There is nothing after death.
So what?
but what if there is
There is no death. Quantum immortality prevents it. Everyone just ends up in increasingly horrific circumstances, unable to die even after the rest of humanity has vanished.
>>25175226Just like there's nothing after falling asleep in that there's no conscious experience. If there is something, we are experiencing it right now.
>>25175226Nah God told me there was
>>25175226Why is this schlock getting memed?
>>25175226Scientism: 2026 Updated Hylic Edition
>>25175228indeed. atheists say this so they can escape ultimate responsibility for their wrongdoings in life. by asserting this, they can absolve themselves of being punished for stealing, shooting up drugs, and cutting their dicks off.
>>25175495>punishment needs to come from abovelol
>>25175536Yes, because it didn't come from your father because you didn't have one. He went out for cigarettes and never came back.
>>25175226But there is all of life, always
>>25175226Pretty much everyone is 3.5 grams of shrooms and an "Our Father" away from seeing the afterlife
>>25175226so do you want to have a discussion about this or are you just a demoralization bot posting nonsense?
>>25175275How actually do theists and idealists get around the whole physical changes to the body, especially brain, cause fundamental changes in perception and existence as we know it problem?
>>25175770>this retarded argument again
>>25175226
>>25175770Because those aren't changes that can be quantified. I swear every materialist is obsessed with quantification.
>>25175536Why do you think the saying is "no one is above the law" you retard?
>>25175770Perception is a function of the ego which is only a miniscule part of the overall mind.
Who is this guy that loves to post one sentence replies with the covert art of Metzinger's books attached?
>>25175770By abandoning idolatry (of reason, in particular). The dissonance doesn't matter and dissolves once you understand that Being is qualitatively unique—and omnipresent for (you).
>>25176075Perception and subjectivity precede reason and empiricism themselves and are inseperable from human reality.
God created our materialist reality but it is still materialist. There's no spooky ghost inside you that's gonna float up into some happy land dimension when you die. Scientists think there's a big black hole at the center of the universe. We are god's cosmic toilet
>>25175735When I took shrooms I just had the overwhelming feeling that atheism is true.
>science of the mindOof.
>>25175770For an idealist the brain and the rest of the body are just representations of a mind state. When you drink wine, you aren't changing your physical brain chemistry, you are changing your immaterial mind by interacting with the wine's immaterial substance, and whatever you perceive is a representation of that.
>>25175770via denial as in >>25176084
>>25175226>There is nothing after death.He says this right after ten thousand people died today already.
>>25175770Consciousness doesn't die with the brain, but the brain dies or goes asleep with consciousness.
>>25176455Who knows? Shrooms isn't the metric for truth. Maybe we're both just retarded
>>25176430This is obviously in contradiction. NDEs also disprove your point
>>25176949Truth is relative if doesn't benefit me, objective if it does
>>25176956Bland contradiction and obviously wrong
>>25176430>Scientists think there's a big black hole at the center of the universe. oh the scientists """think""" so, that definitely changes everything....
>>25175770Upon second thought and reading the replies, I'm not sure why exactly perception correlating with healthy nervous system activity should negate the possibility of a God that created those things, or a soul that's divorced from material happenings, etc.
Ask yourselves why there has to be a creator or why it has to be 1 God. The largest part of human history acknowledged the existence of countless deities
>>25176961>responding to bait
>>25175495Ironic since religion, say, Christianity for example, goes to great lengths to invent criteria for getting out of responsibility for wrong doing, such as pretending that guilt can be transferred to someone else who can then be tortured and executed and that can somehow absolve you of your responsibility. The age old scapegoat, or the Jewish chicken killing. Inflict punishment on the innocent to wash yourself clean in blood. A vile, abhorrent, evil notion, upon which so much of religion is built.Typically, atheists recognize that responsibility is solely on the individual, that each person is responsible for their own actions, and if justice is to be found at all, it must be found here and now in the one world we know actually exists. There is no illusion about a cosmic daddy figure who will set everything right after death, helpfully removing any necessity for us to actually grow up, form a cohesive moral code, and collectively build a framework to enforce it so that everyone can live in harmony to the best extent possible. In short, religion is an infantilizing force, it keeps a person a perpetual child, retarding any possibility of growing up and taking on responsibility and building integrity.
>>25175231what the fuck? that's fucked up, man.
>>25175231Retarded concept almost on par with the basilisk. One of those unproveable WOULDN'T THIS BE SO FUCKED UP DUDE ideas
>>25175226>>25175231I don’t buy quantum immortality either, but if you strip it down to what’s actually defensible from a physics standpoint, quantum entanglement is real, and it gives you a cleaner framework. Think of the “soul” not as substance but as a state �, is a configuration of information embedded in a larger Hilbert space � of quantum mechanics. What we call life is just a temporary factorization �, where the reduced state � produces the illusion of a local “I”. Death doesn’t annihilate �; it removes that decomposition. The informational structure doesn’t vanish, it delocalizes back into the total state. If you then take a cosmological limit where distinguishability breaks down and effectively �, you end up with a single undivided state � that contains all correlations... every � as a projection or basis-dependent slice. In that sense, the “soul” is immortal not as a persistent observer, but as conserved structure under unitary evolution �, and “heaven” isn’t a place but the limit where all separations disappear. Not many souls continuing, but one state containing all of them: existence collapsing into a single, fully entangled identity where individuality was only ever a temporary partition.>t.chemical engineer
>>25178116>atheist talking about "autonomy" when they can't even prove free will exists
>>25175226>”nigger”>rapes you
>>25175226QRD? i am interested. does he take a buddhist approach or a different one?
>>25178179Why did you put quotes around "autonomy"? Where did I use that word? Also, you don't need to prove free will for individual responsibility to still be valid. In a purely mechanistic system, game theory dynamics would make it the best cultural/social ethic for positive outcomes.
>>25178202So you admit free will doesn't exist.
>>25175226-Brought to you by nihilistic techie retard #749350 that wants to indoctrinate the masses into their satanic dehumanizing AI cult
>>25178213"Admit"? What are you even talking about? Can you not engage with what I am actually saying?
Something can't lead to nothing.So there then can't be an 'after death'.This means dying would take forever.
>>25178223Playing dumb like this isn't doing you or anyone else favors.
>>25178226I don't need to either accept or reject free will, that has no bearing on the position I presented earlier. Am I going to have to spell everything out for you like this going forward?
>>25178230>I don't need to accept free will exists but I am DEFINITELY a person with free wi- INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!It's funny because Metzinger goes a step further and says minds aren't even real either lol.
>>25178233Bro is having a conversation with the voices in his head. Wild.
>>25178236I like how your first pathetic attempt at gaslighting was questioning my use of the word "autonomy" when its perfectly synonymous with "responsibility is solely on the individual".
>>25178238So why did you put quotes around it? And why do you dodge answering a single one of my questions?
>>25178241Holy sperg reply.
>>25178242Why did you dodge again?
>>25178244You're a pathetic control freak.
>>25178247Are you just incapable of answering questions directly?
>>25178248Should I ask you permission to wipe my ass too?
>>25175231Death not being the end is a massive fear of mine. I don't care if it's "heavenly" for eternity, whatever the fuck that feels like. I better end.
>>25178250How many posts in a row are you going to dodge answering a simple question?
>>25178252no one wants to be annihilated, that's just a lie.
>>25178253It's not my responsibility to explain why its stupid to believe in individual free actors in a deterministic worldview.
>>25178257Where did I say anything close to that?
>>25178255What do you plan to do for the first 500,000 years of your after life?
>>25178258>Where did I say anything close to that?here>Typically, atheists recognize that responsibility is solely on the individual, that each person is responsible for their own actionsAtheists are automatically physicalists/materialists a priori, therefore they have no refutation for determinism whatsoever.
>>25178259oh no, 500,000 years of literally endless infinite possibilities? how horrible.
>>25178264I'd like to congratulate you on attempting to actually answer a question directly. I know this must have been difficult for you.Unfortunately, you have failed to understand the subject at hand. An atheist is someone who does not accept any claim about the existence of god or gods. However, an atheist might believe in some kind of quantum uncertainty which allows for free decision making by individual centers of consciousness.My point is that regardless of whether people actually have free will or not, any reasonable moral system has to be founded on individual responsibility. Introducing the idea that you can do wrong, transfer that guilt onto a third party, punish them in your stead, and magically be guilt-free is the very negation of morality. It annihilates the very concept itself and invites more ill-doing since people have an avenue to escape punishment without any accountability.
>>25178278Thanks for the ChatGPT reply.
>>25178116>Typically, atheists recognize that responsibility is solely on the individual, that each person is responsible for their own actions, and if justice is to be found at all, it must be found here and now in the one world we know actually exists.If thats the case then why do they have such poor foresight? I don't necessarily think all atheists are a hivemind, but most skew liberal and don't think of the long term consequences of freeing oneself from social constraints or understand the limitations of their own thoughts and actions.
>>25178187he takes a buddhist approach with some modern science thrown in
>>25178284Bro has never read a substantial reply before so just assumes it's chatGPT. Hilarious.
