Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I just feel that having an infinite life in heaven has no more point than a finite life on earth.  It's not really related to the discussion at hand, though.

[Andir]

I just feel that having an infinite life in heaven has no more point than a finite life on earth.  It's not really related to the discussion at hand, though.

You've reminded me of the Queen song: "Who Wants to Live Forever."

I think an eternity of life would be rather boring once you've done everything you wanted to.  At some point you'll run out of things to do and will have learned/experienced all there is and just sit around picking your nose.

[Sergius]

I just feel that having an infinite life in heaven has no more point than a finite life on earth.  It's not really related to the discussion at hand, though.

You've reminded me of the Queen song: "Who Wants to Live Forever."

I think an eternity of life would be rather boring once you've done everything you wanted to.  At some point you'll run out of things to do and will have learned/experienced all there is and just sit around picking your nose.

That assumes that life is a checklist of things to do, that you do once and tick off. Why can't you enjoy the same thing over and over? Some people do, you know. Artists, sportsmen, inventors? Even if you get tired of playing 100 years of ice hockey and change to playing 100 years of basketball, that doesn't mean you aren't going to go back to play ice hockey for another 500 years later.

[Idiom]

It's a fundamental part of many, many, MANY humans. Some people can get by with the new and improved artificial improved noses while the other half are incapable of receiving them for, lets say immunological reasons. Doesn't matter exactly why. The point is while yes, you can do better yourself with an artificial nose, but not everyone can. Many still rely on their original noses, for preference or choice or the lack of options, regardless of how inadequate the original noses are and people are still born that way.

Except for the fact that religious faith is something people are not borh with, in fact it's something people are born without. So yeah, your criticism of unwarranted preaching is entirely valid, only aimed at the wrong side of the debate. It should be aimed at the people who push their faith on their kids, making them rely on an obsolete and inferior idea.

Why does everyone else have to ditch something for a new system, even proven and tested by you personally, when they still grew up and rely and function with the old one? It's not about the superiority of the whatever, it's about you being selfish I don't get. Leave the masses their opium. You don't need opium? Congratulations. Go celebrate with yourself rather than by upsetting the people who do. People wake up one day and finally realize something, then run down the street screaming "Memento Mori! Memento Mori!" and completely ruin previously content people.  Don't be an ass. I don't understand why people can't STFU and keep their personal revelations personal. I've said this like a billion times and no-one remembers.

Oh we do remember, we just don't care. Don't want to listen to atheist rambling on about atheism? Then don't read threads on atheism. It's that simple.

Join a transhumanist movement or something or quit bitching about human condition.

Edit:
I suppose you are already a transhumanist anyway.

Of course. I can't wait to stick some cyber implants in my brain.

No people aren't born with faith, they're born with the desire. They make faith. Wipe people's memories, stick them in the middle of nowhere to start life again and it will manifest. People don't want to embrace any finale. They reject death. Ever notice every damned religion promises some kind of life after life? They have a sense of justice when they're born. Hell, I even remember reading an article on a study that found even dogs are born with a sense of fairness. They tape a cardboard mask on the universe resembling justice, fairness, righteousness.

Wrong side of the argument? Should be aimed at obsolete ideas? It's NOT ABOUT THE IDEOLOGY. It's about you. What you do. The cow that realizes it's been eating grass it's whole life and tries to yank the other cows from their grass, when in the end it's futile as you're all still herbivores, including you. They're happy until you dash by yelling "Memento Mori" at them, and some of the snap entirely. That's just asinine. They stick their damned heads in the sand because that's what they want.

You want people to be self-aware? Well then, how did you? You seem to have come about to it all by yourself. Ever notice how people who are perfectly fine without the sugar-coating on life like yourself all come to that themselves? Ever notice how the people who aren't don't all by themselves?

Quit trying to make the lions live on tofu. The people who can function without following "unwarranted preaching" know how to reject it, and you trying to force people is rude, selfish, inconsiderate, and above all pointless.

[Leafsnail]

No people aren't born with faith, they're born with the desire. They make faith. Wipe people's memories, stick them in the middle of nowhere to start life again and it will manifest.

Has anyone ever tried this?  You'd probably find that they aren't an atheist, since the idea of a God had never even occured to them.  They'd probably have some superstitions though.

People don't want to embrace any finale. They reject death. Ever notice every damned religion promises some kind of life after life? They have a sense of justice when they're born.

People don't want to embrace a finale.  Why?  Because their survival instinct tells them so.  Does religion help?  At best, very rarely.  Simply put, when push comes to shove most people don't believe in heaven or hell (the idea of hell, while fearsome, is easier to embrace than the idea of nothingness).  Hence religious people tend to be equally shit scared when it's the end of their life, if not more.

Hell, I even remember reading an article on a study that found even dogs are born with a sense of fairness. They tape a cardboard mask on the universe resembling justice, fairness, righteousness.

That probably just shows that dogs willl do anything for treats.  "What, put this random plate on a table and I get a biscuit?  Sure."

[Andir]

I think an eternity of life would be rather boring once you've done everything you wanted to.  At some point you'll run out of things to do and will have learned/experienced all there is and just sit around picking your nose.

That assumes that life is a checklist of things to do, that you do once and tick off. Why can't you enjoy the same thing over and over? Some people do, you know. Artists, sportsmen, inventors? Even if you get tired of playing 100 years of ice hockey and change to playing 100 years of basketball, that doesn't mean you aren't going to go back to play ice hockey for another 500 years later.

Maybe it's just me, but things get pretty monotonous and boring after only a few years for me.  Yes, I still game after some odd 10-20 years, but the games are changing... however, there's very little in games that hasn't been done to death and it's wearing on me.  Even DF had it's 6 months of interesting play for me, but I haven't played it in some time except to test the Linux builds.  Everquest was the last game to hold my attention for more than a few months... there's just not enough "replay" value in things (not just games... Basketball, hockey, sitcoms, art ... to ever imagine doing it for 5 years let alone 100 or 500.)  I just think I'd get extraordinarily bored if "Heaven" did exist.  I'd rather be unconsciously dead.

Even things that people seem to enjoy like watching their kids grow up would get tedious after doing it several times.  The same old jokes would get boring.  The funny giggles would be tiring.  Everything gets old.  How many times could you perform a hookshot before you looked for another way to score?  All good things must come to an end... even eternity.

[Idiom]

Has anyone ever tried this?

Every corner of the world has a unique religion with similar ideas without much contact from each other. We're out of natives to study, but they all had it. Even if it they were completely isolated from all of history, someone would have the idea again (there's nothing new under the sun) and people who tend to be followers will be followers.

They'd probably have some superstitions though.

If compile enough of them in a culture what is created over time?

People don't want to embrace a finale.  Why?  Because their survival instinct tells them so.  Does religion help?  At best, very rarely.  Simply put, when push comes to shove most people don't believe in heaven or hell (the idea of hell, while fearsome, is easier to embrace than the idea of nothingness).  Hence religious people tend to be equally shit scared when it's the end of their life, if not more.

Religion is partly a manifestation I think of survival instinct. Programmed to fear death, they convince themselves there's no such thing. Does religion help? It keeps them blissful, until yes I wouldn't doubt even some religious people are scared shitless at the final moments. I've seen many an old person knowing that they're going home on their death beds to a better place as a reward for their hard work in life, as is their beliefs, I wouldn't say it helps only rarely. I'd say it helps those with strong enough faith.

That probably just shows that dogs willl do anything for treats.

Opposite. With two dogs preforming side by side, when peers are rewarded and some are not, the dogs that weren't rewarded starting to refuse to preform. They rejected their chance for treats in a sort of protest.

[Sordid]

No people aren't born with faith, they're born with the desire. They make faith. Wipe people's memories, stick them in the middle of nowhere to start life again and it will manifest. People don't want to embrace any finale. They reject death. Ever notice every damned religion promises some kind of life after life? They have a sense of justice when they're born. Hell, I even remember reading an article on a study that found even dogs are born with a sense of fairness. They tape a cardboard mask on the universe resembling justice, fairness, righteousness.

I don't really see how that's relevant, except to show that faith really has no place in modern society.

Wrong side of the argument? Should be aimed at obsolete ideas? It's NOT ABOUT THE IDEOLOGY. It's about you. What you do. The cow that realizes it's been eating grass it's whole life and tries to yank the other cows from their grass, when in the end it's futile as you're all still herbivores, including you. They're happy until you dash by yelling "Memento Mori" at them, and some of the snap entirely. That's just asinine. They stick their damned heads in the sand because that's what they want.

