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

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47630110]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.[/QUOTE] Yes, all the basic functions of the brain are purely physical, we still have no understanding of how they connect to a person's subjective experience. So to say the mind is purely physical is to jump the gun on an issue that still mystifies us in many ways. Physicalism relies on the statement that all of reality is physical, this is obvious. Dissenting worldviews claim that some of reality is immaterial. Explain to me how one requires any more faith than the other, I won't take "because scientific mindset". Just because your assumptions allow you to analyze things scientifically does not make those assumptions any more scientific. A world view at its core relies on a set of basic beliefs, ie. faith. I'd suggest you practice some genuine introspection on how you actually think before claiming that your view of the world is scientific.

As someone who has faced the blackness of death and barely come out alive multiple times, I can say that the thought of not existing and what that's like is one of the most terrifying things you can experience. You don't like to think about it and when you think about aging, all you want to do is expand your lifespan.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47629997]Just because your assumptions allow you to analyze things scientifically does not make those assumptions any more scientific. A world view at its core relies on a set of basic beliefs, ie. faith.[/QUOTE] Yes I agree that one can have faith in science, however a scientific world view is not faith because it is based on proof. So far there is no proof to show that the mind has a component that is not physical, so there is no reason to consider that for our model of reality. Yes, our current model of the human brain is incomplete however it is far from nonexistant. To claim we know nothing at all about how the mind works on the physical level is just false.

"Until you can prove that unicorns don't exist then it is unscientific to assume that they don't"

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47630332]"Until you can prove that unicorns don't exist then it is unscientific to assume that they don't"[/QUOTE] "You are just as arrogant to say that there are no unicorns as the people saying that there are unicorns. You must have a lot of [B]faith[/B] yourself." /atheist circlejerk

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47630133]Yes, all the basic functions of the brain are purely physical, we still have no understanding of how they connect to a person's subjective experience. So to say the mind is purely physical is to jump the gun on an issue that still mystifies us in many ways. Physicalism relies on the statement that all of reality is physical, this is obvious. Dissenting worldviews claim that some of reality is immaterial. Explain to me how one requires any more faith than the other, I won't take "because scientific mindset". Just because your assumptions allow you to analyze things scientifically does not make those assumptions any more scientific. A world view at its core relies on a set of basic beliefs, ie. faith. I'd suggest you practice some genuine introspection on how you actually think before claiming that your view of the world is scientific.[/QUOTE] I don't get your disconnect between the physical interaction in our brains and our "subjective experiences". Those pulses and proteins[I]are[/I] you. You thinking is just your brain interacting with itself and your body. Of course we don't yet understand exactly how it does it, and what those individual pulses does, but nothing is preventing us from gaining that knowledge. Everything we have observed appear to be physical. We haven't observed anything not physical yet - ergo, so far the best explanation is that everything is "physical" and nothing is pointing in the other direction. Claiming some of reality is immaterial without any scientific basis (i.e. observations) whatsoever means that that world view is unscientific.

[QUOTE=mecaguy03;47630287]Yes I agree that one can have faith in science, however a scientific world view is not faith because it is based on proof. So far there is no proof to show that the mind has a component that is not physical, so there is no reason to consider that for our model of reality. Yes, our current model of the human brain is incomplete however it is far from nonexistant. To claim we know nothing at all about how the mind works on the physical level is just false.[/QUOTE] Technically all that we know is based on the assumption that our senses are correct, so in a sense any knowledge based outside your intra-psychic environment is based purely on faith. It's really interesting to think about.

[QUOTE=Levithan;47630380]Technically all that we know is based on the assumption that our senses are correct, so in a sense any knowledge based outside your intra-psychic environment is based purely on faith. It's really interesting to think about.[/QUOTE] Yea there are some basic assumptions we all have to make, like that the universe exists, however that is unavoidable. It is impossible to prove independent of everything else that the universe exists.

[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] Atheists and Theists are basically a really angry couple flinging shit at each other in the middle of a party and Agnostics are everyone else who just sort of ignore the fight and try to stay out of it as much as possible.

Thanks for the interesting read, guys. Personally, I don't fear death itself rather I fear not finishing my time on earth properly, if that makes sense. For example, if i had a terminal illness at my age and knew I would die very soon, I'd be mortified because I've had no time to really live a fulfilling life, accomplish dreams or make an impact on anyone. If I die at 60+ I will be ok with it knowing I'll have spent my time wisely and happily. I have no firm beliefs regarding a god or anything that happens after you die, I will take it as it comes

[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;47630003]Best solution is to become an apathist, like I have. It's really easy, you simply stop caring entirely.[/QUOTE] Good for you, but hardly the best solution.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;47630332]"Until you can prove that unicorns don't exist then it is unscientific to assume that they don't"[/QUOTE] Aunicornism is just as unscientific!

I'm surprised no one in this thread brought up eternal recurrence, which could potentially be an amazing or terrifying prospect depending on your quality of life.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47630133]Yes, all the basic functions of the brain are purely physical, we still have no understanding of how they connect to a person's subjective experience. So to say the mind is purely physical is to jump the gun on an issue that still mystifies us in many ways. Physicalism relies on the statement that all of reality is physical, this is obvious. Dissenting worldviews claim that some of reality is immaterial. Explain to me how one requires any more faith than the other, I won't take "because scientific mindset". Just because your assumptions allow you to analyze things scientifically does not make those assumptions any more scientific. A world view at its core relies on a set of basic beliefs, ie. faith. I'd suggest you practice some genuine introspection on how you actually think before claiming that your view of the world is scientific.[/QUOTE] How would this nonphysical part of the mind interact with the physical brain then? If it interacts with the physical world it would be detectable as an influence coming out of "nowhere", and obviously if it isn't detectable, then it can't be interacting with physical world and has no effect on it and might as well not exist, or do you believe we simply haven't discovered it's mechanisms yet?

Hoyo Facepunch. Bear with this. For me my lack of belief is more than just lack of belief for it's own sake. Atheism is the only thing keeping me sane. For me, the concept of a God sitting up in Heaven, looking down and judging everything you do/think/say from now until the day you die is more than absurd, it's terrifying. What if I'm not up to his standards? What if a verse in the bible or the koran or the torah is mistranslated and I fuck up his wishes and get sent to hell for it? What if something I do is in conflict with scripture I didn't know even existed? Questions like that aside, the concepts of God/heaven/eternal life and even eternal recurrence, like carcargo would like us to talk about all seem a bit much to me. Eternal recurrence is inevitable really, because we are finite beings with finite information to process and an extremely limited way of processing it –our brains. Like Nietzsche postulates, the same events will inevitably play out in precisely the same way again and again, not because our minds are involved with the playing, but because all humans will inevitably come up upon the same series of events and due to our limited scope of processing and action, repeat prior actions. This doesn't mean the same consciousness will repeat the same actions within a different body ad infinitum, but it does mean the same choices will be made by multitudes of people across eons, simply because there are no ways of avoiding it. The more complex the action or series of events, the less likely it is to recur, but everyday shit will be played out by billions of people endlessly. "Coffee please." "Cream with that" "No, I'm fine." Pays with a five dollar bill, cashier takes it, gives exact change, next person: "Coffee please." It can become more complex: Person in two year relationship, trying to balance working at a McDonalds with a shit boss and school. Goes to class daily, studies hard, tries to be the best they can be, but spends some nights crying themselves to sleep because the stress of living gives them existential crises almost daily. Significant other breaks up with them, they feel worse, but push on. The lack of sleep is getting to them and they are constantly tired. So they go get a coffee, pay with a five, tell the cashier "no cream." All of this is really rambling and I'm sorry if I'm derailing the thread. To wrap up, life sucks, but it sucks equally for all people at some point. The best thing to do is to try your best to be as innovative and original as you can, because even if someone else has done the things you're doing or will do them, at least there are less people who have done so. The exclusivity of that recognition should be empowering.

[QUOTE=Rents;47631379]How would this nonphysical part of the mind interact with the physical brain then? If it interacts with the physical world it would be detectable as an influence coming out of "nowhere", and obviously if it isn't detectable, then it can't be interacting with physical world and has no effect on it and might as well not exist, or do you believe we simply haven't discovered it's mechanisms yet?[/QUOTE] He doesn't seem to understand that introducing one more concept, but this time one that can't be detected or otherwise differentiated from the brain (what's the detectable difference between "changing the brain changes the mind" and "changing the brain which is the mind"?). It's like saying that celestial body movements aren't governed by the laws of gravity, but rather big, invisible and undetectable cats moving the bodies. Changing the orbit of a body is actually just changing the way the cat is moving. It's unneeded complexity that can't be proven or disproven, and thua it's totally unscientific.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;47630940]Good for you, but hardly the best solution.[/QUOTE] No, really, it is, once you stop caring whether God is real or not and you realise that it doesn't matter because either; A. God is real and he's a shit head which explains why humanity is composed of shitheads. OR B. God is not real and everyone is an asshole of their own volition. Neither choice makes a difference functionally, because everyone is still an asshole and God is still a cunt.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47631543]He doesn't seem to understand that introducing one more concept, but this time one that can't be detected or otherwise differentiated from the brain (what's the detectable difference between "changing the brain changes the mind" and "changing the brain which is the mind"?). It's like saying that celestial body movements aren't governed by the laws of gravity, but rather big, invisible and undetectable cats moving the bodies. Changing the orbit of a body is actually just changing the way the cat is moving. It's unneeded complexity that can't be proven or disproven, and thua it's totally unscientific.[/QUOTE] Well, I'd rather hear it from him but if he believes that then yeah, it's basically an argument about an invisible puppeteer who doesn't seem to actually do anything.

I hope that some day neuroscientists get to the bottom of what human consciousness really is

When I heard that by 2050 we should be able to upload our minds to a computer, my fear of death basically disappeared. Mass Effect First person here I come.

[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47631707]No, really, it is, once you stop caring whether God is real or not and you realise that it doesn't matter because either; A. God is real and he's a shit head which explains why humanity is composed of shitheads. OR B. God is not real and everyone is an asshole of their own volition. Neither choice makes a difference functionally, because everyone is still an asshole and God is still a cunt.[/QUOTE] That is post-enlightenment apathy which doesn't sell well to the masses. It works on an individual level, but not more than that. For it to exist, it needs the two other parts (theism and atheism). Everyone can't be "apathist", as you put it. The following paragraph is not aimed towards you per se, but I'm so fucking tired with the whole apathetic ambivalent attitude towards, not only religion, but also politics, and other more domestic topics. It's the the whole bystander mindset that tries to take a higher ground by not getting involved. When it becomes "cool" not to care about whatever.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;47637464]That is post-enlightenment apathy which doesn't sell well to the masses. It works on an individual level, but not more than that. For it to exist, it needs the two other parts (theism and atheism). Everyone can't be "apathist", as you put it. The following paragraph is not aimed towards you per se, but I'm so fucking tired with the whole apathetic ambivalent attitude towards, not only religion, but also politics, and other more domestic topics. It's the the whole bystander mindset that tries to take a higher ground by not getting involved. When it becomes "cool" not to care about whatever.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm only apathetic to religion, it's apatheism, not apathy outright.

[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] Please define what you mean by "naturalism and physicalism to be one in the same". The one problem I see in your posts is you're asking facepunchers likely in their high school/college years to demonstrate to you how neuroscience works from ground up. We're not neurologists and we have no background in that area. And if it turns out that someone on this forum is, then let's message him and invite him to this thread but otherwise you would have to read reliable published journals.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47626004]The way I've always heard it, it was the other way around. "Agnostic" being believing in a higher power, but not any specific religion, and "Deist" being the lack of belief in a higher power, but accepting the possibility of the existence of one.[/QUOTE] Look at the etymology. A-Lack of Gnosticism-Knowledge Deism-Well...I can't tell for sure how to break this down...but believe me, it means "I believe in a singular superior entity/being"

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47630465]Atheists and Theists are basically a really angry couple flinging shit at each other in the middle of a party and Agnostics are everyone else who just sort of ignore the fight and try to stay out of it as much as possible.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.ben-kay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/jq513f8689.png[/IMG] ?

[QUOTE=Notanything;47627778]So, in a nutshell they feel threatened because Atheism is that one possibility there isn't some afterlife, or something after death? 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] They feel threatened because the entire crux of them fighting at every opportunity for "betterment" or "growth" relies on a literal lie; it's also the extension of this lie that also falls apart. Not only are you saying "your magical jewish white man who lives on a cloud and had a formerly jewish zombie kid and a islamic best bro does not exist", you're [B]also[/B] saying "that sweet old lady/man whom shaped you and nurtured you and sacrificed on your behalf, she/he does not and will never exist again, everything that was the sum of their lives and experiences is forever gone and now only represented by those whom carry such things forward in their own way" [I]and[/I] you're also saying "that 6 year old girl/boy left in an alley after being raped to freeze to death is utterly gone and is not in magical wonderland where such things do not exist and are soothed away, and their life was utterly wasted and borderline pointless except as an amazingly horrible anecdote on how shitty, petty, and generally self serving the human race is " You're attacking the fundamental tenets of several core issues that humans lie to themsevles about in order to feel better about being dicks AND that they are not only not uniquely special, but pretty much the direct opposite of that, an evolutionary commodity at worst or possibly a historical anecdote at best. Unfortunately the truth doesn't exist to satiate, it simply is. Most people need lies to get through the day.

[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;47630003]Best solution is to become an apathist, like I have. It's really easy, you simply stop caring entirely.[/QUOTE] I used to think apatheism was silly, because you were acknowledging that you didn't care, so obviously you did care But then I realized the entire point was noticing the triviality of these kinds of questions, and how little impact they have on my life.

[QUOTE=27X;47650349]They feel threatened because the entire crux of them fighting at every opportunity for "betterment" or "growth" relies on a literal lie; it's also the extension of this lie that also falls apart. Not only are you saying "your magical jewish white man who lives on a cloud and had a formerly jewish zombie kid and a islamic best bro does not exist", you're [B]also[/B] saying "that sweet old lady/man whom shaped you and nurtured you and sacrificed on your behalf, she/he does not and will never exist again, everything that was the sum of their lives and experiences is forever gone and now only represented by those whom carry such things forward in their own way" [I]and[/I] you're also saying "that 6 year old girl/boy left in an alley after being raped to freeze to death is utterly gone and is not in magical wonderland where such things do not exist and are soothed away, and their life was utterly wasted and borderline pointless except as an amazingly horrible anecdote on how shitty, petty, and generally self serving the human race is " You're attacking the fundamental tenets of several core issues that humans lie to themsevles about in order to feel better about being dicks AND that they are not only not uniquely special, but pretty much the direct opposite of that, an evolutionary commodity at worst or possibly a historical anecdote at best. Unfortunately the truth doesn't exist to satiate, it simply is. Most people need lies to get through the day.[/QUOTE] Well, shit. That almost makes me feel bad, but it won't really change my (lack of) belief. That's exactly what I meant if put bluntly, but nobody said the explanations had to be pretty.

I might not believe in any gods or afterlifes, but I'll quite happy if I'm proven wrong when I die.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;47626932]considering you already did it the eternity before you were born.[/QUOTE] That's the part the scares me. Not existing sucked ass.