The God Band-Aid

Mitch
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
The God Band-Aid

    Alright, now that I've welcomed myself to the forum, I'd like to ask a question.  Suppose you know rationally that God, heaven, etc, are figments of the imagination brought on by how you were raised or influenced by others.  Also suppose that you can be reasonably concrete in your rationality because you observe historical and scientific evidence to draw your conclusions.  Nevertheless, you harbor a fear of the 'afterlife' - or more to the point - a fear of death, because you fear consequence.  Moreover, you fear that if you are correct in your rational genius, the death of a loved one means eternal separation from them.  In my experience, the natural human course is to turn to God in times like those.  

Is that proof that in our 'souls' we know there is an everliving God, and 'feel' his presence?  Or is this the product left-overs from fear being instilled in the mind for years?  If it's the former, how do you rationalize it, and if it's the latter, how do you bear it?

What's no doubt been discussed already, is origin.  I, again like Kelly indicated in a video, compartmentalize my rationality.  I am rational 99% of the time, until a crisis like that mentioned above takes place.  But equally as rational is the argument that even the universe had to have a source.  I think it's irrational to assume that the universe has always existed.  Even if we trace it all the way back to the big bang, as some cosmologists suggest took place, we still are left with some material that came from nowhere, and the space it occupied, which also came from nowhere.  Stephen Hawking has suggested that because time, as we know it, began at the big bang, then nothing which took place before the big bang could possibly have an effect on the evolution of the current universe (or multiverse if you beat to that drum), and therefore we can ignore it.  He goes on to say that all scientific data available cannot disprove the existence of God, but only put a timeline on when he might have completed his work.

I also understand that we are nothing in the scheme of the universe.  Earth, making it's way around the sun, which in turn makes it's helical orbit around the Milky Way, which in turn is red-shifting away from all other galaxies as the universe expands (research doppler effect), is a very small grain of blue-green sand indeed.  The possibility of life beyond our planet is very probable.  So perhaps "religion" as it is defined here on earth, has in fact, been created by mankind in times before men understood science - or as a method of behavior control.  But is it not equally probable then, that there was (or is) a creator, but to whom the earth means very little, and perhaps has no stake whatsoever in mankind?

Going back to the initial question then; Wouldn't it be possible to have a soul - not as defined by our concocted religions - but perhaps more in the 'Newton's thermodynamic laws' sense.  We can't create or destroy energy, so says the law until proven otherwise, so maybe the electrochemical energy we facilitate while alive does change in form and continue on....

....please discuss. 

 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Ignorance about origin does

Ignorance about origin does not increse the credibility of supernatural creator, it only means that we are ignorant.

Our energy does go on of course, but that does not mean that it carries any memories or impression of us with it.

We can't put God on par with scientific theory because the theory has at least a % chance of being true according to the information that formed it, even if it's a small % chance.  But saying that we don't know the answer doesn't put a supernatural power on equal par with scientific theory because it is baseless and the only reason you want to put it on par is because we don't have more certainty.

I can't stress enough that our ignorance does not increase the chance of a supernatural power, it only means that we don't yet know but someday may. 


Mitch
Posts: 4
Joined: 2008-01-19
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: and the

Tarpan wrote:

and the only reason you want to put it on par is because we don't have more certainty.

 

I don't want to put a creator on par with scientific theory.  I want to explore other opinions and ideas.  Don't think I am a theist in disguise.  That is not the case.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Mitch wrote:

Mitch wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

and the only reason you want to put it on par is because we don't have more certainty.

 

I don't want to put a creator on par with scientific theory. I want to explore other opinions and ideas. Don't think I am a theist in disguise. That is not the case.

I actually didn't intend to use the word "you" so much as "one".

I just don't believe, without the historical context of people wanting to believe in fairy tale creatures, there would be any reason why one would jump to explore that as an option.

I put that on par with seeing a cookie on the table, not knowing how it got there. Your options become "my kid put it there" or "my wife put it there" or, just to explore options "a fairy flew in through the window and shat out the cookie onto the table". We know that there are 2 other people in the house, why would you even give a consideration to option #3? You can't, within the confines of the moment and without further investigation, disprove that it is what happened but that is not a reason to consider it a valid option.

The only logical thing to do in this case is to admit ignorance and do further investigation.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Mitch wrote:   

Mitch wrote:

    Alright, now that I've welcomed myself to the forum, I'd like to ask a question.  Suppose you know rationally that God, heaven, etc, are figments of the imagination brought on by how you were raised or influenced by others.  Also suppose that you can be reasonably concrete in your rationality because you observe historical and scientific evidence to draw your conclusions.  Nevertheless, you harbor a fear of the 'afterlife' - or more to the point - a fear of death, because you fear consequence.  Moreover, you fear that if you are correct in your rational genius, the death of a loved one means eternal separation from them.  In my experience, the natural human course is to turn to God in times like those.  

I don't fear any "afterlife".  I was raised to believe wholeheartedly in the bible.  My mother had a song that included every book of the bible and would sing it to me every night.  As a child I trembled at the thought of hell.

I thought seriously about religion and god for most of my 20's.

And it doesn't make much sense.  Moreso, even if god does exist this whole concept of eternal damnation in hell if you don't accept jesus?  Pbbbhhhttt.

It's retarded.

