I'm a complete scientist/atheist nonbeliever, I don't believe in any form of god, I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't believe in "souls" in a conventional sense. Lately, whenever I'm told to "burn in hell", I realize one thing more and more:

I want to burn in hell.

I'm not masochistic or anything, it's just that I believe in mental nonexistance after death. A complete loss of consciousness, identity, memory, senses. Nothingness. Not an abyss, not black, nothing. No thoughts.

In my opinion, hell would be better. Pain and suffering are better than nonexistance. This might seem masochistic or... dare I say it, EMO, but it's in fact the opposite: I value life so much, that I fear death and nonexistence to the point where anything would be better than that fate.

What is everyone else's opinions on this? Am I as fucked up as those brilliant Evangelists say?

All you have to do is change your beliefs. You won't be disappointed.

~Pascal...sort of

I would, but it's not that easy for me. I feel that most other beliefs are only considered reasonable because people fear what is probable. I try to believe in more hopeful things, but they always seem untrue. Meh. I dunno. It's kind of unrelenting mental masochism that I unintentionally brought upon myself due to too much deep thought about death.

Whatever. It'd be nice to believe it, but I'd have trouble thinking it were true. And I'd rather believe (what I see as) the truth than live(what I see as) a lie to make myself feel better.

Alright, in believing in non-existence upon death, you are assuming that you know exactly what is going on.

My question is, have you ever experienced death?

I would imagine that you do not currently remember any former lives. Therefore, to the best of your knowledge, this is your first romp through existence. How, then, can you assume that you know what occurs when you flatline? You have nothing to base this belief on. No evidence. No proof. There are plenty of lifeless corpses around, but how can you say for certain that there is no higher existence, no soul?

Have you given death a try? Then you have no reason to believe in any of the speculation surrounding the possibility of an afterlife. And frankly, why bother? Death is inevitable - you'll discover the truth sooner or later (hopefully).

One more thing. If death leads to the absolute destruction of the "self", then the idea of your own non-existence will cease to instill fear once you die...

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

Alright, in believing in non-existence upon death, you are assuming that you know exactly what is going on.

My question is, have you ever experienced death?

I would imagine that you do not currently remember any former lives. Therefore, to the best of your knowledge, this is your first romp through existence. How, then, can you assume that you know what occurs when you flatline? You have nothing to base this belief on. No evidence. No proof. There are plenty of lifeless corpses around, but how can you say for certain that there is no higher existence, no soul?

Have you given death a try? Then you have no reason to believe in any of the speculation surrounding the possibility of an afterlife. And frankly, why bother? Death is inevitable - you'll discover the truth sooner or later (hopefully).

One more thing. If death leads to the absolute destruction of the "self", then the idea of your own non-existence will cease to instill fear once you die...

Egg covered it.

If there is non-existence after death, then you'll never be able to miss life, nor think that Hell would have been better. You're not even going to know that you don't exist!

I don't see the problem...

I think its arrogant to equate science with atheism.

Nonexistant would be neutral, Hell would be really bad. I'd prefer neutral to very bad.

The fact that you said "EMO" leads me to believe that you are probably 14-17 and thus, not very mature and probably not much of a "scientist" either. You are more likely rebelling against the culture more than you are honestly contemplating the spiritual.

theBishop

quote:Originally posted by hbr11889:

I'm a complete scientist/atheist nonbeliever, I don't believe in any form of god, I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't believe in "souls" in a conventional sense. Lately, whenever I'm told to "burn in hell", I realize one thing more and more:

I want to burn in hell.

I'm not masochistic or anything, it's just that I believe in mental nonexistance after death. A complete loss of consciousness, identity, memory, senses. Nothingness. Not an abyss, not black, nothing. No thoughts.

In my opinion, hell would be better. Pain and suffering are better than nonexistance. This might seem masochistic or... dare I say it, EMO, but it's in fact the opposite: I value life so much, that I fear death and nonexistence to the point where anything would be better than that fate.

What is everyone else's opinions on this? Am I as fucked up as those brilliant Evangelists say?

Ummm... If afterlife is completely loss of consciousness I believe we all remember what it was(or wasn't?) like. Just try to remember how were things like before you were born.

Why do you fear eternal nonexistence? The eternal nonexistence before birth wasn't that bad. And if there's nonexistence who'd be there worrying about it?

But hell sounds like a nasty place. I can't imagine someone rather suffering than being unconscious. But I don't apparently value life too much...

