Passage ...... Where do you go after you die

Re: god


JL

Thanks for the compliments -- and allow me to return them in kind. You are an excellent analyst -- and you state your positions very clearly.

Over in Abuzz, I did a rather comprehensive study of the issue your raised here, in a thread I titled "The Two Faces of Atheism."

I explained that I was not calling atheism two-faced, but that atheism has two distinct schools of thought. The first school present their atheism as: "I do not believe in God." The second presents their's as: "I believe there are no gods."

Those are quite different renditions of the philosophy -- and I dare to presume they are not entirely related.

The first type, to which I infer you belong, merely states that they do not believe in God. Well, I am an agnostic -- and I can also say, "I do not believe in God."

I prefer to state that proposition in a more agnostic manner -- one which eliminates the need for expressing "belief":

I do not know if there is a God; I do not know if there are no gods-- and I do not have enough unambiguous evidence available to me to make a meaningful guess (belief) in either direction.

The second type of atheist goes much further than the first type. The second type asserts a belief that there are no gods. It is a pro-active stance the second type is taking.

Frankly, (although I would understand if you disagree with me strongly on this) I think the first type of atheist is more closely related to agnosticism than to the second type of atheism.

Re: god


I have absolutely no doubt that my agnosticism is not fence-sitting. It is merely acknowledgement of the truth.

I understand that intelligent, sincere, well-meaning people can differ with me on that.

Babs,

Good points.

As an agnostic, I keep in mind that there may be a God -- although I do allow myself this much of a guess:

If there is a God, more than likely the God is nothing at all like any of the gods that have been supposed on planet Earth -- and any concern with the quality of any afterlife that might also exist is simply a waste of time.

Good posts. Keep 'em coming. I like that "off the mark" bit -- and have liked it since you used it on me back in Abuzz.

sin
Babs, the "off the mark" definition of sin can be the definition of simple "error". In my understanding, a sin is a theological notion, as opposed to a crime which is a secular one. A sin is a violation of God's law; a crime is a violation of society's law. In the middle ages, of course, The Church, with its secular powers, could punish sinners materially. Now that is left completely up to God. That's why I like to sin. No consequences.

I am an atheist, yet I believe in God and pray daily.
How so? Semantics.

I simply define God as the universe, and ask myself "Does the universe exist?" The universe is defined as everything that exists, so it becomes "Does everything that exists, exist?" Umm, sure. So there most definitely is a God, and every time I open my eyes, marvel at the universe and wonder how things work, I am praying, loving, communing, and worshipping God.

Even while being an atheist to other forms of God! So, is a Christian an atheist to other forms of God they disagree with, or is any working definition of God acceptable? Aren't we all atheists to something, and theists to another?

This is not sarcasm or a silly wisecrack. When I see devoutly religious people, what they are doing is the same thing as myself, with different words or semantics. A Christian is a Buddhist is a Muslim is a Hindu is a human being is a self-defining entity. Let's not kill each other over what words to use.



SENTIENCE
Oh, but is there a sentient God, with self-conscious intent and purpose? It is again semantics:

How do your brain waves work, such to produce "sentience"?
1) Well, if you were to somehow take that pattern and transplant it into someone else's brain, I think that pattern is still called sentient.
2) Now transplant exactly those same brain-signals into a cat. That pattern is still called sentient.
3) Change the sensory organs attached to that cat's brain. That pattern is still called sentient.

Keep going:
4) Change the electical signals into chemical signals or even mechanical ones.
5) Spread those signals across many square miles.
6) Modulate those signals to happen 1000 faster or 1000 times slower.
7) Give those signals the ability to slowly effect and spread across every atom in the universe.
That pattern is still called sentient. Is it worth anything? Can it do anything? Who cares!

Does that pattern exist? Dig deep enough, you will find almost any particle or pattern you can imagine, somewhere. So is the physical universe, as defined by science, also sentient? Highly probable. Just because you can't talk to it with sound waves doesn't mean it doesn't think. The model is flexible enough that I accept it as true. Too bad it's useless.

Do I care about God? No. Does it effect my daily life? Not one bit. I'm already in love with the universe. Can we change God? Absolutely. Just change your definitions. Am I an atheist? I hope and pray to God that I am.



MORE SENTIENCE
I do know that at least 6 billion humans in the universe are sentient. My fingernail may not be sentient, but I am. 99% of the universe may not be sentient, but the sum total is more than that. I have to admit the universe does contain, and therefore has, sentience. If I talk to my neighbor I am talking to a part of God and not just biting my fingernail.

But the whole issue is still semantics. I've never seen two people agree on a definition of God. And I'm sorry, this is an incredibly long way to illustrate ...




WHERE DO YOU GO AFTER YOU DIE?
Semantics. Define yourself as the universe, and you never die. Define yourself as an apple, and it's when you fall. Define yourself as a physical body, and it's when the body is no longer. Define yourself as "the spirit of freedom" and "you" will always exist wherever that is felt. Define yourself as a collection of thoughts and ideas, then you live on A2K.

What is your vehicle? Everybody's definition is different. At 6:04pm today I'm currently using the definition "my unique electrical brain signals" so when those stop, by definition, it's all over.

But I am CodeBorg. Who are you?

OooooOOOoooooOOOOh! That CodeBorg is DEEP!

Seriously, some really good points.

Edit: I happened to read his post first, as I had not checked in on this thread in a while, but LOTS of very interesting points here from lots of people.

Codeberg.
...Your post is quite fascinating to me. I for one do not believe you are being Sarcastic, or smart alecky. Your beliefs concur very much with mine, but I call myself a spiritual person who believes in God. I believe everything in existence, comprises God. (Hence, my signature line) Ibelieve I'm praying when I'm thinking. the keyword here is semantics. Most people believe in the same thing, but argue and kill each other over, what to call it, and how to acknowledge it.

Oh yeah Codeberg,
...To answer your last question, I'm sure you of all people understand me, when I say, "I am God". :wink: Most folks look at me in disbelief, until I explain why.

*smiles*



Ain't life grand?
Believing that my death will be permanent ... suddenly I treasure every damn moment.

And thank you, God!
(What's Book of the boo?...)


----------
"I want some! What is it?"

No, not permanent, infinet .... death is enlghtenment and always comes in the destruction of knowledge .... the spoken Tao is not the eternal Tao.

"Book of The Boo"-Original thoughts, and theorems of Booman. (Okay so I haven't actually written the book yet, but hey...I've started to jot them down!)

I've told this story on-line before, but for those of you who haven't heard it, I'll tell it again, because it fits here.



I'm 8 or 9 years old in Sunday School -- the place public school Catholic kids had to go after mass. Sister George is waxing eloquently about God -- telling us that God knows what we are doing in our most secret moments because God is EVERYWHERE -- in every nook and crannie of the universe.

An idea strikes me so powerfully, I suspect a light bulb appeared over my head and lit up.

Up shoots my hand.

"Yes, Francis," says Sister George.

"Well, Sister, if God is EVERYWHERE -- he must be inside me -- inside every space of my body. So...wouldn't that mean that I am God?"

Well -- I am sure the next few minutes were not Sister George's finest moments, but she sure got her point across in a way that I cannot forget to this day -- and that was almost 60 years ago.

She never called on me again -- never once.

Hummmm!

And she never really answered my question.

Perhaps that is why I am an agnostic now.

It seems to me, from the Nun story above that what's imortant to the Sister about God has nothing to do with it being everywhere and knowing everything, and a lot more to do with it being overwhelmingly *special* in a singular personal way. This is what God is to her, but what is it to each of us?

If you coudn't use the word "God" any more, what word would you use instead, to best describe the concept you have of God?

If humanity stopped using the same word to describe different concepts, I wonder how much of the frustration which exists between religions would fade away. People seem to defend the word as though they were defending the concept, like they couldn't separate them or something.

Frank,
...It became obvious to me long ago, that a prerequisite of western religions, is to suspend logic, and individual thought. A big hint can be found in Genesis. It was deemed a bad thing to eat from the tree of knowledge, even though it's right in front of your face, and so delicious. I don't know about you, but I feel encouraged whenever I come across people like you and Codeberg, who have on their own come up with the same thoughts. I've also found concurrent principles, in African*, and Oriental, religions, and philosphies. But this was many years, after I had formed my own beliefs.
...BTW Frank, if you would have asked her to explain where God got the raw materials to make, heaven, earth, man, etc., since he was the only entity in exsistence, she might have had to be commited.



...*And I don't mean Islam. I mean the older little known first religions on earth.

..Imagine two brothers orphaned, and separated, shortly after birth. As they grow up they both give their parents names of their choosing, for easy reference. They meet as adults, and get into a bloody fight over which names to call their parents. Sounds realy dumb right?

Boo

What I do remember is sad. I remember having a fairly substantial insight as a very young lad -- and learning that having original thoughts or extrapolations could be dangerous. What a terrible thing to teach a kid.

The nun, through no real fault of her own, thought it more important to squelch mental processes that might be offensive to her notion of gods -- than to encourage that kind of thing.

When I read Rosborne's comments, I almost joked and wrote: I thought about that at the time, but realized it probably would not be a good idea to bring it up. You are right; she might have gone over the edge.

god
Frank, if I had asked that question of the sisters when I went to Catholic school (first four grades), she would have taken a ruler to the back of God's hand.
BTW, I've always suspected that Jesus' claim to being God was not completely reported. He may--unless he was a crazy megalomaniac--had included all of us (and all realilty) in this equation.

death
I don't mean to change the subject, only to add another dimension or twist to investigate. I remember a few years ago asking a congenitally blind friend (remember, he NEVER had a functioning optical nerve--like a rock) precised what he saw ( . He answered my stupid question with "nothing", that he had absolutely no sight at all, not even of blackness (which is what I was after). It occurs to me that when we are dead we will not even see THAT much. Indeed, there will be no "we" to see or not to see. "We" won't even be dead. There will be no subject (ME) to be in a predicate state of death. In that sense "I" will not be dead--because there will be no I to be dead. Oh, the tyranny of grammar.

I'm lovin' this stuff JL,
...What you said, is right in line with one of my old declarations. "I'll never know death" And that's not even a theory or belief, just plain, obvious logic. Knowing death would be impossible.

...And just to take that a step farther. that is one of the reasons, I oppose the death penalty 100%. People tell me, you would feel different if someone did somthing to a loved one of yours. If someone raped, and murdered, my sister or daughter, I would beg the judge, "Please, don't kill him. give him life without parole. (in the general population.) Do not send him to eternal peace!