Hey, atheists! How do you cope?

[Sculptor]

So: how do you, an atheist, cope with there bein' no afterlife?

This is a serious inquiry: biggy's peace of mind is on the line.

How do you cope with the level of delusion that makes you think the idea of an afterlife is not just a contradiction in terms?

[henry quirk]

So: how do you, an atheist, cope with there bein' no afterlife?

This is a serious inquiry: biggy's peace of mind is on the line.

How do you cope with the level of delusion that makes you think the idea of an afterlife is not just a contradiction in terms?

As I say, in my opening: I don't believe there's an afterlife for me to be barred from.

[bobmax]

He's in his dark night of the soul and needs a nightlight.

The dark night can be endless.
Or just be the test that the soul has to face.

Impossible to know what the truth is.

All that remains is to wait.

Aware that God wants everything we have.

Whether it is the absolute Nothingness, or whether it is the Nothingness source of infinite possibilities.

[henry quirk]

All that remains is to wait.

Or, mebbe, get on with livin' cuz the answers, they'll come soon enough.

[iambiguous]

Sigh....

ME:

Over here...

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35211

...in the latter part of thread, my good friend, iambiguous, laments...

Well, given all of the things on this side of the grave that still bring me enormous pleasure and satisfaction, the thought that death utterly obliterates them -- and me! -- for all the rest of eternity, is, well, disconcerting to say the least.

I can't console the poor guy.

I'm not looking for consolation. I'm simply noting that, given the staggering mystery embedded in the existence of existence itself, no one can rule out anything. A God, the God able to provide mere mortals here on Earth with immortality and salvation is a "leap of faith" that many are able to make. Indeed, I've known a lot of very, very intelligent men and women down through the years who were able to take that leap. And I couldn't possibly have respected them more.

Of course, I didn't really try cuz, as I say...

I don't believe there's an afterlife for me to be barred from.

Alas, it will not sink in with souls like henry that I am far less interested in what they believe about an afterlife and far more intrigued by what they are able to demonstrate is or is not in fact true about it.

Here's someone who needs the existence of a God, the God in order to acquire a soul in the first place. Now, mind you, he is not able to provide us with any substantive evidence that this God exist. Instead, as with most things in his life revolving around value judgments, he "thinks up" his conclusions using "logical" arguments that are little more than words defining and defending still more words.

Unless of course he or others here can link me to conclusions of his that do revolve more around experiential and experimental evidence. I'm relatively new here so, sure, there may be a mountain of it laid out in other threads.

...and I'm good with that.

In the past, when confronting those [usually atheists] who seemed able to accept oblivion -- to actually be "good with it" -- the first thing I'd ask is, "okay, here and now, how close to your own actual existential, flesh and blood death are you?"

Are you up there in years, is your health precarious? Or is death something you react to more "philosophically"?

Also, here and now, how passionately attached to your life are you? Do you have many, many people and things that bring you enormous satisfaction and fulfilment?

After all, everyday there are those who actually take their own life. Either because they can longer endure the pain of it, or they just don't have anything or anyone it make it all worthwhile.

And how can this not be embodied existentially in dasein? Each of us is embedded in our own unique set of circumstances.

So, while I can envy those who are "good with" the obliteration of "I" for all the rest of eternity, I can certainly understand how others might be terrified of it. Anything but "good with it".

HIM:

Flash, Flannel, veg, pro, Advocate, Bob, Iwanna,
On biggy's behalf: thanks.

That there is valuable advice, Iwanna. I hope biggy is payin' attention.

Come on, henry, this isn't the New ILP. This is a forum created as an adjunct of a respected philosophy magazine.

So: Do you have substantive points to raise about my post above or don't you?

[henry quirk]

Do you have substantive points to raise about my post above or don't you?

Seems to me we've covered most or all of that multiple times, in other threads (most recently in the gun control thread I link to in my opener).

So: are you consoled yet?

[iambiguous]

Do you have substantive points to raise about my post above or don't you?

Seems to me we've covered most or all of that multiple times, in other threads (most recently in the gun control thread I link to in my opener).

Really? Note where, in other threads, you responded to the points I raised above. Substantively.

So: are you consoled yet?

Again, as noted, it's not consolation that I am looking for. It's intelligent discussion regarding something that each of us must face one by one: oblivion...or not?

Sure, if you're an atheist and are not bothered by the complete and utter obliteration of "I" for all of eternity, how do you manage that?

How close are you to death itself? How much do you truly love the life that you live? What do you have to lose when the Grim Reaper comes knocking?

Let's start with you, henry.

Death in this sense: https://youtu.be/PXPh7EbB1Tw

[Iwannaplato]

I found this henry Iamb exchange very odd.

Henry quoted Iambiguous in his OP.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:56 pm
Well, given all of the things on this side of the grave that still bring me enormous pleasure and satisfaction, the thought that death utterly obliterates them -- and me! -- for all the rest of eternity, is, well, disconcerting to say the least.

Iambiguous may or may not be seeking consolation, but it is clear he is suffering upcoming death. And, further, it's reasonable topic in general. Not metaphysics I would say, but fine as a thread in a philosophy forum. People here then responded, listing the ways in which they deal with death or in my case the way my father did.
This is all wrongheaded to Iambiguous and he brings up a post, presumably from another thread, that Henry hasn't responded to to Iambiguous' satisfaction. Why not take that up in that thread? If Iambiguous has no interest in being consoled, fine, he can ignore this thread.

But then he paraphrases the topic of this thread in question form, as if a number of people had not addressed this.

Sure, if you're an atheist and are not bothered by the complete and utter obliteration of "I" for all of eternity, how do you manage that?

And note that his version is not how they cope or are consoled. His version is 'not bothered'. It's not enough to generally feel good about life and not being interested in going on and on about the topic. No, one must have no negative reactions at all. The perfect cure.

[Sculptor]

So: how do you, an atheist, cope with there bein' no afterlife?

This is a serious inquiry: biggy's peace of mind is on the line.

How do you cope with the level of delusion that makes you think the idea of an afterlife is not just a contradiction in terms?

As I say, in my opening: I don't believe there's an afterlife for me to be barred from.

Since you know how to cope, then why ask an atheist?

[henry quirk]

biggy,

Note where, in other threads, you responded to the points I raised above.

I'm thinkin', if you're interested, you can do you own leg work. You can start on page 10 of...viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35211

-----

Iwanna,

You raise interesting points: I wonder how biggy will tackle 'em?

-----

sculptor,

Did you even read the opening?

[iambiguous]

Henry quoted Iambiguous in his OP.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 7:56 pm
Well, given all of the things on this side of the grave that still bring me enormous pleasure and satisfaction, the thought that death utterly obliterates them -- and me! -- for all the rest of eternity, is, well, disconcerting to say the least.

Iambiguous may or may not be seeking consolation, but it is clear he is suffering upcoming death.

Well, I might be if I spent my days agonizing over it. Instead, most of my time revolves around doing things that I very much enjoy...things that handily distract me from it. Music, film, art, PBS, science, novels, magazine subscriptions.

Still, most of us one by one will be confronted with our actual demise. Not philosophically or off in the distance. But existentially eyeball to eyeball with The End.

And it's not like anyone of us here can articulate the optimal or the "wisest" reaction to it.

Though, sure, if there are any atheists here who are 1] just months or weeks or days away from the abyss and 2] live a life that is bursting with fulfilment and 3] are okay with it, by all means, how did you manage it?

And, further, it's reasonable topic in general. Not metaphysics I would say, but fine as a thread in a philosophy forum. People here then responded, listing the ways in which they deal with death or in my case the way my father did.
This is all wrongheaded to Iambiguous and he brings up a post, presumably from another thread, that Henry hasn't responded to to Iambiguous' satisfaction. Why not take that up in that thread? If Iambiguous has no interest in being consoled, fine, he can ignore this thread.

Of course he or she has to make this personal. Accusing me of accusing others of being wrongheaded when over and over again I always emphasize how in regard to such things as profoundly personal as this it's dasein down to the bone. What can possibly be more subjective than that?!

And I'm supposed to ignore a thread in which I am myself a personal target of henry:

"...my good friend, iambiguous, laments...I can't console the poor guy"

Sure, if you're an atheist and are not bothered by the complete and utter obliteration of "I" for all of eternity, how do you manage that?

And note that his version is not how they cope or are consoled. His version is 'not bothered'. It's not enough to generally feel good about life and not being interested in going on and on about the topic. No, one must have no negative reactions at all. The perfect cure.

