(I'm hoping this won't turn into a flame war between believers and non-believers.)
Some small idea of where I'm coming from; I am a theist - or, at least, I think I am. Sometimes I struggle so greatly that I don't know what I believe. I struggle with the difference between what I want to be true, and what I think may be true.
But there's something about atheism I don't understand. I'm not intending this question to be in any way facetious or provocative. I really want to know. I want to understand.
My question is this: "Do you fear non-existence?" That is, the non-existence of death.
Actually, I suppose then my first question should really be: "As an atheist, do you believe you will cease to exist after death?" I assume the answer to this question is yes, but perhaps that is not something I should assume. Perhaps belief in a god and belief in an afterlife are not the same. I would be interested to know that too.
I ask because, frankly, the idea of eternal oblivion scares the hell out of me. I do not want to not exist. I don’t know how I could live a life at peace believing that that would be my fate.
I foresee what, perhaps, many will say at this point: "Hell is a greater thing to fear than Oblivion." It is. I acknowledge and agree with this. But that's not what I'm asking. As a christian, hell is something one can escape. As an atheist, oblivion is not. (Again, this is an assumption; correct me if I'm wrong.)
I'm hoping people won't respond with posts about how silly the beliefs are of people on the other side of the fence. Please, just answer for yourself.
Do you fear oblivion? If not, why not? If so, how do you live at peace? If you do not believe in oblivion, then what do you believe?
I'm really trying to understand...
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Oblivion is scary but I still believe in it. It just makes the most sense to me.
Occasionally I day-dream about other things that could happen after death. But I think the most likely thing would be oblivion. However, if I were to die and discover that there was something OTHER than oblivion, I would not be overly surprised.
Yeah, it's really scary, but I just can't force myself to believe in anything else. I just believe what feels logical. I just try not to think about it too much...
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, existing beyond death would seem unlikely, if you're not going to believe in supernatural things.
So, I suppose I doubt there will be any eternal life. We're alive, which is something most of the trillions of possibilities never gained. Not only that, most of us live in the developed world, which, lucky us, is even better. We had no choice in this matter, nor a choice in our genes, parents, traits, preferences, or even a choice in being human. We're pretty damn lucky to be not only alive, but alive when and where we are, at least most of us.
Oblivion (besides being a fun video game) isn't much to fear. Think back before you were born. I have a good hunch the feeling will be similar. It won't bother you in the least. You won't mind. Well, there wont be a you to mind.
Will it be any fun? No, and existence, in most cases, is preferrable than nonexistence. With a few exceptions, but I think I've dodged the question long enough:
I wish to avoid death, and act to do so. It's in my nature, my very body acts towards that goal, it's written into me. When something like nearly getting hit by a car happens, my body reacts, and I feel fear and anxiety. And further, looking around, I find myself liking life far too much to willingly let go of it except for rather rare circumstances, and thus consciously act to avoid it, since for me it's definitely not preferrable.
Death itself will be a huge bother, particularly if it comes at a time I do not wish. I fear the pain of an unpleasant death, and find myself fearing the actual physical act of dying, since I know darn well that it won't be fun to feel my body failing me, my brain quickly starving of oxygen and hallucinating wildly, as if in a hurried, hyper-intense dream, before the lights go out. Feeling my nerves lose function, my heart no longer beating as I die, this will be probably be one of the least pleasant things I'll ever have possibly felt.
But the oblivion that comes after death? The nothingness that comes when I've finally lost the race I was destined to lose? I fear losing, not the aftereffects. And I'm rather curious to see how I'll go on without me anyway. I'd much, much prefer to exist, particularly in a pleasant existence, such as in modern America, but then again I'm young. I'm fairly certain oblivion is not that bad. I didn't mind my nonexistence before I was born, after all.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: I ask because, frankly, the idea of eternal oblivion scares the hell out of me. I do not want to not exist. I don’t know how I could live a life at peace believing that that would be my fate.
Why not? Not existing wasn't too bad for the first 14 billion years or so of the universe. I know that sounds like a dumb statement but that's seriously all there is to it. Being dead can't be bad if there's nothing there to experience badness.
I think a more relevant question would be do you fear dying? I fear dying but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that religion curbs that fear. It also depends on how I die. For example, being unexpectedly shot in the head sounds scary in theory but I probably maintain consciousness long enough to notice in practice. It would be a painless death (not that I want to go out that way).
EDIT: I basically repeated what Megabyte said but I tend to keep post windows open for a while so I never ended up refreshing the page to see his post.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
This is precisely my greatest fear. No matter what reason tells me about how it won't matter because I won't exist to care - it doesn't make the fear go away. But what can you do, you know? I just try not to dwell on it too much.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Tara: Once, a few years ago, when I still believed in the afterlife, I began imagining what it would be like. I thought about it, and the amusing things that could happen, the sorts of qualities of a paradise, the people I would meet, etc.
I was enjoying myself deeply.
But then, I realized something. This was a fantasy. I was playing with a fantasy. And the epiphany of that moment made me realize that, most likely, the whole idea was a fantasy. The fantasy of people who, like me and everyone else, didn't like the idea of death and nothing.
The fantasy of a perfect world to make everything unjust rectified, where the good people (which I of course included myself as a part of, as most humans do) would enjoy a life of no pain, no harm, no more injustice. Where the innocent would no longer need to be protected, where the sad would find happiness, and those who could only feel despair at the pain of life could finally find hope.
It's a nice thought. Pleasant, hopeful. Deeply appealing, to me no less than others. Addicting. You could become obsessed with such thoughts, and get caught up in them and in the actions you imagine will allow you to get there, incredibly easily. (Luckily, for the most part, such actions tend towards doing good things like charity and whatnot. But there are exceptions...)
But. I know fantasy. I live it every day, have used fantasy as my primary means of entertainment from the farthest back I know, when I was 2, at least. Fantasy, creating stories based on the shows and books I'd seen, creating stories and adventures putting them together, or making new things wholecloth. It was, and still is, my primary form of entertaining myself, since for the longest time I didn't have anyone else to play with.
So, I know fantasy. And I raelized, in that moment, after dwelling on the idea of heaven all afternoon, that the whole concept was a fantasy no less than any other of my imagined worlds. I couldn't then and still can't say for sure that no such thing exists. But there's no evidence for it, and though I love fantasy, I never, ever believe them to be reality. Not even when I was 2.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Agreed. Religion answers such a basic human need -- it's comfort and fantasy. I can see every reason in the world why people would WANT to believe in God, but no reason why God would actually exist.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
I'm gonna agree with Mega.
"Did the ten thousand years before you were born trouble you? Then why should the ten thousand after you die?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well... in principle I agree with the 'ten thousand years' bit, but I must say I am not eager to stop experiencing things. But, you should excuse the expression, c'est la vie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course I fear death. But then there's a merit in believing in oblivion: definitionally, you won't be around to experience it. There's no "you" left to experience the nothingness; you just stop experiencing. As has been pointed out, you didn't experience anything before you were alive -- so no longer experiencing anything after your death should be roughly similar.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: I ask because, frankly, the idea of eternal oblivion scares the hell out of me. I do not want to not exist. I don’t know how I could live a life at peace believing that that would be my fate.
Why not? Not existing wasn't too bad for the first 14 billion years or so of the universe. I know that sounds like a dumb statement but that's seriously all there is to it. Being dead can't be bad if there's nothing there to experience badness.
Well, it's not that I think the non-existence will be unendurable (being that there will be nothing to endure it), it's that I exist now (at least, I think I do), and that existence desperately wants to persist.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Yes, I do fear it. I know that I won't mind once it happens, but the thought of ceasing to exist does disturb me. That said, the idea of living forever really disturbs me too, when you think about how long forever really is.
Really, if I had my way in the matter I'd like to see just how long I'm even interested in living. What bothers me most about not existing is that I would never get to see what happens after the end of my life. When you look at the past hundred years, the changes have been amazing, and there's no sign that they are slowing anytime soon. It really saddens me that no matter what sorts of things I experience, there are going to be many, many other things I would love to see that will happen after my death. So really, what scares me isn't really oblivion so much as knowing that any realistic age I will reach is still going to result in missing out on a lot of things I would like to experience. An afterlife would at least hopefully provide some means to find out about what happened afterwards, or to at least see all sorts of strange new things. So while I find it very unlikely that there will be anything other than nonexistence after death, I certainly would be pleasantly surprised if I was proven wrong.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I wrote up a nice post and then realized it said the same thing as megabyte's post. So I'll just throw my agreement in with him. In short:
I like living a lot. I don't fear death or oblivion. There are manners of death I greatly fear having to go through. I don't really think about them or death in general very often though.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
"Let me tell you a secret, something they don't teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we're mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed. You will never be more lovely than you are now. We will never be here again." (Achilles)
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm hoping someone figures out how to preserve our conscious heads in a jar (like Futurama) before I die. It doesn't seem too far off--Get the brain hooked up, keep it stimulated, and give me a robot body that runs on renewable energy (the moisture in the air, perhaps). Hopefully the robot body is high-tech, too, so I can fly, change my appearance, and have an array of super-senses.
