• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Views from a Christian


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#91 micah

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 0

Posted 15 December 2003 - 02:08 AM

If you die, you died, God doesn't justify your destination to either heaven or hell


Following God's values will help you live forever. Choosing short-sighted values will tend to insure your rapid death. The bible indicates that those who value "good" will live forever, while those who value "evil" will die and simply cease to exist.

Will god prevail as you think he is the Creator, or will science revolutionise human kinds under human will and innovation??


This sentence is hard to understand. I think that you are seeing a dichotomy between "God's will" and "human progress". If so, then that is incorrect. God's will is for us to progress, for us to explore our creativity and innovation, and for us to build a great future.

Science and god cannot co-exist.



That's an interesting statement. Obviously science and *I* co-exist. Now imagine someone slightly more powerful than I. Obviously that person and science could co-exist. Now imagine someone more powerful than that person. When in this process does someone become so powerful that science can no longer exist?

At what point does an individual's power become so great that science ceases to exist? And why so? Why would any individual's existence put science in jeopardy?

-micah

#92 randolfe

  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • -1
  • Location:New York City/ Hoboken, N.J.

Posted 18 December 2003 - 06:59 AM

  I wish we had left Bush's commentary in place.  It was demonstrative of the extreme intolerant religious zealot and highly appropriate even if distasteful.  I think most censorship is mistaken and here especially..

I couldn't agree more. I think that this thread has imploded upon itself without the presense of our good Christian.
I saw Bill Maher on Larry King tonight declaring that he believed in God but that he didn't believe God needed "someone" to convey his message.
I personally don't believe someone as bright as Bill Maher caould possibly believe in God. Perhaps I am wrong.
Regarding censorship, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, if you don't maintain control, the mindless believers will overwhelm you here as they have elsewhere in the world. But we need to allow a sacrificial lamb in every now and then so we can keep our "throat slitting" techniques up to par.

#93 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 06 September 2004 - 12:24 AM

I am joining this thread way late, but I suppose my opinion will be welcomed anyway. I have been focussing almost exclusively on the scientific debates, yet I feel compelled to get involved now in the philosophical and religious debates.

Okay, I'm going back to the beginning of this thread, the first page anyway.

Suppose you have a good life right now. You have a steady job that you, for the most part, enjoy. You have a wife/husband and a kid or to. You have a nice little suburban house with good neighbours and all the modern conviences of life. Things could be better or they could be worse but for the most part you're happy.

Suddenly you get the option to move. You have no idea where your moving to, you know that it will better than the home you have right now but you don't know how. You have no idea what the people, customs, or conviences of life are like there. Also, if you move there, you have to leave everything behind, even your family. I'f your not sure you want to move there yet, don't worry, there is no time limit for the move you can leave whenever you want.

Now, would you really just give up everything and go to this place? Some people would, and some Christians do look forward to death. But the rest of us are quite happy continuing our lives here knowing we have Heaven waiting for us when we do die.

Also,for me at least, is the desire to help out this world before we leave. This world still has a lot of problems and if I can do something to help it out, I will. Even if this is nothing more than showing a few people what Christians are like and opening a few minds.

I agree. My wife doesn't take too well to my views on extending life on this earth. For her, she's ready to go now. She wouldn't do anything to try to end her life prematurely, but she's certainly not seeking to extend her natural lifespan.

As for me, I believe that once I have left this earth, at some point after the Resurrection, I will become even more as God: today we have the knowledge of Good and Evil, thanks to Adam; tomorrow, I will know much more, and I will have more power at my disposal. Knowledge that makes today's technology seem more primitive than the stone age. Wisdom (Reasoning skills) to solve any of today's problems, even if I had only the knowledge available today. Power to effect Creation itself.

So, in one sense, life here sucks, when you compare it to what may be. On the other hand, I enjoy life here. I get to pursue life on my own terms, within certain moral limits. I get to solve problems, and to learn and understand, with my own knowledge.

I compare learning in life to learning in math; after all, math has always been my favorite subject.

I love solving math problems in my head. No calculator. When students around me were whipping out their calculators, I was solving problems in my head, or when sufficiently complex, I'd take shortcuts on paper. I rarely wrote out full solutions, often solving three or four steps before writing down the next partial solution.

To a degree, this slowed me down relative to my classmates. But it also strengthened me. They became reliant on their calculators, and didn't fully *understand* how they were solving the problems. They could apply the formulae, but they didn't know how they worked. I not only knew how the formulae worked, but I could derive them if I needed to.

Eventually I yielded to the calculator, but never to solve a problem I couldn't solve myself without the calculator. I simply use the calculator now as a means of solving problems more quickly, so that I can *learn even faster*. Many people use a calculator to solve problems faster, so they won't have to think as hard. For me, that defeats the purpose!

That's how I view life. Once I'm dead, I'll have all the answers at my disposal. Less to learn, more to apply. But in this life, I get to *learn* as many answers as I have time for. And I'd like more time. That's why I'm an Immortalist, a Transhumanist, and yet still a Christian.

Jay Fox

#94 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 06 September 2004 - 12:59 AM

Evolution? No, I don't believe in it. I've never had a reason to. The choice between Creation and evolution is basically just a choice between two possible, but unlikely, scenarios for why we exist. I believe in God and God said Creation happened so I belive in Creation. Besides, saying that your just a random chance that was never meant to happen doesn't make you feel very special.

It's a bit of an irony that I believe in both. I believe in Creation, and I believe in Evolution. However, the version of Creation I believe in is different than the fundamentalist view.

As a basic tenet of my sect of Christianity, God "lives" (resides, I suppose would be the correct term) on a world which has a "day" equivalent to about one thousand earth years.

This has several implications for taking the Bible literally. First, the six days of Creation could become six thousand years, far more reasonable than "six days". Second, when God said that in the day that Adam partook of the fruit, he should die, God was being literal. Adam and all his progenitors died after less than a thousand years, one "day" on God's world.

Of course, I don't take the Old Testament very literally at times. I have no problem believing that the earth is nearly five billion years old, or that the universe was created in a Big Bang. I personally view the Creation much more as an Agnostic or an Intelligent Designist (what is the correct term for them?) would: that the Creation happened pretty much as science tells us it did. But doesn't this conflict with the divine nature of the Creation?

Well, yes and no. The Creation happened as science is finding it did, with perfectly reasonable physical explanations (once all the evidence is in). However, I do believe that God directed it. You could say that this even borders dangerously on Intelligent Design. However, in my opinion, Intelligent Design presupposes that the "intelligence" stepped in and interfered with the "design" process, because random chance alone was *not sufficient*; it could not achieve the impossible or the highly improbable.

I, on the other hand, assume nothing of the sort. Perhaps random chance was enough. But just because random chance *could have* led to what we see today, that doesn't mean it was truly random. In other words, intelligence didn't get involved in the process because it had to for the process to succeed; intelligence merely got involved to *ensure* that the process succeeded.

Let's compare Evolution to Poker, where the physical laws are like the deck. Creation, in my view, stacked the deck. Nothing "impossible" was achieved. No wild cards were necessary. No one's going to get dealt five aces, so to speak. But God did guarantee that we got a winning hand (full house? two pairs, eights and eights? :) straight flush? royal flush? How improbable is the creation of sentient Man?).

Of course, maybe God did break the rules a little. Like I said, I'm not resigned one way or the other. But I don't see why the two points of view must conflict. I don't see why Evolution *must* conflict with a religious view of Creation.

#95 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 September 2004 - 02:13 AM

I personally view the Creation much more as an Agnostic or an Intelligent Designist (what is the correct term for them?) would: that the Creation happened pretty much as science tells us it did.

Jay, I believe it's a deist.

#96 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 06 September 2004 - 08:35 AM

Or Theistic Evolutionist.

#97

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 06 September 2004 - 09:18 AM

Or simply one who does not feel that faith should compromise scientific endeavor.

#98 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 September 2004 - 07:02 PM

Right, prometheus, and to be precise, a deist is someone who believes in a divine prime mover who set the initial nomological values of reality and then allowed reality to run its course based on these values without ever intervening henceforth from that instant at the very beginning of time. Although Jay says that this prime mover has in fact intervened in order to haved designed these values in the interim of there not being any and there being these values, the relevant point is that once these values were set, the divine prime mover stepped out of the way. And yes, believing in God in this way would not compromise scientific endeavor. The only difference is that there's a name for it, and to know this helps to clarify beliefs, which I think Jay was trying to do.

#99 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 07 September 2004 - 07:19 PM

Although Jay says that this prime mover has in fact intervened in order to haved designed these values in the interim of there not being any and there being these values, the relevant point is that once these values were set, the divine prime mover stepped out of the way.

While I believe that in the general course of things (the motions of the stars, the creations of worlds, the Evolution of life and of Man, etc.), God does not intervene--other than in setting initial conditions--I do believe that God can and possibly does intervene with Humanity on a more personal level: spirituality, prophets, visions.

I do concede that many, if not most, such visions, whisperings, etc., are the result of misinterpretations of physiological (neurological) phenomena. However, to the degree that such neurological pathways exist, in addition to whatever benefits they might give us in dealing with life and death, I believe that these pathways provide a means for God to provide "actual" and not just misinterpreted divine communication: visions, "whisperings", feelings, the "sixth sense", inspiration, etc.

I'm not saying that I believe that these things do in fact happen without a doubt, because I do admit there is some doubt within me (such is the nature of faith: overcoming doubt makes your faith stronger, or exposes you to a better thing to have faith in). But I nonetheless believe. I am more inclined to believe that in the general "ruling and running the universe" part of His job description, God merely sets initial conditions, so to speak. However, in His role in the shaping of humanity, I feel that more intervention is required, and therefore probably given as well.

Jay Fox

#100 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 07 September 2004 - 07:35 PM

Or simply one who does not feel that faith should compromise scientific endeavor.

You know, it's interesting, because when looking back at history, and how religion has held up science, one thing becomes apparent: even if you are very deeply religious, you should have the common sense to realize that halting scientific progress might not be doing the Lord's work.

I recently commented to Reason about Mercator, the famous 16th century mapmaker. He was incarcerated, and very nearly tortured and killed, for creating maps based on science and surveys rather than the Bible and religious doctrine. I think of Galileo and Copernicus.

In the case of Mercator, the Catholic Church was looking out for their political interests, and we see that sort of stuff today with the stem cell debate: the arguments against it are pathetic and hypocritical when you look at the administrations total agenda.

In the case of Galileo and Copernicus, their ideas challenged the core of Creation, at least as far as the Church was concerned. The Bible was accepted as scientifically accurate, and therefore the validity of the Bible itself was being challenged.

But there's something to learn here. First, there's the issue of taking the Bible literally. But even more than that, there's the issue of interpretation. God created the world in "six days". What's a day? A human day, 24 hours? Or a day in the life of a planet, measured literally in geological timescales: millions, hundreds of millions, even billions of years.

No, if we're going to learn from history, we must learn that opposing science on purely ideological grounds is wrong at best, and deadly at worst. Opposing science for moral reasons is at least a step better: opposing the use of slaves, or Jews, or prisoners, as live test subjects, for example. These are things not limited to religion, but to the moral seed planted in every heart.

Here there is of course a gray area: all but the sociopaths have morals of some kind, even if they are codified in no more complex terms than "do unto other as you would have done unto you".

If there is indeed a "correct" religion (which I hold mine to be, and yet I cannot deny the possibility that it is incorrect without myself becoming a hypocrite; therefore, I do admit it *could* be wrong), then in theory, there is a "true" set of moral standards, which I assume that most of us threw out the window long ago.

