Annual Religious Thread

[Jamiet99uk]

I fear death, because I am sure nothing comes after it.
I turn that fear into a positive, to the greatest extent I can, by trying to ensure I appreciate, and show appreciation for, the things which provide love and joy in my life. I plan for near-future events but do very little long-term planning and try to live some of my life each day, because in the long run, we are all dead.

I try to live each day as if it could be my very last opportunity to have a lie in and snooze on the sofa with a good book and a cuppa. Imagine a life ruined by feeling obliged to jump out of aeroplanes, or take part in paddleboarding and bouldering ?

I said I like to appreciate the things that provide love and joy, not that I had developed a hankering for extreme sports. I assure you I have never jumped out of an aeroplane, and have no plans to do so in the near future.

[Octavious]

I fear death, because I am sure nothing comes after it.
I turn that fear into a positive, to the greatest extent I can, by trying to ensure I appreciate, and show appreciation for, the things which provide love and joy in my life. I plan for near-future events but do very little long-term planning and try to live some of my life each day, because in the long run, we are all dead.

I try to live each day as if it could be my very last opportunity to have a lie in and snooze on the sofa with a good book and a cuppa. Imagine a life ruined by feeling obliged to jump out of aeroplanes, or take part in paddleboarding and bouldering ?

I said I like to appreciate the things that provide love and joy, not that I had developed a hankering for extreme sports. I assure you I have never jumped out of an aeroplane, and have no plans to do so in the near future.

Evening all. It's curry eating Oct here. I believe Wednesday morning Oct said I'd be turning up, and as so often is the case he was bang on. Damned clever chap, and much under-appreciated. If you ever get the chance to travel back in time to this morning and pay him a visit I'd heartily recommend it.

I'd avoid 2003 Oct like the plague. He did jump out of an aeroplane and is generally considered (perhaps unfairly) a bit of an idiot. The interesting moment is over rather quickly and provides somewhat less of an adrenaline rush than a genuinely risky activity such as driving up the M5 in heavy rain. After that you just sort of dangle for a bit whilst the swaying makes you seasick. To his credit he only did it the once.

Glad to know you're not a numpty of similar proportions, but I don't think Wednesday morning Oct had intended to make that implication. Just to underline his own philosophy

[Fluminator]

Existential dread? You mean, like, fear of death?

I think it's more the "nothing matters, everything is meaningless" or "the universe can only be an accident" type thinking. I often hear them talk about how being a blip in the universe that is nothing more than an accident is troubling.

Curious... I've often felt that the existential dread milarky is most commonly felt by believers who have lost their faith and find themselves staring into an abyss they've had no preparation for. Most atheists or agnostics seem rather comfortable with death, satisfied that they will live on through their children or through the ripples of how they've influenced the world and not being particularly bothered about their upcoming big sleep.

To be honest, I find the idea of heaven (an eternity of inconsequential existence during which your time on earth, all your achievements, your loves, your choices becomes an increasingly infinitesimal aspect of yourself) to be far more troubling a concept than simple oblivion after a life well lived.

I don't know if death is necessarily the part atheists struggle with. I know a few who do, but I think most people would fear an eternity in this current state more. I agree an eternity of inconsequential existence would be miserable. The show "The Good Place" did a good example of that flopping.

I can't really relate because I've experienced enough stuff that I'm personally convinced there's a lot more to existence than highly evolved apes on this singular planet in the universe, but I would be interested in advice to give to people who are convinced this is the peak and struggling with it.

I do not believe the universe has an intelligent creator.
This does not bother me in the slightest.

I fear death, because I am sure nothing comes after it.
I turn that fear into a positive, to the greatest extent I can, by trying to ensure I appreciate, and show appreciation for, the things which provide love and joy in my life. I plan for near-future events but do very little long-term planning and try to live some of my life each day, because in the long run, we are all dead.

If I could bother you with some questions:

1. Can you remind me if you believe the universe always existed or accidentally began to exist due to some scientific laws?
2. Why are you so sure nothing comes after death. Do you believe consciousness is so fragile it gets destroyed upon "death"?
3. Do you believe life before death is possible?

