Death

[zarathustra]

The simple fact is that all life-forms end in death and the elements of which they are composed return to the air and the earth to be taken up and recycled in some new organism.This natural process is universal and is beyond dispute. What is challenged by atheists and freethinkers is the claim made by purveyors of religion that humans alone of all living forms have a 'soul' or 'spirit' which survives death and carries the essential characteristics of the person to a supernatural existence in a super natural realm.

The method or pathway for making this crossing to a new life beyond the grave varies widely between religions and between the multitude of Christian denominations. The Roman Catholic Church is probably the most dogmatic in its proclaimed route to Paradise - infant christening, confirmation, frequent mass attendances and the final rites. Donations and prayers to the saints are desirable adjuncts guarding against a period in purgatory.

We Atheists maintain that the concept of humankind having a unique supernatural 'soul' is simply a primitive notion which has no basis in fact and that religious organisations are guilty of perpetrating a colossal fraud on ignorant and gullible people, chiefly through the indoctrination of infants. They are aided and abetted by the media who fear adverse reaction affecting profits if the facts are revealed.

On what grounds can atheists make the claim that no-one has a supernatural 'soul'?

There is no scientific evidence of anything super-natural.
There is no credible evidence that humankind is a unique creation by a deity.
There is no credible definition of a 'soul'.
Scientific evidence completely destroys all the concepts which are the basis for the existence of the 'soul'.

This last statement requires verification, first of all by showing that the basis of the religious concept is faulty and then by citing the scientific evidence which nullifies the 'soul' concept.

When Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species the religious bodies realised that the theory completely undermined the belief that humans were a unique creation. They agreed that all organisms other than homo sapiens were devoid of 'souls'. If humans were only the next step on the ladder then they were obliged to designate the precise stage at which a human was given a 'soul'. They realised that such was impossible and fundamentalists realise this today and therefore reject the evolution of humankind.

The Church has always had trouble with the nature of conception and the specific function of the male and female. Aquinas determined that a male received a 'soul' 40 days, and females 90 days, after intercourse.

When the actual conception process was revealed by scientific research the Church declared that in a human being a 'soul' resulted when sperm fused with ova. This introduced a new problem when the subsequent division of the original cell led, not to one person, but to two or more identical foetuses. In this case are more God-given 'souls' provided or is the original 'soul' divided, resulting in a number of identical 'souls'?

The problem has now become more complicated with the birth of Dolly the sheep which demonstrated that individual differentiated cells can be made to regress to a stage where they are capable of giving rise to a new individual. Geoffrey Robertson, on a recent TV Hypothetical, confronted a RC priest with this scenario. The cleric's answer was that every cell is infused with 'soul'. He probably did not realise that cells are constantly dying and being replaced.

Whether countries ban or allow such an experiment, the process which would lead to a human clone will take place sometime somewhere. This human clone would present an enormous dilemma to the believers in 'souls' and is probably why theologians and religious authorities are so outspoken against the idea.

A modern concept of 'soul' equates it with the conscious mind but this is equally flawed, for when the body dies the conscious mind, being dependant on the brain, also ceases to exist. This mind/soul concept has the problem of the mind development, for death can occur in every stage from initial fertilisation to full physical and mental maturity; so 'souls' must be conceived as forever developing or forever remaining in an immature state.

Anyone weighing the evidence has no trouble in discarding the notion of the everlasting soul and accepting that death is the natural end to every human life.

By accepting that life is only for a finite period, short or long, the atheist is confronted by the matter of how best to spend the available time and therefore, if suitably informed, will most likely spend the time worthy of a human person.

It would be difficult to imagine a more useless waste of time than that spent in the worship of an imaginary god or preparing for a non-existent everlasting life in some mythical supernatural realm of eternal bliss. In the words of William Shakespeare:

Cowards die many times before they are dead. The valiant never taste of death but once. Of all the wonders which I yet
have heard it seems to me most strange that man should fear, seeing that death - a necessary end - will come when it
will come...

z

[Ryan Rudolph]

I find it interesting how the atheists really want some sort of final knowledge that there is absolutely no afterlife, whereas the fundamentalists want to know for sure that there is an afterlife.

Psychologically speaking, it seems like a similar psychological dynamic, namely both want some sort of final knowledge about metaphysical matters, but perhaps such knowledge cannot be known with certainty.

[zarathustra]

so where do you stand?
z

[Ryan Rudolph]

My mind just isn’t capable of that sort of belief, whether it be for an afterlife or of no afterlife. In the state of emptiness, having knowledge of what ones consciousness is not even possible.

[illrod]

I find it interesting how the atheists really want some sort of final knowledge that there is absolutely no afterlife, whereas the fundamentalists want to know for sure that there is an afterlife.

Psychologically speaking, it seems like a similar psychological dynamic, namely both want some sort of final knowledge about metaphysical matters, but perhaps such knowledge cannot be known with certainty.

yes - atheists and religious people are like the numbers 1 and -1....different directions, same value/magnitude....
I think it is silly to find "final knowledge" because it is most likely beyond our comprehending and if it were really "availible", would make things too easy. There will never be final knowledge either way; that's what makes things interesting.....which leads me on to my next point.....

My mind just isn’t capable of that sort of belief, whether it be for an afterlife or of no afterlife. In the state of emptiness, having knowledge of what ones consciousness is not even possible.

Frankly, that seems like a copout. I mean, life is random, uncertain, we'll never really 'know'....but while we're here we might as well pack our shit and choose a road to walk down instead of standing at the entrances, plagued by doubt. I respect your position and believe that on a universal level it is good, but on a day-to-day/applicable basis....not so good.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

illrod,

while we're here we might as well pack our shit and choose a road to walk down instead of standing at the entrances, plagued by doubt.

If there is no reason to choose either option, flipping a coin does not provide an answer. There are other things to think about than the afterlife, and substantial reason not to think that the problem of the afterlife is solveable. Why waste your time on an impossible question?

I respect your position and believe that on a universal level it is good, but on a day-to-day/applicable basis....not so good.

The mother of all cop-outs!

"Your position is both correct and incorrect."

[divine focus]

Nobody really believes in an afterlife. People might think they do, but belief isn't what you think. If you're at all sad when someone or something dies, you don't believe.

[Imadrongo]

Trevor,

There are other things to think about than the afterlife, and substantial reason not to think that the problem of the afterlife is solveable. Why waste your time on an impossible question?

I agree. There is substantial reason not to think any metaphysical problems are solvable.

[zarathustra]

Atheists do not stand at a counterpoint to theists or religious people. If there is no god and no evidence for the existence of such a being there can be no counterpoint...simple. I also don't believe in the tooth fairy. But what does that say - that I have a 'similar psychological profile' to someone who does? Rubbish. It seems that many at this forum are metaphysicians who have rejected all forms of 'religion' but are still, as Nietzsche wrote, 'attracted to its poisons...'

Life like death, will and always will be a MYSTERY. And it is only through scientific knowledge, that bit by bit, the mystery reveals itself. There can be no final answers, only a continual revealing. Science communicates with the MYSTERY and art celebrates it. How wonderful!


z

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Neil, I already explained to you: our conversation is over. You have made it abundantly clear that you don't care about truth. You don't need to drag this obsessive, all-inclusive, voluntary ignorance of yours into another thread, since I am not interested in discussing this with you unless you wise up and start believing in logic.

Anyway, I state this solely for the benefit of anyone that might read your idiocy and become confused (since I know already that you won't believe me), the afterlife is not metaphysical whatsoever. If there is an afterlife, it would be a physical phenomenon. It does not, like causality and logic, transcend reality, but would be a part of it, like fingernails and rocks.

[Ryan Rudolph]

illrod wrote

Frankly, that seems like a copout. I mean, life is random, uncertain, we'll never really 'know'....but while we're here we might as well pack our shit and choose a road to walk down instead of standing at the entrances, plagued by doubt. I respect your position and believe that on a universal level it is good, but on a day-to-day/applicable basis....not so good.

There is no doubt here, I’m quite certain that such metaphysical matters cannot be known. What can be known with certainty must be able to be confirmed repeatedly through ones experience, by observing how things are. However, such metaphysical knowing is not even possible so there is no doubt involved at all, only certainty in what cannot be known.

Divine focus wrote:

Nobody really believes in an afterlife. People might think they do, but belief isn't what you think. If you're at all sad when someone or something dies, you don't believe.

Your reasoning is a little flawed. Many people believe in afterlives fanatically, and when they cry when their partner dies, it isn’t caused by a lack of believe in an afterlife, its caused by years of attachment, pleasure, security, comfort and bondage that the dead person has given them, and now that they are dead, the person is left with their own loneliness, fear of death, and the hole in their life where the attached person used to be.

[illrod]

If there is no reason to choose either option, flipping a coin does not provide an answer. There are other things to think about than the afterlife, and substantial reason not to think that the problem of the afterlife is solveable. Why waste your time on an impossible question?

I didn't say flip a coin. And by preferring one belief you don't nullify your ability to appreciate another. I don't sit around all day philosophizing about the afterlife but I enjoy pondering it from time to time

The mother of all cop-outs!

"Your position is both correct and incorrect."

your interpretation of my statement is highly skewed. I basically said the same thing as you - "why waste your time on impossible questions", as I thought it was interesting/entertaining on a philosophical level, but has no real purpose, and could be considered a "waste of time".

you see, there is this thing called context....

[daybrown]

i dont see that it matters what I believe. I'm not even sure I really have a live for there to be a hereafter. i seem to be here accidentally. My whole reality is an accident waiting to happen.

I dont see that I have a soul, but dont see also why that precludes anyone else from having one.
Why should I giva fuck anyway?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

illrod,

And by preferring one belief you don't nullify your ability to appreciate another.

It is not preference, but accuracy, that is important. Unless you know that you can accurately decide whether or not there is an afterlife, the problem should not be approached. There should be no decision made on an insoluble problem; always leave thinking about the impossible to poor thinkers.

I don't sit around all day philosophizing about the afterlife but I enjoy pondering it from time to time.

I derive no enjoyment from thinking about questions that cannot be resolved. The best philosophers tended to focus on a single, solveable, problem. They become great by applying the philosophic method of inquiry to small problems that can be handled. For instance, Heidegger is famous for writing about how the immediate access of consciousness relates to the verb "to be". Sartre studied the operations of his imagination -- how his imagination appeared to him -- and developed a full existential theory of ontology. Machiavelli tried to figure out how a ruler's mentality differs from that of a common man. St. Augustine tried to prove that Roman corruption was responsible for the fall of Rome, and not the small cult of Christianity. Socrates tried to see if people really knew what morality was, or if they merely pretended to make ethical decisions.

These are small problems, but it takes an entire lifetime to solve any one of them to any degree of usefulness or accuracy.

your interpretation of my statement is highly skewed.

Oh really. I didn't notice when I wrote it. It was designed to be completely accurate, and not to force you to backtrack.

I basically said the same thing as you - "why waste your time on impossible questions", as I thought it was interesting/entertaining on a philosophical level, but has no real purpose, and could be considered a "waste of time".

No, you did not say the same thing as me. It is not interesting nor entertaining on a philosophic level. Impossible questions never are. Philosophic problems are purposeful and are never a waste of time; philosophy, as opposed to every other style of inquiry or human activity, is unique in this regard.

It is interesting solely to non-philosophers. The question of the afterlife helps pacify people whose lot in life does not allow them to approach real intellectual problems.

you see, there is this thing called context...

...which you assume that I, being the moron I am, am incapable of perceiving?

Please show a bit more respect to someone who is willing to give you the time of day in regards to your beliefs. I'm not a poor thinker: unlike my grandparents, who rudely say "that's just your opinion" to even my most carefully considered arguments, I rarely dismiss someone's arguments out of hand. So long as someone is giving you a reply, there is no reason to consider him hostile.

[divine focus]

Divine focus wrote:

Nobody really believes in an afterlife. People might think they do, but belief isn't what you think. If you're at all sad when someone or something dies, you don't believe.

Your reasoning is a little flawed. Many people believe in afterlives fanatically, and when they cry when their partner dies, it isn’t caused by a lack of believe in an afterlife, its caused by years of attachment, pleasure, security, comfort and bondage that the dead person has given them, and now that they are dead, the person is left with their own loneliness, fear of death, and the hole in their life where the attached person used to be.

It's not always someone close to them dying that gets people upset. It could be someone they just met, or a celebrity, or even someone they don't even know. They may not care too much about the life or living circumstances of someone, but his or her death hits them hard regardless. The dread escalates when the death is depicted or described for them, too. Maybe it's just the process of death so-called believers fear.

[daybrown]

I got polio for my 7th birthday in 1946, and ended up in a ward with a couple dozen other boys. There were always a few laid out in beds up by the nurse's station who were always being told how good they looked.

They never *did* anything, but they looked good. Or so the nurses said. And every few months one prolly looked good too rolling out of the ward on a guerny under a sheet. From what Clausewitz and Machiavelli have to say, you can destroy unit cohesion by killing 10%, which has something to do with the Roman decimation.

But in any case, as Nietzsche said, it didnt kill me. But I often ponder the effect on my 7 year old mind of living with the soon to be dead. Talking with a dude in an iron lung is memorable. He can only speak on the downstroke; course, he didnt have much to say, like he knew he was dead already.

The nurses always said I looked good too.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

*violin*

[daybrown]

*violin*

Oh yes. Of course. I'm 68 now, and when ever its quiet enuf, I can hear the violin music you always hear at the end of the movie.

i remember a Sci Fi short story about a perfectly well ordered future, with the power elite in complete control, having put down all resistance, except this one dude, who let live cause they wanted to know what one looked like in case they ever saw another.

At the time the tale was written, before the work by Janis, nobody knew about group think, but we now understand why everyone who heard his rants thot he was crazy. Not that there were very many; he lived obscurely, observed by the authorities more than anyone else.

But one nite they caught him, on the way to the grave yard with a shovel, revolver, and Bible. Dressed in an appropriate black suit. He was going to his own funeral. He had the same attitude as Cato, who preferred posterity would ask why there were no monuments erected to him, rather than why they were.

There are cultures with a different attitude twards death. One of the reasons I like Tocharian is the word "anagame", which means one who is NOT destined to be reborn. Course, they were mostly Buddhist. But those raised in the Levantine tradition are so imbued with its values that they cannot even imagine why such a state would be aspired to.

Down at the bottom of http://www.dc-pc.org/artifax/artifax.html are two Tocharian frescos. So, it kinda begs the question, if they aspired to non-existance, who did they think was gonna see the artwork? And for people who seemed to have Cato's opinion about monuments in the city, outside of Kucha, in the desert cliff faces, they dug all these cave temples which have, all together, enuf frescos accumulated over hundreds of years, to redo Rome.

And speaking of Death, it was said that the road thru the desert to Kucha was clearly marked. With the skeletons of the dead. And like Death, the name of the desert still seen on the maps today, "Taklamakhan", in Chinese means "to go in, but to not come back out".

I'm sure that many who survived the journey to Kucha never dared to try to leave. It was kinda like purgatory, except it had some of the best brothels on the Silk Road. But, soon as you got out of town a ways, you could hear the moans of the wind over the dunes. *Every* day- like violin music.

[illrod]

Trevor,

Unless you know that you can accurately decide whether or not there is an afterlife, the problem should not be approached.

I never claimed to be approaching it as a solveable problem. I merely described as an something I would do sitting out on my porch at night, passing the time. what's wrong with a little entertaining thought?

always leave thinking about the impossible to poor thinkers.

I'm sure before previous great minds came up with original ideas, people would have said 'that is impossible'

I derive no enjoyment from thinking about questions that cannot be resolved. The best philosophers tended to focus on a single, solveable, problem. They become great by applying the philosophic method of inquiry to small problems that can be handled.

Look, I derive more enjoyment from questions that can be solved than the 'mysteries' also, but I will not repeat what I said before. don't you see why the 'best thinkers' specialized in an area rather than focusing broadly? The reason they appeared the best is because they specialized, not necessarily because they were the best at thinking. When you concentrate your forces, you get a better result. Either way, I would rather specialize in something in my life, as it would give me a feeling of accomplishment, as opposed to just saying 'well, I thought about everything (I think)'

These are small problems, but it takes an entire lifetime to solve any one of them to any degree of usefulness or accuracy.

yes, I have noticed this before too.

Please show a bit more respect to someone who is willing to give you the time of day in regards to your beliefs.

sorry for the sarcasm....I respect all feedback

even though impossible problems are a dead-end, are you perhaps a little vexed by their magnitude and may that be another reason why you don't like them, besides them being "pointless".....
'what is the meaning of life?'...everyone contemplates this a few times throughout their life.....noone every solves it, but people always tend to come up with their quaint answers to have fulfillment when looking back. but that just leads onto another idea that not everything can be figured out with reason, so, maybe another thread....

[Alex Jacob]

I always thought the term 'groupthink' was an Orwellian term, I had never heard of Irving Janis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

And speaking of violins, I recently got some recordings of Bach sonatas and partidas for the violin that are...simply transporting.

[daybrown]

Bach also produced a series of 2 & 3 part inventions for the Lute. Julian Bream put out an album. As you say, transporting. And so different; the Lute was not an orchestral instrument, but meant to be played in front of a lady in her own quarters. Real seduction music, but- by Bach.

Janis shows, more specifically that Orwell, how group think works. The degree of self delusion is remarkable, and well illustrated by the way the media crafted the events of 911. Altho- If you are old enuf, you may also recall how it did exactly the same thing to Goldwater at the behest of a sitting president.

Groupthink also explains why the tradition has always been for the sage to withdraw from humanity while he worked out new solutions that challenged the groupthink. Thus, whereas before, reward in the next world was only granted to the power elite and great heros like Hercules, Jesus offered reward in the next world to the slave class, who ate it up, because they were not getting rewarded in this one. Buddha said it didnt matter if you got rewarded, and Epictetus said you would be, but you hadda be rational. Most are not. He didnt worry about them.

But all these groupthinks are being changed by the global shift to female management. Alpha males have always wanted harems, and always exploited the shit out of the slaves to that end. Females dont need harems and tend to regard the slaves as a case management problem.

[Alex Jacob]

I have some Julian Bream recordings, Bach for guitar, that simply blow my mind (esp. Suite in E minor). His touch on the guitar is extraordinary, and it made me realize that a guitar is the most expressive instrument, if played well.
______________________________________

The Vishnu-Krishna 'reward scenario' is an even better one (than the one Jesus rudimentarily described), and you alluded to the Bhagavad-Gita somewhere. All you have to do, they say, is edge your consciousness over in that direction, even a slight effort is extraordinarily rewarded, and you move from a plane of 'material entanglement' to the loosening of the bonds that bind one. From the group-think (agreements of perception) of entrapment in material existence, hopelessness, misery, death, the anxiety of samsara, to the certainty that everything is okay, it was always okay.

