Today I told my 5 year old son that God doesn't exist... (verse, freedom)

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Clintone

Some people probably would find the prospect of an afterlife appealing if it existed though.

I am not dealing in probably. "Probably" on forums just tends to be a word people use to say whatever baseless thing they like while incorporating a disclaimer into it. I rather expect anyone who finds the concept of ETERNITY appealing simply has not applied much imagination or thinking to the concept of how horrific such a thing would likely be.

Maybe it wouldn't be appealing eventually...but it'd make sense some people would want it initially. It'd make sense they'd fantasize about it too.

So now to your repeated and again failed attempts to suggest the analogy is invalid when it is actually perfectly invalid and all your attempts to prove otherwise are themselves useless and invalid................

Originally Posted by Clintone

1. You typed "And if life is an eternal resource, what value does it have?" It has value because this life has value.

That is an example of "begging the question" I am afraid. In my analogy I clearly asked why life has value and what gives it that value and mediates the quantity of that value. All you have done is reply by reasserting that it HAS value. Which bypasses my actual points and questions not just slightly, but entirely.

You are essentially addressing my answers by doing little more than restating the questions which is about as useful as a Zimmerframe with 4 legs of different sizes.

Originally Posted by Clintone

2. Despite that eternal life seems like it would eventually lose value due to boredom...even that is not necessarily true

Again missing my point entirely. I am talking not just about the value of that ETERNAL life but the value of THIS life in the face of belief in an eternal one. I repeat once again: What real value does it have to "sacrifice your life for a person, place or ideal" if one has an eternal supply of life? Such sacrifices are rendered meaningless by such a concept. What then IS the value of life here and now if this is the case?

Originally Posted by Clintone

if someone wants an afterlife, it only makes sense he or she will not be thinking about long-term boredom

So your entire response to me so far, and everything I said on the subject, is merely to make the point that people who desire an after life have essentially been intellectually lazy and not actually thought too deeply about the concept.

Originally Posted by Clintone

Then there's that most people don't 100% believe there is an afterlife. How could they?

Once again missing the point. I am not talking about beliefs here. I am talking about the implications of the concept, irregardless of whether people believe the concept or not. Once again in plain english: If there exists an eternal after life then the concept of self sacrifice here and now is rendered worthless, empty and meaningless.

Originally Posted by Clintone

However, some atheists would describe death as something neither to be feared, nor desired...just transitioning from being to un-being. Either way, you're leaving your home and friends and society.

But the point (missed by you again) is that regardless of fear or desire, the person making that sacrifice is actually giving something finite and complete. They are giving all of everything they have in the sacrifice. Something they are simply not doing in the face of the after life concept.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I see no reason why an eternal life would be more dull at its start than this life would be.

But this has absolutely no bearing on the point I am making whatsoever. Nothing I have said has anything at all to do with whether it is "dull" or not. Not even a little. You are now replying to things I have not even said, with replies that do not address a single thing I have said. Back to the variable leg length zimmerframe again.

Originally Posted by Clintone

It seems like, because your analogy and above statements are accurate in so few ways

Except the analogy is not inaccurate, not misleading at all, it holds perfectly, and all your attempts to negate it have failed, been irrelevant to my actual points, or have just been fallacious things like restating the questions rather than address the answer.

But by all means make another attempt. Perhaps you will do better next time.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I am not dealing in probably. "Probably" on forums just tends to be a word people use to say whatever baseless thing they like while incorporating a disclaimer into it. I rather expect anyone who finds the concept of ETERNITY appealing simply has not applied much imagination or thinking to the concept of how horrific such a thing would likely be.

Maybe it wouldn't be appealing eventually...but it'd make sense some people would want it initially. It'd make sense they'd fantasize about it too.

So now to your repeated and again failed attempts to suggest the analogy is invalid when it is actually perfectly invalid and all your attempts to prove otherwise are themselves useless and invalid................