[Fluminator]

I guess a lot of it is about how you view time. Death does not wipe you from existence. Time is just another dimension. The me writing this is just as much part of the universe as the me walking through the woods yesterday afternoon or the me eating a curry this evening. There's a little bit of uncertainty about the curry, but in fairness there's a fair amount of uncertainty about a lot of what happened in my past as well. The me eating the curry won't be entirely confident about the me writing this either, but they are all me and they are all real, and the lack of me in 2223, or indeed 1823, doesn't seem to be having any adverse impact on any of me

Your concept of time is interesting and one I probably agree with. If time is just another dimension though, then by some perspectives the universe is unchanging and eternal. That's getting very close to an idea of an eternal God. (just without the consciousness)

[orathaic]

I guess a lot of it is about how you view time. Death does not wipe you from existence. Time is just another dimension. The me writing this is just as much part of the universe as the me walking through the woods yesterday afternoon or the me eating a curry this evening. There's a little bit of uncertainty about the curry, but in fairness there's a fair amount of uncertainty about a lot of what happened in my past as well. The me eating the curry won't be entirely confident about the me writing this either, but they are all me and they are all real, and the lack of me in 2223, or indeed 1823, doesn't seem to be having any adverse impact on any of me

Your concept of time is interesting and one I probably agree with. If time is just another dimension though, then by some perspectives the universe is unchanging and eternal. That's getting very close to an idea of an eternal God. (just without the consciousness)

As a pantheist, i compeltely get onboard with this notion.

Seeing each human life as a complex 4 dimensional entity with end points in time as well as space is just fine. It is hard to conceptualize from out perspective, to really intuitively understand that 4 dimensionality. But that is fine.

[Jamiet99uk]

I do not believe the universe has an intelligent creator.
This does not bother me in the slightest.

I fear death, because I am sure nothing comes after it.
I turn that fear into a positive, to the greatest extent I can, by trying to ensure I appreciate, and show appreciation for, the things which provide love and joy in my life. I plan for near-future events but do very little long-term planning and try to live some of my life each day, because in the long run, we are all dead.

If I could bother you with some questions:

1. Can you remind me if you believe the universe always existed or accidentally began to exist due to some scientific laws?
2. Why are you so sure nothing comes after death. Do you believe consciousness is so fragile it gets destroyed upon "death"?
3. Do you believe life before death is possible?

1. I do not know the answer but either is possible. Both scenarios are more likely than the creation of the universe by a "god", since there is no viable explanation for how "god" came to exist.

2. My consciousness largely exists inside my brain, assisted by some of my other organs. When I die, my brain an other organs will cease to function.

3. Life before death? That's normal. Things live, and then they die. Very weird question.

[Octavious]

I guess a lot of it is about how you view time. Death does not wipe you from existence. Time is just another dimension. The me writing this is just as much part of the universe as the me walking through the woods yesterday afternoon or the me eating a curry this evening. There's a little bit of uncertainty about the curry, but in fairness there's a fair amount of uncertainty about a lot of what happened in my past as well. The me eating the curry won't be entirely confident about the me writing this either, but they are all me and they are all real, and the lack of me in 2223, or indeed 1823, doesn't seem to be having any adverse impact on any of me

Your concept of time is interesting and one I probably agree with. If time is just another dimension though, then by some perspectives the universe is unchanging and eternal. That's getting very close to an idea of an eternal God. (just without the consciousness)

It depends how you define change, I guess. I am most comfortable with the idea that there is a single time line, only one possible future which is essentially set in stone and, if you could somehow step out of spacetime, you could clearly see in its entirety. I don't see any problem with free will in this, by the way. Things happen in my life because of the choices I make, and just because a god like being could potentially see all of my future choices laid out makes them no less my choice.

The idea that there are multiple possible futures is one that I've always found more troubling. That you could put me amongst the same starting conditions and get different results feels wrong. I acknowledge that it may be possible, but if it is then surely the reverse is also true. That there be multiple pasts that could have created this existing present. This somehow feels even more troubling, and has the intriguing idea that a reason people disagree so often about history may be that the very idea of a single history is a fiction.

