Death is such a waste of time .....

Hamsterchops

Just thinking about death in the last couple of days.

We'll all get there at some point I guess, so I'm just thinking aloud about it. I mean what's the point of it? Alive one minute, dead the next and that's it, full stop. Such a waste of life.

I guess it's the same as being in a deep sleep or under anesthetic in the surgery? It's the people who are left behind who get hurt & have to carry on, while the departed have left the building and are unaware of the grief ....

I'd hate to go before my time, but when is my time?
When will the Grim Reaper call for me? 60, 69, 74, 85, 99?
So many questions with so little time in a lifetime. They used to say "Three score years & ten", but in the grand scheme of things that's not really ideal, so I'll be hoping for at least four score years + a few extra for good behaviour, then again...

FixdePitchmark

some people think life is a waste of death.

NIMAN

All the more reason to make the most of your time.

Hercule Poirot

In the grand scheme of human existence, if you were to create a timeline from when humankind first had proper thoughts and societal impact, a person's life accounts for approximately 0.001% of rational human life.

Now you can look at this two ways....

1) Your existence means nothing and ultimately has zero impact on the grand scheme of things and therefore there is no point trying to do anything, or, and this is my preferred option

2) We are here for such a short time we are as well to get as much as out of it as can - live the way we choose to live, do the things we want to do and just be happy with what we have

Death is the great equaliser and it doesn't discriminate on age, gender, orientation, religion, etc, so just be who you want to be, do what you want to do - as long as you aren't hurting others that's all we can do

Life is to be lived, not to be spent worrying about things we can't control - enjoy it and have fun

Some people do say that every good story needs a beginning a middle and - yes alas - an end.

Think of the best book you ever read - or best TV series you ever followed - and then imagine it _never_ ending ever. Going on and on and on and on and on. Would it be as good?

Even the fact you could meaningfully write the words "waste of time" - in a way that suggests time is valuable in the first place - only makes sense in the light of that time being limited. If you had an infinite supply of it - it would not have that value to you in the first place.

screamer

You have all the time in the world, because you only have the time you have, and when death comes knocking, that’s it, lights out. That’s how I look at it anyways, I have whatever time I have and that’s all I’ll know, others might think a waste of life if I go early, I won’t know the difference.

Rose of Lima

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Life is to be lived, not to be spent worrying about things we can't control - enjoy it and have fun

I agree that you must make the best of your life, but those plans shouldn't just revolve around you alone. If you want to live the best life that you can live, you need to consider other people and the world around you to make a real impact.

If you died tomorrow what would people remember about you? Is being remembered for being 'good craic' enough?

sbsquarepants

Rose of Lima wrote: »

If you died tomorrow what would people remember about you? Is being remembered for being 'good craic' enough?

Enough to do what?

Makes no difference, you're rotting away in a box no matter who remembers what!

Who would you rather be right now this minute - Rose of Lima, or Julius Cesar?

weldoninhio

Rose of Lima wrote: »

I agree that you must make the best of your life, but those plans shouldn't just revolve around you alone. If you want to live the best life that you can live, you need to consider other people and the world around you to make a real impact.

If you died tomorrow what would people remember about you? Is being remembered for being 'good craic' enough?

You'll only be remembered for a few years at most. Now people might still know you, but they won't be thinking what a kind/generous/bastard/great craic after a few years, they'll just remember you are dead.

Rose of Lima

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Enough to do what?

It was not a complicated question. I asked the original poster if being remembered as 'good craic' was enough for him. Would he be content with that.

If you want to be remembered as good craic and happily rot in your box, then you do that.

sbsquarepants

Rose of Lima wrote: »

It was not a complicated question. I asked the original poster if being remembered as 'good craic' was enough for him. Would he be content with that.

If you want to be remembered as good craic and happily rot in your box, then you do that.

The way i meant it is Julius Cesar is no less dead than some randomer who no one remembers. They are both a lot more dead than you or I - who no one will probably remember in 100 years time.

Being remembered is an idea that appeals to some living people, but makes no difference whatsoever to any dead ones.

73bc61lyohr0mu

Life just seems like a waste of time. We live and suffer just to die and have zero recollection of anything. What's the point of struggling through this pointless existence when ultimately it means nothing.

Rose of Lima

weldoninhio wrote: »

You'll only be remembered for a few years at most. Now people might still know you, but they won't be thinking what a kind/generous/bastard/great craic after a few years, they'll just remember you are dead.

Some people are remembered long after their death though, for good reasons, and bad.

If you are to live your best life you need to really value it first. You could visit the four corners of the world, bungee jump off things to your heart's content. Party until you drop etc. but would you go to your grave content with your lot was my question really.

Rose of Lima

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Being remembered is an idea that appeals to some living people, but makes no difference whatsoever to any dead ones.

Okay. Leaving being remembered aside for a moment. If a doctor told you tomorrow you have approximately 12 months to live. What would you do?

sbsquarepants

Rose of Lima wrote: »

Okay. Leaving being remembered aside for a moment. If a doctor told you tomorrow you have approximately 12 months to live. What would you do?

Die of shock in his office:D

I don't know to be honest - i don't have a bucket list or anything, there are things i'd like to do of course, but nothing that's eating away at me, so i probably wouldn't be arsed trying to do them. I'd just try to spend as much time with my kids as I could.

I know i won't actually miss them, because i won't exist to miss anything - but it's the only thing i'd be bothered by i think.

Hercule Poirot

Rose of Lima wrote: »

I agree that you must make the best of your life, but those plans shouldn't just revolve around you alone. If you want to live the best life that you can live, you need to consider other people and the world around you to make a real impact.

If you died tomorrow what would people remember about you? Is being remembered for being 'good craic' enough?

Honestly I couldn't give a monkeys what people said after I died. Is it vain to say that I know I'd remembered fondly? Because I know there's people in my life who care about me, and I care about them - but once I'm dead there's not much I can do about anything, so I'm not going to worry about it.

We spend way to much time worrying about sh1te that really doesn't matter

branie2

It's inevitable

Bigbagofcans

"They say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time, a bit later on, when somebody says your name for the last time."

Nitty Gritty

You're all great craic for a fresh new year....

weldoninhio

Rose of Lima wrote: »

Some people are remembered long after their death though, for good reasons, and bad.

If you are to live your best life you need to really value it first. You could visit the four corners of the world, bungee jump off things to your heart's content. Party until you drop etc. but would you go to your grave content with your lot was my question really.

You'd go to your grave dead, your lot matters not a jot.

Hamsterchops

Still haven't worked out what's going on my headstone, this troubles me. Not that I'm I'll or anything, but I would like to get the wording right, rather than leave it to my wife

Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans, type of thing....

Irish Guitarist

John Lennon is remembered as a musical genius but he was shot in the back by a sick piece of shit at age forty, then a few years ago his wife used his blood covered glasses in her 'art'.

Jimi Hendrix is considered by many people to be the worlds greatest guitarist. He died at age 27 from taking an overdose of sleeping pills and choking on his vomit in his sleep. I can't remember the exact details but a few years ago his step sister wanted to dig up his corpse to move somewhere where fans could visit. She's making a fortune from releasing his music but that's not good enough for her.

Fuck being remembered or making an impact on the world.

Rose of Lima

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'd just try to spend as much time with my kids as I could.

I know i won't actually miss them, because i won't exist to miss anything - but it's the only thing i'd be bothered by i think.

But they would remember you

My question wasn't a trick one, by the way. What I'm trying to get across is that even if you cease to exist and you're off to your box - it isn't a one dimensional thing. The people you leave behind will have had a life and memories with you, and left with the pain of your death. Being dead doesn't mean you stop being remembered, or for the kind of person you were in life.

begbysback

Alan Watts has some great takes on such questions, one is that we are doing it wrong in that we should be celebrating death same as birth. Another is that such as life implies death & vice versa, our understanding of death is illogical, in that it would ultimately mean that we are going to sleep having never actually woken up.

niallers1

You are here to keep the species going just like any other insect, animal or plant on this lump of rock.

begbysback

niallers1 wrote: »

You are here to keep the species going just like any other insect, animal or plant on this lump of rock.

So then, what’s the purpose of keeping the species going?

niallers1

begbysback wrote: »

So then, what’s the purpose of keeping the species going?

To feed our reptilian overlords obviously.
You know, like the British Royal family and the like.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/768800/David-Icke-queen-shape-shifting-lizard

sbsquarepants

begbysback wrote: »

So then, what’s the purpose of keeping the species going?

Why does there need to be a purpose?

begbysback

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why does there need to be a purpose?

If there is no purpose then why keep the species going?

sbsquarepants

Existence is it's own reward begbysback!

I don't think i serve any higher purpose just by existing, but i'd still rather exist than not.

I didn't exist for billions of years and it's didn't appear to make much difference. Soon enough i won't exist again, and the universe will motor on just fine i expect.

But right now - i'd rather be here, than not here!

nullzero

Get busy living or get busy dying.

begbysback

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Existence is it's own reward begbysback!

I don't think i serve any higher purpose just by existing, but i'd still rather exist than not.

I didn't exist for billions of years and it's didn't appear to make much difference. Soon enough i won't exist again, and the universe will motor on just fine i expect.

But right now - i'd rather be here, than not here!

There’s no such thing as not existing for billions of years, and of not existing again - so what does that leave?

Hamsterchops

What about reincarnation, I wonder is it real?

73bc61lyohr0mu

Hamsterchops wrote: »

What about reincarnation, I wonder is it real?

No. You die. That's it. Nothing there after.

DrumSteve

Alan Powerful Bandage wrote: »

No. You die. That's it. Nothing there after.

Honestly, I'm always baffled when I hear this.

Who knows what's next? Maybe this is just one stage of existence. Considering the atoms the form us have been around for billions of years it's not a great stretch that some of the those atoms might be in another being years from now after we go back to the earth, thus we are "re-incarnated".

While I'm not looking forward to Death, I won't be around to worry about it. I'm more worried about the people I leave behind.

3rdDegree

In essence, we are only here to keep the species going. And to the person who asked why we keep the species going, the answer is simply that that is the mundane and ultimately pointless aim of all species. And why is that aim pointless? Because in the end, all species die out. It's a constant struggle against the inevitable failure of our purpose.

We spend our whole lives learning and accumulating experiences only for it all to be completely lost when our brains die. All seems pointless.

Happy new year!!!

DrumSteve

3rdDegree wrote: »

In essence, we are only here to keep the species going. And to the person who asked why we keep the species going, the answer is simply that that is the mundane and ultimately pointless aim of all species. And why is that aim pointless? Because in the end, all species die out. It's a constant struggle against the inevitable failure of our purpose.

We spend our whole lives learning and accumulating experiences only for it all to be completely lost when our brains die. All seems pointless.

Happy new year!

Not entirely true, the invention of the written word helped with that.

3rdDegree

DrumSteve wrote: »

Not entirely true, the invention of the written word helped with that.

That's very true. But I wasn't talking about general human knowledge. I was just talking about the experiences and knowledge within each individual person's head. All lost when the lights go out. All that effort to build up those experiences and to develop and improve ourselves over 70 to 90 years, a pointless waste of effort at the moment of death.

TuringBot47

begbysback wrote: »

If there is no purpose then why keep the species going?

Uncontrolled population growth and climate change will cull our numbers soon enough forcing everyone near the equator to migrate North or south just like the storm in the game "Fortnite".

Nature hates redundancy... use it or lose it.
The reason why will tend to live to "grandparents" age is that is the sweet spot at which people are useful to help their kids/grandkids.
If people lived to 100+ they become a burden which reduces the effectiveness of their children to raise their own children.

So like a generational baton race, you procreate and pass on your knowledge and resources to the kids then pass away when you're no longer useful.

begbysback

3rdDegree wrote: »

In essence, we are only here to keep the species going. And to the person who asked why we keep the species going, the answer is simply that that is the mundane and ultimately pointless aim of all species. And why is that aim pointless? Because in the end, all species die out. It's a constant struggle against the inevitable failure of our purpose.

We spend our whole lives learning and accumulating experiences only for it all to be completely lost when our brains die. All seems pointless.

Happy new year!!!

Not really true though, is it, evolution drives the survival of a species, and this is achieved through DNA, so learning is in fact passed on, just not through the memory as we understand it in our minds.

FixdePitchmark

Does anyone know why we are here.

It would be kinda be cool if there was a God.

I mean , it's probably best explanation yet , but won't accept.

TuringBot47

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Does anyone know why we are here.

Poor internet filtering in the workplace.

FishOnABike

begbysback wrote: »

If there is no purpose then why keep the species going?

Because it's fun trying!

MMXX

Alan Powerful Bandage wrote: »

Life just seems like a waste of time. We live and suffer just to die and have zero recollection of anything. What's the point of struggling through this pointless existence when ultimately it means nothing.

Sure what else would you be at!?

begbysback

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Uncontrolled population growth and climate change will cull our numbers soon enough forcing everyone near the equator to migrate North or south just like the storm in the game "Fortnite".

Nature hates redundancy... use it or lose it.
The reason why will tend to live to "grandparents" age is that is the sweet spot at which people are useful to help their kids/grandkids.
If people lived to 100+ they become a burden which reduces the effectiveness of their children to raise their own children.

So like a generational baton race, you procreate and pass on your knowledge and resources to the kids then pass away when you're no longer useful.

I agree, overpopulation will be the biggest challenge of future generations, mostly because humans have kind of outsmarted nature in the last century, we now have an abundance of food due to genetically modified crops, and modern medical science has vastly reduced the number of people dying from illnesses, this is why people are living much longer than expected.

Some people interestingly propose that our purpose is simply to carry, and pass on DNA. If so, then why would the DNA be needed to improve and perfect people in a world where life doesn’t matter - surely there has to be an alternative purpose?

Gorgeousgeorge

Funny one that was told to me by an older fellow was that when the last person who knew/ remembers you dies then you are truly forgotten and it was like you never existed. That bothered me for a long time more than the actual dying bit

Naggdefy

We've an awful lot of experts on death here, speaking with great authority..but I'm pretty sure all of them are alive :P

Wanderer2010

Ive noticed of late the huge amount of people who are pushing their view, almost aggressively, of their absolutely 100% not being a God and that we are nothing but a pile of bones and neurons with no purpose and we should just forget about any higher powers and get on with it. If that's their view then I respect that but I hold a completely different view on the matter.

Usually the atheists quote "Prove that God exists" which is of course impossible and an even weaker reply is "Prove God doesn't exist" which is a merry go round of ignorance and only leads to hostility. My own view is there are things science cannot explain like your intuitions, your dreams, your loves and your goals. None of these things are "essential" brain functions such as hunger, fear and warmth. They reside somewhere else, your true self or soul if you will. I rejected the Catholic church long ago due to the hypocrisy and the scandals, and I now believe in a higher power who put each one of us on the planet for some reason, something that needs healing, be it this life, or 100 lives from now. This body is just a temporary home for your soul.

Also there are so many things about this universe that we know nothing about, a classic case being what exactly was there before the Big Bang? There was a time before everything and so what is that, where did it all begin. These mysteries cannot be explained by science and that leaves some mystical or spiritual explanation.

3rdDegree

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Ive noticed of late the huge amount of people who are pushing their view, almost aggressively, of their absolutely 100% not being a God and that we are nothing but a pile of bones and neurons with no purpose and we should just forget about any higher powers and get on with it. If that's their view then I respect that but I hold a completely different view on the matter.

Usually the atheists quote "Prove that God exists" which is of course impossible and an even weaker reply is "Prove God doesn't exist" which is a merry go round of ignorance and only leads to hostility. My own view is there are things science cannot explain like your intuitions, your dreams, your loves and your goals. None of these things are "essential" brain functions such as hunger, fear and warmth. They reside somewhere else, your true self or soul if you will. I rejected the Catholic church long ago due to the hypocrisy and the scandals, and I now believe in a higher power who put each one of us on the planet for some reason, something that needs healing, be it this life, or 100 lives from now. This body is just a temporary home for your soul.

Also there are so many things about this universe that we know nothing about, a classic case being what exactly was there before the Big Bang? There was a time before everything and so what is that, where did it all begin. These mysteries cannot be explained by science and that leaves some mystical or spiritual explanation.

I didn't notice a single aggressive post prior to yours.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Ive noticed of late the huge amount of people who are pushing their view, almost aggressively, of their absolutely 100% not being a God and that we are nothing but a pile of bones and neurons

As another user said, I am not seeing the aggression you are. Are we reading the same thread?

However I think you miss the fact that people TALK in absolutes even if they do not mean the absolute. This is a natural use of language and is very common. You might be reading too much into it.

There is ZERO evidence at this time that, while it is possible we are anything more than "bones and neurons", that we actually are. There is literally nothing on offer to support such a hypothesis. But that is a mouthful of words. It is easier to talk in absolutes like "There is no god" even if we are not intending to express the absolutes.

I tell my 5 year old son there are no monsters under his bed. Can I be 100% certain of this? No of course not. Is there a REMOTE benefit to not talking in absolutes however? No. I would be using a lot more words to say absolutely nothing of benefit to anyone.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Usually the atheists quote "Prove that God exists"

I do not anyway. What I usually ask a theist is "Do you have ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends any credibility to the claim a non-human intelligent intentional agent created us or our universe"? I do not ask them for anything so lofty as "proof".

The answer however is the same as "Prove that god exists". Theists got nothing. Literally nothing. Zilch. Nadda. Nichts. Nout. Nuffin. Bugger all. Diddly. Squat. So moaning over how the question is phrased seems a pointless approach. You got nothing anyway either way.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

My own view is there are things science cannot explain

Unwarranted and unsubstantiated view that is however. The most you can say is there are things it HAS not explained. You can not validly claim it CAN NOT explain them. If you do, you are just making stuff up at this time it would seem.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

like your intuitions, your dreams, your loves and your goals. None of these things are "essential" brain functions such as hunger, fear and warmth. They reside somewhere else, your true self or soul if you will

What substantiation for the claim do you have that they resist somewhere else? I see no evidence that your experience of the things you label as "essential" reside anywhere other than the same place where the rest of the things you list reside. It is assertion by fiat alone that you offer to support the claim they reside in different locations. While all actual evidence we have, incomplete as it might be, places the entire lot in the brain.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I now believe in a higher power who put each one of us on the planet for some reason

How nice for you. Nothing wrong with that. Let us just not pretend you have a SHRED of substantiation for that believe however.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Also there are so many things about this universe that we know nothing about, a classic case being what exactly was there before the Big Bang?

What do you mean by "before" in that context however? Define "before" here. However the point seems irrelevant. While there are things that we do not know, that does not lend even a modicum of credence to things people simply make up. You can make up any nonsense and simply say with hand wavey ominous conviction "there are things we do not knoooooooooow".

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

These mysteries cannot be explained by science and that leaves some mystical or spiritual explanation.

Again HAS not been. Not CAN not be. We simply do not know either way. You are basically playing the god of the gaps fallacy here. Pretending "we do not know" means "we can not know" and then forcing in your personal fantasy into the gap left by that move.

Naggdefy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As another user said, I am not seeing the aggression you are. Are we reading the same thread?

However I think you miss the fact that people TALK in absolutes even if they do not mean the absolute. This is a natural use of language and is very common. You might be reading too much into it.

There is ZERO evidence at this time that, while it is possible we are anything more than "bones and neurons", that we actually are. There is literally nothing on offer to support such a hypothesis. But that is a mouthful of words. It is easier to talk in absolutes like "There is no god" even if we are not intending to express the absolutes.

I tell my 5 year old son there are no monsters under his bed. Can I be 100% certain of this? No of course not. Is there a REMOTE benefit to not talking in absolutes however? No. I would be using a lot more words to say absolutely nothing of benefit to anyone.



I do not anyway. What I usually ask a theist is "Do you have ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends any credibility to the claim a non-human intelligent intentional agent created us or our universe"? I do not ask them for anything so lofty as "proof".

The answer however is the same as "Prove that god exists". Theists got nothing. Literally nothing. Zilch. Nadda. Nichts. Nout. Nuffin. Bugger all. Diddly. Squat. So moaning over how the question is phrased seems a pointless approach. You got nothing anyway either way.



Unwarranted and unsubstantiated view that is however. The most you can say is there are things it HAS not explained. You can not validly claim it CAN NOT explain them. If you do, you are just making stuff up at this time it would seem.



What substantiation for the claim do you have that they resist somewhere else? I see no evidence that your experience of the things you label as "essential" reside anywhere other than the same place where the rest of the things you list reside. It is assertion by fiat alone that you offer to support the claim they reside in different locations. While all actual evidence we have, incomplete as it might be, places the entire lot in the brain.



How nice for you. Nothing wrong with that. Let us just not pretend you have a SHRED of substantiation for that believe however.



What do you mean by "before" in that context however? Define "before" here. However the point seems irrelevant. While there are things that we do not know, that does not lend even a modicum of credence to things people simply make up. You can make up any nonsense and simply say with hand wavey ominous conviction "there are things we do not knoooooooooow".



Again HAS not been. Not CAN not be. We simply do not know either way. You are basically playing the god of the gaps fallacy here. Pretending "we do not know" means "we can not know" and then forcing in your personal fantasy into the gap left by that move.

Imagine talking that much time, and having that much time to dissect someone's post. Getting so worked up. Complete with ENCAPSULATED words. I think science will prove one day that a majority of atheists are mind numbingly boring and overly preoccupied with one issue.