Eternal life: would it really be so great?

C

CptBork

Valued Senior Member
Signal asked me to make a thread on this topic as an offshoot of the following thread: "Why do we need so many religions"

Here's what I originally wrote to spark this discussion:
CptBork said:
I still don't get why the concept of blissful, ignorant nothingness after death is considered such an abhorrent, awful thing in traditional theistic circles. Do they really think it would be such a wonderful thing to live forever and keep repeating the same things over and over infinitely many times? It almost sounds like one of those horror movies where a psychiatric hospital burns down and becomes permanently haunted by the trapped ghosts of tortured crazy people, except maybe the decor wouldn't be as gaudy.
Click to expand...

I honestly think there's something to be said in praise of the merits of refreshment and renewal, which conventional science views as the natural cycle of life. Thoughts?
 
CptBork #1:

I've seen alot of "blissful, ignorant nothingness" on these forums . . . does that mean we really have "heaven on earth"? (tee hee)

wlminex
 
Eternal life would be okay, so long as you have an opt-out. Otherwise it could quickly become a hell.
 
wlminex said:
Rhaedras Post #4:

. . . kind of like Obamacare, eh?

wlminex
Click to expand...

Kind of like not really.

As if our healthcare before was a shining example. Let's try not to inject politics into everything...this isn't CNN/Fox forums.
 
I would like eternal life if we had space travel, then we could survive the long voyages to other places.
 
Rhaedas Post #5:

Geez . . . . levity and brevity are two cornerstones of the universe. Our healthcare system, as is, has kept the top of my head (bald) as a 'shining example' . . . OOPS! . . .I THOUGHT this was a CNN or Fox forum . . . . excu-'effin-use ME!

wlminex
 
wlminex said:
Rhaedas Post #5:

Geez . . . . levity and brevity are two cornerstones of the universe. Our healthcare system, as is, has kept the top of my head (bald) as a 'shining example' . . . OOPS! . . .I THOUGHT this was a CNN or Fox forum . . . . excu-'effin-use ME!

wlminex
Click to expand...

who are you ? Your kind of an intelligent little speaker aunt we . My darlin oh my darlin . Clementine is that you . I thought they shot you up back at the barnyard sale . You made it to the big show . Right on !!!
 
CptBork said:
I honestly think there's something to be said in praise of the merits of refreshment and renewal, which conventional science views as the natural cycle of life. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Religious notions of reincarnation/rebirth cover that.


You seem to operate on the assumption that eternal life is basically like this life, in the one and the same body and circumstances, only infinitely prolonged.
 
CptBork said:
Signal asked me to make a thread on this topic as an offshoot of the following thread: "Why do we need so many religions"

Here's what I originally wrote to spark this discussion:
​

I honestly think there's something to be said in praise of the merits of refreshment and renewal, which conventional science views as the natural cycle of life. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The "natural cycle of life" as you call it is based on the ephemeral pursuit of ephemeral desire in an ephemeral sense of self ... all of which are based in the individual being the center of the universe (My body, My family, My country, My species, etc).

Eternal life is usually presented with a slightly different dynamic, not only because the pursuits, desires and sense of self are not ephemeral, but mostly because everything is based on God being at the center.

Mostly when there is discussion of the pitfalls of eternal life, one is simply carrying the pitfalls of temporary life (ie having an egotism that only entertains others to the extent that they entertain one's self) into such a calculation.
 
siledre said:
I would like eternal life if we had space travel, then we could survive the long voyages to other places.
Click to expand...

And what would you do for eternity in those other places? Go mining for hydrogen? And then when there's no hydrogen left, you just go on to the next place and keep mining for more hydrogen? Would be like being forced to watch a movie on an infinite loop, sounds pretty awfully boring to me. Long, extended lives on the other hand are different.

Signal said:
Religious notions of reincarnation/rebirth cover that.


You seem to operate on the assumption that eternal life is basically like this life, in the one and the same body and circumstances, only infinitely prolonged.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a common view especially in monotheistic circles. A lot of people seem attached to this incredibly selfish notion that the universe somehow can't function properly without them.

lightgigantic said:
The "natural cycle of life" as you call it is based on the ephemeral pursuit of ephemeral desire in an ephemeral sense of self ... all of which are based in the individual being the center of the universe (My body, My family, My country, My species, etc).

