Mageth

Ok personaly athiesim is a totally BAD idea. I do not mean to offend u but where do u think people go when they die???? Does everything just end? Impossible i would like 1 person to tell me other wise.

When my aunt died, they took her to the funeral home. After the service, we drove her out to the cemetery and planted her six feet under. AFAIK she's still there. If you see her walking around, run away. She probably wants to eat your brains.

Seriously, I figure after I die will be just like before I was born.

Echo

The next time I encounter some dead people out walking around, I'll be sure to ask them where they're going.



After my grandmother died, she stopped calling on Saturdays. After my cat died, it never showed up again by my bedside in the mornings to wake me up. When my uncle died, people came and took all of his stuff away to pay debt, and he didn't do anything about it. It sure appears to me that they all "ended."

If you think they continue to exist *somewhere else*, then I'm sure the folks here will want to know how you came to that conclusion.

free12thinker

When people die, they go whereever we bury them, unless we cremate them, or whereever they are left upon dying--get it?

It may not be a pretty picture-like heaven--but it's reality. Everything does just end. There is nothing beyond life. Impossible, you say? Well, (are you listening WJ, nothing's impossible or absolutely existent or nonexistent), but as long as you are claiming that it is impossible or highly unlikely that god does not exist, lets compare such plausibility with other plausibilities, like say... talking penguins, bears that sell insurance, and of course sea-parters, vessels big enough to carry two of each animal and Gods. Why are these things less plausible. Well, for starters, we've never seen any evidence of the sort. And since the opposite of impossible or unlikely is possible or likely, than we can certainly say that evolution is likely, since we see it every day. We can certainly say that Atheism is possible since you have joined a forum of them.

Impossible is very bad word for new guy who's just jumping into big fire (see 15 pages already). Can you handle it?

Koyaanisqatsi

Actually, you should say, "I don't know that I'm the solipsist," since there can be only one.

That's what you've been evading with, yes.

Fair enough, but the "debate" was supposed to be about atheism being the default position.

Just remember, that if you choose to argue solipsism, the debate is necessarily over, since that would mean none of us exist to debate you.

As well as the question to be debated, yes.

I know.

Can't wait.

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

brighid

Wj – I might start a thread on that, but not today. My head is about to explode because the office dip shit is wearing some hideous perfume by Avon (she sells the stuff) that is so strong I can't take deep breaths without going into an asthma attack, nor can I breathe through my nose or else I will actually HAVE to smell these noxious fumes eminating from the OTHER side of the office! My allergies were already bad before I walked out of the house and when I am overcome by fumes my nose is already very stuffy, to the point I can hardly taste – you know that shit she is wearing is just unfuckingbelievably over powering.

Sorry – but my head really hurts!!!

So once the air clears in here and I can get adequate supplies of oxygen to my brain I will see what I am up for.

Arrghhhhhhhhh………..


Brighid

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

WJ

Bri/Koy!

I feel your pain. I mean, a little is ok, but to pack it on like that....which reminds me, I like women who have 'natural quirks' ie, I liked Cher before she had all the plastic stuff done. Oops, I'm supposed to be serious here...

Ok, my intuition was right Koy. I think you were trying to dangle the carrot yesterday hoping I would bite. You were trying to pigeon-hole me again into an either/or approach whereby I take only *one* philosophical position, lock-stock-and- barrel, of *your* choosing. Sorry, you can't trick me into that one . We have to either agree what the debate is about and/or the method of argumentation.

Just as an FYI, philosophically (as it relates to the existence of a Deity)I borrow bits from all areas that fit into my personal 'lifestlye' and general approach or perspective in life. To force me into one method would be difficult, in getting me to agree or stay there very long. Though you might could convince me to rely soley on SK's or most of James' philo, I find that Berkeley's solipsism has flaws [for me personally] and is a bit too weird or complicated for me to understand as a whole package. The only areas I feel comfortable borrowing would be relative to metaphysical idealism and certain concepts relating to sense data and sentience.

Now with regard to subject matter, I did get my answers to most of my questions regarding the default position and what it really means epistemically viz. a 'belief'. And I think I also got the point on the assertion that no thing is absolute, including the problems associated with physical existence and the human condition.

That leaves us in a few areas of quandary (metaphysics and epistemology). I assume you place your faith/hope in science and logic to eventually uncover/discover the issues relative to consciousness, materialism and so forth, right? Otherwise, currently, if you want to argue that logic/rationalism and science has it all figured out, I'll will gladly debate you using all relevent p-tools at my disposal to demonstrate otherwise. But, don't 'pigeon-hole' me or have me to rely exclusively on one approach because the overall concept of God is far too comprehensive to successfully argue as such, fairly...

Walrus

brighid

Walrus,

I think you are still misunderstanding because it seems you are still wanting to argue absolutes. If you aren’t a solipsist, or if you don’t use some parts of solipsism in your philosophical repertoire .. okay then. But your previous arguments seem to present a different story. Logic and reason are tools and thus far they have proven to be the BEST tools in determining the most likely and factual causes of pretty much everything. Your fideism states to distrust reason and get others to distrust it. What I have been trying to get you to admit is that you have used SOME form of logic or reason (or other tool) to conclude which pieces of which philosophy to use as part of your deciphering tools. What do you use to come to the conclusions you have and I am not talking about which philosophies because it requires you use SOMETHING to determine which philosophies TO use. Also why have you concluded JESUS over all OTHER Gods?

So, you say you aren’t a solipsist right? Well, then this debate should proceed one the applicability of using the tools of logic and reason to determine truth, not absolute truth mind you – please extinguish ABSOLUTE from your thinking in regards to this debate!

B

WJ

B!

Let me offer this bit of clarification. Yesterday in talking with snatch (and as alluded to in some of my other posts)I mentioned that logic is all we have, and is not 'perfect'. in the absolute sense-we agree. I said that within the context that my belief about the mysteries of consciousness will never be solved. I realize it is speculation but will stand corrected when the time comes.

I also mentioned that I used or favored in-duction v. de-duction when discussion Being, deity, and so forth. Again, no pefect method in that context. However, because induction is thought of as the particular, to the general, (not general to particlar-deductive methods of a percieved/declaration of truth) then it follows that issues relative to Being, ontology, consciousness, subjectivity, 'sythetic truth's', certain aposterior methodology and so forth, line-up better using inductive reasoning. Is it flawed? Of course it is. In the context of our discussion , both are.

I believe the so-called art in the debate process is to know which one to apply at the right time. Do I always get it right? No. But at least there is agreement that within the framework of our discusion there are no absolute. Now, within the framwork of christianity, assuming the bible is accurate, (including existentialism from the OT)if I were to have actually seen or whitnessed jesus' walk, I might conclude otherwise.

In the interim as it were, as Snatch so very well pointed out, revelation, pragmatism and other things can certainly reveal, thru induction, that a Deity exists. and that takes us back to perhaps the so-called 'expectation levels'.

With respect to your question about why I personnally chose christianity, a very long story short, reading the metaphorical language, in and of itself, has had remarkable implications that still apply to human nature of this day-both good and bad. That is a very general statement to make i know and doesn't speak to specific personal reasons that relate to the psychology of Being, ethics (what shall i do in life) and other issues relative to the human condition and phenomenology, nevertheless, I (personally) find the book very embracing (particularly the wisdom books).

Walrus

brighid

Okay – fair enough. I appreciate the further clarification. My brain is still a bit fuzzy from the fumigation by Avon pesticides – or perhaps some elements of nerve gas is in that crap – so maybe tomorrow – or if my brain doesn’t hurt later we can discuss this more.

Thanks,
B

snatchbalance

WJ,

IMO, when considering levels of consciousness, higher, altered or otherwise, one must account for the physical phenomena of brain function(commonly refered to as "mind"). Most, if not all such manifistations can be infered from brain functions.

Maybe it's just me, but consciousness just dosen't seem all that mysterious. While I tend to think that digital processing is a crude analogy at best; enough storage and computational power seems to do the trick.

Yes, brain function(and all other bodily functions for that matter) reley on our personnal and collective history(ies), genentic, psychological and otherwise.

Yes, many different schools have argued for many different gods, all inconclusively I think. For me, god adds nothing to my existence.

Nothing to add.

SB

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ May 22, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>