40 replies to this topic

[VictorBjoerk]

Some arguments one can think about when debating deathists who uses religion as a tool to apologize for death.

1. is your current life really so extremely bad that it's necessary to die and get another life in another dimension to reach "peace"?

2. death is bad, not good, otherwise people wouldn't be crying at funerals.

3. why is it so important to replace person A with B?

4. If preventing death is to play god, why did then god give us the possibilities to do so? If god didn't want us to do something, why did he then create us with the ability to do so?

[forever freedom]

VictorBjoerk, on Jul 15 2009, 11:18 PM, said:

Some arguments one can think about when debating deathists who uses religion as a tool to apologize for death.

1. is your current life really so extremely bad that it's necessary to die and get another life in another dimension to reach "peace"?

2. death is bad, not good, otherwise people wouldn't be crying at funerals.

3. why is it so important to replace person A with B?

4. If preventing death is to play god, why did then god give us the possibilities to do so? If god didn't want us to do something, why did he then create us with the ability to do so?

All virtually useless, i must add. I've found from experience that reason doesn't penetrate these people's minds.

Edited by forever freedom, 16 July 2009 - 11:29 AM.

[VictorBjoerk]

forever freedom, on Jul 16 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

All virtually useless, i must add. I've found from experience that reason doesn't penetrate these people's minds.

well, then, please post some better arguments to use....

[forever freedom]

VictorBjoerk, on Jul 16 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

well, then, please post some better arguments to use....

I said your arguments are useless not as an attack against your arguments but as an attack against all rational arguments designed to try to convince religious people to drop religion. They'll rarely work.. religious people are not religious solely because they realize the truth in the belief hence they adopt it, but they adopt it because it helps them emotionally and from there its just half a step for their emotions to take over and blind them to any logical flaw in their religious belief.


edit: as for what'll work, i suppose when we can extend people's lives more dramatically and they see the benefits they'll naturally accept it. Just like the Catholic Church being against many therapies and medical practices in the beginning but once the benefits are clear and undeniable they remake their decision and decide to be neutral against it and later they become supportive of it. Those hypocrite sonsofbitches...

Edited by forever freedom, 16 July 2009 - 06:12 PM.

[Luke Parrish]

I think it is important to make them attempt to defend the weaker points suggested by their belief structure:

1. Would you accept a treatment to keep you alive 10 years longer? Why not 100 years?

2. If suicide is wrong, is it wrong to refuse a treatment to delay or eliminate aging?

3. Could it possibly be immoral (murder) to oppose anti-aging research? (Compare to anti-cancer research.)

4. If they revived a person after cryosuspension with no side effects, would this prove that their soul was still there? Or would it mean God created them a new one?

If they use the "I don't claim to know all the answers" tactic:

1. Why did God choose not to reveal any of the answers to these vital present-day issues in the scriptures?

2. Would you expect him to send you a personal divine inspiration on how to answer these questions?

3. Is logic God's voice talking to you? (Ref: John 1:1 "The Logos was with God and the Logos was God.")

The support for deathism is very weak based on the bible. It mainly is based on the implications of innate immortality and end-times scenarios. But it is not something that automatically follows from that. So there is room for doubt towards deathism. Convey acceptance that death may be inevitable, but it is not something we should seek out or permit to happen when given an alternative. I think most religious people have a strong objection to murder or suicide (voluntary death) and so can be appealed to that way.

[Ben Simon]

forever freedom, on Jul 16 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

I said your arguments are useless not as an attack against your arguments but as an attack against all rational arguments designed to try to convince religious people to drop religion.

He's not talking about getting religious people to drop religion. He's talking about getting them to see the potential benefits of life extension.

forever freedom, on Jul 16 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

religious people are not religious solely because they realize the truth in the belief hence they adopt it, but they adopt it because it helps them emotionally and from there its just half a step for their emotions to take over and blind them to any logical flaw in their religious belief.

Take THAT Thomas Aquinas!

forever freedom, on Jul 16 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

i suppose when we can extend people's lives more dramatically and they see the benefits they'll naturally accept it. Just like the Catholic Church being against many therapies and medical practices in the beginning but once the benefits are clear and undeniable they remake their decision and decide to be neutral against it and later they become supportive of it. Those hypocrite sonsofbitches...

Yes. Terrible that people's opinions should evolve over time.

But really, the majority of objections to life extension that I see posted online and in the press are from secular sources, so I don't know why we're making this about religion. If someone can point me toward some religious examples I'd be very interested to read them, but I'm yet to find any through my own research.

[russianBEAR]

What if it turns out that you guys are just the same as those religious freaks ? 

Say some believe that taking a bunch of placebo effect pills helps longevity, then convince yourself to "feel something" because you believe it. Then you look for any information to back up your viewpoints, selectively reading only the information that you need.

Maybe its the same as going to church and "feeling the holy spirit".

[forever freedom]

ben, on Jul 17 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

Yes. Terrible that people's opinions should evolve over time.

Terrible that people should hold opinions without basing them on logic in the first place. Then the opinions shouldn't have to dramatically evolve so much. Of course the Vatican never cared about the truthfulness of their beliefs but in the beliefs that would make their followers give them the most power.

ben, on Jul 17 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

But really, the majority of objections to life extension that I see posted online and in the press are from secular sources, so I don't know why we're making this about religion. If someone can point me toward some religious examples I'd be very interested to read them, but I'm yet to find any through my own research.

Just the fact that religious people are against embryo stem cells is a good example. In a very clear way this is against life extension. Religion is just one of the various systems of beliefs that disencourages the thoughts of extreme life extension (on Earth) and research on it. Think of the Republicans..

russianBEAR, on Jul 17 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

What if it turns out that you guys are just the same as those religious freaks ?

