More than 50% of Americans support Gay Marriage

[garbonzo]

It was pointed out in another thread I did not write anything further.
So I will add, so it is clear I have nothing against gays my cousin is gay. An even though I may or may not fully support marriage between gays. It is not my decision weather states allow it. Also visit thread.
Should gay marriage be voted on by states or made a federal law ( 1 2 3 4 5)
By Buddha12.

Why don't you support it, though? Just want to know your reasons.

 

[R1D2]

Because I am generally a christian. I believe as the bible says. A marriage is between a man an a woman. An I think most religions think the same way. An also I have seen more "gay" people separate than I have seen "straight" people. But that don't mean that i don't see things from there point of view either. As said in my post that was quoted above I may or may not fully support gay marriage.

 

[Balerion]

Because I am generally a christian. I believe as the bible says. A marriage is between a man an a woman. An I think most religions think the same way. An also I have seen more "gay" people separate than I have seen "straight" people. But that don't mean that i don't see things from there point of view either. As said in my post that was quoted above I may or may not fully support gay marriage.

What do you mean by "seen more 'gay' people separate than I have seen 'straight' people?"

 

[R1D2]

I have seen my gay cousin be in several relationships. As well as several other gay people, an friends I know.

 

[garbonzo]

I can live with that.

We are agreeing. Good. I semi-forgot about this, so I'm going at it again. Hopefully our detachment for so long can give us a clear mind on the subject without walls hindering us from seeing.

The point is that you can't dismiss empirical evidence just because it may be possible that we're all living in a computer simulation. And evidence has a track record. We're having this conversation because of scientific discovery based on empirical evidence. You drive a car, brush your teeth, and microwave your dinner based on similar evidences. But even if we stood at the dawn of time, and together we found the first piece of evidence in human history, the same logic would apply: unless there's some reason to believe that we're all living in a computer simulation (a conclusion that could only be reached through the gathering and examination of evidence, ironically), there's no reason to dismiss the evidence.

I see what you are saying, but like I said before, science isn't one to prove supernatural things exist. It as no authority on the subject. Until science says for sure there is not and can not be an afterlife, there still may be a possibility, and that is all that I need to keep living. And since we have added scientific progress to my definition of the afterlife, I doubt science will or can ever say that. Which is good for me, because I need that to keep living. Let us not forget what this conversation started on. My thoughts on this matter is this:

I require the possibility of living forever NOT be ruled out in order to keep living. This could be through science or it could be from some supernatural afterlife. I don't care. Because it is only logical to me. Maybe I am thinking too much on this subject, but I am. I can't change who I am. Think about it. What is our point on this Earth according to you? To just live? To create offspring? For what? To what end? No end! That is the fucking problem. There is no point to this life that we currently know. NO POINT. Nothing. Sure, we can live and have fun, but if in the end it MEANS NOTHING, what is the damn point? I'm sure you have been on vacation. It was fun, right? But you aren't having that same fun now. Now you might be working your ass off in an office. The point is that it is temporary. If we can't live forever or if our life doesn't *mean* anything, then what is the point to living? Sure you can have fun, and "make a difference in the world", but will that difference last forever? Or will it be forgotten? In 100 years? 1000 years? 1 million years? If it is forgotten eventually, then you life meant NOTHING. You are apparently dead, you have no conscience you have nothing at all. So why not end your life now and get it over with? Your life will mean nothing anyway. You could say why not just live life to have fun, to have love, to enjoy life, but that means NOTHING in the long run, so why? Why? That's the question. WHY? Think about it.

So in fact, what I originally meant to say is that I require hope. HOPE is the word. I require hope that there is an answer to, "Why?" an answer to the question so many of us have been wondering. What purpose is there to life? So now if there is a possibility of an actual purpose to life, that my actions actually mean something, then I can live life happy. I just need that possibility, if it is even possible. Or there would be no point to keep living. It is only logical.

So if science can give me an artificial afterlife, then so be it. I'd love that. Maybe science can prevent aging. We won't age. Then if I could figure out a way to live relatively safe, and then Earth & humans because a Class IV civilization or something, then we could alter dimensions, whatever, to prevent us from dying at all, then may be there is that possibility I am thinking. And that thought is all I need to keep living. You can't change that because you can't say there is no hope for these things. So I am fine.

But for a thinker like me, you definetly need that hope to keep living. It's probably why us humans invented religion to begin with. It was probably crucial for our evolution.

I hope you understand how this all got started now.

But you're not hypothetically dismissing the evidence. You're actually dismissing it. You give it no value because, as you say, "it's just human evidence."

No, I am hypothetically dismissing it. If this hypothetical were true, it can be dismissed. I'm not dismissing it in real life. I'm not dismissing it for any relevant reasons. I say, "it's just human evidence." To do with the hypothetical. If the hypothetical were real, it would only be human evidence. So all of this is inside a hypothetical.

As interesting and creative as this analogy is, it doesn't work. The contestant in the game show has nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by staying positive and eliminating doubt from his mind. This singular approach to a problem would work in a game show. However, in the real world, this singular approach would get in the way of real progress. If everyone dismissed evidence because we may all be living in a computer simulation, then we'd still live in caves.

The contestant in the game show has nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by staying positive and eliminating doubt from his mind.

And is this not me? I have nothing to lose by thinking there may be a possibility, and much to gain by not killing myself. For all purposes of reality, this could push scientists to move on and make real progress in the hope of immortality.

But that's not only what you're doing. Do I need to go back and quote you again?

I don't mind if you quote me. I will trust you and say that I made a mistake. I often get sidetracked in a huge debate such as this. I want to counter you instead of looking at the big picture. I hope this post clarifies the issue altogether.

It wasn't just one comment. It was two or three full posts of it, and then another in which you flip-flopped. You said later that you were simply not being clear, I'm saying you changed your stance.

Alright. Accept my apology.

Yes it does.

I see what you are saying, you are in reality when I am in hypothetical world. You can dismiss it in the hypothetical world, while you can't in reality. I understand.

So let me get this straight: You won't accept that there may be a possibility of someday science showing us definitively that there is or is not a god, but you do accept without evidence or equivocation that science cannot?

This is a double standard. You can't have it both ways, garb.

Anyway, I don't know how science would do it, I'm saying it's premature to rule it out.

I don't believe it is logical to do that. Everyone that I have talked to says that science has no realm in the supernatural. It doesn't cover it. And especially now that we have included scientific progression in with the afterlife.

But you can't dismiss the evidence now based on that imaginary scenario, which is what you're doing. I say that the evidence suggests there is no afterlife, you say that the evidence is meaningless because evidence could be manipulated by some outside agent. My position is valid, yours is not.

Your position is currently valid in reality, yes. My position is a hypothetical, so it is allowed to be based on an imaginary scenario.

No it wouldn't. It would probably work better, because it's very probable that we have not discovered all species of insect. It does not work with Bigfoot, because there's literally no chance we've simply been overlooking a race of giant ape-men living in the continental US.

Do we have eyes everywhere in the US? They could be living in some national park, cave, whatever you want, they could be extinct now, you don't know.

That's ridiculous. You can't have your own definitions. That's not an afterlife. That is life.

It's life after death. Also, I wouldn't mind not dying at all. Just as long as I can live forever so my life has meaning....

Yeah, but my point was that your contention that I knew what you meant all along is not true. If you really meant "may be" instead of "is" then no I did not know what you meant all along.

I'll take your word for it. I had a discussion like this with someone else and they didn't make a fuss about me saying, "I need a possibility."

This is why I say you're punching above your weight. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. You can't "prove" something empirically. That's why it is said that proof only exists in math. You can only have evidence for something outside of that. So to say that evidence is irrelevant because it doesn't disprove something is false, because no evidence could prove or disprove anything. That doesn't mean evidence is therefore irrelevant.

Well it is in this context since the whole discussion is that I require there may be a possibility.

because no evidence could prove or disprove anything.

Oh, so now you admit that evidence cannot disprove anything?

Oh so you mean it makes your life meaningful, because you have nothing going for you in this life. I see. Well, at any rate, it still wouldn't give any meaning to your current life, it would only be the promise of another one to come. IF anything, it would make this life expendable.

I have a lot of things going for me in this life. I believe more than most of the people on this planet (considering many of them are in China, India, Middle East, etc.), and I don't take that lightly. I am privileged. But if everything I do in this life is for nothing, then what is the point? I could have a loving family, become a Mayor, become a Governor, Prime Minister of Canada, most wealthiest man in the world, I could love my life. I could have all of that but it means absolutely nothing if my body goes back in the evolution of life and my life forgotten. So yes, if an afterlife is possible and existent, or if I can live forever, then it would give meaning to my current life. Especially if a supernatural afterlife is given to you based on this life's actions, yes it would give life meaning. Eg. If I find friends in this life, those friends could carry over in the next if they are heading the same place, or if you are "judged" at all, etc.

