Why do many people think we need religion to deal with death ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I don't think we need religion to deal with death. It is better to live with and in reality then with religion which is anti reality. Does anyone agree ?

I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
Mark Twain

http://richarddawkins.net/quotes?page=2


Q: What do you think happens to you when you die?
A: Just in case there are any misconceptions about this, most serious atheists don't believe in reincarnation or spirits any more than we believe in hell. What defines "you" is what you think and feel, and how you interact with the universe. When this stops happening, you're not you anymore. So you simply stop existing.
If this idea scares you, think about all the millions of years that passed before you were born. Do you remember it? Was that scary? Interestingly enough, the fate that Christians find so inconceivable -- complete nonexistence -- is regarded by Buddhists as the best possible outcome for your life ("Nirvana").
Some people take this a step further and argue this way: "The first law of thermodynamics says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Since life is a form of energy, it must go somewhere." We don't see life as a self-contained form of energy. It's more of a process that matter and energy goes through. Some people find this idea disturbing. They really want to be around forever. We all would. But realizing that you won't be around forever makes this life seem more valuable in a way. Since you only get one shot, it's important to do the best you can to be happy and make others happy before you're done.

http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/

Christopher Hitchens - We shouldn't fear death

Uploaded by padraic2001eire (http://www.youtube.com/user/padraic2001eire)on Jan 3, 2009
Please subscribe, comment and rate.

Taken from the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza on the topic, Is Christianity The Problem, at King's College New York in 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Hi_Wtvx9I

[RedRose]

I think people like it because it provides them with a comforting feeling that after they die, something good might happen (e.g. the Christian concept of Heaven), gives them a reason to act morally aside from general not being an arseholeness ("YOU GON GO HELL BOY") and again in the Christian Heaven it's a nice concept because you meet your other relatives whove passed away, etc. It's basically just comforting to feel. Obviously though, that doesn't mean it's true.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Saying we should believe in religion because it is comforting makes no sense to me. A Doctor can tell a person who has cancer aids or a person dying of a heart attack that they are healthy because it is comforting to the person but I would rather believe in what is true then what is comforting.

[Azraella]

Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr et sama; ek veit einn, at aldri deyr: dómr of dauðan hvern.

Cattle die, kinsmen die the self must also die; I know one thing which never dies: the reputation of each dead man.

That's my religion's view of death. I am not comforted by death at all. What I'd really like is that people stop treating every religion as some sort of carbon copy of Christianity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Death, in my estimation, is another "mystery" that, given time and sufficient research in the right fields, is ultimately soluble by scientific materialism, which already tells us that living is a matter of organisation, rather than substance (i.e., vitalism is dead wrong).

What does this mean for us as mortals? It means that such things as immortality and resurrection are possible to achieve technologically, in this world, the world that we all know for sure exists because we all act that way, even the solipsists.

I know there are those who dismiss ideas such as brain uploading and cryonic preservation as folly, but have such people compared the track record of science vs religion before voicing such opinions?

[RedAtheist]

I personally cannot make myself believe anything that makes no sense. I am sick of being told that people who can are somehow better than me (that they're more 'spiritual', whatever that means.) I do not find it acceptable to ignore reality and invent a fantasy world for yourself. Beliefs effect actions. This means that they are not 'harmless'. If you do not acknowledge that a serious problem exists, it cannot be solved.

I am also annoyed when people call me intolerant for criticising religion. Examples of the following conversation are all too common in my opinion

Me: I think we should live in a socialist world
Average Person: You know socialism does not work, right? [Insert some comment about human nature/Russia]
Me: You know God and heaven aren't real, right?
Average Person: OMG, how dare you say something so offensive! You should be more tolerant/respectful.

I think religion has too much of a privileged place in our society. This could be due to people equating religion with race (when I was in eighth grade, no one in my history class seemed able to understand the difference between a Muslim and an Arab) so they think that if I'm criticising a religion, I'm attacking their race or culture.

Religion is like a business. It needs to advertise itself. Advertising revolves around creating needs where none exist. People can be moral, strong and cope with death, without belief in God. Religious people do not get to avoid the period of grieve that comes from loosing a loved one or the fear and pain that often comes when people are approaching death.

Religion should not be made illegal, but individual atheists (including socialist atheists) should not be afraid to criticise it, just because some dictators in the past have handled religion in the wrong way.

P.S. Sorry if this is too irrelevent to the discussion.

[Sputnik_1]

According to quantum physics we are all connected and the whole humanity, planet, nature etc could be imagined as a huge organism. Plus the fact that I'm stuck in 3dimensions means that I can't see it but the "end" is already there.
Religions exist only to make people accept the world the way it is, never stand up and "turn the other cheek", cause they live the illusion that if they life a certain way they will be rewarded after death. Best selling and most profitable policy ever.
I had plenty of occasions to discuss the potentiality of existence of "god" and actually lots of intelligent, not religious people do believe that there must be "something" even if it's not represented by any earth religion. I just can't see it this way, the most "poetic" thing I could take into consideration is that there is something like a universal human consciousness and it keeps evolving.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

According to quantum physics we are all connected

According to classical physics we are also "all connected", in exactly the same way. It's one of the consequences of existing in the same universe. Unless you're talking about the kind of bastardised woo-woo "quantum physics" that New Age quacks like Deepak Chopra like to drivel on about.


and the whole humanity, planet, nature etc could be imagined as a huge organism.

Not really, biospheres/planets lack one of the defining traits of organisms - the ability to reproduce.


Plus the fact that I'm stuck in 3dimensions means that I
can't see it but the "end" is already there.

Aside from the fact that we don't yet know if spacetime works that way, what are you implying with this statement?


Religions exist only to make people accept the world the way it is, never stand up and "turn the other cheek", cause they live the illusion that if they life a certain way they will be rewarded after death. Best selling and most profitable policy ever.

I think the "religion is a tool of oppression" hypothesis, while useful, is not the full story behind religion. It explains some things but not others.


I had plenty of occasions to discuss the potentiality of existence of "god" and actually lots of intelligent, not religious people do believe that there must be "something" even if it's not represented by any earth religion. I just can't see it this way, the most "poetic" thing I could take into consideration is that there is something like a universal human consciousness and it keeps evolving.

One of the things I've always wanted to ask those who say "well there must be something!" is "why must there be something?".

I've yet to receive anything approaching a coherent answer.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is an interesting topic to me because I'm not really a morbid person at all but I recently had a sort of mini-panic-attack or acid-flashback or something in which I sort of freaked myself out. It could have been because of a recent birthday and one year anniversary of a relatives death that kicked this off.

It sounds silly, but I was watching a ghost movie and I've always found ghost-stories scary while also not believing in ghosts or an afterlife. During the movie I found myself thinking, you know if I actually did see a ghost it wouldn't be scary (just seeing one, not being attacked or stalked by one which would be scary even with a living being) as much as it would be amazing and confirmation that out consciousness in some form outlasts death. Then I got stuck on obsessing over the idea of nothingness after you die (as well as Alzheimers or other conditions that can eventually cause the death of a person's personality and ego for all intents and purposes) and even after this little panicky mental feedback loop, I haven't been able to shake this chilling anxiety about death. I keep finding my mind wandering back to this and having this weird mental loop of stressing about nothingness and the idea that it doesn't matter to stress because when you die you won't care anyway but then what is the point of anything if it ultimately doesn't matter. The only thought that broke the anxiety at the time was reassuring myself that there is a point to life and it's how we enjoy it ourselves and care for those around us and try and make life better in general. But these anxieties are still with me a week or more later and it's really strange to me since I know all this already - it's not as if I just realized that everyone dies and it's not as if I haven't believed that all consciousness is gone when someone dies is the most likely afterlife for a long long time now. But I feel like a kid again who just realized these things.


Death, in my estimation, is another "mystery" that, given time and sufficient research in the right fields, is ultimately soluble by scientific materialism, which already tells us that living is a matter of organisation, rather than substance (i.e., vitalism is dead wrong).

