Dead is the End?

[Nyarlathotep]

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.

Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

Sting song titles are not evidence for your claims. Caterpillar/butterfly analogies are not evidence for your claims. Making statements that boil down to "we exist, therefore we must have souls" is not evidence for your claims. Have I left anything out? If not then you have presented nothing in the way of evidence for your claims. If I have missed something, please show me what evidence i have missed.

As for being asked to accept things, all I can say is this: If one makes a claim it is usually a safe assumption that they want (to some degree) people to agree with it. You claim that we have a soul, so I assume that you are doing so because 1) you want to convince us that we have souls or 2) you like to see the pretty words on the screen. If it is 1, then you are asking us to accept something. If it is 2, then you should be honest about it and I for one will quit wasting my time.

 

[Iacchus]

Sting song titles are not evidence for your claims. Caterpillar/butterfly analogies are not evidence for your claims. Making statements that boil down to "we exist, therefore we must have souls" is not evidence for your claims. Have I left anything out? If not then you have presented nothing in the way of evidence for your claims. If I have missed something, please show me what evidence i have missed.

Except for when we allude to something "in principle," then yes it can be construed as evidence -- or, possible evidence -- in the sense that we have an "example" of at least one thing similar.

As for being asked to accept things, all I can say is this: If one makes a claim it is usually a safe assumption that they want (to some degree) people to agree with it. You claim that we have a soul, so I assume that you are doing so because 1) you want to convince us that we have souls or 2) you like to see the pretty words on the screen. If it is 1, then you are asking us to accept something. If it is 2, then you should be honest about it and I for one will quit wasting my time.

I'm not asking you to accept anything, as it's entirely up to you if you want to participate. So by all means don't bother, if it's a waste of your "precious time."

 

[Upchurch]

Except for when we allude to something "in principle," then yes it can be construed as evidence -- or, possible evidence -- in the sense that we have an "example" of at least one thing similar.

A complete and utterly contrived example based on nothing. This is the very loosest definition of "evidence" one could possibly use. This is a very poor rationalization and does not support your assertion that, "I have done nothing but present the evidence."

 

[Suezoled]

Except for when we allude to something "in principle," then yes it can be construed as evidence -- or, possible evidence -- in the sense that we have an "example" of at least one thing similar.


I'm not asking you to accept anything, as it's entirely up to you if you want to participate. So by all means don't bother, if it's a waste of your "precious time."

No it's not. It's a ficticious song about a romantic idea that sells records. Cd's. Whatever. Similar ideas having similar success is not an indication of "possibility of evidence."

I'm glad you're not asking anyone to accept anything. However, telling people to not bother you if it's a waste of our time is not your decision to make.

 

[Iacchus]

No it's not. It's a ficticious song about a romantic idea that sells records. Cd's. Whatever. Similar ideas having similar success is not an indication of "possibility of evidence."

Just for the record (ooh pun), I only brought the song up to give people something to relate to and to jog a few brains. However, if you want specific evidence for why Sting chose the title, I would suggest talking to Sting about it.

I'm glad you're not asking anyone to accept anything. However, telling people to not bother you if it's a waste of our time is not your decision to make.

Well stop inferring that it's my problem then, Okay?

 

[Iacchus]

A complete and utterly contrived example based on nothing. This is the very loosest definition of "evidence" one could possibly use. This is a very poor rationalization and does not support your assertion that, "I have done nothing but present the evidence."

And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."

While I can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do.

 

[RussDill]

Just for the record (ooh pun), I only brought the song up to give people something to relate to and to jog a few brains. However, if you want specific evidence for why Sting chose the title, I would suggest talking to Sting about it.

Well stop inferring that it's my problem then, Okay?

Oh...I see, you don't have the evidence, Sting has the evidence, right, we'll just call sting up and ask him to fork it over.

 

[RussDill]

And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."

Aliens would have followed a similar process to the scientific process develop the technology they have. Do you really believe they would have gained their spaceship technology by getting in touch with "universal knowledge"

While can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do.

Actially[/B][/QUOTE]

Seriously, are you drunk or something? How about you start reading aloud what you post before you hit submit?

 

[Iacchus]

No it's not. It's a ficticious song about a romantic idea that sells records. Cd's. Whatever. Similar ideas having similar success is not an indication of "possibility of evidence."

It's called "connect the dots" by the way, and if it's something you happen to be good at, you "can" begin to paint a plausible picture.

 

[Dancing David]

We all have a spirit (immortal side) which lives on when our bodies die (our mortal side). Given that, I would suggest it's "our spirits" -- personality, consciousness, soul -- that develop in this life and pass on to the next ...

Much as the grub is transformed into a butterfly.

Evidence please?

I would like to believe that someday there will be no more war, more wishful thinking.

Any proof, I will entertain much, and await your evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh...I see, you don't have the evidence, Sting has the evidence, right, we'll just call sting up and ask him to fork it over.

Are you suggesting that he named the song arbitrarily? You see if you really were looking for "evidence," you would consider the possibility of more than one source. In which case I think with you maybe it's just a big facade.

 

[Dancing David]

And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."

While I can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do.

And they might find the idea of an imortal spirit to be the funniest thing they ever heard of.

there is just no telling with those space aliens, there are plenty of people who want to agree with you Iachuss, and they are free to do so. But lets us make it clear, it is a belief and not knowledge of life after death.

You may get the beer , or you may not. But please if you are a larvae then your goal is to eat plants and to avoid parasites and to find a place to pupate.

 

[RussDill]

It's called "connect the dots" by the way, and if it's something you happen to be good at, you "can" begin to paint a plausible picture.

The human brain is very good at connecting the dots. Ever look at a cloud and see a puppy? Does that mean the cloud is really a puppy and its now going to fall out of the sky, splat on the ground, and die a horrible death? Just because your brain recognizes a pattern, doesn't mean its found truth. You have mearly formed a conjecture. But, I ask again, what has ever been learned by conjecture alone?

 

[Ipecac]

What's that old program that mimicked intelligence by responding with a series of pat phrases? ELIZA?

Trying to discuss this with Iacchus reminds me of talking to ELIZA. And so far it's been about as productive.

 

[Dancing David]

No evidence? And yet I have done nothing but present the evidence. Of course you may not see it as such, but only because you've concluded it means something else, and that's not my problem.

Neither have I asked you to accept anything by the way.

Perhaps you should look up the word evidence, you haven't presened anything convincing.

There is a series of novels by a woman named Katherine somethingorother, in which characters follow each other through various human carnations, it is not great literature but it is a good read. This would not constitute proof of reincarnation however.

 

[Iacchus]

The human brain is very good at connecting the dots. Ever look at a cloud and see a puppy? Does that mean the cloud is really a puppy and its now going to fall out of the sky, splat on the ground, and die a horrible death? Just because your brain recognizes a pattern, doesn't mean its found truth. You have mearly formed a conjecture. But, I ask again, what has ever been learned by conjecture alone?

And why do you insist on over-simplifying everything?

 

[RussDill]

There is a series of novels by a woman named Katherine somethingorother, in which characters follow each other through various human carnations, it is not great literature but it is a good read. This would not constitute proof of reincarnation however.

You've only selfdeluded him further. Because the book supports his position, he'll accept it as evidence, and be even more sure of himself. (Present him with a work of fiction that disagrees with his beliefs though, and he'll say some incoherent sentance involving grubs and the sun)

 

[RussDill]

And why do you insist on over-simplifying everything?

I'm not, your views are very simplistic and based on desire alone.

 

[Upchurch]

And yet if I were an alien from outer space, I would have a completely different take on what you call "evidence."

While I can assure you, you would have a lot of explaining "to me" to do.

Jumpin' Jebus on a pogo stick. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?

I'm done.

 

[Iacchus]

I'm not, your views are very simplistic and based on desire alone.

Or perhaps you only know how to deal with "the facts" which, are merely the "material" manifestion of "the idea" -- which, you don't seem to be able to get a handle on?