Then what happens when it's all over [Archive]

David B

06-12-2000, 06:44 AM

Matt said:
We can't prove that there's life after death - but neither can we disprove it. ... You can have faith that there's nothing after death, much like you can have faith that there is something after deathJust because we can't prove it one way or the other does not automatically mean you "have faith" that there is nothing. Just like with atheism vs. theism, a lack of belief does not indicate faith any more than a lack of apples means I have some apples.

No, we cannot scientifically prove that there is something or nothing after death. Those who have faith say there is something. The rest of us don't.

Yojimbo said:
I was about 16 when I said to myself " Oh fuck I'm going to die and that will be the end of Peter Byrne ". I can remember the hollow in my stomach and the feeling of panic building panic . I ran out to my grandmother and told her my fears and she managed to calm me down .
I get that hollow back every now and then and it is usuallly followed by me being very quiet and withdrawn.
It is a real pain in the balls , I like being Peter Byrne but I'm completely powerless .
So all I can do is just get on with it and try to make sure that whatever legacy I leave behind me does justice to the person I think I am .Yup, that pretty much describes it. When I think about it, I just start to feel the sick feeling, and I immediately try to think about something else. Doesn't always work.

Boogarrheal said:
, the prospect of nothingness does not frighten me at all.There were several people in the previous discussion who said this as well. :)
If I die and cease to exist, so what? That's not frightening, any more than to contemplate what it was like for me before I was born. Except that before you were born, you didn't exist. Now you do. That is why the concept of nonexistence is sickening to some of us.
Can anyone explain the source of these panic attacks, this fear of not being? Is it instinctive in some way? Does it have any rational basis? No clue. It has been interesting to me to find others who share the feeling, though. But I think there is something of an instinctive basis to it. That's one good thing about religion -- it stops people from worrying too much about what happens after death. It may be the reason most religions have an "afterlife" feature.
What exactly is there to be afraid of?Nonexistence. I like being around. I don't like the idea that I won't always be around. I don't like it one bit.

jenkinsfan

06-12-2000, 08:56 AM

My question for you is when the lights go out what's next.Nothing.
I would be terrified of death of I thought that it would be nothingness afterwards.Yeah, and? After seeing numerous discussions on the subject here, I can assure you that some of us are not looking forward to it. But that doesn't mean it'll change our beliefs.

And truly an end, with no hope of ever coming back or having any sort of "life after life." Game over.

David, some people make fun of Christians because they worship a God they can't see. Well, based on the fact that you are stating your opinion as a fact, I've concluded being a skeptic takes as much faith as being religious does.

Kyberneticist

06-12-2000, 11:18 AM

No, we're stating the known evidence as fact.
We have a brain. We think with it. We die, the brain decomposes, we stop thinking. The "we" disappears.
You do not have consciousness when your brain is chemically impaired, how can you claim you can go on without it?

I know, I'm just reiterating what I said above, but then, Jenkinsfan is just reiterating what was said by several other people above.

junebeetle

06-12-2000, 11:27 AM

matt_mcl:

You can have faith that there's nothing after death, much like you can have faith that there is something after death, but it behooves you not to running around calling it facts and truth.

jenkinsfan:

I've concluded being a skeptic takes as much faith as being religious does.

There is no evidence that a separate "soul" exists, but there's no scientific reason to doubt that human consciousness is wholly a byproduct of the electrochemical reactions within my brain. Therefore, I have reason to infer that my consciousness will cease to exist when my neurons discontinue firing. It's not exactly an incontrovertible fact, but it's a little better than blind faith. Call it an educated guess.

I don't understand why it bothers people. Well, actually I do. It used to bother me quite a bit. As a kid, I would to sit up late at night and ponder the idea of absolute nothingness after death. Sometimes a had to turn on the light and read a good book just to distract my mind from such an impossible quandary (the concept of infinity has resulted in similarly sleepless nights). I eventually came to the conclusion reached by TheNerd: oblivion only sucks if you're around to experience it.

Think about it this way: You relinquish your consciousness every night before you go to bed. It's not so bad, is it? The only big difference with death is that you never wake up. And if death still bothers you, think of this: at least you had the opportunity to be born. Death is a small price to pay for a chance to live, right?

- JB

John Corrado

06-12-2000, 11:41 AM

Shagnasty

06-12-2000, 11:47 AM

The universe simply stops expanding and then contracts until there is a big crunch and then ---boom --- another Big Bang and the process repeats itself into infinity. Every so often, this process gives rise to an intelligent being with the same consciousness that you possess now. You have been reincarnated simply by the law of large numbers and the power of infinity. There you have it, eternal life, without a mystical God.

The universe is not only stranger than we do understand, it is stranger than we can understand.

Psycho Pirate

06-12-2000, 12:06 PM

The universe simply stops expanding and then contracts until there is a big crunch and then ---boom --- another Big Bang and the process repeats itself into infinity. Every so often, this process gives rise to an intelligent being with the same consciousness that you possess now. You have been reincarnated simply by the law of large numbers and the power of infinity. There you have it, eternal life, without a mystical God.

And you can prove this how? And if you can't prove it, how is this any different from religion? Your religion just doesn't have a happy ending! ;)

Kyberneticist

06-12-2000, 12:13 PM

DavidB says:
Just because we can't prove it one way or the other does not automatically mean you "have faith" that there is nothing. Just like with atheism vs. theism, a lack of belief does not indicate faith any more than a lack of apples means I have some apples.

Bull.

*Agnostics* do not have faith, because they do not claim to know the answer. But both athiests and theists claim to know the answer to an unanswerable question, namely whether there is a God.

To extend your apple analogy, being athiest does not mean saying you have no apples. What it means is having a box you've never opened and stating definitively that there are no apples in it; whereas theists state definitively that your box definitely has apples in it. In both cases, you make claims based upon some logical reasoning, but in the end you jump to a conclusion that you cannot absolutely prove or disprove.

Unless, of course, you've specifically disproven that God can exist, in which case, there are a lot of religions and news outlets that would *love* to see your thesis.

No, the way it should be stated is that a theist is a worshipper of a god, an atheist is a non-worshipper of that god. Once upon a time, anyone who didn't worship your god, whether they had another or not, was an atheist. Nowdays, atheists are those who don't worship any of the gods. I have seen no evidence of the workings of a divine hand in nature, so I don't worship any divinity. I don't rule out the possibility, but I am a non-worshiper, an a-theist.

To close:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been
an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually
unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge
that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or
agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I
so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

-Isaac Asimov, Russian-born American author

Shagnasty

06-12-2000, 12:18 PM

I am still waiting for the scientists to validate the premise to this but they are coming around. The choices are:
1) The universe will continue to expand forever.
2) The universe will continue to expand but do so more slowly.
3) The universe will stop expanding and then contract into a Big Crunch.

As soon astronomers and physicists calculate that the added mass of dark matter will inevitably lead to # 3 then I will start to contract out for my book deal "Eternal Life through Physics"

Once we know there is a Big Crunch then I think that many people will buy my theory. It is very appealing really; much easier than most religion because you don't really have to do anything. It is basically eternal life on autopilot.

Gaudere

06-12-2000, 12:21 PM

*Agnostics* do not have faith, because they do not claim to know the answer. But both athiests and theists claim to know the answer to an unanswerable question, namely whether there is a God.If you'll note, John, David specifically mentioned a "lack of belief" as not requiring faith. He's not saying there are no apples in the box; he is saying he lacks belief that there are apples in the box. There is no faith in that statement. I lack belief in purple unicorns living on Mars, but that does not mean I have faith that there cannot be purple unicorns living on Mars. See the difference? However, if someone asked me what I thought of the existence of purple unicorns on Mars, I'd probably just simply say they didn't exist rather than qualify it with the very very tiny chance I admit that they may in fact be there. I don't have "faith" in non-existence after death any more than I have "faith" in evolution or "faith" in quantum theory; in each instance, I am simply choosing what I believe is the best theory, but I do not really have "faith".

However, you might class me as agnostic since I do not absolutely deny the possibility of God any more than I absolutely deny the possibility of purple unicorns on Mars, or any other thing that I find amazingly unlikely but not currently possible to be absolutely disproved (which is an awful lot of things). However, this particular lack of belief is very often called "atheism" (sometimes "soft atheism") as well, so you might want to be aware that many of us who speak of atheism do it from this viewpoint, not the "any sort of God cannot exist, no way, no how, not ever" viewpoint.

Kyberneticist

06-12-2000, 12:28 PM

I don't think it's really fair to call it your theory. After all, even Nietzsche embraced the eternal recurrence at one point.

So, there's an infinite number of me thinking these exact same thoughts in this exact same sequence. There are also an infinite number of me in inexpressible agony. There are an infinity of almost mes. There are far larger and more infinite sets of nothing at all. This is assuming that your universe expands out in a random fashion, instead of exactly the same sequence each time, which is cool, I get reincarnated each time, but a little banal and purposeless.

In many ways though, this is similar to the hindu conception of the universe and its recurrence that hindu buddhism accepts.

John Corrado

06-12-2000, 01:35 PM

Gotcha.

My apologies to Gaudere, Kyb, DavidB, or any other 'soft' athiest whose beliefs I misinterpreted. My definitions of atheism and agnosticsm do/did not agree with yours; therefore, my disagreement is mostly a matter of definitions, not stances.

My apologies for my statement.

Dinsdale

06-12-2000, 03:19 PM

Why panic over what simply is the most likely eventuality? Accept what has been dealt you. Yeah, i'd like to live forever, or hang out in heaven (presuming of course I get to join the club). While I'm at it, I wouldn't mind a million bucks, some wings, and maybe a prehensile tail.

A finite life is better than no life at all. So concentrate on living your life as well as you can. Maybe you'll get another shot, in heaven or reincarnation, but it is somewhat short of a sure bet. So make sure you don't piss away the one life that we all pretty much agree we have.

If you want immortality, have some kids.

David B

06-12-2000, 08:10 PM

Jenkinsfan said:
David, some people make fun of Christians because they worship a God they can't see. Well, based on the fact that you are stating your opinion as a fact, I've concluded being a skeptic takes as much faith as being religious does.You can conclude anything you want. You'll be wrong, mind you, but that won't stop you from concluding it.

I didn't state it "as fact." I never said, "The fact is..." I gave an answer to a question of what I thought. Note the OP says, "I have a question for you..." If it was a question of fact, this thread would be in GQ, not GD.

Being a skeptic, in particular, requires no faith. It requires that you question things. If you said "atheist" instead of "skeptic," we could at least give you points for thinking "atheist" meant what John thought. The way you phrased it, though, you get no points whatsoever.

junebeetle said:
I eventually came to the conclusion reached by TheNerd: oblivion only sucks if you're around to experience it. That's a nice idea, but it doesn't really help those of us who do want to continue to be around. :)
You relinquish your consciousness every night before you go to bed. It's not so bad, is it? Of course, I know (or at least strongly suspect) that I'm going to wake up. There's quite a difference.
And if death still bothers you, think of this: at least you had the opportunity to be born. Death is a small price to pay for a chance to live, right? No; it's the highest price possible.

Dinsdale said:
Why panic over what simply is the most likely eventuality?As those of us who have related our thoughts indicated, it's not something we can control. Is it almost certain to happen? Yes. Does that mean we like it? Obviously not.
A finite life is better than no life at all. So concentrate on living your life as well as you can.Who says any of us do anything other than this? It's not an "either/or" situation. One has nothing to do with the other.
If you want immortality, have some kids.I do. That's one reason I so dislike the idea of death -- I want to be alive to see what happens to them, and their kids, and so on.

Tabeitha

06-12-2000, 10:09 PM

Well I consider myself Agnostic. I have many theories, none of them will ever be proven. We will never know until we die, but IMHO I say......If universal energy is always the same, never diminishing or expanding just changing shape. Then wouldn't it be logical to say the we are all conneted by this energy, and maybe the blue light so many people with near death experiences claim to see is their life energy trying to reconnect with the universal energy that we all are compossed of? In this sense there would be reincarnation but we could come back as any variety of siad energy. Ah, but you say......who created that energy and where did it all start? Well I am certain that the "God of the Bible does not exsist. Nor does the Devil. If there is a "god" that created us would he not then be an inventor? And on that line would he not be working on other inventions. Maybe all we are is an experiment gone bad, fungus on a plant stuffed in the cosmic corner, or down the cosmic trash bin never thought of again.

Apollyon

06-12-2000, 11:10 PM

John Corrado: My apologies to Gaudere, Kyb, DavidB, or any other 'soft' athiest whose beliefs I misinterpreted. My definitions of atheism and agnosticsm do/did not agree with yours...

Although, (and with the upmost respect for DavidB, Gaudere and the others), your definitions do appear to agree with Merriam-Webster.

agnostic
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

atheist
one who denies the existence of God

Gaudere: He's not saying there are no apples in the box; he is saying he lacks belief that there are apples in the box.

No denial of apples, but rather a lack of knowledge (and belief). I guess I would have called that agnostic too.

Regards,
Apollyon (agnostic).

PS: I'd like to put in a vote for the non-existence scares the willies out of me and gives me panic attacks camp -- I'm firmly with them.

Kyberneticist

06-12-2000, 11:22 PM

Hm. Well, since we're playing the game of competing dictinoaries, http://www.dictionary.com allows disbelief too.

Derleth

06-12-2000, 11:23 PM

I experienced oblivion for trillions (billions?) of years before I was born, and I remember no pain from all that nothingness. Why should I fear more of the same after I die?
-This is loosely based around a Mark Twain quote, but, as I cannot remember it, I made my own up to get the basic premise across.

Apollyon

06-12-2000, 11:58 PM

Hm. Well, since we're playing the game of competing dictinoaries, http://www.dictionary.com allows disbelief too.