Why does god have to put you in hell for an eternity?  Why can't god forgive sin even if you didn't believe in him?  Why did god have to sacrifice his only begotten son to save humans?

Any answer to try and rationalize any of those questions is immediately going to place limitations on a supposedly "all-powerful" god.

That's ridiculous.  What is limiting god?  This whole idea of god is obviously poorly thought out fiction.

I have no fear of hell.  Never going to happen.  It's bunk.  I don't fear being dead either.

A painful death?  Well that would suck.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Mitch wrote: [...] Suppose

Mitch wrote:
[...] Suppose you know rationally that God, heaven, etc, are figments of the imagination brought on by how you were raised or influenced by others.  Also suppose that you can be reasonably concrete in your rationality because you observe historical and scientific evidence to draw your conclusions.

I don't understand the premise. Do I have actual data that excludes the possibility of an afterlife and gods, or am I making a logical or probabilistic case based on all theological claims I've been exposed to (the latter being the only possibility I can think of)?

Mitch wrote:
Nevertheless, you harbor a fear of the 'afterlife' - or more to the point - a fear of death, because you fear consequence.

Define consequence. Is death the consequence itself (ceasing to exist as an agency), or are you begging the question for an afterlife?

Mitch wrote:
Moreover, you fear that if you are correct in your rational genius, the death of a loved one means eternal separation from them.

Technically, a separation would no longer be possible, as there would not be two points.

Mitch wrote:
In my experience, the natural human course is to turn to God in times like those.

I'm leaning ignostic/noncognativist, so not so much.

Mitch wrote:
Is that proof that in our 'souls' we know there is an everliving God, and 'feel' his presence?

It's an appeal to emotion fallacy. Emotions demonstrate feelings, not evidentiary claims.

Mitch wrote:
Or is this the product left-overs from fear being instilled in the mind for years?  If it's the former, how do you rationalize it, and if it's the latter, how do you bear it?

The former sounds like what Dennett describes as agency detection, which you can probably find referenced online somewhere. The latter, I don't understand.

Mitch wrote:
What's no doubt been discussed already, is origin.  I, again like Kelly indicated in a video, compartmentalize my rationality.  I am rational 99% of the time, until a crisis like that mentioned above takes place.

OK. It depends on the value you place on empiricism. Appeals to emotion aren't applicable by evidentiary standards, but life isn't lived by those standards at all times. I can't account for what your belief exercise means to you, but it doesn't prove anything to me.

Mitch wrote:
But equally as rational is the argument that even the universe had to have a source.  I think it's irrational to assume that the universe has always existed.  Even if we trace it all the way back to the big bang, as some cosmologists suggest took place, we still are left with some material that came from nowhere, and the space it occupied, which also came from nowhere.  Stephen Hawking has suggested that because time, as we know it, began at the big bang, then nothing which took place before the big bang could possibly have an effect on the evolution of the current universe (or multiverse if you beat to that drum), and therefore we can ignore it.  He goes on to say that all scientific data available cannot disprove the existence of God, but only put a timeline on when he might have completed his work.

Creation myths tend not to even describe the universe as we understand it today, so claims that they account for its creation are at best superficial, and too vague to be useful. Further, it's a false dichotomy and appeal to ignorance to say that a lack of information leaves the answer to default to a familiar, but totally unsubstantiated answer. If there's a case for a universe-creating agency, it has to be made on its own.

Mitch wrote:
I also understand that we are nothing in the scheme of the universe.

In what way? What is "something" to the universe? By what criteria?

Mitch wrote:
Earth, making it's way around the sun, which in turn makes it's helical orbit around the Milky Way, which in turn is red-shifting away from all other galaxies as the universe expands (research doppler effect), is a very small grain of blue-green sand indeed.  The possibility of life beyond our planet is very probable.  So perhaps "religion" as it is defined here on earth, has in fact, been created by mankind in times before men understood science - or as a method of behavior control.  But is it not equally probable then, that there was (or is) a creator, but to whom the earth means very little, and perhaps has no stake whatsoever in mankind?

That's also a false dichotomy. Either is a case that would need to be made on its own.

Mitch wrote:
Going back to the initial question then; Wouldn't it be possible to have a soul - not as defined by our concocted religions - but perhaps more in the 'Newton's thermodynamic laws' sense.  We can't create or destroy energy, so says the law until proven otherwise, so maybe the electrochemical energy we facilitate while alive does change in form and continue on....

....please discuss.

The case for dualism has not been made, so far as I can tell.


QuasarX
QuasarX's picture
Posts: 242
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums

Welcome to the forums Mitch. Could you please post a link to the video that led you here? My dad also seems to compartmentalize his rationality, and I'd like to send it to him.

Now then, as to the issues you brought up... yes, there could be souls that exist as a natural part of who we are. Of course, just because there could be doesn't mean that there are... but since you expressed an interest in exploring other opinions and ideas (an activity I strongly encourage), I invite you to join this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/10469

For the creation of the universe, why does the universe have to have a beginning? It's easily provable that if anything exists, either something must have always existed, or it must be possible for something to begin to exist without being created by something else. Since we exist, we know that one of those two possibilities must be true, so why shouldn't the something be the universe? And if the universe did have a source, what source did that source have? And what source did its source's source have? And what source did its source's source's source have? Continue that line of inquiry long enough, and you have to ask what's the beginning of this sequence of sources? There must be a first one unless it's possible for something to not have a beginning, right? And whichever first source you pick will have the same dilemma of where it came from as the universe does.

