I believe there is nothing for the same reason that EmilyQ gave for believing. It pleases me to do so. The thought of life everlasting is a horrifying concept and I’m not entirely certain why anyone would think it otherwise.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
When in reality we only know of biological organisms living, it seems possible life could exist if we evolved to be silicone based based on our own understandings of biochemistry. What other possibilites are out there outside of our understanding of biochemistry is beyond me, but I don’t think we can discount that possibility, which would actually expand the possible universes that could have existed to support life similar to how we know it. :)[/quote]
It doesn’t ‘seem possible’ that life could exist based upon silicone. I think you’re misinterpreting the scientific idea that if pushed to say which other element(s) seem capable of it, silicone is the most adapt, but we 100% believe that life can only exist carbon based and with liquid H2O.
You also now seem to be challenging your own… challenges?.. to others’ thoughts in here by commenting about the supposition of what is possible based upon what is essentially wild hypothesis: that a separate universe could exist based on other physical laws. Why is that reasonable thought? Nothing we have ever encountered makes that a reasonable thought other than the question “why not?” which is exactly the ‘reasoning’ behind ‘God’ or an afterlife.
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
I believe there is nothing for the same reason that EmilyQ gave for believing. It pleases me to do so. The thought of life everlasting is a horrifying concept and I’m not entirely certain why anyone would think it otherwise.[/quote]
This made me laugh. My cheery assumption is that it will be a pleasant afterlife and not a dreadful one.
Meanwhile, it sounds like you’ve thought this afterlife business through with care and reason, so I support your unbelief 100%!
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
I believe there is nothing for the same reason that EmilyQ gave for believing. It pleases me to do so. The thought of life everlasting is a horrifying concept and I’m not entirely certain why anyone would think it otherwise.[/quote]
This made me laugh. My cheery assumption is that it will be a pleasant afterlife and not a dreadful one.
Meanwhile, it sounds like you’ve thought this afterlife business through with care and reason, so I support your unbelief 100%!
[/quote]
It’s not that I think the afterlife would be either good or bad. The thought of anything going on endlessly, even if it’s good, sounds terrible. No one can really conceive of infinity or eternity so to imagine existing in it is, in itself, an horrific contemplation.
Maybe I lack imagination 
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I do agree here.
Also, forgive me if I missed it, but I don’t believe you answered my question to you before… and I am genuinely curious about the answer.[/quote]
I’m sorry I must of read over it, what was the question?[/quote]
It was about how your own NDE and your depersonalization affected your own belief in religion and an afterlife. Did it?[/quote]
My NDE showed me that there was something more then what I thought life really was. De personalization didn’t really do anything in terms of expanding my mind or the like. It was just majorly uncomfortable and made it hard to go about daily life at times. My biggest changes came from spiritual practices to dis identify from my mind, and just life in general.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I hope you try to understand Existentialism as a process for people who really buy into an afterlife, and then use reason to convince themselves that there likely isn’t one.
[/quote]
You do realise that many existentialists are religious right? And that existentialism is not compatible with pure rationalism because existentialists believe that people can only understand subjective meaning - that objective truth, if it exists at all will always be hidden from the individual because his subjective experience of the world is viewed through a lens of prior beliefs, values, culture, identity and so on. You’re always arguing from a rationalist/positivist perspective which is not compatible with either religious or atheist existentialism.
I think you also miss the distinction between belief and faith. If you believe in something you are confident in it. However faith requires doubt. Faith is not believing in something. Faith means subjecting yourself to or giving yourself over to something you don’t have confidence in. For example, when God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac - if Abraham had believed in the righteousness of God there would have been no conflict. He would not have given it a second thought. It would not have been a test. Abraham instead gave himself over to faith. Your mistake is to think that faith is a blind and credulous belief. It is nothing of the sort. When someone struggles with their faith, they are not struggling between belief and disbelief. They are struggling to give themselves over to faith in something that they don’t have confidence in.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think you also miss the distinction between belief and faith. If you believe in something you are confident in it. However faith requires doubt. Faith is not believing in something. Faith means subjecting yourself to or giving yourself over to something you don’t have confidence in. For example, when God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac - if Abraham had believed in the righteousness of God there would have been no conflict. He would not have given it a second thought. It would not have been a test. Abraham instead gave himself over to faith. Your mistake is to think that faith is a blind and credulous belief. It is nothing of the sort. When someone struggles with their faith, they are not struggling between belief and disbelief. They are struggling to give themselves over to faith in something that they don’t have confidence in.
[/quote]
This was excellent. I’ve never differentiated between faith and belief myself and this breakdown was really kind of eye opening.
I’m really enjoying this discussion. Thanks to everyone who is participating!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I do agree here.
Also, forgive me if I missed it, but I don’t believe you answered my question to you before… and I am genuinely curious about the answer.[/quote]
I’m sorry I must of read over it, what was the question?[/quote]
It was about how your own NDE and your depersonalization affected your own belief in religion and an afterlife. Did it?[/quote]
My NDE showed me that there was something more then what I thought life really was. De personalization didn’t really do anything in terms of expanding my mind or the like. It was just majorly uncomfortable and made it hard to go about daily life at times. My biggest changes came from spiritual practices to dis identify from my mind, and just life in general.
[/quote]
Sorry about this - it’s my inner journalist coming out - but can you elaborate any further on this? What conclusion did you come to as far as there being “something more?”
And when you say spiritual practices to disindentify … could you explain that more too? I’m not catching on.[/quote]
When I had an NDE I could feel a deep sense of peace wash over, I was flooded with a lot of strange memories but they did not feel like my own. It was kind of scary because I can remember the feeling of falling into a bottomless dark ocean. The strangest thing about it was the kind of presence that just washed over myself and that part I really can’t describe. This was all like over 14 years ago so the actual accident I hardly remember, it was the deep sense of peace and presence that I felt which I could never forget.
The mind dis identification stuff was just practical tools I used, it helped clear my identification with thought patterns and psychological sense of self. What those in spirituality call the “false self.” There is a lot of cheesy and not very transformative spiritual books, and teachings out there. For that reason I don’t like to even know or associate with any of it. Its just really basic things like meditation with no goal, dismantling belief patterns, self inquiry into deeply rooted patterns or ideas, and contemplation.
There are some very good books and teachers I had seen which had helped a lot, however other teachers I talked to also stressed not trying to absorb a bunch of knowledge. You don’t need to learn or know anything. It’s just questioning all of your beliefs and thoughts that are already present. Here are a few things that I used anyways. My teach Adyashanti who wrote this book which is very powerful if used seriously to do the work, rather then just gloss over things for entertainment.
http://www.adyashanti.org/wayofliberation/
Another friend of mine I had been in contact with a while. Her name is Ellie Roozdar. She made a site as well and offers guidance on some basic meditation things, as well as self inquiry. These types of meditation are also bare bones simple, not about achieving any kind of state or goal.
I could list other things as well but really there is not too much of a need. You don’t want to give yourself information overload with it. Its all the same core essence regardless of teaching/teacher anyways.
Hope that helps a bit more.
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I do agree here.
Also, forgive me if I missed it, but I don’t believe you answered my question to you before… and I am genuinely curious about the answer.[/quote]
I’m sorry I must of read over it, what was the question?[/quote]
It was about how your own NDE and your depersonalization affected your own belief in religion and an afterlife. Did it?[/quote]
My NDE showed me that there was something more then what I thought life really was. De personalization didn’t really do anything in terms of expanding my mind or the like. It was just majorly uncomfortable and made it hard to go about daily life at times. My biggest changes came from spiritual practices to dis identify from my mind, and just life in general.
[/quote]
Sorry about this - it’s my inner journalist coming out - but can you elaborate any further on this? What conclusion did you come to as far as there being “something more?”
And when you say spiritual practices to disindentify … could you explain that more too? I’m not catching on.[/quote]
When I had an NDE I could feel a deep sense of peace wash over, I was flooded with a lot of strange memories but they did not feel like my own. It was kind of scary because I can remember the feeling of falling into a bottomless dark ocean. The strangest thing about it was the kind of presence that just washed over myself and that part I really can’t describe. This was all like over 14 years ago so the actual accident I hardly remember, it was the deep sense of peace and presence that I felt which I could never forget.
The mind dis identification stuff was just practical tools I used, it helped clear my identification with thought patterns and psychological sense of self. What those in spirituality call the “false self.” There is a lot of cheesy and not very transformative spiritual books, and teachings out there. For that reason I don’t like to even know or associate with any of it. Its just really basic things like meditation with no goal, dismantling belief patterns, self inquiry into deeply rooted patterns or ideas, and contemplation.
There are some very good books and teachers I had seen which had helped a lot, however other teachers I talked to also stressed not trying to absorb a bunch of knowledge. You don’t need to learn or know anything. It’s just questioning all of your beliefs and thoughts that are already present. Here are a few things that I used anyways. My teach Adyashanti who wrote this book which is very powerful if used seriously to do the work, rather then just gloss over things for entertainment.
http://www.adyashanti.org/...ayofliberation/
Another friend of mine I had been in contact with a while. Her name is Ellie Roozdar. She made a site as well and offers guidance on some basic meditation things, as well as self inquiry. These types of meditation are also bare bones simple, not about achieving any kind of state or goal.
http://www.meditationerfan.com…
I could list other things as well but really there is not too much of a need. You don’t want to give yourself information overload with it. Its all the same core essence regardless of teaching/teacher anyways.
Hope that helps a bit more.
[/quote]
How long have you been meditating?
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I do agree here.
Also, forgive me if I missed it, but I don’t believe you answered my question to you before… and I am genuinely curious about the answer.[/quote]
I’m sorry I must of read over it, what was the question?[/quote]
It was about how your own NDE and your depersonalization affected your own belief in religion and an afterlife. Did it?[/quote]
My NDE showed me that there was something more then what I thought life really was. De personalization didn’t really do anything in terms of expanding my mind or the like. It was just majorly uncomfortable and made it hard to go about daily life at times. My biggest changes came from spiritual practices to dis identify from my mind, and just life in general.
[/quote]
Sorry about this - it’s my inner journalist coming out - but can you elaborate any further on this? What conclusion did you come to as far as there being “something more?”
And when you say spiritual practices to disindentify … could you explain that more too? I’m not catching on.[/quote]
When I had an NDE I could feel a deep sense of peace wash over, I was flooded with a lot of strange memories but they did not feel like my own. It was kind of scary because I can remember the feeling of falling into a bottomless dark ocean. The strangest thing about it was the kind of presence that just washed over myself and that part I really can’t describe. This was all like over 14 years ago so the actual accident I hardly remember, it was the deep sense of peace and presence that I felt which I could never forget.
The mind dis identification stuff was just practical tools I used, it helped clear my identification with thought patterns and psychological sense of self. What those in spirituality call the “false self.” There is a lot of cheesy and not very transformative spiritual books, and teachings out there. For that reason I don’t like to even know or associate with any of it. Its just really basic things like meditation with no goal, dismantling belief patterns, self inquiry into deeply rooted patterns or ideas, and contemplation.
There are some very good books and teachers I had seen which had helped a lot, however other teachers I talked to also stressed not trying to absorb a bunch of knowledge. You don’t need to learn or know anything. It’s just questioning all of your beliefs and thoughts that are already present. Here are a few things that I used anyways. My teach Adyashanti who wrote this book which is very powerful if used seriously to do the work, rather then just gloss over things for entertainment.
http://www.adyashanti.org/...ayofliberation/
Another friend of mine I had been in contact with a while. Her name is Ellie Roozdar. She made a site as well and offers guidance on some basic meditation things, as well as self inquiry. These types of meditation are also bare bones simple, not about achieving any kind of state or goal.
http://www.meditationerfan.com…
I could list other things as well but really there is not too much of a need. You don’t want to give yourself information overload with it. Its all the same core essence regardless of teaching/teacher anyways.
Hope that helps a bit more.
[/quote]
How long have you been meditating?
[/quote]
Only a few odd years. Don’t do it as actively anymore because there isn’t as much of a need. It feels more of a natural state with a lot less noise.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
When in reality we only know of biological organisms living, it seems possible life could exist if we evolved to be silicone based based on our own understandings of biochemistry. What other possibilites are out there outside of our understanding of biochemistry is beyond me, but I don’t think we can discount that possibility, which would actually expand the possible universes that could have existed to support life similar to how we know it. :)[/quote]
It doesn’t ‘seem possible’ that life could exist based upon silicone. I think you’re misinterpreting the scientific idea that if pushed to say which other element(s) seem capable of it, silicone is the most adapt, but we 100% believe that life can only exist carbon based and with liquid H2O.
You also now seem to be challenging your own… challenges?.. to others’ thoughts in here by commenting about the supposition of what is possible based upon what is essentially wild hypothesis: that a separate universe could exist based on other physical laws. Why is that reasonable thought? Nothing we have ever encountered makes that a reasonable thought other than the question “why not?” which is exactly the ‘reasoning’ behind ‘God’ or an afterlife.[/quote]
Well, for one we know a universe exists. We know life exists, and it’s at least plausible for silicone based life to exist with what we currently know via bio chemistry. Possible universes are based on physics and hypothesis based on reason about closed, open and flat universes. They are possibilities that the open minded can entertain at least until there are better explanations. If there is sufficient evidence that silicone based life isn’t possible then it’s as easy as examining the evidence and coming to such a conclusion, my mind will be changed that easily.
With God and and afterlife we have no basis for it, no evidence, no groundwork rooted in reason to base a hypothesis on, no way to observe and no way to test a hypothesis that we know of. There is no reason to believe in it other than some sort of self interested one. I’ve left open the possibility for people to have personal reasons and experiences to allow for a God. I also leave open the possibility for a God.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Existentialism is more a process that people who are strongly religious go through when they seriously entertain the idea of no God. When I say strongly religious I mean people who are strongly invested in an idea to the point they struggle to be, “open minded” and use reason to critique their faith.
This is a necessary step for serious believers, with serious investments have to go through in the process of losing faith. You don’t think it’s necessary because you have been around people who go through the motions of their faith and do things like go to Church only on the most important events. I’m really talking about people who are devout and use faith in the traditional way. Not like some politician claiming to be a certain faith so they can be part of the group.
Also, I’m not at all a Nihilist.
What actually happened here is I introduced an idea in a strong way that challenged a lot of peoples beliefs. People don’t like that and by default when this happens we entrench ourselves in opposing positions, even when challenged with reason.
[/quote]
I didn’t see this happen here at all. I see people who don’t agree with you saying that their belief system isn’t the same - after all, though you consider it “unreasonable,” it is perfectly reasonable to some - and then you claiming that they haven’t “bitten into it hard,” when you really don’t know what anyone’s personal journey has been.
Once more, I don’t like the ad hominem attacks, but you do sound like a 22 year old college philosophy major. Not the first one to embrace existentialism, I might add. That being said, if you held the same views in 10 or 15 years, I might listen more closely. Life has a way of changing your viewpoint on certain things when you experience more. As I said, I never liked when people said that to me when I was 20, but there is some truth to it in that regard, especially when it comes to views on metaphysics, which are almost always altered at least a little as you age.
The premise is faulty. It was been explored here, and reason does not have better explanations - as said before, it does the how, but not the why. So being as it does not have more reasonable explanations for certain pieces of cosmology, including first cause, open minded people are absolutely not given to believing it. The scientific explanation, in this case, is as absurd as the faith-based one.
You are simply wrong here. Maybe for you it lessens the load, but you’re the exception then, not the rule, and for a great many people, that sort of belief WILL lead to nihilistic depression. It’s not the investment in any particular system that fucks you up - it’s the loss itself. Believing that death is simply the end will worsen that for a person.
I don’t know how you arrived at this idea that your idea is the best idea, but again, I think that’s a function of your age. If it isn’t, forgive me, but like I said, we’ll talk again in 10 years.
Apologize for my seeming ad hominem attacks - they’re not meant that way. But for you to assume that people who haven’t arrived at your conclusions just haven’t “bit into it” is disturbing. [/quote]
No need to apologize, we owe one another nothing and you decided to go at me and call me a young kid and a Nihilist. These are forums and boards where we can share our ideas. If you read your post you will see you make quite a few assertions about me being wrong without pointing anything out in particular. I gave you a deductive argument with various premises you could have questioned but you didn’t, nobody has.
I’ll give you a hand. The flaw in my deduction is in defining what open minded is. If you can show that being open minded isn’t about being able to change ones mind based on reasonable evidence, then you will have something.
There is no evidence of me being a nihilist either. I’d argue that people who believe in the Afterlife and God, which is the root of all of their value is more nihilistic because it’s very possible that God and the Afterlife don’t exist. Therefore deriving meaning from that likely means you make meaning from thing as arbitrary as allegories and fairy tales.
Creating value and meaning of things that are tangible and reasonable is to create meaning and value off of things that are likely real, so long as WE define what is meaningful and valuable to us as individuals, there cannot be nihilism. Life, value and meaning is what WE make it. The things I find valuable are rooted in the real world, in other people, in empathy, in forward thinking, in open mindedness and concepts of what it is to be virtuous.
The thing is reasonable things are always going to be more reasonable than things based in faith really by definition.
All I have seen here are people reacting to me saying not entertaining reason over faith is cowardly. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but I sure did entrench the whole forum against me. I think it shows exactly what I figured it would.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
When in reality we only know of biological organisms living, it seems possible life could exist if we evolved to be silicone based based on our own understandings of biochemistry. What other possibilites are out there outside of our understanding of biochemistry is beyond me, but I don’t think we can discount that possibility, which would actually expand the possible universes that could have existed to support life similar to how we know it. :)[/quote]
It doesn’t ‘seem possible’ that life could exist based upon silicone. I think you’re misinterpreting the scientific idea that if pushed to say which other element(s) seem capable of it, silicone is the most adapt, but we 100% believe that life can only exist carbon based and with liquid H2O.
You also now seem to be challenging your own… challenges?.. to others’ thoughts in here by commenting about the supposition of what is possible based upon what is essentially wild hypothesis: that a separate universe could exist based on other physical laws. Why is that reasonable thought? Nothing we have ever encountered makes that a reasonable thought other than the question “why not?” which is exactly the ‘reasoning’ behind ‘God’ or an afterlife.[/quote]
Well, for one we know a universe exists. We know life exists, and it’s at least plausible for silicone based life to exist with what we currently know via bio chemistry.[/quote]
No it’s not. With what we currently know via biochemistry life is impossible without being carbon based using liquid H20 as a solvent. In fact, we’re not entirely sure that life doesn’t have to use the L-amino, D-sugar pattern. Have you actually read the articles/quotes where Silicon is mentioned as a ‘conceivable’ replacement? It is based purely on conjecture of the notion that we don’t know what we don’t know, which is also a common starting point to LOGICALLY produce God, as shown by a multitude of notable philosophers.
I find this part especially hilarious. You are literally, word for fucking word, using the same defense that the standard religious debate uses for defending the notion of a creator. “If there is sufficient evidence that Silicon based life isn’t possible.” What is sufficient evidence? How does, THE ENTIRE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT sound? And yet, here you are, not easily changing your mind.
The most alien life we know of as humans is Archea, and even they abide by ‘the rules’ as we know them. You’re basically asking me to prove the unprovable, because it’s not provable that “X can’t happen,” especially if you’re willing to entertain ideas of Theoretical Physics such as the multiverse and string theory.
There is no groundwork to test a hypothesis of Silicon based life. It would obviously not work like Carbon based life, which is literally all life we know, so that’s it, end of testable hypothesis, we can’t start an experiment. I mean, I guess we “can” but it’d be a lot like praying that God will reveal himself in front of you, that is to say we know nothing will happen.
But really we are wired to be horrified of death, and not everyone is strong enough to look at reality the same way I do. [/quote]
Cowards hmmm…sorely mistaken. To me a coward as far as “death” goes is thinking that whatever you do in this life you are not held accountable in any other continuation.
Well I don’t know where you pulled this from. BUT I do not fear death. So to say we are wire to be horrified of death - is simply not the case. “Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back”
Death is just a new beginning. How someone can think otherwise? And for those saying no evidence - I won’t go there but there is certainly evidence. In more ways than one.
I have said my peace…now I go back to eating my cheesy eggs =)
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
When in reality we only know of biological organisms living, it seems possible life could exist if we evolved to be silicone based based on our own understandings of biochemistry. What other possibilites are out there outside of our understanding of biochemistry is beyond me, but I don’t think we can discount that possibility, which would actually expand the possible universes that could have existed to support life similar to how we know it. :)[/quote]
It doesn’t ‘seem possible’ that life could exist based upon silicone. I think you’re misinterpreting the scientific idea that if pushed to say which other element(s) seem capable of it, silicone is the most adapt, but we 100% believe that life can only exist carbon based and with liquid H2O.
You also now seem to be challenging your own… challenges?.. to others’ thoughts in here by commenting about the supposition of what is possible based upon what is essentially wild hypothesis: that a separate universe could exist based on other physical laws. Why is that reasonable thought? Nothing we have ever encountered makes that a reasonable thought other than the question “why not?” which is exactly the ‘reasoning’ behind ‘God’ or an afterlife.[/quote]
Well, for one we know a universe exists. We know life exists, and it’s at least plausible for silicone based life to exist with what we currently know via bio chemistry.[/quote]
No it’s not. With what we currently know via biochemistry life is impossible without being carbon based using liquid H20 as a solvent. In fact, we’re not entirely sure that life doesn’t have to use the L-amino, D-sugar pattern. Have you actually read the articles/quotes where Silicon is mentioned as a ‘conceivable’ replacement? It is based purely on conjecture of the notion that we don’t know what we don’t know, which is also a common starting point to LOGICALLY produce God, as shown by a multitude of notable philosophers.
I find this part especially hilarious. You are literally, word for fucking word, using the same defense that the standard religious debate uses for defending the notion of a creator. “If there is sufficient evidence that Silicon based life isn’t possible.” What is sufficient evidence? How does, THE ENTIRE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT sound? And yet, here you are, not easily changing your mind.
The most alien life we know of as humans is Archea, and even they abide by ‘the rules’ as we know them. You’re basically asking me to prove the unprovable, because it’s not provable that “X can’t happen,” especially if you’re willing to entertain ideas of Theoretical Physics such as the multiverse and string theory.
There is no groundwork to test a hypothesis of Silicon based life. It would obviously not work like Carbon based life, which is literally all life we know, so that’s it, end of testable hypothesis, we can’t start an experiment. I mean, I guess we “can” but it’d be a lot like praying that God will reveal himself in front of you, that is to say we know nothing will happen.[/quote]
Great, but the whole reason biochemists hypothesize that other life could be silica based is because it actually has similar characteristics to Carbon. 100% certain are you? There are still people at MIT that think it’s plausible like I have said.
And you see, if there is stronger evidence to the likelihood that there cannot be silica based life, or other life then that is sufficient to change my mind about those possibilities. The particular possibility that there could be life based on silicone is one that I never staked a whole lot in but entertain. When reason dictates that something is highly unlikely, and something contrary has a high probability, what does reason tell you to side with?
On Miltiverses and other Theoretical Physics are based on mathematics, hypothesis and the reality that there are observations that cannot be predicted.
With God and an afterlife, what reasons do we have to even go there other than our own self interest sans some kind of personal experience with God, or some near death experience?
At that point it’s not faith anymore but some kind of personal knowledge based on experience.
[quote]SmearyToast wrote:
But really we are wired to be horrified of death, and not everyone is strong enough to look at reality the same way I do. [/quote]
Cowards hmmm…sorely mistaken. To me a coward as far as “death” goes is thinking that whatever you do in this life you are not held accountable in any other continuation.
Well I don’t know where you pulled this from. BUT I do not fear death. So to say we are wire to be horrified of death - is simply not the case. “Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back”
Death is just a new beginning. How someone can think otherwise? And for those saying no evidence - I won’t go there but there is certainly evidence. In more ways than one.
I have said my peace…now I go back to eating my cheesy eggs =)
[/quote]
We are hard wired to avoid death via fear unless we have some sort of disability. There are disabilities that prevent people from fearing actually. Enjoy your cheesy eggs!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I hope you try to understand Existentialism as a process for people who really buy into an afterlife, and then use reason to convince themselves that there likely isn’t one.
[/quote]
You do realise that many existentialists are religious right? And that existentialism is not compatible with pure rationalism because existentialists believe that people can only understand subjective meaning - that objective truth, if it exists at all will always be hidden from the individual because his subjective experience of the world is viewed through a lens of prior beliefs, values, culture, identity and so on. You’re always arguing from a rationalist/positivist perspective which is not compatible with either religious or atheist existentialism.
I think you also miss the distinction between belief and faith. If you believe in something you are confident in it. However faith requires doubt. Faith is not believing in something. Faith means subjecting yourself to or giving yourself over to something you don’t have confidence in. For example, when God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac - if Abraham had believed in the righteousness of God there would have been no conflict. He would not have given it a second thought. It would not have been a test. Abraham instead gave himself over to faith. Your mistake is to think that faith is a blind and credulous belief. It is nothing of the sort. When someone struggles with their faith, they are not struggling between belief and disbelief. They are struggling to give themselves over to faith in something that they don’t have confidence in.
[/quote]
You can feel aspects of the existential process without belief in God, but yes as I tried to explain here existentialism is more a process people go through that are deeply religious, or as I have said, “invested” that is a process of letting go of faith in God and all the things that go along with it to include an afterlife. It’s a couple things including the series of emotions that one goes through as well as realizations like existence preceding essence that make one realize we need to create our own value, etc.
Faith is counter to knowledge by definition. There is supposed to be a lack of reason and evidence that is replaced by trust. It’s intended to be beyond reason. Belief is part of faith but it doesn’t capture what faith is by itself.
That is one of the reasons faith cannot really be faked, maybe unless you are a schizo.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You can feel aspects of the existential process without belief in God, but yes as I tried to explain here existentialism is more a process people go through that are deeply religious, or as I have said, “invested” that is a process of letting go of faith in God and all the things that go along with it to include an afterlife. It’s a couple things including the series of emotions that one goes through as well as realizations like existence preceding essence that make one realize we need to create our own value, etc.
Faith is counter to knowledge by definition. There is supposed to be a lack of reason and evidence that is replaced by trust. It’s intended to be beyond reason. Belief is part of faith but it doesn’t capture what faith is by itself.
That is one of the reasons faith cannot really be faked, maybe unless you are a schizo.
[/quote]
Just curious, whats your opinion on St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta? Do you know about her faith crisis “Dark night of the soul” over the last 40 or so years of her life?
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You can feel aspects of the existential process without belief in God, but yes as I tried to explain here existentialism is more a process people go through that are deeply religious, or as I have said, “invested” that is a process of letting go of faith in God and all the things that go along with it to include an afterlife. It’s a couple things including the series of emotions that one goes through as well as realizations like existence preceding essence that make one realize we need to create our own value, etc.
Faith is counter to knowledge by definition. There is supposed to be a lack of reason and evidence that is replaced by trust. It’s intended to be beyond reason. Belief is part of faith but it doesn’t capture what faith is by itself.
That is one of the reasons faith cannot really be faked, maybe unless you are a schizo.
[/quote]
Just curious, whats your opinion on St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta? Do you know about her faith crisis “Dark night of the soul” over the last 40 or so years of her life?[/quote]
I’ve never read that book, but I know of really two accounts of her life.
I’ll start with the good one since I seem to be associated really negatively around here.
One way I read her is that she was very in touch with her empathy and had a strong sense of mercy. She for the most part dedicated her actions to helping that were dying, suffering from Leprosy, Aids, various Cancers. She made herself very familiar with the plight of the dying and contagious and subjected herself to them against the will of her Parish, at one point refusing their help and basically staying in poorer and more dangerous conditions than we are even familiar with so she could continue work with the neediest and most forgotten people.
The other way I have seen her portrayed… Well these guys did it already. - YouTube
Please don’t project their postulations on me. I lack the talent to come across as harsh as them.