Problem dealing with death as an atheist

[Cinjin]

Specifically, I am convinced, beyond a doubt, that there is no existence after death. I am 100% convinced that when I die, there will be nothingness... no afterlife, no me, no thoughts, no blackness, no sleep, nor any ability to think. I won't even know I died, and I won't even be able to acknowledge that I don't know I died. At this moment, I feel like I really understand what that means, and I am deeply deeply disturbed by it. I'm not sure how to cope with it. I can keep it out of my mind for short periods of time, but ultimately I'll read an article about someone dying, see a news report, and so on and start thinking about it again.

If anyone has any advice or thoughts or hopefully some sort of solution to my problem, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

I just don't think ANYBODY should say they're 100% anything when you're talking about the possiblity of an afterlife. Atheists or religious -- you CANNOT know. No one can be truly 100% on the subject of life after death. Usually its a christian who says something stupid like that, but once in awhile we do get the occassional atheists using absolutisms like that. Sad. Very Sad. I've come to expect better from the enlightened.

More to your topic. Death is nothing to fear. Stop fretting over something you will NEVER have the power to control. Cowboy up!

[Skipper]

Getting down to it, the chances are 50/50 that a soul exists after death (although near-death experiences suggests odds in favour of a soul seperate from the body).

Just because something is either one thing or the other it dosen't mean its 50/50. Either a soul exists or it dosen't, but as there is zero evidence for one I'd find it hard to say it's 50/50. Either a giant space elephant lives on the other side of Jupiter or it dosen't but I don't think any of us would say it's 50/50.

Near death experiences are impossible to verify and as such are unreliable at best. When the brain shuts down it releases large amounts of Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) a powerful hallucinogenic which is the best explanation I've heard for what people later describe as out of body or near death experiences.

[reverendjeremiah]

But suppose this thread is about death, rather than life. What are the odds that there is life after death? If you were a gambling man, what would you do to hedge the odds?

I guess it would be best that I learned how to survive as much as possible. By learning how to get back up on my feet, to stock food, spend wisely, make good decisions, things like that.

I would also stay away from gambling because it tends more to be negative on a life than positive.

I think that would be the best thing to do, and then if you die and find yourself in another life, then you are prepared to handle yourself, pick yourself up after falls, and SURVIVE.

[Zenith]

When the brain shuts down it releases large amounts of Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) a powerful hallucinogenic which is the best explanation I've heard for what people later describe as out of body or near death experiences.

Well, the idea with a seeing and a hearing after NDE (not before, or during that time) is that the brain cannot function, which means that it cannot not even give birth to hallucinations (because it does not function). Ordinary NDE would be explained by a hallucination just before the brains shuts down. Also, this cannot explain a blind from birth getting to know how the objects in the room look like. But, for some reason, NDEs cannot be a trustworthy evidence.

[reverendjeremiah]

Getting down to it, the chances are 50/50 that a soul exists after death (although near-death experiences suggests odds in favour of a soul seperate from the body).
Considering this, and knowing what the alternatives are for the destination of the soul, would a shrewd person not hedge his bets by taking the safest option - where the potential "penalties" are eliminated without any negative consequences of this choice?

For someone whospoke of "gambling", you sure dont know how to figure odds very well. Near death "experiences" suggests the odds of people halucinating when they are going through a traumatic event are pretty good. I might even say 50/50, but I think that is a bit high. The safest option is to bet that they are halucinating during a traumatic event. Lets not forget that the MAS MAJORITY of people who almost die do not experience halucinations, which isnt something "exciting" to write about, so they dont write about it. Not to mention if they did, people in America would not buy their book, because they WANT to believe in an afterlife. Jerry Garcia fell into a coma and had a "near death" experience of being on a space ship with insectoid aliens. Would you bet your money on that being an "afterlife" or a "hallucination"? What are the negative consequences of not taking this Garcia event into persepective?

The odds of a soul being real is on par with the odds of all other religious claims being true, like Chakras and Karma.

What kind of odds do you give for Karma being true?

It has the same odds as a soul being true

---

I am 100% convinced that when I die, there will be nothingness... no afterlife, no me, no thoughts, no blackness, no sleep, nor any ability to think.

Actually science has proven this to be true over and over again. The brain is dead, so you cant think. When the brain is dead, you no longer have an idea of "self" or anything else. Your thoughts ARE your ego, your thoughts ARE electrochemical..once that reaction stops, there is no more YOU.

