|
|
Post by Zrined on Jun 29, 2012 6:04:43 GMT
Alright, so, in one of my last few days in school before Summer Vacation, my religion teacher and I were having a discussion about existence. At some point we ended up talking about how it is better to exist and be in Hell than to die and no longer exist.
I sided with dying and no longer existing as opposed to Eternal Damnation but she explained why she thought otherwise.
Anyway, debate here, regardless of Faith or lack thereof, treat it as though Hell or Damnation exist.
Basic Question:
Is it better to no longer exist or suffer eternally?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 29, 2012 6:07:44 GMT
...You have a religion teacher?
Anyway, better to no longer exist. Even in heaven the boredom would come eventually, but with nothing to do about it. Even heaven would turn into suffering without occasional mind wipes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Jun 29, 2012 6:23:38 GMT
I thought you knew I went to a Catholic School? (Ironic)
|
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 29, 2012 6:58:51 GMT
The lack of existence is merely like sleeping. "Existing" itself is highly overrated. So, what keeps one from simply shooting himself in the head? Pain, uncertainty, perhaps even the hedonistic nature of human rationality and it's irrational counterpart. There is no clear reason to keep existing. There are no clear motives to justify it. Anything that can be said to justify existence wouldn't matter if we didn't exist. So, yes, better to not know what suffering means at all than consciously suffer to maintain your precious existance.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Jun 29, 2012 16:43:01 GMT
It seems to me that people want to exist (in the sense of living) because that is what animals have been naturally selected to do. If people did have the natural inclination to live then the race would die off rather quickly.
That said, I would much rather not exist than suffer forever. How anyone could reason that eternal damnation is better than death is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jun 29, 2012 16:49:25 GMT
Speaking of the excellent question GGoodie brought up, however rhetorical it may be, what was your teacher's reasoning? I am quite curious to know her opinion, if you can do her argument any justice by rendering it with as few alterations as the feeble human memory can handle...
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Jun 29, 2012 18:06:36 GMT
Her reasoning was:
It is always better to exist than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 29, 2012 18:10:59 GMT
That's not very solid reasoning. Why is it inherently better to exist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Jun 29, 2012 18:14:28 GMT
Exactly, we need someone who feels the other way to elaborate.
|
|
|
|
Post by zelkova on Jun 29, 2012 19:16:10 GMT
Not trying to make anyone suicidal or anything but no matter what you do in life everybody will have the same outcome (errr...assuming you don't have a religion that state otherwise I guess). Some people may question why you play a RPG game when after a month you will be doing something totally unrelated. Well same can be said for life. I just along for the journey and hopefully the ride will be worth more then the outcome.
AlchmistFaust put it in a good way though. You don't get bored of sleeping, you just don't remember it. Though I would like to not exist in the first place if there is a Hell but if there is nothing in the end then I can say I enjoy my life both the good and bad as it don't effect my outcome.
In short, I would like to not exist in the first place if Hell was waiting for me. So clearly if I can exist to die and no longer exist then that would be a "having my cake and be able to eat it too" moment for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 29, 2012 19:32:00 GMT
Now, let me try to look the other way.
If you have religion, there are motives that you can have to keep existing. If you keep existing you'll go to paradise. However, if hell awaits you, there are two things that can make you keep existing: Begging for God's forgiveness or not disliking pain. For instance, a person with Congenital Insensitivity Disorder does not know what pain is, thus, existence will be a far better thing. Now, let's change the scenario: Say hell does not have any negative attributes nor positive ones except keep existing. What would be a reasonable choice?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 29, 2012 19:33:57 GMT
Merely existing without affects would, in of itself, be negative. But I've already made my point clear: Continued existence is worse than ended existence in any plane of existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 29, 2012 19:38:37 GMT
Why would it be negative? That depends on what you consider "existing". Can you exist without your physical body? Or only your conscience defines what exists or not? Therefore, existence is mutable and we fall in the good old solipsism again. And what is to NOT exist? There is no way of defining it, since you always wake up after you sleep. If you exist with your physical body, you can always achieve some kind of pleasure, which is, in itself, better than not existing.
|
|
|
|
Post by zelkova on Jun 29, 2012 19:38:53 GMT
Say hell does not have any negative attributes nor positive ones except keep existing. What would be a reasonable choice? Wow...That a hard one. Sleeping Beauty en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleine-Levin_syndromeVs Being stuck in a bomb shelter with unlimited cheap food and drinking water. If you wish to compare to something more realistic. I say I would take Kleine-Levin Syndrome. Pretty much the same without the chance of becoming insane with boredom. |
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 29, 2012 19:42:50 GMT
I'm assuming you were talking about conscious existence. Having nothing to do for all eternity would suck. I guess if you were not conscious, though, that'd be different.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 29, 2012 19:45:29 GMT
I'm assuming you were talking about conscious existence. Having nothing to do for all eternity would suck. I guess if you were not conscious, though, that'd be different. Conscience can be devoid of emotions. Emotions need a physical body. Conscience (rational, to put it) wouldn't properly feel boredom. So, to sum up, basically you can still think, acquire knowledge, get to conclusions... Also, if the Kleine-Levi patient begins to, even in these minimal periods of waking up, think about what he has done with his life, he might develop severe depression too. There's no realistic way to put "not-existing" except... Not existing. (had double posted, sorry.) |
|
|
|
Post by zelkova on Jun 29, 2012 19:45:53 GMT
If the Kleine-Levi patient begins to, even in these minimal periods of waking up, think about what he has done with his life, he might develop severe depression too. There's no realistic way to put "not-existing" except... Not existing. Yea, I am aware but it the closest I was aware of. Kinda scary to think you could wake up 30 years older. The idea of being in a coma is pretty much the closest you can get to being non-existing and yet still possibly "come back to life". |
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 29, 2012 19:48:19 GMT
I think that the closest we have is like saying that the closest we have to a shark is a shrew. It's the closest, but not that close.
|
|
|
|
Post by zelkova on Jun 29, 2012 19:54:30 GMT
I think that the closest we have is like saying that the closest we have to a shark is a shrew. It's the closest, but not that close. Good way of putting it. Closest I ever got to bleeding to death was when I gave blood and my sight almost black out.  As if that saying much. Honestly to not exist would imply that you never know what it feel like to not exist as you simply don't exist.  It just one of those impossible things to think about. Harder then describing color to a person who was born blinded or describing sound to a person who never heard anything. The idea of it is simply beyond what we could ever understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Hachi1 on Jun 30, 2012 0:31:04 GMT
As far as I know, existing in an after life is like not existing at all. What do you do, whether you are in Heaven or Hell? wouldn't it just be repetitive and boring after a while? Anyway, if you think of it in a really general way,
hell = suffering
death = nothing (no joy or suffering, no knowledge of existence) so isn't death neutral therefore better than hell?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Jun 30, 2012 0:35:45 GMT
It seems to me that people want to exist (in the sense of living) because that is what animals have been naturally selected to do. If people did have the natural inclination to live then the race would die off rather quickly. That said, I would much rather not exist than suffer forever. How anyone could reason that eternal damnation is better than death is beyond me. Some people view life as suffering. Which it is. There are many ups and downs for most people, which we can all agree on. If you were to live forever, this could be viewed as eternal "suffering". I'd still prefer life though. |
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 30, 2012 1:16:59 GMT
All of it can be summed up in a kind of reverse Pascal's Wager.
In fact, I'm very surprised that your religion teacher didn't use this argument with you, Zrined.
|
|
|
|
Post by zelkova on Jun 30, 2012 1:43:24 GMT
Not trying to derail but some people believe Hell isn't forever. You have to pay for your sins but once you are done you go to Heaven.
As for Heaven some believe you are given your own paradise while others believe you are given a temple and can do anything including the kid idea of Heaven where you can play video games forever. Some even believe we are already in Heaven/Hell and simply not aware of it.
Like seriously anything related to religion really depends from person to person. I don't believe in anything personally but as for Heaven becoming repetitive can you really say that your current life is repetitive? As for Hell that kinda the point, roll a heavy rock up the hill just to watch it roll back down so you can start all over again. What if Heaven (or even Hell) basically just a reset button where you relive your life again?
But back to the main discussion of nonexistent vs hell. Depending on your beliefs living through Hell to go to Heaven or whatever may be worth it but if it ends at Hell then I still say never existing is better imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 30, 2012 2:00:17 GMT
Here in Brazil, there is a quite big religion called Spiritism. It was founded by the french Allan Kardec. It says that if you lived a bad life, you will go to the "umbral", which is a hell-like place where imperfect spirits go. When you actually regret your impure deeds, a "higher" spirit comes to rescue you. Then, you are sent to some kind of colonies where the rescued spirits are cleansed and, when they are ready, reincarnate to learn more and become more and more perfect.
In my opinon, that reveals that people are actually afraid of suffering forever, and prefer to make it a weaker punishment instead of only one chance. You have eternity to regret and be saved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 30, 2012 3:34:21 GMT
Sure, our own life isn't that boring, but that's because we have so much sensory input. Playing video games is fun, but I can't imagine myself playing them forever, endlessly. Eventually you run out of things to talk about, etc. Unless there's memory wipes involved somewhere it'd get boring after a couple centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hachi1 on Jun 30, 2012 9:51:00 GMT
The fact that people go to hell rather than just disappearing is like proof that a bad afterlife is worse than dying
|
|
|
|
Post by Zrined on Jun 30, 2012 17:12:58 GMT
I, I don't follow...
|
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Aug 9, 2012 14:47:02 GMT
i'd rather not suffer
|
|
[M:977802]
As if that saying much.
It just one of those impossible things to think about. Harder then describing color to a person who was born blinded or describing sound to a person who never heard anything. The idea of it is simply beyond what we could ever understand.