However, in light of what modern society is, the best we can hope for is a reasonably acceptable minimum set of standards. Back in my agnostic days, I held to the mantra that the government should not inflict morality upon its citizens. I still hold to that today. We must set only a minimum level in law, and this minimum level should be allowed to "slide with the time".

Luckily, many "moral" lines are drawn based on "rights", such as the right not to be raped, murdered, etc. Clearly these laws started out as moral ones, but in light of the erosion of morality as a justification for laws, the "rights" prevail as the legal justification.

Anyway, random ramblings. I don't think that research should be stopped on ideological grounds, and only on moral grounds in exceptional cases. In the ESC debate, I don't believe the moral objections are anywhere near exceptional, and so we should proceed.

Jay Fox

#101 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 07 September 2004 - 08:33 PM

Two bumper stickers that crack me up:

1. God was my co-pilot, but then we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him.

2. I found Jesus! He was hiding in the trunk on my drive home from Tijuana.

JD, I'm really fascinated by your memetic make up. Personally I think Christianity (and religion in general) is bunk, but hey -- what ever floats your boat. [thumb] You are a Christian hybrid (memetic mutant), and as such you are a rare exception rather than the rule. If main stream Christianity held your world view senescence would have already been conquered.

The important thing is that you haven't allowed your faith to over rule your rational thinking process -- and you seem to have as much passion as anyone here at Imminst for conquering the blight of involuntary death. So more power to you buddy. I welcome your brand of Christianity with open arms and hope that your memeplex spreads through out Christianity as a whole.

You said you belong to a particular sect of Christianity. Do you mind telling us which sect this is and what kinds of following it maintains?

Thanks

DonS

#102 Kalepha

  • Guest
  • 1,140 posts
  • 0

Posted 07 September 2004 - 09:09 PM

Jay,

Then you're not a deist. You're just weird. j/k ;oþ

I share Don's sentimentality. I appreciate your open mind and willingness to share these thoughts.

#103 micah

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 October 2004 - 04:48 AM

While I believe that in the general course of things (the motions of the stars, the creations of worlds, the Evolution of life and of Man, etc.), God does not intervene--other than in setting initial conditions--I do believe that God can and possibly does intervene with Humanity on a more personal level: spirituality, prophets, visions.


Why the dichotomy between God's actions and things independent of God? If God exists, would it make sense to distinguish fully between him and the universe?

Why not identify God with all of reality, and thus see the laws of physics as manifestations of God? There is definite support for this in the christian scriptures.

But, then why call it "God" instead of simply, "reality"? Saying "God exists" in this context indicates the NATURE of ultimate reality. If you call it "God", that indicates that in some respect, it is personal.

Reality is personal because it is built from mathematical constructs, and ultimately built on the mathematical construct of consciousness.

-micah

#104 stormheller

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 1

Posted 21 November 2004 - 05:30 AM

Right on, man. I'm a Christian as well, I was raised in Communist Atheism and Asian Paganism, and those beliefs really didn't fit with me very comfortably. I think that Christianity is the best religion for immortality because Jesus talked about the immortal soul and a living God. Other religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism, are even MORE pro-death than Christianity! They're into reincarnation and all that. Atheism just doesn't cut it for most people, such as myself. I believe that there has to be a God. Y'all atheists, have you heard of the prime mover theory? It says that somebody has to have put the gears of the universe into motion. Somebody. That requires the existence of a sentience before the creation of what we now know as the universe. I'm not trying to convert anyone but think about it for a while...

#105 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 21 November 2004 - 06:04 AM

prime mover...mmmm haven't heard it called by that.

Now the watchmaker story I have heard: do you just find watches that occur in nature - that is the blunt "point" of the story. "Something needed to build the thing" bla bla bla. And we all know that watches are not biological (temporal genetic systems excluded [sfty] ).

But I have heard the same phrase over and over again and yes, I have thought about it - still atheist too. "Something had to put it all into play" "god said BANG and the universe was created" stuff like that...

