What happens when we die?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Greater intelligence and the ability to manipulate our environment in far more extensive ways than other animals. We aren't mentally much different than animals, it is merely the scale of our intelligence. There are countless behavioral studies that show animals exhibiting the same characteristics we do. I'm not sure what the need is to struggle with what separates us. Think of it like a continuum, with us on one end, and paramecium and Westboro Baptists on the other. You can try to find logical breaks between species, but that is just more human constructs.

Even within humanity there is a huge gap in intelligence level. There are some really dumb people out there. Not based on what they believe but their inability to make connections between things. But even within humanity there are tiers of intelligence.

[Fuzz]

Aren't all posts related to Oiler's fans supposed to stay in the E=NG thread?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

Read Misquoting Jesus, but his arguments are flawed. Yes, I know we all played the telephone game, but for an oral tradition culture like found in the middle east in the time of Jesus, changing anything passed on would be inconceivable.

This is patently false. Studies of modern oral cultures demonstrate rather definitively that there are multiform and frequent changes to traditions occurring all the time.

People in those times could not read nor write, the printing press wasn't even invented, oral tradition was all they had.

This idea is usually drawn from the incorrect assertion that illiterate persons and communities had exceptional powers of memory by virtue of necessity, and this is simply not true. In actual fact what we see is that the threshold for "accuracy" within oral cultures is fundamentally different than for literate cultures. Changes that we would recognise as fundamental or obvious within a written document are quite often viewed as perfectly accurate re-presentations within an oral culture.

Still though, as mentioned in my post non-Christian historians wrote about Jesus, and that alone debunks most of Erhman's points.

Can you be more specific? Especially in the light of Ehrman's strong commitment to the existence of an historical Jesus, I fail to see what any of the recollections of ancient historians would "debunk" anything that he has written.

Add to that the letters of St Paul and other early church Fathers.

You have made an argument from incredulity: "Surely the testimony of the apostles and the early church must be true because of how much they suffered for their beliefs." I recommend that you go back and read Ehrman, because his rather convincing argument is that the first and second century Christian claims of persecution are exaggerated.

[icecube]

Nobody in this thread cares about that fictional character Jesus.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by icecube

Nobody in this thread cares about that fictional character Jesus.

I find it funny that a group of people who proclaim to be about following evidence based practices would ignore the most likely explanation based on all available evidence.

It's rathe convenient to hold an absolutest position on no afterlife but when the preponderance of evidence points to a conclusion you disagree with all of sudden your faith comes out.

[jeffporfirio]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is patently false. Studies of modern oral cultures demonstrate rather definitively that there are multiform and frequent changes to traditions occurring all the time.

Clearly, we have different opinions, as would scholars on the subject, i.e.Kenneth Bailey & Gerhardsson, who concluded that within a formal controlled oral tradition, changing the storyline was inconceivable.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You have made an argument from incredulity: "Surely the testimony of the apostles and the early church must be true because of how much they suffered for their beliefs." I recommend that you go back and read Ehrman, because his rather convincing argument is that the first and second century Christian claims of persecution are exaggerated.

Surely you can't take Ehrman seriously on this topic, when the evidence is overwhelming against him, Stephen, Polycarp of Smyrna, Bartholomew, Cyprian of Carthage, Sebastian, Agatha, etc...

Erhman as an agnostic, has a clear agenda, which along the way has made him millions, along with Dan Brown.

[Fuzz]

Why is it, then, that the story of Jesus has so many similarities to many much more ancient stories? I've read theories that these ancient fantastic stories became merged with the Jesus story, which would make perfect sense. Unless Jesus was a time traveller, or there were just a lot of coincidences.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is a massive, massive, massive difference. Irreconcilable.

How is it irreconcilable?

Some species has to have the most neurons in their cerebral cortex, and it happens to be us (so far, anyways).

I find the conclusion that that somehow separates us from the other species to be incredibly arrogant.

And considering all the evidence of similarity between species, with differences being more of a spectrum of incremental change (as opposed to outright fundamental differences in design and construct), I would also call it naïve.

(these are my views of your statement, not of you)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

Clearly, we have different opinions, as would scholars on the subject, i.e.Kenneth Bailey & Gerhardsson, who concluded that within a formal controlled oral tradition, changing the storyline was inconceivable.




Surely you can't take Ehrman seriously on this topic, when the evidence is overwhelming against him, Stephen, Polycarp of Smyrna, Bartholomew, Cyprian of Carthage, Sebastian, Agatha, etc...

Erhman as an agnostic, has a clear agenda, which along the way has made him millions, along with Dan Brown.

We should absolutely expect the storyline of an oral tradition to change as it's passed down. It is almost inconceivable that it wouldn't be.

In fact, it doesn't even need to be passed down to change. It is part of how our brains work that our memories can, and do, change over time. And even though they change, we (most often) are completely unaware of it.

You may (almost certainly do) have some memories from your childhood that are very dear and important to you, but that have actually changed over time. Even though they have changed, they feel every bit as absolute as any memory that hasn't changed.