[Edit: For this next paragraph only I use universe to mean matter/energy arranged in a pattern that we think of as the universe, with floating galaxies, etc. In all other paragraphs in this post, I use universe to mean all of matter/energy and space/time, regardless of what arrangement it happens to be in. Unfortunately, I don't have 2 different terms to use here.]

As for the big bang, try this simple exercise... the universe is expanding now as time moves forward, so imagine time moving backward... the universe would appear to be contracting. Eventually, the universe would appear to be contracting very quickly, until all of the matter collided into a relatively small amount of space. Subatomic particles would be pressed closer and closer to each other, until eventually all of the kinetic energy of the colliding mass would be converted to potential energy from the extremely compacted subatomic particles pushing against each other. And, as time continued to roll backwards, the potential energy would be converted to kinetic energy as all of that matter appeared to be pushed outward in what would appear to be a big bang. So, it's reasonable to think that the big bang could have been preceded by the collapsing of a previous universe... which could have been created by a previous big bang... which could have been preceded by the colapsing of a previous universe....

As for fear... it's just something you have to learn to let go of. Start by looking for what idea the fear is tied to.

Fear of being wrong and being punished for it after you die? Either keep learning reasons why Christianity isn't a reliable source of truth until you no longer have any trace of belief that it might be true and you might go to hell, or decide that you have enough reason to not be a Christian anymore that you don't care if you're wrong. The former might take a while, so be patient with it... and for an example of the latter, see my post in this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/12066

Fear of being separated from loved ones that have died? Well... the best you can do for this, I think, is to make the most of the time you have with them before they die and then treasure the memories once they're gone. And if you're worried about all your loved ones dying... just keep finding new people to love so that you always have someone.

As for trying to assign a probability to whether or not the universe was created by someone, don't fall into the trap of thinking that probability actually represents the likelyhood of an event. Probability is just a branch of mathematics that was invented to help with gambling. It's doesn't address how likely an event is at all, it just addresses how likely an event seems to be based on our limited knowledge. If a coin toss is going to end up heads, it will end up heads with a 100% chance regardless of having only a 50% chance predicted of it ending up heads.

For example, I'm told there used to be a game show where a prize was hidden behind one of three doors. A contestant would pick a door... and he had a 33% chance of picking the door with the prize. Then, the game show host would open one of the doors he didn't pick, and the player would be given an opportunity to change his guess. Now there are 2 doors, 1 of which has a prize, and he doesn't know which door has the prize... so most players took it to be a 50% chance at that point. But, there was a key difference... the doors were not the same because the player knew which door he picked first. So, knowing that, if he changes his guess he improves his odds to 67%. If, alternately, he knew where the prize was in advance, he could pick it with 100% certainty. The probability of his picking the right door had nothing to do with where the prize was and everything to do with how much he knew about where the prize could be.

So, that aside, yes for all we know there could be a creator of the universe. But, is there any way we can learn about such a creator if it exists? We can examine a religion, find rational inconsistencies and claims which are disproved by scientific discoveries. We can then determine that the teachings of the religion cannot be relied upon as truth. If we can't find any reason to believe in a creator other than the teachings of that religion, then why should we believe? Moreover, if such a creator did exist, and had so little interest in us so as to not make his presence known, then why should that creator's existence matter to us in any way?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Mitch, sorry man, we had to

Mitch, sorry man, we had to ditch your avatar.  It was over 3 megs and caused a strobing glitch in some browsers.  That strobing glitch could cause certain types of people to slip into a seizure. 

Pick an avatar less than .5 mb and less than 153x190 and re-upload.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I wrote an essay just for

I wrote an essay just for you.

(Ok.  I don't know you, but I wrote an essay to answer questions about death, the afterlife, and meaning.)

http://www.rationalresponders.com/for_new_atheists_is_this_really_all_there_is

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Mitch wrote: Alright,

Mitch wrote:

Alright, now that I've welcomed myself to the forum, I'd like to ask a question. Suppose you know rationally that God, heaven, etc, are figments of the imagination brought on by how you were raised or influenced by others. Also suppose that you can be reasonably concrete in your rationality because you observe historical and scientific evidence to draw your conclusions. Nevertheless, you harbor a fear of the 'afterlife' - or more to the point - a fear of death, because you fear consequence. Moreover, you fear that if you are correct in your rational genius, the death of a loved one means eternal separation from them. In my experience, the natural human course is to turn to God in times like those.

Is that proof that in our 'souls' we know there is an everliving God, and 'feel' his presence? Or is this the product left-overs from fear being instilled in the mind for years? If it's the former, how do you rationalize it, and if it's the latter, how do you bear it?

What's no doubt been discussed already, is origin. I, again like Kelly indicated in a video, compartmentalize my rationality. I am rational 99% of the time, until a crisis like that mentioned above takes place. But equally as rational is the argument that even the universe had to have a source. I think it's irrational to assume that the universe has always existed. Even if we trace it all the way back to the big bang, as some cosmologists suggest took place, we still are left with some material that came from nowhere, and the space it occupied, which also came from nowhere. Stephen Hawking has suggested that because time, as we know it, began at the big bang, then nothing which took place before the big bang could possibly have an effect on the evolution of the current universe (or multiverse if you beat to that drum), and therefore we can ignore it. He goes on to say that all scientific data available cannot disprove the existence of God, but only put a timeline on when he might have completed his work.

