Faith in permanent death

[839311]

This is mostly for atheists, but open to anyone who believes that once we are dead, we're dead. That's it. We will never be alive again for the rest of eternity. We simply cease to exist, completely and permanently.

I come across this belief quite often among atheists. I view this belief as faith-based. Its also one of the most pitiful faith-based positions that I have ever come across. It strikes me as a bleak, doomed, hopeless reality.

With all of the possibilities out there which suggest eternal life, including.....

1) That there are god like beings who plan to take care of us beyond death.
2) That this reality of ours is a computer simulation, and after our lives here we will move on to different programs. Simulated reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) The idea of eternal return. Eternal return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4) An idea similar to eternal return, but where the system is not closed and our consciousness energy floats around through infinite space and once in a while becomes part of a living being.
5) Seeing as how consciousness is so little understood, we can speculate as to the nature of this energy:

a) It is indestructible and survives physical death, so you will continue to experience being alive, perhaps in a very basic way, with no thoughts or senses, just this rudimentary awareness. This might actually not be a pleasant thing, but I suppose its possible, maybe. Eventually, your consciousness may become part of another living being and you'd get back higher senses and intelligence.
b) An idea where there is a cosmic consciousness. Cosmic consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

.....why have you decided to put your faith in the idea that when we die we permanently cease to exist?

When atheists try to explain the attractiveness of atheism to others, some of this attractiveness is lost in the fact that so many atheists believe in permanent death. A religious person might say, "I believe theres an afterlife, this gives me comfort. But your telling me that when we're dead thats it? That sucks!" And thats true. Its a defeatist, hopeless belief. Atheism would be far more attractive to people if it acknowledged the possibility of life after death. I think the rate of deconversions would increase if people were instead comforted with the possibility of life after death even if there is no God.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheism based in rationalism, is about what there is evidence of, not what gives you fuzzy feewings. All in all, rationalism isn't a worldview suited for most people, as they don't have the emotional fortitude to deal with things as they are.

 

[PolyHedral]

There is no evidence to support any of the possibilities you have just suggested.

 

[Otherright]

Atheism based in rationalism, is about what there is evidence of, not what gives you fuzzy feewings. All in all, rationalism isn't a worldview suited for most people, as they don't have the emotional fortitude to deal with things as they are.

But can you prove, beyond just the observance of seeing a person die, and the lack of chemical reaction in the shell that remains, that that is it.

 

[outhouse]

There is no evidence to support any of the possibilities you have just suggested.

I agree


people often confuse IMAGINATION and WANT as reality.

 

[Otherright]

I agree


people often confuse IMAGINATION and WANT as reality.

But that doesn't mean that there is nothing there.

 

[outhouse]

But that doesn't mean that there is nothing there.

Doesnt mean that something is there.

 

[839311]

There is no evidence to support any of the possibilities you have just suggested.

That doesn't mean those possibilities aren't true. All it means is that we can't tell. It may happen that in the future, through technology, consciousness may be proven to exist beyond death.

To put your faith in permanent death, I think, is not reason. Simply faith. And it is faith that is put into one of the most hopeless ideas out there.

 

[839311]

Atheism based in rationalism, is about what there is evidence of, not what gives you fuzzy feewings. All in all, rationalism isn't a worldview suited for most people, as they don't have the emotional fortitude to deal with things as they are.

I view it as irrational to assume that death is permanent.

 

[PolyHedral]

I view it as irrational to assume that death is permanent.

Why? It cannot be shown that consciousness is anything other than a computational process. (And it is far more likely that future technology will exploit that view. As the last 80 years show, computers are easy.)

 

[Otherright]

Why? It cannot be shown that consciousness is anything other than a computational process. (And it is far more likely that future technology will exploit that view. As the last 80 years show, computers are easy.)

Really? Perhaps you should read some material on consciousness that doesn't come from the 1950's.

Do you really think that computers are going to be able to reach consciousness?

 

[Penumbra]

This is mostly for atheists, but open to anyone who believes that once we are dead, we're dead. That's it. We will never be alive again for the rest of eternity. We simply cease to exist, completely and permanently.

I come across this belief quite often among atheists. I view this belief as faith-based. Its also one of the most pitiful faith-based positions that I have ever come across. It strikes me as a bleak, doomed, hopeless reality.

With all of the possibilities out there which suggest eternal life, including.....

1) That there are god like beings who plan to take care of us beyond death.
2) That this reality of ours is a computer simulation, and after our lives here we will move on to different programs. Simulated reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) The idea of eternal return. Eternal return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4) An idea similar to eternal return, but where the system is not closed and our consciousness energy floats around through infinite space and once in a while becomes part of a living being.
5) Seeing as how consciousness is so little understood, we can speculate as to the nature of this energy:

a) It is indestructible and survives physical death, so you will continue to experience being alive, perhaps in a very basic way, with no thoughts or senses, just this rudimentary awareness. This might actually not be a pleasant thing, but I suppose its possible, maybe. Eventually, your consciousness may become part of another living being and you'd get back higher senses and intelligence.
b) An idea where there is a cosmic consciousness. Cosmic consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

.....why have you decided to put your faith in the idea that when we die we permanently cease to exist?

