Heaven would be good

[Cyberman]

Why? What is sacrosanct about humanity per se? I can't see how something could be a crime if no one is suffering.

Are you serious? Take away the capacity to feel and react in a way fundamental to the species merely to make eternity endurable; what are you rewarding? A crime against nature is still a crime, however much it may be rationalised.

I'll put it another way. Any version of me that has to be altered to remove a fundamental part of my nature against my will merely to conform is not a version of me that I would recognise as myself; nor would I wish it to be. And neither would I wish such an existence on my worst enemy.

[Vincent]

By definition, heaven won't get boring. .

How do you know?

Eternity means forever. As in, no end. None whatsoever. So any discoveries that can be made, anything that can be done, will eventually. And after that, what then? I wouldn't want to sit around being blissfully happy doing nothing. For the rest of eternity. And to be quite frank, I don't think you would either. I don't think anyone would. But people are just so wrapped up in their fear of death, in their reluctance to die, in their desire to not accept the fact that this amazing thing called life will eventually end, that they yearn towards this idea of eternal paradise.

[henryp]

Quibbling over whether a make believe place that makes you happy forever would actually make you happy forever is as silly as it gets. If it were real, you'd be happy forever. How you say? Who the eff knows. There's a magical place we'd be going to after we die if we were good with a big magic God thing in some alternate existence. I'm pretty sure all logical bets of how long you could or couldn't stay happy for would be off in that scenario.

[Vincent]

Quibbling over whether a make believe place that makes you happy forever would actually make you happy forever is as silly as it gets.  If it were real, you'd be happy forever.  How you say?  Who the eff knows.  There's a magical place we'd be going to after we die if we were good with a big magic God thing in some alternate existence.  I'm pretty sure all logical bets of how long you could or couldn't stay happy for would be off in that scenario.

I like to discuss it. Why? Because I think hope for Heaven and an afterlife is one of the main reasons why religion and belief in God still exists - it helps people lay their head down at night. And it's important to me that I can show people who believe in such nonsense why it's not even a very good idea in the first place, and why the entire concept is ridiculous. Being a mindless drone condemned to experience happiness and only happiness (which is the opposite of free will) for the rest of eternity in a paradise that never ends is a disgusting concept. I don't want my fellow human beings believing in this garbage. Lessening the appeal might make people more willing to question the existence of it altogether.

[Amine]

Are you serious? Take away the capacity to feel and react in a way fundamental to the species merely to make eternity endurable; what are you rewarding? A crime against nature is still a crime, however much it may be rationalised.

I'll put it another way. Any version of me that has to be altered to remove a fundamental part of my nature against my will merely to conform is not a version of me that I would recognise as myself; nor would I wish it to be. And neither would I wish such an existence on my worst enemy.

I don't think you have answered the question. You've just reiterated your position that humanity/nature is not to be tampered with for some reason. I'm not sure why I should value humanity per se, that seems rather parochial. We have existed for the blink of a cosmic eye, and in another blink we will be radically different, if not gone entirely. I can imagine a myriad of different forms and values we could take.

What is a crime against nature? Nature is dead. It doesn't care. As far as I can tell you can only commit a crime against a sentient entity, and that is based on violating its autonomy or making it suffer. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the specifics we are accustomed to as humans in this extraordinarily thin slice of spacetime. All else being equal, if I had the choice of suffering for eternity as "myself" (whatever that means) or spending in it "artificial" (whatever that means) bliss, that's a no brainer.

Take a smaller example: anesthesia during surgery. This seems a lot like what you're talking about. When you willingly take anesthesia before a surgical procedure, you are very much removing "a fundamental part of your nature". You're essentially tampering with your humanity to spare yourself some agony. That's not something anyone questions at this point (the same sort of no brainer), but it actually was back in the 1840s or so when the practice first came on the scene, and for similar sounding reasons. Talk of "basic humanity" and whatnot. What this actually is is a sort of religious conservatism which superstitiously inflates the significance of totally arbitrary and parochial norms. "It being known to me gives it cosmic significance."

How do you know?

Eternity means forever. As in, no end. None whatsoever. So any discoveries that can be made, anything that can be done, will eventually. And after that, what then? I wouldn't want to sit around being blissfully happy doing nothing. For the rest of eternity. And to be quite frank, I don't think you would either. I don't think anyone would. But people are just so wrapped up in their fear of death, in their reluctance to die, in their desire to not accept the fact that this amazing thing called life will eventually end, that they yearn towards this idea of eternal paradise.

How do I know? Like I explained, even if we rule out magic (which we technically shouldn't if we are talking about a religious idea of heaven), something like wireheading can be proof of concept. Running an electric current through the right part of the brain produces unremitting bliss. Which is... not nearly as bad as it sounds. Why wouldn't I want unremitting bliss?

Quibbling over whether a make believe place that makes you happy forever would actually make you happy forever is as silly as it gets.  If it were real, you'd be happy forever.  How you say?  Who the eff knows.  There's a magical place we'd be going to after we die if we were good with a big magic God thing in some alternate existence.  I'm pretty sure all logical bets of how long you could or couldn't stay happy for would be off in that scenario.

To me it seems like an important question because if we admit that it would be a good thing, then we admit that it would be a good idea to approximate it ourselves, to whatever extent that is feasible. Which I think is probably the exact opposite of what people expect. It's not that we could only get so close to our idea of heaven, it's more a question of how many orders of magnitude we could surpass it by. Super-heaven. We live in primitive times.

I like to discuss it. Why? Because I think hope for Heaven and an afterlife is one of the main reasons why religion and belief in God still exists - it helps people lay their head down at night. And it's important to me that I can show people who believe in such nonsense why it's not even a very good idea in the first place, and why the entire concept is ridiculous. Being a mindless drone condemned to experience happiness and only happiness (which is the opposite of free will) for the rest of eternity in a paradise that never ends is a disgusting concept. I don't want my fellow human beings believing in this garbage. Lessening the appeal might make people more willing to question the existence of it altogether.

As I said above, I'm not sure being "condemned to be happy" is as bad as it sounds. It doesn't even seem like the opposite of free will. I mean, sure, if you want to suffer, suffer. I don't, though. If I truly had free will, I'd choose to be happy all the time. What is so disgusting about this? I find suffering disgusting, if anything, and I don't think that should be terribly controversial. It's suffering.

[Vincent]

How do you know?

Eternity means forever. As in, no end. None whatsoever. So any discoveries that can be made, anything that can be done, will eventually. And after that, what then? I wouldn't want to sit around being blissfully happy doing nothing. For the rest of eternity. And to be quite frank, I don't think you would either. I don't think anyone would. But people are just so wrapped up in their fear of death, in their reluctance to die, in their desire to not accept the fact that this amazing thing called life will eventually end, that they yearn towards this idea of eternal paradise.

How do I know? Like I explained, even if we rule out magic (which we technically shouldn't if we are talking about a religious idea of heaven), something like wireheading can be proof of concept. Running an electric current through the right part of the brain produces unremitting bliss. 

The only problem with that hypothesis is that your brain dies when your body does. Unless there's magicy-supernatural mumbo jumbo involved, there ain't a brain to do that to in Heaven. So it could only be magic. Magic mind control. How enticing.

As I said above, I'm not sure being "condemned to be happy" is as bad as it sounds. It doesn't even seem like the opposite of free will. I mean, sure, if you want to suffer, suffer. I don't, though. If I truly had free will, I'd choose to be happy all the time. What is so disgusting about this? I find suffering disgusting, if anything, and I don't think that should be terribly controversial. It's suffering.

What is disgusting about it? The human experience is so much more than just blind, senseless happiness. It is through our sadness and our anger, through our rage and through our despair, through our grief and through our confusion that we can truly experience the universe in all its splendor, that we can truly consider the world, ponder it, connect with other humans, and make meaningful, lasting relationships. Those feelings, though unpleasant, are just as essential to our beings as happiness. A life where you have access to one emotion, and one emotion only, is depressing to me. It is the opposite of free will. You are being denied the right to the full capacity of feeling. Everything you experience is experienced narrowly, without any contemplation but a blissful one. That is not living. That is existing. Existing always with this mindless smile on your face. 

Do my negative emotions cause me to suffer? Yes, at times they do. But the suffering, the struggles, the hardships, are what make me me. How empty and two-dimensional would I be as a person if I looked at everything with only happiness, all the time? I know, sometimes when bad shit hits, the idea of eternal only-bliss seems tempting, but too much of one thing is never a good thing. Without sadness, I wouldn't be filled with appreciation for the good I've lost. Without anger, I'd never learn to compromise and forgive. Without frustration, I would not feel motivation to change my ways. Without despair, I would never learn to pick myself up. This whirlwind of feelings - good and bad alike - make up the human condition. Strip yourself of all but happiness, and you are no longer yourself. It's fucking Matrix shit, like hooking us up to a computer where we are placed on one setting and never moved from it. You're not even human anymore. You're no better than a machine programmed to be happy all day every day.  

Two possibilities seem to exist with Heaven. Either you go in with the mind you have now, and you quickly grow sick of eternity and suffer because of it. Or you are stripped of all emotions but happiness and you live an empty, mindless existence for the rest of forever.

Both thoughts make me sick. I'd rather just die naturally, as nature intended. If you truly fear death so much that you are willing to resign yourself to an eternity of that, of surrendering your humanity and your personhood, then be my guest. But personally, I'd have to say fuck that.

[Amine]

The only problem with that hypothesis is that your brain dies when your body does. Unless there's magicy-supernatural mumbo jumbo involved, there ain't a brain to do that to in Heaven. So it could only be magic. Magic mind control. How enticing.

Doesn't sound too bad. I'm a determinist already anyway so I already figure I'm a robot. If the experience is good, I feel like there's not much to complain about.

What is disgusting about it? The human experience is so much more than just blind, senseless happiness. It is through our sadness and our anger, through our rage and through our despair, through our grief and through our confusion that we can truly experience the universe in all its splendor, that we can truly consider the world, ponder it, connect with other humans, and make meaningful, lasting relationships. Those feelings, though unpleasant, are just as essential to our beings as happiness. A life where you have access to one emotion, and one emotion only, is depressing to me. It is the opposite of free will. You are being denied the right to the full capacity of feeling. Everything you experience is experienced narrowly, without any contemplation but a blissful one. That is not living. That is existing. Existing always with this mindless smile on your face.

You get to define what living is? I don't accept. Living is living. If I am alive it doesn't matter whether I am happy all the time, I am alive, so I am living. There's a difference between the truth and your opinion. I don't buy into the philosophy that a person should embrace all of life's experiences because they should experience the universe in "all its splendor" (which includes such things as parasites that swim up your dick), and nor do a lot of other people. To me, "living" (by which I really assume you mean living well) is simply being happy. I'm not here to prove anything or impress anyone. If negative experience serves no functional purpose, I am not even slightly sentimental about it and would kiss it goodbye without hesitating. And then I would live happily, and there would be no problem. It couldn't "depress me", because if it did that would mean I wasn't happy.

Also, happiness isn't just one emotion. There is a very wide spectrum of positive experiences to be had. Fun, laughter, joy, sensual bliss, curiosity, reverence, and many more. These experiences can even be shared with others. Why would we think a lack of suffering precludes the ability to have relationships with people? Suffering is, in my opinion, the worst part about relationships with other people. I like good times. I definitely don't get off on watching people suffer. If that winds up being what brings me closer to someone, I was a dick for taking them for granted in the first place.

Do my negative emotions cause me to suffer? Yes, at times they do. But the suffering, the struggles, the hardships, are what make me me. How empty and two-dimensional would I be as a person if I looked at everything with only happiness, all the time? I know, sometimes when bad shit hits, the idea of eternal only-bliss seems tempting, but too much of one thing is never a good thing. Without sadness, I wouldn't be filled with appreciation for the good I've lost. Without anger, I'd never learn to compromise and forgive. Without frustration, I would not feel motivation to change my ways. Without despair, I would never learn to pick myself up. This whirlwind of feelings - good and bad alike - make up the human condition. Strip yourself of all but happiness, and you are no longer yourself. It's fucking Matrix shit, like hooking us up to a computer where we are placed on one setting and never moved from it. You're not even human anymore. You're no better than a machine programmed to be happy all day every day.  

Well, we already are programmed machines. Unfortunately we are not programmed to be happy all day every day. Evolution couldn't have cared less how we felt about how it programmed us. Anyway, what I am seeing here I find unconvincing. People who are often in despair are precisely the ones who never pick themselves up. Depression is a stark reality. It doesn't improve you. It just ruins you. It keeps you stuck in a tiny shell, in your bed, with a total lack of motivation and zest for going out and doing things and improving. Happy people are the ones who go out and embrace new things and work on improving themselves, etc. Nor do I see a definite connection between anger and compromise and forgiveness.

Would you be empty and 2-d if you looked at everything with only happiness all the time? Seems like an impoverished view when you consider all the things other than... suffering... which a person can consist of. Why the pain-worship? There are so many things out there that inherently have nothing to do with pain. Seems to me more like something you might use as a badge of honor or a view you might take as a coping mechanism. As one guy put it, if humans got hit on the head with a bat every week, soon they would come up with reasons it was a good thing. It builds character! It's part of the full splendor of the universe! If they didn't get hit by the bat, how could they know the good times when they saw them?!

These are rationalizations. In an ideal world, we might as well admit, things would just be good. Suffering is suffering because it is bad. What is getting in the way here is not the principles themselves, those are extremely straightforward. It's parochialism. It's the failure to imagine things simply being different. We have a way of only seeing what we have come to know in our limited experience. To imagine things being otherwise seems alien and repugnant because it is unknown and out of the accustomed context (it's also very hard to fill in any details about such a radically different existence, making it seem monochromatic). But boil it down to principles and you get your answer. Being happy is, by definition, something people like. At the very least, if you have gotten used to the idea of death you should have little or no problem with this. In death you lose everything you value about being human too, because you're dead.

Two possibilities seem to exist with Heaven. Either you go in with the mind you have now, and you quickly grow sick of eternity and suffer because of it. Or you are stripped of all emotions but happiness and you live an empty, mindless existence for the rest of forever.

Both thoughts make me sick. I'd rather just die naturally, as nature intended. If you truly fear death so much that you are willing to resign yourself to an eternity of that, of surrendering your humanity and your personhood, then be my guest. But personally, I'd have to say fuck that.

Again, it seems to me like you're actually the one who fears death, logically speaking. There is no difference between being stripped of your emotions and living a mindless existence and death. Well, one difference: the fact that one involves spectacular bliss. I think if you got a taste you'd probably take a liking to it.

What does nature intend? That you die at about the age of 25. Of, like, an infection, or diarrhea, or something. We've left "what nature intends" behind a long, long time ago. You really wouldn't like what nature intends.

[Napoléon]

Imagine your most pleasurable, satisfying experiences. Now imagine doing nothing else, forever, with no way out.

Why wouldn't it just be satisfying forever? I see no good reason that this couldn't be the case besides someone saying "that's not how the imaginary world's rules work"

[Divinity]

I've recently started thinking that if there is an afterlife, that maybe we become our own personal gods. Kind of like how in a dream, once you realize it's a dream you can control everything.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that the dead don't dream......so the dreams of the living probably aren't very informative with regards to the status of the departed or their ascension to godhood.  

It's like saying..."Rudolph had a very shiny nose, so the sun is probably the nose of a giant flying reindeer, if it's anything at all".