You are wrong and I already explained why. Eternal life...assuming we're viewing an afterlife as eternal at all...might be terrible in certain circumstances. You are being irrational. I could say "An eternal afterlife from god gives hope to a hopeless world." That phrase is very similar to what you're doing. It's a reality-warping propaganda phrase that is at most useful as a personal opinion or catchy phrase. It's true in some circumstances...not most.

That is an example of "begging the question" I am afraid. In my analogy I clearly asked why life has value and what gives it that value and mediates the quantity of that value. All you have done is reply by reasserting that it HAS value. Which bypasses my actual points and questions not just slightly, but entirely.

You are essentially addressing my answers by doing little more than restating the questions which is about as useful as a Zimmerframe with 4 legs of different sizes.

I have no idea what this means.

Again missing my point entirely. I am talking not just about the value of that ETERNAL life but the value of THIS life in the face of belief in an eternal one. I repeat once again: What real value does it have to "sacrifice your life for a person, place or ideal" if one has an eternal supply of life? Such sacrifices are rendered meaningless by such a concept. What then IS the value of life here and now if this is the case?

I already told you: Instinct-fullfillment/dream-fullfilment/etc. You are doing a very similar verbal tricking-of-yourself someone does when they say "Why not blow yourself up if you don't believe in an afterlife or god? Everything you do will be forgotten anyway?" Both don't make sense unless you twist reality a certain way.

So your entire response to me so far, and everything I said on the subject, is merely to make the point that people who desire an after life have essentially been intellectually lazy and not actually thought too deeply about the concept.

no. Re-read my comments.

Once again missing the point. I am not talking about beliefs here. I am talking about the implications of the concept, irregardless of whether people believe the concept or not. Once again in plain english: If there exists an eternal after life then the concept of self sacrifice here and now is rendered worthless, empty and meaningless.

And I believe I've already acknowledged somewhere or other that belief in an afterlife would decrease the value of this life. You've done nothing to show why this life would be meaningless though.

But the point (missed by you again) is that regardless of fear or desire, the person making that sacrifice is actually giving something finite and complete. They are giving all of everything they have in the sacrifice. Something they are simply not doing in the face of the after life concept.

so the sacrifice might decrease in value if a person believes in an afterlife. I think I already said or implied that makes sense somewhere or other.

But this has absolutely no bearing on the point I am making whatsoever. Nothing I have said has anything at all to do with whether it is "dull" or not. Not even a little. You are now replying to things I have not even said, with replies that do not address a single thing I have said. Back to the variable leg length zimmerframe again.

the only negative to a genuine afterlife I can think of would be it eventually getting dull.

Except the analogy is not inaccurate, not misleading at all, it holds perfectly, and all your attempts to negate it have failed, been irrelevant to my actual points, or have just been fallacious things like restating the questions rather than address the answer.

But by all means make another attempt. Perhaps you will do better next time.

The analogy looks like a brainwashing attempt...unless it's stated as a personal opinion or a sort of uplifting catch-phrase, rather than something stated in an intelligent discussion, or as a universal truth like you seemed to use it as. You seem to have brainwashed yourself...like I'd originally wondered about. Now I think you're more likely to be biased than I used to. I will trust your perspectives less unless you agree that I'm correct...or you can convince me why I'm wrong.

Thank you for your comments.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Clintone

You are wrong and I already explained why.

Except I am not, and I have explained why.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I could say "An eternal afterlife from god gives hope to a hopeless world."

You could _say_ it, but saying something does not make it useful or true. The question would be can you _substantiate_ it at all? And clearly so far that answer is no.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I have no idea what this means.

It means exactly what it says. That you were "begging the question". I was asking what gives life meaning, and your sole reply was to re-assert that it _has_ meaning. Which does not answer the question at all.

Originally Posted by Clintone

no. Re-read my comments.

I did so, and replied to them, I see no utility in reading them again.

Originally Posted by Clintone

And I believe I've already acknowledged somewhere or other that belief in an afterlife would decrease the value of this life.

Originally Posted by Clintone

the only negative to a genuine afterlife I can think of would be it eventually getting dull.

So in one paragraph you acknowledge and agree with me about a negative.... then in the next you say you can not think of any other negatives??? What about the one you just acknowledged and agreed with?

