[Swox]

Originally Posted by scratt Many people in this world let life pass them by because of some tacit, not even fully realized, belief that there is something else after life. Much better to believe death *is* the end and actually do something with your life.

Of course, Steve is a Buddhist, so he may well believe in life after death. Lots of them, in fact. Of course, it's not every life you get to be a billionaire and run one of the coolest companies in the world .

I think that a lot of people don't even really appreciate that they're absolutely guaranteed to die at some point. We can easily put off our lives thinking it's something that happens in the future, but eventually that future becomes the present, and our time is life. Good idea to start living a meaningful life now so we don't end up like Comic Book Store Guy: "On no, wasted my life".

In fact, what he says about life and death is likely based on his Buddhist beliefs. What he said could come right out of dharma talk. One of my favorite quotes is a classic Zen one: "Since death alone is certain, and the time of death uncertain, what are you going to do?" Meditating on the certainty of death in order to realize that one is alive NOW and that we should be doing something with our time is classic Buddhism.

So you can have it both ways: this life is precious (especially a human birth) and there are lives after this one (unless we attin Buddhahood).

It's funny though: I've often heard it said that Steve is Buddhist, but I've not heard any reference to it from him directly, nor what type of Buddhism he practices... He is a mysterious man!

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Swox Of course, Steve is a Buddhist, so he may well believe in life after death. Lots of them, in fact. Of course, it's not every life you get to be a billionaire and run one of the coolest companies in the world

True. But I honestly think that his personality is not one to rely on that possibility. And frankly I don't think he does actually believe that. But we'd never know either way.

I consider myself as close to being a Buddhist as I am to any religion. It's certainly the closest set of values to my own that I can find in established systems. That and Shintoism. And I love the idea of being reconstituted somehow out of particles every few million years by some bizarre set of probabilities. But then that I suspect is the inherent trait of humans that make us *need* some kind of afterlife / deity / whatever..

Originally Posted by Swox I think that a lot of people don't even really appreciate that they're absolutely guaranteed to die at some point.

Absolutely. It's an inherent flaw in our psyche and design IMO.

Originally Posted by Swox In fact, what he says about life and death is likely based on his Buddhist beliefs. What he said could come right out of dharma talk. One of my favorite quotes is a classic Zen one: "Since death alone is certain, and the time of death uncertain, what are you going to do?" Meditating on the certainty of death in order to realize that one is alive NOW and that we should be doing something with our time is classic Buddhism. So you can have it both ways: this life is precious (especially a human birth) and there are lives after this one (unless we attin Buddhahood). It's funny though: I've often heard it said that Steve is Buddhist, but I've not heard any reference to it from him directly, nor what type of Buddhism he practices... He is a mysterious man!

He is indeed. I would somehow lose some respect for him if I really thought he believed in anything other than the "ultimate-ness" and finality of death.

Maybe it's a flaw in me, but I am so absolutely certain that there is no god, and no afterlife, and the only possible solution I can find is the possibility of this exact same pattern of a human as me existing many times through sheer chance over the millennia. But I don't believe in a spirit of any sort, so it would simply be a clone. Unaware of my past or present incarnations and simply one of the possible arrangements of particles which would make up this exact same model of a human, and thus give it the exact same characteristics, decision paths etc.

That I could believe in simply because there is maths that will prove it as statistically possible, even probable.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Swox I think that a lot of people don't even really appreciate that they're absolutely guaranteed to die at some point.

This is incredibly, incredibly true.

I don't know what happens after death, but I really see no reason to believe that anything does. So I don't see the logic in living one's life assuming that there is going to be some form of second life, or eternal bliss, or whatever.

My mom has a very weak immune system, so at best her body is only good for another few decades, but she probably won't last that long. I'm sure one of these days she'll be driving down the highway, and she'll be looking at "the nature" off to her side, and the car that she's tailgating at 80 mph will brake, and she won't see it, and her unserviced airbag will fail to deploy and her head will hit the dash and she will end. Justlikethat. It's sad that she will have sacrificed her entire future existence to get a glimpse of a tree, but I think the sadder thing is that she will have never really known herself - she will have never understood why she believed what she believed. She'll never have understood why she rejected all gods except for the one she believed in. She'll never have understood why she loved the man who hit her and hit the kids she loved. Understanding these things was never beyond her mental grasp, but she chose the comfort of dogmatic certainty over intellectual curiosity, and never became truly self-aware.

Or at least, she hasn't yet. But I don't think she ever will, to be honest. And that's really quite heartbreaking, because how can you love yourself if you don't even know who you are? How terrible it must be, to go through life not only not knowing why you do the things you do, but not even wanting to know? In a way, it's like she's already dead - or rather, like she's never really lived at all. And she doesn't realize any of this - she just doesn't operate on this level.

My dad's the same way, if you trade religious dogma with greed and gambling. My stepdad and stepmom too. I don't really get along with any of them, but to be honest I'm okay with that. If I was all buddy-buddy with any of them, I might never have grown up to be my own person. I'm not trying to brag - I know I'm more than a little damaged. But despite (or because of?) all that, I've learned who I am and why I believe what I believe, and that's something I'm pretty proud of.

But anyhoo, back to death.

I think about dying a lot. I used to be abso-f'ing-lutely terrified of it, but it doesn't really make sense to be scared of something inevitable. I'm still scared, but I'm now scared of dying before I had a chance to do what I wanted to do in life. There's a cure for this, of course: making sure I'm doing what I want to do in life each day.

I think that's the conclusion Jobs came to. You can tell that he genuinely loves what he does, that making beautiful pieces of technology is his way of improving the world. I'm still trying to find mine, but I think I'm getting there.

Because you never know, do you? You could be struck by a bus next Tuesday. I could get a hormone imbalance or a rare form of cancer - I could have one now, and not know about it. Something's going to kill me, eventually, and the cure for dying is not to ignore it, be scared of it, or tell yourself it's not the real ending. The cure for dying is to, y'know, live.

Anyhoo, I'm off to go do that. Love and good times every buddy <3 <3

[Swox]

Originally Posted by scratt He is indeed. I would somehow lose some respect for him if I really thought he believed in anything other than the "ultimate-ness" and finality of death. Maybe it's a flaw in me, but I am so absolutely certain that there is no god, and no afterlife, and the only possible solution I can find is the possibility of this exact same pattern of a human as me existing many times through sheer chance over the millennia. But I don't believe in a spirit of any sort, so it would simply be a clone. Unaware of my past or present incarnations and simply one of the possible arrangements of particles which would make up this exact same model of a human, and thus give it the exact same characteristics, decision paths etc. That I could believe in simply because there is maths that will prove it as statistically possible, even probable.

See, I find both of these views to be odd (though I've got no problem at all with you maintaining them). First off, the Buddhist view of death does correspond pretty much to finality if you identify with your personality, thoughts, beliefs, physical body, memories, etc. Those things all dissolve at the time of death.

Secondly, I don't personally lose respect for people based on their beliefs (unless they're racist, sexist, etc.). I care about how your beliefs affect who you are as a person. That's what counts for me. (In the case of Steve, I respect the work he does in terms of the final product, but he seems like a total prick, so he's a mixed bag for me.)

Third, I'd guess that the probability of there being reincarnation or some sort of afterlife is probably a lot higher than what you've suggested. In fact, I'd probably argue that it's absolutely impossible.

I find the certainty of both those very certain of an afterlife and those certain of its nonexistence to be very problematic. I've personally had some experiences that lead me to think that there is more going on than ordinary perception reveals. What those experiences mean, I don't know .

Not trying to start an argument, just presenting my own perspective, and your skepticism was a convenient starting point . I'd personally be very interested to know more of what Steve means when he calls himself a Buddhist (part personal, part academic - I'm in the business of Buddhist studies, and I'm always curious to know why and how people self-identify with Buddhism, even if it's as loosely as you've suggested yourself).

[joveblue]

I read/heard/saw something recently that said that the only true way to immortality was through having children. A much safer bet than your particles reassembling themselves...

[JohnnyTheA]

Originally Posted by joveblue I read/heard/saw something recently that said that the only true way to immortality was through having children. A much safer bet than your particles reassembling themselves...

That is actually one way some people have interpreted "immortality" in the bible. If you take certain verses where they say "you will have everlasting life" the "they" might have really been the "people" or the "tribe" or something. Taken in that context its more plausible. Treat each other nice, don't eat bad stuff, and your tribe won't become extinct. Common sense.

JTA

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA That is actually one way some people have interpreted "immortality" in the bible. If you take certain verses where they say "you will have everlasting life" the "they" might have really been the "people" or the "tribe" or something. Taken in that context its more plausible. Treat each other nice, don't eat bad stuff, and your tribe won't become extinct. Common sense. JTA

Unfortunately some tribes have turned this into:

"Verily we will choppeth them up and stompeth them down, to make more room for our people" - Frank Zappa

[scratt]

I only just noticed this post. Sorry..

Originally Posted by Swox See, I find both of these views to be odd (though I've got no problem at all with you maintaining them). First off, the Buddhist view of death does correspond pretty much to finality if you identify with your personality, thoughts, beliefs, physical body, memories, etc. Those things all dissolve at the time of death.

Yup. That's pretty much how I see it.

Originally Posted by Swox Secondly, I don't personally lose respect for people based on their beliefs (unless they're racist, sexist, etc.). I care about how your beliefs affect who you are as a person. That's what counts for me. (In the case of Steve, I respect the work he does in terms of the final product, but he seems like a total prick, so he's a mixed bag for me.)

The "losing respect" thing is based on the fact that I think anyone believing in super beings or floating around on clouds is just stupid. Religion is just full of contradiction. The most obvious is the constant assertion that the afterlife is so much *better*. Ok, fsck it, let's all top ourselves now then! Oh, right, sorry, that's a "mortal sin". Ridiculous stuff, undeniably!

Originally Posted by Swox Third, I'd guess that the probability of there being reincarnation or some sort of afterlife is probably a lot higher than what you've suggested. In fact, I'd probably argue that it's absolutely impossible.

Hmm. Not really. Statistically it has been proven that with the size of just the known Universe it's probable (no damn certain) that there are a zillion copies of you and I having this conversation all over the Universe right now. So my little day dream is far more likely than you becoming a ghost!

Originally Posted by Swox I find the certainty of both those very certain of an afterlife and those certain of its nonexistence to be very problematic. I've personally had some experiences that lead me to think that there is more going on than ordinary perception reveals. What those experiences mean, I don't know .

Like you said, I am not in any way trying to start an argument, and find this a really interesting conversation.
But when there is so much logic and even biological evidence that just screams that our whole human idea of spirits, and ghosts and gods and demons is just part of the way our brains work and no more than that I find it really hard to take anyone seriously when they promote these kind of viewpoints. I find the whole idea of mysticism and all that it entails fantastically attractive and exciting, but simply from the perspective of the richness of life and cultural diversity (not to mention the politics of it all ), and sheer entertainment. I think another good thing about all this stuff is that it gives us so much insight into ourselves, if only we can step past the trap of believing it!

Originally Posted by Swox I'd personally be very interested to know more of what Steve means when he calls himself a Buddhist (part personal, part academic - I'm in the business of Buddhist studies, and I'm always curious to know why and how people self-identify with Buddhism, even if it's as loosely as you've suggested yourself).

Me too. I wonder if he'll ever authorize a Biography...

[Swox]

Originally Posted by scratt The "losing respect" thing is based on the fact that I think anyone believing in super beings or floating around on clouds is just stupid. Religion is just full of contradiction. The most obvious is the constant assertion that the afterlife is so much *better*. Ok, fsck it, let's all top ourselves now then! Oh, right, sorry, that's a "mortal sin". Ridiculous stuff, undeniably!

Again, I think that anyone who claims that they know for sure either way is making an enormous assumption. There just isn't any easily observable evidence on either side.

Hmm. Not really. Statistically it has been proven that with the size of just the known Universe it's probable (no damn certain) that there are a zillion copies of you and I having this conversation all over the Universe right now. So my little day dream is far more likely than you becoming a ghost!

Again, that is a bizarre claim. First off, how on earth could that be statistically proven? Secondly, it requires a very strange definition of self. Is our "self" simply a particular arrangement of molecules? Not likely. It is a product of matter + enculturation + individual choices + life circumstances + other stuff I can't think of/conceive of, etc. If anyone thinks it's likely that all of those factors are coming together all the time, all over the place, in the same configuration, they are following something much closer to religion than they think, or the universe works in a way much closer to what we think of as religious than a scientific way (i.e. there would need to be some organizing principal that makes that happen, because even with zillions of worlds out there, it's not going to).

Like you said, I am not in any way trying to start an argument, and find this a really interesting conversation. But when there is so much logic and even biological evidence that just screams that our whole human idea of spirits, and ghosts and gods and demons is just part of the way our brains work and no more than that I find it really hard to take anyone seriously when they promote these kind of viewpoints.

It's fine if you don't want to take people seriously, that's your choice. But, again, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that proves in any way that there aren't beings that are not visible to the naked eye. Think about microscopic beings: before the invention of the microscope, it would have seemed completely absurd to claim they existed. Just because we can't see them, does not mean that they don't exist.

It also isn't a matter of everything like that existing the way that people say they do. I think that lots of it probably isn't true, though that isn't based on any evidence, it's just a hunch. However, I'm not willing to discount the existence of anything because I think it's much better to keep an open mind than to decide I know it all. I don't even think we're capable in this human form of beginning to comprehend everything that's going on here.

However, if you have any actual logic or scientific evidence to prove something either way, I'd be fascinated to see it .

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Swox But, again, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that proves in any way that there aren't beings that are not visible to the naked eye.

This is shifting the burden of proof. No, there's no conclusive proof that there are not invisible, inaudible, untouchable beings among us. However, there's also no proof that there is, so it is illogical to assume that wholly unobservable beings do exist unless that unfalsifiable premise is somehow proven wrong.

If I were to insist that there was a tiny china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, or that there was an invisible dragon breathing heatless flame inside my garage, would the burden of proof be on you to prove me wrong? Of course not - it's impossible to prove that an unobservable dragon is not living in my garage. But that doesn't mean it's there, does it?

Basic logic dictates that the burden of proof is based on those making the claim (of souls, gods, the afterlife, whatever). Merely being unable to conclusively prove that a soul/god/heaven does not exist is not a logical reason to believe that they do.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by Roboman This is shifting the burden of proof. No, there's no conclusive proof that there are not invisible, inaudible, untouchable beings among us. However, there's also no proof that there is, so it is illogical to assume that wholly unobservable beings do exist unless that unfalsifiable premise is somehow proven wrong. If I were to insist that there was a tiny china teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, or that there was an invisible dragon breathing heatless flame inside my garage, would the burden of proof be on you to prove me wrong? Of course not - it's impossible to prove that an unobservable dragon is not living in my garage. But that doesn't mean it's there, does it? Basic logic dictates that the burden of proof is based on those making the claim (of souls, gods, the afterlife, whatever). Merely being unable to conclusively prove that a soul/god/heaven does not exist is not a logical reason to believe that they do.

I would never claim that it does. I'm not shifting the burden of proof, I'm just saying that I question the degree of certainty that a lot of people have one way or the other.

Furthermore, one could argue that the only way to experience "spiritual states" (or whatever) is to practice whatever it is (prayer, meditation, etc.) that brings those experiences about. It could be no different than looking into a microscope - it's necessary to see things that you otherwise can't. The fact that some people refuse to do what is necessary to experience these things does not disqualify the empirical data that these people acquire. Some would argue that this is reproducible by those who sincerely try them.

Now, I've never seen a "spiritual being" myself, so I withhold judgement. My personal philosophy is to keep an open mind about pretty much everything. I just don't see the certainty of the disbeliever as any different than that of the believer.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Swox The fact that some people refuse to do what is necessary to experience these things does not disqualify the empirical data that these people acquire.

What empirical data is there that prayer/meditation works to begin with, though? We can observe a microscope, we know how it works - how do we gather empirical data on a "spiritual state"? We can't.

I have no problem with religion* up until it tries to pass itself off as science. If people would just admit that there isn't empirical evidence for what they believe I wouldn't have a "problem" with it. (Isn't that why it's called "faith," anyway? By insisting on and searching for empirical proof, aren't people sort of showing a lack of faith? But I digress.) Of course, since it seems that most people can't believe in something without convincing themselves there's actual evidence for it, that might explain why religion tries to pass itself off as science: Without doing so, it would have far fewer followers.

I don't claim to be "certain" either way, either - I don't rule out the existence of a possible god or gods any more than I explicitly rule out the existence of an unobservable dragon; I simply see no actual reason to believe in one in the first place, a position alternately considered agnosticism or weak atheism.

*Organized religion is a different story.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Swox Again, I think that anyone who claims that they know for sure either way is making an enormous assumption. There just isn't any easily observable evidence on either side.

From my POV I think it just comes down to common sense.
We just aren't that important in the scheme of things to have even one all seeing deity devoted to us, if such a thing existed. And it just seems so unlikely that, with all the various gods Earth has, and has had over the millennia, we'd be so lucky as to have that many people who all created the Universe all looking after such an insignificant planet.
And as for the idea of heaven and trillions of spirits presumably from this planet and others all hanging out in paradise... Well if we didn't have years of indoctrination, learned instinct, and biological mutations forming the modern human psyche you'd probably be locked up for even suggesting crap like this!

Ever noticed how politicians can get away with the most inane things as long as they quote religion? It's all a scam!! A scheme. An old system of governance which is slowly dieing out. That's all. Nothing more IMO.

Originally Posted by Swox Again, that is a bizarre claim. First off, how on earth could that be statistically proven? Secondly, it requires a very strange definition of self. Is our "self" simply a particular arrangement of molecules? Not likely. It is a product of matter + enculturation + individual choices + life circumstances + other stuff I can't think of/conceive of, etc. If anyone thinks it's likely that all of those factors are coming together all the time, all over the place, in the same configuration, they are following something much closer to religion than they think, or the universe works in a way much closer to what we think of as religious than a scientific way (i.e. there would need to be some organizing principal that makes that happen, because even with zillions of worlds out there, it's not going to).

I don't understand how you can't grasp this. Statistics and probability define things very clearly.
There are just so many Galaxies out there.. Trillions of Trillions, with themselves containing trillions of trillions of planetary systems, and those in turn holding 10s to 100s of planets. Statistically it has been shown very very clearly that the probability of planets with life on them is so huge that it's not even worth considering that it is not a possibility. In fact those same mathematicians have gone on to show with very simple statistical maths that the number of planetary bodies out there even in just the Universe we know of (and we know we don't know of all of it) is so freakin large that just using simple statistical calculations, the probability that there are completely parallel worlds to ours with exactly the same people and things going on right now is as near as dammit statistically undeniable. In fact the statistics are so damn solid that there are actually enough planets out there that you and I could be having this conversation on them right now on about 100, and there are also 100 or so planets with you and I having this conversation 1 second ago, and also 1 second in the future.. I am very roughly outlining the actual figures here, but you should get the gist. The numbers are just so huge as to be almost undeniable by anyone other than a complete luddite.

It's probably a more scary concept to grasp and more mind boggling than religion itself. But it does actually have quite a lot of empirical evidence to back it up. Far more actually observable evidence than the ZERO SUM TOTAL that religion, afterlife, pixies or fairies do..

And these same sets of mathematical functions go on to show that there are enough planets that every different path that you or I could take from here are also statistically possible to be happening in parallel with our existence, both ahead and behind of us. The Universe really is that big.. I mean that could be it.. It could just be a huge brute force implementation of a probability engine!

Having said that, I still have my doubts. But the maths is solid as a rock.
There is a heck of a lot of fairly solid independent science behind all of this, as opposed to a few mullahs or dope smoking christians and a book they cooked up 2000 years ago. It's as simple as adding up numbers. A lot easier to put in some kind of framework and understand than "faith".

And you touched on uniqueness (kind of) above.. Just take a look at fractals and how nature builds itself.. and have you ever wondered why certain people remind you of other people or we have certain "types" of people even with our relatively small lab sample on Earth.. We are all a lot more similar that we realize. To exactly recreate the same human is not that hard (relatively). We are simply not that unique or special. By our own standards perhaps we are.. But on a Universal level.. We're cockroaches. As it stands we think we're pretty special, but it's all by our own standards. And that's like trying to imagine more intelligence than you have.. You may know it exists, but you cannot ever possibly experience or understand it. So as far as we are concerned we are the pinnacle of evolution... and anything else would be wrong, or a monster.

You also touched on free will and decisions. And I agree with you.. But if you are on the same exact planet with the same piano about to land on your head as the one I have about to land on my head here.. I am going to react the same way on both planets if I have had the same life path and same physical make up, with all the same influences around me all my life... That's what the statistics are all about. The same things happening from day 1 onwards. The statistics are also about the same things happening on version 2 of the planet, but with 1 molecule out of place on day 1.. and all that entails, and planet 2 having two molecules out of place comparatively.. and so on.. The numbers are just that huge. I don't know how else to explain it.

But I am not making it up. You can go read about it. The people who have written about it have done a much better job than I have here, for sure.

Originally Posted by Swox It's fine if you don't want to take people seriously, that's your choice. But, again, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that proves in any way that there aren't beings that are not visible to the naked eye. Think about microscopic beings: before the invention of the microscope, it would have seemed completely absurd to claim they existed. Just because we can't see them, does not mean that they don't exist.

Well, the taking seriously thing is based on the fact that if someone came in and told me regularly they found fairies at the bottom of the garden I'd probably be forgiven for not taking much else they say seriously, or at least fact checking them quite often. From my POV people who are just as adamant that there is a supreme being, or a heaven, or any other description of said same things, *sigh* well then they are just about as reliable as the guy who saw the fairies. Moreover I lose repsect for them because they are just accepting it. They are not thinking for themselves. Because if you *at least* think for yourself you must have some doubts when looking at the evidence (read: lack of).

What makes me laugh is that we live in societies with such a strong religious drive and yet when the mass murderer tells us "God told him to do it", or people say they see the end of the world coming because a "vision from God came to them".... we lock them up! You see... We know it's crap. We just choose to believe it for comfort.

Have you ever wondered what would happen today if Jesus suddenly showed up in Israel or Gaza and said, "Hi. I've come to save you all!". Most likely he'd be drafted into a terrorist organization or killed or locked up.

Originally Posted by Swox It also isn't a matter of everything like that existing the way that people say they do. I think that lots of it probably isn't true, though that isn't based on any evidence, it's just a hunch. However, I'm not willing to discount the existence of anything because I think it's much better to keep an open mind than to decide I know it all. I don't even think we're capable in this human form of beginning to comprehend everything that's going on here.

Absolutely. I'd agree with you there.. But my take on it is a bit more negative. We are about as important as cockroaches.. Perhaps not even that important. Out of interest do you think cockroaches live again, or is it just limited to humans?

What about dogs and cats? Do they have an afterlife too? Do they have Gods?

What about Dolphins and Whales?

I know you keep an open mind.. But what's your take on that? Is it a humans only club?

The Universe is a lot harsher then we like to believe. We are a lot more insignificant than we'd like to believe, and there is loads going on we don't even begin to understand. That last bit is the very genesis of our belief in the supernatural. There is a quote I am sure you know which goes something along the lines that when something is so advanced compared to what we understand it is very likely at that point to be indistinguishable from magic to us... And our belief in gods and afterlives is akin to the tribe living in "unga-bunga" land who believe that the Sun is their overlord who rises each day to spray magic beams of life onto their crops and make them grow. The theory works. Those beams do bring life. But when we actually investigate we find out that it's got nothing to do with any god.

As we grow and our learning increases these kinds of beliefs will become more and more marginalized, but there will always be that last genetically implanted impulse to see unexplainable things as magic!
Look at modern religion today.. Especially the latest extra 10 commandments issued by the catholic church (*spits*) and you'll see how the institutions themselves are struggling to find relevance.

And on a side note how can an organization that is worth $TRILLIONS, and brings in $BILLIONS every year from investments in banks, oil companies and the like, be considered a religious organization, and not simply a stinking pit of theft built on the very life breath of it's indoctrinated followers.. Sorry I got off track for a moment then!!!

Originally Posted by Swox However, if you have any actual logic or scientific evidence to prove something either way, I'd be fascinated to see it .

Like I said, the statistical stuff is just maths. It's simply based on the same stuff that says a coin will land on it's head 49.9% of the time, it's tail 49.9% o the time and on it's side 0.2% of the time, and a numerical count of the number of planets out there...

And my proof that there is no afterlife, or pixies, or fairies or god is similar to that of there being no time travel.
We've not seen gods visiting us, and we've not seen people from the future on package holidays here..

As for, well we've not seen or heard from aliens yet either.. Again, the reasons are all based on very simple science. The time it takes for light to get anywhere, and even more relevant, *things* to get anywhere.. The average length of a planets inhabitable period and how that would overlap with our own planets period of habitability and the length of time we've had radio, how long the signals take to travel, the length of time it takes civilisations to devlope radio comms (if they even do) and the time they are likely to exist if they follow a similar path to us and not wipe themselves out.. and so on... makes it unlikely (even with the statistics I have outlined above) that we'll actually ever meet anyone, let alone our parallel selves.. THE UNIVERSE IS JUST THAT DAMN BIG!!

In any case I think my belief path has much more sound reasoning than "having a feeling".

btw Here is just one link which kind of explains quite concisely the figures I am talking about above..
It's simply talking about the probability of life, any life, on planets in the visible Universe. But should give you an idea of the figures involved... using incredibly frugal estimates...

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Purpose...ists_Elsewhere

...Presumably, if the right conditions exist, eventually all will; but, to err on the conservative side, let us say that only one in a hundred habitable planets becomes a host to life.[45] Thus about 10^18 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000 or one quintillion) life-bearing planets possibly exist in the visible universe. Of these, about 10^7, or ten million, could be in our own galaxy.

.. but still the chance of us ever even hearing from them, let alone meeting them, is a big fat ZERO.

Even so based on those figures I find it very easy to conceptualize meeting a "Swox clone" at some point if I travelled far and wide enough. Heck I'd take bets on it. I reckon in just 6 Billion people on the Earth I could probably at least find someone else who looked like you...

How far off topic are we now, anyway!?!

[Swox]

Originally Posted by Roboman This is shifting the burden of proof. No, there's no conclusive proof that there are not invisible, inaudible, untouchable beings among us. However, there's also no proof that there is, so it is illogical to assume that wholly unobservable beings do exist unless that unfalsifiable premise is somehow proven wrong.

I was just talking about this to a friend, and he corrected me on something: The burden of proof lies with anyone making a truth claim, whether it is that something exists or that it doesn't. If scratt wants to say for certain that things are as he says, the burden of proof lies with him.

Because I have avoided making any truth claim about these things, I don't have to prove a thing

Originally Posted by Roboman What empirical data is there that prayer/meditation works to begin with, though? We can observe a microscope, we know how it works - how do we gather empirical data on a "spiritual state"? We can't.

Quoting from the illustrious Wikipedia: "The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment." We gather empirical data from meditation by doing it, just like we gather empirical data from looking through a microscope. It's actually quite surprising to practice meditation for a while, then read a 500 year old Tibetan text on the stages of meditation, and see your own experiences described is precise detail. However, to know for yourself whether or not this is true, you need to genuinely do it yourself, just like someone would need to look through a microscope in earnest (i.e. no quick looks and "oh, nothing there!" - you need to learn to set it up properly, get it in focus, and actually examine what it is that you're seeing) to say in a true and informed way that there's anything there at all.

I have no problem with religion* up until it tries to pass itself off as science.

I agree with you completely on the religion as science, but I would add that I have no problem with science until it tries to pass itself off as religion. To put it very crassly, science deals with function, religion with meaning. When science-type folks cross the line and start making truth claims about religious beliefs that they really have no evidence to back up, then I've got a problem with it.

What I'm talking about here isn't people trying to challenge people to think about what they believe, why they believe it, and how that belief affects them and others, but the whole "religion is dumb, god ain't real, your book is all made up and shit because I ain't seen god so it can't be". They're making the same mistake as some of those they're criticizing: thinking they know all there is to know about life, the universe, and everything .

I have the same problem when religious people try to say "the earth is 6000 years old and it's flat and the universe revolves around it, etc.". It's not a matter of saying "not a lick of evidence so it could go either way" with those (and other) issues; we have a lot of evidence supporting science and next to none supporting the religious.

If people would just admit that there isn't empirical evidence for what they believe I wouldn't have a "problem" with it. (Isn't that why it's called "faith," anyway? By insisting on and searching for empirical proof, aren't people sort of showing a lack of faith? But I digress.) Of course, since it seems that most people can't believe in something without convincing themselves there's actual evidence for it, that might explain why religion tries to pass itself off as science: Without doing so, it would have far fewer followers. I don't claim to be "certain" either way, either - I don't rule out the existence of a possible god or gods any more than I explicitly rule out the existence of an unobservable dragon; I simply see no actual reason to believe in one in the first place, a position alternately considered agnosticism or weak atheism.

We're very much on the same page here.

*Organized religion is a different story.

I don't have a problem with organized religion (though every institution, religious or otherwise, has problems), but I do have a problem with anything that facilitates organized hatred, ignorance, greed, self-aggrandizement, and jealousy. Religions can do that, but so can moral, anthropological, economic, etc. philosophies. I don't think it's anything unique about religion, personally. People whose hearts and minds are filled with negativity will find ways of doing whatever it is they want, with or without religion.

[Swox]

Response to scratt:

The reason your theory strikes me as absurd is that you would need to somehow calculate the probability of not only me existing exactly the way I do (already impossible, unless you're god or some supernatural omniscient being), but also of all of human, animal, atomic, etc. history of all of the history of the earth all happening exactly as they did. About a trillion to the power of a trillion to the power of a trillion, etc. times more difficult. How big the universe is simply doesn't matter: it's just impossible for us to give all of those factors a probability, which would be absolutely necessary to make the claim you're making.

Re: Animals and the afterlife:

I have no idea of what happens after we die. I can tell you what a lot of Buddhists will believe which is that all beings experience rebirth when they die. Where they are reborn is determined by their past karma. Birth as a human is called a "precious human birth" because we are not necessarily dominated by the three poisons as beings in the three lower realms, but not as blissed out as those in the higher realms, which means we have the best opportunity for practicing the path to enlightenment, or at least accumulating merit (which can bring about birth in heaven realms, buddha realms, etc.).

Is any of that true? I personally don't know. I don't even know if I want it to be true

[scratt]

You're very simply missing the point wrt to "my" theory and "my" beliefs.
I simply put it forward as something I find easier to find credible than *any* religions' ideas.
I don't really feel I have to prove anything (re. your comments to Roboman), as what pathetically small evidence there may be for "my" theory is still volumes larger than anything religion has ever presented!

And I am well aware of the figures / complexities you are quoting, but the fact remains that the estimated numbers of planets in the Universe we *think* exists are not far off being big enough to solve the very problems you pose. That *is* the whole point of it as a theory. When something like that is mathematically possible it kind of throws old men sitting in clouds with long beards into the kind of perspective I think it deserves.

But I'd happily concede both are nuts. *Both*

Obviously I am over simplifying anyway when describing these ideas. And I don't actually believe that there are 10 planets with you and I having this conversation. BUT it's still easier to swallow as a concept than even Buddhists ideas, which I have a great deal of time for.

Yup, and I know all the Buddhist definitions.
What I was interested in is your take on it.
If you maintain an open mind you must have considered these things yourself..

I'd really like to know your gut feeling on whether Whales get a second shot or not...

[Swox]

Originally Posted by scratt I'd really like to know your gut feeling on whether Whales get a second shot or not...

Well, I think that they theory you put forth has even less evidence than Buddhist ones, but let's just chalk it up to personal taste and call it a day

My personal feeling is that if humans get a "second shot" or anything (i.e. heaven, etc.), then animals do too. I lump us all under "sems can" or "mind possessors", so we all experience basically the same thing after death, whatever that may be (the bardo of dying, otherwise known as the dying process, for sure, perhaps the bardo of becoming, etc.), though the dying process may be different based on species (though it's my suspicion that it's not that different at all).

It's nice when my Buddhist theory matches so closely with my pre-existing beliefs - I've always been an animal lover!

[scratt]

Well on that we certainly agree. I am glad you are at least an equal opportunity loony. Nothing worse than people with exclusive nutjob beliefs

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Swox I agree with you completely on the religion as science, but I would add that I have no problem with science until it tries to pass itself off as religion. To put it very crassly, science deals with function, religion with meaning. When science-type folks cross the line and start making truth claims about religious beliefs that they really have no evidence to back up, then I've got a problem with it. What I'm talking about here isn't people trying to challenge people to think about what they believe, why they believe it, and how that belief affects them and others, but the whole "religion is dumb, god ain't real, your book is all made up and shit because I ain't seen god so it can't be". They're making the same mistake as some of those they're criticizing: thinking they know all there is to know about life, the universe, and everything .

Scientists, in general, won't make such claims in those simplistic terms. They'll usually take an approach something along the lines of: "The chance of your religion being right while all the others in the world is negligable, given all the inherent contradictions in the religion, the traceable way the religion has evolved over centuries, the lack of any evidence whatsoever, and the fact that there are billions of people on Earth who believe in their completely and utterly different religion with even more fervour than you. Given this, devoting your life to following the commands of a religion, which there is a very small chance is actually true, and not another religion, with an equally strong chance of being true, seems completely unreasonable. Moreover, in light of this, pushing your religion on other people and even worse, making government policy based on such utterly unlikely beliefs is utterly despicable."

I tried to keep it short and concise so I've probably missed out on a lot of key points in there. But I hope that you see my point, of how an actual scientist might approach dismissing religion. Sure, your average Joe might "religion is dumb, god ain't real" approach, but proper scientists are generally a little more scientific and reasoned in their pitch.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by joveblue Scientists, in general, won't make such claims in those simplistic terms. They'll usually take an approach something along the lines of: "The chance of your religion being right while all the others in the world is negligable, given all the inherent contradictions in the religion, the traceable way the religion has evolved over centuries, the lack of any evidence whatsoever, and the fact that there are billions of people on Earth who believe in their completely and utterly different religion with even more fervour than you. Given this, devoting your life to following the commands of a religion, which there is a very small chance is actually true, and not another religion, with an equally strong chance of being true, seems completely unreasonable. Moreover, in light of this, pushing your religion on other people and even worse, making government policy based on such utterly unlikely beliefs is utterly despicable."

joveblue gets it.

