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.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katy North
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by mercy_mankind
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!Quote:
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...
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!Quote:
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!
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katy North
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Yes it would matter. It would make a reflection on their actions in this life.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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!"
Exactly, and that's why 15% of the population want to kill everybody :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mercy_mankind
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?
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Also, you didn't answer my question; what makes a believers saving of a drowning person better than a nonbeliever saving a drowning person?