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

[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.

[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

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…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

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)!