Nah, you're just going through the hedonic treadmill or cycle as I like to call it. I mean, you only need to do a simple Google search to see how fortunate you truly are, and another to see those who manage to prosper in spite of even what you will see there. Eh. best hang in there. If not for the little lady eh?

Have you tried weed?

Edit: If she's a diamond in the rough, at least get decent life insurance first.

I'm thinking of moving to Discourse — jamalrob

Ew, no. I revoke my suggestion. Wholeheartedly.

Lol. No not like that just perhaps a small consensus vote of "key argument" etc. perhaps including counter-arguments and sub-arguments, etc... basically where the posts (ideas or assertions rather) that the as I claimed "endless posts" come from are derived from in the thread, is all.

I don't think anything other than they're all the same at this point with exception of the following statistics: Greece: 90% Christian. Turkey: 99% Islam. The only real difference is the "people who inhabit what was Greece" (you couldn't torture me enough for me to call them Greeks), will turn the other cheek. Only upside is with the endless wars the other side calls for hopefully they'll clear each other out and the original inhabitants can return someday. Unlikely though.

I shouldn't complain however, nor choose sides. The original Europeans they cleared from their lands accepted and proudly owned their execution of Jesus (those that didn't were summarily executed by their own, save for the few that got away). That divine curse will follow and leave them disadvantaged wherever they run to or no matter whose land they try to take next. Only hope is to try and save the children and hope one day they can grow up free and one day be forgiven. Then again so are the Muslims. And most of "the rest". Everything is cursed basically, and what little that aren't are persecuted because of it. Which only strengthens the severity of the curse. Why do you think our teeth rot, yet we're told cavemen (who didn't have knowledge of oral hygiene) ate nuts and meat off the bone throughout their life? It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't have to- because people don't think. Beyond what is needed to get the next shiny object or thing someone else has.

So you'll have an interesting enough topic, one that's essentially answered several times over in the first page or two- then someone finds an off-example that just ever so barely meets the standard of technically being on topic (I've done this many times myself), and two or more (usually just two) people will debate on that point endlessly, leading to an 800+ post nearly 30 page topic, which isn't bad in and of itself. But eventually.. the OP is just ignored and people reading it for the first time are just bamboozled, if not from simply the offshoot argument (that is still technically on topic mind you) being nowhere to be found.

There should be a "linear" or "simplified" view of topics that link ONLY to A.) answers to the original OP and B.) off-shoot arguments brought up that cast doubt on the majority of answers that seem sufficient and C.) reasonable arguments to those resulting off-shoot answers/sub-questions/resulting topics..... that would be great :grin:

but part of the process is the destruction and recycling of the original body. — Aoife Jones

The interesting part is there's no reason that would be required.. realizing that, I'd say no, I'm me.. now in your scenario assuming the memory and brain configuration (it's so much more complicated.. I'd hope lol but let's just assign "consciousness" as that) is the exact same.. there wouldn't be anybody to claim to be you at that point so.. you know it really depends if you view a human being as anything more than a blob of sentient meat or not.

Edit: This question seems oddly familiar to another one about a hypothetical planet-to-planet transporter system. It was suggested that an atom (or group of atoms) being truly transported from one place in spacetime to another is different from a new atom (or group of atoms) being created with 100% of the same properties and configuration. One is true teleportation, whereas the other is essentially a glorified fax machine.

As an atheist myself since the age of about 7, I simply do not understand how theists can trust in a God given this argument. It would be much appreciated if someone would clarify a general religious stand point for me, however I just do not see that whatever I am told could disprove this argument without contradicting religious beliefs in itself. — scientia de summis

Well the statements quoted present secondary logic derived from I'm not really sure where, human understanding and belief I assume? Who said God was morally perfect? It is said that God has many human emotions as well including rage, jealously, compassion, etc. That aside, even taking all logical assertions both root and derivative at face value, we're still not actually painted into a logical corner yet- not by a long shot.

The answer lies in free will and "letting one go one's own way". Say you have a teenager who's clearly in an unhealthy relationship. You can talk and talk, and even use what little waning authority you have over the individual's life- or you can let them learn for themselves. Kind of like "letting the slaves go" knowing they'll be back after they see for themselves the grass really isn't all that much greener- assuming they survive or aren't captured by other less enlightened forces. Which is rare.

Panspermia is actually a widely-accepted theory. The possibility at least.

I recently spoke to some people who are certain life on earth was manufactured by aliens. — Tom Storm

But how did their life evolve? Earth is just a circumstantial prop in this debate of the origin of life (organism from the non-organic).

