|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Pro-Humanist FREELOVERPro-Humanist FREELOVER Date: Jan 9, 2008 15:45
---
Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve
or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in
a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get
it, later, if you pass some post-death test.
What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality
is simply another natural part of a mysterious
natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces-
sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a
different naturalistic experience?
Certainly, selling immortality as the ultimate drug,
the ultimate high, the unltimate in pleasure, if you
jump through the 'right' religion's hoops, that has
enormous appeal. The threat side, not so much.
|
| Show full article (2.20Kb) |
|
| | 26 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Jan 9, 2008 17:08
Each and every human is a finite physical system,
therefore open to manipulation, including unto
immortality. As it is today we die from accidents, suicide,
natural processes, and ignorance. "Tomorrow" we should be able
to decrease the ignorance and influence the others.
"Today", as I say : We are dying by ignorance.
This is an insult and must be fixed.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Jan 9, 2008 17:06
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" ghg.net> wrote in message
news:47855c95$0$3431$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...>
> ---
>
> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
> promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
> from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
> maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve
> or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in
> a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get
> it, later, if you pass some post-death test.
>
> What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality
> is simply another natural part of a mysterious
> natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces-
> sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a
> different naturalistic experience?
>
> Certainly, selling immortality as the ultimate drug, ...
|
| Show full article (3.66Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mark EarnestMark Earnest Date: Jan 9, 2008 17:57
"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" ghg.net> wrote in message
news:47855c95$0$3431$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...>
> ---
>
> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
> promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
> from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
> maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve
> or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in
> a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get
> it, later, if you pass some post-death test.
>
> What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality
> is simply another natural part of a mysterious
> natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces-
> sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a
> different naturalistic experience?
>
> Certainly, selling immortality as the ultimate drug, ...
|
| Show full article (2.76Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ronald 'More-More' MoshkiRonald 'More-More' Moshki Date: Jan 9, 2008 18:48
On Jan 9, 6:45 pm, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" ghg.net>
wrote:> ---
>
> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
> promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
> from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
> maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve
> or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in
> a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get
> it, later, if you pass some post-death test.
>
> What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality
> is simply another natural part of a mysterious
> natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces-
> sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a
> different naturalistic experience?
>
> Certainly, selling immortality as the ultimate drug,
> the ultimate high, the unltimate in pleasure, if you ...
|
| Show full article (2.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Uncle VicUncle Vic Date: Jan 9, 2008 20:52
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> bloodied
us up with this:
> We are talking living together forever here.
I'll agree only if "forever" spans the time our species has and will exist,
and is reached through passing on our DNA to future generations. One
person does not live forever.
> With much emphasis on "together..."
Right, as in "we're all in this together".
> How would it be conceivably possible to survive forever and ever...
> ...considering all the creating it would require...
> ...without an infinite and good Creator somehow running the entire show?
Sorry, your question cannot be answered. You've used up your share of
dots.
> Let alone trying to explain how to live with our enemies, forever.
Let's just worry about doing that during our normal lifetimes.
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Michael GrayMichael Gray Date: Jan 9, 2008 21:12
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 04:52:43 GMT, Uncle Vic withheld.com>
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> bloodied
>us up with this:
>>> We are talking living together forever here.
>
>I'll agree only if "forever" spans the time our species...
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Meteorite DebrisMeteorite Debris Date: Jan 9, 2008 22:01
Last time that great scribe Pro-Humanist FREELOVER ghg.net>
chipped away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>
> ---
>
> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
> promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
> from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
> maximize your chances of getting...
|
| Show full article (3.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Jan 9, 2008 22:27
"Michael" orneveien.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.10.03.34.31.530592@orneveien.org...> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:06:43 +0000, brian fletcher wrote:
>
>> I have zero doubt that someone who has come up with this understanding as
>> you have, would need any one of the "ten commandments" spelling out no
>> more
>> that an advanced mathematician would have to repeat his 'times tables'.
>
> As it happens, Jesus identified just two as "great commandments" which
> incorporate all other ideas and commandments, and which, if you understand
> them, you probably do not need the ten or the thousand commandments.
You make it sound as though Jesus was the only one to utter such statements.
Other than that , you endorse my understanding.
BOfL
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Jan 9, 2008 22:37
>
> "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" ghg.net> wrote in message
> news:47855c95$0$3431$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com...>>
>> ---
>>
>> Up to now, religions have owned the immortality
>> promise. Their primary method, believe X (varies
>> from religion to religion) and get it (or at least
>> maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve
>> or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in
>> a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get
>> it, later, if you pass some post-death test.
>>
>> What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality
>> is simply another natural part of a mysterious
>> natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces-
>> sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a ...
|
| Show full article (3.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
