John Dixon, anti-Scientology "don't let the stupid rub off" S Wales councillor

[Pebble]

Whereas for me nothingness seems the obvious consequence of death. The issues raised by wanting to survive death are enormous.

Which you should 'survive'? the dribbling baby, the innocent child, the angry teenager, the overconfident young man, the depressed middle aged loser, the bitter old man, the demented shadow of a human?

What's the point? given that every aspect of our personality is determined by the current function and malfunction of our physical brain, what would this ephemoral 'self' do?

Why our idealised personality? why not the vibrations created by our heart beat, or lungs, intestines etc?

So basically by posing an intangible solution to a worry one has about loss of self, you create an unfalsifiable postulate - and then suggest that this flight of fancy must be regarded as potentially credible because the construct like so many can never be amenable to negative empirical interrogation. All attempts to show a positive over thousands of years have however failed.

I will absolutely agree that I cannot provide proof that life after death in some non physcial form does not exist - but when one thinks about the ramifications, it makes no sense, and as such I see little point in such beliefs.

[John Revolting]

Whereas for me nothingness seems the obvious consequence of death. The issues raised by wanting to survive death are enormous.

Which you should 'survive'? the dribbling baby, the innocent child, the angry teenager, the overconfident young man, the depressed middle aged loser, the bitter old man, the demented shadow of a human?

What's the point? given that every aspect of our personality is determined by the current function and malfunction of our physical brain, what would this ephemoral 'self' do?

Why our idealised personality? why not the vibrations created by our heart beat, or lungs, intestines etc?

So basically by posing an intangible solution to a worry one has about loss of self, you create an unfalsifiable postulate - and then suggest that this flight of fancy must be regarded as potentially credible because the construct like so many can never be amenable to negative empirical interrogation. All attempts to show a positive over thousands of years have however failed.

I will absolutely agree that I cannot provide proof that life after death in some non physcial form does not exist - but when one thinks about the ramifications, it makes no sense, and as such I see little point in such beliefs.

I think, maybe you are taking me a little too seriously here.

I already demonstrated the problems with comparing a human consciousness to anything physical when I mentioned the philosophy students discussing a human soul.

When you say what's the point in existing after death, well exactly. In fact what is the point in existing at all? None of it makes much sense.

On the subject of which 'you' should survive, I don't think anyone is in possession of a set of rules or instructions.

I am simply saying, I don't know. It's a personal belief and I'd rather be at the beach than arguing about it.

[smudge]

I have good reason to actively hate organised religion, but I would not take away someone's basic right to believe in unicorns. I may think they are nuts and argue with them on internet forums, but who are they actually hurting?
.

That rather depends on what they do with their 'belief in unicorns'. If they paint pictures of imaginary beasts in their rooms and keep it at that, fine. If on the other hand they set up a system of morals based on their belief, teach their children to live according to the laws unicorn-ism, base their health care on unicorn magic, teach science learned from the mouth of the magic one horned horsey thing, and seek to extend their views on the rest of humanity.... Well. I suggest such beliefs are dangerous.

[Pebble]

None of it makes much sense so I'd rather be at the beach .

Problem solved.

[Tony Williams]

There are plenty of concepts on which I am certain, but the existence of an 'afterlife' is not one of them. I don't like the term 'afterlife', but it is the only way I can describe the moments following death. What the hell happens? Does anything happen? How can you prove it?

We are steadily learning more about the way the brain functions and the relationship of that to consciousness. There is lots of hard, experimental evidence that our consciouness is a direct function of the electro-chemical processes of our brains, and no evidence whatsoever that consciousness can exist without a brain. So that is, you might say, a no-brainer!

But I have to be honest here. Try as I might, I cannot physically comprehend absolute nothingness. It just feels weird. If I cease, everything around me also ceases - I think most people would agree, that is a really heavy concept. Surely that can't be right can it? Everything gone in the blink of an eye. Can this be proven?

I think that's the core of your problem - you can't imagine ceasing to exist. Which is a very common attitude, and it is why religions are so tenacious in our society despite the lack of any evidence to support them.

[DrS]

But I have to be honest here. Try as I might, I cannot physically comprehend absolute nothingness. It just feels weird. If I cease, everything around me also ceases - I think most people would agree, that is a really heavy concept. Surely that can't be right can it? Everything gone in the blink of an eye. Can this be proven?

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but why does everything need to cease when you (or I) do? It doesn't feel weird to me because I see myself as ceasing and everything else continuing ...

[John Revolting]

Problem solved.

I don't remember writing this -

None of it makes much sense so I'd rather be at the beach

You are putting words in my mouth, which is a little unfair.

I am simply saying 'I don't know' and I need something a little more concrete before I can put my hand on my heart and say what the answer is.

You are saying that you already know the answers. If you have already seen enough to convince you, then fair enough. That is your belief and you are entitled to it. I don't see why it should be matter for debate.