When atheists try to explain the attractiveness of atheism to others, some of this attractiveness is lost in the fact that so many atheists believe in permanent death. A religious person might say, "I believe theres an afterlife, this gives me comfort. But your telling me that when we're dead thats it? That sucks!" And thats true. Its a defeatist, hopeless belief. Atheism would be far more attractive to people if it acknowledged the possibility of life after death. I think the rate of deconversions would increase if people were instead comforted with the possibility of life after death even if there is no God.

It's not a matter of faith. I haven't seen any evidence that any of those things are true. When I was younger I had some faith in things like this until I determined that faiths of that sort were unsupported.

Things like personality and memories have been shown to be dependent on the brain. Brain damage can alter or destroy them. As for consciousness or awareness, changing the brain makes a person unaware of what is going on, which is good for things like surgery. Plus, consciousness without any sort of sensory and interaction system would seem rather unhelpful and unnecessary.

As for being bleak, I find concepts of eternal return, or conscious floating around in infinite space, or rudimentary awareness to be more bleak than death. I don't particularly find death to be bleak, nor do I fully understand why people fear it. I suppose opinions on what is bleak or not is a subjective thing.

 

[PolyHedral]

Really? Perhaps you should read some material on consciousness that doesn't come from the 1950's.

Do you really think that computers are going to be able to reach consciousness?

Yes. Is there a problem in that? Consciousness is complex, sure, but that doesn't mean uncomputable.

 

[Willamena]

I view it as irrational to assume that death is permanent.

But that's what "dead" means. If you want to describe something that goes on living, it's not "dead."

 

[PolyHedral]

But that's what "dead" means. If you want to describe something that goes on living, it's not "dead."

Of course not. It's passed on, it's expired, it's gone to meet its maker, it's ceased to be, it's run off and joined the choir invisible...
[youtube]npjOSLCR2hE[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪The Parrot Sketch‬‏

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I view it as irrational to assume that death is permanent.

It's irrational to assume it isn't. It's irrational to assume anything - even if it makes you feel warm and cozy.

 

[Alex_G]

The truth is no one truly knows what, if anything is after death and how it relates to one's very existence and identity. What i think most atheist will hold is the fact that there is zero evidence available for any continuation after death, which is somewhat different than claiming to know that there is definitely nothing.
The claims made by many religious bodies regarding this subject are often specific, not backed with evidence and seem to harbour characteristics that appear strikingly human in origin. All emotional support and reassurance gained from any specific outlook on the afterlife does not directly support its truth value in any defendable or intellectually apparent way.

We are emotional beings, and along with the privilege of higher consciousness comes the burden of knowing our own demise. It isn’t the best, must be said. There is of course more to life than the black and white scientific world, and real value can be gained from outlooks that support one’s self and helps the human condition be content in life. The mystery of the universe always leaves room for surprise. I think we know that we do indeed have a life, in the here and now, and should not overlook that on the bases of anticipating some higher life after death, that would seem foolish.

I always, when looking at life after death, think to myself what was there of me prior to my birth, and how that might differ at all from the time after my passing? I’ve also sat down and thought about eternal life after death, and struggled with what it would really mean to my mortal self, and whether it would even be tolerable to continue for ever. So much of life's joys seem to come from the transient, changing and unpredictable. What might ecstasy be in the context of constant and eternal ecstasy? What becomes of the mind who knows everything, has learned all there is to know, never to be excited by new things, or ever be taken by surprise? What might become of the sense of value in a realm of never-ending existence?
I dont know what i make of such an existence, as rudimentary anticipated as i can manage, what it could therefore ever realistically mean, or apply to who i am in this life.

Alex

 

[Otherright]

Yes. Is there a problem in that? Consciousness is complex, sure, but that doesn't mean uncomputable.

Consciousness has nothing to do with computation, its an emergent property.

The way computers work and the way the brain works, are two completely different things. The Turing Problem ensures that computers will never reach consciousness. They can only do what they are programmed to do. They are required to break down information and either re-complile or parse it into something useful. Your brain doesn't do that.

As much as I would love to see genuine AI, it isn't going to happen.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But can you prove, beyond just the observance of seeing a person die, and the lack of chemical reaction in the shell that remains, that that is it.

There's zero reason to think consciousness or anything else survives death. Then again, I'm a rationalist, and I understand that this isn't a worldview suitable for most people. I understand it's pleasant to fantasize that we might continue to exist after dying, but there's no rational basis for such comforting wishes.

 

[science_is_my_god]

All in all, rationalism isn't a worldview suited for most people, as they don't have the emotional fortitude to deal with things as they are.

I disagree. I think rationalism requires very little (if any) emotional fortitude. It takes all kinds of emotional fortitude for adhering to other belief systems.

Anyways, as far as the OP. First of all, I agree. Afterlife actually can be grounded in science. No matter how you look at it, no matter how many chromosomes and neurotransmitters you break the brain into, science really doesn't know what consciousness is. You can use physics and chemistry to describe everything else in the universe, but not our consciousness. Because no matter what science you apply, you still have to use your consciousness to get there...