Eternal life is usually presented with a slightly different dynamic, not only because the pursuits, desires and sense of self are not ephemeral, but mostly because everything is based on God being at the center.

Mostly when there is discussion of the pitfalls of eternal life, one is simply carrying the pitfalls of temporary life (ie having an egotism that only entertains others to the extent that they entertain one's self) into such a calculation.
Click to expand...

Well there's a widespread belief that our ephemeral selves are indeed the entities which are supposed to be purified and then framed up in the museum of eternal repetition. So in that view, we're not really supposed to be ephemeral at all, we're supposed to be special, divine and superior to all the non-living stuff which comes and goes. Some people have really huge egos and delusions of self-importance, I guess.
 
Eternal life would not be bad if you could keep your mind in flux, so it can organically grow and change over eternity. It is only when you create fixed memory, choices and opinions that eternity would become a hell; over and over.

With a heart and mind of stone (fixed or carved in stone) you would need to fight to maintain this temporal state against the inertia of change. There would be war and fighting to stop change, so those in charge could perpetuate their temporary version of utopia. But if the brain was in flux, it can flows with the tides of change and is able to adapt anew for eternity. This may not be optimized for short term, which does better if we firm up things.

If you look at the DNA, it is designed to change. If you tried to maintain one DNA against change, you will get extinction. To avoid extinction of the mind (not the body), the mind will need to war so the terms of selective advantage does not change. That would be hell. The closed mind is not designed for eternity.
 
CptBork said:
That seems to be a common view especially in monotheistic circles. A lot of people seem attached to this incredibly selfish notion that the universe somehow can't function properly without them.
Click to expand...

I don't see the connection between the notion of eternal life and the notion that we are necessary for the universe to function properly.
 
lightgigantic said:
The "natural cycle of life" as you call it is based on the ephemeral pursuit of ephemeral desire in an ephemeral sense of self ... all of which are based in the individual being the center of the universe (My body, My family, My country, My species, etc).

Eternal life is usually presented with a slightly different dynamic, not only because the pursuits, desires and sense of self are not ephemeral, but mostly because everything is based on God being at the center.

Mostly when there is discussion of the pitfalls of eternal life, one is simply carrying the pitfalls of temporary life (ie having an egotism that only entertains others to the extent that they entertain one's self) into such a calculation.
Click to expand...
From that thought I go to the point that if we had eternal lives (and durable bodies to suit ;)) that we would have a completely different attitude about desires, ego, and those things which occupy a good part of our attention in our ephemeral existence.

However, outside of the religious meaning which generally includes a physical life and a spiritual after life, eternal life has to be considered quite close to impossible. I get philosophical and say that if an individual is able to live a normal life expectancy then that should be sufficient time for them to get comfortable with the concept of their own death. To me that comfort could be accompanied with the individual conclusion that a normal life expectancy is in accord to the natural laws of the universe and who we are is established by our self image at the dead line, lol.
 
Eternal life is something I wouldn't wish on even my worst enemies...well, okay, maybe my worst enemies, but you get what I'm saying. We are finite beings who can't even properly comprehend infinities let alone endure them. We have a finite time to deal with an apparently finite universe(at least, our world is finite) which is filled with finite objects, no matter how long lived. The torture of forcing such finite beings to not only perfectly comprehend infinity but to endure it as well is about the most immoral thing that can be done.

The only out of this that I can see is if that which is finite is stripped from us by death, at which point we would lose all that is human about us. We would stop being "us" because everything we are, from our memories(both sweet and bitter) to our very existence, would be gone.
 
I will be "eternal" in that my atoms will be sent back to the universe where they started from and become part of the ongoing formation of stars and planets as they were long ago. :)
 
All that we knew, even the loveliest and the best, decomposes into the dust of earth compressed. Those songs they once composed now lie in repose; with this dust the future may arrange and recompose.
 
@cosmictraveler --

Even atoms aren't eternal. They decay, albeit at a slower rate than the flesh that they compose. Besides, atoms had a beginning and are thereby definitionally not eternal.
 
Not even so-called elementals such as electrons can be eternal.

No thing at all can be eternal.

What then, does this suggest as the basis for the basic things?

No-thing (nothing)—a balance of opposites summing to zero.

There's nothing to make things of. Can anyone suggest otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top