For the last time, I don't go around preaching atheism, you came into a thread that right in its title says it's going to be about atheism. If you don't want to hear about atheism, stop visiting these threads. That's the last time I say this to you, from now on I'm going to ignore this line of argument from you.
Oh, and FYI, I was never a grasseater.

You want people to be self-aware? Well then, how did you? You seem to have come about to it all by yourself.

Nope, I was never yanked away from it in the first place.

[Grek]

As for your person that doesn't have perceptions of anything. I would argue that he would be alive in the since, that he eats and poos. But he wouldn't be alive in the since of living. Enjoyment, reacting making contributions.

He would be able to enjoy things on a physical level: All of the chemicals which result in enjoyment would still be released. He would react: All of the nerves which produce reactions would fire. He could contribute, as he would speak and behave exactly like a person. He would think, reason, and fear. All of those things are purely physical, resulting from chemical interactions in the brain and the stimulation of certain nerve cells.

The sole difference is that this "person" is basically a chemical robot. It's brain is simply a complex computer made out of brain matter, no more able to have sensations than a supercomputer can.
There must be some mechanism for a set of chemical interactions to result in a sensation. Some reason why we aren't all philosophical zombies.

[Sergius]

I think an eternity of life would be rather boring once you've done everything you wanted to.  At some point you'll run out of things to do and will have learned/experienced all there is and just sit around picking your nose.

That assumes that life is a checklist of things to do, that you do once and tick off. Why can't you enjoy the same thing over and over? Some people do, you know. Artists, sportsmen, inventors? Even if you get tired of playing 100 years of ice hockey and change to playing 100 years of basketball, that doesn't mean you aren't going to go back to play ice hockey for another 500 years later.

Maybe it's just me, but things get pretty monotonous and boring after only a few years for me.  Yes, I still game after some odd 10-20 years, but the games are changing... however, there's very little in games that hasn't been done to death and it's wearing on me.  Even DF had it's 6 months of interesting play for me, but I haven't played it in some time except to test the Linux builds.  Everquest was the last game to hold my attention for more than a few months... there's just not enough "replay" value in things (not just games... Basketball, hockey, sitcoms, art ... to ever imagine doing it for 5 years let alone 100 or 500.)  I just think I'd get extraordinarily bored if "Heaven" did exist.  I'd rather be unconsciously dead.

Even things that people seem to enjoy like watching their kids grow up would get tedious after doing it several times.  The same old jokes would get boring.  The funny giggles would be tiring.  Everything gets old.  How many times could you perform a hookshot before you looked for another way to score?  All good things must come to an end... even eternity.

Well, I suppose you're a different kind of personality. I would be bored as heck in "Heaven" but not as an immortal robot that can play computer games forever

[MrWiggles]

As for your person that doesn't have perceptions of anything. I would argue that he would be alive in the since, that he eats and poos. But he wouldn't be alive in the since of living. Enjoyment, reacting making contributions.

He would be able to enjoy things on a physical level: All of the chemicals which result in enjoyment would still be released. He would react: All of the nerves which produce reactions would fire. He could contribute, as he would speak and behave exactly like a person. He would think, reason, and fear. All of those things are purely physical, resulting from chemical interactions in the brain and the stimulation of certain nerve cells.

The sole difference is that this "person" is basically a chemical robot. It's brain is simply a complex computer made out of brain matter, no more able to have sensations than a supercomputer can.
There must be some mechanism for a set of chemical interactions to result in a sensation. Some reason why we aren't all philosophical zombies.

That a different concept then what you present before, or maybe I misinterpreted.

Um.
I don't understand the need for the question.

Pzed thing is a neat but impossible construct. There is no difference from the physical stimuli and reactions. If there were then there should be a way separate the physical actuator and the reaction. That been shown to be impossible.

I'll openingly admit that the mind and brian are still in the fog of the unknown. We must remain patience until a substantiated answer is found. Nothing wrong with we don't know.

I would love to understand the need for the question though. What says there must be something like this?

[Idiom]

That's the last time I say this to you, from now on I'm going to ignore this line of argument from you.

You're not really reading what I wrote. You're attacking something I wasn't on about. That's a bad sign to me.

For the last time, I don't go around preaching atheism, you came into a thread that right in its title says it's going to be about atheism. If you don't want to hear about atheism, stop visiting these threads.

