/atheism/ - Atheism

I'd be lying if I said I am above the primordial fear of death, but I can accept it. Goodbyes are always bittersweet, but my life is no more worthy of continuing than billions of others.

I'm more scared of being trapped in pain, like a vegetable, and yet unable to kill myself. Hawkings recently said if his condition worsens and he becomes completely paralyzed, he wants assisted suicide. (He has already complained of loneliness/trouble finding patient conversational people. Unless you happen to be a respected genius, his current condition would be a pointless fate worse than death.) I find Abrahamic ideas of the afterlife more frightening than cessation too.

>>8600

are different*

>are you still sacred of death?

No. I used to be suicidal from depression and PTSD, and I guess I kind of still am. I plan to kill myself eventually. When I get too old or sick I'll say goodbye to my loved ones and leave on my own terms.

>are you interested in losing that fear?

I hope more people would lose it.

>any advice for people who are scared of death?

Realize that you didn't have to be here in the first place, you might as well take what you can get. In death you feel nothing because you are nothing. It's the ultimate rest. And no matter how bad things get, you can always go there how and when you choose.

Also, when you accept your own death it puts into perspective that you only get one try at the things you do, so you shouldn't half-ass it.

>>8604

>Realize that you didn't have to be here in the first place, you might as well take what you can get.

Just because you didn't have something once doesn't mean you should allow yourself to lose it when you do.

>It's the ultimate rest.

In that it's permanent, there's no going back. At least when you're alive you have the option.

Death is the ultimate loss.

>are you still sacred of death?

No, I obviously am trying to avoid it in the short term. But the fact that it's an inevitability no longer frightens me.

>are you interested in losing that fear?

n/a

>any advice for people who are scared of death?

Hard to say. I think everybody's thoughts on death is going to be determined by a deeply personal and subjective philosophy. So the fact that I find the idea that our lives have a final, definite ending with no probable afterlife is poetic and beautiful doesn't mean that that reasoning will at all affect you if you're struggling with the idea.

In truth I wouldn't mind an extended lifespan but I think ultimate immortality would be more of a curse than anything. If I literally could not die I would want to be put in a severe coma. Eternity scares me quite a bit more than death. So it follows that I find the idea of heaven or a hell to be equally horrible fates.

>>8607

>Just because you didn't have something once doesn't mean you should allow yourself to lose it when you do.

>allow yourself

You don't have a choice in the matter. It'd be nice if you did, but you don't. That's the point.

>At least when you're alive you have the option.

And when you're dead you don't have the option to regret your decisions (whether or not they include suicide), to feel loss or sorrow, or to want to go back.

>Death is the ultimate loss.

Not really. You live at most ~100 years. The universe is about 14 billion years old. That's about 14 000 000 000 years, or 140 000 000 times as long as your life span. The default state of the universe is for you not to exist. Your being alive is an infinitesimal blip. Is all that time you weren't alive and all those things you missed also a loss?

>>8612

>You don't have a choice in the matter.

You can always work to make a choice available. That's the point.

>And when you're dead you don't have the option to regret your decisions (whether or not they include suicide), to feel loss or sorrow, or to want to go back.

Or enjoy your decisions, feel gain or happiness.

>Is all that time you weren't alive and all those things you missed also a loss?

No because I didn't have anything then but I do now. Same fore everyone else.

>Not really.

Yeah really. The universe doesn't matter when you're not alive. You can't have things when you're dead, death is the ultimate loss. You not only lose everything you had, you lose the ability to have things. Meanwhile this s not a condition of the universe as it isn't a living thing so it cannot have property only properites. And as I said previously from my point of view and every living thing's there's no difference between death and the universe ending.

>>8614

>You can always work to make a choice available. That's the point.

And that's fine, but you shouldn't expect to reap the rewards yourself, because that's not likely.

>Or enjoy your decisions, feel gain or happiness.

You have time to do that while you're still alive.

>No because I didn't have anything then but I do now.

>No because I won't have anything then but I do now.

Why does the tense matter?

>The universe doesn't matter when you're not alive.

You can choose whether or not you care while you're alive about what happens to the universe after you're dead. I choose to care, same as I choose to care about people I'll never meet when I donate to charities. I don't have to experience any of that to care about it or for it to be real.

>You can't have things when you're dead

>You not only lose everything you had, you lose the ability to have things. Why is having things important?

>Meanwhile this s not a condition of the universe as it isn't a living thing so it cannot have property only properites.

I can't tell what you're trying to say here.

>And as I said previously from my point of view and every living thing's there's no difference between death and the universe ending.

You know that the universe continues after you're dead though, the same way you know Pluto exists and is not a planet. Your higher reasoning faculties give you the ability to (if you so choose) extend you perspective to include things beyond your personal experience.

>>8615

>And that's fine, but you shouldn't expect to reap the rewards yourself, because that's not likely.

I don't expect it since this species if full of defeatist morons who welcome their death.

>You have time to do that while you're still alive.

And why would I want that to end? Only an idiot would be ok with that.

>Why does the tense matter?

Because that's how property works. You need to have something before you can lose it.

>You can choose whether or not you care while you're alive about what happens to the universe after you're dead.

Yeah but once you're dead that caring is dead too. You would be nothing but an irrelevant blip who didn't even try to overcome their disease.

>I don't have to experience any of that to care about it or for it to be real.

So? You're not experiencing it. There is no meaningful difference between that not being a reality and you not experiencing something.

>You know that the universe continues after you're dead though

It doesn't matter if I'm not there. And I wouldn't know because you need to be alive to know.

I'm sorry but none of us are anything more than ourselves. To lose ourselves is to lose everything we have, everything we can give or take, everything we can experience, everything we can care for, love, hate, etc. The universe's state of being doesn't matter when we're dead.

>>8617

>I don't expect it since this species if full of defeatist morons who welcome their death.

I'm sorry your mortality isn't the primary concern of the other 7 billion people on the planet.

>And why would I want that to end?

It's not about what you want, it's about what's going to happen.

>Only an idiot would be ok with that.

>Only an idiot would be ok with accepting facts

Are you sure you're on the right board?

>Because that's how property works. You need to have something before you can lose it.

You're gonna force me to get post-modern about this. Property is just a concept at the end of the day, and it's more abstract than most of the other concepts we base our societies on.

>Yeah but once you're dead that caring is dead too. You would be nothing but an irrelevant blip who didn't even try to overcome their disease.

The caring you did while alive isn't dead though. It still happened, and if you bother to leave a mark it's still going to be there after you're gone.

>So? You're not experiencing it. There is no meaningful difference between that not being a reality and you not experiencing something.

>There is no meaningful difference between that not being a reality and you not experiencing something.

You do realize you're not the only person in the universe, right?

>It doesn't matter if I'm not there.

Shit guys, 23e608 died. Shut it down. Shut it all down.

>And I wouldn't know because you need to be alive to know.

You know while you're alive to make decisions that have an effect on the world.

>I'm sorry but none of us are anything more than ourselves.

And?

>To lose ourselves is to lose everything we have, everything we can give or take, everything we can experience, everything we can care for, love, hate, etc. The universe's state of being doesn't matter when we're dead.

Mattering is in the eye of the beholder and there are still billions of beholders after one of us dies. If you don't care about anyone but yourself, I guess that's as good an excuse as any to continue being afraid of literally nothing.

1/2

>>8620

I probably will eventually if nothing catches me by surprise first.

Epin memes aside, just because I care about other people doesn't mean I don't care about myself. Wicked false dichotomy, nigga. If I didn't care about myself, why would I an hero to stop my own pain due to being old?

>>8619

>Apparently neither is their own.

It is, but they tend to recognize the futility or avoid the subject, being that it's upsetting.

>As medicine developed so did our life spans.

