• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

If the whole world were atheist...

I remember a certain fic where they used to say 'death is not to be feared, for it is the only thing we have in common'. Or something like that.
 
Pathos said:
Stating something does not equal saying it is absolute fact. That's a rather strange opinion, honestly.
Click to expand...

I was referring to unqualified statements. "Wars stem from primitive instincts." as a statement implies absolute fact. "I believe that wars stem from primitive instincts." does not imply absolute fact.

Pathos said:
It's not common sense religion causes conflict. Many, many people don't think that way. Regardless, saying 'it's common sense I don't need to prove it' is a backwards way of thinking. Nothing should be taken on 'common sense' without need of proof. It was common sense many years ago that, let's say, black people are stupid, or a woman's brain is smaller than a mans'. (Well, some people still think that way, but.) Common sense! No need for proof. Or, hey, religion is common sense! Why bother with proof? (If you disagree with religion being common sense - which I do too - that is only because of proof otherwise.)
Click to expand...

None of those things were ever common sense. There were commonly-held beliefs. Things that are common sense are things that should be obvious without absolute objective proof. "Breathing is necessary for living" is common sense because not breathing causes death. "Religion is a source conflict" is common sense because most people have experienced religious conflict to some degree at some point in their lives.

Pathos said:
Exactly. So why do you think you're 100% correct?
Click to expand...

Because there is no way to prove anything, so you have to work within reasonable parameters of what is likely to be factual.

Pathos said:
This is really going into an entirely different direction from the point. I'll try to make myself clear.

Attack on your girlfriend is stimulus. The attack can be replaced with any sort of attack on your pack/loved one. An attack on your son/mother/sister/cousin. The girlfriend is not key. The attack is.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the attack wouldn't have necessarily happened if not for my girlfriend because the motivation for the attack might have been specifically against my girlfriend. If my girlfriend had never existed then that doesn't mean that something else of mine would have been attacked, which is what you are implying.
 
Teh Ebil Snorlax said:
I was referring to unqualified statements. "Wars stem from primitive instincts." as a statement implies absolute fact. "I believe that wars stem from primitive instincts." does not imply absolute fact.

None of those things were ever common sense. There were commonly-held beliefs. Things that are common sense are things that should be obvious without absolute objective proof. "Breathing is necessary for living" is common sense because not breathing causes death. "Religion is a source conflict" is common sense because most people have experienced religious conflict to some degree at some point in their lives.

Because there is no way to prove anything, so you have to work within reasonable parameters of what is likely to be factual.

Yes, but the attack wouldn't have necessarily happened if not for my girlfriend because the motivation for the attack might have been specifically against my girlfriend. If my girlfriend had never existed then that doesn't mean that something else of mine would have been attacked, which is what you are implying.
Click to expand...

Really, saying something doesn't necessarily imply absolute fact unless you either state it's absolute fact or the person on the other end assumes absolute fact.

'Religion causes conflict' is not common sense in the way 'you have to breath in order not to die' is common sense. My entire family doesn't think religion causes conflict and I assure you they're completely sane. Whether they're wrong or write is up for debate, clearly, but it definitely isn't 'common sense'.

There are definitely ways of proving things. Gravity has been proven.

This debate is pointless and going in circles, really, so I'll just step out now, sorry.
 
Pathos said:
Really, saying something doesn't necessarily imply absolute fact unless you either state it's absolute fact or the person on the other end assumes absolute fact.
Click to expand...

No, it implies absolute fact unless you state otherwise.

Pathos said:
'Religion causes conflict' is not common sense in the way 'you have to breath in order not to die' is common sense. My entire family doesn't think religion causes conflict and I assure you they're completely sane. Whether they're wrong or write is up for debate, clearly, but it definitely isn't 'common sense'.
Click to expand...

Not everyone has common sense. Commons sense is what shouldbe obvious to people, not necessarily what people find obvious.

Pathos said:
There are definitely ways of proving things. Gravity has been proven.
Click to expand...

You can't even prove that what we know as reality is real, how do you expect to prove anything else?
 
Eloi said:
I wasn't making a metaphor. If I were color-blind, and told that I could never see color and since there is no way to fix it and because there is no afterlife in which my vision will be restored, it has a soul-crushing permanentness.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. I don't think being colourblind would be too bad; sure, I'd never have the experience of seeing colour properly, (also: colourblindness does not mean seeing the world in black and white) but there are a huge number of incredible experiences I'm never going to have. That's fine with me! It seems what you're trying to do is cope with the imperfections of life by saying to yourself, 'oh, but after I die life will be perfect.' By doing that you're consigning yourself to a lifetime of misery, since you'll never learn to cope with those imperfections in this life.

Well, there'd be no reason to not say, put anthrax on my last will and testament, as there is zero consequences for doing so because I would be dead.
Click to expand...

Except for 'to not be a horrible person'. Seriously, why do so many people say things like that? Do you honestly think the majority of people want to murder everyone they see but are stopped only by the thought of eternal damnation? (also: you would kill whoever touched your will first! that would probably be someone you know. or does that not count as a consequence, because you won't be punished for it?)

The world is full of murderers, rapists, spiders, and textured walls. I don't like it all too well. And there would be something besides the world, there would be fictional worlds in which you can see your life pale in comparison towards, which yourself could make.
Click to expand...

The world is also full of beautiful things and kind people. In fact, in my experience, there are far, far more of the latter than there are of murderers or rapists. I have no idea what you're trying to say in that second bit.

Yes, then what?
Click to expand...

Oh, well, that's up to you, isn't it? But I think you'd find it easier to answer that question if you stopped obsessing over what happens after you stop living.

This is because they are more recent, and thus have had less time for atrocities to be committed within them.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. The Middle Eastern conflict (which is based in religion) has been around for about as long as that (post WWII-ish) and there have been plenty of atrocities committed there. Are you implying that if, say, the Scandinavian states continued merrily on with their experiment in secularist socialism terrible things would inevitably happen?
 
The middle eastern conflict has been going on since forever, opal. It was just revived by the official creation of Israel.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why people who say that life is pointless compared to the afterlife don't just kill themselves. I mean I'm not telling you to kill yourself or anything, it's just, why not?
I mean, you cherry pick your books, anyhow, so anywhere it said that suicide is bad you could theoretically just handwave away, right?
In which case, instant-paradise.

It always confuses me, that.
 
I... honestly don't see why everyone insists on calling eternal life frightening. If I had the opportunity to live forever, I'd take it in a heartbeat, as long as it wasn't "living forever in a dark void of nothingness" or something. There are only a finite number of things to do in the world at any given time, yes, but your life so far at any given time is also finite. As long as the world keeps on spinning and producing more things for you to do - inevitable if there are other people around doing things like writing fiction - then you will never run out of possibilities.

However, the fact I would love to have eternal life doesn't even remotely make my non-eternal life meaningless. It adds something of a frantic quality to it; sometimes I worry that I'll never be able to do all the things I want to do, and sometimes I think about the people I love dying and wish badly it could be magically averted. But you don't need to make it completely depress you. Just make the most of the life that you have, rather than wasting it wallowing in misery just for the hope that everything will be great when it's over.
 
Bachuru said:
I... honestly don't see why everyone insists on calling eternal life frightening. If I had the opportunity to live forever, I'd take it in a heartbeat, as long as it wasn't "living forever in a dark void of nothingness" or something. There are only a finite number of things to do in the world at any given time, yes, but your life so far at any given time is also finite. As long as the world keeps on spinning and producing more things for you to do - inevitable if there are other people around doing things like writing fiction - then you will never run out of possibilities.

However, the fact I would love to have eternal life doesn't even remotely make my non-eternal life meaningless. It adds something of a frantic quality to it; sometimes I worry that I'll never be able to do all the things I want to do, and sometimes I think about the people I love dying and wish badly it could be magically averted. But you don't need to make it completely depress you. Just make the most of the life that you have, rather than wasting it wallowing in misery just for the hope that everything will be great when it's over.
Click to expand...
Personally I really do think living forever and ever and ever and ever would eventually wear you out to the point of despair, but maybe that's just my death drive talking; in any case, I think we can both agree that life is about quality, not quantity.
 
Bachuru said:
I... honestly don't see why everyone insists on calling eternal life frightening. If I had the opportunity to live forever, I'd take it in a heartbeat, as long as it wasn't "living forever in a dark void of nothingness" or something. There are only a finite number of things to do in the world at any given time, yes, but your life so far at any given time is also finite. As long as the world keeps on spinning and producing more things for you to do - inevitable if there are other people around doing things like writing fiction - then you will never run out of possibilities.

However, the fact I would love to have eternal life doesn't even remotely make my non-eternal life meaningless. It adds something of a frantic quality to it; sometimes I worry that I'll never be able to do all the things I want to do, and sometimes I think about the people I love dying and wish badly it could be magically averted. But you don't need to make it completely depress you. Just make the most of the life that you have, rather than wasting it wallowing in misery just for the hope that everything will be great when it's over.
Click to expand...

I think that the afterlife presented in Christian mythology is particularly scary, actually. "Living forever" in this, the real, tangible world that we know and experience, would be absolutely wonderful! So many things to do, so many things to see and learn and experience! I totally agree with everything you've already said, but the kinds of afterlife one often gets given by the various belief systems of the world often end up being worse than the current world!

But, I mean, living for a really long time here would be awesome.
 
opaltiger said:
Oh, sorry. I don't think being colourblind would be too bad; sure, I'd never have the experience of seeing colour properly, (also: colourblindness does not mean seeing the world in black and white)
Click to expand...
I was actually going to note that, but I forgot to go back and edit, I mainly used the metaphor because I figured more people would be more likely to be color-blind on here then say, blind, and thus could relate to it better.

but there are a huge number of incredible experiences I'm never going to have. That's fine with me! It seems what you're trying to do is cope with the imperfections of life by saying to yourself, 'oh, but after I die life will be perfect.' By doing that you're consigning yourself to a lifetime of misery, since you'll never learn to cope with those imperfections in this life.
Click to expand...
I think that is a way of coping with imperfections in this life, actually.
Except for 'to not be a horrible person'. Seriously, why do so many people say things like that? Do you honestly think the majority of people want to murder everyone they see but are stopped only by the thought of eternal damnation? (also: you would kill whoever touched your will first! that would probably be someone you know. or does that not count as a consequence, because you won't be punished for it?)
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not worried about punishment if I were to do that in real-real life, I would care about seeing the person I poisoned keel over, and I'd feel bad for them. But if I were dead-dead, who gives a crap?
The world is also full of beautiful things and kind people. In fact, in my experience, there are far, far more of the latter than there are of murderers or rapists.
Click to expand...
Meh.
Oh, well, that's up to you, isn't it? But I think you'd find it easier to answer that question if you stopped obsessing over what happens after you stop living.
Click to expand...
I don't obsess over it, because I am sure I know what will happen after I stop living.
Oh come on. The Middle Eastern conflict (which is based in religion) has been around for about as long as that (post WWII-ish) and there have been plenty of atrocities committed there.
Click to expand...
There is many, many, many conflicts involving theistic states besides that one in history.
Are you implying that if, say, the Scandinavian states continued merrily on with their experiment in secularist socialism terrible things would inevitably happen?
Click to expand...
Bad things have their way of happening anywhere, no utopia will last on Earth, I assure you.
I'm still trying to figure out why people who say that life is pointless compared to the afterlife don't just kill themselves.
Click to expand...
I try to figure out why people who can die forever (never to be replaced) from random things, like peanut butter or a mosquito, manage to not be in a depressive state all the time.

I mean I'm not telling you to kill yourself or anything, it's just, why not?
Click to expand...
Because killing yourself is hard to do with a strong survival instinct for any human.
I mean, you cherry pick your books,
Click to expand...
If you don't give a damn about researching them, yes.

so anywhere it said that suicide is bad you could theoretically just handwave away, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, but could you convince yourself that you are right to ignore that? I can't.
In which case, instant-paradise.
Click to expand...
Or eternal nothingness without anything that you consciously inhabit for billions upon billions of years, in which you can't do anything but think about the petty reasons you killed yourself and the pathetic way you ignored your only source about the after-life to justify it.
It always confuses me, that.
Click to expand...
Different worldviews are confusing for me too, but we'll figure each other out, methinks.
But you don't need to make it completely depress you. Just make the most of the life that you have, rather than wasting it wallowing in misery just for the hope that everything will be great when it's over.
Click to expand...
Well, that is my only hope at this point, if I were to blot it out, then I would be wallowing in misery (which I'm not currently doing).

Personally I really do think living forever and ever and ever and ever would eventually wear you out to the point of despair, but maybe that's just my death drive talking; in any case, I think we can both agree that life is about quality, not quantity.
Click to expand...
Some people have poor quality of life with what little time they have.

But, I mean, living for a really long time here would be awesome.
Click to expand...
*scratches head* Care explaining in greater detail, please?
 
Eloi said:
MD said:
Personally I really do think living forever and ever and ever and ever would eventually wear you out to the point of despair, but maybe that's just my death drive talking; in any case, I think we can both agree that life is about quality, not quantity.
Click to expand...

Some people have poor quality of life with what little time they have.
Click to expand...

er... so? I'm not exactly getting what you're trying to say here; would it be better to have a long life of terrible quality, or a short life of great quality? Don't most people strive to maintain a good quality of life, no matter their circumstances? There are much more people upset about their quality of life than about quantity.

Why do you lament not being able to live forever when it is something you have never had, and will never understand? You don't know eternity. Humanity can never, ever comprehend eternity.
 
Last edited:
ultraviolet said:
er... so? I'm not exactly getting what you're trying to say here; would it be better to have a long life of terrible quality, or a short life of great quality? Don't most people strive to maintain a good quality of life, no matter their circumstances? There are much more people upset about their quality of life than about quantity.
Click to expand...
I'm saying some people have a short life of terrible quality, wherein you seem to be presenting the false dichotomy of "long life and terrible quality or short life and wonderful quality".
Why do you lament not being able to live forever when it is something you have never had, and will never understand? You don't know eternity. Humanity can never, ever comprehend eternity.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Why are so sure in nothingness? You don't know nothingness. Humanity can never, ever comprehend what its like to not be thinking or feeling completely.
 
Nor can they comprehend what it would be like to live eternally since no human in recorded history has done so.

This is a pointless argument. We do not know what happens after death, period. We can have conjectures and observations, based on what we've seen. But even that is so far from being conclusive evidence for anything that you might as well stop bothering asking yourself the question. I don't know what's after death, I frankly don't want to know either. What matters is I'm here now, and I have to live here now. I'll start thinking about death when I'm actually going to die and even then I don't think I'll be more than a bunch of dead molecules. People can take my organs, they can burn my body, and they can have a nice funeral and drink some good alcohol and have a good meal. Play my favourite music.

That is my funeral, that is my death, and there's nothing to it. I do not understand the significance of death. Dead is dead. Life is life. Basic biology tells us we are going to die, it doesn't do to dwell on some shitty afterlife dream hoping you won't really die. Accepting death is truly being able to live. If you don't accept you die you will never make of your life what you can. Yeah, so maybe you do live after you die. But do you know where you'll go or be? I don't think so. You can only guess and of course you think your guess is right, but don't be so arrogant as to claim you know because you have no bloody way of knowing until there's recorded cases of resurrection.

No, Jesus doesn't count.

Also. I was dead before I was born and I wasn't inconvenienced by that either. I quite simply don't care about life after death. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I'm here now.
 
Not to change the subject, but I do believe that less theistic one is, the better there lives are. This is proved by high quality of life, education, and affluence in secular countries as opposed to ones lacking those things. While the common conclusion might be "The secularist beliefs are inspiring those things." another conclusion (among others) could be "One who is less likely to die or observe others to die in their everyday lives don't possess as great of concern as what happens when one dies."
Take Japan for instance, they have the highest life expectancy and extremely secular. Its easy for you to say "I don't care what happens when you die." if you don't expect to die or others to die until they are 86.
See also: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Female_Life_Expectancy.png + http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/GPI-world-map-2008.png vs. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Religion_in_the_world.PNG

If you don't think you'd get murdered or die young, of course you don't really mind that there isn't anything afterwards.
 
Eloi said:
Not to change the subject, but I do believe that less theistic one is, the better there lives are. This is proved by high quality of life, education, and affluence in secular countries as opposed to ones lacking those things. While the common conclusion might be "The secularist beliefs are inspiring those things." another conclusion (among others) could be "One who is less likely to die or observe others to die in their everyday lives don't possess as great of concern as what happens when one dies."
Take Japan for instance, they have the highest life expectancy and extremely secular. Its easy for you to say "I don't care what happens when you die." if you don't expect to die or others to die until they are 86.
See also: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Female_Life_Expectancy.png + http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/GPI-world-map-2008.png vs. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Religion_in_the_world.PNG

If you don't think you'd get murdered or die young, of course you don't really mind that there isn't anything afterwards.
Click to expand...

HALT!

ABOUT...FAAACE!
 
namechange said:
HALT!

ABOUT...FAAACE!
Click to expand...

Hm? I didn't change my viewpoint, the majority of the people I am talking to are from said secular-stable countries that I mentioned, and I was explaining why I think about death more than they do, that is to say, my country is less stable than their's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom