Life After Death [modified]
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I think the point here is to try and develop your consciousness and think about things keeping in mind that all which is physical is ephemeral.
I think the point is that he's reworded Pascal's wager and is trying to make a quick buck from it.
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
I'm just trying to expand my mind and help us figure out why people exist and what happens when we die. Everything he says is not meaningless. Pleas don't hijack this thread with your agenda.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Pleas don't hijack this thread with your agenda.
You post that article here and you expected the nut cases wouldn't come out of the woodwork in droves? :doh:
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I'm not hijacking this thread, merely commenting on how sad it is that someone who clearly wants to be 'useful' and is capable of extended logical thinking is utterly undermined by ridiculous false ideas
Matthew, you sound just like Ilion.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well of course he does. He's a religious fanatic.
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Pleas don't hijack this thread with your agenda.
You post that article here and you expected the nut cases wouldn't come out of the woodwork in droves? :doh:
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I think the point is that he's reworded Pascal's wager and is trying to make a quick buck from it.
exactly what I was thinking
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Hardly, I haven't accused anyone of lying yet, or called you an idiot or me a Euroweenie :laugh: If I seem a little excersized about the content that was posted it is mostly out of frustrated disappointment that someone so clearly clever as the author is such a fool and even worse is not recognised as such but has his drivel promoted here. The particular kind of relativist broken thinking represented by the article is not just a matter of theoretical disagreement about a tertiary matter ( like much of the article ). The removal of the concept of objective reality as an axiom of civilized thinking is probably the single most dangerous degradation currently undermining our culture. It is a step beyond even what Orwell imagined; the ultimate pychological tool for diassociation. Those who 'think' this way are as controllable as sheep and as easy to blind side as a one eyed sloth because the moment they come under the slightest phychological pressure they merely 'choose to alter their reality' and thereby don't see what they don't want to and never have to deal with the awkward truth of the one and only reality we all live in. This insidious nonsense has left the majority of UK under 30's functionally insane, unable to accept inconvenient reality and unable to distinguish between truth and lies. Orwell is not just spinning in his grave but simultaneously doesn't have one, never existed, isn't dead, was somebody else etc etc.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
the concept of objective reality
Is an illusion at best, when one realizes that the void between the atoms of the stuff we perceive as solid is orders of magnitude greater than the size of the "solid" parts... and that the Universe is larger than we will ever be able to perceive.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
nut cases wouldn't come out of the woodwork in droves
I drove a Ford Ranger, does that count?:~
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
I think the point here is to try and develop your consciousness and think about things keeping in mind that all which is physical is ephemeral.
I think the point is that he's reworded Pascal's wager and is trying to make a quick buck from it.
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
Tim Craig wrote:
I think the point is that he's reworded Pascal's wager and is trying to make a quick buck from it.
Yep.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
I drove a Ford Ranger, does that count?
Wouldn't that more qualify you to be more of a modern Rowdy Yates? :laugh:
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
So you are casting me as the nut-case ram-rod? Here's another hyphenated mess you gotten us into, Ollie!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So you are casting me as the nut-case ram-rod? Here's another hyphenated mess you gotten us into, Ollie!
I wonder how many of the youngersters here are going who the hell is Rowdy Yates and what the fuck is an Ollie? ;)
If you don't have the data, you're just another asshole with an opinion.
-
Energy. What animates this dust? How do you explain mind and the art of dreaming? How does the body contain mind? Its separate from brain. How can one perceive oneself in the third person? Where does that separation originate? Is it all contained in the physical? Which network is your hub or switch connected to? On the other front... in evolution, what drives mutation? Or adaptive change? Is it the animal's willpower? "I really need this defense, gee if only I could adapt a chemical reaction that would produce acid when I spit." Viola! Over 100,000 (arbitrary) years acid spitting bug defends itself. Is that directed? Is it accidental? How? My point is that there is so much that we cannot know. There are leaps taken on both sides. I side with evolution personally, but I find that I take quite a bit on faith in that regard. I'm more agnostic than anything. But have studied religions and the history of them from the Sumerian through Egyptian, through Judaism to Christianity, with some Buddhism and Hinduism for good measure. As well I've embraced the scientific. I think there is evidence on both sides to show that there is something there. Not saying the FSM is going to lift me into a elegant afterlife of Pesto Cream Sauce, but energy has to go somewhere. It doesn't die. Consciousness appears to be energy based and not limited to the physical. So I'll take a wait and see approach. Now about our actions here effecting our afterlife? Its a matter of state of mind in my opinion. Our state of mind effects our wellbeing, and I think our mind drives our energy and consciousness. So living a life that is social and positive can only contribute to a mind that has less torment thus freeing it to see the doors that might be open when not inhibited by this animated dust. I think that Heaven and Hell are states of mind regardless of the environment of containment. Physical or metaphysical. So I think its important to find it here and not wait for an afterlife, because you are living it now. The best way for a tadpole to prepare for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole. I'm not going to worry about life as a frog. What happens after I die I'll find out soon enough, or I won't and it won't matter. And no amount of conjecture on the part of fundamentalists can change that truth. Here's an interesting tangent: God the Father. If God is our Father, then why is my Brother talking for him? My physical brother cannot interject into my relationship with my father or my mother. Its who
-
The best way for a tadpole to prepare itself for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole. Seems most people worry about life as a frog and get bitten by things that a tadpole would be better suited to deal with.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The best way for a tadpole to prepare itself for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole.
That's a very Christian sentiment, actually. And nor is "to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole" at all at odds with preparing for "eternity;" our faithfulness as "tadpoles" is, in fact, the only preparation we can make for being a "frog."
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And I'm willing to gamble that God is a Buddhist.
:laugh: So, you're willing to bet that God denies that he ... and you ... even exist?
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
-
I was right with him up to the point where he wrote "There was no externally right or wrong answer." which of course undermines everything else he says and invalidates his entire argument. He's a post modern relativist, i.e. functionally insane by choice and therefore by his own reasoning everything he says is meaniningless outside the context of himself. Very, very sad. :sigh:
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I was right with him up to the point where he wrote "There was no externally right or wrong answer." which of course undermines everything else he says and invalidates his entire argument. He's a post modern relativist, i.e. functionally insane by choice and therefore by his own reasoning everything he says is meaniningless outside the context of himself. Very, very sad. :sigh:
But you're on your own: if for no other reason that I just don't have as much time to spend with the antics of the kiddies of the SandBox as I did before.
-
I'm not a religious person at all, however I respect other people's choices, so long as they don't preach to me about what is absolutely right and wrong. That pisses me off. I'm not driven to act a certain way because I think it will effect my afterlife. In short, I don't need a religious doctrine to tell me that I shouldn't be a dick or not commit murder.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
I'm not a religious person at all, however I respect other people's choices, so long as they don't preach to me about what is absolutely right and wrong. That pisses me off.
Irrationality (as in, "self contradiction") or hypocrisy? For, after all, here you are trying to tell others what is right and wrong. ANd expecting them to humbly accept your decrees.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
And I'm willing to gamble that God is a Buddhist.
:laugh: So, you're willing to bet that God denies that he ... and you ... even exist?
You are free to interpret and put words into my mouth all you want. You are free to twist my meaning into your joke. You are free to insist that your version of reality is the only one. (relativism?) You are free to limit your thoughts to your own plateau of reason. You are free to deny that you don't know it all. You are free to assume that you know it all. You are free to screw yourself. How could GOD be a Christian? Did Jesus die for GOD's sins? That's a joke. In my reasoning God could only be Buddhist as he would be in the eternal now. Heh, he is the GODHEAD. I AM. Stretch your thinking a bit. This is only an opinion and contains nothing regarding self-denial. You, are ill.
I've heard more said about less.
-
He has no idea what he's talking about - he (and probably you as well) think that evolution is driven by motivation. :doh:
And you surely must know everything in your short life. I think that we don't know everything. That evolution is a theory. I say its in the lead as theories go. And one I'm prone to accept. But I wonder... that's what my rhetorical question regarding evolution was about. Wonder. I wonder how these mutations occur. They appear to be driven. By need. Isn't that motivation? Why adapt without need? For fun? Now that's interesting territory. I see wonders in nature where mutations occur to respond to environment. Is this accidental? Yet it fits the situation so well. A chameleon adapting to change itself for defense. Is that evolutionary trait developed out of need? If so, then that is definitely motivation. If, motivation doesn't drive it, then what does? Or do you suggest that evolution is truly random? Not driven? And if need doesn't drive it what does? If its random, there would be more mismatches. Lend me your wisdom gained from your many years of experience. Surely you have all the answers. While you are at it, why don't you explain why string theory is the better fit when combined with quantum mechanics for getting closer to a unified field theory? And please do... keep in mind... the term THEORY! :rolleyes:
I've heard more said about less.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The best way for a tadpole to prepare itself for life as a frog is to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole.
That's a very Christian sentiment, actually. And nor is "to live each moment faithfully as a tadpole" at all at odds with preparing for "eternity;" our faithfulness as "tadpoles" is, in fact, the only preparation we can make for being a "frog."
I don't have a problem with Christian sentiments. My point is we lose focus when we gear everything around an afterlife. Better to live here and now.
I've heard more said about less.
-
And you surely must know everything in your short life. I think that we don't know everything. That evolution is a theory. I say its in the lead as theories go. And one I'm prone to accept. But I wonder... that's what my rhetorical question regarding evolution was about. Wonder. I wonder how these mutations occur. They appear to be driven. By need. Isn't that motivation? Why adapt without need? For fun? Now that's interesting territory. I see wonders in nature where mutations occur to respond to environment. Is this accidental? Yet it fits the situation so well. A chameleon adapting to change itself for defense. Is that evolutionary trait developed out of need? If so, then that is definitely motivation. If, motivation doesn't drive it, then what does? Or do you suggest that evolution is truly random? Not driven? And if need doesn't drive it what does? If its random, there would be more mismatches. Lend me your wisdom gained from your many years of experience. Surely you have all the answers. While you are at it, why don't you explain why string theory is the better fit when combined with quantum mechanics for getting closer to a unified field theory? And please do... keep in mind... the term THEORY! :rolleyes:
I've heard more said about less.
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong - Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. - United States National Academy of Sciences Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive. The strong population thus proceeds to take over that environment. But, 'strong' and 'weak' are misleading in this circumstance, because rather it's how well they can survive in their environment. And the reason that one organism may be better suited is because living creatures cannot reproduce perfectly, and there isn't much reason to do so; in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
-
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong - Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. - United States National Academy of Sciences Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive. The strong population thus proceeds to take over that environment. But, 'strong' and 'weak' are misleading in this circumstance, because rather it's how well they can survive in their environment. And the reason that one organism may be better suited is because living creatures cannot reproduce perfectly, and there isn't much reason to do so; in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
Hmmm... didn't think my facetious rhetorical question would get answered, but thanks for the pedantic reply.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The first problem is your use of the word theory. It has a precise scientific meaning which too many people get wrong -
Not a problem with me. I don't deny the theory of evolution. I also don't assume its complete and absolute. That would require me to "believe". It is still not known. It is still assumed. It cannot be guaranteed with your money back. I can accept a theory without requiring myself to consider it absolutely true. And my interpretation of the meaning of theory isn't wrong. Until it becomes an undeniable, indisputable fact, it is still just a theory.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Secondly, things don't adapt because they want to adapt. They're not motivated to adapt, and it's not random either - it's driven by a natural consequence of survival, i.e. that in a given environment, the weak tend to die - despite their best efforts - and the strong tend to survive.
Exactly. I never implied "want". I never implied the motivation was personal. Thanks.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
in fact, the whole REASON that organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually) is because diversity in a population offers the greatest chance of survival.
Accidentally. Not reasoned. How and when did sexual reproduction begin? How was this switch achieved? A mutation? How did it escalate? To be the dominating aspect. My point is that evolution as a description is incomplete. Which I'm fine with. There are some gaps. Which I'm also fine with. I think that over time they'll fill in. But it is unscientific to assume that the case is closed. As our understanding of the world and the science of it around us changes so do the theories we assumed true. Drink some more kool-aid. And again, I subscribe to evolution as a viable explanation for our worlds development of life. But nothing is absolute.
I've heard more said about less.