Study finds the awareness of death plays a role in anti-atheist prejudice - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Notanything;47627778]Just to preface the next thing I'm going to say, I don't identity entirely as atheist, I'm open to divine claims and deities if you can prove without any doubt they exist, yet, so far, nothing compelling has ever shown up. But, the way you describe it The funny thing about being non-religious myself is that death is something I haven't quite coped with yet. It was one of the most terrifying realizations to hit me years ago, and even though I would be completely devoid of feeling, the very concept of it being an inevitable part of my life at some point is enough to keep me up at night. It made me ponder if this level of fear, and dread I've had knowing I won't exist, I won't remember, or have any sense of what I did for my entire life is what sparked the origins of a so-called afterlife and deities. Humans always seem to want answers, and death seems to be one of those things that just aren't comfortable to comprehend, especially if put bluntly.[/QUOTE] a lot of people who come to this conclusion fall into existential nihilism and depression, but they don't go the step further to realize that makes what's happening right now as they're alive even more important they end up thinking that nothing WILL matter is the same as nothing DOES matter when really they're two separate things [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] spending your time alive wallowing in despair because of what will happen after you die is counterproductive imo

Dying for me means that yes, you as a person will cease to exist, just as it was before you were born. However I know that despite this everyone will leave behind things that they have done, children they have raised, and possibly knowledge they have contributed. That is partly why science is important to me because it is pretty much the best thing you could possibly leave behind, and if you do contribute to it you are in a way leaving behind a part of your life that can help millions, and that can save lives even after you are gone. Us as people are temporary but we have impacts on the world around us that can and probably will last longer than we ever will. So I think we have to make the best use of the time we have, and we should strive to leave behind something good. Pretty much I know what I should worry about now instead of after, because after im gone what I do now will be all that is left.

As someone who contemplated his own eventual death and its impact on others throughout much of their childhood, I personally don't have any fear regarding death, other than that if it is premature it will either have a devastating or negative affect on others or that my absence will somehow result in the lives of others not being given the opportunities they could have. When I was very young, I remember gazing into the sky, through my microscope, and into other people looking for the presence or necessity of God, but I could not find it. I heard others proclaim that they felt his presence and guidance, but I didn't. The systems I observed in the world seemed to make more sense without him than with him, and after I thought about death long enough, the same applied to the afterlife. I remember being afraid of the knowledge that once my family members died that I would never see them again, but I found comfort in the belief that the absence of the afterlife made the present that much more important.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;47626826]I dunno, nonexistence sounds rather comforting to me. I'm afraid of leaving things behind or the actual pain of death, but not death itself.[/QUOTE] can you really say that though? i mean it's not like you've ever personally been unconscious. seems to me that trying to use words here is like the flatlanders trying to point to the third dimension. probably better not to make any strong statements one way or the other until we've all died at least once

[QUOTE=Flubbman;47627225]fuck, death scares me[/QUOTE] Just remember, it's exactly like what it was like before you were born, we've all effectively been dead for the several billion years the universe has existed up until this point. I mean yeah it's gonna suck but that's the way the cookie crumbles, no sense worrying about it.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47628127]Just remember, it's exactly like what it was like before you were born, we've all effectively been dead for the several billion years the universe has existed up until this point.[/QUOTE] now this... this is well said. actually we have probably been dead longer than that, if the universe has always been there.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47628127]Just remember, it's exactly like what it was like before you were born, we've all effectively been dead for the several billion years the universe has existed up until this point. I mean yeah it's gonna suck but that's the way the cookie crumbles, no sense worrying about it.[/QUOTE] Right. Nobody is deathly afraid of 1890.

What pisses me off about evangelical Christians is that they literally find comfort in their beliefs about the afterlife, even though they believe that the majority of people go into a state of eternal infinite torture after death. If I didn't personally know evangelical Christians, I'd say that would make them selfish assholes. I'd rather no afterlife existed than for the majority of people to experience infinite torture after death, even if God's "select few" got to experience eternal bliss. That's another reason evangelical Christians might hate atheists. It might be a coping mechanism; they're telling themselves that these people are surely going to hell, so they have to deserve it, right? But really, the majority of evangelicals aren't like that. They're loving, caring people, but the beliefs that they've had since childhood simply can't be swayed by logic. They have the ability to ignore problems with their theology if it's convenient for them. I never had, so being raised as an evangelical was extremely spiritually painful for me. Luckily my struggle and becoming agnostic (leaning towards atheism/deism) helped change the beliefs of my parents (they're still Christian but no longer believe in hell). However they've always been smart and had the capacity to change when confronted with the question of whether a loving God would send a good person to hell for not worshiping him. I've met plenty of people who aren't smart enough to reevaluate their beliefs when faced with that question, instead quelling it with their local pastor's logical fallacies.

To me, i have no idea if their is truly an afterlife or just a black void of nothing once we die. But here is a strange theory about what happens to our conscious once we die. Quantum suicide/immortality. We just die in this universe and just restart over and over again with each new big bang. Basically, our consciousness just passes towards to another universe without us knowing. In other words, we are all immortal, just not our conscious, so we just restart again and again. Without us knowing at all [QUOTE][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality[/url][/QUOTE] Well, finally my 1,000th post...

[QUOTE=MissZoey;47625924]Agnosticism is basically "sort of belief". It's where you believe in a higher power but it's not set by any religion, basically. I am personally agnostic.[/QUOTE] You're mixing around deism and agnosticism. Agnosticism is not caring about one or the other, it's a question not important to you. Atheism on the other hand is the abject denial of a deity. Deism is then mere belief in a higher power. [QUOTE=Helix Snake;47628532]What pisses me off about evangelical Christians is that they literally find comfort in their beliefs about the afterlife, even though they believe that the majority of people go into a state of eternal infinite torture after death. If I didn't personally know evangelical Christians, I'd say that would make them selfish assholes. I'd rather no afterlife existed than for the majority of people to experience infinite torture after death, even if God's "select few" got to experience eternal bliss. That's another reason evangelical Christians might hate atheists. It might be a coping mechanism; they're telling themselves that these people are surely going to hell, so they have to deserve it, right? But really, the majority of evangelicals aren't like that. They're loving, caring people, but the beliefs that they've had since childhood simply can't be swayed by logic. They have the ability to ignore problems with their theology if it's convenient for them. I never had, so being raised as an evangelical was extremely spiritually painful for me. Luckily my struggle and becoming agnostic (leaning towards atheism/deism) helped change the beliefs of my parents (they're still Christian but no longer believe in hell). However they've always been smart and had the capacity to change when confronted with the question of whether a loving God would send a good person to hell for not worshiping him. I've met plenty of people who aren't smart enough to reevaluate their beliefs when faced with that question, instead quelling it with their local pastor's logical fallacies.[/QUOTE] Pretty much why hell is more often transient than permanent. A penance to be served before passing on to better pastures. Very few get stuck in purgatory (generally only atheists)

Man these discussions make me feel so empty.

[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47629063] In other words, we are all immortal, just not our conscious, so we just restart again and again. Without us knowing at all [/QUOTE] What does that mean? is that like me dying and then i immediately wake up as another person with no knowledge of my previous self?

I've never understood why anyone would find the concept of eternal existence comforting. Ever since I was old enough to truly understand what death is I've realized that while we pretty much all wish life lasted longer, life lasting forever would really really suck.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47627348]I honestly don't know where you get the idea that something stays in some form forever. Not really. All things are built out of atoms, the basic blocks of everything, and those blocks form our thoughts, and when we die, those thoughts are not there anymore, their gone, they were energy travelling along atomic lines creating us.[/QUOTE] Claiming that all existence is physical existence is not a scientific statement. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47627257]Thoughts don't have mass, or weight, they are energy impulses traveling along physical substances. They're reliant on each other to give us our sentience but they are entirely physical. Energy can be depleted. The expenditure of energy turns itself into other forms of energy, it isn't gone, but it's in a different form that carries different meaning. In the case of our thoughts, once they stop being formed by our neurons in the form of energy pulses, they transmit that energy into other forms that dissipate.[/QUOTE] Show me the evidence that a conscious thought is just "energy impulses", unless you can demonstrate how the two are the same you are making an equally unscientific statement.

