5 ms·

That's absurd. I'm an Atheist but I'd readily echo that statement. It's an expression of appreciation. If you find it insulting that's only your own eagerness t

That's absurd. I'm an Atheist but I'd readily echo that statement. It's an expression of appreciation. If you find it insulting that's only your own eagerness to find insult, nothing legitimate.

Tloewald 15y ago
I'd go further and suggest that a lot of atheists would echo the hope that there is some kind of fabulous immortality beyond the grave, it's just that the concept is, upon examination, absurd.
- joske2 15y ago
  Honestly, I hope there isn't immortality in heaven beyond the grave. Forever is a really long time. The first 1000 years in heaven might be interesting. The billion years after that? meh
  - JeremyBanks 15y ago
    Heaven does seems rather boring. However if we allow ourselves more creativity than scripture, we don't need to assume that eternal life must be dull. http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Eternal life holds no interest for me. Imagine living a million years, seeing and thinking all there is to see and think, then living a billion years after that. Then you realize that you're precisely 0% of the way to the finish line. Long after the heat death of the universe, a consciousness with nothing to cogitate. No thanks.
  - Tloewald 15y ago
    You're making a lot of assumptions there. The idea that there are finite number of possible thoughts is highly improbable given the number of things there aren't finite numbers of. If you argue from a base mechanics point of view (e.g. Your brain is basically a hard drive with n bits of storage an thus can only enter 2^n states) then you're assuming that in this hypothetical afterlife your physical limitations are maintained. Since your basic assumptions about the universe have been demonstrated to be wrong, assuming this particular assumption will be correct is drawing a very long bow. And the initial assumption is very much in doubt. To my mind an atheist is someone who has yet to encounter a plausible religion, not (a) someone who defines their beliefs in opposition to one religion (e.g. I do not believ heaven is a green pasture populated by angels playing harps and dead Christians tending sheep) or (b) someone who is closed to the possibility that a plausible religion might exist.
    - redthrowaway 15y ago
      >Since your basic assumptions about the universe have been demonstrated to be wrong That's ambitious of you. >To my mind an atheist is someone who has yet to encounter a plausible religion In principle, were a plausible religion to present itself, I would weigh it on the evidence. In the real world, the vast number of religions, none of which are plausible, combined with the demonstrated ability of science to explain the universe through natural causes, leaves no doubt in my mind that there is no supernatural creator. As for an afterlife, the complete and utter lack of evidence or argument in favor of it consigns it to the realm of all other fairy tales. As such, I treat it as a thought experiment more than as a proposed state of the Universe. If there is an afterlife, either it's eternal or it isn't. If it is, it is boring beyond belief. If it isn't, then what have you "gained"? Sure, it'd be nice to have a few thousand years to think, but I'd far prefer telekinesis and control over the flow of time. Since the propositions of my having superpowers and my consciousness enduring after my neurons stop firing have equal chance of coming true, I'll stick with the fantasies that tickle my pickle. Your a) scenario is easily dismissed: I think all religions are equally silly; some have just been around long enough and are familiar enough for their silliness to become engrained. As for b) I am not closed to the possibility in principle. As I said, I simply view it as vanishingly unlikely. I have a better chance of winning the lottery three times in a row than of any religion predicated upon the supernatural being "true". You say "an atheist is someone who has yet to encounter a plausible religion". That implies that we're waiting for the right one, like a home buyer who's only been shown hovels. That's simply not the case. I am not, in practice, open to the possibility of a god; I think the whole notion is absurd. In the same vein, I am not open to the possibility of homeopathy being effective treatment for anything other than thirst. Certainly, were science to show that it was, in fact, effective, I would change my mind. That does not imply that I'm waiting to find the right kind of water to cure fibromyalgia. PS: To quickly address your point: >The idea that there are finite number of possible thoughts is highly improbable given the number of things there aren't finite numbers of. I never meant to imply there were a finite number of things. Hell, you could count for all eternity and never run out of numbers. That does not imply there are an infinite number of things worth thinking about.
    - mikeash 15y ago
      What do you call someone who is closed to the possibility that a plausible religion might exist? I consider myself an atheist and I find the term "plausible religion" to be inherently contradictory. If it's plausible then it's no longer religion. Much like how "alternative medicine" that works becomes simply "medicine", religion that is plausible (as in, there's actually some reason to think it might be true) simply becomes science.
rimantas 15y ago
An appreciation by denying that the guy was saying all the time? Some strange kind of appreciation.

That's absurd. I'm an Atheist but I'd readily echo that statement. It's an expression of appreciation. If you find it insulting that's only your own eagerness to find insult, nothing legitimate.

Tloewald 15y ago

I'd go further and suggest that a lot of atheists would echo the hope that there is some kind of fabulous immortality beyond the grave, it's just that the concept is, upon examination, absurd.

joske2 15y ago
Honestly, I hope there isn't immortality in heaven beyond the grave. Forever is a really long time. The first 1000 years in heaven might be interesting. The billion years after that? meh
- JeremyBanks 15y ago
  Heaven does seems rather boring. However if we allow ourselves more creativity than scripture, we don't need to assume that eternal life must be dull. http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/xy/the_fun_theory_sequence/
redthrowaway 15y ago
Eternal life holds no interest for me. Imagine living a million years, seeing and thinking all there is to see and think, then living a billion years after that. Then you realize that you're precisely 0% of the way to the finish line. Long after the heat death of the universe, a consciousness with nothing to cogitate. No thanks.
- Tloewald 15y ago
  You're making a lot of assumptions there. The idea that there are finite number of possible thoughts is highly improbable given the number of things there aren't finite numbers of. If you argue from a base mechanics point of view (e.g. Your brain is basically a hard drive with n bits of storage an thus can only enter 2^n states) then you're assuming that in this hypothetical afterlife your physical limitations are maintained. Since your basic assumptions about the universe have been demonstrated to be wrong, assuming this particular assumption will be correct is drawing a very long bow. And the initial assumption is very much in doubt. To my mind an atheist is someone who has yet to encounter a plausible religion, not (a) someone who defines their beliefs in opposition to one religion (e.g. I do not believ heaven is a green pasture populated by angels playing harps and dead Christians tending sheep) or (b) someone who is closed to the possibility that a plausible religion might exist.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    >Since your basic assumptions about the universe have been demonstrated to be wrong That's ambitious of you. >To my mind an atheist is someone who has yet to encounter a plausible religion In principle, were a plausible religion to present itself, I would weigh it on the evidence. In the real world, the vast number of religions, none of which are plausible, combined with the demonstrated ability of science to explain the universe through natural causes, leaves no doubt in my mind that there is no supernatural creator. As for an afterlife, the complete and utter lack of evidence or argument in favor of it consigns it to the realm of all other fairy tales. As such, I treat it as a thought experiment more than as a proposed state of the Universe. If there is an afterlife, either it's eternal or it isn't. If it is, it is boring beyond belief. If it isn't, then what have you "gained"? Sure, it'd be nice to have a few thousand years to think, but I'd far prefer telekinesis and control over the flow of time. Since the propositions of my having superpowers and my consciousness enduring after my neurons stop firing have equal chance of coming true, I'll stick with the fantasies that tickle my pickle. Your a) scenario is easily dismissed: I think all religions are equally silly; some have just been around long enough and are familiar enough for their silliness to become engrained. As for b) I am not closed to the possibility in principle. As I said, I simply view it as vanishingly unlikely. I have a better chance of winning the lottery three times in a row than of any religion predicated upon the supernatural being "true". You say "an atheist is someone who has yet to encounter a plausible religion". That implies that we're waiting for the right one, like a home buyer who's only been shown hovels. That's simply not the case. I am not, in practice, open to the possibility of a god; I think the whole notion is absurd. In the same vein, I am not open to the possibility of homeopathy being effective treatment for anything other than thirst. Certainly, were science to show that it was, in fact, effective, I would change my mind. That does not imply that I'm waiting to find the right kind of water to cure fibromyalgia. PS: To quickly address your point: >The idea that there are finite number of possible thoughts is highly improbable given the number of things there aren't finite numbers of. I never meant to imply there were a finite number of things. Hell, you could count for all eternity and never run out of numbers. That does not imply there are an infinite number of things worth thinking about.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    What do you call someone who is closed to the possibility that a plausible religion might exist? I consider myself an atheist and I find the term "plausible religion" to be inherently contradictory. If it's plausible then it's no longer religion. Much like how "alternative medicine" that works becomes simply "medicine", religion that is plausible (as in, there's actually some reason to think it might be true) simply becomes science.

rimantas 15y ago

An appreciation by denying that the guy was saying all the time? Some strange kind of appreciation.