27 replies to this topic

[JJN]

I consider myself as someone who follows beliefs based on objective reality only. Yes, we all have some sort of beliefs. We have beliefs about what happened before, what is happening now, and what may happen in the future.

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality, and those that are illusory. Some say that all of our beliefs are illusory, but I don't follow that philosophy. Beliefs are either based on objective reality, or they are illusory.

All religions, gods, and so on are illusory beliefs.

I define myself as what I am, and not in relation to the beliefs that others have. I am an objective reality believer. To call myself an atheist, just says that I am not religious. This is a negation, and I describe myself in terms of what I am.

Does this resonate with any here?

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 24 September 2010 - 04:03 AM.

[Soma]

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality

The problem with this is that objective reality is always filtered through a subjective medium (your mind). The mere process of making distinctions demonstrates the engagement of the analytical mind.

[JJN]

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality

The problem with this is that objective reality is always filtered through a subjective medium (your mind). The mere process of making distinctions demonstrates the engagement of the analytical mind.

Some minds are more or less objective/subjective than others. Philosophy sometimes paints all as being of the same mind. I'm not a particularily philosophical person. I tend too be more analytical than emotional in my viewpoints. Yes, I have very strong emotions too, but I don't base my interpretation of life based on it so much. I think that making logical distinctions is objective.

I am thinking in terms of plain english, dictionary definitions.

Doesn't seem to resonate too much here though

[N.T.M.]

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality

The problem with this is that objective reality is always filtered through a subjective medium (your mind). The mere process of making distinctions demonstrates the engagement of the analytical mind.

True, although you're being a bit pedantic.

I also believe in forming conclusions objectively. Very few people are capable of being truly objective, although the word is often loosely bandied about, often proving to be no more than a facade. Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

[shadowhawk]

I consider myself as someone who follows beliefs based on objective reality only. Yes, we all have some sort of beliefs. We have beliefs about what happened before, what is happening now, and what may happen in the future.

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality, and those that are illusory. Some say that all of our beliefs are illusory, but I don't follow that philosophy. Beliefs are either based on objective reality, or they are illusory.

All religions, gods, and so on are illusory beliefs.

I define myself as what I am, and not in relation to the beliefs that others have. I am an objective reality believer. To call myself an atheist, just says that I am not religious. This is a negation, and I describe myself in terms of what I am.

Does this resonate with any here?

Jeff

You need to define your terms and what sets you off from others.

[JJN]

I consider myself as someone who follows beliefs based on objective reality only. Yes, we all have some sort of beliefs. We have beliefs about what happened before, what is happening now, and what may happen in the future.

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality, and those that are illusory. Some say that all of our beliefs are illusory, but I don't follow that philosophy. Beliefs are either based on objective reality, or they are illusory.

All religions, gods, and so on are illusory beliefs.

I define myself as what I am, and not in relation to the beliefs that others have. I am an objective reality believer. To call myself an atheist, just says that I am not religious. This is a negation, and I describe myself in terms of what I am.

Does this resonate with any here?

Jeff

You need to define your terms and what sets you off from others.

Yes absolutely in any discussion agreement on defintion of terms is the sticking point. To me, objective means that which is quantifiable. Usually objectivity is compared to subjectivity, but in this case, I am comparing it to illusion. I need to think more to come up with what I mean with the word illusion. I'll get back to you on it...

As for contrast and comparison to others, I really don't put much thought into it. I consider myself in absolute terms.

You do pose a good challenge, though. I'll have to think more about it.

Jeff

P.S. I really was wondering about my other point as well, as far as definion of an atheist as someone who is a non-believer, rather than describing, in positive terms, what they are. I was wondering if some here "get it".

Edited by JJN, 30 September 2010 - 04:25 AM.

[Connor MacLeod]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

[chris w]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

[shadowhawk]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren’t both believers in the sense you use it? Don’t both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

[chris w]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren’t both believers in the sense you use it? Don’t both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

Yes, I understand what you mean, but still, something like changing my eating habits or exercising does something to my body that is empirically observable. In the same way every single day I see examples of how we are able to succesfully modify matter to meet our needs. On the other hand I have never yet seen a prayer achieve anything in the actual world ( including my own prayers, when I was still doing it ), well, you could argue that it does something beneficial to brain chemistry maybe, but I don't think anything that other psychological means could not do.

Also,the philosophy behind is indeed quite different. A believer acknowledges that he cannot do anything substantial to his life that God would not have foreseen ( correct ? ), so if God decided that you will live to X years, you will no matter what you do and despite all efforts if you wished X to be longer than was decided by God. And anyway, what's the goal to prolong your earthly life if you see it as just a stage to attain life in Kingdom of Heaven ?

Funny ( in a perverted way ) is that both atheists and believers might be inclined to a form of nihilism - the first one because your inevitable non existence renders everything while you were in existence meaningless, and the other because this life is infitely meaningless in comparison to the next one.

[churchill]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren’t both believers in the sense you use it? Don’t both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

I think the difference is that the immortalist (not dying of old age) belief has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. E.g. Humans are already living longer than they ever have before. We can dramatically increase the life span of certain organisms, either by changing genes or by selective breeding.

What evidence is there for religion?

[shadowhawk]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren't both believers in the sense you use it? Don't both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

Yes, I understand what you mean, but still, something like changing my eating habits or exercising does something to my body that is empirically observable. In the same way every single day I see examples of how we are able to succesfully modify matter to meet our needs. On the other hand I have never yet seen a prayer achieve anything in the actual world ( including my own prayers, when I was still doing it ), well, you could argue that it does something beneficial to brain chemistry maybe, but I don't think anything that other psychological means could not do.

Also,the philosophy behind is indeed quite different. A believer acknowledges that he cannot do anything substantial to his life that God would not have foreseen ( correct ? ), so if God decided that you will live to X years, you will no matter what you do and despite all efforts if you wished X to be longer than was decided by God. And anyway, what's the goal to prolong your earthly life if you see it as just a stage to attain life in Kingdom of Heaven ?

Funny ( in a perverted way ) is that both atheists and believers might be inclined to a form of nihilism - the first one because your inevitable non existence renders everything while you were in existence meaningless, and the other because this life is infitely meaningless in comparison to the next one.

You sound a little like a hard core Calvinist to me A theist may believe God gives life as a gift but does not know how long that gift is. Kind of like Christmas where all get a gift but they are all different. You do not know how long your life will be because unlike the past you can only hope and behave yourself. The non-believer is almost in the same position. Yes, I know they claim to be rational but in the end they are pretty much in the same place as theists.

1. The non-believer has a life given to them much like a gift and they hope that Science can give them a longer life.

2. The theist believes in life as a gift and hopes that science will give them a longer life.

The big question is whether eternal life is possible without God. The unbeliever says yes and as far as I am concerned, that is a faith position. The theist accepts all Science can do but may doubt it is enough. When it comes to eternal life, the Theist thinks we need something more than science. They are non-believers when it comes to this question. Unbelievers think there is no God, therefore their only hope is in science. Who is right? As far as we are concerned (hope) the answer will come soon. (Next 60 years or so)

[shadowhawk]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren't both believers in the sense you use it? Don't both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

I think the difference is that the immortalist (not dying of old age) belief has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. E.g. Humans are already living longer than they ever have before. We can dramatically increase the life span of certain organisms, either by changing genes or by selective breeding.

What evidence is there for religion?

Religion says most people die. Do they?

In fact most people who have ever lived are dead. All dead, is the evidence.
Are people living longer? Follow the oldest living people.

http://www.imminst.o...e/page__st__240

I have discussed some long lived animals and plants before but even the cosmos seems to be dying. Anything on the earth is in a dangerous spot. Religious people are not against life, either present or eternal.

[churchill]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren't both believers in the sense you use it? Don't both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

I think the difference is that the immortalist (not dying of old age) belief has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. E.g. Humans are already living longer than they ever have before. We can dramatically increase the life span of certain organisms, either by changing genes or by selective breeding.

What evidence is there for religion?

Religion says most people die. Do they?

In fact most people who have ever lived are dead. All dead, is the evidence.
Are people living longer? Follow the oldest living people.

http://www.imminst.o...e/page__st__240

I have discussed some long lived animals and plants before but even the cosmos seems to be dying. Anything on the earth is in a dangerous spot. Religious people are not against life, either present or eternal.

Many religions say that people don't die when they die, they go to heaven or hell or somewhere else, thus they are not dead. There is no evidence that this is the case.


When you look at maximum life expectancy then no that has not moved, but average life expectancy has, if you or I were born 100 years ago we would most probably be dead by now, and as I explained in other species maximum life expectancy has already been increased dramatically, ample evidence that maximum life expectancy can be increased.

My definition of immortality would be living with no death from aging, not not being able to die.

[shadowhawk]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren't both believers in the sense you use it? Don't both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

I think the difference is that the immortalist (not dying of old age) belief has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. E.g. Humans are already living longer than they ever have before. We can dramatically increase the life span of certain organisms, either by changing genes or by selective breeding.

What evidence is there for religion?

Religion says most people die. Do they?

In fact most people who have ever lived are dead. All dead, is the evidence.
Are people living longer? Follow the oldest living people.

http://www.imminst.o...e/page__st__240

I have discussed some long lived animals and plants before but even the cosmos seems to be dying. Anything on the earth is in a dangerous spot. Religious people are not against life, either present or eternal.

Many religions say that people don't die when they die, they go to heaven or hell or somewhere else, thus they are not dead. There is no evidence that this is the case.


When you look at maximum life expectancy then no that has not moved, but average life expectancy has, if you or I were born 100 years ago we would most probably be dead by now, and as I explained in other species maximum life expectancy has already been increased dramatically, ample evidence that maximum life expectancy can be increased.

My definition of immortality would be living with no death from aging, not not being able to die.

From a Christian view there are more than one kind of death. The Spirits separation from the body, where the body dies (I) and the choice to be separated from God which results in Spiritual death. (2) The body decays but the spirit does not, being of a different nature. The spirit lives forever hence you live forever. Whether that is with God, is up to you.

What kind of evidence would you accept of life after death?







The oldest living seem to be stagnate as far as living long. Very few lucky ones (mostly women) will become super centurions. Middle age as you said is reached by more as hygiene and medical advancements have increased. Keep taking your vitamins and live a healthy lifestyle. The death by accident rate may give you a couple hundred years lifespan. I had two brothers who died by accident. Then there are wars....well you get my point. You would be extremely lucky to make it for a couple hundred years even with incredible medical advancements

[churchill]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren't both believers in the sense you use it? Don't both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

I think the difference is that the immortalist (not dying of old age) belief has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. E.g. Humans are already living longer than they ever have before. We can dramatically increase the life span of certain organisms, either by changing genes or by selective breeding.

What evidence is there for religion?

Religion says most people die. Do they?

In fact most people who have ever lived are dead. All dead, is the evidence.
Are people living longer? Follow the oldest living people.

http://www.imminst.o...e/page__st__240

I have discussed some long lived animals and plants before but even the cosmos seems to be dying. Anything on the earth is in a dangerous spot. Religious people are not against life, either present or eternal.

Many religions say that people don't die when they die, they go to heaven or hell or somewhere else, thus they are not dead. There is no evidence that this is the case.


When you look at maximum life expectancy then no that has not moved, but average life expectancy has, if you or I were born 100 years ago we would most probably be dead by now, and as I explained in other species maximum life expectancy has already been increased dramatically, ample evidence that maximum life expectancy can be increased.

My definition of immortality would be living with no death from aging, not not being able to die.

From a Christian view there are more than one kind of death. The Spirits separation from the body, where the body dies (I) and the choice to be separated from God which results in Spiritual death. (2) The body decays but the spirit does not, being of a different nature. The spirit lives forever hence you live forever. Whether that is with God, is up to you.

What kind of evidence would you accept of life after death?







The oldest living seem to be stagnate as far as living long. Very few lucky ones (mostly women) will become super centurions. Middle age as you said is reached by more as hygiene and medical advancements have increased. Keep taking your vitamins and live a healthy lifestyle. The death by accident rate may give you a couple hundred years lifespan. I had two brothers who died by accident. Then there are wars....well you get my point. You would be extremely lucky to make it for a couple hundred years even with incredible medical advancements

Well from those videos only the second really went into any evidence. His evidence that he provided was of near death experiences. Firstly he brings the misconception due to terminology of when you are clinically dead you are dead, you are not dead as the brain still has activity. Clinically dead means your lungs and heart have stopped working, in practice often times this means death as without these being restarted you are pretty much dead anyway. To actually bring someone back from the dead I would say you would need to have not brain activity for the amount of time it takes for brain cells to start dying.

He also cites the observation that many people who go through near death experiences have similar experiences, which are markedly different from Alzheimers where the brain is also dying. But to me these are fundamentally different situations, one where parts of the brain are dying due to plaque and another were the brain is being starved of oxygen. This study indicates that most people don't even get a near death experience when they are near death.. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11755611

Strong evidence would be multiple studies with significant number of patients, where the patient provides details which they could not have provided unless they were somehow floating out of the body. So for example in another room write a sign with a specific word that they could only read if they had gone there in spirit form. Annecdotal evidence does not cut it as usual as any details could easily be given away by people in the room, having seen stuff before and not recolleting etc.

Deepak just said a bunch of assertions, so no evidence there, as well as something which is not right, cancer are not the only immortal cells in the body there are also stem cells which do this, as well as of course the reproductive cells.