Again, I'm an atheist who is bothered by the prospect of oblivion. Just not 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Here and now.

And, by all means, note the part above where I posted that "one must have no negative reactions at all". In regard to what?

As for the perfect cure. Again the perfect cure for what...life? death?

[iambiguous]

biggy,

Note where, in other threads, you responded to the points I raised above.

I'm thinkin', if you're interested, you can do you own leg work.

Unbelievable. He claims to have responded to the points I raised above. And then when I ask him to demonstrate this, he demands that I go through his posts to prove it!!

[Iwannaplato]

OK, let's start with the easiest...

And, by all means, note the part above where I posted that "one must have no negative reactions at all". In regard to what?

My answer to this was right there in the post you supposedly read. I quoted you and it was part of my response to that quote.

Sure, if you're an atheist and are not bothered by the complete and utter obliteration of "I" for all of eternity, how do you manage that?

[my emphasis added since this was somehow missed despite my quoting you.
It's not enough if people are generally ok, they have to be 'not bothered'. I mean, I get bothered by some store staff, some drivers, a too soft bowel movement.

Also in my previous post I quoted you saying, after saying you were not interested in consolation asking, for some reason....

Sure, if you're an atheist and are not bothered by the complete and utter obliteration of "I" for all of eternity, how do you manage that?

Here you are interesting, but you up the ante...it has to be someone in the very last stages, at most months from death. IOW you do want answers to the question that Henry asked in this thread, since you ask the question yourself, but add on criteria that are, in the end, unbelievably hard to me for a variety of reasons. Even religoius people, very sure of their soon to be beamed to heaven are likely to be bothered by death now and then. You deny an interest in consolation, but then ask people the same question Henry did, just making it less likely anyone can answer. And imagine how few people on the entire planet, months or weeks or day, as you say, from death, are spedning their time in philosophy forums, rather than say with their families, friends or in nature or whatever.

Consider the possibility that you have given a lot of signals that you are interested in consolation, which you even do in this thread where you say you are not interested. Is it possible that you have given some double messages? Or is that possibility just off the table?

I did not 'make it personal'. You came to this thread and made statements like 'I am not interested in consolation.' For example. Henry, yes, made a person-focused thread. I responded twice without making it personal and made a good faith effort to answer the question in a way that might be useful to someone looking for consolation. When you joined the thread and responded in a personal manner, sure, I did respond to you and your post in the context of Henry's person-focued thread. You want things not personal, don't join in at a personal level.
From your post:

I'm not looking for consolation.

Personal and the opening of your first post here.

Alas, it will not sink in with souls like henry

Personal

Here's someone who needs the existence of a God

Personal
And is this true: the OP implies that he does not believe in the afterlife. Is he a theist? I have no idea, but he has referred a couple of people to that who seemed also to assume he was a theist. But I don't know. Perhaps he can clarify.

There's more in that post asking people for specific personal information about how they cope. You asking.
You joined a person focused thread, expressed personal things, made personal judgments about Henry. But I am 'making it personal by saying 'this is wrongheaded to Iambiguous.' Which fits you saying that you are not interested in consolation. The thread is in bad judgment or based on it since it is offering you what you don't need and apparantly have made clear to Henry already. I didn't say you were wrongheaded. If you think that's personal, to say you thought the thread directed at you had a poor focus, I can only refer you again to your statement that you were not interested in consolation. And if personal is improper, what the hell are those comments on Henry?

And it's not like anyone of us here can articulate the optimal or the "wisest" reaction to it.

And it's not as if anyone said that. At least I didn't. Another reason to dismiss. Another extreme criterion. Not considering that one could perhaps be inspired by what people do here without a single person saying that THEIR apporach is the wisest. But something someone does might be useful for someone. That's three times the criteria for what would be useful for you are approaching perfection. Only that. While at the same time denying you are interested in consolation, you go ahead and give the criteria for a valid response: someone at most months from death can answer, they must be not bothered by death at all AND their response needs to be the wisest reaction. (as if the wisest reaction will be universal, but that's another topic. )

And I'm supposed to ignore a thread in which I am myself a personal target of henry:

'Supposed to'? I didn't say that. I said I found it odd, as I said, that you claimed the topic had no interest to you, but then went on and have continued to, clarify what kind of responses to his topic would be valid or interesting to you. It seems like you are looking for consolation while denying it. Going by the words, all I have.