Good link Kyberneticist (filing it away for future use), but even with that site's several definitions it boils down to:

agnostic = lack of knowledge, and believes that we cannot know. Also does not deny the possibility that God/s (or purple unicorns) exist.

atheist = one that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Gaudere wrote: you might class me as agnostic... However, this particular lack of belief is very often called "atheism" (sometimes "soft atheism").

I was merely (in my somewhat pedantic way) noting that the formal definition of atheist is distinct from agnostic and... <pedantry rant> there would be less miscommunication if we used the correct words. <end pendantry rant> :)

Not that this should in any way be taken to mean that I think Gaudere should not be allowed to claim to be an atheist, a purple unicorn, or the High Priest of Cthulhu, as desired.

Gaudere

06-13-2000, 12:00 AM

It's really no big deal to me if people wish to call me agnostic, but there tends to be confusion since most assume an agnostic has no strong opinion on the God exists/God does not exist issue, and I do; I think it highly unlikely that God exists, but I'm not about to state for absolutely positively certain that any undisprovable thing does not exist, including purple unicorns on Mars. Since I can say that I lack any belief in God, "agnostic" doesn't seem a correct fit. Most of us who consider ourselves atheists on this MB do *not* have "faith" that there is no God, we just think it amazingly unlikely. In fact, the only person I know of who had faith that God does not exist was Sake Samurai (I haven't seen him around in a while; wonder what he's up to). Anyhow, alt.faq.atheism says:

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the 'weak atheist' position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as 'strong atheism'."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

And there is Encyclopedia Britannica:
"What the atheist can reasonably claim is that there is no evidence that there is a God, and against that background he may very well be justified in asserting that there is no God. It has been argued, however, that it is simply dogmatic for an atheist to assert that no possible evidence could ever give one grounds for believing in God. Instead, atheists should justify their unbelief by showing (if they can) how the assertion is well-taken that there is no evidence that would warrant a belief in God. [...] ...what he should say, as things stand and in the face of the evidence he actually has and is likely to be able to get, is that it is false that God exists. (Every time one legitimately asserts that a proposition is false one need not be certain that it is false. "Knowing with certainty" is not a pleonasm.) The claim is that this tentative posture is the reasonable position for the atheist to take.

[...]

There may, after all, be such transcendent facts, such metaphysical realities. It is not that such a fallibilistic atheist is really an agnostic who believes that he is not justified in either asserting that God exists or denying that he exists and that what he must reasonably do is suspend belief. On the contrary, such an atheist believes that he has very good grounds indeed, as things stand, for denying the existence of God. But he will, on the second conceptualization of what it is to be an atheist, not deny that things could be otherwise and that, if they were, he would be justified in believing in God or at least would no longer be justified in asserting that it is false that there is a God. Using reliable empirical techniques, proven methods for establishing matters of fact, the fallibilistic atheist has found nothing in the universe to make a belief that God exists justifiable or even, everything considered, the most rational option of the various options. He therefore draws the atheistical conclusion (also keeping in mind his burden-of-proof argument) that God does not exist. But he does not dogmatically in a priori fashion deny the existence of God. He remains a thorough and consistent fallibilist."
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,117394+2+109479,00.html

I find the more in-depth discussions of what "atheism" is to be more accurate than dictionary definitions, which have to simplify a great deal. And steering back to the OP: the thought of dying, while extremely disappointing, does not really frighten me. Perhaps because I am young and think it a long ways off. At least I won't be around to be miserable about all that I'm missing when I'm dead--'cause, well, I won't *be* anymore.

Apollyon

06-13-2000, 12:17 AM

...most assume an agnostic has no strong opinion on the God exists/God does not exist issue, and I do; I think it highly unlikely that God exists, but I'm not about to state for absolutely positively certain that any undisprovable thing does not exist, including purple unicorns on Mars.

Oh... that is very close to my own feelings. Thank you for the in-depth definition Gaudere, it makes more sense.

Kind Regards,
Apollyon (agnostic/weak atheist/soft atheist/humbled).

soulsling

06-13-2000, 12:29 AM

when it's all over, it's just that. over.
you anser yourself with the question. whatever you believe, or don't believe, the end is always the end.

if you believe there is another beginning afterwards, perhaps there is, but none of us can tell you, at least with any proof, what it might be. as those that have gotten to the point where they've found out, have yet to come back with the factual documentation to tell us. so it's either so freaking good afterwards they don't want to, or there's nothing to come back from.

that's my objective opinion.

my personal opinion is that of course the body is recycled by the earth, decomposes and turns most likely into someone elses lunch at some point. yum huh? my "self", that is, the part that isn't physical, i believe becomes absorbed somehow as well, recycled, the way the body does, whatever energies there are, turn into other energies type of thing.

yojimbo

06-13-2000, 02:45 AM

Derleth said :

I experienced oblivion for trillions (billions?) of years before I was born, and I remember no pain from all that nothingness. Why should I fear more of the same after I die?
-This is loosely based around a Mark Twain quote, but, as I cannot remember it, I made my own up to get the basic premise across.

I don't think that anyone who has spoken so-far fears pain after their death ( unless of course you believe in the tradition version of hell ) .
The fear or very strong frustration I feel stems from the fact that I wont be around anymore . I like experiencing things and don't look forward to the time when it all will end .
This feeling by no means rules my life and as I've said before it is only fleeting .
It is also one of the reasons that I have envied people with a true fate in a afterlife .
I also would like to add that I think this fear is one of the main reasons why religions/after-life beliefs sprung up in the first place .

Holly

06-13-2000, 06:42 AM

I don't think that anyone who has spoken so-far fears pain after their death ( unless of course you believe in the tradition version of hell ).
Isn't it strange that people who believe in a literal, traditional Hell aren't afraid that they, personally, might wind up there?

I've seen many people die. In almost every case, death was a release from intolerable pain and suffering. When a terrible illness finally ends in death, the person's face no longer wears a grimace of pain. The end is peaceful and painless, even beautiful.

Young people view death much differently than the elderly. Of course you fear death, David; you're young (but older than me, ha ha!) and you have a lot left to do here. I work with almost exclusively old people. By the time you hit eighty, you stop worrying about dying. You accept it as inevitable. As time goes on from there, you begin to yearn for it.

Death is NOT the worst thing that can happen to a person.

soulsling

06-13-2000, 06:46 AM

Holly-
Death is NOT the worst thing that can happen to a person.

no, my mother is. and some of her cooking as well.

David B

06-13-2000, 07:01 AM

Tabeitha said:
If universal energy is always the same, never diminishing or expanding just changing shape. The problem begins here. I don't know where this idea came from, but it's not true.
Then wouldn't it be logical to say the we are all conneted by this energy, and maybe the blue light so many people with near death experiences claim to see is their life energy trying to reconnect with the universal energy that we all are compossed of? Sorry, but, no, that wouldn't be logical at all. That would be a massive leap of faith without any evidence whatsoever.

Liberal

06-13-2000, 08:32 AM

David

Except that before you were born, you didn't exist.

Could you possibly restate that assertion for those of us who have concluded that our spirit is eternal? As it stands, we see the statement as an equivocation fallacy (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/equiv.htm).

Dinsdale

06-13-2000, 08:46 AM

No theism thread could be complete without a reference to Star Trek!

Tabeitha's post conjured up vague recollections of an episode, I believe it was Voyager, where at the time of death the energy/spirit of a planet's inhabitant was somehow transported to and comingled with a ring of energy that surrounded the planet. The crew members thought it was just some quaint legend, but at the end of the episode their sensors picked up some unusual energy readings.

I remember thinking, that kind of story sure makes a lot more sense to me than the belief that one's individual soul/consciousness continues to exist somewhere. The traditional Christian heaven-fable has long struck me as pretty egotistic. Maybe I just have such low self-esteem that I don't think i'm uniquely all that important that I necessarily continue on in some form identifiable as me.

Question: if every soul continues to exist (and assuming "heaven" is structured in some manner that overcrowding is not an issue), and if souls are not recycled through reincarnation, where do the new souls come from? This type of question strikes many believers as insulting, but is not intended as such. It merely represents a disbeliever's attempt to make sense of a story that seems pretty darn convoluted and unnecessary. The more you look into it, the further from observable reality you have to get. At what point, when you pile iunprovables upon unprovables, do you just say, this story is too unwieldy to maintain belief?

I have long considered myself an atheist, though I freely admit I am unable to prove the nonexistence of God/gods. I have assumed agnosticism implied some fence-sitting, bet-hedging. Do I "know" there is no God? Well, suffice it to say I see no need for a God to expalin anything I experience, and the belief in God seems to run counter to many things I do believe in. So I am very conmfortable with the understanding/belief that there is no God.
-I don't believe other supernatural claims - mind reading, telekinesis, reincarnation, magic, seances, ghosts, etc. - why should I believe this set of supernatural beliefs?
-Why is this set of beliefs, which lack any scientific foundation and seem to be counter to some pretty well established scientific proofs, different from, say, claims of the occult?
-I believe current scientific thinking, as best as I can understand it, seems to make sense. Scientific thinking attempts to establish what is provable, and extrapolates from the immediately observable. When inconsistencies exist, they are either tested, or existing theory is adapted in manners that do not violate what is generally "known." This strikes me as more reasonable that acceptance as infallible certain interpretations of the writings of men.
-It seems to me that much of modern religions, certainly Christianity, both in their origin and subsequent development, can be explained as the works of men, not requiring divine participation.
-How does a Christian question non-Christian belief systems, without turning the same microscope on their own beliefs. If the Moslems are wrong, why are the Christians right? Also, Scientology and Mormon mught strike me, and many Christians, as pretty wacky. To a non-believer, the main difference is that they don't have millenia of p.r.

jenkinsfan

06-13-2000, 09:49 AM

[You can conclude anything you want. You'll be wrong, mind you, but that won't stop you from concluding it.
REALLY? WOW! So, what's it like to die, David?

Being a skeptic, in particular, requires no faith. It requires that you question things. If you said "atheist" instead of "skeptic," we could at least give you points for thinking "atheist" meant what John thought. The way you phrased it, though, you get no points whatsoever.
other.

You're right. It requires no faith to be a skeptic. But it does require faith to be an atheist. BTW, do I at least get points for questioning the questioner?:o

God bless,
jenkinsfan

Spoke

06-13-2000, 09:52 AM

Tell you what this atheist fears more than death: a long, lingering period of disability and dependence at the end of my life. When the end comes, I hope it comes suddenly. Oblivion really doesn't frighten me.

yojimbo

06-13-2000, 10:07 AM

REALLY? WOW! So, what's it like to die, David?

God bless,
jenkinsfan

There are infinite ways to die . Once your dead , it's not like anything . It's nothing , finito , adios .
"You (or the famous parrot :) ) have ceased to be" to bastardise John Cleese .

That is how I see things . I cannot see or have been shown anything that would make me change my mind .

You of course are free to believe whatever you like and I will defend your right to do so . Am I correct in assuming that is recipricated ?

Spoke- I fear that even more than death itself . :(

Gaudere

06-13-2000, 10:56 AM

It requires no faith to be a skeptic. But it does require faith to be an atheist. ::printing out the lengthy defintion/discussion of "soft atheism", "weak atheism" and "fallibilistic atheism" in this very thread and why it does *not* require faith and smacking jenkinsfan about the head with it:: ARRGH! ;^) ;^) We just went over this!

You are correct that "strong atheism" does require faith, but you should understand that to such a person it is like having faith that there are no purple unicorns on Mars--they do not consider it to be a very strong degree of faith. Atheists may also absolutely deny the existence of specific Gods while not denying the possibility of *any* God--for instance, they may say the Christian God's attributes of omniscience and omnipotence are incompatable with free will, or that the Christian God cannot be wholly merciful and wholly just, so He cannot logically exist. And incidentally, "strong atheists" are very rare, in my experience; most atheists are quite aware of the (admittedly miniscule amount, to them) faith required to completely rule out the possibility of something that cannot be disproved, and prefer simple skepticism to any sort of faith in the existence/non-existence of God.

Esprix

06-13-2000, 11:36 AM

Personally I plan on finding a vampire and living for at least a few hundred years. Death scares the pants off me.

Esprix

jenkinsfan

06-13-2000, 12:05 PM

lunapark

06-13-2000, 12:17 PM

You decompose.

But can you feel yourself decomposing? Scientists
don't know too much about the human brain yet.
I personally believe nothing, but it is a fear that
i'm going to be somewhat aware in the coffin. Afterlife
could be some kind of dreamlike state.
I'd also like to state the question, because i've been
wondering personally, burial or cremation?
It doesn't seem too cool to be in a coffin under ground,
but i'm too afraid of the fire to decide 100% that i want
to be cremated.

Gaudere

06-13-2000, 12:18 PM

jenks, read *all* my posts on this thread carefully before I have to smack you again. ;)

"jenkinsfan, Have we explored every corner of the ocean? Have we explored every corner of our universe? Or how about other universes? And who's to say that our eyes aren't capable of seeing faeries? And if we could see faeries, we would have to look everywhere at once to make sure faeries weren't constantly running behind us and hiding in the places we had previously searched. Yes, non-faerie believers do have faith. Lots of it." <grin> I don't know how you manage to find the enormous amount of faith required to believe that no faeries exist.

RTFirefly

06-13-2000, 12:24 PM

There are a lot of things that might either be or not be, but there's no substantive evidence of their existence. Gods, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the afterlife, the Loch Ness Monster, and so forth.

In the absence of any evidence, the 'null hypothesis' - the one that is accepted until substantive evidence for the alternative is found - is quite logically the hypothesis of nonexistence. Nothing says the odds on existence v. nonexistence of any of these things comes down to a fifty-fifty, coin-toss chance. Anytime there's no evidence at all in favor of or against the existence of some phenomenon, the only reasonable null hypothesis is nonexistence.

Is this more or less what you were trying to say, Gaudere?

(About time we wound up on the same thread - long time, no see!)

