Death

[Repugnant Abomination]

People's beliefs rarely reflect how they actually live; I think that's a universal source of frustration for most people.

I'm not a nihilist though, because I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. There are two types of agnostics: ones who don't think they can ever know if God exists, and ones who don't know but don't rule out the possibility that someday they might. I fall into the latter category. I also think there might be truth that exists outside the scope of science.

Either way, death fucking sucks, and I get really annoyed with guys like Harris and Dawkins who try to put this positive, humanist spin on it. I think deep down they know it's a bleaker world view, but you can't come out with that cause you're trying to rally people to your cause. It's all PR nonsense.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

People's beliefs rarely reflect how they actually live; I think that's a universal source of frustration for most people.

I'm not a nihilist though, because I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. There are two types of agnostics: ones who don't think they can ever know if God exists, and ones who don't know but don't rule out the possibility that someday they might. I fall into the latter category. I also think there might be truth that exists outside the scope of science.

I still think that classifies you as an agnostic atheist, which I am as well, doesn't it? I have always seen "agnostic" as more of an adjective than a noun.

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skepticblog Are you an Atheist or Agnostic?

I admit this is rather trivial in the scope of the discussion, but I still hold to the idea that it's difficult to have strong opinions and desires for knowledge about "the big question" and still be an "agnostic". I don't claim to "know" either, but I am comfortable with the label of "agnostic atheist", which is what I am now.

I look at it as: If you don't actively believe in a specific god, or gods, and don't pray, or don't go to religious ceremonies, you are, by very definition, at the very least a "weak atheist", whether you like to admit it or not. If a person doesn't eat any sort of meat, but doesn't prefer to call themselves a vegetarian, it doesn't mean that they aren't still very much a vegetarian.

Either way, death fucking sucks, and I get really annoyed with guys like Harris and Dawkins who try to put this positive, humanist spin on it. I think deep down they know it's a bleaker world view, but you can't come out with that cause you're trying to rally people to your cause. It's all PR nonsense.

One could say the same thing about those who try to put a positive, humanist spin on something that, so far, does not seem to be a reality. I think it's important to note that both sides do this. Goes back to DH's truth vs. happiness thing. You can't blame Dawkins and Harris for trying to make it easier for people to accept the finality of death, and make life worthwhile.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I still think that classifies you as an agnostic atheist, which I am as well, doesn't it?

Sure, you can think of it like that.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

One could say the same thing about those who try to put a positive, humanist spin on something that, so far, does not seem to be a reality. I think it's important to note that both sides do this. Goes back to DH's truth vs. happiness thing. You can't blame Dawkins and Harris for trying to make it easier for people to accept the finality of death, and make life worthwhile.

I don't think it's quite the same thing. Though it's obviously nuanced and there are exceptions, generally the religious message is hopeful, because there's an afterlife, you see your loved ones, go to heaven, etc. So they are being more "truthful" in terms of the consequences of their worldview. Now, their worldview might be a fantasy, and then they would be untruthful, but we're talking about two different kinds of truthfulness if that makes sense, and in the way I'm talking about it Harris and Dawkins come off as less truthful to me. But you're right in that it's also an issue of truth vs happiness in the other sense of truthfulness that you're talking about.

That was very confusing.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

Either way, I've never bought into Beebs idea that it's comforting, because it makes this life more important. That's the same line of thinking Dawkins argues too, and it's always rang hollow for me.

Why not? Maybe comforting isn't the right word, but I think there is peace to be found in it. Everybody will die, the sun will explode, all stars will explode, everything ends.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

If there is no God and we just die and that's it, then there is no objective meaning to life. You can say there is the meaning you give yourself, but that's not objective. If we apply the scientific method to meaning we find that you can't measure or quantify such an abstract concept. And if scientific knowledge is the only way to objectively know anything about life and the universe then it stands to reason that "meaning" does not fall within the scope of science, and therefore knowledge, meaning that there is no such thing.

This is the materialist world view and it can only lead to nihilism. So if this is all just one big cosmic prank then all we can really do is eat, drink and be merry. But it certainly doesn't make this life (without an afterlife) more meaningful.

Why is there a need for a singular objective? Life doesn't need to have meaning to be important and worthwhile.


Not to mention, when there is an afterlife, why bother to go towards any objective with any real intention?

[Dent]

Dan Dennett on creating meaning in life - YouTube

Dan Dennett on creating meaning in life - YouTube

[Johnny Richter]

This is a bit off topic, but I'm assuming those of you who do not believe in afterlife also do not believe extraterrestrial life exists for the same reason of lack of evidence. Is this a correct assumption?

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

There is abundant evidence that life exists.

[Johnny Richter]

Extraterrestrial life. More importantly, intelligent extraterrestrial life.

There is no evidence that it exists.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Your question is similar to asking why I believe I likely have an appendix. I refuse to entertain it further.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Extraterrestrial life. More importantly, intelligent extraterrestrial life.

There is no evidence that it exists.

ID is pretty spot on with this. If you have any knowledge of astronomy, biology, and statistics, it is very probable that extraterrestrial life exists, based on a sheer numbers game. It would be irrational not to believe in the possibility and likelihood of life on other planets. It doesn't mean I believe in UFO's and abductions.

On top of that, it's still entirely likely we may find either life or evidence of life within our own solar system. If this happens, it will shake everything about life "only" being on Earth. And it's well within our scientific reach in the near future.

