I actually think the way you are framing non-existence is exactly what I mean. I’m happy my existence and my choices are ultimately inconsequential. I can define my own meaning because all meaning is arbitrary. That difference in perspective is the key.
I guess that’s true for many. However, there is also a possibility to face it and then “handle it” by taking Pascal’s wager.
In my opinion non-existence is in the center of the fear. If you stop existing after death whatever you decide to do now doesn’t matter any more. If you believe in existence after death (part of most religions) and it makes you happy, why not?
True that there are extremist sects of almost any religions and religion is a common cause of fights but I think that’s more rare nowadays and many mainstream religious organizations preach peace and tolerance.
cmbabul@lemmy.world 1 day ago
affenlehrer@feddit.org 1 day ago
But that’s only if you believe in non-existence after death. The thought that ones choices are inconsequential might (in some people) also lead to harmful behavior (eg harming later generations with environmental destruction etc).
However, whatever one believes it shouldn’t be due to doctrine, it should be the result of an active though process.
cmbabul@lemmy.world 1 day ago
To me you have it completely backwards. The fear comes from the unwillingness to accept the possibility of non-existence and ultimately the pointlessness of one’s life that pins oneself into needing to believe in an afterlife. Its not that I believe there’s nothing after, it’s that I dont give a fuck either way
affenlehrer@feddit.org 1 day ago
It’s good that you don’t give a fuck but not everyone is able to be that way. So if you give fucks and a religion makes you feel better, why not?
Arctic_monkey@leminal.space 1 day ago
I don’t understand how this makes sense:
How does existing after death make the things you do matter? How does not existing make them not matter? I genuinely don’t understand what you mean.
Not trying to trivialize your position, just make sense of it, but I think the hidden assumption is something like: you are an algorithm for trying to create good experiences for your brain/human; the things you do matter only if they, ultimately result in better experiences for you; if, eventually, you have no experiences, there is no point striving for anything?
Is it something like that? That still doesn’t really make sense to me. Even if we accept the assumptions, why wouldn’t creating good experiences for your human temporarily, just until you die, matter?
affenlehrer@feddit.org 1 day ago
I think my phrasing wasn’t very good. Creating positive experiences for oneself makes sense regardless of life after death.
However, some behavior is motivated by long term consequences. These matter less or differently if you believe there is no afterlife.
E.g. some people behave differently in at a party with people they will never see again than a party with e.g. colleagues and family.
Or many people leave public toilets dirty while they keep the one at home clean.
People who believe in an afterlife might have the mindset they will see people from their life again and they might (if they believe in reincarnation) walk the earth again. So it’s a motivation to keep the environment liveable for future generations (beyond just family and kids) or to be nice to people you likely don’t meet again.
The behavior could be identical for people with or without a belief in an afterlife but their motivation and thought process behind it might be different.
Arctic_monkey@leminal.space 1 day ago
Thanks, that makes more sense. I especially like the public toilet analogy. Afterlife beliefs really do bring the urinal home.