Why live when you can die?

[Engert]

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

 

[Black-Ice]

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

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

 

[Engert]

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

 

[Engert]

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]

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]

I hate to burst your bubble.

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

It's better to try than not try.

 

[Lacius]

It's better to try than not try.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Hehehehehe I had too!!!!

 

[ouch123]

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]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 318366]

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

 

[Haloman800]

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]

This has to be the dumbest thing ive ever heard.

 

[Lacius]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[jakeyjake]

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.