An eternity of anything is meaningless, whether it be pain, pleasure, or nothing at all...it will eventually lose its meaning.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

I think its arrogant to equate science with atheism.



How is it arrogant? Science is logical, belief in a supernatural being is not.

quote:Originally posted by hbr11889:



I want to burn in hell.

In my opinion, hell would be better. Pain and suffering are better than nonexistance.



Thats the only problem i have with your theory. What your saying is kind of like saying, if you were to go under major surgery , you would rather be fully awake and aware of whats going on than to have pain medication or Anesthesia.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

Alright, in believing in non-existence upon death, you are assuming that you know exactly what is going on.



Are you trying to prove him wrong though? I think you have to admit that theres more logical proof towards nothingness after death than there is to have an afterlife.

I say: Join the club.

quote:Science is logical

Well, that seems true on the surface, but in practice there are plenty of scientists with pet theories that begin to blind them of other possibilities. Eventually science becomes just as emotional religious beliefs.

With that in mind, my belief in a supernatual being comes from my life expiriences, and is not without evidence. Certainly not conclusive evidence, but enough to point me in that direction.

It is arrogant to suggest that religious belief and science are mutually exclusive. So many atheists are quick to scoff at the intelligence of a spiritual person without acknowledging that they have the same amount of concrete evidence for their beliefs: none.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Well, that seems true on the surface, but in practice there are plenty of scientists with pet theories that begin to blind them of other possibilities. Eventually science becomes just as emotional religious beliefs.

What some scientists do has nothing to do with the Scientific Method itself, which is the basis of Science.



quote:

With that in mind, my belief in a supernatual being comes from my life expiriences, and is not without evidence. Certainly not conclusive evidence, but enough to point me in that direction.

Science uses evidence that can be reproduced. If it can't... it's not evidence! What you believe you saw or experienced isn't evidence.

quote:

It is arrogant to suggest that religious belief and science are mutually exclusive. So many atheists are quick to scoff at the intelligence of a spiritual person without acknowledging that they have the same amount of concrete evidence for their beliefs: none.

1. By atheism, I assume he meant weak-atheism, which in reality is what is commonly referred to as agnosticism. If so, then your point crumbles, since agnostics need no evidence.

2. If he meant strong-atheism, then still it is more logical to conclude that, given the other choice of belief in a supernatural being with has shown absolutely no evidence of its existence; especially when he has had time to do so (an infinite amount by some religious beliefs) and when there are numerous inconsistencies in stories and beliefs held by those claiming to believe in him.

3. This has nothing to do with intelligence. Nobody even mentioned it before you. That is simply a strawman on your part. You're turning this into the "Evil presumptuous atheists think they are smarter" when nobody claimed such a thing.

He described himself as "a complete scientist/atheist nonbeliever". That says to me that in his opinion atheism and science go hand in hand in some way which precludes theistic beliefs. I take offence to such a mindset.

quote:Originally posted by hbr11889:

I'm a complete scientist/atheist nonbeliever, I don't believe in any form of god, I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't believe in "souls" in a conventional sense. Lately, whenever I'm told to "burn in hell", I realize one thing more and more:

I want to burn in hell.

I'm not masochistic or anything, it's just that I believe in mental nonexistance after death. A complete loss of consciousness, identity, memory, senses. Nothingness. Not an abyss, not black, nothing. No thoughts.

In my opinion, hell would be better. Pain and suffering are better than nonexistance. This might seem masochistic or... dare I say it, EMO, but it's in fact the opposite: I value life so much, that I fear death and nonexistence to the point where anything would be better than that fate.

What is everyone else's opinions on this? Am I as fucked up as those brilliant Evangelists say?

I've never really thought about it like that before, but I totally agree and feel the same way. I know/believe (whatever you wanna call it) that after I die there will be a nothingness as you say, the same nothingness you experienced for an eternity before you were born, and that isn't gonna change. But I would much rather burn in hell, no matter how bad it is, i'd find a way to have a laugh every now and then (which i think is the closest thing to a reason/meaning in existence), and even if I can't, trying would keep me occupied.

On the other hand, maybe I don't want to burn in hell. I've never heard any speak of how long you stay in hell (if you believe so), so I assume it would be forever. Although it wouldn't technically be living, it'd still be some form of mental conciousness/existence, and eternal existence is possibly the greatest punishment imaginable. Nothing is special, nothing has that beauty to it that only comes from knowing, that one day you won't be around to experience it anymore.



[This message has been edited by Ormy (edited 01-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

He described himself as "a complete scientist/atheist nonbeliever". That says to me that in his opinion atheism and science go hand in hand in some way which precludes theistic beliefs. I take offence to such a mindset.

The scientific method does currently preclude any theistic belief. Sorry, but that's the way it is built. That you can be a theist an a scientist? Sure. But you wouldn't be an ardent believer in the scientific method, because it does[ preclude theistic beliefs.

And hey, I take offense in your belief that a strict belief in Science doesn't preclude a theistic belief. You didn't care about that when you posted, right? So why should he? Where you being as "arrogant" as you claim he was being, thus making you a hypocrite?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-04-2005).]

Hey, you're the one being close-minded here, not me. My viewpoint allows for both philosophies, you're only allowing your own.

You don't hear that from a christian very often.

UN!F13D :

"Are you trying to prove him wrong though? I think you have to admit that theres more logical proof towards nothingness after death than there is to have an afterlife."

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was simply pointing out that no one knows the truth about a possible life after death. We haven't died yet, so we don't know exactly what happens.

I like to think that there is more to this Universe than simply chunks of matter floating about. Though, it may very well be as simple as that. In our current state, we cannot know the truth.

Is it really so illogical to consider the possibility of an afterlife? There's plenty that we still do not understand about the Universe, our world, and even ourselves.

Why dismiss possibilities based solely on improbability?

Lovecraft said it best:

"It is easy to remove the mind from harping on the lost illusion of immortality. The disciplined intellect fears nothing and craves no sugar-plum at the day's end, but is content to accept life and serve society as best it may. Personally I would not care for immortality in the least. There is nothing better than oblivion, since in oblivion there is no wish unfulfilled. We had it before we were born, yet did not complain. Shall we whine because we know it will return? It is Elysium enough for me, at any rate."

- H.P. Lovecraft, In Defense of Dagon

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

Is it really so illogical to consider the possibility of an afterlife? There's plenty that we still do not understand about the Universe, our world, and even ourselves.

Why dismiss possibilities based solely on improbability?

Sorry, but that line of thinking is as far away from reality as it gets.

"Ignorance therefore afterlife" is a logically bankrupt concept. If there is a case to be made for anything supernatural, it will have to be made due to evidence of its own and not due to ignorance or the inability to disprove it.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Hey, you're the one being close-minded here, not me. My viewpoint allows for both philosophies, you're only allowing your own.

Thanks for evading the argument, and the insult. Much appreciated.

1. I don't think I'm being "closed minded"; that would imply that I'm deliberately and arbitrarily denying something, which I'm not. If following logic makes me that, so be it.

If we followed your definition of "closed-minded" then a mathematician would be closed-minded for not believing 2+2 = 7

Either your usage is wrong, or it ceases to have any qualities as an insult/"jab", and actually becomes a compliment.

The fact is, if you used the scientific method you cannot arrive at theistic belief. Hence science does preclude it, and as such, he was justified in saying what he said.

2. You said that was insulting to you, and I said what you were doing was insulting to me. How "open-minded" you argument is, does nothing to change the fact that I find it insulting. Hence, the question still stands. Why should he care what "insults" you, when you obviously don't care what "insults" me?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-04-2005).]

If my viewpoint actually insults you, then maybe you're a bit too sensitive.

And its hardly hypocritical. I feel slighted because some 14 year old "scientist" would preclude me from the study of science if he could. The only slight you feel is having to tolerate a viewpoint you don't agree with. That's not much different from racism my friend.

Good luck with life Hitler.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

If my viewpoint actually insults you, then maybe you're a bit too sensitive.

The same could be said of you.

quote:

And its hardly hypocritical.

It's hypocritical in that you whine about an insult, and have no problem doing the same. Thus, hypocritical.

quote:

I feel slighted because some 14 year old "scientist" would preclude me from the study of science if he could.

What else do you expect if you don't follow the scientific method? To be praised? Sorry but that's not the way it goes.

quote:

The only slight you feel is having to tolerate a viewpoint you don't agree with. That's not much different from racism my friend.

Good luck with life Hitler.

Ahhh... Another insult, and this time you equate me to Hitler! And what more? You actually refuted your own argument because you yourself do not tolerate a viewpoint you do not agree with! Brilliant.

I know you think you're doing a really good job arguing with me, but i can't say i'd agree.

First of all, you're feining insult as a roadblock to any real discussion. My beliefs don't affect you, and yet you would exclude me from certain intellectual persuits. I don't see how that's not a reasonable cause for offence.

But now you are inventing something to get "upset" about so that you can call me a hypocrite. That's like stepping on an ant and then calling the ant a hypocrite for getting upset when he's the one who stained the bottom of your shoe.

Regardless of whether theists could study science, I still have a right to get pissed off about it if someone tries to preclude me from it. You're claiming insult at the mere suggestion that the study could tolerate both viewpoints.



And there's lots more to science than origins of the universe. I'd be willing to entertain an argument that said theists shouldn't work in the field of origin theorys. But there's plenty of scientific study that would not conflict with spiritual things.

Until someone else weighs in on this "discussion" I'm not going to respond anymore because there's little point in arguing such a rediculous thing with you. Enjoy your victory if that's what you think you've accomplished.

theBishop

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

First of all, you're feining insult as a roadblock to any real discussion. My beliefs don't affect you, and yet you would exclude me from certain intellectual persuits. I don't see how that's not a reasonable cause for offence.

Please tell, how in the world do you know what serves as an insult to me or not? Because you "think" it is childish? Much like I think you being "insulted" by what was originally said was childish?

quote:

But now you are inventing something to get "upset" about so that you can call me a hypocrite. That's like stepping on an ant and then calling the ant a hypocrite for getting upset when he's the one who stained the bottom of your shoe.

Once again, how do you know what I'm upset about, and not upset about?

If you think that what I'm upset about is childish, then it only serves to show how childish you were originally, since both are virtually the same.

quote:

Regardless of whether theists could study science, I still have a right to get pissed off about it if someone tries to preclude me from it.

You're exaggerating as nobody here said theists couldn't study Science.

quote:

You're claiming insult at the mere suggestion that the study could tolerate both viewpoints.

Exactly. The thought is simply repulsive to me, and to logic.

Like I said, that would be like claiming a mathematician is closed-mined for not believing 2+2= 7! If that's your definition of closed-minded or intolerance, then it hardly serves as an insult; it actually serves as the opposite, a compliment.

quote:

And there's lots more to science than origins of the universe. I'd be willing to entertain an argument that said theists shouldn't work in the field of origin theorys. But there's plenty of scientific study that would not conflict with spiritual things.



And who here said otherwise? Is this a form of self-martyrdom, where you create arguments and insults out of thin air? Who here said that theists cannot study Science?

quote:

Until someone else weighs in on this "discussion" I'm not going to respond anymore because there's little point in arguing such a rediculous thing with you. Enjoy your victory if that's what you think you've accomplished.

How convenient; but as if arguing with you could produce a meaningful victory...

Okay, Magneto, you missed the point.

I am not trying to prove anything here, as I stated. It is not "Ignorance, therefore afterlife".

I am simply trying to point out that there is a possibility. In my mind, anything is possible. Maybe I'm wrong, but who are you (generally speaking) to tell me otherwise? Do you know all that there is to know?

There's a reason that these debates are still going on to this day... there is no ultimate truth, at least not one that we have found.

I wouldn't say that anything is possible because there are limits to the realm of possibility, but many things are possible.

But you can't go and just conjure up some construct you designed in your head that shows no more or less signs of being real than anything else imagined and say it can happen with any degree of confidence whatsoever. If something is to have a base in reality, there has to be independent reasons (i.e. evidence) that it would be true, otherwise it's just another fantasy-thinking pipedream. I can sit here and dream up scenarios all day long, but it doesn't mean anything.

Believe me, I do see your point.

"I wouldn't say that anything is possible because there are limits to the realm of possibility, but many things are possible."

How can you say for certain that there are indeed limits on the realm of possibility? How can you assume to know all of the workings of our reality?

(Sorry to bring up the Matrix... I'm sure many will hate me for doing so, but it works as an example.)

Now, can you not accept that (Matrix) as one possibility out of many? Can you say for certain that we aren't all hooked up to machines at the moment, linked to a dream world? I really don't care how meaningless or unlikely the possibility may seem. I just don't understand how you can brush off certain ideas as impossible, simply because they are improbable. Unless you know all that there is to know, then you cannot claim anything to be impossible.

Also, I don't really have confidence in any belief structure. Hence the agnosticism. However, I can still accept anyone's wild ideas as a possibility, no matter how slim the chances. I realize that I don't know any more about our existence than the next man, therefore I have to be open to any and all ideas. Afterall, one of us may turn out to be correct some day.