I am working out a marriage between Nietzsche's doctrines, a Tragic Attitude, and the essence of vaishnavism. It's a bit of a rough road but it seems to be working...

:-)

[daybrown]

<I am working out a marriage between Nietzsche's doctrines, a Tragic Attitude, and the essence of vaishnavism. It's a bit of a rough road but it seems to be working...>

Wow. That is pretty cute. His "The Birth of Tragedy" always struck me as related to the Vedic myth as well. I have to believe he experimented with altered states, altho, lacking a shaman or hierophant there to more objectively judge the appropriate potion, at the appropriate time & place, seems to have created problems for him.

Joseph Campbell, "Occidental Mythology" p180- "In contrast also, to the biblical view (which becomes even more emphatic in Islam), where a freely willing personal god is antecedent to the order of the Universe, himself unlimited by law, the Greek gods were themselves aspects of the Univese- children of Chaos and the Great Earth, just as men are. And even Chaos and the Great Earth produced our world not thru acts of creative will, but as seeds produce trees, out of the natural spontaneity of their substance. The secret of this spontaneity may be learned or sensed, in silence, in the mysteries, and throughout life, but is not definable as the will, work, or divine plan of a personality."

It try to tell this to atheists, and they dont get it either. But where does your vaishnaviasm come down on this?

Now, regarding the mysteries, among which Death is prominent, p267 Campbell mentions the Yogic schools, but then:"As in India, so in these Hellenistic mysteries, the accomplished initiate both realized his own divinity and was honored as a god: for what better sign of godhood could there be than a human being in whom his own godhood had been realized?"

Then, a little further down he cites Cicero:"Among the many excellent and divine institutions. that your Athens has developed and contributed to human life, there is none, in my opinion, better than these mysteries, by which we have been brought forth from our rustic and savage mode of existance, cultivated, and refined to a state of civilization: and as the rites are called 'initiations', so, in truth, we have learned from them the first principles of life and have gained the understanding, not only to live happily, but also to die with better hope."

Now, Campbell wrote this before 1964, but Wasson didnt publish about Kykeion until 1978, so neither Campbell nor Nietzsche actually knew what was going on, but both recognized the kind of enlightenment you are trying to synthesize from your work.

I note as well, that Cicero, and indeed the few other ancient sources I've come across that mention the Eleusinian Mysteries, dont ever actually explain how the miracle was done, in keeping with the instructions to the Mystai as they enter the Great Hall, to never divulge the secret. The *miracle* really, if you think about it, is that from the time of Pericles on for 1000 years, 4000 Mystai entered the great hall every Komos, and *nobody ever ratted*. How Ubermench is that?

Many of us who've used LSD, Peyote, Mescaline, Pscilocybin, or Soma (I've tried them all) know exactly what Cicero is talking about, and when the time comes, will go to our death with the same kind of disdain he showed when Antony's troops murdered him.

Is Zarathustra a Bohdisattavah? He reminds me of the video game programmer talking to the players, who dont really get it. Its not about winning the fucking game. These mystical techniques, if successful (some are more often frauds), seem to be a way to break out of the limits of code, but if you are dropped back in the game like "Tron" (remember that one?) you dont really play it any differently. Its only what you think when you have time to think that is different.

[zarathustra]

'Mystery', unlike belief, is a word that is charged with power, which embodies the 'truth' about life and DEATH; it meaning is deep, a wellspring for our INSPIRATION...All the greatest works of humankind have arisen, not in the contemplation of belief, but MYSTERY...

z

[Ataraxia]

It is not preference, but accuracy, that is important. Unless you know that you can accurately decide whether or not there is an afterlife, the problem should not be approached. There should be no decision made on an insoluble problem; always leave thinking about the impossible to poor thinkers.

I'm of the opinion that the question of an afterlife can be resolved philosophically.In fact Kevin Solway does it rather neatly here with his fountain analogy.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3082

it was one of the first things I came across on joining GF and what made me decide to stick around for a while.