Who wants to live forever? Scientist sees aging cured

[DaShi]

I'm never happy. And the issue was about the human race, not a single civilization. Plus, I'm serious about this answer. As TMM says, it can be humanitarian or emobio.

[Lancer]

There is no evidence that dead people go on living so that they can fly around the universe at the speed of light and join their loved ones in some eternal paradise. Good luck getting your wishful thinking fulfilled.

Thank you gribbler, and someday perhaps, assuming that you are there, you may tell me further of the intent of your post beyond "good luck". Assuming we are ever together beyond this Earthly crib full of feces throwing adolescent monkeys, in the coming adventure beyond this life of which there is "no evidence", and perhaps in your life you may come by some, you may acquire some refreshment for us. Whatever the equivalent of a cold one is, you may procure a few for the discussion, and don't forget. The drinks might make the meeting somewhat more palatable, otherwise I might decline.

[dannubis]

There is "no evidence". There is only you. Take moral responsibility for your actions and have the balls to acknowledge your finity.

[Lancer]

Scientific evidence pertains to this temporal existence only and I do accept that I must die to this existence, if that helps you any, which I doubt. There is nothing so all encompassing as an answer to a troll, but I do try.

[dannubis]

It was not a troll. It is my opinion based on logic.

"You accept that you must die but you don't actually die" smells like a construct which is a sign of intellectual weakness.

[Lancer]

If it is not a troll, then are you willing to accept in another an experience you have not had? Or, is there only you?

[dannubis]

I am sorry but I don't understand your question (gramatically and underlying meaning).

[Lancer]

Simple enough. Are you willing to accept in another an experience that you have not had? To go a bit on down the road, are you willing to accept an experience different from the normal run of daily experience? To explain further, even to the most base understanding, are you willing to accept an experience happening to another that is beyond this shared, understood, and accepted daily experience of mankind?

Its a tough one.

[dannubis]

What are you talking about? It is not the experience I am questioning. It is your conclusion about what caused this experience that is the intellectually coward construct.

[giblets]

Thank you gribbler, and someday perhaps, assuming that you are there, you may tell me further of the intent of your post beyond "good luck". Assuming we are ever together beyond this Earthly crib full of feces throwing adolescent monkeys, in the coming adventure beyond this life of which there is "no evidence", and perhaps in your life you may come by some, you may acquire some refreshment for us. Whatever the equivalent of a cold one is, you may procure a few for the discussion, and don't forget. The drinks might make the meeting somewhat more palatable, otherwise I might decline.

Why would we be together? I guess that would be hell, which explains the need for a cold one.

[PLATO]

Not all things are solved by logic.

Everyday, scientist discover things they once thought impossible. See things there never was any "evidence" for...

To me...it is intellectual cowardice to not ackowlege that your "logical" conclusions are simply based upon the "available" evidence and that there is, of course, the "possibilty" of different conclusions in the future.

You remind me of those who once insisted the world was flat because they had no "evidence" that it was round. Not a knock on you...just an observation of the intellectual "superiority" that is becoming rampant among people today.

We all need to realize that there is still far more "unknown" than "known"

To belittle someone because of their beliefs due to an exhibition of intellectual "superiority" is to show limited intellectual "foresight".

Once a belief is "proven" incorrect, then that is a different story (for example...The flat Earth society is now free game!), but until then the real intellectual will encourage everyone to fully explore their own thoughts and beliefs without being judgemental.

Just one man's opinion.

[Lorizael]

Everyday, scientist discover things they once thought impossible.

Yes, but it's always scientists that are doing the discovering. When science discovers another truth about the universe, it abandons the old truths and accepts the new ones, no matter how painful or slow that process may be. Other methods of discovery have a habit of clinging to old truths despite new evidence. So, your best bet when it comes to truth is to rely on the process that actually updates itself as it moves forward, and that's science.

[giblets]

Yes, but it's always scientists that are doing the discovering. When science discovers another truth about the universe, it abandons the old truths and accepts the new ones, no matter how painful or slow that process may be. Other methods of discovery have a habit of clinging to old truths despite new evidence. So, your best bet when it comes to truth is to rely on the process that actually updates itself as it moves forward, and that's science.

How can science be true if it keeps changing? The Bible doesn't change.

[PLATO]

Yes, but it's always scientists that are doing the discovering. When science discovers another truth about the universe, it abandons the old truths and accepts the new ones, no matter how painful or slow that process may be. Other methods of discovery have a habit of clinging to old truths despite new evidence. So, your best bet when it comes to truth is to rely on the process that actually updates itself as it moves forward, and that's science.

And who is denying this? Science has not "disproved" the existence of an afterlife anymore than they have "proved" one.

In the lack of any scientific evidence in eithier direction, I would submit that it is still an open question and therefore should not be the subject of scorn or ridicule.

You believe differently than Lancer...no problem. Neithier should it be a problem that Lancer believes differently than you. In the lack of scientific evidence either way, I believe it is simply intellectual "superiority" feelings that drive your argument.

[PLATO]

How can science be true if it keeps changing? The Bible doesn't change.

Newton's fundamental principles of calculus have not changed in 400 years. Does this argument hold for them as well in your mind?

When someone supplies evidence that they are wrong, then they will be modified...same as with the Bible.

Interestingly, there has been some scientific work done on some of the "miracles" of the Bible (such as the parting of the Red Sea for example) and it turns out that there is some scientific "possibility" for this. Does that "prove" it? No, of course not...but it still leaves the question open.

A true intellectual would, IMHO, acknowledge that the question remains open...even if their thoughts tend to disagree with it.