Geoff wrote:
> KStahl wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>But in some ways the chi is a mystical concept. As a result,
>>>>>>>>words themselves cannot express the essential nature of chi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sure they can. Bunk, hokum, malarkey, horse hockey all
>>>>>>>immediately come to mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No problem. Belief isn't required. Don't be surprised if it turns
>>>>>>out that chi ends up being very important
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing would surprise me more. Keep me posted. *shrug*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>many people don't realize what
>>>>>>is really important in life until their present mundane life is
>>>>>>over.
>>>>>
>>>>>And just how do you know what they realize when it is over?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is when the physical body loses the ability to support metabolic
>>>>activity.
>>>
>>>And just how do you know what people realize when the physical body
>>>loses the ability to support metabolic activity? Talk to dead people
>>>much?
>>>
>>>>Some religious people call it "death" even though that is an
>>>>extreme oversimplification.
>>>
>>>Great claim. Too bad there isn't a lick of evidence that any
>>>rational person would accept as evidence for it.
>>>
>>>When you think you have some, you might want to notify Stockholm.
>>>They are accepting nominations for next years Nobels.
>>
>>You have the wrong idea of what is meant by "evidence".
>
>
> Oh really. I suppose you're going to set me straight.
>
>
>>If a "brick and mortar" office building were required for a person to
>>hold a job then the "evidence" would suggest that I don't have a job
>>because when I'm not traveling on business I'm working out of my home.
>>
>>Back in the 19th century, people had plenty of evidence that travel by
>>rail was the only viable means of criss-crossing this country. They
>>relied on it. They were unaware of any means of transportation that
>>would replace the railroads for mass transit. They had all the
>>evidence they needed. But as we all know now, that evidence was
>>particularly faulty.
>
>
> How so? What other means of travel was available and as reliable? If you're
> considering that since air travel was unknown at the time that their
> evidence for rail travel was somehow faulty, then *you* are the one that
> doesn't understand evidence.
>
> If one is going to value evidence based on all future possibilities, then
> knowledge is impossible.
>
>
>>The OJ jury was provided with plenty of "evidence" that OJ was a
>>killer. Yet he walked.
>>
>>So, if you are relying on the yardstick of "evidence", you are not
>>looking in the right direction.
>
>
> Great analogies. Unfortunately they do nothing to support your claim of life
> after death. I can't for the life of me understand why you wasted your time
>
>
>>But, if you have already rejected the notion that some part of us
>>transcends the shedding of this mortal body, then more power to you.
>>Belief is not required. In fact no matter what you believe, the result
>>will be the same. You cannot will it to be any different then has
>>already been determined. If you choose to dismiss it as hokum then be
>>my guest. Your choices don't effect what will happen to me. And while
>>I might like to make a trip to the Pleides for a while and then circle
>>around to the Orien nebula, that may end up being a fruitless wish -
>>albeit a harmless one.
>>
>>AS for "evidence". I have all that I need.
>
>
> Of course. Credulists don't need evidence. They have faith.
>
>
>>There is too much
>>information available through history for me to just reject the
>>notion that there are no future chapters to be written in of my "soul"
>>(whatever that
>>is). So what I'll do is spend some time in this lifetime trying to
>>prepare for that eventuality while ignoring the noise that comes from
>>people
>>who insist that their personal choice of religion is the only one that
>>matters. Religion satisfies people only during this lifetime - it does
>>not carry over to what happens after death.
>
>
> Yeah. Go ahead and waste your time on your theistic fantasy. Meanwhile, I'm
> going to concentrate on the only life that I know I will have.
>
>
That's fine. You can waste it any way you please - be my guest, it is
your life after all. But you may have to do it again and again until you
finally consider that existentialism may not be the best path.
Theistic fantasy? How did that creep in? At no point did I start talking
about some old guy with a white beard that is sometimes represented by
Morgan Freeman. In fact, religion is generally a fruitless pursuit. All
it gets a person is a set of rules and the requirement to donate money
to someone who will use it for personal gain. The biggest problem for
most people is that the whole area of religious nonsense is so drilled
into them from the moment they can start learning that they
automatically equate anything that metaphysical to religion. But
divorced from religious nonsense, a person can live an experiential life
and maybe even try to be "good for goodness sake". After all, what
evidence do you have that the akashic records do not exist and that it
might be possible to tap into that resource? While it is well and fine
to dismiss that idea because it is not subject to empirical validation,
that is not the same as proving that it does not exist.
If these things bother you so much then just forget about it. There is
no penalty for tossing it aside just like an old candy wrapper. It will
neither lengthen or decrease the amount of time that you spend in this
life and if you do come back you probably won't even know that you were
here before.