What does this mean for us as mortals? It means that such things as immortality and resurrection are possible to achieve technologically, in this world, the world that we all know for sure exists because we all act that way, even the solipsists.

I know there are those who dismiss ideas such as brain uploading and cryonic preservation as folly, but have such people compared the track record of science vs religion before voicing such opinions?Ha, I have been thinking about this too. Of course I think the drawback for my ego-loving self is that even if you upload your consciousness, you as you know yourself will still die - another you will be born and get to be immortal... the fucker! I think uploading experience and memory and subconscious is much more likely than preserving our physical minds but since I really do love myself so much:lol:, I hope that they develop brain transplants or something so we can have immortality with individual continuity rather than having a new duplicate made. Of course that duplicate, having all your experiences and memories will not know the difference and think there is continuity, but it's still nothingness for the original you.

Maybe I should stop posting things at 5:30 AM! Or maybe I shouldn't have done as many mind-bending drugs when I was younger, it's catching up to me now. I actually had a really bad acid trip more than a decade ago which ended in a sort of sense of death and nothingness. It was like a fever breaking: after a top-notch freak-out I was cowering in my room for hours until all my anexiteies dissolved and I ceased to exist - at first everything became atoms and I was only half aware of this and then I don't know what was after that, there was just nothing and I wasn't conscious of anything at all - it's hard to explain. In reality maybe I fell asleep or passed out or went catatonic and that's how I interpreted it in my state. I wasn't conscious of this until later when I regained consciousness and a sense of self but it was really a "religious experience" that made me much less afraid of nonexistence.

So no, religion is not needed to deal with death, just loads of strong drugs. Just kidding.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some people find this idea disturbing. They really want to be around forever. We all would.


speak for yourself Chris. Existing for eternity sounds hellish to me.

in fact the entire concept of "eternity" sounds nightmarish, Heaven as much as Hell. I'm glad that everything has a beginning and an end.

[Jimmie Higgins]

speak for yourself Chris. Existing for eternity sounds hellish to me.I'd be all in favor of the ability to be pro-choice when it comes to death - if technology can free us from biological mortality, then great, you can unplug yourself or hold some powerful magnets up to your mental hard-drive, so to speak, when you feel you've had enough. Yeah eternity would probably be problematic - especially since theyn you'd have to worry about the death of the solar system and eventually the universe - but 70 years or thereabouts at best is too short if you ask me.

[CommunityBeliever]

Humans are evolved to reproduce, not to live well or for a long time. This is why death is such a problem - the lifespan we have evolved for is far too short, but now life extension technologies mean we can address this problem without religion.


we are all connected

Since we need to be connected to something to know about it, it is logically impossible to know if we are all connected one way or another.

[GatesofLenin]

Religious people work so hard to please some heavenly real estate agent that they miss living in the current real world. Sad really.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't fear death (how do you fear nothing?), but I would like not to die for a very long time, there's so much I want to do. I believe that those born in the last few decades of the twentieth century, and those born so far in this century will be able to experience lives much longer than any human who lived before them (of course, this would only apply to the rich West).

[RGacky3]

Just to be clear, the bible does'nt teach an immortal soul. Ecclesiastes 9:5, it also refers to Animals as souls (so I guess if you go to heaven so do fish), and talks about souls dying.

The concept of an immortal soul came later when platonic philosophy was mixed in with christianity.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i am glad to know that on revleft someone knows the reality of death.

