Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=saden1;553394]Suppose I tell you that 90% of Americans will die of a mutated swine flu a month from now. Would this new found knowledge frighten you? My hearth aches at the thought and I can't help it. This is a normal and expected reaction. Indifference which is essential your position is not acceptable. If we all die off tomorrow, a month, a year, millions of years, or billions of years from now it's all the same. The grim demise of mankind and even the universe at large should be a frighting prospect irrespective of timetable or and lack of control.

Does this all make sense?[/quote]

Indifference is perfectly acceptable. This delusion of yours that you can somehow control the fate of the universe is rooted in your alienation from God. The abolition of physical man or physical nature is only tragic in a universe that has mankind at the very center. You're heirarchy is all out of kilter so you worry too much about things that are not your responsibility and over which you ultimately have no control anyway.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=70Chip;553425]Indifference is perfectly acceptable. This delusion of yours that you can somehow control the fate of the universe is rooted in your alienation from God. The abolition of physical man or physical nature is only tragic in a universe that has mankind at the very center. You're heirarchy is all out of kilter so you worry too much about things that are not your responsibility and over which you ultimately have no control anyway.[/quote]


Excuse me? I am afraid this not an illness that afflicts the godless. Go do a personal survey without using a loaded question and you'll have the answer. Perhaps you're emotionally retarded? Check yourself dude, apathy is caused by mental illness.


p.s. Control is not in play.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;553397]You know, we will have to disagree. If a mutated virus started causing the type of mass extinction, yes I would be afraid - once it was occurring. But the concept of a virus mutating when no sign of it occurring, is irrational. To say that it is the same if we all die tomorrow or billions of years from now, to me, is irrational. I cannot fathom your position, seriously, I have enough things which are in this world now, that cause "legitimate" fear and enough belief in man's spirit, that I could never see myself being scared of a future event that may but most likely will not occur in my children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's children's lives (31 generations, approx 1800 years).[/quote]


I know you don't understand but hope you would at least respond with "damn, it would suck hard if 90% of us die in a month."

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=saden1;553447]I know you don't understand but hope you would at least respond with "damn, it would suck hard if 90% of us die in a month."[/quote]

Implicit in CRedskins earlier statement that it would sadden him if he found out that an unknown man died is that he would agree with the sentiment "it would suck if 90% of the people died in a month". However, and as he stated earlier, refusing to fear that event or worry about it is not a failure to grasp its magnitude.

It causes you pause, fine we get that. Fair enough. Do you get that, even though it causes us pause, the unknown future is not something I will spend a moment on as the here and now present more than enough challenges.

By the way, apathy is not caused by mental illness. I'd find a link to prove it, but I just don't feel like it right now.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;553454]Implicit in CRedskins earlier statement that it would sadden him if he found out that an unknown man died is that he would agree with the sentiment "it would suck if 90% of the people died in a month".[B] However, and as he stated earlier, refusing to fear that event or worry about it is not a failure to grasp its magnitude. [/B]

It causes you pause, fine we get that. Fair enough. [B]Do you get that, even though it causes us pause, the unknown future is not something I will spend a moment on as the here and now present more than enough challenges. [/B]

By the way, apathy is not caused by mental illness. I find a link to prove it, but I just don't feel like it right now.[/quote]

Kudos to CRedskins for at least feeling sad. Are my post not clear enough as to my position from the get go?

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acedia"]Acedia[/URL] used to be a deadly sin until it was merged into sloth. You know what's really sad? Christians advancing apathy as a virtue.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

Acedia is still a the actual root evil and no one (even given the "que sera" from 70Chip), is argueing for it or, IMO, exhibiting its symptoms. In leveling your various assertions of sinful behavior and/or, mental illness, you continue to assert that your emotional reaction is the only legitimate way for a human to consider and deal with the hypothetical physical destruction of humanity. However, the alternative to this ultimate sadness you seem to require is the acknowledgment that, while sad, it is beyond our control and we will not spend more than a moment thinking about it. This is [I]not[/I] acedia.

Someone who approached this issue with acedia would have nothimg more to say than, "ehh so what".