For long life expectancy, I agree that once aging is conquered then accidental death and war will be the way that most people will go. However it has been estimated that a human would live an average of 1000 years (at least for accidents) without death from other causes. Also I forsee that cars at one point will drive themselves and hugely cut the chance of traffic deaths. Bodies will become more robust, currently brain cells die very quickly if starved of oxygen, but this could be changed so they go into suspended animation as already happens in certain other animals. War is a tough one, you are right that that could easily keep life expectancies much lower than a 1000 years. Clearly for these kinds of life spans radical medical advancement is a pre requisite.

[shadowhawk]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren't both believers in the sense you use it? Don't both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

I think the difference is that the immortalist (not dying of old age) belief has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. E.g. Humans are already living longer than they ever have before. We can dramatically increase the life span of certain organisms, either by changing genes or by selective breeding.

What evidence is there for religion?

Religion says most people die. Do they?

In fact most people who have ever lived are dead. All dead, is the evidence.
Are people living longer? Follow the oldest living people.

http://www.imminst.o...e/page__st__240

I have discussed some long lived animals and plants before but even the cosmos seems to be dying. Anything on the earth is in a dangerous spot. Religious people are not against life, either present or eternal.

Many religions say that people don't die when they die, they go to heaven or hell or somewhere else, thus they are not dead. There is no evidence that this is the case.


When you look at maximum life expectancy then no that has not moved, but average life expectancy has, if you or I were born 100 years ago we would most probably be dead by now, and as I explained in other species maximum life expectancy has already been increased dramatically, ample evidence that maximum life expectancy can be increased.

My definition of immortality would be living with no death from aging, not not being able to die.

From a Christian view there are more than one kind of death. The Spirits separation from the body, where the body dies (I) and the choice to be separated from God which results in Spiritual death. (2) The body decays but the spirit does not, being of a different nature. The spirit lives forever hence you live forever. Whether that is with God, is up to you.

What kind of evidence would you accept of life after death?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmJSI4zRbUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTrBD_IYJY0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnL2mku4OCQ&feature=related

The oldest living seem to be stagnate as far as living long. Very few lucky ones (mostly women) will become super centurions. Middle age as you said is reached by more as hygiene and medical advancements have increased. Keep taking your vitamins and live a healthy lifestyle. The death by accident rate may give you a couple hundred years lifespan. I had two brothers who died by accident. Then there are wars....well you get my point. You would be extremely lucky to make it for a couple hundred years even with incredible medical advancements

Well from those videos only the second really went into any evidence. His evidence that he provided was of near death experiences. Firstly he brings the misconception due to terminology of when you are clinically dead you are dead, you are not dead as the brain still has activity. Clinically dead means your lungs and heart have stopped working, in practice often times this means death as without these being restarted you are pretty much dead anyway. To actually bring someone back from the dead I would say you would need to have not brain activity for the amount of time it takes for brain cells to start dying.

He also cites the observation that many people who go through near death experiences have similar experiences, which are markedly different from Alzheimers where the brain is also dying. But to me these are fundamentally different situations, one where parts of the brain are dying due to plaque and another were the brain is being starved of oxygen. This study indicates that most people don't even get a near death experience when they are near death.. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11755611

Strong evidence would be multiple studies with significant number of patients, where the patient provides details which they could not have provided unless they were somehow floating out of the body. So for example in another room write a sign with a specific word that they could only read if they had gone there in spirit form. Annecdotal evidence does not cut it as usual as any details could easily be given away by people in the room, having seen stuff before and not recolleting etc.

Deepak just said a bunch of assertions, so no evidence there, as well as something which is not right, cancer are not the only immortal cells in the body there are also stem cells which do this, as well as of course the reproductive cells.

For long life expectancy, I agree that once aging is conquered then accidental death and war will be the way that most people will go. However it has been estimated that a human would live an average of 1000 years (at least for accidents) without death from other causes. Also I forsee that cars at one point will drive themselves and hugely cut the chance of traffic deaths. Bodies will become more robust, currently brain cells die very quickly if starved of oxygen, but this could be changed so they go into suspended animation as already happens in certain other animals. War is a tough one, you are right that that could easily keep life expectancies much lower than a 1000 years. Clearly for these kinds of life spans radical medical advancement is a pre requisite.

I agree with you, the term is usually “Near death.” My own father was pronounced dead and it was about 35 minutes before his heart suddenly started beating again. We talked about what he was going through during that time and he left his body and started going down a tunnel with a bright light at the end. The monitors hooked up to him were all flat line and I saw them muself. He was in the ICU at a very good hospital and hiss doctor was an atheist. He was under double monitors. He didn’t believe me when I told him he died. No brain waves but he rememberd everything.

[bacopa]

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality

The problem with this is that objective reality is always filtered through a subjective medium (your mind). The mere process of making distinctions demonstrates the engagement of the analytical mind.

