I think the most difficult thing about atheism for theists to understand or accept is the lack of an afterlife. I'd like to share a few thoughts about death and the afterlife from my perspective as a sixty-something atheist.
1. An afterlife in some kind of paradise would be nice, but wishing and fantasizing won't make it so.
2. The prospect of timeless nothingness with no pain, no deadlines, no obligations is actually quite comforting.
3. Given the rate of progress in medicine and computer science, my generation may be the last that has to die anyway.
4. Hell is a fantasy dreamed up by sadists to frighten children and impose their will on others.
5. A religious heaven filled with horrors like Catholic priests, ayatollahs, televangelists, etc., actually sounds worse than hell.
6. My mind and my soul are different aspects of a very complex set of physical, chemical and electrical processes inside my brain. When my brain dies, so do I.
7. Because there is no afterlife, I place a very high value on every moment that I have in this life. The devaluation of this life is the greatest sin of religion. This is not a rehearsal. It's the main event.
8. I worry about leaving my family behind when I die, but that's part of the human condition whether there's an afterlife or not.
What thoughts do others have on life, death and the perceived need for an afterlife?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
3. Is a primary point for me. In fact, I caught myself joking that, once we reach the point of "indefinet prolonging death", the theists won't have any ground left to stand on. With the "need" for an afterlife ripped out from under humanity's feet, and with the idea of heaven, religions primary offer, becoming obsolete, religion will crumble from the inside.
@Xavier de Forres
>once we reach the point of "indefinet prolonging death", the theists won't have any ground left to stand on.
And for that reason we can expect the religidiots to fight this technology more viciously than they've fought gay rights, religious freedom and each other. I can see an unholy alliance of all brands of god-peddlers uniting to defend their monopolgy on the death business.
Are you old enough to remember all the religious twaddle and agonizing after the first heart transplant back in the 60s? I heard bishops bleating that the heart was the seat of the soul and shouldn't be touched. Why the heart? Why not the liver or the bladder?
I would prefer to say "indefinite prolonging of life" rather than death.
I am in complete agreement with you, Algebe. An afterlife would be nice, but it's existence isn't likely or a necessity for me to live a good life. About the prolonging of life scenario though, I'm not too sure that it is a good thing for the human race. While I do want to live a long and healthy life, we need to remember that we all share this planet. If I live more than 100 years, I believe I am overstaying my welcome. There is only so much space and resources on this speck we call Earth, and I fear that further prolonging of life could lead to catastrophe.
@Seenyab4
>There is only so much space and resources on this speck we call Earth, and I fear that further prolonging of life could lead to catastrophe.
On one level I agree with you, Seenyab4. But then I wonder what we could achieve, what problems we could solve without the deadweight of religion holding us back.
Remember, there is more than one possible way in which ones life could be extended. Some of which do not involve keeping all of one's humanity. Granted, for some, such a thing would be a stretch.
Until we learn to control our population and manage resources on this tiny blue dot I think artificial life extension could be trouble. If we get it together globally and start acting like mature , rational primates we might make it work. We need the next generations gene mutations to enter the pool but if parrots and tortoises can make it past 100+ why can't we?
@Chimp3
Artificial life extension is quite real to say so, a Russian scientist determined that within this Century, Humanity will be able construct and invent artificial Limbs or Organs (to replace the slowly dying ones) and many other "Medications" (let's call them) that reduces the Skin's loss of collagen during Aging.
There are more and the Scientist actually Determined that we could live up to 400-500 Years should those become ways be invented.
But with that will come Over-Population, which is a very big problem and Colonization of Mars would be needed to be put into Topic also.
Interesting!
@ Algebe
"7. Because there is no afterlife, I place a very high value on every moment that I have in this life."
Since I became an atheist, the above sentiment has assumed primacy. I celebrate every morning that I wake up. Many times during the day I mentally take a step back and wonder/appreciate some detail, great or small, of the universe and world that nurtures us.
