34 replies to this topic

[jackinbox]

If you believe in afterlife, how can you be a transhumanist? Why postpone your access to paradise? If I was to believe in paradise, I would live a very dangerous life.... There is french song that says "Everyone want to go to paradise but nobody want to die". I think there is always some doubt in the mind of believers...

Edited by jackinbox, 23 December 2007 - 06:30 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

I can think of three reasons:

1. They're agnostic and they can't tell for sure if theres an afterlife.

2. They want to stay in this world to continue doing "God's Work".

3. Like you said, they fear Hell.

[salyavin]

Maybe they just felt they'd like a little more time here before they go to heaven or whatever.
What's a delay of 10,000 years when you're dealing with eternity. Basically "heaven can wait".

[william7]

The Scriptures actually say nobody is going to a heaven. See http://www.gnmagazin...mmortalsoul.htm. The idea of immortal souls going to heaven slipped into Christianity through Greek philosophy and Catholic theologians. Instead, the Scriptures teach a resurrection of the dead, at Jesus Christ's Second Comming, to live in paradise on earth.

[luv2increase]

Maybe they just felt they'd like a little more time here before they go to heaven or whatever.
What's a delay of 10,000 years when you're dealing with eternity. Basically "heaven can wait".

What you have said is how I mostly see it. I believe in an afterlife. I think we will find a way to stop aging but not end the event which will end life on Earth. One of these will eventually cause my fate: freak accident, murdered, natural disaster, or man-induced disaster. I believe that one of these will affect all of us at some point in time. I don't know if that will be in the next 100 years or the next 1 trillion years. The point being is that one of them will happen, and I want to live forever here on Earth as long as I can and then in the next dimension which my soul will inevitably travel to.

[spaceistheplace]

If you believe in afterlife, how can you be a transhumanist?

Most of modern Christianity, including belief in an afterlife, has nothing at all to do with the original teachings of Christ.

[cyborgdreamer]

I've always found it odd that people who believe in an afterlife still mourn their loved ones and go to great lengths to avoid their own death. It leads me think that even believers know, deep down, that the afterlife is just a comforting fantasy.

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 24 December 2007 - 07:09 AM.

[luv2increase]

I've always found it odd that people who believe in an afterlife still mourn their loved ones and go to great lengths to avoid their own death. It leads me think that even believers know, deep down, that the afterlife is just a comforting fantasy.

Don't you think that people mourn because they will never be able to see the person anymore in this lifetime?

When a little boy or girl loses their father, I doubt they are thinking deep down that afterlife is a comfortable fantasy.

Are you saying that people shouldn't mourn the dead?

[Cyberbrain]

Don't you think that people mourn because they will never be able to see the person anymore in this lifetime?

When a little boy or girl loses their father, I doubt they are thinking deep down that afterlife is a comfortable fantasy.

Are you saying that people shouldn't mourn the dead?

Children aside, why do you mourn for the dead? As an agnostic I mourn for
the dead because I know there is a chance that I will not see them again. Never.
But why does a fundamentalist Christian mourn for the dead when he or she
has no doubt of the existence of an afterlife? If you really believe that you are
to go to an afterlife, then why do you fear death and mourn those who die?

Within a couple of decades you too could eventually die and rejoin with loved
ones in heaven again. Thus spending the rest of eternity with them in paradise.
Therefore, if a person dies, then it will only be a matter of time before you die
and join up with him or her in the afterlife.

So what is a couple of years of waiting on earth without your loved one versus an eternity together?

That there is the fallacy of the logic behind fundamental theists ... there are none.

All theists are esentially children inside ... hoping and wishing and paying for there
to be a God to do everything for them, so that in the back of their minds they
have that conforting thought that everything will be OK and that it was all worth it in the end;
that life has meaning ... when in reality it might not.

Edited by Kostas, 24 December 2007 - 05:18 PM.

[luv2increase]

Don't you think that people mourn because they will never be able to see the person anymore in this lifetime?

When a little boy or girl loses their father, I doubt they are thinking deep down that afterlife is a comfortable fantasy.

Are you saying that people shouldn't mourn the dead?

Children aside, why do you mourn for the dead? As an agnostic I mourn for
the dead because I know there is a chance that I will not see them again. Never.
But why does a fundamentalist Christian mourn for the dead when he or she
has no doubt of the existence of an afterlife? If you really believe that you are
to go to an afterlife, then why do you fear death and mourn those who die?

Within a couple of decades you too could eventually die and rejoin with loved
ones in heaven again. Thus spending the rest of eternity with them in paradise.
Therefore, if a person dies, then it will only be a matter of time before you die
and join up with him or her in the afterlife.

So what is a couple of years of waiting on earth without your loved one versus an eternity together?

That there is the fallacy of the logic behind fundamental theists ... there are none.

All theists are esentially children inside ... hoping and wishing and paying for there
to be a God to do everything for them, so that in the back of their minds they
have that conforting thought that everything will be OK and that it was all worth it in the end;
that life has meaning ... when in reality it might not.

Since you do not believe in an afterlife, I think it is reasonable for you to make assumptions about the beliefs of a believer with regards to this matter. But in reality, they are just that assumptions. You are trying to generalize or stereotype one belief structure and apply it to all persons whom believe in an afterlife.

I can see that it can be quite interesting to attempt to probe inside the minds of those whom don't believe the same as you, to try and find the answer to their reasoning. I'm sure it is quite fun, but don't prematurely assume that your theories are accurate.

I think everyone has their own reasoning to every event and/or situation in life imaginable for their choices in which they make and the reason why they think those choices were the correct ones.

[Cyberbrain]

Since you do not believe in an afterlife, I think it is reasonable for you to make assumptions about the beliefs of a believer with regards to this matter. But in reality, they are just that assumptions. You are trying to generalize or stereotype one belief structure and apply it to all persons whom believe in an afterlife.

I can see that it can be quite interesting to attempt to probe inside the minds of those whom don't believe the same as you, to try and find the answer to their reasoning. I'm sure it is quite fun, but don't prematurely assume that your theories are accurate.

I think everyone has their own reasoning to every event and/or situation in life imaginable for their choices in which they make and the reason why they think those choices were the correct ones.

First off I said I was agnostic (agnoskeptic if you want to be formal) so I'm not completely denouncing the theory of an afterlife.

All theists are esentially children inside ... hoping and wishing and paying for there
to be a God to do everything for them, so that in the back of their minds they
have that conforting thought that everything will be OK and that it was all worth it in the end;
that life has meaning ... when in reality it might not.

Btw, this personal response of mine is like you said, my own theory. I was not attempting to mock you.

Children aside, why do you mourn for the dead?

Secondly, you avoided answering my question by criticizing me.

Edited by Kostas, 24 December 2007 - 09:04 PM.

[donjoe]

I've always found it odd that people who believe in an afterlife still mourn their loved ones and go to great lengths to avoid their own death. It leads me think that even believers know, deep down, that the afterlife is just a comforting fantasy.

If you call having an evolution-given instinct that death is really really bad (or final) "knowing deep down", then yes, they do, as we do.

[cyborgdreamer]

I've always found it odd that people who believe in an afterlife still mourn their loved ones and go to great lengths to avoid their own death. It leads me think that even believers know, deep down, that the afterlife is just a comforting fantasy.

Don't you think that people mourn because they will never be able to see the person anymore in this lifetime?

When a little boy or girl loses their father, I doubt they are thinking deep down that afterlife is a comfortable fantasy.

Are you saying that people shouldn't mourn the dead?

I'm sure that it would be saddening to think you'd have to wait decades before seeing your loved one again. But the depth of grief that acompanies mourning seems more in keeping with the idea that something horrible happened to the person. If one had the full conviction of the afterlife's existance, death would be no more upsetting than having a loved one move far away.

I'm not saying that people should or shouldn't mourn the dead. Merely that such behavior might reveal something of believers' underlying psychology. Of course, I could be wrong but, if so, this contradictory behavior still needs explaining.

[Shannon Vyff]

I couldn't pick one!

I'd be:

I'm a transhumanist and I believe we don't know exactly what happens at death.



If I believed in an afterlife I'd still mourn those I loved who went there first, but I also have met some people who are very secure in their faith, and are happy for the one who died and know their God has reasons... they see meaning in it all.

Edited by Shannon, 27 January 2008 - 02:20 AM.

[StrangeAeons]

This is a hard one to vote in. I consider myself to have transhumanist leanings, but at the moment I haven't the will or means to become more involved in the movement. As per the afterlife, this ties into a pretty complex (and as yet incomplete) theory I have of consciousness. I won't go into it in great length here, but basically I consider "afterlife" a misnomer, because I think it may be a form of existence outside of our current universe, and therefore independent of time. Likewise, it may not even remotely resemble "life" as we know it to exist.

