Who wants to live forever? Scientist sees aging cured

[giblets]

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.

I'm sorry, but if there is a lack of evidence either way, claiming that after you die you will "set off across the stars, all the Universe my destination, and to look back and see the lives of my beloved here on Earth until we are rejoined on some sunny day when all hardship and trials that formed us are past" is either wishful thinking or a fantasy.

[Lorizael]

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.

Err, my stance is that it is impossible to know anything about a potential afterlife until you have accumulated at least all of the knowledge in the universe. Until such time, I operate under the belief that there is no afterlife, because I have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[PLATO]

I'm sorry, but if there is a lack of evidence either way, claiming that after you die you will "set off across the stars, all the Universe my destination, and to look back and see the lives of my beloved here on Earth until we are rejoined on some sunny day when all hardship and trials that formed us are past" is either wishful thinking or a fantasy.

I'm sorry, but if there is a lack of evidence either way, claiming that after you die you will "completely cease to exist" is either wishful thinking or a fantasy.

Hmmm...it seems even this is a matter of perspective...until there is evidence one way or another.

[PLATO]

Err, my stance is that it is impossible to know anything about a potential afterlife until you have accumulated at least all of the knowledge in the universe. Until such time, I operate under the belief that there is no afterlife, because I have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Err, my stance is that it is impossible to know anything about a potential afterlife until you have accumulated at least all of the knowledge in the universe. Until such time, I operate under the belief that there is an afterlife, because I have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Once again

[giblets]

I'm sorry, but if there is a lack of evidence either way, claiming that after you die you will "completely cease to exist" is either wishful thinking or a fantasy.

Hmmm...it seems even this is a matter of perspective...until there is evidence one way or another.

I don't recall claiming to have that knowledge.

[Lorizael]

Err, my stance is that it is impossible to know anything about a potential afterlife until you have accumulated at least all of the knowledge in the universe. Until such time, I operate under the belief that there is an afterlife, because I have no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Once again

It doesn't work that way. You're positing a positive belief, so the burden of proof is on you. It's Occam's Razor that causes me to act as if there is no afterlife. If I were to act under the belief that there is an afterlife, I would have to introduce extra variables that need to be accounted for in some way. But the universe operates just fine without a theory of an afterlife, and introducing such a theory provides insufficient explanatory power to warrant its inclusion.

[PLATO]

I don't recall claiming to have that knowledge.

That's all I am trying to say. We simply don't know what happens after death. If someone believes one thing, then who is another to ridicule them?

Now...I would agree that bringing their belief into "question" is an acceptable practice...just as they bringing yours into question is acceptable. Many good things come from constructive debate. However...using words like "fantasy" and expressions like "have the balls to admit" is where I take issue.

Until there is evidence one way or another aren't we all just guessing?

[PLATO]

It doesn't work that way. You're positing a positive belief, so the burden of proof is on you. It's Occam's Razor that causes me to act as if there is no afterlife. If I were to act under the belief that there is an afterlife, I would have to introduce extra variables that need to be accounted for in some way. But the universe operates just fine without a theory of an afterlife, and introducing such a theory provides insufficient explanatory power to warrant its inclusion.

Oh dear....I think you have totally missed the point.

I am not staking out a position on the issue so therefore I have nothing to prove.

My entire point is that we should not critizize people on whatever they believe unless we have scientific evidence that refutes them.

Sorry that didn't come through to you.

[Lorizael]

My entire point is that we should not critizize people on whatever they believe unless we have scientific evidence that refutes them.

Are you sure? People believe some pretty insane, but unfalsifiable things.

[PLATO]

Are you sure? People believe some pretty insane, but unfalsifiable things.

Yes, I'm sure. There are probably some extreme examples that you could illustrate that would give me pause to that, but generally...yes, I'm sure.

[Lorizael]

:shrug: Okay.

[dannubis]

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.

Where did I say that my opinions (I have bolded it again) aren't open to change if new evidence were to present itself ? Quite the opposite in fact: I don't use induction to justify my existence. I use deduction to come to my worldview. And in that view I don't need an afterlife to explain things while you do. Logically this makes my case much more solid than yours anyway you look at it.

[PLATO]

I disagree that it "logically" makes your case any better than anyone elses. First of all induction is a scientifically sound basis with many observations. Secondly, I have not said that I need an afterlife to explain anything. Finally, I agree that you are certainly entitled to your opinion...just as Lancer is entitled to his. Neither he nor you have any "evidence" to point to to say "Look! See...This proves it!".

You do confirm, with your post, that you certainly feel "intellectually superior" though...and it is my opinion that that is not the optimal way for intellectual advancement.

[Wezil]

God sleeps on my couch. I have no evidence of this but I know it to be true.

Unless you can prove me wrong it would be intellectually superior of anyone to criticize me on this belief.

[PLATO]

God sleeps on my couch. I have no evidence of this but I know it to be true.

Unless you can prove me wrong it would be intellectually superior of anyone to criticize me on this belief.

Indeed it would.

However, to question your belief would not be.