Its a bit like saying "I know mcdonalds food is healthy and damaging, and I agree with that. But the only negative I can think of mcdonalds food is that it tastes crap".

Originally Posted by Clintone

You've done nothing to show why this life would be meaningless though.

Why would I given that this is not what I am saying? I am certainly not in the habit of backing up things I never said. Are you?

I said the GIVING of that life would be meaningless if all you are doing is giving of an infinite resource.

Originally Posted by Clintone

The analogy looks like a brainwashing attempt

Except no it does not. And it is not. I rather fear you are just trying to slip the buzzword "brainwashing" in in the hopes it makes a point for you where you otherwise have failed to do so.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Except I am not, and I have explained why.



You could _say_ it, but saying something does not make it useful or true. The question would be can you _substantiate_ it at all? And clearly so far that answer is no.

I agree. I cannot substantiate it. I wouldn't see the point of attempting to do so anyway. "God gives hope to a hopeless world" is a mostly irrational statement. So is your statement:

I rather expect anyone who finds the concept of ETERNITY appealing simply has not applied much imagination or thinking to the concept of how horrific such a thing would likely be.

and for the same reason. You are creating your own concept of an afterlife and attempting to force it on others. Someone who says "God gives hope to a hopeless world" is also creating a false worldview they're trying to force on others.

The afterlife is a fantasy some people have. Naturally...it's going to be imagined as a happy, utopian place most of the time because why would we not imagine it to be that way? If you're trying to imagine what eternity would actually be like...I have no idea how you could come close to being accurate. We'd probably have to not have our bodies we see now. We'd presumably find out a whole bunch of the laws of physics are wrong. (assuming we'd still have an understanding of science at all). Our thoughts might work differently. My point is...you cannot say an afterlife would be horrible any more than I can say "I hate the aliens of Alpha Centauri because they smell funny." This sort of attack how someone might view an afterlife is just you smashing someone's ideas about aliens into the ground and saying "No! The Alpha Centauraurans aren't friendly! We've never met them...but you have to view them like I view them! They're smelly, nasty creatures...not the good-looking green women from Star Trek!

Regarding your idea that has been the focus of my complaints:

Why is gold precious? It is precious because it is rare. If you could multiply the quantity of gold on this planet 100,000 times bigger over night it would lose most of its value.

That is wrong because of reasons I have explained already. It is also wrong because life does not get its value from being finite. Life gets its value from our sensations and our ability to experience fun, happy things and help others we wish to experience fun, happy things to experience them. One of the flaws in that above analogy is that it implies that eternity would be a bad thing. However...the concept of eternity is a fantasy. It's imagined and something we can't really understand now. Therefore, we cannot say it would be a bad thing...yet the analogy tries to paint it as a negative thing...and so it is brainwashing/misleading.

If life was not finite...we cannot say it would be worse for sure. All we could say for sure would be that it would be different.

It means exactly what it says. That you were "begging the question". I was asking what gives life meaning, and your sole reply was to re-assert that it _has_ meaning. Which does not answer the question at all.

I explained it in post #392. The value of this life/what gives it meaning is: Instinct-fullfillment/dream-fullfilment/etc. That is the value of life regardless of whether its finite or infinite.

So in one paragraph you acknowledge and agree with me about a negative.... then in the next you say you can not think of any other negatives??? What about the one you just acknowledged and agreed with?

Its a bit like saying "I know mcdonalds food is healthy and damaging, and I agree with that. But the only negative I can think of mcdonalds food is that it tastes crap".

I typed that a genuine afterlife would decrease the value of this life...but if an actual afterlife existed I see no reason why that would be a bad thing. We'd just trade off some benefits of this life for some benefits in the next one. For example, maybe we'd spend more time preparing for the next life...thus removing time from this life to enhance the next. So...a belief in an afterlife would seem like it could (I should have typed could rather than would, because there is a chance a belief in an afterlife would uplift some people and actually enhance this life) detract from this life. However, the only disadvantage to an actual afterlife I can think of would be boredom.

