In response to hie-

I don't know if you have some kind of tic about proper phraseology or whatever, but I think it was pretty evident that when I said that I don't have any evidence about whether or not we just become a rotting corpse in the ground, I meant that obviously there is evidence that we Decay as a corpse, but whether our life or chi or spirit or whatever you want to call it continues to exist on some other plane of existence is what we have no evidence for. Did you really think that I don't know whether or not we become corpses when we died? I'm pretty sure you did, and going to the trouble of making that convoluted point struck me as kind of obnoxious. You are being extremely literal with what I was saying, and you clearly possess the intellect to understand that that is not what I meant.

Same thing with about Santa Claus. Obviously you can compare Santa Claus and the afterlife because there is no proof that either exist, and for the sake of argument let's just pretend here that Santa Claus isn't based on an actual person, but there are such obvious differences that it is not an apt comparison. Santa Claus is a character that is meant to entertain children that has been around for a few centuries. Ideas and beliefs about the afterlife predate civilization- you might even claim that they predate our species. Neanderthals started burying their dead between 100 and 300 thousand years ago. It's impossible, I suppose, to know exactly why, but one could speculate that it was because they had a belief or ritual with a basis in what happened to people after they died.

Maybe there was some practical reason for it, or there is some kind of anthropological fact that informs the practice of burying the dead that I am ignorant of that makes what I said untrue, but you can't deny that a belief and preoccupation with the afterlife has been, for better or for worse one of humanities most striking qualities.

Yes, perhaps my existence after I die will only be as atoms and molecules and I will have no conscious awareness of my passing or my physical existence. It's not what I personally believe, but I consider it a possibility, if that makes any sense. I suppose it's what makes the most sense from a pragmatic, scientific point of view.

It's hard to exactly articulate what I think about this. It's not that I think that beliefs about the afterlife need to be treated with some kind of special reverence, or deserve some kind of special respect. I just don't think they need to be castigated as silly, or the refuge of the superstitious and ignorant. For that matter, I don't think religious beliefs need to be treated that way either, but that's a separate issue for a separate thread. And it's not like I was offended when Steve compared the belief in the afterlife to Santa Claus, it just seems silly, and exaggerated, and deliberate in its intent.

That's really all I have to say about it. I have a lot of respect for you, hie, and I think you contribute a lot to this forum. Just thought I'd mention that. You are definitely one of my favorite posters.

I think what hie objects to is passing one's subjective reality as objective reality. Religion needs to stay on its own turf. Saying this or that is actually the way it is, absent reasonable evidence, is simply lying. Jesus actually lived? Probably a lie. We should try to be like Jesus? Totally true. See the difference? Fundamentalism doesn't do anybody any favors.

The problem with pure science is that it doesn't have room for subjectivity. That's good because otherwise it wouldn't work. But just because it has supplied us with so much doesn't mean it's a suitable tool for the subjective. Beliefs aren't scientific, but then they shouldn't be. Belief systems shouldn't really be trafficking in facts.

Perhaps people take beliefs too literally. Beliefs are important to meaning, but beliefs were never meant to be static. They are meant to change over time as you progress through domains of understanding.

"Belief systems shouldn't really be trafficking in facts."

We don't deal with reality. We deal with our personal mental construct of reality. Hopefully our mental construct of reality is just one step removed. When there are too many instances of our mental image of reality being too divergent from the real thing, we are generally considered to be mentally ill.

Yes, belief systems should deal in facts. There is a fairly pronounced belief system in the US that life on earth is between 6 and 14 thousand years old. Vast amounts of evidence indicate otherwise, and our entire understanding of biological science depends on understanding that evidence. Being a young earth creationist is a significant barrier to understanding biology.

Of course, if you don't work in biology, that screwed up belief doesn't matter enough to interfere with staying alive. Similarly, if you don't work in navigation or ever travel anywhere, believing in a flat earth is perfectly acceptable, though that whole sunrise/sunset thing is pretty difficult to explain for a flat earth.

You can believe things that are not objectively true, but it constrains your ability to deal with the world. If your beliefs are too out there, you tend to end up dead or institutionalized.

In the long run, reality always wins. It is infinitely patient.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, belief systems should deal in facts. There is
> a fairly pronounced belief system in the US that
> life on earth is between 6 and 14 thousand years
> old. Vast amounts of evidence indicate otherwise,
> and our entire understanding of biological science
> depends on understanding that evidence. Being a
> young earth creationist is a significant barrier
> to understanding biology.

Good example of when you have facts, you don't need a "belief system" any longer. :)


> Of course, if you don't work in biology, that
> screwed up belief doesn't matter enough to
> interfere with staying alive.

Unless you need an antibiotic to live...one of the new ones developed in response to the evolution by natural selection of resistance to older antibiotics...

<grin>

Let's look at this from another point of view.

Let's say there is proof of life after death, and that you really do move to another plane of existence.

It's been proven, and books, pictures, & videos have been taken of it... and we learn the purpose of this life.

Now what?

What would people do? Mass suicide? Try to "hack" into the next realm to speak to ancestors? Huge science experiments?

This life would totally lose it's meaning. It would be like the waiting room in the doctor's office. Nobody cares about the waiting room, and nobody goes to the doctor just to see the waiting room.

Life would no longer be valuable. People would stop trying, stop achieving, stop living... because... what's the point?

If there is a purpose and reason behind all this, it totally makes since that life after death is hidden, and hidden well so not even Einstein can find it.

Focus on the here and now, THIS life.

We can destroy the earth because jesus is coming.

The one complaint I have is if we are rejuvenated as in life after life after life, why is our memory scrubbed from what came before?

Would it be too overwhelming to us to try and keep track of our lifetimes?

I really don't like the uncertainty of not knowing the past, or the future.

midwestanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In response to hie-
>
> I don't know if you have some kind of tic about
> proper phraseology or whatever, but I think it was
> pretty evident that when I said that I don't have
> any evidence about whether or not we just become a
> rotting corpse in the ground, I meant that
> obviously there is evidence that we Decay as a
> corpse, but whether our life or chi or spirit or
> whatever you want to call it continues to exist on
> some other plane of existence is what we have no
> evidence for. Did you really think that I don't
> know whether or not we become corpses when we
> died? I'm pretty sure you did, and going to the
> trouble of making that convoluted point struck me
> as kind of obnoxious. You are being extremely
> literal with what I was saying, and you clearly
> possess the intellect to understand that that is
> not what I meant.

I'm not a mind reader. I went by what you wrote. That's not "obnoxious" IMHO. If what you mean is unclear, be clearer.

> Same thing with about Santa Claus. Obviously you
> can compare Santa Claus and the afterlife because
> there is no proof that either exist, and for the
> sake of argument let's just pretend here that
> Santa Claus isn't based on an actual person...

But that was the very point in question -- that there is some "reality" (an actual person) behind the myth. Why disregard the actual point in question?

> but
> there are such obvious differences that it is not
> an apt comparison. Santa Claus is a character that
> is meant to entertain children that has been
> around for a few centuries.

You can focus on the "differences" and ignore the similarities, but don't beat me up for pointing out the similarities.

> Ideas and beliefs
> about the afterlife predate civilization- you
> might even claim that they predate our species.

I wouldn't claim that, as there's no evidence of it.
But in any case...so what? How long an idea has been around is no indication of its validity...

> Neanderthals started burying their dead between
> 100 and 300 thousand years ago.

"Although much has been made of the Neanderthals' burial of their dead, their burials were less elaborate than those of anatomically modern humans. The interpretation of the skeleton known as Shanidar IV as having been buried with flowers, and therefore being a form of ritual burial,[34] has been questioned. Paul B. Pettitt has stated that the "deliberate placement of flowers has now been convincingly eliminated", noting that "A recent examination of the microfauna from the strata into which the grave was cut suggests that the pollen was deposited by the burrowing rodent Meriones tersicus, which is common in the Shanidar microfauna and whose burrowing activity can be observed today"."

> It's impossible, I
> suppose, to know exactly why, but one could
> speculate that it was because they had a belief or
> ritual with a basis in what happened to people
> after they died.

Yes, one could speculate. Let's say they did have that belief.
So? They didn't have any evidence either.

> ..but you
> can't deny that a belief and preoccupation with
> the afterlife has been, for better or for worse
> one of humanities most striking qualities.

"Striking qualities?" Yes, I can deny that -- it's an entirely subjective term. Do humans not want to die and cease to exist, and so often make up stories that they won't cease to exist? Yes. I'll let you call that "striking" -- I'll stick with irrational.

> Yes, perhaps my existence after I die will only be
> as atoms and molecules and I will have no
> conscious awareness of my passing or my physical
> existence. It's not what I personally believe, but
> I consider it a possibility, if that makes any
> sense. I suppose it's what makes the most sense
> from a pragmatic, scientific point of view.

OK. It's what makes the most sense from any rational point of view, as it's the only "end" we have evidence for. Not to the exclusion of anything else, as I pointed out...

> It's hard to exactly articulate what I think about
> this. It's not that I think that beliefs about the
> afterlife need to be treated with some kind of
> special reverence, or deserve some kind of special
> respect.

I appreciate that.

> I just don't think they need to be
> castigated as silly, or the refuge of the
> superstitious and ignorant.

I didn't call them "the refuge of the superstitious and ignorant."

I DO think they merit being castigated as silly -- though as above I more often simply use "irrational," that avoids the subjective aspect. They *are* irrational -- they're beliefs in ideas for which there is no evidence, and usually believed to ameliorate personal fears of dying. You are, of course, free to have such beliefs -- as I'm free to point out their irrationality. And I honestly do think it's "silly" to desperately hang onto clearly irrational beliefs. That's not a personal condemnation towards you or anything of the sort -- humans are very often irrational. I just don't think that because an irrational belief is about an afterlife or a religion exempts it from criticism, honest discussion, or pointing out its irrationality.

> For that matter, I
> don't think religious beliefs need to be treated
> that way either, but that's a separate issue for a
> separate thread. And it's not like I was offended
> when Steve compared the belief in the afterlife to
> Santa Claus, it just seems silly, and exaggerated,
> and deliberate in its intent.

It was deliberate in its intent. I don't agree that it was either silly or exaggerated, though. That's what I was trying to point out.

> That's really all I have to say about it. I have a
> lot of respect for you, hie, and I think you
> contribute a lot to this forum. Just thought I'd
> mention that. You are definitely one of my
> favorite posters.

I very much appreciate that. I also appreciate a good discussion -- even (no, *especially*) with people who have different views than I do. Thank you for continuing it. The more we openly and honestly discuss our ideas and feelings, the more we learn about ourselves and others.

Denying yourself your irrationality separates you from one of the things that makes you human. One might argue that our ability to form or articulate irrational beliefs is one of the most basely human things. Animals don't have the ability to think about such things in any kind of way, or form abstract thoughts, or make any other considerations Beyond their own impulses and instincts.

The point is, it seems like you place everything before you at the altar of whether or not it is rational or irrational, and things that are irrational can be discarded, since they have little value or consequence. A belief in the afterlife is not supported by science, it is therefore irrational, and therefore irrelevant.

No religion is backed up by any science or fact..so far as I know.

And yes humanities obsession with the afterlife is striking. Think of the pyramids at Giza. Think of the Temple of Athena. Think of the Calcutta Warriors. Think of the Divine Comedy, for all I care. That and a thousand other examples or more are all examples of what I'm talking about. They are all known, worldwide, and famous because of their existence, and their existence all reflect a ritual or belief in death or the afterlife. Unless I'm mistaken about one of those. I would consider these thing striking. If you want to quibble about terminology, which seems to be one of your favorite things to do, than go nuts.

When Steve made that comparison to Santa Claus, and I said that it was deliberate in its intent, I meant that he did it on purpose with a thought towards provoking or offending people, because he was drawing comparisons between a belief in the afterlife, something that is considered sacrosanct to many people, and Santa Claus, a childish fantasy that is usually abandoned before the age of eight.

If you really don't think there's a difference, I just don't know what to say. I understand what you're saying, but some things are different, even if you can claim they are like or unlike things. Ants and elephants are both creatures, but to place them side-by-side as being very similar to each other might seem foolish to someone- unless all you're doing is naming two animals.

You seem to consider things on the basis of very strict parameters. I don't know if this is how you personally live your life, or if it's just the way you present yourself on rfm. You spoke at the bottom of your last post about debate being a forum for people to consider each other's ideas and to learn about ourselves and others. I won't be arrogant enough to presume to tell you that you need to consider other ideas about the rational and irrational, which admittedly is something I don't always do a very good job at, both deciding what's rational or irrational, and being arrogant enough to presume things.

I can see the appeal in classifying things as rational and irrational. I can see how it might give one a sense of comfort, knowing there are things that make sense always and then there's just the rest of life, like religion, young Earth creationism, flat-earthism, a belief in Bigfoot, Etc.

It's not about what can or cannot be proven for me. At least with regards to the afterlife. I'm not sure I would even want to know if I could. There's a part of me that always wants to know everything, but I would do whatever I could to keep that part away, and not know. It's like someone's said above, if there is a Creator or some Pantheon of creators, I can see the reason why someone would hide the existence of an afterlife from us- it negates the value and meaning of the life we have on Earth to know that we will have an infinite amount of time in some future state to create or ponder or learn or do whatever you want whenever you want however you want.

I also don't think we will ever find any evidence of the afterlife, I don't think we ever have and I don't think we ever will.

It seems like the 'rational' thing to do for Humanity. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2017 11:45AM by midwestanon.