Death scares the bejesus outta me D: - Page 12

Immortality isn't as simple as telomere extension. This sort of genetic therapy may lengthen the human lifespan somewhat but there's a long gap between that and immortality, which implies that we'd be immune to all forms of disease and degradation.

Those aren't the same... Anyway, eternal youth in what sense? Physical only? If my brain is still going to degrade with age, quite frankly I wouldn't be interested.

quote AnonymousGuy

Sensation (via the physical body) is the only thing that gives experience meaning. If you were just a floating conciousness you couldn't honestly appreciate the wonderful sights an immortal life floating through the universe would provide. Without physicality, your experiences would be meaningless and dull.

This is extremely interesting and it's something I actually realized a couple of days ago when playing Crysis2 (and they say video games make you kill people). I wouldn't say necessarily sensation is the only thing (unless you make out the meaning of the word to encompass a wider field) but without our physical bodies, that consciousness and identity isn't worth much at all, it would be like an endless dream and that's not something you'd want or value especially when you're aware of it.

quote Massive Attack

Immortality isn't as simple as telomere extension. This sort of genetic therapy may lengthen the human lifespan somewhat but there's a long gap between that and immortality, which implies that we'd be immune to all forms of disease and degradation.

I simply believe that the only reasonable way in the near future (before the next half-millennium) would be a mix of cloning, cryonics and a whole body transplant. All other ways are only extend life or need a huge step further in technology.

quote Archimonde_STG

You're claiming that atheists choose what they want to do... but isn't it EXACTLY the same with all the religious folks out there?

No. Christians believe thier morals are from GOD...not themselves. Atheists pick and choose their morals...Christians choose to accept the moral laws given by God. Yes, both pick and choose something, but Christians do not pick which actions are right...they just choose whether to accept them as right.

quote Archimonde_STG

quote silverboner

Yes, both pick and choose something

Well that settles it.

Settles? Sure...doesn't mean what you stated was accurate though.

quote Archimonde_STG

You said atheists are only choosing their set of morals while Christians don't. I demonstrated that both are choosing just as I said before.

Your obfuscating the differences between morals and "want they want to do". Deciding for yourself what is right and wrong...is not the same thing as accepting what someone else has decided what is right and wrong for you.

quote The Blazing Shadow

Regardless of if he is obfuscating the difference between one who chooses right or wrong for themselves and one who allows their morals to be chosen for them,

You cannot ignore that fact.

This is what Archimonde stated:

quote Archimonde_STG

You're claiming that atheists choose what they want to do... but isn't it EXACTLY the same with all the religious folks out there?

I was claiming that atheists choose what they want to do..."what they want to do", as I stated it, means "morals"...actions of right and wrong. Archimonde, expanded that phrase to include a choosing to accept the morals of someone else. Thus he obfuscated the difference between one that choose right and wrong for themselves, and one that chooses to accept someone else's decisions as to what is right and wrong for them. You cannot ignore this fact. I was talking about a very narrow "what they want to do" and Archimonde expanded it, trying to make Christans and Athiests the same.


They are not the same, and they are not doing the same thing.

quote The Blazing Shadow

Atheists are just as capable of picking up a reference source of something and deciding for themselves whether or not to accept whether decisions are right or not. With Christians, however, it just happens to be the bible in the form of words from God, which is what is important to Christians. Atheists, however, draw their morals from what is important to them. It just isn't from God is the only difference.

That is a HUGE Difference. Picking and choosing what is right for oneself, and accepting the moral declarations that someone else imposes onto you are entirely different. The Bible isn't saying "here are some morals...and if you like them...take them upon as your own". But that is what an atheist would do with reference material. They would decide if those morals "sounds right" to them, and then adopt them as their own. Christians are bound to accept God's morals whether they like them or not, with no means of modification or rejection. Accept to reject God.

quote silverboner

I was claiming that atheists choose what they want to do..."what they want to do", as I stated it, means "morals"...actions of right and wrong. Archimonde, expanded that phrase to include a choosing to accept the morals of someone else. Thus he obfuscated the difference between one that choose right and wrong for themselves, and one that chooses to accept someone else's decisions as to what is right and wrong for them. You cannot ignore this fact. I was talking about a very narrow "what they want to do" and Archimonde expanded it, trying to make Christans and Athiests the same.


They are not the same, and they are not doing the same thing.

quote The Blazing Shadow

Atheists are just as capable of picking up a reference source of something and deciding for themselves whether or not to accept whether decisions are right or not. With Christians, however, it just happens to be the bible in the form of words from God, which is what is important to Christians. Atheists, however, draw their morals from what is important to them. It just isn't from God is the only difference.

That is a HUGE Difference. Picking and choosing what is right for oneself, and accepting the moral declarations that someone else imposes onto you are entirely different. The Bible isn't saying "here are some morals...and if you like them...take them upon as your own". But that is what an atheist would do with reference material. They would decide if those morals "sounds right" to them, and then adopt them as their own. Christians are bound to accept God's morals whether they like them or not, with no means of modification or rejection. Accept to reject God.

They're not doing the same thing obviously, but fundamentally it's precisely the same process. Both are choosing a material and system as right. Both are adopting a system. You're just trying to push it and make yourselves look more righteous simply because Christians have 1 moral system while atheists as a group have more than a single system. That's the only difference. Otherwise, on a basic level they're the same matter of choosing.