[Zav]

Ha, I have been thinking about this too. Of course I think the drawback for my ego-loving self is that even if you upload your consciousness, you as you know yourself will still die - another you will be born and get to be immortal... the fucker! I think uploading experience and memory and subconscious is much more likely than preserving our physical minds but since I really do love myself so much:lol:, I hope that they develop brain transplants or something so we can have immortality with individual continuity rather than having a new duplicate made. Of course that duplicate, having all your experiences and memories will not know the difference and think there is continuity, but it's still nothingness for the original you.
The original cells that made you are long gone, however there is a continuity because dead cells are replaced, and not whole systems at once. Think of yourself as trillions of organisms that work together for survival (the body is Communist). Nanobots could be injected into the skull to slowly replace neurons (and other types of cells as well as older nanobots) when they die. If we also found a way to eliminate sleep or stay conscious while we do it, the continuity of the self could potentially never be lost. This process or a restructuring of our DNA to be more efficient and durable seem to be the best ways of indefinitely lengthening our lifespans. I think a good four or five hundred years would be good enough for me. We'd need more advanced contraception, though, and certainly legalized abortion before this technology becomes available. Hopefully the world is Communist before then. Imagine all the exploitation and damage immortal Capitalists would cause, and the many bloody wars they would fight (by that I mean make the proles fight) for the treatments.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is an interesting topic to me because I'm not really a morbid person at all but I recently had a sort of mini-panic-attack or acid-flashback or something in which I sort of freaked myself out. It could have been because of a recent birthday and one year anniversary of a relatives death that kicked this off.

It sounds silly, but I was watching a ghost movie and I've always found ghost-stories scary while also not believing in ghosts or an afterlife. During the movie I found myself thinking, you know if I actually did see a ghost it wouldn't be scary (just seeing one, not being attacked or stalked by one which would be scary even with a living being) as much as it would be amazing and confirmation that out consciousness in some form outlasts death. Then I got stuck on obsessing over the idea of nothingness after you die (as well as Alzheimers or other conditions that can eventually cause the death of a person's personality and ego for all intents and purposes) and even after this little panicky mental feedback loop, I haven't been able to shake this chilling anxiety about death. I keep finding my mind wandering back to this and having this weird mental loop of stressing about nothingness and the idea that it doesn't matter to stress because when you die you won't care anyway but then what is the point of anything if it ultimately doesn't matter. The only thought that broke the anxiety at the time was reassuring myself that there is a point to life and it's how we enjoy it ourselves and care for those around us and try and make life better in general. But these anxieties are still with me a week or more later and it's really strange to me since I know all this already - it's not as if I just realized that everyone dies and it's not as if I haven't believed that all consciousness is gone when someone dies is the most likely afterlife for a long long time now. But I feel like a kid again who just realized these things.

Epicurus supposedly said something that resounded strongly with me: "When we exist death is not, and when death exists we are not".

Of course, I still don't like the prospect of nonexistence as a person, but that phrase really cemented in my mind the importance of not being overly bothered by impending oblivion.


Ha, I have been thinking about this too. Of course I think the drawback for my ego-loving self is that even if you upload your consciousness, you as you know yourself will still die - another you will be born and get to be immortal... the fucker!

Not necessarily. Ever heard of the Ship of Theseus? My understanding is that it is possible for consciousness during uploading to be preserved all throughout the process, much like the Ship of Theseus is a single ship despite not having an original splinter at the end of the epic voyage.


I think uploading experience and memory and subconscious is much more likely than preserving our physical minds but since I really do love myself so much:lol:, I hope that they develop brain transplants or something so we can have immortality with individual continuity rather than having a new duplicate made. Of course that duplicate, having all your experiences and memories will not know the difference and think there is continuity, but it's still nothingness for the original you.

To be honest, if all my constituent particles were to suddenly disappear now and then re-appear in the exact same state 500 years later, I don't think I would notice anything apart from the time-slip.

After all, if human consciousness is a product of brains and nothing else, why would I notice? I am my mind, and my mind and my brain are synonymous, at least as far as modern science can tell. Therefore "I" am my brain, and if that at the least is preserved then so am I.


Maybe I should stop posting things at 5:30 AM! Or maybe I shouldn't have done as many mind-bending drugs when I was younger, it's catching up to me now. I actually had a really bad acid trip more than a decade ago which ended in a sort of sense of death and nothingness. It was like a fever breaking: after a top-notch freak-out I was cowering in my room for hours until all my anexiteies dissolved and I ceased to exist - at first everything became atoms and I was only half aware of this and then I don't know what was after that, there was just nothing and I wasn't conscious of anything at all - it's hard to explain. In reality maybe I fell asleep or passed out or went catatonic and that's how I interpreted it in my state. I wasn't conscious of this until later when I regained consciousness and a sense of self but it was really a "religious experience" that made me much less afraid of nonexistence.