For one, that's shitty logic. You don't know what's around the next corner, and it really is true that some of our best life experiences can come just after some our worst. "It's always darkest just before dawn," have you never heard that expression. Just because you don't see any future for yourself doesn't mean there isn't one.

Secondly, if you had nothing in this life, and death was what delivered you to the next life, then why would you put off death in this life? In other words, an afterlife would only make you want to expedite death in this life. And this is evidenced in the more extreme iterations of modern monotheistic faiths.

This is why most people who have a Gnostic believe in an afterlife say that suicide is not an option due to various reasons. Some Christians say you go to hell if you commit suicide since you would not be honoring your body, other Christians say you will just plain not find favor with God by doing that etc.

I don't believe everything in the Bible is true, but if there may be a possibility of me losing out on a good afterlife by committing suicide, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it to begin with because of that hope for meaning in life, by a supernatural afterlife or scientific progression.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Are you like the guy from Memento who has no short-term memory?

I literally lol'd. I have no idea what I meant by any of this. Just that we need to remain open minded (but not so open that your brain falls out, I know).

No, I'm saying it can't be ruled out.

Ah. Funny how you can take the word "opposite" differently.

Again, no it hasn't. You've also said that science cannot answer the god question, ... Those are factual claims.

Well I'll be waiting for your clarifications on what you meant by "no evidence can prove or disprove anything."

But it's your assertion that there is some realm that science cannot explain, and you haven't demonstrated that such a place exists. There's no reason to believe that such a place exists. No, you can't disprove it, but that doesn't therefore mean that evidence against such a phenomenon is irrelevant.

This is just a repeat if what's already been said.

There's also evidence against the creature from the black lagoon, such as its total absence, which as we've already established, is evidence of absence.

That doesn't mean it's not possible it exists, though. That's the point. In the case the evidence isn't irrelevant, it's just not enough to say for sure it doesn't exist.

Again, I keep making the assumption that you can follow along. This is beyond you, and I need to realize that. You don't get this, and trying to make you understand is apparently impossible.

Get an education, then come back and we'll talk.

Ok, I've went and got an education. =D

You said it about the afterlife, if I'm not mistaken.

I'll take your word for it. I am too lazy to check.

I've done much more than that. If that's all you've gleaned, then that's your failing, not mine.

Many more things I suppose. Thank you.

Where's the facepalm smiley?

facepalm.jpg

There you go.

Not surprising in the least.

That's a funny phrase. Are we surprised by anything others say in a casual manner such as this? =P

Nowhere in the article does the (rather ignorant to cosmology) author say "I'm past the universe in thinking." So no, it's not a figure of speech.

Past the universe in thinking just means you are thinking about past the universe. Nobody may have said it, but it is pretty self-explanatory.

There might not be one.

But there could be one. If it is possible. (?)

That's not what you said earlier. You claim to know the boundaries of science, to know that there are realms beyond its reach, etc.. You claim to know quite a bit.

No, I claim to know that these things may be possible.

Again, I assumed too much about your comprehension level. I won't make that mistake again, I apologize. The point of the Care Bear analogy was to demonstrate how the very concept of godhood may in fact be nothing more than an invention of the human imagination. If you can't understand that, I can't help you.

We know that it is an invention of the human imagination. But it is still a logical idea. Just like a flat earth was at some time. There could be a creator if it is possible.

You didn't ask me for proof, you asked me what the evidence would look like. I told you. You don't get to then say "See! There's no proof!" That's like asking me what 2+2 is and then complaining that I didn't tell you what 3+3 is.

No, I'm simply asking what the answer to 3+3 is.

Doesn't disprove anything. For the 91st time.

What doesn't?

No we're not. We're talking about finding evidence for or against one.

We are asking whether you can disprove a god.

He didn't "come from" anywhere. He always was.

But nothing we know "always was," so why can't God or a god give us an example so that we can comprehend this?

Name one.

Just look up monotheistic religions.

But the earth isn't.

We know that. The ancients didn't.

I'm not doing this again. I've already shown you multiple times. Pay attention.

Ok.

Okay, in your warped, personal, and incorrect definition of "afterlife," yes. Going by your logic, there's no question that it exists. It absolutely does, because you choose to define those who have had cardiac arrest and survived as living in "the afterlife."

No, a person has to be literally dead, not only the heart stop beating.

Oh, our discussion is over, but not for that reason.

 

[Balerion]

We are agreeing. Good. I semi-forgot about this, so I'm going at it again. Hopefully our detachment for so long can give us a clear mind on the subject without walls hindering us from seeing.

Not unless you've swallowed one of those pills from "Limitless" since you've been gone.

I see what you are saying, but like I said before, science isn't one to prove supernatural things exist. It as no authority on the subject. Until science says for sure there is not and can not be an afterlife, there still may be a possibility, and that is all that I need to keep living. And since we have added scientific progress to my definition of the afterlife, I doubt science will or can ever say that. Which is good for me, because I need that to keep living. Let us not forget what this conversation started on. My thoughts on this matter is this:

Well, the "science" afterlife you're talking about is still science fiction, and in all likelihood will remain that way. You're talking about transferring consciousness to another medium, but we don't even really know what consciousness is. If something like that is even possible, you're talking hundreds--if not thousands--of years from now.

As for you needing it to live, I don't understand that logic. And on top of that, it's a bleak outlook. Is your life so bad that you can't find purpose and meaning in it? Why would you need there to be an afterlife for you to enjoy and appreciate what you have now?

I require the possibility of living forever NOT be ruled out in order to keep living. This could be through science or it could be from some supernatural afterlife. I don't care. Because it is only logical to me. Maybe I am thinking too much on this subject, but I am. I can't change who I am.

You can change who you are, and you certainly can stop dwelling on things beyond your control. It can't be healthy to constantly think "If there's no afterlife, there's no point to this." I don't even understand how an afterlife is supposed to provide meaning to you. If you knew this was all finite, wouldn't that make you want to squeeze every drop out of it that you could? Would its fleeting nature make it more precious? If not, why not?

Think about it. What is our point on this Earth according to you? To just live? To create offspring? For what? To what end? No end! That is the fucking problem. There is no point to this life that we currently know. NO POINT. Nothing. Sure, we can live and have fun, but if in the end it MEANS NOTHING, what is the damn point? I'm sure you have been on vacation. It was fun, right? But you aren't having that same fun now. Now you might be working your ass off in an office. The point is that it is temporary. If we can't live forever or if our life doesn't *mean* anything, then what is the point to living? Sure you can have fun, and "make a difference in the world", but will that difference last forever? Or will it be forgotten? In 100 years? 1000 years? 1 million years? If it is forgotten eventually, then you life meant NOTHING. You are apparently dead, you have no conscience you have nothing at all. So why not end your life now and get it over with? Your life will mean nothing anyway. You could say why not just live life to have fun, to have love, to enjoy life, but that means NOTHING in the long run, so why? Why? That's the question. WHY? Think about it.

Your own life can have meaning without life itself having some sort of cosmic meaning. There are doctors and lawyers and priests and philosophers and dockworkers and plumbers who will tell you that they have found the meaning in their lives, so clearly it doesn't matter to them whether life in general has a purpose or it's just here because the chemistry happened to be right. Life can be a happy accident and you can still find a purpose. I mean, that can be literally true: you very well might have been an accident. I know I was. My mother was 17 when I was born; I was not supposed to be here. But the accidental nature of my existence doesn't define me or rob me of purpose. And the same applies to life in general. What should it matter to me if organic life is here by chance or design? My life goes on either way.

What I'm curious about is how living forever would magically solve this problem. Would you not care if your life had purpose if it were eternal? I don't get it.

So in fact, what I originally meant to say is that I require hope. HOPE is the word. I require hope that there is an answer to, "Why?" an answer to the question so many of us have been wondering. What purpose is there to life? So now if there is a possibility of an actual purpose to life, that my actions actually mean something, then I can live life happy. I just need that possibility, if it is even possible. Or there would be no point to keep living. It is only logical.

So if science can give me an artificial afterlife, then so be it. I'd love that. Maybe science can prevent aging. We won't age. Then if I could figure out a way to live relatively safe, and then Earth & humans because a Class IV civilization or something, then we could alter dimensions, whatever, to prevent us from dying at all, then may be there is that possibility I am thinking. And that thought is all I need to keep living. You can't change that because you can't say there is no hope for these things. So I am fine.

It sounds to me more like you're afraid of death than you're afraid of life having no meaning. I think the whole concept of "meaning" is just a smokescreen for that. And that's fine. A lot of people are afraid of dying.