A quirk of the multiple pasts idea is that it is far easier to imagine it working in a universe that follows basic physical rules than in one with conscious beings, which tempts one into thinking that maybe consciousness itself has some impact on reality and may well help to fix things in place. This is, of course, ludicrous... but is also one of those ideas that keeps on coming up in various quantum experiments.

I do enjoy this rambling unprovable nonsense

[Fluminator]

I do not believe the universe has an intelligent creator.
This does not bother me in the slightest.

I fear death, because I am sure nothing comes after it.
I turn that fear into a positive, to the greatest extent I can, by trying to ensure I appreciate, and show appreciation for, the things which provide love and joy in my life. I plan for near-future events but do very little long-term planning and try to live some of my life each day, because in the long run, we are all dead.

If I could bother you with some questions:

1. Can you remind me if you believe the universe always existed or accidentally began to exist due to some scientific laws?
2. Why are you so sure nothing comes after death. Do you believe consciousness is so fragile it gets destroyed upon "death"?
3. Do you believe life before death is possible?

1. I do not know the answer but either is possible. Both scenarios are more likely than the creation of the universe by a "god", since there is no viable explanation for how "god" came to exist.

2. My consciousness largely exists inside my brain, assisted by some of my other organs. When I die, my brain an other organs will cease to function.

3. Life before death? That's normal. Things live, and then they die. Very weird question.

1. Both of those presuppose an eternal/unchanging aspect of existence so would it be fair to say you believe in that?

2. Do you think it's possible another part of the universe could have evolved a conscious that's similar to the brain?

3. Why is life after death so much more inconceivable than life before death?

[Fluminator]

I guess a lot of it is about how you view time. Death does not wipe you from existence. Time is just another dimension. The me writing this is just as much part of the universe as the me walking through the woods yesterday afternoon or the me eating a curry this evening. There's a little bit of uncertainty about the curry, but in fairness there's a fair amount of uncertainty about a lot of what happened in my past as well. The me eating the curry won't be entirely confident about the me writing this either, but they are all me and they are all real, and the lack of me in 2223, or indeed 1823, doesn't seem to be having any adverse impact on any of me

Your concept of time is interesting and one I probably agree with. If time is just another dimension though, then by some perspectives the universe is unchanging and eternal. That's getting very close to an idea of an eternal God. (just without the consciousness)

It depends how you define change, I guess. I am most comfortable with the idea that there is a single time line, only one possible future which is essentially set in stone and, if you could somehow step out of spacetime, you could clearly see in its entirety. I don't see any problem with free will in this, by the way. Things happen in my life because of the choices I make, and just because a god like being could potentially see all of my future choices laid out makes them no less my choice.

The idea that there are multiple possible futures is one that I've always found more troubling. That you could put me amongst the same starting conditions and get different results feels wrong. I acknowledge that it may be possible, but if it is then surely the reverse is also true. That there be multiple pasts that could have created this existing present. This somehow feels even more troubling, and has the intriguing idea that a reason people disagree so often about history may be that the very idea of a single history is a fiction.

A quirk of the multiple pasts idea is that it is far easier to imagine it working in a universe that follows basic physical rules than in one with conscious beings, which tempts one into thinking that maybe consciousness itself has some impact on reality and may well help to fix things in place. This is, of course, ludicrous... but is also one of those ideas that keeps on coming up in various quantum experiments.

I do enjoy this rambling unprovable nonsense

It is fun lol.

I agree even if the timeline is established, we still have free will. Free will is harder to believe if you believe your brain is entirely a bunch of chemicals based off its surroundings.

But yeah, the way I see it, there is a timeline, but there has to be something outside the timeline that time is rooted in.

[Jamiet99uk]

If I could bother you with some questions:

1. Can you remind me if you believe the universe always existed or accidentally began to exist due to some scientific laws?
2. Why are you so sure nothing comes after death. Do you believe consciousness is so fragile it gets destroyed upon "death"?
3. Do you believe life before death is possible?

1. I do not know the answer but either is possible. Both scenarios are more likely than the creation of the universe by a "god", since there is no viable explanation for how "god" came to exist.

