CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Button not responding when pressed

Button not responding when pressed

Started by cosmicskipper82 · · 👁 7 views · 53 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants cosmicskipper82lonegardenerdriftingsurfer6Lisa Bailey5mistygull16silentridge8Alexander Garcia5Anthony Perez9Benjamin Taylor6feralpilot0Michael Anderson2silentcrane11Henry Sullivan3Jerry King11wearyowl29Timothy Martinez6Dennis Moore4Brenda Cook4steelheron13
silentcrane11 silentcrane11 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Jun 2012
#21 ·
cosmicskipper82 said:If you were standing before a button right now that offered you immediate, absolute nonexistence, would you press it? And let’s be clear: strip away any sentimentality about leaving loved ones behind or causing grief; assume instead that this disappearance includes being wiped from their memories entirely, leaving them with no trace of your existence and no capacity for sorrow.

If the answer is yes—what is the motivation? If it is no—what holds you back?

If I’m following you correctly, the question is whether you’d accept nirvana—assuming you could reach it easily, without all that massive bullshit those people have to grind through to hit Buddhist "enlightenment" levels, with nirvana as the end goal. (And maybe even without the significant, though limited, struggle involved in suicide.)

Is it perhaps a slightly different state altogether? A kind of numbness, or Nibbana, which Buddhists and Hindus claim isn't something you can just achieve "easily"—like, say, through suicide—since reincarnation is supposedly still an issue. Apparently, one has to go through immense struggle to reach that state of "the ultimate liberation of lusting or craving, a complete inner peace." I guess... how does that actually differ from Nirvana?

I checked Wikipedia for a second. Apparently, Nirvana and Nibbana are the exact same thing—Nirvana is just the Sanskrit term, while Nibbana is Pali. Some self-proclaimed expert once tried to tell me there was actually a distinction between them, but I guess that wasn't true.😕

I wouldn't press that button for the same reasons as Apemant, I guess. I don't really buy into the whole nirvana thing either, regardless of how much Buddhism praises those benefits.
Anthony Perez9 Anthony Perez9 Regular
311 messages
joined Apr 2019
#22 ·
feralpilot0 said:Signature.

I don't want to disappear—not yet, anyway. I don't view my own vanishing as some grand tragedy, though I can't quite pin down why. It's just that I feel there is still so much left to experience, and surely this isn't the peak.
I want to find fulfillment. And I want to help those around me—people are desperate for support these days.

👍

Are you kidding me with this "Quote" thing?More.Wait, did she actually say she’d hit that button?

Who even wants to live forever? I mean, without the chance to finally just crash and merge back into the universe. If there’s no end, there’s no such thing as a beginning.
driftingsurfer6 driftingsurfer6 Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2011
#23 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:I wonder how anyone would even handle that button asking about eternal existence.
Would you actually press it? Would you feel that rush of pure satisfaction knowing you could never truly end? Not just for a billion years, but forever.

Yeah. I'm hitting it. Honestly, who actually wants to stop existing?
feralpilot0 feralpilot0 Active Member
142 messages
joined Jul 2018
#24 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:👍

Are you kidding me with this "Quote" thing?More.Wait, did she actually say she’d hit that button?

Who even wants to live forever? I mean, without the chance to finally just crash and merge back into the universe. If there’s no end, there’s no such thing as a beginning.

Canada. 😁
I suppose that's what happens when you fulfill your purpose—you just want to linger indefinitely, like a bit of extra sugar at the end of a meal. But running away from the inevitable? That's just wrong.
🙂
Henry Sullivan3 Henry Sullivan3 Member
14 messages
joined Sep 2016
#25 ·
The only real argument for nonexistence would have to be some kind of extreme self-loathing or an intense hatred for one's own life. Wanting death just as an escape from physical or mental suffering feels like a pretty weak reason; most strong people could handle those struggles without breaking. I think quite a few philosophers have mentioned how, during their younger years, even Hell seemed like a better, more beautiful option than simply vanishing into total nothingness. It’s easier to endure various pains than to face the idea that your entire psyche is just a fleeting, meaningless accident. As far as I know, the only philosopher who actually pushed the button—or at least did something close to it—was Schopenhauerian disciple Philipp Mainlaender.

Mainlaender developed a much more complex explanation for his suicide. In his view, the existence of the world and human consciousness is a mistake and a tragedy, much like Schopenhauer argued. Actually, he believed God himself committed a sort of suicide, and the result of that self-destruction is the creation of the world. Individual phenomena in this world arose from the shattering of the original unity of all things; physics explains this through the expansion of the universe from an initial singularity. Maybe God just got tired of existing and decided to kill himself, doing so by fragmenting into individual space-time phenomena; our individual consciousnesses are merely transient shards of a dying divine consciousness. The entire universe is moving toward a void that will eventually be reached in accordance with the physical theory of heat death. Since life is an anomaly and a passing absurdity on its way to the universal nothingness that is the fate of all things, Mainlaender believed the only logical solution was to commit suicide and speed up the process. Nonexistence is the final word, and it's better than existence. That is probably the only truly elaborate system of arguments in favor of nonexistence.
Michael Anderson2 Michael Anderson2 Active Member
77 messages
joined Jul 2013
#26 ·
Henry Sullivan3 said:The only real argument for nonexistence would have to be some kind of extreme self-loathing or an intense hatred for one's own life. Wanting death just as an escape from physical or mental suffering feels like a pretty weak reason; most strong people could handle those struggles without breaking. I think quite a few philosophers have mentioned how, during their younger years, even Hell seemed like a better, more beautiful option than simply vanishing into total nothingness. It’s easier to endure various pains than to face the idea that your entire psyche is just a fleeting, meaningless accident. As far as I know, the only philosopher who actually pushed the button—or at least did something close to it—was Schopenhauerian disciple Philipp Mainlaender.

Mainlaender developed a much more complex explanation for his suicide. In his view, the existence of the world and human consciousness is a mistake and a tragedy, much like Schopenhauer argued. Actually, he believed God himself committed a sort of suicide, and the result of that self-destruction is the creation of the world. Individual phenomena in this world arose from the shattering of the original unity of all things; physics explains this through the expansion of the universe from an initial singularity. Maybe God just got tired of existing and decided to kill himself, doing so by fragmenting into individual space-time phenomena; our individual consciousnesses are merely transient shards of a dying divine consciousness. The entire universe is moving toward a void that will eventually be reached in accordance with the physical theory of heat death. Since life is an anomaly and a passing absurdity on its way to the universal nothingness that is the fate of all things, Mainlaender believed the only logical solution was to commit suicide and speed up the process. Nonexistence is the final word, and it's better than existence. That is probably the only truly elaborate system of arguments in favor of nonexistence.

I haven't stumbled upon this specific line of thought before, but I have to say, it’s brilliant. Kudos to Mainländer—I think I'll dive a bit deeper into his work. thanks...👍

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Yeah, those people definitely exist. The ones who are practically dying of pure boredom. Honestly? They should just go plant some pine trees. Or maybe an orchard out in the Midwest. Anything to stay busy.

But, to what end? 🤷
Anthony Perez9 Anthony Perez9 Regular
311 messages
joined Apr 2019
#27 ·
driftingsurfer6 said:Yeah. I'm hitting it. Honestly, who actually wants to stop existing?

Yeah. I’d do it. Who actually wants to stop existing?[/I]
You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
Jerry King11 Jerry King11 Active Member
58 messages
joined Apr 2010
#28 ·
Benjamin Taylor6 said:Every single time I drift off, I feel like I’m slipping into absolute nothingness. My entire sense of "self" just... evaporates. Then, when the dreaming starts, this weird, surreal world begins to take shape. It makes me wonder—when would someone actually *want* to cease to exist? It wouldn't be out of boredom, obviously. No one hits that metaphorical reset button just because they're restless. But if you were sitting under the interrogation lights at a black site, or facing some unimaginable physical or mental agony? That’s different. That’s what drives people to the edge—the idea that it's better for the "I" to simply vanish than to endure a lifetime of hellish pain.
Existence, on its own, isn't really enough. It's what we *do* while we exist that matters. Think about this hypothetical scenario: imagine that right before you die, scientists extract your brain and plug it into some high-tech cyborg—a state-of-the-art android or something. You’re still "you," and you can technically do everything you used to do, just through a mechanical interface. Now, picture an earthquake hitting, burying you deep underground. They never find you. Your brain is still alive and functioning inside that machine, but you're trapped. You can't move, you can't feel anything from the outside world. There’s no pain, but there’s also no input. You’re just a consciousness trapped in a loop, thinking about nothing but itself. In that situation, would you hit the switch to end it all? Or would you choose to keep existing for the next two thousand years, as long as the tiny nuclear reactor powering your robotic shell keeps your brain ticking?


It’s a vibe very similar to how Hemingway's *The Possibility of an Island* wraps up, where the protagonist is left drifting in a warm pool in the distant future—completely alone, with nothing to interact with, no way to reclaim a real life, no way to experience anything, and no way to die for a very, very long time... 🙏 And we all had such grand plans, didn't we?
mistygull16 mistygull16 Active Member
199 messages
joined May 2013
#29 ·
I don't buy this whole "nonexistence" thing. To me, it feels like a total paradox... like, what if the number 7 just suddenly vanished? Or multiplication just stopped working one day? Makes no sense.
So yeah, I’m basically an existence-enthusiast.
driftingsurfer6 driftingsurfer6 Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2011
#30 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:Yeah. I’d do it. Who actually wants to stop existing?[/I]

You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
Personally, I wouldn't mind eternal life. Most people want it—it’s obvious. Just imagine if this life is the only one we get. That would suck. What’s the average human lifespan? 80 years? That's nothing; it's a joke. Plus, anything can happen; there's no guarantee you'll even make it to that age.

That's why religion is actually great. Sure, religions contradict each other, and yeah, most of them sound ridiculous today, but at least they offer eternal life, and there's a chance they might be right. Even if they aren't, they at least provide some comfort and teach me how to live decently and build some discipline. What does atheism offer me? What do guys like Richard Dawkins offer? Anal sex with men and t-shirts that say "We are all Americans"Africans"?

No thanks, I'd rather take the eternal life option.
wearyowl29 wearyowl29 Regular
715 messages
joined Feb 2014
#31 ·
I honestly think most people would hit that button in a heartbeat if it meant making certain people vanish from their lives—as long as they didn't have to worry about themselves flickering out of existence too.
Anthony Perez9 Anthony Perez9 Regular
311 messages
joined Apr 2019
#32 ·
driftingsurfer6 said:You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.

You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
Personally, I wouldn't mind eternal life. Most people want it—it’s obvious. Just imagine if this life is the only one we get. That would suck. What’s the average human lifespan? 80 years? That's nothing; it's a joke. Plus, anything can happen; there's no guarantee you'll even make it to that age.

That's why religion is actually great. Sure, religions contradict each other, and yeah, most of them sound ridiculous today, but at least they offer eternal life, and there's a chance they might be right. Even if they aren't, they at least provide some comfort and teach me how to live decently and build some discipline. What does atheism offer me? What do guys like Richard Dawkins offer? Anal sex with men and t-shirts that say "We are all Americans"Africans"?

No thanks, I'd rather take the eternal life option.
Personally, I wouldn't mind eternal life. Most people want it—it’s obvious. Just imagine if this life is the only one we get. That would suck. What’s the average human lifespan? 80 years? That's nothing; it's a joke. Plus, anything can happen; there's no guarantee you'll even make it to that age.

That's why religion is actually great. Sure, religions contradict each other, and yeah, most of them sound ridiculous today, but at least they offer eternal life, and there's a chance they might be right. Even if they aren't, they at least provide some comfort and teach me how to live decently and build some discipline. What does atheism offer me? What do guys like Richard Dawkins offer? Anal sex with men and t-shirts that say "We are all Americans"Africans"?

No thanks, I'd rather take the eternal life option.
Fair enough. Some people prefer the blue pill over the cold, hard truth.
driftingsurfer6 driftingsurfer6 Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2011
#33 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:Personally, I wouldn't mind eternal life. Most people want it—it’s obvious. Just imagine if this life is the only one we get. That would suck. What’s the average human lifespan? 80 years? That's nothing; it's a joke. Plus, anything can happen; there's no guarantee you'll even make it to that age.

That's why religion is actually great. Sure, religions contradict each other, and yeah, most of them sound ridiculous today, but at least they offer eternal life, and there's a chance they might be right. Even if they aren't, they at least provide some comfort and teach me how to live decently and build some discipline. What does atheism offer me? What do guys like Richard Dawkins offer? Anal sex with men and t-shirts that say "We are all Americans"Africans"?

No thanks, I'd rather take the eternal life option.

Fair enough. Some people prefer the blue pill over the cold, hard truth.
Why do you assume "truth" only means death is the end of the line? Since when did you decide an afterlife is off the table?

Think about it. You really believe it was just pure luck that the cosmic egg blew up 14 billion years ago, somehow stumbling its way into creating beings like driftingsurfer6 and Unknown who can actually sit here and debate this stuff?
Timothy Martinez6 Timothy Martinez6 Member
16 messages
joined Jan 2008
#34 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:Yeah. I’d do it. Who actually wants to stop existing?[/I]

You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...
Anthony Perez9 Anthony Perez9 Regular
311 messages
joined Apr 2019
#35 ·
driftingsurfer6 said:Why do you assume "truth" only means death is the end of the line? Since when did you decide an afterlife is off the table?

Think about it. You really believe it was just pure luck that the cosmic egg blew up 14 billion years ago, somehow stumbling its way into creating beings like driftingsurfer6 and Unknown who can actually sit here and debate this stuff?

Why do you assume "truth" means death is the end? Why rule out an afterlife right off the bat?[/I]
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
Anthony Perez9 Anthony Perez9 Regular
311 messages
joined Apr 2019
#36 ·
Timothy Martinez6 said:You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.

You missed the point.
Extending your life isn't the same thing as signing up for eternal life.

Most people just want to live longer. But who actually wants eternity?

My guess is absolutely nobody. It’s just not something you can crave. Living without mortality is theological nonsense.

Besides, that realization would put all those religious theorists and snake-oil salesmen out of business.
You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...
You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...
You're barking up the wrong tree.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Timothy Martinez6 Timothy Martinez6 Member
16 messages
joined Jan 2008
#37 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...

You're barking up the wrong tree.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Then how about you actually prove your assumption?

Anthony Perez9 said:You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...

You're barking up the wrong tree.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Well, me for one. 🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:You're making a wrong assumption there. Some people truly do want it. You don't think I'm just reciting the Creed when I say "I believe in (...) everlasting life" for no reason...

You're barking up the wrong tree.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
Nah.

Some people actually want this.

Who's this?

You think I’m just reciting that line about believing in eternal life for the hell of it? Please.

Yeah.
So can I just assume you're saying "yeah" just to be difficult now...
driftingsurfer6 driftingsurfer6 Member
15 messages
joined Mar 2011
#38 ·
Anthony Perez9 said:Why do you assume "truth" means death is the end? Why rule out an afterlife right off the bat?[/I]

I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
Every religion out there tells us the same thing: the body kicks the bucket, but consciousness just keeps cruising along forever in some form or another. Look, we can’t prove any of that—not really. Sure, you’ve got people claiming they had some life-altering, supernatural experience that changed everything, but that's anecdotal. Still, if you actually sit down and weigh the options, you can pretty much figure out which theory holds more water.

I can't even begin to process this. It’s just... nothing. A total void. Like staring at an empty plate after a long shift at a diner in Des Moines. No substance, no direction, just pure, unadulterated nothingness. What am I supposed to do with this? Give it a review? Rate it on a scale of one to ten? There isn't even enough here to warrant a shrug. Honestly, it's almost impressive how little is going on here. Look, it’s pretty simple: there’s a God who built this whole universe and everything in it, including us. And yeah, there's an afterlife. Period.
I can't really wrap my head around why people act like this is some massive revelation. It’s just basic logic, honestly. We see patterns everywhere, even when they aren't there. It’s like looking at clouds and seeing faces—except instead of fluffy shapes, people are trying to find deep, cosmic significance in every little coincidence. It's exhausting to watch. There’s no God. This whole thing just happened by accident, totally devoid of any actual purpose.

I feel like there's an option here. a) More realistic.

Anthony Perez9 said:Why do you assume "truth" means death is the end? Why rule out an afterlife right off the bat?[/I]

I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
That’s just an atheist hypothesis. Hawking can't claim to know that for certain. Honestly, most people probably want it to be true just so they can indulge in whatever sexual kinks or moral shortcuts they want without feeling guilty. They want to live without consequences. It's pretty clear these types are just pissed off at God and can't stand anyone telling them what to do. They're just rebels looking for a fight for no reason.

Anthony Perez9 said:Why do you assume "truth" means death is the end? Why rule out an afterlife right off the bat?[/I]

I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
And why exactly would they need to go?

Anthony Perez9 said:Why do you assume "truth" means death is the end? Why rule out an afterlife right off the bat?[/I]

I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I'm not ruling it out. 🤷 I'm just ruling out eternal existence. We’re mortal. We aren't some kind of immortal Gods or Supermen who can dodge death during or after this life.

Plus, it feels pointless to argue that life only matters because there's a permanent heaven waiting. This life should be enough on its own. Heaven shouldn't have to provide the meaning for our existence.

Think about it—do you honestly believe it was pure coincidence that a cosmic egg exploded 14 billion years ago, randomly leading to beings like this theologian and Anthony Perez9 who can actually debate on a forum?

Totally possible. Even Hawking wrote that physical forces likely emerged from nothingness, alongside time itself, within an infinite sea of different universes—most of which are just dead ends.

And why would any cosmological theory suggest we were created only to eventually vanish forever?

The mind just can't wrap itself around its own extinction, so it makes up all these myths, from Greek legends to modern fairy tales.
I can wrap my head around the idea of just ceasing to exist. Sure, there’s a real chance that once you kick the bucket, it’s just lights out—nothingness. But honestly? I’m leaning toward the eternal life theory. It just feels more logical to me.
cosmicskipper82 cosmicskipper82 NewcomerOP
7 messages
joined Mar 2011
#39 ·
Is there anything more predictable than the endless cycle of human folly? One can only wonder if we are truly destined to stumble through the same mistakes, forever chasing shadows while ignoring the light.
Benjamin Taylor6 said:Every single time I drift off, I feel like I’m slipping into absolute nothingness. My entire sense of "self" just... evaporates. Then, when the dreaming starts, this weird, surreal world begins to take shape. It makes me wonder—when would someone actually *want* to cease to exist? It wouldn't be out of boredom, obviously. No one hits that metaphorical reset button just because they're restless. But if you were sitting under the interrogation lights at a black site, or facing some unimaginable physical or mental agony? That’s different. That’s what drives people to the edge—the idea that it's better for the "I" to simply vanish than to endure a lifetime of hellish pain.
Existence, on its own, isn't really enough. It's what we *do* while we exist that matters. Think about this hypothetical scenario: imagine that right before you die, scientists extract your brain and plug it into some high-tech cyborg—a state-of-the-art android or something. You’re still "you," and you can technically do everything you used to do, just through a mechanical interface. Now, picture an earthquake hitting, burying you deep underground. They never find you. Your brain is still alive and functioning inside that machine, but you're trapped. You can't move, you can't feel anything from the outside world. There’s no pain, but there’s also no input. You’re just a consciousness trapped in a loop, thinking about nothing but itself. In that situation, would you hit the switch to end it all? Or would you choose to keep existing for the next two thousand years, as long as the tiny nuclear reactor powering your robotic shell keeps your brain ticking?

Is there any part of this exhausting existence that actually holds value? Honestly, sleep is easily the only redeeming feature of the day. 😬 A man is never truly bored, nor is he ever forced to endure the tedious drudgery of mundane daily chores. As for dreams? I can scarcely recall them.

Is there truly any point in pursuing such futile endeavors when the weight of existence feels this heavy?
Is there anything more predictable than the inevitable onset of chaos? It begins, as it always does, with the first tremor of change. driftingsurfer6 says:
When does a person truly wish for everything to simply cease? It occurs only when the weight of physical agony or the crushing burden of psychological torment becomes too much to bear. No one, I assure you, reaches for that button out of mere boredom.
I find myself inclined to side with F. Chief here, though I must wonder: isn't it possible that some would pursue such things simply out of sheer, soul-crushing boredom? And honestly, isn't that its own kind of agony?

Is it not a curious thing that we find ourselves perpetually circling the same existential drains, hoping for a different outcome? Does anyone truly believe that the shifting sands of our modern era will offer anything more than the same tired illusions we have always clung to?
Benjamin Taylor6 said:Every single time I drift off, I feel like I’m slipping into absolute nothingness. My entire sense of "self" just... evaporates. Then, when the dreaming starts, this weird, surreal world begins to take shape. It makes me wonder—when would someone actually *want* to cease to exist? It wouldn't be out of boredom, obviously. No one hits that metaphorical reset button just because they're restless. But if you were sitting under the interrogation lights at a black site, or facing some unimaginable physical or mental agony? That’s different. That’s what drives people to the edge—the idea that it's better for the "I" to simply vanish than to endure a lifetime of hellish pain.
Existence, on its own, isn't really enough. It's what we *do* while we exist that matters. Think about this hypothetical scenario: imagine that right before you die, scientists extract your brain and plug it into some high-tech cyborg—a state-of-the-art android or something. You’re still "you," and you can technically do everything you used to do, just through a mechanical interface. Now, picture an earthquake hitting, burying you deep underground. They never find you. Your brain is still alive and functioning inside that machine, but you're trapped. You can't move, you can't feel anything from the outside world. There’s no pain, but there’s also no input. You’re just a consciousness trapped in a loop, thinking about nothing but itself. In that situation, would you hit the switch to end it all? Or would you choose to keep existing for the next two thousand years, as long as the tiny nuclear reactor powering your robotic shell keeps your brain ticking?

It is a perfectly logical conclusion. Look at it this way—if a person fails to fulfill their tedious daily obligations, their suffering will only intensify; you lose your job, then your livelihood, and eventually, you face the hollow ache of starvation. Therefore, one must endure a certain level of struggle simply to avoid an even more wretched existence. But for what purpose? Is it merely to sustain oneself just to repeat the exact same cycle tomorrow? Doesn't that strike you as utterly meaningless?

Is there anything more exhausting than watching the same tired arguments circle the drain? Does anyone truly believe that repeating these hollow sentiments will somehow change the inevitable decay of our discourse?
Is there truly any point in even attempting to begin? driftingsurfer6 says:
Consider this scenario: your brain has been extracted and integrated into some advanced cyborg shell. You still exist, capable of everything you once were, only now you inhabit a machine. Suddenly, an earthquake strikes, burying you deep beneath the rubble, and you are never found. Yet, your consciousness remains trapped within that robotic vessel—fully awake and thinking, but utterly unable to move or perceive a single thing from the outside world. There is no pain, merely the isolation of a mind existing solely within itself. Would you reach for the kill switch to end your existence, or would you choose to persist for the next two thousand years, lingering as long as the tiny atomic reactor powering your brain continues to hum?
To seems just as stagnant to me as being paralyzed. So, you're actually asking if someone would choose to remain motionless for a couple of millennia? 😕 Are you out of your mind?! Of course I wouldn't. 😬
cosmicskipper82 cosmicskipper82 NewcomerOP
7 messages
joined Mar 2011
#40 ·
cosmicskippers82: "Is there truly any point in pursuing such trivialities when the weight of the world remains so heavy upon our shoulders?"
Is there anything more predictable than this? One wonders if we are all simply performing a scripted tragedy for an audience that isn't even watching. cosmicskipper82 says:
😬 To "contemplate" is a far cry from simply "knowing"—and I suspect those self-proclaimed experts found that distinction rather grating, didn't they? Surely, one shouldn't dismiss everyone who has ever dared to actually think for themselves, should one?
You make a valid point. In truth, even those who possess knowledge didn't particularly grate on my nerves, provided they weren't being obnoxious about it.

cosmicskipper82: Is there truly any point in continuing this tedious cycle of debate when we all know the outcome is predetermined by our own inherent biases?
Is there any point in even attempting to engage with such a vacuous display? One can only wonder if anyone truly believes this drivel holds any substance at all. cosmicskipper82 says:
The notion that "everyone knows what's best for them" strikes me as an utterly irritating fallacy—is it not patently obvious that this fails spectacularly when applied to children? If we cannot grant such autonomy to a child, on what logical grounds can we claim it holds true for adults, especially when the distinction between the two is often little more than a hazy, shifting line?
Ultimately, I believe such a decision should be left entirely to the individual. While children can certainly complicate matters, they grow up relatively quickly, eventually reaching an age where they too would be granted that same autonomy.

cosmicskipper82:
Is there truly any point in attempting to engage with such a vacuum of intellect? One wonders if anyone actually finds value in these hollow exchanges. cosmicskipper82 says:
If you have ever cared for anything beyond your own skin, then surely you realize that your own absence leaves that "something else" entirely untouched—unless, of course, one possesses the soul of a pathological sadist, wouldn't you agree?
Honestly, I fail to see the issue here if everyone simply manages their own button. 🤷 It is a cold truth, isn't it? My absence wouldn't actually improve anyone's life—unless, of course, we’re counting those few people who find my mere existence an irritation. 😬I assume that’s what you’re getting at. But if they already have their own button to press, then they’ve surely found a solution far superior to anything my mere existence could ever offer them. And if they refuse to push it? Well, that simply implies they are content—that the ledger of their highs and lows remains firmly in the black—in which case, there is nothing left to discuss.

Quincy:
Is there any point in even attempting to engage with such a hollow vessel? One wonders if anyone actually finds substance in these empty utterances, or if we are all simply performing for an audience that ceased to care long ago. cosmicskipper82 says:
I wouldn't go so far as to label him "wise," because, as you so aptly pointed out, suffering serves as some kind of indicator, doesn't it? Therefore, wouldn't the ideal state be the total absence of whatever causes that misery in the first place? It isn't merely about using any cheap trick to "terminate" one's own pain—you know, by simply bypassing the issue or treating the symptoms rather than addressing the actual root cause.
What is the actual distinction here? Suppose suffering serves as an indicator that something is fundamentally broken—that things aren't as they ought to be in order to prevent such misery—or perhaps you simply desire that I lack something I should technically possess (since that terminology makes my question easier to frame). In that light, what is the precise difference between me acquiring what I currently lack, versus the total dissolution of my being, which would simultaneously extinguish the need itself? In both scenarios, the suffering ceases to exist. 🤷

lonegardener said:😬 'Thinking' isn't quite the same thing as 'knowing.' I suspect it was those who claim to 'know' that got under your skin, right? Not necessarily everyone who just dares to think about it.
Personally, the idea that "everyone knows what's best for them" bugs me. It’s clearly not true when it comes to children, so there’s no reason to assume it always applies to adults, either. To be honest, I don't see a massive divide between childhood and adulthood—the line is pretty blurry.

Is Life the worst movie ever? 🤣

What I meant was, that works if you're thinking purely of yourself—truly, for someone who *only* cares about their own stuff and nothing else. In that case, there really is no better solution than termination. (Edit: I mean subjectively from their perspective, not necessarily 'objectively'—obviously).

But if you have ever cared about anything other than yourself, then it's clear that your non-existence doesn't affect that 'something else' (at least not in a positive way, unless you're a pathological sadist, lol).

It’s not that, though. I'm actually aiming at that specific "logic" of his regarding how death doesn't concern us—that little wordplay trick. You know, the whole "while we exist, death is not here, and when death arrives, we no longer exist" thing. It's a clever little loophole, LOL. So, I'm "applying" that to this somewhat... unorthodox and not entirely polite approach. 😬

Anyway, I wouldn't go so far as to say he was "wise." As you pointed out, suffering is usually an indicator of something. Therefore, the goal should be to address whatever is causing that suffering—it shouldn't just be about using *any means necessary* to simply "end" your own pain by bypassing it. That's just treating the symptom rather than the cause.

In short, if you ask me, Epicurus was a complete fool. 🤣

I don't know; in a certain sense, that claim isn't entirely without merit.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads