Death / Immortality

Waking-Dreams

Been reading this neat little book on Death this evening. Written from an atheist perspective (no afterlife), the most poignant thing I thought was that although none of us are looking forward to the inevitable day that we cease to exist, the prospect of immortality would probably be far worse.

For where would the urgency or incentive to do anything come from? Seemingly, you'd have all the time in the world, why bother reading that book when you can read it next century? I always wondered why heaven was so appealing to people. Surely, after the first 1,000 years among your loved ones you would tire of it all, no?

That we feel the desire to want to go on living is probably a product of our selfish genes having engineered a biological machine (us) to think that way and thus carry out their bidding.

Zillah

The argument that heaven would get boring makes no sense. God is described as infinitely powerful; he can be infinitely entertaining. If nothing else, you will no longer have a human brain, and there's no reason to assume that time would exist either. There's no way to define heaven outside of the fact that religions always define it as transcendentally wonderful.

As for me I'm going to have my brain frozen. I'll either vanish for eternity, or there's a very small chance that I'll awaken in a new body centuries from now and see what became of human civilisation. That could be pretty cool.

djk1000

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Been reading this neat little book on Death this evening. Written from an atheist perspective (no afterlife), the most poignant thing I thought was that although none of us are looking forward to the inevitable day that we cease to exist, the prospect of immortality would probably be far worse.

For where would the urgency or incentive to do anything come from? Seemingly, you'd have all the time in the world, why bother reading that book when you can read it next century? I always wondered why heaven was so appealing to people. Surely, after the first 1,000 years among your loved ones you would tire of it all, no?

That we feel the desire to want to go on living is probably a product of our selfish genes having engineered a biological machine (us) to think that way and thus carry out their bidding.

I think immortality would just change the perception of time, maybe the concept of time wouldn't exist in the same way but people would still have a desire to self actualise. It would take a very very long time to be a master of everything in the world, by the time you had done it, you'd probably be ready to go around again and human knowledge would have moved on enough to have opened up new challenges.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

As for me I'm going to have my brain frozen. I'll either vanish for eternity, or there's a very small chance that I'll awaken in a new body centuries from now and see what became of human civilisation. That could be pretty cool.

Or... your brain will be used by a sociopathic scientist to make you experience a living hell for eternity, like the film Vanilla Sky. In fact they'll probably make you watch Vanilla Sky for eternity.

No thanks. I'd rather be cremated than put my faith in humanity to compassionately just bring my consciousness back to life.

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Or... your brain will be used by a sociopathic scientist to make you experience a living hell for eternity, like the film Vanilla Sky. In fact they'll probably make you watch Vanilla Sky for eternity.

A rather disturbing possibility, but I think it unlikely. I'm willing to take the chance. I'll zoom by your grave in my anti-gravity suit to say hello :pac:

Pushtrak

I think a great look at this concept comes from a youtuber, philhellenes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MToOECmwMB0

MagicMarker

I kinda think I was born 200 years too early. I'm gonna miss out on the really good stuff.

If given the option of immortality, I'd take it.

amacachi

MagicMarker wrote: »

I kinda think I was born 200 years too early. I'm gonna miss out on the really good stuff.

If given the option of immortality, I'd take it.

I wouldn't, if you know you're never going to die then half-hanging yourself with an orange in your mouth loses all its appeal.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

A rather disturbing possibility, but I think it unlikely. I'm willing to take the chance. I'll zoom by your grave in my anti-gravity suit to say hello

I wish I had your faith Brother Zillah. Maybe, one day, I too will attain the same level of credulity you have for humanity so that I too may gain everlasting life.

Zillah

I'll just use my causality suspension matrix to go back in time and recreate your brain too.

Waking-Dreams

Zillah wrote: »

The argument that heaven would get boring makes no sense. God is described as infinitely powerful; he can be infinitely entertaining. If nothing else, you will no longer have a human brain, and there's no reason to assume that time would exist either. There's no way to define heaven outside of the fact that religions always define it as transcendentally wonderful.

As for me I'm going to have my brain frozen. I'll either vanish for eternity, or there's a very small chance that I'll awaken in a new body centuries from now and see what became of human civilisation. That could be pretty cool.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]That much I figure, given that we all resided somewhere up until the point of our birth where no time existed for us. I'm just riffing on what the church has traditionally gone by; how important the notion of surviving death is to its doctrine. But yeah, heaven has so many different meanings for different people.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Have you heard of the novel, “Altered Carbon”? Pretty good piece of fiction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

This fast-paced, densely textured, impressive first novel is an intriguing hybrid of William Gibson's Neuromancer and Norman Spinrad's Deus X. In the 25th century, it's difficult to die a final death. Humans are issued a cortical stack, implanted into their bodies, into which consciousness is "digitized" and from which-unless the stack is hopelessly damaged-their consciousness can be downloaded ("resleeved") with its memory intact, into a new body. While the Vatican is trying to make resleeving (at least of Catholics) illegal, centuries-old aristocrat Laurens Bancroft brings Takeshi Kovacs (an Envoy, a specially trained soldier used to being resleeved and trained to soak up clues from new environments) to Earth, where Kovacs is resleeved into a cop's body to investigate Bancroft's first mysterious, stack-damaging death. To solve the case, Kovacs must destroy his former Envoy enemies; outwit Bancroft's seductive, wily wife; dabble in United Nations politics; trust an AI that projects itself in the form of Jimi Hendrix; and deal with his growing physical and emotional attachment to Kristin Ortega, the police lieutenant who used to love the body he's been given. Kovacs rockets from the seediest hellholes on Earth, through virtual reality torture, into several gory firefights, and on to some exotic sexual escapades. Morgan's 25th-century Earth is convincing, while the questions he poses about how much Self is tied to body chemistry and how the rich believe themselves above the law are especially timely.

[/FONT]

Dades

I think for "Heaven" to work you'd have to be effectively lobotomised.

Blue pill versus red pill?

krudler

I like the idea of not knowing what happens with death, the idea of tunnels of white light, floaty cloud heavens and all the cliches are giong to probably be a bitter disappointment to those who think thats whats lying ahead for them, I like the idea of being pleasantly surprised, or spending eternity in hell for my athiest ways, probably being strapped to a chair and having Jedwards album on repeat for the rest of time, shudder..

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

The argument that heaven would get boring makes no sense. God is described as infinitely powerful; he can be infinitely entertaining. If nothing else, you will no longer have a human brain, and there's no reason to assume that time would exist either. There's no way to define heaven outside of the fact that religions always define it as transcendentally wonderful.

Yeah I don't see why it would be boring either. Boring implies nothing to do, where as I would think there would be an infinite amount to do.

My problem with heaven would be the pain of knowing my loved ones are suffering eternally in hell. Christians try to get around this by either supposing that they don't suffer eternally in hell they are destroyed, or that in heaven God turns off some of your sadness and you are eternally happy. Neither of those solutions seem that satisfactory.

But to be honest I've yet to me a Christian who thinks to much about that topic. It seems to be more Eternal happiness in heaven, yup sign me up!!

PeterIanStaker

http://www.cracked.com/article_18708_5-reasons-immortality-would-be-worse-than-death.html


This article has a good argument for immortality being actually sh!t.

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

My problem with heaven would be the pain of knowing my loved ones are suffering eternally in hell.

That about sums up my experience with Christian believers also. The ones going to hell are the ones they know nothing about. That neighbour who makes too much noise, that bad man on the news, Hitler.

As soon as they get to know the person and find they have just one thing in common with them then, oh, they are saved. I like them so God likes them, and I'm definitely going to heaven, despite all those other people I've wished would burn in hell.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

My problem with heaven would be the pain of knowing my loved ones are suffering eternally in hell. Christians try to get around this by either supposing that they don't suffer eternally in hell they are destroyed, or that in heaven God turns off some of your sadness and you are eternally happy. Neither of those solutions seem that satisfactory.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure other alternatives have been doled out to you.

Might I suggest a commonly held view that in heaven there will be no anguish for a "loved one" in hell. All that is lovable about them derives from their being made in the image of God: their kindness & genorosity, their humor, their empathy, their creativeness, their giving, their selfless love for you. Once the image of God in which they are made has been removed, there will be nothing left that will be loveable about them. All that will remain is that which is sinful, ugly, despicable about them. Their selfishness, spitefulness, malice, anger.

You wouldn't want to be within a hundred miles of them.

But to be honest I've yet to me a Christian who thinks to much about that topic. It seems to be more Eternal happiness in heaven, yup sign me up!!

You're clearly playing to the gallery on this one.

Waking-Dreams

Once the image of God in which they are made has been removed

..and how exactly does this happen?

Also, given that we are supposedly made in 'his/her/its image, and that we now know we evolved from more primitive species, any clues as to what god looks like? Or if he/she/it doesn't have any form, then why do people refer to god as a 'he'?

antiskeptic

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

..and how exactly does this happen?

Damned if I know (although I don't mean that literally)

Also, given that we are supposedly made in 'his/her/its image, and that we now know we evolved from more primitive species, any clues as to what god looks like?

In his image would appear to refer to sharing certain characteristics (such as the aforementioned creativity) rather than a visual resemblance

Or if he/she/it doesn't have any form, then why do people refer to god as a 'he'?

Because he refers to himself that way I imagine. He-ness being defined by his characteristics, human 'him's' merely possess more of those characteristics than human 'her's'. If human 'her's' possessed more of those characteristics than human 'him's' then I'd imagine him's would be called her's .. and vice versa

Waking-Dreams

But then how do you know it does happen (the stripping away of god's image from humans when they are sent to hell) if you can't elaborate? Just curious how you arrived at this notion.

Also, are you sure it's because 'He' refers to himself that way? It has nothing to do with early humans (those of a patriarchal social system) just thinking that god surely must be a man?

Did you freak out or shake your head when Alanis Morissette came out of the church doors in Dogma?

magicbastarder

Dades wrote: »

I think for "Heaven" to work you'd have to be effectively lobotomised.

i'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

(slightly NSFW)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmZYIyySxPE

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure other alternatives have been doled out to you.

Might I suggest a commonly held view that in heaven there will be no anguish for a "loved one" in hell. All that is lovable about them derives from their being made in the image of God: their kindness & genorosity, their humor, their empathy, their creativeness, their giving, their selfless love for you. Once the image of God in which they are made has been removed, there will be nothing left that will be loveable about them. All that will remain is that which is sinful, ugly, despicable about them. Their selfishness, spitefulness, malice, anger.

That seems to raise more questions than it answers. You seem to be saying that what is thrown into hell is not your mother or your sister or your wife, but only the bad left in them, bit like the monster on Star Trek TNG that killed Tash Yar.

The obvious question then would be where did my mother or sister or wife go?

branie

Spweaking for myself, I'd find the idea of no heaven pretty disturbing

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Once the image of God in which they are made has been removed, there will be nothing left that will be loveable about them. All that will remain is that which is sinful, ugly, despicable about them. Their selfishness, spitefulness, malice, anger.

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
   
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
   
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Wait now what?!

mikhail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Might I suggest a commonly held view that in heaven there will be no anguish for a "loved one" in hell. All that is lovable about them derives from their being made in the image of God: their kindness & genorosity, their humor, their empathy, their creativeness, their giving, their selfless love for you. Once the image of God in which they are made has been removed, there will be nothing left that will be loveable about them. All that will remain is that which is sinful, ugly, despicable about them. Their selfishness, spitefulness, malice, anger.

Commonly held? I had a Catholic upbringing and went to schools which taught Catholic doctrine in religion classes, and I've never heard that one. Is your background so very different?

I'm sceptical about an interpretation of a man as some evil force corrupting a Platonic ideal. By that definition, everyone is pure evil, and only the husks of "God's image" are worthy of heaven.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

Might I suggest a commonly held view that in heaven there will be no anguish for a "loved one" in hell. All that is lovable about them derives from their being made in the image of God: their kindness & genorosity, their humor, their empathy, their creativeness, their giving, their selfless love for you. Once the image of God in which they are made has been removed, there will be nothing left that will be loveable about them.

This is positively nightmarish.

Daftendirekt

Zillah wrote: »

This is positively nightmarish.

Yup. I'm not sure which is worse: the idea of attributing all the goodness in your loved ones to the tyrant god of the Bible, or the idea that nobody in Heaven would grieve for their damned friends and family.

Thank FSM it's all baloney.

Beruthiel

Zillah wrote: »

As for me I'm going to have my brain frozen. I'll either vanish for eternity, or there's a very small chance that I'll awaken in a new body centuries from now and see what became of human civilisation. That could be pretty cool.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

That seems to raise more questions than it answers. You seem to be saying that what is thrown into hell is not your mother or your sister or your wife, but only the bad left in them, bit like the monster on Star Trek TNG that killed Tash Yar.

The obvious question then would be where did my mother or sister or wife go?

It's ok I saw this in Ghost Whisperer, there are shadows which are bits of people left behind. The rest of them goes "into the light".