True, although you're being a bit pedantic.

I also believe in forming conclusions objectively. Very few people are capable of being truly objective, although the word is often loosely bandied about, often proving to be no more than a facade. Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

Like most transhumanists

Edited by dfowler, 07 October 2010 - 02:44 AM.

[churchill]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

Touche. Only that no. Immortalist/Transhumanist is somebody willing to use the only tool that has been proven to work throughout ages ( technology ) to elevate himself from what he sees as a constraint. A believer may agree that the constraint ( like dying ) sucks, but hopes there is some better condition waiting for him if he behaves the right way in his life.

Chris, Do you think immolrtalists are the only ones willing to use technology to prolong life? Is the difference actually the philosophical belief, hope, faith that this technology will, can, may, lead to eternal life? Aren't both believers in the sense you use it? Don't both believe you have to change your behavior like eat healthy foods, take the right vitamins join the immortalist army in service, etc? Hmmm...

I think the difference is that the immortalist (not dying of old age) belief has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. E.g. Humans are already living longer than they ever have before. We can dramatically increase the life span of certain organisms, either by changing genes or by selective breeding.

What evidence is there for religion?

Religion says most people die. Do they?

In fact most people who have ever lived are dead. All dead, is the evidence.
Are people living longer? Follow the oldest living people.

http://www.imminst.o...e/page__st__240

I have discussed some long lived animals and plants before but even the cosmos seems to be dying. Anything on the earth is in a dangerous spot. Religious people are not against life, either present or eternal.

Many religions say that people don't die when they die, they go to heaven or hell or somewhere else, thus they are not dead. There is no evidence that this is the case.


When you look at maximum life expectancy then no that has not moved, but average life expectancy has, if you or I were born 100 years ago we would most probably be dead by now, and as I explained in other species maximum life expectancy has already been increased dramatically, ample evidence that maximum life expectancy can be increased.

My definition of immortality would be living with no death from aging, not not being able to die.

From a Christian view there are more than one kind of death. The Spirits separation from the body, where the body dies (I) and the choice to be separated from God which results in Spiritual death. (2) The body decays but the spirit does not, being of a different nature. The spirit lives forever hence you live forever. Whether that is with God, is up to you.

What kind of evidence would you accept of life after death?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmJSI4zRbUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTrBD_IYJY0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnL2mku4OCQ&feature=related

The oldest living seem to be stagnate as far as living long. Very few lucky ones (mostly women) will become super centurions. Middle age as you said is reached by more as hygiene and medical advancements have increased. Keep taking your vitamins and live a healthy lifestyle. The death by accident rate may give you a couple hundred years lifespan. I had two brothers who died by accident. Then there are wars....well you get my point. You would be extremely lucky to make it for a couple hundred years even with incredible medical advancements

Well from those videos only the second really went into any evidence. His evidence that he provided was of near death experiences. Firstly he brings the misconception due to terminology of when you are clinically dead you are dead, you are not dead as the brain still has activity. Clinically dead means your lungs and heart have stopped working, in practice often times this means death as without these being restarted you are pretty much dead anyway. To actually bring someone back from the dead I would say you would need to have not brain activity for the amount of time it takes for brain cells to start dying.

He also cites the observation that many people who go through near death experiences have similar experiences, which are markedly different from Alzheimers where the brain is also dying. But to me these are fundamentally different situations, one where parts of the brain are dying due to plaque and another were the brain is being starved of oxygen. This study indicates that most people don't even get a near death experience when they are near death.. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11755611

Strong evidence would be multiple studies with significant number of patients, where the patient provides details which they could not have provided unless they were somehow floating out of the body. So for example in another room write a sign with a specific word that they could only read if they had gone there in spirit form. Annecdotal evidence does not cut it as usual as any details could easily be given away by people in the room, having seen stuff before and not recolleting etc.

Deepak just said a bunch of assertions, so no evidence there, as well as something which is not right, cancer are not the only immortal cells in the body there are also stem cells which do this, as well as of course the reproductive cells.

For long life expectancy, I agree that once aging is conquered then accidental death and war will be the way that most people will go. However it has been estimated that a human would live an average of 1000 years (at least for accidents) without death from other causes. Also I forsee that cars at one point will drive themselves and hugely cut the chance of traffic deaths. Bodies will become more robust, currently brain cells die very quickly if starved of oxygen, but this could be changed so they go into suspended animation as already happens in certain other animals. War is a tough one, you are right that that could easily keep life expectancies much lower than a 1000 years. Clearly for these kinds of life spans radical medical advancement is a pre requisite.

I agree with you, the term is usually “Near death.” My own father was pronounced dead and it was about 35 minutes before his heart suddenly started beating again. We talked about what he was going through during that time and he left his body and started going down a tunnel with a bright light at the end. The monitors hooked up to him were all flat line and I saw them muself. He was in the ICU at a very good hospital and hiss doctor was an atheist. He was under double monitors. He didn’t believe me when I told him he died. No brain waves but he rememberd everything.

That is pretty amazing. Where they performing cpr during that time? As I was under the impression that the brain could only survive a few minutes without oxygen (unless it is cooled). Just because there were no brain waves does not mean there was no activity, I think you would have needed an mri scan to check that.

Any chance that he saw something for which it was absolutely impossible for him to have identified any other way other than during the out of body experience?

Seems very odd to me that someone would even be able to see or hear while in spirit form, as they don't have the cells which actually do this. e.g. air molecules have to physically hit the ear to get the sensation of noise, if you are spirit there is nothing to hit.

[N.T.M.]

Many people who claim to be objective are really just afraid. So they present wishful views under the guise of objectivity (Yeah, we're all thinking of a particular class right now lol).

immortalists?

lol, of course not. While death may certainly be the impetus for others’ decisions, it’s also irrelevant since they actually have a means to achieve their goals. This is very different from the faith-based arguments I was alluding to that’re absolutely baseless.

[shadowhawk]

I consider myself as someone who follows beliefs based on objective reality only. Yes, we all have some sort of beliefs. We have beliefs about what happened before, what is happening now, and what may happen in the future.

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality, and those that are illusory. Some say that all of our beliefs are illusory, but I don't follow that philosophy. Beliefs are either based on objective reality, or they are illusory.

All religions, gods, and so on are illusory beliefs.

I define myself as what I am, and not in relation to the beliefs that others have. I am an objective reality believer. To call myself an atheist, just says that I am not religious. This is a negation, and I describe myself in terms of what I am.

Does this resonate with any here?

Jeff

I understand every thing you are saying and have several issues. The main issue is your definition of atheism. Are you defining atheism as just saying you are not religious? That is a problem.

[shadowhawk]

Science is almost always wrong. We may have had an illusionary scientific belief held most surely for the last hundred years that turns out wrong. To Sciences credit, it may be correcting itself. Just think if those who think they know enough to deny God someday discover a God particle. Faster than the speed of light! Someday the nature of God. Right now we don't have the questions nor tools

"Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer

Gone in 60 nanoseconds
By Charles Krauthammer,

The world as we know it is on the brink of disintegration, on the verge of dissolution. No, I’m not talking about the collapse of the euro, of international finance, of the Western economies, of the democratic future, of the unipolar moment, of the American dream, of French banks, of Greece as a going concern, of Europe as an idea, of Pax Americana — the sinews of a postwar world that feels today to be unraveling.

I am talking about something far more important. Which is why it made only the back pages of your newspaper, if it made it at all. Scientists at CERN, the European high-energy physics consortium, have announced the discovery of a particle that can travel faster than light.

Neutrinos fired 454 miles from a supercollider outside Geneva to an underground laboratory in Gran Sasso, Italy, took less time (60 nanoseconds less) than light to get there. Or so the physicists think. Or so they measured. Or so they have concluded after checking for every possible artifact and experimental error.

The implications of such a discovery are so mind-boggling, however, that these same scientists immediately requested that other labs around the world try to replicate the experiment. Something must have been wrong — some faulty measurement, some overlooked contaminant — to account for a result that, if we know anything about the universe, is impossible.

And that’s the problem. It has to be impossible because, if not, if that did happen on this Orient Express hurtling between Switzerland and Italy, then everything we know about the universe is wrong.

The fundamental axiom of Einstein’s theory of relativity is the absolute prohibition on speed faster than light. Einstein’s predictions about how time slows and mass increases as one approaches the speed of light have been verified by a mountain of experimental evidence. As velocity increases, mass approaches infinity and time dilates, making it progressively and, ultimately, infinitely difficult to achieve light speed. Which is why nothing does. And nothing ever has.

Until two weeks ago Thursday.

That’s when the results were announced. To oversimplify grossly: If the Gran Sasso scientists had a plate to record the arrival of the neutrinos and a super-powerful telescope to peer (through the Alps!) directly into the lab in Geneva from which they were being fired, the Gran Sasso guys would have “heard” the neutrinos clanging against the plate before they observed the Geneva guys squeeze the trigger on the neutrino gun.

Sixty nanoseconds before, to be precise. Wrap your mind around that one.

It’s as if someone told you that yesterday at drive time Topeka was released from Earth’s gravity. These things don’t happen. Natural laws don’t just expire between shifts at McDonald’s.

Not that there aren’t already mysteries in physics. Neutrinos themselves are ghostly particles that travel through nearly everything unimpeded. (Thousands are traversing your body as you read this.) But that is simplicity itself compared to quantum mechanics, whose random arbitrariness so offended Einstein that he famously objected that God does not play dice with the universe.

Aphorisms don’t trump reality, however. They are but a frail, poignant protest against a universe that often disdains the most cherished human notions of order and elegance, truth and beauty.

But if quantum mechanics was a challenge to human sensibilities, this pesky Swiss-Italian neutrino is their undoing. It means that Einstein’s relativity — a theory of uncommon beauty upon which all of physics has been built for 100 years — is wrong. Not just inaccurate. Not just flawed. But deeply, fundamentally, indescribably wrong.

It means that the “standard model” of subatomic particles that stands at the center of all modern physics is wrong.

Nor does it stop there. This will not just overthrow physics. Astronomy and cosmology measure time and distance in the universe on the assumption of light speed as the cosmic limit. Their foundations will shake as well.

It cannot be. Yet, this is not a couple of guys in a garage peddling cold fusion. This is no crank wheeling a perpetual motion machine into the patent office. These are the best researchers in the world using the finest measuring instruments, having subjected their data to the highest levels of scrutiny, including six months of cross-checking by 160 scientists from 11 countries.

But there must be some error. Because otherwise everything changes. We shall need a new physics. A new cosmology. New understandings of past and future, of cause and effect. Then shortly and surely, new theologies.

Why? Because we can’t have neutrinos getting kicked out of taverns they have not yet entered."

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

[JJN]

I consider myself as someone who follows beliefs based on objective reality only. Yes, we all have some sort of beliefs. We have beliefs about what happened before, what is happening now, and what may happen in the future.

I make the distinction between beliefs based on objective reality, and those that are illusory. Some say that all of our beliefs are illusory, but I don't follow that philosophy. Beliefs are either based on objective reality, or they are illusory.

All religions, gods, and so on are illusory beliefs.

I define myself as what I am, and not in relation to the beliefs that others have. I am an objective reality believer. To call myself an atheist, just says that I am not religious. This is a negation, and I describe myself in terms of what I am.

Does this resonate with any here?

Jeff

I understand every thing you are saying and have several issues. The main issue is your definition of atheism. Are you defining atheism as just saying you are not religious? That is a problem.

Why is this a problem?

hmm personally, I don't take the supposition of any religion, or any supernatural 'forces', seriously enough to bother to negate myself with them.

In positive terms, I can answer "Are you defining atheism as just saying you are not religious?" as a definition that some people ascribe to. To go down that road, would require that all illusory beliefs be answered with some sort of negative term to describe those that don't ascribe to it.

As to cosmology, what was 'here' before, what is now, and what will follow, I have my own grounding in it, that involves the idea that in the most basic terms, that describes all, is all that was, all that is, and all that will come, is, at a most basic level, information.

But that is, also, an illusory belief.

Or is it? anyhoo for me this is the most basic understanding of the universe(s). Still thinking about it though.

I don't pretend to understand very well about such things as the Bell Continuum, String Theory, quantum mechanics, SRT, and so on.

Actually, a physicist once told me that anyone who says they fully understand quantum mechanics, does not fully understand quantum mechanics...

Other than that, we may never be able, in our native forms, to understand it all fully.

In some sort of future altered form? hmmm we'll see... hehe add that to the 'Big 8' BP

We can start to get into the realm of "Critique of pure reason", logic being absolutley objective, scientific conjecture, hypothosis, theory and fact being based on the 'most likely' description with a given statistical confidence it is correct until it is proven wrong, and so on, and on, and on...

ahhh this is getting off the path of illusory beliefs, and objective reality.

maybe.

Edited by JJN, 10 October 2011 - 02:40 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Thanks for your civil response. I enjoy your posts. Here are two quick responses by Craig that address the issue I brought up regarding your comments regarding the definition of atheism.

[shadowhawk]

• WE ARE ABOUT TO BE TREATED TO ONE OF THE GREATEST DEBATES OF ALL TIME. THEISTS AND ATHEISTS ALIKE WILL NOT WANT TO MISS IT. STARTS THIS WEEKEND.

Stop Press: Reasonable Faith Tour News

bethinking.org

• View all resources by bethinking.org

• Email to a friend
• Share on Facebook
• Send comments
• Print this page
• Save PDF

William Lane Craig
The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011

There's Probably No Dawkins - so enjoy a lecture instead!

