What Is Easter?
There's a lot I don't get about religion. However, one thing that I don't get the most is the popular manifestation of Easter. Supposedly, It commemorates when God in the form of a man was asphyxiated by being nailed to a cross and left to hang on the upright cross until death overcame him. A particularly hideous way to die. So in order to commemorate this grisly act, we are inundated with cute bunnies laying candy coated chocolate eggs and having our kids pictures taken at the malls with 6 foot tall rabbits who if they were real would scare the pants of kids more than the myriad of Santas during Christmas. Can anyone explain this phenomenon to me?
I refuse to give anyone (especially those I disrespect or with whom I disagree) the power to define for me or hijack the meaning of holidays or any concepts of personal significance to me.
I CHOOSE to give Easter the meanings of renewal, spring, new life and metaphorical rebirth. My Beautiful wife and I had our first date and were later married on Easter - and for 25 years have celebrated our anniversary on Easter as a time of recommitment and renewal of our love and life together.
Screw the rest of that stuff. I am content to leave others free to do what they will with the occasion, but they WILL NOT rain on my parade!!!
Easter" compared to the 'bad taste left
in the mouth' of the others. Happy (Easter)
Anniversary to you and your beautiful wife!
I agree completely. My wife and I got engaged just as the sun was setting at 4pm on the winter solstice. We were exchanging holiday gifts. She says she thought her gift was going to be batteries (seriously), and didn't know I was going to ask her to get married at that moment. We got married on the summer solstice. We shoudl all choose our own holiday meanings.
When Constantine exchanged the original Greco-Roman pantheon for Christianity, he subsumed a lot of pagan holidays, some Roman, some from the provinces, into what are now Roman Catholic holidays.
Resurrectiontide got "Easter"--which actually is how you pronounce the Arabic name Ishtar. Who is the same person as Astarte in the ancient Canaanite languages. "Ishtar" is a Babylonian/Canaanite goddess of fertility. And what small mammal is more fertile than a rabbit? And the egg? That is an outward sign of new birth.
Similarly, Saturnalia became Christmas, Lupercalia became the Feast of St. Valentine...and Samhain, the Druidic festival from the British Isles, became All Hallows' Eve, or Halloween--for the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed All Saints' Day as the day after Samhain.
Now about Santa Claus--that actually is a corruption of the Dutch name Sinter Klass. That in turn is how the Dutch named "Saint Nicholas"--or Nicholas of Myra, Archbishop of ancient Asia Minor. Nicholas of Myra was a champion of justice in his own right. He got a reputation for working miracles, and for secret gift-giving. Once, according to legend, he sought to give three young women the means to buy their way out of an arranged marriage. So he tossed three gold balls into their house. And those balls happened to fall into the stockings they had hung over their heart to dry. Hence, stocking stuffing. And when he died, rumor had it that his body secreted a liquid form of "manna." Hence, Sainthood.
Different countries in Western Europe invented different versions of Nicholas of Myra: Father Christmas in England, Pere Noel in France, Kris Kringle in Germany, and Sinter Klaas in Holland. The American version has its basis in Washington Irving's famous poem, and reflects the fondness Americans then had for capitalism. Which is why Santa Claus is supposed to be the CEO of a toymaking, or at least toy-distributing, company with an order-fulfillment method no real-life company can match (though some, like Amazon.com, come close).
None of this has anything to do with the real meaning of the Birth of Christ (Christmas), the memory of a martyr of the faith (i.e., Valentinus), or the Resurrection of Christ after His execution. I never had any children, but if by some chance I were to have any, I would not hold to these customs. I would educate them in those customs, certainly, so they would know what other people's children were talking about. But I would not keep up a ten-year charade, knowing eventually I would have to disclose that I had been lying to them all that time!
Thank you.
As to Christmas, we would use it and Hannukah as an excuse to have fun with the kids. We didn't do Santa or bunnies or that stuff, but we exchanged present and acted festive and in that way, the kids didn't feel deprived, but at the same time were not burdened with silly myths. The "holiday" on Seinfeld of "Festivus for the rest of us" holiday, while humorous, is a pretty good idea.
my only comments for consideration, mostly for those here who are believers in Yahshua, is that He wasn't actually born on or near Dec 25. rather, he was born in the Fall, most likely during the Feast of Tabernacles. further, He was buried in the grave for 3 days & 3 nights beginning on the evening (beginning) of the annual Sabbath of the First Day of Unleavened Bread. He was already gone (had already risen) by the time Mary and the others visited the grave and found the stone had already been removed.
some might also find it interesting that there is no indication in the scriptures that Christ's birth was to ever be observed by way of any kind of celebration or ritual. His example was the same found in the OT, which was observance of the same annual "appointed times" and Sabbaths that were commanded for His people (Israel) to observe from the onset. as you alluded to above, the replacement of Biblical "holy days" for various pagan days, including the weekly "Sunday" rather than the weekly "Sabbath", were by the edicts of the Holy Roman Empire, or Roman Catholic Church, rather than being Biblically based. various other pagan doctrines followed, like that regarding "hell" and even including the doctrine of trinity, which most Christian denominations erroneously hold as being a "sacred" and/or Biblical doctrine.
it has been quite amazing for me to discover the various differences between what is often commonly taught from the pulpits of mainstream Christianity and the doctrines found within the Bible itself. 8-)
How many men does it take to roll a boulder? I think I need a drink.
Prune Juice.
.
system out of the house and gave away full-size
butterfingers on halloween night. . I would hide in the
bushes and ask, via wireless mic, if they would like
the chocolate fingers of the previous trick-or-treaters. -- j
.
Jan
Thanks, Jan.
Also, a terrific trombone part in this arrangement, which will always resound with me.
But it isn't dixieland. This is from Britain during the 1950s New Orleans revival influenced by George Lewis, Bunk Johnson, et al when original N.O. players came out of hibernation and began recording the authentic N.O. ensemble improvisation in the 1940s. None of it was arranged and there were no written parts. The George Lewis band (with Jim Robinson on slide typewriter, sometimes doubling on trombone) became internationally famous, touring around the US, Britain, and Japan.
New players in the 1950s, especially in Britain, picked up on it and made a point of not playing the hackneyed "dixieland" with its stiffer rhythm (usually 2/4), strident over blowing, and formula chorus-in/set pattern of solos/chorus-out. The British N.O. revival of the 1950s gave way to the heavier and more arranged British Trad, but still not dixieland.
This recording was the Acker Bilk (clarinet) band in 1958. He also played with Ken Colyer, whose bands dominated the N.O. style in Britain for decades. Chris Barber was one of the big slide typewriter players in Britain. This music is how Acker Bilk got his start before becoming a pop star with Stranger on the Shore in 1962.
I give up.
One thing we have in common (probably more) is that we both love listening. Makes me want to dance even though I no longer can. Makes me want to pick up the trombone and start playing again even though my lip would say, "no-can-do."
One place to hear this is in the opening episode "Gumbo" of the Burns documentary Jazz. But in some ways he failed to make the distinction because he used some anachronistic modern recordings trying to illustrate it. But there are still the recordings from the 1940s-60s and a few from the 1920s.
I was fortunate to hear in the 1990s the Percy Humphrey band from Preservation Hall live at Boston Symphony Hall. It was so crowded that some of us sat up on the stage behind them. Many of the players were in their 80s and 90s.
Orleans-style Dixieland. Could listen to it 24/7
and did as a carefree teen, dancin' my shoes
right off my feet.....the boyfriend carried my
shoes home....In the sweet by & by....
the eyes still work!
On Easter Jesus rose from the dead.
You have the free will to believe it or not.
People being people have done all kinds a goofy stuff with what was supposed to be basically simple.
Kinda makes me think of things done to our USA government.
There is a difference between being anti religion and tolerating religion. I think that some folks are offended that a religious person posts in the Gulch. While I do not care for religion for myself and my family is in agreement with me, so long as a person is someone who will not impede my forward progress, who will mind their own business and not try to convert or convince me about their religion, and doesn't take offense when I say no, then if they choose to worship Osiris or any other God, it's OK with me. I would suggest, however, that you keep your prayers and religious activities to yourself, as many Gulchers would feel personally offended. Also, Objectivism is not a political movement, even though it may seem like it at times based on some of the posts. It is a philosophy which is a way of life, just as religion is. The main difference in this case is that your philosophy (religion) is based on faith, whereas Objectivism is based on reason and holds no quarter with faith. One more point. The points really don't matter, at least to me. It is the pleasure I get from participating with others with a like viewpoint. I think that I have contributed, and I certainly have gotten much from the Gulch. I hope that clarifies things for you and I'll toss you a point for having the courage to defend yourself.
I study a subject and I take what means something to me. That includes Objectivism.
Conforming to fit in anywhere or even to be liked is self-imposed slavery. It is also hypocrisy.
Christians should stick together.
Even Big Brother is against us these days.
You have a 4 up there on that post now.
Interesting.
Of course someone else may come along, but what the heck.
Save for that one thing, Rand's philosophy works very well for a Constitutional conservative (such as myself) who also happens to be a Christian.
A Christian like me ain't gonna change for finding Ayn Rand many years after they found Jesus. Such a person would already have to be in the process of losing their faith.
Herb, at least you're one nonbeliever I can get along with here in the Gulch.
But people are still gonna be all sorts of people.
Don't let the nasty ones get you down.
Stick to those parting words and you'll be okay.