:grin:

I guess I would instead say philosophy has done what science has yet to do. That something being giving meaning, purpose, and direction into an otherwise meaningless, purposeless, and chaotic existence. I mean, sure science lets us better arrange and understand the chaos and create/discover new chaotic systems to reign in however the more we uncover and master the less human and in control we feel. Philosophy offers a modest yet effective solution for the human condition.

So the question is: Would you rather feel at home or live in a place you know is scientifically "better" than where you did last?

It was a poor one, I agree. Still, two states of being, allegedly. The first I described (cavemen-esque days) and today (microchips, spaceships, and everything in between). Eventually.. the idea that someone didn't have to start thinking, and critically becomes essentially on par with anything else that today is a "commitable" offense ie. violence, threats of violence, etc.

The only counter-argument is that I'm incorrectly equating "basic thinking" with advanced philosophy. Which is defensible.

Your missing the point. We didn't go from cavemen bashing each other over the head for food, shelter, love, and even just for fun to interconnected societies, microchips and thermonuclear fusion.

Life is like a boulder perched over the edge. Philosophy is kind of like gravity and science is like the person who pushes the rock over the edge and claims all the credit.

If it's not race or religion or income, people will find something else to fight over. Those are the most popular however, mind, soul, and body, respectively. It's a primal urge to find peace in war and fleeting security in perpetual conflict.

See everybody thinks they're right and has the best philosophy per se, and anyone who doesn't agree with their view is at best confused or at worse deficient, anyone who adamantly opposes their view is at best wrong or at worse a living cancer and plague on humanity that if not neutralized will spell doom for the human race. Lol. Once you realize that, you're able to debate with anyone and things begin to start making a whole lot more sense.

basically, just Tolkien's Christian background talking, and how much of it is relevant outside of that context? — baker

How much of this OP is just baker's atheist background talking, and how much of it is relevant outside of that context. OH. All of it. :lol:

Philosophers have a tendency — darthbarracuda

This is about as good as any I can recall at present.

Welcome, to start what exactly is your understanding of free will and what side of the fence of it, whatever it may be, are you on? Define it for us in your own words, to the best of your ability. What arguments have you heard that don't seem to cut it for you?

In a religious context, which actually vary greatly, you can expect to include more logic than doctrine here or you'll see receive the wet rope treatment I can assure you. :grin:

Generally from what discussions I can recall from here they seem to revolve around specific doctrines stating or essentially resolving to "everything is predetermined" .. essentially no longer a religious debate but more of one about determinism in general. Is this perhaps what you mean?

Ironically, for the same reason people need scientific beliefs and ideas. To avoid fright and confusion. Or to benefit themselves and *scoffs* of course, the world around them and all of humanity.. :grin:

it honestly blows my mind that there are people out there who take this and other biblical prophecies as anything more than just a coincidence or a metaphor. — BBQueue

You shouldn't. Absent of scientific understanding, something you did nothing to bring about, we live in a world of spirits, gods, and magic. Don't be so hard on your ancestors. After all, they are why you're here today.

.. you've never experienced something miraculous or unable to be explained, to the degree that it made you think perhaps that the scientific process, with it's "renaissance" aka "modern science" having existed for a mere few hundred years, isn't quite complete or that perhaps we don't know all there is to know? Well, one can say that's equally mind blowing. Even foolish.

Maybe they were radioactive. See radiation damage. Or time lords that distort the flow of time. Kinda like in the ending of Superman: The Movie, but the opposite.

What? It's as good a guess as any.

We work for the same reason we think, with the belief, if not latent hope, that we'll end up having to do much less of it in the future. You can expand on that as you may.

I think one can acknowledge the reality of the hedonic treadmill and still argue that modern technology and material goods increase the welfare of humans. At the very least, the continuous improvement of technology will lead to more pre-adaptational periods of great happiness. — TheHedoMinimalist

Just so you know, I'm on the PC, listening to a few songs on YouTube, and just got back from playing a console system. So. But. For the pure point of debate, it [modern technology] is often likened to the modern day Pandora's Box. And for reasons that can be argued quite well. As you acknowledged, the modern day reality of total nuclear winter is nothing other than nightmarish, if given sufficient focus. And why shouldn't it be. That said, few know of the hardships and realities of life before technology. If a man broke his legs or arms in an accident, he was often considered "good as dead" .. literally. Things were done back then that now thankfully don't have to be due to modern science, medicine, and surgery. So it's a valid debate with both sides having very powerful arguments toward one another.