2. My consciousness largely exists inside my brain, assisted by some of my other organs. When I die, my brain an other organs will cease to function.

3. Life before death? That's normal. Things live, and then they die. Very weird question.

1. Both of those presuppose an eternal/unchanging aspect of existence so would it be fair to say you believe in that?

2. Do you think it's possible another part of the universe could have evolved a conscious that's similar to the brain?

3. Why is life after death so much more inconceivable than life before death?

1. I guess so, yes.

2. I do not know.

3. Because we literally have visible evidence that life before death is normal. What even is this line of argument??

[orathaic]

1. I do not know the answer but either is possible. Both scenarios are more likely than the creation of the universe by a "god", since there is no viable explanation for how "god" came to exist.

2. My consciousness largely exists inside my brain, assisted by some of my other organs. When I die, my brain an other organs will cease to function.

3. Life before death? That's normal. Things live, and then they die. Very weird question.

1. Both of those presuppose an eternal/unchanging aspect of existence so would it be fair to say you believe in that?

2. Do you think it's possible another part of the universe could have evolved a conscious that's similar to the brain?

3. Why is life after death so much more inconceivable than life before death?

1. I guess so, yes.

2. I do not know.

3. Because we literally have visible evidence that life before death is normal. What even is this line of argument??

1. Meh

2.entirly possibly, likely even. Are you (Flum) proposed that we reincarnate as aliens?

3. Do you mean life before being born/conceived? I think Jamie's position is we go 'nothing -> life -> nothing'

Though linguistically that is just because we define the 'we' or 'me' part as being that one bit in the middle. After you die and before you are born you are not you in any meaningful sense.

That is what I mean by end points in time. The thing we are talking about, a distinct human mind, which changes over time, has well defined (if fuzzy) end points (a start and a end) outside of which it doesn't exist.

[Jamiet99uk]

Well on 3 Flum said "life before death" not "life before birth" so I don't know what his point is.

I replied to your PM btw, Ora.

[Octavious]

If I was going to focus on things about the universe that points towards the existence of God, I'd be more inclined to talk about weird stuff like water, and ice floating rather than sinking as you'd expect, and the impact of a conscious observer on quantum experiments. The latter suggests that an observer is rather important in the functionality of the universe, which potentially gives God quite an important role. Or you could focus on the notable scientific minds of the likes of Einstein and Newton, who were both great believers in God, and that a God is an important part of the lives of an overwhelming majority of the people on Earth

[orathaic]

If I was going to focus on things about the universe that points towards the existence of God, I'd be more inclined to talk about weird stuff like water, and ice floating rather than sinking as you'd expect, and the impact of a conscious observer on quantum experiments. The latter suggests that an observer is rather important in the functionality of the universe, which potentially gives God quite an important role. Or you could focus on the notable scientific minds of the likes of Einstein and Newton, who were both great believers in God, and that a God is an important part of the lives of an overwhelming majority of the people on Earth

Pretty sure the observer doesn't need to be conscious in Quantum Mechanics. An observation causes a change in the system (interpreted as wave function collapse in Copenhagen) but that can be a photo of light interacting.

Pretty sure this is one of the most misunderstood parts of QM.

[Octavious]

That is one interpretation, and it has gained popularity as it feels considerably safer and more sciency. The problem with that interpretation is, of course, that it is virtually meaningless as everything is being observed all of the time. You might as well have a political theory that is only true when time is applied.

[orathaic]

That is one interpretation, and it has gained popularity as it feels considerably safer and more sciency. The problem with that interpretation is, of course, that it is virtually meaningless as everything is being observed all of the time. You might as well have a political theory that is only true when time is applied.

I think quite the opposite. The idea that human consciousness has anything whatsoever to do with 'measurement' in a Quantum mechanical sense is an unscientific misrepresentationnwhich has become popular to write about because it places our selves at the center of the Universe again.

There is nothing to suggest it scientifically, but it is mostly repeated by people who don't understand the mathematics (which I think I would include myself in).

I place it alongside people selling 'Quantum Crystals'. Though at least I don't think you are trying to make a quick buck from fraud. I still don't think you are doing Quantum Mechanics.

Of course, I dislike the Copenhagen Interpretation to behind with, feeling Many World's is a much more valid perspective, but whatever your interpretation, the maths is the same (and imo the only correct description). So how do you apply this consciousness idea to a many world version?

I mean if the maths is right, and either many worlds or Copenhagen are valid interpretations of the maths. Then both interpretations accurately describe the maths. So consciousness if it has any importance to the maths, should be something which appears in the many worlds model aswell.

So assuming your consciousness centered universe. Where does it appear in my many worlds interpretation of the maths?

[flash2015]

I appreciate the insight. I think it's also somewhat clear that the economic pressure, climate change dread, and internet access to every problem/corruption/oppression on the planet is also ramping up the zealotry on all sides as things keep getting worse. I'm sort of expecting another event similar to the French Revolution soon.

I think one of the things that is scary about atheism to me personally is it's a newer view and it hasn't had as much time to really smooth out its system of proper behavior as some of the older religions have. In fact, one of the main parts of atheism is that there isn't a system that underlies the world and that people are essentially free to decide for themselves what's appropriate.

I think an important part of mainstream religion was that it set down a morality framework which can be used to guide decisions on right and wrong. While we may disagree with some of the decisions, it was well understood how these decisions were made. At least that was my experience with it.

Now morality decisions are being made at a much shallower level. Morality is being defined by a soundbite or a slogan. The promise of atheism was that we would have better reason based decisions but in some ways we appear to be making decisions with even less reason.

And because these ideas are understood in such a shallow way there is a rising intolerance of those that have different beliefs/values. How can you find common ground when your philosophy can be defined on a bumper sticker?

Catholicism for example has been around for thousands of years and have done some bad things over that period, but have had the time to learn from mistakes and such. (Like colonizing is bad). I think that might also play a role in that all the older religions are usually a lot more chill by now.

I think the strength of Christianity was its adaptability. It not only had a morality foundation which had thousands of years of history, it was also able to change with the culture it became a part of. It absorbed local customs and rituals. The Catholicism I grew up with in Australia absorbed Australian values and was different from the Catholicism here which absorbed US values.

I do think you are underplaying the number of scandals in the Catholic church. Of course the biggest recent one being the child sex abuse scandal which went on for decades (which I didn't know until recently even affected my high school when I was going through). I think a big thing which caused this was that you didn't question the authority of the priest/brother etc. That was a mistake.

But this mistake had nothing to do inherently with religion. The problematic part here is the not being able to question/disagree part. Many atheists are repeating the same mistakes. Radicals are defining disagreement as "hate speech" for example. I was a supporter of restrictions on "hate speech" until I realized recently how broad "hate speech" was being defined (even Dawkins has called out this). The COVID bumper sticker "follow the science" means to the believers that if you have a nuanced opinion on COVID vaccines and masks backed by the science (or the lack of it) you are equivalent to people who believe the COVID vaccine made you magnetic. Some crazies which just had COVID are rushing to get the vaccine for protection - absolutely nuts, not even remotely backed by the science.

For climate change the extremist believers say we need to "repent or the world will end" and there is no questioning this and no middle ground is possible. And the gender ideology extremists are also trying to claim they are "following the science" and any questioning of their ideology is evil...and going to extreme lengths to shutdown any and all disagreement. While the Catholic church had the biggest child abuse scandal of the late 20th century, potential wild overuse of cross-sex hormones and surgery in children without guard rails could become the biggest child abuse scandal of the 21st century (though thankfully there does now appear to be a glimmer of sanity in Europe on this).

[Jamiet99uk]

People who support their trans friends are not demanding unrestricted surgery upon children.

Way to blast a fake dog-whistle.

Religious morality used to be "kill all the gays". And you think that was better?

[Jamiet99uk]

A moral code based on being nice to people and generally leaving people alone to live as they please if they are causing no harm (or which seeks to limit aggregate harm in cases where it is impossible to achieve zero harm) is surely better than obeying the instructions of a non-existent sky wizard.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Fluminator are you going to explain what you meant by asking about "life before death"?

It's like asking if I believe in the main course before the dessert. That's just the usual sequence those things come in.

What was your point?