Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
Saden, if you don't believe in heaven, then this shouldn't be scary anyways, since the whole point of it is 1000's of years AFTER people. Chances are 100% you won't be here to see it, hence, not scary.
And if you do believe in a new heaven and a new earth, then most of this is just modern day blah blah blah anyways.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
I was not talking of dwelling on it, you never said you did that. I think to be scared of something you have zero control, and has no chance of occurring without foreshadowing and notice, makes no sense. If we get wiped out in the blink of an eye, your fear gained you nothing. If we have notice, than your fear will at least work towards trying to find a way to survive.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
I say we all have a toast to the end of mankind and the closing of the age. Once we're gone, it'll be like we weren't even here at all.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
Indifference is perfectly acceptable. This delusion of yours that you can somehow control the fate of the universe is rooted in your alienation from God. The abolition of physical man or physical nature is only tragic in a universe that has mankind at the very center. You're heirarchy is all out of kilter so you worry too much about things that are not your responsibility and over which you ultimately have no control anyway.
|