# Why live when you can die?



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 9, 2013)

We all have different beliefs with religion and also our own experience.

I personally can't wait to die and see/prove what there might be after this life... even if it kills me.

If you believe in God then you believe that you are safe, otherwise you are stuck being lost... by the Christian belief.


----------



## xist (Jan 9, 2013)

("_I personally can't wait to die and see/prove what there might be after this life... even if it kills me._" -- this makes no sense at all btw...)


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 9, 2013)

I would rather live because I have too much to finish before I die. I want to complete my life.


----------



## DinohScene (Jan 9, 2013)

I..
I know that I'll stop existing from that moment on so there's nothing special about it lol 

I prefer to live tho.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 9, 2013)

I have been searching for answers all my life, and nothing makes sense besides to experience the death myself.


----------



## FailName (Jan 9, 2013)

I think life is rather fun. I'll die eventually anyway.


----------



## Nah3DS (Jan 9, 2013)

live like a windrammer as you fuck


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 9, 2013)

Life = Eating, drinking, sex, video games etc.
Death = ???

I'm willing to take my chances with _life_ for now, death will come without me rushing it.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Life = Eating, drinking, sex, video games etc.
> Death = ???
> 
> I'm willing to take my chances with _life_ for now, death will come without me rushing it.


In the immortal words of the Duke.
"I got shit to do"


----------



## Thesolcity (Jan 9, 2013)

Heaven can wait, I like being alive.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Jan 9, 2013)

Why die when you can live?


----------



## Arras (Jan 9, 2013)

You'll die eventually anyway, no need to rush. Might as well live while you can


----------



## Wizerzak (Jan 9, 2013)

Arras said:


> You'll die eventually anyway, no need to rush. Might as well live while you can


That's not what they teach us about homework... I'm gonna have to do it anyway but I'll leave it to the night before and play games while I can.


----------



## Arras (Jan 9, 2013)

Wizerzak said:


> That's not what they teach us about homework... I'm gonna have to do it anyway but I'll leave it to the night before and play games while I can.


Yeah that's my general tactic for everything from homework to final exams. It has never failed me, except for modern laguages.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jan 9, 2013)

Life is here now, but death is inevitable.
I dont think i'll be coming back here if I die, so how I bout I fully experience life before death comes.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jan 9, 2013)

A word of advice from someone's who's been there, kid. The afterlife's not bad, but I wouldn't want to live there.


----------



## Coconut (Jan 9, 2013)

Lol. You can't wait to die., then you're dead, see that there's nothing, and then you'll be all like 'Aww fuck'.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't think that learning the truth about the afterlife is a worthy excuse for suicide, but I don't belittle the curiosity.


----------



## Mantis41 (Jan 9, 2013)

If you don't learn what your supposed to this time round you'll get sent backwards to try again. Personally I would like to keep going forwards. If your not careful you will get shoved back somewhere in the 1920's or worse the 1600's. mmm fleas, lice, and the constant smell of shit.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 9, 2013)

There's no reason to think there's any sort of afterlife, and there's no reason to think one can "experience death" if death is the end of consciousness. By definition, it would be the end of experience.

That being said, I'd rather live than die because I enjoy my life and it's meaningful to me. Bar excruciating physical pain, I can think of no scenario where death is preferable to life.


----------



## Minox (Jan 9, 2013)

Or you could first live life to its fullest and only after then see if there's anything more to life.


----------



## AlanJohn (Jan 9, 2013)

You know, I'm a real philosophical genius, the best philosopher in GBAtemp in fact, so I regularly ask myself this question. Like, why put on your socks, if you take them off in the end of the day? Why go to school if you come back home anyways? Why take a shower if you would already get dirty after taking a shower? Why go to sleep if you wake up anyways? These are very hard questions which are yet to be answered by mankind. I, myself, am on a spiritual journey to find the answer to these immortal questions myself, and when I find the answer - I will tell you it.


----------



## shoyrumaster11 (Jan 9, 2013)

Why Die when you can live is my question... LOL

I mean, for me, I'm defiantly living. Get myself a girlfriend, Play games, Entertain, etc..

*LIFE IS TOO GOOD NOT TO KILL!*


----------



## Snailface (Jan 9, 2013)

I have to admit I am curious about death as well. However, since death is inevitable anyway, I don't feel as if I have to rush it.
And if you find out death  isn't so great, its not like you get to hit the reset button.
Another thing to consider is the pain you cause to the people you leave behind. Suicide is a selfish decision in that regard.

Concerning this thread: Never a dull day goes by in the life of DeadlyFoez.


----------



## Nah3DS (Jan 9, 2013)

ah come on Deadly! don't die...
you need to hack the WiiU for us all noobs!
I know you can!


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Jan 9, 2013)

PMing Engert.


----------



## Gahars (Jan 9, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> A word of advice from someone's who's been there, kid. The afterlife's not bad, but I wouldn't want to live there.


 
Ah, so good to know we have an expert here.


----------



## Issac (Jan 9, 2013)

I am thinking like this:
I have stuff I want to achieve now, while I'm alive. Raise a family, enjoy my hobbies, write a book, produce smashing music... 
If someone now says that I can do all that in my next life, why wouldn't I do it in this life. I sure don't have any memories from a past life, so I wouldn't benefit from dying and postpone all my life goals.
And if you talk about another afterlife, in some kind of heaven or so, I don't think it'd be the same as here. Litterature, video games, music, internet...
So now, I rather live now and make the most out of it, because the only thing that's certain in life is that you die.


----------



## Burton (Jan 9, 2013)

This topic reminded me of a movie I saw in the early 90's named Flatliners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatliners). The characters wanted to experience "life after death but in the event of being resuscitated they brought something with them ". It is a nice classic I would recommend to everyone.


----------



## EyeZ (Jan 9, 2013)

Life's for living, we're all on a journey to our death after every day's passing.

So just enjoy the time you have left here and stop encouraging the inevitable.

As it was pointed out on an earlier post, obviously you have loved one's, so stop to think how they will feel if you died.


----------



## xist (Jan 9, 2013)

How on earth is this topic being credited as a sensible discussion? The whole principle of wanting your life to be over to discover what's next is so melodramatic and affected that it's ridiculous.


----------



## Catastrophic (Jan 9, 2013)

Why live when you can die you ask?

If there is an afterlife, then there's no guarantee it'll be any good.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jan 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Ah, so good to know we have an expert here.



I've technically died three times to date. And while I experienced some powerful visions while my heart was stopped, they still don't compare to what I see in life when I take the time to look around. While I still live I can see the smile on the face of the woman I love when I tell her how much she means to me. Trust me, nothing any afterlife I've visited in all my out of body excursions comes even close to that. Anyone who spends their time worrying about the next life instead of grabbing this one by the short hairs needs to get out more until they find that one thing they care more about so much that even eternity seems like no big deal in comparison.

There are things in this life beyond anything you could possibly imagine if you ever find the courage to truly open your eyes and look. I for one will deal with the next life when I damn well get there. If there is a God out there governing my destiny, the way I see it, which do you think He'd prefer? For me to sit in a dusty old church singing his praises all day or to get out there and make the most out of what He created? And if there ISN'T a God, then all church really is is a dusty old building we take far too seriously for no good reason. I don't know for sure one way or the other if there's a God, I'm only a mortal man despite my inability to be die by conventional means. But it seems to me that God or no God my way makes pretty good sense. And if there's a God out there that would rather I waste the gift of life sat in said dusty old church doing nothing but sing his praises, then frankly he's nothing more than a slave driver with the concept of Hell as his whip, and not one part of that sounds like anything worthy of my respect.


----------



## Snailface (Jan 10, 2013)

You guys do realize that DeadlyFoez is laughing at us right now right? 

The easiest way to start an entertaining flamewar is to conjure up a herpderp philosophy/religion topic. Post it on GBAtemp. Profit.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 10, 2013)

Why live and die when you can do both ?


----------



## Maxternal (Jan 10, 2013)

Most religions have kinda a safegaurd built in where if you rush things you go to hell anyway.
(The ones that don't have that belief tend to run our of followers pretty fast ... I'm sure there are exceptions, though.)

Also, if you believe we're going somewhere afterward it's common to also believe that there's a reason why we're here, too.

The general consensus of this thread so far seems to be that living is better and dying is permanent so live while you can.


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 10, 2013)

No point in hoping that it all gets better when you die.  My Theory?  I think that being dead will be exactly the same as not being born...ie......nothing


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 10, 2013)

I was brought into this world for reasons unknown. I don't know what my purpose is, what I'll do with my life, but while I'm here I'll try to figure it out, all while making it to the end that is death as we know it. We don't know what comes after it, but that's one thing that I'm in no rush to find out.

There was a really good ending to I think the first season of House, Hugh Laurie says something really profound on the matter. Gonna try to pull up the episode in Plex and get a quote (I can't find the vid on youtube)

Edit - well, that's not the episode I was thinking of.  I have no idea where it would be then.  Being out of state and the fact it's a pain to stream off of my server, it'll probably be a while till I get it.  Don't expect it any time soon/ at all.


----------



## Sop (Jan 10, 2013)

I want to live than die rather than bribes, this statement because we do not know what will happen next, I believe that when you are on our death, and I will transform the image of huge dick Although quality is debatable, there is sex, there are cool things in life, such as ice cream and bacon never die


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 10, 2013)




----------



## Gahars (Jan 10, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> I've technically died three times to date. And while I experienced some powerful visions while my heart was stopped, they still don't compare to what I see in life when I take the time to look around. While I still live I can see the smile on the face of the woman I love when I tell her how much she means to me. Trust me, nothing any afterlife I've visited in all my out of body excursions comes even close to that. Anyone who spends their time worrying about the next life instead of grabbing this one by the short hairs needs to get out more until they find that one thing they care more about so much that even eternity seems like no big deal in comparison.
> 
> There are things in this life beyond anything you could possibly imagine if you ever find the courage to truly open your eyes and look. I for one will deal with the next life when I damn well get there. If there is a God out there governing my destiny, the way I see it, which do you think He'd prefer? For me to sit in a dusty old church singing his praises all day or to get out there and make the most out of what He created? And if there ISN'T a God, then all church really is is a dusty old building we take far too seriously for no good reason. I don't know for sure one way or the other if there's a God, I'm only a mortal man despite my inability to be die by conventional means. But it seems to me that God or no God my way makes pretty good sense. And if there's a God out there that would rather I waste the gift of life sat in said dusty old church doing nothing but sing his praises, then frankly he's nothing more than a slave driver with the concept of Hell as his whip, and not one part of that sounds like anything worthy of my respect.


 
Fascinating stuff, really. Please, do go on.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 10, 2013)

If you believe there is an afterlife, can't you not appreciate the one you already have?

I feel that you can.


----------



## chavosaur (Jan 10, 2013)

Because I havent seen how breaking bad is going to end yet.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 10, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> If you believe in afterlife, can't you not appreciate the one you already have?
> 
> I feel that you can.


Sure, but when you have the idea in your head that there is some sort of afterlife or that our consciousness is in some way eternal, that devalues this life, and that's why this thread exists.


----------



## Icealote (Jan 10, 2013)

_Why live when you can die_

Why die when you can live. Sounds like another stupid #yolo tweet haha


----------



## Deleted-188346 (Jan 10, 2013)

This is a stupid question.

Life has infinite possibilities and potential for all individuals on this planet. Even with a lifetime of living life to the fullest, you will have not experienced all the wonders that our existence can offer. The only reasonable excuse I can think of to _*want*_ to die, is if you've been afflicted with a terminal illness and do not wish for your loved ones to see you waste away.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Jan 10, 2013)

The question I have for the TC is that living is creating. If you die then you can't create anything! So rather create yourself a life or don't do nothing and stop moving.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Jan 10, 2013)

What's going on over here?


----------



## Sop (Jan 10, 2013)

UglyIdiot said:


> What's going on over here?


Do I believe that you are talking about how you die maybe they do?
What is everyone's opinion about your life after death, such as: additional information about a topic? I personally do not have a memory of previous life, I believe in reincarnation


----------



## Maxternal (Jan 10, 2013)

UglyIdiot said:


> What's going on over here?


That's deep .. if you think about it.


----------



## BORTZ (Jan 10, 2013)

NahuelDS said:


> live like a windrammer as you fuck


See your future in balls


----------



## Yumi (Jan 10, 2013)

None of us really know if there is an afterlife. 

Until we really die. 


Well, i am stumped. 
I rather live to enjoy some margaritas/cheese-cake/fruits/nature/etc...and keep gaming some more. ;o


----------



## Haloman800 (Jan 10, 2013)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I have been searching for answers all my life, and nothing makes sense besides to experience the death myself.


That's like being caught up the river without a paddle, live your life to the fullest, and be prepared for anything (including death), don't rush into it.

Everyone that dies and comes back says they have an out of body experience, they feel lighter, and they are conscious. There was even a book written recently about a nonscientific who died and experienced Heaven, and came back to life, here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-..._B008OV2YR4_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357788487&sr=1-1

It's not about religion or being good enough, it's only about Jesus and what he did for us at Calvary, dying on the cross to save us from our sins.


----------



## Sychophantom (Jan 10, 2013)

This is the problem with a lot of belief systems. They focus on an afterlife. You have a life right now. Improve that first, or finish it if you're so concerned with what's next.

It's also a bit arrogant to think any one religion has it right. There are hundreds of divisions in Christianity. There are a few in Judaism, pretty sure there are a few in Islam. There's the Pastafarians, the humanists, the Discordians, even the Satanists (both "real" and LeVay's followers).

Everyone has their own ideas. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. When it's over, that's when you'll find out what's next.


----------



## Castiel (Jan 10, 2013)

Meh, may as well throw my opinion out there.

Do I believe in Heaven and Hell? Yes.
Do I believe that this is reason to rush to my death bed? Absolutely not.
There is so much to do, so much to see, and so much to learn.
So many relationships to build and people to help.
My death will come when it comes.
Until then I'm going to continue to get through life's obstacles
Try to continue to improve myself (as I have many, many flaws I would like to change. And no, not only physical flaws.)
Do what I believe I was put here to do, and enjoy it with those I come to gain a relationship with.


----------



## leic7 (Jan 10, 2013)

Why do some of you people think suicide needs to have an "excuse"? ...as if, there's something inherently evil about committing suicide that a person would need to have an acceptable excuse to make it less evil.

Living is...a lot of work, actually. Maintaining a reasonable standard of living requires constant input, and that can be exhausting. It's like playing a sandbox/MMO/simulation game that just goes on and on and on... Eventually, some players would want to stop playing. Those who say they still love playing it and will never stop until the system crashes, are the relatively new players, or they just don't mind the grinding, as long as they get to do a new quest once in a while.

But quitting is a lot of work, too. It's like a huge boss fight where you'd have to nail every single detail all the way through, or else you'd risk being thrown right back to the game in an even worse shape than before you started. That sounds like a lot of work.

DeadlyFoez, do you prefer there's "something", or "nothing", after death? Like, do you look forward to some sort of a "New Game+", or will you just be relieved that you don't have to play the game anymore?


----------



## Narayan (Jan 10, 2013)

I'm actually pretty interested if there's something after death. However, having no enough assurances that there will indeed be a life after death, I find the risk of ending my long life for something very uncertain, too much.

I never liked gambling if my chances of winning is less than 85%.


----------



## gifi4 (Jan 10, 2013)

What you're saying is it's a bit of trial and error.
Here's the thing, with trial and error, if you fail, you can, get this, retry it with a different strategy.
However, *death will not give you a retry at life.*

If you're expecting some sort of afterlife (Regardless of what your religion is) then that is physically impossible. I hate to burst your bubble but once your brain stops working, you have no consiousness.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 10, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Everyone that dies and comes back says they have an out of body experience, they feel lighter, and they are conscious. There was even a book written recently about a nonscientific who died and experienced Heaven, and came back to life, here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-..._B008OV2YR4_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357788487&sr=1-1


There is a difference between a near-death experience and actually dying. Our definition of "dead" is constantly changing. Even when one's heart stops, his or her brain is still functioning for a few minutes after that until the brain dies from oxygen deprivation, and that's what is demonstrably responsible for these near-death experience claims (in fact, people are being brought back to life as long as 40 minutes after "death" through a process of keeping the body cold and gradually reintroducing heat and oxygen to get the cells out of their "self-destruct" mode). For example, the common "light at the end of the tunnel" claim has been demonstrated to be the result of oxygen deprivation. Pilots and astronauts experience the exact same thing when they practice in the centrifuge and oxygen isn't reaching the brain. Out-of-body experiences have to do with the part of the brain "malfunctioning" that is responsible for keeping you aware of where you are spatially. In fact, in laboratory tests, people who claim to have had out-of-body experiences can never demonstrate that they were actually out of their bodies. For example, they couldn't identify what was on the tables and whatnot around their body when, had they actually been floating out of their bodies, they would have been able to do so.

