Why not atheism?

[Jason]

As some point before you die, you will evaluate your life.

Will I? Because I know of plenty of people who died rather unexpectedly.

Part of that evaluation will be to ask yourself how you will be remembered. And deep down you will hope that those to whom you were close will remember you with affection. That's a universal human need, except among those who are mentally ill or otherwise psychologically unhealthy.

A nice theory, but an atheist might very well argue that belief in God is also a universal need, and pride themselves in bucking that trend.

And who is to say who is psychologically healthy? In the mind of an athiest, 90% of humanity has an irrational belief in the Invisible Sky Bully.

[Skywalker]

As some point before you die, you will evaluate your life. Part of that evaluation will be to ask yourself how you will be remembered. And deep down you will hope that those to whom you were close will remember you with affection. That's a universal human need, except among those who are mentally ill or otherwise psychologically unhealthy.

And the very next moment the atheist will think "who cares? I can't very well be concerned with these things since in a few days or less there won't be me."

[wenglund]

Why would you ever worry?

Because you matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Skywalker]

Well said, Cold Steel.

[Tarski]

And I assert they are happening. So there. Neither of us can prove who is right til I meet you on the other side and say "I told you so".

I am sure you will then be happy to confirm I was right.

and yours is a mere assertion. I gave reasons.

Every single known instance of consciousness is associated to brain activity (and who could be surprised by this?).

There are no known exceptions and I gave obvious and powerful reasons for discounting claims that the conscious NDE event occurs when someone is brain dead. There would be no way to determine when the conscious event occurred except by depending on a report given by a person whose brain was admittedly not even remotely functioning properly in the temporal vicinity of the alleged conscious event or by determining when the brain was active in the relevent way (and this kinda ruins things for the consciousness without a brain crowd).

You will never get an "I told you so".

Clear up your thinking on this!

[Facsimile 3]

IMO, Russell does a good job of summing up the situation of man, in the absence of God. In it, he writes.

I certainly agree with Russel, in his assessment that if atheism is true, then certainly all things related to life, the universe and everything are built implacably upon

[Facsimile 3]

So I flatly deny that there are experiences happening to brain dead humans.

This might be one of the dumbest things I've heard. Brain dead people can't experience things? Can't a brain dead person experience dehydration? Heart failure?

Does your body not experience things while you are unconscious during sleep?

[Facsimile 3]

I agree that choosing to believe in God is a judgment call on the part of the individual. However, I don't think choosing to disbelieve in God equates to any more of an accurate use of judgment than disbelieving in the number 42.

Oh my goodness! Please make sense of this to me.

I think this statement highlights the error in your reasoning on this issue. The number 42 does not just "exist" out there in the universe; it's a human construct that gains truth in its use in certain situations. If we decide God exists and the truth is manifested in the results (in using Him in our lives); bingo.

[elguanteloko]

Facs, this video narrated by Allan Watts might fit very well into this thread:

[Facsimile 3]

Facs, this video narrated by Allan Watts might fit very well into this thread:

It's like what President Monson said about "finding joy in the journey."

[Tarski]

This might be one of the dumbest things I've heard. Brain dead people can't experience things? Can't a brain dead person experience dehydration? Heart failure?

Does your body not experience things while you are unconscious during sleep?

Is this a joke?

The context clearly implies that "experience" here refers to conscious experience. What else would be relevent to the question of an NDE? No one questions that the body experiences things during an NDE in the sense that things happen to it.

If I were to assert that I would indeed be "experiencing" after I die since I would be experiencing dehydration or disintegration, I would rightly be accused of equivocating.

In philosophical discussions of the sort that is relevant here, "experience" nearly always refers to something in the subjective realm (as the dualists would have it), something occuring in a conscious mind or conscious agent. (get out much?)

I have been assured many times that if there is no afterlife (my postion) then I will not be experiencing anything after I am dead. It would have been rather sophormoric for me to come back with something like "oh I will be experiencing disintegration--so there!".

[elguanteloko]

To what end?

the same end you would look for if you were to live for eternities: to be the best you can, to be the happiest you can, etc, just for the sake of being itself. There is no 'greater' reason: we simply want to be; thus, we want to live to be able to be.

I understand what you're saying, but I do not understand how it matters whether I exist for 100 years, or for 10 seconds.

it matters because we would feel and act very differently if you knew you would die in a week than if you knew you were going to die in 100 years.

Time is really happening all at once, because there really is no such thing as "now" when every time I contemplate "now" it becomes "then." When I am 75 years old, it "now" however relative that idea is, will have never existed.

that may be the case in reality outside our perception but within your perception and to your consciousness time is indeed a factor... that is why we are discussing the hopelessness some people feel when believing they won't last forever.

Again, I understand where you're coming from. But imagine having an infinite amount of time to constantly better yourself, learn new things, help others in their quests to better themselves.

as I said before, you are just begging the question. why to even be good at all (for 5 minutes of for an eternity)?

[elguanteloko]

It's like what President Monson said about "finding joy in the journey."

...yea....wise man that Monson....

lol!

[Facsimile 3]

Is this a joke?

The context clearly implies that "experience" here refers to conscious experience. What else would be relevent to the question of an NDE? No one questions that the body experiences things during an NDE in the sense that things happen to it.

If I were to assert that I would indeed be "experiencing" after I die since I would be experiencing dehydration or disintegration, I would rightly be accused of equivocating.

In philosophical discussions of the sort that is relevant here, "experience" nearly always refers to something in the subjective realm (as the dualists would have it), something occuring in a conscious mind or conscious agent. (get out much?)

I have been assured many times that if there is no afterlife (my postion) then I will not be experiencing anything after I am dead. It would have been rather sophormoric for me to come back with something like "oh I will be experiencing disintegration--so there!".

I suggest you don't concede anything to the duelists out there in the philosophical world (unless of course the context is one in which both of you are using swords).

Don't look at me. I didn't come up with this stuff. Someone a lot smarter than you in math and science did named Alfred North Whitehead. In Cartesian based philosophical discussions where the substance is neglected and the substance quality is over embellished "I am, I exist," consciousness is the base in all experience.

Speaking of getting out much, have you looked at philosophy since Descartes, Hume and Kant? You should look into Process Philosophy (Philosophy of Organism).

[elguanteloko]

Don't look at me. I didn't come up with this stuff. Someone a lot smarter than you in math and science did named Alfred North Whitehead.

oh, not again!

[elguanteloko]

That is in fact why we are here - to learn why we should try to be a better person and help otheres.

to learn and to do it. seems like we have found common ground here, Jason... finally. lol!

Which is more important, a marriage that lasts 50 years or a marriage that lasts for the rest of eternity? Both are single events.

I find a negligible importance in 'marriage' by itself. in the quality of the marriage I do see the 'importance' which is what I am talking about. The reason why it may seem that an eternal marriage may be more fulfilling is because you have an infinite number of chances to be happy again and again and again. What I am saying, though, is that it would seem like we would have less of an impulse to make the most out of our marriage if we knew we would have all eternity to do it anyways than if we knew it will only last for some years.

[Tarski]

I suggest you don't concede anything to the duelists out there in the philosophical world (unless of course the context is one in which both of you are using swords).

Don't look at me. I didn't come up with this stuff. Someone a lot smarter than you in math and science did named Alfred North Whitehead. In Cartesian based philosophical discussions where the substance is neglected and the substance quality is over embellished "I am, I exist," consciousness is the base in all experience.

Speaking of getting out much, have you looked at philosophy since Descartes, Hume and Kant? You should look into Process Philosophy (Philosophy of Organism).

Look, I have read some Whitehead and am familiar with process philosophy. I consider it wrong headed. I have read much philosophy since Descartes, Hume and Kant including Heidegger's Being and Time and all sorts of modern stuff like Putnam, Dennett, Rorty etc.

The obvious context of my remarks should have made it clear that I was referring to conscious experience of the sort that is claimed to have occurred when Johnny meets his grandma while allegedly brain dead.

Given that, it was quite absurd to declare my statement to be the dumbest you had ever heard. Indeed, that assessment itself could be the winner of a dumbest ever contest.

But feel free to go back and insert the word conscious in front of the appropriate occurrences of the word "experience" in my statement.

By the way, if process philosophy is your bag then I guess it makes some sort of weird sense that you jumped on this the way you did.

[Facsimile 3]

Look, I have read some Whitehead and am familiar with process philosophy. I consider it wrong headed. I have read much philosophy since Descartes, Hume and Kant including Heidegger's Being and Time and all sorts of modern stuff like Putnam, Dennett, Rorty etc.

The obvious context of my remarks should have made it clear that I was referring to conscious experience of the sort that is claimed to have occurred when Johnny meets his grandma while allegedly brain dead.

Given that, it was quite absurd to declare my statement to be the dumbest you had ever heard. Indeed, that assessment itself could be the winner of a dumbest ever contest.

But feel free to go back and insert the word conscious in front of the appropriate occurrences of the word "experience" in my statement.

By the way, if process philosophy is your bag then I guess it makes some sort of weird sense that you jumped on this the way you did.

All I can say is LOL!!! The way I jumped on you for using the word experience in an improper way only reflects the harshness you often demonstrate on others here when they make such "little" mistakes. I hope you enjoyed your own medicine. I caught you with a kick me sign on your back and chose to kick.

Process Philosophy is becoming (get it; "becoming" ) my bag. I am developing a man crush on A. N. Whithead, but that is for neither here nor there.

No hard (concrescent) feelings (which according to Whitehead don't require consciousness)

[Tarski]

All I can say is LOL!!! The way I jumped on you for using the word experience in an improper

Except that it was not improper. Context determines which of the following was in play. See if you can figure it out.

Main Entry: 1ex

[Facsimile 3]

Except that it was not improper. Context determines which of the following was in play. See if you can figure it out.

Main Entry: 1ex

[Nathair/|\]

. So will a tree as it "feels" and grows towards water in the ground and sun light.

The trees I've encountered tend to live slower than we do, but they are hardly unconscious. If anything, they seem to be more aware than many people I deal with.

Yours under the intelligent oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Facsimile 3]

The trees I've encountered tend to live slower than we do, but they are hardly unconscious. If anything, they seem to be more aware than many people I deal with.

Yours under the intelligent oaks,

Nathair /|\

I understand what you are saying, but you are mistaken.

For example, Whitehead would say that a tree is capable of feeling the physical data given to it (physical prehentions) and there a few possibilities that present themselves to it for direction to direct its growth, but unlike higher animals, it cannot reflect on these possibilities before making a decision, but rather, it unconsciously goes for the path that will increase the intensity of its subjective experience.

[Tarski]

You are disqualifying #4 from the list given by your dictionary in the statement you made about experience. Game Over. Your logic was not sound.

lol

um....

I am not required to use all of the various definitions in the list at once. That's not how language works. In fact, normally I must not use more than one meaning at a time lest I fall into equivocation. I prefer my sentences to have truth value.

"game over"

lol

Give me a break.

(oh, must I exclude the meaning of "break" as when one says "I will break your nose"? That's not the kind of break I want you to give me.)

This silliness has gone on long enough. Do you have any evidence or rational argument for the notion that an NDE represents an actual encounter with an afterlife or not?

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair, on 30 June 2010 - 01:32 AM, said:

The trees I've encountered tend to live slower than we do, but they are hardly unconscious. If anything, they seem to be more aware than many people I deal with.

Yours under the intelligent oaks,

Nathair /|\

I understand what you are saying, but you are mistaken.

For example, Whitehead would say that a tree is capable of feeling the physical data given to it (physical prehentions) and there a few possibilities that present themselves to it for direction to direct its growth, but unlike higher animals, it cannot reflect on these possibilities before making a decision, but rather, it unconsciously goes for the path that will increase the intensity of its subjective experience.

That really hasn't been my experience. For me, it's like being in an airport in a foreign country. I can hear the announcements over the intercom but I can't understand the language. I have, however, talked to people who can understand it.

Yours under the aware oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Facsimile 3]

I understand what you are saying, but you are mistaken.

For example, Whitehead would say that a tree is capable of feeling the physical data given to it (physical prehentions) and there a few possibilities that present themselves to it for direction to direct its growth, but unlike higher animals, it cannot reflect on these possibilities before making a decision, but rather, it unconsciously goes for the path that will increase the intensity and satisfaction from its subjective experience.

Whitehead

Life itself is comparatively deficient in survival value. The art of persistence is to be dead. Only inorganic things persist for great lengths of time. A rock survives for eight hundred million years; whereas the limit for a tree is about a thousand years, for a man or an elephant about fifty or one hundred years, for a dog about twelve years, for insects about one year. The problem set by the doctrine of evolution is to explain how complex organisms with such deficient survival power ever evolved. They certainly did not appear because they were better at that game than the rocks around them.

Whitehead believes what really motivates evolution is an urge towards an increase in satisfaction from subjective experience.