Kill the afterlife

[Xissy]

@Arouet

It's basic economic theory: scarcity enhances value. If you have an infinite existence, then each individual action becomes less important. Take murder for instance - when you kill someone, if there is no afterlife then you have deprived this person of all of their possible life experiences. You have truly taken something away from them.

If we are all inifinite beings, or all part of the source, then if you kill someone, sure, you are depriving them of certain experiences, but you've given them the experience of being killed, and they will go on to have other experiences that they wouldn't have had had you not killed them. Given the relative little importance of any individual action on such a time scale, you haven't really harmed them.

I would argue otherwise.
If there was no infinite impact of my actions, then each individual action becomes meaningsless in the long run, as the result will always be zero (death = multiplication with zero). Therefore our actions (our studies, experiences and so on) would just be a fading pleasure and, from an economical point of view, it could be rational to be an asshole. If I don't mind my bad conscience, why shouldn't I steal something if I was able to avoid punishment?

Otherwise there would be little importance of any individual action, true. But the importance would still be larger than zero, as the impact persists. And also remark radicalpolitiks comment here.

There is a nice quote of Carl Jung:
"The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of his life. Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite can we avoid fixing our interest upon futilities, and upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance."
I guess he is absolutely right.

(I have also written about/discussed that here: http://www.intellectualhonesty.com/forum/index.php?topic=89.0)

But as you rightly noticed. People are good or bad independent of philosophical ideas. Our actions make us happy or unhappy for the moment.

 

[Boo boo]

And if that individual wants that there is no afterlife, then fortunately for me, this guy can not do anything about it.

Right. He can call it bull, woo, and "whine" about it all he wants, but that's not going to make the afterlife just disappear.

 

[Arouet]

I value people because I care about them. Couldn't tell you why...

Exactly!

 

[Saiko]

It's basic economic theory: scarcity enhances value. If you have an infinite existence, then each individual action becomes less important. Take murder for instance - when you kill someone, if there is no afterlife then you have deprived this person of all of their possible life experiences. You have truly taken something away from them.

Nonsense! Your premise doesn't wash. Even though there is an afterlife, when a person dies - in most cases - their life experiences are done. That they have experiences in other physical lives and in non-physical existences doesn't change that. Each and every life has a value that cannot in any way be enhanced or diminished.

Also, you are misapplying economic theory. Scarcity in the model is predicated on there not being enough material goods to satisfy the desired acquisition. And the "value" you speak of is financial. Neither concept is applicable here.

 

[Arouet]

Nonsense! Your premise doesn't wash. Even though there is an afterlife, when a person dies - in most cases - their life experiences are done. That they have experiences in other physical lives and in non-physical existences doesn't change that. Each and every life has a value that cannot in any way be enhanced or diminished.

You've taken away one experience to replace it with another. One of an endless stream.

Also, you are misapplying economic theory. Scarcity in the model is predicated on there not being enough material goods to satisfy the desired acquisition. And the "value" you speak of is financial. Neither concept is applicable here.

No - I'm talking about all value - not just financial value.

But regardless, my view is that this is merely an intellectual exercise - I think what people value in their lives has little to do with their metaphysical views of the afterlife.

 

[Doppelgänger]

It's basic economic theory: scarcity enhances value. If you have an infinite existence, then each individual action becomes less important. Take murder for instance - when you kill someone, if there is no afterlife then you have deprived this person of all of their possible life experiences. You have truly taken something away from them.

If we are all inifinite beings, or all part of the source, then if you kill someone, sure, you are depriving them of certain experiences, but you've given them the experience of being killed, and they will go on to have other experiences that they wouldn't have had had you not killed them. Given the relative little importance of any individual action on such a time scale, you haven't really harmed them.


BUT! Before that gets anyone up in arms, consider the fact that I don't think most people in either group really bases their everyday actions on this philosophical position. Non-believers don't tend to treat every action as meaningless simple because there may be no ultimate meaning. And believers don't tend to minimise each action on each simply because these actions will be relatively unimportant to them a billion billion years from now.

Rather: I think both groups tend to highly value their lives here on earth!

Economics is NOT a science. It pretends to be, and yes, it has taken over the world, but it is not a science. So why bring that up?

Also, it does not matter if materialism is true or immaterialism is true. The point is that human dignity is foremost. And then we can extend that dignity to others (I am a vegetarian).

What is being pushed (through materialism, physicalism, wtf ever) is cruel. And then human rights are supposed to hinge on what some study says? I call BS.

This is why I care.

 

[Typoz]

This is why I acceptn some form of memoryless rebirth. In a way, this is the same as finite existence because each go would feel like the first time

Almost echoing a previous reply, I tend to agree partially, but not completely with this. Certainly I think it is generally the case that we don't remember any previous lifetime in detail, as this would pretty much get in the way of us concentrating on getting on with living this life here and now.

But I don't think that means there are no memories at a deeper level. For example some people have a cheery, light-hearted disposition, others may have a more serious, perhaps even gloomy outlook, even from infancy. Such predispositions may sometimes be so overwhelmingly 'out of character' relative to that person's experience in this current lifetime, that it begs for an explanation. It may not always be possible to identify the cause, but I'm confident, through personal experience, that such characteristics may sometimes be explained as some sort of memory of a previous lifetime,

This is a tricky area, as a full understanding of what is going on may require some richer knowledge of the purpose of existence, which is often somewhat teasingly received during an NDE, and which the person then frustratingly forgets as part of their return from the NDE. All they are left with is a knowing that they knew.

 

[Arouet]

Economics is NOT a science. It pretends to be, and yes, it has taken over the world, but it is not a science. So why bring that up?

I was just bringing up the concept of scarcity and value. Don't think we need to focus on the economics angle!

Also, it does not matter if materialism is true or immaterialism is true. The point is that human dignity is foremost. And then we can extend that dignity to others (I am a vegetarian).

I agree that human dignity is something we value regardless of whether materialism or immaterialism is true.

What is being pushed (through materialism, physicalism, wtf ever) is cruel. And then human rights are supposed to hinge on what some study says? I call BS.

This is why I care.

I don't think human rights should hinge on what some study says! But I can't think of anyone who else who does either?

But we agree that we value human dignity regardless of whether materialism is true - which indicates that our reasons for doing so lie elsewhere than on that particular metaphysical debate.

 

[DasMurmeltier]

I am continually amazed by some fellow atheists who are so pathologically obsessed with something that they don't even believe in.

Actual thing is: You dont have to believe in a god to believe in an afterlife. Those 2 things dont have to be connected to each other. Its just like with psi. Could be connected; but theres no need for that. Atheism is for me just the belief that there is no god. Its not necessarly saying anything about afterlife or anything like that.

 

[Doppelgänger]

I was just bringing up the concept of scarcity and value. Don't think we need to focus on the economics angle!



I agree that human dignity is something we value regardless of whether materialism or immaterialism is true.

I don't think human rights should hinge on what some study says! But I can't think of anyone who else who does either?

But we agree that we value human dignity regardless of whether materialism is true - which indicates that our reasons for doing so lie elsewhere than on that particular metaphysical debate.

Humanism is not about dignity, look it up. Its roots are eugenics and all sorts of nasty snuff.

Talking about "scarcity and value" is talking about economics, which I, personally, consider a pseudoscience.

And yes, stupid studies promoted in the media (because science!) undermine human dignity.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

If the metaphysical assumptions people adopt can be decoupled from their behavior toward themselves and others, wouldn't this mean the materialist evangelism of the skeptical movement was utterly worthless save for procuring profits and narcissistic self-aggrandizement?

 

[Arouet]

Humanism is not about dignity, look it up. Its roots are eugenics and all sorts of nasty snuff.

Whether or not that's true, what does that have to do with what I posted? I made no mention of humanism!

Talking about "scarcity and value" is talking about economics, which I, personally, consider a pseudoscience.

Do you not have things/experiences/what-have-you-that you value in your own life?

And yes, stupid studies promoted in the media (because science!) undermine human dignity.

You've switched gears again. You started by saying that some people (presumably "materialists") advocate that we should determine human rights according to scientific studies. You're now saying that certain stupid science studies undermine human dignity. Are you saying that certain study findings convince you that we shouldn't ascribe value to human dignity? Are you saying that the studies themselves advocate for not treating fellow humans with dignity? Or something else?

 

[malf]

If the metaphysical assumptions people adopt can be decoupled from their behavior toward themselves and others, wouldn't this mean the materialist evangelism of the skeptical movement was utterly worthless save for procuring profits and narcissistic self-aggrandizement?

:D

 

[Arouet]

If the metaphysical assumptions people adopt can be decoupled from their behavior toward themselves and others, wouldn't this mean the materialist evangelism of the skeptical movement was utterly worthless save for procuring profits and narcissistic self-aggrandizement?

Well, I didn't say that metaphysical assumptions are completely decoupled from their behaviour towards themselves and others (you might recall in another post to you I specifically stated that I think they can impact on behaviour). As for the worth of the activities of evangellical skeptics - I think some of them are quite worthwhile, others less so. As with most things context matters and we need to look at these issues on a case by case basis.

 

[tim]

Right. He can call it bull, woo, and "whine" about it all he wants, but that's not going to make the afterlife just disappear.

You tell him Boo Boo !

 

[Doppelgänger]

Whether or not that's true, what does that have to do with what I posted? I made no mention of humanism!



Do you not have things/experiences/what-have-you-that you value in your own life?



You've switched gears again. You started by saying that some people (presumably "materialists") advocate that we should determine human rights according to scientific studies. You're now saying that certain stupid science studies undermine human dignity. Are you saying that certain study findings convince you that we shouldn't ascribe value to human dignity? Are you saying that the studies themselves advocate for not treating fellow humans with dignity? Or something else?

Oi, I don't think I switched gears as I said from the outset that this is my OPINION.

But now I am suddenly in the position of defending my personal beliefs.

I was merely commenting on what I think about humanism. And genetics. I was not singling you out, Arouet.

I was merely putting thoughts out there.

But it is true that I have thoughts on metaphysics and Econ. :) I just responded to you. Happy to have a debate though!

 

[Types With Fingers]

Actual thing is: You dont have to believe in a god to believe in an afterlife. Those 2 things dont have to be connected to each other. Its just like with psi. Could be connected; but theres no need for that. Atheism is for me just the belief that there is no god. Its not necessarly saying anything about afterlife or anything like that.

Playful sarcasm: Great! A brief stint as a physical being fluttering about without meaning, followed by an incorporeal existence without meaning... that lasts forever.

 

[Elessar]

I also don't believe in an "afterlife".

But I take the exact opposite tack. A materialist will say there is no afterlife because for him matter is all there is (or will be), consciousness an illusion, etc.

I say there is no "after"-life because that phrase represents/presumes a dichotomy, a dualism, which ultimately doesn't exist. What we conceive of as heaven (whatever that might be for each person) is something that can be realized right here, right now, without having to "wait" for it until after your current mortal body finally fades.

I am thus, in a roundabout way, in agreement with the materialist argument here on that one narrow point; that, yes, focusing too much on that pseudo-dualism may get you to forsake/ignore all the heaven that is around you, and in you (which is where it ultimately is anyway), right here, right now. [What Ken Wilber calls the pure ascent position, vs. the pure descent position, which is to revel in it all in pure abandon. Like the Buddha himself I prefer the middle position...]

And, as is usual when I say something like this, one my songs on random shuffle backs me up perfectly: The Cure's "Just Like Heaven"...

 

[DasMurmeltier]

Playful sarcasm: Great! A brief stint as a physical being fluttering about without meaning, followed by an incorporeal existence without meaning... that lasts forever.

I dont know, could be worse. Im fine with no meaning at all, that means there is no pressure to do things. And well, arent we actually creating our own meaning for our lifes anyways these days?

I also don't believe in an "afterlife".

But I take the exact opposite tack. A materialist will say there is no afterlife because for him matter is all there is (or will be), consciousness an illusion, etc.

I say there is no "after"-life because that phrase represents/presumes a dichotomy, a dualism, which ultimately doesn't exist. What we conceive of as heaven (whatever that might be for each person) is something that can be realized right here, right now, without having to "wait" for it until after your current mortal body finally fades.

I am thus, in a roundabout way, in agreement with the materialist argument here on that one narrow point; that, yes, focusing too much on that pseudo-dualism may get you to forsake/ignore all the heaven that is around you, and in you (which is where it ultimately is anyway), right here, right now. [What Ken Wilber calls the pure ascent position, vs. the pure descent position, which is to revel in it all in pure abandon. Like the Buddha himself I prefer the middle position...]

Hm. I personally believe in an afterlife in some sort of form. I still agree though that we should live our lifes to the fullest. Theres no need to abandon your current life to believe in something like that; you can still enjoy yourself(i mean like, i could enjoy the life right here and enjoy the next one too. Wohoo!). To be honest, im enjoying myself even more than before since i tend to believe what i do. But as long as everyone is fine with his/her opinion its all cool :)
Btw, people that believe in consciousness in a fundamental level might agree with you too since there wouldnt be any dualism at all. Hence no afterlife, since our state of being wouldnt change; just the contents of our consciousness would. But thats just a little note to all of that.

 

[Types With Fingers]

I dont know, could be worse. Im fine with no meaning at all, that means there is no pressure to do things. And well, arent we actually creating our own meaning for our lifes anyways these days?

Granted, at least in a meaningless afterlife the D&D games would be epic, but practically, wouldn't such an existence invite similar problems to what we experience now? Instead of physical wars based on bodily death counts, people in an uncontrolled spiritual plane could wage wars of intellect, vying for power over the masses based on mental strength, because why not?

Naturally, these thoughts don't refute the possibility of an afterlife without meaning, just concerned of the implications.