Crisis of no faith?

Ickle Magoo

I would consider myself a life-long atheist who has never had any beliefs in a God or omnipotent being - in fact I've been quite resolute for many years that no such thing exists.

Recently I had a dream in which I died in the presence of my grown-up children (they are babies at the mo) & it made me realise I've never really thought about the reality of death & my own mortality & it got me wondering what happens after death. I suddenly found my previous thinking that we just die & rot away fairly depressing.

I still have no exact feelings either way with regards to religion or "God" but I don't feel quite as sure as I used to...does anyone else have periodic doubts about their atheism & dip a toe into agnosticism?

Zillah

As Dawkins is very fond of pointing out, no matter how much you want there to be a God that does not alter whether he exists or not.

How could you realising that death really does mean you actually die forever alter belief in God?

It might make you want an afterlife more, but it'd be fairly crazy to use that as a reason to go Agnostic.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not "going agnostic" & certainly not just because of the one example that made me consider that I mention, lol. I just am not as ressolute that I am absolutely right that there is no God, no afterlife, nothing as I once was & was curious if anyone else sometimes feels that way.

Thinking that there's nothing after death doesn't sound so bad to me
In any case, my beliefs don't tend to change on it, no, sorry!

Dades

It's definitely not the happiest thought - just dying and rotting away. Which is one the major reasons so many people are willing to believe something so, well, unbelievable.

It's only human to want to think just maybe there's more to life - even as an atheist.

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I'm not "going agnostic" & certainly not just because of the one example that made me consider that I mention, lol. I just am not as ressolute that I am absolutely right that there is no God, no afterlife, nothing as I once was & was curious if anyone else sometimes feels that way.

Sure. Frankly, I think it's the having kids that does it. The contemplation of one's own death is really easy, but the thought of leaving your children behind is a whole different ballgame, as is the thought of them dying. I find I usually wobble in the direction of Buddhism at such times.

However, as Zillah says, the sum of all our fears and desires will not change so much as an atom, and what we want will not change what is true. There's nothing to do but grit one's teeth and hang in there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

I find I usually wobble in the direction of Buddhism at such times.

Certainly not a bad thing

5uspect

There's nothing wrong in hoping that there is something more to death but I don't subscribe to any beliefs on the matter.

Beruthiel

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I suddenly found my previous thinking that we just die & rot away fairly depressing.

Nobody said this life of ours was perfect. There's not many human beings out there that look forward to death, but that doesn't mean we should make stuff up just to feel better about it.
Does the reality of the situation not focus you on the here and now more? Live for today and enjoy your kids and life.
If we get to be happy for the five seconds we exist in this universe, that's a great plus. It's a gift you came to be here in the first place, enjoy it and worry not about death, after all being dead means you get not to be depressed about it anymore.

Ickle Magoo

Very true, very true. Thanks for all your comments - and for not thinking I'm an idiot. I'm not great at expressing what I mean.

I think Scofflaw cordially summed it up when he said it had to do with becoming a parent...the thought of never seeing them again, or seeing grandchildren, the thought of closing my eyes one day & ceasing to be is a scary one - but as Zillah points out, not one I can justify pretending to believe in heaven for - and as you point out Beruthiel, when it happens I won't give a monkeys, lol.

I do live very much for the day. I had a chat to my MIL about this & she laughed & said "Well, I guess we'll find out who's right eventually"...

I thought, good grief...what if we're wrong?! :eek:

MooseJam

being dead is cool, very peacefull, anybody who has been under anesthetics has been in the same situation as death ie the brain switched off

Ickle Magoo

Is not only cool because we came back & were therefor able to comprehend how cool thinking/doing/being nothing was...? The big sleep for ever more & never again comprehending anything is a bit more scary, to me anyway.

MooseJam

It's scary if you think of dead as being a condition, oh no I'm going to be dead for ever and ever. It's not actually a condition ! your life is from birth to death and thats it, you aren't actually dead if you get my meaning

Ickle Magoo

Of course, I won't actually be aware...to use your other analogy; like worrying about an operation when I'm anesthetised throughout...it's a very good way of looking at it, MooseJam.