Say some believe that taking a bunch of placebo effect pills helps longevity, then convince yourself to "feel something" because you believe it. Then you look for any information to back up your viewpoints, selectively reading only the information that you need.

Maybe its the same as going to church and "feeling the holy spirit".

It's totally different. We're in search for the truth here, not for "feeling good". If i was in the search for a belief system that would make me feel good i'd have kept with religion, which is the belief with which i was raised to hold. Or are you going to tell me that religion isn't the ultimate opium; people can just believe in an all powerful god that takes care of them and take them to paradise once they die and they'll live happily for the rest of their lives. Can you disagree that this belief is much more comforting than the belief that MAYBE, just maybe, we may live long enough to beat aging, and this is not certain, but i'll work very hard towards keeping myself alive for as long as possible (like taking care of my health), but i accept that there's a very real chance chance that i'll die and that will be it?

[russianBEAR]

There's no set "truth" in anything first of all. Whatever you discover is relative to your experience, could be life-extending for you but absolutely kill someone else.

Second your thought of maybe just maybe is exactly as comforting as any religion. People also have doubts about being saved since they're not always sure what would be a sin or not in the modern context, and all but the most hardcore nuts have at least some degree of doubt about their soul's future let's say.

Everyone has some belief to drive them forward, so they got theirs you got yours I think.

I got mine too, I'm all about embracing nature as a kind of a god, instead of a man who lives in the sky and makes loads of cash for the people in robes

[forever freedom]

russianBEAR, on Jul 17 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

There's no set "truth" in anything first of all. Whatever you discover is relative to your experience, could be life-extending for you but absolutely kill someone else.

Second your thought of maybe just maybe is exactly as comforting as any religion. People also have doubts about being saved since they're not always sure what would be a sin or not in the modern context, and all but the most hardcore nuts have at least some degree of doubt about their soul's future let's say.

Everyone has some belief to drive them forward, so they got theirs you got yours I think.

I got mine too, I'm all about embracing nature as a kind of a god, instead of a man who lives in the sky and makes loads of cash for the people in robes

I didn't choose it to comfort me. It is what it is. I chose it because i believe it is true.

That's contrary to people adopting religious/spiritual beliefs. They adopt them to comfort them and not because they've studied all the possible flaws with the belief but still decided that it is the most likely valid one. And no they do not leave place for doubt in their beliefs; they wholeheartedly believe that the god they're worshiping is the only/most powerful one. Or do you think terrorists have any doubt that they'll be able to meet and fuck 72 virgins forever after they blow themselves to pieces?

[kismet]

ben, on Jul 16 2009, 11:34 PM, said:

Take THAT Thomas Aquinas!

His philosophical arguments are pretty weak. Didn't he coin the argument (or fallacy?) of god as a prime mover?

Quote

Yes. Terrible that people's opinions should evolve over time.

In another thread someone suggested that religion is only a good source of morality because it is absolute. If it evolves, it is not absolute anymore and considering that god (and his word) is supposed to be infallible it is indeed surprising that religious opinion should change. I mean it's absolute and perfect, isn't it? (I'd like to get back to that thread when I have more time)
Yeah, it's pretty interesting and important to point out that religon in fact changes...

Quote

But really, the majority of objections to life extension that I see posted online and in the press are from secular sources, so I don't know why we're making this about religion.

I suppose we're in the religion subforum and so we talk about religion. I'm not sure what you mean by secular? Obviously, most objections are from secular sources, because most (>>90%) of the media is secular. There are a few atheistic and religious outlets, but not many. Thus  most of it will be from secular sources (if you are talking in absolute numbers, but maybe you mean relatively speaking).

Or do you meant to say atheistic? Yes, it seems many atheists are deathists. There may be several reasons, one of the simpler ones is that most atheists are sceptics. But then again, it's also true that atheists deal with death in a rather nihilistic and deathist way. So long as we can't beat death this is understandable, but I don't have a clue why they don't grasp the chance to extend and improve life?

Quote

If someone can point me toward some religious examples I'd be very interested to read them, but I'm yet to find any through my own research.

Every single act of religously motivated anti-science bigotry slows down valuable research and progress which eventually will lead to many things, among those life extension. Therefore, every religously motivated anti-science stance impairs our progress (and there are innumerable examples of those). It's hard to say which statements are deathist per se, but if they slow down research, what else are they?
And what about Leon Kass? I'm sure he wasn't motivated by his religon (among other things)...

Edited by kismet, 17 July 2009 - 07:08 PM.

[kismet]

russianBEAR, on Jul 17 2009, 03:29 AM, said:

What if it turns out that you guys are just the same as those religious freaks ? 

Tu quoque?

Quote

Say some believe that taking a bunch of placebo effect pills helps longevity, then convince yourself to "feel something" because you believe it. Then you look for any information to back up your viewpoints, selectively reading only the information that you need.

Red herring?

Quote

Maybe its the same as going to church and "feeling the holy spirit".

Non sequitur? (or close enough)

Or did you actually consider that their beliefs completely lack any scientific plausibility, while life extension, to put it mildly, does not? That way I... I.. Just wanted to point out that your "argument" does not really convince... and is kind of unrelated to our dicussion?

Edited by kismet, 17 July 2009 - 07:16 PM.

[JediMasterLucia]

VictorBjoerk, on Jul 16 2009, 01:18 AM, said:

Some arguments one can think about when debating deathists who uses religion as a tool to apologize for death.

1. is your current life really so extremely bad that it's necessary to die and get another life in another dimension to reach "peace"?

2. death is bad, not good, otherwise people wouldn't be crying at funerals.

