Life After People (History Channel)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.