But overall when you do synthesis reactions in organic chemistry there isn't magical moments with incantations of divinity to generate the product - its governed by nucleophilic and electrophilic interactions. Same goes for abiogenesis research, it looks like our macromolecules are intrinsicly produced by earthly reagents/catalysts. When organisms change we don't find a "god" as the reason but we sure do find down to earth mechanisms in which change can occur. In all of these and more specific events I do not find divinity but rather a world without.

And I sure haven't seen the religions, with their thick wallets, pay bills for divinity research to be done...of course when it comes to riding on faith, who cares to investigate?

#106 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 21 November 2004 - 06:57 AM

who created God?

#107 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 21 November 2004 - 07:01 AM

actually I think I am God. This belief started one day when I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself :)

#108 vortexentity

  • Guest
  • 243 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Florida

Posted 25 November 2004 - 06:35 AM

So if God speaks to you then you know you are talking to yourself right?

If you answer yourself in a different more God like voice perhaps you might even pay attention.

I Am what I Am.
Popeye

#109 hitork

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 March 2005 - 11:07 PM

Hi, I too am a Christian, but am interested in physical immortality. I personally don't want to dig through the pages to read everyone elses replies, but I'll give you my two cents. (Though I see the last post was in November, so this thread maybe dead).

First off, I'm find it weird there are a few other religious people on this board, I always thought all immortalists didn't believe in a God or an afterlife. But anyways, on to my views.

I'm interested in immortalism for a few reasons. First off, I do believe there maybe an afterlife, however, there is no way to tell how it'll be like. I'm familiar with the physical world, but there is no way to tell how this "next" life will be, if it exists that is. The other reason why I'm interested in immortalism is if that if I am wrong with my beliefs on the afterlife.

Actually, I'm not really looking for true physical immortalism. I'd just like to spend more time on earth, that's all. I think the current human life span is a little bit on the short side. I'm not really interested in living for a super-long time, personally if I lived three-thousand years, I think there would be a point where I would eventually get bored of life and jump off a cliff or shoot myself. But then again, who knows, maybe I'll find it a blast. Secondly, I accept the fact that while science can solve the problems of natural death, it is probably impossible to solve accidental death (e.g. Getting plowed down by a bus). And as people have pointed out, there will be a point when the earth and universe will probably end, so all-in-all, I feel true physical immortality for an eternity is clearly impossible, should you manage to avoid war, disasters, and any other non-natural causes of human death.

I think there are a lot of people, both Christian and non-Christian who misinterpret the religion. I think it's as simple as love. Just be nice to other people, hold the door for other people, help the old lady up the stairs. You get a satisfaction in showing love and courtesy to other people. I don't think Christianity is about bashing other people for not believing in it or believing in another religion (This is what I call the "My God can kick you God's ass" attitude). I also think people misinterpret what God is, in the sense that He is some sort of vengenceful being who'll send you to some sort of eternal fire cause you don't believe in Him or because you were a jackass your whole life. I think that God is a being of love and He'll love you too, even if you are a bastard. I also believe that if there is a Hell, God doesn't send you there, only you do. Some people claim a ticket to Hell is to deny God, even after death. I should also point out that the above paragraph works on the principle that if there is a God. I think the reason why religion works in the wrong way like many people think it does is because people misinterpret it, which is why we have everyone saying religion is crap these days.

I have a feeling some of you will ask why do I believe in a God. Well, I don't believe faith can be blind, you need something to root faith into. Although there isn't empirical evidence for a God, there are shreds of odd things. First of all, cases of Near-Death experiences offer some evidence that there might be something out there. While some people claim that NDEs are the result of brain activity near death, there's actually no evidence for that, yet. I recommend to to check out Kevin William's website about Near-Death experiences at http://www.near-death.com/ There is a wealth of information on there, and he does consider the skeptics side in detail also. Kevin also has an interesting section called "Why fear of death is irrational", and he gives reasons why people shouldn't fear death, regardless if there an afterlife or not.

