Quote:

---

You won't be conscious to validate it after your own death.

---

Quote:

---

I also suggest that there are many things you can do and refrain from doing that will probably increase your lifespan.

---

Speaking of increasing youth and lifespan, how do you have such a young voice? I heard you before on an interview.

A bit off topic.

Quote:

---

There is no proof that shows otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Speaking of increasing youth and lifespan, how do you have such a young voice?

---

Living long does not require growing old.

Or as Mark Twain once put it:

"Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated."

Quote:

---

And isn't this just as much an assumption just as those who are stating they are somehow "certain" that after death you are non-existent?

Arguments go on and on due to people who think they know things when, in truth, they do not.

They only are harboring assumptions.

As I have written above I am suggesting that it is wise to not assume that something that "seems plausible" is true.

Test it if you can.

If you can't then be careful what you choose to believe.

In my own case, I believe I will have a drink.

---

I'll be more than happy to admit it all to be pure speculation... I would never lie to someone to say otherwise. I'm not a philosopher, and I suppose I should leave it to them to do their job... While there is a small overlap with what I do and what I continue to study, I think more than anything I wanted to stir the pot a little with another possibility that wasn't a total metaphysical explanation, and wasn't coming from someone who assumes there is a tangible afterlife... When I read the physio-psych/neurology rationalized post I felt compelled to... While we know that the basic information posted about how neurons function (thank the giant squids for this ), we still have little to no strong evidence on the process of thinking and consciousness being nearly as simplistic. We've come such a long way from simple behaviorism, seems like a cop out to explain it as simply as that... Especially when we can't make any finite statements (Not that any science is finite whatsoever...). I don't see any way of verifying any of it without experiencing it, and I'm not looking to die any time soon. I think I'd rather have a drink as well...

Quote:

---

I personally think it more natural to the human to live in such a way. I think it's the perfect example of why religions and mystical philosophies have thwarted man's ability to live.

---

Why what is "natural" for human beings is to be religious, to bow and scrape and serve the Gods they worship!

If we add up all the religious human beings and compare that number to all the non-religious human beings we discover what is normal and natural for human beings.

Religion did not just pop up in the last few hundred years, after all.

But I digress.

The real question here is what is more useful.

I would contend that overall it is more useful to have most human beings religiously worshipping their gods and for us to choose to be gods.

It all works out in a very balanced manner then.

Otherwise there is only needless frustration.

Cats act like cats.

Dogs act like dogs.

Humans act like humans.

Cats hiss. Dogs bark. Humans worship.

It is all very natural.

Quote:

---

BWA HAHAHAHA!

Boy, are you in the wrong place!

---

Quote:

---

I am saying they worship because they cannot accept their nature; because of their "spiritual" development. In actual fact it's only an externalistion of their own egos.

---

And I am saying that this failure to accept their nature is part of their nature.

We have at least six thousand years of recorded history to back this up with the thoughts of millions of human beings who have stated and continue to state that this is so.

Human beings are by nature clearly religious animals.

We are not so.

That is why we are often referred to as the alien elite.

In any group of human beings about 5% (one out of twenty) will take a leadership role.

Worship derives directly from the meaning of "to work for".

Humans are naturally inclined to serve, to work for others, to be slaves.

Since this is their nature it seems a shame to not let them fulfill it by serving us, don't you think?

Quote:

---

However, for purposes of clarification, my point was that the basic elemnts of human nature (the seven deadly sins) is what I was referring to as Satanic. And even though they fight against them their actions are still over-ruled by these basic instincts.

---

Yes. We do agree.

And the point that I am attempting to make - and which I feel is remarkably important - is that the "fight" most people have against their natural instincts is also natural.

It is as natural for human beings to act like idiots and believe abject nonsense as it is for cats to hiss and dogs to bark.

If the Satanist truly gets this and ceases to demand or even expect that human beings can act in any other way then that Satanist rises to an impeccable condition of ....

(drumroll please)....

Alignment with human reality!

The young and angry neophite to Satanism is found to commonly rant and rave about human stupidity. Phase One Satanism is the way we usually speak of this.

But all of this anger reveals that the new Satanist has still not accepted that human beings are naturally exactly the way they have to be.

What is, is.

When the Satanist comes to realize that this is the nature of the human beast, he stops expecting or demanding anything different.

Efficiency in dealing with human beings increases and frustration drops off remarkably.

That is why I suggest it is pointless to suggest that it isn't natural for human beings to believe in all kinds of religious nonsense.

It is natural by definition.

It is their nature to be gullible and stupid and short-sighted.

If it wasn't then they wouldn't be that way!

Quote:

---

The point is, that your physical body is still actually in existence, and if it is, those molecules, atoms etc, don't stop being. Everything is what it is, rewardless of the fact you cannot withdraw money after your brain or heart has stopped.

---

Quote:

---

Do you wave good bye to your defecation as it is flushed down the toilet, knowing it used to be you?

---

Quote:

---

Would you assume that a toaster is still a toaster after it has been melted down and recycled into a blender?

---

Quote:

---

Your body replaces and removes atoms and molecules every day by the millions. So, is that junk you replace still you. Do you wave good bye to your defecation as it is flushed down the toilet, knowing it used to be you?

---

Quote:

---

The fact that material may once have helped contribute to your survival does not necessarily mean it is “you.” The “you” is what is maintained up top in the brain department. You could lose all the data up there and all you would be is a shell of nothing. I would not say you are you anymore. You might resemble you, but you are not you.

---

Quote:

---

wishy-washy jargon.

---

Quote:

---

brain

---

Quote:

---

People can use physics and chemistry all they want to try to dignify death and gain some small amount of eternal life with wishy-washy jargon. But it does not work in my book. Death is death no matter if you rot and a flower bed grows off your corpse.

I would say, "Nice flowers. Whatever happened to Man Mind? Oh, well. Those flowers are very nice."

---

Maybe not even. I'd probably say; "He is right there in the back cover of that book" or" on Television, are you blind?" or, This is man_minds child, doesn't he look EXACTLY like him?

And this could go on all day.

You mis read my post, clearly.

Now I must wishy-washy my hands of any further debate on the issue, unless it is a contribution.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There is no proof that shows otherwise.

---

I would suggest that your statement needs to define brain death as complete brain destruction to be more accurate.

---

Sorry I wasn't clear enough but that is exactly what I meant when I said, "Once your brain shuts down through the process of death it's all over." I was referring to complete brain destruction. Biological or irreversible death. Basically when the organs and/or tissues have undergone irreversable changes to the point where resuscitation will be impossible. The brain is one of the three organs that make up the vital tripod of life, the other two being the heart and lungs. When any one of these organs shut down somatic death occurs.

Quote:

---

There do exist many examples of EEG flatliners who are resuscitated and live long lives to tell the tale.

---

You are referring to "clinical death" which is the first stage of somatic death generally lasting no longer than 5 minutes. It is during this stage that if body conditions permit and timely medical attention is recieved, the person can be resuscitated. This is too short of a time span to bring back accurate tales of an afterlife. Because they were only dead for a few minutes or seconds, they could have been hallucinating or even dreaming due to the brain and body going through so much trauma.

Quote:

---

There is still much science does not understand.

There is still much that science has gotten wrong.

---

Of course. However in the case of life after death, that is something that is impossible to verify during this time...if ever. Until we can re-animate people who have been dead for days, months or years (clinical death is not long enough to tell of a real afterlife) we will never know. And that is IF they do not come back retarded

Quote:

---

I think it is a bit silly to gain some kind of satisfaction out of the thought that once you are dead your chemical make-up can be reused. But that is just my nasty opinion.

---

Quote:

---

Did I misread your post or did I catch you in one of those weird moods? Your post was trying to fabricate some kind of immortality through chemistry and I disagreed with it.

---

Quote:

---

did I catch you in one of those weird moods?

---

Quote:

---

Of course. However in the case of life after death, that is something that is impossible to verify during this time...if ever. Until we can re-animate people who have been dead for days, months or years (clinical death is not long enough to tell of a real afterlife) we will never know. And that is IF they do not come back retarded

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Of course. However in the case of life after death, that is something that is impossible to verify during this time...if ever. Until we can re-animate people who have been dead for days, months or years (clinical death is not long enough to tell of a real afterlife) we will never know. And that is IF they do not come back retarded

---

Hours is no problem if the patient is hyperthermic. Days, not yet but working on it. Centuries, not yet but working on it (and requires preperation).

---

Quote:

---

I would still prefer to come back brain damaged and retarded than to not come back at all.

---

Quote:

---

Worship derives directly from the meaning of "to work for".
Humans are naturally inclined to serve, to work for others, to be slaves.

---

Oh fantastic!!! Thanks so much, as if I don't hate working for someone else already, you have publicly declared what I hate about myself the most

Quote:

---

I agree that attention to your life now is where the goodies are.

I also suggest that there are many things you can do and refrain from doing that will probably increase your lifespan.

However then I read this:

Quote:

---

You won't be conscious to validate it after your own death.

---

And exactly how can you know if that is true either?

---

Quote:

---

I would still prefer to come back brain damaged and retarded than to not come back at all.

Oh, not me! Hell no.

My feeling is, if I truly do come out retarded or vegetative "I" am already dead, because "I" am my thoughts, my abilities, my skills, my knowledge, my humor, my memories, and my intelligence. I am not just an organic sack of meat who deserves applause just for breathing. I'd hate to lose my remaining dignity and be a burden on my loved ones, too.

---

Quote:

---

Zen Buddhism actually states that there is no afterlife. Rebirth simply refers to being reborn into different states of mind. My initial attraction to Buddhism was based on it's logical nature and agreement with logic, but I had to give it up because it still has a few tenents of faith and it's too passive for my tastes.

---

Quote:

---

Precisely.

I see Gareth's point about simple pleasures, and it's a good one indeed.

---

Quote:

---

Now, if I come out of an accident mildly retarded, damaged, or slow, but my inner self is more or less intact, I can handle that.

---

Quote:

---

This whole issue boils down to whether a life with a severe disability is better than death.

Anyone who has ever simply admired the immense joy of existing, simple things such as eating some tasty food can appreciate where i'm coming from here. If the only 2 options were literally death and disability, I would take disability. Death takes everything, all joy that you could ever have for all eternity is gone. Disability (of whatever form) leaves some joys.

Do you want a little bit of happiness or no happiness?

---

Quote:

---

Would you assume that a toaster is still a toaster after it has been melted down and recycled into a blender?

** Good point. And for me, even that 'blender' is an objective experience-creation. Consciously, I realize that I am expressing myself physically; and when the times comes, I will express myself non-physically, even non-consciously.

Fear is not something I either have or am concerned with, likewise extinction.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you wave good bye to your defecation as it is flushed down the toilet, knowing it used to be you?

---

What a great idea. I think I will save my defecation, lump it together and sculpt a new me to replace the old me after it becomes shit. Then my new shit-me can flush the old real-me down the toilet and I can wave goodbye to myself from beneath swirling waves of tidy bowl blue.

---

** Ah yes, the wonders of Golgotha, the infernal sh*t demon. They make such great pets.

Quote:

---

So, would you rather be deaf, or blind? That's a tough one.

---

Quote:

---

So, here's a question: under what circumstances could a retarded person be considered Satanic? They can be rather like children, or animals, depending on the nature of the disability.

---

Quote:

---

Who would fuck a retard?

---

Quote:

---

Practically everyone with an IQ under 110 scares me, I admit, so the last thing I want to do is join that club.

---

Quote:

---

So, would you rather be deaf, or blind? That's a tough one.

---

Quote:

---

will always remain a burdon to their loved ones and to society.

I see what you're getting at, but, just to be clear, when are people an "appropriate" burden to others, and when are they not?

---

Quote:

---

So... I typically have a hard time communicating effectively with anyone with an IQ under 120.

---

Well, to know I am typically 27 points above the average human is nice. Also it is nice to know I am still within your acceptable range of communication.