But for a thinker like me, you definetly need that hope to keep living. It's probably why us humans invented religion to begin with. It was probably crucial for our evolution.

I'm a thinker, too, and I don't require eternal existence to keep living. Recognizing that this life is all we have only makes me appreciate it all the more.

As for the rest, I'm sorry, I'm not going to keep repeating myself in hopes that you'll finally understand a simple concept. I'm not bothering.

 

[garbonzo]

Not unless you've swallowed one of those pills from "Limitless" since you've been gone.



Well, the "science" afterlife you're talking about is still science fiction, and in all likelihood will remain that way. You're talking about transferring consciousness to another medium, but we don't even really know what consciousness is. If something like that is even possible, you're talking hundreds--if not thousands--of years from now.

As for you needing it to live, I don't understand that logic. And on top of that, it's a bleak outlook. Is your life so bad that you can't find purpose and meaning in it? Why would you need there to be an afterlife for you to enjoy and appreciate what you have now?



You can change who you are, and you certainly can stop dwelling on things beyond your control. It can't be healthy to constantly think "If there's no afterlife, there's no point to this." I don't even understand how an afterlife is supposed to provide meaning to you. If you knew this was all finite, wouldn't that make you want to squeeze every drop out of it that you could? Would its fleeting nature make it more precious? If not, why not?



Your own life can have meaning without life itself having some sort of cosmic meaning. There are doctors and lawyers and priests and philosophers and dockworkers and plumbers who will tell you that they have found the meaning in their lives, so clearly it doesn't matter to them whether life in general has a purpose or it's just here because the chemistry happened to be right. Life can be a happy accident and you can still find a purpose. I mean, that can be literally true: you very well might have been an accident. I know I was. My mother was 17 when I was born; I was not supposed to be here. But the accidental nature of my existence doesn't define me or rob me of purpose. And the same applies to life in general. What should it matter to me if organic life is here by chance or design? My life goes on either way.

What I'm curious about is how living forever would magically solve this problem. Would you not care if your life had purpose if it were eternal? I don't get it.



It sounds to me more like you're afraid of death than you're afraid of life having no meaning. I think the whole concept of "meaning" is just a smokescreen for that. And that's fine. A lot of people are afraid of dying.



I'm a thinker, too, and I don't require eternal existence to keep living. Recognizing that this life is all we have only makes me appreciate it all the more.

As for the rest, I'm sorry, I'm not going to keep repeating myself in hopes that you'll finally understand a simple concept. I'm not bothering.

Well I've explained it before. Your life can have meaning, you can have fun, you can be happy. But it will all only be temporary - until you die. When you die, that's it. It's done. You can't explain it with words because when you die, there are no words, there is no nothing, and yes, that is something to be afraid of, and the fact that almost everyone fears that should tell you something. No one wants to die. I wonder why. It's a reason why when humans invent gods they invent an afterlife etc. because no one wants to die.

So yes, I am talking about being afraid of dying, because if you look at it objectively, there was no meaning to your life. It was only subjective.

I don't suffer from extreme depression or anything, and like I said, I have lots of things to look forward to and I am young, but it doesn't make sense to go on if the end result is the same.

The end result is exactly the same, is it not? Answer this one for me. This is the root of my thinking. If the end result is the same, what does it matter? You can't say that if you live for 100 years even and then you die, the result is any different than if you die when you are any other age, rofl. If you die when you are 1148 for pete's sake and then you die, the end result is the same. No matter how much accomplishments you make, those things help other people who then go on to die? lol It doesn't make sense at all to me.

I have thought for awhile like how you are thinking. You might as well make the most out of the life you have as it is precious and make the most out of it, blah blah blah, but if you think more about it, you realize that even when you "make the most of it" you die anyway. Like I said, the end result is the same.

That's why I require hope. Fraggle Rocker (if I have the name right) on this very forum said that this is the century of biology and he wouldn't be surprised if an anti-aging (not just skin >.>) breakthrough was found in this century ("for you young people, not me", his words). Science has almost made the word "impossible" irrelevant. I can hold out hope for either a scientific "afterlife" or a supernatural "afterlife" to relieve me from this logical paradox.


I see what you mean on how "giving your life meaning" doesn't make sense. I agree when you look at it the way you are looking at it. What I mean is that you can have meaning temporary, but you only truly have meaning objectively if it is everlasting meaning, because if it dies, it is not meaning anymore. It is nothing.

 

[RedStar]

The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women's rights.
—Enver Hoxha, 1967

This needs to be our policy towards anyone who is a homophobe.

 

[kx000]

The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women's rights.
—Enver Hoxha, 1967

This needs to be our policy towards anyone who is a homophobe.

People need to understand what is okay, and not okay in terms of presenting themselves in public and respect towards others. Then no one has any claim against homosexuals.

Anti-gays, Catholics, etc need to see that people kill themselves daily because they are trashed by society for the way they view sex. Perverts, you may not claim your view of sex as rational.

 

[Balerion]

Well I've explained it before. Your life can have meaning, you can have fun, you can be happy. But it will all only be temporary - until you die. When you die, that's it. It's done. You can't explain it with words because when you die, there are no words, there is no nothing, and yes, that is something to be afraid of, and the fact that almost everyone fears that should tell you something. No one wants to die. I wonder why. It's a reason why when humans invent gods they invent an afterlife etc. because no one wants to die.

So yes, I am talking about being afraid of dying, because if you look at it objectively, there was no meaning to your life. It was only subjective.

I don't suffer from extreme depression or anything, and like I said, I have lots of things to look forward to and I am young, but it doesn't make sense to go on if the end result is the same.

The end result is exactly the same, is it not? Answer this one for me. This is the root of my thinking. If the end result is the same, what does it matter? You can't say that if you live for 100 years even and then you die, the result is any different than if you die when you are any other age, rofl. If you die when you are 1148 for pete's sake and then you die, the end result is the same. No matter how much accomplishments you make, those things help other people who then go on to die? lol It doesn't make sense at all to me.

I have thought for awhile like how you are thinking. You might as well make the most out of the life you have as it is precious and make the most out of it, blah blah blah, but if you think more about it, you realize that even when you "make the most of it" you die anyway. Like I said, the end result is the same.

That's why I require hope. Fraggle Rocker (if I have the name right) on this very forum said that this is the century of biology and he wouldn't be surprised if an anti-aging (not just skin >.>) breakthrough was found in this century ("for you young people, not me", his words). Science has almost made the word "impossible" irrelevant. I can hold out hope for either a scientific "afterlife" or a supernatural "afterlife" to relieve me from this logical paradox.


I see what you mean on how "giving your life meaning" doesn't make sense. I agree when you look at it the way you are looking at it. What I mean is that you can have meaning temporary, but you only truly have meaning objectively if it is everlasting meaning, because if it dies, it is not meaning anymore. It is nothing.

Fear of death is nothing more or less than a fear of the unknown. If you believe that death is the end of the self, then there is nothing more to fear in it than there was to fear in the time before you were born. You will be just as oblivious in death as you were before life. Very few iterations of the afterlife resemble real life as we know it anyway (Christianity's "heaven" for example is literally ceaseless prostration and worship of God; there are no tea parties with famous dead people or weepy reunions with your lost loved ones) so it is safe to say that eternal life is not what fear drives man to, but rather an explanation of death.

That isn't to say that we don't want to increase our time here on earth. I just think that the fear you speak of isn't derived from the actual concept of death, but the unknowable quality of it.

As for meaning, again, I can only say that an eternal existence would be no more or less meaningful than a temporary one. There is nothing inherently meaningful about living forever. Life is only as meaningful or meaningless as you make it. So what if it's temporary? And how temporary are we talking? You can do things that live on beyond you. If you write music, or literature, or poetry, or make any other kind of art, then there's a chance that those works will live on as long as our civilization does. Do you think the meaning of Thomas Jefferson's life died with him? Do you think Albert Einstein's contributions are null and void simply because he's dead?

I suggest thinking harder about these things before jumping to such dangerous conclusions.

 

[garbonzo]

I suggest thinking harder about these things before jumping to such dangerous conclusions.

I have thought long and hard on this. And it's only dangerous if you take away hope like you seem so bent on doing.

Fear of death is nothing more or less than a fear of the unknown. If you believe that death is the end of the self, then there is nothing more to fear in it than there was to fear in the time before you were born. You will be just as oblivious in death as you were before life.

That isn't to say that we don't want to increase our time here on earth. I just think that the fear you speak of isn't derived from the actual concept of death, but the unknowable quality of it.

I know what death is. I'm not afraid of the state I would be in when I die if nothing supernatural occurs. It wouldn't be anything. So why would you be afraid of nothing? What I am afraid of is that whether I live for 1 year or 100 years, I will still be in the same state of consciousness. Nothing.

If the end result is the same, is there a difference between two options?

If you ask that question about anything else the answer would be obvious, yet when you are talking about life because it is such, you are trying to get around it. I can tell that you are struggling.

Any thinking person wouldn't fear the unknown when it comes to death. Anything except hell or torture would be better than a state of unconsciousness forever and you know it.

Very few iterations of the afterlife resemble real life as we know it anyway (Christianity's "heaven" for example is literally ceaseless prostration and worship of God; there are no tea parties with famous dead people or weepy reunions with your lost loved ones) so it is safe to say that eternal life is not what fear drives man to, but rather an explanation of death.

I doubt that very much. I am not familiar with Catholic Christianity or Baptist Christianity (I'm sure they answer the question: Won't it be boring?), but I grew up a Jehovah's Witness and they believe in a Paradise on Earth which is basically just perfect life on Earth. Nothing is impossible, and there are always things to learn. You can do anything you want, just like the Garden of Eden. Worship of God isn't even mentioned except in speculative conversations. And I'm quite sure Muslims would disagree with you with their "virgin" fantasies. =D (Or is that only radical Muslims or something? Nevertheless, it is a type of an afterlife.)

As for meaning, again, I can only say that an eternal existence would be no more or less meaningful than a temporary one. There is nothing inherently meaningful about living forever. Life is only as meaningful or meaningless as you make it.

Like I said, it would be no more or less meaningful, but it would be eternal.

So what if it's temporary? And how temporary are we talking? You can do things that live on beyond you. If you write music, or literature, or poetry, or make any other kind of art, then there's a chance that those works will live on as long as our civilization does.

You need to become massively famous in order for your work to live even 100 years after you die. Not many people can attain that at all.

Do you think the meaning of Thomas Jefferson's life died with him? Do you think Albert Einstein's contributions are null and void simply because he's dead?

Do you think the meaning of anyone-living-in-ancient-Sumeria-whose-name-you-don't-even-know's life died with him? Do you think some amateur-painter-from-last-century's contributions are null and voice simply because he's dead?

Heck, even if you are *good* at something it doesn't mean you'll be famous or even remembered.

After all that, even if you attain super-stardom somehow incredibly, civilization will probably end, the universe will probably end. Unless, like I said, we master dimensions. And you think we will even remember Thomas Jefferson 2 million years from now if our civilization goes on? LOL

 

[Balerion]

I have thought long and hard on this. And it's only dangerous if you take away hope like you seem so bent on doing.

All I'm "bent" on doing is helping you see that there's no need for hope in that sense. What we have here on Earth is enough.

I know what death is. I'm not afraid of the state I would be in when I die if nothing supernatural occurs. It wouldn't be anything. So why would you be afraid of nothing? What I am afraid of is that whether I live for 1 year or 100 years, I will still be in the same state of consciousness. Nothing.

You contradict yourself. You're not afraid of it, but you are afraid of it?

If the end result is the same, is there a difference between two options?

Yes. Everything that happens while you're alive.

If you ask that question about anything else the answer would be obvious, yet when you are talking about life because it is such, you are trying to get around it. I can tell that you are struggling.

Kid, the only thing I'm struggling with is trying to have a philosophical discussion with someone who's clearly not capable of deep thought. Now if the answer would be obvious if the question were about anything else, you should have no problem giving me some examples.

Any thinking person wouldn't fear the unknown when it comes to death. Anything except hell or torture would be better than a state of unconsciousness forever and you know it.

No, I don't know it. If you were capable of actually putting some actual thought into this, you'd ask yourself if kneeling at the feet of some God that thinks your whole purpose for existing is to worship it is really something you want to spend eternity doing. Or you might ask yourself if there's anything that you want to spend eternity doing. Even if you could find a different activity every day, eventually you would have to begin doing things twice, and on a long enough timeline, this practice would become maddeningly tedious. The whole idea of eternal life is one that is only appealing when given superficial inspection. Actually think about it, and the idea very much begins to look like a kind of hell.

I doubt that very much. I am not familiar with Catholic Christianity or Baptist Christianity (I'm sure they answer the question: Won't it be boring?), but I grew up a Jehovah's Witness and they believe in a Paradise on Earth which is basically just perfect life on Earth. Nothing is impossible, and there are always things to learn. You can do anything you want, just like the Garden of Eden.

That's not at all what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. You either made that up yourself, or you've been given some very bad information. In truth, the JW heaven more closely resembles a convent, with the 144,000 acting as priests in heaven. Look it up.

Worship of God isn't even mentioned except in speculative conversations. And I'm quite sure Muslims would disagree with you with their "virgin" fantasies. =D (Or is that only radical Muslims or something? Nevertheless, it is a type of an afterlife.)

Worship of God is the express purpose of heaven. The whole point is to put the faithful closer to God so that they may worship him "in person," so to speak. It's very important to acknowledge this, because it shatters the illusion that you and so many other believers seem to have, which is that heaven is simply a place for good people to go on living as they would if on earth, except now they get to do it forever. That's not the case, at least not in the Abrahamic faiths. It's not enough to be a friendly neighbor to be a good Christian. You have to follow Christ's commands to the letter, which means murdering children who curse their parents, for example.

No, heaven isn't the frolicking garden you want it to be. It's a realm of subservience and prostration.

Like I said, it would be no more or less meaningful, but it would be eternal.

And like I said, eternal life is a form of hell in and of itself, if you think about it.

You need to become massively famous in order for your work to live even 100 years after you die. Not many people can attain that at all.

Well, for one, that's completely false. The lifeguard who saves the life of a kid who ends up becoming the physicist who devises a Theory of Everything will have made an impression on the universe.

Do you think the meaning of anyone-living-in-ancient-Sumeria-whose-name-you-don't-even-know's life died with him? Do you think some amateur-painter-from-last-century's contributions are null and voice simply because he's dead?

Null and void, you mean? No, I don't think that. If they did something that inspired someone, then their work lives in the work of others, even if you don't happen to see that influence or even know it's there. Without them, the work you see today would not exist, at least not as it does today.

Heck, even if you are *good* at something it doesn't mean you'll be famous or even remembered.

As I say, you don't necessarily have to be. Maybe Picasso saw a crappy painting hanging in a gallery in Spain somewhere and decided that he could do better with blue. I don't know, I'm just saying that if you can make an impression on someone, then you can live on through others.

After all that, even if you attain super-stardom somehow incredibly, civilization will probably end, the universe will probably end. Unless, like I said, we master dimensions. And you think we will even remember Thomas Jefferson 2 million years from now if our civilization goes on? LOL

And again, why does that matter?

 

[garbonzo]

All I'm "bent" on doing is helping you see that there's no need for hope in that sense. What we have here on Earth is enough.

I like this discussion Balerion, it is interesting and this is what a discussion and debate is supposed to be. To give you insight and clarity in your understanding of concepts. Just want to say that.

You contradict yourself. You're not afraid of it, but you are afraid of it?

Like I said, I'm not afraid of the state of mind death brings. I'm afraid of death because it means my life meant nothing in the long run. Read below before you respond.

Yes. Everything that happens while you're alive.

And why does that matter...in the long run?

Kid, the only thing I'm struggling with is trying to have a philosophical discussion with someone who's clearly not capable of deep thought.

No need to call me a kid. This is supposed to be an open-minded discussion. Calling me a kid is an effort to put your words above mine when we are trying to have a civilized debate...which means both sides should be considered and have equal weight until we have a better understanding.

Now if the answer would be obvious if the question were about anything else, you should have no problem giving me some examples.

I play a lot of video games (and plan to have my own development house). So a good example would be an RPG dungeon crawler. So think of this scenario I take from an RPG as real life: You are a very experienced monster slayer. The best of your kind. There is actually no one better than you. You are on a trip to another kingdom when you see a dungeon. This is one dungeon you will never see again because you are not coming back this way in your lifetime. You decide to loot it in case there is anything valuable. So you go into the dungeon, battle 100+ monsters and come out with no loot that you wanted or needed. You just wasted your time in that dungeon. There is absolutely NOTHING you could gain from that. It would have been no different if you had just skipped that dungeon. It would have been no different to quit halfway, or 3/4ths the way. The end result was the same. (we can ignore the time you lost while in that dungeon for the sake of the argument)

That is what he saw when looking into his magic ball that can tell what can happen in the future when he is halfway into the dungeon. So knowing this, why not just save the energy and quit while he is halfway? He knows that in the end, it doesn't matter.

There is your example.

No, I don't know it. If you were capable of actually putting some actual thought into this,

Funny how I believe that you are not thinking deep about this. I spent a whole 2 hours thinking about this one night and in passing, continue to think about it. I spend awhile constructing these responses to you thinking about it. No sense in even saying that, it would lead to no where.

you'd ask yourself if kneeling at the feet of some God that thinks your whole purpose for existing is to worship it is really something you want to spend eternity doing.

Well I don't know what the purpose of this line of thought is. We know Christianity is bunk. So it's kind of pointless. We could debacle for lifetimes on what we think the Bible's message is on the afterlife. Why do you think there are so many interpretations? It's in fact one of the reasons why we know Christianity is false. So, I mean...?

I dunno, if we are talking hypothetical here, I wouldn't want to just bow down for eternity to God. God would not be loving in this aspect, but this is a hypothetical, it's not supposed to make sense. So that would be labeled as a kind of torture. An unconscious state of mind would be better than eternal torture, yes. I can't think of much else.

Or you might ask yourself if there's anything that you want to spend eternity doing. Even if you could find a different activity every day, eventually you would have to begin doing things twice, and on a long enough timeline, this practice would become maddeningly tedious. The whole idea of eternal life is one that is only appealing when given superficial inspection. Actually think about it, and the idea very much begins to look like a kind of hell.

In your train of thought, that would be torture in my eyes, yes. What is this, a hypothetical supernatural afterlife or scientific progression? If an afterlife is possible, then I believe a change in our current thinking could be possible, also. If you are going to talk about a hypothetical supernatural afterlife, *anything* can go. There are no limits to what you can think about where a supernatural afterlife wouldn't be boring. Say if some kind of eternal creator were real and he has control over everything, he can just continuously spawn new things and new variables to mess with, or something. He could make you feel like you don't need new things to be happy. Anything really.

If we are talking about human science at work, yes I see what you mean, but at the same time, there is SO much things science doesn't know, so many places we have yet to discover or even learn about. We can barely even grasp inter-dimensional theories. If we could cross dimensions, who fucking knows? If eternal life were possible with science, then I believe we would need to do that. We know this universe will die eventually, right? So eternal life wouldn't be possible without finding a way to either stop that or to skip into another dimension? And I mean, there will never be no new people to meet. There will always be creative works to admire. I don't know, I suppose eventually we would run out, even in creative works, (based on what we know currently, again, who knows what we will discover that can change that) but that's if we have perfect memory. Maybe we could purposely destroy our memory of creative works in order to enjoy them again? I mean, we *already* reapeat things! I know people who think drinking every Friday and Saturday night is fun. I know people who say getting laid never gets old. Since no one we know of has lived past 150 (unless we believe the Bible's stories), it's hard to say if we would ever get tired of things like that. So we don't know.

Basically, there are just *way* too many different variables and dynamics here to even speculate. I don't believe you could ever get tired with life, but if it were possible, I guess I would think dying would be better than that kind of torture. :shrug: Oh well. My point is that I can still currently have hope.

That's not at all what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. You either made that up yourself, or you've been given some very bad information. In truth, the JW heaven more closely resembles a convent, with the 144,000 acting as priests in heaven. Look it up.

I literally laughed out loud at this. I love how you say it with such confidence. I won't do your homework for you, though. Where did you get your information from, anyway? You really thought I just made up that I grew up a JW? lol

Worship of God is the express purpose of heaven. The whole point is to put the faithful closer to God so that they may worship him "in person," so to speak. It's very important to acknowledge this, because it shatters the illusion that you and so many other believers seem to have, which is that heaven is simply a place for good people to go on living as they would if on earth, except now they get to do it forever. That's not the case, at least not in the Abrahamic faiths. It's not enough to be a friendly neighbor to be a good Christian. You have to follow Christ's commands to the letter, which means murdering children who curse their parents, for example.

No, heaven isn't the frolicking garden you want it to be. It's a realm of subservience and prostration.

Says the guy guy that doesn't believe in it TO the guy that doesn't believe in it. Very funny, lol. I'd like to know where you get your facts about heaven from! haha

Heaven is exactly what anyone wants it to be. It is a human construct and it will remain that. An idea that can shaped by anyone who wants to shape it.

And like I said, eternal life is a form of hell in and of itself, if you think about it.

Yes, when you think about it, but that truly depends on what you think about and what paths you choose to make when you are thinking about it.

Well, for one, that's completely false. The lifeguard who saves the life of a kid who ends up becoming the physicist who devises a Theory of Everything will have made an impression on the universe.

Say WHAT? Confuzzled.

Null and void, you mean?

Yes. Auto-correct.

No, I don't think that. If they did something that inspired someone, then their work lives in the work of others, even if you don't happen to see that influence or even know it's there. Without them, the work you see today would not exist, at least not as it does today.



As I say, you don't necessarily have to be. Maybe Picasso saw a crappy painting hanging in a gallery in Spain somewhere and decided that he could do better with blue. I don't know, I'm just saying that if you can make an impression on someone, then you can live on through others.

I see what you mean, but it's still temporary. If the universe collapses, what does it matter what these people do? Humans a literally like ants or any other earthly creature; we just put more importance in them because we are the same species. The influences of yourself on another human is no more significant than the influences of a lion influencing another member of his pack. Eventually his pack will die, and eventually whoever you influence will die.

And again, why does that matter?

It's just that. It doesn't matter. Nothing we do matters in your world. Not in the world I hope for, but in your world, yes. Sorry if that is confusing, I am trying to put my thoughts into words. "Your world" meaning what you said here:

What we have here on Earth is enough.

 

[Balerion]

And why does that matter...in the long run?

Why does it have to?

No need to call me a kid. This is supposed to be an open-minded discussion. Calling me a kid is an effort to put your words above mine when we are trying to have a civilized debate...which means both sides should be considered and have equal weight until we have a better understanding.

I can consider your position without giving it any weight at all. And no, I'm not obligated to treat your ideas as equal to mine. In my opinion, they aren't equal.

I play a lot of video games (and plan to have my own development house). So a good example would be an RPG dungeon crawler. So think of this scenario I take from an RPG as real life: You are a very experienced monster slayer. The best of your kind. There is actually no one better than you. You are on a trip to another kingdom when you see a dungeon. This is one dungeon you will never see again because you are not coming back this way in your lifetime. You decide to loot it in case there is anything valuable. So you go into the dungeon, battle 100+ monsters and come out with no loot that you wanted or needed. You just wasted your time in that dungeon. There is absolutely NOTHING you could gain from that. It would have been no different if you had just skipped that dungeon. It would have been no different to quit halfway, or 3/4ths the way. The end result was the same. (we can ignore the time you lost while in that dungeon for the sake of the argument)

This analogy fails for several reasons. First, it assumes that your actions within the dungeon have no impact whatsoever on anyone else who is in the dungeon with you, or who may pass through the dungeon later. Keeping with that theme, perhaps your mindless slaying of 100 beasties serves as a tutorial for a less-experienced warrior in your party, or clears out the dungeon so that someone weaker can pass through unmolested. Secondly, you're only thinking in terms of how it matters after death. But in reality, your experiences shape you as a human being. There is pleasure to be taken in becoming a good person, and there is good that can be done in becoming a wise person. You seem to think that you can't influence people, but you absolutely. Certainly you can think of people who inspired your or affected you in some way, even if it was just in a single encounter. We all have people like that in our personal histories. No one lives in a vacuum.

Finally, if the dungeon is all there, what's the hurry to leave? Okay, so say there's no afterlife; that should make this life all the more precious. You've avoided this point a few times now. Let's say you know your wife has terminal cancer and probably only has six months to live. Would you just leave her, knowing that nothing you do can change the ultimate outcome? Of course not. You'd spend as much time as possible with her, knowing that you have such a short time left. You'd squeeze every drop out of your time left. Why is life in general any different?

That is what he saw when looking into his magic ball that can tell what can happen in the future when he is halfway into the dungeon. So knowing this, why not just save the energy and quit while he is halfway? He knows that in the end, it doesn't matter.

Save his energy for what? If this life is all there is, what are you saving your energy for?

Funny how I believe that you are not thinking deep about this. I spent a whole 2 hours thinking about this one night and in passing, continue to think about it. I spend awhile constructing these responses to you thinking about it. No sense in even saying that, it would lead to no where.

I have seen little evidence of this in your posting.

Well I don't know what the purpose of this line of thought is. We know Christianity is bunk. So it's kind of pointless. We could debacle for lifetimes on what we think the Bible's message is on the afterlife. Why do you think there are so many interpretations? It's in fact one of the reasons why we know Christianity is false. So, I mean...?

I dunno, if we are talking hypothetical here, I wouldn't want to just bow down for eternity to God. God would not be loving in this aspect, but this is a hypothetical, it's not supposed to make sense. So that would be labeled as a kind of torture. An unconscious state of mind would be better than eternal torture, yes. I can't think of much else.

