How Long Have I Got Left? | Hacker News Reader

How Long Have I Got Left?

nytimes.com

276 pointsconesus172 comments

A few years ago I got testicular cancer. The information about the disease came in pieces: first all I knew was that there was a lump; then came the ultrasound, the CT scan, then biopsy of the testicle, then a second surgery to sample lymph nodes to which the cancer might have spread. At every step I would obsessively query my doctors for conditional probabilities: given what we'd just found out, what were the chances of dying? Of relapse? Of chemo? Of sterility? I was always incredibly frustrated at how vague their responses would be - they'd say, e.g. "we don't like to give probabilities because you just never know what will happen!". And I would think, "That's exactly the point of a probability! Please just tell me a number!"

One doctor eventually showed me a paper on outcomes for the lymph node surgery I had, with a relapse rate curve going out five years so. I found this incredibly helpful for managing my emotions because it let me track my progress in a very precise way: every monthly checkup that would go by uneventfully, I knew exactly what my chance of relapse had dropped to. The goal was to get to zero. More importantly, having actual numbers gave me something on which I could focus my optimism. It's so much worse to hear "you might become sterile" than "there's a 5% chance of becoming sterile". With the 5% number in mind, I'd do things like imagine myself in a room full of 20 people and think "wow, it would be incredibly unlikely to be randomly chosen from this group". Having spent a lot of time in a cancer hospital now -- around people who were much worse off than I was -- I believe that almost everyone has incredible reserves of optimism. I think it's better when the hopeful possibility is concretely defined - it makes it easier to imagine a path forward while you're stuck waiting for more information.

Mine is obviously a completely different situation from the terminal cancer described by the author, where the question isn't, "when will I be free of this cancer", but rather "when will I die from it". Testicular cancer is very treatable, and I never faced a significant chance of death. I'm sure I would have been in a much different psychological state if I had.

Also, PSA: testicular cancer is REALLY common for young males (if you're male you have a 1 in 500 chance of getting it between 20 and 34). Given HN user demographics, there are almost certainly some of you reading this who've gotten it already, or who will. You can save yourself a ton of trouble if you do a self-examination every once in a while. That's actually how I found out, and is a big reason that I avoided chemotherapy.

Thank you. I supposed you just create this new account to share the story. But thank you, now I know I should do body check. I am only 22 and I already feel unsafe.

Thank you. When I was diagnosed (IIa good) my fiancé an I spent three hours with my medical oncologist going through exactly what treatment would be, probabilities of relapse, relative risks, everything. She is a wonderful doctor.

Also, just to jump on the train, if something is weird with your testicles, pain or lumps or whatever, go see a doctor. I waited longer than I should have and it probably made my treatment harder than it could have been.

It doesn't help that life or death issues for men, like testicular cancer, are almost completely ignored. About a decade ago, I had the same concern as you and after a scary doctor visit (which included his female assistant observing, which added to the discomfort but that all mitigated by the more terrifying prospect of this being a life-threatening concern) followed by an ultrasound at the hospital, I was relieved to find out it was nothing to be worried about.

After that, though, I started to think. I realized that the only reason I knew to be concerned was because just shortly before that, I'd heard Lance Armstrong's story in a sport's magazine.

I realized that every single male 20-34 knows about breast cancer and ovarian cancer and that women are supposed to be regularly checked all all of these concerns promoted by countless events and product promotions and charities . . . but very few of them probably have the slightest clue about their own medical concerns that they should be looking after. Because nobody bothers to emphasize the need to inform them and educate them.

> It doesn't help that life or death issues for men, like testicular cancer, are almost completely ignored.

This isn't a great example, because testicular cancer is rarely fatal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_cancer

> Testicular cancer has one of the highest cure rates of all cancers: a five-year survival rate in excess of 90 percent overall, and almost 100 percent if it has not spread (metastasized).[6] Even for the relatively few cases in which malignant cancer has spread widely, modern chemotherapy offers a cure rate of at least 80%.[7]

Obviously, awareness still helps. (And openness. I had an ultrasound when I was 16 (turned out to be a hydrocele), but I think it was a few weeks from when I noticed the lumy to when I told my mum about it, because how do you bring something like that up?)

And how do you detect it before it spreads, if the issue is completely ignored and people aren't made aware that they should check for abnormalities and take them serious when they encounter them?

Especially for men, who (I think it is a well-deserved stereotype) tend to avoid going to a doctor for anything short of dismemberment.

I don't know. But it looks like currently we do detect it before it spreads, most of the time. So I guess your question has either an answer (e.g. "other symptoms manifest sufficiently early"), or an incorrect premise (e.g. "people actually are aware that they should check").

I have (had?) salivary gland cancer. Diagnosed before 30 at a IVa stage. I had surgery, radio and chemo. After that, the 5-years survival rate is 1 in 10. And if you do make it, your quality if life is significantly impacted and you're permanently disfigured - radical neck surgery ain't pretty.

I have a background in academia and despite the fact that I like to tell myself that I am some unique snowflake and that I'll make it, I know where I stand. No doctor told me, but I went to PubMed myself.

Am I pleased to know that? Not sure. And it kind of bothers me the fact that all my daily careful efforts will all boil down pretty soon to an event that is as dumb as the outcome of rolling a dice.

> Given HN user demographics, there are almost certainly some of you reading this who've gotten it already, or who will.

Just checked myself .. I may (hopefully not) have proven your statement. Will see doctor on Monday.

Thanks for the PSA

Good luck. It could be a number of things, but please do see the doctor soon.

And if you (or anyone else reading this) want to chat, get advice on picking a specialist, etc., I'm more than happy to talk - hit me up at ifktaotc7583@hmamail.com.

Good luck! I have had recurring epididymitis for the last 15 years or so, starting when I was around 19, and every time I wonder if it could be cancer, but it proves to be an infection that is treatable with antibiotics.

Well done booking the doctor visit straightaway. It took me weeks, and I was massively stressed the whole time.

How did you know it was epididymitis instead of a tumor?

The mass I have is right on top of the gland, but after an ultrasound it appears to be a tumor.

> We never cite detailed statistics, and usually advise against Googling survival numbers, assuming the average patient doesn’t possess a nuanced understanding of statistics

When I was at the receiving end of that talk, this attitude made me incredibly angry. They know exactly that we will look up those numbers, they are just too afraid to have a honest discussion with us. People make very bad decisions because those numbers are discussed at forums, without the involvement of people who can interpret the statistical and medical significance of scientific studies.

Exactly. It's kind of like not telling your kids about sex: They will try to find information on their own and most probably they will be misinformed.

And would you suggest doctors would take two to three extra hours with every patient to work them through a basic statistics class which still isn't sufficient to explain the concept?

Two to three extra hours is vastly exaggerated, and not that much time for someone who needs to know the chances of dying a horrible death. I might add that this is an objection based on economic argumentation, which, while not invalid, is not the one given by doctors. They argue like the author of the article did: That they know better than you how you will react to this kind of information, and that they can manage your morale by taking certain freedoms with the truth.

I think that this is an unworthy and authoritarian approach which only leads to distrust: How can that guy say that I will certainly survive when Wikipedia, Lymphoma.org and the fucking New England Journal of Medicine agree that there is a one in five chance of me biting the dust in the next few years?

> I might add that this is an objection based on economic argumentation, which, while not invalid, is not the one given by doctors

If you think doctors don't have time for you for economic reasons, and not the fact that there are other patients out there, you really have no idea what doctors do all day.

> They argue like the author of the article did: That they know better than you how you will react to this kind of information, and that they can manage your morale by taking certain freedoms with the truth.

They have far more experience with people receiving this information than the person receiving it.

> If you think doctors don't have time for you for economic reasons, and not the fact that there are other patients out there, you really have no idea what doctors do all day.

You are the one who explains that behavior with economic constraints - seemingly without even realizing it. I have written twice that I don't think it comes down to economic reasons.

> They have far more experience with people receiving this information than the person receiving it.

I think that's a popular misconception. They are highly specialized experts for certain kinds of cancer, not priests, social workers or psychologists. You do not have deep conversations with them about how you are coping with the disease and the possibility of dying. You discuss blood counts, treatment plans, possibly options for being recruited into a study population. Or more concisely: They maintain a professional relationship while keeping a healthy emotional distance from their patients.

And nobody should blame them for that. After all, you go to the doctor to get treatment for your cancer, not a shoulder to cry on.

I had some university classes with a doctor few years ago; he brought up the WHO definition of health:

"A state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." (emphasis mine)

He then told that questions like "should we tell the patient that he has two years left, and watch him and his family live the life of constant worry and sadness (and probably of a therapy that will add a year or so to the total lifespan, at the cost of being painful for the patient and very taxing to the family), or should we omit that information and let him live his life out in peace and happiness?" are part of an on-going ethical debate in medicine - because of the need to balance the "mental well-being" part with the "absence of disease".

Also, while telling the truth is a virtue, doing so knowing that people had, and will, predictably hurt themselves with it seems less so.

Sounds controlling. Who is the doctor to 'let him live his life' at all? The doctor is there to work on the disease. The life part belongs to the patient.

Maybe the issue discussed here is with the doctor entirely - what they think of themselves when seeing a patient respond to their expert opinion. So the patient cries, or panicks, or leaves their family? That is nothing to the doctor; not their business nor responsibility.

Its not irresponsible for the doctor to tell the facts, no matter how they lead. Because the impact on the patient is not their responsibility at all. Trying to make it so is wrong and selfish and manipulative.

> Because the impact on the patient is not their responsibility at all.

That directly conflicts with the WHO definition of health. Which is exactly my point. Doctors nowdays are responsible for more than just the physical well-being, and they try to figure out how to handle these additional responsibilities in an optimal way.

In the case of terminal illness. Absolutely. In fact, they should be sending the charts to a specialist teaching a week long personalized class to help them understand the data.

Many doctors also don't have a nuanced understanding of statistics. They can quote you the survival numbers you can read elsewhere and they can quote you other people's interpretation of them, but if you have a question that deviates from the literature they are familiar with they may not be able to provide additional interpretation.

Do medical schools teach stats? I know a couple of doctors(General Practitioners) that never took a stats class as an undergrad. My brother is a PhD in Cellular Biology and he learned stats as he went and never had a formal class.

If they get such classes, they sleep through them and have for decades.

There are studies (Eddy 1982; Gigerenzer and Hoffrage 1995) that show only a small percent of physicians understand even basic statistics.

Just Google same and you'll get a zillion links to freshman college homework discussing the problem.

Perhaps it's not as important as the other things they need to learn. While I don't know the answer I wouldn't assume that having a basic understanding of statistics is better than other things they are memorizing and understanding. (It could be but you can't assume that. Similar to feature creep with products or software.)

A basic understanding of statistics is crucial to being a doctor. When my wife was pregnant, we were faced with decisions like whether to get genetic testing and whether to breastfeed, but were frustrated to deal with statistical incompetence from doctors and nurses who couldn't explain the consequences of courses of action except in child-like "do this" and "don't do this" ways. One nurse, when discussing IUDs, quoted a failure rate by itself as a percentage. When we asked about the time frame, not only did she not know it, but she couldn't understand why a failure percentage was meaningless without reference to a time frame. And forget about being able to reason through the research on alcohol exposure in pregnancy or breastfeeding.

I disagree, especially about the nurses. The medical system is a huge machine. Nurses and doctors are but cogs in that machine. The system produces guidelines such as "after looking at tens of studies, for patients above X years old, procedure X doesn't make sense"; it's way more important for doctors to be able to assess symptoms and to have a feeling for how to tweak those guidelines (yes, this guy is over 60, but he ran a marathon last week without problems, has never smoked, and his parents, both in their nineties, do not need care yet) than to know the ins and outs of statistics.

After all, all those statistics are kind of meaningless. They rarely are split by sex, age, smoking behaviour, and familial history ("Where was the study of nonsmoking 36-year-old neurosurgeons?") It's a doctor's job to, somehow, find the best approach using incomplete data.

More importantly, all guidelines likely are about approaches that have changed since the data was collected. That new anesthetic procedure may have shifted things by a percent, that slightly adjusted monitoring protocol another, the improved CT scanner another, etc.

Medicine just isn't that much of an exact science as many of us think it is. In many cases, we haven't managed to make it a science (yet). For example, in IVF, even after years of working together to copy each other's best practices, one hospital might have a 30% success rate, another a 40% one, even after normalizing for every difference in patient population or treatment we can think of.

I suspect that in the US in particular, doctors are also hesitant to give specific numbers or statistics for fear of the abusively litigious nature of our system.

If they gave numbers and explained the statistical significance, people would go and Google things and come to the conclusion that the doctor was wrong. Doesn't matter if the doctor was right; they'd still think they were wrong.

I too was on the receiving end of that talk. Are statistics so really so difficult that doctors cannot give them to patients?

Here's a Kaplan-Meier curve for patients with Leukaemia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202035/figure/F...

Would it really be so difficult to say, "We estimate you have a 50% chance of being alive in 18 months, and a 25% chance of being alive in 10 years. But don't give up hope because that will reduce your chances."

The problem with the Kaplan-Meier curve is that most of the time, they represents figures about the whole patient population, but depending on the disease, there are extreme differences between stages and possibly dozens of cytogenetic factors. AML 5 year survival can be as low as ~15% and as high as ~70%. For Melanoma patients, it ranges between 100% (in situ) and 10% (stage IV).

"I began to realize that coming face to face with my own mortality, in a sense, had changed both nothing and everything. Before my cancer was diagnosed, I knew that someday I would die, but I didn’t know when. After the diagnosis, I knew that someday I would die, but I didn’t know when."

Within this passage lies the meaning of life.

The logical person inside of me wants to say that there is no meaning to life. But of course, that is not how I feel.

Well, of course, that's the trick: to acknowledge a lack of objective meaning while seeking out your own subjective meaning, something that transcends the banal logic of the everyday. That's the tough part (or at least, it can be for many, myself included).

well. I could make a decent argument that reproduction is a serviceable meaning to life if you like.

Life is a sandbox game. You can choose your own goals, but from time to time it suggests goals to you. You get rewards for completing them, but you don't have to, it's just a way of making things easier if you have trouble deciding what to do.

meaning is created, and its worth creating

The Christian in me wants to say "hey guys, I know what you mean, I've felt the same way, and I found a reasonable answer." But my experience reminds me that kind of conversation is futile.

Everyone has an opinion, and every opinion is equally easy (equivalently, equally hard) to demonstrate by an appeal to a private revelation. You're right, there's not even any point talking about it unless you have some way to back it up that beats "try it and see." Everyone can say that about arbitrarily different claims.

I won't couch it in a paralepsis like you did: It's futile because you're wrong.

The Christian in you is a good and honorable person; the Hacker News commenter in you knows that such behavior is never rewarded here unless it happens to line up with the HN zeitgeist, which has little patience with any sort of received wisdom that doesn't agree with its own.

I find this really quite marvelous. Who could imagine such a batch of soi-disant freethinkers, who all seem to feel the same need to carefully curate and circumscribe the thoughts they're willing to think?

Perhaps it won't be as marvelous to you when you consider that some of these freethinkers have spent years open-mindedly trying to integrate these systems into their lives. Years listening to testimonials, trying to find something to grasp onto. Yet still failed to find enough interest, passion, or problem that it solved in their lives.

I don't have to re-install Windows 8 on my laptop once a week to re-confirm the opinions I formed the previous week. To do so would be an irrational waste of time. Your audience is similarly rationally choosing not to re-evaluate until they see a new perspective on the religion or a way of addressing a fundamental flaw that keeps them from embracing religion.

And when they argue with you, have you considered that perhaps they're trying to push through a personal hangup they have that keeps them from embracing it themselves? That they are not trying to put you down, but instead to understand?

For some of us, we've already searched long and hard to no avail.

One thing about knowledge, and being a tiny little human, is that if you don't know about the whole framework behind existence, then not only do you not know if there is such a thing or what it is, but you also don't know whether anybody knows. And don't you even think about reaching for that Razor.

The way I resolve it: meaning is something we construct. So yes, there's no Meaning of Life written in the stars, no absolute truth there. But you can make as much meaning as you need.

Personally, I like that better. If somebody tried to tell me the One True Meaning of Life, the first thing I'd do is argue with 'em. This way I get to argue with myself.

That's the way I see it too. Life is what you make it.

I think you misinterpret the question. It's not "What is the meaning of my/your life?" - it's "What is the meaning of life?" or put another way: "Why does life exist? and why should/does it continue?"

That doesn't necessarily change the answer.

I think that's not the question. Things don't have a meaning by themselves.

What does hydrogen mean?

Yes, exactly.

To me, meaning is a thing where we try to reconstruct the intentions of other conscious entities. "What does her sentence mean?" is a legitimate use of that. The equivalent, "What does she mean by that sentence?" is clearer.

It can be useful (or at least fun) to apply our machinery for creating and extracting meaning for other purposes. But misapplying a tool puts you closer to the limits where the tool gives problematic results. When I use a butter knife as a screwdriver or a pry bar, I shouldn't be so surprised when I scratch or break something. If I ask, "What do planets mean?" and end up with astrology, that's a sign I've pushed the tool too far.

No, I understood the question. My answer stays the same.

The meaning of life is to never die. I hope we will reach this within next few generations. Dead have no choices.

> The meaning of life is to never die.

This seems like a difficult philosophy to live with. You will someday die; does your life thus have no meaning? Everyone ever born will eventually die; does human life as a whole thus have no meaning?

I guess it's just to live as long as possible rather than never dying.

I hope to be a part of generation that will have an option not to die. The current implementation of human body dies eventually and it happens to every mind on this planet, yes this is sad. But things are improving.

For you, maybe. And even then, probably not.

It's so easy to try and attempt to break it down. And every-time we work towards that, we are neglecting the true nature of the chaos from which we were sewn.

You don't know when you will die. I don't know when either of us will die. OMFG it can't make sense. Should it? Do I prepare? If so, how? WTF will my dog do? The truth is: you can't know the truth until the moment comes to you. When it does, be it with fear or amazement, it will be only yours. You will get to tell no-one. It will just be yours. In the same way you remember Sandy or Tim's glance in the third grade. In the same way as now. In the same way it is for everyone telling you the theory they believe in that moment.

The question should not be "when will I die?" but rather "how will I feel about my life in the last moment I'm lucidly able to do so?". It will hit you in the same way as Sandy/Tim: it will be something you know you feel no matter what anyone could say. Analogous to someone in love. They might be a jerk, but that time they did that thing...that's what grips you. It will feel like that. And it's likely money won't be the kicker. Nor will knowing that this is the moment you die.

pops confetti cannon

> The question should not be "when will I die?" but rather "how will I feel about my life in the last moment I'm lucidly able to do so?"

--------------------

The second question includes the first as a subset - if I knew I were going to die in a couple of years, there's no way I'd work on things I don't enjoy that have a longer-term pay-off. But, if I live longer than those two years, and have spent everything having fun within them, then I'm kinda stuffed for the long run.

We're all gamblers, and happiness may be what we want to walk away from the table with but the odds still matter.

Assuming one is not religious, why should the last moment in life be more important than your experiences the previous 10 years?

That is if you are Ivan Ilyich, is the last moment really that important?

It's not that the last moment is more important -- it is that the last moment is, by definition, the last moment you will be able to reflect on the sum of your experiences. That moment is the culmination of your life. Being aware of it allows you to influence that moment today.

I'd not read or heard of Tolstoy's Ilyich. A read of the Wikipedia[1] page, though, suggests that his last moment was incredibly important: in it he came to realize he had not lived fully and was in fact living only for himself. His impending death, up until then viewed selfishly by him, became release for those around him. Once he saw his death as an escape for his loved ones, his pain subsided.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Ivan_Ilyich

"Before I saw the rain clouds, I knew it'd rain, but I didn't know when. After the sky grew darker, I knew it'd rain, but I didn't know when."

Within that passage lies the meaning of weather.

I'm not belittling the OP; I enjoyed the article quite a bit. I just find the whole "meaning of life is explained by the inevitability of death" sentiment to be rather empty.

More like "Before cancer, I knew I was going to die within a few decades (accidents excluded)" and "After the cancer, I knew I was going to die within a few months/years (miracles excluded"...

"And then my health began to improve, thanks to a pill that targets a specific genetic mutation tied to my cancer."

Isn't tailoring drugs to specific mutations the next big revolution in medicine that we've been waiting for? Steve Jobs had his DNA sequenced to help fight his cancer.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/21/steve_jobs_had_his...

Yes, I am friends with Dr. Mark Nelson at University of Arizona and he is doing a startup in that area. http://pathology.arizona.edu/faculty/mark-nelson-phd

No offense, and it bothers me in almost any use, but the phrase "doing a startup" seems especially out of its depth in this context.

What's your preferred verb?

Why not just say "starting a business?" I've never seen what is so magically special about "startups" that they deserve to be regarded as inhabiting a separate, higher plane of their own, beyond and above ordinary entrepreneurship as the species has heretofore known it.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519686/steve-jobs-left-...

Another article describing a business that was started around this concept and seems to be having an important impact in medicine.

For a long time I've been pretty worried about my mortality. But ever since I became a Christian a couple years ago, I've been much more at peace about it. Not all the way (yet?), but much more than before. I highly recommend looking into Christianity to anyone else feeling that same fear.

Please don't downvote just because you disagree. Have a discussion if you're comfortable with your beliefs. It would do more good for all involved.

Sorry, I was raised Christian and realized at 12 years old that it was complete bunk. How did I realize that? I read the bible. Literally every day. I read it cover to cover at least 15 times. It contains pearls of wisdom floating in a sea of nonsense. No rational person can read that book cover to cover and remain a Christian. Which is why Christians have bible study groups where they focus on John 3:16 and other pretty verses while ignoring the wackjob parts that make up most of the bible.

But it is pointless for me to even point this out to you so I'll stop here.

The bible makes as much sense as most ancient literature. I read it and compared it to ancient Greek, Roman and Babylonian literature. It's interesting to compare and contrast what values are emphasized over others. The old testament is very into offspring and private property, mainly in the form of livestock. The Greeks are more into glory for its own sake. Gilgamesh is about friendship, civilization vs.nature and trying to live forever.

> The bible makes as much sense as most ancient literature.

I don't see why that's a meaningful comparison. I'm inclined to say, so what?

The bible makes as much sense as most ancient literature.

Key difference is that rational people in 2014 aren't claiming that Zeus may strike you down with a lightning bolt or thinking that Gilgamesh was divinely inspired.

The old testament is very into offspring and private property

Really? It just seems like a mish-mash of things nobody today would find acceptable. It advocates slavery in many places. Example:

http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-8.htm

http://biblehub.com/genesis/16-9.htm

Giving up your virgin daughters for men to do as they want:

http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-8.htm

And then there's this:

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-19.htm

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm

There is some wacky stuff in The Holy Bible. The New Testament isn't much better. It's a little better. But not much.

What else do you expect? You're not supposed to find most of it acceptable. Why are you surprised when a book that records the fall of man into sin and depravity is both shocking and FULL of stories of man pushing the bounds of depravity? It is brutally authentic and you should be reeling at the accounts of the depths of what mankind has done to himself.

The Bible doesn't "advocate" anything by those verses. Surely you wouldn't read a historical account of World War II and be so naive as to say that the book is "advocating" genocide, would you? That would be totally irrational.

To say that God "advocated" mankind's actions because they are recorded in the Old Testament is completely, utterly false and naive. It's like saying two parents "advocate" drug use when they recount the story of their child's drug addiction and how they attempted to bring their child back to being clean. The parents might even have a part in their story where they demanded their child keep the drug habit to the basement, or maybe even offered clean needles in lieu of the potentially infected ones off the street. But to say they "advocated" for that behavior? Hogwash!

No, the motive you are looking for is "merciful allowance, with a loving hope for restoration."

It's so obvious you haven't read the full bible, or even any of the links I gave. The very first link is where "The angel of the LORD" said to go back into slavery. So you blame that on men.

This is why it is pointless to discuss anything with zealots. Your brains turn off for this topic.

The very first link is where "The angel of the LORD" said to go back into slavery. So you blame that on men.

Hmm, what does Genesis 16:10 say, the verse that immediately follows that command? Do you read all your books in such a way that each sentence cannot be linked to the previous or following sentences?

Attempting to restrain or set boundaries (i.e. laws and rules) around man's sinful habits does not mean God was advocating for sin -- in the same way that a parent attempting to set some ground rules around their child's drug habit does not mean they are advocating the drug habit.

I took the same path as you. Forced church when I was younger and then started questioning, and finally was asked not to come to Sunday school anymore. Because the bible says so is simply not an acceptable answer and that is what it all came down to.

Today I usually just avoid religious conversations because most people are not aware that I have been there and done that, and I often know more about their religion than they do. If religion makes someone feel good, great. For me personally, the most vocally religious people I have met have always selfish people who hide behind the veil of Jesus.

Unfortunately you're right, there are many Christians who just like to argue and abuse their "religion" to get their confrontational needs met. There are also many Christians who don't really stand on solid ground in their faith.

But there are Christians out there who know what they're talking about, who know more about their religion than the enlightened ex-Christians and educated atheists do.

You've probably never met one. Most people haven't. Because they don't like to argue or confront people. And they don't force their views down people's throats. Most of the time, they just sit there quietly and pray for those non-believers who other Christians would insult or argue with. They usually only bring it up when they're asked to give account for the reason they have hope, and they do it with gentleness and respect.

You have started arguments and confrontations in this thread, where it really isn't relevant, and you haven't backed anything up, and that makes you look like a bit of a zealot. Maybe consider your own behavior instead of pleading for respect of an idealized Christian (who you pretty obviously intend to be yourself). You aren't a martyr here.

I don't claim to be perfect. But I'm also not shoving anything down anyone's throats. And I don't see how anything I've said on here constitutes arguing. I think you're confusing me with someone else maybe?

There's no discussion to be had. A toddler may feel at ease because someone convinced him his flashlight will fend off the monsters in his closet and under his bed. It helps the kid sleep, but there's no enlightened, meaningful, or useful discussion to be had from that.

If I tell you "I believe in the healing power of crystals and wear them around my neck and it has helped me come to a certain peace with my mortality", you would either say "well, good for you if that helps your mental state cope with things" or "you're fucking nuts". Neither avenue is going to progress, inform, or help anyone.

Same here. Been following Jesus for over 24 years. For the skeptics out there, have a listen to this guy http://waltermartin.com/realaudio.html

It's a website that is desperately in need of a makeover (real player? that still exists?) but when I was a skeptic he was the only guy that gave straight answers, and would admit when he didn't know something. Too bad there are so many false teachers out there today. Makes it confusing for people.

>I've been much more at peace about it. Not all the way (yet?)

I've been a Christian for 25 years. I don't think you'll ever be completely at peace with your mortality--in the same way that riding a roller coaster is still scary even though you know it's safe.

But I've seen the difference in the way my Christian and non-Christian friends handle death, and the difference is striking.

What would you say the difference is?

For me, as a Christian: hope and gratitude.

They differ in their belief about the deceased's current subjective experience (or lack thereof).

To the religious, death is an illusion. After a short time on the earth, everybody meets up again in the afterlife. It may be sad, but not too sad.

To those who don't believe in an afterlife, death is real. When someone dies, everything about them is annihilated. A lifetime of experiences destroyed; a unique personality deleted from existence, and everyone worse-off because of it.

Sadly, the desirability of an outcome has no correlation with its likelihood.

The universe existed for ~ 14 billion years and did just fine without me. It will probably be good for at least another 14 billion years after I'm gone.

And the funny thing is, I have never lost a minute of sleep over not having existed for those initial 14 billion years.

I'm not entirely sure how your reply connects to my comment. Are you arguing that death isn't bad? If so, try pointing the argument at someone else:

"The universe existed for billions of years and did just fine without you. It will probably be good for eons after you're gone. And the funny thing is, I have never lost a minute of sleep over your non-existence for those initial billions of years."

It sounds both psychopathic and psychotic.

Are you arguing that death isn't bad?

I'm actually quoting many philosophers and authors that have said the same thing and for which I agree. For example:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25647-i-do-not-fear-death-i-...

Essentially, it didn't bother you that you didn't exist 100 years ago. Think hard about why it bothers you that you won't exist 100 years from now.

In 200 years, nobody will remember you.

In 1,000 years, it will be as if you never existed. Just like 1,000 years before you were born.

illusion my friend. How certain/confident are you with that belief ? The "I" that you think you are, was different when you are 3yr old, when you are 30yr old, or at present...the way you behaved, reacted to pain(both physical and psychological) have evolved. There is a theory the subconscious (not consciously comprehended) evolves through lives. Its not rebirth (of your PRESENT SELF), in the traditional sense.

"I" at any moment through out your PRESENT life, is illusion (in other words, its constantly evolving, not same or real). If you cant even pin down present life, how can you be sure of past and future.

From personal experience, Christians seem to have a harder time moving on. If your loved one died in a terrible way, you'll still feel the guilt of the accident. On top of that, there will be continuing doubt and guilt, as you imagine your loved one watching you, judging you perhaps, questioning your current actions. Sure, heaven is supposed to be perfect, so that's not a "real" problem. Yet knowing they're still alive somewhere, you can't help but wonder.

Is it fair to be happy again? To love again? To joke about things? What will they think, looking at you continuing "life"? Even 10 years later, in the middle of a family gathering with happiness all around, a shot of guilt - will they be offended I forgot about them this time? That despite saying I never would, I've sorta moved on? How are they doing, anyways? It's joyful for them, but how do they look? Did they grow a bit more? Is their hair still long? What are they doing right now? Again, the answer is to handwave and say it's all magically perfect, and probably time dilation so we'll be dead and up there before they've even gotten through the welcome brochure. Doesn't really stop you from thinking things anyways.

Then they start piling on the "it was God's plan"/"it's for the best"/"there's a higher plan". That's the best answer to the pointless, yet burning desire to know "why?" I find this despicable, although I know many people say it out of good intention - there's really not a whole lot to say, such things fill the awkward silence. But for those that think about what they're saying for more than a second, it comes out to "be happy that a dreadful, evil, event occurred to you; the creator of the universe wishes it so and thus is an honor".

Being able to definitively answer the "why?" question was a major part of my healing. Answer it just like you would any other event; stop chasing something "meaningful" behind it.

OTOH, some people don't analyze things much. They're content to smile and say "he's so happy now, and I'll be joining him soon". This seems somewhat harmless, and might give someone hope in the end of their life, despite it being unrealistic. Sometimes you lie to people make them feel better, even though you're against lying in general.

And I certainly don't begrudge what [most] people do while bereaved - pain sucks and humans should have a basic right to deal with pain. I do find it contemptible to take advantage of their condition and sell them on a "solution".

Edit: I also find it very repulsive to treat death with positive adjectives. To take one of the worst things that plagues humanity, a completely negative experience, and then, because it's inevitable, try to gussy it up and make it not so bad, but something to look forward to.

I recommend The Little Schemer

I find it strange people can die knowing about Jesus but not lisp and somehow think they are enlightened :)

Oh, they are enlightened! They know they can learn Lisp in Heaven. :)

As for Python...

I seem to remember that it was the snake that got every one in trouble in the first place...

Obligatory xkcd cartoon: http://xkcd.com/224/

I hate to break it to you, but religion is just a ruse to help people come to grips with their mortalities. It's extremely unlikely beyond belief that there is any notion of heaven or hell in this universe.

I don't want to start a religious war. I just don't want you to be let down when you're on your deathbed 30, 40, 50, 60 years from now.

As a Christian, I would agree that there is no heaven in this universe. God is out of place and time.

What does that even mean? Making up meaningless deep-sounding statements doesn't really further any argument. Here's some I just made up:

"We shouldn't fear death any more than an unborn baby fears birth. Death is our true birth."

"Everyone has faith. The only difference is that some people try to define faith, while others let faith define them."

"The world absolutely runs on discoverable physical laws - no exceptions! But my freedom comes from knowing God is those laws."

Assume the universe is not just computable [1], but actually computed, that is, running as a virtual machine under a hypervisor.

How do we detect the presence of the hypervisor and break out of virtualisation? [2]

Bonus: What is the name of the sysadmin?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Pill_(software)#Other_uses

Sounds like you are ready to start your own church.

Thanks for your sympathy. But I've done my homework. Jesus did actually rise from the dead. Research it and you'll come to the same conclusion. I don't have many books on it, but I'd probably start with Handbook of Catholic Apologetics[1] by Kreeft and Tacelli.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Catholic-Apologetics-Reasoned...

We did research it, but don't worry, your insults don't affect us much anymore.

My insults? I didn't insult anyone. Why do you think I did?

In retrospect, this comment does sound kind of rude, although I meant no harm. I shouldn't have posted it at 3am, but I can't delete it now. So all I can do is say "I'm sorry".

belief systems are tools for living in the world. If it is a ruse that helps them live their lives happily and with purpose, then it is a useful ruse. I myself had a lot of fun with discordianism.

For anyone interested in rational arguments for believing in Christianity, I recommend the Handbook of Christian Apologetics[1] by Kreeft and Tacelli.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-K...

Thanks for sharing this link. As a lifelong Catholic, as well as a biologist and software developer, I have often thought my background in this particlar area was not what it should be.

As a fellow Catholic, I would instead recommend The Handbook of Catholic Apologetics[1] by the same author. It's basically the same book, but with an additional ~40 pages about Catholicism. I admit they're not the best apologetics for Catholicism out there, but it's not much of a price difference. Also, this is the one I have.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Catholic-Apologetics-Reasoned...

And what changed? What things stopped worrying you?

If I believed getting killed immediately let to perfect joy, and my family would be with me in a sec and be totally happy, yeah, death wouldn't bother me at all. I'd probably try to get us all into high risk jobs and locales, too.

I've got the peace that a process that's going to segfault has. At least I know the OS will close my sockets for me.

I have gone the exact opposite path, from a life pretty entrenched in Christianity, to skepticism, to a conclusion that led me towards hard atheism. I feel like I am sure there is no supernatural creator, and the only love we receive is from people. I now thank people for their good, not God, and get angry at them for their bad, not at Satan. Religion starts off by lifting your responsibilities, and that is the worst part in my opinion.

That said, it has improved my outlook on death too. I think there is no point worrying about an inevitable event that has no consequences other than the disappearance of a, maybe loved, person.

No one knows what you feel, and no one ever has come back from it. That makes death pretty unconsequential, as there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Many people have taken the route you've described, and their stories are usually the same. They finally found reason (maybe at 8 or 12) and realized all the "obvious, gaping holes and flaws" in Christianity.

But very few people have gone from atheist to Nicene-creed-believing Christian in their adult life, which I did. This seems so backwards, don't you just wonder what their reasoning was? I do.

Of course I wonder which path you went through, it is the point of this discussion, and for all the rampant no-holds-barred religion bashing HN usually sees, this is still an above-average forum for this kind of discussion.

I would really like to hear about that, with the only rule that neither of us should try and convince anyone else, and all we say is to be taken strictly personally.

I will start by saying that I actually went through the realization that I had no evidence or need for the supernatural about 1 year ago, at 35 and counting, after reading The God Delusion and then starting my own research path across philosophy, theology and science. I feel like I have reached a conclusion, albeit just a personal one.

I was raised somewhere between theist and deist, with only the belief that there is some "God" and if you're good you go to Heaven, otherwise Hell. That was it. Before my digits were yet two, I started reasoning about all of this on my own, and came to my own conclusions on them, which were basically uninformed. In my teenage years, I experimented with atheism and settled on agnosticism.

Just a few years ago in my middle-adulthood, I turned to "God and Jesus" in a desperate attempt to keep sanity during really hard times (my wife and kids and I were in the brink of homelessness, with no job and almost no cash, 9000 miles away from home). I really believed it was a mental coping mechanism, but I didn't care at that point.

Our situation resolved, and I ended up returning back to my agnosticism. But existential panic attacks sent me searching more fervently for an answer. I reached out to a non-denominational (i.e. Protestant) pastor, telling him that I wanted to believe in Christianity, but I couldn't violate my integrity, knowing that it's incompatible with science and history.

He gave me a book called The Reason for God[1] which demonstrated that Christianity doesn't conflict with science, and that the Resurrection of Jesus is historically true and accurate as presented in the Gospels. When I finished reading it, I chose to become a Christian.

Eventually, as I kept researching different denominations, I settled on Catholicism as the most likely to be correct. For other Christians curious how I could come to that conclusion, I would recommend The Catholic Controversy[2] by St. Francis de Sales.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Reason-God-Belief-Skepticism/dp/15...

[2]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Catholic-Controversy-Defense-Faith...

How do you "experiment" with atheism? Just saying to yourself "I'm now an atheist" and seeing how that feels? It doesn't sound like you ever had solid rational and empirical reasons for choosing atheism, and indeed that is the only kind of atheist that I've ever heard of turning to the supernatural.

Atheists like me are atheists not because the quality of life it provides, but because there's no empirical evidence that there's any truth to any of the supernatural claims ever made. We understand that faith is a choice of last resort when no other evidence is available, and that faith is a really bad way to come to conclusions. Atheists like me understand our inherent biases, we seek to ask questions in a way that there can be a negative answer. There is no such negating answer to "what would convince me there is no god" and that alone, in the absence of any kind of empirical evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity, should be enough to not be a believer.

The truth is whatever the truth is, and I want to believe reality no matter how it makes me feel. If it feels good to believe in magical things that care about us but those magical things aren't real then I don't want to believe in them.

The litany of Tarski is useful:

If the box contains a diamond,

I desire to believe that the box contains a diamond;

If the box does not contain a diamond,

I desire to believe that the box does not contain a diamond;

Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.

By "experiment" I mean I started questioning whether or not it was true, debating with my peers about it (either for or against).

I ultimately settled on agnosticism because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If there was a God who chose to never reveal (or even hint at) his existence to humanity, it would be incorrect for a person to be an atheist. Since that's a legitimate possibility, it makes more sense to be agnostic than atheist.

So what evidence did you eventually find to turn to God if it's not a feelings/faith based thing?

If it could be explained in a HN comment, I think there would be many more Christians in the world. That's why there are whole books written on the subject. The only one I still own is The Handbook of Christian Apologetics[1][2] so that's the only one I can recommend.

But it does require some faith, just not blind or unreasoning faith, as most people seem to think.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-K...

There's no other kind of faith. Faith literally means "belief without evidence."

That's not my definition of faith. But let's not get hung up on semantics and disagreements about definitions.

The point I was making is that there is a good deal of evidence, but it also requires a little belief in something that you can't absolutely prove.

I don't want to debate with you; I've done more than my share of religious debates in my life and no longer find any joy in them. I also completely agree that debating definitions is rarely useful. I will point out, though, that nobody claims to have faith that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that the sky is blue. "Faith" connotes a leap; I understand that as a leap from the evidence to the conclusion, covering a gap that cannot be covered by logical reasoning. It's that leap that I take issue with, regardless of which word you choose to label it with.

You've repeatedly recommended a book of apologetics throughout the thread. If I could make a recommendation in turn: Critique of Religion and Philosophy, by Walter Kaufmann. I think it can give you much to think about, and from a reasonably friendly perspective.

I can't reply to you directly. Why is your faith not blind or unreasoning? Can you give me just one specific example of empirical evidence for God's existence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm guessing you're going to give me some unverifiable testimony from people who died long ago and expect that to have a person question heaps of contrary empirical evidence. I don't think that works.

And you are resorting to faith because the evidence isn't good enough. The evidence that explain the things that I believe in, like the existence of this computer in front of me, don't require any faith at all.

I've found that you can reply directly by clicking the [link] link, which gives you a reply box.

"The evidence that explain the things that I believe in, like the existence of this computer in front of me, don't require any faith at all."

Not so. You have faith in what your parents told you about the circumstances of your birth. You have no memory of the first year of your life, so it could very well have been made up. But you believe it by faith mixed with reason.

In this case that's not me using faith, that's using a heuristic. A heuristic is a decent substitute for empirical research, but it is not foolproof. We use heuristics to save time. If we had to do empirical research for everything in our lives we would never have time to do anything.

A heuristic is a way to ascertain information quickly. In the case of my birth, there's all kind of evidence to back up my parent's stories including photos, the investment and time spent in raising me. None of this is foolproof evidence, but it's enough to pass my heuristic for this situation. And there are measures I can take to get physical empirical evidence, like a DNA test.

The question of who my parents have can be phrased in this way and have an answer "the people who claim to be my parents are not actually my parents if a DNA test disputes their claims."

Please I encourage you to phrase a question as I have for your belief in God. Something like "I would not believe in God if X were true." Fill in the X.

Following your formula and your DNA example, "I would not believe in God if the New Testament were not true."

That's not right.

Try to the phrase the X with very specific verifiable empirical evidence.

It's a bit ridiculous to make a claim of truth for an entire volume of information. Scientists, for example, don't do this. There are always going to be errors that creep into work. Einstein's has a paper called "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory." Scientists don't say "I would not believe in relativity if Einstein's paper were not true." They give specific evidence. For example, they would say they don't believe in relativity if light from stars didn't bend around the sun. Try something like that.

Here's a good short article on the Resurrection of Jesus[1].

[1]: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

These are all witness accounts from superstitious people who died long ago. Nothing listed is verifiable. This is not good evidence. Witness accounts from dead people should not be enough to discount the mountains of empirical evidence that imply that resurrection after having been dead for three days is not possible.

I disagree. The following document explains my reasoning:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04503a.htm

The explanation given there is sound when it is applied the veracity of historical written records that don't attempt to support the supernatural. It's just about measuring what the more reliable evidence is. Did so and so say such and such to this person and so 500 years ago? Best written records say so, and there are different pieces of records from different people who say so and so we deem it good enough to say it's accurate. That's a totally different ball game than trying to discredit contemporary physical evidence.

You'll find my rebuttal in the books I've mentioned in other comments.

> I'm guessing you're going to give me some unverifiable testimony from people who died long ago and expect that to have a person question heaps of contrary empirical evidence.

Read the related chapter in The Handbook of Christian Apologetics[1] for reasons why the Gospel stories are reliable eyewitness accounts.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Christian-Apologetics-Peter-K...

When it comes to claims that attempt to discount an insurmountable mountain of physical evidence you yourself can verify, there is no such thing as reliable eyewitness accounts, especially not from people who died eons ago. It's obvious you are not applying sound reasoning. Would you say it's sound reasoning to convict a man cleared by DNA tests for murder when there are witness accounts from living people? Think about this maybe. You're applying a wholly uneven standard of importance to one kind of evidence because of faith. And you resort to faith because the evidence is not good enough. You resort to faith because you want to. Given all that we know about the universe, you are clearly making the wrong choice.

I may not convince you, but again, you are exactly what I thought you were, a person who relies on faith to believe in God. Faith is a bad way to come to believe in things. For example Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet, Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Both rely on faith, but clearly both can not be right. You would not use faith to answer questions in everyday life, because you would not do well.

The book I mentioned refutes this argument you're making. Why don't you read it?

Why don't you provide a short summary. My opinion right now is that if the book claims that things we can physically verify ourselves about the world are wrong because of a handful of dead people it doesn't sound like a very good book.

I can only think of three reasons you're asking me why I believe in Christianity (or Catholicism).

1. You want to learn more about Christianity for yourself to see if its worth believing in.

2. You just want to have a conversation with me.

3. You want to find my reasoning so you can tear it down and show me how I'm wrong.

I don't believe #3 is true, as I believe you're a better person than that. And I don't see why you'd be particularly interested in doing #2. In which case, you probably just want to learn more about it.

Since you probably just want to learn more about it, I think you'll find that those books contain all the same answers I could give, and they do a much better job of it than I could.

But I just don't have the time to devote to rewriting them in the form of HN comments. I'd rather spend my Saturday reading the Julia documentation (so awesome) and playing with my kids and teaching my son programming.

I'm not trying to do anything malicious but intentions are irrelevant when it comes to truth. It's either right or wrong. If someone really had a good reason for believing in God I'd like to know about it. I am also interested in atheists who later turn to God because I don't comprehend how such a thing is possible unless they were never rigorous in their scepticism or had some kind of terrible psychological trauma. The latter is known to ruin minds. For example starvation makes people irrational about eating, war, giving birth, etc all have psychological effects that can't be reasoned away.

Anyway thanks for answering my questions. Enjoy your weekend.

wrong questions you two banging heads for. Before you go for the ultimate, first, pin down a thing (anything) thats not changing (what, why, how, ...until all questions satisfy you/logically-subside). Atleast you will have a REAL thing to anchor/pivot from. As they say, reality(atheist's synonym for god) is real. God is reality. Real reality is not changing; get your mind established on it, the wisdom unfolds.

I think the conversation went fine.

I should also point out that, after my initial conversion to Christianity, "how I feel about it" is basically not a factor in what I believe.

There are many times when I felt miserable and strongly wished I wasn't a Christian anymore. But I couldn't just choose to disbelieve in something that my research had convinced me was objectively true.

To almost everyone who replied: Were your responses really in the spirit of HN? I don't believe anything I said deserved the condescending tone I received in response.

Respectfully, I would instead recommend secular Buddhism and mindfulness for dealing with emotions related to your own mortality. I believe it to be a healthier alternative without the need for a belief in god, an afterlife, or any superstition.

I recommend the writing of Jon Kabat-Zinn and Stephen Batchelor.

This approach of "pick what works best for you" only works if it's actually true. Christianity claims that it is objectively true, for all people, regardless of whether they believe it. So it's not like a Christian can just change to a religion that "fits" them better on a whim.

Secular Buddhism doesn't make any supernatural claims which means it's completely compatible with Christianity. That's why it also works for atheists.

Emphasis on the secular - traditional sects of Buddhism can have gods, reincarnation etc. It may be clearer to say mindfulness instead of Buddhism as that has religious connotations. It's medically recognised for handling stress.

Oh, good Lord! I made my previous comment to you before I noticed you'd thrown this rock at the hornets' nest. Good man! Not that bright, maybe, but with moral courage to spare, and that's a rare pleasure to run across in this degraded age.

Nicely written. Why is it that we only look for what is important to us when we realize that we don't have long to live? Don't people realize that this is true starting the day you're born?

Because there's a lot of "unimportant" stuff necessary to sustain the important stuff.

I think there is a lot true in that. It took me a good few years to get to the point of being able to focus on what is important for me. But, it do not think that the journey was wasted. Indeed it feels like everything/most what I have done up until now has put me in the position to do what is important, much more effectively and with some actual impact.

I learn slowly, so it took a while, but the journey is what was important in the end not the goal. So now I look at every step along the way and make sure it is both useful to my surrounding world, fun and gives me experience to do something bigger, better, funner for the next step. It probably sounds like a cliche, but it is nevertheless true for me.

Thank you.

one of the most clear, lucid and scientifically literate stories about existentialism I have heard in a long time. I bow my head to Paul Kalanithi, the author: http://www.stanford.edu/group/dlab/images/paulk.jpg

This part annoys me:

> Where was the study of nonsmoking 36-year-old neurosurgeons? Maybe my youth and health mattered? Or maybe my disease was found so late, had spread so far, and I was already so far gone that I was worse off than those 65-year-old smokers.

You don't need a 'study', you just need a comprehensive database that includes patients' age, smoking status, body-mass index, health status, and other prognostic factors. Then run a query to find what percentage of similar patients are still alive after 5 years.

Just about every person who is diagnosed with cancer asks, "What are my chances?". (And the best treatment usually depends on an accurate answer). Wouldn't the benefit of compiling and maintaing a central database of all US cancer patients be worth the cost?

I get so scared and sad when I read these articles. I always wonder "could it be prevented?", sure, you know you shouldn't smoke, you shouldn't be overweight and you should do at least 15 minutes of exercise every day, but does it really help? I bet a doctor would know better than anyone else how to live a healthy life, so this obviously begs the question: could cancer really be prevented?

Hardly. Even if you are perfectly healthy you can still develop some form of cancer. You see, theres people smoking for 40 years living on to be 80+ and other non-smokers who develop lung cancer at 35. Or be run over by a car, or have a heart attack or whatever. Of course you could be super cautious with everything, do checkups of everything every year, but in most cases thats a gigantic waste of metal energy, money and time when you are young and you might also develop hypochondriac mental issues. Could it be prevented ? Sure, like almost any kind of premature death could have been prevented, but that doesn't help much.

According to the professionals of the field, there is little hope for ever preventing cancer. For a protein life that has sufficient complexity, cells have to divide/replicate to maintain the life of the protein machine, e.g a human body. Stuff can go wrong with the division/replication, it can be inaccurate in so many ways but what matters most is that the replicates can also replicate.

Some cells die before they attempt a single replication. This could be due to a disease attack, vulnerable imperfect replicate, plus plus. As long as those that get to replicate can make up the numbers for those that die early. Cells that are resilient and can replicate fast and frequent enough before they die tend to pass on forms of this attribute to their imperfect clones.

With time, many types of cells in the whole protein body get to attempt replications faster and faster. Pure natural selection at work -- a concrete example, smoking kills lung cells, so for the lung cells to maintain their numbers they have to replicate early enough in their life time and frequently.

Most environmental pressures seem to force the biology of the cells in this direction, which increases the likelihood of replication eager cells aka cancerous cells.

That is why at this moment in time, prevention seems bleak.

I don't understand how everyone here was able to read this article - I browse to that link and get a message telling me it is locked behind a paywall, requiring my subscription before I can read it. Do all HN readers also subscribe to the NY Times?

You should get 10 free articles a month before the paywall appears. I'm guessing most HN readers haven't used up their quota yet.

How to read the article: Search for the article's title in Google (hint: select the title in the non-working NYT URL, dashes are fine), and the link from Google's (probably) top result to NYT will let you in, freely.

Try visiting in incognito mode. The paywall is cookie based.

I'm very curious: are there people who fear samsara? I sure do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃsāra

Alternative medicine is the only solution.

For Christ's sake, is there no safe haven in this world for the unapologetic atheist? I thought that Hacker News might be the one safe zone where Jesus brainwashing is not regurgitated to the masses, but I guess not. News flash for everyone, death is inevitable, and people do not rise from the grave, whether they harbor sympathy for humans or not. Life's meaning, if there is one, is at this stage incomprehensible to human beings. If there is life beyond the grave, it definitely isn't life, and it definitely isn't what you think it is. How many more years must humanity be shackled to superstition and death fear before we fucking get over it and move on to the important work of getting off of this planet? For fucks sake...

That's right Jesus freaks, downvote me to HELL!

Unapologetic atheist here. I downvoted your complaint about downvoting because such complaints add nothing to HN.

(I do share your distaste at the way some Christians have seized on this as a preaching opportunity.)

Frankly, the entire religion aspect of the discussion doesn't belong here.

As an atheist, I'm entirely fine with you finding comfort in whatever you like, even if it is completely irrational. It is your business. I also accomplish nothing by being "militant" toward people simply for believing in something. That is best reserved for situations where that belief or things drawn from it are imposed upon the rest of society. For example, in public education, science, politicians, taxation, decisions of national importance. Things where that belief impacting beyond the scope of an individual's life are forced upon everyone and on behalf of everyone.

However, it is also quite ridiculous to use this opportunity about an important topic to start telling people they should somehow convince themselves to believe in something metaphysical, because "it'll bring you peace". You aren't the Hare Krishna and this isn't the local airport. Let's leave the discussion at something like "I'm religious and find some solace and peace in my religion that helps me cope with potential mortality".

Telling people they should "believe in jesus" and linking to ridiculous books or interviews about why they should believe in jesus in incredibly self-serving, inappropriate, and counter-productive.

> News flash for everyone, death is inevitable

As far as we know there is nothing in the laws of physics about death (or life). It's all about fields and particles. Or maybe strings or loops or something else, but vitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism) is over.

So death "is" inevitable only because we don't know how to prevent it.

> How many more years must humanity be shackled to superstition and death fear before we fucking get over it and move on to the important work of getting off of this planet?

I'm totally okay with space colonization but conquering death (with science, I mean) seems like a more pressing issue. After all, even if we already had space colonies people would still die.

People would still die indeed. But I think technologically our odds favor tackling the issue of colonization over death. If we remain here on this planet, death of the entire species is a certainty. That could happen a lot sooner than people think.

Most Christians I know are way more open-minded than you seem to be. Your tone reminds me of the few intolerant christians I know.

Religious discussions aside, wtf do you mean with "getting off of this planet"? Whereto? There's nothing around for TRILLIONS of klicks!

First fuck up the planet, then leave, does not appear to be a trait of highly developed civilisations. More one of perishing ones.

I don't think that's what he meant. This planet is great, we should definitely keep it and take care of it. But it is just one single planet, we should try and hedge against problems out of our control (such as big meteorites).

I vote for solving death first, or at least in parallel (we can do both at the same time); I think we could do it faster than setting up a sustainable colony on another world.

I was told that Japanese Doctors don't discuss mortality rates with their patients. I was told they don't even mention the word Cancer. If a patient has stomach cancer, the patient is given the best currently available treatment, and is told they have a bad case of heart burn--and told they will get better! The reasoning is they want to get every once of magic The Placebo Effect has to offer. I don't know if it's better to quote stats to a patient, or lie(hopeing the Placebo Effect will take over?).

Personally, I don't use the Internet for any health related concerns--It has always just made me feel worse, and is loaded with hysteria, and just horrid advice.

And yes, I know U.S. Doctors can't lie to their patients. I'm just relaying what I was told twenty years ago.

When I get sick--I'm not sure if I would want to the statistics of survival. I would live every day as my last. I would take any drugs the Pallitive care Physician offered though. My father benefitted greatly from the opiates the doctors prescribed before he died.

I hope the doctor makes a full recovery, and commend him on his honesty and openness. Sometimes I forget doctors will someday be patients.

Oh yea, to the Marin General counter person who asked me if I wanted to sign a Advanced Procedure Directive, before even saying hello--if you happen to read this--one day you will be on the other side of the counter.

Good night! I hope you all stay well and are happy!

It's really difficult to read these types of stories and comments because it shows us that happy endings are not guaranteed for anyone by the universe.

We're just all flesh that's about to fail - sometime, eventually.

And that sometime comes sooner for some of us than latter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com