I also understand that we are nothing in the scheme of the universe. Earth, making it's way around the sun, which in turn makes it's helical orbit around the Milky Way, which in turn is red-shifting away from all other galaxies as the universe expands (research doppler effect), is a very small grain of blue-green sand indeed. The possibility of life beyond our planet is very probable. So perhaps "religion" as it is defined here on earth, has in fact, been created by mankind in times before men understood science - or as a method of behavior control. But is it not equally probable then, that there was (or is) a creator, but to whom the earth means very little, and perhaps has no stake whatsoever in mankind?

Going back to the initial question then; Wouldn't it be possible to have a soul - not as defined by our concocted religions - but perhaps more in the 'Newton's thermodynamic laws' sense. We can't create or destroy energy, so says the law until proven otherwise, so maybe the electrochemical energy we facilitate while alive does change in form and continue on....

....please discuss.

 

"souls" is just another fictional word in the lexicon of the theist based on the false appeal of the "warm fuzzies" of "wouldnt it be nice if".

When our brain dies, thats it, we die, we no longer exist with the exception of the memories of those who survive us and our atoms become part of something else, just like an atom is transfered from an apple to our bodies as part of a molicule when we eat it.

This kind of speculation is a reaction to fear of facing one's own mortality. It is a very base instinct of survival to want to continue. The problem is that the human mind is also capabable of inventing fictional utopias to give oneself the false comfort of continuing beyond one's own death.

Atheists have can have the normal fear of pain and fear of not living, but we dont incert a magical explination into a natural part of life. Death is part of life and there is no need for Suprman vs Kriptonite to explain normal mundain human phycology. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
This isn't intended to be a

This isn't intended to be a cure-all answer for everybody, but I've noticed that most of the time, when someone says they're afraid of dying, and you ask why, they say they won't get to do this or that anymore, or they won't get to do such and such with their family, or they won't see their kids grow up, or something similar.

In other words, I don't think most people are afraid of being dead.  They're afraid of not getting to do stuff anymore.  They fear leaving things unfinished, or they feel like there's a lot more they're "supposed to do."

In my case, I try to live my life in a way that at any moment, if I am to die, I can say that I made enough of my time.  Unfinished business is unfinished business, but if you spend so much time worrying about that, you are wasting valuable time that you could use to finish some business.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Mitch wrote:     Is

Mitch wrote:

    Is that proof that in our 'souls' we know there is an everliving God, and 'feel' his presence?  Or is this the product left-overs from fear being instilled in the mind for years?  If it's the former, how do you rationalize it, and if it's the latter, how do you bear it?

I don't think that our feelings about something can provide us with much information about the objective universe. Our brains are evolved to help us find food, shelter, help and mates. They are highly optimized for this task and filter everything through perceptual filters designed to help us extract just this information from the universe. As pure data-gathering instruments, they suck.

So, no, I don't think our feelings about death, afterlife or souls point to much in particular.

As for how to bear the thought of death, I don't know. I think it helps to be mentally and emotionally healthy. I think it helps to not have a lot of unresolved regrets. I think it helps a LOT to have kids. All I know is that I've never believed in heaven or hell and the idea of death doesn't particularly bother me (unless it seems imminent, which is more of a visceral fear reaction than a product of reflection).

 

Mitch wrote:

Going back to the initial question then; Wouldn't it be possible to have a soul - not as defined by our concocted religions - but perhaps more in the 'Newton's thermodynamic laws' sense.  We can't create or destroy energy, so says the law until proven otherwise, so maybe the electrochemical energy we facilitate while alive does change in form and continue on....

....please discuss. 

No, as I would define "possible." We have no evidence for such a thing. Nor are there any theories explaining how such an energy matrix would stay coherent without any physical medium. Absent any empirical or logical grounds, I put it into the realm of fantasy or, at best, wild speculation.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I think it helps a

Quote:
I think it helps a LOT to have kids.

You know, Tilberian, it's not that I disagree with the idea that kids help some people deal with their mortality, but I also know a LOT of people who feel exactly the opposite. I'm one of those. The day I got my weiner snipped, I felt a burden off of my shoulders, and without a doubt, I can say I'm no longer nearly as worried about leaving things unfinished or unresolved.

I know a lot of childless people, and to a one, they say things like, "Wow... I am SOOOO glad I didn't have kids. I can't even imagine what my life would be like if I'd missed out on X, Y, and Z that I've gotten to do because I wasn't tied to a family and kids.

Seriously, most of my friends are 35-50, and I don't know a single one who's childless and regrets it.

I'm not trying to bust your balls, or to say that children aren't helpful to some people, but I think you are overstating the case. Just like there are thousands of ways to be an atheist, there are also tons and tons of ways to live a fulfilling life, and a lot of them don't involve having children.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


iranu
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
I can understand the OP

I can understand the OP being concerned with regard to death and the thoughts that it conjures in the mind such as an afterlife, family, god, hell, consequence etc. Fear of the unknown is a strong driver for wanting something of a positive outcome. We are programmed to survive. Everything we do (talking broadly) is geared towards reproduction and the first mechanism to ensure that takes place is survival.

Every human that has ever lived has thought about the big question if they were mentally capable of doing so, infact I think that is a big part of what a human or sentient being is. The realisation of one's own immortality.

I have thought about this long and hard and I've come to the terms with my own death and my conclusion is that when I go I'm not actually going to know much about it. Here today, gone tomorrow, or rather here this second, gone the next, so I don't actually fear the death of my brain. It will just happen. I hope that the exit is not long, drawn out and tortuously painful mind you Eye-wink and I think that is where most people's fear comes from. What is it like to die?  (Sometimes we hear of the brought back to life, out of body, light at the end of the tunnel experiences, but not the "OMG it was sooo painful, damn I have to go through that again?" ones).

I'll be re-absorbed into the cosmos and recycled somehow, I'm just made of atoms and their constituent parts so no soul or entity that is able to think will allow me to continue in any way shape or form.

I now feel quite blasé and nonchalant about the whole thing. Which reminds me of these two Python ditties.

http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/Always_Look_Bright_Side_Life.shtml

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Galaxy-Song-lyrics-Monty-Python/05B560513F0159E248256EB10006DCBC

And a great scientific analysis of the above courtesy of aunty (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2163133

 I don't feel bleak or down about what will happen and I don't have a nihilistic view of the world I just accept it as it is.  I think of all those great epitaphs such as Spike Milligan's "I told you I was ill" and think that's the best way to go about it after all your not going to cheat death are you?

 

 

 


Pile
atheist
Pile's picture
Posts: 214
Joined: 2006-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Mitch wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Moreover, you fear that if you are correct in your rational genius, the death of a loved one means eternal separation from them. In my experience, the natural human course is to turn to God in times like those.

Is that proof that in our 'souls' we know there is an everliving God, and 'feel' his presence? Or is this the product left-overs from fear being instilled in the mind for years? If it's the former, how do you rationalize it, and if it's the latter, how do you bear it?

No proof of anything, except that we are products of our environment.

Every single day, every hour, you can stop, open your eyes and notice that we largely function in response to the stimuli we are subjected to. The longer we are subjected to certain influences, the more influenced we are. The earlier we are subjected to influences, prior to the development of our advanced cognitive abilities, the more likely we are to not question these influences. It makes perfect sense. This pheonomenon, unlike the goofy "soul theory", is totally observable and testable and able to be proven by basic scientific methods.

If you watch a horror movie, it will influence the way you look at the world around you. Maybe for a short period, but if you start to watch a lot of horror movies, your mind will begin to process information through the filter of the media that your mind is used to experiencing.

Fear is a survival instict. But man has also recognized that fear can be wielded by man to influence and control others. If you exercise your brain, you will come to these conclusions yourself and recognize what is and isn't "rational". What is worth fearing, and what is contrived fear to make you comply with someone else's wishes.

Whatever happens to you AFTER you die, should not be of any significant concern to anyone who is not mentally deranged, extremely narcissistic or overly self-absorbed.

 When a time comes, where we as humans, have solved virtually every other crisis, riddle, humanitarian problem, disease and mystery of this realm of existence, then and only then should I think it be worthwhile to spend even a picosecond's energy contemplating what happens after we die.

 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
I think it helps a LOT to have kids.

You know, Tilberian, it's not that I disagree with the idea that kids help some people deal with their mortality, but I also know a LOT of people who feel exactly the opposite. I'm one of those. The day I got my weiner snipped, I felt a burden off of my shoulders, and without a doubt, I can say I'm no longer nearly as worried about leaving things unfinished or unresolved.

I know a lot of childless people, and to a one, they say things like, "Wow... I am SOOOO glad I didn't have kids. I can't even imagine what my life would be like if I'd missed out on X, Y, and Z that I've gotten to do because I wasn't tied to a family and kids.

Seriously, most of my friends are 35-50, and I don't know a single one who's childless and regrets it.

I'm not trying to bust your balls, or to say that children aren't helpful to some people, but I think you are overstating the case. Just like there are thousands of ways to be an atheist, there are also tons and tons of ways to live a fulfilling life, and a lot of them don't involve having children.

Ultimately, it's a subjective question and a matter of personal preference. Far be it from me to suggest that anyone should have kids who doesn't want to. Obviously, it is better that people who don't want to have kids do NOT do so! 

If you are already unconcerned about death, then I agree that having kids is unlikely to help and may, as you say, actually make you more anxious about dying and leaving your dependants in the lurch. I know I'm much more cautious since having children. However the question was concerning people who ARE concerned about death and its existential ramifications.

I tend to discard the claims of childless people when it comes to the pros and cons of having kids. Since they have never done it, they aren't really in a position to know what they are talking about. On the other hand, every person with kids was once without them. A better test would be to ask people who have had children if they regret it, and I know you will get a similarly high number of parents claiming that their lives have been greatly enhanced.

Just what consistutes a fulfilling life is rather open to debate and is always highly subjective. For me, it is, in part, about being part of something larger than myself that will survive my death. When I contemplate the size of the universe and the span of history, I feel that anything I personally think or feel or acheive within my life span is necessarily so insignificant as to vanish into total irrelevancy. The demands of my ego aren't such that I should be a big deal in the context of the universe, but I'd like to at least be able to find my life meaningful and impactful relative to my own frame of reference. So to that end, having children is an obvious way for me to make my life as significant as possible, at least in the eyes of me and my family if no one else, and to create the hope of my ever-more distilled legacy passing down through the ages and in some miniscule way being part of the places and times and events that I can only speculate about.

And another thing: I am the product of thousands of generations fighting tooth and nail and prevailing against all odds to get to be me. Whether I want to or not, I carry within my genetic code the supreme efforts of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Throwing that away by dying without offspring seems to me to a horrible waste of the very best of what makes us human; a crime in the same nature as, but many magnitudes more serious than, destroying great works of art. Who am I, in the limited context I occupy, with the transient worldview and scarce resources I possess, to decide that I am qualified to end this great endeavour of evolution and life?

Finally, having kids is about much more than finding fulfillment in your own life. If that's the only reason you have to do it, don't. The proper attitude to approach the decision to raise kids is, IMO, the desire to share your life and your love, unconditionally, selflessly and to the fullest extent of your ability, with a new family. That's something that's kind of just there within you or it isn't. In my case, it grew out of my wonderful experiences with my family growing up and from my marriage. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I tend to discard

Quote:
I tend to discard the claims of childless people when it comes to the pros and cons of having kids.

I'm doing my best not to feel insulted. I get what you're saying, but this sounds an awful lot like "You have to believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus." Honestly, it's not a huge deal to me, and I don't feel like trying to change anybody's mind, but I've gotten a long way in life observing others while not necessarily experiencing everything I've observed firsthand.

Quote:
A better test would be to ask people who have had children if they regret it, and I know you will get a similarly high number of parents claiming that their lives have been greatly enhanced.

I can tell you with certainty that there's an inherent confirmation bias in this. I do know people who regret having kids, and honestly, I have heard lots and lots of people who won't exactly say it, but you don't have to read too far between the lines.

"Now, don't get me wrong, I love my child, but you know, sometimes you look back, you know, and you think about things, and you know... I love my kid, though."

We're genetically programmed to become attached to our kids, of course. Most parents are also not callous enough to say it aloud if they're bitter or resentful at having to sacrifice something they really wanted because they got pregnant.

My point is, since you've had kids, you are also completely incapable of understanding the perspective of someone who chose not to and took a different life path. Like I said, I'm not trying to say having kids is a good or a bad thing. It just is, and for some people, it's a fantastic thing, and others, well... anyone who's ever been involved in social work will tell you with certainty that there are a LOT for whom it's not good.

Quote:
And another thing: I am the product of thousands of generations fighting tooth and nail and prevailing against all odds to get to be me. Whether I want to or not, I carry within my genetic code the supreme efforts of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Throwing that away by dying without offspring seems to me to a horrible waste of the very best of what makes us human; a crime in the same nature as, but many magnitudes more serious than, destroying great works of art. Who am I, in the limited context I occupy, with the transient worldview and scarce resources I possess, to decide that I am qualified to end this great endeavour of evolution and life?

I hate to break it to you, but this is an argument from nature -- a thing is good/true because it is natural. Again, it's not that there isn't a legitimate biological urge to procreate. The thing is, the "rightness" of it is relative. It's impossible to come up with an objective and universal stick against which to measure the "rightness" of procreation. For every reason you can list to have children, I can list an equally valid reason for not doing it.

Quote:
The proper attitude to approach the decision to raise kids is, IMO, the desire to share your life and your love, unconditionally, selflessly and to the fullest extent of your ability, with a new family.

Hm... I'd encourage you to think critically about the idea of unconditional and selfless love. It's a great idea on paper, but it doesn't work out in reality. Again, I know what you're saying, but the reality is that families only love each other when they love each other. I can show you lots of families who hate each other.

Like I said, this isn't a huge deal to me. Other people having kids is no threat to me or my choice, in the same way that gays marrying is no threat to the so-called "sanctity of marriage." The thing is, marriage and childbearing are shrouded in all sorts of mythology, and there is a cultural bias against people who don't have kids. I can't tell you the number of times I've told people I'm not having kids, and they literally get mad at me!

In any case, I would never presume to tell someone that they shouldn't have had kids, or that their life would be better, but at the same time, I really don't like rose colored glasses, and there are a lot of people who are really bad at being parents. I think a more culturally neutral attitude towards reproduction would be a hell of a lot better. If people didn't feel like "everybody has kids... I should, too," I think it would be better for everyone -- particularly the kids who might not be born to people who really didn't want them.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Alright, I guess we're

Alright, I guess we're going to do this. Laughing

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
I tend to discard the claims of childless people when it comes to the pros and cons of having kids.

I'm doing my best not to feel insulted.

Dear me, don't do that! All I'm saying is that people who don't have kids lack the experience. This is self-evident, is it not? 

Hambydammit wrote:

I get what you're saying, but this sounds an awful lot like "You have to believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus."

Actually, the analogy would be "you have to believe in Jesus to know what it is like to believe in Jesus." I can't argue with that. Can you?

Hambydammit wrote:

Honestly, it's not a huge deal to me, and I don't feel like trying to change anybody's mind, but I've gotten a long way in life observing others while not necessarily experiencing everything I've observed firsthand.

That's fine, but I'm talking about a subjective experience.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
A better test would be to ask people who have had children if they regret it, and I know you will get a similarly high number of parents claiming that their lives have been greatly enhanced.

I can tell you with certainty that there's an inherent confirmation bias in this.

LOL! And there's no confirmation bias in asking people who haven't had kids if they regret it? Especially if they are now too old or have been "fixed"? Of course everyone is going to justify their own decisions to themselves and to others. However we lack the resources to control for who is telling us the objective truth and who is lying about their feelings to cover for a perceived mistake. So we can either agree to take everyone's testimony as unbiased, or we can agree that all testimony in this regard is biased and throw it out. I'm fine either way.

Hambydammit wrote:

I do know people who regret having kids, and honestly, I have heard lots and lots of people who won't exactly say it, but you don't have to read too far between the lines.

And I know lots of singles who desperately want kids. I'll admit that I don't know too many people who have decided not to have kids and regretted it, but I don't have much of a sample to draw from because I only know two couples who fit this description.

Hambydammit wrote:

"Now, don't get me wrong, I love my child, but you know, sometimes you look back, you know, and you think about things, and you know... I love my kid, though."

Out of all the parents I know, not one would make this statement. You and I must be hanging with pretty different crowds.

Hambydammit wrote:

We're genetically programmed to become attached to our kids, of course.

We're also genetically programmed to want to have kids in the first place. Women more than men, of course.

Hambydammit wrote:

Most parents are also not callous enough to say it aloud if they're bitter or resentful at having to sacrifice something they really wanted because they got pregnant.

Perhaps the difference in our groups is that I don't know one couple who got pregnant by accident. All my friends were married first and made a mutual decision to have children. I do know some husbands who were browbeat into having kids by their wives and, unsurprisingly, their marriages and their relationships with the children are strained. I have said and I maintain that people who do not want to have kids, even if they get pregnant by accident, should not have kids. However, I hope you will take my point that most people who have freely chosen to have kids do not regret it and think that it was a great choice.

Hambydammit wrote:

My point is, since you've had kids, you are also completely incapable of understanding the perspective of someone who chose not to and took a different life path.

Not completely incapable. I also chose not to have kids for many years. At least I have been in the same shoes as childless people, and they have never remotely been anywhere near my shoes. However, I was always open to the possibility that I might have kids someday so yes, my perspective does differ from someone who has decided not to reproduce ever.  

Hambydammit wrote:

Like I said, I'm not trying to say having kids is a good or a bad thing. It just is, and for some people, it's a fantastic thing, and others, well... anyone who's ever been involved in social work will tell you with certainty that there are a LOT for whom it's not good.

Almost always cases of people having kids by accident or for very fucked up reasons or who are now bitter because they had kids and their other circumstances changed. 

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
And another thing: I am the product of thousands of generations fighting tooth and nail and prevailing against all odds to get to be me. Whether I want to or not, I carry within my genetic code the supreme efforts of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Throwing that away by dying without offspring seems to me to a horrible waste of the very best of what makes us human; a crime in the same nature as, but many magnitudes more serious than, destroying great works of art. Who am I, in the limited context I occupy, with the transient worldview and scarce resources I possess, to decide that I am qualified to end this great endeavour of evolution and life?

I hate to break it to you, but this is an argument from nature -- a thing is good/true because it is natural. Again, it's not that there isn't a legitimate biological urge to procreate. The thing is, the "rightness" of it is relative. It's impossible to come up with an objective and universal stick against which to measure the "rightness" of procreation.

It isn't an argument from nature, though there is an argument from nature to be made here. It is an argument from intrinsic worth and the Golden Rule. Our accumulated genetic history is the crowning achievement of the Herculean efforts of millions of people over millions of years. If anything has value, it does, and its value exceeds that of your own life and anything else except the lives of other people. IMO, destroying such a precious legacy by allowing it to end is a moral wrong in itself. Plus, it is a slap in the face to the millions who sacrificed significant proportions of their lives' resources to give you the chance to live and pass on the legacy. Had you made their decision, you would not want you to make the decision you have taken. Given the tremendous gift they have bequeathed, this is a pretty egregious violation of reciprocity, though one could argue that only the relatives that are still alive really count.

Of course, we have to balance our responsibilities with our freedoms, so a person could certainly decide that none of this stuff is as important as his right to determine his own path. My response would be that you better have a pretty awesome path in mind in order to offset the immense value that has already been invested in you. 

The argument from nature is that our shared, evolved human nature IS our universal stick to measure right and wrong. We have no problem pointing to our innate sense of empathy as a valid foundation for the rule that we should not unnecessarily cause suffering; why shouldn't we point to our innate drive to procreate as evidence that doing so is a meaningful and proper activity for people to engage in? This wouldn't suggest that NOT procreating is somehow wrong, only that, by not procreating, you simply aren't doing as much good as you could. Lot's of people are fine with that and so am I...after all, I don't do all the good I could. 

Hambydammit wrote:

For every reason you can list to have children, I can list an equally valid reason for not doing it.

At the end of your life, every reason that you have for not having kids goes to the grave with you. Unless you achieved some great work of creativity that will survive your death, whatever good times you had or great stuff you did or money you made will simply diffuse into the environment - gone. 

I suppose if you were very convinced that you were a person of tremendous evil and that you wouldn't want to inflict any aspect of yourself on future generations, you could make a pretty solid case for not having kids. Otherwise, I'm curious to hear what you consider to be good reasons for not having kids.