As do I. But, I do not let the thought of now distract me from the possibilities of the future.
Fair enough. Though you have about 30 years more potential future in front of you than I do.
As much as I'd hate to admit it, that's a fair point.
Don't forget to stop and smell the roses, at least the old-fashioned ones rich in perfume! And check out the Dandelions! A good macro shot, on a nice computer screen, really brings out a world of beauty! Someone once said that it is the little things that make life so enjoyable. Little things, at least, are there for you every day.
Somehow I cannot imagine a world without death. I can see technology prolonging life and maybe someday we may reach such an advancement that it may be possible for us to prolog our lives indefinitely however even such a world I cannot fathom without death.
Let me explain why;
1. We may not die of a natural cause but unnatural, accidental or homicidal ones cannot be ruled out
2. Probability. The probability that we may die of any one cause is very low say one in a million or billion and lets assume there are a million of such causes making our probability of dying by said causes very low. However with an indefinite lifespan we have all the time to go through almost every permutation and combination to reach a position corresponding with a cause leading to death.
3. World populations would rise far too high for the earth to be able to support and so eventually we would begin to die out to reach an equilibrium with our surroundings
4. Natural disasters would become far more common due to the ill effects of over population and industrialisation (Global warming)
5. Wars. We would just kill each other. Its our nature. If we cannot get what we want (due to dwindling resources) we will go to war.
6. Some wouldn't chose to live forever.
Either way. Death is an eventuality we have to accept. Ironically it is our fate.
Death is a difficult realisation to come to terms with. I use the word realisation here because death is not a phenomenon or an event.
It is a realisation. We do not realise our own death (at least there is no evidence of it) but we do realise death exists when we perceive the death of others.
This realisation is probably the most powerful motivator we have ever had. It made us ask the question as to our purpose. It helped us build civilisations to keep us safe and It created religion.
But heres the trick. Something Epicurus said;
Why should I fear death
If I am, Death is not
If death is, then I am not.
Why should I fear that which cannot exist when I do!
"3. World populations would rise far too high for the earth to be able to support and so eventually we would begin to die out to reach an equilibrium with our surroundings"
You sound like you think humanity will be stuck on this rock forever.
@ Xavier - what I was alluding to was the sigmoid curve characteristic in bacterial colonies. In a confined space like that of a petri dish a bacterial colony would flourish at an exponential rate and eventually plateau off finally to end in a lag phase.
It is usually due to lack of resources and overcrowding etc.
We were discussing the feasibility of one hypothetical statement (immortality) I thought it best to stick to it without introducing another hypothetical variable like interstellar travel and colonisation.
Based on our current scientific and technological advances the concept of immortality seemed impractical. how ever if you were to add other hypothetical variables like interstellar travel. uploading of consciousness into servers etc then the conversation grows further from the point.
Yes, it's very difficult for theist to understand that there is no afterlife.
I have read revisionist history where theist claim that famous atheist repented on their death beds.
Mark Twain, Ben Franklin, and many, more, but it isn't true. It's just theist trying to say that atheist have "seen the light."
Here is what I think happens. I believe that there is a life force energy, created chemically. When you expire, this energy dissipates. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed it changes form. When you die there is no receptacle for this energy, so it scatters in the form of heat and light, and maybe a few other forms. It doesn't hold together in a "spirit" because it can't. There is nothing to contain this energy. I doubt that theist can actually grasp this.
This is also why I don't believe in ghost or spirits. There is no receptacle or container for the energy to reside in. For example, A light bulb transfers heat energy (friction) into light and heat. Once it transforms it dissipates. The energy still exists, but it is so spread out it cannot be recognized or recovered.
"It's just theist trying to say that atheist have "seen the light."
The same applies to the famous one-liner about atheists in foxholes (General Paton?). How insulting to suggest that brave men of principle would lose their ideals when faced with danger.
Mykcob4,
Theists are famous for their death bed lies about atheist conversions.
Perhaps your life force energy could be compared to the music of a radio. It is rich and wonderful until the radio breaks down one day. The music stops, the last sound waves dissipating into the environment eventually as heat. The hulk of the broken radio remains behind, but the magic of it is gone.
Then you must take this into account as well: A person skilled with wires and good with their hands can fix a broken radio, and even make it sound clearer and crisper than before, if the right parts are available.
Great analogy!
And, the question must be asked: What of those like me, who are not attached to this squishy form, and choose something less......vulnerable.
Will they also be unable to escape destrution? If you become that which is not truly living, can you ever truly die?
Brain science and computer science are advancing exponentially. I've heard predictions of implants to replace damaged brain tissue. Sometime in the next few decades I believe that it will become possible to transfer a living consciousness into some kind of computer environment. That entity would have the same memories as the person, and it would be self-aware. Would it be the same person? Who knows? Do I wake up each morning the same person as when I went to sleep? Am I the same person when I'm drunk?
In its computerized form, the entity would be virtually immortal (unless someone forgot to pay the power company.) It would occupy almost no space and require no resources except a small trickle of electricity. The Earth's carrying capacity for people in that form would be virtually unlimited.
Perhaps the biggest problem for people in that state would be boredom. Captain Picard once said to Q, "Our mortality defines us." Yet our sensory and mental capacities could be enhanced dramatically. Who knows what challenges and achievements we might find to fill eternity. It certainly sounds more interesting than eternity in a christian heaven listening to harps.
I can see an evolution from implants that partially take over or augment brain functions, to the capacity for total mind transfer on a temporary basis. At that stage people would be able to experience disembodiment for themselves and then return to their bodies. They would then have a choice between the certainty of technology-based immortality, or faith in a fantasy afterlife promised by religions.
@ Algebe - Even in such a world death would still be a reality. If computer science helps regenerate brain tissue it would be susceptible to computer viruses. If we lost electricity for any reason, death would ensue.
And even if we were able to overcome all those hurdles. At some point we expect our universe to end and with it so will we. Immortality belongs to the Gods and like the Gods it is but fiction.
We are but mortal.
>We are but mortal.
I'm sure you're right, Charvak. But why should theists be the only ones to have fantasies?
hahaha... true... I am sure with our collective intellects our fantasies will be far more including and a lot more fun....
I would really prefer an afterlife where I don't have to spend eternity worshipping an imbecile on a throne just because he said he made me.....
Remember the cautionary tale regarding immortality from Greek mythology.
"...according to the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, when Eos asked Zeus to make Tithonus immortal,[5] she forgot to ask for eternal youth (218-38). Tithonus indeed lived forever
but when loathsome old age pressed full upon him,
and he could not move nor lift his limbs,
this seemed to her in her heart the best counsel:
she laid him in a room and put to the shining doors.
There he babbles endlessly, and no more has strength at all, such as once he had in his supple limbs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithonus
If we proceed under the axiom that the existence of an afterlife would make us happy, and the non-existence of an afterlife would make us sad, it's a win-win scenario either way; If an afterlife exists, we get to enjoy an afterlife while also being happy that it exists. If an afterlife doesn't exist, we won't be around after death to even consciously understand that it does not exist, let alone to be sad about the fact that it doesn't exist. If you can only find out if an afterlife exists after death, you will only be able to experience the happiness of finding out it does, and not the sadness of finding out it doesn't. Why fill your life with grief worrying about something that you can literally only experience the joy of confirming its existence, and not the sadness of confirming its non-existence?
To me, the worst part of this world is death. The closing of doors. Countless possibilites left unexplored. Countless experiences left unknown. Knowledge left unlearned. To me, non existence is the worst possible eventuality. An inevitable eventuality, perhaps, but one to be fought against, regardless of how pointless the act may be.
The wet blanket that falls on a nice picnic! On the other hand, if some disease or old age is slowly turning you into a vegetable, it is your very best friend!
Pages