Like others have said in this thread, I prefer to live in my fantasy rather than getting bogged down in life's scary questions. This whole world and my body are just an means for my brain to have fun, and making it think about non-existence isn't fun.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wish I could remain in perfect health while eating whatever I want and never exercising - unfortunately, my desires for reality to change drastically don't make any difference. The same applies to death. Regardless of what I want to happen, whatever happens will happen. Because my wishes for a different future won't make it happen, I don't see any reason to believe in something which doesn't make sense to me.
As far as fearing oblivion, I'm not looking forward to it, but I take solace in the fact that once I'm no longer in existence, there won't be any ME to worry about whether I'm alive or not. In other words, all the fear and worry can only possibly take place BEFORE death. So if I just keep putting off worrying about it, eventually it will cease to be an issue at all
I think it would be great if there were some kind of afterlife. Even as an atheist my non-belief in a supreme being doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't an afterlife of some kind. I just don't believe that anyone knows what it is, or that it's possible for us to know.
I'm an a-theist, but an agnostic-afterlifer.
Edit: Given my druthers, I'd opt for a mix of Valhalla and the Elysian Fields - paradise, but with the option of fantastic battles!
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
As much as I'd like to believe in an afterlife, I bring myself to do so.
I don't fear death and I don't fear non-existence.
I fear a painful death tho.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I worry about the pain associated with dying---personally I'm terrified of choking on something---but I know that once I'm dead I won't be around to care. I do fear becoming conscious again in some horrible life (as I don't know how "I" came to exist in "this" body, I'm not ruling out the possibility that "I" could come to exist again); but I figure that since it would be the only life I'd ever known, I'd see it as totally normal.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Actually, I suppose then my first question should really be: "As an atheist, do you believe you will cease to exist after death?"
Yes
quote:My question is this: "Do you fear non-existence?" That is, the non-existence of death.
No. Not at all.
I do fear death in what I think is probably a pre-wired for survival kind of way. I also fear the pain of the dying process. But I'm not sure I can make a distinction between the two. I can't think of death without associating the dying process with pain.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Launchy:
You know, Futurama probably got the head in a jar thing from Orson Scott Card's Wyrms. (Or is there another book that uses that trick?)
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
"My question is this: 'Do you fear non-existence?' That is, the non-existence of death."
Yeah. Blugh. More than anything. "Eternal oblivion" describes the death I believe in, and it scares me in a way nothing else ever has. The idea of the unavoidable complete loss of the sense of self can keep this body up at night. Though, whether my death is painful or not doesn't really concern me as after I die it's not going to matter. I extra-fear scary overwhelming deaths though, like drowning in a large body of water, the nightmare of being plunged deep into the ocean and trying to climb my way to the surface and not making it. Or watching a nuclear bomb falling down far away.
I like to fantasize about the brain-life thing, too. Awakening years after my death attached to a computer. Or in sentient zombieform.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: This is precisely my greatest fear. No matter what reason tells me about how it won't matter because I won't exist to care - it doesn't make the fear go away. But what can you do, you know? I just try not to dwell on it too much.
Echo that. It's my greatest fear as well. It seriously freaks me out. But I too try not to think about it, as, perhaps ironically, the idea of nothingness is rather overwhelming.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Ok. My views: I enjoy the idea of an afterlife, though I do not believe in the ones most people consider.
So I am not sure of what I believe because I'm not sure if what I'm about to explain actually has any logic/math/physics behind it, please elucidate me if you have any input. So. Our universe is expanding. The current estimates are that it will eventually expand until it is more or less infinitely diffuse. But if time goes on forever won't *everything* go through *every* possible permutation of positions, and therefore I will exist again an infinite number of times, and I will also be an infinite number of stars, and aliens, and planets (which although non-sentient, are still cool to consider). But does that reasoning make sense? To assume that time won't run backwards or some-such? or to assume that the expansion of *Space* won't make it impossible for my perpetual re-existence? So. I'm partially reassured by that reasoning, though I'd like a credible physicist/math source to say "Yup, 'This has all happened before and will all happen again'"
I am perturbed at the concept of non-being, as that's a difficult concept to grasp. I think I realize now that it's mainly a non-issue, but I still rue that I will miss so much AWESOMENESS. I'll probably miss meeting aliens, trans-stellar colonization, extra-planetary colonization... More than anything I just wish I could stick around and help out instead of having an infinite... a lot of other people continuously re-learning stuff I'd already know.
That brings me to my next topic/goal: When i die, or when I'm confident in "the future"'s capabilities or when I'm elderly, I hope to be cryonically frozen or otherwise preserved so that future civilizations will be able to transfer me into a more sturdy container (read: robot body (Simak's City -esque)) or implant in me repairing nano-bots that will keep me fit and healthy long into the future(read: indefinitely). hell. Maybe I'd even be able to back up each day's change of my mind so that if I'm shot in the face the next day someone will have a model to resurrect me from.
I long to live forever. When people say "everyone has to die" I secretly wonder if they're telling the truth.
So yes. I am concerned about oblivion, and hope to alleviate that concern. I am hopeful maybe to the degree of fantasy. Obviously issues arrive if you consider everyone wanting what I want--an immortal society would have to get a lot of energy to keep going as it would grow very quickly(except when reproduction is controlled).
Sigh. I really hope I get to live as a robot... could be so much better than this pitiful meaty vessel.(I, Robot sorta reasoning here)
/End my weirdness.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: My question is this: "Do you fear non-existence?" That is, the non-existence of death.
A little. It does seem like such a waste and it while a "traditional" as noted above fantasy afterlife holds little appeal for me, I could easily find myself accepting something like reincarnation. (I mean from a "would I like it" vs. "do I think it is likely" perspective.)
One of the more annoying parts is that our brief life is like reading one chapter of the book (of human history) with a blurry glance at the past and not being able to flip the page over and read more. That part annoys me.
quote: Actually, I suppose then my first question should really be: "As an atheist, do you believe you will cease to exist after death?"
No, I do not believe in it. Of course from my perspective it doesn't really matter what I believe. If there is some cool afterlife, I'll take that as a bonus, if not ... oh well, I will not be around to find out.
To gain some insight into my reasoning above. Here is some back of the hand figuring. I figure the chance of an afterlife, is say x% some small probability. The chance that the afterlife is some afterlife that I've heard of is say x/n where n is some big number. The chance of above *plus* the chance that I can affect what the afterlife is like by changing what I believe is x/(n*m)
So in short, if it doesn't bother me much IF an afterlife exists, it bothers me much less "which" afterlife doesn't exist. (if that made any sense at all)
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
The "good part" of oblivion is that it turns the game into a draw. In the end everybody's equal.
As for the questions: I do believe that this is it, we live now and then we die and nothing is left of our conciousness. It's a bit of a waste, as Mucus said, but we're all wasted (for now). I think that while the sum of a human mind's experiences is unique most of the individual experiences are exactly or closely replicated in others, but I'd still want my sum to go on experiencing stuff. I'll be sad when it ends (well, right before it ends) and I don't really enjoy thinking that my death will probably involve some kind of pain, but for what happens after that? I won't be there anyway, so I'm not terrified of "it", 'cause that "it" is really nothing.
I'm more afraid of the passing of people I'm attached to. The symptom of "the last man on Earth". It sucks a lot to lose friends & family, not because they don't exist anymore, but because you can't interract with them and they can't give happiness to others. Maybe it's a selfish way of thinking, but I wouldn't call it unhealthy for that.
On the other hand if it someone proved that there is an after-life that wouldn't be a hell/heaven divide (I find those versions waaay too childish and wishful thinking to be true) but some sort of continuation of our lives in a non-material form I'd be glad about it, and I'd be hopeful I'd meet friends & family there after we all die. It would make me look differently on illness and death, but it won't change my view of everyday life.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I do not fear what I can’t fight against (and win).
The question is, can I fight and win against death? Well, as far as I can see, there were much more conscious beings that died (i.e. lost the fight), compared to those that live forever (that set is still void).
From experience, it seems that I’ll have to die. So do I worry about it? No. What I do instead is enjoy what I have while I still have it. Not expecting anything after death, makes me taste more deeply my life. I don’t lose any time trying to “win points” for the afterlife. Nonetheless, I take responsibility if my take on life dooms me to never-ending Hell as some religions describe it. I kind of take one step at a time. Carpe diem!
I’d like to comment on some point that was made here several times. The bit about: “If you didn’t fear non-existence before being born, why fear it after death?” My obvious question here is: How do you know that you didn’t fear it before being born? Maybe that’s why you were born (as a self-conscious being) in the first place (or in the place you are now). Maybe we do exist forever in some alternate “immateriality” and we choose to come “here” to experience matter as we know it now. The fact that we don’t remember anything from before (with the exception of those that have such “memories from previous lives” during hypnosis), doesn’t mean that we didn’t experience it. It just means that we don’t remember it. But you know, maybe it was a very unpleasant time of being “eternal”, and maybe even “omniscient” and “omnipotent” and not being able to do ANYTHING (new, that is). So, maybe it was our own choice to “incarnate” in this rotten world, and it’s even possible that this is not the first, nor the last “life” we will live. Will we remember any of this present life in the others? Apparently not, but maybe it is also our choice of not remembering, so we could actually experience learning as if it were for the first time.
How’s that for an atheistic take on the matter?
A.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
"I plan on living forever. So far, so good."
For all intents and purposes, I'm an atheist, but the details of my beliefs state that I'm willing to convert in the face of solid evidence. Unfortunately for the believers out there, I won't accept anything man-made/written/spoken as said evidence. In short, I'm fairly certain that I won't find out for sure until I die.
That being said, I'm actually dreadfully curious to know what, if anything, happens after death. The thing is, I can't conceive of any afterlife in which we will retain our current knowledge. In fact, without a brain, I can't imagine that we'd be "Sentient" at all in any kind of text-book ethereal afterlife, and so what's the point? What is an experience without the ability to remember it?
Reincarnation is another possibility I've thought of, but once again, we won't KNOW we're reincarnated. By the end of that next life, we'll be asking ourselves the same exact questions that we're asking on this thread right now. We won't be any closer to the answers. Again, pointless...
Us atheists that can't bring ourselves to believe in any afterlife are actually screwing ourselves. Our inability to believe is considerably lowering the quality of the life we DO have in that everything we do is tainted with the realization that nothing matters... well.. unless we can forget about it for long stretches.
In short, my curiosity is stronger than my fear I think. It's the not knowing that keeps me going day after day.
Now, as for the act of dying itself... I think that the aforementioned senses of your body shutting down will be greatly overpowered by the sheer storm of your brain trying to figure out a way to stay alive. I theorize that this is the explanation behind the "Life flashing before my eyes" phenomenon that so many people swear to. I imagine that the reason we don't use ~90% of our brain is that it would wear it out faster than it could rebuild itself, and so we live our whole lives as virtual dunces so as to maintain some amount of longevity (not very unlike OSC's "Anton's Key" concept). At the moment just before you die, however, I think your brain goes "all in" so to speak. Once you realize that you can't find an escape using your current mental capacity, then their's no point in holding back anymore. I think our brains open the floodgates and go for broke.
I feel that that one moment of thinking at max capacity will make everything else worth it. It actually makes me fear a sudden death even more than a painful, inevitable one. Almost makes me wanna go bungey-jumping... almost.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Us atheists that can't bring ourselves to believe in any afterlife are actually screwing ourselves. Our inability to believe is considerably lowering the quality of the life we DO have in that everything we do is tainted with the realization that nothing matters... well.. unless we can forget about it for long stretches.
Hmm, I wouldn't speak for all of us like that. For me, this very equality of all people in front of death makes everything matter during life. Since this is the only existence we have, I'm inclined to make the most of it. The ultimate purpose of my life is to live and live better, speaking not only from a purely material/financial point of view, but also mental & emotional.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: Us atheists that can't bring ourselves to believe in any afterlife are actually screwing ourselves. Our inability to believe is considerably lowering the quality of the life we DO have in that everything we do is tainted with the realization that nothing matters... well.. unless we can forget about it for long stretches.
Speak for yourself! I have MANY reasons to be alive and none of them involve God or and afterlife. And, no, I don't try to forget about death for "long stretches", I'm perfectly happy thinking about death whenever...I'm comfortable with what I believe.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
As an atheist, do you believe you will cease to exist after death?
Yes. Or, rather, as an apatheist I believe that. I believe my consciousness, soul, what-have-you, is a state produced by my brain's constant awareness of perceived reality, compared second-by-second with the memories and experiences hard-wired into my brain. It's the interface between my brain and my body, and when my brain dies it will snuff out, having nothing left to sustain it.
"Do you fear non-existence?"
Not at all. I fear pain, I have a sort of pre-regret that I'll be leaving people I love and that I won't get to see what happens to them next, but if my inevitable non-existence makes any difference at all in my life it's to make me try harder to make a good and lasting impression while I'm here.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm just gonna throw my lot in there with those who believe in oblivion, but don't fear it. I mean think about it, do you mind sleeping? Even on nights when you don't dream? That's a form of temporary oblivion, sleeping with out dreams. I do it a lot. I rather love it. Why would a permanent oblivion be any worse? I mean I'm not ready for it yet, but I'm willing to bet that after 60 or 80 years of living, I'll be more than ready for a good, long sleep. And if it comes earlier than that, eh, oh well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: if I were to die and discover that there was something OTHER than oblivion, I would not be overly surprised.
Yeah that's kind of where I am as well. I don't believe in God just because I don't have any reason to. If I die and something waits for me, it will be nice, but for now that's not a question I think people can answer.
I should add: I could never believe in the traditional concepts of the afterlife because they are so painfully stupid. There's a very good reason why we don't know what it's like when we die... it's because we aren't dead, and speaking from a purely expedient viewpoint- we shouldn't want to be.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I think that it's beautiful to extinguish. I really have no fear of it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Us atheists that can't bring ourselves to believe in any afterlife are actually screwing ourselves. Our inability to believe is considerably lowering the quality of the life we DO have in that everything we do is tainted with the realization that nothing matters... well.. unless we can forget about it for long stretches.
Says you. The finiteness of life makes things matter *more* to me than I think they do to many theists to which this life is just one tiny portion of an eternal existence.
[ December 24, 2007, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Settle down people, it was idle speculation before I went to sleep... Must I really put a disclaimer before EVERYTHING that I say?
Here:
quote:It would seem to me that us atheists that can't bring ourselves to believe in any afterlife may potentially be screwing ourselves. Our inability to believe could be considerably lowering the quality of the life we DO have in that everything we do may be tainted with the realization that nothing matters... well.. unless one can forget about it for long stretches.
Better? Call back the lynch mob!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The finiteness of life makes things matter *more* to me than I think they do to many theists to which this life is just one tiny portion of an eternal existence.
This is only true if "things that matter to me" is a certain given total size for all people.
Believing in an afterlife does not mean this one is any less important.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
Addendum: The context of the much quoted section is that, to me, people of faith don't seem to worry about this stuff as much. They just seem less stressed about it over all. I honestly do wish that I could bring myself to believe in some religion or another, but I just can't conceive of that reality, or post-reality, as the case may be.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Interesting. I suppose some people really do fear it.
I mean, the first time I thought of nonexistence, the first time I really played with the possibility of oblivion, for real, I was terrified beyond anything I'd ever felt before. But that was years and years ago.
I'm not afraid, now. Not of the oblivion part. And further, I notice now how sleep is. Essentially a form of partial oblivion. And I realize "eh. Not too bad. Not good. But not bad, either. Kinda so-so."
The feeling of my body dying, particularly if it's a death in pain, I'm not looking forward to that, mind you. And if I can get away with never dying, I don't think I'd ever get tired of it. Really, living forever would be a blast, even if you suffer for periods of time. Even if you were a failure or a bum for a century, there would always be something to live for.
But. I doubt I'll mind nonexisting very much.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: I imagine that the reason we don't use ~90% of our brain ...
That whole "we only use 10% of our brains" myth seriously strains credulity. Would evolution really have evolved and then maintained a brain that wastes 90% of its space, not to mention wasting the energy required to support it?
But whatever, the whole credulity issue is irrelevant because well, when we measure it, we do use most of our brain at one time or another.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I've read how much energy the brain uses. It's amazing to see such a high percentage of the total energy and resources of the body used on the brain alone. I think it was somewhere between 25-35% or so of our total energy usage.
That's the brain alone. If we were really only using 10% of it... well. Such a thing would have never evolved.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Starsnuffer, but would you have any link with the consciousness of such a copy of yourself?
Scientific American had a great article on parallel Universes that answers some of your questions. Level I parallel Universes (a more straight-forward type of parallel universe than is usually considered) only require infinite space (or at least a much, much larger volume than the observable universe) and sufficient matter. Levels II, III and IV parallel Universes require more elaborate (and unproven) physics assumptions. Level III is the quantum "Many Worlds" theory.
There is a limit to how many particles and events can occur in a given volume of space/time, and using those limits you can calculate minimum distances to a copy of an identical volume. So if the universe is large enough, not only an identical copy of you must exist, but the Earth, Solar System, up to the entire observable Universe and all events in it must be copied.
The sizes required are truly amazing, though: 10 ^ (10 ^ 28) meters for a copy of you or me, much larger for copy of a larger volume. To put that in perspective, the observable Universe is "only" 4 X 10^26 meters, a much smaller number.
quote: That assumption underlies the estimate that your closest identical copy is 10 to the (10^ 28) meters away. About 10 to the (10 ^92) meters away, there should be a sphere of radius 100 light-years identical to the one centered here, so all perceptions that we have during the next century will be identical to those of our counterparts over there. About 10 to the (10 ^ 118) meters away should be an entire Hubble volume identical to ours.
These are extremely conservative estimates, derived simply by counting all possible quantum states that a Hubble volume can have if it is no hotter than 10 ^8 kelvins
So does oblivion feel any less scary now? Anyone comforted by the thought of your copies floating around?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Same answer as everyone else. Don't know or particularly care if there is an afterlife. I am more concerned in enjoying this life and maybe even bringing joy to others. I guess I would prefer to continue existing in some form or state forever, but I've already been given the present. Dying sounds unpleasant if the cause is anything other than a narcotic overdose, and even then not particularly appealing, and I'm certainly in no hurry to do it, but I see no way at this point in time of avoiding it, so why worry?
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
1. Thank you Mucus for stating that. 2. 0Megabyte: I agree with what you've said so far a LOT 3. Thank you Morbo for providing that awesome awesome link.
I am slightly comforted that my inklings did come from at least some kind of logic (level one and two parallel universes where either infinity makes infinite permutations or the ceasing of expansion in some cases creates a new cluster of type one parallel universes). Really that kind of MATH and PROBABILITY, is freakin' amazing. I can't help but think, though, that someone is missing something inherent from our observation of the universe that skews what we're learning about it. It just feels so good to have someone say with some confidence that "Yes. This happens. There is no reason to assume a finite universe or time or whatnot." but then maybe that's what religious people say when they read the bible and see that God gives them TRUTH on every page. Incontestable truth. But then, Tegmark can presumably prove his claims. I haven't seen much in the way of proof come from God lately.
(Whenever my chem teacher would give us tables like standard reduction potential or the periodic table and explain how they were derived she would say "Well when moses came down with his tablet god forgot to write down some important stuff, like reduction potentials... atomic weights... isotopic ratios... Instead we just got some stupid common sense rules.")[A fun side-story, 'cause I always thought she subtly made a good point with that little comment]
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by sylvrdragon: I imagine that the reason we don't use ~90% of our brain ...
That whole "we only use 10% of our brains" myth seriously strains credulity. Would evolution really have evolved and then maintained a brain that wastes 90% of its space, not to mention wasting the energy required to support it?
But whatever, the whole credulity issue is irrelevant because well, when we measure it, we do use most of our brain at one time or another.
Argh. I stand corrected.
*crumbles up another theory and tosses it over his shoulder onto the heap*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm a maybe-theist. I have no clue what happens after I die, and I don't think there's going to be any conclusive way to find out except dying.
That said, I don't routinely fear death, until I try to conceptualize what happens. This is especially true with "nothing happens." I exist. I am here. I am able to think, to conceptualize what would happen after death. Since the sensation of "I" so deeply permeates my existence, I can't conceive of that ending. What happens to the "I?"
I'm so afraid that nothing happens after I die that I frequently feel I'd rather not have existed in the first place.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
I must say, I've found this thread to be very valuable so far. Thanks to everyone for responding.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: (Whenever my chem teacher would give us tables like standard reduction potential or the periodic table and explain how they were derived she would say "Well when moses came down with his tablet god forgot to write down some important stuff, like reduction potentials... atomic weights... isotopic ratios... Instead we just got some stupid common sense rules.")[A fun side-story, 'cause I always thought she subtly made a good point with that little comment]
As a former HS chem teacher (as well as a theist) that bothers me. I will defer to the OP's request, but that's just unnecessary snarkiness, IMO. (And misses a whole slew of points.)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Bible teaches that virtually everyone faces two deaths. The first one has been evaded by only two people so far, Enoch and Elijah, who were taken (or "translated") to Heaven without ever dying. This first death is likened by the Bible to sleep, and for everyone there will be an awakening in the Resurrection. However, Revelation 20 tells of something called "the second death," when those who have been resurrected after experiencing the first death but have shown they they are still unchanged and remain enemies of God, are put to death again, this time forever. In other words, they suffer total annihilation of the being, and even God will forget them, so they will be as if they had never existed at all.
Some Christians theologians will tell you that Jesus died the second death for all mankind, so none of us need to die forever. Jesus, who demonstrated in His ministry several times that He has the power to raise people from the dead, could not have been killed if He had been unwilling to allow it. But He did consent to fall into the sleep of death.
The second death is separation from God the source of all life. Anyone who dies like this is gone forever. This would be the fate we all would suffer, if Jesus had not borne it for us. How did Jesus suffer the second death? When He "was made to be sin for us," taking full responsibility upon Himsef all our evil ways and sinul acts, that burden of sin caused God the Father to withdraw from Him, separate Himself from the Son, because God cannot (or will not) embrace sin. When Jesus was dying on the Cross, He cried out "Father, why have you forsaken Me?" (Some Bible scholars say a better translation would be "Why have you slaughtered me?") Either way, the Son was lamenting the loss of fellowship with God the Father, a separation that had never existed before within the Trinity.
It was only because Jesus Himself is also fully God, and therefore in Himself has the source of life too, that He could survive the second death. For this reason, no angel or any other created being could have made the Atonement that Christ made. Only He could survive the second death of separation from God the Father. Deity cannot die. But if Jesus' Atonement had not been of sufficient worth, then He might have had to remain asleep, and face eternity in the unconscious state. This is what Jesus risked.
Here is what Jesus said about these things: "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:17-18; NKJV)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If there is only oblivion then what is there to fear?
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Rivka. It speaks to me because I come to the table of theism with a critical eye, more ready to negate than believe, and I think she brings up a good point. (excepting some Plan where we're supposed to work everything out or it's some character-building thing...) It seems like God's handing down some universal constants in the form of the physical science or some explanation of much of the natural world would make his presence far more 1. credible and 2. Impressive.
As this is off-topic if folks would like to continue this conversation, please make another thread for it. (sounds like a little ad for coming attractions).
Posted by jds0789 (Member # 11412) on :
Sean- your question brings an Ayn Rand quote to my mind: "It is not I who will die; it is the world that will end." I believe that any atheist would feel like this concerning the issue of death. It is not one's actual death that brings about the negatvie emotions (or what comes after one's death), because that idea is from the wrong perspective (you can't witness your death and its aftermath). But you would feel bad about all that you are to lose by dying, not your actual life, but the values in your life: family, work, pleasures, etc. Its not what comes after that we should all fear, but what we will lose here and now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm just heartened by the fact that Ron Lambert is answering a question for atheists, although he hasn't seemed to get the basics down right yet Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Mmm. No membership card for him; clearly he hasn't been studying the AOD (Atheist Official Doctrine) very closely. I suggest self-criticism.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If there is only oblivion then what is there to fear?
Mainly, what we risk is the loss of eternal life and all that comes with it. There will be the matter of suffering being cast into the lake of fire, at least until we are burnt up and gone forever. But there is no real indication that this will be enough to make up for all the evil we may have done.
Some people suggest that those who have done more evil than others, will burn longer. But there is really no practical way to make the punishment truly equal the crime. This is especially true if the common view of an ever-burning hell is true. If the Roman Emperor Nero has been burning in hell for nearly two thousand years, then how could Adolph Hitler, who was responsible for the deaths of millions, ever catch up to him in punishment suffered? You might be led into discussion of Hitler and Nero burning at different temperatures, but that is an exercise in absurdity. Burning is burning. And really, how long would Hitler have to burn to balance out all the suffering and death he caused?
There have been science fiction stories which attempted to plumb these depths--such as where a person is made to live the life of his victim, up to and past the point of death, and then do that for everyone he has ever killed. But you would have to give the miscreant amnesia between punishments, or else you would just drive him insane.
I think God will be content just to be rid of sin forever, in such a way that no other creature will ever be tempted to re-invent sin.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If there is only oblivion then what is there to fear?
Mainly, what we risk is the loss of eternal life and all that comes with it.
Uh, you may have wanted to make a point but these two just don't follow... How do we risk something that isn't there?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
He's doing a poor job summarizing [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager]Pascal's Wager[/url] (which is basically game theory applied to the existence of god).
Summary:
You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
You live as though God does not exist.
If God exists, the text is unspecified, but it could be implied that you go to limbo, purgatory, or hell: your loss is either null or infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If there is only oblivion then what is there to fear?
Uh... oblivion? I don't get it. I'm trying to think of some clever and accurate comparison, like if there is only an Infinite Wall in front of you, what is stopping you from moving forward? Or if there is only little fluffy kittens in this basket, why bother taking it home? They're kittens, man, adorable goofy cat babies! It's more than enough! But it's oblivion, Infinite No, sucks. Scary scary.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And really, how long would Hitler have to burn to balance out all the suffering and death he caused?
It doesn't really matter as long it is a finite amount of time.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I have never been afraid of what non-existence feels like, and I doubt anyone actually does fear the feeling of non-existence. Rather, the relevant question is whether a person fears the concept that existence is finite. I've thought a lot about this and keep going back and forth on how I feel about it.
Part of it for me is the distinction between not dying and not being capable of death. I don't think I'd particularly enjoy life as much if I knew that I couldn't die (Groundhog Day comes to mind). Knowing that life could never end would make life lose some of its meaning for me. But I don't think I'd be as opposed to being capable of death while sustaining my life indefinitely.
Part of it has to do with the fear of not having control over something as central to my existence as is my consciousness. While death itself does not really scare me, the thought of dying before I'm ready to die does scare me. An example might be in how I'm not afraid to fall asleep, but the thought of being in a coma without any awareness does scare me. It scares me, not because of what that state is going to feel like, but because of what that state or condition is depriving me of. Obviously I know that once I'm dead I won't be able to care, but that doesn't stop me from caring now, and how I feel right now is what matters.
I think one notable difference between nonexistence before you were born and nonexistence after you're dead is the effect on everyone else. Nobody cared about you before you were born, but people do care about you after you die. While I may not be too concerned about myself after I'm dead, I do care about people around me who may be affected by my death. Granted, I won't be around to care, but to not care now about how my nonexistence will affect others is, imo, very selfish.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Mainly, what we risk is the loss of eternal life and all that comes with it."
You'd have to have eternal life, or the possibility of eternal life, first, to ever lose it, which we don't.
I find it curious how your statement seems to assume that we get this as if by default.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
0Megabyte, we have eternal life now by legal judgment of inheritance, even if we have not come into personal possession of it yet. This is what the Apostle Paul said--the entire human race has already been saved, has already been given an enternal inheritace of endless life. This is why the gospel is such good news. No one born of the human race will ever suffer eternal death because of their sins. The only reason anyone will ever suffer annihilation is because they refused their deliverance. Here is what Paul said:
"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:18, 19; NASB)
Yes, the default condition of all human beings is that we already have enternal life. Jesus Christ has saved us. All of us. Completely and forever. There is not a thing you can do to add to it or improve upon it. All you can do is say yes or no to it. And God judges the sincerity of our choice by the general tendency of our life; not by the occasional deed or misdeed.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
And I am to believe Paul why, again?
Our physical bodies are designed to die. It's written into our very genes. Sin has nothing to do with it. Living things die, it's part of the design of living beings, part of how they work, and part of how any complex thing within this universe works. We're no more immortal than the star whose atoms we are made out of.
This is not because of anything we did, as you claim. It's a prerequisite to being alive in the first place. Not because we refused deliverence, but because that's how our bodies work, how complex systems work.
And I'd be mighty suspicious of any promise whose benefits you supposedly gain after you die, when you both can't do anything about it and are unable to tell anyone whether it was true or not, and can't get any compensation if your promise turns out to be a fraud.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I wouldn't bother with Ron, if I were you; he's quite incapable of grasping the concept that not everyone believes as he does, and certainly doesn't intend to let any such thing into his worldview by giving any hint that other points of view might be worth consideration.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
For me, it's not a fear of the act of dying exactly...I'm not afraid of pain, if there is indeed pain when I finally go. And I know non-existence won't be unpleasant or bad because I won't be able to notice.
I just have a fear of losing what I have and leaving everything behind. I like life for the most part and I don't want it to end. If I could, I'd make us all immortal (as impractical as that would be ). Also, I have a strong fear of the "countdown" so to speak. Like...I imagine myself retiring and then realizing that I'm closer and closer to the end with each year. It's just a feeling of scary inevitability I guess, like glancing at your watch as it ticks down to the worst test of your life that you didn't study for.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Random tangent: is it possible for there not to be a greater creator/deity, but there still to be, say, reincarnation?
If in the course of infinite time the various bits of matter that constitute "you" were to come together again in an identical fashion, would that be returning to life?
(Or despite all the pieces that were formerly you "reuiniting the band", so to speak, would it still not be the you that is currently sitting at the keyboard?)
Consciousness and memory are very weird things; I think their very nature makes it difficult to get a handle on the idea of their absence.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wait, I'd still be on keyboards? Next cycle I wanna be lead guitar. Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Honestly, I don't fear my oblivion so much as I fear the oblivion of those I love. The idea that they'll be gone forever is somewhat more disturbing to me than me being gone forever.
But just 'cause I fear doesn't mean I can do anything about it, except to enjoy every moment I still have them. I don't know what will come, but I refuse, still, to fear it. Because I cannot prevent it yet.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I just love the "yet". You can tell you're on a science-fiction author's site. Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Wait, I'd still be on keyboards? Next cycle I wanna be lead guitar.
Hey, I'll take over keys and show you what they can do!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Corwin:
Yes.
I'd love, personally, to write a story about a guy who has effective immortality due to the technologies of the future.
Yeah, I imagine some people would get bored after awhile, but why not do something original, and have the immortal, you know, really enjoy living and not get bored?
I've only seen such a thing in one story: the comic series The Sandman. OF course, I had this idea long before I read that comic, and it still has nothing to do with it, conceptually.
Immortality without boredom. After all, at least at this poitn in time, people are always writing more books!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I could see a de facto immortal getting bored with earth, amassing a vast fortune and throwing it all into a space-travel venture. He/she could become the ultimate explorer.
I'd imagine that'd keep one busy for, oh, millennia at least.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Clearly, any immortality technology will create a strong Darwinian pressure towards people who are able to make their own entertainment for millennia on end.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
When you say "immortal", do you also assume "invincible"? Because there's a lot more that can kill you than just the decay of your body. Given an infinite amount of time, the odds are overwhelmingly supportive of something killing you.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
KoM, I agree but I might term it post-Darwinian pressure. An immortality technology would supplement (or entirely replace) the current generational cycles at the heart of evolutionary theory. Essentially the immortals would become their own next generation, but without gene mixing due to sex.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Hence the need for sturdy robo-bodies and back-up selves on the hard disk back home (Resurrection ship from Battlestar Gallactica). I think it's obvious anyone living forever would go to space some time. It's a whole lot bigger and therefore more interesting than the measly little Earth. More things to explore.
"If the Roman Emperor Nero has been burning in hell for nearly two thousand years, then how could Adolph Hitler, who was responsible for the deaths of millions, ever catch up to him in punishment suffered?" -Ron Lambert
Well. Assuming they burn in hell for an infinite length of time, they both burn for an infinity of time.(∞+c=∞) so... It's not much of an issue unless you assume a finite length of burning. As long as whoever's in charge of that burning knows when it's going to cease he could turn Nero's fire off the appropriate length of time before Hitler's. ORR You could just assume that since they'll both be burning for a long time the percent difference between their two sentences is negligible.
Yeah... Ron... Are you providing the counterpoint here? Showing that hey, can't hurt to believe? or Are you trying to get some converts... I'm not sure of the pertinence of your posts in here "A question for atheists."
I don't mean too much offense
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Who's to say that immortals wouldn't eventually develop technology good enough to explore space without ships? How about simply flying around in a space suit? If you live hundreds of thousands of years, that's a long time to be coming up with new tech, particularly if your understanding of medical tech allows you to augment your intelligence. A species that can consciously augment its own intelligence...that's a whole other ballgame.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I'd imagine most "immortals" would die eventually, considering all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes.
Of course, robo-bodies and whatnot would help.
But copies of my personality on a hard disk?
That would be something like me, yes. And other people might not notice a difference. But it wouldn't be me. My sense of self is at least partly due to continuity of experience. If I died, my brain and thought patterns eliminated, a mere copy would not be the same as me.
It'd just be, like, a twin.
Actually, I already thought about that. A character living thousands of years, but making a computer back-up, basically. So, when he dies, the backup activates. Since it doesn't have a body and doesn't have the very last few memories, the back-up, which, considering the design, has essentially an identical personality, knows it's not the real one, and it disturbs the copy greatly.
Of course, as the friends of the dead guy would point out, this copy is agonizing over it in exactly the same way the original would have agonized, if he'd been in the same position, and whatnot...
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
A bit tangential, but something that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now (This means that it's a theory. AKA opinion. I'm not going to put "IMO" every other line, so deal with it).
I think humans are just glorified computers. The difference is nothing more than added complexity. Same with animals. We have memory, processing speed, RAM (short term memory), etc. DNA is nothing but a huge Operating System.
Dreams, Art, Emotions, Philosophy; all the stuff that romantics say make us human (and put us above the animals, etc.). It can all be explained by the connections our brains make among the information we have at our disposal executed by our motives (Software?); some of which are not completely conscious.
I actually believe that as we develop more and more complex computers, we will eventually reach the limit of what we can do with non-biological parts. I think this is the path to true AI. The problem as I see is, as we get more and more complex, the results will be less and less perfect as greater capabilities will require more input. With this much capability though will come the imperfections of the human mind. Eventually, I think we'll create a sentient computer. Of course, it is my belief that it will be completely biological by this point, so whether you can call it a computer is still up in the air.
If there are still Creationists by this point, they're gonna be pissed when they find out that it doesn't take a God to make a human being. (Though it does kind of open a window that maybe we were created by some OTHER sentient race. Maybe Earth is just a big science fair project)
Of course, this is assuming we don't blow ourselves up long before that point.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: When you say "immortal", do you also assume "invincible"? Because there's a lot more that can kill you than just the decay of your body. Given an infinite amount of time, the odds are overwhelmingly supportive of something killing you.
Since immortality would cause a population throughput bottleneck, as population increases, people who still want to have babies would tend to want to kill off the old people that ought to be dying and making room for the next generation.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
You'd have an evolutionary selection for people who don't want kids... Or just a diffusion of people throughout the universe to prevent overcrowding. But yeah, some kind of war between immortals and baby-havers might help that selection out... (Obviously speculative, probably not that well put, but I think you get the drift. Immortal people would have to select for not procreating to maintain enough energy to survive, or just get more energy faster than demand for it goes up).
"Though it does kind of open a window that maybe we were created by some OTHER sentient race. Maybe Earth is just a big science fair project" ***The book:Contact spoiler***
Like the end of Contact!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You'd have an evolutionary selection for people who don't want kids...
You would most certainly have nothing of the kind, for the good and simple reason that such a trait doesn't get passed on to the kids the people in question don't want to have.
[ December 30, 2007, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Hmm too true. *feels dumb* ... dang
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Hmm too true. *feels dumb* ... dang...
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Discussion of immortality really does not work well for evolutionists. Immortality and evolution would seem to be mutually exclusive. Personally, I would rather believe in immortality than in evolution.
However, I have to add a caveat. The word immortality really means "not subject to death," so, as has already been pointed out here, being immortal does not just mean that you do not age, it would have to mean that you are unkillable. Nothing in the universe could kill you, not even diving through the heart of a star.
Many Christian denominations, as well as non-Christian religions, teach that there is a human soul, a sort of being within a being, that is unkillable. I think this belief is presumptuous. Cannot the Creator kill what He has created? The Bible says only God is immortal: "...God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal...." (1 Timothy 6:15, 18; NIV) Assuming it is only common sense that the Creator could kill any of His creatures (if He created them, He could uncreate them), it would seem to be necessarily true that only God is immortal, in the sense of being unkillable. The Bible does flatly declare that God can destroy "the soul" (however you define it): "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28; NKJV)
One more "but" has to be added when considering immortality in light of the Bible teachings about it. While only God has original immortality in Himself, unborrowed and underived, the Bible also promises that part of the gift given to the Redeemed at the Second Coming of Christ is immortality: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'" (1 Corinithians 15:53, 54; NKJV) Romans 2:7 and 2 Timothy 1:10 also state that immortality is part of what humanity receives in Christ. Apparently this means that God will not allow the Redeemed to be killed by anything in the universe. So our immortality, unlike God's, is borrowed and derived--from Him.
God is the Source of Life, and of Existence itself. As Paul said in Acts 17:28: "...for in Him we live and move and exist...." (NASB) As long as we remain in fellowship with God, we need never die. But if we are separated from God (and all of us presently in this world still are, to some extent), then we must die, and cannot live. Indeed, the only reason any of us still live now even for a while, before we have been changed at the Second Coming of Christ, is because God has chosen to sustain the existence of us sinners long enough for as many of us as possible to chose to accept the salvation He has already obtained for the whole human race in the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The pain it has caused the heart of God to sustain the living of us sinners since the inception of sin, is revealed to our dull senses at one point in space and time at the Cross of Calvary. He will not go on bearing this burden forever. Ultimately He will utterly rid the universe of all that is evil, and regrettably, anyone who refuses to be parted from it.
[ December 30, 2007, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Discussion of immortality really does not work well for evolutionists. Immortality and evolution would seem to be mutually exclusive. Personally, I would rather believe in immortality than in evolution.
That is not true if the immortals have children. If some immortals have children faster than others, and the trait is inheritable, then eventually the faster-breeding kind will come to dominate the Universe even though there are still many slow breeders. At some point, admittedly, they are standing on one another's heads, so it can probably be assumed that true immortals either have no children, or are not subject to the usual laws of physics.
However, all that is not relevant anyway. Immortals are not subject to evolutionary theory, but what of it? Neither are solar systems, cars, or atomic nuclei. Right now the two categories "Living things" and "Things that evolve biologically" have 100% overlap, but there is no requirement for this always to be true.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
When I contemplate the idea of oblivion, it isn't the oblivion itself that scares me. It's the thought of losing a future that I've invested in. There are things I really like about living, and there are plans I have for the future, both of which would come to an abrupt end if I were to cease to exist. So while I'm sure oblivion itself is not unpleasant, living with the idea of it, and all that it would cost me, isn't a lot of fun.
Of course, that's also true of the form of death that religious folks (like myself) believe in. Unless you're truly and utterly subsumed in your faith, you likely have some joys and plans that would end with the afterlife, too, even if the afterlife is quite pleasant. If I die, and being dead is awesome, but I'm not there to participate in my daughters' weddings, or I never get to design a video game again, or whatever, then that still sucks. Death is a necessary part of life, but it's about the suckiest part, almost no matter what you believe Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Ron said:
"Indeed, the only reason any of us still live now even for a while, before we have been changed at the Second Coming of Christ, is because God has chosen to sustain the existence of us sinners long enough for as many of us as possible to chose to accept the salvation He has already obtained for the whole human race in the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ."
That's sure nice of God, after he made it impossible for me to not sin, by making me born with the sins of Adam and Eve, and further writing into my very genes (either personally, or ultimately by allowing Adam and Eve's sins to affect me) orders that go against his will, to let me live!
What a wonderfully generous god yours is to give me some time in a universe that shows no actual evidence of his existence, before then broiling me in eternal pain for all eternity for not believing in something which evidence points towards no more than Russel's Teacup.
"The pain it has caused the heart of God to sustain the living of us sinners since the inception of sin, is revealed to our dull senses at one point in space and time at the Cross of Calvary. He will not go on bearing this burden forever."
You know, considering how little our petty actions could possibly harm a literally immortal, omnipotent being such as your god, I have a message for him, the same message given to me by my mother over slights of relatively vastly more serious magnitude:
Stop having such a thin skin, you big baby.
Crying over the milk you spilled will do no good, and lashing out at us for it is the most ultimate evil any being concieve of. Stop being so pathetic and grow up, Yahweh.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Question in regards to the concept of an immortal soul:
Assuming you define the soul as a "self" which you identify with, how do you reconcile that belief with people who suffer a lobotomy or other brain damage and come out the other end with (possibly the same memories and skills but) completely different personalities?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
0Megabyte, your problem is you have way too small an idea of God.
Because God sustains every breath of our existence from moment to moment, He is forced to have the knowledge of evil--our evil--which He knows from the inside out. He knew what it was to be the victims cast into the furnaces of Dachau. He knew what it was to be the Nazi prison guards hurling the victims into the furnaces. This is the kind of knowledge of evil we force Him to have. Recoiling from this certainly does not make Him "thin-skinned!"
God is not only omnipotent and immortal, He is also perfectly Holy and sinless by nature. His very being is incompatible with evil. He demonstrated to us at Calvary that He will not embrace evil, but has chosen to separate Himself from it, when He in the form of His Son "was made to be sin for us." (2 Corinthians 5:21) Calvary revealed to us a schism in the heart of God we cannot imagine, that cut to the foundation of His being. Because God made this choice, the universe is secure for all the future. God will never change His mind and embrace evil. He has refused to, at all cost.
It is true that God does leave us with the tendencies toward sin in our physical and mental and emotional natures that we have inherited as part of the general genetic deterioration of the race that has resulted from the curses brought upon us by the sin of our race. God has also made it possible for us to make the essential choice to turn toward Him despite this, and acknowledge that He is the One Who is truly righteous, and no creature ever can be to the same extent. What God is concerned with right now is perfecting our faith, so that we are whole-hearted in trusting Him. As Jesus said would be His concern when He returns to earth: "...when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8; NASB)
He does not perfect our intrinsic nature now, because it is His purpose to show that righteousness is not a matter of nature, it is a matter of faith. Lucifer was a perfect, sinless angel in Heaven when he invented sin. Thus angelic perfection of nature failed in heaven. Adam and Eve were perfect, sinless beings in Eden, the Paradise Garden planted by God, when they chose to sin. Thus human perfection of nature failed in Eden. Sin--and righteousness--are not a matter of our nature.
Lucifer originally argued that creatures who are already perfect in nature do not need to defer to or depend upon the righteousness of God. The ensuing history of sin--in heaven which led to war among the angels, and on earth since the fall of our first parents, reveals the true consequences of this self-delusion, and refutes the claim of Lucifer/Satan that by selfish striving we can evolve into godhood for ourselves. When unfallen angels saw Satan attempt to murder Christ, the last remaining vestige of their sympathy with him was finally severed.
But still God wants to make it abundantly clear that even in those of the human family whom He redeems, it is faith, not intrinsic nature, that is what matters. The ransomed of earth must show their faith is wholly in a righteousness that is outside of them, in God alone (imputed to them in Christ, who joined Himself to humanity); and that they renounce all confidence in human self-righteousness--even the supposed "holiness" of human churches and religious institutions and traditions, when they are in opposition to the righteousness and authority of God.
God is using the human race to justify Himself, in the debate He has with Satan, by making us to be the last, compelling argument that vindicates His honor. Christ is exhibit A, and the ransomed of earth will be exhibit B. Together, no question in the debate will be left unanswered. Thus we have the privilege of glorifying God in a way that will resound throughout all the future of the universe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Why is there a big religious preach-out in the question for atheists thread
was ron just hard-pressed to make a bible citation quota for 2007 or what
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Plenty of atheists feel the need to make lengthy statements in religious threads.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:This is the kind of knowledge of evil we force Him to have.
The idea of humans forcing an omnipotent deity to do anything is laughable.
Sometimes I wonder how people who say things like this don't have their heads explode from the cognitive dissonance.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Immortals are not subject to evolutionary theory, but what of it? Neither are solar systems, cars, or atomic nuclei.
Cars are indeed subject to evolutionary theory.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not the Darwinian kind.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
I once saw these two mercedes...but that's another thread.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"0Megabyte, your problem is you have way too small an idea of God."
On the contrary. I never believed in that kind of god in the first place. It's not my concept of God I'm responding to, but yours.
"Because God sustains every breath of our existence from moment to moment, He is forced to have the knowledge of evil--our evil--which He knows from the inside out. He knew what it was to be the victims cast into the furnaces of Dachau. He knew what it was to be the Nazi prison guards hurling the victims into the furnaces. This is the kind of knowledge of evil we force Him to have. Recoiling from this certainly does not make Him "thin-skinned!""
But your god is supposedly omniscient. He knew exactly how it felt anyway, and further knew every single possible future, and how each and every one of those possible futures for every single possible person felt.
He knew evil, the worst possible evils, grander evils than have ever occured in this world, with perfect knowledge both how it feels to commit it, and how it feels to be victimized by it, and precisely knows how it feels to be human, and further, has perfectly accurate memory of this.
All this he knew and knows and will know, before He ever even made us. All this is? This is merely one of the possible branches of history he already foresaw. He's already felt it. And he's felt every other possibility, that did not exist, equally so.
How can you be so bold as to claim an infinite entity could possibly feel this reality so much more strongly than everything else, when he literally knows EVERYTHING?
How can you dare presume God is such a little thing, so weak as to be forced into anything by us?
That's my point. Nothing we do can effect your god, either way. And we certainly can't hurt him. What is the feeling of such things, to something that has infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite presence, etc?
Vastly less, on the relative scale, infinitely less, in fact, than a mosquito bite is to us. For him to get so angry at us for this as to force us to suffer eternal torment of the highest possible type, merely, again, for something we had no say in... well.
Such a being, in addition to being infinite in its knowledge and power, would also be infinite in its evil.
But I never believed in that god, I knew yours was false from my youth, Ron.
"God is not only omnipotent and immortal, He is also perfectly Holy and sinless by nature. His very being is incompatible with evil. He demonstrated to us at Calvary that He will not embrace evil, but has chosen to separate Himself from it, when He in the form of His Son "was made to be sin for us." (2 Corinthians 5:21) Calvary revealed to us a schism in the heart of God we cannot imagine, that cut to the foundation of His being. Because God made this choice, the universe is secure for all the future. God will never change His mind and embrace evil. He has refused to, at all cost."
Incompatible with evil? Then evil would never have existed, becauses it is only because He made the universe that evil exists. Ultimately, his act of creation is the cause. And he knew this from the beginning.
Further? Your interpretation of the events at Calvary are merely an interpretation. You have no real idea what God intended, even if God is real. You merely believe you know, and have not even any evidence stating that the event even happened the way you think it happened.
Further, why would God have to cut out part of Himself, if evil did not exist in His heart in the first place? You proclaim an infinite being that exists outside of time made a choice within time, and speak, then, as if this choice is infinite and unchanging.
What blasphemy, limiting your infinite, all powerful god in such a way.
"It is true that God does leave us with the tendencies toward sin in our physical and mental and emotional natures"
Aww, how sweet, considering he gave them to us in the first place, ultimately.
"that we have inherited as part of the general genetic deterioration of the race that has resulted from the curses brought upon us by the sin of our race."
Bull. We have not deteriorated genetically. We simply have not. The genetic evidence actually shows vast evidence of advancement, at least in regards to things such as our intelligence, in the hundreds of thousands of years preceeding the present.
If we are deteriorating genetically, when did it stop? Are we still deteriorating? That's simpyl not true, we know that. I am not genetically inferior to my parents. My generation is not inferior to yours. In fact, socially, we are superior, and genetically not at all less than you.
When did it stop? If you really believe history is as short as you think, what was the date, since it would be within the realm of human history, and I'm not just talking about Jewish myths.
Show me the genetic evidence.
But you won't, because you can't. You speak of things you do not know, and you hold your ignorance as a bulwark against the very truth you claim as your own.
Further. The sin of our race?
We are to be cursed because, specifically, Adam and Eve ate of some stupid fruit that God decided, stupidly, to give magic powers, and then warned the INNOCENT Adam and Eve, WHO DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT DOING WRONG EVEN WAS, according to your bible.
Further, God, being omniscient, knew this would happen when he made Adam the way he did. (which way did he do so, again? The two Creation stories contradict each other.)
And he knew he'd curse us all before he made this world. And he still did so, and still cursed us, for something we did not do. We did not eat of that fruit, Ron! Punishing us for this is about as sensical as me punishing you for my brother stealing something from me.
Anyone who is so perverse as to dare call this justice, is not worthy to speak for any decent god in the first place. Nor for anything else, for that matter.
"God has also made it possible for us to make the essential choice to turn toward Him despite this, and acknowledge that He is the One Who is truly righteous, and no creature ever can be to the same extent."
Again, how generous of him to allow it to be possible for us to turn towards him, after stacking the deck against us in such an unjust manner!
"What God is concerned with right now is perfecting our faith, so that we are whole-hearted in trusting Him."
Again, faith, faith, faith. Believing in things without seeing, without evidence!
Why would any god ask of this? Why would any god as us to act without real knowledge? This is not even a legitimate choice.
In the Bible stories, the choice would have been legitimate. God acted. "You can't test God!" was a laughable statement, for he was tested all the time.
He spoke, literally, to people. He revealed himself in miracles that shook the earth and did the impossible.
He brought the dead back to life!
If you live in a world where these things are occuring, then yes, there's a legitimate choice. Whether to side with this god, or to instead join... whatever else. Oppose him, perhaps.
There's a real choice.
But this world we live in is not the world of bible stories. This is reality, and there are no miracles, there is no evidence, and even the Bible itself was merely made by man.
Show me a miracle. A legitimate one. And don't give the excuse that God can't be tested. If that was the case, why did he make a show of tests? Why is the God of the Bible such an exhibitionist?
Parting the Red Sea is rather dramatic, after all.
In this current world, however, there is no legitimate reason to trust God. Because there is no evidence that God even exists.
Your current god is like the idols of Baal worshipped by the 400 prophets of Asherah.
If you asked God to retry the same scenario, to make the sacrifice burn of its own? God would act no more than Baal did then.
Let me be clear: Your god is as silent as Baal was in that story. Perhaps he's sleeping, or maybe in some far away land. Pray a little harder and he might hear you.
Here's the deal: Faith, believing in something, requires it to exist. You've done nothing to show God's existence, and nothing in this universe that we've yet seen shows that he's here, anymore than Baal is.
Why should I believe in your god anymore than I believe in Baal? (Which is, not at all)
If this is God's intent, to be silent, to be invisible, and his intent is to punish us for not believing in a being for which there is no more evidence than Baal, for which believing in him is, quite literally, a crapshoot based mostly on where you're born... then the only word to describe it is evil.
Remember. I never believed in such a limited, petty god to begin with. When I became an atheist, my realization was different. I always disbelieved in the evil being you praise, Ron. Always.
"He does not perfect our intrinsic nature now, because it is His purpose to show that righteousness is not a matter of nature, it is a matter of faith. Lucifer was a perfect, sinless angel in Heaven when he invented sin. Thus angelic perfection of nature failed in heaven. Adam and Eve were perfect, sinless beings in Eden, the Paradise Garden planted by God, when they chose to sin. Thus human perfection of nature failed in Eden. Sin--and righteousness--are not a matter of our nature."
You keep talking about these events as though they happened.
How would YOU know what happened in Heaven, before humanity's existence? How could any human?
Oh, yes, God's inspiration. God planting thoughts in their heads. Well, how do you know God did so? Because you believe it.
Regardless of my nitpickyness about Lucifer and all that mythology, let's see:
If human nature failed, if the nature God made failed, well, how is that our fault?
God is the one who made it. God is the one who created us, precisely the way we are, knowing full well what would happen.
How perverse it is to blame us for such things.
You claim righteousness is based on faith.
You dare claim that being good and true in this world is based on believing something without evidence.
Faith does not create righteousness: All you need is to take a stroll in a madhouse to know this is true. That's all the evidence you need to know that faith is not what you say, does not, in and of itself, create what you say.
And the chances of choosing the correct god out of the millions? Your god brings forth no more evidence than any of the others.
Do you realize how unlikely it is to believe in the right one, based on those odds? You do realize, further, that the religion you believe in is statistically greatly affected by the environment you were born in?
You believe in Christ because you were born here. You would most likely believe in Allah, if you were born in Turkey.
Do you really not realize this? Do you not see how unjust this demand of "faith" is?
How evil God would be, if he really acted the way you claim?
Once I heard that, of God, you can not say anything about what God is, but only what God is not.
Of your claims of what God is, I will say this: "God, Thou Art Not."
---
The rest of your post is a bit of a rehash of the rest, and I already gave my opinions about it above.
But let's be clear, as absolutely, positively clear as possible.
There was no ressurection.
Christ did not rise again. That is fact.
Jesus was a preacher in Judea, a bit of a revolutionary who got on the bad side of the people in power.
They went to the Romans and had him executed.
He died on that cross on Calvary.
And then...
nothing. He was dead. He did not go into Hell, and three days later, he did not come back.
He did not walk on Earth for 40 days, and then ascend to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father, forever and ever.
Jesus, the man you call Christ, messiah... is dead. And so is my father. And so is my grandmother, regardless of her faith. And you, too, when the end comes, will die, Ron, and that will be it, that's the end, the game is up, there will be no continue screen.
Those who do ill will not be punished after death. The righteous will not gain any reward.
There is no heaven. There is no hell. There is no purgatory, limbo, or anything else. This world, this unfair, unjust world, where our very existence destines us to die, is everything we will ever have.
There is no justice here, no equality, nothing except what we make ourselves. No good but the good we ourselves do, no righteousness but our own fallible acts of goodness. Faith brings nothing but a psychological comfort, and not even a unique one.
In the end, everyone dies, and all ends. Justice, goodness, all of this has nothing to do with it.
Death is the end, Ron.
Nobody goes to heaven or hell. Nobody is judged. Death, you see, is equal.
What matters, then? How you live! Though death will end it, you still live now, and still have the chance to enjoyment.
You are already more fortunate than many. Seize that unjustly taken fortune, and use it. For yourself, yes, but for others as well.
The things religion, including yours, say to do. Giving to the poor. Helping those in need. Loving each other.
Those are not merely the realm of religion.
That's the central core to civilization. All civilizations. It is not unique, but it is yet more precious in this real world, a world where, when you die, the only thing left is those shards of your soul recorded on paper and hard drives.
Life is precious, and love is the key to civilization, to being truly human. That, Ron, does not change.
But I reject the evil you preach as good. I reject the cruelty you perversely hold as a kindness, and the madness you hold as wisdom.
For you only have words. And I? I have the world.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Hi, I found another good quote whilst rereading The Amber Spyglass over my endless days of Christmas break:
"'When we were alive, they told us that when we died we'd go to Heaven. And they said that Heaven was a place of joy and glory and we would spend eternity in the company of saints and angels praising the Almighty, in a state of bliss. That's what they said. And that's what led some of us to give our lives, and others to spend years in solitary prayer, while all the joy of life was going to waste around us and we never knew.
'Because the land of the dead isn't a place of reward or a place of punishment. It's a place of nothing. The good come here as well as the wicked, and all of us languish in this gloom forever, with no hope of freedom, or joy, or sleep, or rest, or peace.
'But now this child has come offering us a way out and I'm going to follow her. Even if it means oblivion, friends, I'll welcome it, because it won't be nothing. We'll be alive again in a thousand blades of grass, and a million leaves; we'll be falling in the raindrops and blowing in the fresh breeze; we'll be glittering in the dew under the stars and the moon out there in the physical world, which is our true home and always was.'"
(page 320 of the 2002 version)
Funny how in a book that's supposed to be heretical and godless, I actually found something to believe in...
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Not the Darwinian kind.
Umm, yes they are, in most aspects. Think of a car as a meme.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
1. 0Megabyte: I think I love you. That was impressive. 2. Tara: Thanks for that last quote, and I share the sentiment. I thought that bit was very inspiring... Good books, those.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote: Not the Darwinian kind.
Umm, yes they are, in most aspects. Think of a car as a meme.
Precisely the point: Memes evolve by Lamarckian, not Darwinian, evolution.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:God is using the human race to justify Himself, in the debate He has with Satan, by making us to be the last, compelling argument that vindicates His honor.
Ron, your version of God makes me feel great sorrow for you. It must be horrible to think that you are honoring God by being irredeemably evil enough to prove His point to the peanut gallery.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Starsnuffer:
*blinks* Uh... thank you. ^^
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Not the Darwinian kind.
If you're going to get picky, Darwin didn't identify the genetic reasoning behind changes between generations, he only specified that they did occur. Lamarck assumed that changes that occurred during a generation could be passed on to the next generation, which is false because there is no biological mechanism to do so. If you're going to make the point, you can't afford to leave out Mendel, who supplied the inheritance mechanism to complete Darwin's picture.
Memes may be modified by Lamarckian evolution, but they survive by Darwinian evolution.
Cars rarely evolve during a single generation, but selection pressure (market forces) determine whether modifications are propagated through the species.
And your initial statement had nothing to do with Darwin or otherwise, you said that cars are not subject to evolutionary theory, which is flat out wrong.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I rest my case.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
You do? Really? Thanks!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Plenty of atheists feel the need to make lengthy statements in religious threads.
It does seem to go both ways in many cases.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
This thread is really angry. That's why I haven't participated. It's a little too vitriolic for me.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Plenty of atheists feel the need to make lengthy statements in religious threads.
It does seem to go both ways in many cases.
Is there a problem with either one of these situations? I love the power of the discourse.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
No, but it seems silly sometimes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It just seems particularly amusing in this thread since it is named "A question for atheists" Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
There's no reason for a theist not to read and participate in a thread "aimed" at atheists. And vice versa. I think that questions are always welcomed. Not so sure about the over-quoting of the favourite scriptures, though. (At what point does it turn into prostelysing?)
A.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: This thread is really angry. That's why I haven't participated. It's a little too vitriolic for me.
Yes, and that's exactly what I was hoping would not happen, vis-à-vis, my first sentence in my original post, specifically because I didn't want it to degenerate into an argument. I don't own this board, so I'm not going to tell anyone they can and can't post wherever they want to, but I was actually hoping no theists would participate, since my original questions are not applicable to them.
However, for those who did answer my original questions, I am grateful that you did so, truthfully and insightfully, with respect and without reproach.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not going to get involved in the heavier discussions, but something quoted in the thread makes me laugh.
It was the anecdote about the high school chemistry teacher talking about Moses and the Ten Commandments.
Heh, if I understood correctly, she referred to them as, "...stupid common sense rules..."
OK, setting aside things like the idolatry commandment...I marvel at how foolish someone can be, to refer to common sense rules as foolish. If they're common sense rules, by definition they're not stupid. Atomic weights and other scientific knowledge is very important, but as far as humanity is concerned, the 'common sense' rules are much more important.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
But doesn't it seem silly to use your divine might to tell everybody "Be good now."
It just seems to me that we'd figure out that killing people and stealing from each other wasn't a way to succeed against rival tribes/groups/civilizations. And somewhat ironic that in place of some useful science that would have improved quality of life and spurred on future advances (antibiotics, for example would have given those who received that tablet a significant leg up over those who did not get the tablet) they received a list of "common sense rules"(not saying you said it, but that it has been said).
"If they're common sense rules, by definition they're not stupid." And if they're common sense rules, you don't need to be commanded to follow them!
"Plenty of atheists feel the need to make lengthy statements in religious threads." I wouldn't butt my head into a discussion between theists in a thread called "a question about soup making for theists" and offer my atheistic methods of soup making. (note: I hate having to make these notes subnote: I am not proposing that an asinine thread such as theistic soup-making would be a thread made by theists or atheists specifically to exclude the other group. I was using it as an off-the-top-of-the-head example for a name, facetiously.)
THAT is where my objection to theistic comments in this thread comes from, busting into a peaceful debate with palm extended, radiant back-lighting and a bible tucked under one arm preaching scripture to us, scripture about a non-atheistic view of the afterlife, which was not allowed for in the original post. (I realize that it's not MANDATORY to respect the thread starter's wishes, but it seems like it would have been nice, but then we would not have gotten megabyte's rant, so maybe it was worth it)
(I have a lot of little asides in my posts...)(I hope I don't offend people too horribly by my caricaturization or irreverent references to things like Ron's ?valiant? posts here. that little attitude just seems to slip through in my sarcastic personality... So, soorry if you hate me sometimes, but realize I do feel sorta bad... sometimes... ? I hope you get what I'm saying, and that this whole post hasn't been a bunch of gobbledygook... which it may have now devolved into.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: It just seems to me that we'd figure out that killing people and stealing from each other wasn't a way to succeed against rival tribes/groups/civilizations.
Because we're doing so well at that.
*sigh*
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
... I am... but true, there's a lot of bad stuff in the world.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Religion answers such a basic human need -- it's comfort and fantasy. I can see every reason in the world why people would WANT to believe in God, but no reason why God would actually exist.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)