Life After People (History Channel)

JoeRedskin

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.

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.

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.

__________________
My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

jsarno

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.

__________________
Zoltan is ZESTY! - courtesy of joeredskin

JoeRedskin

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

JoeRedskin

This is a post I made a couple of years ago in the Jesus Camp thread:

http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post308204 (Jesus Camp:)

It pretty much summarizes the basis of my belief. There was a song by Joan somebody that had a great line: "Would you want to see God if it meant you had to believe in Jesus and alll the Saints?". For me, I took (take) a leap of faith based on my acceptance of/ and experience with God. In accepting the existence of the great "I am", I also accept "with a firm and certain hope" in the existence of some form of an afterlife (the quoted language is from the episcopal prayerbook - I think I have the quote right). Please note, my belief in God is not predicated on the existence of this non-physical existence, but rather on my other experiencse as described in the cited post.

__________________
My Little Pony: Friendship is magic? or ... a repressive matriarchal society where individuals' roles are defined by their immutable physical characteristics and governance is reserved for those who demonstrate the genetic purity of the pony master race?

GTripp0012

I believe that the term "afterlife" is misleading, because I think it implies either the existence of the traditional judeo-christian heaven/purgatory/hell, or an eastern philosophy-based state of out of bodyness.

But I think the best evidence for the existence of an afterlife is the obvious absence of anything that could be considered a non-afterlife. I think we could produce a wide range of possibilities for what happens to a body/mind/soul/consciousness after the incredibly observational concept of "death", but simply by even describing the possibility of death, I think we've assumed that there is something after it.

Someone who doesn't believe in any afterlife would have to define death itself as, "the point at which one ceases to." As you can see, this isn't even a complete sentence. But to go any further, it would be to presume the existence of an afterlife in some way, shape or form. Our very basic logical structure implies that an afterlife must be, for life goes on after death.

What the after-life entails is an entirely different animal. Consciousness or not. Ability to perceive, or not. Ability to think, or not. Any of those six concepts would be indicative of an afterlife, but I can not even fathom what that would mean.

__________________
Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

saden1

Regardless of how you rationalize indifference I wholeheartedly believe indifferent people to be handicapped. If you find my position irrational the feeling is mutual. Simply put some positions are better than others and in this case you believe yours to be better and I find mine to be better. I do tend to dismiss religious thought (an Oxymoron?) early and often because I find them offensive especially when it intimates "indifference is perfectly acceptable."

I really don't see the mish-mesh on my part but whatever. I'm not going to argue over something you're alluding to that I'm not cognizant of.

In my point of view I find both 70Chip and CRedskins apathetic, in yours they are not. That's perfectly fine though I suspect you find your definition of what apathy is palatable.

It takes two against one to be dismissive:

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

70Chip

Don't you people ever do any work at your jobs. I'll check this space on a Saturday and zilcho. But on a Thursday its like a graduate seminar in philosophy, metaphysics, and religion.

A few points:

Matty: God only reveals himself to people he really likes. Maybe you could try a new haircut or maybe get your teeth capped. God likes people with a little flair. That's why t.v. preachers are the way they are.

SmootSmack: It's not that you don't believe enough, it's that life has been too easy and pleasurable for you. You are too attached to the material. Sell everything you have, give it to the poor, and cast yourself down from a great height (say, the Cabin John Bridge ) . If you survive, you won't care what happens to the universe anymore.

The rest of you: God wants you to sell everything YOU own and send it to me. In exchange he has personally promised me he will relieve all your cares, ease every burden, and give you the courage to talk to girls for the first time in your lives.

Oh, and the Que Sera thing was not a statement of my views but rather a reference to an episode of the Simpsons in which Ned Flanders is turned out of his own bomb shelter by the rest of the town (and goes willingly).

Ned: "Shouldn't you all be getting in your shelterinis about now?"

Moe: "We haven't got shelterinis. We want in yours."

It's a New Testament version of the flood story in which the un-faithful take over the ark and set Noah adrift. And he meekly accepts his fate. Wicked smart those Simpsons writers.

__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven

Mattyk

Kinda how aliens only reveal themselves to trailer trash I guess.

__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop

saden1

hehe.

__________________
RG3, RGIII, RG三, RG३, RGγʹ, RGג, RG٣, RG๓, RG..., RG셋, RGԳ!

Trample the Elderly

Didn't Jimmy Carter see a UFO?

EARTHQUAKE2689

There will be alot of cockroaches though

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpp3ycMvQd0

This is why you need Mentos. To justify your questionable problem solving skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7geP5ev0VI

Awesome isn't it.

EARTHQUAKE2689

You only see those mysterious circles in corn fields so you maybe on to something there.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpp3ycMvQd0

This is why you need Mentos. To justify your questionable problem solving skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7geP5ev0VI

Awesome isn't it.

Mattyk

Yeah but he didn't see an alien. There's a subtle difference.

__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop