Originally posted by Impediment
I want to have a memorial when I die, but I want my body to be absent. I want my body to have already been cremated, and then I want my family and friends to have a big after party with BBQ and beer and games. I don't want everyone to mope around and cry when I die.I could care less what happens with my ashes. Maybe mix a sprinkle into a shot glass and let everyone drink my ashes with a shot of their favorite liquor. 😂
I like it, but I would invite all the people I don't like and not tell them until after they had finished me off.. 😉 😆
Originally posted by DigiMark007
😕I dunno...what do you think he'd say? I find he's often mischaracterized as far more angry than his writing and speaking suggests.
And I did say I'd have a few options, and my family could decide between them.
Wait . . . what else could possibly be used to judge him? Telepathy?
I was reading an article in the NewYorker and it quoted him as rejecting the idea of doing something simply because one might take comfort in it.
My experience with funerals is that they were planned and arranged how the deceased would have wanted it. A funeral is in their memory and honour. If the deceased categorically was against a burial/cremation, then the family should respect those wishes.
Imo, a funeral should reflect the life of the person being remembered. It would give me more comfort to know that the funeral arrangements met my loved ones' wishes rather than mine.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait . . . what else could possibly be used to judge him? Telepathy?I was reading an article in the NewYorker and it quoted him as rejecting the idea of doing something simply because one might take comfort in it.
No, you misunderstood. I'm saying his writing isn't as angry as he is often portrayed by his opponents and the media. Having read a fair amount of his stuff (including The God Delusion) I keep waiting for the angry tirades and faulty logic brought about by vindictiveness. I have yet to find it, and often find that he's one of the more poetic proponents of science and can inspire sublime awe in his reader through his descriptions, metaphors, and humility in the face of reason.
Didn't read the article you mentioned, and I'm not familiar with the quote. I'd need to see the quote in its original context to really comment on it. Sounds bites and quotes are easy to selectively pick in order to create a falsely polarized image of a person, and that's largely the problem with the media's protrayal of him...he isn't quoted or video clipped unless it's to say something incendiary, and it's usually in a larger context that is lost.
...
And if you're right about his opinion in this case, meh. I don't have an obligation to agree with Dawkins just because he's an atheist (though I usually do). I also, again, said that I'd have a few options pre-selected for them to choose from, so I wouldn't be relinquishing total control just to appease my family/friends. A perfect example of the dangers of extracting the point from its context.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, you misunderstood. I'm saying his writing isn't as angry as he is often portrayed by his opponents and the media. Having read a fair amount of his stuff (including The God Delusion) I keep waiting for the angry tirades and faulty logic brought about by vindictiveness. I have yet to find it, and often find that he's one of the more poetic proponents of science and can inspire sublime awe in his reader through his descriptions, metaphors, and humility in the face of reason.
Then you haven't looked at them from the other side in even the slightest way. I have read some of his stuff, clearly he's intelligent and logical but he's also and asshole that has a very poor understanding of what he's talking about and seems unable to admit it.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Didn't read the article you mentioned, and I'm not familiar with the quote. I'd need to see the quote in its original context to really comment on it. Sounds bites and quotes are easy to selectively pick in order to create a falsely polarized image of a person, and that's largely the problem with the media's protrayal of him...he isn't quoted or video clipped unless it's to say something incendiary, and it's usually in a larger context that is lost.
I believe it was along the lines of:
A member of the audience mentioned that God brings a measure of comfort to some people.
"Just because it's comforting doesn't make it true," replied Dawkins.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And if you're right about his opinion in this case, meh. I don't have an obligation to agree with Dawkins just because he's an atheist (though I usually do). I also, again, said that I'd have a few options pre-selected for them to choose from, so I wouldn't be relinquishing total control just to appease my family/friends. A perfect example of the dangers of extracting the point from its context.
. . . or making a joke . . .
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then you haven't looked at them from the other side in even the slightest way. I have read some of his stuff, clearly he's intelligent and logical but he's also and asshole that has a very poor understanding of what he's talking about and seems unable to admit it.
This is very general. I can't refute it if I don't even know what issues you think he's uninformed about, let alone specific instances. The few times he rails heavily against religion are usually against extremist versions of it that are potentially dangerous. Most people, even religious people, would concur with these statements.
Secondly, he pulls no punches when it comes to speaking against religious belief, and is very adamant in his beliefs, but most see this as an affront to religious people. There is a distinction between the belief and the believer, and it's very possible to attack one but not the other. The fact that what he's saying is so distasteful to many religious people causes them to see it as a personal affront, rather than what it is: a frank but respectful challenge to their beliefs. I see no problem with being angry at religion in debate, but it is an entirely different matter to attack those who are religious...in this I agree with him, and don't think he crosses that line except in the earlier cases of extremism that I mentioned.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe it was along the lines of:A member of the audience mentioned that God brings a measure of comfort to some people.
"Just because it's comforting doesn't make it true," replied Dawkins.
That doesn't even apply to my point. Nowhere in my response did I mention religion. I merely said that I felt like funerals were for the living, and I'd rather do something that made the comfortable. I didn't say "Well, I'll concede and do the religious stuff." so you're reading into it too much. Again...I'd have a few choices, all of which are acceptable to me, and they could choose from them.
So please, how does this clash with Dawkins' statement? There's nothing true or false about a funeral...I'm talking about closure for the living, not the validity of a belief. He wasn't saying not to do something if it's comforting, only that comfort doesn't make something any more false...two different matters entirely.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . . or making a joke . . .
So wait. This was all a joke?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
This is very general. I can't refute it if I don't even know what issues you think he's uninformed about, let alone specific instances. The few times he rails heavily against religion are usually against extremist versions of it that are potentially dangerous. Most people, even religious people, would concur with these statements.Secondly, he pulls no punches when it comes to speaking against religious belief, and is very adamant in his beliefs, but most see this as an affront to religious people. There is a distinction between the belief and the believer, and it's very possible to attack one but not the other. The fact that what he's saying is so distasteful to many religious people causes them to see it as a personal affront, rather than what it is: a frank but respectful challenge to their beliefs. I see no problem with being angry at religion in debate, but it is an entirely different matter to attack those who are religious...in this I agree with him, and don't think he crosses that line except in the earlier cases of extremism that I mentioned.
My problem in simplest terms is that in what I have read he comes across entirely as an absolutist. I think I've had this argument with you before.
In the work of his that I've read he doesn't talk about something being wrong with extremist, radical, fundamentalist types; it's nothing but a general assault on what people believe. Perhaps you miss the fact that some people define themselves by their faith, it is not always possible to separate the individual and the faith no matter how much you might want to. That's the same trap that people who "hate homosexuality but have nothing against gays" fall into.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
That doesn't even apply to my point. Nowhere in my response did I mention religion. I merely said that I felt like funerals were for the living, and I'd rather do something that made the comfortable. I didn't say "Well, I'll concede and do the religious stuff." so you're reading into it too much. Again...I'd have a few choices, all of which are acceptable to me, and they could choose from them.So please, how does this clash with Dawkins' statement? There's nothing true or false about a funeral...I'm talking about closure for the living, not the validity of a belief.
My initial recollection was incorrect. I was sitting in a dentists office passing time. You've taken what was meant to simply be an off hand joke and blown it out of proportion.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
He wasn't saying not to do something if it's comforting, only that comfort doesn't make something any more false...two different matters entirely.
More comically he seemed to completely miss the point of the comment. But nevermind.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So wait. This was all a joke?
The initial: "What would Dawkins think?" was meant to be humorous.
Originally posted by llagrok
How far have they gotten on the whole cryogenics science?Being frozen doesn't sound half bad.
they are still unable to prevent a cell from being destroyed by the freezing process, given that solids take up more space than liquids, and many of the membranes are destroyed
I remember hearing something about them possibly accomplishing thawing at a cellular level.. but don't quote me...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My problem in simplest terms is that in what I have read he comes across entirely as an absolutist. I think I've had this argument with you before.In the work of his that I've read he doesn't talk about something being wrong with extremist, radical, fundamentalist types; it's nothing but a general assault on what people believe. Perhaps you miss the fact that some people define themselves by their faith, it is not always possible to separate the individual and the faith no matter how much you might want to. That's the same trap that people who "hate homosexuality but have nothing against gays" fall into.
But the flip side of that is not speaking out against something that you see as a potential evil, simply to be respectful to others. I realize that sometimes you can't separate the belief from the believer. Those people will be insulted when someone speaks against religious belief. It's an unavoidable but necessary evil. They need to realize it's not a personal attack, but just another side to a debate.
As for the homosexuality thing, such tendencies to separate the two can indeed become a slippery slope, but only if the emphasis is in the wrong place. Before anything though, I'd clarify that I don't hate anything, especially not a person. Where the problem comes is that people who hate the belief (or the practice, in homosexuality's case) usually do allow themselves to take it out on the people as well. I know of no one who is intellectually opposed to homosexuality but fully respects homosexuals for their life choices. It's possible, but generally doesn't happen because people don't bother to make the distinction...and not just give lip service to it but actually live it out. Religion walks the same fine line....and again, if we don't make the distinction and simply give in to "well, what if this happens...?" then we will limit our own ability to express our opinion.
If I speak against religion, it's because I see it as a negative influence on some aspect of a person or society. The goal is an improvement through reason, not a condemnation or attack. Same with Dawkins, who sees religion as a net negative. Therefore, I think it's not just his privilege but almost his duty to speak his mind, however virulent, so long as the same distinctions are made. Maybe he doesn't always do that...I'm not here to paint him as infallible. But I feel like he does it more often than not, and if he seems absolutist, it's because his opinions against religion (not people) are so vehement that people cannot separate the man from his message, nor realize that his goal isn't mindless intellectual flame wars but to engender positive change in the world.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The initial: "What would Dawkins think?" was meant to be humorous.
Eh. Sorry then. His name generally doesn't trigger my humor sensors, so I have a tendency to jump into defense mode when he's mentioned.
Originally posted by inimalist
they are still unable to prevent a cell from being destroyed by the freezing process, given that solids take up more space than liquids, and many of the membranes are destroyedI remember hearing something about them possibly accomplishing thawing at a cellular level.. but don't quote me...
Stole my response. Most organs and brain tissue are not recoverable at this point, and the technology is still far enough away that we can't look forward to it anytime soon.