Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[The Alma Mater]

I can actually. To exist, something must have a measureable effect on existence. If it does not, it does not exist, definitionally. Here we're drawing the boundary around existence, and God and other such concepts still cannot be found. We must therefore consider this absense of evidence to be evidence of absense.

Why does the effect have to be measurable?

Because if it is not, what is the practical difference between it existing or not existing ?

[Bressen]

Why does the effect have to be measurable?

Because if it is not, what is the practical difference between it existing or not existing ?

Just because the effect of something can't be measured does not mean that effect does not occur. Perhaps it's more of a problem with language and the definition of the term 'existing'.

The main point of my argument is that absence of evidence does not inherently mean evidence of absence -- in the sense that just because you cannot gather evidence for, or there is no evidence of, something existing does not mean that it conclusively does not and cannot exist.

[Athretvari]

God's the one that needs to worry about eternal damnation.

[Catochristoferson]

If we don't believe in God, why would we even consider, or be worried, about "eternal damnation"?

[The Alma Mater]

Because if it is not, what is the practical difference between it existing or not existing ?

Just because the effect of something can't be measured does not mean that effect does not occur. Perhaps it's more of a problem with language and the definition of the term 'existing'.

The main point of my argument is that absence of evidence does not inherently mean evidence of absence -- in the sense that just because you cannot gather evidence for, or there is no evidence of, something existing does not mean that it conclusively does not and cannot exist.

Oh true - but if the situations in which something exists and something does not exist are for all intents and purposes identical as far as we can tell... why care ?

Example: Maybe there is a purple unicorn living on the other side of the galaxy. If our lives are, as far as we can tell, exactly the same regardless of its actual existence -why invest many hours of a week to honour it ?

[Bressen]

Just because the effect of something can't be measured does not mean that effect does not occur. Perhaps it's more of a problem with language and the definition of the term 'existing'.

The main point of my argument is that absence of evidence does not inherently mean evidence of absence -- in the sense that just because you cannot gather evidence for, or there is no evidence of, something existing does not mean that it conclusively does not and cannot exist.

Oh true - but if the situations in which something exists and something does not exist are for all intents and purposes identical as far as we can tell... why care ?

That's the issue, it's based on 'as far as we can tell'. Which is exactly why I don't like it when people make definitive statements on the existence or non-existence of a broad concept (such as an afterlife) just because we, as humans, can't observe it. Though, it is a pretty good indicator of how egotistical we are as a species -- or perhaps it's a good indicator that our own language is limited solely to what we as human's can experience.

But yes, aside from ensuring everyone stays on this even playing field of 'well, just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't'', there's no reason we should care.

[Crylante]

As an agnostic, I do not worry about eternal damnation. I do worry about what happens after death though, sometimes, more for fear of possibly not existing anymore.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

I do worry about what happens after death though, sometimes, more for fear of possibly not existing anymore.

Don't worry about non-existance. You've already spent the vast majority of Time not existing. Been there, done that. No biggie.

Certainly don't waste any time worrying about losing something by returning to non-existance. Instead, spend existance accomplishing something great. Then let that joy be the thought on your mind at that moment.

Don't waste it on damnation or oblivion or other non-existant stuff.

[Bressen]

I do worry about what happens after death though, sometimes, more for fear of possibly not existing anymore.

Don't worry about non-existance. You've already spent the vast majority of Time not existing. Been there, done that. No biggie.

Well, back when we didn't exist, we didn't have any knowledge as to what it felt like to exist. But, when we die, we die with the knowledge of what it felt like to exist and transition into a stage of non-existence with this knowledge.

Sounds pretty scary to me, knowing that the one thing that allows you to experience your life is just gonna go 'poof', and that's that.

[Calladan]

Don't worry about non-existance. You've already spent the vast majority of Time not existing. Been there, done that. No biggie.

Well, back when we didn't exist, we didn't have any knowledge as to what it felt like to exist. But, when we die, we die with the knowledge of what it felt like to exist and transition into a stage of non-existence with this knowledge.

Sounds pretty scary to me, knowing that the one thing that allows you to experience your life is just gonna go 'poof', and that's that.

Except logically if we no longer exist, then our brains no longer exist. So it follows that the bit where we keep the knowledge of what it is like to exist doesn't exist any more, which means.... it doesn't exist. So we no longer have the knowledge of what it is like to exist because we don't exist.

Sure - the people who know you would know you don't exist, but since you don't exist, you wouldn't know that they now know you don't exist, and you wouldn't know that they now know you don't know that you don't exist.

You know.

[Lady Scylla]

Don't worry about non-existance. You've already spent the vast majority of Time not existing. Been there, done that. No biggie.

Well, back when we didn't exist, we didn't have any knowledge as to what it felt like to exist. But, when we die, we die with the knowledge of what it felt like to exist and transition into a stage of non-existence with this knowledge.

Sounds pretty scary to me, knowing that the one thing that allows you to experience your life is just gonna go 'poof', and that's that.

You're not going to necessarily go 'poof'. Death will be swift, as once you pass the boundary, you're no longer aware of it. If you've ever had anaesthesia, like that. What constitutes you will breakdown and become something else. Pantheists solve this anxiety by pointing out that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be transferred. With this line of reasoning, it could be comforting to someone with such concerns that past death, you could be in a tree, the air, or someone's dinner-plate if that's what you fancy.

[Bressen]

Well, back when we didn't exist, we didn't have any knowledge as to what it felt like to exist. But, when we die, we die with the knowledge of what it felt like to exist and transition into a stage of non-existence with this knowledge.

Sounds pretty scary to me, knowing that the one thing that allows you to experience your life is just gonna go 'poof', and that's that.

Except logically if we no longer exist, then our brains no longer exist. So it follows that the bit where we keep the knowledge of what it is like to exist doesn't exist any more, which means.... it doesn't exist. So we no longer have the knowledge of what it is like to exist because we don't exist.

Sure - the people who know you would know you don't exist, but since you don't exist, you wouldn't know that they now know you don't exist, and you wouldn't know that they now know you don't know that you don't exist.

You know.

Technically, our brains still exist when 'we' don't exist - they just take a while to dissolve into a pile of goop.

Joking aside, you're working on the assumption that all of what makes you 'you' is stored in your brain. I don't think we'll ever have conclusive evidence to support or detract this, because what measurements would we use to determine what you being 'you' is? Right now, 100% of 'you' could be your brain, but how do we know this 100% of 'you' accounts for everything that 'you' are?

So, I suppose if you think everything that makes you 'you' is stored in your brain, then logically when your brain ceases to function your consciousness as a person being 'you' must also cease to exist - since conscious function, and thus conscious existence, is contingent with brain function.

Or, if you don't think all of what makes 'you' you is stored in the brain, then when your brain ceases to function your consciousness as a person being 'you' doesn't cease to exist - since conscious function, and thus conscious existence, is NOT contingent with brain function.

Assuming the latter approach - what happens to this other, say, 20% of what makes you 'you' after your brain (the part of you that is presumably the other 80% of what makes you 'you') ceases to function if it's ability to exist is not contingent on the brains ability to function?

[Bressen]

Well, back when we didn't exist, we didn't have any knowledge as to what it felt like to exist. But, when we die, we die with the knowledge of what it felt like to exist and transition into a stage of non-existence with this knowledge.

Sounds pretty scary to me, knowing that the one thing that allows you to experience your life is just gonna go 'poof', and that's that.

You're not going to necessarily go 'poof'. Death will be swift, as once you pass the boundary, you're no longer aware of it. If you've ever had anaesthesia, like that. What constitutes you will breakdown and become something else. Pantheists solve this anxiety by pointing out that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be transferred. With this line of reasoning, it could be comforting to someone with such concerns that past death, you could be in a tree, the air, or someone's dinner-plate if that's what you fancy.

In that case, I can't wait to become that blade of grass in a field somewhere in Barnsley.

[Zlatyevsk]

No. Because I'm an Atheist, I don't believe in hell or damnation. It's silly and the idea of damnation and hell was invented by men in power thousands of years ago to get people to behave they way they wanted them to.

[Calladan]

Except logically if we no longer exist, then our brains no longer exist. So it follows that the bit where we keep the knowledge of what it is like to exist doesn't exist any more, which means.... it doesn't exist. So we no longer have the knowledge of what it is like to exist because we don't exist.

Sure - the people who know you would know you don't exist, but since you don't exist, you wouldn't know that they now know you don't exist, and you wouldn't know that they now know you don't know that you don't exist.

You know.

Technically, our brains still exist when 'we' don't exist - they just take a while to dissolve into a pile of goop.

Joking aside, you're working on the assumption that all of what makes you 'you' is stored in your brain. I don't think we'll ever have conclusive evidence to support or detract this, because what measurements would we use to determine what you being 'you' is? Right now, 100% of 'you' could be your brain, but how do we know this 100% of 'you' accounts for everything that 'you' are?

So, I suppose if you think everything that makes you 'you' is stored in your brain, then logically when your brain ceases to function your consciousness as a person being 'you' must also cease to exist - since conscious function, and thus conscious existence, is contingent with brain function.

Or, if you don't think all of what makes 'you' you is stored in the brain, then when your brain ceases to function your consciousness as a person being 'you' doesn't cease to exist - since conscious function, and thus conscious existence, is NOT contingent with brain function.

Assuming the latter approach - what happens to this other, say, 20% of what makes you 'you' after your brain (the part of you that is presumably the other 80% of what makes you 'you') ceases to function if it's ability to exist is not contingent on the brains ability to function?

I admit I was using "exist" to mean "function" - once you stop "functioning" (for example if you are eaten by a shark or killed by a dark wizard or something like that) then your brain, more or less, stops functioning at the same time. It might exist for a long while after, but since it isn't working, that's what I meant by "not existing" - you are not the "you" that you were before you stopped (so to speak).

And yeah - quite honestly - while I accept the concept of the soul (more or less) and so on, everything that makes me uniquely me is my thought patterns, my memories and my .......... nope. Thought I had three things there - sorry. Just my memories and my thought patterns (which I guess is what memories are as well). My reactions are determined by my thought patterns and memories, and my views on any given subject (such as this one) are determined by my experiences/memories/etc.

So yeah - once my brain has stopped functioning, I am - quite honestly - no longer the person I was. And if you took a FMG and stuck it to the back of my neck and blew out the majority of my brain, leaving only a bit of it behind (enough to let me go on breathing, walking and talking) I would be a radically different person.

"A person is only the sum of their memories" - something I learned as a kid (okay - I learned it from the 25th anniversary of Doctor Who, but still).

So - to sum up - yes. Once the brain stops doing what it does in such a way that it's not going to restart, I would say that's it. And once it has done that - and if there is nothing beyond the veil - then you would not know that you were not around to realise you are not around. (Which was what I was originally getting at). You would be returned to the state you were before you were conceived - unknowing and blissfully ignorant of the horrors and torments of the world.

[Bressen]

Technically, our brains still exist when 'we' don't exist - they just take a while to dissolve into a pile of goop.

Joking aside, you're working on the assumption that all of what makes you 'you' is stored in your brain. I don't think we'll ever have conclusive evidence to support or detract this, because what measurements would we use to determine what you being 'you' is? Right now, 100% of 'you' could be your brain, but how do we know this 100% of 'you' accounts for everything that 'you' are?

So, I suppose if you think everything that makes you 'you' is stored in your brain, then logically when your brain ceases to function your consciousness as a person being 'you' must also cease to exist - since conscious function, and thus conscious existence, is contingent with brain function.

Or, if you don't think all of what makes 'you' you is stored in the brain, then when your brain ceases to function your consciousness as a person being 'you' doesn't cease to exist - since conscious function, and thus conscious existence, is NOT contingent with brain function.

Assuming the latter approach - what happens to this other, say, 20% of what makes you 'you' after your brain (the part of you that is presumably the other 80% of what makes you 'you') ceases to function if it's ability to exist is not contingent on the brains ability to function?

I admit I was using "exist" to mean "function" - once you stop "functioning" (for example if you are eaten by a shark or killed by a dark wizard or something like that) then your brain, more or less, stops functioning at the same time. It might exist for a long while after, but since it isn't working, that's what I meant by "not existing" - you are not the "you" that you were before you stopped (so to speak).

And yeah - quite honestly - while I accept the concept of the soul (more or less) and so on, everything that makes me uniquely me is my thought patterns, my memories and my .......... nope. Thought I had three things there - sorry. Just my memories and my thought patterns (which I guess is what memories are as well). My reactions are determined by my thought patterns and memories, and my views on any given subject (such as this one) are determined by my experiences/memories/etc.