Well, the last time I took acid I got overwhelming feelings of cosmic knowledge, such that I couldn't stop laughing. I took extreme joy in the thought that the universe was ultimately knowable. It was the closest to a "religious" experience that I have ever had.


So no, religion is not needed to deal with death, just loads of strong drugs. Just kidding.

I can't be asked to look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading something where LSD was used in a medical setting for palliative care of cancer patients and others facing impending death.

[RGacky3]

Not necessarily. Ever heard of the Ship of Theseus? My understanding is that it is possible for consciousness during uploading to be preserved all throughout the process, much like the Ship of Theseus is a single ship despite not having an original splinter at the end of the epic voyage.


Problem is the ship of theseus does'nt have consciousness and a sense of "I" and continuity.


After all, if human consciousness is a product of brains and nothing else, why would I notice? I am my mind, and my mind and my brain are synonymous, at least as far as modern science can tell. Therefore "I" am my brain, and if that at the least is preserved then so am I.


See thats the question, is the "I" produced by the brain? or is it the brain, or is the "I" something that works the brain. Obviously there is an extremely strong corrolation to the I and the brain if they are not identicle.

However the whole concept of an "I" could be an evolutionary illusion, for example the fact that we see objects made up of parts could be an evolutionary illusion, or the lesser illusion of innate morality, or the fact that we see space and time as 2 seperate and non-contingent things (whereas relativity theory says they are the same), or the fact that our observation of things is totally different of what quantum physics tells us things actually are.

The same could be the case with our consciousness, that the "I" and continuity of the "I" is a totaly illusion that we have that searves an evolutionary purpose. if that were the case then your theory that if all your cells dissapeared and then reappeared 500 years later you would be the same person other than the time gap would be true, I tend to agree with you.

The only problem with that is our experience, but I think that old school pure empiricism has given way to a kind of new light rationalism when it comes to philisophical issues and the philosophy of science.

[dodger]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X/ref=cm_rdp_product

The pain of bereavement the sense of loss. Never to see a loved one again. That is a powerful trigger, reason enough to construct another world whereby one might be reunited.Any religion promising that in the small print, might stand a chance of gaining followers.

[Nox]

I'll probably convert on my deathbed, just incase...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Problem is the ship of theseus does'nt have consciousness and a sense of "I" and continuity.

So? Both and I and the ship are material objects with a certain properties. How are the properties of "water-based transportation" and "apparent self-awareness" different in material terms?


See thats the question, is the "I" produced by the brain? or is it the brain, or is the "I" something that works the brain. Obviously there is an extremely strong corrolation to the I and the brain if they are not identicle.

Where else is the locus of consciousness but the brain? The liver?


However the whole concept of an "I" could be an evolutionary illusion, for example the fact that we see objects made up of parts could be an evolutionary illusion, or the lesser illusion of innate morality, or the fact that we see space and time as 2 seperate and non-contingent things (whereas relativity theory says they are the same), or the fact that our observation of things is totally different of what quantum physics tells us things actually are.

The same could be the case with our consciousness, that the "I" and continuity of the "I" is a totaly illusion that we have that searves an evolutionary purpose. if that were the case then your theory that if all your cells dissapeared and then reappeared 500 years later you would be the same person other than the time gap would be true, I tend to agree with you.

The only problem with that is our experience, but I think that old school pure empiricism has given way to a kind of new light rationalism when it comes to philisophical issues and the philosophy of science.

I don't see how it is useful to address the issue of consciousness in a manner other than empirical.

[Rafiq]

I don't think a lot of people realize our brains are not so different from computers in regards to how "magical" they are.

A human and a rock are not so different.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'll probably convert on my deathbed, just incase...

