A repeating concept in this thread. Doesn’t this assume that the “you” that we are aware of at this point, is the only you there is? I find it interesting that some atheists in this thread still entertain the possibility that there is more you yet to discover.
I have a great friend who is a fabulous musician and essentially an atheist. In a discusion about creativity and inspiration he talked of creativity in terms of connecting to something more than ourselves. Interesting choice of words.
Hey!! You said that very same thing about 1837 1/2 years ago to me while we were standing in line at the Coliseum. I was trying to get a corndog. 
Yes. Why should we assume there are other “yous”?
No, you haven’t While I disagree with you, I understand your POV. Thank you for taking the time to explain.
Exactly my opinion. But I’d extend the analogy further. Why should the concept of the end of your life be any more depressing or meaningful than the question of the end of time? In your frame of reference, all there is the finite timeline in which your consciousness exists. And just like time can’t “end” even though it may be finite - I don’t think you can “die” within your own frame of reference - even though your life is finite. So nothing to be depressed about. There is no end.
Maybe it’s simply entertaing the possibility rather than assuming. I think it’s short sighted to assume either way. There’s nothing wrong with waiting to see the hard evidence before you believe anything. That’s certainly a legitimate MO. I suspect that if everyone was that way we wouldn’t have half the knowledge we now have.
Like the motivational tapes that tell you to believe and visualize to achieve, I think personal growth requires some belief and a sense of purpose. Entertaining the possibility can be those things.
You are most welcome
Lost me on that one.
Yeah. I lose everyone. It’s probably a shallower point than I think, but it’s very meaningful to me. Let’s just say I see a lifetime as a closed system.
Hehe. Now you lost me. What does life after death have to do with personal growth and purpose?
The idea is “you can’t be aware of the end of your own consciousness.”
I’ll try to explain but be patient. It’s one of those ideas in progress and they are usually a mess when they first start bouncing around in my head.
In the motivational tapes they say visualize your goal. A new home. A cruise, a sailboat, whatever. Think as if it’s yours and eventually it will be. It’s just a tool to keep you focused. Even in martial arts they say you must believe several boards or bricks are going to brreak. Believe it. Viualize it. A tool to focus your energy and thoughts.
I think spiritual beliefs can be like that. For some anyway. It’s not a matter of thinking. “This is the way it must be” It’s more of decideing that believeing certain things work in order to focus on the “what’s it all about” and “why are we here?” question. How do I relate to other people and why?
I don’t recommend people cling to beliefs that have ample evidence of being false. I don’t call that growth. In those areas where a lack of conclusive evidence leaves the possibilities open then people should choose whatever seems to work for them no matter how foolish it may seem to someone else. Some of like red and some of us like blue. It’s all part of the fun.
Ahhhhhh {light goes on} Well that makes sense but certainly we think about it and even worry about it. Maybe fear it.
We each find our own way to deal with it,… I just hope I still have the strength to kick and scream in protest.
I absolutely agree in that I think the most “true” belief is often not the same thing as the most “useful” belief. I’m in favor of not being an atheist in the trenches if it’s too painful, for instance. I’m not a purist that way. Sometimes it helps to pretend there’s a God. Or Heaven. Or whatever works.
I disagree with you in that I don’t quite believe it’s an open question what happens after death. I know that sounds arrogant. But in order to even talk about any kind of experience after death, you have to assume something supernatural - a consciousness of some kind that is independent of the brain. To me saying “it’s possible there is something after death” is like saying “it’s possible there are leprechauns.” It’s a true statement, but only true because literally anything is *possible * in absolute terms. Not because it’s really “just anyone’s guess.”
But then again, if I were to choose between a useful belief that wasn’t true and a true belief that wasn’t useful, I’d (probably) go with the useful one. I think you have to be pragmatic.
I’ll second that.
And to many it is not pretending since they are true believers, but even that I see as just a certain turn in a winding path. That’s how their particular journey is played out. To each his or her own. For the sake of this discussion I’m leaving out those with dark hearts, believers and non.
They’re not exactly the same. Leprechauns or IPU are pretty specific while “something” after death isn’t a specific belief. I think some judgement calls are legitamately made not just on the evidence we have so far but an awareness of what we don’t know as well. A consciousness independent of the brain may be supernatural now based on our limited knowledge but then again, so was the concept of flight 1000 years ago. I would confess a limited understanding of the science of brain activity but I operate under the assumption that there is much more unknown than known. Given the limits of our understanding, isn’t it still an open question?
More than that I believe there is a real connection between the sense of wonder that keeps asking the prenial questions,and forming our changing mythology and our quest for knowledge that has led to scientific advancement. I don’t think they are as seperate and independent as some see them.
“We” are something pretty specific, and in most cases, “continuing to be” is pretty specific. It involves awareness, existence, and some kind of interaction or sensation of whatever is around you, for starters.
Actually, Diogenes’s analogy is quite apt given what physically occurs when you die.
Death has always been the great unknowable. As debated here thousands of times, we create our own afterlives in futile attempts to combat that great unknowable. So much emphasis is placed on our day to day lives that we cannot comprehend that it will someday all be for nothing and that our consciousness is little more than collections of electrical and chemical reactions inside the brain. These electrical and chemical reactions are going to cease to exist at a certain moment, in a certain hour, in a certain month of a certain year. It is the ultimate Dick Clark ball drop. The great question is, when is your moment?
That is all there is to it. There is no towering deity in a neatly-pressed white robe, backlit with flooding light. There is no walk through a gate made from rare minerals nor a saint who’s existence is made up wholly of running his finger down pages, looking for names of those that might have back stage passes. The light goes out, the heat from its central point diminishes, and you begin to exist as fading, vaporous, vague images in the consciousness of those who felt your heat while it was still radiating. I submit that if we stopped to consider this heat while we are still alive and how it affects others, we may yet discover the key to living further beyond the absence of that light.
Actually, that’s a Laura Nyro composition, recorded by many people:
That pretty much sums it up for me.
Fair enough. I repeat my question. Given the limited scope of our understanding, isn’t the question of whether we continue to be an open question?
IMHO saying, there may be something after physical death is an acknowledgement of an area that science hasn’t been able to tell us much. An acknowledgement of largely unexplored territory.
That seems different than belief in Leprechauns.
I understand that there is no need to ask any arbitrary question that can’t be answered, but the “is there something after physical death” question has been asked for as long as thinking has been around. Where consciousness comes from and it’s limits {if any} is a worthy question.