"Sloth (or acedia) is a kind of spiritual laziness (as opposed to mere physical fatigue or depression). It means not making it a priority to do what we should, or change what we should in ourselves. Some people might call it apathy, which means a lack of feeling." [url=http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/sloth.html]Seven Deadly Sins - Sloth/Acedia[/url]

You, in a very patronizing and emothionally elitest fashion, confuse apathy with an introspective resolution on how to deal with the destruction of our physical being.

When I was a child, death and events out of my control scared me. They scare me still, but, as an introspective adult, I recognize them for what they are - either inevitable or events beyond my control and for which the self protective purpose of the fear instinct is inapplicable. I feel, understand, and accept the emotion, then, with thought and care, I move beyond it.

If I and others have practised this process throughout our lives and need not be struck with deep introspection each time a variation on this theme is presented, that is not laziness but a recognition of an already solved problem for which deep thought is not required. With experience, I need not conduct intrusive surgery to determine if each cut has caused internal injury.

In fact, the assertion that it is natural to feel overwhelming sadness and that those who don't are clearly apathetic [I]can[/I], itself be a indication of sloth. Surrender to emotional responses is easy and requires no thought or introspection. [I]That[/I] is a failure to make "it a priority to do what we should" and a true spiritual laziness.

All but the truly apathic will experience emotional responses, it is how we deal with them that determines our vitality.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

Wow did this thread take a giant toke off the ol' bong or what.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

^^ Ah well, it happens.

It is the type of subject one would discuss at 2:00 in the morning after a few hits.

saden1, don't bogart the roach dude.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;553508]Acedia is still a the actual root evil and no one (even given the "que sera" from 70Chip), is argueing for it or, IMO, exhibiting its symptoms. In leveling your various assertions of sinful behavior and/or, mental illness, you continue to assert that your emotional reaction is the only legitimate way for a human to consider and deal with the hypothetical physical destruction of humanity. However, the alternative to this ultimate sadness you seem to require is the acknowledgment that, while sad, it is beyond our control and we will not spend more than a moment thinking about it. This is [I]not[/I] acedia.

Someone who approached this issue with acedia would have nothimg more to say than, "ehh so what".

"Sloth (or acedia) is a kind of spiritual laziness (as opposed to mere physical fatigue or depression). It means not making it a priority to do what we should, or change what we should in ourselves. Some people might call it apathy, which means a lack of feeling." [url=http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/sloth.html]Seven Deadly Sins - Sloth/Acedia[/url]

You, in a very patronizing and emothionally elitest fashion, confuse apathy with an introspective resolution on how to deal with the destruction of our physical being.

When I was a child, death and events out of my control scared me. They scare me still, but, as an introspective adult, I recognize them for what they are - either inevitable or events beyond my control and for which the self protective purpose of the fear instinct is inapplicable. I feel, understand, and accept the emotion, then, with thought and care, I move beyond it.

If I and others have practised this process throughout our lives and need not be struck with deep introspection each time a variation on this theme is presented, that is not laziness but a recognition of an already solved problem for which deep thought is not required. With experience, I need not conduct intrusive surgery to determine if each cut has caused internal injury.

In fact, the assertion that it is natural to feel overwhelming sadness and that those who don't are clearly apathetic [I]can[/I], itself be a indication of sloth. Surrender to emotional responses is easy and requires no thought or introspection. [I]That[/I] is a failure to make "it a priority to do what we should" and a true spiritual laziness.

All but the truly apathic will experience emotional responses, it is how we deal with them that determines our vitality.[/quote]

That is an impressive post. There is no way I would have ever come up with such an eloquent way to describe your thoughts with spot on analysis. Bravo Joeredskin

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=70Chip;553425]Indifference is perfectly acceptable. This delusion of yours that you can somehow control the fate of the universe is rooted in your alienation from God. The abolition of physical man or physical nature is only tragic in a universe that has mankind at the very center. You're heirarchy is all out of kilter so you worry too much about things that are not your responsibility and over which you ultimately have no control anyway.[/quote]

Excellent post. Problem is, those that don't believe in God see this as a bunch of bull-honkey. Kind of like when the world was believed to be flat. Several people came up with theories / evidence that it was round (Ptolemy, Eratosthenes, Galileo Galilei of Pisa...the latter being the first to put it on paper i believe) but no one listened until after Columbus actually made it. Because when you have yourself as the center of your universe, you have a fool as your leader. I often struggle with control issues, and therefore lose sight of what I really should be doing. That being said, Saden does not have delusions that he can control his own fate, he has a lack of knowledge, or belief, that life after his demise even exists. To put it simply, if you don't believe in an after life, things on the planet, including the planets ultimate destruction, seem to be bigger than what they actually are. We (as in 70chip, myself and several others) believe there will be life after we leave this world. Therefore we do not worry ourselves, or even slightly concern ourselves with something so insignificant in our minds.

(makes me wish I had the speaking ability of joeredskin, cause I don't feel what I was trying to communicate came out well, but I guess it will do)

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Mattyk72;553574]How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??[/quote]

You can't be. I didn't say "I was convinced", I said "I / we believe". Just like you don't believe either way.
I also take the stand that it is better to believe (In God) and have the [i]possibility[/i] of eternal life, then to not and take my chances. Why take the road that couldn't possibly lead you anywhere?

To ask, what are you basing this on exactly. You seriously don't know? It's the best selling book of all time.

If you are waiting to be "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything, you will have a long wait my friend. Some things are by faith, and faith alone. Even if I am wrong, tell me, what is the harm in it? But if you are wrong, do you want to know the harm in it?

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553578]You can't be. I didn't say "I was convinced", I said "I / we believe". Just like you don't believe either way.
I also take the stand that it is better to believe (In God) and have the [I]possibility[/I] of eternal life, then to not and take my chances. Why take the road that couldn't possibly lead you anywhere?

To ask, what are you basing this on exactly. You seriously don't know? It's the best selling book of all time.

If you are waiting to be "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt" on anything, you will have a long wait my friend. Some things are by faith, and faith alone. Even if I am wrong, tell me, what is the harm in it? But if you are wrong, do you want to know the harm in it?[/quote]

Do you believe everything you read?

Faith can be a dangerous thing.

I don't see any harm in not being sure what to believe when it comes to God. I have a hard time believing that if he does indeed exist, he would think any less of someone questioning his existence since there is no undeniable proof of his existence in the first place.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Mattyk72;553574]How does anyone believe there is an after life? What are you basing this on exactly? Sorry but that sounds very delusional to me.

I don't believe either way, because I honestly don't know. I haven't been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either way.

I'm just amazed when people can firmly say yes there is an after life, or no there isn't. How can anyone be 100% sure??[/quote]
Not trying to be flip, but honestly the only way is Faith in something other than that which can be seen.

Christianity, [U]for example[/U], exists ONLY if Christ was raised from the dead. Paul himself made the point that Saden often makes, which is, that if Christ was merely a man, and the resurrection a hoax, then Christians are indeed the most pitiful of men. This is the very thing Saden often argues, interesting that the Bible agrees with him. Of course, the next part is that Christ did indeed raise up, and witnesses attested to that fact. Now at this point in history, Every person is given the self awareness to hear this argument and make the choice to believe through faith or not.

Every belief in an afterlife hinges primarily on the faith of something unseen, and by definition untestable (except in FRINGE) and unverifiable to the modern man.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Mattyk72;553579]Do you believe everything you read?[/quote]

Sarcasm as a rebuttle???

[quote]Faith can be a dangerous thing.[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing, but why do you think so?

[quote]I don't see any harm in not being sure what to believe when it comes to God. I have a hard time believing that if he does indeed exist, he would think any less of someone questioning his existence since there is no undeniable proof of his existence in the first place.[/quote]

There is nothing that says you shouldn't "question" in the bible. In fact, it encourages it to better your faith. I've personally been toying with the notion that we all go to heaven and the bible is used as a guideline to keep us on the straight and narrow. View your relationship with your kids as that of one with you as the child and God as your father...when you do that, how can you send your children to eternal damnation? But you try to set guidelines for your kids to follow by to be better people. Hell, we even lie to our kids about Santa Claus etc because of how we feel it will better them. So if we can do that, how come God can't give us a guideline / handbook to try to live by?
You also need to keep in mind, while we as a species are intelligent, we are not all knowing. To me, undeniable proof of His existance is the fact that we are here. The body is amazingly complex, beyond comprehension even. No soul / existance of a life has ever been found in a body, yet we know it to be there. That's just a human, what about the billions of other organisms on this planet, or the solar system, or beyond?
I think you might mistake anyone that speaks about God / religion as trying to push their views, and some do, I am not though. You can believe what you want. I know there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind, or several others on this site. I am merely stating my belief and you can take it or leave it. It's a pleasure to have conversation sometimes, and the questions posed to each other can and do bring good discussion.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;553583]Not trying to be flip, but honestly the only way is Faith in something other than that which can be seen.

Christianity, [U]for example[/U], exists ONLY if Christ was raised from the dead. Paul himself made the point that Saden often makes, which is, that if Christ was merely a man, and the resurrection a hoax, then Christians are indeed the most pitiful of men. This is the very thing Saden often argues, interesting that the Bible agrees with him. Of course, the next part is that Christ did indeed raise up, and witnesses attested to that fact. Now at this point in history, Every person is given the self awareness to hear this argument and make the choice to believe through faith or not.

Every belief in an afterlife hinges primarily on the faith of something unseen, and by definition untestable (except in FRINGE) and unverifiable to the modern man.[/quote]

Very true. Which again begs the argument, why believe in something that can't possibly bring you any good.

I would argue that if Christ's resurrection was indeed a hoax, we are not pitiful, but lived a good life and we are all worm food anyway so it won't matter.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

Well, again Paul disagrees with you as well, and lays the foundation of the eat, drink, and be merry now for tomorrow you die philosophy.

But I was using the point to address Matty's question, that one comes to believe in an afterlife through Faith in a higher power, and not because of any proven verifiable testable process.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

Fear of things invisible is the natural seed of that which everyone in himself calleth religion.-Thomas Hobbes

Anyhow, I believe in God, I'm religous but still, while I know it's inevitable, the idea of not being here anymore scares me, worries me, perplexes me...maybe I don't believe enough?

Kudos to you that have overcome that, I'm just not among you.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;553508]Acedia is still a the actual root evil and no one (even given the "que sera" from 70Chip), is argueing for it or, IMO, exhibiting its symptoms. In leveling your various assertions of sinful behavior and/or, mental illness, [B]you continue to assert that your emotional reaction is the only legitimate way for a human to consider and deal with the hypothetical physical destruction of humanity[/B] [I][this is indeed my position][/I]. However, the alternative to this ultimate sadness you seem to require is the acknowledgment that, while sad, [B]it is beyond our control and we will not spend more than a moment thinking about it[/B] [I][this is an also my position though you make it seem like it's an either or proposition][/I]. This is [I]not[/I] acedia [I][check my first usage of the word apathy, this word engineer shit doesn't work on me][/I].

Someone who approached this issue with acedia would have nothimg more to say than, [B]"ehh so what" [/B][I][and to be [URL="http://www.answers.com/indifferent"]indifferent[/URL] is to be what exactly?][/I].

"Sloth (or acedia) is a kind of spiritual laziness (as opposed to mere physical fatigue or depression). It means not making it a priority to do what we should, or change what we should in ourselves.[B] Some people might call it apathy[/B] [I][I am one of them][/I], which means a lack of feeling." [URL="http://www.whitestonejournal.com/seven_deadly_sins/sloth.html"]Seven Deadly Sins - Sloth/Acedia[/URL]

[B]You, in a very patronizing and emothionally elitest fashion[/B] [I][sometimes you just have to be, I'll work on getting it under control][/I], [B]confuse apathy with an introspective resolution on how to deal with the destruction of our physical being [/B][I][when? where?][/I].

[B]When I was a child, death and events out of my control scared me. They scare me still, but, as an introspective adult, I recognize them for what they are - either inevitable or events beyond my control and for which the self protective purpose of the fear instinct is inapplicable. I feel, understand, and accept the emotion, then, with thought and care, I move beyond it.

If I and others have practised this process throughout our lives and need not be struck with deep introspection each time a variation on this theme is presented, that is not laziness but a recognition of an already solved problem for which deep thought is not required. With experience, I need not conduct intrusive surgery to determine if each cut has caused internal injury.

In fact, the assertion that it is natural to feel overwhelming sadness and that those who don't are clearly apathetic [I]can[/I], itself be a indication of sloth. Surrender to emotional responses is easy and requires no thought or introspection. [I]That[/I] is a failure to make "it a priority to do what we should" and a true spiritual laziness.

All but the truly apathic will experience emotional responses, it is how we deal with them that determines our vitality.[/B] [I][WTF?] [/I] [/quote]

See comments following quoted text.

Eloquent indeed. What isn't obvious is of course that my conversations were with two different people and how you mange to mish-and-mesh what I said in my responses. Clearly 70Chip felt that his position was superior and CRedskinsRule didn't understand my position though he respected it (I probably should have done a better job respecting his position). I love how you also dismiss me as an elitist smug sob all the while implicitly convaying your take as a more rational position.

70Chip expclititly said "Indifference is perfectly acceptable." If such a postion is not reflective of apathy I don't know what is. If he wants to clear the record he is more than welcome. And of course he went with the godlessness as the cause of my concern.

I am not sure what warented the highlighted long blob of text. Everyone here is an adult and I shouldn't be expected to explain everything as if I am talking to a child. Certain things should be abvious and need not explination, especially when it comes to the doom of us all.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=saden1;553598]See comments following quoted text.

Eloquent indeed.[B] What isn't obvious is of course that my conversations were with two different people and how you mange to mish-and-mesh what I said in my responses. Clearly 70Chip felt that his position was superior and CRedskinsRule didn't understand my position though he respected it (I probably should have done a better job respecting his position).[/B] I love how you also dismiss me as an elitist smug sob all the while implicitly convaying your take as a more rational position.

70Chip expclititly said "Indifference is perfectly acceptable." If such a postion is not reflective of apathy I don't know what is. If he wants to clear the record he is more than welcome. And of course he went with the godlessness as the cause of my concern.

I am not sure what warented the highlighted long blob of text. Everyone here is an adult and I shouldn't be expected to explain everything as if I am talking to a child. Certain things should be abvious and need not explination, especially when it comes to the doom of us all.[/quote]

[quote=saden1;553464]Kudos to CRedskins for at least feeling sad. Are my post not clear enough as to my position from the get go?

Acedia used to be a deadly sin until it was merged into sloth. You know what's really sad? Christians advancing apathy as a virtue. [/quote]

I believe that this post started the "mish mash".

Do you really deny that you are an "elitist smug snob"??? ;-)

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;553591]Well, again Paul disagrees with you as well, and lays the foundation of the eat, drink, and be merry now for tomorrow you die philosophy. [/quote]

This confused me. Eat drink and be merry was because his doom was EXTREMELY imminant. Not millions of years later. I had to have missed something somewhere cause I am left scratching my head at this comment.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553587]Sarcasm as a rebuttle???



I'm not disagreeing, but why do you think so?



There is nothing that says you shouldn't "question" in the bible. In fact, it encourages it to better your faith. I've personally been toying with the notion that we all go to heaven and the bible is used as a guideline to keep us on the straight and narrow. View your relationship with your kids as that of one with you as the child and God as your father...when you do that, how can you send your children to eternal damnation? But you try to set guidelines for your kids to follow by to be better people. Hell, we even lie to our kids about Santa Claus etc because of how we feel it will better them. So if we can do that, how come God can't give us a guideline / handbook to try to live by?
You also need to keep in mind, while we as a species are intelligent, we are not all knowing. To me, undeniable proof of His existance is the fact that we are here. The body is amazingly complex, beyond comprehension even. No soul / existance of a life has ever been found in a body, yet we know it to be there. That's just a human, what about the billions of other organisms on this planet, or the solar system, or beyond?
I think you might mistake anyone that speaks about God / religion as trying to push their views, and some do, I am not though. You can believe what you want. I know there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind, or several others on this site. I am merely stating my belief and you can take it or leave it. It's a pleasure to have conversation sometimes, and the questions posed to each other can and do bring good discussion.[/quote]

-No sarcasm it was a genuine question.

-Wars are waged over faith. Faith to any extreme is dangerous.

-I'm just stating my view as well, I'm not trying to be right or wrong. Just looking for good discussion as well.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

Yeah, this thread took one toke over the line.

I think the people who created that show are playing to the people who hate being alive, the environmentalist. That's just what I think. Some people will watch this show and feel good that the "Bitch" so-called mother Earth is renewing herself and those pesky humans are gone.

Human being are the most dominant species on this planet apart from insects and micro-organisms. We've endured a lot of shit. It would take a lot to take us out. Who's to say we're the only humans in this galaxy or the universe anyway?

I don't worry about the world ending. It's ended many times already and been reborn. So f**k it! The movie knowing dealt with this same topic and it had a very good ending. That bitch Earth got fried and humans still survived.

Oh, that show said that soon after humans were gone there would be no trace of us being here. Time fears the Pyramids. So suck eggs environmentalists!

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Mattyk72;553629]-No sarcasm it was a genuine question.

-Wars are waged over faith. Faith to any extreme is dangerous.

-I'm just stating my view as well, I'm not trying to be right or wrong. Just looking for good discussion as well.[/quote]


Most wars are fought over money or land. Faith is just a tool for the leaders to manipulate the populace to fight.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Mattyk72;553629]-No sarcasm it was a genuine question. [/quote]

Good to know.

[quote]-Wars are waged over faith. Faith to any extreme is dangerous.[/quote]

Respectfully disagree sir. The bible, for instance, is clear about not killing, so wars waged over "alleged faith" is human based, not faith based. God, nor Jesus has ever told us humans to kill in his name. Those that do it, are not following His path. A lot of people use this as an excuse to not look at the bible (not saying you are, just point out it's a common argument) but in actuality wars are waged due to PEOPLE not getting along with other PEOPLE. I can go to war with the USA and blame the Warpath for it...that doesn't make it so.

[quote]-I'm just stating my view as well, I'm not trying to be right or wrong. Just looking for good discussion as well.[/quote]

Sounds good. So far so good. Hope this doesn't take a bad turn. Religion is always touchy.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553645]Good to know.



Respectfully disagree sir. The bible, for instance, is clear about not killing, so wars waged over "alleged faith" is human based, not faith based. God, nor Jesus has ever told us humans to kill in his name. Those that do it, are not following His path. A lot of people use this as an excuse to not look at the bible (not saying you are, just point out it's a common argument) but in actuality wars are waged due to PEOPLE not getting along with other PEOPLE. I can go to war with the USA and blame the Warpath for it...that doesn't make it so.



Sounds good. So far so good. Hope this doesn't take a bad turn. Religion is always touchy.[/quote]

Sorry buddy but the old Testament God and the New Testament God are like night and day, just ask a Jew. The Old Testament God told Joshua to go into Canaan and kill every last person including the women and children. To not kill is a bad King James translation. The original is Thou shall not murder. If killing was a sin then God would be a sinner. He killed people in the Bible himself.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;553632]Yeah, this thread took one toke over the line.

I think the people who created that show are playing to the people who hate being alive, the environmentalist. That's just what I think. Some people will watch this show and feel good that the "Bitch" so-called mother Earth is renewing herself and those pesky humans are gone.

Human being are the most dominant species on this planet apart from insects and micro-organisms. We've endured a lot of shit. It would take a lot to take us out. Who's to say we're the only humans in this galaxy or the universe anyway?

I don't worry about the world ending. It's ended many times already and been reborn. So f**k it! The movie knowing dealt with this same topic and it had a very good ending. That bitch Earth got fried and humans still survived.

Oh, that show said that soon after humans were gone there would be no trace of us being here. Time fears the Pyramids. So suck eggs environmentalists![/quote]

Sounds like you have a serious issue with "mother earth". You need to keep in mind, if Earth does expel us from it's surface, it's because we abused it.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553667]Sounds like you have a serious issue with "mother earth". You need to keep in mind, if Earth does expel us from it's surface, it's because we abused it.[/quote]

Sure. :laughing2

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;553670]Sure. :laughing2[/quote]

Ok. Why the laughing?

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553625]This confused me. Eat drink and be merry was because his doom was EXTREMELY imminant. Not millions of years later. I had to have missed something somewhere cause I am left scratching my head at this comment.[/quote]
You made the comment:
[quote]I would argue that if Christ's resurrection was indeed a hoax, we are not pitiful, but lived a good life and we are all worm food anyway so it won't matter.[/quote]

I responded:
[quote]Well, again Paul disagrees with you as well, and lays the foundation of the eat, drink, and be merry now for tomorrow you die philosophy.
[/quote]

I guess you were using it to say not to be scared, but my response was directed at you saying a person living for Christ would not be pitiful. Clearly, if you are living and directing your life based on a fallacy then others would call that pitiful.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;553677]You made the comment:


I responded:


I guess you were using it to say not to be scared, but my response was directed at you saying a person living for Christ would not be pitiful. Clearly, if you are living and directing your life based on a fallacy then others would call that pitiful.[/quote]

OK, I get your point. Sorry I missed it before.
I still don't see it as "pitiful", but someone must live their life for something right? I think those that live it with no direction or purpose...well that's pitiful. But to each his own right?

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553683]OK, I get your point. Sorry I missed it before.
I still don't see it as "pitiful", but someone must live their life for something right? I think those that live it with no direction or purpose...well that's pitiful. But to each his own right?[/quote]

I would agree with you on that. and of course, I do believe Christ rose, so the argument becomes moot.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;553665]Sorry buddy but the old Testament God and the New Testament God are like night and day, just ask a Jew. The Old Testament God told Joshua to go into Canaan and kill every last person including the women and children. To not kill is a bad King James translation. The original is Thou shall not murder. If killing was a sin then God would be a sinner. He killed people in the Bible himself.[/quote]

How many religions use SOLELY the old testament. We have been discussing Christians, and as such, the new testament comes into play. Although, you made a very good point. You made me think on that one.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553673]Ok. Why the laughing?[/quote]

I was thinking about all of those people in Pompeii covered in volcanic ash. They didn't have SUVs.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553687]How many religions use SOLELY the old testament. We have been discussing Christians, and as such, the new testament comes into play. Although, you made a very good point. You made me think on that one.[/quote]

This kind of ignores that the Old Testament was around for atleast 2000 years before the New Testament was written, and that Jesus himself said that the he did not come to take away the Law (the Old Testament), or that God says he is never changing, in other words, he didn't just flip a switch at 200 AD when the NT was being put together and change the meanings. To murder is a sin, not to kill. And this difference has let lots of wars and blood be spilled "in the name of God". Muslims also refer to the OT, and the NT along with their Koran.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;553697]I was thinking about all of those people in Pompeii covered in volcanic ash. They didn't have SUVs.[/quote]

lol, dang maybe they did but they weren't earth friendly ;)

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=jsarno;553687]How many religions use SOLELY the old testament. We have been discussing Christians, and as such, the new testament comes into play. Although, you made a very good point. You made me think on that one.[/quote]

The Jews that follow the Torah? I give up, how many?

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=saden1;553598]Eloquent indeed. What isn't obvious is of course that my conversations were with two different people and how you mange to mish-and-mesh what I said in my responses. Clearly 70Chip felt that his position was superior and CRedskinsRule didn't understand my position though he respected it (I probably should have done a better job respecting his position). I love how you also dismiss me as an elitist smug sob all the while implicitly convaying your take as a more rational position.[/quote]

As CRedskins stated, the mish mash began when you rebutted both his and 70's with what I believed to be the same argument. As I was typing it, I thought that you're argument with CRed was his lack of sadness while your argument with 70 was his seeming thoughtless indifference.

And let's be clear: IMO, all of us have different emotional triggers (go look at "movies that made me cry thread"). This one for you. Fine. It is not for me, or Credskins, or 70Chip. This does not make me apathetic, slothful, or mentally ill. It makes me different. I fully accept and understand how this concept could be saddening to some, including you.

You, however, expressly refuse to accept that other people may not feel the way you do and that their failure to mimic your emotional responses is slothful or a sign of mental illness. THAT's why you're patronizing, that's why you're being an emotional elitest.

[quote=saden1;553598]70Chip expclititly said "Indifference is perfectly acceptable." If such a postion is not reflective of apathy I don't know what is. If he wants to clear the record he is more than welcome. And of course he went with the godlessness as the cause of my concern..[/quote]

He earlier indicated that he reached his position of indifference to this hypothetical through an understanding of his believe in the transient nature of the physical universe, the comfort he receives from believe in the eternal nature of the earth's and, in fact, the universe's, spiritual existence. An understanding which you pooh pooh'd earlier by calling it a "magical-place-believer".

Implicit in all of our discussions involving religion is your constant presumption that those who believe other than you do as to the existence of God are fools; that are only reason for doing so is fear of hell or a need to feed our denial of reality through the creation of the false comfort of heaven. It is tiresome. I am intelligent man who has arrived at my conclusion through periods of deep introspection and mediation and thoughtful consideration of my interaction with my fellow man. I think my arguments on this topic would have warranted some respect from you in this regard.

I understand your position, I disagree with it but I still respect that it is an understanding received through intelligent consideration of many factors and I respect you for taking the time to think it through. It is rare that I feel this respect reciprocated.

[quote=saden1;553598]I am not sure what warented the highlighted long blob of text. Everyone here is an adult and I shouldn't be expected to explain everything as if I am talking to a child. Certain things should be abvious and need not explination, especially when it comes to the doom of us all.[/quote]

The highligted text was my attempt to explain [I]why[/I] these hypotheticals do not evoke a emotional response. I've felt the emotion, I understand its basis, I've seen the hypothetical and recognized it as something that I've felt/considered before and it no longer tugs at my heartstrings.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;553703]The Jews that follow the Torah? I give up, how many?[/quote]

I am not actually sure...I was posing the question. My guess of the religions I know, NONE of them do. They all have something else they follow, of which those speak of not killing...but I am still mulling over the first comments of the old testament...that was a good response.

Re: Life After People (History Channel)
 

[quote=saden1;553598][QUOTE=JoeRedskin;553508]In leveling your various assertions of sinful behavior and/or, mental illness, you continue to assert that your emotional reaction is the only legitimate way for a human to consider and deal with the hypothetical physical destruction of humanity [B][this is indeed my position][/B].[/quote][/QUOTE]

As indicated above, this statement demonstrates, to me, a complete disregard for the different emotional make-up between people and is incredibly intolerant.

[quote=saden1;553598][QUOTE=JoeRedskin;553508]However, the alternative to this ultimate sadness you seem to require is the acknowledgment that, while sad, it is beyond our control and we will not spend more than a moment thinking about it [B][this is an also my position though you make it seem like it's an either or proposition]. [/B]This is not acedia [check my first usage of the word apathy, this word engineer shit doesn't work on me]. [/quote][/QUOTE]

No, in fact, I do not find them mutually exclusive. Rather, I find them one in the range of human responses. It appeared to me, however, that you consider that those who approach it from the second part of this are mentally ill/apathetic unless they also accept your initial emotional reaction.

[quote=saden1;553598][QUOTE=JoeRedskin;553508]Someone who approached this issue with acedia would have nothimg more to say than, "ehh so what" [B][and to be indifferent is to be what exactly?]. [/B][/quote][/QUOTE]

The subtle difference I was suggesting is that a truly apathetic person in the traditional "sinfull" sense of accidea would feel nothing and conduct no further thought on the matter ever. Neither 70chip or CRedskins fell into this category. Each had arrived at their conclusion by consideration of the nature of the question being asked and gave a basis for why they now [I]chose[/I] to be indifferent.

[quote=saden1;553598][QUOTE=JoeRedskin;553508]You, in a very patronizing and emothionally elitest fashion [sometimes you just have to be, I'll work on getting it under control], confuse apathy with an introspective resolution on how to deal with the destruction of our physical being [B][when? where?][/B]. [/quote][/QUOTE]

Again, this goes back to your ultimate dismissal of religious thought. Those who approach these types of hypotheticals from a spiritual/faith based line of thought are dismissed as non-thought. Both 70Chip and CRedskins explained thier positions, it seems to me that you dismissed them both as "make believe place" believers.

[quote=saden1;553598][QUOTE=JoeRedskin;553508]All but the truly apathic will experience emotional responses, it is how we deal with them that determines our vitality. [B][WTF?] [/B].[/quote][/QUOTE]

An individiual who feels nothing is apathetic. A person who feels something and does nothing more is apathetic. Life, as humans, requires more than mere "feeling" it requires introspection and action. "The unexamined life is not worth living". Regardless of my introspection and self-examination, however, you dismiss my thoughts and feelings as apathetic or signs of mental illness. I find that offensive.