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.