religious debate

[Guest]

One last bit left unanswered. I know you were addressing Scraff here but what the hell.

I'm curious. The gist of your argument for atheism not being belief was that you don't think there's reason to believe in God, but you aren't saying he doesn't exist. Ok, I can accept that. So what if he did exist, but simply hadn't provided evidence of his existence that you found convincing? Then, if there was some phenomenon that was a direct result of his supernatural action, how would you explain it?...

So, in the event that God did exist, and did something that you could observe, how would you explain it?

I currently know of no good evidence to support the God hypothesis. If I encoutered any such evidence I would change my opinion accordingly. I wouldn't feel obliged to dismiss it or explain it by false means, as I'm more interested in knowing the truth than proving a point. The evidence would have to be strong to overcome the inherent unlikeliness of a super-intelligent entity existing without cause. But evidence is evidence.

However, since I am convinced that God exists, the answer of "God did it" has weight to me. That doesn't mean I'm not interested in how it was done. It doesn't make me any less curious about the observable nature of things. It doesn't give me the logical basis to infer purposeful design unnecessarily. But at the end of the day, if I do believe in God, then yes, "God did it" is meaningful to me.

The problem with that is evident from history. If you postulate "God did it" to explain everything you don't understand, you create false evidence to suggest God's existence. The existence of complex life is a good example. Nobody knew how that happened, so God must have done it, so most people believed in God. Then Darwin figured out the natural selection process and complex life was explained. God turned out not to be necessary for that after all. Gods were once held responsible for moving the sun across the sky. The absence of an explanation for something does not infer the work of God, but history shows the enormous extent to which this mistake has consistently been made. You seem quite ready to continue making it. But it's less of an issue these days since so much of what was once attributed to God is now understood, there isn't much left for God to do.

[unreality]

I have been reading through several of the posts here and find it an interesting read. Religion and politics always seems to lead to heated discussions because both topics are things most of us are passionate about. But, in reading this, a question came to my mind that I honestly had not considered before. By the way, I am a believer, so please consider this a sincere question. For those that do not believe in a supreme being, a God, a god, et al. Does an atheist believe in angels or devils? I am curious. For whatever reason, that question had never crossed my mind before. Usually in discussions like this it is all about the Supreme being.

Angels and devils are a byproduct of religious belief, so no. They are just as ludicrous (sorry if that's insulting) as God or Allah or Zeus or whatever (not sure what religion you are)

I (and most atheists, I presume) do not believe in gods, demigods, devils, angels, archangels, demons, saints, prophets, etc.

And I don't believe in any ghosts or superstitions or luck or unluck or anything like that either, though sometimes do things cuz it's in my culture or repetition or whatever (knocking on wood, etc. lol)

Another interesting point, is that I say things like "oh my god" or "what the hell", etc. Though I don't believe in God or Hell. I'd be interested to see if other atheists do the same

actually I got some evidence from this very topic lol

So please, please, PLEASE drop this "meaning of the word 'belief'" arguement, it's annoying as hell.

I know you were addressing Scraff here but what the hell.

hehe

Another point I'd like to bring up, that I haven't seen before on this topic, is "the afterlife". Obviously I don't believe in afterlife. We die and then we die. Our souls die with our minds which die with our body. The system that runs our cells just shuts down. Since our intelligence and consciousness is a byproduct of our brain and nervous system, we don't "go anywhere", because clearly our brain does not get up and move somewhere after death. I understand that theists believe that our soul (my word for consciousness) is separate from our physical brain, but I don't think so.

Though it stinks that the point is never hit home to a religious person. If they're right (doubtful) than they go to heaven or hell or whatever, but if they're wrong (which is what I'm talking about here), they'll never know they were wrong. They're dead.

Anyway, heaven and hell are the "carrot and the stick". If you do what the religion and the diety wants you to, you go to heaven. If you break their rules you go to hell. Kinda restricts life for ya, doesn't it? Plus surely nobody deserves to "suffer for eternity" in hell. What crime as a human permits infinite suffering?

[Guest]

Another point I'd like to bring up, that I haven't seen before on this topic, is "the afterlife". Obviously I don't believe in afterlife. We die and then we die. Our souls die with our minds which die with our body. The system that runs our cells just shuts down. Since our intelligence and consciousness is a byproduct of our brain and nervous system, we don't "go anywhere", because clearly our brain does not get up and move somewhere after death. I understand that theists believe that our soul (my word for consciousness) is separate from our physical brain, but I don't think so.

Though it stinks that the point is never hit home to a religious person. If they're right (doubtful) than they go to heaven or hell or whatever, but if they're wrong (which is what I'm talking about here), they'll never know they were wrong. They're dead.

Wow, that certainly is a frightening thought. At some level, I would like to believe that the sum total of my experiences were more meaningful to the universe than a simple usage of atoms and energy. Perhaps this is simply my human egoism, but the thought of an afterlife, one in which "answers" are provided and experiences shared, would be as good as any "heaven" -- or "hell," depending upon the type of experiences one encountered. I guess this has been the source of many religions. We all want to understand why bad things happen to good people and why bad people seem to be rewarded for their evils. At some level, we want to assign accountability for these perceived causes and effects, something that cannot be done within our constructs of reality.

Of course in the end, we'll never know one way or the other because we'll all be dead.

[Guest]

Hi emeraldcity. The point we've been beating each other over the head with here is that atheism is no more or less than a lack of belief in God (or gods plural). This is sometimes called "weak atheism" since it makes no assertions of its own. There is also a form called "strong atheism" which asserts that God does not exist, though it seems to have no proponents here.

Theoretically an atheist position does not directly imply any opinion about angels, devils, or other religious constructs, but usually an atheist would not believe in such things since the whole of religious belief tends to go hand in hand with a belief in God. Most atheists do not believe in the supernatural at all (or anything else which is unsupported by evidence). I'm glad you asked the question because it illustrates why atheists often take affront at their position being called a "belief". There is no atheist creed, or organisation, so opinions about related subjects are a purely personal matter. Atheism is an individual stance simply derived from being unconvinced about God. Atheists classify themselves as atheists purely because they are not theists (believers in God), and it means nothing more.

I appreciate the education here. I did not know weak or strong atheism. That must make me sound truly ignorant. But, I confess it anyway. I thought what you defined as weak atheism was an agnostic. To simplify it in my mind, it sounds as if an atheist is a solely scientific thinking person. Right? Or is that too simplistic?

[Guest]

Angels and devils are a byproduct of religious belief, so no. They are just as ludicrous (sorry if that's insulting) as God or Allah or Zeus or whatever (not sure what religion you are)

I (and most atheists, I presume) do not believe in gods, demigods, devils, angels, archangels, demons, saints, prophets, etc.

And I don't believe in any ghosts or superstitions or luck or unluck or anything like that either, though sometimes do things cuz it's in my culture or repetition or whatever (knocking on wood, etc. lol)

Another interesting point, is that I say things like "oh my god" or "what the hell", etc. Though I don't believe in God or Hell. I'd be interested to see if other atheists do the same

actually I got some evidence from this very topic lol

hehe

Another point I'd like to bring up, that I haven't seen before on this topic, is "the afterlife". Obviously I don't believe in afterlife. We die and then we die. Our souls die with our minds which die with our body. The system that runs our cells just shuts down. Since our intelligence and consciousness is a byproduct of our brain and nervous system, we don't "go anywhere", because clearly our brain does not get up and move somewhere after death. I understand that theists believe that our soul (my word for consciousness) is separate from our physical brain, but I don't think so.

Though it stinks that the point is never hit home to a religious person. If they're right (doubtful) than they go to heaven or hell or whatever, but if they're wrong (which is what I'm talking about here), they'll never know they were wrong. They're dead.

Anyway, heaven and hell are the "carrot and the stick". If you do what the religion and the diety wants you to, you go to heaven. If you break their rules you go to hell. Kinda restricts life for ya, doesn't it? Plus surely nobody deserves to "suffer for eternity" in hell. What crime as a human permits infinite suffering?

It might surprise you to know, that even though I define myself as a Christian, I have a problem with the carrot and the stick you pointed out. I think it is organized religion's way of keeping "their people" in line, if you want to know the truth. I don't disagree with what you said about Hell. I don't think it is important for me to believe or not believe in hell. Let me explain. I have a son. When raising him, I wanted him to obey me out of love and respect, not fear of a punishment. Too many Christians focus on the "hell scare". It doesn't work and is a total waste of time, in my opinion.

And, I'm not offended that you say it is ludicrous to believe in God, gods, angels, devil, etc, etc. It is ludicrous to you. It isn't for me. Just a basic, you have your opinion and I have mine. I also didn't know, and had never really thought about this either, the disbelief in prophets. In one way, that surprises me since that can be documented. But, I am guessing that your thought on that is it is interpreted after the fact to fit the facts. Right?

