(Q) said:
If one is going to die and that be the end
If death by paranoia were the case, I might agree with you. But one usually doesn't die as a result of paranoia, so replacing it with cancer, which will kill you, seems rather ridiculous in the extreme.
My point is that we will die, nevertheless, by cancer or by no cancer. I hope that is not too extreme.
(Q) said:
if the soul lives on past the death of the body
That's the rub. If we assume there is an eternal life after death, we deflate the value of life as it becomes little more than a prelude to death. If we are wrong about life after death, and our lives were spent in the preparation of that death, our very existence would appear utterly meaningless.
How is this? If life is constitutionally eternal, how does this then deflate it's value? On the contrary, a life that begins and ends with the body is of deflated value. If we are wrong about life after death of the body then ALL activity is utterly meaningless, not just preparation for a life after death that does not exist. "Let me sustain longer so I can enjoy", yet knowing that eventually you must die. This is not very intelligent. So, either way, if we die and cease to exist, then all activity is pointless.
(Q) said:
God kills cancer, if not by medicine or some seemingly miraculous happening, then by death.
I'm assuming of course your god only uses death as a last resort?
Why last? It may seem to you to be your last resort, but it is not that God has tried other methods and thus failed. Sometimes God kills cancer one way, sometimes He kills it another.
(Q) said:
What is wrong with being mindful of God?
Nothing I suppose, we all have our dreams. But to confuse it with reality is another thing.
Herein lies our problem. What you call your reality is my dream and what I call my dream is your reality. So where is the standard? I do not accept your standard. And you do not accept mine. This is why this conversation isn't going to amount to anything.
(Q) said:
Human life is defined by religion.
I would disagree. Human life is defined from a bio-chemical aspect.
How we interact with one another is defined from a social aspect. Religion is included in those aspects.
Ok then, we are animals. Why should a bio-chemical aspect be the determining factor as to whether or not we lament for killing a living organism?
(Q) said:
Humans do this as well but also have the capacity to understand God
Humans are the only animals with the capacity to suspend their disbelief.
This is not the determining factor of human intellect. Animals typically have no sense of belief or disbelief, so they can neither suspend nor not suspend something that is not present within their mental capacity. The fact that we have the ability to even consider these things constitutes human intelligence. If that intelligence is used to conclude that we are all here by chance and that life means enjoying the senses until we die, then that intelligence is wasted simply because we have gone from acknowledging that intelligence to disregarding it out of the conclusion that it can make no conclusions further from living like an animal who is not even bothered by this intellectual capacity (which is in itself contradictory that we make any conclusions out of intelligence at all, being that those conclusions are null of the importance of intelligence to begin with). If this intelligence is ultimately pointless, then why are we even discussing what is real or not? What difference does it make? This line of reasoning leads to extreme agnosticism, i.e.: nihilism. That nothing can be known. Well, if nothing can be known then how do you know that nothing can be known? If you don't know how you know that nothing can be known, then how do you know that you don't know how you know that nothing can be known? Perhaps you do know that you don't know how you know that nothing can be known, but you don't know it.
This would be the conclusion (or lack of conclusion) of your line of reasoning, except, at some point you inject faith.
(Q) said:
If a man denies this ability (to understand God) then he is no better than any animal... I mean, we are only animals anyway, right?
I hope this line of reasoning does not rule your thinking process entirely.
I wouldn't be quite as concerned with my line of reasoning as you should be with yours.
(Q) said:
So why do you lament so much for a human life lost to cancer? Why the hypocrisy?
If the hypocrisy lies in the over-valuing of life in favor of life is a preparation for death, a hypocrite I will remain.
It appears then that we have hypocrisy in more than one instance. I was actually referring to the disregard toward killing animals. Why do you condone it yet seemingly lament for the hypothetical child with cancer whose parents do not allow the eating of garlic?