In summary, there's no reason to think there's an afterlife, and there's no way to distinguish supposed near-death experiences from naturalistic processes and dreams. There's also no reason to think consciousness is anything more than the product of the brain, which dies.



Haloman800 said:


> It's not about religion or being good enough, it's only about Jesus and what he did for us at Calvary, dying on the cross to save us from our sins.


You said it wasn't about religion, and then you explained how you think it's about religion.


----------



## pierslogic (Jan 10, 2013)




----------



## WiiUBricker (Jan 10, 2013)

Why die when you can live?


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jan 10, 2013)

DeadlyFoez said:


> I have been searching for answers all my life, and nothing makes sense besides to experience the death myself.


 
I want you to relax and enjoy your life. You will never truly know what happens till you die. So just enjoy this time now.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 10, 2013)

Holy christ, I was fucking krunk last night. LOL. I don't even remember making this thread. Well, at least it got people discussing and thinking.


----------



## jurassicplayer (Jan 10, 2013)

New anime, nuff said.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jan 10, 2013)

Lacius said:


> There is a difference between a near-death experience and actually dying. Our definition of "dead" is constantly changing. Even when one's heart stops, his or her brain is still functioning for a few minutes after that until the brain dies from oxygen deprivation, and that's what is demonstrably responsible for these near-death experience claims (in fact, people are being brought back to life as long as 40 minutes after "death" through a process of keeping the body cold and gradually reintroducing heat and oxygen to get the cells out of their "self-destruct" mode). For example, the common "light at the end of the tunnel" claim has been demonstrated to be the result of oxygen deprivation. Pilots and astronauts experience the exact same thing when they practice in the centrifuge and oxygen isn't reaching the brain. Out-of-body experiences have to do with the part of the brain "malfunctioning" that is responsible for keeping you aware of where you are spatially. In fact, in laboratory tests, people who claim to have had out-of-body experiences can never demonstrate that they were actually out of their bodies. For example, they couldn't identify what was on the tables and whatnot around their body when, had they actually been floating out of their bodies, they would have been able to do so.
> 
> In summary, there's no reason to think there's an afterlife, and there's no way to distinguish supposed near-death experiences from naturalistic processes and dreams. There's also no reason to think consciousness is anything more than the product of the brain, which dies.
> 
> ...


Have you read the book? He was legally declared dead, and was brought back to life, and the book is his experience.

To make a blanket sweeping statement like that is foolish. The knowledge any of us could accumulate in our lifetime is comparable to a football in a large arena, with the arena being all possible knowledge, and the football being what we know, yet atheists like yourself presumably think they can declare God doesn't exist based on that one tiny speck in the huge pool of knowledge. 

Jesus was a person, not a religion.


----------



## dgwillia (Jan 11, 2013)

Sometimes I really wonder if theres life after death, or reincarnation or something. But at the same time, I really just dont want to die, atleast for a long time. I couldnt imagine how much it would suck if that was just "it" for you, eternal nothingness. I can't even imagine what that must feel like, it makes my heart race


----------



## Lacius (Jan 11, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Have you read the book? He was legally declared dead, and was brought back to life, and the book is his experience.


I haven't read the book, but I'm well aware of the book, and if the author isn't going to offer any reason to accept the claim that what he saw was anything representative of a real afterlife, then I'm not going to take his word for it, and neither should anyone else. There's no more reason to believe what he experienced was indicative of a real afterlife than to think invisible pixies flew in through the window and just messed with his thoughts and dreams. Even if we had no naturalistic explanation for what he claims to have experienced, which we do, that doesn't mean that's demonstrative of a god or afterlife. I'm also not entirely sure I accept the claim of his experience, regardless of what that experience might have actually been caused by, but that's irrelevant.



Haloman800 said:


> To make a blanket sweeping statement like that is foolish. The knowledge any of us could accumulate in our lifetime is comparable to a football in a large arena, with the arena being all possible knowledge, and the football being what we know, yet atheists like yourself presumably think they can declare God doesn't exist based on that one tiny speck in the huge pool of knowledge.


I don't claim that God definitely doesn't exist. My only claim is that there's no reason to think a god or an afterlife exist, and that's why I don't believe in God or an afterlife. God and/or an afterlife might very well exist, but I'm still unaware of any reason to think so. And to get back on topic, because there's no reason to think there's an afterlife, no one in his or her right mind should be in any hurry to die.



Haloman800 said:


> Jesus was a person, not a religion.


Belief in Jesus as depicted in Christianity is, by definition, a religious belief.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Belief in Jesus as depicted in Christianity is, by definition, a religious belief.


Not really. I believe Jesus was a real person, but I don't believe that he is the messiah. I don't believe in any religion.





Lacius said:


> ... because there's no reason to think there's an afterlife, no one in his or her right mind should be in any hurry to die.


There's plenty of reasons for many people to want to die. For many people it can just be to end pain and suffering of a disease.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 11, 2013)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Not really. I believe Jesus was a real person, but I don't believe that he is the messiah. I don't believe in any religion.


As I said, "Belief in Jesus as depicted in Christianity is, by definition, a religious belief." The belief in the Jesus depicted as a part of Christianity is, for example, the son of God and performed miracles. If that's the Jesus you believe in, that is a religious belief. If instead you merely believe in a historical Jesus, who may or may not have existed, then that's another story and not at all what I (or what Haloman800) was referring to.



DeadlyFoez said:


> There's plenty of reasons for many people to want to die. For many people it can just be to end pain and suffering of a disease.


I already alluded to excruciating physical pain as a potential viable reason for wanting to die:


Lacius said:


> Bar excruciating physical pain, I can think of no scenario where death is preferable to life.


----------



## ouch123 (Jan 11, 2013)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Holy christ, I was fucking krunk last night. LOL. I don't even remember making this thread. Well, at least it got people discussing and thinking.


Dude, you gotta stop taking that shit. Think about it. If we weren't here for you to post this, you might've actually done what you were alluding to in your post!

GBATemp: How to save a life.


----------



## Shinigami357 (Jan 11, 2013)

Death is misunderstood, yes... But it's not quite as poetic as you think.

In any case, death is biological. The so-called 'afterlife' is just a belief [some say delusion] fed to masses of people who are subconsciously trying to kill themselves while being pants-shittingly scared of death.

That's all there is to it that needs concern us and our minute, finite minds.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jan 11, 2013)

I want to live long enough to see the machines take over Terminator style... After that happens I don't want to live on this planet anymore!


----------



## SickPuppy (Jan 11, 2013)

A few months ago I came off of a 6 month drunk, and I'm ready to start it again, it's a yearly ritual. I entered a downward spiral 11 years ago, and still looking for the bottom. I know the answers I seek aren't there, but it's fun looking for the answers at the bottom of a bottle. I guess I'll live out my life looking for the answers, only because I can't find them if I'm dead.


After you die, you fail to exist, so don't be in a hurry.


----------



## Valwin (Jan 11, 2013)

DeadlyFoez said:


> We all have different beliefs with religion and also our own experience.
> 
> I personally can't wait to die and see/prove what there might be after this life... even if it kills me.
> 
> If you believe in God then you believe that you are safe, otherwise you are stuck being lost... by the Christian belief.


 
no need to die yet il tell you

nothing happens  the end


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

ouch123 said:


> Dude, you gotta stop taking that shit. Think about it. If we weren't here for you to post this, you might've actually done what you were alluding to in your post!


It doesn't matter that anyone was here. I made my first post... which I completely forgot about, and also made a second post, and then past out in bed. It's not like I own any guns or anything like that. Even if I did own a gun, I was surely too drunk to have even loaded it.