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
The proper attitude to approach the decision to raise kids is, IMO, the desire to share your life and your love, unconditionally, selflessly and to the fullest extent of your ability, with a new family.

Hm... I'd encourage you to think critically about the idea of unconditional and selfless love. It's a great idea on paper, but it doesn't work out in reality.

Do tell. I love my kids without condition and without reference to my own needs.

Hambydammit wrote:

Again, I know what you're saying, but the reality is that families only love each other when they love each other. I can show you lots of families who hate each other.

So the possibility of failure justifies any refusal to try? This is just cowardice.

Hambydammit wrote:

Like I said, this isn't a huge deal to me. Other people having kids is no threat to me or my choice, in the same way that gays marrying is no threat to the so-called "sanctity of marriage." The thing is, marriage and childbearing are shrouded in all sorts of mythology, and there is a cultural bias against people who don't have kids. I can't tell you the number of times I've told people I'm not having kids, and they literally get mad at me!

Well, that is certainly silly. Personally, I'm glad my descendents won't have to compete against your own for needed resources. Wink

On a more serious note, I'll say that I am irritated with you for not procreating, Hamby. There are so many idiots out there (most of them theists!) filling up the world with progeny that will only make things worse. There you are, a smart guy with lots to offer yet you deny the future the benefit of your gifts! Come on, Hamby, get with the program!  

Hambydammit wrote:

In any case, I would never presume to tell someone that they shouldn't have had kids, or that their life would be better, but at the same time, I really don't like rose colored glasses, and there are a lot of people who are really bad at being parents. I think a more culturally neutral attitude towards reproduction would be a hell of a lot better. If people didn't feel like "everybody has kids... I should, too," I think it would be better for everyone -- particularly the kids who might not be born to people who really didn't want them.

I think any culture that doesn't aggressively promote the idea of childrearing is doomed, for rather obvious reasons. I don't think such a nihilistic stance makes sense for cultures any more than it makes sense for people.  

The answer to dysfunctional families is not necessarily to have less families. Access to birth control, more enlightened attitudes about sex, marriage and family planning, access to abortion, better mental health, more social supports, labour reform, more access to daycare: these are all measures that could allow society to have its families and make them succeed, too. Getting rid of religion would also help.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
This is one we're just

This is one we're just going to have to disagree on, unfortunately.  Like I said, I have bigger windmills to tilt.

I disagree (and have backing data) with a lot of things you said, but this site is about theism, and it's not something I'm interested in pursuing.  The only thing I'm going to say in response is this:

Quote:
On a more serious note, I'll say that I am irritated with you for not procreating, Hamby. There are so many idiots out there (most of them theists!) filling up the world with progeny that will only make things worse. There you are, a smart guy with lots to offer yet you deny the future the benefit of your gifts! Come on, Hamby, get with the program! 

Thank you for demonstrating my point.  People who have no vested interest in me or my life get mad at me for not having kids.  How rational is that, particularly from someone who presumably understands that there's no such thing as absolute morality?  Clearly, I have an entirely different set of goals and beliefs about my own life, and you don't seem to believe them to be as worthwhile as yours.

 Anyway, I don't want to discuss this anymore.  I get bitched at enough for being an atheist, and my delicate constitution just doesn't need any more grief about this subject.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: This is

Hambydammit wrote:

This is one we're just going to have to disagree on, unfortunately. Like I said, I have bigger windmills to tilt.

I disagree (and have backing data) with a lot of things you said, but this site is about theism, and it's not something I'm interested in pursuing.

Yes, there is probably little profit in pursuing this further. As I said, the core issues are all subjective and therefore not really a matter of right or wrong anyway.  

Hambydammit wrote:

The only thing I'm going to say in response is this:

Quote:
On a more serious note, I'll say that I am irritated with you for not procreating, Hamby. There are so many idiots out there (most of them theists!) filling up the world with progeny that will only make things worse. There you are, a smart guy with lots to offer yet you deny the future the benefit of your gifts! Come on, Hamby, get with the program!

Thank you for demonstrating my point. People who have no vested interest in me or my life get mad at me for not having kids. How rational is that, particularly from someone who presumably understands that there's no such thing as absolute morality?

But I do have a vested interest in the future of society...the society that my descendents will inhabit. I think it is highly rational to be concerned about that and to prefer that my descendents inhabit that future with people like you instead of the spawn of a billion evangelicals who are breeding like bacteria.

Hambydammit wrote:

Clearly, I have an entirely different set of goals and beliefs about my own life, and you don't seem to believe them to be as worthwhile as yours.

 

Of course not! If I thought your position was as good as mine, I would have made the same decision as you and spared myself the expense and effort of having children. I do think I am right, which carries the necessary bias that all conflicting opinions are wrong and therefore not as worthwhile as mine.

Let's not forget that I've said many times that, IMO, people who don't want kids shouldn't have them. Since you don't want kids and aren't having them we are, in that respect, in perfect agreement. 

Hambydammit wrote:

Anyway, I don't want to discuss this anymore. I get bitched at enough for being an atheist, and my delicate constitution just doesn't need any more grief about this subject.

Ya, let's drop it.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Consider it dropped, with

Consider it dropped, with no hard feelings on my part.  Like I said, I have bigger fish to fry.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism