0
   

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

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 07:13 am
Acceptance of facts, combined with an acceptance of conjecture, is just the right combination for making diplomats and peacemakers, which the world needs more of right now. Can I join you guys for that beer? Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 07:16 am
Com'on cavfancier- I'll get the first round! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 07:25 am
K, hopefully, by the next round, the CDN dollar will be sufficiently strong, so I can get the second Wink
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 09:45 am
I'm always willing to go out for a beer -- although under the present circumstances, my guess is that I'd order a Scotch.

I'll drop this for now.

Ahhh....where we gonna meet?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 12:44 pm
Hi Frank,

It seems to me that there are several different definitions of the word, "know", being used in this discussion.

Your usage (and frequently my usage) of "to know" carries with it an assumption of certain process for "knowing", ie, "to know beyond a reasonable doubt based on scientific or physical or logical evidence". But there are a lot of assumptions in our usage which are not necessarily relevant to people using one of the standard definitions (included below).

For instance, definition #2 says "to regard as true beyond doubt". It doesn't say "how" to arrive at truth beyond doubt. It just assumes it. If we go with this definition, then it's clear that people can take a non-agnostic position on things based purely on their decision to "regard as true beyond doubt". This is "knowing" to some people (though it may not be to us).

I guess I'm thinking that the true debate here may be the nature of "knowing", not what we each think we "know".

Websters:

KNOW -
1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
2. To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
3. To have a practical understanding of, as through experience; be skilled in: knows how to cook.
4. To have fixed in the mind: knows her Latin verbs.
5. To have experience of: "a black stubble that had known no razor" (William Faulkner).
6. To perceive as familiar; recognize: I know that face.
7. To be acquainted with: He doesn't know his neighbors.
8. To be able to distinguish; recognize as distinct: knows right from wrong.
9. To discern the character or nature of: knew him for a liar.
Archaic. To have sexual intercourse with.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2003 12:55 pm
It's also interesting to note that the way I think of the word, "know" in an ultimate sense, is a kind of "absolute knowing", which isn't even listed in the definitions.

Basically, I don't believe in "absolute knowledge" in any form. I only believe in relative knowledge, ie, knowledge which is derived from a chosen set of assumptions, and always limited by uncertainty.

This treatment of the word, "know", forces a condition of agnosticism.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 04:32 am
Rosborn, what is said about knowledge in the following quote from the Tao?


The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 09:19 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Hi Frank,

It seems to me that there are several different definitions of the word, "know", being used in this discussion.


As ususal, Rosborne, good post.

The problem I see with the circumstance you illustrated, though, is fairly obvious.

I have had the same arguments I am having here with the theists -- in other threads with atheists.

These theists insist they KNOW there is a God.

The atheists I debated, KNOW there are no gods.

If we allow the word KNOW to be perverted to that second definition you mentioned -- both those things, which are mutually exclusive, would have to be KNOWLEDGE.

But it isn't.

Don't want to get to deeply back into this. I will agree to disagree on the point with those who feel strongly differently.





Oh...by the way. Nobody else showed up, so I got schnockered all by myself last night. I'd still like to do the "get-together" though.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 09:37 am
Hi Gelisgesti, It says the same thing I said, only in more poetic terms. I think ;-)

Hi Frank, The idea of "knowing" is certainly an interesting and debatable topic, a challenge for even the great philosophers of history. Agreeing to disagree on this topic is by no means a defeat. As Gelisgesti's post may imply, "the way" is what matters, not the goal.

Here's an interesting article I just found which relates somewhat to fuzzy definitions... I think I'll make a new thread out of it since it seems to fire up a bunch of debatable ideas (agnosticism for one) ;-)

http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html

Have fun.

Best Regards,
0 Replies
 
Misti26
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 09:37 am
Frank A:

Let's have that scotch and discuss it?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 10:19 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Here's an interesting article I just found which relates somewhat to fuzzy definitions... I think I'll make a new thread out of it since it seems to fire up a bunch of debatable ideas (agnosticism for one) ;-)

http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html

Have fun.

Best Regards,



Hey Rosborne

Good article. Could almost hear the guy pounding the keys.

When you start the new thread, link it here so I don't miss it. You know I want to offer my agnostic perspective.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 10:21 am
Misti26 wrote:
Frank A:

Let's have that scotch and discuss it?


Hey Misti.

Good to see you over here.

My buddy, Tony C. often mentions you and your thoughts.

We'll all have a drink together.

But first we gotta get down to Florida.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2003 11:03 am
Hi Frank,

I just knew the mention of agnosticism in the article would get your attention ;-)

I see you've already found the other post.

Is there a way to cross post threads to a bunch of topics in A2K? I had to post it as two separate threads in Religion and in Science...

Thanks,
0 Replies
 
Verbal lee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2003 03:08 pm
Where do we go when we die?

Why not talk about the SURE things? I have not been here as long as some of you, but I have seen a few totally like stone corpses, including some relatives of mine. I am SURE we are all going.
The WHERE is "assured" in some people's minds- so they testify, but the WHERE is doubted by the largest majority.
Most just say, I don't know. Then they tell what they would LIKE to happen to their 'thoughts and ideas' after their body has decomposed.
If that does not work any better than my 'wishing in one hand and shelling peas in the other' to see which gets full first--
I would say we waste our time 'wishin'.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2003 03:57 pm
death
Well, Nobody's home again. Verbal Lee, I'm not sure what you mean by "sure things." But I do agree with the general tone of your comment. Why should we waste our time "wishing" or "inventing" post-life scenarios that we don't REALLY believe? We act as if our belief will come true if only we believe it hardily enough. It seems to me that humankind has over the course of its development dreaded the inevitability of the death it sees everywhere. It's as if there's a problem with no possible solution--but, of course, that would make a non-problem, wouldn't it? Then the Church comes along and tells humankind that there IS a solution, that the real problem is not death, but what happens to a SOUL (an extension of ego) that goes SOMEWHERE, eternal bliss or eternal pain, and that THERE IS a solution to THIS problem: simply obey the church and profess to believe its doctrines, and go to eternal bliss. What garbage. This thing about finding rewardable virtue in a belief; it's as if people who believe that E=MC2 SHOULD go to heaven and those who don't SHOULD go to hell. Grotesque. I prefer to think that no matter what I believe or do WHATEVER the after-life condition is going to be, that's what it's going to be. No thought or action will alter it. So relax and live to the very end. For me, my eternity is the time of my life. That is to say, for "me"--my ego--but as I said earlier (with Rosborne, I think), my REAL self is an eternal, universal process that has neither boundaries, beginning nor end. But there I go like everyone else, believing something that pleases me.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2003 04:08 pm
Verbal Lee & JL Nobody

I must congratulate you on the confidence you both show in discarding all possible answers to this question in favor of the ones you have decided are correct.




For certain, we are going to rot and end up back in the environment -- even if we build vaults for our dead bodies to stop that from happening.

But since none of us knows the REALITY of life -- why can't it be possible that life goes on -- whether in the fairytale like suggestions of current world religions -- or in any of a number of ways anyone can suppose is possible. And who is to say there is no YOU in that situation -- that the thoughts that are YOU don't survive in some way.

I am going to be one very, very surprised ghost if any of the currently popular guesses about "what comes next" turns out to be correct -- but I certainly will not allow my skepticism in that regard to jade me against any thoughts of life being a continuum of some sort.

I think I am going to die -- and simply be no more.

The thought does not bother me in the least -- although I would like to get a lot more golf and time with Nancy in before we begin that "no more" process.

But I may be wrong about that.

I think you both are being way too limiting on what is possible - or even probable.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2003 04:22 pm
reality
Gee whiz, Frank, what a shock. I always thought that I was extremely broad minded, short of accepting all that theistic nonsense. You might very well be right about Veral Lee, but moi?
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2003 05:39 pm
Where do you go after you die?

Well, it's a bit of an oxymoron. If I go somewhere (or continue to be) after I die that which died was not me.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2003 05:58 pm
death
And of course, Twyvel, if there is a YOU to be in a state of death, after the life of your body has ended, then you are not dead, yet your body's life has ended. It's this contradiction that the Christians who believe that we don't REALLY die must live with. How can they sleep at night?
It seems SO much more reasonable to assume that when my body has ceased the activities we associate with life, that there will no longer be an "I" either in a state of life or in a state of death. In other words, since "I" will not exist, there will be no dead I and there will be no live I.
But of course, as you have consistently noted, there is no "I" now--in the live state--either.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2003 06:33 pm
JLNobody

Marcel Duchamp said, "When I die........... there will be no difference between now (life) and when I die because I won't know it." (paraphrase) Something in line with what you and Frank are saying.

Quote:
It seems SO much more reasonable to assume that when my body has ceased the activities we associate with life, that there will no longer be an "I" either in a state of life or in a state of death. In other words, since "I" will not exist, there will be no dead I and there will be no live I.


You don't get out that easy, Smile you (I) may have other bodies, other levels(?) of illusions to work through. Then there's the transpersonal, and mind alone. Etc.

Quote:
But of course, as you have consistently noted, there is no "I" now--in the live state--either.


Well, have a look, awareness is nothing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:28:45