Would you rather exist or not exist?

[Epifols]

edit

[Kee715]

Hm...

For some reason I can only seem to think "But that wouldst be a paradox, but somehow it makes sense, so therefore this paradox can not be a paradox, but if a paradox is not a paradox then 'tis a paradox centered around a non-paradoxical... paradox." when considering the answer to your question...

I will try to give an answer though:

If I do not exist then how can I choose to exist or not?

The paradox is back...

[Epifols]

Thats great

[Kee715]

Oh, so we are talking hypothetical eh? I guess I shouldst have thought as much...

Anyway I am an Atheist, so "God" is not an option (A lack of existence makes it hard to trust something.), well my parents are the obvious (And only) cause behind my existence.

Anyway to exist is to take the good and the bad and deal with it, I perceive the choice as (This is an example of course) "Here, you have two choices: You get to eat cupcakes and play video games for this amount of time, and then you go "Bye-bye", all the while I shoot you in the arse with this BB Gun, or you can just stop existing now." so my answer is the former, I wouldst rather exist than not exist, neutrality is not always the best option, but is usually sufficient.

[SineOtter@gmail.com]

This is essentially taking an interesting idea to its most illogical extreme. It seems that your idea of nonexistence is one that hovers close to the traditional Buddhist ideal of Nirvana, but without one of the key features that plays so heavily into what makes Nirvana Nirvana–The human journey, and the human experience, is what makes the disconnect of the mind from the body such an idealized state. The ability to disconnect from the human condition is what makes Nirvana such an enlightened and thereby meaningful state–To disconnect from the human condition, without ever existing within it, brings nothing with it. Not have never existed within the human condition is no more glorious or ideal than any myriad of other outcomes. Experiencing the human condition is what gives a state of nonexistence the value, although I suppose that veers back into the paradoxical realm.

[DDL]

Beer and hookers, man!

Existing is cool.

[Jonas]

Beer and hookers, man!

Existing is cool.

QFT

I reckon non-existence would be boring. Kinda like staying home from a party because you can't be arsed dealing with the smoke and the assholes, but then you inevitably end up regretting it because you remember you also missed the alcohol and the hot girls.

[Dead-eye]

Nonexistence would be great! The thing about existing is that you ALWAYS have something that your going to need to do, it's an inevitably. A state of nonexistence you will never need to do anything again, you are free of all obligations because they don't exist.

Sadly when you think about it long enough you come to the realization that there is no state of nonexistence. Why? Well simply put where just not that lucky.

[DDL]

A state of nonexistence you will never need to do anything again, you are free of all obligations because they don't exist.

I can't decide whether you're being sarcastic or idiotic.

"Man, I sure have a heck of a lot more free time since I stopped existing. Hey, wait.."


Anyway, let's be perfectly honest, it's not a case of being free of obligations because THEY don't exist: they still exist just fine. It's "all obligations are now free of you, because you don't exist."

However (perhaps unfortunately for the english language), you do exist.

[chris the cynic]

I'd rather exist.

If you didn't exist you'd have no awareness to appreciate any of the supposed benefits, so there are no benefits.

[Jcelios]

If you didn't exist you'd have no awareness to appreciate any of the supposed benefits, so there are no benefits.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head here.

Existence is preferable to non-existence. Is such a deeply ingrained axiom for me that I find it hard to comprehend anyone who doesn't feel the same way. I try to understand them and just keep coming to the unescapable conclusion that they just aren't considering it rationally and/or don't fully understand the concept of non-existence. Which doesn't seem like a very fair conclusion to me. But non-the-less I'm left unable to understand the other side.

[gamer0004]

I already think there are no real obligations and you can't screw up. I mean, if you kill yourself, SO WHAT? Stop pretending like it matters at all. All human life can be exterminated and it wouldn't matter. Because why would it? There is no god who wants us to live or be succesful. When you're dead you you aren't thinking "I wish I hadn't screwed up so badly" or "What a shame mankind has ceased to exist", simply because you're dead and you can't think anymore. Because you need a brain and stuff to do that.
Really. If the whole universe would collapse, it wouldn't matter. In fact, even when people are alive and very unhappy it doesn't matter either. Because why would it? That's the whole point. Since religion is "fake" (i.e. there is no god nor life after death) there is nobody who judges your actions. There is nobody who decides "X is bad, Y is good".
When religion was invented, it was very necesarry. Not just to "understand" how nature works (people just like to know such things), but to control other people as well. What prevents me from murdering my neighbour? Nothing! Most people think it is bad to murder other people, but that isn't a fact. It's just a moral choice. And that's the problem. If the murderer doesn't have the same morals as the rest, the rest will be scared (whether they know there is someone who like to murder people or not) they will be killed, because there is NOTHING that stops the murderer from doing so.

So they invented religion.

Most people thought it was bad to kill other people. There was nothing to enforce that moral choice. So they invented a god which was supposed to be the reason why murdering your fellow citizens was bad.

Nowadays, religion is outdated on the matter of morals. We have an advanced legal authorty which can decide for the majority what is wrong and what is not.
The only thing religion is still good for is for explaining nature (because most people don't have any idea of physicis or maths or chemistry). Forcing other people to live like they do is failed, because it perfectly possible to stop going to church if you rather live life your own way. That's why churches are so empty in Europe. On the other hand, most of the people I know actually believe in Something and a life after death. They just aren't interested in living devoutly or whatever the church wants you to do.

If the church wants to be all powerful again they should just start being useful. And that's all there is to it.

I don't need the church to explain all kinds of fancy stuff that happen here on earth and in the universe, because I rather believe in something that I do not fully understand or know but which is true than believe in something I do understand, but of which I know it is pure BS.
Which means I'm an atheist. But that doens't mean that on my way home I killed a bum and assaulted an old lady and then raped a young girl. In fact, I have never done any such thing.
That's partly because I would be punished by the government for doing that, but partly because as an atheist, you need to develop your own morals. And I think that it is most important for everybody to be able to fulfill their wishes and be as happy as possible. And when I kill someone - unless he or she wanted to die - that person is neither of those.
And I think that is best, because your morals can evolve as well and adjust to every new situation - unlike religion, where they try to solve modern day problems with the help of a book of about 2000 years old. Because that doesn't say anything about how to handle abortion (no matter how hard you try) or genetic engineering.



About the non-existence thing: very nice, thinking about how important it is to actually exist, but what if this world is just a computer simulation? How would we know? We wouldn't, because we would be programmed to "think" our world is real. Our virtual world would still consist of molecules (or, rather, what we think are molecules) and atoms and quarks. Soif we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, why would it matter?

[DDL]

I mean, if you kill yourself, SO WHAT? Stop pretending like it matters at all. All human life can be exterminated and it wouldn't matter.

It would matter to me. Not after the fact, obviously, but that's no reason not to actively avoid it anyway...

When religion was invented, it was very necesarry. Not just to "understand" how nature works (people just like to know such things), but to control other people as well. What prevents me from murdering my neighbour? Nothing! Most people think it is bad to murder other people, but that isn't a fact. It's just a moral choice. And that's the problem. If the murderer doesn't have the same morals as the rest, the rest will be scared (whether they know there is someone who like to murder people or not) they will be killed, because there is NOTHING that stops the murderer from doing so.

So they invented religion.

Probably not quite that way round. Same with evolutionary descriptions, often ("they grew legs so they could walk on land", rather than the more accurate "some of them completely randomly developed leg-like things, which was handy coz right after that things got a lot drier.").

So more like: religions, and various other social mindstates, arose spontaneously. Like all memes, these were subject to selection, and would thus propagate (or not) based on their fitness.

Religions that encouraged murder and rape (of your own people)? Not so likely to propagate, since you've killed and then raped (or raped and then killed) the propagatees.

Religions that encouraged peace and love to all mankind: much more successful, since it keeps the propagatees alive and happy.

Religions that encouraged peace and love to all of that religion's followers, but DEATH TO ALL ELSE (and hey, maybe some rape too? Knock yourself out): even more successful. Nothing like wiping out other memes for increasing the success of your own.


So yeah, moral codes cropped up because all the times moral codes DIDN'T crop up, everyone got killed and raped. Not necessarily in that order.

[Jcelios]

I was writing a post almost identical to yours just now DDL... O_0

"it would matter to me"
"Dawkins meme theory of religion"
etc.
Although I would have avoided using the term "randomly" as it's frequently deceptive. There is a random element to evolution but so much of it depends on non-random selection processes.

uh thanks for saving me the time I guess?

[gamer0004]

I mean, if you kill yourself, SO WHAT? Stop pretending like it matters at all. All human life can be exterminated and it wouldn't matter.

It would matter to me. Not after the fact, obviously, but that's no reason not to actively avoid it anyway...

It is your wish to keep on living until you're old, or become fat, or forever, or until you've visited Australia. Fine. But really, it doesn't matter whether you die or not. It matters to you, but what matters to you doesn't matter. Thats the point. I'm not saying you should die or that I want you to die or that it would be fine to kill you, because I think people should be able to fulfil their wishes as best as they can.

When religion was invented, it was very necesarry. Not just to "understand" how nature works (people just like to know such things), but to control other people as well. What prevents me from murdering my neighbour? Nothing! Most people think it is bad to murder other people, but that isn't a fact. It's just a moral choice. And that's the problem. If the murderer doesn't have the same morals as the rest, the rest will be scared (whether they know there is someone who like to murder people or not) they will be killed, because there is NOTHING that stops the murderer from doing so.

So they invented religion.

Probably not quite that way round. Same with evolutionary descriptions, often ("they grew legs so they could walk on land", rather than the more accurate "some of them completely randomly developed leg-like things, which was handy coz right after that things got a lot drier.").

So more like: religions, and various other social mindstates, arose spontaneously. Like all memes, these were subject to selection, and would thus propagate (or not) based on their fitness.[/quote]

That's not entirely true. Evolution happens randomly and all the time, and those species that fail die out. This is not the case with religion, it is actually made/invented by an intelligent creator. However, religions that encourage murder and rape would cease to exist after some time, because people wouldn't like it and wouldn't join. So that religion, as invented by some guy (probably a murderer) would die out. It's like growing legs and then drowning.
In fact, there even was a Greek god of the highwaymen and murderers (Hermes?). Apparently because somebody thought they needed a god too. This has to have been invented by a man (or woman) and cannot have evolved over time, because it should've died out quite fast, because it is an evolutionary dead-end.

Which is why only the evolutionary succesful religions still exist today. But that doesn't mean it wasn't invented by people (of course, I'm not saying a religion suddenly was invented completely, many known elements were incorporated or, rather, stolen. But those elements have at some point been invented by some man or woman far back in time, and have been adjusted by others).