If the topic is not to your interest or wrongheaded since you are not interested in consolation, well, of course, come and say that. But what I found odd was that you more or less confirmed, after denying it, that you are interested in consolation and sent out the messages about what would be the criteria for a valid responder/response that I mentioned above. I stand by that being odd. From the moment you make the simple assertion that you are not interested in consolation, if true, what else is there to say, you can ignore it from that moment forward. Or you could ask that your name get taken off the thread. But, no, you engage, give criteria to be met for responses to the topic that you would be interested in, while not seeming to admit that you are interested but you have finer criteria.

I found this odd. I think it sends a double message', which by the way is perfectly human.

And I find it odd that you see me as making it personal when you clearly engaged in the thread personally about yourself and in relation to others.

Which has been my experience before. Constant double messages. Like I am not supposed to read what you write and take it seriously. Or even... it is impossible to decide what you are trying to say. Despite repeated requests for clarification.

I do see now that the post you wanted a response to from Henry was actually from this thread. So I was mistaken about that.

I do always consider that I may simply missing some cues as to how I should take these kinds of contradictions. So perhaps I bear some or more of the responsibility for the perceived oddity quale. But that doesn't change the likelihood that it's better for me (if not also us) that I avoid responding to you in general. I am going to keep to that in the future. Given the personal nature of the thread and whether you believe it or not a genuine intent on my part to help (not necessarily you but anyone who might find the topic interesting/useful) I wanted to read your posts. But such a situation is very unlikely to happen much or at all again.

[iambiguous]

OK, let's start with the easiest...

And, by all means, note the part above where I posted that "one must have no negative reactions at all". In regard to what?

My answer to this was right there in the post you supposedly read. I quoted you and it was part of my response to that quote.

Sure, if you're an atheist and are not bothered by the complete and utter obliteration of "I" for all of eternity, how do you manage that?

[my emphasis added since this was somehow missed despite my quoting you.
It's not enough if people are generally ok, they have to be 'not bothered'. I mean, I get bothered by some store staff, some drivers, a too soft bowel movement.

Again: I would never argue that anyone is obligated to be bothered by or have negative thoughts about oblivion. I can only note why it bothers me as an atheist and then solicit points of view from other atheists who are not bothered by it. Given the points I noted above.

Sure, if you're an atheist and are not bothered by the complete and utter obliteration of "I" for all of eternity, how do you manage that?

Here you are interesting, but you up the ante...it has to be someone in the very last stages, at most months from death. IOW you do want answers to the question that Henry asked in this thread, since you ask the question yourself, but add on criteria that are, in the end, unbelievably hard to me for a variety of reasons. Even religoius people, very sure of their soon to be beamed to heaven are likely to be bothered by death now and then. You deny an interest in consolation, but then ask people the same question Henry did, just making it less likely anyone can answer. And imagine how few people on the entire planet, months or weeks or day, as you say, from death, are spedning their time in philosophy forums, rather than say with their families, friends or in nature or whatever.

Yes, each of us as individuals confronts death given the actual circumstances of our lives. And the "philosophy of life" we subscribe to. And any possible religious convictions that we have. The latter two profoundly rooted existentially in dasein from my frame of mind. My circumstances may be entirely unfathomable to you and others. And, of course, the other way around.

I'm merely noting the obvious distinction between atheists not bothered by oblivion who are not actually close to death and/or living a shitty life and those who are eyeball to eyeball with their own extinction and have much, much, much to lose.

Commonsense let's call it.

Consider the possibility that you have given a lot of signals that you are interested in consolation, which you even do in this thread where you say you are not interested. Is it possible that you have given some double messages? Or is that possibility just off the table?

Look, okay, I admit it: if someone is actually able to convince me that an atheist in close proximity to the Grim Reaper and living a life they love need not be bothered by oblivion, sure, that might console me.

Anyone here want to give it a go?

And, as well, we can agree to disagree about this...

I did not 'make it personal'. You came to this thread and made statements like 'I am not interested in consolation.' For example. Henry, yes, made a person-focused thread. I responded twice without making it personal and made a good faith effort to answer the question in a way that might be useful to someone looking for consolation. When you joined the thread and responded in a personal manner, sure, I did respond to you and your post in the context of Henry's person-focued thread. You want things not personal, don't join in at a personal level.

