A question for atheists

[exp(x)]

Bank said:

Anybody claiming to be sure about what happens after we die or how we came about in the first place is nuts.

That's given.

[Shaviro]

consciousness....after....death

NullReferenceException

[DoomUK]

Technician said:

At least he's not asking the age old theist question of "where do you get your morality without the Bible?". Like I need a book to understand empathy.

The plan was to post what I needed to post and then sit back and absorb whatever responses came without trying to squeeze further debate out of everyone ad infinitum. Obviously when two (groups of) people disagree on this subject it's always going to result in a tie. But I have to pick you up on this one:-

So what, maybe the Bible isn't the best material to teach people how to behave responsibly; it's rife with confusing admonitions and some rather alarming messages of hate and prejudice are advocated (remember what I said about me not being religious; this is why I'm not a Christian at least). But you need something to teach you morality. While most of us have compassion and empathy, if the idea of right and wrong was biologically programmed in all of us, then everyone would adhere to the same principles and no one would commit acts of violence, murder, terrorism, genocide, sexual assault etc which are pretty unique to mankind. Different cultures around the world have different ideas about what's right and wrong and how to identify and punish transgression; ranging from the serious things I just listed to petty social etiquette.

Yeah, someone is going to say "one day science will explain why different people's brains process different thoughts and ideas, but we're not there yet", which brings us back to square one :p. But I find it interesting on a philosophical level - if slightly ghoulish, admittedly - when people think of the guys who hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC or rapists or child molesters as "evil" and "monsters", when they're presumably convinced that these people are operating off of electrochemical signals in their brains just like the rest of us, and possibly have no control over these impulses and therefore have no free will. Why judge or condemn people for what they do if they have no say in their actions?


...This post was a bit of a ramble, I'll admit. But I think I got there.

[Shaviro]

DoomUK said:

While most of us have compassion and empathy, if the idea of right and wrong was biologically programmed in all of us, then everyone would adhere to the same principles

These are variables, not constants. There are also different dimensions of these variables and they change throughout your lifespan :)

"one day science will explain why different people's brains process different thoughts and ideas, but we're not there yet"

I'm pretty sure we are.

[andrewj]

I think it's about looking at life (your life) at the correct scale. If you zoom out a bit, you can see the bigger picture and that can be good, but if you zoom out too far then nothing has any significance.

[j4rio]

What if there isn't nothing after? You'll remain in semi-conscious state after death, still feeling everything around you as if alive, except unable to do anything... and then you get buried, the only thing you'll ever feel is maggots and dirt all around you, forever. Not as bad as there being just nothing after death, isn't it?

[Jodwin]

What if the world simply doesn't exist? What if it's all simply a hallucination that I'm experiencing and none of you really exist in any concrete form? As soon as I'll die, the whole world just disappears.

...yeah.

[magicsofa]

DoomUK said:

Disclaimer: I don't consider myself "religious". I think all religions are right, yet wrong simultaneously. I believe the belief in some kind of god or gods, the supernatural, an afterlife etc is basically plausible, it's just that we're dealing with the unknown and none of us therefore have any authority to be able to say what god or doctrine is authentic and what isn't.

What about Druidism? I consider the Sun a god, and although I don't know everything about it, it's certainly not unknown :P

On the afterlife I'd like to quote Bill Hicks:

Bill Hicks said (yea on that Tool song):
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration...that we are all one consciousness, experiencing itself subjectively..."

Sometimes I imagine that since the energy that makes up your body (and therefore, in my opinion, your consciousness) is never lost, you will have an afterlife - as a collection of dead cells. Of course, it seems this assortment couldn't possibly be conscious in the sense that we are. But if Christians can argue about a cloudy paradise in the sky, I am going to claim that matter and energy in general have some sort of "consciousness." Perhaps the dead cells do not have a sense of self, but that might allow them to become part of a non-self.

Sometimes people experience this when they are tripping, or at least think they do. Some people can induce it in other ways. It's often referred to as ego death, because it often makes people think that they died, and are actually seeing through the "eyes" of the universe.

What I mean is, everyone becomes a ghost :P

The point of life is to level up a whole bunch. And make babies.

