Spirituality might work if it wasn't so stupid.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
I can understand someone being agnostic relative to whether we survive the death of the body, but your absolute staunchness about this matter makes me think you are just playing a role here - a devil's advocate. You seem too intelligent to me to be this close-minded and concretized in these outdated materialistic belief systems.

You obviously do not have any real proof that when the body dies that is it forever. How could you? For you it is at best an "educated" guess. So you come to that conclusion based on whatever apparent facts you can gather up to support your belief, and discard anything that doesn't fit - such as the vast accounts in spirituality.

So again, I have to assume you are role-playing to provoke philosophical discussion, etc. A useful enough exercise at a certain level, but not particularly personal in its feel. Well, I do hope it serves you.

'effect' just one person?

if it 'wasn't' so stupid?

Are you trying to say something?

Or is English not your first language?
I am having difficulty understanding your use of grammar.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

# 394

a reply to: bb23108

There is mountains of proof friend. We bury our dead. I think you're quite aware of this. Do you deny this?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

There is mountains of proof friend. We bury our dead. I think you're quite aware of this. Do you deny this?

then why did you (yes you!) bury them with clothes on?
It's not like they were going to get a chill or go to a party...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
There is mountains of proof friend. We bury our dead. I think you're quite aware of this. Do you deny this?

Of course we bury or cremate bodies when they die. But this is certainly NOT proof that the fundamental being (self-aware consciousness) also dies.

Your standpoint of only being the body-mind necessarily would have you draw your conclusion that the fundamental being (self-aware consciousness) does not survive the body's death. This is the conclusion that much of the world just blithely assumes because of the being's apparent identification with the body-mind. But that does not mean this conclusion is therefore right. There are innumerable instances of world views being tossed out the window because of new discoveries. So again, your absolute position about this surprises me.

We have discussed many times that we don't even know what a single object actually IS in reality. We only have a very limited perception of any given object, but we usually rather naively assume that is what it IS. Clearly no limited perception is what an object actually is. You have agreed to this in the past.

So how can you then assume that your limited perception and experience of something as complex as life, our body-minds, death, energy, awareness, etc., justifies your absolute conclusion that our fundamental being or awareness itself, does not survive the death of the body?

a reply to: bb23108

I'm not assuming. Because that is the proof and evidence. The body is the fundamental awareness you keep speaking of. The proof and evidence and reason and logic all say you're wrong, there is no fundamental awareness, and you are simply parroting someone else's absolute view.

I do not agree with this.I know exactly what an object is in reality. We can describe things in an infinite number of way. some just don't care to know or even try. They've given up.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I do not agree with this.I know exactly what an object is in reality. We can describe things in an infinite number of way.

So now you do know what an object actually is in reality? Before you said you did not know. Okay, tell us what the pen or any other object on your desk actually IS?

a reply to: bb23108

It's a pen.

a reply to: bb23108

I specifically argued for about 6 pages that humans are beings that know all the time. Knowing is a human pass-time. I vehemently disagree with you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

It's a pen.

That's a word or a sound, and a different word or sound in most other languages.

What IS the pen in reality?

a reply to: bb23108

It looks, feels, and works just like a pen.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

I specifically argued for about 6 pages that humans are beings that know all the time. Knowing is a human pass-time. I vehemently disagree with you.

Yes, knowing all sorts of ways to describe objects is definitely a human pass-time. But knowing what an object actually IS - is another matter.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: bb23108

It looks, feels, and works just like a pen.

Just more descriptors of its appearance, function, etc. What IS it?

a reply to: bb23108

It's a pen.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Been there.

What is it in reality beyond all points-of-view, beyond its apparent appearance from any particular point of view, beyond whatever image you can create in your mind of it?

a reply to: bb23108

What does it matter? There is no such place.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
What does it matter? There is no such place.

Sounds like your admission that you do not know what it IS - because clearly the pen has an actual existence beyond any of our points-of-view of and about it.

a reply to: bb23108

Not really. The first person who made a pen knew he wasn't making an eraser.

a reply to: bb23108

I understand examining evidence is difficult and time consuming. It's work. But if you are going to say we cannot know what a pen actually is, you must also say that for all you know we could be dead right, because, well, you will not know either way. You might as well agree with me it is a pen.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
He knew the function he wanted it to perform, but he didn't know what that pen was actually - in reality.