It is completely normal and common to have memories that we are absolutely certain as to the accuracy of, that are in fact wrong. Because our memories have simply changed, but are still memories.

The idea that someone could remember a story, never have that memory change, pass on that story to someone else, that person remember it perfectly, and then them transfer that story again, with the process continuing for multiple iterations without error, is so close to being completely impossible, that it is reasonable to actually use the word impossible.

Absolutely no way that people could pass on a story for multiple iterations, and for extensive periods of time over multiple generations, without the story changing. Absolutely no way.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

When I am thinking my final thoughts it will probably go something like...

Fozzie is dead....but I am still alive

So I guess reincarnation

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jeffporfirio

Clearly, we have different opinions, as would scholars on the subject, i.e.Kenneth Bailey & Gerhardsson, who concluded that within a formal controlled oral tradition, changing the storyline was inconceivable.




Surely you can't take Ehrman seriously on this topic, when the evidence is overwhelming against him, Stephen, Polycarp of Smyrna, Bartholomew, Cyprian of Carthage, Sebastian, Agatha, etc...

Erhman as an agnostic, has a clear agenda, which along the way has made him millions, along with Dan Brown.

And if you want to talk about agendas, anyone suggesting that oral traditions could be passed on infallibly, obviously has a huge agenda, because without that infallibility, their belief system is jeopardized.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So what would be the definition of conciousness?

I just really struggle with what actually separates us from most other species. The only thing I can think of is the ability to question our own existence (as is shown by this thread). But who's to say other species don't?

We are the only species that has established an ability for cumulative social learning (via language) which has led to intergenerational knowledge transfer.

It is a BIG difference...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

We are the only species that has established an ability for cumulative social learning (via language) which has led to intergenerational knowledge transfer.

It is a BIG difference...

It is a big advantage. There is a difference.

[peter12]

We are the only animal that communicates through symbolic linguistics and thus, the only animal that can make contracts.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by peter12

We are the only animal that communicates through symbolic linguistics and thus, the only animal that can make contracts.

It is indisputably true that humans have raised the bar on this planet.

The fundamental question for this debate is: is that simply due to natural progression, or are we fundamentally different in a way that separates us and suggests divine intervention?

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How is it irreconcilable?

Some species has to have the most neurons in their cerebral cortex, and it happens to be us (so far, anyways).

I find the conclusion that that somehow separates us from the other species to be incredibly arrogant.

And considering all the evidence of similarity between species, with differences being more of a spectrum of incremental change (as opposed to outright fundamental differences in design and construct), I would also call it naïve.

(these are my views of your statement, not of you)

There's nothing arrogant about it, as sure as we are about things like the big bang and evolution, those 16 billion neurones in our cerebral cortex constitute more than a incremental change from all other species and the leading scientific explanation for what separates us. such a big difference that we devote 25% of our daily energy consumption to our brains. ~10x that of other mammals.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is indisputably true that humans have raised the bar on this planet.

The fundamental question for this debate is: is that simply due to natural progression, or are we fundamentally different in a way that separates us and suggests divine intervention?

A few things that I find perplexing:

- In a universe, so vast and impersonal, how did the conditions for life emerge on this particular planet. I recall the probability being staggeringly low.
- why did man emerge from this chaos, and why is he so at odds with himself when the other animals aren't? He is the best and worst of all animals.
- why did man emerge as the only animal with speech, and why does this unique attribute make him the cause of his own demise?

I am not making a God of gaps kind of argument but pointing out that these things seem to be so universally perplexing, and profoundly mysterious.

[peter12]

Exactly monkeyman. The emergence of the human brain was shattering and sudden.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

A few things that I find perplexing:

- In a universe, so vast and impersonal, how did the conditions for life emerge on this particular planet. I recall the probability being staggeringly low.

Life is thought to have started on Earth several times over, from scratch. The probability a planet like Earth could sustain life is very high. The only question we need answered, which I think we will in our lifetime, is if we are alone as life. I think we will find forms of life on planets in our solar system. When we find those, the odds of intelligent life forming on other planets strikes me as high.

Originally Posted by peter12

- why did man emerge from this chaos, and why is he so at odds with himself when the other animals aren't? He is the best and worst of all animals.

I'm not sure I understand? If you mean at odds within himself, then I don't think that is universally true. if you mean at odds with other man, well, if you don't think other animals do this, you should watch nature some day. It happens all the time.

Originally Posted by peter12

- why did man emerge as the only animal with speech, and why does this unique attribute make him the cause of his own demise?

What do you mean "cause of our own demise?" Are we done for? Do I need to be in my bunker? Speech has allowed us to progress to where we are now. I don't see that as something negative at all. I would also think that intelligence has allowed us to harness speech in a way other animals haven't and perhaps our intelligence helped force our voice boxes to evolve into making the sounds we needed them to.

[T@T]

Hey Peter, lots of other animals have speech, just because it's not human language doesn't mean they don't talk to each other.