Swox, you claim that you don't take sides either way, and thus don't need to prove anything...but why do you think there could possibly be a god/soul/afterlife in the first place, lacking any evidence? I'm quite sure you don't apply the same open-mindedness to the invisible dragon I just made up. Why? Just curious.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by joveblue Scientists, in general, won't make such claims in those simplistic terms. They'll usually take an approach something along the lines of: "The chance of your religion being right while all the others in the world is negligable, given all the inherent contradictions in the religion, the traceable way the religion has evolved over centuries, the lack of any evidence whatsoever, and the fact that there are billions of people on Earth who believe in their completely and utterly different religion with even more fervour than you. Given this, devoting your life to following the commands of a religion, which there is a very small chance is actually true, and not another religion, with an equally strong chance of being true, seems completely unreasonable. Moreover, in light of this, pushing your religion on other people and even worse, making government policy based on such utterly unlikely beliefs is utterly despicable." I tried to keep it short and concise so I've probably missed out on a lot of key points in there. But I hope that you see my point, of how an actual scientist might approach dismissing religion. Sure, your average Joe might "religion is dumb, god ain't real" approach, but proper scientists are generally a little more scientific and reasoned in their pitch.

First off, I think we're talking about two different groups of people. The first kind think they know something, anything, with certainty. These are the scientists I refer to, and the religious people you refer to. They are remarkably similar in that they take a small amount of evidence and conflate it into certainty, and then proceed to attack those who see the world differently than themselves. I really don't see them as being any different.

It has been my experience that most scientists aren't as reasoned and open minded as the ideal would have it, just like most Buddhists/Christians/etc. don't live up to their ideals of their religion. Most people are taught something in school/university/temple/church and once they latch onto a particular way of seeing things, they refuse to budge on it. There are tones of examples of this happening in science (neuroplasticity immediately comes to mind).

While I have no doubt that there are some very intelligent, brave, and open minded scientists out there, in my experience they are the extraordinary ones, much like my experience with religious people.

Second, you are lumping religion (if it can even reasonably be isolated as a phenomena, which I don't think it can) all into one camp. There are plenty of religions and religious people which have no interest pushing their religious views on others, do not think their religion is universally true for all people, do not have certainty that their religion is 100% right about everything, don't want government policy to be based on it, etc. You're basically talking about fundamentalist monotheists; admittedly a large group, particularly in the States, but hardly representative of the rest of the world's religions/religious people.

Finally, there are many people who understand their religious life in a very different way than you explain. Religion can be primarily a meaning system - a way of giving meaning and purpose to our lives. We need this as human beings, it seems, and science does a lousy job at generating meaning. It's simply not what it does, though many people who think of themselves as "scientific" try to advance it as a meaning system (i.e. "we are just biological robots, there's nothing significant about us or our lives or our world or anything"; almost a system of non-meaning). Their meaning system seems to consist primarily of trying to destroy the meaning systems of others (otherwise known as conversion) by pointing out things like contradictions that are meaningless to the lives of their followers (admittedly there are those who claim that every word of their book/books are literally true, whatever the hell that means).

For instance, you argue that there is no way that the Buddha taught the Kalacakra Tantra to the king of a mythical kingdom 500+ years before the former was likely alive (it was much more likely written in the 12th century AD), therefore the whole thing is null and void. But in saying that, you'd be completely missing the whole point, which is that it is primarily a system of practices (i.e. meditation and visualization) whose validity is not sought in it's history, but in is efficaciousness as a practice. You would also need to do a lot of study to understand how texts are understood in the material culture of Buddhist societies to really get into it (something we are just beginning to understand, we hope!). Don't worry, I'm not going to summarize that literature here .

Anyway, this is getting really longwinded, so I'll stop here.

Originally Posted by Roboman Swox, you claim that you don't take sides either way, and thus don't need to prove anything...but why do you think there could possibly be a god/soul/afterlife in the first place, lacking any evidence? I'm quite sure you don't apply the same open-mindedness to the invisible dragon I just made up. Why? Just curious.

My personal beliefs are based on experiences that I've had (all while very sober) in meditation and throughout my life. While I don't hold to any system that says things are this way or that (though I am obviously predisposed to Buddhist ideas), my experiences have led me to believe that there are things going on that we can't see with our "ordinary" minds (i.e. the bewildered, obscured mind). A lot more, in fact. What that is, I don't know, but from what I've seen and experienced, things aren't as simple as they may seem on the surface.

So in my own view, I don't feel that I lack any evidence. Can I pull it out of my pocket and show it to you? Nope. But if you did the same practices that I have, and spent time around the people that I am so fortunate to (one of the main reasons I study Tibetan Buddhism), you might feel you have some evidence too. Is it conclusive for any particular view? For me, not at this point. But for me to deny that there is more going on than it may appear on the surface after what I've seen would, in my opinion, be very foolish.

As for your dragon, I must confess that I do not posses the same open-mindedness toward its existence, but only because you just told me you make it up .

[Robo]

Fair enough.

[Brad]

Split from the Steve Jobs thread…

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Swox It has been my experience that most scientists aren't as reasoned and open minded as the ideal would have it, just like most Buddhists/Christians/etc. don't live up to their ideals of their religion.

You know some very lazy scientists then

Originally Posted by Swox Second, you are lumping religion (if it can even reasonably be isolated as a phenomena, which I don't think it can) all into one camp. There are plenty of religions and religious people which have no interest pushing their religious views on others, do not think their religion is universally true for all people, do not have certainty that their religion is 100% right about everything, don't want government policy to be based on it, etc. You're basically talking about fundamentalist monotheists; admittedly a large group, particularly in the States, but hardly representative of the rest of the world's religions/religious people.

I'm not saying that all religious people do that at all. I'm merely reasoning that people shouldn't engage in those sorts of behaviours.

Originally Posted by Swox Finally, there are many people who understand their religious life in a very different way than you explain. Religion can be primarily a meaning system - a way of giving meaning and purpose to our lives. We need this as human beings, it seems, and science does a lousy job at generating meaning. It's simply not what it does, though many people who think of themselves as "scientific" try to advance it as a meaning system (i.e. "we are just biological robots, there's nothing significant about us or our lives or our world or anything"; almost a system of non-meaning). Their meaning system seems to consist primarily of trying to destroy the meaning systems of others (otherwise known as conversion) by pointing out things like contradictions that are meaningless to the lives of their followers (admittedly there are those who claim that every word of their book/books are literally true, whatever the hell that means).

I don't recall explaining how people understand their religious life. But on that note I think people should stop being so lazy and come up with their own meaning, by which I mean to make the most of it and contribute something to society. It's especially sad to see those, like Robo's mother, that are merely coasting through "the waiting room of life" From an atheistic view, there is no inherent meaning in life, but that does not mean that life is inherently meaningless. Life is what you make of it.

Originally Posted by Swox For instance, you argue that there is no way that the Buddha taught the Kalacakra Tantra to the king of a mythical kingdom 500+ years before the former was likely alive (it was much more likely written in the 12th century AD), therefore the whole thing is null and void. But in saying that, you'd be completely missing the whole point, which is that it is primarily a system of practices (i.e. meditation and visualization) whose validity is not sought in it's history, but in is efficaciousness as a practice. You would also need to do a lot of study to understand how texts are understood in the material culture of Buddhist societies to really get into it (something we are just beginning to understand, we hope!). Don't worry, I'm not going to summarize that literature here .

Wow, I'm pretty sure I didn't argue anything of the sort, so I'll assume that you meant I could argue that, and that you were alluding to my argument that the traceable historical evolution of religious texts as an argument against religious faith. When such contradictions feature in a religious text, and we can also trace the way a religion has evolved in accordance with societal influences over time, there is no reason in believing in words of the text. Moreover, if one can dismiss the religious text of another religion, they should treat their own with equal scepticism. I can see that you don't hold to any religious text though, so that's good.

Originally Posted by Swox My personal beliefs are based on experiences that I've had (all while very sober) in meditation and throughout my life. While I don't hold to any system that says things are this way or that (though I am obviously predisposed to Buddhist ideas), my experiences have led me to believe that there are things going on that we can't see with our "ordinary" minds (i.e. the bewildered, obscured mind). A lot more, in fact. What that is, I don't know, but from what I've seen and experienced, things aren't as simple as they may seem on the surface.

Keep in mind that there are probably non-spiritual explanations for what you have experienced as well; the brain is a weird and wonderful organ!

[PB PM]

Just a quick thought, but I do not intend to get too deep into this. The one thing I take issue with is that many, although not all, of the people I know who claim science as giving us the meaning of life vs the religious people I know, is that they are not open to the possibility of there being anything supernatural or spiritual. The reason this bugs me is that they give no evidence whatsoever to prove that supernatural or spiritual activities do not take place, meaning they have no science to backup their belief, which in a sense makes them a hypocrite.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by PB PM The one thing I take issue with is that many, although not all, of the people I know who claim science as giving us the meaning of life vs the religious people I know, is that they are not open to the possibility of there being anything supernatural or spiritual.

These must be very strange people because science makes no claims as to the meaning of life or make judgments about how you should live it. Scientific pursuit is simply a means to explain how everything in the universe works, not to assign dogmatic beliefs about "why" (beyond chains of cause and effect). Are there people who abuse the name of science to push political or social or philosophical agendas? Sure! That doesn't invalidate the real science, though.

Originally Posted by PB PM The reason this bugs me is that they give no evidence whatsoever to prove that supernatural or spiritual activities do not take place, meaning they have no science to backup their belief, which in a sense makes them a hypocrite.

How can anyone prove the absolute absence of something? As Robodude said, this is shifting the burden of proof. The onus is on the believer to show evidence that something supernatural or spiritual exists.

[PB PM]

Good points Brad. I have no issue with science itself, more with some scientists. I question my on personal experience with religious/supernatural/spiritual activity, as they could be deceiving. I wont discount what I have experienced, as it is somewhat compelling, but until we have a better understanding of what the human mind can do, there may be no solid evidence.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by joveblue I read/heard/saw something recently that said that the only true way to immortality was through having children. A much safer bet than your particles reassembling themselves...

This is a silly mindset because it assumes you have some sort of consciousness link with your kids when no one does. The point is, when you're dead, you're dead and having x kids won't make you any less dead or any more conscious of the world that you inhabited the moment before. The right reason to have kids is that you love kids and want to raise them and grow from that and contribute a few good people (less than 5, please! Adopt if you want more, I say... adopt! ) to the world's problems. The rest is lunacy.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by PB PM Just a quick thought, but I do not intend to get too deep into this. The one thing I take issue with is that many, although not all, of the people I know who claim science as giving us the meaning of life vs the religious people I know, is that they are not open to the possibility of there being anything supernatural or spiritual. The reason this bugs me is that they give no evidence whatsoever to prove that supernatural or spiritual activities do not take place, meaning they have no science to backup their belief, which in a sense makes them a hypocrite.

Exactly my point, though stated with unnecessary clarity and brevity .

Originally Posted by Brad How can anyone prove the absolute absence of something? As Robodude said, this is shifting the burden of proof. The onus is on the believer to show evidence that something supernatural or spiritual exists.

Actually, the burden of proof is on either side that claims something to be true. If a science-type person claims with certainty that god/whatever doesn't exist, it does shift to them to prove their assertion. Someone saying that they don't believe in something because they have no evidence is very different than saying that it doesn't exist because they have no evidence for it. Unfortunately, a lot of "scientists" do the latter, and they should, in my mind, be criticized as hypocrites as PB PM has suggested, just as religious people are criticized for not living up to their faith.

[billybobsky]

i have plenty of evidence that deities are creations of human imagination. therefore, god or whatever deity is on the platter tonight doesn't exist.

you see it isn't necessary to prove anything about the deity itself when you can show that it was invented by some people a long time ago. the fact that we still argue about whether the deity exists is merely a slight of hand of those religious sorts.

as far as hypocrisy is concerned, scientists who are atheists don't argue that a god doesn't exist, they argue that THE god in THE judeochristian tradition cannot possibly exist. This is a linguistic curiosity mostly stemming from cultural homogeneity and their argument is based upon facts wherein the entire set of texts attributed to the deity are provably false. so...