Coward :tt2:


A human and a rock are not so different.

I think both computers and humans are a tiny bit more complex than a stone.

[Rafiq]

I think both computers and humans are a tiny bit more complex than a stone.

Of course but on a larger, geographic scale humans are not an exception in regards to the rest of the material world.

[RGacky3]

So? Both and I and the ship are material objects with a certain properties. How are the properties of "water-based transportation" and "apparent self-awareness" different in material terms?


The mind is not a material object, it does'nt have physical properties, just like music is'nt a physical object, they are both results of physical objects and phenomenon.

The brain is'nt sad or angry, or happy, the I is, now you can reduce all of these things to activity in the brain, sure.


Where else is the locus of consciousness but the brain? The liver?


... Obviously the brain, I never said anything different.


I don't see how it is useful to address the issue of consciousness in a manner other than empirical.

Mathematical models ...?

We have 100% corrolation between the brain and mental phenomenon, but that does'nt fix the problem of the "I."

What if they made an exact replica of your brain, which one of you would be you?

I think Daniel Dennets idea of consciousness being an illusion is probably the right one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The mind is not a material object, it does'nt have physical properties, just like music is'nt a physical object, they are both results of physical objects and phenomenon.

But both mind and music are contingent on there being material objects to produce them.


The brain is'nt sad or angry, or happy, the I is, now you can reduce all of these things to activity in the brain, sure.

People who have limbs amputated can still feel as though they have a limb. There are also those with conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernumerary_phantom_limb) of the brain/nervous system where the patient can feel an extra limb.

If something as basic as proprioception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception) can still function even in the absence of the specified body part, then that strongly suggests the brain as the locus of such functions, including emotions.

I find it generally helpful to consider the relationship between mind and brain to be somewhat analogous to the relationship between software and and hardware. Software cannot exist without hardware to support it.


... Obviously the brain, I never said anything different.

So therefore you know the answer to "is the "I" produced by the brain?".


Mathematical models ...?

Models are useless without data.


We have 100% corrolation between the brain and mental phenomenon, but that does'nt fix the problem of the "I."

What problem?


What if they made an exact replica of your brain, which one of you would be you?

I would be, as I would not be a product of some artificial duplication process. As soon as my replica is conscious, there will be a highly similar (but increasingly divergent due to different circumstances) individual as myself, but it wouldn't be myself. He would be himself.


I think Daniel Dennets idea of consciousness being an illusion is probably the right one.

Dennett has a lot of good ideas, but I'm skeptical as to how he can maintain room for free will in his models of consciousness. Not that I'm particularly attached to the concept of free will (it seems incoherent to me), but I believe Dennett is a "compatiblist".

[RGacky3]

But both mind and music are contingent on there being material objects to produce them.



Absolutely


People who have limbs amputated can still feel as though they have a limb. There are also those with conditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernumerary_phantom_limb) of the brain/nervous system where the patient can feel an extra limb.

If something as basic as proprioception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception) can still function even in the absence of the specified body part, then that strongly suggests the brain as the locus of such functions, including emotions.

I find it generally helpful to consider the relationship between mind and brain to be somewhat analogous to the relationship between software and and hardware. Software cannot exist without hardware to support it.


I understand, but the problem is the mind is created 100% by the brain, its not put into the brain the way software is put onto a computer, so if the brain dissapears and the reappears, the mind it would create may not be "you." It may be a different person with the same memories and everything.


So therefore you know the answer to "is the "I" produced by the brain?".


yeah.


Models are useless without data.


Oh sure, but many times the outcomes cannot be tested, or observed, i.e. a lot of quantom physics.


What problem?


The ship of Tarsus problem as applied to the mind and the sense of "I."


I would be, as I would not be a product of some artificial duplication process. As soon as my replica is conscious, there will be a highly similar (but increasingly divergent due to different circumstances) individual as myself, but it wouldn't be myself. He would be himself.


Yeah, so if your brain dissapeared then re-apeared 500 years later, would'nt it be a different person?