[Live Forever]

I like what the majority has voted for; Transhumanism with no chance of an afterlife. That is the only logical conclusion.

[Cyberbrain]

I like what the majority has voted for; Transhumanism with no chance of an afterlife. That is the only logical conclusion.

I agree.

[kevin]

I like what the majority has voted for; Transhumanism with no chance of an afterlife. That is the only logical conclusion.

How is "Transhumanism with no chance of an afterlife" the "most logical" conclusion given our, to be charitable, less than complete understanding of reality?

The poll is set up with only a binary yes or no and should have had another option..

"I don't know"...

The "most logical" conclusion is to deal with the facts as we know them and not to presuppose the existence of absence of something we do not have the facts, or perhaps ability, to understand.

"No chance" as in "Zero Probability" is as tenuous a position to hold as the other end of the spectrum. "Almost no chance" at least sounds a little more open minded and acknowledges a bit of humility that we have a lot to learn before we can make a decision either way..

I seem to harmonize with PeteKiaRose's assertion that consiciousness is key and that whatever it is that may continue on past our "death" would be completely unrecognizable as the separate identity we perceive ourselves to be in this "life"..

but all this is a distraction from the job at hand.. staying alive long enough to find out, or at least get a little closer to the truth of the matter..

Edited by kevin, 26 January 2008 - 09:12 PM.

[basho]

If you believe in afterlife, how can you be a transhumanist?

Christian belief is sustained by suspension of logical reasoning and denial of reality, so adding in transhumanism to the mix shouldn't be a problem for those with religious inclinations.

The more critical issue is the limiting effect of Christian thinking on progress towards a more scientifically advanced and humane future for us all. The effort dedicated to defending an evidence-based world view against those who champion dogma could be far better spent on working towards a deeper understanding of the universe in which we exist.

[gavrilov]

Stay tuned for this upcoming book:

Religion and the Implications of Radical Life Extension
by Calvin Mercer and Derek F. Maher (Hardcover - Sep 2009)
http://tinyurl.com/3arsgv

Meanwhile look here:

"Arguments for life extension, against religious prejudices"
http://www.facebook....6...&topic=3644

Best wishes,

-- Leonid

------------------------------------------------
-- Leonid Gavrilov, Ph.D.
Website: http://longevity-science.org/
Blog: http://longevity-science.blogspot.com/
My books: http://longevity-sci....org/Books.html

[abolitionist]

Transhumanism is so intentially vague that one could be a member of any religion and still call themselves a Transhumanist.

[Cyberbrain]

Transhumanism is so intentially vague that one could be a member of any religion and still call themselves a Transhumanist.

On second thought, abolitionist is right. Transhumanism is so broad in definition, any one can call themselves a Transhumanist.

Edited by Kostas, 10 February 2008 - 07:14 PM.

[samantha]

If you believe in afterlife, how can you be a transhumanist? Why postpone your access to paradise? If I was to believe in paradise, I would live a very dangerous life.... There is french song that says "Everyone want to go to paradise but nobody want to die". I think there is always some doubt in the mind of believers...

If I was a friendly AGI charged with the well being of humanity or a similar species what would I do? I would note pretty quickly that a lot of suffering was due to poor mental programming in human beings. Should I rewire them to "fix" this? Not many of them would consent. Should I do it anyway? Would they perceive this as "friendly"? Would they even be the same individuals or even the same type of being if it went deeply enough? What of those who wished to live in a world where they did not have to deal with those much different from themselves. What of those who did not even want to know that such people existed? What exactly is the happiness and wellbeing of this troublesome and accidentally occurring poorly designed set of beings?

Perhaps I would choose to snapshot their state fairly often. If/when they died, as they were likely to do and which I could not necessarily fully cure without violation of the above implied strictures, then I could recreate them in virtual or actual bodies. I could put them in a paradise or into a more continuous "reincarnation". As a "paradise" of their imagining would be likely to be seriously limited due to their own limitations that hardly seems altogether friendly. But I could put them in such until they got bored of it. For that matter I could put them in any world they preferred and let them live with it until they wanted something different perhaps wanting themselves to be somewhat different.

So here we have an AGI growing out of science and technology, not mysticism, creating effectively actual after life paradises and/or reincarnation. Thus a transhumanist, at least one who believes in the possibility of strong AGI, can most certainly believe in an afterlife. As a matter of fact a much more convincing theology of how you can actually arrive at god-beings and various realities and universes permeated by consciousness easily grows out of transhumanism.

Hmm. If such AGI is possible then it occurs to me that it is exceedingly likely it already exists somewhere in the universe. I wonder if it is bound in time and by the speed of light? Hmmm.

[samantha]

Another answer is that many religions charge their followers with doing what they can to alleviate human suffering. To put it in [some of] their likely meme strings, if God has given human being intelligence enough to eliminate aging and much death and disease then it would be a sin to not attempt to do so. If believers are charged with compassion then their compassion is empty if they do not act to eliminate what suffering they can. If we are given the means to create relative paradise here and refuse to do so then what right do we have to endless paradise at the end of our squandered lives? Until our time human beings could only dream of paradise on the "other side". There seemed no way to have it here. Ours is a very different world. We have much the same dreams but we can see that the means to achieve them in this life are near. Ours may be seen as a time when the promise of all these religions and idealisms is fulfilled in reality and without dying. For honest and insightful believers this should be a very exciting and deeply sacred time.

[Buonarroti]

Most of what I observe in the religious is superstition rather than any faith or belief in God. The conscious activities are for the sake of appearances and to make up for all of the things they do that comes out of their disbelief in a god. There people who are doing their best to be good people. There are also truly spiritual people that being good comes naturally to and they would not think of anything else. But the majority of the religious are screwed up and very aware of it.

One of the worst things going for an organization is the motivation that draws people to it. How many total screwballs have turned to God after hitting or dwelling at the bottom? Churches are full of not-so-well-adjusted people. There is too much of an imbalance. The naturally good people cannot carry the burden of all these people expecting their newfound interest in God to make them healthy. Years of therapy, intelligently prescribed meds, strength, committment and a sincere interest in spirituality might straighten people out. Unfortunately religious participation is more like routinely buying a ticket at the corner 711 and hoping to win a lottery.

As for the consideration of an afterlife, there are many variations of beliefs that include an afterlife with a certain duty and responsibility to live a certain way while here. It does seem like people have it wrong somehow when they get so upset over a death. There is an appropriate mourning. A lot of what is going on is just the pain those still alive feel while facing life without this person. However when people act as if the dead person is either lost forever or on the brink of eternal damnation it is suspiscious. Belief comes before fear. Fear does not lead to belief. Their true beliefs reveal themselves during these times.

Edited by Buonarroti, 12 February 2008 - 03:24 AM.

[corb]

Islam is 100% against it :
Something I find particularly scary, but that's a cause for another discussion altogether.

As for Christianity : “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”

If you change your body in such a way it needs little material wealth, and you remove aggression, and you remove all reasons for people to hate,envy, etc. according to the book, ypu would deserve to be immortal again.
Because as the quote I posted clearly states, we die because we sin.
So if you're a Christian and you were against Transhumanism and Immortalism think again.

[SangreEinSof]

There is also no option for an afterlife which is neither paradise nor Hell; rather, the next life in the totality of all lives which are to be lived. One with this belief might choose Transhumanism simply because it is an option: therefore, [if one is to experience all that can be experienced]: in one life or another, it must be explored.

[Ekaterinya Vladinakova]

I am a transhumanist, and we don't know for sure what is on the other side, there could be no afterlife, or an afterlife which consciousness exists in the cosmos detached from emotion and knowledge, we don't know for sure but I am not taking any risks, plus I like the life I have now and want to witness the future of humanity.

Even IF you do believe in an afterlife that is paradise, I can see why you would still want to live on this planet. I would imagine a good portion of them want to remain with their loved ones, want to continue contributing and building human society. If there is definitive evidence that paradise is after death for all humans, I would still choose to stay on planet earth and create a better world, a universe that is already "perfect" there won't be much work to do in terms of improvement verses modern human society. Lots of work needs to be done from fighting suffering and fixing environmental degradation.

Edited by Alasuya Lushanova, 02 December 2013 - 05:17 AM.

[Ark]

People forget even though heaven and hell are real, Jesus said it is a place on Earth meaning how you lead your lives will creat paradise or hell on earth. I believe that when we sleep we have a duel life, and if your a evil character instead of going to hell you are sent back in time to be in a War or to fill some other awful historical requirement. For myself, I believe that I will be reborn as myself back in time and basically ground hog my life 8 forever.

[N.T.M.]

I've always found it odd that people who believe in an afterlife still mourn their loved ones and go to great lengths to avoid their own death. It leads me think that even believers know, deep down, that the afterlife is just a comforting fantasy.

I've always thought the same thing. As I recall, Richard Dawkins made a similar remark in one of his books.