Would it be worth going to Disneyland tomorrow if

[atheistgirl]

News flash: Dementia is sad and limiting.

I’m well aquainted with dementia.

Pretending that its not is disturbing to say the least.

I never ‘‘pretended’’ or said it wasn’t.

However, feel free to remain in your fantasy.

What’s much more disturbing is those that say a life without memories is not worth living.

That’s very disturbing indeed.

One has to wonder just how far they’d be prepared to take their contention that other peoples lives aren’t worth living.

Based on their contention that if you can’t remember things, you’re life’s not worth living.

Very very disturbing indeed.

Sarah x

 

[ReapReason]

Based on their contention that if you can’t remember things, you’re life’s not worth living.

Very very disturbing indeed.

Sarah x

You have made a malicious straw-man of my argument in order to save face. That’s disturbing.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Sarah makes a good point. If you really believe your life’s not worth living without your memories would you be prepared to carry this idea to its final conclusion? Would you decide that it’s okay to “euthanize” (re: kill) dementia patients if caring for them became too burdensome? If somebody suffered from short-term memory loss would you agree that if their caretakers get tired of taking care of them they could just slip them cyanide?

These are very real ethical debates going on today in the medical world.

 

[atheistgirl]

I agree with atheistgirl ( ).

My work here is done.



Sarah x

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I was going to write something but I forgot what it was. :doh2:

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I was going to write something but I forgot what it was. :doh2:

 

[ReapReason]

You’re right, but on the overall point for once I agree with atheistgirl ( ).

Dementia is sad, there no denying that, but there is no such thing as a life not worth living. We are not our memories. We all have things to contribute to the world, even the most disabled people among us.

God is what makes even the most horrific life worth living. An atheist cannot rationally agree however. I never said that there is a life not worth living, I said a life with no memories is no life in terms of savouring the value of your social experiences, learning from them, and developing as a person. These are important aspects of human nature.

You can say that somebody in a coma has an objective value, but you cannot say to me that they are living a life.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

God is what makes even the most horrific life worth living. An atheist cannot rationally agree however. I never said that there is a life not worth living, I said a life with no memories is no life in terms of savouring the value of your social experiences, learning from them, and developing as a person. These are important aspects of human nature.

You can say that somebody in a coma has an objective value, but you cannot say to me that they are living a life.

I agree ultimately that God makes our lives worth living; but natural law can be observed even without God, and I think one of the more obvious conclusions drawn from natural law theory is that human beings have intrinsic value. So I don’t think you necessarily need to be a theist to realize that all life has intrinsic value.

You’re right, everything you mentioned are important aspects of human nature but that’s just what they are: aspects. There is more to a person than that.

I think that saying a person in a coma isn’t “living a life” is a very dangerous thing to say; the water becomes very muddy when we try and figure out why it’s okay to keep people alive who aren’t already “living” anyway.

 

[ReapReason]

I agree ultimately that God makes our lives worth living; but natural law can be observed even without God, and I think one of the more obvious conclusions drawn from natural law theory is that human beings have intrinsic value. So I don’t think you necessarily need to be a theist to realize that all life has intrinsic value.

You’re right, everything you mentioned are important aspects of human nature but that’s just what they are: aspects. There is more to a person than that.

I think that saying a person in a coma isn’t “living a life” is a very dangerous thing to say; the water becomes very muddy when we try and figure out why it’s okay to keep people alive who aren’t already “living” anyway.

I don’t understand where you’re drawing these conclusions from posts. I never spoke of what constitutes being alive or whether we should keep somebody alive that is in a coma.

Secondly. If there is no God, then there is no moral law or natural law. A rational atheist would reject the notion that things or personal beings have intrinsic value.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t understand where you’re drawing these conclusions from posts. I never spoke of what constitutes being alive or whether we should keep somebody alive that is in a coma.

Secondly. If there is no God, then there is no moral law or natural law. And a rational atheist would reject the notion that things or personal being have intrinsic value.

Apparently we’re both confused here.

You said:

You can say that somebody in a coma has an objective value, but you cannot say to me that they are living a life.

So somebody in a coma is not living a life, but they are alive?

Distinctions like these become very muddy when we try and figure out what reason there is to keep people alive who aren’t already “living” anyway.

Secondly. If there is no God, then there is no moral law or natural law. And a rational atheist would reject the notion that things or personal being have intrinsic value.

You’re ultimately right, but the natural law is manifest in the world around us; even the rational atheist would be able to draw logical conclusions based on certain aspects of the world.

 

[Sair]

You’re right, but on the overall point for once I agree with atheistgirl ( ).

Dementia is sad, there no denying that, but there is no such thing as a life not worth living. We are not our memories. We all have things to contribute to the world, even the most disabled people among us.

I agree also.

Yes, dementia is a terrible thing - and it is so largely because we do place such value upon our memories and rationality, both of which are progressively lost in this affliction.

My mother has not the abilities she once had, and this is a very sad loss - perhaps more so to my father and my brother and I, and our friends, than to Mum herself. But there can be no doubt, on the basis of observation, that my mother is entirely present in each moment of her experience, and feels pleasure and pain (bodily as well as emotional/psychological) as much as anyone. I would never consider her life to be not worth living - if anything, indeed, her enjoyment of pleasant experiences may be more pure and complete than that of someone who might be tormented by regrets for the past or by fears for the future; and so our duty to her now is to ensure, as much as possible, that the pleasant experiences outweigh the unpleasant ones.

 

[LilyM]

You have changed the context from “I” to “thou”. Of course you would do things for the people you love; but in reality the experience is wasted and is meaningless to the person who is robbed of those experiences; because it is lost and comes to nothing. Our memories are an important part of our happiness and our development as human beings. A life without memories is not really a life at all. That’s precisely why dementia is so bad and scary. I would think you were a liar if you claimed to be okay with the idea of losing all your memories everyday; not knowing who your family or friends were.

Does it really need spelling out?!!!

We’re assuming that it is only the memory of the forgetful person that matters. What about Sarah’s memories of her demented mother’s enjoyment of the beach? Or what if itullian’s friends who took him to Disneyland treasured his/her delight at meeting Mickey? Or maybe he/she does something special for the staff while there, that they remember and treasure?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

First, if one is in heaven they will feel no pain and suffering either… but they will still exist, which is by all measures better than not existing at all.

But Catholics will admit that most people go to Hell, and nothing is much better than torture anyday.

Second, what is appealing about not existing? And here I don’t mean what is appealing about sleeping, or lack of consciousness for a temporary duration… I mean what is appealing about the idea that you will be dead and gone and that your life will make no difference to you, or ultimately, to anyone else in the end?

First of all, the atheist world view means that this life is worth more than in the Christian world view. After all, Christians only live for the second life, not for this one. Secondly, there isn’t anything appealing about it, but there’s nothing bad about it. It just is.

If you’d like to start a new thread on the issue, we can discuss the nature of hell… because it seems to me that you’re laboring under the peasant-view of the middle ages (that hell is some sort of harsh punishment metted out by a wrathful God) rather than understanding actual church teaching on why people go to hell (that they reject God and God withdraws from them).

I’ve heard it, but the fact that such a place would exist and that God would allow people to go there makes him an unappealing character. Also, what I said seems to match the Protestant view - God punishing people for doing wrong. The Catholic Hell may be a different concept, I dunno.

 

[CaptFun]

“For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?”

I did think of that scripture when I saw the headline above … before the qualifiers.

In that case … NO not worth it. And that’d less than Disneyland.

In another kind of case, I spoke socially with a Jewish Rabbi that seemed to think there WAS an afterlife BUT that we would not remember who we were … it’d be new.

“Is that like the reincarnation taught by the eastern religions?” He was taken aback.

I told him in my faith, Catholicism, we were eternally ourselves - but would change like we always do.

We were once in a womb, didn’t breathe air, couldn’t see (not like later with our eyes open anyway!) etc., and later we were born. Later still we were 5 years old - doing many of the things we do now - walking, talking, reasoning, - yet though it was US we are Quite different people now.

Being “born again” and receiving our new bodies (not like the ones which we have here St. Paul tells us) or being for a period of time separated from our bodies but being conscious souls is a mystery to us - at least in the details.

Looking back at the question posed in the headline - I don’t think much about my life at age 5 - or the many times I’d actually BEEN to Disneyland. My thoughts are on the day at hand mostly. There are times when I reminisce harmlessly on the past or probe it for information needed in the present (my education), but it CAN be a waste of time. Ditto for planning for the future (wisely - again drawing lessons from the past and present) versus
idle time wasting speculation or fruitless worry about the future.


:dancing:

Matt 6:27 Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span? 28 Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin. 29 But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them. 30 If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?

31 So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’ 32 All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.

33 But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides. 34 Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But some Catholics will admit that most people go to Hell, and nothing is much better than torture anyday.

Fixed that for ya’.

 

[iloveangels]

On the other hand, in the absence of memories, you could just suppose you did and save a cool $76 plus travel, tax and outrageous food costs.

 

[Sair]

On the other hand, in the absence of memories, you could just suppose you did and save a cool $76 plus travel, tax and outrageous food costs.

That may well prove to be an advantageous strategy, since it seems that experiences are quite often better in our anticipatory imagination than they are when we actually encounter them! Let’s not, and say we did…

 

[itullian]

great arguments all.

i think its meaningless to go if theres no memory of it.