I think that the way that you can hack the hedonic treadmill is by making slight improvements in your material wealth that will give you a continuous boost in happiness and maybe it’s also helpful to practice modest abstinence from activities that give you pleasure so that they can give you more pleasure as you start to miss those activities more. — TheHedoMinimalist

I was thinking the same thing, the idea of "circumventing" the idea. That's why you don't ever need to get too comfortable, and when you do, consider taking say a weekend outing in the woods with the pledge that any modern technologies you bring with are to be used solely in case of an emergency only. It can do wonders, essentially what your saying. A "reset" of one's complacency and inevitable lack of appreciation due to abundance of ease and convenience.

So, in the end, I think people are just as dissatisfied with their lives as they ever were. — RogueAI

Someone on here introduced me to the concept of the hedonic treadmill, something I believe may be of relevance to your claim.

Take my favorite PC game. I really like it. When I first played it I couldn't stop. Then after I beat it, started a new game, several times over.. I kinda just needed a break lol. It didn't "give" what it did when I first got it and everything was new.

The idea(s) of something being new, unfamiliar, and exciting I believe are all related. Remember your first car? I remember mine. It was like a chariot from the gods. Now it's just what I use to go to work or pick up beer. Same idea. :grin:

Meaning is not potential. Fool.

Did you fully read what I wrote? — schopenhauer1

I must have missed that part sorry.

...

Long before Paul or Jesus or anyone here on Earth as you reference them, the prophecy existed. The restrictions we are required to follow by penalty of damnation (Ten Commandments/Noahide Law), will one day be lifted by a prophesied Messiah ala "Savior". This is the Jewish prophecy. If you believe this prophecy has been fulfilled, you're a Christian. If you believe it has not but will be, you're a Jew. There's no other avenues. Other than yours, that it's all a bunch of crazy stories and the most miraculous event or series of events are nothing but coincidences, for what other possibility is there? Aside from the IRS scammers.

taken from Christianity — schopenhauer1

No, see, there is no "Christianity" without the fulfillment of the original Jewish prophecy ie. the Old Testament (specifically the times of it). The Old Testament (Abrahamic religious root prior to Christianity/prominence of Jesus) states, we are sinners, essentially damned, and will work until we turn to dust. If they didn't at least believe in the idea of Messiah, they were ignorant of Jewish law/prophecy/their true "alleged" religion and faith. It's just that simple. They did reject Jesus, and quite so, solely on the grounds they did not believe the prophecy was fulfilled and he was a false Messiah. But that's beyond the point. Just sorting it out for those reading who are curious. But, as you say, fiction, why not argue over whether or not the Easter Bunny is light or dark pink right?

Just to remind everyone of the meta here, and if you are a skeptic and disbelieve that's fine, I'm essentially discussing the absolute points and intentions of the fictional Santa Claus or Easter Bunny here, nevertheless, there is fact and fiction even in.. straight fiction. So.

Both Christians and Jews believe in the Old Testament assertion of a Messiah, sent from God, to lead humanity. Now, the differentiation comes in two forms. First, most if not all Christians believe Jesus was in fact this prophesied Messiah, and did in fact absolve humanity of it's sins, crimes, and eventual punishments as described in the Old Testament, essentially replacing the Ten Commandments with the Great Commandment. In other words the words, commands, etc. of the Old Testament are now annulled, replaced with those of the New Testament. Some, I repeat some, Christians believe Jesus was God in the flesh while others believe he was simply the messenger, this is relevant because Jews believe God never shows/appears/manifests himself in human form. This is in contradiction to the belief of most if not all Jews that Jesus was in fact not the prophesied messiah and was essentially just some guy, or even a sorcerer, as he was accused of "having a demon" and yes, using sorcery ie. healing on the Sabbath, etc. Which I find interesting as you realize in whatever society the Bible is truly from it implies "magical healing powers" were not only normal and commonplace, but so much so that they were codified into law, thus resulting in forbidding of "healing on the Sabbath". Which just gives you some context into.. I dunno something or another. :lol:

Basically, both groups believe in the idea of a Messiah. The difference is one, Christianity, believes he came, thus nullifying the Old Testament, Ten Commandments ie, Noahide Law (and most importantly it's punishments from above) .. while the other, Judiasm believes, he was not the Messiah, and so all the aforementioned are still in effect, ie. the punishments for breaking the commandments/Noahide Law.

I would be horrified to have it confirmed that this is the only planet with life, that no where out there is someone doing it better. Just depressing as hell. — Book273

Thankfully, due to the one-way nature of black holes- we, here, would never know for sure. How delightful, is it not? :grin:

Say I'm old and dying. I managed to amass considerable wealth in my lifetime and am slowly beginning to realize I cannot take it with me. I have two kids. Or none, even. I want my life's passion to be nurtured by someone caring and dedicated who is capable of respecting whatever it may be, perhaps even seeing a young version of myself in them, or something. How do you go about ensuring this will be so?

Placing a half-age ad in the largest paper in the city saying "million dollar business looking for young, smart, financial guru to take the reigns"

Or...

Finding a smaller niche magazine for whatever that interest/business/passion is and writing a humble black and white classified "small, rustic business of 50+ years looking for passionate, young enthusiast to manage and keep her afloat"

In the first example, someone who couldn't care less about what the business is about other than the money or benefit they could gain, probably just selling it off to a company that would turn it into a Wal-Mart or something after pocketing a sizable return would be the most likely, qualified candidates.

In the second example, there is no "huge payday" promised. If you truly have an interest in whatever the business is about, that would be the sole reason you would apply.

In both examples, the work could be observed and a judgement could be made, however in just one, would this be a true test of passion, dedication, and determination, not solely motivated by money. Sure a few may sneak through in the second example, but by only exposing a fraction of what the true inheritance/assets would be, in a rustic, run-down environment that still manages to test the applicant within the context of a scaled-down version of the true job/assets/etc to ensure the qualifications/ability is still there, you effectively screen out 95% of those who are just in it for the money/benefit who couldn't care less about what you care about after you're no longer in the picture.

Imagine this wealth/passion in life was about sailing and boats. You have a multi-million dollar shipyard loaded with yachts and other worthy vessels that would have to "go to" or otherwise be managed by someone. By seeing how they perform in a small run-down boatyard with maybe a few average vessels and one small yacht, perhaps even saying none of those are "included", or even saying none of it is "included" and it's just an hourly/per-task job... you remove any factors that would affect the performance and passion of the person who you may potentially wish to carry on your life's work.

It makes for more than just a heartwarming story of "young man with a love for the sea and sailing, spends life savings to buy small shipyard, ends up inheriting multi-million dollar seaport" it's now damn near the only way to do things. The only way to make sure your passion in life is preserved and will live on, and not just the money it accrued.

Does this apply directly to your scenario? It would appear not. But you never know.

"Has made peace with them" is not gonna cut it for this happiness -- this is not contentment, but acceptance when all else failed. — Caldwell

This may be true however do we agree that these two states, happiness and unhappiness, cannot co-exist in the same mind, body, at the same time and place? That is to say, there is a single door of "mood" or "feeling" with only one being able to reside within at once. Not to say one could not merely be passing through with the other close behind.. simply that, yeah the answer of "both" to the question of "are you happy or unhappy?" is generally not applicable.

If you agree with this, then my point was, by having "made peace with them [sources of unhappiness]" you have now removed any obstacle to achieving "happiness" and are now on the path toward it. At the very least making it considerably more reachable.

The consensus seems to be, we can be content without being happy, we cannot be happy without being content, and we cannot be content while being unhappy. All terms substantiated even if only in the contexts of a few moments. What's the way forward?

I don't think you did, actually. Which is what concerned me. Coherent = able to be understood.

...

I'm not sure what the antithesis of that would be or how it could even be discussed.

I don't understand what you mean by that.
How would showing that it's worth bothering about other people have as a consequence not knowing who the people you don't want to have around/in your life are? — baker

I can see that. You're conflating two separate ideals here. Those two being the ability to do so and the requirement to do so, respectively. Each offering their own benefits and drawbacks, with only one providing the function I mentioned.

Coherentalist? That's.. that's definitely a new one.

It [the Internet] is often used as an outlet, a vent. When you see a real person in front of you, you often see more than a face but a person with hopes, dreams, expectations, a soul perhaps? Someone just like you. With random words on a screen it's easier to focus on attacking ideas and concepts and unleash your full criticism of these concepts unabated and in full force, much more so than in person. Along with the fact some people are big and the human form can be quite squishy.. :lol:

Excluding politics, which undoubtedly shape the world and laws of the world or society we all will live in, including those who come after us, and to an extent religion, this is a pretty chill and logically focused forum. I like it. Very much.

I truly believe there's a valid point in your argument I might have missed. The possibility, at least. Even so, there's always the explicit logical counterarguments you could engage with. The only thing I was expecting of you to do. If you would choose to do so that is. Still, I suppose the point we're now debating "religion stigmatizing science as evil resulting in the creation of weapons of mass destruction", or were at least, is a far cry from the original premise stated in your OP as "what if there is life on Mars". My mistake, undoubtedly.

Let's get back to that then, shall we? Or, anyone else who wishes to continue in your place.

I mentioned the possibility of microorganisms as having little prominence in my opinion, if not from the fact that microorganisms were inevitably brought there via not only this probe but those before it. Between the actions of the instruments of the previous craft introducing them and the possibility of solar wind and lack of atmosphere spreading them and perhaps cosmic radiation mutating them into forms now unrecognizable or.. alien :grin:, I'd suggest there's still little cause for a "eureka!" moment.

So. What if it's beyond that of a microorganism. Say a "space algae" of a sort. I'd still default toward the belief this is hardly a game-changer. Now.. something with a nervous system and full-fledged brain on the other hand.. would be a bit of an eyebrow-raiser. Though still nothing outside of the realm of scientific possibility.

Is a magnet sentient? It responds to one of an opposing polarity. Baking soda responds to vinegar. It reacts to certain things. Radioactive isotopes are in constant dynamic fluctuation. Like cells we can't ask it "how it's doing". Is the idea of a brain, the only object found to hold consciousness, the only thing in existence capable of consciousness, even a form we can't detect/understand?

I do I just think it's wrong. Lol.

Eh idk. Maybe you're right. So, to clarify, your assertion is the following:

Because some body described by an arbitrary term you've yet to define ("the Church") said something, people used the process that created the ability to make and defend themselves on par or if not greater than others, as they always did... but suddenly would have stopped, again doing what they always did, randomly, for no purpose whatsoever, other than/because of "the Church", again which has yet to be defined.

Science, a tool by definition, rather a process of discovery, would not have been used as a tool if this group of indeterminate definition ("the Church") did not say that it was bad. Can we substitute "the Church" for "mainstream/majority belief of the time" or no? If so then at least that finally defines every term or variable in the argument, thus allowing proper analysis.

"[Religion prevented us from having] recognized science as an understanding of reality"- my point was that reality is what we make it, we either have controlled demolition or collapse in the contexts of villages or nation-states, progress/innovation/inventions that result in no more fatalities than a village/small society OR uncontrolled obliteration in the context of the entire planet from nuclear holocausts, germ warfare run amok, etc. as nearly occurred several times since, inevitable due to human nature.

I still wish to pinpoint any logic or rationale in words and ideas you deem me as having missed. To circle back, if religion (the idea or absolute existence even of a supreme being or afterlife) was non-existent, we would have overcame our biological inclinations toward survival, groups of similar appearance, genetics and familiarity, disinclination toward the unfamiliar, and just all held hands and sung kumbaya, which again never occurred due to the two realities of limited resources colliding with the human ego. We would have never created weapons to defend ourselves, no people would have ever committed a grave or unforgivable crime against another people warranting retribution or justice (with the understanding that there is only one life to live and someone permanently ruined or destroyed it), and we would have all just created Utopian cities where peace and understanding was prevalent and strife and discord was rarer than a total eclipse?

Is that your argument? Help show me the light here.

we would not have created nuclear and biological weapons. — counterpunch

Why would we create small guns, then larger guns, then just stop all of a sudden. Someone makes a gun, you make a bigger gun. It goes back to the same dynamic "if you don't do it, somebody else will" or "you snooze, you lose".

To your point though. I'm not sure if "the Church" is some single malevolent organization disingenuously masquerading as an envoy of a greater power to lull those who believe in the possibility into conformity and submission to you or just those who believe there is something greater and chooses to live in accordance to that or not, if we take the scientific approach you admire we still have the drawbacks and potential doomsday possibilities as a result now that we did not have before. That's fact, whereas your quoted theory remains exactly that, a theory.

This isn't the 16th century where the Church was part of government and heliocentrists were locked away. Nearly all professors, scientists, and men of position are not theists. This occurred long before even the hydrogen bomb. Back then, I think explosive barrels on catapults were the maximum damage potential available via science.

Science is the process of observing and testing hypothesis in the natural world in order to gain some benefit. The hijacked definition of science is that because of this, there is no room for religion, faith, spirituality, etc. You continue to push this dynamic of opposite and opposing forces ie. the ultimatum of one or the other. I humbly reject this, along with many other people.

I am literally living in fear for my life every day, and this guy is getting away with it. — baker

You've yet to explain what they are actually doing. What are they doing?

Are you an introvert who's disinclined to be "neighborly" with your other neighbors? Like was said before there's strength in numbers. If they decrease your property value, they decrease not only their own but others around them. Which removes the "morality for the sake of morality" dynamic.