From: miller_jh@cubldr.colorado.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:52:10 GMT

In article <t8c1xs_@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec314.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> In article <1cvt38INN6tg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
> |> 
> |> In a previous article, johnsd2@vccnw02.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) says:
> |> 
> |> >In article <dpn2.29.720591052@po.CWRU.Edu>, dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil) writes:
> |> >|> In article <Bx0pJo.L4u@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
> |> >|> >Our preoccupation with immortality comes from the will to live.  No
> |> >|> >one between the ages of 15 and 25 (the reproductive peak) believes he
> |> >|> >will ever die.  I know.  I was there.
> |> >|> 
> |> >|> Err...I'm 18, and I know that I'm going to die. Sweeping generalizations are 
> |> >|> rarely correct.
> |>
> |> >Im 19, and I also know Im going to die. But, I can't really
> |> >visualize it. For me, its vague and distant.
> |> >
> |> >It has occured to me that when it becomes clear and
> |> >personal I may convert to some religion, just for the
> |> >illusion that I wont REALLY die, or somesuch.
> |> >
> |> >I rather hope it isn't Christianity. That seems to much based
> |> >on interpreting one book. And there are alternatives. Buddism
> |> >also provides a comfort agains death- but you have to work for it. 
> |> >(or so I understand, anyway) But at least it makes a little sence. :)
> |> 
> |> 	I am almost 20.
> 
> Anybody out there who's 21? :)
> (c'mon.. lets see how far we can take this..)
> 
> |> However, this idea of my mortality has perplexed
> |> me. I have been taught that all things die, and that one day, I shall to.
> |> I have not actually experienced someone else's death. That is, I know 
> |> their material bodies stops reacting, but I havn't any evidence of any one's
> |> consciousness ending ( or that they have every been consciousness ).
> |> I only know my consciousness. I do not know of others. Sure, its nice
> |> to believe that others are like me, and everyone tells me so, but I
> |> have not one iota of substantiantion.
> 
> Well, you do have one, but its not a very big one. If you assume that
> your senses give you an accurate portrayal of the world around
> you, you can see that other people act very much like you do. Very
> much as if they were concious. For me, this is good enough. (conversely,
> if something acts as if it was NOT concious, I generally assume it isn't.
> Hence, dead people aren't, imho, concious)
> 
> If you don't so assume, I think that makes you a "Sophist" (sp?), right?
> Don't believe ANYTHING wo/ proof, even your senses? Only thing you know
> is that you exist?
> 
> |> I do not even know that the world did or did not exist before me, for that
> |> matter. I am not naively assuming that it did not, only because I can not
> |> remember it. I just admit the fact that I have no evidence that the world
> |> exists before I did. Nor, do I have any evidence, *any* evidence, that I
> |> will ever cease to live, in some manner. 
> 
> Well, once again there is circumstatial evidence that the world existed
> before you did- there appear to be people claiming to have been around
> before you were born. (or for that matter before your first memory)
> 
> You do have some evidence that you will cease to live, in that it seems
> to be happening to everyone else, and it would be quite odd for you
> to be exempt.
> 
> It isn't proof, but there doesn't seem to be any counter-evidence, and
> the supposition that the world existed before you were born is very nicely
> consistent with what other evidence that you sences can glean for you.
> 
> |> 	This is not the idealistic invulerability so common in teen
> |> agers.
> 
> Damn shame. Is so NICE to be indestructable! :)
> 
> |> I simply have no input to evaluate on this subject. Unfortunately,
> |> the only imput that I can concieve of obtaining, is if I experience it
> |> first hand, and then, the point is moot!
> 
> Well, its the only conclusive evidence I can think of- but see above.
>  
> |> 	However, I am well aware that my physical body is frail, and 
> |> even if my consciousness does not die, the effects upon my body can
> |> be most unpleasant. Like most of us, I have my own private 'war injuries',
> |> so to say, more so than many. And, I understand that this current
> |> material body changes and evolves. And, I expect that at some time,
> |> my body will be ravished by time. 
> 
> I never understood why people insist on separating out "you" from
> your body. I see no evidence that our "selves" are separate things,
> and not merely an artifact of the functioning of our brains. (or,
> alternately, a feature of this functioning. Not sure myself)
> 
> There is even some evidence (if you believe your senses, as I do) that
> they are at least intimately connected, as dammage to your body can
> result in (apparant) damage to your "self". (don't believe me?
> Get yourself a frontal lobotomy and find out firsthand! :) )
> 
> |> 	Since I am not of the standard religions, you can probably
> |> deduce what I think about the christian ideal of the afterlife. I do
> |> not honestly believe that I will die. Oh sure, I may forsake this body,
> |> but I honestly feel, in all my soul, that I am eternal.
> 
> If so, you would be the only thing. That nasty little 2nd law of
> thermodynamics. Always out to getcha. :)
> 
> |> However, it 
> |> really does not make much of a difference. I am eternal while I live.
> |> When I cease to exist, it won't matter that I am not eternal.
> 
> I agree here.
> 
> |> While
> |> some find comfort in the idea of a supreme being, it chills me to the
> |> bone.
> 
> Hang on a second. How does "eternal" = "supreme"?
> 
> |> *I* am a sentinent being. I am my own master, I am no one's
> |> servent or some sheep to be lead.
> 
> Glad to hear it. Most people who believe in these soul things feel
> that they are not their own master, and that they are God's sheep.
> 
> |> I look forward till I am set free
> |> of this anchor to wander and roam free in the universe, shackled no
> |> more. Alone in slendor, in an eternal silence.
> 
> What makes you think THIS will happen? Or do you merely believe this
> because you have no evidence that it WONT, and you like thie belief?
> 
> |> 	Until then, I am determined to experience this world, and
> |> keep myself out of harm's way. That truck may not kill me, but it
> |> sure will be painful!
> 
> You never know. You have no conclusive evidence that it will hurt. Unless
> you've been hit by one. Even if you have, can't trust yer senses. Might
> have been some sort of abberation last time. :)
> 
> -- 
> 			- Dan Johnson
> And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
> 
> These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
> You'll never know whose they are.


Hmmm, as a "virgin" to this debate and in this first, general perusal to
this point there are some well reasoned and an excellent exercises of the Mind
operating here! I especially liked the analysis and "dismissal" of
phenomenology as a basis for...anything! (after all, it only worked in a
partial and ultimately fatal sense against the Bomb in "Dark Star") Our senses
as "proof" for anything, or jumping boards for deeper proofs is demonstrably
inadequate insomuch as the failings of our senses are so easy and frail. (any
number of chemicals or conditions can distort the "reality" so produced and
deduced! Ask anyone on Acid about Reality!) 
Still, I would incline in my "heart" (the metaphysical projection separate from
yet connected to the large muscle situated in the center of my chest!) and
"soul" (the non-emperical projection of the metaphysical into no particular
material metaphor; i.e.; what is the "organ" of soul?) that there is a God.
Specifically I would invoke Christ as my Boddhisatva, but that is just
a 'personal' projection which best resonates with what I would consider my
'religious sense'
But of course "proofs", "axioms" and other intellecual artifices are ultimately
futile to EITHER side of this debate, though certainly within the cofines of
logic and rationality they are the only tools that can be reasonably utilised.
In this sense I am supposing and proposing as an axiom, in defiance to what I
just said!, that there may be/is a Spiritual realm which is distinct and
semi-separate from the material. In that case material 'proofs' would be without
meaning or function. The 4 known forces of Nature define all that is ossible or
knowable in the material Universe and offer no 'proof' of the existence or
non-existence of anything "outside" their realm. (or even that there IS any
"Outside") 
The synopsis of arguments offered in the introduction are very Good, and I
would hate to be pedantic or repetitious of points I haven't encountered yet.
Still, I would be curious and interested on the debate of the points of the
limits of phenomenology and even philosophy as foundations for ANY belief
structure. 
Also, the argument about "all peoples have religions" and the "majority of great
minds were theists" was aptly disputed on those narrow confines. What I find
interesting is that ALL cultures have SOME form of super-material inclination.
(the specifics are worse then irrelevent, as "the atheists" have pointed out
these specifics have led to far more contention then harmony!) In this vein I
am 'curious' in the sense that as Jung pointed out there are certain
"Universal" instincts which serve as the basis of our archetypes and the
Collective Unconcious that not only 'bind' us as a species but makes possible
any kind of connection or communication between any people at all. The point
here is just that while there are thousands of foods we can eat, and thousands
of preferences (some odious to some, delicious to others. "We don't eat dogs,
insects or people; others "love" them!) that there IS still an emperical thing
that is Food. The same seems true with other instincts such as Sex and/or
whatever. The question/contention therefor is "What is the basis of an instinct
for "God"?"  Does that 'imply' an existence of 'something' in the same sense
that 'hunger' implies food; or 'horniness' implies an opposite gender? 

Since this is quite a large DB can the responses be more clearly directed back
to me then by scanning this large field?
      

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:20678 talk.abortion:46823