Religion Megathread - many smug atheists ITT

[Jambe]

If anything, death is a blessing. Mortality is the spark of creation (forget who said that) and without the looming and ever-present threat of dying we'd have absolutely no reason to do anything at all.

Nah. Ants don't conceptualize anything, let alone death, and yet they do all kindsa shit. Existential terror isn't a motivating factor for most of us most of the time; usually we tacitly assume we'll live forever. The odd bit of "oh noes, I'm mortal!" wells up every so often, but then another thought (or external events) intrude. Death-worrying may increase during mid-life crises, sure, but those, too, shall pass...

Humans "do anything at all" primarily because of instinct and its cultural offshoots. That's basic food, stability and sex at the primal bread level and complex possessions, knowledge, and relationships as the emergent buttery spread. These things are all natural, physical phenomena — they don't require introspection or philosophy or any particular morality or tradition. One could certainly suggest that "knowledge" or "consciousness" are non-physical miasmas but that answers no questions at the cost of myriad useless paradoxical rabbit-holes.

I forget who argued that atheism was irrational because being Christian either means you're right and going to heaven or wrong and going nowhere, whereas being an atheist either means you're right and going nowhere or wrong and going to hell. Fun stuff.

It's called Pascal's Wager and it only makes sense if you irrationally believe that "souls" exist and "live on" after death, so the whole affair is pointless from a basic skeptical perspective (which goes hand-in-hand, I contend, with basic intellectual honesty).

Anyway, the whole obsession with eternal life and immortality is sort of beyond me, nothing inspires me to get work done like a funny pain in my chest.

Wait. Do you not want to live longer than your biology allows? I don't understand. I'd welcome an indefinite lifespan. I understand the fear of death as an indefinite looming threat, but I "keep on living" because I find life interesting, not because I'm mortal. Successes and failures, relationships, video games, hiking in forests during rain showers, steak au poivre, etc — that's why I go on.

[Agathor]

Michael Faraday wiki page is much better then the other link as usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday

[Don Peyote]

Not a bad looking bunch, although Ampère's style isn't very current. Volta's got potential, but the difference between him and Ohm is too great - look at Ohm's picture, I bet he was hard to resist :swoon:

All things considered, though, none of them can compete with Tesla's sheer magnetism. Joule know Watt I mean if you look him up.



Becquerel

[Jambe]

All things considered, though, none of them can compete with Tesla's sheer magnetism. Joule know Watt I mean if you look him up.

Let's Build a Goddamn Tesla Museum has raised $1,231,414 and has 18 days to go. Also, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

[Hilmar Keller]

argues for immortality

Let's reframe this question: If you are immortal, you cannot die. That means you don't have to eat, sleep, breathe, or otherwise consume anything. By extension this means you don't have to work because there's nothing you need to buy; you might be inclined to fuck every now and again but there's no hurry; you might watch a film but there would be no emotional attachment because there would be no way to relate to mortals whose every step brings them that much closer to a runaway bus or a loose piece of scaffolding.

In other words, these things we take for granted - food, art, even sex - are enmeshed in the inevitability of death. We want to live longer, that's true, but it's the evasion of death which makes human beings run. If we never died, we would quickly fail to have any reason to live. We would sit in one place. We would cease to exist as humans - as mortal beings.

[Night]

Assumption: we do things because we must, not because we appreciate them for themselves.

A very bad assumption, that.

Second assumption: immortality protects you from that runaway bus. No currently foreseeable method can.

[poaw]

Don't even have to go that far, you can start by asking the simple questions:

- Why do we suffocate so fast? Why can't our cells store oxigen?
- Why is reproduction imperfect?
- Why do we age? Why do we have to die?
- Why does cancer exist?

A Theologian could answer most of those by explaining that we're supposed to die. Time spent on earth is meant to be finite before returning to God's kingdom in Heaven, or if you insist on being a shithead even after being punished by being sent to earth then you can go to Hell (literally).

Someone of a secular intelligent design bent might mention something to the effect of that the creators weren't omniscient and possibly didn't know how to make us perfect. So reproduction is imperfect and our cells can't store oxygen and eventually those cells die in the same way software crashes sometimes.

Completely separate from all of those is the notion that immortality would be a desirable state of affairs for the human race. If the only causes of death were, disease (most of the biggest killers would tie into aging in general), starvation, and man-made. How many people do you think would be on earth right now? Add to that the we're increasing able to fight disease, feed massive numbers of people, and modern warfare is increasingly not killing large numbers of human beings. With people remaining in their prime reproductive year indefinitely the world population would have either tipped over, or be very close to doing so right now. So unless you enjoy the taste of Soylent Green, I think the whole "buying the farm" thing has some merit you didn't quite account for.

Really though your arguments against religion are so bad that I almost thought they were a satirical strawman.

[Hilmar Keller]

Assumption: we do things because we must, not because we appreciate them for themselves.

A very bad assumption, that.

You're playing the old 'art is nice because I like it' hand that completely disregards the substance or content of art. You're free to make an argument that my assumption is bad, but just saying it's bad doesn't do you any favors.

[Securitas]

I forget who argued that atheism was irrational because being Christian either means you're right and going to heaven or wrong and going nowhere, whereas being an atheist either means you're right and going nowhere or wrong and going to hell. Fun stuff.

Anyway, the whole obsession with eternal life and immortality is sort of beyond me, nothing inspires me to get work done like a funny pain in my chest.

That's a really dumb argument. If you believe in the Christian god and he exists then you gain all or lose all. Because what if it's actually Allah that exists? Or a fluffy bunny that is only appeased if you eat a diet of only carrots? Or Thor? Or someone we've never thought of? Or a very rational god who likes atheists because they make rational choices?

[Jambe]

Let's reframe this question: If you are immortal, you cannot die. That means you don't have to eat, sleep, breathe, or otherwise consume anything. By extension this means you don't have to work because there's nothing you need to buy; you might be inclined to fuck every now and again but there's no hurry; you might watch a film but there would be no emotional attachment because there would be no way to relate to mortals whose every step brings them that much closer to a runaway bus or a loose piece of scaffolding.

In other words, these things we take for granted - food, art, even sex - are enmeshed in the inevitability of death. We want to live longer, that's true, but it's the evasion of death which makes human beings run. If we never died, we would quickly fail to have any reason to live. We would sit in one place. We would cease to exist as humans - as mortal beings.

Your conception of immortality is a fiction. There is no evidence of anything that is immortal, nor is there any reason to believe such a state will ever be achieved by any being. The laws of thermodynamics appear to be constant, therefore immortality is out.

I'll suppose I was made a physics-violating immortal for the sake of your argument, though. You're saying that since I can't die, I'll have "no way to relate to mortals"? That is a complete non-sequitur. Maybe you and I have different sorts of orgasms or sexytimes, but I don't see myself tiring of that stuff, especially if I've got special magics granting me perpetual vitality; I'd be frolicking with nubile youths in my 503rd millennium. The "no emotional attachment" bit is particularly weird; you seem to be suggesting that removing mortality sucks all the personality out of me along with my ability to die, and that's just... well, again, it doesn't follow. I don't know what's going on in your mind when you go from "immortality" to "inhuman" but you're not communicating it effectively.

I'm sure I would get bored with certain things just as I do in my current life, and I'd move on to different things... again, just as I do now. I'd just cover a far wider range of shit. You seem to be suggesting that immortality would envelop me in a permanent shroud of ennui, but... no. I mean, I would get pretty fucking bored once the sun expands and consumes Earth and all the other non-immortals... but I don't think that's your point.

---

I'm honestly just perplexed by your apparent suggestion that mortality is a significant motivator in your life. That's just weird, and a little creepy. I think about it from time to time but it's really a pretty boring, uninspiring idea. It basically boils down to a cliched truism — something like "life is short, so live it up!" Given my cynical strain, banal fluff like that is more of an incentive to off myself than a reason to go on.

[Securitas]

Jambe, this is why I want to go into longevity research. There's a lot of reason to believe that we can extend human lifetimes indefinitely, or at least for a long time, within the next century.

[Jambe]

Jambe, this is why I want to go into longevity research. There's a lot of reason to believe that we can extend human lifetimes indefinitely, or at least for a long time, within the next century.

ditto. Cue Disney-like cryogenics woo.

This sort of shit really fascinates me, but good sci-fi always does that. The bioengineered "immortal" is a lot more likely, but if you're postulating advanced cybernetics and shit... man, the possibilities (philosophical and pragmatic) blossom exponentially. On the surface you've got the Theseus' ship type stuff — how much of you can be machine before you're no longer "human" aka "what does it mean to be human" — but below and throughout that you've got myriad questions. Like, would it be ethical to make machine-men for war, or would be ethical to write controls into a cybernetic body that prevent violence, or whatever. And the guy from GITS:SAC that peddles organs and is himself just a little steel box for his cyberbrain with a speaker and arms — what to make of him, ethically speaking? Endless possibilities.

[Securitas]

Ok here we go.

Cybernetic immortality is unlikely in the near future. What is likely is the reversal of the genetic basis for aging. Currently, there are 2 main theories on aging.

1) The Telomere Theory; every time our cells divide, the telomeres, which are repeating base pairs on the ends of our DNA, get shorter. This is due to the way that DNA is replicated during cell division; the tail of one strand is left hanging of a few base pairs and then chopped off. Eventually, our telomeres are lost entirely and our actual DNA begins to be chopped off instead. Our cells do not like this, and instead actually stop dividing, leading to a phenomenon known as the "Hayflick limit." When cells have divided a certain number of times, they stop, and thus our tissues do not regenerate any longer.
2) The free radical theory; this is less well understood and less likely, but basically free radicals in our diet and from the environment run around and oxidize our proteins and other cellular machinery, slowly killing them.

For the first theory, there appears to be a treatment known as "telomerase." This is an enzyme that rebuilds our telomeres after cell division, and exists in some forms of life. Unfortunately, the reason our cells stop dividing also appears to be as a defense from cancer. So the obstacles are as follows

1)Curing cancer (which will happen piece by piece and already has slowly begun)
2)Finding a way to introduce the telomerase gene into every cell in the body and regulating it's expression
3)Getting through the FDA for number 2)

Preliminary studies have suggested that people with longer telomeres live longer. Reference to a page I've created where I include ideas/new studies from time to time for my own perusal.

[Hilmar Keller]

I'm honestly just perplexed by your apparent suggestion that mortality is a significant motivator in your life. That's just weird, and a little creepy. I think about it from time to time but it's really a pretty boring, uninspiring idea. It basically boils down to a cliched truism — something like "life is short, so live it up!" Given my cynical strain, banal fluff like that is more of an incentive to off myself than a reason to go on.

Yes, I was speaking in the thermodynamic-violating sense of immortality because the original question posed was "why does God let us die?" not "why do we all eventually die?" The question seemed to imply that all death, natural or man-made, somehow contradicts the concept of a loving God, when in reality we die because we have to.

I'm a big fan of not aging, of course, but removing all constraints - the need to eat, drink, sleep, defend from the natural elements, et cetera - completely eliminates any reasons to work, in turn removing all of the things we enjoy as part of living (hard to find a pack of smokes when nobody grows the tobacco).

[Manfred Hideous]

Second, doing this debate would be a waste of Nye’s time. These debates don’t settle the truth of evolution — the evidence does. Science doesn't debate itself in front of an audience, letting the best speaker win. It debates itself in publishings, journals, and peer review, something that Creationists are more than welcome to participate in.

I don't disagree with your point that evolution is pretty much proven (and IMO is wholly compatible with the existence of a God). However, Science isn't exactly free of it's fair share of stupidity. To bring up an obvious one, the scientific debate (through the methods you described) on climate change and how much humans are to blame has been filled with acrimony, crimes, and leaks showing that some folks who believe a certain thing lied to protect their own stance.

I blame Sagan... Or maybe Bush. He's always available to shoulder blame.

[Jambe]

Yes, I was speaking in the thermodynamic-violating sense of immortality because the original question posed was "why does God let us die?" not "why do we all eventually die?" The question seemed to imply that all death, natural or man-made, somehow contradicts the concept of a loving God, when in reality we die because we have to.

Why bother? The concept of a loving god is absurd. The problem of evil can be understood by pubescent youths and shoots holes in any intervening deity that isn't absent, disinterested or capricious.

I'm a big fan of not aging, of course, but removing all constraints - the need to eat, drink, sleep, defend from the natural elements, et cetera - completely eliminates any reasons to work, in turn removing all of the things we enjoy as part of living (hard to find a pack of smokes when nobody grows the tobacco).

Again, this is a POW RIGHT IN THE KISSER blatant non-sequitur. It isn't self-evidently true, and you're not providing any reasoning, evidence or argumentation as to why it might be. I'm trying to be generous but I just don't get what you're trying to say. Maybe there's something meaningful hidden in your et cetera, but if I suddenly didn't need to eat, drink, sleep, or worry about shelter then I'd still work and I'd still enjoy the fuck out of life (most of the time). I'd probably enjoy it a helluva lot more, actually, because I could do all that shit merely for pleasure and spend more of my time doing more interesting and/or meaningful stuff.

You seem to be implying that "constraints" are in some way integral to "humanity" and I would agree, very tenuously. One constraint that in some way defines "human" is the possession of an individual (subjective) collection of sensory perceptions and an associated stream of consciousness. There's also the current constraint of a biological framework which makes all of this sensing and thinking occur (and makes it occur in a specific, limited way). However, I don't think our biology is in and of itself as "human-defining" as the perception and consciousness it engenders. For example, if you could get your consciousness into a cybernetic body that had more or fewer sensory abilities than a natural human body, I don't believe you would suddenly become non-human (for exactly the same reason that I don't believe blind people are less human than the sighted). There is the question of whether a "copy" would actually be "you" in a meaningful sense, but that doesn't call into question the humanity of the copy, merely its "you-ness".

However, Science isn't exactly free of it's fair share of stupidity. To bring up an obvious one, the scientific debate (through the methods you described) on climate change and how much humans are to blame has been filled with acrimony, crimes, and leaks showing that some folks who believe a certain thing lied to protect their own stance.

Yes, the debate is stupid and full of bullshit, but the debate isn't science.

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

The fact that scientists, laymen, politicians, etc may be political, acrimonious, criminal, stupid, or otherwise unsavory says nothing whatsoever about science, its validity, or its preeminence as a method for understanding the universe (especially as contrasted with dogmatic religious woo).

[Hilmar Keller]

You seem to be implying that "constraints" are in some way integral to "humanity" and I would agree, very tenuously. One constraint that in some way defines "human" is the possession of an individual (subjective) collection of sensory perceptions and an associated stream of consciousness. There's also the current constraint of a biological framework which makes all of this sensing and thinking occur (and makes it occur in a specific, limited way). However, I don't think our biology is in and of itself as "human-defining" as the perception and consciousness it engenders. For example, if you could get your consciousness into a cybernetic body that had more or fewer sensory abilities than a natural human body, I don't believe you would suddenly become non-human (for exactly the same reason that I don't believe blind people are less human than the sighted). There is the question of whether a "copy" would actually be "you" in a meaningful sense, but that doesn't call into question the humanity of the copy, merely its "you-ness".

Speaking of non-sequiturs, here's a diatribe about humanity and cybernetics that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument 'wouldn't immortality be nice?'

You're trying to assail my arguments in spite of the fact that I'm not willing to invest this thread with a wall of text. Yeah, I could draw you into the semantics of a scenario in which suddenly the need to eat, sleep, or in general consume disappeared leaving us as completely fulfilled beings without needs but also without a reason to produce. I could show you how all the things we enjoy today are either the result of agriculture (developed out of our need to eat) or war (developed out of our need to kill other people) and how both are intimately tied to mortality. I could even dispute your irrelevant argument posed earlier by noting that by virtue of corporations needing a continued stream of demand any cybernetic enhancements produced would be subject to degradation and breakdown just like cars, computers and appliances, and would thus bring us no closer to immortality.

All this human progress, all these things you enjoy, all these things you claim you would continue to do even if you didn't need to address your basic human needs, were all granted to us by people who weren't comfortable being so close to death and spread the gap a little wider. Go ahead, apply it to anything; it all comes back to agriculture and war.

[Manfred Hideous]

Yes, the debate is stupid and full of bullshit, but the debate isn't science.

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

The fact that scientists, laymen, politicians, etc may be political, acrimonious, criminal, stupid, or otherwise unsavory says nothing whatsoever about science, its validity, or its preeminence as a method for understanding the universe (especially as contrasted with dogmatic religious woo).

All you basically said is science isn't being practiced in some areas where scientific truth is being declared... by scientists.

Nobody (sane) is disputing the work on Higgs Bosun. There's no political point to do so (yet). The same cannot be said of the multi-billion dollar global warming industry and the entry of many scientists into the political (or just the flashy public) realm ala Carl Sagan. Then there are the multitudinous cases of implied science where a study finds correlation and allows there to be an implied link to condition-X (usually cancer).

Basically, Science is a bit of a joke at this point. Too many of them quit being serious and became activists in the political circus. I still trust "science" but today's crop of "scientists"? I just don't know.

[Jambe]

Speaking of non-sequiturs, here's a diatribe about humanity and cybernetics that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument 'wouldn't immortality be nice?'

You're trying to assail my arguments in spite of the fact that I'm not willing to invest this thread with a wall of text. Yeah, I could draw you into the semantics of a scenario in which suddenly the need to eat, sleep, or in general consume disappeared leaving us as completely fulfilled beings without needs but also without a reason to produce. I could show you how all the things we enjoy today are either the result of agriculture (developed out of our need to eat) or war (developed out of our need to kill other people) and how both are intimately tied to mortality. I could even dispute your irrelevant argument posed earlier by noting that by virtue of corporations needing a continued stream of demand any cybernetic enhancements produced would be subject to degradation and breakdown just like cars, computers and appliances, and would thus bring us no closer to immortality.

All this human progress, all these things you enjoy, all these things you claim you would continue to do even if you didn't need to address your basic human needs, were all granted to us by people who weren't comfortable being so close to death and spread the gap a little wider. Go ahead, apply it to anything; it all comes back to agriculture and war.

What is this "argument" I'm assailing? Could you spell it out for me like I'm seven? From my pov, it's this:

On a philosophical level you can't really hit theists with WHY DO WE DIE HUH because it's a terrible argument. If anything, death is a blessing. Mortality is the spark of creation (forget who said that) and without the looming and ever-present threat of dying we'd have absolutely no reason to do anything at all.

Each sentence there is patently untrue. Sentence-by-sentence:

1) inflicting existential terror on a fellow being is a dick move of epic proportions.
2) death is not a blessing. it is the cessation of life. it's only a "blessing" if you believe woo about souls or reincarnation.
3) there are innumerable reasons we'd do countless activities without the threat of dying.

I hope that wasn't too long to read.

[Jambe]

All you basically said is science isn't being practiced in some areas where scientific truth is being declared... by scientists.

Nobody (sane) is disputing the work on Higgs Bosun. There's no political point to do so (yet). The same cannot be said of the multi-billion dollar global warming industry and the entry of many scientists into the political (or just the flashy public) realm ala Carl Sagan. Then there are the multitudinous cases of implied science where a study finds correlation and allows there to be an implied link to condition-X (usually cancer).

Basically, Science is a bit of a joke at this point. Too many of them quit being serious and became activists in the political circus. I still trust "science" but today's crop of "scientists"? I just don't know.

Scientists can be disingenuous egotistical shitfucks just like any other person. This is as true today as it was in Plato's era.

That the globe is warming is a simple fact. The degree of our influence on the warming is less certain, but the majority of people who study it for a living (90%+ last I checked) believe our influence is significant, and a majority of those think our influence is the primary cause.

Regardless, the hemming and hawing and politics and business surrounding "climate change" is not science, nor is it the fault of science. Strictly speaking, all this shit about "scientific consensus" isn't science, either, because science isn't contingent on how many people do or don't agree with any given theory. Science is a method, and more broadly, a body of knowledge. What people do with it is up to them.

If you're distrustful of climate scientists I wouldn't blame you, but you appear to be throwing out a baby with your bathwater...

[Manfred Hideous]

Scientists can be disingenuous egotistical shitfucks just like any other person. This is as true today as it was in Plato's era.

That the globe is warming is a simple fact. The degree of our influence on the warming is less certain, but the majority of people who study it for a living (90%+ last I checked) believe our influence is significant, and a majority of those think our influence is the primary cause.

Regardless, the hemming and hawing and politics and business surrounding "climate change" is not science, nor is it the fault of science. Strictly speaking, all this shit about "scientific consensus" isn't science, either, because science isn't contingent on how many people do or don't agree with any given theory. Science is a method, and more broadly, a body of knowledge. What people do with it is up to them.

If you're distrustful of climate scientists I wouldn't blame you, but you appear to be throwing out a baby with your bathwater...

I'm distrustful of people. The reason I brought up the climate change stuff is because the institutionalized entities have pushed an agenda. Global Warming is no longer just science. It is an industry that is generating millionaires and like any such industry, nobody will want to stop the gravy train.

[Hilmar Keller]

1) inflicting existential terror on a fellow being is a dick move of epic proportions.

Without death, we wouldn't have a word for life. We wouldn't have phrases like 'living well' or 'living life to the fullest' or et cetera ad nauseum. The whole idea of living a good life is based on the fact that life ends.

2) death is not a blessing. it is the cessation of life. it's only a "blessing" if you believe woo about souls or reincarnation.

I believe in neither souls nor reincarnation. I believe that we are compelled as mortals toward a point latent in the sky (paraphrasing Pynchon here), and that we would be fairly disinterested in that if living was not a temporary affair. Sorry if it appears that I'm speaking in metaphor, but it's fairly clear if you have a dictionary.

3) there are innumerable reasons we'd do countless activities without the threat of dying.

I'm tired of rephrasing my same argument to you; here, let me requote it:

Yeah, I could draw you into the semantics of a scenario in which suddenly the need to eat, sleep, or in general consume disappeared leaving us as completely fulfilled beings without needs but also without a reason to produce. I could show you how all the things we enjoy today are either the result of agriculture (developed out of our need to eat) or war (developed out of our need to kill other people) and how both are intimately tied to mortality. I could even dispute your irrelevant argument posed earlier by noting that by virtue of corporations needing a continued stream of demand any cybernetic enhancements produced would be subject to degradation and breakdown just like cars, computers and appliances, and would thus bring us no closer to immortality.

Try again.

[Phey Onat]

You guys ran with this in a different direction. Will have to read up later

[Arrador]

Not a bad looking bunch, although Ampère's style isn't very current. Volta's got potential, but the difference between him and Ohm is too great - look at Ohm's picture, I bet he was hard to resist :swoon:

All things considered, though, none of them can compete with Tesla's sheer magnetism. Joule know Watt I mean if you look him up.



Becquerel

I'm recommending death by the electric chair for this post. Such terrible puns

[Arrador]

Nobody (sane) is disputing the work on Higgs Bosun. There's no political point to do so (yet).

Basically, Science is a bit of a joke at this point. Too many of them quit being serious and became activists in the political circus. I still trust "science" but today's crop of "scientists"? I just don't know.

I've got to interject on this point and post something for clarification.

Nobody (who works in the field and/or understands a pinch of particle physics) is disputing the discovery of a particle from LHC that is within the predicted energy range of where the higgs boson should be. What a lot of people are saying is, "Easy does it, we don't know if its the Higgs Boson, but we have something that looks like it might be the Higgs Boson." Just like that girl in Thailand sure had a great ass and lovely breasts but was something completely different.

[Matos]

You'd be surprised how close research is to potentially "curing" mortality. There's a couple theories on aging but given the rapidly advancing biotech industry (especially in in vivo genetic therapy) I don't anticipate it'll be too long before there are trials on animals.

The trials will take forever


In Time was not a bad movie in which people didn't because of body degeneration.

It would certainly be interesting how many people would become insane after having lived for a few hundred years.
If we don't die through our cells striking everyone would sooner or later die by illness or accidents though, but getting run over by a train still sounds better then slowly fading away for Months

[Jambe]

Without death, we wouldn't have a word for life. We wouldn't have phrases like 'living well' or 'living life to the fullest' or et cetera ad nauseum. The whole idea of living a good life is based on the fact that life ends.

Just to get this out of the way upfront: if you're still thinking about this chat from the physics-defying immortality angle, our exchange is pointless. Nobody here is suggesting that physics-defying immortality exists or will exist. The concept has no bearing on our morality or philosophy. The sort of bioengineered "undying" human Securitas posited would not be "immortal" in the physics-defying sense, even if it somehow survived to experience the heat death of the universe. This "undying" human would still fear death because it could still be physically harmed or destroyed. It would still also eat and fuck and sleep, although, again, a lack of those needs would not make it inhuman or prevent it wanting to produce stuff.

---

Your first sentence there is baldly untrue; a look at any dictionary would prove this. e.g.:

a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

As I see it, c is by far the clearest, most descriptive, and most meaningful connotation of those three, and it would apply in its entirety to a bioengineered undying human. I'm not suggesting a & b aren't meaningful, — they are. I'm also not suggesting that death itself isn't meaningful or that an undying human wouldn't have a quite-different perspective on living than an aging one. What I am suggesting is that life (and our systems of culture and ethics) aren't as inextricably tied up in mortality as you seem to suggest (more on this next).

I believe in neither souls nor reincarnation. I believe that we are compelled as mortals toward a point latent in the sky (paraphrasing Pynchon here), and that we would be fairly disinterested in that if living was not a temporary affair. Sorry if it appears that I'm speaking in metaphor, but it's fairly clear if you have a dictionary.

You can believe that "we" are thus compelled, but unless you're prepared to label me inhuman, you're going to have to stop saying "we" there, because 1) you aren't privy to my thoughts and motivations, 2) I don't feel such a compulsion, and 3) I know boatloads of people who are similarly-minded. You don't get to make blanket statements about "humanity" simply because you feel a certain way.

I'm only rarely concerned with mortality; I ponder it perhaps once a week. Most of the time I'm motivated by instinct or simple biology (for the basics); for the more complicated stuff, myriad facets of culture and the circumstances of time and geography motivate me. The "looming threat of death" is not a motivator for me to do much of anything besides eat well and get a checkup now and then, and in my experience, that's the case for the vast majority of people.

I'm tired of rephrasing my same argument to you; here, let me requote it:

Yeah, I could draw you into the semantics of a scenario in which suddenly the need to eat, sleep, or in general consume disappeared leaving us as completely fulfilled beings without needs but also without a reason to produce. I could show you how all the things we enjoy today are either the result of agriculture (developed out of our need to eat) or war (developed out of our need to kill other people) and how both are intimately tied to mortality. I could even dispute your irrelevant argument posed earlier by noting that by virtue of corporations needing a continued stream of demand any cybernetic enhancements produced would be subject to degradation and breakdown just like cars, computers and appliances, and would thus bring us no closer to immortality.

Try again.

You say "if we didn't need to consume, we wouldn't be fulfilled and would have no reason to produce" as if it's self-evidently true. It's not. You're not being persuasive. I don't even know what you're trying to convince me of with your talk of agriculture and war, and that last sentence — I've read it three times now, and I'm actually pretty sure you're still on the physics-defying immortality bent. I don't know why you're so fixated on that — it's still entirely irrelevant. A bioengineered undying fleshy human (or her cybernetic equivalent) would not be "immortal" in this sense.

[Hilmar Keller]

No, you don't get to draw me away from the original argument. Raw questioned God's existence based on the 'why do we die?' reasoning, which I disputed. Obviously if God exists he makes the rules, including thermodynamics, so raw is questioning why a God would subject humans to any kind of death. That is the argument I am addressing, not yours, and there's a very basic rationale for human death which I've described already.

At the same time, however, you're disputing my arguments piecemeal (drawing dictionary definitions for 'life' and cherry-picking the one that makes the least sense) and even less admirably trying to assassinate my character by claiming that I'm sick or deluded. I assure you that I'm neither. I'm glad that you don't spend a lot of time pondering death, and I don't wish to impose existential dread upon anybody reading this. But if we're (as this argument began) considering the scenario in which an 'ideal' God creates life without death, I'm afraid that all my arguments are entirely valid and that death does not serve as an argument against the existence of a benevolent God.

[raw]

.
Really though your arguments against religion are so bad

I didn't make a statement "against religion" I made a statement against creationism, i.e. the belief that life is by design. If we are by design, why are we so imperfect?

[Hilmar Keller]

I didn't make a statement "against religion" I made a statement against creationism, i.e. the belief that life is by design. If we are by design, why are we so imperfect?

I'm not sure what your image of a perfect being is. One that does not suffer? One that does not die? One that can shape the world in any way they wish?

[Raketefrau]

I'm not sure what your image of a perfect being is. One that does not suffer? One that does not die? One that can shape the world in any way they wish?

Speaking for myself, it would have huge tits that produce ice cream.

[Bill Schwartzski]

Don't even have to go that far, you can start by asking the simple questions:

Once again you will never win asking even basic or simple questions, or pointing out obvious hypocrisies. If you went to a pro-life protest or clinic blockade, how many of those people do you think ate eggs for breakfast that morning? How many people that support laws based on the Bible are condemning middle eastern countries for supporting laws based on the Koran?

There are only two options you have to fight this bizarre and strange behavior:

1. Take part in a secular government, and vote for people who maintain secularism.

2. If you have children, educate the ever loving shit out of them. Especially if they're girls.

The best hope you have for an intelligent and engaging philosophical style argument-discussion about Christianity died awhile back, Soren Kierkegaard. He was the shit and reading his books almost had me going.

[Raketefrau]

You can't fight Crazy with Reason.

A rational argument will never win over an irrational person.

Oh, sorry, this is the Creationism thread. I thought this was the Relationships thread.

Oh well, point stands.

[Bill Schwartzski]

"you know that fight you got into your girlfriend about a plate or something, and when you asked her to calm down, she stabbed you?"

relationship advice works great for creationist argument advice too. just don't talk about plates.

[Jambe]

No, you don't get to draw me away from the original argument. Raw questioned God's existence based on the 'why do we die?' reasoning, which I disputed. Obviously if God exists he makes the rules, including thermodynamics, so raw is questioning why a God would subject humans to any kind of death. That is the argument I am addressing, not yours, and there's a very basic rationale for human death which I've described already.

Raw said the the Lord Almighty could prevent death and you replied to that with, "Because life would be great if we never died?" Raw then said aging occurs because of genetic defects, and you responded with, "On a philosophical level you can't really hit theists with WHY DO WE DIE HUH because it's a terrible argument." You then called death a "blessing", said it's the "spark of creation", and claimed we wouldn't do anything if we didn't die.

I have not seen you describe a "basic rationale for human death" and I don't even know what that would entail.

At the same time, however, you're disputing my arguments piecemeal (drawing dictionary definitions for 'life' and cherry-picking the one that makes the least sense) and even less admirably trying to assassinate my character by claiming that I'm sick or deluded. I assure you that I'm neither. I'm glad that you don't spend a lot of time pondering death, and I don't wish to impose existential dread upon anybody reading this. But if we're (as this argument began) considering the scenario in which an 'ideal' God creates life without death, I'm afraid that all my arguments are entirely valid and that death does not serve as an argument against the existence of a benevolent God.

I'm simply pointing out poorly evidenced and/or unreasonable claims. Such claims are:

1) "you can't hit theists with the 'why do we die?' queestion because it's a terrible argument"
---- you don't give any reason why it's "terrible", you just say that it is. In actuality, "a loving god wouldn't inflict existential terror on a fellow being" is a pretty fucking good logical argument against the Christian conception of Yahweh/Jesus. The only way you can get around this argument is with hand-waving "God works in mysterious ways" bullshit.

2) "death is a blessing"
---- this strikes me as a callous, uncaring, and macabre thing to say. There's also the teensy-weensy little fact that you haven't died, so you don't know what it's like. For all we know, our consciousnesses might go straight to an eternal lake of fire and brimstone after we die regardless of how morally we lived.

3) "we wouldn't do anything if we didn't die"
---- as I have pointed out time and time again now, this is problematic on several levels:

* do you think every possible human activity is some kind of economic transaction? As Night pointed out, the assumption that we only "do stuff" because we require fuel, rest, etc is absurd. We do all kinds of higher-order cultural shit (i.e. things that are not pooping or sleeping) because it's fun, interesting, or meaningful to us in its own right or for its own sake.

* presumably your "God" is immortal, yet people are always claiming that "God" manages to intervene in our affairs. That qualifies as "doing stuff".

* if we were immortal, who's to say we wouldn't just spend our time having sexytimes, making music, exploring the universe, etc? Again, you just say this as if it's self-evident, but it isn't, and you're not convincing. You've provided no supporting argument, no anecdotes, nothing.

* I can't be sure, but you may be implying immortality would also give us perfect knowledge (and thus we'd have nothing to learn by exploring, pursuing new relationships, etc). This is an illogical leap, and the conception of "perfect" or "complete" knowledge is itself paradoxical and meaningless, anyway.

--
--

re the "character assassination" bit: I've not engaged in ad hominem and I haven't speculated about your character even once. If you think I'm attacking you, personally, then you are really bound up in your own ego and you work out some insecurities. I'm taking issue with your words, not with you personally. I like chat and argumentation; I have no reason to impugn your character, and it's unfair (ntm a perverse misrepresentation of my posts) to suggest that I have.

[Raketefrau]

"you know that fight you got into your girlfriend about a plate or something, and when you asked her to calm down, she stabbed you?"

relationship advice works great for creationist argument advice too. just don't talk about plates.

Never been stabbed, but I have had a girlfriend hurl 4 or 5 plates at me. Nothing says "she's a keeper" like having to duck while ceramics shatter on the wall behind you.

I eventually jumped out of a moving car twice in the same week just to get out of conversations with her. The second time I had two thoughts:

1) "This feels really familiar."
2) "This can't be healthy for a relationship."

So yeah, that was pretty much the end of it.

[StevieTopSiders]

ITT nerds discussing immortality

Go read some Sci Fi.

[Hilmar Keller]

I'm honestly just perplexed by your apparent suggestion that mortality is a significant motivator in your life. That's just weird, and a little creepy. I think about it from time to time but it's really a pretty boring, uninspiring idea. It basically boils down to a cliched truism — something like "life is short, so live it up!" Given my cynical strain, banal fluff like that is more of an incentive to off myself than a reason to go on.

Here's the character assassination bit you seem to have forgotten, that my arguments are 'weird' and 'creepy.' Again, I'm glad that mortality doesn't enter into your conscious mind frequently, for ignorance is bliss and I'm not being backhanded in saying that.

Perhaps I wasn't being extremely clear: The blessing is not death itself, it is the inevitability of death which drives human progress. We enjoy life. We'd like it to last longer. We'd also prefer that others who would take from us our means of living (at the moment I'm thinking of the Viking invasion of Britain) would be prevented from doing so by threat of violence. If death hadn't entered into the conscious minds of our ancestors, they would not have bothered in perfecting the techniques of land management, of predicting the weather through meteorology, of domesticating animals to both lend muscle to this work and to provide additional food or other materials (wool) for trade. Likewise, the culture of consumption you so enjoy is the product of war, for only the rigorous effort demanded by a struggle for life and limb could inspire (and national government fund the research for) such innovations as electronic computers, the Internet, replaceable parts, cryptology, etc. We arguably would not have put a man on the moon without the development of military rocketry as a precursor.

To give a better example, there's an episode of Star Trek: Voyager (worst series I know) in which a member of the Q Continuum wishes to be granted mortality, to the disdain of Q. He is given a trial on Voyager to determine whether he has the right to die, and during this trial, he demonstrates his point by creating for the court a simulation of immortality: It's a gas station on a dusty highway which runs in either direction without end. There's all sorts of small, trivial curiosities in the station, like a pinball machine, a few distracted people and some historical odds-and-ends. But Q deplores the scenario: To paraphrase him, this is it, and it gets old sooner than you think. (I couldn't find a video of the scene, but here's a scene from the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8r3uLbgO40)

We appreciate the odds-and-ends because at some point we will not have the ability to appreciate them. Our temporal nature illuminates the world. Another oft-quoted Star Trek aphorism, All Good Things Must Come To An End, applies pretty well here. I would like to think that, if an omniscient God exists (there are larger problems with this assumption which have nothing to do with our temporal nature), death is an invention with some serious forethought, not a dick move nor a means of drawing the good ones into heaven and the bad ones into hell. Yes, death is imposing and in all shapes seemingly unfair or unjust. But it also inspires us to invest our time - since it is finite, it is a resource. It is what forces us to measure the days, draw calendars, observe lunar cycles and give properties to the seasons.

This is not 'weird' or 'creepy.' This is merely the opinion of somebody who has been close to death in many ways, both directly and via proxy.

[Raketefrau]

Exorcism boom in Poland sees magazine launch

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...ecf03ab872.4d1

WARSAW — With exorcism booming in Poland, Roman Catholic priests have joined forces with a publisher to launch what they claim is the world's first monthly magazine focused exclusively on chasing out the devil.


"The rise in the number or exorcists from four to more than 120 over the course of 15 years in Poland is telling," Father Aleksander Posacki, a professor of philosophy, theology and leading demonologist and exorcist told reporters in Warsaw at the Monday launch of the Egzorcysta monthly.

[Don Peyote]

I kinda wish I wasn't an atheist sometimes, being an exorcist would be pretty awesome - all that respect, admiration and money for nothing?. It's brilliant

[jimmychrist]

I kinda wish I wasn't an atheist sometimes, being an exorcist would be pretty awesome - all that respect, admiration and money for nothing?. It's brilliant

You could always take up homeopathy

[Jambe]

Here's the character assassination bit you seem to have forgotten, that my arguments are 'weird' and 'creepy.' Again, I'm glad that mortality doesn't enter into your conscious mind frequently, for ignorance is bliss and I'm not being backhanded in saying that.

...

This is not 'weird' or 'creepy.' This is merely the opinion of somebody who has been close to death in many ways, both directly and via proxy.

You can call me a rotten bag of cocks if it would help soothe whatever hurt I've caused you. I used the words "creepy" and "weird" not to insult you or your "argument", but because you're advancing a morbid PoV wherein death is the central feature of human motivation. This is simply not true for the vast majority of people I've talked to and observed. Most people think about death infrequently. Even the dozens of military personnel, medical staff and funeral directors I know ponder death relatively rarely. Our minds tend to block out things that upset or confuse us. Indeed, people whose minds are dominated by notions of death and dying usually have mental illnesses.

Is your mortality truly a significant motivator in your daily life? If yes, that is both weird (strange, uncanny) and creepy (unnerving), and that's not an insult. It's unusual. I hope you're not dying of some disease.

For the umpteenth time, physics-defying immortality will not happen. For good measure: it won't happen. That idea cannot form the basis of a logical argument. The Q are as unreasonable as any other gods we've invented. We don't need that kind of magical thinking underpinning our conception of reality. Gods are interesting to ponder as objects of fiction (and I'm a Trekkie myself) but fantasies like the Q Continuum are no more logically applicable to our daily lives than Dr. Seuss tales.

"If an omniscient god exists" — indeed, if. There is no evidence for one. The concept is paradoxical, it violates everything we know about the nature of reality and we don't even need the idea to lead meaningful, fulfilling lives. It is at most an intellectual curio.

Yes, death is imposing and in all shapes seemingly unfair or unjust. But it also inspires us to invest our time - since it is finite, it is a resource. It is what forces us to measure the days, draw calendars, observe lunar cycles and give properties to the seasons.

Death only seems "unfair or unjust" if you believe there's some force "making things so". This is unreasonable and we have a decent theory about why we assume agency where there may be none. If one doesn't assume a cosmic agency, death simply happens, and fairness and justice are only circumstantial human concerns (e.g. being killed vs dying of old age). There are no gods to kill us, make us immortal or doom us to mortality; there is only the observable universe (and whatever fictions we may invent while we're here).

In that last quoted sentence you claimed that we notice the passage of time because death "forces us" to, but that's only true infrequently. If we have some close call with death, we'll ponder mortality a lot for a while. If a friend dies, ditto. We also tend to enjoy music and illustration and literature and so on which explores the myriad concepts tied up in our mortality. All true! But most people don't spend much time on the subject, and mortality is not, as you seem to be suggesting, intrinsic to our "humanity". It is but one of its many facets.

---

Just because I think you're ignoring me, for like the tenth time: this physics-violating immortality isn't useful as a rhetorical device. It's not persuasive because it's fucking incoherent. It doesn't jibe with a basic, honest assessment of the world around us. Raw and Securitas weren't saying that we'd become godlike preternatural entities who laugh at the laws of physics — they were saying that if we massage our genes the right way our fleshy bodies will stop killing themselves via cancer and senescence. Even if we lived for millions of years, we wouldn't be "immortal". We'd have exactly the same stuff to do with mega-long-lived bodies as we do now. We'd still war with each other (probably) and die in accidents and so forth, and surely some poor motherfuckers would kill themselves because of boredom. But people do all that shit already; big whoop.

[Hilmar Keller]

You can call me a rotten bag of cocks if it would help soothe whatever hurt I've caused you. I used the words "creepy" and "weird" not to insult you or your "argument", but because you're advancing a morbid PoV wherein death is the central feature of human motivation. This is simply not true for the vast majority of people I've talked to and observed. Most people think about death infrequently. Even the dozens of military personnel, medical staff and funeral directors I know ponder death relatively rarely. Our minds tend to block out things that upset or confuse us. Indeed, people whose minds are dominated by notions of death and dying usually have mental illnesses.

Is your mortality truly a significant motivator in your daily life? If yes, that is both weird (strange, uncanny) and creepy (unnerving), and that's not an insult. It's unusual. I hope you're not dying of some disease.

Fuck it, this argument's over if you're relegating me to being crazy.

Also, for the umpteen-millionth time, you're still trying to draw me away from a subject I chose ("Why does God make us die at all") and that I'm defending despite your tangents and judgments. Yes, I'm ignoring these tangents. They have nothing to do with the fundamental question: Why would a benevolent God invent death? You're disputing the existence of God on other grounds in your response, all of which are perfectly valid, but you've thus far dodged the question which I'm still posing. Fair enough, but don't call me crazy and then try to call me out for not addressing your irrelevant tangents.

I guess my argument, if I had to pose it differently, would be: A benevolent God would create temporal beings (i.e. mortals) because temporal beings are forced to manage their time. Thus, it does not make a good argument against the existence of God.

[Manfred Hideous]

Fuck it, this argument's over if you're relegating me to being crazy.

My ex is learning the meaning of tough love now. I look at mortality as being the epitomy of this as a motivator.

I wish I'd saved my rep for this post. I was picturing you pulling your hair out hours ago.

[Jambe]

Fuck it, this argument's over if you're relegating me to being crazy.

I'm not calling you crazy, I'm calling your position weird and creepy (if your position is that death is the prime motivator in the human condition). You seem perfectly cogent and your use of language is normal but your ideas are strange. If you think that constitutes an attack on your character you are too bound up in yourself. I'm not trying to belittle or insult you; I'm just chatting.

Also, for the umpteen-millionth time, you're still trying to draw me away from a subject I chose ("Why does God make us die at all") and that I'm defending despite your tangents and judgments. Yes, I'm ignoring these tangents. They have nothing to do with the fundamental question: Why would a benevolent God invent death? You're disputing the existence of God on other grounds in your response, all of which are perfectly valid, but you've thus far dodged the question which I'm still posing. Fair enough, but don't call me crazy and then try to call me out for not addressing your irrelevant tangents.

I guess my argument, if I had to pose it differently, would be: A benevolent God would create temporal beings (i.e. mortals) because temporal beings are forced to manage their time. Thus, it does not make a good argument against the existence of God.

It's cruel to force a sapient entity to fear death and it's cruel to arbitrarily end lives. A benevolent god would not do those things. An apathetic god certainly would, or an absentee god, or a god that believes in "tough love" or some such bullshit. Your retort has been, "but, death also forces us manage our time and appreciate things!" You seem to be saying that the occasional motivational benefits of mortality outweigh the inevitable dread and suffering and the arbitrary lifespans. I disagree.

If you were an omnipotent being and you were "predisposed to actions of goodwill", would you really create an entire planet full of self-aware organisms and then have the vast majority of them lead extremely harsh and tumultuous lives only to have them inevitably succumb to the unknown fate of death — a death which would usually be unwanted and frightening? Would you really?

wrt "death forces us to manage our time": actually, life forces us to manage our time. Only thoughts of death can motivate us, and as I've said several times now, such thoughts only infrequently motivate. The vast majority of our basic survival mechanics are instinctual, and the vast majority of higher-order cultural activities we undertake are not inspired by mortality.

[StevieTopSiders]

"There is no God, because he would have made us immortal."

Because, you know, God and Biology are two completely separate things and could never coexist.

[Jambe]

"There is no God, because he would have made us immortal."

Because, you know, God and Biology are two completely separate things and could never coexist.

It's actually more like:

"There is no benevolent god, because a benevolent god would at least convince its fellow beings that death is not horrible."

Nobody knows what happens after we die, and our numerous records of near-death experiences are not reassuring.

[Matos]

For the umpteenth time, physics-defying immortality will not happen. For good measure: it won't happen. That idea cannot form the basis of a logical argument. The Q are as unreasonable as any other gods we've invented. We don't need that kind of magical thinking underpinning our conception of reality. Gods are interesting to ponder as objects of fiction (and I'm a Trekkie myself) but fantasies like the Q Continuum are no more logically applicable to our daily lives than Dr. Seuss tales.

It started as a discussion about god, why would you expect it to contain logical arguments

[madp0k]

. Most people think about death infrequently. Even the dozens of military personnel, medical staff and funeral directors I know ponder death relatively rarely .

Do you actually know dozens of funeral directors? wow thats mental

[Manfred Hideous]

Do you actually know dozens of funeral directors? wow thats mental

Most military guys I knew thought about death all the time. We constantly joked about it. I suppose that's probably not as true for the chair force general population but I think guys who are constantly aware of the danger they are in tend to think about it more.