3. why is it so important to replace person A with B?

4. If preventing death is to play god, why did then god give us the possibilities to do so? If god didn't want us to do something, why did he then create us with the ability to do so?

About point 4: mabey God wants us to prevent aging, death, but they still know it yet.

[Ben Simon]

forever freedom, on Jul 17 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

Terrible that people should hold opinions without basing them on logic in the first place. Then the opinions shouldn't have to dramatically evolve so much. Of course the Vatican never cared about the truthfulness of their beliefs but in the beliefs that would make their followers give them the most power.

You're changing the subject to serve your purposes. Perhaps it is you who never cared about the truthfulness of your beliefs. You certainly seem intent on clinging to them.

forever freedom, on Jul 17 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

Just the fact that religious people are against embryo stem cells is a good example. In a very clear way this is against life extension. Religion is just one of the various systems of beliefs that disencourages the thoughts of extreme life extension (on Earth) and research on it. Think of the Republicans..

Ha! So in other words you have no examples whatsoever. If you had even one adequate example of a religious objection to life extension you would have offered it up. Instead you fall back on the stem cell issue. Ridiculous.

[Ben Simon]

kismet, on Jul 17 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

His philosophical arguments are pretty weak. Didn't he coin the argument (or fallacy?) of god as a prime mover?

The quality of his philosophy is not what's at issue, and you are welcome to think of it what you wish. I brought Aquinas up because Sam stated his very silly belief that religious people are religious because of intellectual dishonesty, believing in nonsense for the sake of providing themselves with an emotional crutch. Aquinas, who dedicated his life to scholarship, is but one example of how silly and naive a notion this is. One of many.

kismet, on Jul 17 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

In another thread someone suggested that religion is only a good source of morality because it is absolute. If it evolves, it is not absolute anymore and considering that god (and his word) is supposed to be infallible it is indeed surprising that religious opinion should change. I mean it's absolute and perfect, isn't it? (I'd like to get back to that thread when I have more time)
Yeah, it's pretty interesting and important to point out that religon in fact changes...

I don't much care what someone suggested in another thread. 'Absolute?' What can that even mean, in this context? And no, it's not absolute and perfect. Of course it isn't. Religion is quite obviously profoundly imperfect, and no it's not surprising that it changes over time, as one can see this process of evolution happening with even a cursory glance through the scriptures. It's like you guys want religious people to be dogmatists, just because it would make things simpler for you. You're right though - it is interesting and important that religion changes. It's also to religion's credit.

kismet, on Jul 17 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by secular? Obviously, most objections are from secular sources, because most (>>90%) of the media is secular. There are a few atheistic and religious outlets, but not many. Thus  most of it will be from secular sources (if you are talking in absolute numbers, but maybe you mean relatively speaking).

Or do you meant to say atheistic? Yes, it seems many atheists are deathists. There may be several reasons, one of the simpler ones is that most atheists are sceptics. But then again, it's also true that atheists deal with death in a rather nihilistic and deathist way. So long as we can't beat death this is understandable, but I don't have a clue why they don't grasp the chance to extend and improve life?

I meant secular in the common usage - not atheist. People jump up and down about religious objections to life extension, but not once have I encountered any such objections in my own research. And I spend a lot of time reading about life extension. Lots of pop atheists talking about religious objections to this research with seemingly no evidence paints a pretty bleak picture of the state of pop atheism. Meanwhile we have the frickin' FDA not even recognising aging as a worthwhile subject of research and costing us millions of dollars and delaying life saving medicine, and you guys are carrying on about religion, which seemingly doesn't have a single thing to say on the subject.

kismet, on Jul 17 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Every single act of religously motivated anti-science bigotry slows down valuable research and progress which eventually will lead to many things, among those life extension. Therefore, every religously motivated anti-science stance impairs our progress (and there are innumerable examples of those). It's hard to say which statements are deathist per se, but if they slow down research, what else are they?
And what about Leon Kass? I'm sure he wasn't motivated by his religon (among other things)...

Again, no real examples given. Just examples of how 'um... er.... indirectly religion objects to life extension'. Look, fundamentalist religious dogma is dangerous, to more than just scientific progress, and in time you may just get your wish. I think this issue will catch up with us and we will start to hear genuine religious objections to the defeat of aging as this issue gets more attention. But it hasn't happened yet, and still I routinely encounter internet atheists in their echo chambers carrying on about this subject as though this were a real problem we have to deal with.

Some religious people may cling to their beliefs for emotional reasons, but from what I see around here so do plenty of atheists. What a shame the truth is so much more complicated than we often seem to want it to be.

Edited by ben, 19 July 2009 - 08:33 AM.

[Mind]

Quote

But really, the majority of objections to life extension that I see posted online and in the press are from secular sources, so I don't know why we're making this about religion.

This has been my experience as well. Non-religious objections to life extension seem to be more widespread than religious ones.

[VictorBjoerk]

look for example when a young person commits suicide, it get's a lot of attention by general people and everyone talks about how horrible it is etc. But when an old person die then it's OK.

People have this view of aging as a supernatural authority person that has a "right" to kill and torture "old" people.

Edited by VictorBjoerk, 19 July 2009 - 02:01 PM.

[kismet]

ben, on Jul 19 2009, 03:30 AM, said:

The quality of his philosophy is not what's at issue, and you are welcome to think of it what you wish. I brought Aquinas up because Sam stated his very silly belief that religious people are religious because of intellectual dishonesty, believing in nonsense for the sake of providing themselves with an emotional crutch. Aquinas, who dedicated his life to scholarship, is but one example of how silly and naive a notion this is. One of many.