But your whole concept of a "loving God" derives from your understanding of the Christian faith, so dismissing it at least in part because it doesn't represent a loving God is silly. And you were the one who said you grew up a Jehovah's Witness and that your idea of heaven was a perfect existence on Earth, so I was simply addressing this misconception.

In your train of thought, that would be torture in my eyes, yes. What is this, a hypothetical supernatural afterlife or scientific progression? If an afterlife is possible, then I believe a change in our current thinking could be possible, also. If you are going to talk about a hypothetical supernatural afterlife, *anything* can go. There are no limits to what you can think about where a supernatural afterlife wouldn't be boring. Say if some kind of eternal creator were real and he has control over everything, he can just continuously spawn new things and new variables to mess with, or something. He could make you feel like you don't need new things to be happy. Anything really.

But you've already made it clear that you are not limiting yourself to "scientific" visions of an afterlife (which isn't even an afterlife; what you're talking about is science extending your lifespan). You're talking about eternal life, which is a decidedly spiritual discussion. And why invoke images of faux-Witness heaven if you don't think that's what heaven is?

If we are talking about human science at work, yes I see what you mean, but at the same time, there is SO much things science doesn't know, so many places we have yet to discover or even learn about. We can barely even grasp inter-dimensional theories. If we could cross dimensions, who fucking knows? If eternal life were possible with science, then I believe we would need to do that. We know this universe will die eventually, right? So eternal life wouldn't be possible without finding a way to either stop that or to skip into another dimension? And I mean, there will never be no new people to meet. There will always be creative works to admire. I don't know, I suppose eventually we would run out, even in creative works, (based on what we know currently, again, who knows what we will discover that can change that) but that's if we have perfect memory. Maybe we could purposely destroy our memory of creative works in order to enjoy them again? I mean, we *already* reapeat things! I know people who think drinking every Friday and Saturday night is fun. I know people who say getting laid never gets old. Since no one we know of has lived past 150 (unless we believe the Bible's stories), it's hard to say if we would ever get tired of things like that. So we don't know.

In any event, you will not be around to see it. The kind of life-extending science you're talking about may never be possible, and certainly won't be in any of our lifetimes if it is.

Basically, there are just *way* too many different variables and dynamics here to even speculate. I don't believe you could ever get tired with life, but if it were possible, I guess I would think dying would be better than that kind of torture. :shrug: Oh well. My point is that I can still currently have hope.

You don't believe because you don't want to believe. My point is that there's plenty to live for without any reference to the afterlife. Why even concern yourself with it?

I literally laughed out loud at this. I love how you say it with such confidence. I won't do your homework for you, though. Where did you get your information from, anyway? You really thought I just made up that I grew up a JW? lol

And you see now why I call you "kid" and express my doubts at your ability to have this conversation seriously? You claim to be a Jehovah's Witness yet you don't even understand the concept of the 144,000 or their role in heaven? How am I to take you seriously?

[qutoe]Says the guy guy that doesn't believe in it TO the guy that doesn't believe in it. Very funny, lol. I'd like to know where you get your facts about heaven from! haha[/quote]

From the same place you don't, apparently. Namely, the bible. But don't worry, I didn't assume that you had ever read a page of it in your life, so you're not disappointing me by displaying this gross ignorance of the subject. You've already demonstrated that you're all smoke and no sizzle.

Heaven is exactly what anyone wants it to be. It is a human construct and it will remain that. An idea that can shaped by anyone who wants to shape it.

Again, you weren't talking about a generic afterlife, you were talking about heaven. Heaven is not a generic concept, it is a place described within the Abrahamic monotheisms. So no, heaven is not just something you get to dream up. No more than Middle Earth is a place you can just dream up. It's already established, you don't get to simply change it and add to it as you like.

Yes, when you think about it, but that truly depends on what you think about and what paths you choose to make when you are thinking about it.

That makes no sense at all. Care to try again without the pretentiousness?

Say WHAT? Confuzzled.

What was confusing about that?

A lifeguard saves a child. That child goes on to formulate the Theory of Everything, thereby changing the world. That lifeguard therefore has made a massive impression on the world, and nobody even knows it.

I see what you mean, but it's still temporary. If the universe collapses, what does it matter what these people do? Humans a literally like ants or any other earthly creature; we just put more importance in them because we are the same species. The influences of yourself on another human is no more significant than the influences of a lion influencing another member of his pack. Eventually his pack will die, and eventually whoever you influence will die.

In some cosmic sense, it doesn't matter. My question is--the one you keep ducking--is why the fuck should it matter? Who cares if the residents of Planet Flibblegorp in the Shrike Abyssal know who you are or what you've done?

It's just that. It doesn't matter. Nothing we do matters in your world. Not in the world I hope for, but in your world, yes. Sorry if that is confusing, I am trying to put my thoughts into words. "Your world" meaning what you said here:

[/quote]

Why does it have to matter? What difference is it to you whether or not there's some grand plan in place?

 

[garbonzo]

Why does it have to?

Because the point that you keep ducking is if the end result is the same, what is the difference between two options?

I've shown you how the end result is the same in both cases.

I can consider your position without giving it any weight at all. And no, I'm not obligated to treat your ideas as equal to mine. In my opinion, they aren't equal.

That's the point of opinion. My mistake. The point is that you should consider it, and at the same time I consider yours.

This analogy fails for several reasons. First, it assumes that your actions within the dungeon have no impact whatsoever on anyone else who is in the dungeon with you, or who may pass through the dungeon later. Keeping with that theme, perhaps your mindless slaying of 100 beasties serves as a tutorial for a less-experienced warrior in your party, or clears out the dungeon so that someone weaker can pass through unmolested.

Ha, but I can shape the analogy any way I like it to suit my position, so this is pointless. For example: There are no warriors in your party, because you are not in a party. (I never said you were.) Let's say the cave collapses a short time after you left (not by your own doing, but because the supports were weak and were going to collapse anyway) and no one could even venture in there and the monsters would die anyway.

Secondly, you're only thinking in terms of how it matters after death. But in reality, your experiences shape you as a human being. There is pleasure to be taken in becoming a good person, and there is good that can be done in becoming a wise person. You seem to think that you can't influence people, but you absolutely. Certainly you can think of people who inspired your or affected you in some way, even if it was just in a single encounter. We all have people like that in our personal histories. No one lives in a vacuum.

No, my point was not that there can't be influences, my point was that those influences don't even matter in the long run.

Finally, if the dungeon is all there, what's the hurry to leave?

There is no hurry to leave. Like I said, time shouldn't matter for the sake of the argument since it relates to life. The point I wanted to make was that it doesn't matter in the end. You can choose to do it or not, it doesn't matter.

Okay, so say there's no afterlife; that should make this life all the more precious. You've avoided this point a few times now. Let's say you know your wife has terminal cancer and probably only has six months to live. Would you just leave her, knowing that nothing you do can change the ultimate outcome?

Well I believe this comes under self-centeredness which is in all of us human beings. You would stay with her because it is an experience you would rather not go without. You would feel bad and think how bad she would feel in her last hours or days, and since you love her (presumably) you wouldn't want to do that to her. Not because it matters to her any in the end if you believe she will die into a state of unconsciousness for eternity.

This analogy fails when compared to the subject because it fails to show how the end result is the same with both options. You still receive that experience if you choose to stay.

Now a better analogy would be the option to replace the option of leaving her with the option to commit suicide. In this case, it wouldn't matter what you did. She would be dead into a state of unconsciousness in a few hours or days and you would be dead into a state of unconsciousness. The other option would be to stay with her, she dies, receive the experience, maybe influence a few people that go onto die, and die yourself. Same result.

Save his energy for what? If this life is all there is, what are you saving your energy for?

It's a figure of speech. My point is that if the end result is the same, why bother with life at all? In the end it doesn't matter.

But your whole concept of a "loving God" derives from your understanding of the Christian faith, so dismissing it at least in part because it doesn't represent a loving God is silly. And you were the one who said you grew up a Jehovah's Witness and that your idea of heaven was a perfect existence on Earth, so I was simply addressing this misconception.

WHAT misconception? LOL It is an interpretation of a book. Anyone can do it.

But you've already made it clear that you are not limiting yourself to "scientific" visions of an afterlife (which isn't even an afterlife; what you're talking about is science extending your lifespan). You're talking about eternal life, which is a decidedly spiritual discussion. And why invoke images of faux-Witness heaven if you don't think that's what heaven is?

I never invoked faux-Witness heaven. Eternal life doesn't have to be spiritual in my eyes.

In any event, you will not be around to see it. The kind of life-extending science you're talking about may never be possible, and certainly won't be in any of our lifetimes if it is.

Where did you get your time machine? Doctor Who?

You don't believe because you don't want to believe. My point is that there's plenty to live for without any reference to the afterlife. Why even concern yourself with it?

Because it is required for me to live. I've said that. There is plenty to live for, but it doesn't matter. There may as well be nothing to live for, as the end result is the same.

And you see now why I call you "kid" and express my doubts at your ability to have this conversation seriously? You claim to be a Jehovah's Witness yet you don't even understand the concept of the 144,000 or their role in heaven? How am I to take you seriously?

I understand the concept after it being drilled into my head for 17 years. I expect an apology when you realize your little faux pas.

From the same place you don't, apparently. Namely, the bible. But don't worry, I didn't assume that you had ever read a page of it in your life, so you're not disappointing me by displaying this gross ignorance of the subject. You've already demonstrated that you're all smoke and no sizzle.

You want to start a debate on what a book's verse(s) mean now? Like I said, it is all interpretations. There is no correct interpretation of the Bible like you are seemingly saying.

Again, you weren't talking about a generic afterlife, you were talking about heaven. Heaven is not a generic concept, it is a place described within the Abrahamic monotheisms. So no, heaven is not just something you get to dream up. No more than Middle Earth is a place you can just dream up. It's already established, you don't get to simply change it and add to it as you like.

I didn't say it is a place you can dream up. I said it is a place you can shape. Just like Middle Earth is a place you can shape and fan's continue to shape it.

It's already established, you don't get to simply change it and add to it as you like.

No, but you can interpret it.

That makes no sense at all. Care to try again without the pretentiousness?

How was that pretentious? I was saying that you can take your own path when thinking about the future because it hasn't happened yet.

What was confusing about that?

A lifeguard saves a child. That child goes on to formulate the Theory of Everything, thereby changing the world. That lifeguard therefore has made a massive impression on the world, and nobody even knows it.

Oh. I thought the lifeguard was the child. Yes, influences happen, but both that kid and the lifeguard and everyone they influenced will be dead in the end.

In some cosmic sense, it doesn't matter. My question is--the one you keep ducking--is why the fuck should it matter? Who cares if the residents of Planet Flibblegorp in the Shrike Abyssal know who you are or what you've done?

What? Why should they know who you are? I never said they should. My only hope is to not end up in a state of eternal unconsciousness, as nothing would matter then.

 

[Balerion]

Because the point that you keep ducking is if the end result is the same, what is the difference between two options?

I've shown you how the end result is the same in both cases.

I'm not ducking anything. I'm saying that life is not reducible to "You live, you die, you become worm food." There's more to life than that. Or not, I suppose, depending on how good or bad your life is, but you're clearly a citizen of the West with dreams and aspirations; you have no excuse to be so nihilistic.

Ha, but I can shape the analogy any way I like it to suit my position, so this is pointless. For example: There are no warriors in your party, because you are not in a party. (I never said you were.) Let's say the cave collapses a short time after you left (not by your own doing, but because the supports were weak and were going to collapse anyway) and no one could even venture in there and the monsters would die anyway.

Okay, so then whatever meaning your acts might have had were buried beneath the rubble. I still don't see how that makes your life any less worth living. I never said that life must have some great impact upon others, only that it could, which was in opposition to your initial argument, which was that it couldn't.

No, my point was not that there can't be influences, my point was that those influences don't even matter in the long run.

For one, that isn't how you presented yourself. You began this whole thing by saying that once someone dies, everything they were is gone, and that nothing they've done matters. You even attempted to defend this by insisting one would have to become famous in order to make an impact on the larger world, which I refuted. So don't tell me that wasn't your point: it most certainly was. Since that argument was put down, however, now you're saying that influences in the long run don't matter. Well, okay, yeah, if you mean "heat death of the universe" long run, okay, but why on earth would you be concerned with that? Trust me, you won't be here to see it. In the meantime, however, there are relevant and pressing issues that need to be addressed, and your participation would be welcome.

There is no hurry to leave. Like I said, time shouldn't matter for the sake of the argument since it relates to life. The point I wanted to make was that it doesn't matter in the end. You can choose to do it or not, it doesn't matter.

Sure it matters. It matters to the people around you, and it could matter--depending on who you are--to many more people than that. You want to say that our concerns are immaterial juxtaposed against the cosmos, I say that the cosmos's concerns are immaterial juxtaposed against yours.

And you still haven't answered the question of why it should matter to us whether or not we are of any cosmic significance.

Well I believe this comes under self-centeredness which is in all of us human beings. You would stay with her because it is an experience you would rather not go without. You would feel bad and think how bad she would feel in her last hours or days, and since you love her (presumably) you wouldn't want to do that to her. Not because it matters to her any in the end if you believe she will die into a state of unconsciousness for eternity.

In the end, it's all that matters to her. You keep making the mistake of applying an identity to a null object. There is no "her" when she is dead, so "in the end" only applies to her life.

This analogy fails when compared to the subject because it fails to show how the end result is the same with both options. You still receive that experience if you choose to stay.

No, it works just fine. Your inability to comprehend it is not my fault.

Now a better analogy would be the option to replace the option of leaving her with the option to commit suicide. In this case, it wouldn't matter what you did. She would be dead into a state of unconsciousness in a few hours or days and you would be dead into a state of unconsciousness. The other option would be to stay with her, she dies, receive the experience, maybe influence a few people that go onto die, and die yourself. Same result.

Again, you're completely trivializing her and my feelings throughout this. You're not simply trying to reduce life to "live, die, dust," you're saying that it's the only thing of any consequence. This simply isn't true. Whatever happens matters to me, and the fact that my feelings are irrelevant on a cosmic scale does not diminish their importance to me. That's what you can't seem to grasp.

It's a figure of speech. My point is that if the end result is the same, why bother with life at all? In the end it doesn't matter.

And as I keep telling you, it matters very much. It matters to you, it matters to your family, and maybe to many more people than that. Unless you mean it cosmically doesn't matter, in which case why do you care what our lives mean in some cosmic sense?

WHAT misconception? LOL It is an interpretation of a book. Anyone can do it.

What exactly about the Book of Mormon or the bible tells you that JW heaven is any of the things you claimed it was earlier? I want some chapter and verse here.

I never invoked faux-Witness heaven. Eternal life doesn't have to be spiritual in my eyes.

Um, yes you did.

but I grew up a Jehovah's Witness and they believe in a Paradise on Earth which is basically just perfect life on Earth. Nothing is impossible, and there are always things to learn. You can do anything you want, just like the Garden of Eden.

Don't be a troll.

Where did you get your time machine? Doctor Who?

What the hell are you talking about? You're talking about transferring our consciousness to another medium so that we may live on beyond our bodies in your lifetime, and I'm out of order for saying that you're dreaming?

Okay, chief. Wake me up when that becomes possible.

Because it is required for me to live. I've said that. There is plenty to live for, but it doesn't matter. There may as well be nothing to live for, as the end result is the same.

As I said, that's an illogical, nihilistic way to look at things. You should seek counselling.

I understand the concept after it being drilled into my head for 17 years. I expect an apology when you realize your little faux pas.

Apology for what? Pointing out how wrong you are about your own supposed former religion? I think you owe me an apology for trying to slip one by me.

You want to start a debate on what a book's verse(s) mean now? Like I said, it is all interpretations. There is no correct interpretation of the Bible like you are seemingly saying.

Sorry, that shtick might work among your uneducated chums, but it won't fly here. You forwarded a very specific vision of Jehova's Witness heaven, and now that you've been called on it, you've retreated behind your little wall of intellectual dishonesty. Two posts ago you were presuming to speak for the JW faith, but suddenly it's all "Oh, well, there's no correct interpretation, yadda yadda." Bollocks, garb.

I didn't say it is a place you can dream up. I said it is a place you can shape. Just like Middle Earth is a place you can shape and fan's continue to shape it.

Fans no more "shape" Middle Earth than they sleep with the supermodels pictured in the calendars hanging from the bedroom walls. Middle Earth's borders and inhabitants began and ended with J.R.R. Tolkien's pen. Just as heaven begins and ends with the words in the bible (or the Book of Mormon, in your case). You dream up this idea that heaven is this personal, subjective place because it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it true. The authors of these books did not intend you to make up your own vision of heaven, but to subscribe to theirs.

No, but you can interpret it.

Yes, either correctly or incorrectly. Why do you insist that all interpretations are valid?

How was that pretentious? I was saying that you can take your own path when thinking about the future because it hasn't happened yet.

Why were you saying that? I was talking about eternal life being hell due to the endless repetition. What does "choosing your own path" have to do with it?

Oh. I thought the lifeguard was the child. Yes, influences happen, but both that kid and the lifeguard and everyone they influenced will be dead in the end.

For the hundredth time: So what?

What? Why should they know who you are? I never said they should. My only hope is to not end up in a state of eternal unconsciousness, as nothing would matter then.

Here we go again, moving the goalposts. You're impossible, troll, and I'm done with you.

 

[garbonzo]

I'm not ducking anything. I'm saying that life is not reducible to "You live, you die, you become worm food." There's more to life than that. Or not, I suppose, depending on how good or bad your life is, but you're clearly a citizen of the West with dreams and aspirations; you have no excuse to be so nihilistic.

There's more to life than that, I agree, mainly the first part, which is actually living. But that's temporary. You fail to show how your life or anyone elses has any meaning in the cosmos. Asking why it has to isn't an answer. You don't answer a question with a question.

Why does your life or any other's matter in the end?

You don't have an answer to it.

Next question:

What is the difference between dying while 10 years old and dying while 100 years old in the end? No, it is not anything you've done in between because that stuff doesn't matter either. It might as well not have happened.

Put it another way: What does it matter if the universe ends in 1 billion years or 1 trillion years?

Answer that for me. You should know by now you shouldn't answer a question with a question. This is what I mean by you ducking the subject.

Okay, so then whatever meaning your acts might have had were buried beneath the rubble. I still don't see how that makes your life any less worth living. I never said that life must have some great impact upon others, only that it could, which was in opposition to your initial argument, which was that it couldn't.

My ORIGINAL statement didn't say you couldn't have some great impact on others, I said in the end it doesn't matter. When you brought up that you can have an influence on others, I didn't get it at first, yes. I know what you are saying now, but even when I said that, I still said that even if you do have an influence on others, it doesn't matter.

I still don't see how that makes your life any less worth living.

Just the same as it doesn't make the warrior's experience in the dungeon any worth living through.

For one, that isn't how you presented yourself. You began this whole thing by saying that once someone dies, everything they were is gone, and that nothing they've done matters. You even attempted to defend this by insisting one would have to become famous in order to make an impact on the larger world, which I refuted. So don't tell me that wasn't your point: it most certainly was.

It was at a time, yes. I was thinking about what you had said, but that wasn't my original statement and I still said afterward that it still didn't matter. I was wrong in pursuing that line of though. My apologies. It doesn't detract from the main point.

Since that argument was put down, however, now you're saying that influences in the long run don't matter. Well, okay, yeah, if you mean "heat death of the universe" long run, okay, but why on earth would you be concerned with that? Trust me, you won't be here to see it. In the meantime, however, there are relevant and pressing issues that need to be addressed, and your participation would be welcome.

It's not now I am saying, I was always saying that. Why I should be concerned with it and me not being here to see it is so irrelevant. Why be concerned with anything in the universe?

Sure it matters. It matters to the people around you, and it could matter--depending on who you are--to many more people than that. You want to say that our concerns are immaterial juxtaposed against the cosmos, I say that the cosmos's concerns are immaterial juxtaposed against yours.

You are trying to say that if it doesn't matter to us and our lives personally, it doesn't matter at all. That is a subjective point of view, whereas mine is objective.

And you still haven't answered the question of why it should matter to us whether or not we are of any cosmic significance.

Just like a kid asks the purpose of a new machine he sees, it is human nature to ask the purpose of things. Anything. I have no answer to that. Why do we want to learn? Why do we ask questions? Why do we want to know anything? Why does anything matter to us? It just does.

In the end, it's all that matters to her. You keep making the mistake of applying an identity to a null object. There is no "her" when she is dead, so "in the end" only applies to her life.

Semantics. You know what I mean, I'm sure. Why are there gravestones if "you shouldn't apply an identity to a null object"?

No, it works just fine. Your inability to comprehend it is not my fault.

We could go in circles with this. I believe it is your inability to comprehend. Hence why you can't answer my questions.

Again, you're completely trivializing her and my feelings throughout this. You're not simply trying to reduce life to "live, die, dust," you're saying that it's the only thing of any consequence. This simply isn't true. Whatever happens matters to me, and the fact that my feelings are irrelevant on a cosmic scale does not diminish their importance to me. That's what you can't seem to grasp.

Why does what matters to you matter at all?

And as I keep telling you, it matters very much. It matters to you, it matters to your family, and maybe to many more people than that. Unless you mean it cosmically doesn't matter, in which case why do you care what our lives mean in some cosmic sense?

That's exactly what I mean. It doesn't matter cosmically.

What exactly about the Book of Mormon or the bible tells you that JW heaven is any of the things you claimed it was earlier? I want some chapter and verse here.

Oh god, your ignorance continues to astound me. I didn't know you to be the type. And it seems like you are so prideful that you don't even care to do some research to see if your beliefs are true.

Um, yes you did.



Don't be a troll.

The quote does not speak about the JW heaven. Try again.

I can very well tell you the truth here, but I want you to do your own research instead of acting all confident and prideful like you know it all. If that is a troll then so be it. I told you in the very beginning you should do your own research. Maybe next time someone calls you out, you will give the person the benefit of the doubt and actually do some before jumping to conclusions like you cannot ever be wrong.

What the hell are you talking about? You're talking about transferring our consciousness to another medium so that we may live on beyond our bodies in your lifetime, and I'm out of order for saying that you're dreaming?

Yes. I'm not the one making a declaration of fact, you are. I am only hoping for it. You are saying there is no way that is possible. If you have a problem with a mod, (Fraggle Rocker) take it up with him.

Okay, chief. Wake me up when that becomes possible.

So you are either trying to say it can't become possible or that I am going to die before it can have a chance at becoming possible. That is a declaration of fact. I want to see your time machine which tells you what will and will not become possible in the future.

As I said, that's an illogical, nihilistic way to look at things. You should seek counselling.

Existential nihilism is not an illogical way to look at things. Many smart people believe in existential nihilism. There is no counselling needed for it. At least I have hope that existential nihilism is not true.

Apology for what? Pointing out how wrong you are about your own supposed former religion? I think you owe me an apology for trying to slip one by me.

You have pointed out nothing. Learn more about the subject you are discussing.

Sorry, that shtick might work among your uneducated chums, but it won't fly here. You forwarded a very specific vision of Jehova's Witness heaven, and now that you've been called on it, you've retreated behind your little wall of intellectual dishonesty. Two posts ago you were presuming to speak for the JW faith, but suddenly it's all "Oh, well, there's no correct interpretation, yadda yadda." Bollocks, garb.

Huh...? I can "speak for the JW faith" in that I know what they believe and can tell you what they believe. That doesn't mean it is a correct interpretation of the Bible any more than Catholicism is correct or the Baptist interpretation is correct. I can't believe that you are actually claiming there is a correct interpretation of the Bible. If you think so, you might as well start your own religion and rake in the cash.

Fans no more "shape" Middle Earth than they sleep with the supermodels pictured in the calendars hanging from the bedroom walls. Middle Earth's borders and inhabitants began and ended with J.R.R. Tolkien's pen. Just as heaven begins and ends with the words in the bible (or the Book of Mormon, in your case).

I was actually talking about fan made stories set in Middle Earth. It is an interpretation of Middle Earth.

You dream up this idea that heaven is this personal, subjective place because it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make it true.

Where did I say it does? Heaven is no more true to a Muslim than it is to a Christian. They have their own interpretations. It is an opinion. :tempted:

The authors of these books did not intend you to make up your own vision of heaven, but to subscribe to theirs.

That may not have been their intention but are you going to argue that hasn't happened? No one knows who all the writers even are, much less what they believed or what they were trying to convey in their writings.

Yes, either correctly or incorrectly. Why do you insist that all interpretations are valid?

Are you saying there is a correct interpretation of Revelation for example? LOL I don't insist all interpretations are valid, I insist that all interpretations are no more valid than each other.

Why were you saying that? I was talking about eternal life being hell due to the endless repetition. What does "choosing your own path" have to do with it?

Because I've shown you that it wouldn't be endless repetition if you take any number of other paths. Such as erasing your memory. Your own path led you to the conclusion that eternal life would be endlessly repetitive.

Here we go again, moving the goalposts.

How so?

You're impossible, troll, and I'm done with you.

Right back at you. :wallbang:

 

[Pongeli]

God has asked me to warn gays and this seems as good place as any. Hell is real and gays go straight to hell maybe Jesus can save odd few who knows, but I just say do what Jesus would do.

 

[Aqueous Id]

God has asked me to warn gays and this seems as good place as any. Hell is real and gays go straight to hell maybe Jesus can save odd few who knows, but I just say do what Jesus would do.

No God didn't ask you anything. You're just full of yourself.

 

[Pongeli]

No God didn't ask you anything. You're just full of yourself.

Well to be quite honest I'm not exactly sure who said it. It might have been spirit too, but the message was clear. God wants gays to be warned. Period.