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 11, 2013)

I dont and will never understand why people think there is life after death and all that rubbish.  All we are are mammals that just happened to get smart.  And by getting smart we decided that its impossible to believe that we aren't here for a greater reason.  Does anything else on this planet bow down to some god and all that?  People in maybe a 100 or 200 years time will look back in history books and be like "did alot of them really believe all that shit?" and laugh because science will have proved that god, heaven, hell etc is just a total crock.  They more or less have now explained where we come from, continuous evolution etc but it doesnt get shoved under the worlds noses for fear of causing upset amongst religious groups.

Live for today, because there isnt anything after.  Its a one chance opportunity for us, and for every other species on the planet.  You dont see a dog go and kill another dog because hes been promised dozens of virgin bitches in doggy heaven do you? lol.  I just cant get my head around how intelligent this planet has become yet billions still hang off this religious rubbish and afterlife etc.  Rant over


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

Religion will always exist. No matter how much science can prove or disprove things, plenty of religious nuts will believe that it is just the devil leading them away from the path of god. There are still plenty of churches that teach that evolution is a myth and is wrong. Hell, there are even still groups of people that believe that the world is flat (no fucking lie). And if people can believe in scientology then there will always be idiots that will believe anythign other than the truth.

But this does not say that there is in fact no heaven, hell, or god. There is no scientific way to test and prove it. I personally don't think any of that exists. Leave it up to the christian religion to come up with things that can not be proven, and since it can't be disproven then it must exist in their eyes.

I personally hate the closed minds of many snotty religious people. I have always had an open mind and even once believed in the christian religion because thats how I was brought up. But instead of being a mindless sheep, I decided to start asking questions and thinking deeper and trying to make sense of the things that just don't make sense in the religion.


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 11, 2013)

Im not heavily clued up on religion and will never be.  But from what i can tell, God implies all things created in the universe, or something like that.  I read in the news the other week that scientists say they estimate there to be 1 hundred billion planets, in our galaxy alone.  And there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. Why would one "god"  create all that, for a tiny little planet in the middle of nowhere.  Even writing it seems totally absurd.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

Of course. You are right. To think that there are no other life forms out there and that all of existence was created by a god is stupid. It was easier for people to think that 200+ years ago when there was no proof of even other solar systems, and that belief has stuck with many people.

Although I don't believe in a god, I have found a way for science (which is mostly fact) and the christian religion to coexist with each other as both being true. For me to explain it is EXTREMELY long winded, and I'm not going to take the 3-4 hours to type it all up unless enough people really want me too.

I almost should and just put it up on my website. I've actually considered writing a short book on my thoughts for quite some time


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 11, 2013)

I think that if people want to believe in some kind of religion or greater being, in order to help them (even if it is superficial) through the trials and tribulations of life, then so be it.  

I said way earlier in the post that what I think happens when you die is it is exactly the same as when your not born.  No concept of anything, time, thoughts, nothing.

I dont recall having to wait for billions of years for my chance to come in this world, it just...did.  So therefore the prospect of being gone for eternity doesnt concern me either as it will just be same as before.  Thats why I try where i can to live each day like it could be the last (as one day, ill be right) and i kind of pity people who live there life by strict religious law


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

I completely agree with you on the before birth. Thats one part that I've been thinking deeply about lately. I tend to just sit and think quite a lot and ponder the hows and why of the universe and life. I have gone as far into depth as to thinking that this whole realm could just be an imagination and that I'm the only one who exists and everything else is just made up by myself. I have considered the possibility of reincarnation. I have considered that time may never be anything that matters and ever single being was kind of made alive all at the same moment but with different relations to the overall timeline.

Shit, seriously, I could go on for quite a long time.


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 11, 2013)

I think the whole thing is fascinating myself.  Id never force my views on anyone knowingly.  Its just that I find the scientific way overwhelmingly more rational and plausible.  
You just have to look at more or less every species on the planet and for them its being alive, eating, defending themselves, reproducing etc and thats as deep as it gets.  And you know full well that when humans first evolved into what we are today and didnt have much of a grasp on language and intelligence, that we were exactly the same.  Eat, drink, sleep, kill, survive, reproduce.  It ran no deeper than that.  Hell, people probably saw the sun or the moon in the sky and thought "greater being"  and everything has stemmed from that and nothing more and thats where we are at today.

I think that people just wont believe that we are here "because we are"  because that paints a rather depressing picture of that there isnt any point to being alive.  But thats the thing, why does there have to be a point to it.  Why do we have to be any more significant that an insect that is born, does next to nothing, then dies 48 hours later?  We just believe we have to be more significant because we evolved to become the most intelligent species on the planet, possibly it might be said, even in the universe as it stands.  I think that if humans didnt have the intelligence that they did, then religion wouldnt exist.  And that alone tells me, thats its all made up


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

You hit the nail on the head. I've explained exactly this to my wife before, but she comes from a baptist background and her father is a pastor. I can understand how people believe in heaven and hell by just what they saw in the sky with a big burning ball that hurts your eyes when you look at it and then the moon, clouds, and stars that make up the 'heavens'.

What I find really funny is when I watch some 'educational' shows that involve them searching for some proof of something religious, it is always full of bullshit that could easily be made up, has been proven wrong, or just falling completely inline with the doctrines that the church/bible teaches to make you think that their proof matches directly to what the bible says even though carbon dating proved otherwise and something else like that.

What I find rather appalling is that when major tragedies happen, many of the religious people will say that it was work of the devil or it was god's will. If you make a prayer and it happens then god did that for you, but if it doesn't happen then it was for a better reason. If a child becomes sick and dies then god had a greater purpose. Really? WTF? So no matter what happens it was always for the better? Thats a bullshit idea. Thats just a way for people to relax themselves over mistakes that they made or things they can't control. It's horrible reasoning.


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 11, 2013)

Exactly right.  You cant blame people thousands of years ago and looking into the sky and thinking all that, purely because they had no way or enough intelligence to realise any different.  Exactly the same as when we thought the earth was flat etc.  The confusing thing is that religion was somehow born out of this all them years ago and despite all the advancements we have made and discoveries we have made, its still rampant.  

I do believe though that over time it was disappear.  Not to the point where it doesnt exist anymore, but to the point where it becomes a highly insignificant few that believe in it.  Its happening in society slowly as we speak.  I live in a part of the UK which has a high population of Asian people and im regularly out having drinks, playing football and are friends with them.  And quite a large percentage of the "younger" Asian population are questioning the beliefs and religion that is instilled in them from a very early age.  This would have been unheard of even 15-20 years ago so times are changing.  

I had a religious lady come to my front door a year or so ago and rather than shut the door on her I let her tell me all about it, and i did listen.  And then when she was finished I then asked all my questions and gave my opinions (like we are doing now)  and she just completely shunned it.  Anything I was saying that she didnt understand, she didnt want to contemplate or even try to rationalise.  Depressing really.  At the end of the day she knocked on my door, not the other way around.

Still, its all very interesting!


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

LMFAO!!! I know how that it. There was an episode of that show 30 Days, with Morgan Spurlock, and he had an atheist woman stay with a devote christian family. The woman used to be a christian but then opened her eyes. This woman did everything with that family including going to church and the prayer groups and everything. That family had no problem cramming it down her throat. Then there was a dinner that the family had with a group of atheists, and the husband of the christian family got so rude and would try to shut the atheists up when ever they were discussing their views... in a very polite manner. It's just so sad how much of a one way street it can be for many of those people, but not all are like that, just the majority 

Really, this world is a fucked up place.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

Anyone interested in talking about Human life and evolution in the future or are we going to talk about random pointless bullshit?


----------



## naved.islam14 (Jan 11, 2013)

I want to live so I can post in this thread. *Ties noose to the neck and dies*


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

Engert said:


> Anyone interested in talking about Human life and evolution in the future or are we going to talk about random pointless bullshit?


You are completely free to join in on any of the conversations in this thread. If you have something you want to share or talk about then speak up. Keep in mind, I mentioned god in the first post, so this religious talk does still fit in to the conversation.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

Not interested about religion. Interested in human life longevity and possibly immortality.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

Yeah, well good luck with that. It's kind of difficult to talk about immortality without bringing religion into it because the only time immortality has been thought to exist was through religion.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

How old are you?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm in my 30's.

If you have something that you'd like to share, then please do, but asking off topic questions about my age is irrelevant because I am not immortal.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

This topic is boring.
Ok since you're in 30s.

Let's jump into my time machine and plunge forward 5000 years.
How do you imagine human life then? Average lifespan, accumulated knowledge, possibly a new species of humans fused with machines and of course religion?


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

Very interesting. It is so difficult to even try to predict the future. We are already advancing at an unbelievable rate. The next big discovery or advancement needs to happen next before we can even imagine what the future might be like. There are so many technical possibilities that could happen in that time as far as discovering new dimensions and space travel, but those are all things that we can conceive right now, what about the things that haven't even been dreamed up yet?

It's a lot like how people thought about the future during the 18th century. No one had an idea about computers, phones, and TV's. So their imaginations never included things like that.

All I can say is I'd rather live in the future instead of living in the 'now'.

I bet as science becomes more advanced, people will let go of religion. Lifespan could certainly increase, or decrease with how we treat the planet. It may get to a point that machines are ancient technologies because of genetic engineering.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

There you go. Not to mention that they'll look at us kind of like we look at the now-extinct Neanderthal species.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 11, 2013)

No, neanderthals are not extinct. Trust me, there is a whole building full of them just down the street from me. 

I see what you mean.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

So, yes i'm happy being alive but it sucks that i was born in this age. I should have have been born in year one where ignorance was bliss or 5000 years from now. Not during this transition period.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jan 11, 2013)

Engert said:


> So, yes i'm happy being alive but it sucks that i was born in this age. I should have have been born in year one where ignorance was bliss or *5000 years* from now. Not during this transition period.


Freeze yourself.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Freeze yourself.


 
I've thought about that. Still haven't decided yet. It's close to $200.000 with a life insurance policy for a full body freeze.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jan 11, 2013)

Engert said:


> I've thought about that. Still haven't decided yet. It's close to $200.000 with a life insurance policy for a full body freeze.


Doo eet.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

I probably will.
It's better to try than not try.


----------



## Black-Ice (Jan 11, 2013)

Engert said:


> I probably will.
> It's better to try than not try.


You may wake up and find the world a desolate wasteland.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

I will be ALIVE. 5000 years into the future. Even if it is for 10 minutes. I'll take it.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

Besides freezing (which is the only thing i like) we also have some other options which are in their baby steps. One is preservation via computers. Here's one here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/jason-leigh-avatars.html
The thing is that even though this way you could live forever, this is still not you. It's a copy of you. It's not your conscience.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 11, 2013)

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is a problem with our current freezing process, not with our unfreezing process. Freezing one's body literally destroys your cells with virtually no chance of revival. Not only are you dead and frozen, but also imagine a thousand swords piercing every one of your cells. In order for cryogenics to be viable, we must figure out a way to stop our cells from being destroyed in the freezing process, much in the way some species of frogs freeze and die in the winter and thaw out in the spring.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

Lacius said:


> I hate to burst your bubble.


I won't do it then. Thanks for telling me.



Engert said:


> It's better to try than not try.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 11, 2013)

Engert said:


> It's better to try than not try.





Engert said:


> It's close to $200.000 with a life insurance policy for a full body freeze.


If all you have to lose is whether or not you stay dead, then sure, it's better to try than not to try. However, in this case, you have $200,000 you could have spent during your life that you'll lose for something that's virtually guaranteed not to work.


----------



## Engert (Jan 11, 2013)

No no these are life insurance money. They take it out of your life insurance policy which (if you want a full body freeze) is 200K. So paying for a 200K policy is around 100 bucks a month or something like that.
You see it as a waste, i see it as an opportunity to try and tackle the subject of life after death.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 11, 2013)

Engert said:


> No no these are life insurance money. They take it out of your life insurance policy which (if you want a full body freeze) is 200K. So paying for a 200K policy is around 100 bucks a month or something like that.


That $200,000 isn't just free money. You're still making life insurance payments (while you're alive) that, instead of going to your family, is going to this waste. Until scientists come up with a way to freeze one's body without literally destroying your cells, there's no reason to think you can be revived from being cryogenically frozen, and there's every reason to think you can't be revived from being cryogenically frozen.



Engert said:


> You see it as a waste, i see it as an opportunity to try and tackle the subject of life after death.


Even if you could perfect the freezing process, it would just be a method of suspended animation and would have nothing to do with an afterlife.


----------



## kristianity77 (Jan 11, 2013)

i reckon the way of the future will be to somehow keep nothing but the brain on some kind of life support.  just a brain in a jar, that is alive and has a method of communication with the outside world through electrical impulses or whatever.  Sort of like Dead Head Fred!


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jan 11, 2013)

Hehehehehe I had too!!!!


----------



## ouch123 (Jan 12, 2013)

DeadlyFoez said:


> It doesn't matter that anyone was here. I made my first post... which I completely forgot about, and also made a second post, and then past out in bed. It's not like I own any guns or anything like that. Even if I did own a gun, I was surely too drunk to have even loaded it.


Er, I was (mostly) joking. Although I would like to clarify that when I said "If we weren't here" I meant it more as in "to give you something to do" rather than "to stop you from doing something you were about to do."

Boredom+Being Drunk = Recipe for Disaster.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Jan 12, 2013)

ouch123 said:


> Er, I was (mostly) joking. Although I would like to clarify that when I said "If we weren't here" I meant it more as in "to give you something to do" rather than "to stop you from doing something you were about to do."
> 
> Boredom+Being Drunk = Recipe for Disaster.


I actually had company over too. Apparently I was a very active person that night. I even played a round of bowling on my wii which I haven't done in a very long time.


----------



## koimayeul (Jan 12, 2013)

Don't take the easy way out.. Live!!


----------



## Deleted member 318366 (Jan 12, 2013)

We all will die at some point in our lives but why not live to the fullest extent before then eh?


----------



## Haloman800 (Jan 12, 2013)

Lacius said:


> I haven't read the book, but I'm well aware of the book, and if the author isn't going to offer any reason to accept the claim that what he saw was anything representative of a real afterlife, then I'm not going to take his word for it, and neither should anyone else. There's no more reason to believe what he experienced was indicative of a real afterlife than to think invisible pixies flew in through the window and just messed with his thoughts and dreams. Even if we had no naturalistic explanation for what he claims to have experienced, which we do, that doesn't mean that's demonstrative of a god or afterlife. I'm also not entirely sure I accept the claim of his experience, regardless of what that experience might have actually been caused by, but that's irrelevant.


 
How do you know if he offers reason to accept the claim if you haven't read it? You're taking someone else's word for something you've never read? That's very intelligent of you.



> I don't claim that God definitely doesn't exist. My only claim is that there's no reason to think a god or an afterlife exist, and that's why I don't believe in God or an afterlife. God and/or an afterlife might very well exist, but I'm still unaware of any reason to think so. And to get back on topic, because there's no reason to think there's an afterlife, no one in his or her right mind should be in any hurry to die.


You either claim he exists, he doesn't exist, or are not sure. After you are exposed to the concept, you must either decide to believe it, disbelieve it, or put it off to decide later when you have more information.

Also getting back on topic, we can at least agree that no one should be in a hurry to die simply to find out what's on the other side.



> Belief in Jesus as depicted in Christianity is, by definition, a religious belief.


There is proof Jesus existed and historical documents outside the Bible that chronologize Jesus and His life, ministry, etc. He Himself, as a person, just as any other human being, does not constitute a religion.


----------



## BORTZ (Jan 13, 2013)

This has to be the dumbest thing ive ever heard.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 13, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> How do you know if he offers reason to accept the claim if you haven't read it? You're taking someone else's word for something you've never read? That's very intelligent of you.


I'm unaware of any reason to accept the claim made by this author. If you are aware of any reason to accept his claim, please let me know. You're the one arguing that this afterlife claim is accurate, and it's not my job to disprove a claim before I refuse to accept a claim. That would be an argument from ignorance.



Haloman800 said:


> You either claim he exists, he doesn't exist, or are not sure. After you are exposed to the concept, you must either decide to believe it, disbelieve it, or put it off to decide later when you have more information.


You're mixing belief claims with knowledge claims, and I don't have to claim absolute certainty about a claim in order to fail to accept that claim. You're right that one either accepts the claim that God exists or doesn't, but that doesn't mean I know that God doesn't exist. For example, if someone makes the claim that fairies exist, I wouldn't accept that claim because I have no reason to accept that claim. That doesn't mean I'm claiming with absolute certainty that fairies do not exist or that I can disprove the existence of fairies.

