Dead is the End?

[Iacchus]

Hey, isn't that the same thing as saying dead-end?

And so what about death, the "greatest" of unknowns? Don't you people know you're doing it all for nothing, because when you die there's nothing to be realized? Does that make any sense? Seems like a big waste to me.

And how do you know our being here isn't a lot like going to school? You know, to learn our lessons? Or esle why the huge expenditure in our education, when there's no vocation to enter after we graduate? Would you send your kids to school if you knew there were no benefits?

Indeed, death is the greatest illusion of all, if in fact it were merely "physical" ...

And to think, God has one up on all of us! ;)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Hey, isn't that the same thing as saying dead-end?

No


And so what about death, the "greatest" of unknowns? Don't you people know you're doing it all for nothing, because when you die there's nothing to be realized?

It is your own interpretation. I don't think that I am "doing it all for nothing". The rewards for my actions are here and now, not in dead or in life after death. Those rewards keep me doing things in order to get more satisfaction.


Does that make any sense?

Yes


Seems like a big waste to me.

I can understand why. :D


And how do you know our being here isn't a lot like going to school? You know, to learn our lessons? Or esle why the huge expenditure in our education, when there's no vocation to enter after we graduate? Would you send your kids to school if you knew there were no benefits?

There are benefits here and now, that's why people who know that death is inevitable still enjoy doing things and enjoy searching for the truth.

[sparklecat]

Just for the sake of argument...

What's the point of talking about us being here as a waste, unless you presuppose some sort of ultimate purpose for us? Life may seem a waste to us, but I doubt the universe cares.

[El Greco]

Here we go again
:v:

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Those rewards keep me doing things in order to get more satisfaction.


More satisfaction? :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus, why don't you propose the most grand and glorious after-death scenario that you can possibly imagine. Then tell us what the point of it is.

~~ Paul

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


More satisfaction? :D

Yes, more. Is that a bad thing or what?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Yes, more. Is that a bad thing or what?


It is not a bad thing. But satisfaction is only ever temporary. :)

[Keziah Mason]

I'd like to see some evidence instead of all those "what-if"s and other wishful thinking which completely fails to impress.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, isn't that the same thing as saying dead-end?

And so what about death, the "greatest" of unknowns? Don't you people know you're doing it all for nothing, because when you die there's nothing to be realized? Does that make any sense? Seems like a big waste to me.
(snipped)

Indeed, death is the greatest illusion of all, if in fact it were merely "physical" ...

And to think, God has one up on all of us! ;)
Iacchus once again is:
1.) assuming this life is a waste
2.) There's better stuff on the other side of the septic tank
3.) is working on faith there's life after death and using it as "fact"
4.) assuming there is a god

Actually, the greatest of unknowns, I think, (and Kitten would agree with me), is how much could we get for selling El Greco into slavery?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Iacchus once again is:
1.) assuming this life is a waste
2.) There's better stuff on the other side of the septic tank
3.) is working on faith there's life after death and using it as "fact"
4.) assuming there is a god

Actually, the greatest of unknowns, I think, (and Kitten would agree with me), is how much could we get for selling El Greco into slavery?

If I remeber my bible correctly, and adjusting for about 2500 years of inflation (using about a middle of the road age argument, since they didn't really trade slaves in Eden.)


I'd say you could get roughly 1400 oxen, 750 camels or a trio 15 year old virgins.

Now that's just a rough estimate.

[Ipecac]

This is the kind of argument believers drag out convinced that it will stop us poor, unthinking non-believers in our tracks. A tear will roll down our face, we'll realize the futility of a life without Jebus and we'll be at church the very next Sunday.

Like all creatures, human beings have a survival instinct. We want to survive and we want to be comfortable doing so. Our work in life is geared towards this end. What other choice do we have, really? Just give up and die? We wouldn't have survived as a species without the drive to survive, whatever our eventual individual end.

[Upchurch]

To continue Q's line-by-line answering:Originally posted by Iacchus
And how do you know our being here isn't a lot like going to school?I don't. How do you know our being here isn't purely for the entertainment value to space aliens? There are plenty of other hypothetical possibilities we could name that are just as likely.
You know, to learn our lessons?Maybe, but the lesson goals are not clearly defined if similar learning experiences can lead two people to learning two different things. One person may witness the birth of a child and conclude its a miracle from God, while another person concludes that it is procreation of the species and a common, simple occurance.

(note: "simple" does not mean "easy")Or esle why the huge expenditure in our education, when there's no vocation to enter after we graduate?Which is, of course, assuming that our being here is meant to be education and not meant for some other purpose, if any purpose at all.
Would you send your kids to school if you knew there were no benefits?No, but the situation is not necessarily analogous to our very existance. At least, you have not shown it to be.
Indeed, death is the greatest illusion of all, if in fact it were merely "physical" ...Another "if". If wishes were horses, beggers would ride.
And to think, God has one up on all of us! ;) Where'd God come into it?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or esle why the huge expenditure in our education, when there's no vocation to enter after we graduate? Would you send your kids to school if you knew there were no benefits? I've thought a bit more on this question and I realized that I never really answered it.

The reason humanity as a whole endevors to learn new things and to improve ourselves in general is for the benefit of our children. The survival and betterment of our species is any parent's ultimate goal.

There is no necessity in a "vocation" in the "next life" for us to learn in this one.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, isn't that the same thing as saying dead-end?

Maybe, but if so, so what. If there is no life after death (and I have no reason to suppose that there is) it is a fairly apt analogy.

And so what about death, the "greatest" of unknowns? Don't you people know you're doing it all for nothing, because when you die there's nothing to be realized? Does that make any sense? Seems like a big waste to me.

No it's not a waste. I don't have to believe in a next life in order to try to achieve whatever measure of happiness I can in the here and now. I don't feel that some higher purpose or an afterlife is necessary in order to enjoy my time on this Earth. In fact, I look at it this way: My time on this Earth is the only time that I KNOW that I have, spending any of it pursuing an afterlife that seems unlikely to me to even exist does not contribute to making that limited time better for myself or my children. Therefore it is a waste of a resource (time) that I can never get back.

And how do you know our being here isn't a lot like going to school? You know, to learn our lessons? Or esle why the huge expenditure in our education, when there's no vocation to enter after we graduate? Would you send your kids to school if you knew there were no benefits?

Indeed, death is the greatest illusion of all, if in fact it were merely "physical" ...

And to think, God has one up on all of us! ;)

I don't know that it isn't a lot like school. I don't know that it is like school either. I see no reason to think that it is, though, so I see no reason to treat it as such. You're whole question assumes the existence of a God, and that's a BIG assumption

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And how do you know our being here isn't a lot like going to school? You know, to learn our lessons? Or esle why the huge expenditure in our education, when there's no vocation to enter after we graduate? Would you send your kids to school if you knew there were no benefits?