John Corrado

06-13-2000, 12:26 PM

Err, jenkinsfan?

Okay, re-read the thread very carefully.

Just in case you don't, let me state what has been driven into the ground already.

1.) Hard Atheism is the absolute statement that there are no Gods. I do not believe that anyone here would disagree that this requires faith. In other words, avoiding the confusing double negatives, we all agree that Hard Atheism Requires Faith.

2.) Soft Atheism is the statement "God or Gods may exist, but I'm not convinced that they do." This overlaps with agnosticsm, but is also called "athiestic." This does not require faith; in fact, it specifically denotes a lack of faith ("Sure, it might be, but without evidence to support it, I can't believe it. Of course, I can't specifically tell you that it *doesn't* exist, either.").

Most of the people so far who have stated themselves to be atheistic (Gaudere, Kyberneticist, etc.) have stated themselves as being Soft Atheists; ergo, they do not need faith. I agree with them completely (though I will continue to call myself an agnostic because that keeps people from assuming that I firmly believe there is no God).

BTW- Gaudere is female. Your pronouns may need adjustment.

RTFirefly

06-13-2000, 12:36 PM

Anyhow, working from there, jenkinsfan and synikal, the point is that belief in the likelihood of the nonexistence of God or the afterlife requires no faith. Belief in the existence of God - a belief I share, mynd you - is what requires something special.

I believe in God because I've been lucky enough to experience what I interpret as God's presence. To me, obviously, that's enough evidence to overcome the null hypothesis of nonexistence of God. But I can't produce any evidence, in the form of objective fact or strong argument, that would satisfy another intelligent person.

The only way I can produce evidence of the existence of God (and possibly from there, the afterlife) is by living the sort of life that is consistent with what I claim is the nature of God. And even that's only going to be provisional evidence to the relative handful of people who come in contact with me; it won't, and shouldn't, do a thing to convince the zillions of people who don't know me.

On the other hand, if I'm enough of a jerk, I can be a strong argument for the nonexistence of the God for whom I proselytize.

John Corrado

06-13-2000, 12:41 PM

RT- Except the problem with extending the 'null hypothesis' to the existence of A Higher Power is that it attempts to apply quantifyable status to a non-quantifyable item.

That is, I can understand the 'null hypothesis' being easy to extended towards the Loch Ness Monster- it has a specific area that it is supposed to live in; said area has been dredged, watched, and surveyed over and over again with quantifiable results of nothing. Ergo, to step to the conclusion that nothing results from nothing is akin to the conclusion that a flipped coin will not land standing upon its edge.

Likewise, said hypothesis can be extended towards the God of the Bible. We know the Earth is round, that the Sun revolves around it, that it took more than 7 days to create, and there haven't been any pillars of fire at night to lead the Jews around that *I've* noticed. Given the abscence of the actions or deeds of God as written in the Old Testament, it is not that much harder of a step to say that *such* a God does not exist (notice the emphasis on "such").

However, to apply that thesis to the possiblity of *any* higher power requires evidence we do not yet have- that is, while specific demonstrations of God- the Christian God, the Hindu Gods, the Greek Olympiads, etc.- can have the 'null hypothesis' placed, the Deist "Watchmaker" God cannot have such a hypothesis placed, because it involves actions we do not, and possible can not, know the answer to- what exists of our conciousness before or after death? How did the Big Bang come to be? What exists in the dimensions outside of the three we understand, and what exists outside the edges of the Universe?

To answer such questions requires faith, because no evidence can be given. Ergo, those who state definitively that there is a God, or those who state definitively that there can be no God, act upon faith. Those who state that such answers are unknowable and trying to find the answer only results in serious migraines and wasted time are welcome to join me for a beer and discussion of much more useful matters, such as whether the Redskins will truly kick ass now that they've signed Neon Deion.

jenkinsfan

06-13-2000, 12:44 PM

BTW- Gaudere is female. Your pronouns may need adjustment.

OOOOPS! So sorry! I didn't know.

My feelings towards the after life is this- you can't prove Heaven and Hell exist and you can't prove they don't exist. People believe whatever makes them most comfortable.

xenophon41

06-13-2000, 12:46 PM

Guadere, Have we explored every corner of the ocean? Have we explored every corner of our universe? Or how about other universes? And who's to say that our eyes aren't capable of seeing God? And if we could see God, we would have to look everywhere at once to make sure God wasnt' constantly running behind us and hiding in the places we had previously searched. Yes, atheists do have faith. Lots of it.

jenkinsfan, you appear to be saying that, based on your faith that God exists, atheists must have lots of faith to believe that God doesn't exist. Surely you can see that it takes no leap of faith to withhold belief in extraordinary claims until presented with compelling evidence; even if others choose to believe the claims without proof.

In other words, it does not require any faith on my part to be of the strong opinion that there is no deity, even though others believe in a deity. To repeat: this is an opinion I hold, not a system of belief.

I can understand the trouble you're having with this concept, however, seeing that you believe things such as "God may be hiding from us, so we shouldn't believe he isn't there just because we can't find him."

RTFirefly

06-13-2000, 01:46 PM

John - much as I hate to disagree with you, I'd say the 'null hypothesis' idea applies very clearly to that which is unknowable in any way, shape, or form.

Think of it this way: there are lots of things that may or may not exist, for which no evidence may be marshalled on either side. Invisible Pink Unicorns, spatial dimensions beyond the three we know, the afterlife, Zeus, salamander-like creatures swimming in the gaseous interior of Neptune, intelligent life on planets orbiting stars in distant galaxies, and so forth.

We can't reasonably say, "each one of these has a .5 chance of being true, simply because there's no evidence on either side." If so, the very act of making up absurd entities such as the IPU increases the expected number of such entities that exist. The IPU may or may not exist, but the likelihood of its existence must be effectively zero for the Universe not to abound in such critters.

Therefore, I would submit that the only reasonable initial assumption regarding the IPU - or anything else which may or may not exist, with absolutely zero evidence on either side - is its nonexistence. Nonexistence has to be the null hypothesis, the rebuttable presumption, whatever the appropriate term is. There may or may not be an afterlife, but there's no reason that the absence of evidence either way should have us interpret the odds as a tossup.

Gaudere

06-13-2000, 02:46 PM

Great to see you again, RT! :) And thank you for the able defense.

People believe whatever makes them most comfortable.I don't think you can say that categorically; it clearly makes many of us decidedly uncomfortable to say that there is no afterlife, we just feel that the most compelling evidence supports lacking belief in an afterlife. A theist may even be uncomfortable about the prospect of an afterlife if they believed they were going to Hell (although I've never met one who did, and likely never shall--what's the point of Hell as punishment if no one ever thinks they'll be punished? But anyhow...). However, I do think for some people it *is* whatever makes them comfortable--I do know a few who say they believe in an afterlife because the alternative is too depressing.

No problem about the gender switch, jenkinsfan; I realize my name is rather ambiguous and I generally don't correct people who get my gender wrong. You haven't done as badly as some. :D

matt_mcl

06-13-2000, 03:21 PM

I would say there's a difference between disbelieving in God and disbelieving in life after death. In the case of God, an atheist's never having experienced the presence of God is, as Gaudere puts it, a null hypothesis.

However, your non-believer in life after death has never been dead, so they can't meaningfully say they've never experienced life after death, so they don't have any more evidence - even for a null hypothesis - than a believer. Therefore, their beliefs require more faith.

Kyberneticist

06-13-2000, 04:25 PM

*sigh* Not at all. The hypothesis of life after death requires introducing some extra element besides our physical brain and body. Either elves that reconstruct the brain, or some soulstuff that overlaps it, is intimately affected by it in life, but immediately gains independance at death, or somesuch.

People believing in life after death are introducing more variables without adequate explanation for them.
Their hypothesis requires more faith.

Apollyon

06-13-2000, 04:48 PM

RTFirefly: I believe in God because I've been lucky enough to experience what I interpret as God's presence.

matt_mcl: I would say there's a difference between disbelieving in God and disbelieving in life after death.

To offer a corrolary to matt's comment, would it be reasonable to assume that there is a difference between believing in God and believing in life after death.

Even if we were to assume the existence and presence of a god or gods, does that tell us anything meaningful about an afterlife? Does the existence of god necessitate a personal existence after an earthly death? If my (hypothetical) mortal essence is absorbed into the godhead such that I cease to have ego is that so different from oblivion -- in either case I will have ceased to be?

Godhead absorbtion aside, does the existence of god actually preclude the notion that there is nothing at all after death?

August West

06-13-2000, 04:54 PM

I'm still not fully convinced that I will die. I mean, just because everyone else has it doesn't necessarily follow that I will. It's just an extrapolation of existing data. As they say in the financial world,"Past performance does not indicate future results."

David B

06-13-2000, 08:22 PM

I had said: "You can conclude anything you want. You'll be wrong, mind you, but that won't stop you from concluding it."

Jenkinsfan replied:
REALLY? WOW! So, what's it like to die, David? I'm beginning to believe that you have a reading comprehension problem.

I was very clearly responding to your "conclusion" that it took as much faith to be a skeptic, not to what happens after death. Yet here you respond as if it were the latter.

Plus, Gaudere has had to beat you about the head with her explanation after she already went over it once.

So, please, read more carefully.

Thanks.

orestes543

06-13-2000, 08:52 PM

Why panic over what simply is the most likely eventuality?

I would like to think that not panicking about something like death is easy, but honestly, how many people do you, or any of us know, that aren't in one way or another, afraid of that eventuality? I'd love to believe that there is something of a life after death, but, myself being an agnostic, I doubt that there is anything more after life than a dreamless sleep that we will never awake from. My feeling is that religion provides somewhat of a cover for humanity's fear of death, and nothing more. I have had my fair share of panic attacks waking up at three o'clock in the morning and thinking that when I die, I won't be able to see, hear, taste, smell, or touch anything anymore. That really scares the heck out of me, but I manage to get over it, realizing that if I sit around and worry about what death is like all of the time, I won't be able to fully appreciate my life for what it is worth.

Anyways, just wanted to throw my two cents worth into this thread.

Apollyon

06-13-2000, 10:45 PM

I'd love to believe that there is something of a life after death, but, myself being an agnostic, I doubt that there is anything more after life than a dreamless sleep that we will never awake from.

Hi there Orestes... hmmm... <checking Greek mythlogy link>... "Orestes is best known for having murdered his own mother"... err... OK... ;)

As a fellow agnostic -- or soft atheist <nod to Gaudere> -- I also wish I could believe in a life after death and find the alternative truly terrifying... even given the rational argument that if it is nothingness I won't notice.

BTW, if there are any deities "reading" this post who would like to grant me faith... I'd prefer an after-life that involved houris and sherbet... although wenching and mead halls would be OK too. :)

Gaudere

06-13-2000, 11:14 PM

BTW, if there are any deities "reading" this post who would like to grant me faith...Careful now, or you'll get David B in here pronto proferring a signup form for The First Church of David B (reasonable rates, all major credit cards accepted. Absolution of sins non-applicable in Tennessee). I believe his afterlife involves chocolate and naked women (or men, if ya swing that way). Of course, I'm a Gaudess myself, as well as the Prime Example of Humility of the First Church of David B, and a follower of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm).

OTOH, I hear the Allenists have Bingo.

--------
On a slightly more serious note, Orestes had to kill his mother to avenge her murder of his father (Agamemnon). Because of this, the Furies hounded him until he was brought to trial before Mount Olympus. Apollo argues in his defense, saying that the Fates had arranged the murder of his father, so Orestes could not be held responsible for his matricide since it was his duty to avenge his father. Yet Orestes stood tall and said his acts were his own, and he took full reponsibility for them. A proto-"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul" sort of guy.

Apollyon

06-13-2000, 11:33 PM

Of course, I'm a Gaudess myself... and a follower of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I was a bit puzzled by the Purple Unicorns of Mars comments earlier in this thread. Are they followed by an heretical sect of the IPU perchance?

On a slightly more serious note, Orestes had to kill his mother to avenge her murder of his father (Agamemnon).

I may have been a bit quick to judge our new friend... further reading has revealed that an "Orestes" was also:
the son of the river god Achelous.
an Achaean soldier killed by Hector and Ares at Troy.
a Trojan who attacked the Achaean wall.
one of the leaders of the Satyrs who joined the army of Dionysus in his campaign against India!

Orestes - care to enlighten us?

Gaudere

06-13-2000, 11:48 PM

Are they followed by an heretical sect of the IPU perchance?The heretical sect of unicorn-worshippers are the followers of the Visible Chartruese Unicorn. The purple unicorns of Mars are just a silly analogy. But it doesn't really matter what either believes; as They say, "this is a non-threatening religion, we have quite enough of the threatening kind already." Of course, I recall the scripture of the Pastures of Low Grass and High Manure where Her Sacred Dwarves nibble on evildoer's kneecaps, so maybe there is a contradiction--which only proves She is real! For, the more self-contradictory She is, the more She exists. May Her hooves never be shod!

Liberal

06-14-2000, 04:29 AM

David

Looks like my first post slipped by you. Somehow. Once again, for your convenience:

You wrote:
Except that before you were born, you didn't exist.

Could you possibly restate that assertion for those of us who have concluded that our spirit is eternal? As it stands, we see the statement as an equivocation fallacy.

David B

06-14-2000, 06:52 AM

I'm glad to see that my worshipper Gaudere was immediately on the case in explaing the First Church of David B to Apollyon. Since I am an omniscient being, I knew she would be.

David B

06-14-2000, 06:58 AM

I had said: "Except that before you were born, you didn't exist."

Lib responded:
Could you possibly restate that assertion for those of us who have concluded that our spirit is eternal? No. You believe that your spirit is eternal, you restate. There is no evidence for even the existence of a spirit, let alone that it is eternal. The "you" I was talking about was the physical "you" and it was being discussed by people who do not think there is anything after death (it was comparing the "nothingness" of after death to the nothingness of before life).