Dennett has a lot of good ideas, but I'm skeptical as to how he can maintain room for free will in his models of consciousness. Not that I'm particularly attached to the concept of free will (it seems incoherent to me), but I believe Dennett is a "compatiblist".

Dennett's argument for free will in a materialist concept of the mind or the mind as an illusoin is pretty weak imo. Because he is saying "I" have the ability to choose even though "I" is an illusion.

[Astarte]

I think the reason why spirituality is comforting at the time of death is because when a person dies it is an extremely monist experience in which everything outside your own consciousness ceases to exist.

I believe that when science does unlock the secrets of death the laws they discover will ring strangely similar to the idea of the ultimate indestructibility of consciousness.

Also, there are two types of "spiritual" people.

There are the dogmatists, who dogmatically hold to their own particular religious doctrine and must challenge any new and exotic spiritual mode as an enemy at the gates of their mind - these are the people who "work so hard to please some heavenly real estate agent", although, the most fundamentalist and orthodox of these types, you will find, actually have some quite real world material "real estate" involved in their underlying decisions to take a dogmatic religionist route in the first place.

Then there are spiritual freethinkers, who hold no spiritual dogma except for what they have experienced subjectively as spiritual truth. Spiritual freethinkers are open to exotic ideas about spirituality since their quest is a quest for spiritual truth - that is they don't try to fit their spiritual experiences and notion into preconceived Procrustean beds because they know by doing this they are only self-sabotaging their own spiritual development.

But yeah, I think people look to spirituality at the time of death and not so much religion, as religion is a situation of humans interpreting the divine for other humans whereas spirituality encourages critical self-contemplation with the goal of self-realization.

[Revolution starts with U]

The mind is not a material object, it does'nt have physical properties, just like music is'nt a physical object, they are both results of physical objects and phenomenon.

Electrical impulses are material objects; matter is energy and energy is matter. You know, relativity theory and all that...



I think the reason why spirituality is comforting at the time of death is because when a person dies it is an extremely monist experience in which everything outside your own consciousness ceases to exist.

I believe that when science does unlock the secrets of death the laws they discover will ring strangely similar to the idea of the ultimate indestructibility of consciousness.

Also, there are two types of "spiritual" people.

There are the dogmatists, who dogmatically hold to their own particular religious doctrine and must challenge any new and exotic spiritual mode as an enemy at the gates of their mind - these are the people who "work so hard to please some heavenly real estate agent", although, the most fundamentalist and orthodox of these types, you will find, actually have some quite real world material "real estate" involved in their underlying decisions to take a dogmatic religionist route in the first place.

Then there are spiritual freethinkers, who hold no spiritual dogma except for what they have experienced subjectively as spiritual truth. Spiritual freethinkers are open to exotic ideas about spirituality since their quest is a quest for spiritual truth - that is they don't try to fit their spiritual experiences and notion into preconceived Procrustean beds because they know by doing this they are only self-sabotaging their own spiritual development.

But yeah, I think people look to spirituality at the time of death and not so much religion, as religion is a situation of humans interpreting the divine for other humans whereas spirituality encourages critical self-contemplation with the goal of self-realization.
I'm sure you conveniently place yourself in the latter category :rolleyes:
You've already said it; you already think science will back up your preconcieved ideas about spirit and consciousness. You have your dogma too. Your just a tad more liberal about it than some.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I understand, but the problem is the mind is created 100% by the brain, its not put into the brain the way software is put onto a computer, so if the brain dissapears and the reappears, the mind it would create may not be "you." It may be a different person with the same memories and everything.

Why would it be different?


Oh sure, but many times the outcomes cannot be tested, or observed, i.e. a lot of quantom physics.

Really? I'm pretty sure quantum physicists make just as much use out of observation and experimentation as other scientists.


The ship of Tarsus problem as applied to the mind and the sense of "I."

You'll have to be a bit more specific than that.

Given that minds arise from brains, then it seems likely that as the brain changes, either through natural development or gradual conversion into a robotic or software form, the mind will change along with it.

