(July 1, 2014 at 8:35 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Some how, some way... I would like to think my atoms are out there annoying the fuck out of you.

I agree and have developed a tactic that is sure to work. Inverting George Carlin's Fart Retrieval League strategy, I deposit molecular sized pieces of shit in cushions and closed spaces wherever I go. At some unspecified future date, an unsuspecting person will release my immortality to be enjoyed by those inside the dissipation boundary.

(July 2, 2014 at 8:28 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: There is absolutely no independently verified scientific evidence of consciousness existing without a physical brain. Once your brain dies, you die.

I never said you'd be conscious. I said that your metaphysical person would continue to exist.
But IF there was a supernatural post-mortem consciousness, how would one be able to prove it in the first place? If I became a ghost, why would I hang around in the body I just died in?p

(July 2, 2014 at 10:47 am)Purplundy Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 8:28 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: There is absolutely no independently verified scientific evidence of consciousness existing without a physical brain. Once your brain dies, you die.

I never said you'd be conscious. I said that your metaphysical person would continue to exist.
But IF there was a supernatural post-mortem consciousness, how would one be able to prove it in the first place? If I became a ghost, why would I hang around in the body I just died in?p

'Your metaphysical person' is an idea about as devoid of substance as possible. What exactly is 'your metaphysical person', if it doesn't have any sort of consciousness?

(July 2, 2014 at 10:47 am)Purplundy Wrote: If I became a ghost, why would I hang around in the body I just died in?p

If you -were- a ghost...why would you have been "hanging around" in that body to begin with?

(there are a number of answers which, I'll concede - may be valid..even if they might not be sound..but each one of them would offer you as possible explanation as to why you'd be "hanging around" your dead body. Example -you were trapped there by an external force, I'll call that force "god".)

(June 28, 2014 at 8:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why do people always claim to have received great knowledge or spiritual wisdom from the dead? Does every janitor turn into Descartes when he dies? Where are all the ghosts that give shitty, stupid advice, the sorts of advice that might have led to them becoming ghosts in the first place? Sigh.

Must be the advice all the fundamentalists of every religion have been listening to. Quite a few of those around.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 2:35 am)Purplundy Wrote: Hello, newbie here.
Question.
If the claim of life after death is rejected because there is no evidence for it, shouldn't the claim of oblivion after death be rejected because there is no evidence for it?

What you say makes some sense but then isn't "oblivion" a word used specifically to describe a state of non-being?

: the state of being unconscious or unaware : the state of not knowing what is going on around you

: the state of being destroyed

Those who we know to be conscious and aware are invariably alive. Death certainly looks like destruction of all life functions, including consciousness.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 6:20 am)Purplundy Wrote:

(June 29, 2014 at 5:26 am)Irrational Wrote: Why should they constitute some soul that exists forever? They are easily explicable in terms of monism. Why add extra unnecessary features/entities?

I didn't add anything.
When a friend says your name, I'd assume that they think about more than your organs. When you give to a charity, I wouldn't guess that you think about the electrical charges in the neural systems of the less fortunate.
I, and others, just take what makes one an intrinsically valuable person and give it a name.

So far so good. Got it. Soul as who I am is fine, but where do you get this soul that goes on after I am no more? If I'm no longer moving oxygen or blood, I doubt strongly that concerns, feelings or realizations will find any foothold in me either.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 4:52 pm)Purplundy Wrote:

(June 29, 2014 at 9:12 am)Irrational Wrote: But weren't you speaking of a soul that lasts forever? An actual entity rather than some concept? I don't have a problem with the casual use of the word "soul" to denote that we tend to see others as more than just objects.

I didn't think you would. That's why we're all people.
en·ti·ty noun \ˈen-tə-tē, ˈe-nə-\ something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
Simply put, once you die, you go brain-dead and your body decomposes. But what gets your family members to cry about it (religions call it a 'soul'), can't really disappear because your existence is undoable. Even after you are long forgotten, the kind of person you were will still have an indelible mark on human history and the universe in a way distinct from any other lifeform.

You may be building up our significance just a little too much here. The big difference between us and other objects is that we are also subjects. That is special but I hardy think it sends shock waves through the galaxy. Every organism is a subject. What makes our subjective experience so special is that we know it from the inside and can use language to describe but also mystify it. So we say we are aware and self-aware and conscious and sapient and all the rest. Giving a thing a name can sometimes fool us into thinking we know something. But when the thing in question is the nature of our subjecthood we are reaching the limits of what language can do .. other than giving us false confidence.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Purplundy Wrote:

(June 29, 2014 at 5:20 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Well your existence is undoable in the sense that it did happen. But, it's mark on the universe may not have much to do with who you were.

