1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    30 Apr '10 19:071 edit
    They feed on excrement and decaying matter; they don't tend to live for much longer than a month; we humans (for whom their presence is a threat to our health) try to cut short this short lifetime with rolled up newspapers and fly spray. They have no appreciation for culture, arts, inquiry, material (or 'spiritual'😉 pleasures, to this end they have horrible eyesight; there is no promise of any happy and wonderful afterlife for them.

    In spite of this they still get on with living the wretched life they have in the same way abandoned, starving children in the world, with the additional misfortune that they are blighted with unpleasant disease, also live out their life until it comes to a hasty end.

    My question is, (returning, for tactical reasons, to houseflies); if the notion that there is no greater reward for them than to exist as they do why does the notion that there is no afterlife fo us humans trouble you theists so much? (given that in general we get a much fairer bite of the cherry so to speak than other unfortunate life forms)
  2. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    30 Apr '10 19:45
    Originally posted by Agerg
    They feed on excrement and decaying matter; they don't tend to live for much longer than a month; we humans (for whom their presence is a threat to our health) try to cut short this short lifetime with rolled up newspapers and fly spray. They have no appreciation for culture, arts, inquiry, material (or 'spiritual'😉 pleasures, to this end they have horrible ey ...[text shortened]... eneral we get a much fairer bite of the cherry so to speak than other unfortunate life forms)
    You missed the purpose of their short, brutish existence - spider food.
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    30 Apr '10 19:48
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    You missed the purpose of their short, brutish existence - spider food.
    that is perhaps a benefit for spiders but this doesn't make better the existence for houseflies from their perspective (loosely speaking)!
  4. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    30 Apr '10 20:07
    Originally posted by Agerg
    that is perhaps a benefit for spiders but this doesn't make better the existence for houseflies from their perspective (loosely speaking)!
    It does man. Flies become spiders on the next turn of the wheel.
  5. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    30 Apr '10 20:15
    Originally posted by Agerg
    They feed on excrement and decaying matter; they don't tend to live for much longer than a month; we humans (for whom their presence is a threat to our health) try to cut short this short lifetime with rolled up newspapers and fly spray. They have no appreciation for culture, arts, inquiry, material (or 'spiritual'😉 pleasures, to this end they have horrible ey ...[text shortened]... eneral we get a much fairer bite of the cherry so to speak than other unfortunate life forms)
    So your question is, are we not equal to flies?
  6. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    30 Apr '10 20:15
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    It does man. Flies become spiders on the next turn of the wheel.
    Heh...maybe! (though perhaps only the collection of spiders that get their legs ripped off by little kids)

    No such promises are made by theists or their holy books however!🙂
  7. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    30 Apr '10 20:171 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    So your question is, are we not equal to flies?
    Nope...that wasn't the question!

    if the notion that there is no greater reward for them than to exist as they do why does the notion that there is no afterlife fo us humans trouble you theists so much? =/= are we not equal to flies?


    Did anyone else out there make this mistake?? or was it just FreakyKBH?
  8. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Apr '10 23:46
    'if the notion that there is no greater reward for them than to exist as they do why does the notion that there is no afterlife for us humans trouble you theists so much?'

    Could you reword this so that it's coherent?
  9. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    01 May '10 00:14
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    'if the notion that there is no greater reward for them than to exist as they do why does the notion that there is no afterlife for us humans trouble you theists so much?'

    Could you reword this so that it's coherent?
    Well, perhaps it would be useful to actually read the first post to see the question in context (it being a response to Freaky I was able to infer he at the least had)

    Am I correct to anticipate another boring p!ssing contest between the two of us? 😞 I'd really prefer to ignore you if that's the case; furthermore the question posed within the OP was not constructed with any intent to offend.
  10. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 May '10 02:31
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Nope...that wasn't the question!

    if the notion that there is no greater reward for them than to exist as they do why does the notion that there is no afterlife fo us humans trouble you theists so much? =/= are we not equal to flies?


    Did anyone else out there make this mistake?? or was it just FreakyKBH?
    I gotta admit, if you're not saying what I thought, I'm having a spot trying to figure it out otherwise.
  11. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    01 May '10 03:249 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I gotta admit, if you're not saying what I thought, I'm having a spot trying to figure it out otherwise.
    I'll put it another way then (much as it may defeat my purposes for doing so)

    Just to define what I mean later on:
    When I talk of processing/reacting to external inputs I mean, say, exposure to sound waves, heat, light etc...
    When I talk of processing/reacting to internal inputs I mean, say, the construction of chains of thought etc... where each thought in said chain is the result of the electrochemical communication between the neurons in our brains; and for which some of these may be induced by external inputs. (I claim no expertise on the workings of the brain and will put up little fight if I'm corrected on this matter)



    Life is pretty great for many of us; we have fine foods, great music, the arts, wonderful technology, secure & comfortable housing, inspirational humans we may listen to/ learn from/ and if we're lucky engage in dialogue; In addition to this we're surrounded by a plethora of natural beauty. The important point here being we have the facility to appreciate all that is great about life

    On the otherhand, a housefly doesn't get it so great at all...It lives a somewhat less admirable existence; and then dies. My assumption is that this death for such a creature is of little consequence to yourself and you presumably hold that there is no afterlife for such a creature (nor do I expect you care (in general neither do I)).

    You might argue that it is no great loss to the fly since (with whatever counts as a brain for this creature) it doesn't have our intellect and ability to perceive the world as we do. However; from it's perspective (whatever that may be) prior to dying, it was capable of processing and reacting to external inputs (seeing things, percieving that it is currently eating food, flying to or out of the way of things etc...), and perhaps in a rudimentary sense, internal inputs. Upon it's death however this stops forever, never to be experienced again.

    Thing is, I cannot see any reason why must necessarily be the case that we retain some of this capability when our brains expire, yet for a housefly, ceasing to exist (so to speak) presents no issues.
    Yes we are able to process and react to and enjoy a vastly greater range of inputs. Good for us!...being human is awesome.

    I'm more interested however, in how one can hold that they as humans are destined for a glorious and richly stimulating life after they die in some other realm of existence, whilst maintaining that 'lower order' creatures are not privy to these benefits. Especially when the deal they got in life could be argued as to warrant greater privilages than us in the spirit of fairness.
  12. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 May '10 06:00
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I'll put it another way then (much as it may defeat my purposes for doing so)

    Just to define what I mean later on:
    When I talk of processing/reacting to external inputs I mean, say, exposure to sound waves, heat, light etc...
    When I talk of processing/reacting to internal inputs I mean, say, the construction of chains of thought etc... where each thought ...[text shortened]... e could be argued as to warrant greater privilages than us in the spirit of fairness.
    I think I had it right in the first place.

    Essentially, you are suggesting that our level of existence is akin to that of the housefly, in the sense that we are both demonstrably alive. Similarity ends there, however--- and not just on the sensory plane.

    We have souls; housefly does not. The emotional reactions that we are capable of having is one example of soul-ish activity.
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    01 May '10 06:022 edits
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Well, perhaps it would be useful to actually read the first post to see the question in context (it being a response to Freaky I was able to infer he at the least had)

    Am I correct to anticipate another boring p!ssing contest between the two of us? 😞 I'd really prefer to ignore you if that's the case; furthermore the question posed within the OP was not constructed with any intent to offend.
    Although I have no idea how house flies experience life, I'm not sure their existence is as ghastly as you claim -- from the flies' perspective. Perhaps being a house fly is awesome ...

    Look, I just don't see how the existence of house flies is an argument for or against the belief in an after life for human beings. If I were determined to cling to a belief in an afterlife, I might side with Descartes and claim that house flies are essentially mechanical, unlike the wonderfully unique species that I belong to. And all that jazz.
  14. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    01 May '10 10:32
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I think I had it right in the first place.

    Essentially, you are suggesting that our level of existence is akin to that of the housefly, in the sense that we are both demonstrably alive. Similarity ends there, however--- and not just on the sensory plane.

    We have souls; housefly does not. The emotional reactions that we are capable of having is one example of soul-ish activity.
    You believe we have souls. You believe houseflies do not. You can't claim these things as facts.
  15. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    01 May '10 10:52
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I think I had it right in the first place.

    Essentially, you are suggesting that our level of existence is akin to that of the housefly, in the sense that we are both demonstrably alive. Similarity ends there, however--- and not just on the sensory plane.

    We have souls; housefly does not. The emotional reactions that we are capable of having is one example of soul-ish activity.
    The notion of a "soul" is just a nice way to start identifying our true selves.
    If it works, great, but I dont think you can start declaring what has a soul and what doesn't when you cant even identify a soul within yourself (or other people in general).
Back to Top