I hesitate to ask this next thing, but cannot resist. And, I am sure that this is a typical question from a Christian, but I would honestly like your thought/explanation. If man evolved into what we are today, why did we quit evolving into something much better than man is today. And, you have to agree, that there is A LOT of room for improvement! lol That is one thing that has bugged me FOREVER. And, forgive me, if you don't believe in evolution. I may be assuming too much by that. But, atheists have to have some explanation for life as we know it.

[Guest]

To simplify it in my mind, it sounds as if an atheist is a solely scientific thinking person. Right? Or is that too simplistic?

See the link unreality posted and read the last several pages of this thread. Questions, answers and arguments are being repeated a little too much in this thread.

Quick answer: There are millions of Buddhist atheists that have supernatural beliefs, such as belief in literal reincarnation and karma. An atheist does not need to be rational or understand much or anything about thinking scientifically. All that is necessary is that he doesn't believe any gods exist.

I hesitate to ask this next thing, but cannot resist. And, I am sure that this is a typical question from a Christian, but I would honestly like your thought/explanation. If man evolved into what we are today, why did we quit evolving into something much better than man is today.

For questions about evolution, start another thread.

But, atheists have to have some explanation for life as we know it.

Read through this thread. A lot of your questions have been answered already. You seem to be under the impression that if an atheist doesn't have the answers for how everything got here, it is illogical for him to not believe in a god. It isn't.

[Guest]

Wow, that certainly is a frightening thought. At some level, I would like to believe that the sum total of my experiences were more meaningful to the universe than a simple usage of atoms and energy.

I would like to believe that there is an oil deposite in my backyard

one of my unused guitar picks is the "Pick of Destiny"

All horses are unicorns, they just have retractible horns

God is my father

but does that make it true?

nope

For those that do not believe in a supreme being, a God, a god, et al. Does an atheist believe in angels or devils? [/quote

for most theists I've talked to, this is one of the most common questions I am asked

it's also probably one of the dumbest

why would we believe in Angels or Devils?

That seems like it would totally negate the point of being atheist

[Guest]

I thought what you defined as weak atheism was an agnostic.

The difference is really only one of emphasis. By referring to myself as an atheist I am emphasising the point that I have looked at the evidence as thoroughly as I can and concluded that there is no reason to believe in God (unless something important has eluded me). But I stop short of making the assertion that God does not exist because it would be an unproved assumption. In my opinion, "agnostic" sounds like more of an uncertain position, an intermediate stage while you make your mind up.

To simplify it in my mind, it sounds as if an atheist is a solely scientific thinking person. Right? Or is that too simplistic?

It's not a definition but it could be a fairly accurate generalisation.

If man evolved into what we are today, why did we quit evolving into something much better than man is today. And, you have to agree, that there is A LOT of room for improvement! lol That is one thing that has bugged me FOREVER. And, forgive me, if you don't believe in evolution.

Ironically, that's a point I was recently making in response to Duh Puck's assertion that mankind was vastly superior in every way (except strength) to animals, not an uncommon belief among the religious. Nice to see a differing opinion. I attempted to shed some light on that in this post. I'm not an expert though. Actually, to give us credit where it's due, mankind has evolved a lot in a short time, relative to the speed at which evolution usually works. It is a very slow process.

Maybe you need a bit more background on natural selection generally, though I don't have a link for any really good explanation from first principles. Can anyone help?

[Guest]

Maybe you need a bit more background on natural selection generally, though I don't have a link for any really good explanation from first principles. Can anyone help?

[Moderator hat on] Anyone needing further clarification on any aspects evolution can use Google, go to the library or start another thread. [/moderator hat off]

[Guest]

See the link unreality posted and read the last several pages of this thread. Questions, answers and arguments are being repeated a little too much in this thread.

Quick answer: There are millions of Buddhist atheists that have supernatural beliefs, such as belief in literal reincarnation and karma. An atheist does not need to be rational or understand much or anything about thinking scientifically. All that is necessary is that he doesn't believe any gods exist.

For questions about evolution, start another thread.

Read through this thread. A lot of your questions have been answered already. You seem to be under the impression that if an atheist doesn't have the answers for how everything got here, it is illogical for him to not believe in a god. It isn't.

If I have offended, I truly apologize. I did not mean to imply that it was illogical for someone to not believe in a god. I just thought that the person coming to the conclusion that there wasn't a god, would have his/her own idea of how the universe as we know it came into existence. I guess that varies from person to person that identifies himself as an atheist, and I should not have speculated on any held belief.

[Guest]

for most theists I've talked to, this is one of the most common questions I am asked

it's also probably one of the dumbest

why would we believe in Angels or Devils?

That seems like it would totally negate the point of being atheist

[Guest]

I would like to believe that there is an oil deposite in my backyard

one of my unused guitar picks is the "Pick of Destiny"

All horses are unicorns, they just have retractible horns

God is my father

but does that make it true?

nope

To some degree, you have made my point. I would like to believe is indeed the operative statement in my post. Faith is a matter of personal belief and often is not rational, no matter how reasonably we argue for/against it. In some ways, when we attack the portions of the belief that make it personal to the other party, we create a situation in which there cannot be logical discourse. The person is now forced to defend something that they feel strongly about, but cannot produce physical evidence to substantiate. I think that is the primary reason why so many people avoid these types of discussions unless they are in a "safe" environment with like-minded individuals.

A true debate between theists and atheists is analagous to a discussion about quarks or other subatomic particles between a physicist from CERN and a tribesman from the rainforests of Brazil. Since there is no common ground, for both halves of the argument, eventually the dialogue would degrade. No matter how hard one tried to explain to the tribesman that the particles were there, it is unlikely that he/she would feel that you produced extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim -- since subatomic particles are distinctly outside the ordinary to the tribesman. It is also just as unlikely that the tribesman's view on what and how the universe came from would be considered by the scientist, no matter how strongly the tribesman made his/her argument.

Of course, if this situation is difficult to manage between open-minded individuals, it is no wonder discussions get out of hand when participants insert personal bias (I am not pointing at anyone in this forum -- this is as close to a reasonable debate as I have seen online). If someone chooses not to believe in a universal intelligence because they were neglected by their chosen deity or simply weren't rewarded for good behavior, their personal experiences can color any discussion they have with someone who has a theistic bent. Whether it is an attitude they adopt for personal protection or protection of others ("I won't let you make the same mistake I did"), it runs counter to reasonable discourse. In this situation, the pain one experienced makes it impossible to believe there could be another option. I don't want you to think that I am singling out atheists alone. Someone who experienced a direct connection with their chosen diety may have been the victim of a hallucination, chemical imbalance, or other serious medical malady. The fact that the experience was completely in their own mind will in no way detract from the belief that they have had that experience.

To bring it full circle, I simply want to state that I would like to believe in many things concerning the disposition of my intelligence and being after death. Whether they are true or not, is not something that I will not know until it is too late to reasonably be expected to post here. However, the belief that my time and experiences have no meaning seems to be too futile and cynical a world view for me to embrace. I respect your views, but I cannot agree with them.

[Guest]

To some degree, you have made my point. I would like to believe is indeed the operative statement in my post. Faith is a matter of personal belief and often is not rational, no matter how reasonably we argue for/against it. In some ways, when we attack the portions of the belief that make it personal to the other party, we create a situation in which there cannot be logical discourse. The person is now forced to defend something that they feel strongly about, but cannot produce physical evidence to substantiate. I think that is the primary reason why so many people avoid these types of discussions unless they are in a "safe" environment with like-minded individuals.

Too right. It's not easy to avoid degeneration of this discussion, and I think people should really think twice about making inflammatory remarks. I have absolutely zero respect for religion, but that doesn't mean I don't respect religious people. I just think they have an incorrect belief. But if they show a willingness to consider other points of view and seek the truth, then that's completely worthy of respect.

A true debate between theists and atheists is analagous to a discussion about quarks or other subatomic particles between a physicist from CERN and a tribesman from the rainforests of Brazil. Since there is no common ground, for both halves of the argument, eventually the dialogue would degrade. No matter how hard one tried to explain to the tribesman that the particles were there, it is unlikely that he/she would feel that you produced extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim -- since subatomic particles are distinctly outside the ordinary to the tribesman. It is also just as unlikely that the tribesman's view on what and how the universe came from would be considered by the scientist, no matter how strongly the tribesman made his/her argument.

I'm curious as to what you're implying there. Do you mean to suggest that the tribesman's viewpoint is just as valid? One point of view is based on the rigorous scrutiny and analysis of reliable evidence, the other on ignorance and superstition. Anybody has the right to believe what they want, but if they value the truth then simply adopting a belief will not get them there.

If someone chooses not to believe in a universal intelligence because they were neglected by their chosen deity or simply weren't rewarded for good behavior, their personal experiences can color any discussion they have with someone who has a theistic bent.

Whoa there! Do you seriously think atheists are what they are because of some bitter falling-out with God? Not in this case. I can safely say that I consider myself well rewarded for all my good behaviour. I would thank God for the many wonderful blessings he has bestowed upon me, if I thought for a second there would be anyone listening. I didn't choose not to believe in God. I arrived at that position inevitably because I have a rational, questioning mind and I don't take anybody's word about things like that. And, just so you know, it's a very nice position to be in.

To bring it full circle, I simply want to state that I would like to believe in many things concerning the disposition of my intelligence and being after death. Whether they are true or not, is not something that I will not know until it is too late to reasonably be expected to post here. However, the belief that my time and experiences have no meaning seems to be too futile and cynical a world view for me to embrace.

You are free to believe what you like, and you may base your beliefs on how you would like things to be. Personally I value the truth more highly and refuse to deceive myself. This is a personal choice, but I cannot condone basing beliefs on wishful thinking because it spreads ignorance and causes problems for others. Furthermore I think your motives are also questionable. Why do you need your life to have meaning? What exactly would you like it to mean? How would being immortal make it mean more?

If you do want to choose a belief based on promised rewards you might like to try pastafariansim. No other religion offers you a beer volcano and stripper factory when you go to heaven. That's got to be worth a punt. Praise be to the Noodly One!

[unreality]

go Flying Spaghetti Monster

addressng SpelChexRool: you say the world seems "futile and cynical and meaningless" without an afterlife. I digress to this completely. With such a short (relatively) lifetime, it makes the experiences we have in life more meaningful. What's the point of having an infinite afterlife? BORING! As I said earlier in this debate, atheists (at least I) truly appreciate the beauty of our archaic universe. I'm not saying theists don't, I'm sure they do, but many theists have this idea that an atheistic world (ie, the world we live in), is empty and bleak and purposeless and bla bla bla. It's just the opposite. Just had to say that, it's another theistic dilusion about atheism (spread awareness! lol)

[Guest]

With such a short (relatively) lifetime, it makes the experiences we have in life more meaningful. What's the point of having an infinite afterlife? BORING!

Do you really believe that? Do you have to eat crap in order to enjoy good food? Granted, you might appreciate good food more after eating garbage, but it wasn't necessary in order to enjoy it. And you let me know when you find somebody (who isn't suffering) that wants to die because he or she has run out of things to do. In general, we all have soooo many things we'd like to do, if only we had more time. I don't see how you can justify that statement.

[Guest]

Great comments, octopuppy!

I'm curious as to what you're implying there. Do you mean to suggest that the tribesman's viewpoint is just as valid? One point of view is based on the rigorous scrutiny and analysis of reliable evidence, the other on ignorance and superstition. Anybody has the right to believe what they want, but if they value the truth then simply adopting a belief will not get them there.

What I am stating is that given the worldview of the tribesman, subatomic particles as building blocks are much harder to grasp (figuratively and literally) than the source of the universe, as it exists in their folklore. Any evidence provided by the physicist could not be done so in a meaningful context (I don't consider a laboratory a meaningful context since it could be every bit as mysterious as anything in legend and every fact would have to be taken on faith). Since the scientist could not disprove the tribesman's theories of the universe and the tribesman could not prove them to the scientist, there would be conflict. However, if the tribesman could not disprove the subatomic particles and the scientist could not produce one that the tribesman could handle and examine, there would be conflict yet again. In either case, the lack of physical evidence understandable by the other party does not necessarily invalidate their beliefs. In many ways, since most of us cannot afford an electron microscope or a particle accelerator, we have to apply every bit as much faith in our beliefs as any "ignorant savage" does in his/hers.

Whoa there! Do you seriously think atheists are what they are because of some bitter falling-out with God?

Absolutely not. I know some people who by all rights should be completely disenfranchised with religion and God alike. Their experiences are things that I cannot imagine going through. However, even with the pain and the heartache, their faith is stronger now than ever before. This faith was borne of a "falling-out with God" that ultimately led to a reconciliation. What I was trying to point out is that sometimes the most vocal critics are vocal because of "evidence" of an emotional nature -- and that an argument with them will always end badly. They are too emotionally invested to be objective. This is true on both sides of the debate.

[Guest]

Do you really believe that? Do you have to eat crap in order to enjoy good food? Granted, you might appreciate good food more after eating garbage, but it wasn't necessary in order to enjoy it. And you let me know when you find somebody (who isn't suffering) that wants to die because he or she has run out of things to do. In general, we all have soooo many things we'd like to do, if only we had more time. I don't see how you can justify that statement.

I expect unreality would like to answer that, but too bad, I got there first! I don't see what garbage has to do with this. Where's the garbage? Life is good! But let's stick with food. Imagine you could pick your favourite seven meals. Then imagine you could eat them for your main meal, one for each day of the week, for the rest of your life. Would you want to? Personally I wouldn't because after about ten years I'd be bored out of my socks and would hate every single one of those meals with a passion. This is a taste of what immortality would be like. If you were immortal you would have no reason to get out of bed. Anything you could do today could just as easily be done a million years later. Nothing would matter. After about a hundred years you'd have experienced all there was to experience. After a thousand you'd have experienced it all ten times over (unless you'd spent the last 900 in bed). After a million, well you get the point. Technology would move on, of course, but even that would just look like more of the same after a while. You're right about how our lifespans leave us wanting more. They are short enough that we have to choose what is most important to us because we cannot have everything in life. So one person's life is different from another's, an expression of their personal priorities. We strive to cram all we can into our existence, to live each day to the fullest. That's the beauty of mortality.

Pre-empting an answer: I expect many religious people would say "Ah yes but you can't get bored in heaven. It's different in some vaguely incomprehensible way." The whole point of heaven is that it gives you what you want. It's the dangling carrot that keeps religion going. Actually, on second thoughts maybe not. Fear of death is probably more what drives religion. It's natural to fear death, that's a survival instinct. But actually death is not a thing in itself. It is the end of a thing, the end of a life. For the reasons I have explained, it's better for life to have an end than to go on indefinitely. So we must accept death as we accept trips to the dentist: Scary but necessary.

"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back"

from the film Gladiator

[Guest]

In many ways, since most of us cannot afford an electron microscope or a particle accelerator, we have to apply every bit as much faith in our beliefs as any "ignorant savage" does in his/hers.

That's not true. I have never seen a bacterium or virus under a microscope but I don't need faith to believe they exist. I believe if I have a horrible pain in my abdomen my best bet is to go to an E.R. Do I have absolute proof that this is the best place to go or that I wouldn't be better off going to a witch doctor? No. But my belief that my best bet is to see an M.D. is based on evidence. Any belief I would have that the gods of the tribesman actually exist would be based on faith.

[unreality]

octopuppy: basically what I would've said is what you said you beat me to it ;D

[Guest]

octopuppy: basically what I would've said is what you said you beat me to it ;D

Well, good, then I can respond to both of you at once ...

I don't see what garbage has to do with this. Where's the garbage?

Sorry, my mistake. I was responding to something which nobody said, the idea that experiencing the bad helps us to appreciate the good. It's kinda related to "life is short, which makes it sweeter," but not directly.

Imagine you could pick your favourite seven meals. Then imagine you could eat them for your main meal, one for each day of the week, for the rest of your life. Would you want to? Personally I wouldn't because after about ten years I'd be bored out of my socks and would hate every single one of those meals with a passion. This is a taste of what immortality would be like. If you were immortal you would have no reason to get out of bed. Anything you could do today could just as easily be done a million years later. Nothing would matter. After about a hundred years you'd have experienced all there was to experience. After a thousand you'd have experienced it all ten times over (unless you'd spent the last 900 in bed).

I believe that all you have demonstrated is that we prefer variety, and unending life would not deprive of us that. To illustrate, let's make a small change to your statement. Instead of 7, choose 300 awesome meals, and you can have any one you want, anytime you want it. Does that still sound boring? For a real-life example, consider my desire for Mexican food. For most of my life, I've grown up often eating Mexican-style dishes (some authentic, most not). But for most of the last year, I've been living in Seoul, South Korea, where it's very difficult to find good Mexican food (not to diss Korean food -- it's great). Even though I've had it so many times before, just going without for a short time makes me crave it.

To restate your proposition: "If I did not have an infinite variety of new foods, I would eventually have no desire to eat," and, thusly, "If I did not have an infinite variety of new sensory experiences, I would eventually have no desire to live." That seems absurd to me. Even if you completely disregard any notion of the supernatural, it's obvious that living things highly value survival. It's what all life strives for, and what humans, having the ability to grasp its significance, obviously crave. You assert that a short life span makes us appreciate the time we have more fully. I don't disagree with that. I also think a 20-year old diagnosed with cancer and having only a year to live will probably do her best to fully appreciate the time she has, but that certainly doesn't mean that's all she would enjoy. More is better.

To conclude that we'd have experienced all there is to experience in a hundred, or a thousand, or even a million years, seems rather unimaginative to me. Think of all the science experiments that could be performed if you have eons to do the measuring. Think of all the people you come to know personally, and how this could result in complete breakdown of cultural barriers. Think of how personal relationships could grow in that time frame. I mean, after all, do you get tired of seeing your friends just because you've seen them hundreds of times before? Are husbands bored with their wives just because they've been married for 50 years? (well, some are of course, but I'm referring to happy marriages) If anything, more time would only strengthen the bond.

Pre-empting an answer: I expect many religious people would say "Ah yes but you can't get bored in heaven. It's different in some vaguely incomprehensible way."

I don't need that argument. While I can imagine heaven providing similar opportunity for endless enjoyment of life, everything I stated applies just fine to earthly life.

[Guest]

To restate your proposition: "If I did not have an infinite variety of new foods, I would eventually have no desire to eat," and, thusly, "If I did not have an infinite variety of new sensory experiences, I would eventually have no desire to live." That seems absurd to me. Even if you completely disregard any notion of the supernatural, it's obvious that living things highly value survival. It's what all life strives for, and what humans, having the ability to grasp its significance, obviously crave.

No argument there. We have a natural tendency to crave life and fear death, but this does not imply that if we got what we want (unending life) we would be happy. What you crave is not always what's good for you. I believe that life is all we have, so if I had a choice between dying today and living longer, I would always choose to live longer. But the fact that I will die sooner or later is something that pushes me to make the most of life.

You assert that a short life span makes us appreciate the time we have more fully. I don't disagree with that. I also think a 20-year old diagnosed with cancer and having only a year to live will probably do her best to fully appreciate the time she has, but that certainly doesn't mean that's all she would enjoy. More is better.

Again, no argument. Given the choice I might like a lifespan of about 150 to 200 years. But not forever. A general acceptance of why mortality is better than immortality is not the same as embracing death in a specific instance. I would not welcome the untimely death of a loved one, or my own death. But in that instance I would focus on what matters: life. The life of a loved one is the important thing. If it ends sooner than expected, that is unfortunate, but it does not detract from the value of that life while it existed.

There may be enough sensory, emotional, interpersonal and intellectual experiences to keep a person busy for a thousand years or so, if they methodically sought out every single one of them and didn't mind scraping the bottom of the barrel (though the rest of eternity might pose a bit of a problem). But life is not just about experience. It's about how you respond to the experience. For children the world is new, intense and exciting. It is full of challenges which are real challenges, because a child does not know how they will handle them. I'm only in my late 30's but already I can see how the confidence and experience of adulthood lessens my response to the world. Things are more predictable, easier to understand, more transparent. I certainly wouldn't want to extrapolate that a thousand years or more.

[Guest]

No argument there. We have a natural tendency to crave life and fear death, but this does not imply that if we got what we want (unending life) we would be happy. What you crave is not always what's good for you. I believe that life is all we have, so if I had a choice between dying today and living longer, I would always choose to live longer. But the fact that I will die sooner or later is something that pushes me to make the most of life.

So we would always choose to live if given the choice, but dying is good for us because the fear of death drives us to live better? How is that better, and how does that make us more happy? Seriously, when you wake up and go to work in the morning, is it fear of death that drives you? On occasion, most of us stop to contemplate our accomplishments and make decisions that will affect our long-term future, but in my experience, we generally just live from day to day. I agree that the eventuality of death can push us to make more of our limited time, but that's a pretty weak motive, not a whole lot better than religious fear of judgment. Why should we need such a negative motivator? As you said earlier, "Life is good!"

Given the choice I might like a lifespan of about 150 to 200 years. But not forever.

Ah come on, that's it? I can understand that there's a big difference between a million and infinity, but staying in the hundreds? Man, you're dreaming small.

A general acceptance of why mortality is better than immortality ...

Still not getting why it's better ...

The life of a loved one is the important thing. If it ends sooner than expected, that is unfortunate, but it does not detract from the value of that life while it existed.

No, but it certainly detracts from the potential. Seems to me like you're saying "Hey, look at the bright side. They've avoided countless years of pointless and boring existence!"

But life is not just about experience. It's about how you respond to the experience. For children the world is new, intense and exciting. It is full of challenges which are real challenges, because a child does not know how they will handle them. I'm only in my late 30's but already I can see how the confidence and experience of adulthood lessens my response to the world. Things are more predictable, easier to understand, more transparent. I certainly wouldn't want to extrapolate that a thousand years or more.

Hmmm. While I understand that you can become somewhat desensitized as you see repeated patterns beginning to emerge, I think it's a tad underachieving to suppose that life would continuously become more dull as you grew in knowledge and understanding. Most meaningful pursuits become more enriching and worthwhile with experience. Games, expressions of creative talent, and work are all more satisfying when you excel at them, which takes time and energy. The greater your mathematical prowess, the more challenging are the problems you undertake, and so too with any human endeavor that requires initiative.

You make a good point that it's not just the experiences that count, but how we respond to them. I'd submit that there are many experiences I'd be completely happy to repeat endlessly, such as the kiss of a loved one. However, if there's no purpose to eternal life, perhaps the disenchantment that comes with age would increase. If enough time passed, the futility of it all might certainly detract from the enjoyment of life, although I don't believe it would be to the extent you describe. This, yet again, is where religious belief/non-belief inevitably divides our viewpoints. I can opine all I want on why I think eternal life would be sweet, but the truth is that underlying those statements is the belief that there is a divine purpose, that drawing close to our creator is a meaningful and unending endeavor, and that God would certainly be capable of ensuring that we never become disgruntled with running in a pointless hamster wheel. Without those beliefs, I still don't think I'd be quite as pessimistic as you seem to be, but I agree that eternity would sound like an awfully long time.

[unreality]

What about the people that go to Hell? That's the "stick" part in my "carrot and stick" analogy. I have a few things to say about Hell:

1) what can you possibly do on Earth that deserves you INFINITE suffering?

2) the "life would get stale" arguement works for Hell too. Eventually it wouldn't be much suffering anymore after thousands of years of the same repeated punishment. You would probably actually grow to LIKE said punishment. Only if they could find an INFINITE number of DIFFERENT ENOUGH punishments, mental and physical, would you be able to continually punish the subjects...but that sounds so cruel and pointless to me. What's the point? Subjecting someone to repeated pain will make them more bitter, not less so.

Think of it this way: a teacher sends you to detention for being disruptive in class. She makes you write out, 100 times, "I will not be a disruptive moron" while another teacher is continually slapping your head with a crowbar (lol). Will this make you more acceptive and happy and willing to embrace the teacher (God)? No, it won't. It will make you even more bitter.

What if you had to write that out 1000 times? A million times? AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIMES???

[Guest]

What about the people that go to Hell? That's the "stick" part in my "carrot and stick" analogy. I have a few things to say about Hell:

1) what can you possibly do on Earth that deserves you INFINITE suffering?

2) the "life would get stale" arguement works for Hell too. Eventually it wouldn't be much suffering anymore after thousands of years of the same repeated punishment. You would probably actually grow to LIKE said punishment. Only if they could find an INFINITE number of DIFFERENT ENOUGH punishments, mental and physical, would you be able to continually punish the subjects...but that sounds so cruel and pointless to me. What's the point? Subjecting someone to repeated pain will make them more bitter, not less so.

Think of it this way: a teacher sends you to detention for being disruptive in class. She makes you write out, 100 times, "I will not be a disruptive moron" while another teacher is continually slapping your head with a crowbar (lol). Will this make you more acceptive and happy and willing to embrace the teacher (God)? No, it won't. It will make you even more bitter.

What if you had to write that out 1000 times? A million times? AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIMES???

I guess I'd have to let other theists answer that one, because I personally believe infinite punishment for a few years of sinning has never made sense and is inconsistent with the idea of a good God. I agree with you argument, but it does make me wonder what kind of a school you went to. A crowbar??

[Guest]

I guess I'd have to let other theists answer that one, because I personally believe infinite punishment for a few years of sinning has never made sense and is inconsistent with the idea of a good God. I agree with you argument, but it does make me wonder what kind of a school you went to. A crowbar??

I would just like to state, as far as I believe Hell isn't eternally inflicted punishment from God. There are three degrees of glory in 'heaven' and all but the very Satan, his followers, and those who were entrusted with great power by God and subsequently denied Him will go to one of these degrees of glory. The lowest degree is for those who are essentially good people who chose never to accept God, and it will be vastly greater than this world. The reason one would go to one degree or another actually depends on them, for example, if one chose not to believe in a God during this mortal life -when we are proving to ourselves we are worthy to live with Him- the guilt is what would keep one from living with Him in the highest degree of glory. So essetially, one sends themselves to 'Hell', but really the only 'hell' I can think of very few can ever earn themselves a place in- and again it would be about a desire to be as far from Deity as possible.

And there are more things than one could accomplish in a hundred years here, I don't think we could run out of things to do in eternity- or learn.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Noa