Atheists/Agnostics & Death

[Eudaimonist]

I once posted the age old question, 'Why is there something instead of nothing?'. One answer I received was, '...because nothing is not the default state.' It is a good answer!

So let's assume as axiom1- Nothing is not the default state.

Next question. What happens after death?

You cease to exist. Effectively becoming nothing.

But what about axiom 1?

Those are two completely different issues. "You" are an emergent phenomenon, which means that you as a human individual can cease to exist through a breakdown of function. The materials of which you are composed remain, but the activity of life is lost.

"Something (at all existing)" is not specifically an emergent phenomenon, and has nothing necessarily to do with any deeper function or activity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Being scientific for a moment, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, maybe it is transferred to something else.

Somewhere...else?

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but we aren't merely "energy".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Albion]

Atheism is more along the lines of belief, whereas agnosticism is about knowledge. In that case, it could very well be said that since none of us have the knowledge, or ENOUGH knowledge either way to definitively believe that a god exists or not, we could all be agnostic. lol

I said could.

That is a reasonable perspective, I agree.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You see, I think that defines an Agnostic, not an Atheist.


It's not that. In this case as with others, I feel it best to go with the dictionary definition of words. Precision in language seems to be important to me. However, I now know that there are a variety of terms used by self-described Atheists in order to make distinctions they think are necessary.

If you care about precision in language, then the dictionary alone is not sufficient.

 

[Albion]

If you care about precision in language, then the dictionary alone is not sufficient.

I'd say it is--if the point is to use standard language. If the intention is to account for every bit of slang or every colloquialism, of course that wouldn't be so. It also wouldn't be possible...not and carry on a normal conversation here. We see an example of that every time posters of different churches go at each other ("Your denomination teaches...." "No! We don't consider ourselves to be a denomination, so you can't call us that. etc.")

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'd say it is--if the point is to use standard language. If the intention is to account for every bit of slang or every colloquialism, of course that wouldn't be so. It also wouldn't be possible...not and carry on a normal conversation.

Since when is "standard language" ever precise? If precision is the aim, then the dictionary alone won't be enough. It might be a useful starting point, but that's all it is - a starting point. It provides a broad definition, glossing over the nuances.

 

[Albion]

Since when is "standard language" ever precise? If precision is the aim, then the dictionary alone won't be enough. It might be a useful starting point, but that's all it is - a starting point. It provides a broad definition, glossing over the nuances.

I disagree.

Do you see any nuances or 'glossing' in that statement?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I disagree.

Do you see any nuances or 'glossing' in that statement?

Just a lack of wisdom unfortunately.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Those are two completely different issues. "You" are an emergent phenomenon, which means that you as a human individual can cease to exist through a breakdown of function. The materials of which you are composed remain, but the activity of life is lost.

"Something (at all existing)" is not specifically an emergent phenomenon, and has nothing necessarily to do with any deeper function or activity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I was trying to consider the first person perspective rather than a universal one. But perhaps that is not valid.

 

[Albion]

Just a lack of wisdom unfortunately.

I'm always saddened when posters can't kid around a little without one side bringing out the fangs.

You have a nice day, hear?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm always saddened when posters can't kid around a little without one side bringing out the fangs.

You have a nice day, hear?

It's night here. I didn't mean to "bring out the fangs." I just think that precision is relative and therefore not guaranteed by the dictionary. There's also the fact that the dictionary is written for a general audience, and is therefore likely to reflect the typical usage of a word, which may or may not be accurate in differing contexts.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's impossible for the rejection of God to be out of reason, because there is no reason that proposes the universe could have come from anything else.

There's no reason to think it came from god(s) either, so it isn't as if there's an alternative that people are willfully avoiding. Sometimes you just have to admit that you don't know and move on.

 

[KCfromNC]

Atheism is more along the lines of belief, whereas agnosticism is about knowledge. In that case, it could very well be said that since none of us have the knowledge, or ENOUGH knowledge either way to definitively believe that a god exists or not, we could all be agnostic.

Since humans are fallible, though, shouldn't this sort of extreme skepticism apply to every possible proposition rather than just being limited to god(s)? But how often do you find people who pick nits about atheism vs. agnosticism applying the same sort of arguments towards their lack of belief in unicorns or Santa. There seems to be some special pleading going on when it comes to god(s) they have an emotional attachment to rather than a legitimate issue with pure epistemological issues.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

There's no reason to think it came from god(s) either, so it isn't as if there's an alternative that people are willfully avoiding. Sometimes you just have to admit that you don't know and move on.

The 'extraordinary claim' is not that God exists, but that He doesn't. An idea that the universe came from nothing is frankly radical, because it has no backbone that the belief in God has.

Not a single shred of evidence has supported the rejection of God. But nonetheless, He is routinely rejected by specious reasoning and even in your post, using 'god(s)' as to trivialize it even more.
These things are nothing more than a rejection of depth, insightful intuition, rationale, and observation. There's a strong metaphysical ideology that there couldn't possibly be multiple gods because if they were co-equal, they wouldn't be able to operate any other way than as a single principle.

But atheists don't think about these things, because their agenda is clear.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but we aren't merely "energy".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Isn't the universe completely made up of energy? According to Special Relativity, even matter comes from energy.

E=MC^2

since C^2 is a constant indicating scale one could see it as

E=M -- Matter is energy.

 

[quatona]

I'd say it is--if the point is to use standard language. If the intention is to account for every bit of slang or every colloquialism, of course that wouldn't be so.

Well, if an estimated 90% (and that´s a defensive estimation) of self-professing atheists use the word that way, that´s not "every bit of slang or every colloquialism". One would have to wonder why you´d insist on addressing a position pretty much no one here holds, instead of addressing the positions your conversation partners do hold.

On another note, a dictionary isn´t authoritative. It´s documenting the way in which words are used. Which means it always tends to be a bit behind.

 

[DaisyDay]

However, I now know that there are a variety of terms used by self-described Atheists in order to make distinctions they think are necessary.

I think they have the right to make distinctions when discussing their own beliefs.

 

[Albion]

I think they have the right to make distinctions when discussing their own beliefs.

Well, that really isn't the issue, though.

 

[Cute Tink]

The question of God, an allegence to our creator or the decision to forsake him.

I simply acknowledged I had no reason to believe in Him. If you want to call that "forsaken" then okay.

You are missing a lot of people in this scenario - those who believe in a different creator or creators and those who have no made up their minds.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd say it is--if the point is to use standard language.

A quick Google on "atheist definition" shows this:

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That happens to be a good definition, but you'll notice how dictionaries can differ.


eudaimonia,

Mark