-ehsnip-

theism - agnostic theism - agnostic atheism - atheism You fall somewhere on this spectrum. There is no middle ground unless you are truly the most passive person ever and you haven't ever thought about it.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47629882]Claiming that all existence is physical existence is not a scientific statement. Show me the evidence that a conscious thought is just "energy impulses", unless you can demonstrate how the two are the same you are making an equally unscientific statement.[/QUOTE] Your argument hinges on a principle that I disagree with. I don't believe there is a soul, and I've seen your argument with Ziks, and your explanations are utterly unsatisfactory to me. if the soul exists, and effects us in someway, it's physical, or works through a physical means and would thus be detectable through some manner. If you want to dispute neuroscience, which I know you do, go right ahead, but frankly, I've gone down, and I've seen ziks go down, literally every avenue of this argument and you steadfastly hold to your position but yet remain unable to answer questions posed to you(mainly by Ziks) about it in a satisfactory way. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] And hell, if you really want to get into it, you have a HUGE argument with Ziks to finish off before you tread the same ground we've tread before a million times. [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1331103&p=47549205&viewfull=1#post47549205[/url]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47629908]Your argument hinges on a principle that I disagree with. I don't believe there is a soul, and I've seen your argument with Ziks, and your explanations are utterly unsatisfactory to me. if the soul exists, and effects us in someway, it's physical, or works through a physical means and would thus be detectable through some manner. If you want to dispute neuroscience, which I know you do, go right ahead, but frankly, I've gone down, and I've seen ziks go down, literally every avenue of this argument and you steadfastly hold to your position but yet remain unable to answer questions posed to you(mainly by Ziks) about it in a satisfactory way. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] And hell, if you really want to get into it, you have a HUGE argument with Ziks to finish off before you tread the same ground we've tread before a million times.[/QUOTE] I'd like to note you aren't posting any evidence, which gets at my fundamental point, you and nobody else actually knows what a thought is in its entirety. We can't explain the parallels between action potentials in the brain and the subjective experience of a thought. So claiming that it is totally physical is an unscientific statement, along with the claim that all of reality is physical. These kinds of thought processes are probably what irritate me the most about atheists, the fact that they can't see the faith in their own belief structure whilst criticizing that of others. [editline]blah[/editline] thank you for posting the link to a discussion I am already fully aware of and gradually writing a response to.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47629934]I'd like to note you aren't posting any evidence, which gets at my fundamental point, you and nobody else actually knows what a thought is in its entirety. We can't explain the parallels between action potentials in the brain and the subjective experience of a thought. So claiming that it is totally physical is an unscientific statement, along with the claim that all of reality is physical. These kinds of thought processes are probably what irritate me the most about atheists, the fact that they can't see the faith in their own belief structure whilst criticizing that of others. [editline]blah[/editline] thank you for posting the link to a discussion I am already fully aware of and gradually writing a response to.[/QUOTE] Okay, I'm sorry I failed to write things in as subjective a tone as you require. Though, you always post with so much certainty to your views that I find this to be nothing short of hypocritical. I believe, and almost all science that we have up to this point supports this, and almost everything that I understand about this situation as you have explained it, leads me to believe with near certainty, that the mind and person are situated entirely in the brain. I would happily change my opinion based off of scientific evidence as it is displayed to me. You have, in your arguments with me, limited the evidence I can supply to "prove" you wrong on this front to things that are not of a scientific nature, as you proclaim that those things are outside the purview of science. This leads us to a precarious situation where you accuse me of being a faith based person more so than yourself. It leads me to question whether you realize what my views actually are, what it would take to change them, and in the context of what you limit evidence to being in this discussion. I am happy to admit I am wrong. My world view is not shattered by you confronting it, it will change with the evidence you provide to show that the mind and person are not connected physically and instead rely on a complicated spiritual reliance that under your own requirements, cannot be explained in a scientific manner.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47629970]I am happy to admit I am wrong. My world view is not shattered by you confronting it, it will change with the evidence you provide to show that the mind and person are not connected physically and instead rely on a complicated spiritual reliance that under your own requirements, cannot be explained in a scientific manner.[/QUOTE] How can evidence play a part in dispelling unscientific assertions? You have not shown how your position is scientific and frankly nobody has ever been able to show me how the conception of the physical mind is scientific. Literally every argument I am presented with is either "because neuroscience", or "because physical reality". I don't know what a "subjective tone" is, however my main point is that claiming the high ground "because science" is a completely unreasonable position to have as in order to have any useful view of the world you have to be routed in unscientific assumptions. Many atheists would do well to recognize this and practice some humility when in conversation with dissenting opinions.

Best solution is to become an apathist, like I have. It's really easy, you simply stop caring entirely.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47629882] Show me the evidence that a conscious thought is just "energy impulses", unless you can demonstrate how the two are the same you are making an equally unscientific statement.[/QUOTE] Medical science actually has a pretty good idea of how the brain works. Not to the point of fully mapping it, but to the point of having a general idea of what goes on in which sections of the brain and what mechanism it uses. We realize that it's pulses of energy triggered by releases of chemicals because we can see this activity and watch as the introduction of these chemicals to the brain changes how they function. If consciousness is separate from the physical world what explanation do you have for drugs that affect our mind? There are drugs that change mood, affect memories, make us interpret reality in a completely different manner, and even completely disassociate. If thought is the product of some as-of-yet unexplained spiritual phenomenon how do you reconcile this with our conclusive knowledge that physical phenomena have such a profound effect on our thoughts?

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47629997]How can evidence play a part in dispelling unscientific assertions? You have not shown how your position is scientific and frankly nobody has ever been able to show me how the conception of the physical mind is scientific. Literally every argument I am presented with is either "because neuroscience", or "because physical reality". I don't know what a "subjective tone" is, however my main point is that claiming the high ground "because science" is a completely unreasonable position to have as in order to have any useful view of the world you have to be routed in unscientific assumptions. Many atheists would do well to recognize this and practice some humility when in conversation with dissenting opinions.[/QUOTE] So if someone demonstrated to you that say, happyness was linked to a specific area of the brain, and that area of the brain increased in electrical activity during the stimulation of happyness, and the same for every other emotion, the same for every sense, for every motion, for everything we do. Would that connection between our bodies, our brains, and our minds show anything to you? What WOULD it take to convince you that the mind is purely physical? The reason people say [B]Because neuro science[/B] is because things have been created that are shown to be effective based on this understanding, based on what neuro science gives us. We can create mood changes and we understand how drugs affect perception. When you say "Well that's not good enough", basically anyone who hears that sees you saying that those things don't work, or at least don't work in a way we understand them to, but yet our explanations still hold power? It's a logical inconsistency i don't think you've ever considered.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47630006]So if someone demonstrated to you that say, happyness was linked to a specific area of the brain, and that area of the brain increased in electrical activity during the stimulation of happyness, and the same for every other emotion, the same for every sense, for every motion, for everything we do. Would that connection between our bodies, our brains, and our minds show anything to you? What WOULD it take to convince you that the mind is purely physical?[/QUOTE] It would take an indepth explanation of how action potentials (or any other undiscovered process) within the brain can explain the conscious experience of a thought in its entirety. Without doing so you have merely demonstrated a connection between thoughts and the brain, not a cause. Maybe people who assume I'm saying neuroscience doesn't work should consider the fact that I never even implied at such a claim. Just because the brain does affect the mind in some ways does not mean that it affects it in all ways, this would be obvious if people did not take physicalism on faith.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47630022]It would take an indepth explanation of how action potentials (or any other undiscovered process) within the brain can explain the conscious experience of a thought in its entirety. Without doing so you have merely demonstrated a connection between thoughts and the brain, not a cause.[/QUOTE] So anything less than a completely gapless explanation of how a thought creates a stream of consciousness in our minds would leave you unsatisfied? I think you're wrong. It is a very good show of "cause". Example: Phineas Gage was hit through the face with a rail road spike. He lived. It altered one of the lobes in his brain. Altering his personality for the rest of his life. That is an exclusively physical cause, brought on exclusively by a physical event that changed a mental system in a very complicated way. If the soul were involved in this, it brings up a few questions. First off, did the soul change when the body changed? Or did the body change and the soul stayed constant, but then what is the soul doing to determine personality exactly?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47630042]So anything less than a completely gapless explanation of how a thought creates a stream of consciousness in our minds would leave you unsatisfied? I think you're wrong. It is a very good show of "cause". Example: Phineas Gage was hit through the face with a rail road spike. He lived. It altered one of the lobes in his brain. Altering his personality for the rest of his life. That is an exclusively physical cause, brought on exclusively by a physical event that changed a mental system in a very complicated way. If the soul were involved in this, it brings up a few questions. First off, did the soul change when the body changed? Or did the body change and the soul stayed constant, but then what is the soul doing to determine personality exactly?[/QUOTE] Did Phineas Gage still experience his thoughts and the stimuli around him subjectively? Was he still conscious of his own personal being? If the answer is yes, then this scenario and all others like it simply demonstrate how the brain affects the mind, not how it causes it to exist. There is no physical explanation for subjective thought and experience, to claim otherwise is an unscientific assertion (not that I would consider that an inherently bad thing, but I take issue when people claim it is scientific).