Depends on what mark you're talking about. If you chop down a tree in the forest, that tree won't be there after you die because you used your muscles and some metal to knock it down. Nothing spiritual there.
Then there are the "bigger" things, like the people you helped while alive. That ultimately changes communities, societies, and the world at large for the better or the worse.

The world at large apparently begins and ends with the world of people. That strikes me as a little narrow.

(July 1, 2014 at 1:38 am)Purplundy Wrote:

(June 30, 2014 at 11:29 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: "Soul" is already taken, by the church. Besides, there are other, better names. "Personality" is a good one. "Character" is another. Using one that's religiously charged in general terms is kind of counter productive.

Of course, throwing around the word "soul" with atheists is never a good idea for an actual discussion.
But neither religious nor anti-religious sentiment changes the word's definiton.

Then we're going to quibble over meanings? English is more complex than that. The following is from the first definition I opened upon googling the word. I'm sure a better one would offer still more meanings.

dictionary.com Wrote:soul

noun
1.
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2.
the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3.
the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4.
the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
5.
a human being; person.

The church (none of them) have any proprietary rights over the word. Your use (1 & 2) is more common by this ranking but what is most common is not always best. I would choose 4 when I use the word, but am no more right or wrong than you. If you wish to specify the use of the word as the Roman Catholic church would use it, then do so. I would have then nothing to offer on the subject.

---

(July 2, 2014 at 2:57 am)Purplundy Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 9:02 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: When you die you won't return to the land of the living, at least on this planet.

I never said that, and Christianity never said that (applying to the average person, anyway). The essence of dying is that you LEAVE the land of the living and don't come back.
As for where you go to, I don't know.
As for if there IS a you to go anywhere, I'm arguing there is. If you'd like to contribute something to that argument, go ahead.

[My bolding.]

"Arguing" might be a slight exaggeration so far. Asserting seems to cover it. From everything you've said so far I half expect you to reasonably stop there and simply admit it is what you believe. I have no more evidence that you're wrong than you have evidence your belief is true. No shame in that. We all have any number of beliefs which we accept without evidence, why shouldn't you? Of course, if you really want to argue that this is a reasonable position which we should all accept .. best of luck to you.

(July 2, 2014 at 10:50 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: 'Your metaphysical person' is an idea about as devoid of substance as possible. What exactly is 'your metaphysical person', if it doesn't have any sort of consciousness?

Metaphysical things don't tend to contain substance, or else they'd be physcial.
Every thing that exists permanently affects the universe in some way. So do the things that make what we call 'you'. And when the factor that separates you from manure is gone, the effect that that manure had while it was you remains, no matter how small it is. Any rock or tree can replicate the effect of your life on planet Earth. But only you can have the effect you did on the human community.

(July 2, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Purplundy Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 10:50 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: 'Your metaphysical person' is an idea about as devoid of substance as possible. What exactly is 'your metaphysical person', if it doesn't have any sort of consciousness?

Metaphysical things don't tend to contain substance, or else they'd be physcial.
Every thing that exists permanently affects the universe in some way. So do the things that make what we call 'you'. And when the factor that separates you from manure is gone, the effect that that manure had while it was you remains, no matter how small it is. Any rock or tree can replicate the effect of your life on planet Earth. But only you can have the effect you did on the human community.

Are you equating the legacy that we leave after us to our 'metaphysical self'? Because if so you're employing a lot of spiritual language with a lot of baggage to simply say 'your actions can have long lasting consequences'. Still no idea what this 'metaphysical self' has to do with any sort of 'life after death' if we as conscious beings aren't around to experience it.

(July 2, 2014 at 2:02 pm)whateverist Wrote: The world at large apparently begins and ends with the world of people. That strikes me as a little narrow.

If you are using the term 'world', I think it does specifically refer to our planet.
Are we a bunch of relatively intelligent carbon units in a potentially infinite universe? Yes.
But that doesn't mean that the human community should be any less valuable to humans, at least. I don't think a human being can have greater achievement beyond helping other people.

---

(July 2, 2014 at 5:01 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Still no idea what this 'metaphysical self' has to do with any sort of 'life after death' if we as conscious beings aren't around to experience it.

I wasn't arguing that a human being could actually live after he or she has died; I'd leave that to Jesus and zombies.
But I'm asserting that the Christian concept of life after death refers to the fact that your actions in life don't go away after you die.

Do you mean your actions, or the effects of your actions. Eg, Hitler.