So yeah - once my brain has stopped functioning, I am - quite honestly - no longer the person I was. And if you took a FMG and stuck it to the back of my neck and blew out the majority of my brain, leaving only a bit of it behind (enough to let me go on breathing, walking and talking) I would be a radically different person.

"A person is only the sum of their memories" - something I learned as a kid (okay - I learned it from the 25th anniversary of Doctor Who, but still).

So - to sum up - yes. Once the brain stops doing what it does in such a way that it's not going to restart, I would say that's it. And once it has done that - and if there is nothing beyond the veil - then you would not know that you were not around to realise you are not around. (Which was what I was originally getting at). You would be returned to the state you were before you were conceived - unknowing and blissfully ignorant of the horrors and torments of the world.

Two conflicting opinions, with only one way for us to verify one of them.

May the best man win, though the very principle of the above concept means that either I win or no one wins

[Calladan]

I admit I was using "exist" to mean "function" - once you stop "functioning" (for example if you are eaten by a shark or killed by a dark wizard or something like that) then your brain, more or less, stops functioning at the same time. It might exist for a long while after, but since it isn't working, that's what I meant by "not existing" - you are not the "you" that you were before you stopped (so to speak).

And yeah - quite honestly - while I accept the concept of the soul (more or less) and so on, everything that makes me uniquely me is my thought patterns, my memories and my .......... nope. Thought I had three things there - sorry. Just my memories and my thought patterns (which I guess is what memories are as well). My reactions are determined by my thought patterns and memories, and my views on any given subject (such as this one) are determined by my experiences/memories/etc.

So yeah - once my brain has stopped functioning, I am - quite honestly - no longer the person I was. And if you took a FMG and stuck it to the back of my neck and blew out the majority of my brain, leaving only a bit of it behind (enough to let me go on breathing, walking and talking) I would be a radically different person.

"A person is only the sum of their memories" - something I learned as a kid (okay - I learned it from the 25th anniversary of Doctor Who, but still).

So - to sum up - yes. Once the brain stops doing what it does in such a way that it's not going to restart, I would say that's it. And once it has done that - and if there is nothing beyond the veil - then you would not know that you were not around to realise you are not around. (Which was what I was originally getting at). You would be returned to the state you were before you were conceived - unknowing and blissfully ignorant of the horrors and torments of the world.

Two conflicting opinions, with only one way for us to verify one of them.

May the best man win, though the very principle of the above concept means that either I win or no one wins

(smirk) You'll be stuck having to put up with me and my points of view for the rest of eternity. Do you REALLY consider that a win? (Mwahahahahahaha!!!!!!)

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Well, back when we didn't exist, we didn't have any knowledge as to what it felt like to exist.

Nor, of course, do you have any knowledge of how it feels to not exist. Thus, my point, that there is no reason to fear anything about non-existance in and of itself. Certainly not any so-called "damnation. "

But, when we die, we die with the knowledge of what it felt like to exist and transition into a stage of non-existence with this knowledge.

I would frame it slightly differently. I exist with the knowledge that eventually the cosmos will reclaim my atoms and repurpose them to some use. That's actually kind of a cool thought. Unfortunately, I am unlikely to be able to percieve what being a mountain or a tree or a volcano is like, so, while I do possess counsciousness, I should make the best experiencing what I can. But, while I might not feel it, I am still certainly not simply disappearing into nothingness.

Sounds pretty scary to me, knowing that the one thing that allows you to experience your life is just gonna go 'poof', and that's that.

Just remember all the crazy cool shit you did, and all the crazy cool shit you're going to do next.

[Gim]

Two conflicting opinions, with only one way for us to verify one of them.

May the best man win, though the very principle of the above concept means that either I win or no one wins

(smirk) You'll be stuck having to put up with me and my points of view for the rest of eternity. Do you REALLY consider that a win? (Mwahahahahahaha!!!!!!)

[A Humanist Resurrection]

If you've ever had anaesthesia, like that.

To be fair, everytime i've gone under, I have experienced anxiety. Generally as evidenced by a skyrocketing heart rate. Our colleague points out that the end of consciousness is a fearsome prospect, and it certainly is.

The point is not that one is "wrong" to be afraid. The point is to use your consciousness now, while you can, to conquer fear. Atheists/humanists simply approach the same existential fear anyone else has in a way that doesn't require talking to the toaster.

[Godular]

While I get that love might create a chemical reaction in the brain, that doesn't refute my point. A 2ml spike of Chemical A in the brain of Person Alpha might mean something entirely different to a 2ml spike of Chemical A in the brain of Person Beta.

Love is not a matter of chemicals and reactions and millilitres or parts per thousand - it is entirely intangible and measurable and ineffable. And yet - aside from the cynical, the bitter and the people who've been burned by it - I defy ANYONE to say that love doesn't exist.

It doesn't. It is a subjective concept, much like morality.

And - from what I understand (because I really don't care enough to go into it too deeply) the universe has either always existed or it came into being at some point. However if it came into being, no one is entirely clear on what was there before the universe was. But if the universe wasn't there, something (even if it was "nothing") must have been there - even if we don't know what it was.

No one is entirely clear on what existed before the big bang because there's no way of measuring it. Science makes no claims on it because it makes no claims on what it can't actually test. For all we know the 'multiverse' is just some giant realm of boiling space-time water that forms a universe just like boiling water forms a bubble. The universe-bubble drifts around a bit, maybe bounces off this other universe or merges with that other universe, and eventually pops. I could say any number of other ideas about what the 'multiverse' might be and I would be contributing little more than idle speculation. You saying something MUST have been there is the exact same thing: idle speculation.

And it should be held to the same standard.

I am, or like to think I am, a person of science. I tend to demand proof something before I accept that exists. However there are certain things I can accept without being able to see, touch, feel or measure them. God is NOT one of these things incidentally (before you start to get worried). But I am willing to believe in the possibility of magic, of witches and wizard and unicorns and dragons and so forth. Just because no one has ever seen them doesn't mean they don't exist - it just means no one has ever seen them.

The inability to prove something does not exist does not constitute evidence that it DOES exist. Man I'd LOVE to see magic be real and all that jazz... but until I see it actually happen, I have no choice but to consider it fanciful musings and the subject of many a good read.

And I swear I had a point when I started this, but I have forgotten what it was. Maybe that I do have some respect for people of faith - people who believe in an afterlife, in their version of God - just so long as they don't try to a) make me believe it and b) don't try to force me to live by the rules that govern their faith

(Yeah - that kind of went off track at the end....)

While I have little issue with people choosing to believe in this religion or that, I take issue with children being brought up believing such things are incontrovertible fact (especially when they have no means to challenge such things) and rail against anything that disrupts such a worldview. In its own way, that IS forcing other people to live by their own faith.

[The Foxes Swamp]

Nope - it's bullshit. The idea that because you can't measure something it therefore can't exist is LUDICROUS. I can not, objectively, measure the love my girlfriend has for me, nor I the love I have for my girlfriend. Does that mean neither of us actually love each other? That our love does not exist? Of course it doesn't.

You can as a matter of fact. Love is in it's most basic form, nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain that can be measured

I would hazard a guess that people can not accurately measure the size of the universe or the exact age - they can say "it's billions of years old" and "we think it's around 20 trillion light years wide" but if they can not measure the exact age or exact width, does that mean the universe does not exist? Well - I hope that is not the case or where the bloody hell are we living?

There are things in this world we can't measure. That doesn't mean they don't exist. So - conversely - you can't claim that because you can't measure something, it can't exist.

Accuracy doesn't come into it, the universe can still be measured. It has dimensions. It has age, both of which can be measured.

wow, you really think this?

[Alvecia]

You can as a matter of fact. Love is in it's most basic form, nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain that can be measured

Accuracy doesn't come into it, the universe can still be measured. It has dimensions. It has age, both of which can be measured.

wow, you really think this?

I know this.

[Grave_n_idle]

After reading about Pascal's wager, do atheist worry about eternal damnation, or the possibility of it occurring (according to the bible)?

Personally, fear of eternal damnation is not my reason for belief in the bible however how can people be so dismissive of infinite loss compared to finite gains? Even though you may not accept the bible, does it not worry you slightly?

Some might. Atheism is about belief in god(s), not necessarily about afterlives.

For me, no - I do not worry about 'damnation'. Nothing lasts for ever, and there are so many possible afterlives, it's impossible to safeguard against them all.

On the other hand, I live a purer life than any 'christian' I know, so even if one of the biblical gods was real, I've done all I can.

[The Foxes Swamp]

wow, you really think this?

I know this.

do you think theirs any possibility you could be wrong?