I just can't believe I never thought about this sh!t before! :o:o

The Mad Hatter

Dunno, death - actual permanent death - doesn't scare me as much as being forgotten. Don't know why that is.

Scofflaw

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Of course, I won't actually be aware...to use your other analogy; like worrying about an operation when I'm anesthetised throughout...it's a very good way of looking at it, MooseJam.

I just can't believe I never thought about this sh!t before! :o:o

Most people don't, I don't think, until they have kids - or are about 30. The number of people to whom their own mortality appears to come as a complete revelation constantly amazes me - after all, the death rate remains steady at 100%.

cordially,
Scofflaw

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ickle Magoo

Scofflaw wrote:

Most people don't, I don't think, until they have kids - or are about 30. The number of people to whom their own mortality appears to come as a complete revelation constantly amazes me - after all, the death rate remains steady at 100%.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2 out of 2 & I take back my comment re not thinking I'm an idiot, lol.

lookinforpicnic

Beruthiel wrote:

It's a gift you came to be here in the first place, enjoy it and worry not about death

Yeah when I used to think of non-existence (just like before we were born) i used to take solace in the fact: at least i wasn't born as a worm or some other creature, I'm very lucky indeed I used to think.

Today I don't take much solace in that fact though, as born as some creature or being lucky to come into existence doesn't make much sense, as it implies (in the case of animal) a kind of injection of some intrinsic soulstuff that is you or (in the case of being lucky) that 'you' were somehow picked from some endless waiting list to enter a body. Today when i think of death, first off i just get annoyed, then i think better make the most of every day, and then sometimes I get distracted by thinking about what exactly will be gone but a shifting protaganist of a novel that is my life...I hope it makes a good read!

What never, never happens though are thoughts of religious fairytales.

Zillah

I like to imagine then when I die it'd be something incredibly unexpected. Like, a ton block of ice landing on me from the sky. If that happens then I'll be happy and living one instant and then just gone. I won't even have the instant to realise I'm about to die. Seems almost like cheating really

There's nothing wrong with hoping for something else. I truly do hope that when I die I won't cease to exist, it'd be cool if there was some greater existence in which my sentience will continue. But no matter how much I might like that, it doesn't change the fact that it is so incredible unlikely that believing in it is impossible for me. And I suspect that will never change.

All that said, I think there is a certain fairness to absolute oblivion. No after life I can imagine would be fair to everyone. With annhilation comes a certain balance. No matter how evil someone was, no matter how selfish and monstrous, they will simply cease to exist. And no matter how unhappy someone was, no matter how badly treated or bullied or robbed of freedom, they too will vanish. In the end no one can gloat or cry or regret, the universe belongs to the living.

You can tell I've been at the wine...

biko

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I suddenly found my previous thinking that we just die & rot away fairly depressing.

Why (in gods name ;-) ? Be happy now with your kids and enjoy life while it lasts. Even if you dip into "life after death" for some reason you still don't believe in hell, do you?

Ickle Magoo

I am very happy with my kids & I do very much enjoy life...I didn't realise having the odd reflection about belief, faith, life, death, etc were a sign that I wasn't?

I don't believe in hell, no. I'm obviously not phrasing things well at all. I think the nail was hit on the head by the person who said it would be nice to think there was more but that doesn't mean we believe there is...maybe I got a bit confused at the difference between wanting & believing?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Pascal's Wager ftw

Ickle Magoo

Just Wiki'd that - thanks Sean_K that makes for facinating reading. :cool:

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Yea, Blaise was quite a chap, it certainly gave me food for thought when I first read about it, but that's probably just because i'm a cynical git;)

Hivemind187

Personally I find the idea of an afterlife to be more upsetting than oblivion.

Consider that with the total cessation of all faculties you will have long since ceased to be aware of anything and by extension will be incapable of feelings towards it.

With the concept of an afterlife you then have to worry about whether or not your friends, families etc will be joining you, what you are going to do to entertain yourself for eternity, trying to explain why you were part of the WRONG religion (or held no particular beliefs) or suffering eternal tortures and damnation in hell.

In the realest sense eternal life comes from procreation (thus allow your genetic structure to be continued for an extended period of time) and through fullfillment of the ego - achieving enough and being happy enough in life that you are remembered by others after your demise.

True you wont be around to enjoy either of them but they are at least somethign tangible you can do in order to continue in some fashion after shuffling off.

Myksyk

I've always viewed my eventual death in a sort of highly bemused manner with strong feelings of anticipatory loss. I think this is entirely normal. I like my life, the people in it, the work I do, the interests I have and I'm not sure what it would say about me if I wasn't sad at the prospect of losing all that. But so be it ... it helps in making the most of it all while it's here.

Zombrex

I don't like thinking of death (thinking about what it would be "like" to not exist causes my brain to do a divide by zero error, since it won't be like anything)

And I sincerely hope there is some form of an after life.

But I don't believe there is. Anyone who claims there is is simply deluding themselves to make themselves feel better (not that there is anything wrong with that)

If there is I will find out when I die. At the end of the day I'm going to die, so there isn't a whole lot of point in worrying about it now, I can't stop that from happening.

I'll die when I die. Instead of worrying about dead I find it far more productive to worry about life

Zillah

Ickle Magoo wrote:

Just Wiki'd that - thanks Sean_K that makes for facinating reading. :cool:

No no! Its awful! Pascal's Wager is a retarded fallaccy! It begins by pre-supposing that one can choose to believe something, which is not true. One can delude oneself, but thats very different.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

But I don't believe there is. Anyone who claims there is is simply deluding themselves to make themselves feel better (not that there is anything wrong with that)

Do you think I'm deluding myself?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Zillah wrote:

No no! Its awful! Pascal's Wager is a retarded fallaccy! It begins by pre-supposing that one can choose to believe something, which is not true. One can delude oneself, but thats very different.

Hence my cynicism:D

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a retarded fallacy however, there's very different ways of loking at faith/religion etc and it's a bit naive to dismiss it outright

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

It begins by pre-supposing that one can choose to believe something, which is not true.

I have just chosen that this belief must be false, just as we can choose to do different acts, we can choose different beliefs as well, particularly when we don't have all the evidence. Pascal's wager though..??? why not choose to believe that mushrooms are intergalatic spaceships spying on us or go wild and make up whatever you want and then calculate the probablities....bollox!

JC 2K3

Death is just like going to sleep and not waking up, what's the big deal?

Ickle Magoo

JC 2K3 wrote:

Death is just like going to sleep and not waking up, what's the big deal?

How do you know that for certain? Do you ever contemplate any other possibilities? It's not a "big" deal, I was pondering & curious...:)

JC 2K3

Well, put it this way, I've reasoned that pondering about the issue of what happens when we die is possibly one of the most baseless and pointless bs wastes of our limited time.

No amount of discussion, pondering, contemplation, debate, spiritual revelation, perceived enlightenment or delusion can possibly detract from the fact that we haven't a fúcking clue, can never have, and that any opinion anyone has on this issue is, by it's very nature, baseless and probably false.

Ickle Magoo

I wasn't just pondering death but I appreciate what you're saying.

I would have to say in my defense that if all ponderings & discussions regarding things we cannot possibly know or prove are pointless bs wastes of our limited time, this forum & others like it would be obsolete.

lookinforpicnic

JC 2K3 wrote:

can possibly detract from the fact that we haven't a fúcking clue, can never have, and that any opinion anyone has on this issue is, by it's very nature, baseless and probably false.

Haven't a clue... what?? so this interpretation - that we meet shrek and live in a cartoon when we die - is on par with the idea that we vanish out of existence. Do you really think that these two interpretations are equally likely, equally baseless and both false?

We do have a clue, for instance science has shown us that there is no evidence of a soul, or of a lifeforce, or any intrinsic entity that is 'you' independent of your body and experiences, thus this renders any ideas of your soul floating of to heaven, some other life after death or reincarnation as all ridiculous, based on misunderstandings of what 'I' stands for. Knowing what 'I' refers to, which is a scientific investigation (neuroscience, cognitive science just two disciplines that investigate this scientifically) can tell us about the likely consequences of what happens to this 'I' when a body disintegrates (basically - it too disintegrates much more rapidly).