>>25178293"Substantial" would imply I'm talking to a conscious person who can grasp a central overarching theme of a conversation/debate. Ergo, your replies are mindless AI slop to force engagement out of me.
>>25178286i hope it is not too close to my book
>>25178285I suspect you have a biased view, not in the sense that you have an internal bias, but more that the instances that come into your view have been filtered in a certain way. Most atheists are in first world western countries, countries based in values of freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech. These things tend to be exactly against any kind of "hivemind" because it allows anyone to voice their opinion which goes against the consensus of the group.I think it is worth noting that for the most well known atheists, Hitchens and Dawkins, they often went out of their way to emphasize the importance of doubting and questioning your own thoughts and actions, to try and establish justifications that will stand up to scrutiny and outside criticism and to always live with the knowledge of just how little you know, of how that is the definition of an educated person, someone who knows just how much they don't know.I find that it tends to be religious people who dismiss the limitations of their own thoughts and actions. The core religious claim is to know God, to know his character and to know what he wishes. This kind of supreme arrogance often leads whole civilizations astray and actively undermines and destroys any check or balance that might have saved it.Generally speaking, people ought to be free to live their lives as they choose within the bounds of a legal framework designed to prevent the infringement of the rights of others. They ought to be allowed this not as an arbitrary principle, but because it leads to a better life for everyone in society. If history teaches us one thing, it is that repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed. Instead of authoritarian use of force against social dalliances, there should be an emphasis placed on first educating people about the benefits that traditional social constraints can convey, but second and probably more important, the avenues to those benefits should be made more available.
>>25178296"Substantial" would imply no such thing. Either the points I have made are valid or they are not. Either you can challenge them successfully, or you cannot (or, I suppose, you can continue dodging even an attempt).Also, where do you think you are? "Force engagement"? On the /lit/ board of 4chan? For what possible reason? This seems to be a cropping up of your ego here, because let's face it, your "engagement" has been pretty lackluster so far.
>>25178311>"le enlightened atheist ecks dee">look inside>shitlib propagandaredditors make me sick.
>>25175226An ego is a useful thing in some cases. It can be the only thing that keeps you going or fights to escape a terrible situation. Men that need to control women in a fucked up way fear it more than anything. She can read a million books and he won't care or feel threatened but the moment she realizes that she is worth more than a life of micromanaged misery the whole thing changes. It's not about her realizing she's superior to others. It has nothing to do with others. Not even him. It's the only means of escape somebody like that has. The epiphany that there is more to life and she doesn't need to deserve it.
>>25178314>Either the points I have made are valid or they are not.They're not. Anything else?
>>25178324Can you actually engage in a conversation or are your own personal ideas so weak that they cannot stand up in a dialogue?
>>25178336Care to support that assertion with an actual argument? Care to make counter-points? Care to do anything above the level of a playground "nuh-uhh"?
>>25178338>Care to support that assertion with an actual argument? I already explained you cannot be an atheist without being a materialist. If you're a materialist, you're logically a determinist insofar you accept prior causes as a consequence. Get the big picture? Don't even bring up quantum bullshit to me as a gotcha ever again. If you knew anything about the field outside of pop-sci, you'd know its operating strictly on deterministic principles.
>>25178163>One of those unproveable ideasSo just like the existance of a God?
>>25178338>>25178339>>>/reddit/
>>25176465Not denial at all, it incorporates materialist eliminativism.
>>25178330so true xis
>>25178116You should read zapfe's famous essay, blindsight, and echopraxia. You're doing the reddit thing where you prop up zombie liberal christianity with a fedora and I really hate it. If you're going to abandon Christianity then actually abandon it.
>>25178372He's a bot.
>>25178355That's not an explanation. You're just asserting things with no justification, no argument, no expansion.Also, to claim categorically that the quantum realm definitely operates on deterministic principles demonstrates you are an intellectual fraud. You seem to just gloss over and deny anything you don't understand, it's very obvious and very sad, anon. You can do better.
>>25178372I am doing no such thing. My worldview is based on Aristotle's concept of Eudaimonia, which predates Christianity by a large margin. Reason can discover the best rules and morals for a community to live by to maximize the enjoyment, fulfillment, and satisfaction of all inhabitants. No need for zombies, human sacrifices, or blood rituals.
>>25178381You don't even know what you are buddy, much less what you believe.
>>25178377>That's not an explanation. You're just asserting things with no justification, no argument, no expansion.If you are an atheist you are a materialist. Repeat after me: If you are an atheist, you are a de facto materialist.>Also, to claim categorically that the quantum realm definitely operates on deterministic principles demonstrates you are an intellectual fraud. Parroting my words back to me is not an argument. Do you also conflate the map for the territory? What we "know" about quantum stochasticism is more of a testament of what we specifically *don't* know, which points to our lack of knowledge on the subject than some magical vector that operates purely on whim. >You seem to just gloss over and deny anything you don't understand, it's very obvious and very sad, anon. You can do better.Shut the fuck up, braindead faggot.
>>25178384I've been extremely clear in what I believe and your inability to engage with it is an indictment of who you are, not me.
>>25178381That's nice, now wake up to reality any day now.
>>25178385Someone can be an atheist and still believe in a spiritual realm. This is just a fact. You seem wildly delusional here.Again, you made a claim, categorically, that the quantum realm operates "strictly on deterministic principles". You are not a serious person if you are willing to overstate the case like that.Okay, I'll admit, maybe I was wrong about your capacity to do better.
>>25178389You had absolutely no reply to that, huh?
>>25178394>Someone can be an atheist and still believe in a spiritual realm.lolWe're done here.
>>25178387No you namedropped shit you don't understand. Youre the internet version of one of those faggots that interviews random whores and acts like them not knowing what a past participle is means that your ideology is correct.
>>25178398"Materialist" and "Atheist" are different words for a reason, anon.
>>25178399Bro, are you admitting you are unfamiliar with Aristotle's work regarding ethics, virtues, and ultimately Eudaimonia? On /lit/ where the most common motto is "begin with the Greeks"? It's okay if you're new to your literature journey, but some humility goes a long way. I'd recommend Nicomachean Ethics though, it's pretty accessibly and you'll be better able to appreciate where I'm coming from if you become familiar with it.
>>25178402I read all of that in highschool LOL.
>>25178420How have I misunderstood Aristotle? He outlines how virtues are useful in building community and community leads to the good life. Thus, we can evaluate and change our standard of the optimal set of virtues based on their utility in facilitating the good life. It's actually pretty straightforward. Most importantly, it is not "zombie Christianity" or whatever phrase was used earlier, since it predates Christianity and therefore has no need of it.
>>25178423You lack any insight into the culture, language, and tradition he was immersed in and you don't understand the unconscious impulses in yourself that are trying to rebuild Christianity from scraps of classical ideas. You can't speak Greek, you don't understand what λογος meant, and I doubt you've ever really experienced a radical change of belief. You adopted the wikipedia summary of eudaemonia because it fits your autistic unexamined preconceptions and you think it sounds cool. Everything you're saying is an empty gesture, as invalid as arguing from authority and somehow less meaningful.
>>25178435I think you are mixing up the cart and the horse here. The only valuable parts of Christianity are exactly the parts that were poached from the Greeks. It is not "rebuilding Christianity from scraps", it's bypassing the Christian perversion of classic ideas and using a method by which ideas can be tested against the real world for their usefulness. Unfortunately, you seem too caught up with your own biases and your projections onto me and my motives to be interested in a good faith exploration of what framework of morals and ethics are actually justifiable and efficacious. Again, just because you needed to go to Wikipedia to brush up on a significant idea in Greek thought does not mean I did. Nothing of what you've said addresses the core thesis I have put forward, it's purely baseless attacks on things you imagine about me. If I lack insight into certain things that are germane, make that argument. Instead, you make vague generalized accusations about my not understanding what Aristotle was "immersed in", a vacuous and empty statement without actually connecting it to anything.
>>25178454Pointing at aristotle is not a thesis.
>>25178457Please actually read my posts if you are going to reply to them. I put forward Eudaimonia as the aim of ethics, and Aristotle's conception of a set of virtues which can be adopted in service of that aim. This is not "pointing", this is a detailed explanation of the role of ethics and morality, the purpose, the function, and the metric by which one virtue can be judged better than another. All of this is not "zombie Christianity", it is older, distinct, separate, and in my opinion a superior model. And to bring it back to the original point, within the optimal framework of morality for a community to function and provide good lives, individual accountability and responsibility is indispensable, which Christianity dispenses with through the vicarious expiation of wrongdoing through the torture and murder of an innocent other person. I cannot stress this point strongly enough, the CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIANITY is INCOMPATIBLE with the model I am putting forward, capisce?
>>25178464You aren't putting forward a model, you're saying "christianity bad, aristotle old and good". Almost everything you're saying is a reference or a platitude.
>>25175226Once an anon recommended me to read something like this based on what I said about my life and how I think of myself. Thank you for showing me this book, I will add it to my backlog
>>25178474You have to boil it down to that level because you cannot comprehend or engage on the level I have been putting forward. I have put forward the conflicting concept in Christianity and explained exactly why it is fundamentally unworkable and at odds with producing human flourishing. Is this merely a "platitude" or a "reference"? Again, you are unable even to defend the Christian doctrine which I am criticizing, you are reduced to making up an attack on form which doesn't land.
>>25178484Platitude + complete failure to understand other's belief systems which leads me to suspect severe autism.
>>25178252Dont worry my fren. Its okay.
>>25178488>complete failure to understand other's belief systemsProjection much? I have given detailed explanations, comparing and contrasting my view and the Christian view, while you have only thrown out vague insults. Again, you have demonstrated an inability to engage in any constructive conversation. Sad.
/lit/ was better when it was full of chuds and not full of autistic robots like this guy.
>>25175226This books seems up my alley. I think i prefer epicureanism over pretty much any philosophy i have read about. Can you shill me this book?Have you ever read about quantum entanglement and reincarnation?
>>25178484Excuse me sir but the sermon on the mount is the only recipe for human flourishing there is. Atheism only produces slippery ethics and rationalized atrocities
>>25177038Science faggots really are the worst
>>25179586By what metric do you judge the sermon on the mount to be superior? You make an appeal to "human flourishing", which suggests you are adopting a utilitarian framework, thereby actually agreeing with my standard and simply advocating for a specific set of ethics within that framework. I would like for you to explain how "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is a worthy maxim. People must make judgements all the time (you're already making judgements about atheists), and people should be open to fair judgement of themselves so that they become aware of their own flaws. Also, it's the height of irony to speak of "rationalized atrocities" when the Bible contains literal commandments from God to kill men, women, and children (the Amalekites).
>>25179898>>25175231>>25178177>>25179418Op why are you ignoring the most interesting discussions? Did you make this thread just to best theists?
>>25179898I was just using your term, and I interpreted it to mean the best interpersonal state achievable by humans. I'm not adopting a utilitarian framework, but rather a pretty clearly outlined ethical guideline that can always be referred to in ethical matters and that can be counted on to produce peaceful results. Because it's supposedly ordained by God, or at least presumes some objectivity and can be plainly followed, people who abide by it are forced to demonstrate prosocial treatment of others no matter how disagreeable it might feel. "Judge not, that ye be not judged," urges you to extinguish or at least overlook the hatred in your heart and treat the other person with compassion, and the worthiness of such an attitude should speak for itself. I just joined this convo btw, not sure what your statement about me judging atheists is referring to, unless you consider it a judgement rather than a fact to state that atheistic ethics are necessarily slippery and easily rationalized since they can't be objective. I know the Bible contains violence that's why I'm specifically referring to the sermon on the mount
>>25178177Okay but what does it feel like though
>>25179418what's wrong with pyrrhonism?
>>25179976You can't just make a judgement and then claim it's a fact. But the core of the ethic I have been outlining is building on Aristotle's concept of Eudaimonia which requires the adherence to certain moral virtues which, when combined with a community of others similarly following such virtues, creates a synergistic effect which enhances the ability of all to find The Good Life. Intrinsic to that idea is the concept that individuals must give up a shortsighted constant calculation of what benefit they are receiving from this deal with society, since the very act of being petty and calculating robs the whole enterprise of the synergistic effect which does yield better dividends then being maximally selfish in every interaction. I appreciate your willingness to engage since it has been much better than any other poster in this thread, but I would gently suggest that the statement "the sermon on the mount is the only recipe for human flourishing there is" does not fly, since there have been periods of human flourishing before it was made and there have been periods of human flourishing in places that definitely do not adhere to it. Again, I would be happy to hear what ethical maxims you really find meaningful in it, but these must be measured not by the fact that they were part of the sermon on the mount, but whether they actually function and produce better results for a society than another set of ethics.
>>25179418There isn't much of a difference between annihilation and reincarnation.
>>25179344No you haven't lol. You've made retarded claims and then declared victory.
>>25180278That looks an awful lot like a retarded claim you've got there.
>>25180317>n-no u
>>25180244Not necessarily. You still retain a first person POV in the case of reincarnation.
>>25180238are you a fucking bot?
>>25180373Do you have anything interesting to say in response or....?
>>25175770It's a far bigger mystery for materialists how the brain can replace every cell and the sense of a unified individual persists. Materialists need to say that information, like that electrons are negative, doesn't exist or is not stored anywhere. Similarly, where is your personhood? This opens you to forms. Realizing mankind can receive eternal forms implies he is eternal.
>>25180813>and the sense of a unified individual persists.We wake up different people each day based on experiences (of the previous day)
>>25180813If there is no continuity of the brain, why is there a continuity of the soul-brain connection? Why is my soul always attached to my ever changing brain?
