Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Doug_S. comments on Sensual Experience - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 December 2008 12:56AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (84)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Doug_S. 21 December 2008 09:04:58PM 3 points [-]

I'd like to interrupt this discussion to ask a question.

A typical "silly question" to ask a theist is, "If heaven is so great, why not kill yourself right now, so you can get there immediately?" The usual answers involve things like "suicide is a sin" and such. (Incidentally, many Islamic suicide bombers use exactly that reasoning to justify their participation in such activities.)

I have a similar question. If you are sufficiently dissatisfied with life in the world as it is, does it make sense to sign up for cryonics and then kill yourself, hoping to "wake up" in a better future, rather than continuing to live in the present until some thing else causes your death?

Comment author: taryneast 04 June 2011 06:03:20PM 1 point [-]

Or the other question of "why don't you kill babies while they're still innocent and guaranteed to go to heaven?"...

Comment author: Lapsed_Lurker 08 January 2013 12:30:53PM 0 points [-]

Reading that, I thought: "I bet people asking questions like that is why 'Original Sin' got invented".

Of course, the next step is to ask: "Why doesn't the priest drown the baby in the baptismal font, now that its Original Sin is forgiven?"

Comment author: MugaSofer 08 January 2013 03:22:52PM *  1 point [-]

My first thought on reading that was "murder is a sin", which makes the priest seem unwilling to risk hell to save the children.

(Incidentally, I have seen actual attempts at answering that question, mostly revolving around theories as to why God didn't simply have us be born directly into heaven.)

Comment author: taryneast 07 March 2013 10:22:55AM 2 points [-]

Yes - to which I'd say "aren't christians supposed to sacrifice themselves for others? what - you wouldn't even sacrifice yourself (a known sinner) to guarantee that these babies go to heaven? What if your one life could save ten babies? twenty?..."

Comment author: wedrifid 07 March 2013 11:51:45AM 1 point [-]

Yes - to which I'd say "aren't christians supposed to sacrifice themselves for others? what - you wouldn't even sacrifice yourself (a known sinner) to guarantee that these babies go to heaven? What if your one life could save ten babies? twenty?..."

Please don't train the Christians to shut up and multiply. The holy war that inevitably followed would destroy us all.

Comment author: MugaSofer 24 March 2013 05:55:23PM 1 point [-]

Indeed, hence my noting it "makes the priest seem unwilling to risk hell to save the children" in my comment.

However, if we're going to actually discuss the problem, I'm going to point out that this whole system was supposedly set up by a benevolent superintelligence. Attempting to subvert it is, presumably, contrary to your own value system, even if no-one can quite articulate why.

In other words: if it sends you to Hell, God wants to discourage it. God is all-knowing, all-powerful and Friendly; do you really want to fight him on this?

Comment author: juliawise 26 July 2011 03:40:52PM 1 point [-]

I think it depends on whether you think another 60 or 20 (or whatever) years of dissatisfying existence is better than dying now with a 95% (or whatever your estimate is) of never being revivified.