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47630022]It would take an indepth explanation of how action potentials (or any other undiscovered process) within the brain can explain the conscious experience of a thought in its entirety. Without doing so you have merely demonstrated a connection between thoughts and the brain, not a cause. Maybe people who assume I'm saying neuroscience doesn't work should consider the fact that I never even implied at such a claim. Just because the brain does affect the mind in some ways does not mean that it affects it in all ways, this would be obvious if people did not take physicalism on faith.[/QUOTE] How do people take physicalism on faith?(I see you've moved on from the nebulous term "naturalism") in a way more significant than what you take on faith? There is faith in just believing you exist, let alone in anything else, but you can start breaking things down into more significant and meaningful terms. Physicalism is a ruling mindset right now, because as far as anyone can tell there is a ruling force in the universe and nothing really breaks the laws of the universe, the rules of physics. You suggest a form of mind and persona that we dispute, but you have yet to offer any evidence to show you're correct, just false criticism of faith on my end even though I've fully admitted I'd change my mind. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47630054]Did Phineas Gage still experience his thoughts and the stimuli around him subjectively? Was he still conscious of his own personal being? If the answer is yes, then this scenario and all others like it simply demonstrate how the brain affects the mind, not how it causes it to exist. There is no physical explanation for subjective thought and experience, to claim otherwise is an unscientific assertion (not that I would consider that an inherently bad thing, but I take issue when people claim it is scientific).[/QUOTE] It is a logical, and consistent claim to say "The mind is purely physical" until such a time at which you can present evidence that that is not the case. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47630047]If a soul exists and is really such an amazing thing, why do I argue I don't have one? Would a soul tell itself it doesn't exist?[/QUOTE] He'll tell you demons really do exist, but only if a person truly believes or engages in occult settings and activities, and that all humans are by nature sinful creatures in need of gods redemption, so yes, the soul very well may lie to you Why god would create a soul that would lie to you, I don't know, it's probably demons that god permits to exist.

It's not unscientific to claim what the best evidence currently holds to be true. It IS unscientific to suggest things that cannot, by definition, be disproven. We could find some strange new kind of energy emanating from the brain that we never knew of before and people would still suggest that there's still a spiritual aspect to it that science has simply yet to discover. Then scientists find another new thing, and the goalposts get moved once again. It's easy to say that there's magic on the other side of that hill when you can just point to the [i]next[/i] hill every time you climb the current one and find no magic.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47630056]How do people take physicalism on faith?(I see you've moved on from the nebulous term "naturalism") in a way more significant than what you take on faith? There is faith in just believing you exist, let alone in anything else, but you can start breaking things down into more significant and meaningful terms. Physicalism is a ruling mindset right now, because as far as anyone can tell there is a ruling force in the universe and nothing really breaks the laws of the universe, the rules of physics. You suggest a form of mind and persona that we dispute, but you have yet to offer any evidence to show you're correct, just false criticism of faith on my end even though I've fully admitted I'd change my mind.[/QUOTE] Oh I believe naturalism and physicalism to be one in the same, naturalism just pays lip-service to immaterial reality. Also my whole point is saying physicalism/naturalism is no more scientific than any other faith based worldview, not that it is more faith based. Also willingness to change your mind does not mean you are not adhering to a "scientific worldview" (whatever that may be). [QUOTE]It is a logical, and consistent claim to say "The mind is purely physical" until such a time at which you can present evidence that that is not the case.[/QUOTE] No it's not, because you have not presented any evidence to show that the mind is purely physical, nobody has. There are only presumption on the matter for the moment, that's it.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47630085]Oh I believe naturalism and physicalism to be one in the same, naturalism just pays lip-service to immaterial reality. Also my whole point is saying physicalism/naturalism is no more scientific than any other faith based worldview, not that it is more faith based. Also willingness to change your mind does not mean you are not adhering to a "scientific worldview" (whatever that may be). No it's not, because you have not presented any evidence to show that the mind is purely physical, nobody has. There are only presumption on the matter for the moment, that's it.[/QUOTE] But all the evidence points towards the brain being so heavily connected to the physical world that for the time being, we can say that "More than likely, it's a purely physical system". You may not like it, you can do what your doing now and tell us no one has any evidence of this anywhere in the world, but people can bring a horse to water, they cannot make it drink. I can bring you to knowledge, but you've shown that it's not something you want to engage with. Physicalism is based on less faith than your world view as it relies on a scientific mindset. "Whatever is that?" you say. Well, you know, this is actually covered pretty well by significant philosophers and scientists and I'm sure(100% sure I have gone over this before and gone unheard) that a "Scientific worldview" is one that is based upon models that make accurate predictions about the world in which we live. If an accurate prediction can be made, then at least in part our understanding of the world is complex and deep enough to allow us to do so, meaning that the principles on which that predictionary model is based upon are correct as verified by the accuracy of the prediction. I really think you would benefit from even the most basic of courses in the philosophy of science because this post shows how little you understand what science means in practice.