Dades

lookinforpicnic wrote:

I have just chosen that this belief must be false, just as we can choose to do different acts, we can choose different beliefs as well, particularly when we don't have all the evidence.

I'm with Zillah's opinion on Pascal's Wager.

Firstly I don't agree you can "choose" to believe without being untruthful to yourself. While it might seem there are "choices" in what to believe - ultimately one of these choices is the one you actually believe in. If that is God, then good for you, but if not - and you "choose" to believe in God anyway then you are deluding yourself. Similarly if you conclude there is not enough evidence either way, you can hardly believe in God, either.

Secondly, I doubt you could fool an omnipotent god into welcoming you to heaven by just turning up to mass once a week. You might be able to fool yourself but not the creator of life, the universe and everything?

Zillah

lookinforpicnic wrote:

just as we can choose to do different acts, we can choose different beliefs as well, particularly when we don't have all the evidence.

I see...

As a thought experiment then, I would ask you to believe that there is a large predator in your kitchen. A tiger, perhaps it escaped from the zoo.


Don't be scared!!! Now, please go back to not believing there is a tiger in your kitchen, it wasn't true.

If that worked then you have nicely demonstrated the human ability to choose belief(and probably sprinted from your home screaming for help!). Then again, if that didn't work I'm afraid it kind of supports my position...

JC 2K3

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I wasn't just pondering death but I appreciate what you're saying.

I would have to say in my defense that if all ponderings & discussions regarding things we cannot possibly know or prove are pointless bs wastes of our limited time, this forum & others like it would be obsolete.

Not really, that just proves that many are wasting their time.

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Haven't a clue... what?? so this interpretation - that we meet shrek and live in a cartoon when we die - is on par with the idea that we vanish out of existence. Do you really think that these two interpretations are equally likely, equally baseless and both false?

We do have a clue, for instance science has shown us that there is no evidence of a soul, or of a lifeforce, or any intrinsic entity that is 'you' independent of your body and experiences, thus this renders any ideas of your soul floating of to heaven, some other life after death or reincarnation as all ridiculous, based on misunderstandings of what 'I' stands for. Knowing what 'I' refers to, which is a scientific investigation (neuroscience, cognitive science just two disciplines that investigate this scientifically) can tell us about the likely consequences of what happens to this 'I' when a body disintegrates (basically - it too disintegrates much more rapidly).

Well, when I said we hadn't a clue, I meant that we have no records of first hand experiences.

The viewpoint you present is the most likely. My point is that even if there is something else, no one will know until they die and no amount of thinking about it and discussing it will or can enlighten us, so why bother?

MooseJam

lot's of people have been brought back from the dead so it's as good as first hand experience, people being submerged in freezing water for long periods is as close to dead if not actually dead

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

I see...

As a thought experiment then, I would ask you to believe that there is a large predator in your kitchen. A tiger, perhaps it escaped from the zoo.


Don't be scared!!! Now, please go back to not believing there is a tiger in your kitchen, it wasn't true.

If that worked then you have nicely demonstrated the human ability to choose belief(and probably sprinted from your home screaming for help!). Then again, if that didn't work I'm afraid it kind of supports my position...

You had me running out my apartment there; tigers scare the **** out of me!
No you can’t choose belief (whatever that could mean?) but you can choose between beliefs.

Ultimately you are arguing to choose a belief is not the same as believing, as choosing is a process over and above believing, believing is akin to something like perception – I can’t choose what I see when I open my eyes for example.

However, I can choose what I look at or what I explore with my eyes, also if I have multiple beliefs regarding say someones internal state…is that person going to mug me or walk past, will I run or keep walking, a choice has to me made about which of those competing beliefs is true (mugger or walker). When I make a choice regarding these beliefs I suppose someone could say that this is now what I believe in so there was no real choice making going on (The Atheist: “While it might seem there are "choices" in what to believe - ultimately one of these choices is the one you actually believe in” . But I would say the process of how you (your brain) “choose” between those belief alternatives is choice about belief.