But I don't see how this is any more of a problem than the fact that I was a different person 20 years ago.


Yeah, so if your brain dissapeared then re-apeared 500 years later, would'nt it be a different person?

Why should it? I stipulated that it reappeared in the exact same state as it disappeared in - from that particular brain's point of view, absolutely nothing has happened in the intervening 5 centuries.

In your example of duplication, there are two very similar viewpoints existing concurrently, which is the source of the divergence.

[eyeheartlenin]

This a question for the Lady Catherine:


Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjálfr et sama; ek veit einn, at aldri deyr: dómr of dauðan hvern.

Cattle die, kinsmen die the self must also die; I know one thing which never dies: the reputation of each dead man.

Nearly four decades ago, I was in Iceland for over a year, saw Gullfoss, saw a glacier, saw the original geyser (which is apparently Icelandic for "gusher"), saw a bedraggled polar bear (in a zoo) and took some Icelandic. I would just be interested to know what language the quotation is in and where the quotation comes from. Is it from one of the Eddas (or should I say Eddur, which, I just found out, is the plural -- thanks, wikipedia.org)?

Thanks in advance!

[eyeheartlenin]

As I grow older, I find myself increasingly drawn to the position taken by the Unitarians (many of whom, in my experience, are practical atheists, which is fine, I believe in the First Amendment), that death is not something to be feared. It is probably obvious that a fear of death could blight someone's life, which would be an awful thing to happen.

A couple of years ago, I got hit by a car, while I was crossing a big intersection underneath a red light. Fortunately, I fell forward, onto the hood of the car that hit me. All the while, I was thinking, "Wow! This is how my life ends. It's gonna be really interesting to find out what comes next." Then I realized I was still alive. :)

[RedAtheist]

I'm sure you conveniently place yourself in the latter category :rolleyes:
You've already said it; you already think science will back up your preconcieved ideas about spirit and consciousness. You have your dogma too. Your just a tad more liberal about it than some.

Plus, I doubt that the person who posted that would say that he or she is 'open' to the idea that the world is purely material. In my experience 'spiritual' people often dismiss the sceptic's viewpoint right away, call us closed minded for wanting evidence and not seeing the value of 'just having faith', then brag about how nothing can convince them that the 'spiritual' presence does not exist, because the belief has made them a better person. Then again, this is just my experience. If you call yourself 'spiritual' and what I said is not true of you, then ignore it. If what I said is true of you, please quit calling yourself open-minded, since you are only open to certain types of philosophies.

I apologise if I sound angry, but I feel that society views people who dismiss the supernatural as inferior (less open-minded, less 'spiritual', lacking moralty, lacking wisdom, lacking humbleness, etc.) I would like to see this change.

[Azraella]

This a question for the Lady Catherine:



Nearly four decades ago, I was in Iceland for over a year, saw Gullfoss, saw a glacier, saw the original geyser (which is apparently Icelandic for "gusher"), saw a bedraggled polar bear (in a zoo) and took some Icelandic. I would just be interested to know what language the quotation is in and where the quotation comes from. Is it from one of the Eddas (or should I say Eddur, which, I just found out, is the plural -- thanks, wikipedia.org)?

Thanks in advance!


It's in old Norse and is from the Havamal :)

[RGacky3]

Why would it be different?


If you send a Fax, and destroy the origional its a different document.


In your example of duplication, there are two very similar viewpoints existing concurrently, which is the source of the divergence.

Good point. So do you agree with Daniel Dennets idea that consicousness is an illusion? Or ....?

[NineOneFour]

I recently lost some family members in 2011, and I have to say, the LACK of belief and LACK of religion in my life kept me sane.

If they just died because their bodies wore out or because they randomly got selected for a disease, then fine.

The real craziness for me is believing that some deity was punishing them for unknown crimes or that all that was some sort of sick, twisted test directed at me.

I can't imagine thinking that any deity would think I am that significant to bother with constructing a test for me for any reason.

Honestly, it's hard for me these days to even understand theist thinking along those lines.