I find it ironic, that some have faith in cryogenics given the evidence for any possible success is certainly no better and in many ways much less then the evidence for a omnipotent creator who will resurrect your body at a future date.
I forget who said it, but there is an argument for believing in God which says "if you don't believe, and He does exist, you lose everything. If you do believe, but He does not exist, then you've lost nothing. So you might as well believe."
The problem with that, is which God should you choose to believe in? Zeus? Odin? Amun-Ra? Someone else?
The reason I bring this up, is that cryogenics is a bit like that. If you choose to be frozen, and in the future they are able to revive you, you get a second lease on life. If it turns out that they cannot revive you, it's no different than if you hadn't gotten frozen. So if you can afford it, you might as well freeze yourself. The difference here, is there is no "but which God should I believe in?" problem. At least not as far as I can tell.
We have a bright future in our imaginations instead of an afterlife.
And now you have me wondering about something.
How does one balance the belief in an afterlife with the belief that, one day, a frozen body will possibly be revivable? If someone believes in an afterlife, then they believe in the existence of the soul. So what happens to your soul while you are frozen, and is this true for with all frozen bodies, or just ones that were frozen in a lab?
I'm not here to debate the existence of souls and afterlives (I believe in neither). I am simply curious how the people who do believe in such things view cryogenics.
Old as I am, I still haven't figured out why death is such a big deal to so many people. It's not something anyone will suffer.
Isn't that a bit like saying "I don't know why jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is such a big deal. It's not something anyone will suffer", just flipped a bit? Yes, the instant of death / falling may not hurt, but it's the dying / sudden stop at the end that I think most people are worried about how much suffering they will endure from that.
There were probably some Domino's locations that did nothing but give out free pizza's all day. How anyone thought that was sustainable I don't know...
Free to the T-Mobile subscriber does not necessarily mean Domino's does not get paid for the pizza. It isn't clear whether or not T-Mobile was paying Domino's for each and every pizza.
The problem is that the people foisting this irrational argument (Pascal's wager) is that they never fully consider the reward/punish matrix and make another box for reward for being an atheists.
I thought the problem was the people foisting this irrational argument assume that you won't pick Zeus, or Odin, or Ra, or any of the many many many other gods that are not the particular god they think you should pick.
Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind.
It can be, but in this case, no it isn't.
the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out.
If Karmashock wanted to shut them up, why would they say "Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment."? It seems clear to me that Karmashock isn't trying to shut anyone up. What they want, is to have a discussion where actual legal change can occur. Trying to ban guns without changing the constitution is unconstitutional.
And no, I abhor guns. But backdoors are wrong, whether they are for encryption, or law.
There is no right to not be offended,
and this shouting down of what other people have to say because you don't like it means you would shit all over free speech for your own ends.
Incorrect. You have the right to say something offensive, but they absolutely have the right to say "I'm offended by that". And of course, you have the right to respond back "tough shit". Because Freedom of Speech goes all ways.
I view this as no different than a bunch of church-ladies picketing to stop Andrew Dice Clay, or someone protesting outside of a place that sells bacon because they disagree with eating bacon -- it's the tyranny of a very vocal minority who feels it is their right to control what others do.
And those church-ladies have every right to do that, because Freedom of Speech goes all ways. Allowing those people to say those things is not "tyranny of a very vocal minority", it is the very essence of Freedom of Speech.
No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.