Now, logically and epistemologically, let's pin down the exact defintion and meaning of the word "personal" here.

Of course: you and I and henry will construe it subjectively by and large given our own uniquely personal existential trajectories. All we can do then to the best of our abilities is attempt to explain and to describe these things as they seem to us "in our head". And then the part where we attempt further to demonstrate to others why all rational men and women are obligated to think about them as we do.

At least in regard to the objectivists among us who actually do believe that others are obligated to think about things like oblivion and atheism as they do.

Note to others:

As for this wall of words psychological evaluation...

If the topic is not to your interest or wrongheaded since you are not interested in consolation, well, of course, come and say that. But what I found odd was that you more or less confirmed, after denying it, that you are interested in consolation and sent out the messages about what would be the criteria for a valid responder/response that I mentioned above. I stand by that being odd. From the moment you make the simple assertion that you are not interested in consolation, if true, what else is there to say, you can ignore it from that moment forward. Or you could ask that your name get taken off the thread. But, no, you engage, give criteria to be met for responses to the topic that you would be interested in, while not seeming to admit that you are interested but you have finer criteria.

I found this odd. I think it sends a double message', which by the way is perfectly human.

And I find it odd that you see me as making it personal when you clearly engaged in the thread personally about yourself and in relation to others.

Which has been my experience before. Constant double messages. Like I am not supposed to read what you write and take it seriously. Or even... it is impossible to decide what you are trying to say. Despite repeated requests for clarification.

I do see now that the post you wanted a response to from Henry was actually from this thread. So I was mistaken about that.

I do always consider that I may simply missing some cues as to how I should take these kinds of contradictions. So perhaps I bear some or more of the responsibility for the perceived oddity quale. But that doesn't change the likelihood that it's better for me (if not also us) that I avoid responding to you in general. I am going to keep to that in the future. Given the personal nature of the thread and whether you believe it or not a genuine intent on my part to help (not necessarily you but anyone who might find the topic interesting/useful) I wanted to read your posts. But such a situation is very unlikely to happen much or at all again.

I found this odd. I think it sends a double message', which by the way is perfectly human.

And I find it odd that you see me as making it personal when you clearly engaged in the thread personally about yourself and in relation to others.

Which has been my experience before. Constant double messages. Like I am not supposed to read what you write and take it seriously. Or even... it is impossible to decide what you are trying to say. Despite repeated requests for clarification.

I do see now that the post you wanted a response to from Henry was actually from this thread. So I was mistaken about that.

I do always consider that I may simply missing some cues as to how I should take these kinds of contradictions. So perhaps I bear some or more of the responsibility for the perceived oddity quale. But that doesn't change the likelihood that it's better for me (if not also us) that I avoid responding to you in general. I am going to keep to that in the future. Given the personal nature of the thread and whether you believe it or not a genuine intent on my part to help (not necessarily you but anyone who might find the topic interesting/useful) I wanted to read your posts. But such a situation is very unlikely to happen much or at all again.

...how odd do you find it?

[commonsense]

I look at the existence of an afterlife, and the existence of God, dispassionately, even cold heartedly, and logically. Therefore I am an agnostic.

Only the agnostic has it right concerning God and an afterlife.

There either are or are not a God and an afterlife independent of me, my thoughts and my actions.

If there is a God, and He loves me, I can expect a comfortable afterlife.

If there’s a God and He requires me to demonstrate my goodness by performing good deeds, He is a judgmental God and He will either reward me or punish me.

If there’s a judgmental God, I might be able to influence His estimation of me by doing good deeds, but then I’m left to ponder what deeds are good, who they are good for, and what might be the unintended evil consequences of good deeds.

I could spend my entire life trying to answer those questions for myself, never knowing whether my answers are right or wrong. I have no interest in clearly unanswerable questions.

If there’s no God and no afterlife, I can expect an uneventful oblivion, but one that is at the least without pain. Yes, I would also be without love and joy, but that’s the price of painlessness.

There isn’t really anything I can do with confidence about the existence of God and the sequellae of there being One. Nor is there anything to be done about an afterlife or a Heaven and a Hell.

Since there’s no way to know whether there’s a God, an afterlife, a Heaven or a Hell, I choose not to expend my energy trying to determine the indeterminable. And I am comfortable with that.