Life experience and the soul

Then I would suggest that heaven is over-hyped. However most of us would prefer to wake up again at some point. I guess it depends what dreams you are having.If in heaven you are stripped of everything that makes you YOU then I am not sure what the point of it is.

Well if non-existence is the aim let's cut out the middle man of exietence. All those potential people that never were must be having a whale of a time? In which case it isn't YOU that is in heaven. As far as I can see anyway.

Well I would like to think I am asking whether the question "Why are we here"? is even a meaningful question in this context. I would argue that we are quite capable of finding meaning without recourse to souls or heaven or any other aspect of eternal life. Well if it isn't my "mind" (which begs the question as to what exactly we mean by "mind") then I don't know what ME is. If I transplanted my "mind" to another body I think I would still be "me".Having said that I am off to see my stylist about re-inventing myself.**Not really. I would rather die.

Which makes it no more or less meaningful. Absolutely nothing. All of which would suggest that even the concept of an everlasting ME is a by-product of intelligence and self-awareness rather than a reality genuinely worthy of consideration.

All of which presumes a very Christian outlook. And all of which is very Pascal's Wager. But which of the numerous afterlife alternatives do you suggest we seriously consider? Is baptism necessary to avoid rotting in eternal damnation? Should we each be buried with all our wordly possessions to avoid being poverty stricken in the afterlife? Should we place a coin in the mouth of the deceased to ensure passage to their rightful place? These are but a few examples of past or present widely believed deathly necessities.How many of them would you suggest we give any practical credence to?

If people want to special plead their own personal version of hell and then take steps to avoid that hell then good luck to them. I have no problem with that at all.But how many such people treat this as a purely personal decision that is relevant to them and them only? Those who incite hell usually do so to proclaim moral authority over the actions of others.I have no problem with purely subjective notions of god (or heaven or hell). But as soon as those notions start dictating what anyone else should or shouldn't do, or what anyone else should or should not believe, I will disagree.

Which I have no problem with per se.Except that no one set of such unevidenced beliefs is any more rational than any other. As per my brief discussion of afterlife rituals described in Message 24.Thus if those that believe also believe that theirs is the "one true way" (which all too many do) then I will again disagree with them.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Cookies and goblins are equally evidenced until you look in the cabinet? Equally irrational to believe in either until actually looking? I am sorry but that is just nonsense. Listen to yourself.What about all of the past objective evidence that suggests that cookies A) exist and B) are not just possible but fairly likley to dwell in kitchens? What about the fact that there is no objective evidence for the existence of goblins whatsoever? What about all of the evidence that suggests that goblins are in fact features of human story telling? You ignore all of that and treat the cookie Vs goblin claim in an evidential vacuuum of evidence? A complete evidential island in which all previous objective experience is discounted? Why? That is just sheer madness.I suppose that if I say I have just witnessed a cat crossing the road whilst walking home alone at night that is identical to the claim that I have just seen a T-Rex? Or that I have just witnessed god?What is it with you guys and this ridiculous notion that each claim operates as if all other human knowledge didn't exist. I despair I really do.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Only if you ignore every single piece of objective evidence we have ever established about the reality of cookies and goblins respectively. I see no reason to do this. Why do you? Overly simplistic summation. But you seem to have got the general gist. WHAT!?!?Then you have not understood a word I have ever said on this subject to anyone ever at EvC. My entire argument is based on the fact that in practise there never ever is a complete vacuum of evidence in which any claim is made. Ever. Goblins and cookies are not evidentially equivelent by the terms of any argument I have ever made. It is the theists who insist that I consider their ambiguous proclamtions of god, the soul etc. etc. as if there were a complete absence of human psychology or history of supernatural gap filling on which to make any assessmnet of likelihood regarding such claims. "Obviously"? Since when was subjective "obviousness" a meaningful criteria for anything? You are on seriously thin ice with that one.Most "obviousness" comes from objective evidence regarding possibility and likelihood of any given claim. Thus claims of having seen cats cross roads are more evidenced, more mundane and more "obviously" likely to be true than claims of T-Rex sightings. Or god experiences. I continue to despair at this insane notion that unless you look in a box all conceivably possible things that could be in the box are equally objectively unevidenced. This is a truly insane assertion.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.