[JimOfferman]

In response to William:

Originally Posted by williamhessian

i apprecaite your posts' Jim. i assume there are many people with similar views as your own, and i am glad to hear your responses to some of these issues.

Thanks! Do check out that movie

In response to Sam:

Originally Posted by Sam988

So it is natural that we in our evolution will eventually beat death, and it will be a natural (by)product of the evolution of men

Absolutely

In time, man may conquer death. I've read somewhere that people who are born today (in Western society at least) are expected to reach ages of 150 and over... so, perhaps, we're half way there already. I'm just not boarding that train - if only to annoy some immortal philosopher for an eternity over the question why

I got you and i completely understand you. Some people just don't find the prospect of living indefinitely compelling, while others do. That's ok for both sides

Yep. I see this discussion as an oppertunity to compare views on this - both 'sides' can learn from each others arguments.

I've seen this movie already and it's great, a bit complex but very good. And yeah i would definitely take Tom's side.

Lol - glad we agree there! On both counts.

In response to Mark:

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I disagree. I often talk about friends who I haven't seen for some time, whether that be a week or a year. Remembering someone does not rely on the length of their absence, but the strength of emotion they inspire.

Fair enough. I too remember people who are still alive. My point was that I care about how I'm remembered, both while alive and once I'm permantently gone. The latter would of course be a non-issue if I'd be immortal.

You're assuming we were designed and purposely programmed. There's no support for that claim, at least non I'm aware of.

We are in fact purposely programmed to die. There is very strong evidence that parts of our DNA control both aging and the "self termination" of the organism at old age. Strictly speaking, at the celular level, there is no reason why we should die - cells could just be renewed endlessly and flawlessly.

Regardless of how much time we have we would still be faced with the choice of what we enjoy most. Even while acknowledging that we can eventually do everything, what we want to do now will still have power over the decisions we make.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree here. Although I still feel the power of choice is diminshed...

So Da Vinci is bad because Hitler is bad? That's effectively what you're saying, attacking the worth of Da Vinci because of the stigma of Hitler.

Don't put things in my mouth that I did not say! All I said was that an immortal Da Vinci might have been cool, but I am very glad that there is no immortal Hitler.

Meant to? Under whose decree?

That would be nature.

Only if you define 'natural' as 'through the efforts of humans' (which is not part of the standard definition of darwinian evolution, btw)

Yes, my use of the word 'nature' in this thread has been a bit liberal. While not natural by the strictest definition of Darwinian evolution theory, I do see human society with all its ups and downs as a (by)product of the natural evolution of man.