place that's all fine and dandy, but it's all happiness. You can't even FEEL sadness or anything. The very dark side of the mind that gives us our complete humanity is gone. It's a contradiction to the will to life (suffering is needed to promote survival, hunger, for instance). And this will never stop. The same robotic worshiping christ, and feasting for eternity.

I don't mean this so much as an attack on Christianity, but the idea of heaven does not sound appealing at all. I

[The Comedian]

Been thinkin' more about this, and the more I do, the more I come back to the subject line of the post: "It is difficult come to terms with. . .". How true. Paulclem in several of his posts has expressed this difficulty. And I think I may have been too quick and dismissive in my initial post on the topic.

I think whether we are atheiest or theists, we all seek shelter from the prospect that there is nothing, that we will be nothing. Of course, I will argue strongly that just because "nothingness" is scary, doesn't mean it's the truth. I think that many of us (myself included) are too quick to equate bad news with the truth.

Sometimes the prospect of nothingness makes me want to cry like a little girl. I want to cry because, when faced with the horrible prospect of nothing, I become filled with regret: I wish that I had better spent my brief time here better (not more indulgently, but with a mind of poignancy and an eye for simple beauties). It makes me want to say "sorry" to a hundred people. Maybe this is the origin of atonement and the Jewish high holiday of Yom Kippur. And even the true presence of nothingness does not kill meaning and purpose: meaning and purpose become isolated moments, bursts, hugs & kisses -- not interconnected chains.

But as others have expressed here, such as NikoliI: just because the prospect nothingness appears to us doesn't make it real. Our perception of "nothingness" could simply be, in reality, a transition: into light, a cockroach, a bit of stardust, a ghost, or something else entirely for which we have no word and no wisdom to describe.

Okay, I'll sign off on this speculative rant.

[Babbalanja]

I've always been fascinated by the atheist's concept of death. The atheistic belief is that when you die, that's it. It is the end of you, the end of your person, end of story. This is a difficult idea to cozy up to. Personally, I think that it takes a lot of courage. But the courageous part is living. Without the certainty of a prescribed moral code and the threat of punishment after death, what are we supposed to believe? How are we supposed to act? The nothingness isn't just after death, it's throughout our lives. It's no wonder some people can't accept it.


Atheists: How do you come to terms with death? The actual idea that you will end? What do you think it'll be like, to not exist (that's a weird question, but go with it)? Do you have any hope that your consciousness will continue in some form? Why are we concious in the first place (why do these little atoms and cells come together to make the humans that we are, if you get my meaning. Why are we ourselves)?Are you afraid?Death is part of life. Why should not being alive anymore feel any different than not being born yet?

Those why questions are the ones that can't be answered honestly. What answer would you conceivably accept?


Without the idea of an afterlife, then what's the point of doing anything while we're alive? I think of it completely differently. If there's no afterlife, that makes it all the more important to do meaningful things while we're alive.


I HOPE there is no after life...the idea of heaven does not sound appealing at all.
I don't share that hope. I think it's understandable that the suffering of the innocent and the unfairness of life make people wish for justice in some afterlife. But just wishing for it doesn't make it plausible. And the empty promise of an eternal reward has caused incalculable misery on Earth.

Regards,

Istvan