Richard Dawkins' refusal to defend his arguments in The God Delusion in a debate with William Lane Craig means that Craig will deliver a lecture critiquing those arguments instead. Dawkins is currently promoting his new book but it would be good if he decided to turn up and show that he is able to defend what he wrote in his earlier book.

9 September 2011: New Event and Video Trailer for the Tour


Lecture on "A Moral Argument for the Existence of God: can we be good without God?" at SOAS London. View Programme for full details.
Video trailer for The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 now available on YouTube and for Download. Please encourage its use wherever you can and pass on news of it on blogs, Twitter and Facebook.
22 September 2011: New Event: Student lecture on The Evidence for God at Imperial College London.


View Programme for details of this newly arranged lecture

16 September 2011: Event pages and Flyers now available


Reasonable Faith Tour Events & Flyers

Flyers for most events are now available from the link above, as well as separate pages for each events. Do spread the word about these, put flyers in your church or CU, especially for events near to you and please put links to these events on websites, blogs, Facebook, etc. Thank you.
13 September 2011: Craig vs Grayling - Debate Transcript Now Available


Bill Craig vs A.C. Grayling - Debate Transcript

The transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig and A.C. Grayling on “Belief in God Makes Sense in Light of Tsunamis” is now available on bethinking.org.


2 August 2011: Latest Press Release:

British Humanists take to the Bunkers.

Three prominent members of the British Humanist Association, the President and two Vice-Presidents, have now refused to (or pulled out from) debating William Lane Craig.


NEW EVENT:
Monday 24th October 2011
7.30pm Lecture “The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection”
Southampton Guildhall, Southampton SO14 7LPSouthampton
Book tickets



A.C. Grayling's previous debate with Bill Craig

After A.C. Grayling's refusal to debate Bill Craig on his forthcoming tour in October, he denied Craig's statement that they had debated before. Justin Brierley recently released a podcast only version of his Premier Radio Unbelievable? show which gave the debate between Grayling and Craig which took place at the Oxford Union in 2005 on the subject of 'Belief in God makes sense in light of Tsunamis'. Grayling's retraction of his claim and associated comments, on Richard Dawkins' website, can be seen here.
The debate can also be viewed on YouTube.


16 June 2011: Press Release:

Polly Toynbee steps in where Grayling & Dawkins fear to tread.



15 June 2011: For the full text of Dr Daniel Came's letter to Richard Dawkins with the comment on "cowardice", Dawkins' reply and Came's response, see Justin Brierley's recent blog entry. Came challenges Dawkins on the genetic fallacy, "silly questions" and the nature of "nothing".


09 June 2011: Will there be an empty chair on the stage of Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre when William Lane Craig provides a critique of some of the arguments in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion?



23 May 2011: William Lane Craig was interviewed on BBC Radio Ulster's Sunday Sequence programme concerning Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate him. Craig outlines the arguments he would use. At the end of the 7-minute interview, the interviewer offers to host a Craig-Dawkins debate on Sunday Sequence if Dawkins refuses a public debate. Listen to the interview below:




Book tickets for the Reasonable Faith Tour 2011

The Reasonable Faith Tour 2011 home page

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 October 2011 - 10:36 PM.

[Mishael]

Shadowhawk I don't think you have the correct view as to what the bible teaches happens after one dies. I gather you believe two erroneous doctrines.

1. Eternally burning hell
2. Eternal life or eternal hell immediately after death.

The problem with believing this is that you open yourself up to satanic delusion. How? because demons can impersonate dead relatives, loved ones etc. This is a doctrine that will destroy not a few.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk I don't think you have the correct view as to what the bible teaches happens after one dies. I gather you believe two erroneous doctrines.

1. Eternally burning hell
2. Eternal life or eternal hell immediately after death.

The problem with believing this is that you open yourself up to satanic delusion. How? because demons can impersonate dead relatives, loved ones etc. This is a doctrine that will destroy not a few.

i don't think I said anything about either subject. Off topic of this thread in a way. Start a new thread.

[Mishael]

Shadowhawk I don't think you have the correct view as to what the bible teaches happens after one dies. I gather you believe two erroneous doctrines.

1. Eternally burning hell
2. Eternal life or eternal hell immediately after death.

The problem with believing this is that you open yourself up to satanic delusion. How? because demons can impersonate dead relatives, loved ones etc. This is a doctrine that will destroy not a few.

i don't think I said anything about either subject. Off topic of this thread in a way. Start a new thread.

You did mention this topic earlier in the thread because of the conversation on life extension. Anyway I just wanted to put that out there that the bible does not teach that you go straight to hell or heaven the minute you die. I will open up a new discussion on the subject.