People who say otherwise best have some OUTSTANDING EVIDENCE or prepare to be accused of being ignorant or deluded.

Science has also proven that life comes from lifeless particles. Life is made from DNA. DNA is composed of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. Four lifeless elements come together to create life. Anyone who claims otherwise should have OUTSTANDING eveidence to the contrary or expect to be accused of being ignorant or deluded.

[Zenith]

I guess it would be best that I learned how to survive as much as possible. By learning how to get back up on my feet, to stock food, spend wisely, make good decisions, things like that.

Yeah, as long as one is alive, this is a very important thing. However, if one decides to suicide, I guess all these are useless o him: one cannot feed his soul with apples, for instance.

I would also stay away from gambling because it tends more to be negative on a life than positive.

The point with gambling we were discussing was that we inevitably gamble: we inevitably choose to believe something that cannot be 100% proven (without any doubt), and if we were wrong, bad luck! (we may end in the hell of Allah which He prepared for all infidels - no matter how unfair and insane Allah is, if he exists, we end up there)

I think that would be the best thing to do, and then if you die and find yourself in another life, then you are prepared to handle yourself, pick yourself up after falls, and SURVIVE.

Well, if we wake up 'alive' after we die, I don't think we'll need to do something to survive. I mean, I don't think we would be in the danger of dying of hunger or of thirst or something. I guess everybody would see the afterlife as an adventure and a hope for a better future, if they would wake up in a relatively beautiful place. While if we'll end up in a hell, the last thing we could ever wish is to survive all eternity :)).

[reverendjeremiah]

But NOTHING can be 100% proven. Not even your existence to yourself, so why even bother bringing that up? I also notice you use reasonable doubt, but focus solely on the popular myths of the time. Why not Olympus, Tarterus and Hades? Oh yeah, because they arent popular anymore.

Soul? what the fuck is a soul? Where is it? Where is it located in the body? What is it made of? How much does it weigh? What are its physical dimensions?

Once you answer those questions, I will take your post differently..until then I will justifiably say that yuou are making crap up and expecting us to give you the benefit of the doubt. You will get no such thing from me.

You also cannot prove that a belief in a soul will get you into a heaven. Perhaps belief in a soul is a test by the creator, and if you believe in one then you get punished for all eternity..those who do not will get everlasting paradise. If a god exists, then he must be an atheist, so therefore he would like atheists better than others. See, I even have some good arguments for it. So I guess you should take that into equal consideration as well. If you dont, then you are close minded.

And also, when I was born into this life, I didnt have some judge with a book of names judging over me, so why should I think different or expect different if I happen to find myself in another life? And there you go giving heaven and hell the benefit of the doubt when there are SO many other ideas that are equally as plausable.

[Zenith]

I am 100% convinced that when I die, there will be nothingness... no afterlife, no me, no thoughts, no blackness, no sleep, nor any ability to think.

Actually science has proven this to be true over and over again. The brain is dead, so you can think. When the brain is dead, you no longer have an idea of "self" or anything else. Your thoughts ARE your ego, your thoughts ARE electrochemical..once that reaction stops, there is no more YOU.

well, if a person is not only biological matter, but also something we call "soul", then this scientific discovery proves nothing: if the brain is dead, you can't prove there is no soul.

Science has also proven that life comes from lifeless particles. Life is made from DNA. DNA is composed of Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. Four lifeless elements come together to create life.

The idea with the secret of life is not is not that people would disagree that a cell is formed of lifeless particles - no one disagrees with that (I guess). The idea is the thing that makes a cell function (i.e. live): is it only chemistry? is it physics laws? And what does it make the living cell cease to function? Can one revive a cell after it's dead for a day? if not, why (if the cell has every component there, what's wrong?)? How does a cell know what molecules to consume? Have you studied how the cell functions and can provide physical & chemical explanations that clarify absolutely everything?

I'm not a master in biology, so perhaps you know better something I don't.

[reverendjeremiah]

well, if a person is not only biological matter, but also something we call "soul", then this scientific discovery proves nothing: if the brain is dead, you can't prove there is no soul.

Here we go again with the soul crap. What the fuck is a soul? Where is it? Where is it located in the body? What is it made of? How much does it weigh? What are its physical dimensions? Until then you look mentally deluded bringing it up as a viable option to science. In fact it makes you look sorely ignorant. You are trying to brush off science because you think a delusion may be viable.

Why should I respect this, and not outright mock you for saying such things?

The idea with the secret of life is not is not that people would disagree that a cell is formed of lifeless particles - no one disagrees with that (I guess). The idea is the thing that makes a cell function (i.e. live): is it only chemistry? is it physics laws? And what does it make the living cell cease to function? Can one revive a cell after it's dead for a day? if not, why (if the cell has every component there, what's wrong?)? How does a cell know what molecules to consume? Have you studied how the cell functions and can provide physical & chemical explanations that clarify absolutely everything?

Look up "Enzymes". That would be a great start to help you understand how these functions happen. Also look up "Virus".

[Carnavon]

Actually, the creation of a human by scientific methods does imply that a soul is absent: firstly, it implies that life has been born accidentally, by biological means. Secondly, if man can create man, then it means that a man with a soul is the same as a man without soul, which means that the soul is the same as non-existing, which implies that the soul does not exist. Also, if a man is created by scientific methods, then that contradicts the christian bible, because the bible claims that the man became a living being by receiving a soul.

You claim that life is in any case accidental, yet accept that you have a soul. So being accidental has nothing to do with having a soul, according to your own arguments.

As about cells and humans, in the bible it is written that the man has begun to live by receiving the "breath/spirit of life" (breath = spirit). About the animals it is also mentioned that they have "breath/spirit of life". About plants is never mentioned that they would have "life" (or, spirit of life) in them. It also think that it sounds absurd to claim that every cell has a soul.

The argument was actually about conception and the act of normal conception implying a soul - which you have now also refuted.

Anyway, a question for you: if you believe in God, and if a man is created by scientific means (i.e. without soul) then will he go to paradise or to hell, after death? Because, he would be a normal man, just like you and me, doing and feeling and believing things, just like you and me, etc.

Your assumption is incorrect, as I have indicated. You state for a fact that which you do not know (man created by chemistry is void of a soul). What is your basis for claiming that man created by human effort and using non-living matter will be void of a soul?
If a human is without a soul, what would go to hell?

And the creation of a living cell from atoms also implies that life has been created by accident.

How come? What is your basis for suggesting this? It seems to me a very deliberate and non-random action with a specific purpose in mind, contrary to willy nilly aberrations.

I was almost certain that you would lead the discussion here. The first problem with your theory is that a man cannot believe in God because He may exist. The second problem is this: what are the odds that your religious path is correct? For instance, if the islamic god Allah exists (and He may exist though He is unfair, racist, a deceiver, etc. - a god that perhaps no mentally healthy person would desire), then you will go in the hell He has prepared, because you are a christian. You can't just pick the seemingly safest theory, because you always have something big to lose, if you're wrong.

You are correct, one cannot believe in God of his own volition. One reason being that man, as a fallen creature, will not seek God. Secondly, to become a Christian is more than mere intellectual assent, but does not exclude that as we are asked to love God with our minds as well (with adequate proof that God is the creator - referring to first life, irreducible complexity etc.) So God has to take the "first step" - and He does as it is stated that He loved us while we were still sinners, and sent his Son to die for our sins without us having to "deserve" it.
As far as other religions are concerned, I would assess whether what they claim, is indeed true (as far as I can verify objectively). Now it is open for everybody to see that archeological discoveries confirm the Bible, prophecies indicates prior knowledge and creation suggest intelligent design. Again I do not suggest that intellectual assent make you a Christian. Far from it.

As about NDEs, they seem to prove the existence of souls. e.g. I've read or heard somewhere that after a 'death' experience, the person has heard and seen things that happened after the brain ceased to function. And, if I remember well, there was also a thing when a blind person from birth had a surgery and got to a NDE, after which he/she has claimed to have seen for the first time, and he/she has described the objects in the surgery room correctly.
Also, I've just found this: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html
However, these are not "evidence", because they cannot answer to the impossible question "what if it's not so?" (i.e. in this particular case, "what if there is another explanation?").

Yes indeed, it is not irrefutable evidence. My question is only this:" If an honest man has all this information available, what conclusion would he come to?
This is not to suggest that all questions are answered. There is the problem of suffering. There I can only speak for myself in that the part of my life where I was supposed to have the worst "suffering" (diagnosed and treated for cancer) was indeed the best part of my life - and not because I held onto an idea that will help me through that (like positive thinking or similar) but it just happened. There is a little poem about "footsteps in the sand", which I found to be true.
Regards