No, actually I think Aquinas is not a bad example of what freedom said. Although, he lived in the middle ages so it's rather unfair to use him as an example. How many people were free to object to religion back then? Did we have the science to explain all the things the bible tries to explain back then?

Quote

I don't much care what someone suggested in another thread. 'Absolute?' What can that even mean, in this context?

I believe it means exactly what I said. I explained already, but here it is again: Absolute and unchangable.

Quote

And no, it's not absolute and perfect. Of course it isn't. Religion is quite obviously profoundly imperfect, and no it's not surprising that it changes over time, as one can see this process of evolution happening with even a cursory glance through the scriptures.

Good to hear. But that will make him rather sad, because he believes that the infallibility of religion is the only thing making it worthwhile. Just wanted to mention it, just in case 100years is reading this post (and "I couldn't care less that you couldn't care less about him, bla, bla..."   )

Quote

It's like you guys want religious people to be dogmatists, just because it would make things simpler for you.

Maybe your own religion or cult is not dogmatic, but this lil' one, with about a billion followers, is.

Quote

Meanwhile we have the frickin' FDA not even recognising aging as a worthwhile subject of research and costing us millions of dollars and delaying life saving medicine, and you guys are carrying on about religion, which seemingly doesn't have a single thing to say on the subject.

No, it seemingly does. See below:

Quote

Again, no real examples given. Just examples of how 'um... er.... indirectly religion objects to life extension'. Look, fundamentalist religious dogma is dangerous, to more than just scientific progress, and in time you may just get your wish. I think this issue will catch up with us and we will start to hear genuine religious objections to the defeat of aging as this issue gets more attention. But it hasn't happened yet, and still I routinely encounter internet atheists in their echo chambers carrying on about this subject as though this were a real problem we have to deal with.

Yeah, I've not given examples, like, erm, names or something *cough* Kass *cough*. Read my post before you respond or address the issues at hand, please. Objections to stem cell research and technology in general are in no way slowing down essential therapies and costing lives? Are you really suggesting exactly that? Not a real problem? Didn't fundamentalists rule over the US for 8 long years of the recent past?

Mind, on Jul 19 2009, 06:59 AM, said:

This has been my experience as well. Non-religious objections to life extension seem to be more widespread than religious ones.

I'm not saying this is untrue. But don't you think that all the religious objections to developing technologies we need for life extension indirectly and greatly harm this enterprise? If we consider those - and we definitely should - then it's close and I'd judge religion much more dangerous than the atheist or "secular" opposition.

It really doesn't matter whether they are harming us directly or indirectly.

Edited by kismet, 20 July 2009 - 06:25 PM.

[Ben Simon]

kismet, on Jul 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

No, actually I think Aquinas is not a bad example of what freedom said.

Really? Aquinas is a good example of people believing untenable things for emotional reasons? Do go on.

kismet, on Jul 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

I believe it means exactly what I said. I explained already, but here it is again: Absolute and unchangable.

Still not following. Unchangeable I get. But 'absolute' how? Absolutely unchangeable? No, that would be redundant. You must mean absolute in some other way. Besides, religion obviously changes. Isn't that the point of, like, the New Testament?

kismet, on Jul 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

Maybe your own religion or cult is not dogmatic, but this lil' one, with about a billion followers, is.

I'll repeat myself. 'Fundamentalist religious dogma is dangerous.' Thanks for conceding that some religious people might not be dogmatic though. Progress!

kismet, on Jul 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

Yeah, I've not given examples, like, erm, names or something *cough* Kass *cough*. Read my post before you respond or address the issues at hand, please.

Uh, yeah I read it, thanks.

Kass is a red herring. The fact that he's religious (wait... is he?) does not make his objections (which are philosophical) religious in nature any more than his being a doctor makes his objections medical. Like I said, if you had examples of religious objections to life extension you would have presented them by now. You clearly do not, and I'm surprised you aren't prepared to concede the point.

kismet, on Jul 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

Objections to stem cell research and technology in general are in no way slowing down essential therapies and costing lives? Are you really suggesting exactly that?

No I'm not, as I suspect you know. But again, as we are supposedly engaged in a discussion about religious objections to life extension, it is telling that so far you are only willing to provide examples of religious obstacles to life extension. The religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research is not based on objections to life extension, but on objections to the destruction of embryos.

kismet, on Jul 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

I'm not saying this is untrue.

Great!

kismet, on Jul 20 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

But don't you think that all the religious objections to developing technologies we need for life extension indirectly and greatly harm this enterprise? If we consider those - and we definitely should - then it's close and I'd judge religion much more dangerous than the atheist or "secular" opposition.

Yes, because it's a contest.

See? The personal importance of that belief is what this is all about isn't it? That the religious position on... gee... anything...  is always most at fault? It's why you're trying so hard to find a way to palm off secular (yes) objections to life extension as religious, even though to do so you're having to resort to obviously untenable arguments.

Interesting the leaps of faith we are capable of when defending our valued belief systems. Seems that's not just a religious problem either.

Edited by ben, 21 July 2009 - 11:27 AM.

[kismet]

ben, on Jul 21 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

Really? Aquinas is a good example of people believing untenable things for emotional reasons? Do go on.

Yes, I believe him to be a case of "making up post-hoc rationalisations". The scholars of the middle ages wanted to believe in god (or, alternatively, had to believe in god, among other things, because science lacked concepts to explain the genesis of this world, which is also the reason why Aquinas is a particularly bad and unfair example: he did not have much of a choice, really) and thus they made up the necessary philosophical rationalisations to feel better.

Quote

I'll repeat myself. 'Fundamentalist religious dogma is dangerous.' Thanks for conceding that some religious people might not be dogmatic though. Progress!

