Life After People (History Channel)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by jsarno

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?

[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.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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.

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

hehe.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

Didn't Jimmy Carter see a UFO?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

There will be alot of cockroaches though

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Didn't Jimmy Carter see a UFO?

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