Why would I given that this is not what I am saying? I am certainly not in the habit of backing up things I never said. Are you?

I said the GIVING of that life would be meaningless if all you are doing is giving of an infinite resource.

But if you're going to cease to be after dying...is that really any more of a sacrifice than going to some strange new world? In both instances you're leaving your old life behind. You're getting away from hardship in this world, but you're also losing your ability to affect this world through personal action. The sacrifice is only meaningless, depending on the variant of afterlife we're talking about, and how likely the believer considers the afterlife to exist.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Clintone

I agree. I cannot substantiate it. I wouldn't see the point of attempting to do so anyway. "God gives hope to a hopeless world" is a mostly irrational statement.

Then there is some agreement with us.

Originally Posted by Clintone

So is your statement:

Except it is a perfectly rational statement. I would not have made it were it not. And what is more you have agreed with one of the main reasons as to WHY it is a rational statement. So in one hand you entirely agree with me, yet in the other hand you are pretending you are not. So the one not being rational here is you, you and just you.

As we have both agreed, an ETERNAL life would start off well and then become horrific. As I noted earlier Christopher Hitchens put it best. His take is worth repeating. Being told you are going to die is like being at the best party ever, tapped on the shoulder, and told you have to leave.... but that the party will go on without you. Being told you are going to live forever however is like being tapped on the shoulder and told that the party will never end, and you can never leave.

Originally Posted by Clintone

The afterlife is a fantasy some people have. Naturally...it's going to be imagined as a happy

And as I said above there is not much imagination going into it except for some cursory barely skin deep superficial happy slappy stuff. I am not seeing any evidence that anyone is deeply considering the concept or what "eternity" actually means or entails or would even be like. The most I get from people navel gazing on the concept is the muslim style "grapes and virgins" concept of an after life where base human desires are catered to and easily satiated. It really is that superficial and barely thought out.

Originally Posted by Clintone

That is wrong because of reasons I have explained already.

Except it is not wrong. For the reasons I have explained already. See we can both type this empty meaningless line over and over. I am happy to stop when you are.

Originally Posted by Clintone

It is also wrong because life does not get its value from being finite.

Then what does it get it from? All you did was list some more "begging the question" type things like "experience of fun". But what gives THAT its value. That is just part of life. So basically this is where we are going:

1) You assert life has value.
2) I ask you what gives life value.
3) You break "life" down into constituent parts and assert they have value, which is essentially just doing 1) again but more piecemeal.
4) I repeat and ask you what gives life value.

You are not answering the question so much as breaking the question into tiny parts and leaving them unanswered too.

Again however: The rarity and transience of life is certainly a constituent part to its value. That there is only one you, or one me, and there is no reason to think we will last more than another 50 years, let alone that we will ever exist again or anyone like us will ever exist again..... adds to the value of us. It adds to the value of life. And if one is to claim that there will infinitely and forever be a "me" then that does, whether you like it or not, or whether you are desperate to put the word "brain washing" into every post or not, simply does erode the value.

After all why do we value individuality at all? Why is the idea of worlds like Orwells 1984 or countries like North Korea horrify us? Why is the concept of us all being entirely the same in every way so horrific? Why does the idea of being cloned and duplicated make people sick to their stomach?

Again the answer is because we derive value from our individuality and uniqueness. We simply derive value from such things and the fact that there is only one of us, and only ever will be on of us, gives "us" that value.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I explained it in post #392. The value of this life/what gives it meaning is: Instinct-fullfillment/dream-fullfilment/etc. That is the value of life regardless of whether its finite or infinite.]

And as I explained above that does not answer the question, but breaks the question down into smaller parts and simply leaves them unanswered too. It is "begging the question". You are essentially not answering the question by simply restating it in another form.

Further there are reasons to think that things like "instinct fulfillment" might be a really poor measure for this. There are people sitting in solitude who are espousing notions that there are good reasons to think that human happiness can actually precede the fulfillment of ones moment to moment desires. That the idea of human happiness or purpose or value might not be contingent on fulfilling every neurotic desire that careens into our consciousness but that can precede it in isolation.

Further again: Much of the "instinct fulfillment" I can think of is not something that gives value to life at all.... such as breathing and eating and drinking..... but are pre-requisites for it. That our physiology has evolved to provide a pleasure/pain response when we do or do not fulfill these requirements is only very subjectively a "value" measure for life. In essence we are also slaves to these requirements and captive to them.

So your answer to the question is a) not really an answer b) mostly irrelevant to the question and c) highly subjective. Any one of which torpedoes your notions, but all three together massacres them.

Originally Posted by Clintone

For example, maybe we'd spend more time preparing for the next life...thus removing time from this life to enhance the next.

And that is what we see in practice all too often. People wasting this life to improve their quality of life in an after life that we have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON at this time to think even exists. And this is a bad thing. I gave already the example of the parents who willingly watch their children die painfully of easily treatable conditions for no other reason than their beliefs in the after life. An after life that there is no reason to think exists. What a horrific and criminal waste of life all mitigated by nothing more than people wasting life HERE AND NOW to improve the quality of a life there is _no reason_ to think they will ever have.

THAT is the legacy of the application of this happy slappy nonsense you think is not a bad idea. Forget your "COULD detract from this life". We have objective, clear cut, cases of where it DOES do so. In egregious and horrific ways. That is the legacy we have. That is the legacy you defend. For shame.

Originally Posted by Clintone

But if you're going to cease to be after dying...is that really any more of a sacrifice than going to some strange new world?

Of course it is. You are literally taking everything you are, and everything you have, and giving it away forever for the benefit of a person, place or ideal. I can think of few sacrifices greater. Can you?

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by WSPHXPELON

My son is 5 years old. Ever since he was born I have been asking myself how I am going to educate him in regard to religion...My wife's side of the family are fairly Catholic. My mother-in-law had my son baptized when he was a baby (I did not protest). Well, I had finally decided that what I would tell my son regarding "God" would be that I would just avoid the subject and/or "play it off" like I was a believer when the subject came up...

Well, today, for the first time ever, my son started asking me questions about God. I just couldn't make myself betray my son by feeding him lies. I told him the truth, that God, "is not real"; and I explained that some people believe very strongly that God does exist but that my personal belief which I feel to be true is that God does not exist.

Well, he was okay with it. He said, "Okay, God isn't real. Only Santa Claus is real and he is the one that takes care of us, right?" So, I had already broken the news to him about God (the big lie), so I broke the news to him about Santa Claus as well. I told him that Santa Claus is not real either and that the presents are from me and my wife. I told him that the only people that will "take care of us", are us; and that is why we must be good people and value and appreciate each other and our families. He seemed very understanding and none of it seemed to upset him the slightest.

Long story short, did I just mess up?? Should I have let the facade carried on for years??

What do you think? How have you handled raising children being an Atheist? Please just share some thoughts on this topic because it has really been bothering me....

I am a little shocked you would tell your 5 year old :there is no God" There are many ways to explain different views than to be so up front because you do not believe. This holds for Santa as well. I think it might have been easier when it came to Santa, to tell him, if nothing else Santa is the spirit of Christmas. this would not be a lie.

I hope you did explain to him, he is not supposed to tell his friends about this.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by John13

Not as bad as Baptism, god belief, or forcing children to go to church. All 3 are a form of child abuse.

in your mind maybe, but not in many. what is child abuse to one, isn't to others. What is wrong with a young spending an hour or two once a week in church. If nothing else they get to visit with friends and later in life, they can make their own decisions. Wouldn't it be child abuse if the entire family leaves a child at home, by him/herself on Sunday to attend church or do you think no one in the family should go to church?

[John13]

Originally Posted by nmnita

in your mind maybe, but not in many. what is child abuse to one, isn't to others. What is wrong with a young spending an hour or two once a week in church. If nothing else they get to visit with friends and later in life, they can make their own decisions. Wouldn't it be child abuse if the entire family leaves a child at home, by him/herself on Sunday to attend church or do you think no one in the family should go to church?

Are you lost or something?

Do you realize what board this is?

I stand by my opinion that it is a form of child abuse, no "maybe" about it. I hate religion with a passion and there is no sense me having further dialog with you. Overall I find your post rude and insulting. When one is old enough to stay home alone he/she should be allowed to do that. Until then, or in many cases until one turns 18, the child does not have a choice. That's just common sense that a parent can't leave a young child home alone.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by nmnita

There are many ways to explain different views than to be so up front because you do not believe.

I doubt it is anything to do with him not beleiving and all to do with the fact that there is no reason to think there is a god. We also tell our children there is no monsters. Can we prove there is no monsters 100%? No. Can we find people who have "different views" and think there is monsters? Of course. But we still tell our children there is no monsters because there is ZERO reason to think there is any.

Similarly there is not a single reason on offer to think there is a god. Literally nothing. So I will treat "god" and "monsters" the EXACT same in discourse with my children.

Originally Posted by nmnita

I hope you did explain to him, he is not supposed to tell his friends about this.

I can not think of a single reason at this time to tell children such a thing.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Then there is some agreement with us.



Except it is a perfectly rational statement. I would not have made it were it not. And what is more you have agreed with one of the main reasons as to WHY it is a rational statement. So in one hand you entirely agree with me, yet in the other hand you are pretending you are not. So the one not being rational here is you, you and just you.

As we have both agreed, an ETERNAL life would start off well and then become horrific. As I noted earlier Christopher Hitchens put it best. His take is worth repeating. Being told you are going to die is like being at the best party ever, tapped on the shoulder, and told you have to leave.... but that the party will go on without you. Being told you are going to live forever however is like being tapped on the shoulder and told that the party will never end, and you can never leave.

I don't think an afterlife would necessarily start out well then become horrific. I think making that assumption requires going much farther into the realm of fantasy than is useful. I have absolutely no idea what it would be like to be in any afterlife. I think if it were much like this life it would get old eventually...probably...but then even for an eternal afterlife to be as close as possible to this life our brains would have to work differently than they do now, because we now have a limited amount of mental storage space. Therefore even assuming an eternal afterlife would get boring if it were as close as possible to this life seems like quite a jump into the realm of fantasy.

And as I said above there is not much imagination going into it except for some cursory barely skin deep superficial happy slappy stuff. I am not seeing any evidence that anyone is deeply considering the concept or what "eternity" actually means or entails or would even be like. The most I get from people navel gazing on the concept is the muslim style "grapes and virgins" concept of an after life where base human desires are catered to and easily satiated. It really is that superficial and barely thought out.

I'll agree that most people don't seem to think much about what an afterlife would actually be like. I could see this lack of thought as either a positive or negative thing though. If they're thinking something like that will be my reward in heaven! I can hardly wait! that seems kind of stupid. However, if they're thinking something like: I'm just going to assume after we die we go to a magical happy land forever...I see nothing unwise about that second line of thought. The first line of thought is fooling oneself. The second line of thought is using the idea of an afterlife as a tool to uplift.

My objection to your views is your seem to be grouping both that first and second thought process together. Are you assuming that first line of thought (that will be my reward in heaven! I can hardly wait!) is more common than that second line of thought? (I'm just going to assume after we die we go to a magical happy land forever). If you are assuming that, why? I would think most people believe in an afterlife...but just assume it will be a happy, magical place because they know they got to die sometime, and they can't think of a reason to think of the afterlife as horrible. I would therefore see an afterlife as not a horrendous thing in most people's minds...and they're not being lazy. They're just using the afterlife as a tool to attempt to improve this life. Maybe it works to improve this life. Maybe they'd be better off thinking there was no afterlife. I don't know...but in neither case would I think most people are being intellectually lazy, or view their perceived afterlife as a terrible place.

Except it is not wrong. For the reasons I have explained already. See we can both type this empty meaningless line over and over. I am happy to stop when you are.



Then what does it get it from? All you did was list some more "begging the question" type things like "experience of fun". But what gives THAT its value. That is just part of life. So basically this is where we are going:

1) You assert life has value.
2) I ask you what gives life value.
3) You break "life" down into constituent parts and assert they have value, which is essentially just doing 1) again but more piecemeal.
4) I repeat and ask you what gives life value.

I don't understand what you don't understand about life having value because of "experience of fun." I don't see how we could go any deeper than some sort of positive emotional experiences for us or others to determine what gives life value.

You are not answering the question so much as breaking the question into tiny parts and leaving them unanswered too.

Again however: The rarity and transience of life is certainly a constituent part to its value. That there is only one you, or one me, and there is no reason to think we will last more than another 50 years, let alone that we will ever exist again or anyone like us will ever exist again..... adds to the value of us. It adds to the value of life. And if one is to claim that there will infinitely and forever be a "me" then that does, whether you like it or not, or whether you are desperate to put the word "brain washing" into every post or not, simply does erode the value.

After all why do we value individuality at all? Why is the idea of worlds like Orwells 1984 or countries like North Korea horrify us? Why is the concept of us all being entirely the same in every way so horrific? Why does the idea of being cloned and duplicated make people sick to their stomach?

I don't think rarity and transience of life are part of its value...or at least not a major part. Rarity is more like something we want...but we could probably do without. I might not like there being five of me...but deep down I think I'd still know who I am. I'd get used to it. I am that which looks out through my eyes at the world. I would not be the other five that look and act like me, even if they'd share my memories. That's all I'd really need to know. I don't think I would have a problem with cloned humans, if it were safe and the person being cloned was the person choosing to be cloned. It might be an interesting form of elongating life if we could find a way to upload our memories into newly grown clones of ourselves.

I'm not afraid of everyone being entirely the same. I don't like the situation in North Korea because it's forced. I'd see nothing to fear about a baseball team filled with 9 of myself though.

Again the answer is because we derive value from our individuality and uniqueness. We simply derive value from such things and the fact that there is only one of us, and only ever will be on of us, gives "us" that value.



And as I explained above that does not answer the question, but breaks the question down into smaller parts and simply leaves them unanswered too. It is "begging the question". You are essentially not answering the question by simply restating it in another form.

Further there are reasons to think that things like "instinct fulfillment" might be a really poor measure for this. There are people sitting in solitude who are espousing notions that there are good reasons to think that human happiness can actually precede the fulfillment of ones moment to moment desires. That the idea of human happiness or purpose or value might not be contingent on fulfilling every neurotic desire that careens into our consciousness but that can precede it in isolation.

Further again: Much of the "instinct fulfillment" I can think of is not something that gives value to life at all.... such as breathing and eating and drinking..... but are pre-requisites for it. That our physiology has evolved to provide a pleasure/pain response when we do or do not fulfill these requirements is only very subjectively a "value" measure for life. In essence we are also slaves to these requirements and captive to them.

So your answer to the question is a) not really an answer b) mostly irrelevant to the question and c) highly subjective. Any one of which torpedoes your notions, but all three together massacres them.



And that is what we see in practice all too often. People wasting this life to improve their quality of life in an after life that we have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON at this time to think even exists. And this is a bad thing. I gave already the example of the parents who willingly watch their children die painfully of easily treatable conditions for no other reason than their beliefs in the after life. An after life that there is no reason to think exists. What a horrific and criminal waste of life all mitigated by nothing more than people wasting life HERE AND NOW to improve the quality of a life there is _no reason_ to think they will ever have.

THAT is the legacy of the application of this happy slappy nonsense you think is not a bad idea. Forget your "COULD detract from this life". We have objective, clear cut, cases of where it DOES do so. In egregious and horrific ways. That is the legacy we have. That is the legacy you defend. For shame.

It could detract from this life. It may not always. It might uplift some people enough to make up for it.

Of course it is. You are literally taking everything you are, and everything you have, and giving it away forever for the benefit of a person, place or ideal. I can think of few sacrifices greater. Can you?

I'm not convinced. I don't see how that's necessarily more of a loss than going to somewhere else after dying...assuming we don't know exactly what it will be like.

Your analogy is still irrational.