This is actually a huge misconception. Long-lived people don't live much longer now than hundred of years ago. Average lifespan has gone way up due to plummeting infant deaths and early deaths from disease and work-related deaths (including war). Longevity appears to largely be genetic according to modern biology, possibly because of variations in the lengths of telomeres. As a point of interest, Ashkenazi Jews have actually been documented to be living shorter lives with each generation for no apparent reason, and this trend appears to have been going on for a very long time.

>If we pursued regenerative development like we did all these other less relevant initiatives we might develop life extension in time for me and you to enjoy.

Sounds like a pretty baseless assertion. I'd hold out more hope for consciousness uploading for a more permanent solution. Infotech has been exploding for about a century now, and quantum computers are liable to be a quantum leap if we can get those working.

>Life span can be extended

Not by much. ~5-6 years on average through medicine and ~10 years by having a healthy lifestyle. Unless you're talking about stuff that's not evidence-based.

>and our physiology can be altered.

Let me know when we can, say, engineer hearts for transplants that will last longer than a normal heart.

>cancer

Yeah, the thing about cancer is if you live long enough you will get it, and there is a very long list of types of cancer. Not that that research is bullshit, but it's hardly "an answer in our lifetime" tier.

>Actually it's so straightforward even children get it. Pomo retardation is holding you back.

A concept being straightforward doesn't mean it's not a concept. Most postmodernism is retarded but that's because it's attractive to retards who can misuse it to justify their pre-existing beliefs. But it's still useful and important to recognize the difference between perception and reality or subjectivity and objectivity. Children are very perceptive and heavily socialized so that's hardly a reasonable claim anyway, especially since there are other cultures that don't have a concept of personal property. Something children do understand automatically is the concept of revenge, which is hardly a good thing.

>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027711001545

>This suggests that at the latest around 3 years of age young children begin to understand the normative dimensions of property rights.

>normative dimension of property rights

Can you tell me what these words mean?

>Happened and now it's gone.

The fact that it happened isn't gone.

2/2

>A mark? I don't care about some piddly mark. I care about my consciousness. It's a shitty trade.

It's not a trade. The cessation of your consciousness is forgone conclusion. Even if we perfect immortality, the universe won't last forever. You say the mark is "piddly" which is marginally more than nothing at all. That's already all that you are going to have left. Nothing you do will change that. Might as well do as much as you can while you're here so when you die you have peace of mind, since that's apparently all that matters to you.

>You realize for something to matter to us we have to be alive?

You're alive now. Do you care more about what you can't care about when you're dead than what you can care about while you're still alive?

>A world I won't be in so it doesn't matter to me.

Whether it matters to you while you're alive is a choice.

>So? They won't be us.

They'll be people like us, who aren't intrinsically more or less important than we are.

>I care about myself more than I care about others.

You don't have to. I don't. Shit, it was a battle for me to start caring about myself as much as others.

>Then kill yourself now, if death is literally nothing. Come'on, big guy.

>literally nothing

That's pretty clearly wordplay. I'm not going to kill myself right now because I still have things to do. I've been not alive for billions of years. I'll be not alive for billions more. There's no rush.

>If life is nothing as you say.

I said death is nothing, as in nothingness.

>Go kill yourself because I'm sick and tired of arguing with post-modernist idiots like you.

Not a psychologist, but that's a pretty narcissistic thing to say.

>post-modernist

It's a school of thought. I don't identify with it, because it's not part of me. It's useful to wear different hats when approaching different questions, because they have different assumptions built in. It's unfortunate that postmodernism has been tainted so thoroughly by ideologues that it would trigger you into such a rage.

>Sokal says hi.

They can fuck right off.

You know this is actually an interesting thread so I'm not going to provoke anyone and derail it this time.

Why is life associated with consciousness, anyway? It seems more like a particularity, almost a footnote, in human lives.

>>8648

Postmodernism is the central -ism of the SJWs (along with cultural Marxism). It deserves to be knocked as hard as possible.

>>8654

They didn't invent it though. They appropriated it.

>>8630

>Is that why you want them to die?

I don't want them to die, but I don't think there's much I can do about it.

>You made the opposite one first.

Can you point it out?

>Why let yourself get old? Just because such is your state now? Pitiful and human? Overcome it. Or at least try.

I mean I take care of my health, but beyond that my options are pretty limited. So are yours

>You're so defeatist.

If I am that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

>During the twentieth century, life expectancy rose dramatically amongst the world's wealthiest populations from around 50 to over 75 years.

This isn't the same thing as longevity. It doesn't refute what I said at all.

>So much medicine in there.

Funny way to spell propaganda. Don't get me wrong longer life expectancy is good, but it's not the same thing as increased longevity, which is a dirty fucking lie that most people believe.

>Yup, hence why gene therapy is so crucial. But there are other ways of working around it.

I don't disagree, but the deterioration of DNA has to be solved if organic bodies are going to live much longer.

>Source? I know of them having Tay Sachs alleles present in their gene pool but actually good life expectancy despite that.

They do have a good life expectancy, but it's decreasing. The source is a documentary I saw a few months ago. IIRC it was actually posted on this board. I'll see if I can find it.

>Said the guy about flight.

Non-sequitur that glosses over the baselessness of the assertion.

>LOL if we get there. Right now lets get tissue engineering down. Then we can talk about replacing neurons with nanomachines.

OK. Replacing just the mind seems less complex to me than replacing the whole body, but what do I know.

>Individually medicine can mean the difference of a few weeks to 75 years of life. And as medicine develops so does that average.

If it saves you from a disease, but it's not going to have that effect with regards to aging.

>Those are on the way, the problem is vascularization and suture retention strength in engineered cardiac constructs. Strangely when grown under profusion they have better burst strength than the natural thing. It just needs more work but there have been promising developments on especially vascularization.

I said call me when we're there. And that's still just one organ, mind you.

>Yes as the bodies accumulates more and more damage. The idea is to repair that damage, so shit like p53 isn't corrupt or whatever.

Good luck reversing entropy in the long term in a complex system that needs to maintain homeostasis.

>Something Pomos suck at. I'm sorry but the reason it attracted so many retards is because it is retarded.

He says unironically while making a sweeping generalization based on a logical fallacy and personal experience.

>Culture definitely interacts with and influences biology. But how did they confirm children exhibit revenge naturally

When someone makes a kid feel bad (emotionally or otherwise) the kid usually tries to do the same to that person. That's pretty basic. Some concepts are more basic than others.

>And same with 'property'.

I specified personal property. Children generally understand objects vs. actors, but individual ownership of objects is a separate matter.

>I wouldn't be surprised if it involved taking something.

That only implies that the child wants to use the object, not necessarily to own it.

>The simplest notion of property possession I can guarantee you those other cultures have. Just try to steal from them and see their reactions.

Group ownership is distinctly not the same as individual ownership.

>http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/11/hold_the_science_says_anthropo.html

Tards gonna tard. What do you want from me? I disagree with those morons.

>It's what are considered normal behaviors with possessions. Like protesting when something they considered theirs was taken from them.

Normal as compared to what and in what context?

>That fact sucks

Too bad.

>I want to try to not make this a fact.

Good luck.

>We are talking about future events and you're treating death as fate just because it plagued everyone else.

I treat it as fated because my knowledge of the world leads be to think it's unlikely to change in our lifetime. Just because I think this is how it is doesn't mean I think that's how it ought to be. It'd be nice if no living creatures had to die in agony, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

>>8676

>A number of different philosophical and historical schools, often grouped together as "postmodernism", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often positing the influence of politics and economics in the development of scientific theories in addition to scientific observations. Rather than being presented as working entirely from positivistic observations, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

AHAHAHAHAAHAH

>>8677

>scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

>scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

1/?

>>8672

>Not with that attitude.

My conclusion factors in a potential change in my attitude.

>You suggested I didn't care about anyone else because I'm so concerned with myself.

You stated outright that you don't care about the people who will still be here once you're dead.

>Our options become less limited as technology develops. So if we were to develop it at a faster rate by diverting resources from less relevant initiatives we would have even more options.

I agree this is true. Good luck with that. I'm gonna do my best.

>Doesn't mean you're right either.

>You can't prove god doesn't exist.

Guess my point stands then.

>There are more people reaching old age now because of medicine allowing them to reach old age, instead of dying at 60 the cardiac bypass lets them reach 90, which in turn extends life expectancy. The two are very related hence why for the most part they're used interchangeably.

They're used interchangeably because it's good PR to do so. Maximum lifespan has improved, but not nearly to the degree that life expectancy has, and using the terms interchangeably is as deliberately misleading as taking statistics on how many women have been "raped or sexually assualted".

>Something we need to work towards.

Add it to the pile.

>Which you asserted was baseless like those flight nay-sayers.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>Clearly not this. The mind is tied to the brain. You can see this during injury how the mind changes when key structures are severed.

I do know this. I don't see how it relates.

>At best we can transplant the brain into another body but good luck extracting the mind from actual tissue. It might be possible but for now repairing tissue or growing bodies for brain transplantation is a much more viable option.

We can already image brain activity and connect devices to brains to take neural activity as computer input.

>Human bodies aren't isolated systems so entropy isn't limited to just increasing.

True, but how are you going to fix trillions of tiny mistakes all over the body? As the DNA deteriorates, that information is gone.

>It's a heuristic, I only have so much time in my life and if everyone I encounter who is of group x is a bumbling retard I'm not going to waste my time hoping that person 1001 will be any better. Still very shitty track record, not something we can depend on.

How about you evaluate information as presented instead of making assumptions that contradict what the people you're arguing with tell you?

>How do they make them feel bad? Do they take away their lollipop? Because that works for most kids. They know when their possession is being taken that they've been wronged.

What you describe doesn't mean the child understand the concept of ownership. What you describe is someone being upset by suddenly losing access to something. If you killed the child's mother in front of them, they would be upset too. That doesn't mean they think they own their mother.

>They seem to understand both at a young age.

Depends on the culture they're from.

>Nope, the kid may just want to hold the object. Which is at least a form of temporary possession.

Holding an object is using the object.

>Doesn't matter, we're only talking about property. They still understand the concept of possession just on a group level.

I have stated multiple times that I'm talking specifically about personal property. You are moving the goalposts.

>Normal as in toward the mean. As in how you know to normally upset kids. How do you upset kids?

What context, though?

2/?

>>8672

>Because of course your personal experience on regenerative medicine, which you have displayed very little knowledge of, means everything

You've not shown me sufficient evidence that we will achieve immortality any time soon. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

>but mine nothing when I point out pomos are full of shit. LOL

You've identified lots of idiots who've bogarted a useful school of thought as a means to safeguard their feelings. And all because I pointed out here >>8618 that owning things is a psychological construct.

>LOL, pomos step back and examine science in the same way that creationists examine science. Besides science has mechanisms in it to examine itself. And not one criticism against science by pomos has been anything but complete bullshit that I've seen. Sokal exposed that so well. Pic related. Pomos are as reliable for examining science as faith healing is for curing disease.

Again, it's a school of thought not an identity. Scientists can and do use post-modernism to try and find ways to falsify things.

>Do you have no ambition? You sound like the kind of pleb who would be content with whatever shit scrap they're given, never trying to achieve more. I feel sorry for you.

Your feelings are your business and my ambitions are mine. Aside from that, I think it's an important aspect of maturity to accept facts and account for probabilities.

>>8673

>You mean what I've been saying this whole time? But it needs to be a concerted effort.

I'm not stopping you. I'm just going to do other things with the time I have.

>And become a cuckold like you? No thanks.

Dank meme, bruh.

>Valuing others is a meaningless gesture if you don't value yourself. Since value is something that depends on the person a person with no value for themselves would make it's evaluations of others valueless.

Did you miss the "in balance" part?

>But that which is dead still had to be alive in either paradigm.

Yes, and?

>Which is already a mechanism in scientific procedure. Otherwise I wouldn't have to write down my assumptions before solving every problem. Steady state, doesn't leak, etc, etc. Pomos are for the most part nonintellectuals who want to be respected like scientists, not gonna happen.

I agree with this. I don't identify as a post-modernist, I just recognize it as being useful.

>tumblrinas get upset over nothing, some character was too white or too black. It's a little different than being angry at those who impede research that could extend the lives of everyone. The fact you have trouble distinguishing this makes me question your cognitive ability.

Who are you talking about here? I'm not impeding research unless you're a researcher and I'm distracting you, which would be your fault really.

>By promoting complacency for our mortality.

I'm not promoting complacency. Fight for immortality. That's fine. But I disagree that it'll happen in our lifetimes. That's also fine.

>Because they would rather have people who don't prioritize their research instead of course, pomo logic 101.

Or people are wary mass-murder.

>So if I were to put a loaded gun to your head you wouldn't care?

I've put a loaded gun to my head and the only thing that stopped me was caring about how it would affect other people. But nobody else has put a gun to my head so I won't pretend to know how I would respond in that situation.

>Same thing.

Fearing death isn't the same as enjoying life.

>Anyway can you show me something postmodern which isn't complete bullshit?

The growth of ethology is due in large part to post-modern thought.

>>8674

>Actually in many ways they are a product of it.

You know what, this isn't really wrong. The state they're in currently wouldn't have happened without post-modernism. But just because being in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 was a bad time doesn't mean nuclear power is bad.

>>8676

>>8677

>>8678

>Suggesting that anything else is as special as science.

I don't do this. Post-modernism doesn't necessarily do this. It's an acknowledgement that science (among everything else) isn't always right, because humans fuck things up sometimes.

>>scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations.

You found someone with a patently ridiculous opinion that I disagree with. Good job I guess. Every camp has its idiots and post-modernism has more idiots than reasonable people. That doesn't mean everything about it is wrong.

Isn't this thread supposed to be about death? Are you harping on about this particular subject in response to one line in this post >>8618 where I reluctantly brought up the subject to address the idea of owning your life because you'd rather get mad about that than talk about death?

>>8693

>I'm not promoting complacency.

If accepting death as fate isn't complacency then the concept has no meaning to me.

>Fight for immortality. That's fine. But I disagree that it'll happen in our lifetimes. That's also fine.

You do realize I agree with you that most probably we won't achieve this feat? But fuck that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it all we got. Besides it wouldn't be for nothing if we fail, future generations could benefit from our work. So either way this is better than accepting death as fate. Without that hope a lot of the morale involved in this withers. It's human psychology, that's why I'm angry when I see this talk.

>Or people are wary mass-murder.

You'd be surprised how easily people overlook that. ;^)

>I've put a loaded gun to my head and the only thing that stopped me was caring about how it would affect other people.

You're weird. Whenever I've contemplated suicide the idea of not being around was enough for me. But I guess that's weird to you.

>Fearing death isn't the same as enjoying life.

To enjoy life you must live it, yes? I wouldn't fear death if I didn't like living or at least the thought of living. Death is the biggest buzzkill.

>The growth of ethology is due in large part to post-modern thought.

I've seen the contrary. vid related. The growth of bullshit in ethology that's for sure.

>But just because being in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 was a bad time doesn't mean nuclear power is bad.

But unlike nuclear power postmodernism has nothing good to offer. I'm still waiting on an example of postmodernism doing something good for us with a source.

>>8683

>Post-modernism doesn't necessarily do this. It's an acknowledgement that science (among everything else) isn't always right, because humans fuck things up sometimes.

No it disguises itself in skepticism but like alternative medicine isn't medicine neither is postmodernism skepticism. And from what I've seen every one of them does exactly what I said. The Science Wars made that abundantly clear. And as stated before science checks itself, it's based falsification and accepting only that which has been rigorously scrutinized. Pomos are just trying to take credit for something that was already there well before they began to gibber. Postmodernism offered nothing useful to science and probably never will.

>Every camp has its idiots and post-modernism has more idiots than reasonable people. That doesn't mean everything about it is wrong.

Same can be said of Christianity. And like Christianity for the most part it's bullshit not worthy of our time of day.

>Isn't this thread supposed to be about death? Are you harping on about this particular subject in response to one line in this post

You're replying the same. If you want we can stop this, I'd like to. Besides you're the selfless guy, I'm the egotistical maniac. You think I'm gonna let something go on my home board of this level of importance to me during my time off?

>>8598

In the future we can get body transplants.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/neurosurgeon-first-head-transplant-america-sergio-canavero

>>8693

When you get to your destination you'll be the cyborg that kills himself in a cheesy 70's cartoon, because eternal life is boring and empty.

>>8598

>>8598

What 8599 said, of course I don't want to die (if that counts as fear), but I think I can deal with that.

When thinking about death, I think to look at it from big perspective brings some consolation, though it is equally sad. Something dies so something other can live, and everything ends. We are biological machines, and death just means we cease to function as a distinct unit. Our atoms will be a part of the universe for a long time.

It's depressing and sad and melancholic, but it brings some sense of peace.

>>9290

How does that bring peace? Or sadness?

>>8619

>dat drop in the early 90s

What happened?

>>10403

>but I hope to find ideas in the graves of the 4 horsemen.

Does Hitchens even have a grave?

>>10409

I can't remember the title of it, but I recall a Youtube video of someone in an audience asking him what he would do if he knew he was going to be executed. His response was that he wished to be buried, not cremated, so his body could be used as sustenance by other living things.

Or I may be mistaken and thinking of Richard Dawkins.

I'm a nihilist. What is the point of fearing death? It can happen right now, or it can happen much later. The result is the same. I lose consciousness. I lose consciousness all the time. I go to sleep. I hit my head. I have seizures. All of these things are like death, and I anticipate them much like I anticipate death, but I do not fear them. why? They are inevitable. Understanding the need to sleep and yet not understanding the need to die is the condition that afflicts most people, and it just makes no sense to me.

Anyhow, I value the enjoyment I have while living, and I appreciate death as a sweet release from possible suffering in the future and present suffering from memories of the past. When it comes to me I will accept it, for it is inevitable and certainly has some up-sides.

>>10409

Hitchens Burial:

Body donated to medical science

>>10403

I'd probably pick the stupidest thing I remember saying and ask for that.

>>10492

>nihilist

>value enjoyment

>>10527

>Your mom

>not enjoying cock

>>10530

Excellent retort

>>10527

Nihilism naturally fits with hedonism

>>10533

>>10527

Nihilism is not about being a hedonist and its not about being a depressed faggot either. If what it is can be described with an archtype or personality trait, I'd be that character that is typically calm and nonchalant in every situation.

Seeing eveything as meaningless is not an opressive thing, its liberating.

>>10543

That would be existentialism

>>10547

No it isn't.

Existentialism can be roughly summarized as finding individual meaning. It's more of a reaction to nihilism.

Nihilism is simply the position that nothing has meaning. Life is absurd, etc. Existentialism builds off those concepts.

>>10548

Existentialism has always been independent of nihilism.

>>10533

religion is another name for hedonism. acting to maximize your pleasure and minimize the punishment

>>10403

I don't want to be buried. If I don't die in an accident of some kind and become an organ donor, I'll donate my body to science. I don't want a physical marker left behind to take up space either.

>I hope I can outlive them, inherit, and sell my plot.

Sell it to a random homeless man for tree fiddy for maximum irony.

>possibly a swastika for good measure.

Make sure to use the wonky Asian kind, so that when people get butthurt it will be even more ironic.

>>10800

Sounds nice.

"death is the best invention of life. it’s life’s change agent. it clears away the old to make way for the new…someday not too long from now you will become the old and be cleared away. u’re time is limited so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. don’t be trapped by dogma which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. don’t let the noise of others’ opinion drown out your inner voice" (steve jobs stanford commencement speech)