And I'll repeat a common new atheist talking point: moderates enable fundamentalists who enable radicals. Some religious people are not dogmatic, but currently most are, as are most world religions. Therefore religion (the way it is) is a threat to life extension.
It is beyond me how you can conveniently ignore that several billion of people adhere to dogmatic religions (and even those who aren't "true believers" still support those religions directly or indirectly whether they themselves are dogmatic or not). Just because you may be an exception with your personal religion, doesn't make most other religions less dangerous or anti-scientific.

Quote

Kass is a red herring. The fact that he's religious (wait... is he?) does not make his objections (which are philosophical) religious in nature any more than his being a doctor makes his objections medical. Like I said, if you had examples of religious objections to life extension you would have presented them by now. You clearly do not, and I'm surprised you aren't prepared to concede the point.

I'm surprised you aren't. Clearly, Bush' and Kass' lunacy was influenced by their religous views. If you don't concur, let's just disagree at this point.
"Will man remain a creature made in the image of God, aspiring to align himself with the divine, or will he become an artifact created by man in the image of God-knows-what, fulfilling the aspirations only of human will? . . . I soon shifted my career from doing science to thinking about its human meaning." (Kass)

Quote

No I'm not, as I suspect you know. But again, as we are supposedly engaged in a discussion about religious objections to life extension, it is telling that so far you are only willing to provide examples of religious obstacles to life extension. The religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research is not based on objections to life extension, but on objections to the destruction of embryos.

If they object to science, then it's naturally an objection to life extension, transhumanism and progress. That's enough to count and this is not at all off-topic as you seem to suggest. But there are enough sensu stricto religious arguments against life extension, although, they are not as common place as their objections to science in general, because, obviously, life extensionist talking points are not as common as science is.
"Thou shalt not play god" has a nice religious over tone, does it ring a bell? Additionally, many religious people feel that they will live forever after death anyway. This results in complacency of many religious people to act or to support those who act, or even worse opposition to those who act. Those are arguments I've been confronted with or seen advanced. Now do you want to call me a liar?  

Quote

Interesting the leaps of faith we are capable of when defending our valued belief systems. Seems that's not just a religious problem either.

Yeah, I should be ashamed for defending the truth and scepticism.

Quote

Yes, because it's a contest.

See? The personal importance of that belief is what this is all about isn't it? That the religious position on... gee... anything... is always most at fault? It's why you're trying so hard to find a way to palm off secular (yes) objections to life extension as religious, even though to do so you're having to resort to obviously untenable arguments.

I don't understand what you are talking about and accusing me of, but let me say that I strongly disapprove of your use of "secular", which means the seperation of religion and state and does not imply and is not based on the atheistic, humanistic, naturalistic philosophy. Most arguments are secular because most of the industrialised world and definitely most of the media is secular! You should involve a percentage if you want to be accurate with your accusation (i.e. there are more secular counterarguments even if we divide by the higher number of secular opinions)
Still I believe you are in fact talking about the atheistic and sceptic critics of life extension (possibly Dawkins et al. just to give you an example. OTOH Myers is prominently not an opponent of life extension). Then again, wouldn't you be the one, who's posting off-topic then? This topic is about religious objections and you are arguing that there are more secular objections -- but this shouldn't matter as we try to address the religious objections in specific. Though, you could (and possibly do) argue that there are no religious objections at all. Then again, I believe I've proven this statement wrong already (assuming you are not calling me a liar). And, yes, furthermore I still consider indirect criticism of science to be directly harming progress of life extension.

Edited by kismet, 22 July 2009 - 01:20 PM.

[cyborgdreamer]

Well, if there are significant religious objections to life extension, the only way we can deal with them is to encourage tolerance and separation of church and state.  Unless they're very rational and open-minded, people are unlikely to change strongly held beliefs no matter how much you argue.  And if I genuinely thought I would become an angel and spend eternity in paradise with my loved ones after death, I probably wouldn't care all that much about life extension either.

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 21 July 2009 - 11:51 PM.

[Luke Parrish]

Mind, on Jul 19 2009, 05:59 AM, said:

This has been my experience as well. Non-religious objections to life extension seem to be more widespread than religious ones.

That's true. For religious people the challenge is getting them to care, seeing as how they are going to live forever anyway. I try to bring up the argument that since suicide is wrong and murder is wrong, why would refusing life-extension be any more okay?

With nonreligious people you get objections like the old overpopulation one, or that you need to replace the generations to keep the ideas fresh. They also seem to feel that there is just too low of a probability that it will be fixed in their lifetime, so why should they get worked up about it?

[russianBEAR]

forever freedom, on Jul 17 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

russianBEAR, on Jul 17 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

There's no set "truth" in anything first of all. Whatever you discover is relative to your experience, could be life-extending for you but absolutely kill someone else.

Second your thought of maybe just maybe is exactly as comforting as any religion. People also have doubts about being saved since they're not always sure what would be a sin or not in the modern context, and all but the most hardcore nuts have at least some degree of doubt about their soul's future let's say.

Everyone has some belief to drive them forward, so they got theirs you got yours I think.

I got mine too, I'm all about embracing nature as a kind of a god, instead of a man who lives in the sky and makes loads of cash for the people in robes

I didn't choose it to comfort me. It is what it is. I chose it because i believe it is true.

That's contrary to people adopting religious/spiritual beliefs. They adopt them to comfort them and not because they've studied all the possible flaws with the belief but still decided that it is the most likely valid one. And no they do not leave place for doubt in their beliefs; they wholeheartedly believe that the god they're worshiping is the only/most powerful one. Or do you think terrorists have any doubt that they'll be able to meet and fuck 72 virgins forever after they blow themselves to pieces?

What I find extremely hilarious, and notice that even in myself all the time, is how no matter what you do and what your motivation is, another person's is always worse and you're in a better position.


But are you really? Everybody adapts beliefs to comfort themselves, you even said you BELIEVE something is true in a line right above that. If something feels comforting, you'll make your other life experiences and ideas/arguments fit into that particular model, and will only see re-affirmation of whatever it is in everything.

If you see someone who looks 20 but is about 75 in reality, you might conclude something about life extension/diet/supplements/how he did it/whatever it is...And you'll see proof of your belief in everything.

Someone who is a religious deathist may think that's some apostle or maybe on the contrary he signed a deal with the devil. Then that person will see proof of his/her belief in everything. Oooh he's wearing black...he just took six steps then stopped - he is satan.

Or some LE enthusiast: Oh he's eating this salad and this and that contains this and the third so that's a good diet. Oh he's into this an that that's why he's like that...

^

See whatever it is you believe you can make it fit and will see that in everything. Doesn't mean you're better or worse than religious fanatics there are just more of them.

[cyborgdreamer]

russianBEAR, on Aug 5 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

What I find extremely hilarious, and notice that even in myself all the time, is how no matter what you do and what your motivation is, another person's is always worse and you're in a better position.


But are you really? Everybody adapts beliefs to comfort themselves, you even said you BELIEVE something is true in a line right above that. If something feels comforting, you'll make your other life experiences and ideas/arguments fit into that particular model, and will only see re-affirmation of whatever it is in everything.

If you see someone who looks 20 but is about 75 in reality, you might conclude something about life extension/diet/supplements/how he did it/whatever it is...And you'll see proof of your belief in everything.

Someone who is a religious deathist may think that's some apostle or maybe on the contrary he signed a deal with the devil. Then that person will see proof of his/her belief in everything. Oooh he's wearing black...he just took six steps then stopped - he is satan.

Or some LE enthusiast: Oh he's eating this salad and this and that contains this and the third so that's a good diet. Oh he's into this an that that's why he's like that...

^

See whatever it is you believe you can make it fit and will see that in everything. Doesn't mean you're better or worse than religious fanatics there are just more of them.

It's not a matter of being better than religious fanatics; it's a matter of being more rational. If a 75 year old looks 20, the cause is more likely to have to do with diet than a satanic pact.  We have scientific evidence that diet influences an animal's health and lifespan.  Meanwhile there is no evidence for the existence of a devil that influences human lives.  Of course, either explanation is specualative but if you're going to study this person, you have to start with a reasonable hypothesis based on known science.

[russianBEAR]

I think that life is whatever you convince yourself really. There are plenty of examples where situations and people do not fit into anything remotely resembling a reasonable hypothesis, and scientists are reaching to explain stuff like the crying religious icons, which could not scientifically happen given the material and paint that was used to create them. Yet there are supposidely loads of witnesses to many accounts of "divine" kind of stuff happening.

Ever heard of a guy who was told he'd be tortured with a hot iron? So he prepared for it and they blindfolded him after showing him the hot iron - then put a cold iron to his hand and he still screamed in pain and had blisters.

Same thing with everything else, you can convince yourself something and your outlook and thus reality will alter.

Maybe scientists are more "rational" than religious fanatics, but not nearly as "spiritual". Both are equally important with people in each category underestimating the importance of the other

Edited by russianBEAR, 06 August 2009 - 08:44 AM.

[kismet]

Answers in bold.

See whatever it is you believe you can make it fit and will see that in everything. Doesn't mean you're better or worse than religious fanatics there are just more of them.
We have evidence on our side, they don't.

If you see someone who looks 20 but is about 75 in reality, you might conclude something about life extension/diet/supplements/how he did it/whatever it is...And you'll see proof of your belief in everything.
...
Or some LE enthusiast: Oh he's eating this salad and this and that contains this and the third so that's a good diet. Oh he's into this an that that's why he's like that...
What you are describing is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is a problem with epidemiology and anecdotal observation. The scientific method, i.e. controlled experiments, can sort out this sort of error or bias and provide almost undisputable results. For a scientist, there is no excuse to commit such a fallacy. The public at large is science illiterate, but it doesn't change the fact that those observations are invalid. Instead we must educate the public...
Let me flesh out another cum hoc ergo propter hoc as an example: Jean Calment lived to be 122 and smoked, therefore, to live to 122 you need to smoke (Jean lived for such a long time because she smoked). QED?

I think that life is whatever you convince yourself really. There are plenty of examples where situations and people do not fit into anything remotely resembling a reasonable hypothesis, and scientists are reaching to explain stuff like the crying religious icons, which could not scientifically happen given the material and paint that was used to create them. Yet there are supposidely loads of witnesses to many accounts of "divine" kind of stuff happening.
Do you have a reference to a scientific journal or discussion were scientists admit that there is no "scientific explanation" and fail to provide an alternative explanation?

Ever heard of a guy who was told he'd be tortured with a hot iron? So he prepared for it and they blindfolded him after showing him the hot iron - then put a cold iron to his hand and he still screamed in pain and had blisters.
The first part is an example of psychosomatics and apparently a variation of the nocebo effect, it's more tricky than just imagination but it's still "just in your head". The explanation is entirely physical and there's no spirituality involved. The latter part I will only believe if you provide verifiable references.

Same thing with everything else, you can convince yourself something and your outlook and thus reality will alter.
That's blatantly untrue. No matter how strong your belief is, when you jump in front of a train going 150 km/h you are dead. Or a more real world example, "a positive attitude" does not prolong cancer survival.

Maybe scientists are more "rational" than religious fanatics, but not nearly as "spiritual".
What does "spiritual" mean? What good is it? Imagining things and feeling good about it? (that's how it sounds from your description)

Both are equally important with people in each category underestimating the importance of the other
No. Only real things are important.

Edited by kismet, 08 August 2009 - 04:53 PM.

[russianBEAR]

kismet, on Aug 8 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

Answers in bold.

See whatever it is you believe you can make it fit and will see that in everything. Doesn't mean you're better or worse than religious fanatics there are just more of them.
We have evidence on our side, they don't.

If you see someone who looks 20 but is about 75 in reality, you might conclude something about life extension/diet/supplements/how he did it/whatever it is...And you'll see proof of your belief in everything.
...
Or some LE enthusiast: Oh he's eating this salad and this and that contains this and the third so that's a good diet. Oh he's into this an that that's why he's like that...
What you are describing is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is a problem with epidemiology and anecdotal observation. The scientific method, i.e. controlled experiments, can sort out this sort of error or bias and provide almost undisputable results. For a scientist, there is no excuse to commit such a fallacy. The public at large is science illiterate, but it doesn't change the fact that those observations are invalid. Instead we must educate the public...
Let me flesh out another cum hoc ergo propter hoc as an example: Jean Calment lived to be 122 and smoked, therefore, to live to 122 you need to smoke (Jean lived for such a long time because she smoked). QED?

I think that life is whatever you convince yourself really. There are plenty of examples where situations and people do not fit into anything remotely resembling a reasonable hypothesis, and scientists are reaching to explain stuff like the crying religious icons, which could not scientifically happen given the material and paint that was used to create them. Yet there are supposidely loads of witnesses to many accounts of "divine" kind of stuff happening.
Do you have a reference to a scientific journal or discussion were scientists admit that there is no "scientific explanation" and fail to provide an alternative explanation?

Ever heard of a guy who was told he'd be tortured with a hot iron? So he prepared for it and they blindfolded him after showing him the hot iron - then put a cold iron to his hand and he still screamed in pain and had blisters.
The first part is an example of psychosomatics and apparently a variation of the nocebo effect, it's more tricky than just imagination but it's still "just in your head". The explanation is entirely physical and there's no spirituality involved. The latter part I will only believe if you provide verifiable references.

Same thing with everything else, you can convince yourself something and your outlook and thus reality will alter.
That's blatantly untrue. No matter how strong your belief is, when you jump in front of a train going 150 km/h you are dead. Or a more real world example, "a positive attitude" does not prolong cancer survival.

Maybe scientists are more "rational" than religious fanatics, but not nearly as "spiritual".
What does "spiritual" mean? What good is it? Imagining things and feeling good about it? (that's how it sounds from your description)

Both are equally important with people in each category underestimating the importance of the other
No. Only real things are important.

First of all I hardly know anything about fallacies,and I have no idea what those big latin words that you use even mean But the example you give later about smoking is not even remotely relevant to what I was trying to say. 


The majority of the general public is also theology-illiterate just as much as they are with science.

The bigger point is: ultimately noone knows the answers to "the big questions" about the world's origins and the good old "why are we here" etc. Science is just one way of trying to find an answer, you believe in it as the only way, others don't. So saying science is the one and only way to go and discover things, in my opinion, is just as limited as turning to the Bible for absolutely all of your answers.

What I was referring to earlier was the "crying icons" at religious events. For some reason I can only find links about it in Russian, dont think they'll be too useful here. I don't read scientific journals by the way, nor do I think that everything I say merits some reference to some scientists.

The way you're making it sound is that people are automatically disqualified from their opinion if they're not into science, I just dont believe that. Even people who aren't considered intelligent like farmers, workers, etc. have a whole lot of conventional wisdom from their life experiences. Wisdom to me means a hell of a lot more than some controlled experiments. I don't reject the scientific methods etc, it's just not my preferred way of discovering life, so why should I partake in something that's only in your ballpark and not mine? 

We tried this "all in your head" thing out a while back - my friend was getting a methamphetamine-like high from taking multi-vitamins, and the comedowns were just as bad. Then he decided that milk has the effect of heroin and watchin him you wouldn't be able to tell. Then he switched to tap water, which had him zooted out of his skull. Now I've seen this guy on all the real substances I've menitioned, and you couldn't tell the difference.

I personally believe that each individual has his/her own quest in life, and I observe and discover nature, trying to notice the little things, and certain signs that everyone needs to pay attention to. 

I'm more into spiritual/esoteric beliefs, but not really any kind of religion. I think people overtime lost their touch with nature as "the source" and my whole idea is living life in its natural progression and getting back in touch with it.

By the way, there is a way to combat all diseases with the strength of your will. You can also, as a human, kill just about any predator with bare hands, and if not he wouldn't be able to touch you within a mile. A human's body can take just about any kind of imaginable abuse and survive, our impulses go through the brain a lot faster than any animal on this planet by a large margin. You can stop pain completely, break brick walls, etc. if you know how to do it right. All elite special forces units know all about this...how does science explain fighting and knocking people down without ever touching them ? How does science explain one person touching another and the one who got touched gets a deadly disease about a week later and dies? It all happens, there's alot more to this world than scientific method. Probably a load of material on non-contact fighting in English too..

Again I read a Russian book about it, I dunno if you can find a english version or what - it's called "A Human Weapon" by V.V.Shlahter. 

[kismet]

russianBEAR, on Aug 11 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

First of all I hardly know anything about fallacies,and I have no idea what those big latin words that you use even mean But the example you give later about smoking is not even remotely relevant to what I was trying to say. 
Wikipedia (altough, I explained it anyway). 

I don't reject the scientific methods etc, it's just not my preferred way of discovering life, so why should I partake in something that's only in your ballpark and not mine?
But I hope you do know that you would not be writing this text if it wasn't for the scientific method? Most likely you would not even be alive if it wasn't for the scientific method. The method is crucial to our society, even if you don't use it.

The bigger point is: ultimately noone knows the answers to "the big questions" about the world's origins and the good old "why are we here" etc. Science is just one way of trying to find an answer, you believe in it as the only way, others don't. So saying science is the one and only way to go and discover things, in my opinion, is just as limited as turning to the Bible for absolutely all of your answers.
Theology and religion has no answers. I'd be very interested to find out, what you consider answers based on religion. Answers need to be verifiable, otherwise I could make up anything and callt it an "answer". Most religions assert that god made the universe, great, I say that a pink unicorn made the universe. So who is right? I am of the opinion that science is the one and only way that we can get answers that people agree on.

Again I read a Russian book about it, I dunno if you can find a english version or what - it's called "A Human Weapon" by V.V.Shlahter. 
What if the author lies?

Edited by kismet, 11 August 2009 - 01:55 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

forever freedom, on Jul 16 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

VictorBjoerk, on Jul 15 2009, 11:18 PM, said:

Some arguments one can think about when debating deathists who uses religion as a tool to apologize for death.

1. is your current life really so extremely bad that it's necessary to die and get another life in another dimension to reach "peace"?

2. death is bad, not good, otherwise people wouldn't be crying at funerals.

3. why is it so important to replace person A with B?

4. If preventing death is to play god, why did then god give us the possibilities to do so? If god didn't want us to do something, why did he then create us with the ability to do so?

All virtually useless, i must add. I've found from experience that reason doesn't penetrate these people's minds.

Indeed it would be next to impossible to convince these people by simple logic. For two reasons. One, they're afraid to deviate from their belief (afraid of being socially outcast, afraid they may end up worse, etc). Two, they're conditioned to think like this by their environment. In other words, peer pressure.

The best thing we can do is to chip away at the ice slowly. Give em links, books, having small moderate conversations that will not be an attack on them but an introduction to something new. NEVER attack someone by bashing their beliefs or so forth. By nature we all love to criticize and defend our selves, even if we know that what we're defending is illogical. It's like honor, someone will defend their beliefs if attacked. We just love criticizing and defending. But in the end as technology progresses, people all around the world including deathists will change their mind once they see life extension becoming a reality. Once presented the elixir of life in front of them, they will take it!   Until then they'll justify death because that's all that exists now.

[russianBEAR]

kismet, on Aug 11 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

russianBEAR, on Aug 11 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

First of all I hardly know anything about fallacies,and I have no idea what those big latin words that you use even mean But the example you give later about smoking is not even remotely relevant to what I was trying to say. 
Wikipedia (altough, I explained it anyway). 

I don't reject the scientific methods etc, it's just not my preferred way of discovering life, so why should I partake in something that's only in your ballpark and not mine?
But I hope you do know that you would not be writing this text if it wasn't for the scientific method? Most likely you would not even be alive if it wasn't for the scientific method. The method is crucial to our society, even if you don't use it.

The bigger point is: ultimately noone knows the answers to "the big questions" about the world's origins and the good old "why are we here" etc. Science is just one way of trying to find an answer, you believe in it as the only way, others don't. So saying science is the one and only way to go and discover things, in my opinion, is just as limited as turning to the Bible for absolutely all of your answers.
Theology and religion has no answers. I'd be very interested to find out, what you consider answers based on religion. Answers need to be verifiable, otherwise I could make up anything and callt it an "answer". Most religions assert that god made the universe, great, I say that a pink unicorn made the universe. So who is right? I am of the opinion that science is the one and only way that we can get answers that people agree on.

Again I read a Russian book about it, I dunno if you can find a english version or what - it's called "A Human Weapon" by V.V.Shlahter. 
What if the author lies?

Well for one, you're afraid for your dear life, and trying to extend it, while religion allows people to believe enough to strap themselves with a loaded belt, get in the car and head to a U.S. Military base for a bonfire party...


Which basically shows that if you believe in something strongly enough, not only can you make it happen, but you'll be inspired to act and do something. Talk about will power - these people stand during 8-10 hour masses on religious holidays, even the oldest of the old. What motivates them and pushes them ? The collective spirit and the collective belief, which creates a certain energy and aura. You don't have to have "answers" to everything, because we, as every species on this planet, are limited in what we can find out, although humans a lot less so. 

It's easy to look at religion just from one side, and from the mainstream perspective, but try going to a shamanic ritual, not the Church of latter day saints. I've had some of the most staunch anti-religious, anti-spiritual, anti-everything people attend, and I thought it was their twin the way they were talking about what they've experienced afterwards. Some stuff just defies science, call it magic or whatever...

I don't have a problem with the scientific method, but I don't know anything about it, and I prefer to experience life through spiritual/energetic connections, and seeing the bigger picture through the smallest signs in my life.

Like today I found an old tape of me recording back in 1994, when I was 10. I was amazed at the lyrics, which basically kind of predicted my whole life ahead of time, and I didn't even realize that. Many famous musicians also start off banging on tables, buckets etc. since a very young age when they don't know what they're doing even. Many more predict their own death through lyrics or actions.

It is that aspect of life, a proverbial "destiny" which interests me way more than some scientific terms, and what receptor affects what in the brain, and how much longer can we try to stay here.

So by that logic, death isn't really positive or negative, it's a conversion of energy so to speak. Noone has a problem with energy being converted in other "endeavors" and "processes" so what's the big problem here ?

As far as that author - how can he lie if he's basically saying that you can do whatever you want to convince yourself, not like he has some agenda or anything. Although you never know with how the KGB is here.