|
| Thread: Talking about Death |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
posted July 22, 2014 02:50 PM |
|
|
You claiming that it's fact does not make it so.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 02:54 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
You claiming that it's fact does not make it so.
I hope this wasn't meant to be about Santa? 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 02:56 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
You are wrong insofar, that your obligation to your child is NOT, to provide definite answers. Your obligation is to try and enable them to ask questions and to look (and know how to look) for answers themselves.
Once again, I do not see the notion of an after-life as a speculative matter, it is a closed case. I'd like to remind you, that you, yourself label some faith as "fairy tale" also and when your opinion of something is that it's obviously a fairy tale, you wont teach your children to be skeptical about it or consider it as a 50/50 probability. You should teach them to be skeptical and think for themselves IN GENERAL though, on that I fully agree with you. Bottom line is, if my kid asks me if there are any ghosts, I'll answer NO. Not everything is probable and very improbable things should be dealt with accordingly. That's not inventing things, it's the opposite, it's not inventing unnecessary things.
Quote:
There is a difference between what death of a beloved person or pet means for the still living and what it may mean for the deceased. You can say a lot about the former, but the latter is somewhat elusive.
I don't think this is relevant to what I said about love and it's beside the point.
It has nothing to do with love, and it IS the point. It has nothing to do with religion, haven, god or anything else. It has nothing to do with ghosts either. We do not know, what consciousness or mind is - we know, however, that there is more than we can actually observe. Just because ONE cycle of existence ends, it doesn't mean, another can't start - or that it's not part of some larger cycle.
When someone dies, people do not grieve because they are sorry for the deceased. They grieve, because they are sorry for their (or other still living persons's) loss.
Which means: death and how to deal with other person's death on one hand and the own mortality and how to deal with that are two different things completely. Other people's death is as much a fact as your own mortality, but the former you have to deal with, when it happens. The latter, however, is mainly something that will deal with itself. With nothing forcing you to make assumptions, no definite proof for anything - why decide things? Based on what definite conclusive info?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 02:56 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:03, 22 Jul 2014.
|
@Tsar
I haven't claimed a fact. I explained a phenomenon with facts, meanwhile, you explained a phenomenon with absolute wishful thinking.
Quote:
Which means: death and how to deal with other person's death on one hand and the own mortality and how to deal with that are two different things completely.
Oh, you meant that. But what we're talking about is not grief or mortality separately. It's about talking to your child about death, when he/she doesn't know yet, what to make of it. You can do that with presenting after-life as a probable outcome or not.
I wont spell out again, why I think after-life is a closed case and why it's overwhelmingly improbable. We'll be running round in circles.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:01 PM |
|
|
No, you tried explain a phenomenon with a probability. Probability no matter how big is not fact, it's a belief. And even that is not certain, since your argument is wholly reliant on the fact that the studies that have been conducted are sincere. Truth is what you perceive it to be. You adopt others' perceptions, you put your faith in them, almost blindly believing that the asserted facts are true.
My belief comes from my own experience, though limiting, it avoids me relying on others, after-all what does any of us truly know? Think real hard, what facts have you personally found to be right and true, and how much of your 'knowledge' is from others? I realized that I know almost nothing for myself, of the material world anyhow. How can we truly attest to anything? This scientist once said this, or claimed such, and his/her word is the gospel?
The difference is, I put my faith in god and myself, while you put yours in men you've never met, and whose qualities and credibility you know nothing about.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:02 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 15:05, 22 Jul 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
When someone dies, people do not grieve because they are sorry for the deceased. They grieve, because they are sorry for their (or other still living persons's) loss.
Which means: death and how to deal with other person's death on one hand and the own mortality and how to deal with that are two different things completely. Other people's death is as much a fact as your own mortality, but the former you have to deal with, when it happens. The latter, however, is mainly something that will deal with itself. With nothing forcing you to make assumptions, no definite proof for anything - why decide things? Based on what definite conclusive info?
However true this might be AFTER someone dies, before someone dies that person is very interested in what's after. As we all die, this is a question that we all have to some degree.