And, frankly, since I was only using the term one way, I don't see how you can call it an equivocation fallacy, except that you want to change the meaning of what we were talking about (which would seem to indicate that the fallacy is on your end, not mine).

gobear

06-14-2000, 08:00 AM

For those posters worried about facing oblivion and cessation of existence, one can always move to Sunnydale and become one of the undead. But,then, you have to watch out for the Slayer and the Scooby Gang. :)

Liberal

06-14-2000, 08:41 AM

David

No. You believe that your spirit is eternal, you restate.

Very well. It would come out something like this:

"Except that before your body was born, your spirit didn't exist."

Absurd.

There is no evidence for even the existence of a spirit, let alone that it is eternal.

We've been over this before a time or three.

There is no evidence that anything exists, other than subjective sensory interpretations. Even if you think you've detected existence by means of some instrument, you have merely removed your senses one step further from the thing you are measuring.

Here again is why you cannot prove that something exists.

Before you can prove that anything exists, you must first prove that you exist, since a conclusion reached by a nonentity does not itself exist. (This is your perfunctory take on God, by the way. "Nothing God says matters since God doesn't exist.") And you cannot prove that you exist, because before you can do anything at all, including prove your existence, you must first exist. That makes your existence axiomatic.

Since your conclusion (that you exist) is the same as your axiom (that you exist), you've produced nothing more than a tautology.

So, we are left with our perceptions of what is objectively real. You have not perceived God (or so you say). But I have (or so I say). Therefore, your saying that my spirit does not exist is like my saying that your son doesn't exist. But then, I wouldn't presume.

The "you" I was talking about was the physical "you" and it was being discussed by people who do not think there is anything after death (it was comparing the "nothingness" of after death to the nothingness of before life).

Well, contrary to what you might think, there are those of us participating here who do think there is something (both before and) after death. Death of the cells, at least. We do not accept your axiom that there is "nothingness" either after what you call death or before what you call life.

And, frankly, since I was only using the term one way, I don't see how you can call it an equivocation fallacy, except that you want to change the meaning of what we were talking about (which would seem to indicate that the fallacy is on your end, not mine).

Fallacies are pinned on arguments, not arguers.

The utter ambiguity of your argument alone qualifies it as fallacious, since you know, or should know, that there are those of us here who interpret certain terms in different ways for different contexts.

Yes, I know you don't like that, and you aren't exactly the world's best at seeing something from some other point of view, but we bristle when you talk about "life" and "death" from your narrow viewpoint in the same way that you bristle when we talk about atheists and mean only the hardass ones who have a faith that God does not exist.

The least you could do is give the same consideration to others that you expect us to give to you. You once gave me advice that I found very helpful. I now offer you a small piece of advice as a friend and admirer of yours: Get out of your rut.

Dinsdale

06-14-2000, 09:22 AM

Libertarian - what a load of crap!
Let me get it straight - God exists, because maybe I don't.
Yeah, that kinda stuff impressed me when I was taking Phil 101. But neither it, nor religion, does me much good in daily life. Of course, I don't smoke as much as I used to either...
Feel like I'm banging my head against a strikingly substantive perception of a brick wall.

jenkinsfan

06-14-2000, 09:23 AM

David, am I sensing that you would like to believe in Heaven but do not because of a lack of proof?

Any other agnostic may feel free to answer this question as well.

Dinsdale

06-14-2000, 09:32 AM

jenkinsfan: sure, add it to my list of fantasies. Who wouldn't want to live forever (absent the boredom arguments)?

In addition to the lack of proof, add in the lack of a reason why heaven should exist. If there is a certain amount of dark matter in the universe, either it fits within current theory or that theory is amended. But everything seems to stumble along in pretty explainable fashion, without the need for a supreme thumb on the scales.

Or maybe give us an idea of "how" it could exist, instead of simply saying it is "unknowable." I think David Copperfield said the same thing before he flew. Oh, I forgot, we don't really know anything, do we Libbie?

Nen

06-14-2000, 09:39 AM

Libertarian and David B:

David, you stated:

There is no evidence for even the existence of a spirit, let alone that it is eternal.

To which Lib responded:

There is no evidence that anything exists, other than subjective sensory interpretations.

(Actually, considering your argument, Lib, the subjective sensory interpretations don't exist either).

Neither of you can argue for the proof of existence without subjecting yourselves to solipsism. IMHO, I find solipsism silly. In an effort to avoid that prospect, will you both agree that corporeal selves exist? If so, I assume you will both agree that upon death, the constituent matter and energy of the body simply dissipate into the rest of existence. Any proof of existence must be based on some axiom, but the argument is generally considered sound if the precepts are widely accepted. Lib, your assertion about the existence of a spirit simply goes beyond what David feels is verifiable (correct me if I'm wrong David). Why have two precariously asserted tenets in lieu of one?

Whether nothingness, heaven, or another twist in the IPU's horn precedes and supersedes this thing dubbed life is irrelevant except regarding the OP. The only difference between them is that nothingness requires fewer logically compromised arguments.

Liberal

06-14-2000, 09:43 AM

Dinsdale

Libertarian - what a load of crap!

How delightful. One of those hand stabbing atheists.

Let me get it straight - God exists, because maybe I don't.

As I explained, God (or anything else) exists to those of us who have perceived Him (or anything else).

Yeah, that kinda stuff impressed me when I was taking Phil 101.

And you took that in lieu of Reading 101? The applicable field is logic, not philosophy.

But neither it, nor religion, does me much good in daily life.

Me either. I despies religion, as does God.

Of course, I don't smoke as much as I used to either...

Meaning?

Feel like I'm banging my head against a strikingly substantive perception of a brick wall.

But what about your head?

Liberal

06-14-2000, 09:59 AM

Nen

"Blessed are the peacemakers." — Jesus

(Actually, considering your argument, Lib, the subjective sensory interpretations don't exist either).

Not exactly. Actually, there is simply no way to prove that they exist. What is objectively real exists despite our perceptions.

Neither of you can argue for the proof of existence without subjecting yourselves to solipsism.

Well, it really isn't even that. My solus ipse might not exist objectively.

IMHO, I find solipsism silly.

Fair enough.

In an effort to avoid that prospect, will you both agree that corporeal selves exist?

Yes, I will, but only because I perceive that to be the case.

If so, I assume you will both agree that upon death, the constituent matter and energy of the body simply dissipate into the rest of existence.

Yep.

Any proof of existence must be based on some axiom, but the argument is generally considered sound if the precepts are widely accepted.

Woah, Nellie!

The vast majority of people are not atheists. And we don't want to spiral into an argumentum ad populum anyway, agreed? An axiom — any axiom — is "sound" merely as it stands. Soundness, in that sense, is applicable only to whether the rest of the premises follow from it.

David's axiom (that God does not exist) is perfectly sound. The problem is that he does not recognize that my own axiom (that God does exist) is equally sound.

Lib, your assertion about the existence of a spirit simply goes beyond what David feels is verifiable (correct me if I'm wrong David). Why have two precariously asserted tenets in lieu of one?

Because of what I have perceived, a tenet denying the existence of the spirit would be precarious indeed. Remember that Ockham said, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum."

Whether nothingness, heaven, or another twist in the IPU's horn precedes and supersedes this thing dubbed life is irrelevant except regarding the OP.

You lost me there. Isn't the OP the topic at hand?

The only difference between them is that nothingness requires fewer logically compromised arguments.

Sorry, Nen, but they require exactly the same number. For every proposition, A A1 A2 ... An, there are an equal number of truth table elements.

Thank you, by the way, for your civility.

Dinsdale

06-14-2000, 10:17 AM

Sorry my misguided and undoubtedly substandard alma mater had logic and advanced logic in the Philosophy department when I took them. And the debate classes I took and the debate team I was on than won a national DSR-TKA title was under the Speech Com department. Or at least that is my perception/recollection.

But two parties cannot debate a proposition if they do not agree on definitions, and you cannot reason with a fanatic.

There is worthwhile argument, and there is silliness. I believe you are engaging in the latter. But what do I know? I never took Reading 101, if it was offered. Poor stupid me - CLEP'ed and AP'ed out of any such remedial reading classes. Perhaps if I weren't so smart I might have found religion!

BTW - can I fit another angel on the head of this pin?

John Corrado

06-14-2000, 10:40 AM

jenkinsfan said:
...[A]m I sensing that you would like to believe in Heaven but do not because of a lack of proof?

Yes. Most religions are axiomatic, which isn't proof ("The Bible is The Word of God, and therefore must be obeyed!" "How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?" "Because the Bible tells me so!"). It's all based upon faith- the jump to the position that A is true just because you feel it's true, even though B is just as valid an answer on points of fact. I see no reason as to why Christianity should be true and Islam should not, or why Buddhism should be true and The Church Of Sticking Your Extremities In A Blender should not. I may *feel* that the Church of Sticking Your Extremities In A Blender isn't exactly what God wants, but that's based upon what I *hope* God would want, which does not necessarily have anything to do with what God *really* wants.

And that's a lot of what it comes down to in my mind. God is unknowable. It's too big a concept for any human to wrap their mind around. To worship God in a certain way, to believe God acts in a certain way, is to have the conceit that one understands God, or at least some aspect of God. And I don't. And I don't see the point of involving myself in religion when it's just one group's claim of what the unknowable is, and when there's just as valid a group around the corner claiming that the exact opposite is true.

So I can either spend ten years of my life running around, trying to find the answer, and eventually come to the realization that there is no knowable answer and I've wasted ten years of my short life; or I can live my life as a good person and hope that's enough, but know that if it isn't enough, I never had any way of knowing that it wasn't.

Nen

06-14-2000, 10:50 AM

Actually, there is simply no way to prove that they exist. What is objectively real exists despite our perceptions.

Agreed.

My solus ipse might not exist objectively.

That the issue.

And we don't want to spiral into an argumentum ad populum anyway, agreed?

Agreed, but you're missing my point. The premises of an argument must be acceptable to the audience to which the argument is offered. Only then is the conclusion deemed sound by the audience.

David's axiom (that God does not exist) is perfectly sound. The problem is that he does not recognize that my own axiom (that God does exist) is equally sound.

The two of you are presenting these axioms as premises. Neither of you will present an argument deemed sound by the other if you both continue to utilize such premises to initiate an argument.

Because of what I have perceived, a tenet denying the existence of the spirit would be precarious indeed.

I am curious. What perception would cause one to believe in a soul?

Remember that Ockham said, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum."

That was my point.

You lost me there. Isn't the OP the topic at hand?

Yes, but the derision which became apparent isn't worth it. We are here to benefit each other, not instigate ill will.

Sorry, Nen, but they require exactly the same number. For every proposition, A A1 A2 ... An, there are an equal number of truth table elements.

Yes, I stand corrected. I tend to think of nothingness as a lack of proposition, much like "soft" atheism is a lack of a belief.

Thank you, by the way, for your civility.

No gratitude is necessary. Isn't civility supposed to be the norm here?

Liberal

06-14-2000, 11:13 AM

Dinsdale

Sorry my misguided and undoubtedly substandard alma mater had logic and advanced logic in the Philosophy department when I took them.

Oh, dear God. But I'm not surprised.

Nowadays, schools teach math this way: "A forest had a 1,000 trees. A lumberjack cut down 100 of them. Was the lumberjack socially responsible? What was the environmental impact of her actions? There are no wrong answers."

And the debate classes I took and the debate team I was on than won a national DSR-TKA title was under the Speech Com department.

Well, I am the former class A chess champion of my state. And I have pretty feet.

Or at least that is my perception/recollection.

Lucky for you you're aligned with the right camp. Otherwise, you would be assailed regarding your false memories.

But two parties cannot debate a proposition if they do not agree on definitions...

The topic of definitions has not been raised. But I'm glad you raise it here. That is precisely why any axiom is true. Definitions are, by nature, tautological. The terms in the defined word each have their own definitions, which each have their own terms, which each have their own definitions, which each have their own terms, which each...

...and you cannot reason with a fanatic.

Then my efforts are futile?

There is worthwhile argument, and there is silliness. I believe you are engaging in the latter.

Oh, come now. Belief requires faith, doesn't it?

But what do I know? I never took Reading 101, if it was offered. Poor stupid me - CLEP'ed and AP'ed out of any such remedial reading classes.

Well, I'm a member of TOPS (Top One Percent Society). What we do for laughs is make fun of Mensans. But so what? I probably don't have anywhere near the formal education you have. But I'm not interested in how many AP classes you took. I took them, too. Besides, who knows what the standards are these days. All I'm interested in is whether you make sound arguments while wagging a civil tongue.

Perhaps if I weren't so smart I might have found religion!

Perhaps if you weren't so smart you wouldn't have missed my disclaimer that I despise religion. And so does God. But then, you smart people read really fast.

BTW - can I fit another angel on the head of this pin?

I don't know 'bout that. But I'm certain you can't fit another ego on it.

Liberal

06-14-2000, 11:24 AM

Nen

Agreed, but you're missing my point. The premises of an argument must be acceptable to the audience to which the argument is offered. Only then is the conclusion deemed sound by the audience.

Ah, you're right. I did miss your point. You're quite right, of course.

The two of you are presenting these axioms as premises. Neither of you will present an argument deemed sound by the other if you both continue to utilize such premises to initiate an argument.

On the contrary, I have always stated quite clearly that I hold the existence of God (and of myself) as axiomatic.

I am curious. What perception would cause one to believe in a soul?

Do you mean spirit? In my case, the perception that I have experienced Him.

That was my point [that entities ought not to be multiplied beyond necessity].

But an entity that you have perceived is a necessary one, no?

Yes, but the derision which became apparent isn't worth it. We are here to benefit each other, not instigate ill will.

An excellent point. I will avoid further temptation to engage in debate with smartasses who call me "Libbie" and who call my points "crap".

Isn't civility supposed to be the norm here?

Yes. I stand ashamed and properly chastised.

Dinsdale

06-14-2000, 11:29 AM

I apologize for my uncivil remarks.
While I certainly acknowledge that I am quite intelligent, the reason I participate on these boards is that the majority of others share that quality. If I wanted to get into a pissing contest I would have mentioned my striking good looks. :-)
Tho I think this particular discussion took a turn towards silliness, my preferred option at that point would have been to not post. Must have been feeling cranky this a.m.
Sorry again.

xenophon41

06-14-2000, 11:31 AM

DavidB and Lib, not that I don't think you're perfectly capable of responding to each other, but allow me to put a couple cents in here, if you don't mind.

Libertarian charged that DavidB engaged in the fallacy of equivocation based on his answer to Boogarrheal Catastrophe's assertion that:
If I die and cease to exist, so what? That's not frightening, any more than to contemplate what it was like for me before I was born.

David quite rightly pointed out to Lib that, since BC had, in his assertion, implicitly accepted the corporeal model of existence previously submitted in this thread, then he [DavidB] was not guilty of equivocation since he had based his response on that same model of existence.

In rebuttal, Lib reworked David's statement that "Before you were born you didn't exist" into the remarkably dissimilar "Before your body was born, your spirit didn't exist" which is not only a misrepresentation of the original remark (because it introduces a brand new element -"the spirit"- into the argument) but is totally irrelevant to the charge of "equivocation."

Lib continues by explaining to us that David's conclusion that he even exists at all is mere tautology, since this is only based on the axiom that he exists. Unfortunately, this is also irrelevant to the discussion, as David's existence was never a conclusion, but is included in the premise of the OP, which poses the question "what happens when it's all over?"

So, while Dinsdale's analysis of Lib's argument ("-what a load of crap!") is a bit more terse and less polite than I might've phrased it (I would say "obfuscation" rather than "crap"), I have to agree with the substance of his rebuke.

Liberal

06-14-2000, 11:39 AM

Dinsdale

I apologize for my uncivil remarks.

As do I. You are the greater man for apologizing first.

Liberal

06-14-2000, 11:48 AM

xenophon41

David quite rightly pointed out to Lib that, since BC had, in his assertion, implicitly accepted the corporeal model of existence previously submitted in this thread, then he [DavidB] was not guilty of equivocation since he had based his response on that same model of existence.

I'm wrong. I see that I completely decontextualized David's remark. Thank you for pointing that out.

In rebuttal, Lib reworked David's statement that "Before you were born you didn't exist" into the remarkably dissimilar "Before your body was born, your spirit didn't exist" which is not only a misrepresentation of the original remark (because it introduces a brand new element -"the spirit"- into the argument) but is totally irrelevant to the charge of "equivocation."

Actually, I reworked David's statement, not as a rebuttal, but as a response to his request that I do so. But you're right that the charge of equivocation is baseless.

Lib continues by explaining to us that David's conclusion that he even exists at all is mere tautology, since this is only based on the axiom that he exists. Unfortunately, this is also irrelevant to the discussion, as David's existence was never a conclusion, but is included in the premise of the OP, which poses the question "what happens when it's all over?"

Well, that's all moot now anyway. But "it" might be an antecedent for the physical "it", rather than the spiritual "it".

So, while Dinsdale's analysis of Lib's argument ("-what a load of crap!") is a bit more terse and less polite than I might've phrased it (I would say "obfuscation" rather than "crap"), I have to agree with the substance of his rebuke.

"Sorry I spoiled your Black Panther party." — Forrest Gump

David

Sorry for the interruption, my friend. But my advice stands.

xenophon41

06-14-2000, 12:17 PM

But "it" might be an antecedent for the physical "it", rather than the spiritual "it".

That's how I interpreted it. If the spiritual "it" was intended, I suppose the OP would be asking about death of the animus, rather than the entire corpus. (Synikal? Care to comment?) In any case, that's an interesting observation.

BTW, Lib, I love the Gump quote!

Liberal

06-14-2000, 12:52 PM

xenophon41

That's how I interpreted it. If the spiritual "it" was intended, I suppose the OP would be asking about death of the animus, rather than the entire corpus. (Synikal? Care to comment?) In any case, that's an interesting observation.

I was assuming, particularly given Synikal's sig, that he was asking something along the line's of "what do atheists believe happens to the real you (i.e., the spiritual you) once the cells have died?" A naive question in that context, granted, but legitimate nontheless if an atheist is willing to accept the axiomatic spirit for the sake of the argument. Similar questions were asked in the old Atheist Religion threads, wherein (some) atheists and theists alike attempted to assume the mindset of the other and see things in new ways.

BTW, Lib, I love the Gump quote!

Thanks. After my gaffe, I felt about as dimwitted as he.

xenophon41

06-14-2000, 01:33 PM

I was assuming, particularly given Synikal's sig, that he was asking something along the line's of "what do atheists believe happens to the real you (i.e., the spiritual you) once the cells have died?" ..... Similar questions were asked in the old Atheist Religion threads, wherein (some) atheists and theists alike attempted to assume the mindset of the other and see things in new ways.

Which discussion quickly becomes problematic. For instance, speaking as a "weak" (or "soft") atheist, I can certainly agree to postulate the existence of my own spirit, but by that very act I preclude any logical argument I might make to support what I believe would happen to that spirit after death (I would be begging the question, would I not?).

Speaking on a purely personal level, I can say that if I possess a "spirit", I believe it is the manifestation of my influence on reality. Consequently, although my spirit may be at its stongest while I live, it can continue after I die through the legacy of my progeny, through the systems and structures I put in place while I live, and through the various records of my words and deeds that I will leave when I die.

Obviously then, I cannot be fully aware of my spirit, and in any case I believe my awareness will cease to exist when I die.

Liberal

06-14-2000, 02:48 PM

xenophon41

You've certainly brought the discussion around to something interesting, or at least more interesting than where I was taking it. Your definition of spirit caught me off guard. You define Him as though He were not alive, and speak of Him in the royal person (conjugated: we, it, it - we, they, they).

Kindly elucidate, if you please.

Also, you speak of awareness as though it were merely synaptic discharge. Can it be that we view things so very fundamentally differently? If I spoke of "your heart", would the picture that comes to your mind by any chance be that of a pumping muscle?

Dinsdale

06-14-2000, 03:53 PM

FWIW, IMO there is no animus greater than or distinct from the corpus. My entirety is the result of physical processes. When those processes stop, I stop. I wouldn't mind if it were different, but see no reason to believe it is.

Nifty definition of spirit, xenophon.

xenophon41

06-14-2000, 04:37 PM

Libertarian

Your definition of spirit caught me off guard. You define Him as though He were not alive, and speak of Him in the royal person (conjugated: we, it, it - we, they, they).

Kindly elucidate, if you please.

Well here I am, confused again! I'm unsure exactly where it is that I employed the "royal" person, and also at what point the discussion changed from "an individual's spirit" to "the Holy Spirit" (unless you see them as one and the same). ---I think it would be helpful to know how exactly you are using the term "spirit" in the context of this discussion, and then to see if we can agree on a common definition (which may be unlikely).

Also, you speak of awareness as though it were merely synaptic discharge. Can it be that we view things so very fundamentally differently? If I spoke of "your heart", would the picture that comes to your mind by any chance be that of a pumping muscle?

The image I would get for "heart" would depend upon your usage of the word. If you said "Consider your heart," then I would picture the muscle, whereas if you told me "That kid really has heart!", a much less tangible set of thoughts would spring to mind. (And if you described a bumper sticker as reading "I-heart-Libertaria" I would picture the comic Valentine heart.)

As far as awareness goes, I'm not prepared to believe any notion that my awareness of things is separate from my physical being without experiencing such awareness directly. Since any such experience would most likely necessitate the destruction of my physical being, I'm absolutely unwilling to experiment!

(BTW, I look forward to your response, but won't reciprocate promptly, as I have to leave happy cyberland for the rest of the day, and won't be visiting again until some time tomorrow.)

andros

06-14-2000, 05:19 PM

I think it would be helpful to know how exactly you are using the term "spirit" in the context of this discussion, and then to see if we can agree on a common definition (which may be unlikely).

I'm also curious about this, Lib. Do you believe that humans have individual and distinct "souls" that carry on after death of the corpus? Or snippets of the Holy Spirit, portions of a whole?

Liberal

06-14-2000, 06:36 PM

Andros!

Welcome back! Hopefully, my response to Xenophon41 will clarify things for you.

Xeno

May I call you that? Please call me Lib. Excellent format! The italics in the quote block looks great.

[/quote]Well here I am, confused again! I'm unsure exactly where it is that I employed the "royal" person...[/quote]

Right here:

Speaking on a purely personal level, I can say that if I possess a "spirit", I believe it is the manifestation of my influence on reality. Consequently, although my spirit may be at its stongest while I live, it can continue after I die...

[Emphasis mine.]

Regarding that point, per se, it is quite often the case that a person’s legacy (what you seem to mean by spirit) is greatly magnified after his “death”, and was diminished when he “lived”.

...and also at what point the discussion changed from "an individual's spirit" to "the Holy Spirit" (unless you see them as one and the same).

Well, I certainly do. How can spirit be divided and quantified? While there might be more than one manifestation of magnetism, for example, there is only one magnetism. Everything that is magnetic has the attributes of magnetism. Whatever is not magnetism is something else.

I think it would be helpful to know how exactly you are using the term "spirit" in the context of this discussion, and then to see if we can agree on a common definition (which may be unlikely).

God bless you. I have been in discussions (including on this board) where I have practically begged that we define our terms and state our axioms up front, only to be rebuffed as being too tedious.

I define spirit in the same way that Jesus does.

Kindly allow me to offer (at least at first) an informal definition, since, I’m sure you will agree, language (practically any language) has always proved to be weak in metaphysics. How do you define something to someone who has never known or experienced what you’re defining. I don’t mean this offensively by any stretch, but please understand that defining spirit to you would be like defining ice to a tropical aboriginal. Consider the difficulty: “It’s frozen? What the heck does frozen mean?” Or “Solid water? How can water be solid?”

What I’m saying is that it is problematic to define spirit for you without using terms that will themselves need definition and clarification. So, why don’t we just head it off at the pass, and start there? None of this is to assume that you’re ignorant, but simply to avoid making any assumptions of any kind. If you already know all this, feel free to skip it.

Greek, a much more metaphysical language than English, has several words for “love”. The two most familiar are “eros” and “philos”, the former meaning a romantic love, and the latter meaning a brotherly love. But you might be unfamiliar with the lesser known “agape” (closest English phonemic: ah-GAH-pay). It also means love, but is the kind of love that David, say, has for his son, or that I have for my daughter. It is a kind of love that is, in the strictest sense, unreasonable, i.e. there is no accounting for it by nature.

It is a love that goes beyond David merely protecting his son, the way a wild animal protects its offspring. There simply isn’t anything in nature that emulates agape. David doesn’t just dote on his son, the way a mother gorilla dotes on her baby. David doesn’t reason, “I will protect my son because it will be good for my gene pool.” Rather, he loves his son because his son is wonderful and he (David) is good.

You might say that David, then, loves his son instinctively.

But, no! It isn’t simply that. Because if that were true, then every father would love his son (assuming for that argument instinct as a global human attribute), but if you have ever seen the Jerry Springer Show, you know that that is not the case! The instinct of plenty of men, men who reproduce (at alarming rates, some say) and saturate the planet with their genetic off-spring couldn’t care less if their sons lived or died.

No, David loves his son, not because he is wired to love him (i.e., he is forced to love him). David loves his son because David is a good man, and because he believes his son is wonderful.

This Love that David has for his son is God. This Love lives in David, and in his son, whom he loves. This Love is alive, independent of atoms. That is, it is supernatural. It is the spirit, whether manifested in God or in us. The love between David and his son transcends nature. Time is an attribute of the natural universe, which, by definition, is not a subset of the supernatural universe (i.e., the intersection of their sets is {}); therefore, the spirit is eternal.

It is, after all, a gestalt.

[i]The image I would get for "heart" would depend upon your usage of the word. If you said "Consider your heart," then I would picture the muscle, whereas if you told me "That kid really has heart!", a much less tangible set of thoughts would spring to mind. (And if you described a bumper sticker as reading "I-heart-Libertaria" I would picture the comic Valentine heart.)

Well, the heart, as I use the term in these metaphysical discussions, is the essence of a person. “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” — Jesus

As far as awareness goes, I'm not prepared to believe any notion that my awareness of things is separate from my physical being without experiencing such awareness directly. Since any such experience would most likely necessitate the destruction of my physical being, I'm absolutely unwilling to experiment!

I think that’s eminently fair. But then, what to do? If I say that I have experienced such awareness, you might be too civil to call me crazy outright, but you might be shrewd enough to avoid any discussion, which would be too bad. I think you and I hold interesting discussions.

Tell you what, though. I’m willing to meet you half-way. I will be mindful of where you’re coming from if you will be mindful of where I’m coming from. Let’s neither one of us assume that the other is inferior either in intellect or in character. I have discovered some of the Godliest people I know among the atheists at this site (David and Gaudere among them). But please, I request of you, continue the discussions. Perhaps if we share with each other our life-philosophies, we can come to better understand one another.

I am a Libertarian Objectivist Christian. The ethic of libertarianism is non-coercion; the ethic of objectivism is self-interest; the ethic of Christianity is, of course, agape (love). The metaphysic of libertarianism is politics; of objectivism, objective reality; of Christianity, ego eimi (I am). The epistemology of libertarianism is nature; of objectivism, reason; and of Christianity, logos (the word).

What’s yours?

(BTW, I look forward to your response, but won't reciprocate promptly, as I have to leave happy cyberland for the rest of the day, and won't be visiting again until some time tomorrow.)

I hope it will have been worth the wait. I look forward to your return.