[Alfonzo]

magicsofa said:

I am going to claim that matter and energy in general have some sort of "consciousness." Perhaps the dead cells do not have a sense of self, but that might allow them to become part of a non-self

Interesting. Problem is it's an afterlife that's only good for roughly 19.8 billion years, before our and every other galaxy tears itself apart as a result of the Big Rip. Of course, nobody said an afterlife had to be eternal. It could in fact, assuming its existence once again, have all the brevity of a toasted poptart. Or that bowl of petunias from Hitchhiker's, though strictly that was reincarnation...

Oh yeah, reincarnation. I wonder how that might affect our actions taken in the here and now.

[Jodwin]

st.alfonzo said:

Of course, nobody said an afterlife had to be eternal.

Actually, assuming we do have an afterlife, can we say for sure that it is an afterlife? I mean, maybe what we consider afterlife is actually life, and the state we are in at the time being is merely before-life? As in, preparation for the actual life that may or may not last for an eternity, but the very least it's likely to last longer than our current state lasts.

Also, Buddhists want to be liberated from the cycle of life through nirvana. What a strange bunch of people. ;)

[Alfonzo]

Jodwin said:

maybe what we consider afterlife is actually life, and the state we are in at the time being is merely before-life?

A preliminary! Well, let's just see whether Aubrey de Grey doesn't upset the idea too much. Longevity Escape Velocity is too fun a coinage to ignore.

[Phobus]

My approach to it all is that, deep-down, I know I'm cosmically insignificant, and that life is a collection of biological processes that will one day come to an end, possibly due to other biological processes. Call those my beliefs, if you will.

Therefore, in the greater scheme of things, I know nothing I do will matter. I may as well never exist, for all the difference I'll make to the ongoing processes through the universe.

However, on a local scale (i.e. humanity) there is potential for me to make a difference. I may produce more humans to help keep the race alive. I might build, make or produce something useful, which may help other humans. Maybe it might help only one or two other humans, but its something.

I think thats how I view the worth of my life - what impact have I had on humanity. If I've done the greater species no real harm, but made one special girl happy for a large part of her life, that would do me just fine. Likewise, if I'm part of making a great game that many enjoy, that'd be nice too.

[fraggle]

DoomUK said:

I'll put it out there that I find nothing scarier or more depressing than nothing itself. A constant reminder that whatever I'm doing with my life right now is a waste of time. Even if I've contributed to the happiness of others, their own consciousness will eventually expire and their lives will also be ultimately meaningless. And those who followed them, and those who followed them. It's... a haunting thought.

Okay, I can understand why you might think that, but the simple fact is that nothing you say is a reason to believe that a god or an afterlife exists. It's just wishful thinking on your part - you find an idea scary so you don't want to believe it. Personally I'd rather be honest in my beliefs - I've never seen any good reason to believe a god or an afterlife exist, so I don't believe they do. I'd go so far as to say that I don't really have a choice in the matter - I can't force myself to believe in something, and I'm just not convinced.

Having said all that, to answer your actual question I'd say that we make our own purpose in life. Think of all the famous people from history who have achieved great things - artists, composers, scientists, etc. In all likelihood (going by sheer probability) you won't be as revered as them after you die, but that doesn't mean that what you do isn't important in a smaller way. We are all part of the grand tapestry of human existence.

DoomUK said:

But you need something to teach you morality. While most of us have compassion and empathy, if the idea of right and wrong was biologically programmed in all of us, then everyone would adhere to the same principles and no one would commit acts of violence, murder, terrorism, genocide, sexual assault etc which are pretty unique to mankind. Different cultures around the world have different ideas about what's right and wrong and how to identify and punish transgression; ranging from the serious things I just listed to petty social etiquette.

Not something to teach you morality, someone. Good parents raise their kids to be moral and compassionate.

Talking about transgressions of social etiquette distracts from the main issue of morality, which is separate. It's quite possible to come up with rationally justified reasons for acting in a moral way. You might want to check out this video I watched the other day:

when they're presumably convinced that these people are operating off of electrochemical signals in their brains just like the rest of us, and possibly have no control over these impulses and therefore have no free will. Why judge or condemn people for what they do if they have no say in their actions?

That's a specious argument. It's true that our brains are based on chemical reactions and electrical activity, but our consciousness is an emergent property of those complex interactions.

magicsofa said:

Sometimes I imagine that since the energy that makes up your body (and therefore, in my opinion, your consciousness) is never lost, you will have an afterlife - as a collection of dead cells. Of course, it seems this assortment couldn't possibly be conscious in the sense that we are. But if Christians can argue about a cloudy paradise in the sky, I am going to claim that matter and energy in general have some sort of "consciousness."

I'm sure that all sounds comforting to you, but what you're saying doesn't really make sense. You're ignore what is really meant by the word "consciousness" and are instead turning it into a meaningless mystical property that you're ascribing to all matter, a property for which there is no evidence of it actually existing anyway. Furthermore I don't understand why you would consider the irrational beliefs of another group of people to be justification for holding irrational beliefs yourself.

[GreyGhost]

Jodwin said:

What if the world simply doesn't exist? What if it's all simply a hallucination that I'm experiencing and none of you really exist in any concrete form? As soon as I'll die, the whole world just disappears.

...yeah.

Your program "The Universe and everything in it" has encountered a problem and needs to restart. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

Big Bang in - 10 . . 9 . . 8 . . 7 . . 6 . .

magicsofa said:

Sometimes I imagine that since the energy that makes up your body (and therefore, in my opinion, your consciousness) is never lost, you will have an afterlife - as a collection of dead cells.

I have to disagree with you there, our consciousness starts to die as brain cells succumb to oxygen starvation. The dead cells that remain become food for other organisms - in nature, little is wasted.

What I mean is, everyone becomes a ghost :P

And not all of us are grey. :P

[bgraybr]

I'm agnostic. I don't believe that there's nothing after you die. I don't believe anything without some sort of evidence, so I don't claim to know what happens when we die. Anyways, atheists have emotions and instinct too. We want to live a good life just like everyone else, believing in heaven and hell only artificially gives you a greater sense of purpose in life. Hard to understand?

[DuckReconMajor]

GreyGhost said:

I have to disagree with you there, our consciousness starts to die as brain cells succumb to oxygen starvation. The dead cells that remain become food for other organisms - in nature, little is wasted.

Speaking of brain and oxygen, I always found it fascinating how un-conscious you feel when hyperventilating (preferably in a place where you won't get hurt if you pass out)

[Sigvatr]

Hold on guys, I will kill myself and then come back to this thread tp post about what happens, so everyone knows.

[myk]

DoomUK said:
If you genuinely think that there is absolutely nothing after you die - no thoughts, no emotions, no experience - then what is the point of doing anything with your life at all?

There is nothing for me, but things continue to exist and occur. The question exacerbates the ego, as I am part of the world, and more so part of the people related to me (genetically especially, but also in other ways... life is one big family, more or less, anyway.) I die, my consciousness is no more. I wouldn't reduce myself to my consciousness, and I'm just a part of something.

The point of things is not defined by what we believe, and we can't wholly decide what values move us. The point of life doesn't go away with a lack of certain beliefs, life's point just is. Life's point is to live life, which isn't a simple point. Our vital drives guide us as we go, and they don't need an excuse. If anything, they make excuses (anything we tend to conclude, including religious belief and other world-views).

when in 70 years or less it makes absolutely no difference whether you were a world-renowned something-or-other or you sat in the same spot for your entire life with muscle atrophy and rotting in your own feces?

It'll make a difference, I just won't see it. Descendants, family, friends, distant family, humanity, animals, living things, the Earth, the universe will all live with the drop that I've added to existence when I'm gone. I also think that acts that may have no immediate effect on me, possibly ever, as often quite worthy. Some cause in regard to something one is just a mere speck to may be important, especially because we aren't "islands" (as Catholics often like to say.) We don't act just for ourselves. A tiny role that is just a slight modifier to what goes on in the universe may often be all we can do and the best we can do, but if we just measure it against personal gain, it may be rather pointless overall. We are part of a process, not an end. Your question seems too immediate to me. Immediate benefits aren't necessarily that important when you see you're part of something greater.

Aliotroph? said:
To put it like a scientist: does having this notion of an afterlife explain any known phenomenon consistently?

You said it, that's from the point of view of science, although beliefs in the afterlife have to do with other things than explaining. If they explain, they do so as a means rather than an end. It's like a metaphor, much like language is a series of metaphors, but on a specific level (religion is also part of language in the broad sense). So, judging religion with the precepts of science is erroneous. It's like when a person judges another using his own standards when that person is different. Science can observe religion, but if all it'll do there is compete with it to renege a human process, it will fail its own scientific standards. People can bash religion, but when it comes to it, in many scenarios getting some incentive from a religious perspective is more effective than becoming involved in more specific and elaborate philosophical, technical or scientific knowledge, which often becomes alien to people aren't privileged enough to have full access to it, if it's not used directly against their welfare.

[gggmork]

'But you need something to teach you morality.'

Thanks to humanity's nature spy network, you've probably seen a male lion kill cubs that don't belong to him when seeking to mate with their mother. This is the built in morality where heavier altruism weights are given to those who you share more genes (replicators) with. Mammal mothers sacrifice milk from their own body to give to their children (or spider matricide when the mother feeds her own body to her babies, lol) because children share 50% of the parents genes (not sure about spiders though; they might have weird genetics like ants/bees or something). A mother is more 'certain' that her child belongs to her because it came out of her body, so can be more altruistically confident, whereas a dad doesn't know for sure if its some other guy's kid so is less confident in his 'altruism weight' for children. There's always exceptions in this incomprehensibly complex world.. not sure why male penguins help sit on the eggs.. they seem to mate in trustable pairs though.

percentage of shared genes: 50% (parents, children, siblings) 25% (aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, grandparents) 12.5 % (first cousings)

Only we evolved in small tribal groups where there was a good chance that people around you were somewhat related. And when playing 'cooperate or defect' games with repeated iterations with the same playing partners, I think its beneficial to cooperate in the long term or something ('iterated prisoner's dilemma' or something).

Society has laws and punishments. Damn it, I posted in a religion thread. Also a disclaimer that I'm half retarded and barely know what I'm talking about.

[myk]

fraggle said:
Not something to teach you morality, someone. Good parents raise their kids to be moral and compassionate.

Someone is in a context, and everything they do depends on it. Many things we learn or get used to in life mean little outside our period and place in time. The people we need, that teach us morality, rely on many frameworks or institutions that define their morality socially. They are encased in a myriad social conditionings. Some frameworks are more immediate and specific, like the public schools in whatever country we live, and some more vague and lasting, like a religious branch that's followed by a certain culture. Christianity in Western culture, for example. You mentioned "emergent" phenomena and indeed, religion itself can be seen as an emergent phenomenon in society, that goes with any pan-culture or massive group of genetically related people. While individuals may or may not be religious themselves, and to different degrees (whether they believe things or follow certain customs or rites) they all utilize that structure religion represents in some way. Religion is much like the State but on a more general and timeless sense. Many of its teaching may seem dumb, but it's natural for any set of ideas to be dumber the more universal they get. The more general, the more they contradict specific cases, but the more malleable they are for different situations. So it's often "dumb" to an individual consciousness, but not so stupid as a cultural and social "consciousness" spanning the centuries. The fact is, society relies a lot on religion, so thinking about a society without religion is more idealistic and "religious" or a matter of "wishful thinking" than to assume religion is socially necessary in certain ways or at some levels.

[Grazza]

40oz said:

Stop trying to convince me to kill myself.

That's obviously not going to happen. All the soul-searching you described earlier was really just a defence mechanism kicking in, helping you to rationalize a reason not to commit suicide. It will kick in again if necessary to save you from any imagined self-destructive tendencies, and the rationalization may well be totally different, but the cause and outcome will be the same.

So, you're safe.

[Foodles]

I agree that nothing is scarier than nothing itself, even an eternity spent in Hell would be more appealing, unless Hell is just a black void where the sinners vanish from existence forever. Personally, I've always been a fan of Dante's Inferno style of Hell, it just seems more interesting.

Of course, a Doom hell would be good, because all you'd need to escape from it would be a pistol with 50 bullets.

[EarthQuake]

What I have been taught (and what is ultimately programmed into my genetic code anyway) is that I must live to reproduce. Life basically boils down to that; to prolong the existence of our species.

This doesn't make life meaningless from an introspective angle. We all assign meaning to our lives in different ways. I can still enjoy my time here on earth, have fun, and experience all the things there are to experience. I would rather do this than wallow in the reality of my meager existence and sit around and do nothing with my life at all (or worse, commit suicide).

Now, as for nothing at the end of it all, I find it rather comforting. I don't have to worry about eternal damnation, or the curse of living forever. I don't have to worry about "choosing the right religion" or wasting my life trying to appease some deity. I can live my life the way I want to, and when it's time to die, that's it.

I may be afraid to die at that point, but it's reassuring knowing that those feelings will only be temporary and nothingness awaits on the other side. No suffering, no pain, no memories of the fears I may have once had.

[gggmork]

Our life is so skull-confined, through-our-own-eyes subjective that we have a very warped view of how our own consciousness/life 'program' is merely a very very tiny subprogram of the universe. We die and the universe is like, 'meh, one of my zillion fwillions of variable states changed value'. You are part of the universe; you are the universe. The universe keeps 'living' after 'you' die, but since you are the universe, 'you' keep 'living'. My computer keeps running when I shut down doom.

You know the scariest thing about the universe? What if every possible state is being calculated/tried over 'infinite' space and time, across all 'multiverses' etc/whatever. That means that somewhere, sometime, the most horrible horrible horrible unimaginably horrible things are happening. Also what if the universe 'program' operates in a way where somehow it repeats itself over and over (like how a cellular automata with specific rules will predictably produce the same state 8000 rows later on each iteration, despite the complexity). Maybe the universe is digital/rule based and somehow peters out to the equivalent of a single CA cell, then starts over, repeatedly, the same each time. If that's the case then all the 'conscious' beings that lived horrible lives will have to live them over and over on each iteration.

[kristus]

Jodwin said:

Disclaimer: I'm agnostic, not atheist.

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic theist just as you can be an agnostic atheist. As well as you can be a gnostic theist as well as an gnostic atheist. Most atheists are also agnostics (including Richard Dawkins). While most theists tend to be gnostics.

[Taedium]

The trick is to not over-think things. Religion is nothing but nonsensical tales describing events that happened thousands and thousands of years ago, and because of which, there is no way that any of it can be remotely accurate. The only thing that makes sense is science. Because science works. Praying for miracles doesn't. When God or Jesus or Allah or space aliens or WHOEVER decides to descend down and explain the mysteries of life, give me a ring, and I'll rebut everything I've just said.

[gggmork]

"hi, I'm atheist... oh sorry, I meant I'm a theist"

I used to be an atheist, but then I started to follow the teachings of Reverend Weev. Luke 14:26, "hate your family", lol.

[Clonehunter]

Jodwin said:

Those Christians and Muslims are free to "waste" their lives, after all, they've got an eternity left to enjoy in paradise with an infinite supply of virgins.

Really, anyone is able to waste your life away. Whether you have eternity to look forward or not. Even though I do see your point.

(I'm Christian-ish by the way).

Also, only Muslims get virgins... Lucky bastards...

[Quast]

DoomUK said:

If you genuinely think that there is eternal life after you die, then what is the point of doing anything with your mortal life at all? Why bother making friends, forming relationships, educating yourself, finding work, earning money, forming opinions, seeking pleasure and entertainment, avoiding pain and boredom, posting on internet forums, eating, drinking, having sex... when in 70 years or less it makes absolutely no difference whether you were a world-renowned something-or-other or you sat in the same spot for your entire life with muscle atrophy and rotting in your own feces?

As you can see, the questions you posed can be applied equally to those that believe in an eternal afterlife and those that don't...rendering your questions completely pointless.

Our finite existence is utterly meaningless when compared to the expanse of eternity.

[Ladna]

To put it another way, I don't really think that things have "meaning" because some omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being (whose existence, like all other existences, cannot be proven) says so. This is a dangerous concept; religious extremists do ridiculous, horrible things because they believe their god told them to. I mean, what if God says "tear the faces off your family with some pliers", is that alright? Hooray, I'm glad God finally gave me a purpose!

I disagree with Fraggle that we can find rational reasons for morality. I believe everyone at their core functions as a hedonist; this makes me feel good or less bad, so I do it, this makes me feel bad or less good so I avoid it. We like to believe in objectivity or morality because it helps us figure out how to live our lives (or really how to make any decisions at all), but the truth is that everything is meaningless, and there is no "should" or "should not".

So, as an athiest, my simple answer is that believing that everything is meaningless makes me feel better than believing that meaning is arbitrarily decided by something we might call "God". I don't think people who believe otherwise are stupid or less than me somehow, rather I believe we're all just trying not to give in to the miserable situation that life is, and that's way more comforting to me than religion ever has been.