Personally I have no problem with people believing in whatever afterlife they want, as long as it doesn't involve them having to do stupid stuff in this life (like blowing themselves up on a bus) or forcing their believes on me. As long as it gives comfort to people who are afraid of dying, wishful thinking is not so bad 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:13 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
No, you tried explain a phenomenon with a probability. Probability no matter how big is not fact, it's a belief. And even that is not certain, since your argument is wholly reliant on the fact that the studies that have been conducted are sincere. Truth is what you perceive it to be. You adopt others' perceptions, you put your faith in them, almost blindly believing that the asserted facts are true.
My belief comes from my own experience, though limiting, it avoids me relying on others, after-all what does any of us truly know? Think real hard, what facts have you personally found to be right and true, and how much of your 'knowledge' is from others?
Tsar my probability derives from facts while yours derive from your wish to live forever. And we are not talking about blindly following "other people's perceptions", we are talking about falsifiable, testable observations. What you are doing is hardcore mysticism and it's meaningless to reply to. LET ME DO THE SAME: I know there is no after-life because my inner self lets me speak to the universe and the universe personally whispered in my ear that life is finite. If you claim I didn't speak to the universe, you must prove it. But I did and it said Tsar is especially wrong about everything. Universe also whispered to me that although you think you have ten fingers, in reality you have seven, the universe is teasing you with making your eyes see 3 extra fingers. My experience is more valid than yours because I say so.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:15 PM |
|
|
Have you personally verified the results? If not how can you claim it to be a fact? It is merely a belief.
Hence why math is so magical, every result can be tracked back to its source, thus know for certain that it is indeed correct, i.e fact. Any asserted fact that can't do the same is not a fact, it is what it is, a mere assertion.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:28 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:29, 22 Jul 2014.
|
You are clearly ignorant about the differences between belief, opinion, hypothesis, theory.
If you go mystical, everything including your own experiences can be categorized as a belief: Because then, even your own experiences can be assumed as things implanted to your brain by some super-natural unfalsifiable force. But of course, de facto, this way of thinking is non-sense at its worst and when you stop typing that non-sense and return to your real life, you will go back to assuming very probable things real, and very improbable things unreal. Most of these things will be overwhelmingly based on stuff you learned from others and not experienced yourself first hand. For example, you wont jump out of the window saying, I never tried flying out the window myself, who are those other people to decide we cant fly, I put my faith in God and he can make me fly.
So, please stop wasting both of our time and cut the BS.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:35 PM |
|
|
artu said:
@Tsar
I haven't claimed a fact. I explained a phenomenon with facts, meanwhile, you explained a phenomenon with absolute wishful thinking.
Quote:
Which means: death and how to deal with other person's death on one hand and the own mortality and how to deal with that are two different things completely.
Oh, you meant that. But what we're talking about is not grief or mortality separately. It's about talking to your child about death, when he/she doesn't know yet, what to make of it. You can do that with presenting after-life as a probable outcome or not.
I wont spell out again, why I think after-life is a closed case and why it's overwhelmingly improbable. We'll be running round in circles.
You didn't. Your materialistic philosophy doesn't explain the existing universe - there is just no satisfactory theory that would explain all known evidence and observations. When Physics uses "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", it's just assuming something beyond the horizon of the verifyable in order to explain things - and STILL, not everything is explained.
Which translates into: we actually have not the slightest clue, how things are the way they are, and why. The KNOWN existing "world" is so unbelievably vast - and yet it's fair to assume that it's only a tiny part of what this all really is. If you can believe that all this existed as a singularity, you should be able to believe everything and take nothing for granted.
Afterlife is not something you must have an opinion to - whether death is the end in an absolute sense or only in a relative sense, that is not for the living to decide, at least not yet.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:44 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
JollyJoker said:
When someone dies, people do not grieve because they are sorry for the deceased. They grieve, because they are sorry for their (or other still living persons's) loss.
Which means: death and how to deal with other person's death on one hand and the own mortality and how to deal with that are two different things completely. Other people's death is as much a fact as your own mortality, but the former you have to deal with, when it happens. The latter, however, is mainly something that will deal with itself. With nothing forcing you to make assumptions, no definite proof for anything - why decide things? Based on what definite conclusive info?
However true this might be AFTER someone dies, before someone dies that person is very interested in what's after. As we all die, this is a question that we all have to some degree.
Yes, true - but there is no answer. To some things there just ARE NO ANSWERS (yet?) Imo, as a human you must learn to live with that. You don't need to decide for something, for an answer, just because you can't take the uncertainty. An answer would be of interest only, if it made a difference - but strangely enough, I'm not even sure it does (or would).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 03:47 PM |
|
|
JJ, if you are eager to jump from dark matter or particles to your personality existing without your brain and your soul's eternality, please don't let me stop you, let me share something from the Atlas of Prejudice though, number 3 from 10 Pseudo-Science Theories We'd Like to See Retired Forever
Quantum mechanics does flip the tables on our sense of the way the world works. There are limits to what we can know, it seems to say. Particles can communicate over a distance with no link between them, it seems to say. One particle can be in two places at once, it seems to say. I add "seems to say" at the end of every one of these sentences, because scientists and lay people debate each and every one of these points fiercely. If you want some time-wasting fun, go to quantum mechanics books on Amazon, especially those that feature "the Copenhagen Interpretation," as a sub-headline, and read the five-star reviews or the one-star reviews. You'll find plenty of people, expert and lay, fighting about what quantum mechanical behavior means.
They are fighting about what the physics means. They are not asserting that your mind, your inner essence, or your dead pet has the same properties as a photon. (I know Schrodinger did it, but he did it with his tongue in his cheek.) New Agers have a bad habit of claiming that quantum mechanics implies that people and single particles share the same properties. It doesn't work like that. Quantum mechanics no more proves that we can teleport than ornithology proves that we can fly.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 04:01 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Yes, true - but there is no answer. To some things there just ARE NO ANSWERS (yet?) Imo, as a human you must learn to live with that. You don't need to decide for something, for an answer, just because you can't take the uncertainty. An answer would be of interest only, if it made a difference - but strangely enough, I'm not even sure it does (or would).
Well, I would say that there are answers, but we don't know if they are true. Unfortunately some answers say believing in them makes the difference. I choose to believe those answers are not true, not only because the evidence is against them, but also because if they are I wouldn't want to go to the place you go for believing in it 'cause imo that would be a stupid place
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 04:31 PM |
|
|
@ Artu
You seem to think I had a theory - a pseudo-theory, to be precise -, but I don't. It's just that your definite answer is not at all definite for me, since you have insufficient data for one. So your answer is rash, and its definite character unfounded - and all that UNNECESSARILY SO.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 04:36 PM |
|
|
Steyn said:
JollyJoker said:
Yes, true - but there is no answer. To some things there just ARE NO ANSWERS (yet?) Imo, as a human you must learn to live with that. You don't need to decide for something, for an answer, just because you can't take the uncertainty. An answer would be of interest only, if it made a difference - but strangely enough, I'm not even sure it does (or would).
Well, I would say that there are answers, but we don't know if they are true. Unfortunately some answers say believing in them makes the difference. I choose to believe those answers are not true, not only because the evidence is against them, but also because if they are I wouldn't want to go to the place you go for believing in it 'cause imo that would be a stupid place
I certainly agree with you on that one.
Even though, there is also this "answer", that everyone will get what they actually believe in, which, in some way, is a rather mind-boggling idea. 
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 04:45 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 16:53, 22 Jul 2014.
|
Critical thinking and reaching your own conclusions is up to any human being anywhere. Sometimes your parents and your environment help you do it, sometimes they simply tell you their own beliefs as fact and you have to give it some effort. Just like some parents teach kids how to cook or where babies come from, and some don't. They'll pick it up somewhere along the way at any rate. So, even if you do the worst you can here, it's nothing catastrophic.
I'm not really thinking about having kids yet, but remember my own childhood pretty well and suppose I can draw a few conclusions from it. Giving it your best to be honest and open to your child is a sign of quality parenting, methinks. When it comes to metaphysics, where no parent's beliefs and opinions are immovable fact, I think it's a sign of respect and good faith in your kid to first explain that this is not set in stone and that no one can present it that way; and then you build this lovely kind of warm, natural authority (rather than a cold, dogmatic one) when you then expose what you believe and why. I say warm because it allows the kid to get a basic understanding of your thoughts and experiences, rather than be taught to take things for granted with little to no explanation.