I think a stronger case for an existence in God rests in the phenomenon of Marian apparations. When I first heard about them, I thought most of them were nothing more then crazy fools or schizophrenics who think they're seeing the Virgin Mary. However, there are some oddities with a lot of cases. First of all, there is the sudden conversions of people to Christianity who visit the sites of the apparations, many of whom are die-hard atheists or skeptics. There is also the miraculous sudden cures of ill people, some terminally and some blind, validated by medical teams. There are also other phenomena such as prophecies proven true, and other weird miracles that have happened. Science has also investigated later cases when the methods to test them arrived. Such cases as Garabandal and Medjugorje has been investicated by science and medical team (many of the members who are secular) and have come to the conclusion that in those cases, the so-called people who claim they're seeing Mary are not lying, and that there are no pathological signs that maybe causing what is happening to them (Medjugorje has been investigated twice, once in 1993 and another time in 1998. The conclusion both times was there was no natural explanation). Granted, I know a lot of you are going to flak me now that I've brought up this topic, and I know you probably won't believe in the apparations either (I wouldn't blame you either, there are Christians with cases against Marian apparations). I'm not trying to force you to believe in a God, I'm just making a case that there is a possiblity for one. You guys can Google up information about the topic if you want, I don't have any links right now.

I'll close on the note to say my main goal in life is to try to see if it's possible to survive 150-300 years. I think I'll be content with that.

#110 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 25 March 2005 - 01:40 AM

All Christians have a religious duty to live as long as possible, not just 70, 150 or even 300 years.

Philippians 1:21-26

A Christian that is not an immortalist is not a true Christian. They are part of what has been so aptly called "the culture of death."

Welcome.

---BrianW

#111 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 25 March 2005 - 02:16 AM

christian., while understanding of your plight, I was once in much the same quandry, I must urge you to reconsider your deitific leanings. In the past few hundred years can you please, pretty please with sugar on top, identify one instance, just one, where religion has assisted mankind in the same capacity as science? What disease has been eradicated? what genetic malady discovered? by the magical use of "faith". please excuse my forwardness, it is indicative of my loss of patience with trivialities of religions prosletysers. But you seem open to reason. I implore you to read de sades julliette and then get back to me. [thumb]

#112 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 25 March 2005 - 05:49 AM

Associating immortalism with particular religious beliefs is as big a mistake as associating it with particular political leanings. By gosh, if Max More and James Hughes can coexist as transhumanists, then atheists and Christians should be able to coexist as immortalists! Persecuted minorities need to focus on what unites rather than what divides.

---BrianW

#113 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 25 March 2005 - 06:48 AM

We're all in this together... death is the enemy.

#114 randolfe

  • Guest
  • 439 posts
  • -1
  • Location:New York City/ Hoboken, N.J.

Posted 25 March 2005 - 09:21 PM

My, today is Good Friday. I wish my atheist friends "Happy Good Friday!" They get a kick out of that. I wouldn't do the same to the devout Roman Catholics who are either friends (few) or family (many/all).

Renewed life has arrived at this thread two days early.

Oh well, those of us who see religion(including Christianity) as something which might yet destroy the entire world, can look forward to tomorrow. I always call skeptic friends (and believers who have taunted me during the previous year) to celebrate "Christ-free Saturday"!

The Saturday before Easter is the only day during the year when both believers and non-believers can agree that Christ is dead. Of course, this holiday passes far too quickly. Come Sunday, the bells will be ringing, the churches will be filled and God will be back ;)

I'm holding my breath to see if Sherri Chiavo dies in the next few hours. If she dies on Good Friday and her body mysteriously disappears, some might claim to have seen her this Sunday and we'll have a new cult/religion with a female divinty (for a change). Would they call these believers "Sherrites"? Would this new religion be called "Chiavinity"? Would it be a new religion or just another branch of Christianity?

I offer these observations because I experienced a personal epiphany upon reading the most memorable line of all those thousand-plus lines above:

"My God can kick you God's ass"


That quote captures the inner spirit which is found far too often at most religions' core.

Actually, I like hitork and thank him for contributing the quote and link below. I don't think he will be remain religious for much longer. However, I've often felt the choice to believe or not believe is an involuntary one.

I recommend to to check out Kevin William's website about Near-Death experiences at http://www.near-death.com/ There is a wealth of information on there, and he does consider the skeptics side in detail also. Kevin also has an interesting section called "Why fear of death is irrational", and he gives reasons why people shouldn't fear death, regardless if there an afterlife or not.


I'm really going to investigate this resource. It sounds most interesting. I'll be politically-incorrect and confess I'd love to overcome my fear of death. But what happens if you not only overcome your fear of death but you actually come to love death and look forward to it.

Well, there is a site where such people can talk about that and meet others with a similar mindset. It's called "Alternate Suicide Holiday". I went there and found it fascinating a couple years ago.
(I just tried to get back to the site but was not able to. It was under attack for facilitating people's suicides--including those of a couple teenagers.) You can read three different articles in the Wired archives about it.
http://www.wired.com...4,57444,00.html is the link to the first article.

Finally, I hope none of this offends hitork. I heartily endorse the postings above by bqwowk (how do you pronounce that?) and by BJK, the closest thing we have here at Imminst to a founding father, high priest and pope.

Death is our common enemy. To win this battle, we're going to have to attract more than just a few enlightened token Christians, deists, etc.

Edited by randolfe, 25 March 2005 - 09:44 PM.


#115 Karomesis

  • Guest
  • 1,010 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Massachusetts, USA

Posted 25 March 2005 - 10:01 PM

while I share your sentiment for our shared adversary, I am continually discovering that religion more oftentimes than not gets in the way of an individuals compliance with thier newfound transhumanist ideas. It is one of the final bastions of obstruction in the immortality movement. I am quite sure there are some here who deem me a very serious individual if nothing else on issues concerning life extension. And their suspicions are justified,I can assure you of that. Someone getting in my way is literally trying to kill me, albeit in a non direct way, their beliefs, while respected by me, are nothing more than obstacles in my path if they pursue a differing ideology. [ang]

#116 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 27 March 2005 - 11:22 AM

We're all in this together... death is the enemy.

Well Bruce, we cannot let death be our enemy. It is not.
I believe boorishness is, because that's the reason for all the mistakes happen AND repeat, and that's what goes against us with no thinking at all.
Death = nothing. nothing can lose nothing. If our enemy has nothing to lose- it is the strongest. When something is the strongest- a weaker element cannot win. So we have to trick it and not go against it. Simply agree and exigible a change.
Now this is applying to everything in the known life of ours.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#117 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 27 March 2005 - 08:57 PM

Good point, Infy, my dear sim-sis. Killing death is impossible from a scientific perspective.

However, our mission, conquer the blight of involuntary death, is a creed and a war metaphor which gives face to this invisible enemy. Perhaps there is a better metaphor or method you have in mind which will inspire and unite us in action against involuntary death?

#118 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 30 March 2005 - 05:10 PM

I didn't wanna go way out of topic, I started a new thread:
Trick Your 'Friend'-Death, Don't Ever Face It

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#119 nihilist

  • Guest
  • 113 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 July 2006 - 06:30 PM

ive never seen someone who was apparently asked for his opinion, then get told to read so many things because hes wrong.

so hes a christian? so hes a teenager and hasnt got his stuff together yet? how about getting a life, and letting him live his? lmao.

#120 Centurion

  • Guest
  • 1,000 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Belfast, Northern Ireland

Posted 28 August 2006 - 03:48 PM

ive never seen someone who was apparently asked for his opinion, then get told to read so many things because hes wrong.

so hes a christian? so hes a teenager and hasnt got his stuff together yet? how about getting a life, and letting him live his? lmao.


Nihilist-Pot: Hello mr kettle, you are black

Says the jehovah's witness of the Linux world.....

How can you disparage these guys for what they're doing then knock my door every 5 minutes to tell me GNU/Linux died for me on the l33t h4x0r cross and I should open up my hard drive and let him in?

Edited by centurion, 28 August 2006 - 04:03 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users