Shame. I kinda of like a few Christians around.
Maybe I should go back to church.
I'm a retired corrections officer with 21 years experience.
So you just gotta know I've got a thick skin.
I spent a few days butting heads with one Gulcher who outspokenly wanted me thrown outta here.
It was over that Davis lady who got arrested for refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses.
Later on he seemed to warm up to me for whatever the reason.
He initiated an exchange of a few civil words on somebody else's post.
I've reason to believe there may be a few Christian lurkers who keep quiet.
One contacted me via a PM back before Christmas.
I'm not about to become an atheist to make myself pleasing to anyone.
I like the Gulch because I can learn a lot here (I don't at all mind finding out I've been wrong about this or that) and stuff even about myself. I also like to sound off when am so moved. If what I believe negates what I say to some--so be it.
I yam who I yam. "Know thyself" the mystical Apollo said. (Still dug that scene in "Troy" when Brad Pitt's Achilles chopped that idol's head off).
One thing very wrong with this world is that there are too many people in it more than willing to live a lie to ge by instead of being true to oneself.
As to Rand, she once had a discussion with a famous conservative who was also an outspoken Catholic, and tried to get him to admit that he really didn't believe.
Four guys and I took a dare and spent a couple of hours one night in a big abandoned house reputed to be haunted.
We heard voices. Then I saw the fuzzy upper outline of a male person I could otherwise see through tilt his head over a shoulder as if he was thinking "What the heck are these people doing in here?" It quickly faded.
A guy standing beside me saw the exact same thing. The others missed out on that but all heard the voices. And some laughing--not the BWAHAHA kind)
There are TV shows about people who hunt such things. Just sayin'.
Doubt that few would care to admit it here.
Maybe someone would admit to a UFO.
I never saw one of those save for on videos available to all on TV and Youtube.
I should have gotten killed a long time ago.
"Spirit In The Sky" is one of my favorite songs.
I also dig "Knocking On Heaven's Door."
Ain't I just freaking terrible here?
It's been a long time though.
Bwahahahahahaha!
Me so BADDDD!
Having just turned 69 on Saint Patrick's Day, that perhaps rendering me an honorary half Irish, a silly walk would only trigger an arthritis flare-up.
I loved Monty Python way back when--even though they were the bloody English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2Vi...
I reserve my "thumbs downs" for people who are either intentionally antagonistic, use logical fallacies in their arguments repeatedly, or who assert others use them without specifying. I've had good discussions even with those who differ with me and as long as civility prevails, I won't downvote.
Board rules say we are not to promote religious beliefs.
But when the subject is brought up, especially when advanced as a negative, I don't see why anyone else in the Gulch is supposed to sit on their hands when they have a keyboard in front of them.
Then there's a good thing getting all twisted up by the lust for power and riches.
I think we're pretty much on the same page, though the entirety of our belief systems may differ..
The question of what is Easter has a multi-stage answer. Let me give it a try:
Humans' minds are genetically programmed for information acquisition. Not being ready to question every detail, children accept what they are told, although by age 3 their most frequent word is "Why." Nevertheless, beliefs are set in place on acceptance of authority. A side branch of acceptance is what later becomes full-blown unquestioning faith.
Among the oldest memes is the anticipation of the return of the Sun after months of dark and cold. Primitive peoples who had migrated to northern lands and got caught in colder seasons adapted, or became nomads. Equatorial populations didn’t have to deal with severe climate changes, so had no need for adaptive skills nor a need to placate imagined gods to bring back the Sun.
Primitive man had a sense of nature’s powers to which humans were subject, so ascribed those powers to some larger, stronger, even invisible entities that needed to be placated with offerings and sacrifices similar to making deals with bigger and stronger human bullies.
The striving for survival, growth, continuity, replication is an aspect of living things that applies both to their physical form and the mental/emotional programs that animate it. A healthy, fit creature lives as one with the laws of nature and the conditions of reality, learning how to provide sustenance and safety for itself and its offspring. Its experiences accumulate a lore that becomes part of the science and culture of a growing society and is passed on to every generation in what we call memes.
The sickest, most twisted, demented meme of all is the notion of an imaginary ruler who must be worshipped, who demands sacrifices, and who judges the people on their slightest transgressions and sends his son to be killed so as to redeem all of mankind for all their sins.
Perhaps at some point in societies like Abraham’s descendants the people had to be ruled through fear of punishment and through the promise of a Savior, a messiah who would come to save them. This sicko notion goes back to the myth of the first man created, Adam, who sinned by discovering sex, and since all humans are the products of sex, their original sin is already attached to them when they are born, though the baptismal font will wash it off. Should a baby die before being baptized, it will go straight to Hell, so the belief goes.
We are also to believe that a man named Jesus was actually the son of God and had to be born so he could choose to be sacrificed to placate God about the sins of mankind and thus liberate all the souls in hell and purgatory and win forgiveness for all future sins.
So Easter is when Jesus supposedly rose from the dead, symbolizing that human life also does not end with death, since that is counter to the growth and continuity directive of living things. Thus at Easter humans reinforce their palliative against the certitude of death with complex symbolic ceremonies and feasts and sweet treats to celebrate that the long, hungry fasting of winter is over and the fertile earth once again provides sustenance and rebirth.
A more rational approach to the knowledge that life has its cycles, and that consciousness is attached only to a living form, would be to celebrate Life while we have it and make the most of it, build as good and beneficial a physical existence as we can for ourselves and our progeny, on a planet whose resources need to be managed wisely and through ever-growing technology that may someday free us to seek other planets to preserve our genes and memes.
The only parts of our consciousness that will survive us is what we pass on through ideas, which is why ideas also have a life of their own and seek to preserve themselves by occupying as many minds as possible and resisting being changed or eliminated. Hence all the wars, all the disputes and animosities among people with differing ideas: meme warfare leading to physical annihilation.
And these demented folk still want to believe that someday a savior will come to rescue them and prove them right and judge them righteous, no matter how many other people they have slaughtered in the name of their god. There. That’s Easter.
When it comes to faith people will disregard history, physics, and whatever else you can think of. When that doesn't work, they'll make up some very elaborate reasons that in their minds justifies the beliefs. However, those on the other side of the argument can be so committed to proving deists incorrect that they'll go on trying to move the immovable object until their tongues fall out.
Think about it? Why all the rancor over abortion? Or over religion and morality in general? Death: what it is and what it means is of what I would argue the utmost importance of philosophical study. Is death the termination of consciousness, the passing of consciousness into another plane of reality, or something else entirely? The answer to that question is so fundamental that it forms the bedrock of nearly all religions and philosophies: to answer its question is to either disprove or prove any given philosophy/religion.
It really all revolves around consciousness and death in many cases. Not so much in Objectivism. Since Objectivism seems to hold that death is the end of consciousness, it's every tenet is based on life and how to live it. Frankly, I don't see how Rand could be so positive, especially in the light of recent science, some of which took place during her lifetime. I personally have shed my fear of death. The worst that can happen is.....nothing. That doesn't mean that I subscribe to the fairy tales or the pantheon of characters as they are portrayed, and most especially to the rituals. I have an open mind on the subject but I still have to flush the crap out of it every now and then.
1) If Death is the cessation of consciousness and the descent into nihilism, from whence springs consciousness in the first place?
2) If Nihilism, then why morality at all? If there is no afterlife in which to be held to account for actions such as murder, etc., what is the moral case against such?
3) If Death is not the end of consciousness, God becomes not only a possibility, but a probability.
4) If Death is not the end of consciousness, why don't more disembodied consciousnesses interact with people on a regular basis?
5) If Death is not the end of consciousness, is there a case that Life does not begin at birth either? Is this merely a transitionary state? If so, to what end?
Much of your statement is an attempt to brand all religions with the same broad brush stroke. Philosophy must be taken one precept at a time, one principle at a time, one teaching at a time. The biggest problem with the generic assertion you make is that every religion defines "God" differently. You certainly wouldn't attribute any of what you just said to Wiccans, Hindus, Buddhists, or Hari Krishna's, yet all are recognized religious philosophies. Your comments are more specifically directed at "Christians", "Jews", and "Muslims", but again your statements are overly broad, as each has a very different definition of God due to divergence in origin. Even that doesn't even go into the individual sects within each of those respective brands, such as Sunni, Shia, Wahab, and Baath within Islam, Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jewry, and a panoply of hundreds of various Christian faiths.
That's why I always start with principles. Once you identify proper principles, look for the sects or philosophies which abide by those principles and discard the rest. You'll never find the needle in the haystack if you look at every piece of straw.
What is faith? It is the drive that impels one to act in pursuance of a future outcome without a guarantee. Faith is what drives the entrepreneur to start one's own business. He has no guarantee of success, and even failure may be due to forces outside his control, but he pursues the goal anyway because the end result is of such value that it justifies the risk. Faith is also what drives the scientist to test a hypothesis. He has no guarantee that the experiment will give him the answer he seeks and thereby justify the expenditures involved in setting up the experiment, but he moves on nevertheless because of the value of the knowledge to be had.
The real disagreement between Objectivism and religion isn't about faith at all, but about the idea of a goal who's attainment lies after ...
Death.
When dealing with philosophical issues, it is important to define the specific meaning of “faith” that is being discussed. One can have confidence in the future and still be an atheist.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not merely "possibilities" backed by nothing other than speculation and personal testimonials.
The possible responses to Jesus' alleged resurrection are that he was a liar, was a lunatic, or was telling the truth. Objectivists have chosen to say he was a lunatic or a liar. That is a valid response, but such claims ought to be substantiated. If someone called you a liar or lunatic without substantiation, you would quite correctly sue for defamation of character.
Alleged miracles prove nothing, and are used by their claimants to demonstrate the supposed unreliability of our senses and rational faculties. Those who accept such assertions without demanding hard evidence are more easily persuaded to adopt beliefs such as consciousness after death.
Case #1: Consciousness terminates with Death.
A. Perception is a function of consciousness.
A -> B. Description or proof is the result of perception.
C. Consciousness ceases with Death.
B & C -> D. There can be no perception of Death.
Ergo, there can be no substantiation of such a case.
Case #2: Consciousness does not terminate with Death.
A. Perception is a function of consciousness.
A -> B. Description or proof is the result of perception.
!C. Consciousness does not not cease with Death.
B & !C -> !D. There can not be no perception of Death, i.e. perception is possible.
Ergo, there can be substantiation of such a case.
So of the two, we have one case which renders itself immune to logical proof and the other which avails itself of a proof pending the test of a successful hypothesis. The real question is the devising of such a test, as Death appears to be a one-way ticket in either case. How does one go about testing for the presence of consciousness beyond Death? Can we define what consciousness is or even how it begins any more than we can posit its extinction?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not merely "possibilities" backed by nothing other than speculation and personal testimonials."
When a case goes to court, jurists are not asked to render judgment based on their personal experiences or involvement in the crime itself. They are restricted to the testimonies of others, are they not? Really, what you are saying here is that because you yourself have not had a personal involvement that you doubt anyone else could have either. Skepticism, however, is not proof. The only way to obtain proof is to examine the one case which has a potential proof and devise a test for authenticity. Barring that, you are left to the realm of pure speculation - nothing more, nothing less.
The banana peel seen on your porch, by your neighbor, was still there regardless of whether you were playing a joke, knocked unconscious, or dead. Your condition can concretely be determined with a bucket of water or medical assessment.
Using your argument would eliminate the reality of any diminished mental condition—because we cannot be that person. Twisting logic like this cuts off 'blood flow' to one's capacity for reason.
The human mind has the ability to believe anything, and it underscores our necessity to reason. Having physical reactions within our bodies is not proof of a contradictory dimension; and dire, emotional stress is not a tool used in rational thought.
"The banana peel..."
I'm really struggling to understand where you are coming from and where you are headed. Perhaps you can restate the entirety of your comment and precede it with your assumptions. I am not intentionally being difficult, I am just struggling to find the set of logical tracks upon which your mental train of thought is proceeding.
Existence is; and, regardless of whether you "think", you are. The banana peel and you both exist whether you are conscious, or not. You and the banana peel are existents observable by others. Your death ends all the biological functions that your human consciousness depends on.
There are rational explanations for unusual, individual, mental experiences. Those experiences are not a valid basis to construct ideas fundamentally in contradiction to what is.
Absolutely. But the actions of many are to convene court, install themselves as both judge and jury, deny the entry of evidence, refuse to call witnesses, and then pronounce a favorable verdict. No one tolerates it in the legal world. That it should be tolerated in the logical world is no less a travesty.
"And courts do not demand proof of a negative"
My whole point is that from a logical perspective, it is a meaningless position to take. If one asserts that proof is necessary in the substantiation of an argument, to then take a position that nothing can be proven is outright contradiction and hypocrisy! What one should say instead of "it can not be" in such a case is rather "what conditions would be possible" and test for them. I agree with Sherlock Holmes when he stated "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Since we have eliminated the possibility of confirming the position (that death constitutes a termination of consciousness), we must move on to what is possible to test: its opposite.
"And saying “I might be able to prove this hypothesis in the future” does not justify belief in it today."
Justification is wholly a value judgement - an opinion. It is your value judgement and you are wholly entitled to such, but what you are actually asserting in the statement quoted above is one of the following:
1) I do not value the potential search for an answer as worthy of my time/energy
OR
2) I do not want to know what the answer is
In the one you are asserting that I should share with you an apathetic viewpoint on the matter while in the other one of willing ignorance. Why should I be satisfied with either of these options when the third - a pursuit of the answer - may be available?
I also strongly caution against any assertion that no evidence of consciousness after death could exist when one has already admitted that he has declared the search for such a waste of time and/or effort. A pronouncement of that type is open evidence of confirmation bias - not of one searching for reality.
Adieu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFYAI...
"Also, there are no goals after death, since there is no existence after death."
That's an untenable proposition because it can only be disproven - never proven. It is a negative assertion rather than a positive.
I would also tell you that I know for myself that existence does not terminate with death. More than that I reserve for a private conversation.
All philosophical study and examination begins with proper definitions. The definition of faith used by Objectivists is a straw man - an anti-definition. I can't logically accept any such. Ayn Rand herself said that the only proper definitions of things talk about what something is - not what something isn't. It's the same reason we struggle with dark matter because so far, we know it exists but we can not properly define it because we can not interact with it.
I have appreciated your rational approach and thank you for your time.
I am laughing in sad agreement. The whole definition of the Islamic God reminds me much about the whimsical nature of the Greek Pantheon Plato lambasted quite efficiently in his "Republic".
All people start out in the same boat: questing for knowledge. By ridiculing their current state I am only ridiculing my former state and potentially alienating one with whom I might become a friend. On the other hand, I am more than willing to debate principle, because principles transcend the inventions of man and any religion or philosophy based on demonstrably false principles. It comes down to what is more important: what is right or who is right.
I never thought of that. But I'm afraid that can't be true since there were a lot of women tagging along.
Just FYI, but Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Joshua. By the time of the events of the New Testament, the most prevalent language - most especially in commerce and philosophy - was Greek. The original five books attributed to Moses are part of the Pentateuch (penta meaning five in Greek) and Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy all are Greek words: Genesis meaning beginning, Exodus meaning literally "road out of" and Deuteronomy meaning "second law" (because the first law on the stone tablets was broken over the golden calf). Leviticus was a reference to the Tribe of Levi who was given charge over the Ark of the Covenant and authorized to act in the rites of the temple. Numbers is just exactly that: the numbering or census of the people.
1. Consciousness was created during the big bang. It only manifests as something easily detectable when attached to a living thing.
2. Because it is more pleasant and happiness inducing to have a certain type of morality. (Certain types as defined in Objectivism.).
3. God is not needed any more than it is needed because of mass or energy. This does not exclude the possibility of some sort of universal intelligence.
4. For the same reason that we know that dark matter is there but don't know what it is or how to access it.
5.What we call life could be a physical manifestation of consciousness which activates matter under certain conditions.
The point is, since we don't know what consciousness is, all bets are off. You could be right, or I could be right of Dr. Ratherbright working in some lab could be right. Eventually, we will know (The human race, that is.)
"The point is, since we don't know what consciousness is, all bets are off."
Ah, finally someone who understands what the real problem is in the debate of Death.
"Eventually, we will know."
Lol. That is a loaded statement. If we take the nihilists view, we won't. If we take the religionists' view, we will as soon as we die, and we may not be satisfied with the repercussions. The other question is if we live for ourselves, how does the lack of a definitive answer help us now...?
I really dislike that word. Rand quotes it as "blind acceptance." It always puzzled me how people can give up reason and just accept something just because someone said so.
I define Faith as the motivation to do something which has an unsure outcome but an outcome one nevertheless desires. The entrepreneur exercises faith when he goes into business for himself: he has no surety of knowledge that his business venture will succeed, but he presses forward anyway because the payoff is worth the risk. The scientist conducts the test of a hypothesis based on faith: he has no surety of outcome until after the test is complete and he has analyzed the findings.
I think what some people want to declare as faith is the part used by some to absolve themselves of any action of verification, but this is not faith. That is risk aversion in its extreme. Are there those of a religious persuasion which promote the false concept of faith Rand alluded to which advocates no action? Absolutely! And it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Can one act on false premises? Absolutely! Which is why the confirmation is so important as it establishes the veracity of the tenet upon which one acts.
Another one was 'every little boy wants to grow up to become like George Washington cherry wood kindling and all. except for one who said, "I'll make that story even better and chop down the whole country."
Hey those stories are every bit as good as the one's framed by George Soros and George Lakoff or Jimmy Carter and St. James of Carville. Produced by and Benita Pelosillyme
And more entertaining....
Brought to you by your neighborhood Trumpeting Clintonites.
Time for a creative writing competition
Yes, they do - and do so at their own peril.
I believe that one must live a philosophy to prove it out. If one only professes it but does not act it, they are the very definition of the hypocrite. I appreciate people who act honestly even if misinformed because I know that they can still be enlightened and adjust their behaviors to fit reality.
faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"
The first one is based on evidence... the second one is based on...as you said. It's a curious word having two definitions with one significant portion completely opposite in it's requirements.
x + y = zero Proof there is no life after safe zones
Also pagans, unbelievers, disbelievers, questioners and searchers.
Jan
keeping it in your memory storehouse. I know,
I don't have to read it but who amongst us hasn't made such a stupid mistake? Ugh!
If you don't like what you read, feel free to move on to the next comment.
An image from Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind. Religion gives the peon a reason to carry on even though he's all "covered in shit."
Pssst! All ya gotta do is look it up.
Some would call that a crutch but not me.
What good is a deity if you don't use him, her or whatever?
I ask God to keep me and my car safe and not hurt anybody just before or after I crank up.
Did I just break a board rule by admitting that? What the hey! The whole post is about a religious subject and I didn't start it.
I know all about genuflecting. I was raised a Catholic but went my own way when I reached my 20s.
My dear departed mother would write me in a letter, "You're independent but we love you" more than once.
Ask me to genuflect and I'd more likely smack my right fist against my left shoulder and yell, "Hail Herb's Caesar Salad!"
I've been celebrating here by doing the Brontosaur Stomp!
Hope you stick around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8pN-...
I'm a mystic! I'm a mystic!
La-la-la!
La-la-la!
Only at home, though.
I'll ask for Italian in a restaurant.
I recently mixed salad dress8ings up when my stepson threw a little birthday part for me.
For health reasons, I asked his family to keep half the birthday cake.
For stupid reasons, I bought ice cream to go with the rest of my cake.
A birthday only comes once a year.
I buy those mix-it-yourself Italian dressing packs and add my own vinegar and oil. Extra virgin olive oil, apple cider vinegar.
If knowledge can only be confirmed first hand then most of science is bunk. I'm sure B realizes that a truth can be confirmed without personally experiencing it.
When I get perspective on all religion I am amazed at the suffering and murder that's highlighted. Not my cup of tea.
Seriously, though, I think that one of the differences is the self-actualization and intelligence, which are usually lacking in Zombies.
Crème eggs. MMMMM.
It is forbidden to me but I'll probably sneak one anyhow. I often think of myself lying on my deathbed and saying, Man, I wish I had that chili dog, or crème egg.
chocolates & flowers on St. Valentine Day?
And Rudolf & Santa's helpers at Yule time?
Why not bunnies & eggs? "What's the
difference" anyway, if it brings joy to some....
his grampa!! Kudos to savy grandson!!! And Happy Easter to all and to all a good night!!
The exact dates of Christ's birth and death are difficult to determine, since the Bible makes little helpful date reference, but the early Christians were quick to fit their scripture's message to popular established culture. The story of the crucifixion and resurrection fit naturally into the equinox rebirth celebration.
The bunnies and gifts of candy are a leftover from the pagan rebirth celebration, which emphasized the end of want and the arrival of plenty. I've left out a lot of information about the many reborn savior myths that predated Christ, but most involved a Spring equinox festival.
I suspect the eggs were not originally chocolate.
Hang on, some sleuthing ....
Stolen from Wiki:
"Orthodox churches have a custom of abstaining from eggs during the fast of Lent. The only way to keep them from being wasted was to boil or roast them, and begin eating them to break the fast."
Stolen from: http://dailyjournalonline.com/news/lo...
"In an attempt to Christianize Easter which began as a pagan holiday, is named for a Saxon goddess who was known by the names of Oestre or Eastre, and in Germany by the name of Ostara. She is a goddess of the dawn and the spring, and her name derives from words for dawn, the shining light arising from the east. Our words for the "female hormone" estrogen derives from her name.
It is believed that Anglo-Saxon Goddess of Spring, Eostre had a hare as her companion. The hare symbolizes fertility and rebirth. Later Christians changed the symbol of the hare to the Easter bunny."
It is the morning that Jesus arose from the Dead
and if he doesn't see his shadow he has to go back in the tomb for another 40 nights.
Don't kill the messenger....the networks wouldn't let them do it live even though a panel of clergy approved it.
That being said, however, the assertion that no evidence in favor (of the the assertion that death is not the termination of consciousness) may be found is preposterous when one has not even looked for such and in fact merely denies that any which may be proposed can't possibly be valid. One choosing to do such is intentionally creating a logical problem for which no objective solution may be found at all! In light of the existing and unrefuted proof so far presented, such a course is the refuge of those attempting to avoid reality altogether and I will not be a part of such closed-mindedness.
Man, you are a glutton for punishment.
Drop it already, you're even beginning to bore my beagle. If you need to prove your beliefs so badly, perhaps you should ask yourself why. You seem to fall into what psychologists describe as a person who'd rather be right than be happy.
I'll sign off for now. Thanks for a great topic. A lot of the political discourse has gotten pretty stale. This has been a good exercise of (apologies to Hercule Poirot - courtesy of Agatha Christie) the "little gray cells".
Do you propose another method of obtaining the necessary information? I'm open to suggestions. The problem is that what we might call an observation of death is merely an observation of the cessation of biological functions. There is no correlating test for the presence/absence of consciousness I am aware of. Example: one in a comatose state. Such an one exhibits limited biological function, but no self-will (aspect of consciousness) ascertainable by scientific discovery. Is such a one alive or dead? Might there remain a nascent/inactive consciousness or even an active one which has somehow lost its ability to control its vessel?
"Existence is; and, regardless of whether you "think", you are. The banana peel and you both exist whether you are conscious, or not. You and the banana peel are existents observable by others. Your death ends all the biological functions that your human consciousness depends on."
Thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense.
I agree that things exist. The question, however, is whether the consciousness continues to exist despite the termination of those biological functions. (Which brings up the interesting concept of what would cause a consciousness to temporarily inhabit a physical form in the first place...) I think you are assuming biological and conscious function are one and the same. I question the assumption and contemplate the possibility of independence.
"There are rational explanations for unusual, individual, mental experiences. Those experiences are not a valid basis to construct ideas fundamentally in contradiction to what is."
I never asserted otherwise. However, I also categorically reject the collective insanity case implied here - that somehow each and every assertion of "miraculous" circumstances can be attributed to some mental defect or hallucination. That is the refuge of unjustified speculation fueled by confirmation bias. Many in such cases have been examined by medical staff and declared completely competent. In cases of healings, many have taken place in the very presence of astonished medical staff.
Must all such instances have to be taken at face value? No, and I do not suggest any such thing. An impartial judge, however, does not issue a peremptory verdict without first weighing the arguments.
Rather than looking at individual claims and putting the proverbial cart before the horse, however, I think it prudent instead to establish the feasibility of the original question first and foremost. If the hypothesis may be reasonably asserted that consciousness and biological function are not one and the same, then these incidents (asserted by some to be miracles) may be examined individually as potential evidence in corroboration of the assertion.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pri...
Testing your ideas about death and consciousness should come with a medical disclaimer.
During the 20th century, dozens of things that were deemed impossible suddenly became possible. Who knows what tomorrow might bring. I think the quote goes, "I do several impossible things before breakfast" -- The Red Queen in Alice Through The Looking Glass.
I am not talking about existence nor debating it. I am not asserting that it is subjective in any way. I am not asserting that consciousness precedes existence. I assume existence (as an axiom), but I am also confining my study to that of conscious entities - not banana peels. I do not question the existence of a banana peel, but it is not relevant to this discussion because insofar as I can determine, it is not a conscious entity.
Rand asserted that the only way to examine the universe was by the perception of a consciousness which could identify it's boundaries, its distinctness from other objects AND had the capability to reason. Unless you disagree with that statement, we will proceed upon that basis. Before I worry about the after-death existence of a banana peel, however, I'm going to look at a more personally valuable and applicable question: whether or not my personal consciousness will still exist after death. Will my ability to perceive and reason continue after death? Because if not, existence won't matter one iota to me after that point. My first and foremost concern is myself. I have no question that the rest of the universe will go on one way or the other.
"Testing your ideas about death and consciousness should come with a medical disclaimer."
Only if one lacks the imagination to come up with a test that does not involve self-destruction or bodily injury.
You continue to think that you can 'shoehorn' religious mysticism into philosophy somehow. Won't fit.
Relax, you two argumentative brainy guys, have a drink, eat a hot fudge sundae, get laid, for god's sake. OOPS!
I've relaxed for 12 hours since this comment; but I can always count on you for perspective, Herb.
:D
Ultimately it is your choice as to what you want to do. For myself, I choose not to rule anything out until proven otherwise.
If it doesn't fit, just make something up.
I often wonder about the first guy who invented a god. Was he sincere or just trying to get people to do as he says by scaring the bejeezus out of them? Most likely the latter.
You are right in that one can not shoehorn a size 11 foot into a size 2 shoe. We have to expand our horizons and go looking for bigger shoes - or we have to be content to walk barefoot. I have mountains to climb and I anticipate sharp rocks. I'll take the shoes.
Your assertions are based on ideas that ignore and contradict readily observable aspects of existence.
If I were to tell you that I knew that not to be true, what would you say? If I were to tell you that I know consciousness is not biologically dependent, what would you say?
And no, I don't want to hear your "proof" in a private message. You should be able to publicly offer your 'imparted knowledge'.
Strong emotions and the associated physical sensations do not impart proof of disembodied
consciousness.
"Strong emotions and the associated physical sensations do not impart proof of disembodied consciousness."
You obviously have some preconceived notions about what evidence you are or are not willing to accept. Such is for you to decide, but is indicative of one who only seeks to go where he wishes rather than of one willing to go where the facts lead.
I will leave you to your thoughts. The only sure things in life are death and taxes, right? ;)
Please keep in mind that I do not wish to come across as correcting, as much as wish give information.
Mainly, Easter is not about Jesus's time on the cross, it is about his resurrection from the grave. Two different matters all together.
On another note, it is not about religion. Christianity is not a religion. Christ was very anti- religion.
He inferred that each person was their own religion and eschewed the building of edifices and rituals.
Load more comments...