As for the folks who are afraid it's too soon for kids to learn things, I think that, as a rule of thumb, when they get interested in it, they're either ready enough, or will find it unexpectedly boring and overly complex and abandon the subject for the time being. Anyway, I don't think you can go wrong with a careful, respectful approach; using a rhetoric adequate for a six-year-old, but telling them basically the same opinion you'd tell an adult.
Like I said, in the end, if they ever meet an opinion they prefer to yours at any point in life, they may very well override what you told them no matter how adamant you were over it. If you taught them to think, question and criticize, however, they'll have an easier time sorting wisdom from bullshyte.
I'm pretty sure this is the way I'm gonna go about with my kids. I don't think a Christian upbringing necessitates dogma. On the contrary, I believe adherence to anything in life is more clearly honest and true if chosen freely. And no matter what set of ideas my kid chooses to follow - it doesn't really matter whether they declare as Christians or atheists or an agnostic version of any of the former - I want them to reach those conclusions themselves, and understand why.
Well, unless they choose Islam, of course, at which case I'd kick them out of the house, playing Remove Kebab angrily on the accordion all the while.
So, yeah, thumbs up for Corry on this one.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 04:50 PM |
|
|
Personally I find nothing wrong with talking about death to a child, within reason. Context is all important, eg; the child's willingness to listen, your own explanation for what death is, et cetera it can all tip it either way, everything in its own time. Since humans have very little in the way of purpose, it is safe to assume that death is the absolute purpose of human life, more specifically how it is achieved. What some wish for is some sort of reward from a higher power, a reward for good deeds, a reward for a noble end, a place in heaven. Perhaps that's why we know so little about what happens to us once the body perishes, perhaps the good death isn't for some god's benefit or for the benefit of another, but our own, our own wish and desire for its own sake. (though that act may "benefit" others) Have a dream, mold yourself around it, and the world will bend or break around you. For finding your dream is like finding a small truth about yourself, a little bright star within you, one should hone it to perfection no matter what, and that is how you achieve the perfect death. Imho ofc.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 08:37 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:31, 23 Jul 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
@ Artu
You seem to think I had a theory - a pseudo-theory, to be precise -, but I don't. It's just that your definite answer is not at all definite for me, since you have insufficient data for one. So your answer is rash, and its definite character unfounded - and all that UNNECESSARILY SO.
You had used "unsolved mysteries" of physics, talking about dark matter etc, as if it was relevant and there was something similarly indefinite in the field of neurobiology. While I find it unnecessary to tell you that, surely, they have not solved out every puzzle about our brain yet, and probably they never will, since knowledge expands forever, it is not a matter of debate or uncertainty or puzzle in the relevant fields, if our mind needs or has a super-natural quality. And once again, nothing points to that, not rationally, not scientifically, not on a basis of common sense. At least, plain religious people define their choice as what it is: Faith. You claim something as biologically developed as a mind can keep on existing even if all the biological prerequisites cease to exist and then talk about dark matter and stuff to make it sound like it is a scientific uncertainty. It's really, really not.
Anyway, there's not much more I can tell you that I already haven't. And this time we are really getting off track. So that will be all from me.
baklava said:
When it comes to metaphysics, where no parent's beliefs and opinions are immovable fact, I think it's a sign of respect and good faith in your kid to first explain that this is not set in stone and that no one can present it that way; and then you build this lovely kind of warm, natural authority (rather than a cold, dogmatic one) when you then expose what you believe and why.
I basically agree with this, however, to clarify what has already been discussed, on a crucial point, I must underline something semantic. Although, metaphysics and the super-natural intersect at many points (for instance deism), they are not the same thing. Where as what is freedom would be a metaphysical question bringing forth, deep philosophical ramifications and intellectual subjectivity, yet it has nothing to do with the super-natural, the Dark Elves and their forest magic would be a super-natural phenomenon but mythological rather than metaphysical. In this age and given the recent level of knowledge we have on human consciousness, I find the question is there an after-life much closer to are there any elves than what is freedom, in spirit.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 09:18 PM |
|
|
|
And that's appreciated in the interest of the thread opener.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted July 22, 2014 09:48 PM |
|
|
Is this thread about philosophy or parental upbringing?
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
| |
|
|