I'm not here in an atheism thread not wanting to hear about atheism damnit. I'm here to tell atheists something about what they do because not all people are like them, and their "superior whatever" isn't superior for everyone no matter how much they have the natural desire for otherwise.

Not only you, but you're the only one really responding and I have to keep clarifying because you repeatedly mistake my intent. It's not that you go about preaching for atheism either, it's just that you attack everything else which is to the same effect as preaching atheism in the first place. Such as this post in your next response. Whether you mean to or not, you directly or indirectly preach it.

Oh, and FYI, I was never a grasseater.... was never yanked away from it in the first place.

Then scratch the "one day" part. A cow, don't eat grass, and try to make others recognize they're eating grass or don't try to and still make them realize because you've stopped eating grass. Some realize it at a point and some it from the start and some over time. Mainly I'm against the atheist converts with the knee-jerk reaction to convert everyone within their vicinity, but also the ones that don't keep to themselves (majority).

Lets say we make androids, not just robots but full blown emotions etc. They're programmed to avoid the fact that they're robots. You force that on them and I've seen them crack. It's not pretty. Some slowly come to it harmlessly. Some were always there more or less like you. What's there to gain from their self awareness? All they have is their psuedo-'happy' lives because they've subconsciously convinced themselves to be happy. One of them is self-aware. He brings that onto another that isn't ready or capable of that and all that the second android will ever have is gone. Ignorance is all many of these androids will ever have and they've nothing to gain otherwise.

Even if they are made self aware, what difference does it make? It doesn't change their situation at all. What does it do for them? Am I saying blissful ignorance is superior? Not really. Just that smashing it with a sledgehammer, or as you do, repeatedly tap it with a mallet, is asinine to do. Leave it to fate and the android's own capabilities, else, as I've said before, there's blood on your hands.

I don't really see how that's relevant, except to show that faith really has no place in modern society.

Nature has no place in modern society? Wait for Grek's robot people then you can say this. Though, we are technically already robots and nature is the embodiment of bits of pieces of behavioral coding... so would that even change anything?

Oh just forget it all. Nothing can really be changed anyway. I'm in a ranting mood today.

[Grek]

Pzed thing is a neat but impossible construct. There is no difference from the physical stimuli and reactions. If there were then there should be a way separate the physical actuator and the reaction. That been shown to be impossible.

Not the reaction, the sensation you feel as a result of the stimuli. A Pzed is a thing that has reactions to stimuli, but no experiences or sensations. It doesn't feel a thing, it just reacts.

There is no apparent physical cause for qualia, no way to point at a specific interaction and say, "Anything with that interaction going on is feeling happiness, and anything with this other interaction is experiencing the color red."

It is really difficult to explain what a qualia is, because most people in english speaking countries seem to have no concept of feeling something being seperate from reacting to it. As far as most people are concerned, if a person reacts, they feel it and if they don't react, they didn't feel anything. That's pretty accurate for most purposes, but for philosophy and religion there is a need to be more specific than that.

[RAM]

I just wasn't quite sure what extent you were referring to. But in that sense, qualia are perfectly justifiable as an evolutionary response to the advantages of considering something beyond the bare minimum required to respond to it. But it is still perfectly plausible as the result of physical changes in the brain. Just because it has no visible effects doesn't mean anything the brain has a huge capacity to hold this sort of thing without any externally detectable reaction...

It does 'feel' as though there is something more to red, but upon closer inspection I think that it is void if not an illusion...

[MrWiggles]

Yea, that may be my issues. To my understanding there is difference from the stimuli and reactions. In fact we have lots of practical test that is completely based off the concept I hit you, you do something.

There the pain test, there the test to see if your numb limb is really numb.

The fact that there is no difference from reactions and stimuli was the nail in the duality model. If your deaf, your auditory centers of your brian don't light up. If your blind your optical centers don't light up. [From birth], if you lost the sensory organ from after a bit, then it lights up randomly but from my reading this has to deal with memory or some such.

I dont mean to be nudge but I still don't understand the need for the question.

Why does religion or philo need this? It certainly is not observed.

It seems that it trying to force in the concept of a soul or some other such none sense. By just proclaiming that it must be needed.

Just because a proposition is favorable doesn't mean that its true.

So why is it needed?