Please be under no misapprehension - I do not put my head in the sand. I have spent a lot of time debating, reading and arguing about these topics.

However I have never travelled beyond the confines of my own mortality and I have never seen, heard, read or experienced anything which adequately convinces me either way - scientifically or spiritually. In the end, I see no point in even debating the subject, because there is nothing to debate.

Now if you ask me about organised religion, I would say it is a pretty horrible thing because they claim they know all the answers when they clearly don't. A lot of people suffer for that arrogance.

However I simply do not feel I have a right to answer questions which have plagued humanity since the dawn of time. The philosophical issues raised in contemplating 'life, the universe and everything' cause the most horrendous arguments and lead to war, death and destruction. Why bother?

Maybe someone like Stephen Hawking will figure it out one day, shortly before we all get bulldozed by a Vogon constructor fleet.

Until then I really see no point in even entertaining the subject, other than to prove or disprove, through data or scientific experiments that there is an ethereal human consciousness. There are already experiments underway and I may be convinced yet - but so far, nothing has been very conclusive.

If that seems like irrational behaviour, I am truly puzzled.

[John Revolting]

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but why does everything need to cease when you (or I) do? It doesn't feel weird to me because I see myself as ceasing and everything else continuing ...

Pretty basic. It's a philosophical quandary.

In death, from your own point of view everything would cease to be. Whether the world around you continues or not is immaterial. From your perspective there would be nothingness.

I am not saying that the actual material world would cease to be, but in your own state of being there would be absolute nothingness. People, places and memories would simply vanish from your own point of view as your body ceases to function.

In fact I'm pretty sure this concept is in line with atheist belief. I could be wrong.

[Tony Williams]

In death, from your own point of view everything would cease to be. Whether the world around you continues or not is immaterial. From your perspective there would be nothingness.

When you fall asleep, everything ceases to be (except in REM sleep when you're dreaming). After all, each time you nod off you don't know for certain that you'll ever wake up.

[John Revolting]

That rather depends on what they do with their 'belief in unicorns'. If they paint pictures of imaginary beasts in their rooms and keep it at that, fine. If on the other hand they set up a system of morals based on their belief, teach their children to live according to the laws unicorn-ism, base their health care on unicorn magic, teach science learned from the mouth of the magic one horned horsey thing, and seek to extend their views on the rest of humanity.... Well. I suggest such beliefs are dangerous.

True, but aren't you talking about organised religion here, opposed to belief?

[John Revolting]

When you fall asleep, everything ceases to be (except in REM sleep when you're dreaming). After all, each time you nod off you don't know for certain that you'll ever wake up.

I agree.

[smudge]

True, but aren't you talking about organised religion here, opposed to belief?

Certainly it is the case with organised religion, the example I gave tends in that direction. The implication is that one person believing in 'stupid' initially harms only them. But 'stupid' spreading is dangerous. It is not only organised religion that spreads 'stupid'. So, probably a good idea to challenge 'stupid' ideas whenever and wherever we can.

I agree.

The bed you fell asleep on and (hopefully!) wake up on, along with the crowd that watched you sleep suggest a certain continuity of reality. Heck, maybe the bastards filmed you getting undressed and sleeping too!
Unless it's all a fake and lizard men didit....

[DrS]

Pretty basic. It's a philosophical quandary.

In death, from your own point of view everything would cease to be. Whether the world around you continues or not is immaterial. From your perspective there would be nothingness.

I am not saying that the actual material world would cease to be, but in your own state of being there would be absolute nothingness. People, places and memories would simply vanish from your own point of view as your body ceases to function.

In fact I'm pretty sure this concept is in line with atheist belief. I could be wrong.

I don't know that there's such a thing as "atheist beliefs", or any specific rules of engagement. I consider myself an atheist along almost exactly the lines that Pebble's indicated, and I don't find the "philosophical quandary" meaningful. I'm not criticizing it, I just don't find it says anything to me, and for whatever reason I don't have any issues with envisaging a real world existing after I am dead, maybe because I don't see the real world as a function of my consciousness.

I've always had this problem with the point of philosophy ...

[polomint38]

In fact I'm pretty sure this concept is in line with atheist belief. I could be wrong.

Of course you are wrong, Atheism by definition is not a belief, but the lack of a belief. There is no such thing as an Atheistic belief.
Therefore no concept can be in line with atheistic beliefs.

[Tony Williams]

Of course you are wrong, Atheism by definition is not a belief, but the lack of a belief. There is no such thing as an Atheistic belief.
Therefore no concept can be in line with atheistic beliefs.

Which leads us straight into the ancient argument about the distinction between "I do not believe there is a god" and "I believe that there is no god". Which is why I don't label myself an atheist but just say that "I have no religious beliefs" and leave it at that.