Crisis of no faith?

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote:

If you believe there is, yes.

I'm speaking for bluewolf because I don't think she'll be on for a couple of days, and also because I believe we share a position on this. If I'm wrong on any particular point, or even on the whole thing, she can correct me later.

I think that her point was that she doesn't find the idea of life after death comforting, but she still (for her own reasons) believes in it. What purpose could such a delusion hold?

Also, your original post read 'But I don't believe there is. Anyone who claims there is is simply deluding themselves to make themselves feel better (not that there is anything wrong with that)'. While I accept that you have reasons for your beliefs, they are just beliefs. Nothing can prove them either way, so I don't think you can justifiably say that people who believe in some sort of afterlife are deluding themselves.

I think you can, however, say that that is your belief. I just don't think you can really say it categorically.

lookinforpicnic

The Mad Hatter wrote:

While I accept that you have reasons for your beliefs, they are just beliefs. Nothing can prove them either way, so I don't think you can justifiably say that people who believe in some sort of afterlife are deluding themselves.
.

Just a belief???? It is a belief based on all the evidence we have from chemistry, biology and cognitive neuroscience, clearly you can't prove that there isn't an afterlife we don't have an infinite amount of data to work with but you can make reliable assumption that there isn't based on the evidence we have.

We can start at the start: there is nothing special about organic over inorganic chemistry no elan vital there, so if you want to say that bacteria, viruses or proteins have afterlife’s which would be ridiculous in the extreme well then you would have to also say rocks and carbon atoms have afterlife’s too. There is nothing special about life. As you go up the evolutionary ladder what changes do we evolve a 'soul' or whatever (open to all sorts of ridiculous ideas which could give us an afterlife) and if we do evolve this extra non-biological magic-stuff do primates, monkey, rats, fish etc etc all have one too. There is no evidence whatsoever to believe that we did evolve some magic-stuff which could enable an afterlife…all the evidence we have says that when the body dies the organism dies.

The idea of an afterlife is a human phenomenon generated by us, generated by our folk religions in fact as a comforter…in order words a simplistic explanation which provides an emotional fix, a crouch that takes us out of our grieving for someone (or gives us comfort in our old age or whatever really), that is the base of the idea of an afterlife. Organised religions are no different, and of course they have not a shred of evidence to back up their idea of an afterlife. Wishful thinking, ideas based on nothing whatsoever but that which makes you feel all warm inside is deluded yourself… it feels right it has to be right…bollox!

Reincarnation is no different i.e. delusional thinking, which also provides a nice comforting feeling about all living beings, and the circle of life and whatever else was just made up, based again on feeling and hunches. I can’t go into detail about Buddhism unfortunately as I don’t know much about this religion, but what I do know… ideas of spiritually energy, the special power of consciousness and all that, is no different from other religious ideas just slightly more sophisticated and slightly less vague, but just vague enough of course to sidestep rational criticism, so such nonsense can propagate.

The Mad Hatter

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Just a belief???? It is a belief based on all the evidence we have from chemistry, biology and cognitive neuroscience, clearly you can't prove that there isn't an afterlife we don't have an infinite amount of data to work with but you can make reliable assumption that there isn't based on the evidence we have.

We can start at the start: there is nothing special about organic over inorganic chemistry no elan vital there, so if you want to say that bacteria, viruses or proteins have afterlife’s which would be ridiculous in the extreme well then you would have to also say rocks and carbon atoms have afterlife’s too. There is nothing special about life. As you go up the evolutionary ladder what changes do we evolve a 'soul' or whatever (open to all sorts of ridiculous ideas which could give us an afterlife) and if we do evolve this extra non-biological magic-stuff do primates, monkey, rats, fish etc etc all have one too. There is no evidence whatsoever to believe that we did evolve some magic-stuff which could enable an afterlife…all the evidence we have says that when the body dies the organism dies.

The idea of an afterlife is a human phenomenon generated by us, generated by our folk religions in fact as a comforter…in order words a simplistic explanation which provides an emotional fix, a crouch that takes us out of our grieving for someone (or gives us comfort in our old age or whatever really), that is the base of the idea of an afterlife. Organised religions are no different, and of course they have not a shred of evidence to back up their idea of an afterlife. Wishful thinking, ideas based on nothing whatsoever but that which makes you feel all warm inside is deluded yourself… it feels right it has to be right…bollox!

Reincarnation is no different i.e. delusional thinking, which also provides a nice comforting feeling about all living beings, and the circle of life and whatever else was just made up, based again on feeling and hunches. I can’t go into detail about Buddhism unfortunately as I don’t know much about this religion, but what I do know… ideas of spiritually energy, the special power of consciousness and all that, is no different from other religious ideas just slightly more sophisticated and slightly less vague, but just vague enough of course to sidestep rational criticism, so such nonsense can propagate.

I think that was unnecessarily aggressive. I'm not J C and I do believe in science.

I don't really know enough about either science or theology to defend my position on this, so I withdraw my statement on belief.

However, can I direct you to the more important part of my first post, vis. that the idea of life everlasting is in no way a comfort to me. It just happens to be the way I view things.

I'm not going to go into detail about my beliefs here, because they're personal, and because I don't really see the point. They certainly aren't harming anyone (only close friends are even aware of them).

MooseJam

The Atheist wrote:

I don't know if there is a sky-god, but I don't believe there to be.

Anyone who claims to know, claims too much IMO.

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you claim to know it doesn't exist ?

lookinforpicnic

The Mad Hatter wrote:

I think that was unnecessarily aggressive. I'm not J C and I do believe in science.

Sorry about that, maybe I did come across aggresive there, my post was not directed at your statement entirely but more against the idea that beliefs are just beliefs and should all be tarnished with the same brush...anything goes kinda philosophy. I suppose I was looking for a bit of an argument in my posting tone (hoping to provoke some guys who do believe in an afterlife or reincarnation to reply)...You can of course believe what you want, but that was my take on it.

PoleStar

Thought I would add my 2 cents on humans and the afterlife

1. Fear of death. I think when evolution engendered sentience, humans inherited a fatal (Excuse the pun) flaw, which is we are given the ability to ponder death and what happens after. And its not a great surprise that people try to comfort themselves with "an afterlife"


2. Someone famous (cant remember who) said something like

" I was dead for millions of years before I was born and didnt feel even the slightest discomfort"; ergo, being "dead" after we die cant be so bad either.

Scofflaw

PoleStar wrote:

" I was dead for millions of years before I was born and didnt feel even the slightest discomfort"; ergo, being "dead" after we die cant be so bad either.

Yes - I think it's only while you're alive that death bothers you...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes - I think it's only while you're alive that death bothers you...

So, somewhat confusingly, accelerating ones own death would be the most direct way of removing death as an anxiety.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

So, somewhat confusingly, accelerating ones own death would be the most direct way of removing death as an anxiety.

True. Indeed, it's the only guaranteed solution. Personally, I prefer to simply accept death as a fact of life. Who knows, by the time I get there I may find it very welcome, assuming I live long enough.

My great-aunt, at the age of 103, asked me "do you think I could just go now? I'm very tired of it all, and everyone I know is dead." My grandmother's last words were "yes, I think I've had enough". Atheists both.

Perhaps the worst thing someone could wish on you would be life everlasting. We're not built for it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

"yes, I think I've had enough"

Perhaps she was talking about the medication?

Perhaps the worst thing someone could wish on you would be life everlasting. We're not built for it.

Thats one thing that always struck as partcularily foolish about most version of Heaven. Personally the only after life I can consider is one that that we, by defintion, couldn't understand. It would need to be something that entirely destroys one's conceptions of existence. Which could be cool, who knows.

Possibly interesting is the fact that this "we're not made for eternity" notion is at the heart of a lot of fiction, mostly vampires. Living for hundreds of years is portrayed as a truly horrendous curse as firstly, all that you love dies, and then all that you know.

aidan24326

PoleStar wrote:

Thought I would add my 2 cents on humans and the afterlife

1. Fear of death. I think when evolution engendered sentience, humans inherited a fatal (Excuse the pun) flaw, which is we are given the ability to ponder death and what happens after. And its not a great surprise that people try to comfort themselves with "an afterlife"

Indeed it isn't a surprise. It's to be expected I suppose, self-preservation being the most basic instinct.

2. Someone famous (cant remember who) said something like

" I was dead for millions of years before I was born and didnt feel even the slightest discomfort"; ergo, being "dead" after we die cant be so bad either.

Mark Twain I think. And he's quite right. Religion bypasses this problem by claiming that 'ensoulment' occurs at conception (or some other stage of fetal development depending on your persuasion) so you and I didn't exist before that. Others believe that souls have always existed and are sort of 'implanted' into bodies on an ongoing basis. Which is just gibberish really.

Dades

Originally Posted by The Atheist
I don't know if there is a sky-god, but I don't believe there to be.
Anyone who claims to know, claims too much IMO.

MooseJam wrote:

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you claim to know it doesn't exist?

I think I would, as the facts and history surrounding the FSM are completely transparent. At least as transparent as anything in life can be.

Whereas an undefined "creator" is a completely different kettle of fish.

Dr Pepper

Jeez, don't you people sleep??

Zillah wrote:

Thats one thing that always struck as partcularily foolish about most version of Heaven. Personally the only after life I can consider is one that that we, by defintion, couldn't understand. It would need to be something that entirely destroys one's conceptions of existence. Which could be cool, who knows.

Possibly interesting is the fact that this "we're not made for eternity" notion is at the heart of a lot of fiction, mostly vampires. Living for hundreds of years is portrayed as a truly horrendous curse as firstly, all that you love dies, and then all that you know.

I suppose that's the beauty of reincarnation as a potential 'solution' (while we're talking about them). You don't have to face the horror (imo) of eternity because it's all just broken up into stages of life and you aren't aware of the ones before or after. Although, if you aren't actually *aware* of them, there is no real difference between that stance and the atheist one (that there is only one 'stage'). And to say that you are not *aware* of previous 'existences' raises the question: "What is it about *you* that is hopping from one stage to another? If you cannot remember and are unaware of previous stages, it is really *you* anymore at all?". It is true that when I die, someone else will be born around the same time.. Is that reincarnation? Seems as good as in a way... Hmmm, more thought required.

Getting back to the OP's issue, I would consider myself an atheist most of the time but I too feel a certain amount of 'doubt' about my lack of faith sometimes. Specifically, I find great wonder in the Universe and occasionally reason to believe that maybe all is not as it seems. I find some of the following 'facts' (correct me if I'm wrong!) almost too convenient:
- That matter has somehow 'decided' to arrange itself into handy little atoms which consist of a bunch of inner particles with other particle(s) flying around this inner bunch. There are a certain number of variations of this arrangement (elements) each of which is repeated countless times. How do these atoms all over the universe 'know' the 'plan' to arrange themselves in this particular structure?
- That on a greater scale, matter has arranged itself in these gigantic swirling disc-shaped clouds and within those, it has arranged itself into giant spheres of a gas which turns out to be the ideal fuel for creating a nice steady supply of energy for about 10 billion years using a 'technique' which they all seem to 'know'.
- That forces and laws of nature exist. How are these laws 'known' and enforced all over the universe? It seems too convenient that gravity and centripetal force exist and have what I would call an ideal relationship/suitability which results in orbits of large bodies around other large bodies, which seems to be the basis of all large structure around us and has essentially allowed life as we know it to develop.
- I could also mention here the 'miracle' that you or I were even born at all, and that countless numbers of molecules, bacteria, fish, lizards, mice, <whatever!> had to survive long enough to reproduce for you to be born but that's getting into wishy washy philosophical stuff that makes my head hurt and rarely produces usable conclusions. Fun all the same!

I'm not saying that any of these things are evidence for God or any 'great plan' (or whatever you want to call it) but it seems to me that the door is definitely open for such things to exist.

I do accept the following arguments (made on nearly every thread on this forum) against the above agnostic tendencies:
- There is no need to attach God or some magical power to questions we don't know the answer to (True, I'm not saying that 'God did it' but some things do require a whopper of an explanation as far as I can see)
- Any suggestion of a God or a greater plan of some kind requires an even greater explanation (to that I would say that just because something requires a greater explanation or understanding doesn't mean it is not possible. A mouse who can only see the maze he is in could claim that to say "the maze was created by giant, mostly-hairless, bipedal organic being with no tail" requires a greater explanation than the maze itself but it is true in the mouse's case)
- Wanting something to be true is no reason to believe it is true - I would like there to be more than the chemical/physical life but that doesn't make me believe there is more. The above points do make me wonder though.

I do not accept this Dawkins 'flying spaghetti monster' stuff. I believed that the FSM argument seemed reasonable for a while but, at the end of the day, saying that you 'know' the FSM doesn't exist cannot be used as an argument to say you 'know' that nothing beyond what we can physically see or scientifically measure exists. Again, I am as good as an atheist but I suppose I believe that there is plenty of room for agnosticism or even faith of some kind. I'm not going to start going down to the local church and chanting every week but there is plenty to think about and still maybe some things to 'take comfort' in from time to time.

Sorry for the rather long post but I have been reading this forum for a long time and rarely chip in so I had a bit to say!

PS - I think the term 'flying spaghetti monster' should be banned from this forum! Grrr

joe_chicken

Dr Pepper wrote:

There are a certain number of variations of this arrangement (elements) each of which is repeated countless times. How do these atoms all over the universe 'know' the 'plan' to arrange themselves in this particular structure? ...

I'm not saying that any of these things are evidence for God or any 'great plan' (or whatever you want to call it) but it seems to me that the door is definitely open for such things to exist.

...

I do accept the following arguments (made on nearly every thread on this forum)

You missed the most important and per tenant argument against all your previous points:

"We adapted to the universe, the universe didn't adapt to us"

See Scofflaws very eloquent puddle argument on one of the more recent threads.

Dr Pepper wrote:

against the above agnostic tendencies

They are not agnostic tendencies, they are religious tendencies, the fact you are questioning a creator at all makes you an agnostic.

Are people really that reluctant to call themselves agnostic?

Dr Pepper

joe_chicken wrote:

You missed the most important and per tenant argument against all your previous points:

"We adapted to the universe, the universe didn't adapt to us"

See Scofflaws very eloquent puddle argument on one of the more recent threads.

I'll check it out, thanks
/edit - anybody got a link to this? Gotta do some work today too

joe_chicken wrote:

They are not agnostic tendencies, they are religious tendencies, the fact you are questioning a creator at all makes you an agnostic.

Are people really that reluctant to call themselves agnostic?

I guess there is a 'fence-sitting' stigma when it comes to that term but you're right, I suppose I am an agnostic. It seems like the only reasonable stance to me! Damn, and I was enjoying being an atheist

mossieh

I know exactly what you mean Ickle. My son's arrival did affect my thinking on this subject somewhat. I comfort myself by knowing that after I'm gone, my genes will live on in my children.

It's a small slice of immortality but it's as much as anyone gets.

Ickle Magoo

Thanks mossieh, that's a lovely way of thinking. I like that.

MooseJam

The Atheist wrote:

Whereas an undefined "creator" is a completely different kettle of fish.

very true, but the Christian God is defined, so I think I would think nothing of it for someone to say I know he doesn't exist

Zillah

mossieh wrote:

I comfort myself by knowing that after I'm gone, my genes will live on in my children.

Actually, your genes have existed for millions of years before you did, and will possibly exist that long after. Its not so much that they're you're genes, as opposed to the notion that they've just been using you to survive another generation. Now they've moved into your son like rats from a sinking ship and will abandon you to time.

