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

Rubberchikken · 05-01-2020 02:52AM

I'd hope to be remembered well but only by those who really matter to me.
What anyone else thinks doesn't bother me.

I work in an environment where death is always a possibility so it doesn't phase me. It's basically part of life.
If you're lucky enough to have a life then invariably it ends at some stage.

MMXX · 05-01-2020 03:59AM

KilOit wrote: »

Interesting video that shows this in a way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

Now, I know Brian Cox is a physicist, and professor of particle physics - but I'm a random poster from the internet, and I think he is wrong on the last point. If the universe ends in nothingness, and it began from nothingness - why would the nothingness from before, be any different from the nothingness after?

If nothing, is nothing - then it is nothing. It's nothing. Nothing. No thing. So why should we differentiate between nothings?

Why is the second nothing, more final than the before nothing - if nothing is nothing?

And if everything came from nothing, which it did... why, according to Brian Cox - will it only occur once, if nothing is indeed nothing? If nothing is nothing, it is nothing. No thing. What's so different about the second nothing, if nothing - is nothing?

Nothing, that's what. If nothing is nothing - then there is no difference. And if everything came from nothing - and everything became nothing, then nothing is everything, and everything is nothing. Everything, and nothing - are the same thing.

worded · 05-01-2020 05:18AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I well remember Gaybo saying on the radio “just think of it, you’ve built up an enormous database in your brain which is all erased, wiped out, when you die”.

An encyclopaedia of Bull****

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-01-2020 12:38PM

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

If you looked at my post again, I state that deep intuition and "gut" feelings and our strong emotions like love, joy, empathy and our behaviours like setting life goals, connecting with others etc cannot be explained by science

Why do I need to read it again when I already addressed it as being nonsense. How many times do you need to be told the difference between HAS not and CAN not? They are not the same thing. Just because it HAS not done it, does not mean it CAN not do so. You are free to imagine it CAN not do so.... but do not forget that you are just imagining that.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

as they reside somewhere else

Says you. By assertion and nothing else. You have not said where this somewhere else is, nor evidenced it's existence.

But the things you list as being beyond the purview of science do not actually seem to be at all. We even have a science of artistic appreciation these days.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

But there is still no "purpose" for feeling love

Can you evidence these assertions at all, or is making assertions all you got? You have made a long string of them, not worth addressing individually, but evidenced not a single one of them even a little bit. Why is that? God of the gaps again I guess.

But the sentence above is a straight out, clear, claim. You are not saying we do not know the purpose. You are outright claiming there IS no purpose. That is quite the claim to make. Can you back it up at all? Even a little?

You question what the "purpose of it all" is. Sure that is good. But a better question is why you think there is a "purpose" in the first place, or why you think existence even owes us one.

Fourier wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by "natural".

Perhaps a more simple analogy is this. Imagine you go to a shed and for some reason you are physically unable to enter it. Maybe the door is smaller than your wheelchair for example.

But you have a torch and you can shine it in. But the torch only illuminates 80% of the shed. It can not reach the rest.

Which sentence would be MORE correct about this situation:

1) "The tool I have is unable to illuminate the other 20% of this shed. I am not able to illuminate it with this tool at this time."
2) "The other 20% of this shed CAN NOT be illuminated. It just can not be done."

The point I am making to Wanderer is his "god of the gaps" seems reliant on his taking option 2 above. By mistaking the difference between "science has not explained" and "science can not explain" by taking examples of the former and then declaring the latter by fiat off the back of it.

Fourier · 05-01-2020 01:01PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps a more simple analogy is this. Imagine you go to a shed and for some reason you are physically unable to enter it. Maybe the door is smaller than your wheelchair for example.

But you have a torch and you can shine it in. But the torch only illuminates 80% of the shed. It can not reach the rest.

Which sentence would be MORE correct about this situation:

1) "The tool I have is unable to illuminate the other 20% of this shed. I am not able to illuminate it with this tool at this time."
2) "The other 20% of this shed CAN NOT be illuminated. It just can not be done."

The point I am making to Wanderer is his "god of the gaps" seems reliant on his taking option 2 above. By mistaking the difference between "science has not explained" and "science can not explain" by taking examples of the former and then declaring the latter by fiat off the back of it.

I agree that Wanderer's argument is as you say.

What I'm saying is that we now have examples of things which we know to be in category (2) and where the "tool" in question is any form of linguistic causal or mathematical description.

05-01-2020 02:01PM

MMXX wrote: »

Now, I know Brian Cox is a physicist, and professor of particle physics - but I'm a random poster from the internet, and I think he is wrong on the last point. If the universe ends in nothingness, and it began from nothingness - why would the nothingness from before, be any different from the nothingness after?

If nothing, is nothing - then it is nothing. It's nothing. Nothing. No thing. So why should we differentiate between nothings?

Why is the second nothing, more final than the before nothing - if nothing is nothing?

And if everything came from nothing, which it did... why, according to Brian Cox - will it only occur once, if nothing is indeed nothing? If nothing is nothing, it is nothing. No thing. What's so different about the second nothing, if nothing - is nothing?

Nothing, that's what. If nothing is nothing - then there is no difference. And if everything came from nothing - and everything became nothing, then nothing is everything, and everything is nothing. Everything, and nothing - are the same thing.

Sir Roger Penrose has a theory that conditions within future "nothing" are such that they mimic the conditions of how the universe began in the first place, with one universe spacing out to fold into the next universe and so on.

It hasn't gained that much traction, but recent evidence in 2019 appeared to at least support the concept.

worded · 05-01-2020 05:03PM

Mortals Anonymous: Inside the Cafés Where People Go to Talk About Dying

A deadly cafe ?

https://www.wired.com/story/death-cafes/?BottomRelatedStories_Sections_5=&intcid=inline_amp

Bit if background music for that cafe ...

https://youtu.be/qT6XCvDUUsU

worded · 05-01-2020 05:34PM

from nick cave - master piece this one. Voted no 1 independent single in approx late 80s about a fellow on death row

Genius.

https://youtu.be/Ahr4KFl79WI

On the subject I was asking how a barrister mate was a few weeks ago and he said .... I’m like a fellow on his way to my execution side stepping a puddle :-)

Gynoid · 05-01-2020 05:42PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sir Roger Penrose has a theory that conditions within future "nothing" are such that they mimic the conditions of how the universe began in the first place, with one universe spacing out to fold into the next universe and so on.

It hasn't gained that much traction, but recent evidence in 2019 appeared to at least support the concept.

Similar ideas had quite a bit of traction 2000 plus years ago when various cosmogonies where posited in the Vedas and Puranas. The Breath of Brahma is one metaphor, with a universe, indeed multiple universes, arising on the outbreath of Brahma, lasting huge lengths of time and then undergoing pralaya or dissolution of various degrees, full or partial, on the inbreath of Brahma. And so on ad infinitum. We aint the first kids thinking about stuff or making poetry on this merry go round.

Alecto · 05-01-2020 06:01PM

Life is such a waste of time.

Gerianam · 05-01-2020 06:18PM

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover, if there is life, then why has no one ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery, there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her, this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

from Your Sacred Self by Dr. Wayne Dyer

Alecto · 05-01-2020 06:20PM

Oh also, to those thinking of a future where you will be able to download your brain to some sort of digital source. Think about how most people wipe their internet search history and this would be every thought you'd ever had. I hope my brain dies with me and no one ever gets to download my thoughts. The horror. Haven't ye seen that episode of Black Mirror? :O

05-01-2020 06:25PM

Alecto wrote: »

Life is such a waste of time.

Ah now

Wanderer2010 · 05-01-2020 06:29PM

Gerianam wrote: »

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover, if there is life, then why has no one ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery, there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her, this world would not and could not exist.”

Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

from Your Sacred Self by Dr. Wayne Dyer

Beautiful outlook. There has to be something beyond this world and indeed, before it. Who made this universe the way it is, why create something only to destroy it after your brief stay on earth. Our spiritual selves live on forever, and this earth school is certainly filled with people and events which will test you to breaking point but if you see the bigger picture and try and have fun and learn what you can about yourself before you move on to the next phase of your soul, it will be worthwhile.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-01-2020 10:33AM

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Beautiful outlook. There has to be something beyond this world and indeed, before it.

That is the thing though, there does not "have" to be. You really want there to be of course, and there is nothing wrong with that per se unless that desire manifests negatively in your word or action or well being.

But really really wanting it to be true, will not make it true. There does not "have" to be something else after death at all. Life owes us no such thing. Nor does death.

But although there does not "have" to be there certainly "could" be. And if there is, that would be interesting. So it is worth looking to find out if there is any argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there is an after life or a god.

So far though: None. Certainly none from you personally even when asked directly.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-01-2020 10:37AM

Gerianam wrote: »

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other

Here is another one for you, though written by myself rather than quoted from a book, if that is ok.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them!
Boy1: That sounds like nonsense to me, do you have any reason for believing that?
Boy2: Well do YOU know where babies come from?
Boy1: No, I have no idea.
Boy2: Aha! See? The stork brings them!

