What do atheists think of death?

I see your point, that teleportation does involve two chemically identical bodies, like the idea in the O.P., but I think that the effect is completely different. The O.P. idea is more like having ultra-identical twins that are never aware of each others existence. And to be chemically identical presumably means identical environments and identical lives.With teleportation, you get the continuation of one person's existence, with a slight blip in time, like falling unconscious for a few seconds when you're expecting to do so. It's more like the process by which virtually all the cells of our bodies, and virtually all the atoms, are replaced over a period of several years, but speeded up.So, if we regarded that natural process as a sort of continual part-dying and part-resurrecting (which we don't) then teleportation would be complete death and resurrection, but I agree with you that there's no point in seeing it that way, and Spock, supposedly ultra-logical, never seemed to go into mourning, if my memory serves me correctly.

thank god that we have the 300 limit here... have you seen the most recent thread(s) on this at iidb??? I was involved in the early days when it was mere '00s of posts long, but when it strayed into the '000s and possibly '0000s...!!! But it is a fun topic, if only to see two diametrically opposed camps, both claiming to be the true materialists

Hmmm... perhaps I should start the teleport thread here. You do realise you have to shoot yourself in the head, don't you?

If you mean that you'd be technically dead or non-existent for the period of transportation, yes. But it wouldn't feel like it on revival. I was never a big star trek fan, but I remember some physicist calculating that it would take more energy than there is in the sun to transport one person (or something like that).Perhaps you're the person to help us out on the idea of the universe being sufficiently large to repeat the exact circumstances of this planet more than once, and make exact replica cavedivers diving in exact replica caves.

General relativity gives us a very interesting view on time - we can't completely trust it becasue it isn't a quantum theory, but it's certainly worth thinking about...There is no such thing as time as we think of it in common use. There is no Universal clock ticking out time, as if the Universe progresses from the past to the future, and we all ride along on this thing called now. GR has no 'now', no ticking clock. There is just a static, unchanging four dimemsional space-time. We are tiny four-dimensionally extruded worms, demarked at either end by 'birth' and 'death', but such titles have no real relevance.Somehow, the structure of the four dimensional mass of neurons that exists between 'birth' and 'death' magically gives rise to an emergent property called consciousness, which appears as a 3d dynamic entity within the fixed 4d world. I am this entity, and I seem to be a temporal ordering of this 3d viewpoint. But at the far end of this ordering (that that we call death), there is no 'time' that races off into the future, leaving my 'existence' behind. Everything just is, as it alwasy 'is' been. Perhaps, from my 3d persepctive, this ordering never ceases, and I just go round again?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

The O.P. question was for atheists, not materialists. And free thinkers aren't like religious people. They don't claim to know ultimate truths.

You've not spent much time at IIDB, have you?

I've always liked free thinkers. The ones that are very dogmatic about which thoughts count as truly free are the most fun.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

No. I am a member, and have read around a little, but have yet to post. But what I really meant above is that there's no such thing as a "true" school of atheism, because atheists are only defined by their lack of belief in Gods, not by anything that they do actually believe in. So, we're not defined by anything that we collectively all think that we know about the universe or anything.We don't even know if there are no Gods, because that's impossible to know, and if IIDB is full of people who think that they do know this, then they're obviously wrong headed from this infidel's point of view.To put it another way, expecting there to be a true school of atheism is a bit like expecting all the people who don't believe in fairies to vote for the same political party, or share the same philosophy of life.I know this is rather off topic, but it does relate a bit to the O.P., which discusses atheists, but in a way that's slightly misleading, because some do believe in an eternal soul. Just not in any Gods.

As oppose to those who deplete it because of a sense of hierarchy.What I was refering to was mans quest for eternity rather than all animals quest for eternity. Im sure in these eternal worlds peope never picture a dog with them, but why not?A species is a species, no one better than the other. But it is a man made idea(eternity), I don't think animals believe in it, and therefore falls under the catagory of ALL the things we've been able to imagine but not really have much proof for.Thats why I said that a lucky draw on our evolutionary tree gave us a brain with the capacity to postulate a post life world which many believe was part of our darwinian evolution that gave us reason to progress, rather than stay as hunter gatherers. So to the question of eternal life I would say: "first prove God exists, then we'll talk".Oh and its cool about the on(fire) thing everyone does that.Edited by onifre, : To add onfire comment.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

I would also go along with the Buddhist-leaning/existentialist response -- In order to answer the question, there needs to be a precise definition of what it means to be 'me','I','you'(insert pronoun.) Sentient beings tend to identify themselves as discreet and static objects that retain a definite identity. We also tend to think of ourselves as something that exists outside of the environment in which we are immersed.When you look closely, however, there is nothing about any one of 'us' that does not undergo change. Our thoughts, memories, and sensations are in constant flux. It is only our memory that allows us to retain any sense of continuity and discreet identity. The physical state of every unit within the body is also constantly undergoing change. The only thing that does not change is conscious awareness in the moment.Are there other manifestations of conscious existence? Who knows. Is there something static and immutable about 'me' that exists and will continue to exist for eternity once 'my' conscious awareness has been extinguished? Do 'I' have a soul that carries around this identity by recording all of my stored memories so they can be used at a later time in a different environment?Anyone who answers this question and is honest with themselves will likely realize that their emotions tell them yes while their intellect shouts back with a resounding no. In the end, it all boils down to whether or not you trust your emotions more than your reason.As there is no empirical evidence for a soul or a personal existence after consciousness has expired, it certainly takes a leap of faith and an appeal to emotions to cling to these views. That doesn't make it wrong to answer yes; I cannot disprove such things. 'I' simply find it very hard to believe.

I like the terms naturalist and physicalist, but I think I'll avoid materialist. Feels like I'd be saying someone likes to shop. I would say that's the point where death becomes an ambiguous term. I suppose I would say that the original person "died", but who cares? what matters is that they exist. The sci-fi scenario you mention also sounds interesting. I might look up those books the next time I am looking for something lite to read.

Picky, picky, picky. Sure, when I'm dying of some disease I would have to admit that there might be other me's out there that are also dying of this disease. If so, then there are probably also creaters out there that are identical to what I used to be when I was healthier as well.

Having the surroundings be very similar is the most likely scenario. In a sufficiently large universe, of course, you will also have bluegenes's forming spontaneously in completely different types of places, such as in the void of space as the result of random particle condensation ... but they would be in the extreme minority. Such bluegenes should be pitied, for they would most likely have a fast, confused, and painful death ahead of them. Certainly, identical bluegenes in other locations would only be exactly identical for an instant, after which their properties would change relative to one another as you say. Agreed. Perhaps there are no deep religious implications here at all. I still think it's kind of cool to think about though.

I don't disagree that the probability is fantastically small, but that doesn't matter if the universe is even more fantastically big. And it very well might be, for all we know. Just remember that in an infinite universe, everything with a non-zero probability will happen an infinite number of times ... even the things with probabilities fantastically close to zero.