Oh yes

MooseJam

Zillah wrote:

Actually, your genes have existed for millions of years before you did, and will possibly exist that long after. Its not so much that they're you're genes, as opposed to the notion that they've just been using you to survive another generation. Now they've moved into your son like rats from a sinking ship and will abandon you to time.

Oh yes

Interesting, am I actually a life form or is it the genes that are the life form ? I'm being used by a whole sequence of genes to survive for this generation, could I be viewed as a collection of lifeforms ?

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

Interesting, am I actually a life form or is it the genes that are the life form ? I'm being used by a whole sequence of genes to survive for this generation, could I be viewed as a collection of lifeforms ?

Well, you're also being used as a vehicle by thousands of bacteria (who actually make up the majority of cells in what you think of as 'your' body), by genes inserted into your ancestors' DNA by viruses, and, if you were female, you'd be passing along your mitochondria, which are genetically distinct from you. If you're not the eldest in your family, you also contain cells that have your older siblings' genes in them, as a result of cell exchange in your mother's womb.

Also, we still don't know what bit of that is the you you think you are.

Funny old world, eh?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

MooseJam wrote:

Interesting, am I actually a life form or is it the genes that are the life form ? I'm being used by a whole sequence of genes to survive for this generation, could I be viewed as a collection of lifeforms ?

As a lifeform, free of the entire system that makes up your body? Probably not, they don't have the ability to maintain themselves in the way a virus does, and even those aren't considered alive by many people, some viruses are little more than tiny protein shells.

But as a chemical replicator, very much so. Organisms like you and me are more like a wave through matter than anything else. We last for a few paltry decades, the genes that designed you last millions of time longer. Almost like Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap, they jump from body to body, learning to design a better vehicle every time.

Biology is cool.

Dades

MooseJam wrote:

very true, but the Christian God is defined, so I think I would think nothing of it for someone to say I know he doesn't exist

Rightly or wrongly, growing up in catholic Ireland, and the belief of a billion others just about tips that deity into the don't know* category. Or maybe I'm just being polite because in reality I'm probably as sure as you are of his non-existence. But people who profess to know things often don't, I find.

* remember - we're talking ABSOLUTE knowledge here.

mossieh

Zillah wrote:

Actually, your genes have existed for millions of years before you did, and will possibly exist that long after. Its not so much that they're you're genes, as opposed to the notion that they've just been using you to survive another generation. Now they've moved into your son like rats from a sinking ship and will abandon you to time.

Oh yes

don't burst my bubble Zillah, I'd hate to have to make a deathbed conversion, I'd never live it down...





(sorry)

Spread

MooseJam wrote: »

Interesting, am I actually a life form or is it the genes that are the life form ? I'm being used by a whole sequence of genes to survive for this generation, could I be viewed as a collection of lifeforms ?

Loosen up folks. It's not all bad. Kitty Ferguson explains it in a far more, ahem, human way in 'The Fire In The Equations'. :cool:

Dades

Spread wrote: »

Loosen up folks. It's not all bad. Kitty Ferguson explains it in a far more, ahem, human way in 'The Fire In The Equations'. :cool:

From Amazon synopsis:

"What comes through most clearly in this analysis is that science will never give believers or atheists unassailable public proofs of their positions".

I could have told Kitty that!

PoleStar

While the thoughts of death can never (well for most people anyway) be particularly appealing, perhaps remember what Dickens said:

I was dead for millions of years before I was born and didnt feel even the slightest discomfort.

When you say it like that, cant be all bad!

Zillah

PoleStar wrote: »

When you say it like that, cant be all bad!

There is of course the anticipation of death, and the process of death. And those who survive the dead person. Its not all "Yay I won't exist"...

karen3212

I think we should pay for people to run through the streets shouting 'Remember you are mortal'. Having said that though, I hope to live to at least 120.

Zillah

I have decided that I shall be cryonically preserved. The atheist's afterlife. Its a long shot, but I might just get to be one of those heads-in-jars in Futurama.

"Incidentally, as a head without a body, I envy the dead!"