Life After People (History Channel)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[saden1]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

...
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.
...

Apathetic

I don't see how anyone engaged in this conversation can be apathetic. The fact that you, 70Chip, JoeRedskin, and I have continued this discussion argues to the contrary.

apathy - A symptom of several mental illnesses, apathy is a lack of emotion or interest in things one would ordinarily consider important.
Glossary of Terms Relating to Bipolar Disorder

Neither 70Chip nor I said the end of the world was not a thing of interest (70Chips indifferent comment, again in the context of it being "scary", not to the concept in total), just that we don't let it scare us, or find it scary. I don't find spiders scary, but I do take an interest in them (particularly

this group

).

An apathetic person, to such a state as you are referring to, would, as JoeRedskin said, just say "eh whatever" to this conversation, if they were to have been somehow engaged in it to begin with.

Originally Posted by 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.

This is far more interesting, than the aggravations/headaches of my work!

[MTK]

Wow did this thread take a giant toke off the ol' bong or what.

[JoeRedskin]

^^ Ah well, it happens.

It is the type of subject one would discuss at 2:00 in the morning after a few hits.

saden1, don't bogart the roach dude.

[MTK]

How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??

You can't be. I didn't say "I was convinced", I said "I / we believe". Just like you don't believe either way.
I also take the stand that it is better to believe (In God) and have the possibility of eternal life, then to not and take my chances. Why take the road that couldn't possibly lead you anywhere?

To ask, what are you basing this on exactly. You seriously don't know? It's the best selling book of all time.

If you are waiting to be "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything, you will have a long wait my friend. Some things are by faith, and faith alone. Even if I am wrong, tell me, what is the harm in it? But if you are wrong, do you want to know the harm in it?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You can't be. I didn't say "I was convinced", I said "I / we believe". Just like you don't believe either way.
I also take the stand that it is better to believe (In God) and have the possibility of eternal life, then to not and take my chances. Why take the road that couldn't possibly lead you anywhere?

To ask, what are you basing this on exactly. You seriously don't know? It's the best selling book of all time.

If you are waiting to be "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything, you will have a long wait my friend. Some things are by faith, and faith alone. Even if I am wrong, tell me, what is the harm in it? But if you are wrong, do you want to know the harm in it?

Do you believe everything you read?

Faith can be a dangerous thing.

I don't see any harm in not being sure what to believe when it comes to God. I have a hard time believing that if he does indeed exist, he would think any less of someone questioning his existence since there is no undeniable proof of his existence in the first place.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Do you believe everything you read?

Sarcasm as a rebuttle???

Faith can be a dangerous thing.

I'm not disagreeing, but why do you think so?

I don't see any harm in not being sure what to believe when it comes to God. I have a hard time believing that if he does indeed exist, he would think any less of someone questioning his existence since there is no undeniable proof of his existence in the first place.

There is nothing that says you shouldn't "question" in the bible. In fact, it encourages it to better your faith. I've personally been toying with the notion that we all go to heaven and the bible is used as a guideline to keep us on the straight and narrow. View your relationship with your kids as that of one with you as the child and God as your father...when you do that, how can you send your children to eternal damnation? But you try to set guidelines for your kids to follow by to be better people. Hell, we even lie to our kids about Santa Claus etc because of how we feel it will better them. So if we can do that, how come God can't give us a guideline / handbook to try to live by?
You also need to keep in mind, while we as a species are intelligent, we are not all knowing. To me, undeniable proof of His existance is the fact that we are here. The body is amazingly complex, beyond comprehension even. No soul / existance of a life has ever been found in a body, yet we know it to be there. That's just a human, what about the billions of other organisms on this planet, or the solar system, or beyond?
I think you might mistake anyone that speaks about God / religion as trying to push their views, and some do, I am not though. You can believe what you want. I know there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind, or several others on this site. I am merely stating my belief and you can take it or leave it. It's a pleasure to have conversation sometimes, and the questions posed to each other can and do bring good discussion.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Sarcasm as a rebuttle???



I'm not disagreeing, but why do you think so?



There is nothing that says you shouldn't "question" in the bible. In fact, it encourages it to better your faith. I've personally been toying with the notion that we all go to heaven and the bible is used as a guideline to keep us on the straight and narrow. View your relationship with your kids as that of one with you as the child and God as your father...when you do that, how can you send your children to eternal damnation? But you try to set guidelines for your kids to follow by to be better people. Hell, we even lie to our kids about Santa Claus etc because of how we feel it will better them. So if we can do that, how come God can't give us a guideline / handbook to try to live by?
You also need to keep in mind, while we as a species are intelligent, we are not all knowing. To me, undeniable proof of His existance is the fact that we are here. The body is amazingly complex, beyond comprehension even. No soul / existance of a life has ever been found in a body, yet we know it to be there. That's just a human, what about the billions of other organisms on this planet, or the solar system, or beyond?
I think you might mistake anyone that speaks about God / religion as trying to push their views, and some do, I am not though. You can believe what you want. I know there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind, or several others on this site. I am merely stating my belief and you can take it or leave it. It's a pleasure to have conversation sometimes, and the questions posed to each other can and do bring good discussion.

-No sarcasm it was a genuine question.

-Wars are waged over faith. Faith to any extreme is dangerous.

-I'm just stating my view as well, I'm not trying to be right or wrong. Just looking for good discussion as well.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??

Not trying to be flip, but honestly the only way is Faith in something other than that which can be seen.

Christianity, for example, exists ONLY if Christ was raised from the dead. Paul himself made the point that Saden often makes, which is, that if Christ was merely a man, and the resurrection a hoax, then Christians are indeed the most pitiful of men. This is the very thing Saden often argues, interesting that the Bible agrees with him. Of course, the next part is that Christ did indeed raise up, and witnesses attested to that fact. Now at this point in history, Every person is given the self awareness to hear this argument and make the choice to believe through faith or not.

Every belief in an afterlife hinges primarily on the faith of something unseen, and by definition untestable (except in FRINGE) and unverifiable to the modern man.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Not trying to be flip, but honestly the only way is Faith in something other than that which can be seen.

Christianity, for example, exists ONLY if Christ was raised from the dead. Paul himself made the point that Saden often makes, which is, that if Christ was merely a man, and the resurrection a hoax, then Christians are indeed the most pitiful of men. This is the very thing Saden often argues, interesting that the Bible agrees with him. Of course, the next part is that Christ did indeed raise up, and witnesses attested to that fact. Now at this point in history, Every person is given the self awareness to hear this argument and make the choice to believe through faith or not.

Every belief in an afterlife hinges primarily on the faith of something unseen, and by definition untestable (except in FRINGE) and unverifiable to the modern man.

Very true. Which again begs the argument, why believe in something that can't possibly bring you any good.

I would argue that if Christ's resurrection was indeed a hoax, we are not pitiful, but lived a good life and we are all worm food anyway so it won't matter.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??

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

http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post308204

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??

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.