You see, all too often our lack of answer for a topic is used as evidence for, sometimes as we have seen recently on this thread the ONLY evidence for, a piece of nonsense they have simply made up on the spot or had made up for them.

Wanderer2010 · 06-01-2020 05:17PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is the thing though, there does not "have" to be. You really want there to be of course, and there is nothing wrong with that per se unless that desire manifests negatively in your word or action or well being.

But really really wanting it to be true, will not make it true. There does not "have" to be something else after death at all. Life owes us no such thing. Nor does death.

But although there does not "have" to be there certainly "could" be. And if there is, that would be interesting. So it is worth looking to find out if there is any argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there is an after life or a god.

So far though: None. Certainly none from you personally even when asked directly.

Excuse me but my reply wasn't even aimed at you, so if you don't mind I think we have reached the end of the road with this exchange between us. If you want to believe that the universe and everyone in it is pure happenstance and random and everything that is mysterious and strange about life is merely down to undiscovered science, that's your opinion and I respect that.

I don't believe that at all, so I ask you to respect that too. Thank you.

uck51js9zml2yt · 06-01-2020 05:23PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Most pamphlets do - don't they?

Everyone says.

We are all gonna die - is possibly the only thing we can be sure of these days. Lets maybe start listening to each other rather than our pamphlets - or you tube links - of choice anymore shall we?

Maybe just maybe there is an after life. But my philosophy is that the only life we are _sure_ we have is this one. So lets work with that before we listen to people who tell us what the after life tells us about how we should be living

And your philosophy is based on what exactly? Btw, where did I mention utube links or pamphlets?

uck51js9zml2yt · 06-01-2020 05:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is the thing though, there does not "have" to be. You really want there to be of course, and there is nothing wrong with that per se unless that desire manifests negatively in your word or action or well being.

But really really wanting it to be true, will not make it true. There does not "have" to be something else after death at all. Life owes us no such thing. Nor does death.

But although there does not "have" to be there certainly "could" be. And if there is, that would be interesting. So it is worth looking to find out if there is any argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there is an after life or a god.

So far though: None. Certainly none from you personally even when asked directly.

Look at the stars or a dragon fly wing and tell me how they were designed so precisely and then tell me there's no Creator.

Of course, if they were created, so we're we and if we have a creator then we are answerable to Him. Off we're answerable , then we will have to give an account of our lives and be judged by the creator.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-01-2020 06:15PM

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Excuse me but my reply wasn't even aimed at you

This is a public forum, if you want private conversations there is a perfectly workable PM system you can use.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

If you want to believe that the universe and everyone in it is pure happenstance

I neither want to believe it, nor do not want to believe it. What I want has literally nothing to do with it. I can only believe what the evidence indicates. And so far there is no evidence at all that this universe was created by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent. Just none.

I am of course fascinated by people who can just decide what to believe. It is however a skill I lack. If there is no evidence for something, I can not believe it no matter how much I might want to.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I don't believe that at all, so I ask you to respect that too. Thank you.

I respect people, not ideas. If an idea is unsubstantiated nonsense, I will treat it as such and refer to it as such. Always have. Always will. Ideas do not want, or require, our respect.

Deborah Crooked Trespasser wrote: »

Look at the stars or a dragon fly wing and tell me how they were designed so precisely and then tell me there's no Creator.

I have never told anyone there is no creator. I tell them there is no reason on offer at this time to think there IS a creator.

You are regurgitating the "watchmaker" argument, which has been addressed many times before. Something that looks designed does not automatically mean it is something that IS designed.

Kivaro · 06-01-2020 06:48PM

Deborah Crooked Trespasser wrote: »

Look at the stars or a dragon fly wing and tell me how they were designed so precisely and then tell me there's no Creator.

I look at many things more wondrous than a dragon fly wing, and I can tell you that evolution is the reason why the intricacies exists in that fly wing.
Whether or not there is a 'creator'; I'm highly dubious about it, but cannot definitively declare that one does not exist.

07-01-2020 08:18AM

Deborah Crooked Trespasser wrote: »

And your philosophy is based on what exactly?

My philosophy that this life is the only one I am sure I have - is based on this life being the only one I am sure I have. What do you think it is based on exactly?

I am living this one right now. I recall no previous one. I have no evidence of a "next" one. Therefore this one is the only one I can so far be sure I have. What more basis for that statement is required exactly?

Deborah Crooked Trespasser wrote: »

Btw, where did I mention utube links or pamphlets?

Ehhh - where did anyone say you had

Do keep up - that comparison was from me not you.

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

Comments