Choosing between belief systems (Pascals wager) though is a bit more complicated, and can be seen as disingenuous more easily, but may be an extreme example.

Ickle Magoo

JC 2K3 wrote:

My point is that even if there is something else, no one will know until they die and no amount of thinking about it and discussing it will or can enlighten us, so why bother?

Because it interests me what others believe & what possibilities there may be for lots of things that cannot be proven one way or the other. I may not ever ultimately reach a definitive conclusion but to me that is part of the fascination, not a draw back.

Zillah

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Choosing between belief systems (Pascals wager) though is a bit more complicated, and can be seen as disingenuous more easily, but may be an extreme example.

The crucial point here is that my tiger example is a perfect parallel. You can no more choose to believe that there is a God in heaven any more than you can choose to believe there is a tiger in your kitchen. The only other option is to pretend to believe in God, which is theologicaly bankrupt.

Hence Pascal's Wager is crap.

Ickle Magoo

I've just read that article re Pascal's Wager...it doesn't make much sense to me tho it is an interesting theory. It's the very fact I don't believe in God that prevents me from doing anything other than not believing in God...I can't "hedge my bets" as it were because even if I were to declare that God exists based on the expected value of believing it wouldn't change the fact that I actually don't believe...

Zillah

Exactly. I suspect that Pascal may have simply been hoping to convince people to obey the church and pretend to be good Christians. If nothing else it would keep them in line. And, who knows, maybe doing it long enough they'll start to truly believe.

A clever tool of manipulation, yes. A good argument, no.

lookinforpicnic

Zillah wrote:

Hence Pascal's Wager is crap.

I think its crap too, as i implied earlier where i said why doesn't Pascal not believe that mushrooms are intergalatic spaceships that are going to take us away to a mushroom cloud when we die (or some other made up fantasy) and calculate probabilities of there existence, why give credence to a believe in an imaginery god at all. I suppose another neat religious trick that has a evolved is the cost of ignoring religious teaching..hell..eternal damnation, this gives an apparent umph to pay attention to religious dogma in the first place. Reading that article too it looks like Pascal was a religious man and was looking for some way to justify such an irrational belief.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Zillah wrote:

Exactly. I suspect that Pascal may have simply been hoping to convince people to obey the church and pretend to be good Christians. If nothing else it would keep them in line. And, who knows, maybe doing it long enough they'll start to truly believe.

A clever tool of manipulation, yes. A good argument, no.

I think Pascal may have been more reasoned than you give him credit. My own personal take on the theory is that rather than being an active proponent of its truth, Pascal is rather playing Devil's Advocate in admittedly quite a pessimistic and satirical way.

I would see the theory somewhat aligned with Voltaire's own take on religion ("If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him")

To say that Pascal is trying to manipulate is silly. If anything the theory is pseudo-scientific conjecture, a nerd's joke if you like, irrespective of whether or not Pascal was at the time in his Christian phase.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

lookinforpicnic wrote:

I think its crap too, as i implied earlier where i said why doesn't Pascal not believe that mushrooms are intergalatic spaceships that are going to take us away to a mushroom cloud when we die (or some other made up fantasy) and calculate probabilities of there existence, why give credence to a believe in an imaginery god at all.

This is exactly what Pascal is trying to highlight, the triviality of religion because it can be sidelined, as you have done, with with other supernatural nonsense such as these intergalactic spaceships, which are just as probable as some supreme all-powerful wizard.

As I have said IMHO, the whole theory is something of an intellectual joke

joe_chicken

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I just am not as ressolute that I am absolutely right

Ickle Magoo wrote:

I'm not "going agnostic"...

Sounds like you already have

Dades

Sean_K wrote:

I think Pascal may have been more reasoned than you give him credit. My own personal take on the theory is that rather than being an active proponent of its truth, Pascal is rather playing Devil's Advocate in admittedly quite a pessimistic and satirical way.

That could well be the case.

I mean no matter how much we vehemently assert that you cannot "choose" to believe - it's hardly the case for large swathes of society. It must be said that an awful lot of people choose to believe in God simply because it is more palatable than the alternative. Perhaps this is the "choice" Pascal refers to.