(2017-09-05, 02:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]There are close to 7.5 billion people that you don't matter to. One day you will be dead for 500 years and won't matter to anyone. You only matter while alive and while you live in the memories of those who knew you. When they die you won't matter.
So, again, faith or science speaking here?
Also, what does the word "matter" mean to you as you've used it in this post?
(2017-09-05, 02:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]There are close to 7.5 billion people that you don't matter to. One day you will be dead for 500 years and won't matter to anyone. You only matter while alive and while you live in the memories of those who knew you. When they die you won't matter.
Re: the 7.5 Mil- Oh how wrong you are. They matter to me, I just don't know them individually.
Of course the people 500 years from now won't know me, just like I don't know those who came 500 years before. This is all true.
But the value of my being here 500 years from now will still be with me, in my larger, ever accumulating self. Those lessons I've learned. those people I've helped and loved. That will be with me and it will be important to me, and also to those whom I touch, help, love, and mentor in the future.
It's like planing a garden. The seeds I plant now, don't have any consequence until some time later.
Patience grasshopper.
"The point of a mosquito?"
So... Being a food source for animals that are upper in the food chain is not enough? How about spreading pathogens that prevent overpopulation?
Really, you can't be that shallow.
(2017-09-05, 12:46 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]How many of your ancestors are not remembered because of the life they lived? If you yourself do not make a major contribution to history you will like millions of other humans alive and dead will pass from memory eventually to be forgotten. My niece traced our ancestry back to the late 1300's, there are no records going back further. Until she did that no one knew they lived and no one will ever know the names of our ancestors before that. Why would anyone think there's existential meaning?
Your question assumes an answer. It's conclusory. You're basically saying "there's nothing that exists when we die, so if people don't talk or think about you after your death you are forgotten and cease to exist in any way." That's assuming the conclusion. People find existential meaning for a variety of reasons, many of which I'm sure you're familiar with, that you just managed to magically brush aside with an arrogant assumption.
(2017-09-05, 05:06 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]"The point of a mosquito?"
So... Being a food source for animals that are upper in the food chain is not enough? How about spreading pathogens that prevent overpopulation?
Really, you can't be that shallow.
I was a metaphorical question.
(2017-09-05, 05:40 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I was a metaphorical question.
Rhetorical questions are supposed to convey a point, that one doesn't.
(2017-09-05, 12:22 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]We seem not to wonder if there's an afterlife for any other living thing. Yet,
when we realize our own mortality we look for any shred of hope to cling to.
Cold and pointless and yet that produces some of the nicest people you know. What's the point of a mosquito?
I think most people do wonder about whether animals have an afterlife. I'm sure that people who have lost beloved pets wonder whether they will see them again.
Your phrasing shows your bias, Steve. I'm assuming you read my post before this response yet you deliberately twist the meaning with a phrase like "any shred of hope to cling to". I explained my fear of death was
despite the good evidence for survival yet you say I'm clinging to shreds. You can't even show me the respect of addressing the things I did say. It doesn't matter that my good evidence is your shreds - what matters is that you have deliberately twisted my meaning from "despite" to "because of". And don't make excuses about using the generalised "we" as opposed to specifically addressing me. This was a response to my post.
Again, when I said cold and pointless, I explained that those people live their lives as though they
don't really believe that, not that the cold and pointless "
produces" nice people. Here's what I actually said:
Kamarling Wrote:Lastly, I'm yet to be convinced that atheists who present that kind of hard-line nihilistic worldview actually believe what they are preaching. It seems to me so cold and pointless yet I have people who are close to me and espouse those views and yet live their lives as though their lives have ultimate meaning; that love is more than mere brain chemicals and that altruism is "better for the soul" than personal gain and selfish goals. Some of the kindest people I know are atheists.
In previous threads you have admitted to your bias (albeit justifying it by saying that proponents are biased too). That admission doesn't absolve you from any responsibility to present your case honestly. Making your point by responding to things that were never said or worse, where the opposite was said or implied, is not being honest.
(2017-09-05, 02:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]One day you will be dead for 500 years and won't matter to anyone.
Haven't you ever met a medieval genealogist?
(2017-09-04, 09:26 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]No, I think that's a completely unreasonable view to take. I mean, what some of the more intelligent people in this have pointed out is key - there is absolutely, positively nothing in this scenario. There's no point in appreciating anything. There is no point... to literally anything. I was going to comment on what Steve001 said, by saying that he probably just hadn't really thought all that hard about it, but Will beat me to it.
Your last sentence is nonsense. There have likewise been plenty of crimes committed by atheists and materialists in the name of nihilism. It's a non sequitur.
Trying to somehow paint a demonstrable, nihilistic end in that rosy light might seem nice to you, or some other reductive atheist who isn't believing in an afterlife (or really anything) in any capacity whatsoever, but as tim pointed out, it's just a lack of acceptance of the real implications of that belief system. Life is not precious in that situation - life is nothing. I would think that if this were true and every single person knew about it, many would live their lives the exact same, just with an increased sense of depression and dread. I would guess that many people would be substantially more self-serving, since in that universe there's really little point to being excessively nice or caring about others (there's actually no point to it, save preserving your own ultimately worthless life a tad longer than otherwise, perhaps). You just ostensibly just get by by not being a dreadful person, and just kind of do as you please otherwise. I think plenty would take that approach as well. (If this sounds unsavory to you, consider that it would cause people to live and act in a way that most people would consider to be antithetical to human feelings, intuition, and emotion - might there be something to that?)
What I am very, very confident of, though, is that it would not make people have some mystical and lovely appreciation for life. If you hadn't taken notice, plenty of very religious people already live the way you mentioned, because they believe it's what God wants or it'll help them get into heaven. So for those people, no, your scenario would not apply. The vast majority of people on Earth believe in some form of an afterlife one way or another, and there's not, nor has there ever been, some mass suicide as people rush to the afterlife.
For whatever it's worth, I don't really know exactly what I believe in terms of specifics as far as an afterlife goes, but I sure as hell know that I believe something is going, whatever that thing is. To me, there's too much evidence to look the other direction or act like there isn't "more to it" than just this life from a reductive standpoint. As others have noted, the sheer absurdity of this life would, in your scenario, be maddening and depressing, regardless of how people chose to live their lives if it were true.
Sorry if I have misunderstood. Are you saying one should not appreciate life or cannot properly appreciate life if they know death is the end? I really do not get this logic. We all live and we die, that is the cycle of nature. If someone knows beyond doubt death is the end why would that stop them from appreciating life right now? Would they not go out and achieve more in life? If someone knows death is the end sure some might be depressed about it, but others will appreciate it more.
Also you talk about positive scenarios. Is disease positive? Just because something is natural does not mean it has to be positive. Nature does not work this way. The belief system here by proponents seems to be that one can not appreciate life if death is the end, and what is the point in appreciating anything if we die? This I do not understand. There has to be an afterlife for you to appreciate anything in life here
now? Makes no sense to me!
It also seems you invent a 'meaning' for your life if an afterlife exists. Also makes no sense to me! It seems belief in an afterlife comes with a lot of philosophical baggage.
(2017-09-06, 01:59 AM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry if I have misunderstood. Are you saying one should not appreciate life or cannot properly appreciate life if they know death is the end? I really do not get this logic. We all live and we die, that is the cycle of nature. If someone knows beyond doubt death is the end why would that stop them from appreciating life right now? Would they not go out and achieve more in life? If someone knows death is the end sure some might be depressed about it, but others will appreciate it more.
Also you talk about positive scenarios. Is disease positive? Just because something is natural does not mean it has to be positive. Nature does not work this way. The belief system here by proponents seems to be that one can not appreciate life if death is the end, and what is the point in appreciating anything if we die? This I do not understand. There has to be an afterlife for you to appreciate anything in life here now? Makes no sense to me!
It also seems you invent a 'meaning' in your life if an afterlife exists. Also makes no sense to me! It seems belief in an afterlife comes with a lot of philosophical baggage.
With regards to your first paragraph, I addressed this already. Some might appreciate it more, my guess without a doubt is that the vast majority of people would not. This is exactly my point - you do not understand the implications of this scenario. What is the point of "achieving more in life"? There is no point. Your progress or achievements are devoid of any real meaningfulness, because nothing is this scenario "means" anything. It just "is", and then it "is not". Your contention that this situation would in some way make people appreciate life more generally is what I disagree with; not in premise, which is logically sound. But there's more to life than logic, and I am confident that most people would not feel that way at all.
For your second paragraph: I didn't say the word natural, and have no idea what your point about disease is. I think you have a fundamental lack of comprehension about the implications of this scenario, and that's clear. What is the foundation for meaning in the situation put forth in the op? "Create your own meaning" is a platitude people like to say, that has, ironically, little meaning itself in a universe in which there is nothing to life. Note that you took what I and others have said and twisted it entirely: I never said you have to have an afterlife to have meaning. Hypothetically, let's say that a God exists who is interested in the collective evolution of his creation, but there is no afterlife. In this situation, were we aware of it, at least we are serving some purpose. That doesn't involve an afterlife, but it involves a purpose from which people can at least draw meaning. There is a humongous spectrum of things from which a person can ascribe meaning that don't fit into a neat little personal afterlife. On the flip side, there is no value in "appreciation" because there is no value in anything in the proposed situation. Perhaps the absurd and impossible to comprehend-ness of this is what is making it difficult for anyone to understand, which certainly makes sense to me. So what you've done here is try to set up a caricature of what people here have said that isn't at all representative of their views. No one has said "There has to be an afterlife for you to appreciate anything in life here now!" What we have said, is that if death is final and there is nothing else, and we are a cosmic accident and nothing more, etc. etc., it's pretty much impossible to ascertain some meaning or value from that if you're being intellectually honest.
With regards to your last sentence, you don't "invent" meaning. I think the best way of putting it is that you "find" meaning, with the key being that meaning is actually rooted in some legitimate purposiveness as opposed to false creations out of the atoms and subatomic particles bouncing around randomly in your brain. You're just making assertions with no supporting statements with that entire last paragraph... I think, again, that you are just ignoring the immense philosophical baggage that comes with
your scenario, as laid out by most of the people who have responded here.