I'm very open-minded about it. I'd be happy to be persuaded one way or another if the evidence presented fulfilled my requirements.
Can the theist population say the same?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, that door's shut, bolted, locked and I can't find the damn key - not that I'm exactly looking for it...
NoahJ, I'll get back to you on James 2 in a little while. (I'm going to be a bit of a pain-in-the-ass about it and I'm just not in the mood for that right now.)
Which is what I was getting at with my question. MarcUK said it was ridiculous to not try and make the world a better place. Given his worldview that was a non sequitur. I disagree with both of you in your atheism but yours is at least more honest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont understand how you could find my reasoning dishonest. Explain?
I dont understand how you could find my reasoning dishonest. Explain?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In an earlier post you described us as "selfish animals." (BTW, I agree with the selfish part.) But then you wrote, "So we should use this accidental gift of intelligence to do positive things for ourselves and the planet." Trying to make the world a better place is a perfectly valid choice for you to make but it doesn't automatically arise from your point of view. If someone else who believes as you do, doesn't choose to "do positive things for the planet" well, that's an EQUALLY valid choice. As THT wrote, it's subjective. Accepting "the truth of what we are" (as you put it) doesn't put you in a better place to help others. Really helping someone else carries with it a cost. And a lot people probably don't put that high of a value on social acceptance to be willing to pay that cost - especially when one considers that both you and whoever it is you are trying to help (allegedly) don't have any intrinsic worth anyway.
Life after death? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. We can believe what we want, but for me there is more credibility in the approach of people like Sagan or Feynmann (who demand evidence) rather than following traditional religious denominations which provide reams of pompous speculation on the subject, with zero cold hard evidence, (more to keep populations in order than to dole out enlightenment).
As far as evidence goes, what constitutes acceptable "evidence" anyway? If something looking like a flying saucer lands on the White House lawn, is filmed by CNN and the US Government pronounced it to a real alien space-craft, would you believe it? Would you be less inclined to believe an *unofficial* claim of an alien space-craft by an airline pilot, 100 passengers and a crop of radar returns? If a medium claimed to have contacted your dead great-grandfather and told you about aspects of his life in detail, would you believe him?
We don't even understand what consciousness is all about, yet. We are hardly in a position to making grand pronouncements about whether there is life after death, or not. I am far more comfortable being open-minded, but skeptical. If somebody presents me with irrefutable evidence, then great!
I think it is far more important to leave some legacy, ie some positive lasting benefit/impression for one or many people on this planet. That constitutes the only current, valid and tangible life after death scenario for me, and you have to do that while you are alive; you don't get to take your luggage with you. All the other superstitious mumbo-jumbo remains just that, and is moot and until proof arrives, irrelevant..
Belle - if you're really interested, try the first of the books about the medium George Anderson I referred to in my reply to MarcUK above. Guaranteeed to contain evidence and no exhortations to any particular religion....</strong>
What makes George Anderson any different from John Edward? Except perhaps Edward is handsome and charismatic enough to have his own TV series. No medium has ever survived rigorous scientific tests. They would be fools to do so (submit to testing), and we would be fools to believe them.
However, if one finds solace in believing them, then I suppose it's fine.
About death: The human body is a study in keeping low entropy internal by exporting huge amounts to the outside. To go from living entity to one of total entropy is actually a very poetic thing just like the opposite is. Of course I don´t want myself or other people to die but to have life is the exception in the world and somehow I find it beautiful to become one with physical world again. So the worms won´t be eating me but something that have become "not me"
In an earlier post you described us as "selfish animals." (BTW, I agree with the selfish part.)</strong>
I wouldn't. We are selfish, but I wouldn't put it that way. We have a capacity for abstract thought and genetic tendencies to certain traits, one is survival of which selfishness is a part. I wouldn't say that we are selfish because our capacity for abstract thought can override our emotional and mental genetic tendencies. Cue Homer Simpson: "Doh! Stupid brain. Need to be totally selfish!"
<strong>Really helping someone else carries with it a cost. And a lot people probably don't put that high of a value on social acceptance to be willing to pay that cost - especially when one considers that both you and whoever it is you are trying to help (allegedly) don't have any intrinsic worth anyway.</strong>
What cost are you talking about?
There is no intrinsic - as a property of the universe - value to our lives. However, that's fairly irrelevent to humanity since intrinsic value is different from emotional value or evolutionary advantage. Not to mention "intrinsic value" inofitself may very well be a construct of human thought.
So, one can say it the other way. The cost of being nonsociable is more than the cost of being sociable. By helping others, one is making life easier on oneself. That is, if you help another person, that person can help you later. The emotional connection would be an evolutionary response developed for social animals to keep the bonds stronger. Being a loner doesn't really have that many rewards.
Well, if that's the case, then I respect your views that little bit more. I have found that people who throw such armour-plated opinions around often don't really know what they're talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So are you saying that some people do know what they are talking about when it comes to the afterlife?? Surely no one knows for sure? They would have to have died first to know for sure.
[quote]<strong> the worm food scenario is just your opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That’s what you asked for so that’s what I gave ya.
[quote]<strong>And as for the roses in your garden, well I know this is a deliberate reductio ad adsurdam,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I’m not trying to be absurd at all.
[quote]<strong>but at the risk of a few jibes I'm going to stick to my convicitions here. I don't think there is a flower heaven in the sense that you mean it, but yes, a rose contains life force (if that's the right phrase), just like Jamie and The Blue Meanie and Canadian elks and Pacific sea anemones, and life force is eternal IMHO. So I would say yes, some aspect of the rose will survive you pulling it out of the garden.
I think if you're going to believe in life after death, the only logical stance is some kind of afterlife all living things, not just people as so often assumed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that’s what The Blue Meanie wants to believe then let him, I ain’t gonna argue with him.
On the contratrary, there are plenty of contradictions - what about all the incidents that are mentioned in one gospel but not the other?<hr></blockquote>
Such As?
[quote]And how is people 'noticing things differently' consistent with the idea of divine inspiration?<hr></blockquote>
Divine Inspiriation does not mean God Controls the pen and the person is just a mind numbed medium. The person put down exactly what he saw. Are you going to tell me that everyone sees things exactly the same all the time?
[quote]And what about the evidence for editing of the Bible texts? (Passages quoted in letters from one church father to another that are no longer found in the current Bible; historical records of the Council of Ephesus, etc)<hr></blockquote>
Can you show me where you found this evidence. I really am interested. Were they quoting from the Apocrypha? (SP?)
[quote]It is interesting to note how thin the veneer of tolerance is here - as soon as I start mentioning things like reincarnation you start throwing words like "arse" around. It's a short step from that to wanting to burn The Blue Meanie as a heretic...<hr></blockquote>
Get a rope! Hey, I was more having fun at the time than looking for your "accidental dismemberment in a big piece of heavy machinery". (that was a joke BTW.) But to say that we as humans can make up what the afterlife is with no real literature but what we choose to make up off the tops of our heads seems somewhat rediculous. Where are you getting your information on the afterlife if it is not your arse?
[quote]PS - I'd like to repeat that I respect your views a Christian as long as they are a force for good in your life and not:
a) a reason to belittle or mock other peple
& b) an excuse to switch off your brain and stop thinking for yourself <hr></blockquote>
Hey, don't belittle me for sticking to my convictions. My brain is always in gear, always. And I was not mocking you (well maybe a little ) I was merely trying to point out the big flaw I saw in your arguments.
<strong>NoahJ, I'll get back to you on James 2 in a little while. (I'm going to be a bit of a pain-in-the-ass about it and I'm just not in the mood for that right now.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I look forward to your thoughts on this. It is a subject that I have been studying a bit lately and has a lot to do with how I try to conduct myself as a child of God.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
If a medium claimed to have contacted your dead great-grandfather and told you about aspects of his life in detail, would you believe him?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the information was accurate and there was no reasonable way in which the medium could have obtained the information from anywhere else, then yes, I would believe him.
And like I said in my reply to Belle above, I really don't see why there is supposedly such a dichotomy between a belief in life after death and living life now. Yes, of course we should life to the full, help our fellow our human beings and try to make the world a better place in some way - how does an interest in the possibility of life after death prevent us from doing that?
After all, if we don't get it right this time, we'll only have to come back
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
What makes George Anderson any different from John Edward? Except perhaps Edward is handsome and charismatic enough to have his own TV series. No medium has ever survived rigorous scientific tests. They would be fools to do so (submit to testing), and we would be fools to believe them.
However, if one finds solace in believing them, then I suppose it's fine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't know who John Edward is so I can't comment about him. All I can say is that those books about George Anderson do contain detailed accounts of many scientific tests, including laboratory tests, which Anderson reportedly passed with flying colours.
I'm not saying that Anderson is some sort of guru and the answer to everything. Far from it. All I'm saying is that I read those books and found them very convincing.
"...we would be fools to believe them"? What, you mean even if they passed the tests it would have to be some sort of trick? Hmmm, the words "closed" and "mind" come to mind
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>...somehow I find it beautiful to become one with physical world again. So the worms won´t be eating me but something that has become "not me"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jamie, yes that's what The Blue Meanie wants to believe
The Blue Meanie did indeed ask for your opinion and was happy to receive it. He was just trying to make a distinction between it and the absolute truth - but, yes of course, The Blue Meanie's opinion is also just his opinion.
And (switching back into the first person because The Blue Meanie is getting tired of typing 'The Blue Meanie' ), I may not have expressed myself as well as I might have done when I wrote that about people 'not knowing what they are talking about'. I didn't mean knowing what's on the other side of death - I meant that it's easy to throw opinions around but people often feel differently about this subject when they have suffered a bereavement and had certain experiences
"...we would be fools to believe them"? What, you mean even if they passed the tests it would have to be some sort of trick? Hmmm, the words "closed" and "mind" come to mind
</strong>
Or maybe it is "fool"
Lets just say I'd be more rigorous than you would be. There's a difference between being close minded and rigorous. Closed minded is refusing to believe despite the evidence. Rigorous is making sure the test was done correctly.
John Edward is a medium, that is, a person who talks to the dead, with his own show on the Sci-Fi channel and is in syndication now as well.
Hey, don't belittle me for sticking to my convictions. My brain is always in gear, always. And I was not mocking you (well maybe a little ) I was merely trying to point out the big flaw I saw in your arguments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not belittling you, mate. Convictions can be a good thing if they motivate you to do good things. I do have evidence to back up my claims about the gospels and the edited passage (from the Gospel of Mark), but it involves typing out a long quote from a book. Come back later today (Thursday) and I'll post it then.
There are other sources of information on this topic besides the Bible and my "arse" See some of my other posts in this thread
BTW, I don't want to be too harsh on the Bible - I'm not denying that there are powerful passages and memorable stories. (For I remember particularly liking one speech of Jesus' where he talks about inviting the poor to a banquet - I can't remember the reference. Perhaps you can remind me?)
I think Jesus was a real person and perhaps a spiritually advanced person too. I just don't buy the idea that the Bible is the divinely inspired instruction book in the sense that you are suggesting. I think there's too much evidence against that idea (and actually no evidence for it, either IMHO).
About this stuff, I wanted to recommend a book I read last year. It's actually three books, called the "Christ clone" books.
It starts out following some scientists examining the Shroud of Turin, and they take some organic substance off of it to test it. One of the scientists keeps it and then clones it, and hires someone to carry the baby.
It then goes through all the biblical prophecies, but makes them happen in this era - nuclear wars and stuff like that.
It kinda had me freaked out for a few days after I read it.
:eek:
But it really does try to stick to the biblical end-time prophecies, so if you're Christian, I think it would have an even bigger impact.
Comments
<strong>
I notice Jamie has not replied to this. Does this mean he thinks The Blue Meanie is crazy?
Jamie has noted your comments but is very busy at work. I am sure Jamie will reply to you when Jamie gets home.
J :cool:
Edit: I'm busy NOT busty <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
<strong>
I'm very open-minded about it. I'd be happy to be persuaded one way or another if the evidence presented fulfilled my requirements.
Can the theist population say the same?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, that door's shut, bolted, locked and I can't find the damn key - not that I'm exactly looking for it...
NoahJ, I'll get back to you on James 2 in a little while. (I'm going to be a bit of a pain-in-the-ass about it and I'm just not in the mood for that right now.)
[ 03-12-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
Which is what I was getting at with my question. MarcUK said it was ridiculous to not try and make the world a better place. Given his worldview that was a non sequitur. I disagree with both of you in your atheism but yours is at least more honest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont understand how you could find my reasoning dishonest. Explain?
<strong>
I dont understand how you could find my reasoning dishonest. Explain?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In an earlier post you described us as "selfish animals." (BTW, I agree with the selfish part.) But then you wrote, "So we should use this accidental gift of intelligence to do positive things for ourselves and the planet." Trying to make the world a better place is a perfectly valid choice for you to make but it doesn't automatically arise from your point of view. If someone else who believes as you do, doesn't choose to "do positive things for the planet" well, that's an EQUALLY valid choice. As THT wrote, it's subjective. Accepting "the truth of what we are" (as you put it) doesn't put you in a better place to help others. Really helping someone else carries with it a cost. And a lot people probably don't put that high of a value on social acceptance to be willing to pay that cost - especially when one considers that both you and whoever it is you are trying to help (allegedly) don't have any intrinsic worth anyway.
As far as evidence goes, what constitutes acceptable "evidence" anyway? If something looking like a flying saucer lands on the White House lawn, is filmed by CNN and the US Government pronounced it to a real alien space-craft, would you believe it? Would you be less inclined to believe an *unofficial* claim of an alien space-craft by an airline pilot, 100 passengers and a crop of radar returns? If a medium claimed to have contacted your dead great-grandfather and told you about aspects of his life in detail, would you believe him?
We don't even understand what consciousness is all about, yet. We are hardly in a position to making grand pronouncements about whether there is life after death, or not. I am far more comfortable being open-minded, but skeptical. If somebody presents me with irrefutable evidence, then great!
I think it is far more important to leave some legacy, ie some positive lasting benefit/impression for one or many people on this planet. That constitutes the only current, valid and tangible life after death scenario for me, and you have to do that while you are alive; you don't get to take your luggage with you. All the other superstitious mumbo-jumbo remains just that, and is moot and until proof arrives, irrelevant..
Belle - if you're really interested, try the first of the books about the medium George Anderson I referred to in my reply to MarcUK above. Guaranteeed to contain evidence and no exhortations to any particular religion....</strong>
What makes George Anderson any different from John Edward? Except perhaps Edward is handsome and charismatic enough to have his own TV series. No medium has ever survived rigorous scientific tests. They would be fools to do so (submit to testing), and we would be fools to believe them.
However, if one finds solace in believing them, then I suppose it's fine.
About death: The human body is a study in keeping low entropy internal by exporting huge amounts to the outside. To go from living entity to one of total entropy is actually a very poetic thing just like the opposite is. Of course I don´t want myself or other people to die but to have life is the exception in the world and somehow I find it beautiful to become one with physical world again. So the worms won´t be eating me but something that have become "not me"
In an earlier post you described us as "selfish animals." (BTW, I agree with the selfish part.)</strong>
I wouldn't. We are selfish, but I wouldn't put it that way. We have a capacity for abstract thought and genetic tendencies to certain traits, one is survival of which selfishness is a part. I wouldn't say that we are selfish because our capacity for abstract thought can override our emotional and mental genetic tendencies. Cue Homer Simpson: "Doh! Stupid brain. Need to be totally selfish!"
<strong>Really helping someone else carries with it a cost. And a lot people probably don't put that high of a value on social acceptance to be willing to pay that cost - especially when one considers that both you and whoever it is you are trying to help (allegedly) don't have any intrinsic worth anyway.</strong>
What cost are you talking about?
There is no intrinsic - as a property of the universe - value to our lives. However, that's fairly irrelevent to humanity since intrinsic value is different from emotional value or evolutionary advantage. Not to mention "intrinsic value" inofitself may very well be a construct of human thought.
So, one can say it the other way. The cost of being nonsociable is more than the cost of being sociable. By helping others, one is making life easier on oneself. That is, if you help another person, that person can help you later. The emotional connection would be an evolutionary response developed for social animals to keep the bonds stronger. Being a loner doesn't really have that many rewards.
<strong>
Well, if that's the case, then I respect your views that little bit more. I have found that people who throw such armour-plated opinions around often don't really know what they're talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So are you saying that some people do know what they are talking about when it comes to the afterlife?? Surely no one knows for sure? They would have to have died first to know for sure.
[quote]<strong> the worm food scenario is just your opinion.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That’s what you asked for so that’s what I gave ya.
[quote]<strong>And as for the roses in your garden, well I know this is a deliberate reductio ad adsurdam,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I’m not trying to be absurd at all.
[quote]<strong>but at the risk of a few jibes I'm going to stick to my convicitions here. I don't think there is a flower heaven in the sense that you mean it, but yes, a rose contains life force (if that's the right phrase), just like Jamie and The Blue Meanie and Canadian elks and Pacific sea anemones, and life force is eternal IMHO. So I would say yes, some aspect of the rose will survive you pulling it out of the garden.
I think if you're going to believe in life after death, the only logical stance is some kind of afterlife all living things, not just people as so often assumed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that’s what The Blue Meanie wants to believe then let him, I ain’t gonna argue with him.
J :cool:
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
On the contratrary, there are plenty of contradictions - what about all the incidents that are mentioned in one gospel but not the other?<hr></blockquote>
Such As?
[quote]And how is people 'noticing things differently' consistent with the idea of divine inspiration?<hr></blockquote>
Divine Inspiriation does not mean God Controls the pen and the person is just a mind numbed medium. The person put down exactly what he saw. Are you going to tell me that everyone sees things exactly the same all the time?
[quote]And what about the evidence for editing of the Bible texts? (Passages quoted in letters from one church father to another that are no longer found in the current Bible; historical records of the Council of Ephesus, etc)<hr></blockquote>
Can you show me where you found this evidence. I really am interested. Were they quoting from the Apocrypha? (SP?)
[quote]It is interesting to note how thin the veneer of tolerance is here - as soon as I start mentioning things like reincarnation you start throwing words like "arse" around. It's a short step from that to wanting to burn The Blue Meanie as a heretic...<hr></blockquote>
Get a rope!
[quote]PS - I'd like to repeat that I respect your views a Christian as long as they are a force for good in your life and not:
a) a reason to belittle or mock other peple
& b) an excuse to switch off your brain and stop thinking for yourself
Hey, don't belittle me for sticking to my convictions. My brain is always in gear, always. And I was not mocking you (well maybe a little
<strong>NoahJ, I'll get back to you on James 2 in a little while. (I'm going to be a bit of a pain-in-the-ass about it and I'm just not in the mood for that right now.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I look forward to your thoughts on this. It is a subject that I have been studying a bit lately and has a lot to do with how I try to conduct myself as a child of God.
<strong>
If a medium claimed to have contacted your dead great-grandfather and told you about aspects of his life in detail, would you believe him?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the information was accurate and there was no reasonable way in which the medium could have obtained the information from anywhere else, then yes, I would believe him.
And like I said in my reply to Belle above, I really don't see why there is supposedly such a dichotomy between a belief in life after death and living life now. Yes, of course we should life to the full, help our fellow our human beings and try to make the world a better place in some way - how does an interest in the possibility of life after death prevent us from doing that?
After all, if we don't get it right this time, we'll only have to come back
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>
What makes George Anderson any different from John Edward? Except perhaps Edward is handsome and charismatic enough to have his own TV series. No medium has ever survived rigorous scientific tests. They would be fools to do so (submit to testing), and we would be fools to believe them.
However, if one finds solace in believing them, then I suppose it's fine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't know who John Edward is so I can't comment about him. All I can say is that those books about George Anderson do contain detailed accounts of many scientific tests, including laboratory tests, which Anderson reportedly passed with flying colours.
I'm not saying that Anderson is some sort of guru and the answer to everything. Far from it. All I'm saying is that I read those books and found them very convincing.
"...we would be fools to believe them"? What, you mean even if they passed the tests it would have to be some sort of trick? Hmmm, the words "closed" and "mind" come to mind
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>...somehow I find it beautiful to become one with physical world again. So the worms won´t be eating me but something that has become "not me"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, exactly
<strong>
If that’s what The Blue Meanie wants to believe then let him, I ain’t gonna argue with him.
J :cool:
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jamie, yes that's what The Blue Meanie wants to believe
The Blue Meanie did indeed ask for your opinion and was happy to receive it. He was just trying to make a distinction between it and the absolute truth - but, yes of course, The Blue Meanie's opinion is also just his opinion.
And (switching back into the first person because The Blue Meanie is getting tired of typing 'The Blue Meanie'
"...we would be fools to believe them"? What, you mean even if they passed the tests it would have to be some sort of trick? Hmmm, the words "closed" and "mind" come to mind
Or maybe it is "fool"
Lets just say I'd be more rigorous than you would be. There's a difference between being close minded and rigorous. Closed minded is refusing to believe despite the evidence. Rigorous is making sure the test was done correctly.
John Edward is a medium, that is, a person who talks to the dead, with his own show on the Sci-Fi channel and is in syndication now as well.
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
<strong>And (switching back into the first person because The Blue Meanie is getting tired of typing 'The Blue Meanie'
I was beginning to wonder if The Blue Meanie was related to Bob Dole for a while there.
<strong>John Edward is a medium, that is, a person who talks to the dead</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, this is incorrect.
A medium is someone who claims the dead talk back.
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
<strong>
Hey, don't belittle me for sticking to my convictions. My brain is always in gear, always. And I was not mocking you (well maybe a little
I'm not belittling you, mate. Convictions can be a good thing if they motivate you to do good things. I do have evidence to back up my claims about the gospels and the edited passage (from the Gospel of Mark), but it involves typing out a long quote from a book. Come back later today (Thursday) and I'll post it then.
There are other sources of information on this topic besides the Bible and my "arse"
BTW, I don't want to be too harsh on the Bible - I'm not denying that there are powerful passages and memorable stories. (For I remember particularly liking one speech of Jesus' where he talks about inviting the poor to a banquet - I can't remember the reference. Perhaps you can remind me?)
I think Jesus was a real person and perhaps a spiritually advanced person too. I just don't buy the idea that the Bible is the divinely inspired instruction book in the sense that you are suggesting. I think there's too much evidence against that idea (and actually no evidence for it, either IMHO).
It starts out following some scientists examining the Shroud of Turin, and they take some organic substance off of it to test it. One of the scientists keeps it and then clones it, and hires someone to carry the baby.
It then goes through all the biblical prophecies, but makes them happen in this era - nuclear wars and stuff like that.
It kinda had me freaked out for a few days after I read it.
:eek:
But it really does try to stick to the biblical end-time prophecies, so if you're Christian, I think it would have an even bigger impact.
Has anyone else read this?