Man, if God really wanted me to know the ins and outs of Unix programming: a) He could have found a better way than making me work for these asshats... b) I'm going to be sorely disappointed with the network in Heaven. They should at least be one step ahead of us.

But hey, it's good to know God uses Unix.

[jj]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, isn't that the same thing as saying dead-end?


Do you really think your attempts at clever word play are going to convince anyone?


And so what about death, the "greatest" of unknowns?

Proof by assertion. Death is death. You stop. There's nothing more to know. The chemical processes abend and you're gone. No poof, nothing more, you just stop existing.

Don't you people know you're doing it all for nothing, because when you die there's nothing to be realized?

Your claim here is unsupported, and is based on suborned induction, as well as on several fallacies included inyour "because" clause. Please remove the fallacies, use induction properly, and then attempt to discuss this in a rational manner.

Does that make any sense? Seems like a big waste to me.


The big sky-daddy sends honest, ethical, life-conserving souls to aeternal torture because they didn't believe in him/her/it. Seems like a big waste to me.

Aside from pointing out your fallacious reasoning via using it on your own superstitions, you're projecting your own (biased by your superstitious background) values on everyone else.

You don't get to do that unless Ashcroft and Cheyney manage to achieve their Krystalnacht against unbelievers in this country, you know, the one that Fox News has been calling for?


And how do you know our being here isn't a lot like going to school? You know, to learn our lessons?

How do you know it is? Occams razor slices your ideas right out, here, unless you can show affirmative evidence, which you haven't.

Or esle why the huge expenditure in our education,

For our REAL education, so we can live comfortably and constructively during our limited lifetime. Life, after all, is much more valuable to the atheist who does not believe in the myth of life after death, because THIS LIFE IS ALL THERE IS.

when there's no vocation to enter after we graduate?

Illicit reasoning.

Would you send your kids to school if you knew there were no benefits?

Please show some basis for your anthropmorphic assumptions. Until you can, we must needs assume that we're not in "school" during life, we're just a part of nature, and when we're dead, we're dead. Obviously there are benefits IN LIFE for education in ethics, morals, technology, etc. That's all there is, and that's what education is good for, FOR MAKING THIS SHORT LIFE WORTH SOMETHING MORE THAN A HELP TO THE ENTROPY DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE. There is no other meaning. Give it up.

Indeed, death is the greatest illusion of all, if in fact it were merely "physical" ...

Death is purely physical. There is no illusion. When you die, you stop working, and you stop thinking, being concious, etc. Until you can show some hard, testable, verifiable evidence otherwise, that's all anyone at all is bound to reasonably accept.

And to think, God has one up on all of us! ;)
How? She must not exist, she's never done anything that I can verify, test, or falsify.

Do you have anything to say, really, or are you just spouting your personal delusions at us again?

[jj]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


More satisfaction? :D

Well, yes. It's available now on LP, CD, and undoubtedly via pirated MP3 as well.

I wonder how many royalties it still pulls in?

:p

Personally Iach* here reminds me more of "19th Nervious Breakdown" than "Satisfaction", though.

[jj]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Iacchus once again is:
1.) assuming this life is a waste

Tragic, since that's all there is. I hope he doens't succumb to depression!

2.) There's better stuff on the other side of the septic tank

No, no, no! The grass is always greener over the septic tank!

3.) is working on faith there's life after death and using it as "fact"

S/he/it's been circular since day one.

4.) assuming there is a god

You mean "blatantly asserting that as absolute, incontrovertable fact". It goes beyond his/her/its personal assumptions, I think.

Actually, the greatest of unknowns, I think, (and Kitten would agree with me), is how much could we get for selling El Greco into slavery?
Ok, ok, first Geoff got me to bite my tongue, and now you. It's you guys fault it's so sore! It's all your fault! :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Q-Source

It is your own interpretation. I don't think that I am "doing it all for nothing". The rewards for my actions are here and now, not in dead or in life after death. Those rewards keep me doing things in order to get more satisfaction.

There are benefits here and now, that's why people who know that death is inevitable still enjoy doing things and enjoy searching for the truth. Actually I think most people feel this way, provided they have something useful to do. Which, is kind of why I'm asking it. You know, how can it begin so abruptly and then end so abruptly? It kind of leads you to ask if there weren't something more to it than this? In fact I think a lot of people have considered this at one time or another.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Just for the sake of argument...

What's the point of talking about us being here as a waste, unless you presuppose some sort of ultimate purpose for us? Life may seem a waste to us, but I doubt the universe cares. Do human beings human care? Then so does the universe. Unless of course you're willing to say that human beings aren't a part of it. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Unless of course you're willing to say that human beings aren't a part of it. ;) I'm willing to say that human beings are a very small, very unimportant portion of the universe. Further, I'd say that the vast majority of the universe probably doesn't care about us humans, assuming that rest of it even has the capacity to care in the first place.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Iacchus, why don't you propose the most grand and glorious after-death scenario that you can possibly imagine. Then tell us what the point of it is.

~~ Paul But I would just be imagining things now wouldn't I? Besides, that would be telling. ;)

[Soapy Sam]

Gods, I hope there's nothing after death. Can you imagine another ten gazillion boring Sunday afternoons? And that's just for starters.

I did'nt exist for the first 15 billion years of this particular quantum flutter and I won't exist for the rest of it. The 48 I have existed for have been largely fun, but frankly, various bits already hurt in the mornings, while others have dropped clean off. I have reservations about the next couple of decades: I would hate to think there's no "off" switch.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Keziah Mason
I'd like to see some evidence instead of all those "what-if"s and other wishful thinking which completely fails to impress. It's just your basic philosophical question, designed to get people to think, ya think?

[T'ai Chi]

Someone said:
(bold mine)

"Proof by assertion. ..., nothing more, ..."

Proof by assertion.

"Life, after all, is much more valuable to the atheist who does not believe in the myth of life after death, because THIS LIFE IS ALL THERE IS."

Proof by assertion.

Do you have any scientific studies to back up your claim that "life is much more valuable to the atheist" nad "this life is all there is"? If they don't know, neither do you.

Don't delay- please post your peer-reviewed scientific studies in your very next reply, that is, if it wasn't just your opinion.

[Dancing David]

It is a thought that has been trod down many a time, nothing new to it. Why worry about life after death, we are alive, when we are dead we will be dead.

If it is a phase transition then there won't be the transmission of information. Does water vapor remember ice?

Being is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm willing to say that human beings are a very small, very unimportant portion of the universe. Further, I'd say that the vast majority of the universe probably doesn't care about us humans, assuming that rest of it even has the capacity to care in the first place. Then why should we care about what can only be construed as an infinitesimal little glitch that occurs in universal terms (i.e., time and space), between our birth and our death? Why take yourself so seriously then?

If the universe doesn't care, then why are we here "reasoning" about it?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then why should we care about what can only be construed as an infinitesimal little glitch that occurs in universal terms (i.e., time and space), between our birth and our death? Why take yourself so seriously then?

If the universe doesn't care, then why are we here "reasoning" about it?

Why do we need to be of massive import to the entire universe in order to be important to ourselves and each other? Why does that have to be true to be curious about things?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Iacchus once again is:
1.) assuming this life is a waste
2.) There's better stuff on the other side of the septic tank
3.) is working on faith there's life after death and using it as "fact"
4.) assuming there is a godNo, I'm just questioning why I'm here?


Actually, the greatest of unknowns, I think, (and Kitten would agree with me), is how much could we get for selling El Greco into slavery? :D :D :D

[T'ai Chi]

Iacchus,

I love the types of questions that you raised in your opening post.

I see death equally as necessary as life, for without life, there is no death, and vice-versa. Therefore, I see death as just another (albeit a very important) transformation, a continuing of the process that is experience.

I just have to say that it is important as anything in our "waking" life (just like before birth), but that I don't know what happens with any certainty. I'm looking forward to one (a natural one, after about 85 or so years). :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ipecac
This is the kind of argument believers drag out convinced that it will stop us poor, unthinking non-believers in our tracks. A tear will roll down our face, we'll realize the futility of a life without Jebus and we'll be at church the very next Sunday.

Like all creatures, human beings have a survival instinct. We want to survive and we want to be comfortable doing so. Our work in life is geared towards this end. What other choice do we have, really? Just give up and die? We wouldn't have survived as a species without the drive to survive, whatever our eventual individual end. Ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything is consciousness? Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Iacchus,

I love the types of questions that you raised in your opening post.

I see death equally as necessary as life, for without life, there is no death, and vice-versa. Therefore, I see death as just another (albeit a very important) transformation, a continuing of the process that is experience.

I just have to say that it is important as anything in our "waking" life (just like before birth), but that I don't know what happens with any certainty. I'm looking forward to one (a natural one, after about 85 or so years). :) Yes, but what do grubs now -- except perhaps to prepare for when the time comes -- about being a butterfly?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but do grubs now -- except perhaps to prepare for when the time comes -- about being a butterfly?

The knowlege presently availible of the nervous system of a larval insect would compeel me to state that they really don't know about anything in advance to the sort of extent that we do.

That and the analogy is irrelevant.

We know about our deaths well in advance, a grup (grubs turn into flies BTW) has no conception, in all likliness, of it's impending transformation. Furthermore, metamorphosis in necessarily a change that is observable to other grubs, and if they were but bright enough to know what was going on to their comrade they would know the process is of transitory nature, with life thereafter.

In death we have no such ability. When I look at a dying creature I just injected piping-hot lead into, I can be quite sure that it is not turning into a bloody moth. Further reassurance of this position comes when I rip out the innards, and see that all processes are ceased, save bleeding all over me.

And so what if there is an afterlife. There's no way to test anything about it, or even be sure that it exists. We might as well worship the invisable pink unicorn, being that the evidence for either entity is the same. Focus on worldly problems I say. (see sigline)

And if I ever find this "god" guy, then he had better hope that his omnipotence is still working, cause if it isn't he's gonna go back to heavan with an ear in his mouth for all the sh*t he's pulled down here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I've thought a bit more on this question and I realized that I never really answered it.

The reason humanity as a whole endevors to learn new things and to improve ourselves in general is for the benefit of our children. The survival and betterment of our species is any parent's ultimate goal.

There is no necessity in a "vocation" in the "next life" for us to learn in this one. You're getting closer to the analogy I see. And let's just assume for a moment that there were a Creator whom, some of us may address as Father. Don't you think He'd have a similar concern about the welfare of His children as well?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You're getting closer to the analogy I see. And let's just assume for a moment that there were a Creator whom, some of us may address as Father. Don't you think He'd have a similar concern about the welfare of His children as well?

Clearly, only some of us are children if what you say is true.

Otherwise he's a very abusive father.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


No it's not a waste. I don't have to believe in a next life in order to try to achieve whatever measure of happiness I can in the here and now. I don't feel that some higher purpose or an afterlife is necessary in order to enjoy my time on this Earth. In fact, I look at it this way: My time on this Earth is the only time that I KNOW that I have, spending any of it pursuing an afterlife that seems unlikely to me to even exist does not contribute to making that limited time better for myself or my children. Therefore it is a waste of a resource (time) that I can never get back.Then you agree, it does seem like a big waste (of time) to have it end.


I don't know that it isn't a lot like school. I don't know that it is like school either. I see no reason to think that it is, though, so I see no reason to treat it as such. You're whole question assumes the existence of a God, and that's a BIG assumption And yet there's nothing about the experience of living that doesn't teach us anything, right?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then you agree, it does seem like a big waste (of time) to have it end.


And yet there's nothing about the experience of living that doesn't teach us anything, right?

So what if it ends, it isn't wasted. All things are transitory, and eternal life would be unbearable after a point, see the imortal's paradox.

It may not be perfect as it is now, but there's no reason to wish it is different. It's of equal (non)use to posit on all the unverifyable and ulikely alternate possibilities.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Man, if God really wanted me to know the ins and outs of Unix programming: a) He could have found a better way than making me work for these asshats... b) I'm going to be sorely disappointed with the network in Heaven. They should at least be one step ahead of us.

But hey, it's good to know God uses Unix. Something tells me you'll be pleasantly surprised. ;)

[Ralph]

Stop worrying about the meaning of life. You'll enjoy it more.

Non existence---then x # years of life---then non-existence again.
I'd like more than the allotted 70-80 years ........but it's better than nothing.

I see people (quite a few of them on the Rap.Ready board in fact)
who are so focused on some real or imagined future event--they are missing out on what life has to offer.

Make the most of whatever time you have & stop worrying about it's "meaning"...................

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Then you agree, it does seem like a big waste (of time) to have it end.

Only if you assume that there is any purpose to living besides just living. I do not make I do not make that assumption. I can only assume that I will be around for an indeterminate length of time until something happens to me and I die. As long as I have made the most of whatever time I have, I have not wasted my life.


And yet there's nothing about the experience of living that doesn't teach us anything, right?

I learn things every day. There is no reason to assume, though, that those lessons have any greater significance beyond what I can accomplish in my lifetime.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by jj

Do you really think your attempts at clever word play are going to convince anyone?What difference does it make? Where do you expect we should take it, except nowhere?


Proof by assertion. Death is death. You stop. There's nothing more to know. The chemical processes abend and you're gone. No poof, nothing more, you just stop existing.But where does your consciousness go? Does it just vaporize at the instant of death?


Your claim here is unsupported, and is based on suborned induction, as well as on several fallacies included inyour "because" clause. Please remove the fallacies, use induction properly, and then attempt to discuss this in a rational manner.Would you have me die and come back and tell you about it? And yet we have numerous "documented" cases of near-death experiences to suggest just this.


The big sky-daddy sends honest, ethical, life-conserving souls to aeternal torture because they didn't believe in him/her/it. Seems like a big waste to me.Prove it! ...

It's not wise to take other people's words on such matters anyway. ;)


Aside from pointing out your fallacious reasoning via using it on your own superstitions, you're projecting your own (biased by your superstitious background) values on everyone else. And who doesn't do such things? (project their own bias).


You don't get to do that unless Ashcroft and Cheyney manage to achieve their Krystalnacht against unbelievers in this country, you know, the one that Fox News has been calling for?Am not familiar with this?


How do you know it is? Occams razor slices your ideas right out, here, unless you can show affirmative evidence, which you haven't.And where was Occam's razor when people understood the earth was flat? Things aren't always as they appear you see.


For our REAL education, so we can live comfortably and constructively during our limited lifetime. Life, after all, is much more valuable to the atheist who does not believe in the myth of life after death, because THIS LIFE IS ALL THERE IS. So it does seem like a waste not to have it go on then?


Illicit reasoning.And so you learn the lessons of life, and then what?


Please show some basis for your anthropmorphic assumptions. Until you can, we must needs assume that we're not in "school" during life, we're just a part of nature, and when we're dead, we're dead. Obviously there are benefits IN LIFE for education in ethics, morals, technology, etc. That's all there is, and that's what education is good for, FOR MAKING THIS SHORT LIFE WORTH SOMETHING MORE THAN A HELP TO THE ENTROPY DEATH OF THE UNIVERSE. There is no other meaning. Give it up.I understand that "you've" given up.


Death is purely physical. There is no illusion. When you die, you stop working, and you stop thinking, being concious, etc. Until you can show some hard, testable, verifiable evidence otherwise, that's all anyone at all is bound to reasonably accept.There's nothing wrong with asking questions. It's part of learning you see. ;)


Do you have anything to say, really, or are you just spouting your personal delusions at us again? The fact that these are personal delusions is your assertion, not mine.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Only if you assume that there is any purpose to living besides just living. I do not make I do not make that assumption. I can only assume that I will be around for an indeterminate length of time until something happens to me and I die. As long as I have made the most of whatever time I have, I have not wasted my life. But by implying you haven't wasted your life is, in fact a judgment call, and suggests there is a purpose to life.


I learn things every day. There is no reason to assume, though, that those lessons have any greater significance beyond what I can accomplish in my lifetime. But that's the whole point. What you learn is what you earn, and therefore granted for you to take with you. ;)

And by all means, how else would "karma" complete itself?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Gods, I hope there's nothing after death. Can you imagine another ten gazillion boring Sunday afternoons? And that's just for starters.

I did'nt exist for the first 15 billion years of this particular quantum flutter and I won't exist for the rest of it. The 48 I have existed for have been largely fun, but frankly, various bits already hurt in the mornings, while others have dropped clean off. I have reservations about the next couple of decades: I would hate to think there's no "off" switch. Except the only thing you fail to realize is that our bodies grow old, not our spirits. While from what I understand, heaven is very much like an eternal spring, by which we return to the "spring of our youth."

[T'ai Chi]

For me, personally I would not make the analogy of a caterpillar and a butterfly, but rather I believe it is as being in a state where you do not know if you are dreaming or not. Kind of in a confusing state. Kind of like how I am normally. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David
It is a thought that has been trod down many a time, nothing new to it. Why worry about life after death, we are alive, when we are dead we will be dead.

If it is a phase transition then there won't be the transmission of information. Does water vapor remember ice?

Being is. When's the last time you spoke to an icicle? ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And let's just assume for a moment that there were a Creator whom, some of us may address as Father.You know what they say about "assume"...

Regardless, this is an Ad Populum (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) argument. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it necessarily true. Further, you can assume anything you want, that also does not make it true.
Don't you think He'd have a similar concern about the welfare of His children as well? Why? We're concerned about our children because without them our heritage dies. Are you saying that God is mortal and without us, his lineage ends? If God is truly immortal, the furtherment of the human race is irrelevent. Were we to die, he'd just make another batch. ...if he felt like it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

The knowlege presently availible of the nervous system of a larval insect would compeel me to state that they really don't know about anything in advance to the sort of extent that we do.

That and the analogy is irrelevant.

We know about our deaths well in advance, a grup (grubs turn into flies BTW) has no conception, in all likliness, of it's impending transformation. Furthermore, metamorphosis in necessarily a change that is observable to other grubs, and if they were but bright enough to know what was going on to their comrade they would know the process is of transitory nature, with life thereafter. . And what do we know about death, except that it's inevitable? And just as with the grub, "most" of us have no inkling about an afterlife.


If you look up both caterpillar and grub in the dictionary by the way, both definitions begin with "worm-like larva."


In death we have no such ability. When I look at a dying creature I just injected piping-hot lead into, I can be quite sure that it is not turning into a bloody moth. Further reassurance of this position comes when I rip out the innards, and see that all processes are ceased, save bleeding all over me. In fact we have many well documented cases of near-death experiences.


And so what if there is an afterlife. There's no way to test anything about it, or even be sure that it exists. We might as well worship the invisable pink unicorn, being that the evidence for either entity is the same. Focus on worldly problems I say. (see sigline)Ah, but perhaps this might be the key, for if we understood our problems were of a spiritual nature, then perhaps we could do what's necessary in order to rectify them ... for example not be so materialistic and wasteful.


And if I ever find this "god" guy, then he had better hope that his omnipotence is still working, cause if it isn't he's gonna go back to heavan with an ear in his mouth for all the sh*t he's pulled down here. Lots of luck! ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

Clearly, only some of us are children if what you say is true.

Otherwise he's a very abusive father. There is only sun in the sky "who," pretty much takes care of eveyone's affair.

And neither am impling the sun is unequivocal to God here either.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You know what they say about "assume"...

Regardless, this is an Ad Populum (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html) argument. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it necessarily true. Further, you can assume anything you want, that also does not make it true.I'm not asking anyone to take a poll, if that's what you mean? That's called politics isn't it? If so, you may as well forget about the truth. ;)


Why? We're concerned about our children because without them our heritage dies. Are you saying that God is mortal and without us, his lineage ends? If God is truly immortal, the furtherment of the human race is irrelevent. Were we to die, he'd just make another batch. ...if he felt like it. If God does exist, how else could we appreciate Him except from the standpoint of our own spirituality? And how would we understand what it means to be immortal, if we didn't first suffer through a period of being mortal?

[jj]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But where does your consciousness go? Does it just vaporize at the instant of death?

It is an artifact of the chemical processes that just abended. What's the problem, the hardware stopped working so there is no more conciousness. It doens't "go" anywhere, it's just gone, since it's an artifact of the wetware that just broke down.

Would you have me die and come back and tell you about it? And yet we have numerous "documented" cases of near-death experiences to suggest just this.

You mean "documented" cases of people having a hallucination brought on by anoxia? Ok, that happens. It proves that our brains work along similar principles to other people's brains. This is somehow not surprising, is it?


And where was Occam's razor when people understood the earth was flat? Things aren't always as they appear you see.


Bah. When did people understand the earth was flat? Are you pushing and pulling on that old saw again?


I understand that "you've" given up.


A serious accusation. Have any evidence?

Nope, you don't.

[jj]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except the only thing you fail to realize is that our bodies grow old, not our spirits. While from what I understand, heaven is very much like an eternal spring, by which we return to the "spring of our youth."

Well, since there is no spirit, it's hard for it to grow old. I can agree at least with part of what you say.

[T'ai Chi]

Sorry, I gotta be skeptical here and demand evidence again.

"Life, after all, is much more valuable to the atheist who does not believe in the myth of life after death, because THIS LIFE IS ALL THERE IS."

Do you have any scientific studies to back up your claims that:

1. "Life ... is much more valuable to the atheist.." and
2. "..this life is all there is."

?

Don't delay- please post your peer-reviewed double-blind scientific studies in your very next reply.

[fishbob]

The 48 I have existed for have been largely fun, but frankly, various bits already hurt in the mornings, while others have dropped clean off. 48 huh, that explains some of my achy parts. Now you have me worried, because none of mine have dropped off yet. I can't think of any I don't want any more.

Back on track But where does your consciousness go? Does it just vaporize at the instant of death? Seems so doesn't it? For a lot of folks, Alzheimers vaporizes consciousness over a period of months or years. Are you suggesting that the consciousness vapor is accumulated, memory by memory, and stored somewhere until these folks die? Not likely.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by lacchus
Don't you people know you're doing it all for nothing, because when you die there's nothing to be realized? Does that make any sense? Who said all things must make sense? Perhaps life is ultimately futile..."full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Just because we might wish things to be a certain way... it doesn't mean they are.

Boiled down to basics your argument runs something like this:Because we live, that proves that living must have a purpose beyond life.

Well why? How can life be proof of anything other than what it is? What you are suggesting has no basis in anything other than good old fashioned wishful thinking. You want there to be more....this life seems unjust, pointless and too short. I can understand that. As the buddhists say *life is unsatisfactory*. But a wish is not a convincing argument. We already know from this life here on Earth, that things dont always make sense and turn out the way we think they should.


Except the only thing you fail to realize is that our bodies grow old, not our spirits. While from what I understand, heaven is very much like an eternal spring, by which we return to the "spring of our youth."But what is a spirit? Is it something hidden and magically attached? Is it "what we are", ie; a personality or "essence" experienced through our consciousness? Do you think they are one and the same? If so and consciousness is a function of the brain [which the evidence seems to point to, free will et al]and ceases to exist when the brain dies how will we experience this afterlife? Do we enter the afterlife with the personality we have at death when we may be damaged by disease or the one we had when we were at our best? What if we are born with limited consciousness and a zilch personality? Or is it the magically, hidden spirit which goes? Do all sentient beings get an afterlife...cats, dogs, pigs, gorillas? Life can be pretty unsatisfactory for them too.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If God does exist, how else could we appreciate Him except from the standpoint of our own spirituality? And how would we understand what it means to be immortal, if we didn't first suffer through a period of being mortal? What? That's a totally different argument than you were making before! Your school analogy makes no sense now. Are you saying that we go through this life and die so that it means something for God to be immortal?

Please try sticking to one line of thought before spontaniously jumping to another. It'll make your position(s) easier to understand....

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything is consciousness? Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

That's interesting but an empty path to follow.

1+1=2 because we learn that it is so, that is taught.

I read on this board that it takes 352 pages to prove it mathematicaly.

Remember there is a lot of prefed interpretation into the statement 1+1=2.

Evildave made a major discussion of this, I will see if I can find it.

Math is a language 1+1=2 because it is conventionaly defined that way.

[Dancing David]

There are many great explanations that can explain NDEs none of them nesseciatate a spirit.

This is all wishful thing, I prefer the notion of reincarnation myself. I don't like that idea of the soul being sent to school for learning, any imagination and you ealize the prison mentality is implicit in it.

But when it comes to wishful thinking, I wish for owrld peace and an end to hunger.

Have you ver watched a pet die? Or a friend, I have no reason to believe that consiousness survives death.

When I die I will know, and as i said if you are right I will buy you a beer.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But by implying you haven't wasted your life is, in fact a judgment call, and suggests there is a purpose to life.

No it doesn't. I will repeat it for you: There is no need for a "higher purpose" in order for my life to not be a waste. There is no need for a purpose in life beyond life itself. Further I am the ultimate arbiter of whether my life is a waste or not just as you are yours.


But that's the whole point. What you learn is what you earn, and therefore granted for you to take with you. ;)

And by all means, how else would "karma" complete itself?

You can only take something with you if you have somewhere to go. When it comes to death that is much more of an assumption than I am willing to make.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by fishbob

Back on track Seems so doesn't it? For a lot of folks, Alzheimers vaporizes consciousness over a period of months or years. Are you suggesting that the consciousness vapor is accumulated, memory by memory, and stored somewhere until these folks die? Not likely. And what happens to the radio signal when the radio is broken? The signal is still there, as clear as it was before, and the only thing which has changed is the radio, which has now become impaired.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What? That's a totally different argument than you were making before! Your school analogy makes no sense now. Are you saying that we go through this life and die so that it means something for God to be immortal?

Please try sticking to one line of thought before spontaniously jumping to another. It'll make your position(s) easier to understand.... What was that song by Sting, "We are Spirits Living in the Material World?"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What was that song by Sting, "We are Spirits Living in the Material World?" What? You're arguing via song titles now? Are you just abandoning the school analogy then?

What's your purpose with this line of discussion? Are you trying to convince people or just simply putting forth you belief system with no justification whatsoever?

[Suezoled]

Well, since you seem to know American songs so well, how about a Japanese one?

(snipped)
itsuka karada sae kaze ni nari daichi e
kaeru darou
dakedo kokoro wa doko e yuku no ka hito wa
kotae wo shiranai
soshite arukidasu
hikari naki yoru wo yuke


-Kamikashuki Ayatsuri Sakon

Translated:

Someday our bodies will become the wind
but where do our hearts go?
No one knows
So we tread the darkness of this life

Silly, huh? Silly like you using a song to back up your assertion.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what happens to the radio signal when the radio is broken? The signal is still there, as clear as it was before, and the only thing which has changed is the radio, which has now become impaired.

ok, thats great for a radio, but you have in no way shown that a radio is like a mind. Analogies are a good way of explaining something, but are of no use when you are attempting to prove something.

[El Greco]

Waste ? Why would carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and a multitude of other elements be considered as waste ? When we die we become very good plant, bacteria and worm food.

Cheer up! Life goes on, even without you! :D

[Upchurch]

What was that song by Kansas, "Dust in the Wind" I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone
All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind.
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

[Now] Don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy.

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind, everything is dust in the wind.:con2: Is this a valid argument? :con2:

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What was that song by Sting, "We are Spirits Living in the Material World?"

http://www.elyrics.net/go/g/Germs/No_God/

I'd prey to anything out there
If only I was given some sign to bear
But while I wait I'm gonna live,
See...there's no God to watch over me-
No God for human beings...

lemme get this straight here, lyrics prove nothing, song titles prove nothing, and analogies prove nothing, they merely convey ideas, true or false.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill
lemme get this straight here, lyrics prove nothing, song titles prove nothing, and analogies prove nothing, they merely convey ideas, true or false. a'yup.

Further, add to the list: logic and reasoning. They can only disprove something if it is shown to be internally inconsistant.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Who said all things must make sense? Perhaps life is ultimately futile..."full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Just because we might wish things to be a certain way... it doesn't mean they are. I don't think most people believe that. Do you?


Boiled down to basics your argument runs something like this:Because we live, that proves that living must have a purpose beyond life. Tell it to the Wright brothers! Because if you keep approaching it from the standpoint of being "earth-bound," it'll never fly. ;)


Well why? How can life be proof of anything other than what it is? What you are suggesting has no basis in anything other than good old fashioned wishful thinking. You want there to be more....this life seems unjust, pointless and too short. I can understand that. As the buddhists say *life is unsatisfactory*. But a wish is not a convincing argument. We already know from this life here on Earth, that things dont always make sense and turn out the way we think they should.And yet because it's so close to the spirit, conscious desire is the manifestation of "spiritual desire."


But what is a spirit? Is it something hidden and magically attached? Is it "what we are", ie; a personality or "essence" experienced through our consciousness? Do you think they are one and the same? Spirit is the essence of everything, but primarily manifests itself through consciousness.


If so and consciousness is a function of the brain [which the evidence seems to point to, free will et al]and ceases to exist when the brain dies how will we experience this afterlife?Does the radio signal cease to exist when the radio is broken?


Do we enter the afterlife with the personality we have at death when we may be damaged by disease or the one we had when we were at our best? If we grow old and feeble, we essentially enter as old and feeble. But that isn't to say we're not allowed (eventually) to return to what we cherished most in life, and return to the "spring of our youth" so to speak.


What if we are born with limited consciousness and a zilch personality?That's hard to say. However, the spiritual world/reality is a very diverse place.


Or is it the magically, hidden spirit which goes?It's essentially your personality which passes on.


Do all sentient beings get an afterlife...cats, dogs, pigs, gorillas? Life can be pretty unsatisfactory for them too. Yes, all these things exist in the spiritual reality as well. Otherwise it would have been impossible to savor the taste of the beer I had in my dream the other night. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What? You're arguing via song titles now? Are you just abandoning the school analogy then?

What's your purpose with this line of discussion? Are you trying to convince people or just simply putting forth you belief system with no justification whatsoever? We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Just because we might wish things to be a certain way... it doesn't mean they are.
I don't think most people believe that. Do you?What does what "most people believe" matter? Incidently, for what it's worth, I agree with Jessica. As do you, apparently, from your next statement:Tell it to the Wright brothers! Because if you keep approaching it from the standpoint of being "earth-bound," it'll never fly. ;)Most people believed that man couldn't fly, but that didn't mean that man couldn't fly, did it? Most people believe that things are a certain way, it doesn't mean they are.
Do we enter the afterlife with the personality we have at death when we may be damaged by disease or the one we had when we were at our best? If we grow old and feeble, we essentially enter as old and feeble. But that isn't to say we're not allowed (eventually) to return to what we cherished most in life, and return to the "spring of our youth" so to speak.How do you know this? What is the sorce of your information?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ... It's hardly "given", it's an assumption. All of your arguments have been based on assumption and speculation. Do you have any concrete evidence to support anything you've posted?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

The problem is that you keep asking us to accept that we have an immortal side, infact the crux of your argument depends on it. However, you have yet to show one shred of evidence for this. Until you do, all your analogies mean nothing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

ok, thats great for a radio, but you have in no way shown that a radio is like a mind. Analogies are a good way of explaining something, but are of no use when you are attempting to prove something. You want proof? And since when does philosophy require you prove anything? For indeed without the ability of conjecture, how could you ever learn anything new?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't think most people believe that. Do you?


If you are simply looking for the truth, does it matter?


Tell it to the Wright brothers! Because if you keep approaching it from the standpoint of being "earth-bound," it'll never fly. ;)


The Wright brother had very strong evidence that powered flight was possible. Birds flying would be a good example, altough, at such a time, I'm sure immaterialists such as yourself might have claimed that its the spirit of the bird that allowed it to fly, and that man was not born with wings, and could never fly.

Anyway, the Wright brothers did not just build their plane and hope it would fly, they approached the problem from a *very* scientific standpoint, testing many ideas with experimentation.

The anology you attempt between flight and spirituality is meaningless unless you can present the same type of evidence the wright brothers had (as well as start explaining how we could do some sceintific experimentation like the wright brothers did)


And yet because it's so close to the spirit, conscious desire is the manifestation of "spiritual desire."


How can you make such blatantly circular arguments and still take yourself seriously? Oh yea, I forgot, you don't, you just believe what you want to believe.


Spirit is the essence of everything, but primarily manifests itself through consciousness.


You haven't explained spirit, nor provided any predictions about expected behavior.


Does the radio signal cease to exist when the radio is broken?


Again, a bad analogy, no evidence points to the brain acting like a radio. Please point to some.


If we grow old and feeble, we essentially enter as old and feeble. But that isn't to say we're not allowed (eventually) to return to what we cherished most in life, and return to the "spring of our youth" so to speak.


Really? You've never been to the afterlife, what evidence do you hav...er, nevermind, this is just what you want to believe, my bad.


That's hard to say. However, the spiritual world/reality is a very diverse place.


I don't think you understood the point of her question...


It's essentially your personality which passes on.


Personality is greatly effected by chemicals in the brain. If you have a chemical embalance, and take medication to correct this imbalance, which personality are you in the afterlife? What about those with multiple personality disorder? What about people who suffer severe brain trama and change personalities, or even in more severe cases, forget everything about their life up to that point, including their personality, and start over from scratch? These beliefs you desire to be true do not match up well to reality.


Yes, all these things exist in the spiritual reality as well. Otherwise it would have been impossible to savor the taste of the beer I had in my dream the other night. ;)

Dreams have nothing to do with the spirit world. Have you ever actually studied modern findings on dreams and dreaming? You may wish to read this paper to bring yourself up to speed:

http://www.brain-mind.com/Dreaming.html

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side).


This is what you are arguing.


Given that,


Thats not an argument...Thats an assumption, you can only say "Given that" if you have shown "that"


I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...


Even if we do have a spirit or soul, its still no evidence that a spirit or soul would live on after we die. You would have to prove both.


Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

eh? Please explain how the human body and brain is transformed into a spirit. All my evidence points to the human body and brain decomposing into dirt.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You want proof? And since when does philosophy require you prove anything? For indeed without the ability of conjecture, how could you ever learn anything new?

An opinion, or judgment, formed on defective or presumptive evidence; probable inference; surmise; guess; suspicion.

Clearly, a conjecture on its own cannot provide us with any truth. However, there are things we can do.

First, instead of just providing a conjecture, we could form our opinion or judgement on solid evidence.

Second, we could make our conjecture, and then setup a sound experiment using the sceintific method in order to test the assumptions and predictions of our conjecture.


Edited to add: What truth has been learned from conjecture alone?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

The problem is that you keep asking us to accept that we have an immortal side, infact the crux of your argument depends on it. However, you have yet to show one shred of evidence for this. Until you do, all your analogies mean nothing.
No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.

Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence.Do you consider an analogy to be evidence?

Regardless, could you please outline your items of evidence for the immortal soul?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.


I've been following pretty closely, and I haven't seen any evidence, I'm curious, what do you consider to be evidence? BTW, here is more evidence that shows that the idea that we have a spirit is completely wrong, if we have a spirit at all, we have at least two:

http://www.brain-mind.com/SplitBrain.html


Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

No, but extrodinary claims are going to require extrodinary evidence, not just "I want to believe"

Edited for formatting

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.

Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

Sting song titles are not evidence for your claims. Caterpillar/butterfly analogies are not evidence for your claims. Making statements that boil down to "we exist, therefore we must have souls" is not evidence for your claims. Have I left anything out? If not then you have presented nothing in the way of evidence for your claims. If I have missed something, please show me what evidence i have missed.

As for being asked to accept things, all I can say is this: If one makes a claim it is usually a safe assumption that they want (to some degree) people to agree with it. You claim that we have a soul, so I assume that you are doing so because 1) you want to convince us that we have souls or 2) you like to see the pretty words on the screen. If it is 1, then you are asking us to accept something. If it is 2, then you should be honest about it and I for one will quit wasting my time.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Sting song titles are not evidence for your claims. Caterpillar/butterfly analogies are not evidence for your claims. Making statements that boil down to "we exist, therefore we must have souls" is not evidence for your claims. Have I left anything out? If not then you have presented nothing in the way of evidence for your claims. If I have missed something, please show me what evidence i have missed.Except for when we allude to something "in principle," then yes it can be construed as evidence -- or, possible evidence -- in the sense that we have an "example" of at least one thing similar.


As for being asked to accept things, all I can say is this: If one makes a claim it is usually a safe assumption that they want (to some degree) people to agree with it. You claim that we have a soul, so I assume that you are doing so because 1) you want to convince us that we have souls or 2) you like to see the pretty words on the screen. If it is 1, then you are asking us to accept something. If it is 2, then you should be honest about it and I for one will quit wasting my time. I'm not asking you to accept anything, as it's entirely up to you if you want to participate. So by all means don't bother, if it's a waste of your "precious time."

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except for when we allude to something "in principle," then yes it can be construed as evidence -- or, possible evidence -- in the sense that we have an "example" of at least one thing similar.A complete and utterly contrived example based on nothing. This is the very loosest definition of "evidence" one could possibly use. This is a very poor rationalization and does not support your assertion that, "I have done nothing but present the evidence."

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except for when we allude to something "in principle," then yes it can be construed as evidence -- or, possible evidence -- in the sense that we have an "example" of at least one thing similar.


I'm not asking you to accept anything, as it's entirely up to you if you want to participate. So by all means don't bother, if it's a waste of your "precious time."

No it's not. It's a ficticious song about a romantic idea that sells records. Cd's. Whatever. Similar ideas having similar success is not an indication of "possibility of evidence."

I'm glad you're not asking anyone to accept anything. However, telling people to not bother you if it's a waste of our time is not your decision to make.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suezoled

No it's not. It's a ficticious song about a romantic idea that sells records. Cd's. Whatever. Similar ideas having similar success is not an indication of "possibility of evidence."Just for the record (ooh pun), I only brought the song up to give people something to relate to and to jog a few brains. However, if you want specific evidence for why Sting chose the title, I would suggest talking to Sting about it.


I'm glad you're not asking anyone to accept anything. However, telling people to not bother you if it's a waste of our time is not your decision to make. Well stop inferring that it's my problem then, Okay? :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
A complete and utterly contrived example based on nothing. This is the very loosest definition of "evidence" one could possibly use. This is a very poor rationalization and does not support your assertion that, "I have done nothing but present the evidence." And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."

While I can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do. ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just for the record (ooh pun), I only brought the song up to give people something to relate to and to jog a few brains. However, if you want specific evidence for why Sting chose the title, I would suggest talking to Sting about it.

Well stop inferring that it's my problem then, Okay? :p

Oh...I see, you don't have the evidence, Sting has the evidence, right, we'll just call sting up and ask him to fork it over.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."


Aliens would have followed a similar process to the scientific process develop the technology they have. Do you really believe they would have gained their spaceship technology by getting in touch with "universal knowledge"


While can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do. ;)

Actially[/B][/QUOTE]

Seriously, are you drunk or something? How about you start reading aloud what you post before you hit submit?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Suezoled

No it's not. It's a ficticious song about a romantic idea that sells records. Cd's. Whatever. Similar ideas having similar success is not an indication of "possibility of evidence."It's called "connect the dots" by the way, and if it's something you happen to be good at, you "can" begin to paint a plausible picture.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

Evidence please?

I would like to believe that someday there will be no more war, more wishful thinking.

Any proof, I will entertain much, and await your evidence.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

Oh...I see, you don't have the evidence, Sting has the evidence, right, we'll just call sting up and ask him to fork it over. Are you suggesting that he named the song arbitrarily? You see if you really were looking for "evidence," you would consider the possibility of more than one source. In which case I think with you maybe it's just a big facade.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."

While I can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do. ;)

And they might find the idea of an imortal spirit to be the funniest thing they ever heard of.

there is just no telling with those space aliens, there are plenty of people who want to agree with you Iachuss, and they are free to do so. But lets us make it clear, it is a belief and not knowledge of life after death.

You may get the beer , or you may not. But please if you are a larvae then your goal is to eat plants and to avoid parasites and to find a place to pupate.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's called "connect the dots" by the way, and if it's something you happen to be good at, you "can" begin to paint a plausible picture.

The human brain is very good at connecting the dots. Ever look at a cloud and see a puppy? Does that mean the cloud is really a puppy and its now going to fall out of the sky, splat on the ground, and die a horrible death? Just because your brain recognizes a pattern, doesn't mean its found truth. You have mearly formed a conjecture. But, I ask again, what has ever been learned by conjecture alone?

[Ipecac]

What's that old program that mimicked intelligence by responding with a series of pat phrases? ELIZA?

Trying to discuss this with Iacchus reminds me of talking to ELIZA. And so far it's been about as productive.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.

Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

Perhaps you should look up the word evidence, you haven't presened anything convincing.

There is a series of novels by a woman named Katherine somethingorother, in which characters follow each other through various human carnations, it is not great literature but it is a good read. This would not constitute proof of reincarnation however.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

The human brain is very good at connecting the dots. Ever look at a cloud and see a puppy? Does that mean the cloud is really a puppy and its now going to fall out of the sky, splat on the ground, and die a horrible death? Just because your brain recognizes a pattern, doesn't mean its found truth. You have mearly formed a conjecture. But, I ask again, what has ever been learned by conjecture alone? And why do you insist on over-simplifying everything?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David

There is a series of novels by a woman named Katherine somethingorother, in which characters follow each other through various human carnations, it is not great literature but it is a good read. This would not constitute proof of reincarnation however.

You've only selfdeluded him further. Because the book supports his position, he'll accept it as evidence, and be even more sure of himself. (Present him with a work of fiction that disagrees with his beliefs though, and he'll say some incoherent sentance involving grubs and the sun)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And why do you insist on over-simplifying everything?

I'm not, your views are very simplistic and based on desire alone.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."

While I can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do. ;) Jumpin' Jebus on a pogo stick. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?

I'm done.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


I'm not, your views are very simplistic and based on desire alone. Or perhaps you only know how to deal with "the facts" which, are merely the "material" manifestion of "the idea" -- which, you don't seem to be able to get a handle on?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Jumpin' Jebus on a pogo stick. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?

I'm done. So wrong to you too! ;)

[Soapy Sam]

Hey Fishbob-

Teeth and hair.


Among other things.

;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

And they might find the idea of an imortal spirit to be the funniest thing they ever heard of.Or, they just might consider you to be full of something else too. :D


there is just no telling with those space aliens, there are plenty of people who want to agree with you Iachuss, and they are free to do so. But lets us make it clear, it is a belief and not knowledge of life after death.The only thing I understand, is that you would "choose" to believe otherwise.


You may get the beer , or you may not. But please if you are a larvae then your goal is to eat plants and to avoid parasites and to find a place to pupate. Yeah, I know how that is. Now if only those damn aphids would leave me alone!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or perhaps you only know how to deal with "the facts" which, are merely the "material" manifestion of "the idea" -- which, you don't seem to be able to get a handle on?

So in other words, like you, I need to go beyond the facts. Well, lets see, if they are beyond facts, then they're aren't facts. So I need to get a handle on these "not-facts". Right, I'll start believing in unfactual things right away, like purple unicorns, the afterlife, and the comeback of elvis. (hey, no-one can prove elvis isn't having a comeback tour)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So wrong to you too! ;)

I sees it you failing at!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill


So in other words, like you, I need to go beyond the facts. Well, lets see, if they are beyond facts, then they're aren't facts. So I need to get a handle on these "not-facts". Right, I'll start believing in unfactual things right away, like purple unicorns, the afterlife, and the comeback of elvis. (hey, no-one can prove elvis isn't having a comeback tour) If it wasn't for the "abstract idea" in the first place, there would be no "material facts" in the second place, because the facts arise from ideas. So, let's not put the cart before the horse and stop confusing the facts with the ideas, Okay? And try listening to something based upon the merit of the idea for a change.

Or, is that entirely unreasonable of me to ask?

[fishbob]

Oh yeah, I had been trying to forget about the hair, Soapy.


And what happens to the radio signal when the radio is broken? The signal is still there, as clear as it was before, and the only thing which has changed is the radio, which has now become impaired. So you are saying that some mysterious signal is broadcast into your brain and your consciousness is generated by your reception of this signal? So, what I want to know is, if your reciever is defective, and the audible output is scratchy and irritating, the volume can be controlled how?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it wasn't for the "abstract idea" in the first place, there would be no "material facts" in the second place, because the facts arise from ideas. So, let's not put the cart before the horse and stop confusing the facts with the ideas, Okay? And try listening to something based upon the merit of the idea for a change.


That isn't what you are asking though, you are asking people to consider that ideas that you just thought up because you liked how it sounded, without any evidence to back them up are held with just as much merit as those ideas that do have mountains of evidence to back them up.

Making a hyposis is great and all, but an important step. But no scientist assumes that it necessarily has any truth before moving through experimentation and peer review.

and btw, I do listen to the merit of an idea, but you have shown your ideas to have no merit, the only reason you believe them is because you want to.


Or, is that entirely unreasonable of me to ask?

It isn't, but that isn't what you are asking.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by fishbob
Oh yeah, I had been trying to forget about the hair, Soapy.The latest inuendo?


So you are saying that some mysterious signal is broadcast into your brain and your consciousness is generated by your reception of this signal? I'm suggesting that there might be a possibility of something "operating" behind the scenes.


So, what I want to know is, if your reciever is defective, and the audible output is scratchy and irritating, the volume can be controlled how? How about prozac? :D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

That isn't what you are asking though, you are asking people to consider that ideas that you just thought up because you liked how it sounded, without any evidence to back them up are held with just as much merit as those ideas that do have mountains of evidence to back them up.Innuendo.


Making a hyposis is great and all, but an important step. But no scientist assumes that it necessarily has any truth before moving through experimentation and peer review.This is "assuming" that it's not more than just an assumption.


and btw, I do listen to the merit of an idea, but you have shown your ideas to have no merit, the only reason you believe them is because you want to.Innuendo.


It isn't, but that isn't what you are asking. Again, based upon your "applied assumptions" above ...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If it wasn't for the "abstract idea" in the first place, there would be no "material facts" in the second place, because the facts arise from ideas. So, let's not put the cart before the horse and stop confusing the facts with the ideas, Okay? And try listening to something based upon the merit of the idea for a change.

Or, is that entirely unreasonable of me to ask?

That seems to be putting the horse in the cart.

The beauty of the scientific method is that , if there is an underlying pattern, to the random events then it may be approximated.

If you present the merit of your idea than it will be listened to, but wishful thinking is just wishful thinking. Metaphor is metaphor.

Ideas are facts of a brain event. In the matter based model thoughts are facts, they can be obserced to occur in conjunction with organic creatures.

Tyr presenting your argument based upon something other than sentiment and feeling.

Or is that entirely unreasonable of me to ask?

I believe that spiritual events exist, they are limited to events occuring within the human brain. It is just like electrons I don't have to believe in the electrons for my computer to work. In the same way I don't have to believe in transcendant gobbledy gook for the spiritual process to work.

Define the process and the others can read it.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus

This is "assuming" that it's not more than just an assumption.


No its not.


Innuendo.


Nope, the only argument besides medaphor you've provided is that it'd be an incredibly dull world if we didn't believe.


Again, based upon your "applied assumptions" above ...

No, the conclusion has nothing to do with what I've said above, it has to do with what you've said before. You'd like to believe that ideas that you come up with, but then don't test in any way, are just as valid as ideas that were used in designing computers and lasers.