Kimstu

06-14-2000, 07:14 PM

So Libertarian, if I've correctly understood your axioms, they are these:

- There is more than one kind of love, e.g., eros, philia (philos actually means "friend" or "dear") and agape.

- Agape is not a natural but rather a supernatural form of love; it is not accounted for by anything in nature. It is also not subject to the influence of aspects of nature, e.g. time.

- Agape is divine love, and also spirit, both divine spirit and human spirit.

- Spirit is indivisible and not separately existent for different individuals.

My guess is that xenophon's axioms will be so different from these that it will be hard to hold a discussion that doesn't involve just disagreeing about the axioms themselves. Still, I'll be an interested spectator, as always.

Kimstu

tracer

06-14-2000, 07:41 PM

Libertarian wrote:

You might say that David, then, loves his son instinctively.

But, no! It isn’t simply that. Because if that were true, then every father would love his son (assuming for that argument instinct as a global human attribute), but if you have ever seen the Jerry Springer Show, you know that that is not the case! The instinct of plenty of men, men who reproduce (at alarming rates, some say) and saturate the planet with their genetic off-spring couldn’t care less if their sons lived or died.

Your argument assumes that, in order for behavior or emotions to be instinctive, that they must be universal to all members of the same species.

But this is not the case. Many people are afraid of heights. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of people with good vision would react with immediate, gut-level fear if they looked down a long precipice. But not all people will react this way. Some people can come right up to the edge of a cliff, look straight down, and not think anything of it -- some of these because they've trained themselves not to be afraid of heights, others because they were never afraid of heights to begin with. This does not mean that the fear of heights is not instinctive in those people who are afraid of heights.

Furthermore, an "instinct to love ones son" might exist, but may require certain events to trigger it. If a man has a one-night stand with a woman, and she comes back a year later with a baby and says, "This is your son," this might not be enough to trigger a love-for-your-son instinct. If on the other hand the man was living with a woman, and she became pregnant, and he stayed together with her through the pregnancy and birth, and participated in taking care of his son, this might be the trigger necessary to bring up an instinctive love for his son.

Gaudere

06-14-2000, 07:58 PM

But, no! It isn’t simply that. Because if that were true, then every father would love his son (assuming for that argument instinct as a global human attribute), but if you have ever seen the Jerry Springer Show, you know that that is not the case! The instinct of plenty of men, men who reproduce (at alarming rates, some say) and saturate the planet with their genetic off-spring couldn’t care less if their sons lived or died.Mmm, no, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of instinct. Just becuase it is instinctual to care for offspring doesn't mean every individual will have that instinct, in the same degree. I take it you assume an animal mother's caring for her young is instinctual, not agape, right? And you would say that if it were instinctual, every mother, animal or human, would care for her young, since you argue that it cannot be instinct if some parents neglect their young. But all animal mothers don't care for their young; some neglect them, some attack them, some favor one offspring so much the others suffer and/or die. On farms it is not uncommon to have to take young animals away from lousy mothers. So if you are assuming for the argument that all instincts are global and uniform, you are making instinct into something it is not, and you have not disproved instinct as a motivation at all.

Just out of curiosity, I have a question about your conception of the human spirit. Now, I'm assuming you believe in evolution, which means humans were once much more ape-like, and before that a smaller sort of mammal, and so on, etc. When did we get a human spirit? Homo habilis? Homo erectus? Were we spirit-filled unicellular creatures once? If our spirit did not suddenly appear, did we start out with a tiny bit of spirit, and then get more and more as we evolved? Yet, it seems odd that us and the chimpanzees would have a common slightly spirit-filled ancestor, but only the human decendents would have spirit (since you seem to use the animal kingdom as examples of wholly non-spirited creatures). If our common ancestor had two offspring, one of which whose line would eventually evolve into humans, and the other whose line would evolve into chimps, did only the ancestor of the humans have a spirit?

tracer

06-15-2000, 12:06 AM

Hey, Gaudere! Simulpost!

David B

06-15-2000, 07:03 AM

Lib said:
Sorry for the interruption, my friend. But my advice stands.Well, I'm glad I wasn't able to get to the board yesterday -- that allowed you to respond, get everything sorted out, and apologize all before I saw it. :)

But I'm not sure what piece of advice you're talking about. You said lots of things in the response and then responses to others, so I just wanted clarification.

Oh, and Gaudere's and tracer's words above about instinctual love are mine as well. They beat me to it.

xenophon41

06-15-2000, 03:33 PM

Lib: sure, call me Xeno; that's much quicker to type.

Regarding that point, per se, it is quite often the case that a person’s legacy (what you seem to mean by spirit) is greatly magnified after his “death”, and was diminished when he “lived”.

Certainly it's been true for many famous people (and some not so famous -- Dionysius Exiguous comes to mind) that their influence on events continues and even strengthens long after their passing, although these influences might not accurately reflect their intentions, character and will. For most people, I would think their direct influence would immediately diminish upon their death, and would continue to do so for generations afterward, as those whose lives they've affected begin to die off and their words and deeds begin to be misrepresented and forgotten. If you will allow me to elaborate on my somewhat hasty definition, I think the strength of my "spirit" would be dependent not only on continued influence, but also on how closely the character of those influences matches the character of my influence while alive. (This would be analogous to a radio signal being interfered with by other EM radiation. The closer you are in time to the source of the signal, the higher the clarity; even if the signal is boosted, information may be lost in the distance.)

How can spirit be divided and quantified? While there might be more than one manifestation of magnetism, for example, there is only one magnetism. Everything that is magnetic has the attributes of magnetism. Whatever is not magnetism is something else.

I admit that my definition is paltry and of little comfort when compared to the concept of an immortal spirit, or to the direct manifestation of God that you described. My definition, however has the advantage of compatibility with the universe which I observe and which Science describes.

Metaphysics

(I always like to take a deep breath before plunging into metaphysics, so bear with me. -Here we go!)

Your axioms: Love is manifested in [at least] three different ways; romantic love, brotherly love, and selfless or unreasonable love (agape). Agape is "unnatural", in that it cannot be accounted for by instinct. Agape transcends nature (i.e. time and space). This transcendent Love is God, or the spirit of God, and lives in those who exhibit it yet is independent of them. "It is . . . a gestalt."
I'm completely comfortable with your separation of the types of love, and with your description of agape as "unreasonable" (I, too have a child). While I can accept the idea that agape can't be accounted for by instinct, I disagree that this makes agape "unnatural." After all, though my instincts as a male (to propogate my genetic material by impregnating every possible female) do not include child rearing, the prevailing social structure prompted me to contribute to the raising of my son, and other personal inclinations, produced through social intercourse and my own family background, prompt me to establish a close relationship with him and to love him as unselfishly as I can.

Whether agape is itself transcendent of nature is a separate issue from whether it springs naturally into the human breast. "Transcendent" is a denotative term that is more frequently used connotatively to mean "separate from" some other thing, but actually means "having gone beyond." I could make a good argument that agape, where exhibited, can transcend the individuals involved, but this would still be within the boundaries of time and space. However, for the purpose of further discussion, I can agree to consider things from your viewpoint when addressing your statements.

Your "gestalt" statement is very interesting to me, since it echoes the most seductive aspect of Catholicism, that, where the spirit is manifested through agape (in this case love for Jesus), there exists a relationship between God, the Spirit, and the individual that is greater than the sum of its parts, yet separate from material reality. However, this axiom ("God is Love, Love is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit lives in the hearts of Good persons.") hinges on the acceptance of a Supreme Being, and we're back to a theism/atheism discussion.

In order to forestall that, and to turn back in the direction of the OP (Remember Alice? This is a song about Alice.) let me delay further comment until you can say what your understanding of awareness is, as associated with the immortal spirit. You said you've experienced awareness separate from your physical being, so I'm quite keen to see your thoughts on this. (And no, I don't assume that you're crazy or deluded. I may, however, disagree about the meaning of what you experienced!)

Philosophy
Perhaps if we share with each other our life-philosophies, we can come to better understand one another.

I am a Libertarian Objectivist Christian. The ethic of libertarianism is non-coercion; the ethic of objectivism is self-interest; the ethic of Christianity is, of course, agape (love). The metaphysic of libertarianism is politics; of objectivism, objective reality; of Christianity, ego eimi (I am). The epistemology of libertarianism is nature; of objectivism, reason; and of Christianity, logos (the word).

What’s yours?

Well, I try not to label myself, as I find labels to be at least as restrictive as they are descriptive. But to be fair, I'll try. I'm learning to be a pan-critical rationalist. Pan Critical Rationalism (PCR) is based on the premise that all positions are criticizable and none are justifiable, by which we mean that we hold all positions open to criticism, including our own most fundamental standards, goals and decisions. (In practice, however, we may be convinced of certain truths, without exempting them from future revision.) If I have any strong political leanings they are anti-reactionary and anti-dogmatic; I register as a Democrat for convenience, but this has more to do with some of my social and environmental concerns than with any party affiliation. I suppose you could label me as an Independent. And I am an atheist.

I hope that paragraph was sufficiently descriptive for you to see where I'm coming from.

<passes the ball back to Lib>

Kimstu wrote:
My guess is that xenophon's axioms will be so different from these that it will be hard to hold a discussion that doesn't involve just disagreeing about the axioms themselves. Still, I'll be an interested spectator, as always.

We'll try and avoid arguing about axioms --- maybe we can temporarily adopt each other's viewpoint for the sake of argument, eh Lib? Whatever the case, Kimstu, I hope you (and everyone else) will join in whenever the spirit moves you (so to speak!)

CollegeStudent

06-16-2000, 10:31 AM

Gaudere

06-16-2000, 10:49 AM

Our very own Cecil weighs in on NDE's:Do near-death experiences prove there is life after death? (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_030.html)
Blackmore points out that you don't have to be near death to feel you are floating through a tunnel. It's common "in epilepsy and migraine, when falling asleep, meditating, or just relaxing, with pressure on both eyeballs, and with certain drugs, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline."

Why? Blackmore guesses it has to do with the structure of the visual cortex, the part of the brain that contains a "map" of what the eyes see. "There are lots of [cortical] cells representing the center of the visual field but very few for the edges," she says. As the brain begins to lose control, whether due to oxygen loss, drugs, or fatigue, random neural firing apparently begins to occur, which the mind interprets as light. Since there are more cells in the center of the visual field than at the edge, you get the impression of a light at the end of a tunnel. As random firing increases, the "light" takes up a larger portion of the visual field, making you think you are floating toward the light source.

You also don't have to be near death to have an out-of-body experience. We know that surgical stimulation of the brain can trigger extremely realistic recreations from memory, and something similar probably occurs during an OBE or NDE. Subjects see themselves from afar because many people habitually use a bird's-eye view when dreaming or remembering. (If you're one of them, research suggests you may be more likely to have an OBE.) In short, Blackmore thinks that while the near-death experience is real, it can be explained on neurological grounds.
The fact that NDEs have scientific explanations is not proof that there is no life after death. However, I don't think NDEs can be considered to be evidence of an afterlife. 'Sides, I kinda have to wonder about a God that sends you to heaven/hell before you're actually dead. I expect an omniscient being to be a little more on the ball than that.

pinqy

06-16-2000, 10:49 AM

There are documented accounts of people who have been on their deathbed and experienced the afterlife. E.G. Dwight Moody, the great evangelist, was lying on his deathbed and minutes before he died, heard angels and bells while no one else heard this. There is a website that tells about an atheist's experience with a man who went to hell that transformed him. When I find it, I will post that website.

And yet there are also cases of people on their deathbed who have not experienced the afterlife. My grandfather is one. He has "died" and been brought back on at least one occassion, and reported experiencing nothing. No lights, bells, angels, voices, nothing. Is this evidence that there is nothing after death?

pinqy

CollegeStudent

06-16-2000, 11:18 AM

I dare you to check out the following websites WITH AN OPEN MIND and then see how you view eternity after that

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

http://www.virtual hell.org

This lie that there is nothing after death is the same lie that Satan has been feeding humans since the creation of the world.

Scylla

06-16-2000, 12:05 PM

Well, I read that article with an "open mind," the second link didn't work.

Here's my conclusion: If there is any truth to it, than mankind must declare war on this vicious, evil, and small-minded God who tortures humanity at the center of the earth for his own pleasure.

I suggest we start by digging down into Hell, and releasing all the poor human beings who are suffering there. These liberated souls would surely join us in the front lines of our battle to overturn this tyrant God, and his evil frontman Jesus Christ.

I have a skid loader, where should we start digging?

tracer

06-16-2000, 12:37 PM

Yeah! Don't you remember? There was this really ambitious project in the late 1960s/early 1970s called "Project Mohole" which sought to drill all the way through the Earth's crust to the mantle. Funding to Project Mohole must have been cut because we were afraid we'd drill all the way into Hell!

andros

06-16-2000, 01:00 PM

thanks, Lib, good to be back. Thanks for the self-analysis. I understand where you're coming from.

CollegeStudent, I read your links. With an open mind.

I disagree with their interpretations of Scripture. I disagree with their theology. And I disagree with their "scare tactics."

And before you immediately assume I didn't really have an open mind, remember this--in my mind, Christianity, true Christianity, is a religion of love. As Lib put it, "the ethic of Christianity is agape." "For God so loved the world." "The greatest of these is love." "Love they neighbor."

Christ taught love. He did not teach "love me or burn."

Love under duress is no love at all.

-andros-

xenophon41

06-16-2000, 01:06 PM

Well the link sure convinced me. I'm shopping for religion right now.

(Anybody know where there's a Mithraist congregation in No. GA?)

Unbelievable.

tracer

06-16-2000, 01:37 PM

CollegeStudent wrote:

I dare you to check out the following websites WITH AN OPEN MIND and then see how you view eternity after that

[ ... ]

http://www.virtualhell.org

By golly! Those cute little animated pictures and MIDI music sure convinced me! Hell must be real with production values like that!

CollegeStudent

06-16-2000, 01:41 PM

Boy those posts sure were funny.

Threll

06-16-2000, 03:10 PM

There are documented accounts of people who have been on their deathbed and experienced the afterlife. E.G. Dwight
Moody, the great evangelist, was lying on his deathbed and minutes before he died, heard angels and bells while no
one else heard this. There is a website that tells about an atheist's experience with a man who went to hell that
transformed him. When I find it, I will post that website.

Do you think these near death experiences prove a Christian after life, because Buddhists believe that your sole ascends a white tunnel before reincarnation. Logically then because Buddhism specifically states this, then NDE would prove Buddhism.

andros

06-16-2000, 05:36 PM

I was not in any way attempting to be funny, College Student. I am open to all forms of witnessing but threat.

xenophon41

06-16-2000, 05:47 PM

I was not in any way attempting to be funny, College Student. I am open to all forms of witnessing but threat.

Well, I (not being as nice a guy as andros) actually was trying to be funny. I will apologize for that now, and pose the following entirely serious question:

College Student, just exactly what information contained in either of those sites is supposed to so forcefully appeal to an intellectually open minded person as to change their conception of eternity?

avalongod

06-16-2000, 06:00 PM

I can believe I am about to discuss Near-Death Experiences and Hell, but heregoes:

In reference to NDE, let it be clear that these have neither been proven nor disproven to have anything to do with the afterlife. Yes it is possible that O2 deprivation could bring on hallucination. But the quality of NDE hallucinations is generally different from other hallucinations brought on by fever, illness, schizophrenia, or, say dabbling with pharmaceuticles. From what I understand NDE tend to be fairly clear and organized, and easily remembered...all things you would not expect from an o2 deprived brain. Interestingly enough, (and I almost hate to mention it) but there have been some (about 5%) documented cases of individuals having NDE that involved Hellish themes. That said, I don't think it is time to ring the clarion and say that NDE mean there IS an afterlife. But dismissals of them tend to be rather pat and fascile.

In reference to Hell: I generally find the concept of a Hell to be...uh....inconsistent (if you will) with reason. I can fit the concept of an afterlife into my understanding of reality and science, but not Hell. you'd have to provide a logical ontology for why hell would fit into the grand scheme of things.

andros

06-16-2000, 06:40 PM

avalongod:

You bring up some very good points. Here's a dismissal that's neither pat nor facile (in my mind): our evidence of NDE hallucinations/visions are entirely self-reported and not replicable. But we do know the human mind plays funny and as-yet-unexplained tricks on us (I had a nasty bout of deja vu a couple hours ago, for instance). And we know, from replicable experiment, that the mind is very open to suggestion. We don't know the mechanics of NDE, but we do know of clinical situations in which the symptoms associated with NDE are replicable.

Since we have evidence that the mind can produce the effects associated with NDE in non-NDE situations, and none of any sort that there is an afterlife, Occams razor demands that NDE is a physiological phenomenon and not a spiritual one.

YMMV.

-andros-

avalongod

06-16-2000, 06:49 PM

Andros,

you bring up good points as well. I am not defending NDE by the way, just keeping an open (and suggestible???) mind. I am not sure that I agree, however, that NDE type stuff has been replicated...I believe you are referring to the false repressed memory stuff? Keep in mind those sorts of phenomenon usually involve a third party planting the suggestions..."Do you remember your father touching you. Was he molesting you..." I am not sure that process is in effect in NDE. Generally the reinforcements are not there either (victims of molestation get sympathy, people who report NDE usually get ridicule). I think more examination of the phenomenon is required before any declarative statements can be made.

In reference to Occam's razor, OR does not DEMAND anything. It is simply a rule of thumb. Incidently OR implies that if two theories explain a phenomenon EQUALLY WELL, then the simpler ought be adopted. In this case, I don't think either theory is explaining the phenomenon adequately well to apply OR.

DoctorJ

06-16-2000, 07:38 PM

A couple of questions about "The Truth About Hell":

1.) So we are supposed to take the fact that a dying man was scared out of his wits as proof that hell exists? You think maybe someone who had spent his whole life hearing and believing in a fiery place that you go when you die might be inclined to "see" such a thing in that situation?

2.) About halfway down--the article from the "Respected Finnish Newspaper". ("Researchers Record the Screams of the Damned") If it's a "Respected Finnish Newspaper", why is the scanned headline in English? And why is the font of the headline and the prose of the article so reminiscent of that of the Weekly World News? Methinks that Mr. Terry Watkins is not very picky about his sources, somewhat dishonest, or had his leg pulled by someone.

3.) Scare tactics like this lean on good old Pascal's Wager. If you'll search around, you'll find about 857,398 threads all about why PW doesn't hold up.

Dr. J

tracer

06-16-2000, 07:47 PM

Threll wrote:

Buddhists believe that your sole ascends a white tunnel before reincarnation.

So that's why my shoes get thinner right before I throw them into the recycling bin!

(Okay, I'll shut up now.)

DoctorJ

06-16-2000, 08:10 PM

Here's what I learned from my open-minded tour of Virtual Hell (http://www.virtualhell.com):

--Demons either look like scorpions, Mary, or angels.

--The 7-Up Spot is burning in Hell.

--The official theme song of Hell is "Imagine". However, lest you think Beelzebub has taste, they also play the "Boot Scootin' Boogie".

--Danny Elfman should really file a lawsuit.

Seriously, everyone should check out this site. It's like the worst Haunted House you ever went through.

CollegeStudent, I'm glad you're here. I'm a semi-regular over at the LBMB (although I've mostly lurked lately), so I like having the fundie Christian perspective represented over here. However, if you point to web sites like the ones mentioned above to try to make your points, no one is going to take you the least bit seriously.

Dr. J

avalongod

06-16-2000, 08:26 PM

Not the 7-Up spot! I was kinda hoping that Walmart roll-back smiley face might be on his way there though.

As for Hell's theme song, I kinda though something by AC/DC would be more appropriate. Imagine? Come on.

tracer

06-16-2000, 08:38 PM

"Imagine" is Hell's theme song, according to http://www.virtualhell.com , because it encourages you not to fear for your immortal soul and believe everything the New Testament says without question.

Kinda funny ... CollegeStudent wants us to peruse this website with an open mind, and yet the website encourages you to keep your mind closed.

avalongod

06-16-2000, 08:43 PM

I thought Imagine said something to the effect of "Imagine there's no religion, people living just for today."

THAT's not what they New Testament says. How does Imagine encourage people to follow the New Testament...or did I read your post wrong?

andros

06-16-2000, 08:51 PM

Yes, you did.

Imagine encourages peoepl NOT to believe blindly the NT.

Sterra

06-16-2000, 09:06 PM

hmm i get a 404?

btw You cant experience the afterlife while your still alive because youd be dead and not alive. I dont think people spontaneiously ressurect nor come back from hell.

David B

06-16-2000, 09:20 PM

DoctorJ said:
I like having the fundie Christian perspective represented over here. However, if you point to web sites like the ones mentioned above to try to make your points, no one is going to take you the least bit seriously. Hmmmm. I thought that was the very reason for having that perspective over here!

tracer

06-16-2000, 09:21 PM

Grumble grumble, that's what I hate about English -- if a sentence is too complex, it becomes ambiguous. We wouldn't have this problem if we were all speaking Loglan.

avalongod

06-16-2000, 09:30 PM

LOL...tracer, sorry I should have been following the bouncing ball anyhoo.

Gaudere

06-16-2000, 10:06 PM

hmm i get a 404?I get it--Hell is no internet! :eek: That's even scarier than 30-point red type on garish backgrounds!

matt_mcl

06-16-2000, 10:36 PM

Grumble grumble, that's what I hate about English -- if a sentence is too complex, it becomes ambiguous. We wouldn't have this problem if we were all speaking Loglan.

You're right, there would be no ambiguity because nobody would be able to construct a damn sentence.

tracer

06-17-2000, 10:24 PM

matt_mcl:

Da mrenu! Da de lilmort! Ptttttt!

Okay, okay, so I'm faking it. I guess this is why Prolog never really caught on either.

Evil Twin

06-18-2000, 12:09 AM

When it's all over, I still want to look good.
You know.

Ptahlis

06-20-2000, 01:54 PM

I've been away for a bit and unable to get to a PC with enough time to read and respond. I just wanted to join in the much earlier discussion here about atheists' fear of oblivion.

Personally, I do not fear being dead so much as I fear dying. The act of passing on, should I be aware of it when it is happening, is what scares me. Knowing that it is all over-- that I've seen my last sunset, drunk my last cold beer on a hot summer's day, heard my last concert, read my last book, kissed my wife for the final time-- that is what scares me. Dying alone, that scares me too. I want someone there with me, a hand to hold, a friendly face to be my last sight if I have to be aware of my imminent demise.

Someone whose name I don't recall once quipped "I don't mind dying; I just don't want to be there when it happens." I personally just don't want to know about it when it happens to me. (Cecil's columns about the possibility of a few seconds of consciousness after being guillotined are some of the most hellishly nightmarish things I've ever read.) Preferably, I will be walking down the street and just explode. That way, I'll not only be unaware of it, but will make the evening news as well :)

It was mentioned earlier that the elderly come to grips with, or even long for, their nearing death. If death is seen as a release from pain, or especially if it is believed to be the gateway to reuniting with departed loved ones, I can sort of understand this. But right now, all I can think of is how much there is to miss. My family is still here with me, and they still need me. There will always be more good books out there, pretty girls walking by, awesome tee shots, good meals, and great jokes. I don't want to leave all these things behind.

If there is an afterlife characterised by something other than the "toss him in the barbecue pit" type waiting for me, then I will be happily surprised. Sadly though, I have yet to be convinced by anything I have ever seen that this is the case.

Liberal

06-20-2000, 02:17 PM

Xeno

If you will allow me to elaborate on my somewhat hasty definition, I think the strength of my "spirit" would be dependent not only on continued influence, but also on how closely the character of those influences matches the character of my influence while alive. (This would be analogous to a radio signal being interfered with by other EM radiation. The closer you are in time to the source of the signal, the higher the clarity; even if the signal is boosted, information may be lost in the distance.)

Fair enough, but again it seems you are talking about a "legacy" which quite naturally might morph over time.

I admit that my definition is paltry and of little comfort when compared to the concept of an immortal spirit, or to the direct manifestation of God that you described. My definition, however has the advantage of compatibility with the universe which I observe and which Science describes.

Ah, the gods of Science (with a capital "S").

You realize, of course, that if one of the High Holy Scientists were to observe a large luminescent hypersphere moving through our space-time from ana to kata, he might think he saw a super nova.

Please don't misunderstand. There is nothing wrong with induction (á la Science) per se. But recall that to prove 1 + 1 eqauls 2, Peano was reduced to positing the induction axiom.

While I can accept the idea that agape can't be accounted for by instinct, I disagree that this makes agape "unnatural." After all, though my instincts as a male (to propogate my genetic material by impregnating every possible female) do not include child rearing, the prevailing social structure prompted me to contribute to the raising of my son, and other personal inclinations, produced through social intercourse and my own family background, prompt me to establish a close relationship with him and to love him as unselfishly as I can.

In my opinion, you left out the most important reason you love your son so much, namely, your good character. Goodness is the source of agape.

Your "gestalt" statement is very interesting to me, since it echoes the most seductive aspect of Catholicism, that, where the spirit is manifested through agape (in this case love for Jesus), there exists a relationship between God, the Spirit, and the individual that is greater than the sum of its parts, yet separate from material reality. However, this axiom ("God is Love, Love is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit lives in the hearts of Good persons.") hinges on the acceptance of a Supreme Being, and we're back to a theism/atheism discussion.

Actually, God told me that He is unconcerned with theism/atheism, and instructed me to "stop dividing the world between theists and atheists, and start dividing it rightly as I do." He divides the world between those who love and those who don't. "Those who love," He told me, "they are my disciples."

That includes some of those who call themselves "atheists" (like Gaudere), and precludes some who call themselves "theists".

In order to forestall that, and to turn back in the direction of the OP (Remember Alice? This is a song about Alice.) let me delay further comment until you can say what your understanding of awareness is, as associated with the immortal spirit. You said you've experienced awareness separate from your physical being, so I'm quite keen to see your thoughts on this. (And no, I don't assume that you're crazy or deluded. I may, however, disagree about the meaning of what you experienced!)

Well, clearly my awareness, in the sense of synaptic activity, is quite physical. But what the Spirit does is alter that awareness instantaneously. A reborn heart sees in new ways. Yes, the eyes still work the same. Yes, the brain still processes sensory input. But the interpretation of what is seen is brand new.

That is to say, it is objective.

Well, I try not to label myself, as I find labels to be at least as restrictive as they are descriptive. But to be fair, I'll try. I'm learning to be a pan-critical rationalist. Pan Critical Rationalism (PCR) is based on the premise that all positions are criticizable and none are justifiable, by which we mean that we hold all positions open to criticism, including our own most fundamental standards, goals and decisions. (In practice, however, we may be convinced of certain truths, without exempting them from future revision.) If I have any strong political leanings they are anti-reactionary and anti-dogmatic; I register as a Democrat for convenience, but this has more to do with some of my social and environmental concerns than with any party affiliation. I suppose you could label me as an Independent. And I am an atheist.

I hope that paragraph was sufficiently descriptive for you to see where I'm coming from.

Okay. I can dig it. I tried not to label myself, until it dawned on me that that only meant that I was a nonlabeler.

But yes, that does help me see where you're coming from. Thanks.

pinqy

06-20-2000, 02:27 PM

Damn, I meant to post this a while ago. Full story of the "Drilling for Hell" story can be found at http://www.ship-of-fools.com/Myths/03Myth.html

And yes, the picture was from Weekly World News.

pinqy

tracer

06-20-2000, 03:01 PM

xenophon41 wrote:

I'm learning to be a pan-critical rationalist.

You mean like, "The non-stick coating on this 2-quart saucepan will never hold up under normal use!"? ;)

Liberal

06-20-2000, 03:24 PM

David

But I'm not sure what piece of advice you're talking about. You said lots of things in the response and then responses to others, so I just wanted clarification.

That you come out of your rut.

Oh, and Gaudere's and tracer's words above about instinctual love are mine as well.

Yes, of course.

They beat me to it.

Op. Cit.

But we had already covered that matter (at length) in the Atheist Religion threads. That which is instinctive must, by definition, be hardwired into the genes. Agape is antithetical to every instinct of survival, and can be experienced only by surrender.

You cannot be born again without first laying down your own life.

Those who invoke the science gods to explain away spiritual matters, like agape and gestalt, simply revel in causal fallacies. They are no different than the theists they mock, whom they say invoke their deity to explain confounding things.

You will recall that our first intercourse together (yours and mine) came about when I thought you thought I was ignorant.

Gaudere

06-20-2000, 03:55 PM

You will recall that our first intercourse together (yours and mine)What!? I though *I* was David's gay lover! :mad:

Liberal

06-20-2000, 07:02 PM

Sorry, Gaudere.

It would appear that the opportune moment to tell you that we were waiting for has now come and gone. But if it's any consolation, I am contemplating becoming a woman so I can be a lesbian. Of course, I'll have to run that by Edlyn.

avalongod

06-20-2000, 07:25 PM

I've been munching on this carpet for hours, and I still don't feel like a lesbian!

Sorry I had to throw that in there.

What was this post about again?

xenophon41

06-20-2000, 07:27 PM

I'm learning to be a pan-critical rationalist.
You mean like, "The non-stick coating on this 2-quart saucepan will never hold up under normal use!"?

Yes, tracer, except that I would say "It seems likely based on observation of every other teflon coated pan I own of this brand that this 2-quart saucepan will never etc..." And then I would probably call the manufacturer a big fat poopie head.

Libertarian:
Ah, the gods of Science (with a capital "S").

Doh! Well, it seemed appropriate to use the capital "S" when I wrote that. (I can't imagine why, now.) I neither deify the practicioners of science, nor do I hold the abstract idea of "big S" Science as the One True Way in which to live. I do, however, believe that the scientific method is the most honest way I know of to go about the business of understanding myself and the universe.

You realize, of course, that if one of the High Holy Scientists were to observe a large luminescent hypersphere moving through our space-time from ana to kata, he might think he saw a super nova.

Please don't misunderstand. There is nothing wrong with induction (á la Science) per se. But recall that to prove 1 + 1 eqauls 2, Peano was reduced to positing the induction axiom.

Lib, ya got me! I'm not sure I completely understand your description of the hypersphere, but let's see: If the observation of a large luminescent hypersphere moving through space time in the manner you describe matches exactly what is expected to be observed of a supernova, then it would certainly make sense for scientists to think it highly likely they had observed a supernova. And I don't know who Peano was (sorry; I told you I'm learning all this PCR stuff) (and I'm kind of new to formal philosophy), but I can tell you that no other solution for 1 + 1 is reproducible working in base ten. This is simply the structure of mathematics, and has nothing to do with induction.

In my opinion, you left out the most important reason you love your son so much, namely, your good character. Goodness is the source of agape.

You may not have phrased that exactly the way you intended it, so I won't quibble that this seems inconsistent with your earlier statements about the source of agape. (God is Love, love is the spirit, etc.) However, you've now introduced a term that is entirely relative, and which defies (so far) man's best efforts to define it!

When we call another person "good" we are basing that characterization on the person's actions within the framework either of our own ethos, or of our society's more's. Thus, we would have to agree on some very specific definitions of "goodness" in order to even debate the validity of your statement that "Goodness is the source of agape."

In my view, defining "goodness" in a way that can stand up to objective criticism is so much more difficult a task than defining "love" that I hesitate to do so. While I hold certain definite opinions on the nature of "goodness" I am entirely unprepared to justify my opinions, and indeed I know that I cannot do so.

I'm unsure where this leaves us in this debate, but if we can stick to some more objective and universal terms (or at least to terms which describe observable behavior) perhaps we can continue the God/agape/altered-awareness discussion.

Actually, God told me...

Well, I'm still not going to impune your sanity, but I'm even curioser than before! Are we talking about a direct "Burning Bush" type of encounter, a revelation through some sort of trance/dream, some other transcendental experience or frequent conversation with the Supreme Being?

avalongod

06-20-2000, 07:45 PM

I am intrigued by some of the last poster's points, and I have skipped through much of the posts so if I miss something feel free to bitchslap me with a tuna.

Regarding the "relative" nature of "goodness" I wonder if that might not ENTIRELY be true. I mean sure, in our culture we find romantic love between man and woman to be good, whereas other cultures could care less. But I wonder if there are any consistent trends across all cultures that are considered "good"...love for one's mother, giving of one's life for the benefit of others, that sort of thing. IF we could find some universal threads for "goodness" we might have some sort of objective base upon which to study morality rather than relying on subjective opinions.

xenophon41

06-20-2000, 08:06 PM

avalongod, your comments are well taken, but I don't have the heart to respond right now. One of our friends now is finding for himself the answer to this thread.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=28219

Unauthorized Cinnamon

06-20-2000, 08:36 PM

It's nice to know I'm not the only one who has suffered this. However, my first late-night anxiety fests resulted from my contemplation of the possibility of eternal life in heaven (I was still Catholic). Just try contemplating existing for eternity - it freaks you out! My attacks regarding non-existence have actually been milder. BTW, I like the scene in Hannah and Her Sisters where Woody Allen is telling his parents he's becoming Catholic because he doesn't want to believe he'll cease to exist. His father's take (I'm paraphrasing): "It won't bother me because I'll be unconcious. If I'm not unconcious, I'll deal with it then." Love that.

Also, College Student, thanks for the laugh. There should be a link to Virtual Hell from Landover Baptist. What a hoot!

Liberal

06-21-2000, 07:22 AM

Xeno

I do, however, believe that the scientific method is the most honest way I know of to go about the business of understanding myself and the universe.

Were you merely atoms, the scientific method (at least, the popular notion of it) would suffice.

I'm not sure I completely understand your description of the hypersphere, but let's see: If the observation of a large luminescent hypersphere moving through space time in the manner you describe matches exactly what is expected to be observed of a supernova, then it would certainly make sense for scientists to think it highly likely they had observed a supernova.

An analogy will help. Consider that you were a two-dimensional being on a plane, and that a three-dimensional being pushed a sphere through the plane from height to depth. You would see nothing more than cross-sections of it, like this: first, the sudden appearance of a point, then an ever widening line (remember, you can't see over lines — you're two dimensional), then an ever narrowing line, then a point, and then finally the whole thing would disappear.

Do the same thing with a four-dimensional hypersphere through three-dimensional space, and you will see first a point, then an ever larger disc (you can't see around the disc) until it is half-way through. Then, you would see an ever smaller disc until it disappeared.

Voilà! Supernova!

And I don't know who Peano was (sorry; I told you I'm learning all this PCR stuff) (and I'm kind of new to formal philosophy), but I can tell you that no other solution for 1 + 1 is reproducible working in base ten. This is simply the structure of mathematics, and has nothing to do with induction.

Giuseppe Peano (1858-1932) was an Italian mathematician and logician. He originally axiomatically defined the natural numbers in 1899, later adding zero, and ended up with what became known as the five Peano Axioms:

[list=1]
Zero is a number.
Every natural number or zero, a, has an immediate successor, a + 1.
Zero is not the successor of a natural number.
No two numbers have the same immediate successor.
The axiom of induction: Any property that belongs to zero, and also to the immediate successor of any natural number to which it belongs, belongs to all natural numbers.
[/list=1]

His first premise drawn from the axioms was this: 1 + 1 = 2.

That induction axiom was first formally defined by Augustus de Morgan (1806 - 1871), another logician, of DeMorgan's Law fame: Not(A Or B) Implies (Not A And Not B) And Not(A And B) Implies (Not A Or Not B).

You may not have phrased that exactly the way you intended it, so I won't quibble that this seems inconsistent with your earlier statements about the source of agape. (God is Love, love is the spirit, etc.)

Goodness and Love are metaphysical synonyms. That which is Good Loves. That which is Absolutely Good Loves Absolutely. Likewise, that which Loves Absolutely is Absolutely Good.

However, you've now introduced a term that is entirely relative, and which defies (so far) man's best efforts to define it!

And well it should defy those efforts, since man, in solitude, has no frame of reference from which to comprehend it.

When we call another person "good" we are basing that characterization on the person's actions within the framework either of our own ethos, or of our society's more's.

False dilemma.

You have not considered the reference frame of God's own Absolute Goodness.

Thus, we would have to agree on some very specific definitions of "goodness" in order to even debate the validity of your statement that "Goodness is the source of agape."

It is okay by me if we define Goodness as God, or else as Love. Spirit is not predicative, but nominative. It is not genitive, but ablative.

Well, I'm still not going to impune your sanity [for hearing God directly], but I'm even curioser than before! Are we talking about a direct "Burning Bush" type of encounter, a revelation through some sort of trance/dream, some other transcendental experience or frequent conversation with the Supreme Being?

We are talking about a changed heart that comprehends suddenly differently. Whereas before, I had understood things this way, "there are atheists and theists, and never the twain shall meet," I now understood very differently, "there are those who love and those who don't".

God doesn't speak to the brain, but to the heart. The limbic system (the brain's connection to God) is for apprehension, not comprehension.

For more information on God and the limbic system, see Phantoms in the Brain (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688172172/o/qid=961589819/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/103-3615870-3975048), by V. S. Ramachandran.

tracer

06-21-2000, 09:23 AM

avalongod wrote:

I've been munching on this carpet for hours, and I still don't feel like a lesbian!

My grandfather was a lesbian. That makes me one-quarter lesbian, right?

Liberal

06-21-2000, 09:29 AM

Tracer

My grandfather was a lesbian. That makes me one-quarter lesbian, right?

But hopefully no further removed from Kevin Bacon.

xenophon41

06-22-2000, 06:36 PM

Libertarian, sorry I took so long. I've only had time for quick posts here and there, and I take my debates more seriously than that! ;)
Were you merely atoms, the scientific method (at least, the popular notion of it) would suffice.

"Merely atoms" as opposed to... what? Is there something else I could be composed of?

Actually, Lib I do understand what you're saying, but I disagree that a rational approach to understanding somehow limits my comprehension. I find the scientific method (not "the popular notion" of the scientific method, whatever that is) perfectly adequate and totally harmonious with intuition and emotion.

An analogy will help. Consider that you were a two-dimensional being on a plane, and that a three-dimensional being pushed a sphere through the plane from height to depth. You would see nothing more than cross-sections of it, like this: first, the sudden appearance of a point, then an ever widening line (remember, you can't see over lines — you're two dimensional), then an ever narrowing line, then a point, and then finally the whole thing would disappear.

Do the same thing with a four-dimensional hypersphere through three-dimensional space, and you will see first a point, then an ever larger disc (you can't see around the disc) until it is half-way through. Then, you would see an ever smaller disc until it disappeared.

Voilà! Supernova!

Well, I read and thoroughly enjoyed Flatland when I was ten, so I understand the two and three dimensional imagery. I don't believe your four dimensional analogy holds up, but I don't know enough on the subject to argue. (However, if JonF or KP or anyone else wants to take it, please elucidate us.) --But I do know that if a three dimensional scientist were to observe the phenomenon you described, he would certainly not think "supernova."

In any case, I'm unclear as to the relevance of your analogy. IIRC, you were attempting to clarify an earlier comment you made in response to my statement that: "My definition...has the advantage of compatibility with the universe which I observe and which Science describes."

Your point seems to be that science can only describe what can be observed. Since this is obviously quite easily refuted, I have to think that I misunderstood you. Perhaps if you could make your points without using doubtful analogies, we could move more quickly. (Try using parables. Jesus loved them.)

Goodness and Love are metaphysical synonyms. That which is Good Loves. That which is Absolutely Good Loves Absolutely. Likewise, that which Loves Absolutely is Absolutely Good.

and:

And well ["goodness"] should defy [man's best efforts to define it], since man, in solitude, has no frame of reference from which to comprehend it......You have not considered the reference frame of God's own Absolute Goodness.

I Love that which contains the Chewy Goodness of caramel. That which I Love Absolutely contains Absolute Chewiness. Absolute Chewiness produces Absolute Goodness in me. This is true because I say it is, having been given the reference frame of the Mars candy company.

It is okay by me if we define Goodness as God, or else as Love.

But it's not okay by me to define goodness in that way. Furthermore, your argument is becoming a classic fallacy. You're trying to show that agape is proof of the eternal spirit of God because: Agape is Absolute Love That which Loves Absolutely is Absolutely Good Goodness is God and so is Love Abso-freakin'-lutelyYou're stating your assumptions in such a way as to prove your conclusion, since your assumptions are simply restatements of your conclusion!

Spirit is not predicative, but nominative. It is not genitive, but ablative.

Look, I'm not trying to offend with my responses, Lib but WTF are you trying to say? You appear to mean that spirit is a separate thing from its effect, that it is separate from personalities and cannot be possessed as an attribute, but is instead the instrument of such attributes.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, Lib but I feel that if I don't, you'll have said nothing! Grammatical terms are quite useful when applied to grammatical concepts, but are in no way illustrative of metaphysical constructs. Your ideas are quite intriguing, but I'm having some trouble following you. This may just be some dullness on my part, but believe me, I'm not being deliberately obtuse (although I've been accused of it before).

You're a fun guy to talk to Lib but you get under my skin sometimes with the smoke and mirrors! (No offense intended.)