82 replies to this topic

[sthira]

N.T.M. The topic of this thread is polemical, so attacking the robustness of one party's logic is definitely not off-topic. In a debate, logic is all you have. What could be more relevant?

Yes, as I have done with yours, but it has all been said and the readers can now decide.

Respectfully, I haven't seen one such example.

What of the assertion that g-d is beyond logic?

If God lies outside of logic, then faith would have to take a non-evidential definition, which--like so many other things--contradicts the classical Christian view. I find it ironic when Christians invoke this in attempt to escape contradictions when the obvious consequence is, yet again, a contradiction. What dazzling circularity.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't "faith" (ie, faith that god exists) by definition necessitate the non-evidential since god ain't telling us if "he's" here or not? If god exists and wanted us "to know" he exists then why not tell us?

It's possible god exists but doesn't want us to know. It's possible god exists but we can't know because we haven't the sensory apparatus (like, say, we can't smell the color blue). It's possible god is found within our human brains (naturally selected). It's possible "something" stands behind the natural selection, and possible "nothing" stands behind the natural selection beyond human imagination and feeling. And it's possible god doesn't exist. My point is: we don't know.

Meanwhile, to stay "on topic" with the christianity mess, Hunter S Thompson wrote: "If The Bible is God's book, then why didn't He give it to everyone?"

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. The topic of this thread is polemical, so attacking the robustness of one party's logic is definitely not off-topic. In a debate, logic is all you have. What could be more relevant?

Yes, as I have done with yours, but it has all been said and the readers can now decide.

Respectfully, I haven't seen one such example.

What of the assertion that g-d is beyond logic?

If God lies outside of logic, then faith would have to take a non-evidential definition, which--like so many other things--contradicts the classical Christian view. I find it ironic when Christians invoke this in attempt to escape contradictions when the obvious consequence is, yet again, a contradiction. What dazzling circularity.

Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't "faith" (ie, faith that god exists) by definition necessitate the non-evidential since god ain't telling us if "he's" here or not? If god exists and wanted us "to know" he exists then why not tell us?

It's possible god exists but doesn't want us to know. It's possible god exists but we can't know because we haven't the sensory apparatus (like, say, we can't smell the color blue). It's possible god is found within our human brains (naturally selected). It's possible "something" stands behind the natural selection, and possible "nothing" stands behind the natural selection beyond human imagination and feeling. And it's possible god doesn't exist. My point is: we don't know.

Meanwhile, to stay "on topic" with the christianity mess, Hunter S Thompson wrote: "If The Bible is God's book, then why didn't He give it to everyone?"

Yes, most people define faith as belief without evidential support, but the problem is that this leads to contradiction very quickly. So in order to sidestep this issue, many Christians claim that faith is supported by evidence, but, as I proved earlier, this leads to contradiction, too--that is, if you accept the axiom that an omnibenevolent wouldn't stipulate performing an act when the reason supporting it is anything less than unquestionable.

To be honest, it's an arbitrary point because the whole bible's mired in contradiction anyway. Spend five seconds on Google and you'll come up with some very profitable searches. The contradictions are endless.

[sthira]

Spend five seconds on Google and you'll come up with some very profitable searches. The contradictions are endless.

This site has a fun, colorful graph of 63,779 bible contradictions: http://bibviz.com/

[N.T.M.]

Spend five seconds on Google and you'll come up with some very profitable searches. The contradictions are endless.

This site has a fun, colorful graph of 63,779 bible contradictions: http://bibviz.com/

Thanks for the link. I haven't seen that before.

[shadowhawk]

N .T.M.’s ARGUMENT

“1.) The Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.

3.) It is self-evident that an omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, wouldn’t punish people for not performing an act when there is no reason offered to perform it (Notice how this relates to premise two.). This premise can even be extended to include having to perform something when there is even the tinniest reason to doubt it.

4.) If an argument is deductively valid, you can only argue against the conclusion by arguing that at least one of the premises is false. If, for example, somebody were to argue that the Christian god actually isn’t truly omnipotent, then I’d have to immediately concede that my argument is invalid. Again, like any argument, it only works if certain conditions are met.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613639

I have repeatedly taken this apart and rejected it. This is totally off topic. Read it and study it if interested.

