Life After People (History Channel)

You made the comment:


I responded:


I guess you were using it to say not to be scared, but my response was directed at you saying a person living for Christ would not be pitiful. Clearly, if you are living and directing your life based on a fallacy then others would call that pitiful.

OK, I get your point. Sorry I missed it before.
I still don't see it as "pitiful", but someone must live their life for something right? I think those that live it with no direction or purpose...well that's pitiful. But to each his own right?

OK, I get your point. Sorry I missed it before.
I still don't see it as "pitiful", but someone must live their life for something right? I think those that live it with no direction or purpose...well that's pitiful. But to each his own right?

I would agree with you on that. and of course, I do believe Christ rose, so the argument becomes moot.

Sorry buddy but the old Testament God and the New Testament God are like night and day, just ask a Jew. The Old Testament God told Joshua to go into Canaan and kill every last person including the women and children. To not kill is a bad King James translation. The original is Thou shall not murder. If killing was a sin then God would be a sinner. He killed people in the Bible himself.

How many religions use SOLELY the old testament. We have been discussing Christians, and as such, the new testament comes into play. Although, you made a very good point. You made me think on that one.

Ok. Why the laughing?

I was thinking about all of those people in Pompeii covered in volcanic ash. They didn't have SUVs.

How many religions use SOLELY the old testament. We have been discussing Christians, and as such, the new testament comes into play. Although, you made a very good point. You made me think on that one.

This kind of ignores that the Old Testament was around for atleast 2000 years before the New Testament was written, and that Jesus himself said that the he did not come to take away the Law (the Old Testament), or that God says he is never changing, in other words, he didn't just flip a switch at 200 AD when the NT was being put together and change the meanings. To murder is a sin, not to kill. And this difference has let lots of wars and blood be spilled "in the name of God". Muslims also refer to the OT, and the NT along with their Koran.

I was thinking about all of those people in Pompeii covered in volcanic ash. They didn't have SUVs.

lol, dang maybe they did but they weren't earth friendly ;)

How many religions use SOLELY the old testament. We have been discussing Christians, and as such, the new testament comes into play. Although, you made a very good point. You made me think on that one.

The Jews that follow the Torah? I give up, how many?

Eloquent indeed. What isn't obvious is of course that my conversations were with two different people and how you mange to mish-and-mesh what I said in my responses. Clearly 70Chip felt that his position was superior and CRedskinsRule didn't understand my position though he respected it (I probably should have done a better job respecting his position). I love how you also dismiss me as an elitist smug sob all the while implicitly convaying your take as a more rational position.

As CRedskins stated, the mish mash began when you rebutted both his and 70's with what I believed to be the same argument. As I was typing it, I thought that you're argument with CRed was his lack of sadness while your argument with 70 was his seeming thoughtless indifference.

And let's be clear: IMO, all of us have different emotional triggers (go look at "movies that made me cry thread"). This one for you. Fine. It is not for me, or Credskins, or 70Chip. This does not make me apathetic, slothful, or mentally ill. It makes me different. I fully accept and understand how this concept could be saddening to some, including you.

You, however, expressly refuse to accept that other people may not feel the way you do and that their failure to mimic your emotional responses is slothful or a sign of mental illness. THAT's why you're patronizing, that's why you're being an emotional elitest.

70Chip expclititly said "Indifference is perfectly acceptable." If such a postion is not reflective of apathy I don't know what is. If he wants to clear the record he is more than welcome. And of course he went with the godlessness as the cause of my concern..

He earlier indicated that he reached his position of indifference to this hypothetical through an understanding of his believe in the transient nature of the physical universe, the comfort he receives from believe in the eternal nature of the earth's and, in fact, the universe's, spiritual existence. An understanding which you pooh pooh'd earlier by calling it a "magical-place-believer".

Implicit in all of our discussions involving religion is your constant presumption that those who believe other than you do as to the existence of God are fools; that are only reason for doing so is fear of hell or a need to feed our denial of reality through the creation of the false comfort of heaven. It is tiresome. I am intelligent man who has arrived at my conclusion through periods of deep introspection and mediation and thoughtful consideration of my interaction with my fellow man. I think my arguments on this topic would have warranted some respect from you in this regard.

I understand your position, I disagree with it but I still respect that it is an understanding received through intelligent consideration of many factors and I respect you for taking the time to think it through. It is rare that I feel this respect reciprocated.

I am not sure what warented the highlighted long blob of text. Everyone here is an adult and I shouldn't be expected to explain everything as if I am talking to a child. Certain things should be abvious and need not explination, especially when it comes to the doom of us all.

The highligted text was my attempt to explain why these hypotheticals do not evoke a emotional response. I've felt the emotion, I understand its basis, I've seen the hypothetical and recognized it as something that I've felt/considered before and it no longer tugs at my heartstrings.

The Jews that follow the Torah? I give up, how many?

I am not actually sure...I was posing the question. My guess of the religions I know, NONE of them do. They all have something else they follow, of which those speak of not killing...but I am still mulling over the first comments of the old testament...that was a good response.

In leveling your various assertions of sinful behavior and/or, mental illness, you continue to assert that your emotional reaction is the only legitimate way for a human to consider and deal with the hypothetical physical destruction of humanity [this is indeed my position].

As indicated above, this statement demonstrates, to me, a complete disregard for the different emotional make-up between people and is incredibly intolerant.

However, the alternative to this ultimate sadness you seem to require is the acknowledgment that, while sad, it is beyond our control and we will not spend more than a moment thinking about it [this is an also my position though you make it seem like it's an either or proposition]. This is not acedia [check my first usage of the word apathy, this word engineer shit doesn't work on me].

No, in fact, I do not find them mutually exclusive. Rather, I find them one in the range of human responses. It appeared to me, however, that you consider that those who approach it from the second part of this are mentally ill/apathetic unless they also accept your initial emotional reaction.

Someone who approached this issue with acedia would have nothimg more to say than, "ehh so what" [and to be indifferent is to be what exactly?].

The subtle difference I was suggesting is that a truly apathetic person in the traditional "sinfull" sense of accidea would feel nothing and conduct no further thought on the matter ever. Neither 70chip or CRedskins fell into this category. Each had arrived at their conclusion by consideration of the nature of the question being asked and gave a basis for why they now chose to be indifferent.

You, in a very patronizing and emothionally elitest fashion [sometimes you just have to be, I'll work on getting it under control], confuse apathy with an introspective resolution on how to deal with the destruction of our physical being [when? where?].

Again, this goes back to your ultimate dismissal of religious thought. Those who approach these types of hypotheticals from a spiritual/faith based line of thought are dismissed as non-thought. Both 70Chip and CRedskins explained thier positions, it seems to me that you dismissed them both as "make believe place" believers.

All but the truly apathic will experience emotional responses, it is how we deal with them that determines our vitality. [WTF?] .

An individiual who feels nothing is apathetic. A person who feels something and does nothing more is apathetic. Life, as humans, requires more than mere "feeling" it requires introspection and action. "The unexamined life is not worth living". Regardless of my introspection and self-examination, however, you dismiss my thoughts and feelings as apathetic or signs of mental illness. I find that offensive.