Is it immoral to let people live a lie if they think they are happy? : philosophy

https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/12jiwu0/we_never_stopped_seeking_immortality_our/?sort=controversial

“Spiritual meaning” is a coping mechanism for people to avoid having to face personal responsibility. We don't need that. I mostly just answered in that way since “one could argue” is to most bland statement one can give though. Yeah, sure, argue then.

scientists literally create tiny doughnut shaped stars and bombs that annihilate cities How sad, these simpletons don't understand that their myths are just another in a long line of arbitrary belief systems smh

Well one of my key midterm lifegoals is immortality

Suddenly the athiests get all offended when u call transhumanism the new religion

https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/165ayce/in_the_modern_world_the_comfort_afforded_by_the/?sort=controversial

Just don't think about it, bro. Ignore death! Great advice, never thought of that one \s

why? i do not believe meta-physics even exists, its all physicalism. show me one thing that is impossible to measure weigh and categorise, ill wait. all you will be able to demonstrate is that we cant do it yet. all of human history is evidence that literally everything is weighable, measurable, categorisable with sufficiently advanced tools it just stuns me that we have gone from thinking flies and frogs arise from foul air just 500 years ago to sending shit outside our own solar system and modifying our own genes and yet there are people who think we cant weigh the 'supernatural' when 90% of what we take for granted would be considered unholy witchcraft for most of humanities history.

if we continue on our current trajectory without killing ourselves we will be able to do literally anything.

B-word your science cant even determine why red is red

“Science cannot explain everything and thus a life of faith is still possible.” Science will however continue to chase that belief down smaller and smaller holes as it discovers more about the universe. Soon your entire spirituality will be based on a vanishingly small set of things you believe science has no answer to.

THE HECKING SCIENCE WILL GIVE ME AN OBJECTIVE VIEW OF COMPLICATED, SUBJECTIVE VALUES AND EXPERIENCES CHUD

i blows my mind that anyone can state that we cannot know X. what they mean is we cannot know X yet. all of human history shows me can weigh, measure and catergorise literally anything with sufficiently advanced tools.

"girls cant say my peepee is small yet until they read my 50 peer reviewed studies"

these people are supposed to be philosophers yet dont believe in metaphysics of any sort

btw post history ofc.:

oh what has the US done? Just killed 10 million people since the 60s over money and ideology, regime changed over 50 nations indirectly killing millions more and regime changing actual democratic governments (they should know that no one is allowed to nationalise energy resources). they also spy on everything that moves and helped fund the Brexit 'leave' side and rolled Australias PM back in the 70s for daring to get non-US loans. then we have the actions of US corporations (which run the US government) shit like Bhopal, killing 16,000 people due to being cheap and every other instance of corporations fricking either foreigners or US citizens. i think America is just as bad as China, killing over 10 million people for money and ideology vs china killing over 2 million to steal their organs. both are actions of evil, evil governments.

Called it years back, Labor would present a properly neo-liberal budget once elected. cant wait for the next round of predictable excuses from the Labor-philes, 'they promised' 'wait until next term' 'media would shred them' et-fricking-c. anyone who still believe in Labor at this point is either completely self-absorbed and loving the middle and upper class hand outs or they have stockholm syndrome are simply incapable of critical thought. every time they are in power they are more and more right wing economically and its going to destroy this nation and turn us into a clone of a fricking shithole, America.

lol so only some kinds of legal bribery would be allowed. frick me you lot are hilarious. why not ban donations from anyone anywhere entirely? have each party get set funding from the tax department. allowing anyone to donate money is allowing corruption.

[–]VitriolicViolet 0 points 4 years ago yeah. i get sick of futurologys bizarre optimismthat tech will give us a utopia. It wont, virtually every tech advance in human history has been used to make the ruling class more dominant, not to reduce inequality. Naive optimism, tech dystopia is staggeringly more likely than utopia. to achieve utopia we would have to fundamentally alter the entire species way of viewing the world and tech does not do that

40 k reddit karma in six years

A schizophrenic is "given" their delusions. What makes yours special just because it has a religious flavor?

To suggest some random stranger has schizophrenia is very rude and disrespectful. I don't know why you thought that was a kind thing to say

I'm conceptually comparing religious faith to schizophrenia, because they're comparable.

So, rather than being some sort of metaphorical sheep, we should just in fact be actual sheep now. LOL

I personally find comfort in knowing that we'll all die and that nothing matters in the end. Accepting what I can't change makes me more appreciative of the present. My fascination with death is part of what keeps me grounded in my day to day life.

I used to go down rabbitholes of research into possible explanations of why or what's our purpose for being here. It would always lead to a lot of anxiety and ultimately depression. Now I think, "I don't know, and I know that I won't ever know the reason for being here. But I do know that I am a human being whose been given a chance to experience life, so might as well make the best out of it. If all for naught, then oh well. At least I can say I tried to make the best out of everything."

Some people need the crutch religion provides. It helps them to feel less alone and feel as if they have a purpose and later a place to be welcomed for all of eternity. Without it there would be more depression and crime. Crime because some believe enough in their God to stay on the straight and narrow. The rich and powerful benefit from the obedience religion provides, so they're going to continue beating that drum.

Or people can just believe in an afterlife. Who cares if it isn't verifiable or provable?

Your idea that an afterlife is comforting is entirely subjective. You also fail to realize that one cannot entirely give way to “ the third path “ without confronting his own mortality. Memento Mori Man has two lives, and the second only begins once he realizes he has just one.

There's nothing about science that disproves the afterlife. That's scientism, the merging of dogmatic views with empirical evidence and its study. Many metaphysics can fit the same data, and give a different Interpretation as to what is going on even as the body rots and the person seems long gone. Heck, even physicalism is compatible with the idea of reincarnation, for example. Like, if there could be Boltzmann brains, your brain could pop back up into existence in the future, just by chance alone. Same if there is something like eternal inflation. Death could just be your consciousness hopping into another body, if consciousness was information, that is, with the information being teleported (or perfectly copied), as we now know is theoretically possible (as long as no cloning theorem is respected, which is ok cuz you just died). And that's just within the metaphysics that is more commonly associated with nothingness after death. There's many more.

Yes but since you cannot verify it, those influenced by the scientific method can never fully believe in it. With enough fanaticism, they may be able to deceive themselves into believing it, like many christians do by choosing some pseudo scientific proof. Judging by how fervently some of them argue for a scientific Christianity and a proof of god, they must be very insecure in their beliefs. Western spiritualism is on its last legs and has been constantly declining since the enlightenment.

Western spirituality may not be in its last legs, but it is due some massive reformation. Personally, the thing I dislike about religion most is not its potentially fantastical aspects, I can roll with that. The thing that irks me is how it rules by both carrot and stick. How it manipulates people and denies their own individuality and capacity for self-determination through threat of punishment. I find that abhorrent. But, on the topic of not being able to know, the issue goes both ways. The idea that we go poof after we die is equally fantastical to the idea we go to heaven with skydaddy. I mean it. Consider something as simple as anesthesia. Can you know, with any degree of certainty, just based on the empirical data, whether a person who goes under is truly unconscious instead of just inmobile, unresponsive and without the capacity to form new memories? You can't, and there is absolutely no test for that. The only way to "know" is to interpret what you see based on your own personal worldview, and to delve into metaphysics and philosophy, to take axiomatic assumptions, quite outside the scope of empirical observation and even science. And there is no guarantee that your beliefs about what is going there are any better than those of the fundamentalist christian, for the same reason one cannot logically disprove solipsism or being a brain in a vat, or the demiurge (or cartesian demon). It's faith all the way down.

It certainly goes both ways, but non believers are also those who simply dont know. The statement, that the existence and non existence of after life are equally likely, leads to an ad absurdum argument. Inductively adding other equally likely states after death leads to a zero probability for each event and therefore a null likelihood of an after life existing. Your argument does not work.

I'm not making some dumb "Pascal's Wager" type argument here. I said equally fantastical, not equally likely. And you are indeed correct that a probabilistic consideration of all the possibilites, while having to assign equal likelyhood to all, renders any idea one has of the afterlife infinitely unlikely, basically 0 chance. There is an infinite pool of possibilities here, after all, from nothing to being the pinky toe of an eternally dancing mayan deity. But eternal nothing, that is, the void the materialists usually expects, is only one of those, not 2 or 3 or a million, and certainly not infinity. So by that same (botchy) logic, one could argue that there is an infinitely higher likelyhood of something else happening, whatever else. But, as I said, it is botchy logic, because the thing about total uncertainty is that you simply can't assign probabilities so willy nilly (among other potential issues with the "math" above). You just don't know, period. You don't even know if accepting you don't know is the right thing to do in the face of it, or if it will save you or doom you, because, well, you don't even know the ultimate consequences of your actions. You know nothing, zilch, nada. So, in the face of total uncertainty, why is agnosticism better than faith? Any argument you make would have to appeal to present circumstances, as knowledge of the future in question is prohibited. There is no "for the future of humanity and progress", or for "truth's sake", or whatever else. Here is simply the domain of complete uncertainty, in where, as you die, you may realize this "human life" was nothing but a dream, or you may just relive your present life endlessly, or you may vanish and suffer no consequences for your life as you lived it, deluded or not, or who knows what: here be dragons. Anyone is free to do with that as they so wish. And if you disagree, I'm all ears, but I doubt you have anything that could surprise me. After all, I'm not arguing for any specific possibility, but the opposite.