Let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613762

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613986

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

In light of this, I have rejected N.T.M.’s argument. Study it yourself because it is time to go on.

Edited by shadowhawk, 21 October 2013 - 06:15 PM.

[N.T.M.]

N .T.M.’s ARGUMENT

“1.) The Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.

3.) It is self-evident that an omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, wouldn’t punish people for not performing an act when there is no reason offered to perform it (Notice how this relates to premise two.). This premise can even be extended to include having to perform something when there is even the tinniest reason to doubt it.

4.) If an argument is deductively valid, you can only argue against the conclusion by arguing that at least one of the premises is false. If, for example, somebody were to argue that the Christian god actually isn’t truly omnipotent, then I’d have to immediately concede that my argument is invalid. Again, like any argument, it only works if certain conditions are met.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613639

I have repeatedly taken this apart and rejected it. This is totally off topic. Read it and study it if interested.

Let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613762

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613986

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

In light of this, I have rejected N.T.M.’s argument. Study it yourself because it is time to go on.

All right, then. Since there are only two options (the argument and its negative), and you reject mine, then you must accept the negative of the following (In other words, you're indirectly attacking this axiom.):

It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for noncompliance--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable.

The logic following from the premises is correct, so you tried to falsify the premises, but the argument really only hinges on two of them, the first of which you accepted (God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.). The second, when applied, takes the form of the axiom above. Put simply, if you disagree with something, and all other choices have been eliminated, then you must disagree with the one remaining point (the statement above).

You admit then--albeit indirectly--that God may punish people with hell for not doing something when the act may have been questionable. Your point is very clear.

[shadowhawk]

N .T.M.’s ARGUMENT

“1.) The Christian god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

2.) Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence.

3.) It is self-evident that an omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, wouldn’t punish people for not performing an act when there is no reason offered to perform it (Notice how this relates to premise two.). This premise can even be extended to include having to perform something when there is even the tinniest reason to doubt it.

4.) If an argument is deductively valid, you can only argue against the conclusion by arguing that at least one of the premises is false. If, for example, somebody were to argue that the Christian god actually isn’t truly omnipotent, then I’d have to immediately concede that my argument is invalid. Again, like any argument, it only works if certain conditions are met.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613639

I have repeatedly taken this apart and rejected it. This is totally off topic. Read it and study it if interested.

Let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613762

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613986

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

In light of this, I have rejected N.T.M.’s argument. Study it yourself because it is time to go on.

All right, then. Since there are only two options (the argument and its negative), and you reject mine, then you must accept the negative of the following (In other words, you're indirectly attacking this axiom.):

It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for noncompliance--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable.

The logic following from the premises is correct, so you tried to falsify the premises, but the argument really only hinges on two of them, the first of which you accepted (God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.). The second, when applied, takes the form of the axiom above. Put simply, if you disagree with something, and all other choices have been eliminated, then you must disagree with the one remaining point (the statement above).

You admit then--albeit indirectly--that God may punish people with hell for not doing something when the act may have been questionable. Your point is very clear.

There are not two options. One of us is wrong.

This is still off topic. I am going to start a topic, “GOBLIGOOP AND ANYTHING GOES,” where those inclined can fill up the topic with anything that comes to mind. The Topic is whatever comes to mind and whenever. It does not have to relate in any way to anything.

This should all be in the new topic. I criticized the argument you made for both its content and construct. Now you wish to change the subject again from your attempt at a logical argument to another claimed logical axiom. Here it is:

“It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for noncompliance--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable”

This entire axiom is debatable. Could an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, who wishes free choice to be a greater good, create a being who could choose a choice with evil consequences? Your axiom is not only off topic but not self evident. Freedom demands things be debatable and choose able. That means both positives and negatives are available choices.

I do not admit your construct, of this axiom, is any more sound than your attempt to create a logical argument. How about something on topic here or change this to the new topic mentioned above?

[N.T.M.]

“It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for noncompliance--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable”

This entire axiom is debatable. Could an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, who wishes free choice to be a greater good, create a being who could choose a choice with evil consequences? Your axiom is not only off topic but not self evident. Freedom demands things be debatable and choose able. That means both positives and negatives are available choices.

I do not admit your construct, of this axiom, is any more sound than your attempt to create a logical argument. How about something on topic here or change this to the new topic mentioned above?

They're two facets of the same argument. You keep referring to them separately, as if they're different points. They're not. And as for your criticism of the axiom, you drew a false parallel with your point on freedom. Your example was logical, but it doesn't relate to the axiom. Yes, it's possible to maintain omnibenevolence while permitting suffering if the suffering is a consequence of maintaining free will, but this conflict doesn't exist when it comes to God designing criteria for people to be judged by.

As I said before, there are really only two premises in this argument, the first of which you accepted immediately. Assuming the premises are correct, the logical consequences aren't debatable; therefore, if you disagree with the conclusion, you must disagree with the second premise (the axiom). Additionally, because an axiom can only take two forms (either it's self-evident or it's not), you must support its negation, which in this case means that you must argue that God could punish people for not doing something that had less than indubitable support. To me that's impossible to reconcile with omnibenevolence, but, somehow, you disagree.

Unfortunately, the argument ends there. I think the premise is gallingly obvious, but if you can't concede that point, then it's over.

[shadowhawk]

“It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for noncompliance--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable”

This entire axiom is debatable. Could an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, who wishes free choice to be a greater good, create a being who could choose a choice with evil consequences? Your axiom is not only off topic but not self evident. Freedom demands things be debatable and choose able. That means both positives and negatives are available choices.

I do not admit your construct, of this axiom, is any more sound than your attempt to create a logical argument. How about something on topic here or change this to the new topic mentioned above?

They're two facets of the same argument. You keep referring to them separately, as if they're different points. They're not. And as for your criticism of the axiom, you drew a false parallel with your point on freedom. Your example was logical, but it doesn't relate to the axiom. Yes, it's possible to maintain omnibenevolence while permitting suffering if the suffering is a consequence of maintaining free will, but this conflict doesn't exist when it comes to God designing criteria for people to be judged by.

As I said before, there are really only two premises in this argument, the first of which you accepted immediately. Assuming the premises are correct, the logical consequences aren't debatable; therefore, if you disagree with the conclusion, you must disagree with the second premise (the axiom). Additionally, because an axiom can only take two forms (either it's self-evident or it's not), you must support its negation, which in this case means that you must argue that God could punish people for not doing something that had less than indubitable support. To me that's impossible to reconcile with omnibenevolence, but, somehow, you disagree.

Unfortunately, the argument ends there. I think the premise is gallingly obvious, but if you can't concede that point, then it's over.

OK, thank you for this lively and at times heated debate. I look forward to more.

[Toni Roman]

I want to dialogue with Christian Immortalists and Immortalist Christians -- but of a certain type. I was educated in science and went to college and I _NEVER_ found a conflict between my faith (I'm a born-again Christian and Fundamentalist) and science. After all, science deals with science, theology deals with theology and people who try to make science into religion or religion into science really belong in denominations like the Christian Scientists and denominations like Religious Science and Divine Science. The Christian Science Monitor is a fine newspaper but the religion is a cult according to my theology and they don't believe in going to the doctor. God bless them but I can't go there any more than I can go with Creationists and "Intelligent Design". These are sad quixotic people tilting at windmills. It is sacrilege to tell God that He cannot use the laws of Nature that He created in order to shape creation. I always yawned when other students were debating whether science or the Book of Genesis in the Bible was "right". Apples and oranges. They have almost nothing in common. I would not ask my plumber to roof my house nor would I ask an air traffic controller to do coal mining. My pastor would not know a Florence flask from an Erlenmeyer flask. And many scientists are Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and every other denomination and religions and yes some are atheists and some agnostic. Some scientists are deacons at the church where they worship. But you never hear scientists defend themselves because they cannot be bothered with nonsense. Science and theology are two entirely different thtings and why anyone feels the need to engage in a pointless debate over nothing is beyond me.

I enjoy tormenting my fellow Christians by pointing out to them that they will burn in hell for telling God that He cannot use evolution if He wants to. In the Bible, people who got an attitude with God came to really bad ends. That humor aside. I also point out that it was Christians who put together the science methodology (scientific method) that made modern science possible. People who freak whenever scientists talk in statistics and in the passive voice and speak with an unwillingness to overstate just do not understand that scientists are supposed to be cautious and supposed to only care about proof. Laymen use the word "theory" when they should be using the word hypothesis. Gravity is a "theory" but if you trip and fall down stone steps or fall off a great height -- then you find out how real gravity is.

So if it is understood that I don't think that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is only 4000 years old or other nonsense, then I would like to form a group with other Christian Immortalists and Immortalist Christians.

By the way, one person used the word immorality. Spell check so as not to say immorality if you mean immortality. Watch that T. God bless everyone.

[shadowhawk]

Toni, what do you mean by Immortalist?

[N.T.M.]

I want to dialogue with Christian Immortalists and Immortalist Christians -- but of a certain type. I was educated in science and went to college and I _NEVER_ found a conflict between my faith (I'm a born-again Christian and Fundamentalist) and science. After all, science deals with science, theology deals with theology and people who try to make science into religion or religion into science really belong in denominations like the Christian Scientists and denominations like Religious Science and Divine Science. The Christian Science Monitor is a fine newspaper but the religion is a cult according to my theology and they don't believe in going to the doctor. God bless them but I can't go there any more than I can go with Creationists and "Intelligent Design". These are sad quixotic people tilting at windmills. It is sacrilege to tell God that He cannot use the laws of Nature that He created in order to shape creation. I always yawned when other students were debating whether science or the Book of Genesis in the Bible was "right". Apples and oranges. They have almost nothing in common. I would not ask my plumber to roof my house nor would I ask an air traffic controller to do coal mining. My pastor would not know a Florence flask from an Erlenmeyer flask. And many scientists are Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and every other denomination and religions and yes some are atheists and some agnostic. Some scientists are deacons at the church where they worship. But you never hear scientists defend themselves because they cannot be bothered with nonsense. Science and theology are two entirely different thtings and why anyone feels the need to engage in a pointless debate over nothing is beyond me.

I enjoy tormenting my fellow Christians by pointing out to them that they will burn in hell for telling God that He cannot use evolution if He wants to. In the Bible, people who got an attitude with God came to really bad ends. That humor aside. I also point out that it was Christians who put together the science methodology (scientific method) that made modern science possible. People who freak whenever scientists talk in statistics and in the passive voice and speak with an unwillingness to overstate just do not understand that scientists are supposed to be cautious and supposed to only care about proof. Laymen use the word "theory" when they should be using the word hypothesis. Gravity is a "theory" but if you trip and fall down stone steps or fall off a great height -- then you find out how real gravity is.

So if it is understood that I don't think that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is only 4000 years old or other nonsense, then I would like to form a group with other Christian Immortalists and Immortalist Christians.

By the way, one person used the word immorality. Spell check so as not to say immorality if you mean immortality. Watch that T. God bless everyone.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. The driving force behind religion is non-evidential belief, which is the very antithesis of science. It seems odd that such a competent designer--being the one who created the universe--would separate himself so thoroughly from logic. Why would an entity who values logic, as he must, allow himself to look superfluous? This strikes me as very strange because it requires that he punish people for embracing a quality that he himself must value.

There's a reason that scientific competence is inversely correlated with religiosity.

[sthira]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I have to respectfully disagree. The driving force behind religion is non-evidential belief, which is the very antithesis of science.

I think you're right that science tends to eschew non-evidential belief; but science is certainly not devoid of belief-based dramas, too. Science requires belief, too, it's just more "evidence-based" than what religion offers us. Indeed, science is often so perverted that researchers may reach whatever conclusion they believe is best for whatever ap is most profitable.

In one way I look at religion as a primitive study of our understanding of life here in the good ole world and beyond. But in another, perhaps more progressive manner, "religion" (or spirituality) may prod questions that scientists might not have asked otherwise. We shouldn't close the door on religious speculation, but rather welcome it. Where we should slam shut religion's doors forever is its propensity for violence that has historically accompanied its bloody marches across civilization. We have no more need for more violence, and everyone here agrees on that point: theist, atheist, and agnostic.

It seems odd that such a competent designer--being the one who created the universe--would separate himself so thoroughly from logic. Why would an entity who values logic, as he must, allow himself to look superfluous? This strikes me as very strange because it requires that he punish people for embracing a quality that he himself must value.

There's a reason that scientific competence is inversely correlated with religiosity.

Maybe it is odd, and I think you make a strong point here. But it could also be we're just limited by our own abilities. We've yet to evolve to encompass such big, irrational thoughts as God The Big Bang Universe Creator. Or whatever. Maybe we need to create new sensory apparatus in order to detect timeless, immaterial "god" (or however that bang originated) and maybe that'll develop through our technology. In other words, we may not have the logical capacity to discover and comprehend the mysteries of god and the "creation" (if there even was a beginning) of universe, but perhaps our tech will? And because we doubt god because god is irrational doesn't really mean god doesn't exist anyway. Maybe we haven't developed the capacity because we're still just dumb, naked apes?

[N.T.M.]

Maybe it is odd, and I think you make a strong point here. But it could also be we're just limited by our own abilities. We've yet to evolve to encompass such big, irrational thoughts as God The Big Bang Universe Creator. Or whatever. Maybe we need to create new sensory apparatus in order to detect timeless, immaterial "god" (or however that bang originated) and maybe that'll develop through our technology. In other words, we may not have the logical capacity to discover and comprehend the mysteries of god and the "creation" (if there even was a beginning) of universe, but perhaps our tech will? And because we doubt god because god is irrational doesn't really mean god doesn't exist anyway. Maybe we haven't developed the capacity because we're still just dumb, naked apes?

I agree with your point about intelligence being relative, but really I was alluding to the irony that a god, being an entity who obviously embraces logic, would stipulate something that appeals most to an illogical class of people. My earlier reference to scientific competence being inversely correlated with religiosity is a statistical fact, and it seems to me that this poses a contradiction. Of course, this is a criticism specific to Christianity. So, that aside, you may be correct.

Science requires belief, too, it's just more "evidence-based" than what religion offers us. Indeed, science is often so perverted that researchers may reach whatever conclusion they believe is best for whatever ap is most profitable.

That's absolutely true, but that's a reflection of human nature, not something inherent to science. One of the wonderful things about science is that it has a built-in system of checks and balances. If, for example, somebody produces biased research, it'll be falsified when others attempt to replicate it.

OK, thank you for this lively and at times heated debate. I look forward to more.

It's always good to have an outlet to test your ideas.

Edited by N.T.M., 25 October 2013 - 06:10 AM.

[Toni Roman]

Toni, what do you mean by Immortalist?

I define an immortalist as someone who wants to live forever.





Everyone run for your lives !!! Here comes the elaboration.

Elaboration -- This is distinct from an immortal who is a being who has lived a very long time and will continue to live indefinitely. In literature and movies, these beings are very impractical and you never see the genetics, educational system, emergency medical system, automation or other systems that might make such a status possible. Fantasies about vampires fly in the face of such things as them being dead or undead or blood bourne diseases. Ever seen a vampire with AIDS or hemophilia? Yet despite this obvious nonsense, there are kids running around fantasizing about goth culture and being wannabe vampires and sometimes the police arrest such people who go off the deep end and we hear about them on the news and in the pages of supermarket tabloids. People waste their time on this instead of a more pragmatic activity like life extension or cryonics. I am not big proponent of cryonics (ask me why if you are curious) but it is more sensible than pretending to be a bloodsucker. The whole Highlander series with "immortals" lopping off each others heads struck me as stupid. I would laugh whenever I chanced upon it when flipping the dial. If I could recover after being riddled with bullets, I would not tempt fate by being part of a culture that thinks decapitation is desirable.



So the definition of immortalist should include someone who aspires to be an immortal and does more than just wish. They spend every moment loving life by doing practical things to extend life such as --

• macrobiotic diet
• exercise
• yoga for long life or longer life
• meditation for long life
• avoiding sucrose, nicotine, alcohol (you can get resveratrol other ways), caffeine, and other drug addictions
• use common sense to avoid STD's and, for that matter, other diseases
• wash your hands before and after using the restroom
• being knowledgeable about self-infection (scratching yourself is just one way)
• cover a sneeze or a cough
• avoid overuse of antibiotics (with the new superbugs it may be wise to avoid artificial antibiotics entirely and stick to natural antibiotics). Get it through your thick head that gram negative and other classes of superbugs (like KPC) do not spread in the same way as traditional germs. You need genomics to track some germs.
• support immortality research
• encourage young people deciding on a career to choose safety engineering
• adequate sleep
• knowing that rest is very different from sleep
• avoid life risking behavior but knowing how to survive in a wide variety of scenarios
• survivalists thought that they could eat guns and ammunition if the world came to an end, preppers seem to have a little bit more sense
• fight to reverse climate change (since we do not currently have a backup planet, we had better take care of Earth)
• get immortalists elected to local office and eventually national in all nations because ephemerals do not have a lick of sense (they have mismanaged this planet)
• move to a blue zone and get away from ephemerals (those people shoot off guns, blow themselves up, and don't mind taking everyone with them)
• stop pollution (air pollution, water pollution, and soil pollution is poison. Last time I checked, poison kills you.)
• volunteer time to NPG (negative population growth) because overpopulation drives ALL other problems and leads to behavioral sink
• get out of any religious group or religion that wants you to kill or be killed. They will have you drink the Kool-Aid or wear a suicide vest. That makes you an enemy of life.
• you atheists needn't feel smug. The biggest death tolls and genocides took place under atheist Stalin (twenty million) and Mao (forty million) and Pol Pot (two million). North Korea is a train wreck still in progress and China, which demanded the right to pollute just like Western countries did when they developed and industrialized, now officially has the worst air, water and soil on Earth. Expect a cancer pandemic there.
• support universal health care -- Yes including Obamacare. Too bad if that steps on your toes. Death is the enemy not RomneyCare, which is what the Affordable Health Care Act was based on. Every president, Republican and Democrat, since FDR has been trying to get universal health care passed. They already have it in Canada, Europe, the per capita rich Arab countries, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. The only reason the Koch Brothers support this irrational anti-health care, pro-pollution, climate change denial agenda is because they must have sold their souls to Satan who demands universal death. It is the only explanation that makes sense. Greed is good as Gordon Gecko says but even he would want life.
• an immortalist cannot afford the neurosis of all or nothing thinking. In other words and in political terms, you cannot think rationally if you view life through the filter or lens of liberal versus conservative. I will make it simpler for you. They are both wrong. Extremists get angry and kill. Being a moderate makes more sense.
• Earth needs several backup worlds in case the ephemerals try to get us all killed. The most logical ones are Mercury (which has terraformable zones), Mars and Ceres. Callisto, Venus, and Triton will take a lot of work and current terraforming methods might be inadequate for the challenge. We immortalists need our own independent and reliable and cheap access to space in case the worst happens. I am extremely pro-clean air, clean water, and clean land but we are saddled with ephemerals as national leaders who make war (death), fossil fuel (more death), and fission (mega-death) higher priority than immortality research and development. That being the case, it is simple common sense to have a Plan B and Plan C and Plan D and so on.
• keep up with science because it is far ahead of most science fiction
• don't wear clothing that has toxins in it
• get toxic chemicals out of your home
• install air filters in your home but do not delude yourself like the Chinese leaders that this will protect you from cancer. Pollution causes cancer.
• install water filters in your home.
• consider getting rid of pets. My niece brought a pet into a house that had never had pets. For the first time in the centuries-old history of that house, we had bedbugs and fleas. Ticks too small to see bring strange diseases like Lyme. Your dog drinks from the toilet, licks up its own vomit, licks the anuses of other dogs, and then runs to lick your face. Your cat walks on kitchen counters and dining toom tables and there is hair in your butter. Pregnant women are sometimes warned to avoid cats. Why? Watch a few episodes of House MD. Cats are not even very good at ridding a house of mice.
• we need to rethink dentistry. If you cannot chew, the whole body suffers. You would not go to a physician who routinely treats everything by amputation. Yet dentists routinely pull teeth instead of saving them and replace them with toxic amalgams and fake teeth. [This is one of the things I want to personally research once I get a research lab.]
• we need better earthquake prediction just like we need better tornado prediction. There is thought that pumping oil and gas out of the ground has consequences. When water is entirely pumped out of the ground in certain geologies, sink holes result. The theory (hypothesis is the correct word) is that earthquakes can result from pumping oil and gas. In the meantime, people near fracking operations are not happy. They get poisoned wells and sometimes flammables coming out of their water faucets.
• we need schools for both our children and for adult education that can teach us what we need to know to extend our lives. The ephemerals will never put this curricula in schools because their whole outlook is predicated on dying. They die and are replaced and the replacements are replaced and on and on in an endless cycle of death. Ephemerals actually think death is somehow good. There is nothing good about death. We poison ourselves and our children by letting them attend ephemeral schools where their minds will be infected with pro-death ideas.
• carnography is worse than pornography and its effects are far worse on adults than on children who laugh it off like Bart & Lisa Simpson watching the Itchy & Scratchy Show. Video games are known to be addictive. I know because I have heard video game addicts say so. Most of them are full of violence. Do you really want this soaking into your subconscious when even psychologists do not fully understand the subconscious?
• Life has value when it is scarce. On a planet of seven billion when the carrying capacity of the planet is one billion, you have a dangerous situation. Real estate developers, warmongers and religious leaders want females and males to squirt out as many children as possible because the pro-growth businessmen are greedy, the warmongers want cannon fodder (preferably mindless young people) and the preachers want souls to fill up their houses of worship. When life is not scarce, we humans are reduced to the level of vermin -- rats and roaches. We humans are not insects or germs.
• What we are is a species on the brink of changing from ephemeral to immortalist. And this transformation is not achieved by getting a Google implant in our brains and uploading to their internet where they will erase us and replace us with Big Data. We are not Borg. This transformation is as simple as deciding that you are no longer an ephemeral. You are an immortalist. That's it. Didn't cost you a penny.

I could add several hundred other items to this list covering the gamut from recreation, communication methods, banking, insurance, new legal specialties, taxes, welfare, the arts, politics (a lot more controversial than anything I have said), engineering, technology, software, immortalist businesses, philosophy and so on but since that would take up a lot of forum space, I will put it in a book. Some of you know that I used to be on Squidoo. I do not know if those lenses are still there but if you saw them, then that gives you a taste of what I am working on for you. I am very proud to be here on Longecity. I feel like I have come home.

[YOLF]

So that means, you do or don't want to live indefinitely in perpetual youth and health?

[Toni Roman]

Here is a resource for Christian Immortalists --

                                                                               http://christian-imm...sts.weebly.com/

 

 

[shadowhawk]

Nice looking website.

[shifter]

What is all this talk about God sending us to hell? We have the free will, the choice. We have been given the key to heaven, it is up to us whether we use it. In essence. God doesn't do anything. We 'send ourself' to hell, which is probably just oblivion.

[OneScrewLoose]

Just as a note, I have not read this whole thread, so I might have missed somethhing. I'm not Christian at all, but the way I see it, Christianity would be the best religion for health and life-extension due to one reason. The bible clearly states that "your body is your temple". Let's think about what a temple is. it's a place to go to worship what we think is the most powerful and/or loving being in the universe, the place we go to acknowledge the being without whom we would simply not exist. It is a testament to our very faith, thee core principal of protestant Christianity and a core principle of Catholic Christianity. It's condition could also be seen as a testament to one's relationship with the almighty.

 

If you are not maintaining your temple at its best possible condition (not to go so far as to be OCD about, just being reasonable and rational of how you treat yourself), what does that say of your faith? We all sin right? We let ourselves go sometimes. But so many in the west don't take care about it at all, and we become obese, lethargic, immobile, and rife with preventable disease that are simply result of what we chose to it eat and what exercise we chose to do (also, food for thought, taking 10+ stacks of nootripics can be dangerous when people pile them all at once, instead of one by one, without understanding them fully, the other side of the coin). If you are having severe heart, insulin, or muscular problem due to disease out of poor habits, that seems like more than neglecting your temple, that seems like desecration.

Following this principle, I truly believe that Christianity is the best religion for longevity. 'Your body is your temple', is an extremely bold and powerful statement. But people pick and choose what they want out of Christianity, and make excuses for the rest, just like with almost every other religion. And that's why I'm an agnostic.

Edited by OneScrewLoose, 08 May 2015 - 11:33 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I agree with most of what you have said.  However, one correction, your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit in Christianity.  God is timeless and gives eternity to us by virtue of our union with Him.

[OneScrewLoose]

Meh, pedantic apologetics. It's all a temple to the trinity, regardless of which part you want to specify.

[shadowhawk]

OK, but I did not say anything about which part of the body.  Not important to the discussion.  You made a good point.