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

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?

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.

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?

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

..... 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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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:

---

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!

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!

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

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?

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Katy North

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanielBenoit

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercy_mankind

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?

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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?

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.