The afterlife has no evidence supporting any of it except for hopes and "light at the end of the tunnel" stories.

[Johnny Richter]

ID wasn't even close to being spot on with that analogy.

Anyone who thinks so is clearly retarded and not worth my time arguing with.

Just because something is probable, doesn't mean there is any evidence to support its existence. There is no evidence of intelligent life anywhere within our spectrum of detection, which, admittedly, is small.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

This is a bit off topic, but I'm assuming those of you who do not believe in afterlife also do not believe extraterrestrial life exists for the same reason of lack of evidence. Is this a correct assumption?

That's not a reasonable assumption.

[Johnny Richter]

How so?

If we're basing our beliefs purely on empirical evidence, how is this any different than belief in afterlife? If it's simply because one day we will be able to obtain evidence, then I can say they same thing about after death.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Just because something is probable, doesn't mean there is any evidence to support its existence. There is no evidence of intelligent life anywhere within our spectrum of detection, which, admittedly, is small.

"Intelligent" life exists here. So yes, that is well within our spectrum.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

You are twisting the meaning of "believe/belief." Probably unintentionally as the result of having donkey brains. Did nothing get through to you in bean counting school?

[Johnny Richter]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

"Intelligent" life exists here. So yes, that is well within our spectrum.

Extraterrestrial intelligent life, which we have been searching for evidence of for decades and found none.

I am merely pointing out your bias towards religion and afterlife. I find it interesting to see. I can only imagine that it's some sort of rebellious attitude or justification for the way you live your lives. I don't know. It's interesting nonetheless.

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

Extraterrestrial intelligent life, which we have been searching for evidence of for decades and found none.

Right, because it shouldn't take very long to search the entire universe.

[Dent]

whats the difference between our kind of life and ET life?

Also would like your definition of life?
Little hazy at the moment but maybe something like
1. Organic Chemistry
2. reduces internal entropy
3. causes its ratios of the chemicals in its environment to change (flux.. think methane + oxygen levels this is how we will find life elsewhere)
4. self-replicating/obeys natural selection
5. complex molecules in the atmosphere (doesn't really count)

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

How so?

If we're basing our beliefs purely on empirical evidence, how is this any different than belief in afterlife? If it's simply because one day we will be able to obtain evidence, then I can say they same thing about after death.

There's a large amount of evidence for the possibility of alien life, and a nearly infinite amount of chances for it to happen; the evidence points to "possible if not probable.".

We can monitor every system of the human body, at death there is nothing to lead us to believe anything happens other than decay.


One requires belief in probability, the other in the supernatural.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

I am merely pointing out your bias towards religion and afterlife. I find it interesting to see. I can only imagine that it's some sort of rebellious attitude or justification for the way you live your lives. I don't know. It's interesting nonetheless.

This kinda stuff annoys me, i'd like to stomp you a few times for this, at least Jerad isn't cocky with his ignorance, you're worse for thinking you know anything on the subject, Through The Wormhole doesn't explain things well unfortunately.

You know that in 1977 we discovered a third main branch of our tree of life? Archaea

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

If we're basing our beliefs purely on empirical evidence, how is this any different than belief in afterlife?

No one is expecting aliens to resurrect us and carry us off to wonderland, extraordinary claims much?
We don't have any reasons to believe life/abiogensis is extraordinary, it didn't take long to get started on earth, not made of anything special and so on.
fuck you donkey harry

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Goes back to DH's truth vs. happiness thing. You can't blame Dawkins and Harris for trying to make it easier for people to accept the finality of death, and make life worthwhile.

You don't think RD is genuinely amazed that he made it here in the first place?

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Again, some substance would be nice, instead of acting like some kind of hardasses. "Yo bro it's the same as before I was born, you know?" Doesn't cut it, and in any case it's not the same. Before you were born you didn't have to look forward to existing. The same now, death may not matter once it's happened -- but it's the waiting for it to happen that sucks.

Agree with this, and I party agree with Beebs thoughts about the finality of death being comforting.
I don't think there's anything to fear, cry all the time at thoughts of my parents deaths though, but that's different.

third edit : for blonde, from reddit a couple of days ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comm...genesis_shows/

[Johnny Richter]

Originally Posted by Beebs

There's a large amount of evidence for the possibility of alien life, and a nearly infinite amount of chances for it to happen; the evidence points to "possible if not probable.".

We can monitor every system of the human body, at death there is nothing to lead us to believe anything happens other than decay.


One requires belief in probability, the other in the supernatural.

This is the only reasonable and rational response to the question I first asked.

Dent, you can suck my dick you limey fuck. I could give two shits about anything you say.

[Dent]

I'll suck your dick in the afterlife

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by Dirty Harry

This is the only reasonable and rational response to the question I first asked.

It was the most basic way to explain it. Now we know in the future we should explain everything to you like you're 5 years old. Lesson learned.

[Johnny Richter]

Originally Posted by THEINCREDIBLEdork

It was the most basic way to explain it. Now we know in the future we should explain everything to you like you're 5 years old. Lesson learned.

It was the most clear and concise way of saying it, and it was the most constructive way to say it. Just about everyone else's response was dripping with condescension and self-righteousness. I tend to block that shit out.

Dent, although you are a limey fuck, I may have been a kinda harsh in reply. I get a little down after Christmas. Sorry.