Again, I'm not arguing that God certainly doesn't exist; I'm arguing that there's no more reason to think God exists than to think fairies exist.



Haloman800 said:


> There is proof Jesus existed and historical documents outside the Bible that chronologize Jesus and His life, ministry, etc. He Himself, as a person, just as any other human being, does not constitute a religion.


No, there is no contemporary evidence of historical Jesus. Is it probable that Jesus was based off one or more people who did indeed exist? Sure, but the possible existence of historical Jesus is no more reason to believe the claims made in the Bible than to believe the accuracy of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter just because Abraham Lincoln existed.


----------



## slingblade1170 (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm curious about my death and always have but i'm in no rush to find out what its like.


----------



## jakeyjake (Jan 13, 2013)

Clearly you need to look at a worst case scenario, because you can't prove anything.

The worst case scenario would be that you go to a hell of a religion that you do not practice.  The next worse case would be you just cease to exist, and therefore nothing really happens.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Even if you could perfect the freezing process, it would just be a method of suspended animation and would have nothing to do with an afterlife.



You know, you strike me as a Harvard professor. You see, the difference between an MIT professor and a Harvard professor is that the Harvard professor is all about the theoretical aspects of life (meaning he bores you with bullshit) while an MIT professor will produce 2 quantum computers by the time Harvard professor says it's unethical, can't be done, bla bla bla etc.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> You know, you strike me as a Harvard professor. You see, the difference between an MIT professor and a Harvard professor is that the Harvard professor is all about the theoretical aspects of life (meaning he bores you with bullshit) while an MIT professor will produce 2 quantum computers by the time Harvard professor says it's unethical, can't be done, bla bla bla etc.


I'm not saying that it's impossible to freeze someone and then unfreeze him or her after an extended period of suspended animation; I'm saying that if someone is frozen today with today's methods, his or her cells will be destroyed and there's virtually no more a chance of bringing him or her back to life than there is digging up some random grave and bringing that person back to life. There's no reason to think today's technologies will work, there's every reason to think they won't work, and it's definitely not worth spending $200,000.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

But i think that you are neglecting one important fact. 5000 years of accumulated knowledge!
I mean even now, we can bring back extinct species such as Australian tiger. All we need is a proper host because if you use a horse or a donkey, then you'd have some weird mutations. So we're looking to find an animal that's genetically close to the extinct tiger and we can bring him back.
Now imagine what people can do in 5000 years!


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> But i think that you are neglecting one important fact. 5000 years of accumulated knowledge!
> I mean even now, we can bring back extinct species such as Australian tiger. All we need is a proper host because if you use a horse or a donkey, then you'd have some weird mutations. So we're looking to find an animal that's genetically close to the extinct tiger and we can bring him back.
> Now imagine what people can do in 5000 years!


I'm not ignoring the fact that technology advances. I think it's more than probable that we will someday have a working method of suspended animation, likely one involving genetically-engineered humans that naturally produce kinds of antifreeze that prevent ice from forming and killing cells during the freezing process, but currently this is indistinguishable from something out of science fiction. I've only been criticizing someone paying for our current methods of freezing human bodies, which demonstrably cannot work.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

But you see you are looking for assurance. When the only assurance is death, why not try freezing with the hope that an advanced civilization can bring you back?
And this is tangible hope not religious hope.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> But you see you are looking for assurance. When the only assurance is death, why not try freezing with the hope that an advanced civilization can bring you back?
> And this is tangible hope not religious hope.


Because hoping something is true isn't any reason to think that thing is true. Otherwise, I'd believe I were a billionaire solely on the basis that I wish I were a billionaire. Using a basic cost-benefit analysis, you're spending $200,000 for something that you have no reason to think will work and have every reason to think won't work. This is the equivalent of religious hope because you're believing something for no reason other than avoiding having to cope with death.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Hmmm. I think you are ignoring progress. That's the key element in this scenario which clearly separates religion from educated guess in progress in the future.
For example. If i go in year one and make a radio call for my helicopter to come down, then 2000 years later we'd have a religion because people would see the helicopter and the person in it, as a God and i'd have a cult.
So progress in the future is along the same line. You think we're advanced now with our shit technology? Who the hell knows how the human species will evolve 5000 years from now and for the heck of if they might want to bring back "legacy humans" for study.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> Hmmm. I think you are ignoring progress. That's the key element in this scenario which clearly separates religion from educated guess in progress in the future.
> For example. If i go in year one and make a radio call for my helicopter to come down, then 2000 years later we'd have a religion because people would see the helicopter and the person in it, as a God and i'd have a cult.
> So progress in the future is along the same line. You think we're advanced now with our shit technology? Who the hell knows how the human species will evolve 5000 years from now and for the heck of if they might want to bring back "legacy humans" for study.


You have no reason to think humans will someday be able to revive frozen bodies made up of destroyed cells, and you have every reason to think it's just as likely as reviving bodies that have been buried.. You have yet to draw a connection between hoping humans will someday be able to revive bodies frozen today and having anymore reason to think humans will someday be able to revive bodies frozen today than to think humans will someday develop backwards time-travel and just come back and give you the secret to immortality.

Is it possible humans will someday be able to revive bodies frozen today? Sure, and it's also possible that magic pixies will repair your cells one-by-one, and based on how we understand the freezing process today, you have no more reason to believe one will happen over the other.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

The connection is pure random chance. 
Which means that somehow after I freeze myself I can survive a nuclear holocaust, a backlash of humans into the future where they reach the point of war when they try to bring back the dead or the simple fact that the power might go out in the facility where they keep me frozen. The possibilities that I may not get revived are endless and the probability is that I will not make it. But, there is the small chance that one percent chance that somehow somewhere in the future I might get randomly selected for whatever purpose good or evil (evil meaning that they will try to experiment on me) and that’s all I want. And the reason why I think they will revive freezing humans is just educated guess based on progress. I think it might be easier for them to work on frozen humans then to dig local cemeteries. That’s it. Just educated guess. 
So the question is, why don’t you want to try it? Because you base your judgment on today’s technology and have no hope for the technology of the future?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> The connection is pure random chance.





Engert said:


> The possibilities that I may not get revived are endless and the probability is that I will not make it. But, there is the small chance that one percent chance that somehow somewhere in the future I might get randomly selected for whatever purpose good or evil (evil meaning that they will try to experiment on me) and that’s all I want.


You can only say this is possible so far as you can say the existence of magic pixies is possible, and that's not the same thing as being able to assign probability to any of this. I can say the existence of pixies is possible in that it's possible that pixies exist even though I have no reason to believe they exist because I'm unaware, and/or incapable of becoming aware, of the evidence. The fact of the matter is that in the absence of any reason to believe any of these things are even physically possible, the only odds we can assign is 0%.



Engert said:


> And the reason why I think they will revive freezing humans is just educated guess based on progress.


You can't say it's an educated guess that you think people frozen today will be able to be revived without giving a single reason to accept this claim. In the absence of a single logically sound reason to accept the claim that people frozen today will someday be able to be revived, despite the fact that one's cells are literally destroyed, your belief that people frozen today will be able to be revived is on faith alone.



Engert said:


> So the question is, why don’t you want to try it? Because you base your judgment on today’s technology and have no hope for the technology of the future?


I probably would freeze myself if it were free and I had nothing to lose. However, it would cost me $200,000, and based on how we understand the freezing process today (the one that destroys the cells in one's body), there is no more reason to believe a frozen body can be revived than to believe someone who is cremated can be revived from the ashes. Until you can demonstrate how it would even be possible to revive a body frozen today, then your faith is no different from belief in fairies, God, a flying spaghetti monster, etc.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

This is interesting 
Are you sure you don't work at Harvard?

Ok.



> You can only say this is possible so far as you can say the existence of magic pixies is possible, and that's not the same thing as being able to assign probability to any of this. I can say the existence of pixies is possible in that it's possible that pixies exist even though I have no reason to believe they exist because I'm unaware, and/or incapable of becoming aware, of the evidence. The fact of the matter is that in the absence of any reason to believe any of these things are even physically possible, the only odds we can assign is 0%.


 
Where in the progress of humanity have we seen pixies?
Nowhere is the answer.
Where do i base my judgment? On medical progress in the last two centuries.
Use a better analogy.

Next.



> You can't say it's an educated guess that you think people frozen today will be able to be revived without giving a single reason to accept this claim. In the absence of a single logically sound reason to accept the claim that people frozen today will someday be able to be revived, despite the fact that one's cells are literally destroyed, your belief that people frozen today will be able to be revived is on faith alone.


 
Mummies of Egypt is the answer. Would you like me to expand on that? On how humans are fascinated on how a body can be preserved for almost 5000 years?



> I probably would freeze myself if it were free and I had nothing to lose. However, it would cost me $200,000, and based on how we understand the freezing process today (the one that destroys the cells in one's body), there is no more reason to believe a frozen body can be revived than to believe someone who is cremated can be revived from the ashes. Until you can demonstrate how it would even be possible to revive a body frozen today, then your faith is no different from belief in fairies, God, a flying spaghetti monster, etc.


 
Cost is the only real reason here for some people not doing this, speaking realistically and not using any dumb analogies to spaghetti monsters. Cost is the real answer for not doing this.

The problem is that people have no hope in the future but instead put their hope in Jesus. This is the problem with progress in humanity.


----------



## tatripp (Jan 14, 2013)

Hey OP,
 I am a Christian and I believe in God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think I'm safe.


----------



## Gahars (Jan 14, 2013)

Alright, so placing faith in a deity makes someone a retard, but placing faith in improbable science fiction technology doesn't?

Okay.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Alright, so placing faith in a deity makes someone a retard, but placing faith in improbable science fiction technology doesn't?
> Okay.


Improbable?
Are you sure you want to do this?
Show me proof of Jesus. 
But an educated guess can say that Internet 3.0 will be implanted into people's bodies and we'd have a global wifi. A percentage of this claim will be true in the future. But your claim on Jesus has no precedent proof. If Jesus was real and you'd said that he might come again in year 2030, then i'd believe you.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> Where in the progress of humanity have we seen pixies?


Where in the progress of humanity have we seen the restoration of a completely obliterated cell, let alone the restoration of an organism made up of obliterated cells? Can you name a single way in which one might possibly go about doing this someday? The method of restoring an obliterated cell from our current freezing process, let alone an organism made up of those cells, is as possible as the existence of pixies. Are they both possible? Yes. Do we have any reason to think they exist? No. Do we have any reason to think they might even be physically possible? No. The pixie analogy is valid.



Engert said:


> Mummies of Egypt is the answer. Would you like me to expand on that? On how humans are fascinated on how a body can be preserved for almost 5000 years?


 
Are you saying you've seen mummies be brought back to life? That movie with Brendan Fraser doesn't count.



Engert said:


> Cost is the only real reason here for some people not doing this, speaking realistically and not using any dumb analogies to spaghetti monsters. Cost is the real answer for not doing this.


You're right. With virtually every decision I can think of, it's always a cost-benefit analysis, whether or not it's a conscious analysis. Should I wear this shirt today? Cost-benefit analysis. Should I go upstairs to grab my phone charger? Cost-benefit analysis. In the case of freezing oneself, there's no reason to think it can work, there's every reason to think it can't work, and it costs $200.000. It's also causing one to avoid coping with the finality of death, which isn't psychologically healthy. The costs severely outweigh the benefits here. It's more-or-less the same cost-benefit analysis in choosing whether or not one should devote one's time and money to a particular religion in order to avoid hell and go to heaven.



Engert said:


> The problem is that people have no hope in the future but instead put their hope in Jesus. This is the problem with progress in humanity.


We agree that religion has stifled technological progress. But you have no more reason to believe and/or hope that you will be able to be revived if cryogenically frozen using today's methods than you have to believe and/or hope that Jesus will fly you to heaven.



Engert said:


> Improbable?
> Are you sure you want to do this?
> Show me proof of Jesus.


Show me "proof" of it being physically possible to restore an obliterated cell, let alone the organism.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Show me "proof" of it being physically possible to restore an obliterated cell, let alone the organism.


 
I think it's pretty clear that you oppose this idea because you bring up lame counterpoints with Brendan Frasier and miss the point.
Like i said earlier, i am putting my hope of cell restoration in future technology. And my basis for this is the advancements of technology so far.
Hope you're not upset if i go ahead and freeze myself? You don't mind right? It's my money after all.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> I think it's pretty clear that you oppose this idea because you bring up lame counterpoints with Brendan Frasier and miss the point.


I oppose your claim that it's logically sound to accept the claim that people frozen today will be able to be revived because there's no reason to believe this. My quip about Brendan Fraser was completely valid when you responded to something I said with some nonsense about mummies that had nothing to do with what we were talking about, unless you were claiming that mummies have been brought back to life.



Engert said:


> Like i said earlier, i am putting my hope of cell restoration in future technology. And my basis for this is the advancements of technology so far.


Just because technology is advancing doesn't mean you get to make up hypothetical situations and say it's possible science will be able to do it someday, especially when we have every reason to think it's impossible to restore humans frozen today, and no reason to think it's possible.


Engert said:


> Hope you're not upset if i go ahead and freeze myself? You don't mind right? It's my money after all.


I don't care what you or anyone else does with his or her body after death. I'm merely stating that it's not at all logically sound position to accept the claim that you will be able to be revived if frozen using today's freezing methods.


----------



## Gahars (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> Improbable?
> Are you sure you want to do this?
> Show me proof of Jesus.
> But an educated guess can say that Internet 3.0 will be implanted into people's bodies and we'd have a global wifi. A percentage of this claim will be true in the future. But your claim on Jesus has no precedent proof. If Jesus was real and you'd said that he might come again in year 2030, then i'd believe you.


 
Your "educated" guess really, really isn't.

While "future guessing" is a fun little game, A) You're hardly an expert on the subject, and B) More often than not, it's a crapshoot. Just ask history.

(Also, your whole "Jesus" bit is completely irrelevant. Jesus being real or not doesn't make your misguided, wishful fantasizing any more grounded.)


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Lacius said:


> I'm merely stating that it's not at all logically sound position to accept the claim that you will be able to be revived if frozen using today's freezing methods.


 
And i am stating that if you base your judgment on today's technology it's an impossible task. But if you base your judgment in medical and technological progress of the future then anything is possible. Akin to bring our medical technology 1000 years back in time.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> A) You're hardly an expert on the subject, and B)
> 
> B) More often than not, it's a crapshoot. Just ask history.


 
A) This is the internet where we can't verify someone's credentials even if i told you that i am involved with MIT. There's no way to prove that to you unless you want to stop at the MIT cafeteria on Friday.

B) True. But sometimes it's not a crapshoot.

Jesus is a crapshoot for 2000 years.


----------



## Gahars (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> A) This is the internet where we can't verify someone's credentials even if i told you that i am involved with MIT. There's no way to prove that to you unless you want to stop at the MIT cafeteria on Friday.


 
Believe me, your posts tell me all anyone needs to know about your credentials.



Engert said:


> B) True. But sometimes it's not a crapshoot.


 
When you endlessly throw shit at the wall, eventually something will stick. As much as we would all love workable cryogenics technology, there's no reason to believe that this particular turd has any better chances than the rest.



Engert said:


> Jesus is a crapshoot for 2000 years.


 
And as I already mentioned, this is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Like my granddaddy used to say "never judge a book by its contents but by its cover". 

But Gahars people have been throwing shit at the wall for 2000 years about Jesus. Still nothing. How do you explain that?


----------



## Gahars (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> But Gahars people have been throwing shit at the wall for 2000 years about Jesus. Still nothing. How do you explain that?


 
...I don't because that's not the subject at hand. I haven't made an argument about the validity of Christianity at all here, so yeah.

How is Jesus being real or not make your fantasizing any more credible?


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> How is Jesus being real or not make your fantasizing any more credible?


Wow. You just don't want to read huh? My fantasy is more credible because i can make an educated guess based on today's technology and progress.
But because my projection is far into the future it's true that it sounds crazy to you and many other folks. You and Lacious would be more comfortable if i told you that we'd have a man in Mars in 100 years. With that projection you're more comfortable. 
But bringing back frozen humans to life? Hell no! That's crazy bat shit.


----------



## Gahars (Jan 14, 2013)

Engert said:


> Wow. You just don't want to read huh? My fantasy is more credible because i can make an educated guess based on today's technology and progress.
> But because my projection is far into the future it's true that it sounds crazy to you and many other folks. You and Lacious would be more comfortable if i told you that we'd have a man in Mars in 100 years. With that projection you're more comfortable.
> But bringing back frozen humans to life? Hell no! That's crazy bat shit.


 
First of all, this still has nothing to do with your "Jesus" bit, but whatever. Secondly we've already addressed the flaws with your "educated" guess. It seems you've been the one skipping the reading.

Also, there's a world of difference between your Mars example and this issue of cryogenics. A manned mission to Mars is conceivable because we already (basically) have the technology and know-how to pull it off. While a little refinement may be necessary, budgeting the project is the biggest obstacle. The techniques cryogenics call for just don't exist at the moment; they might never come about. I'd love to see it come about, but there is pretty much no scientific basis for thinking it can be done. Wanting it to be real won't make it so.

Scientific thinking calls for conjecture based solely on measured, quantifiable evidence. Your cryogenics fantasy couldn't fall further from this standard. At the end of the day, you're simply displaying the sort of blind faith you criticize religion for.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

You sound very rational Gahars (by missing the point again). This means that someday you will get a blue-collar respectable job where you will be respected by your peers on your rational decisions and your short 6-months projections on the department budget.
But all your other undoable projects will be handled by people like me. People like me who get 'renegade' in their review for not following company policy and for getting many written warnings in the HR file. The reason they don't fire people like me is because we do the undoable projects your department rejects, and sure we laugh in their face when we do it. 
So if you don't mind i'm gonna go ahead and freeze myself when i die m'kay?
Just because you can't make the progress leap from Mars to cryogenics it's not my fault.
Now give me three Hail Marys and let's accept the status quo because faith in progress is worse than religion.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 14, 2013)

Just because technology is advancing doesn't mean I have any sound reason to accept the claim, for example, that humans will someday have the technology to turn a ham into gold, or the humans will someday be able to revive people frozen using a flawed freezing technique that destroys the cells. To accept either of these claims would be an act of faith.

If/when the freezing and unfreezing processes are perfected, it will be because people used reason and evidence to figure out what works and what doesn't, and it will be because people worked around issues like cell-obliteration during freezing. It won't be because people chose to believe whatever they wanted despite the lack of reason/evidence, because those kinds of faith-based beliefs don't effectively serve as a foundation for progress. In fact, those kinds of beliefs hinder progress.


----------



## Engert (Jan 14, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Just because technology is advancing doesn't mean I have any sound reason to accept the claim, for example, that humans will someday have the technology to turn a ham into gold.


 
Why not? Why don't you consider the possibility on this object (ham) which we can touch and smell of turning into gold? Why reject it right away because it doesn't make sense to us right now?

I say if you want to make a new battery that's dirt cheap, you start from dirt.

http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html


----------



## Lacius (Jan 15, 2013)

Engert said:


> Why not? Why don't you consider the possibility on this object (ham) which we can touch and smell of turning into gold?


Is it possible that humans might someday be able to turn a ham into gold using knowledge I'm unaware of? Sure, just like it's possible that pixies exist. I very much consider the possibility. The problem is I have no reason to accept the claim that humans will one day be able to do it, and I have no reason to even think the laws of physics allow for it.



Engert said:


> Why reject it right away because it doesn't make sense to us right now?


Because we don't accept claims until they have been demonstrated to be true through reason and evidence.


----------



## Engert (Jan 16, 2013)

Lacius you have some serious problems thinking outside the box. Are you sure you're not gahars with another account? If we had people like you on the Moon team it would have never been done with the timeline Kennedy proposed. But everyone is different i guess and that's what makes the world more interesting. Everyone is good at something. Since you like to play it safe at everything, you'd be great at designing safety products. Airbags for example. Can you come up with a breakthrough airbag which pretty much saves you from any type of car crash?


----------



## Lacius (Jan 16, 2013)

Engert said:


> Lacius you have some serious problems thinking outside the box. Are you sure you're not gahars with another account? If we had people like you on the Moon team it would have never been done with the timeline Kennedy proposed. But everyone is different i guess and that's what makes the world more interesting. Everyone is good at something. Since you like to play it safe at everything, you'd be great at designing safety products. Airbags for example. Can you come up with a breakthrough airbag which pretty much saves you from any type of car crash?


My failure to accept the claim that, for example, someone can turn a ham into gold has nothing to do with me not "thinking outside the box." It's about using reason and evidence to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. And reason and evidence are how things like the moon-landing were accomplished.


----------



## Prophet (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm with Engert on this one. Physics and biology be damned! If we never learn to popsicle people, just think of all those sci-fi movies that will have been proven wrong. Are you prepared to live in a world where there is a discrepancy between movie science and real world science? I for one, am not.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 16, 2013)

Prophet said:


> I'm with Engert on this one. Physics and biology be damned! If we never learn to popsicle people, just think of all those sci-fi movies that will have been proven wrong. Are you prepared to live in a world where there is a discrepancy between movie science and real world science? I for one, am not.


If human freezing and unfreezing is ever figured out, it won't be because people said, "physics and biology be damned."


----------



## Gahars (Jan 16, 2013)

Lacius said:


> My failure to accept the claim that, for example, someone can turn a ham into gold has nothing to do with me not "thinking outside the box." It's about using reason and evidence to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. And reason and evidence are how things like the moon-landing were accomplished.


 
Lacius, stop. The truth isn't sinking in.

Arguing with Engert is like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how compelling you make your argument, and no matter how well you present the facts, neither of them are going to budge.


----------



## Prophet (Jan 16, 2013)

Physics and biology have had a good run, but ask yourself: what have they done for us lately? No hover cars, no time travel, no super powers caused by gamma-rays. Seriously science, wtf? It might be time to just start over. Science has failed to live up to the promised future that was depicted in movies and that is unacceptable in my opinion.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Lacius, stop. The truth isn't sinking in.
> 
> Arguing with Engert is like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how compelling you make your argument, and no matter how well you present the facts, neither of them are going to budge.


I figured long before the airbag quip that he's only flamebaiting. Thanks for your concern though, Gahars.


----------



## SickPuppy (Jan 16, 2013)

Engert said:


> Lacius you have some serious problems thinking outside the box.


 
I think you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Castiel (Jan 16, 2013)

Prophet said:


> Science has failed to live up to the promised future that was depicted in movies and that is unacceptable in my opinion.


What? Seriously? This is the argument you have? If you think movies are created in order to show us what the world will be like in 50 some years I think that you're missing the whole point of a movie, aka for entertainment purposes (unless you are watching a documentary. But even those have some appeal of interest in them). Just because it is depicted in a movie doesn't mean that it's going to become a thing...


SickPuppy said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head.


You guys seem to be missing the point of what Lacius and Gahars are saying. So I'll do my best to try and explain it. They aren't having troubles looking "outside the box." They accept the fact that it is a *possibility* that someday these things will become realistic. Lacius isn't shooting down the idea of freezing a human and unfreezing them years later because it's never going to happen; he is shooting it down because it is currently impossible. And investing money, especially $200,000 in something that is currently impossible is a waste of money.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Jan 16, 2013)

Why live when you can die?

Everyone dies, but not everyone lives.

That's good enough for me to keep on living.


----------



## Prophet (Jan 16, 2013)

I see Poe's law is strong in this thread.


----------



## Engert (Jan 16, 2013)

Since we lost the point at about page seven when me mentioned spaghetti monsters and ham in this subject, i would like to add a movie quote because that's where i base my science. On movies. Kind of like religion. 
So there's a scene on Apollo 13 movie where all the engineers are asked to provide extra oxygen in the cabin with a defined set of objects and and a very short amount of time. (Can't find the utube clip).
If i was there, i'd been like "I can do it with half of these"
If lacious was there he'd been like : "There is no reason and evidence that this can be accomplished because it has never been done before"


----------



## Engert (Jan 16, 2013)

Or here's another scene where the battery runs out.
Lacious is the guy in the black suit. "Whoa whoa whoa, that can't be done. They have no guidance computer if we shut the power down".

http://movieclips.com/SB5z-apollo-13-movie-failure-is-not-an-option/


----------



## Engert (Jan 16, 2013)

And lacius hope you don't mind but i put you on my follow list. 
I have finally found the opposite of me.
Good talking to you.


----------

