Do you believe in God?

[Outspacer]

It's actually more relevant to your claim that you weren't dead before you were alive.

...and that's the part I care about. I didn't quote the part about duality. I quoted the part about whether you're dead before you're alive.

That sentence demonstrates usage of the first definition of 'death' in my post. It's not a claim by me. To ward off pedants I realise now that I should've included some joining text to make that clear (blah blah definition, "in the sense of" ...). Why on earth do you think someone would drop a claim like that in the middle of a post about duality anyway? It's part of the argument that that particular definition of death isn't in a duality with life.

I'm far less interested in whether you can find wriggle room in your language than I am in having the discussion about whether your state before living is equivalent or not equivalent to your state after living... in meaningful capacities that is.

You've argued against things I haven't said. That's not me finding wriggle room.

The "birth" of a star is not meant to refer to actual living organisms. It's meant to anthropomorphize the phases of stars as they progress through time.

Obviously. I didn't say or imply anything different to that.

When we talk about dead rocks, we're not using a literary technique to discuss the cycle of existence of a rock, we're talking about whether or not it contains living organisms. "Dead" and "lifeless" are used to refer to certain inhospitable landscapes on Earth as well (although usually it's not technically accurate).

In case "Or something" didn't tip you off, I wasn't being entirely serious about the life-cycle of a dead rock. Why would I entertain an argument based around 'dead' being used in a way that I'd already referred to way back in the post you selectively quoted?

What would be a "common-speak" term for things that are not yet alive? Are there different "common-speak" terms for something that is not yet alive (like a planet, or an embryo) and someone who is not yet alive (such as when you're referring to a period before someone was alive in the past progressive tense)?

Nice, mocking me struggling to find the right way to describe how people commonly use words, as opposed to some specific (e.g scientific or philosophical) meaning. Please can you teach me a better term or expression instead?

And... why ask me?

 

[Danoff]

That sentence demonstrates usage of the first definition of 'death' in my post. It's not a claim by me. To ward off pedants I realise now that I should've included some joining text to make that clear (blah blah definition, "in the sense of" ...). Why on earth do you think someone would drop a claim like that in the middle of a post about duality anyway? It's part of the argument that that particular definition of death isn't in a duality with life.

Ok, apparently you're more interested in setting the record than having a discussion. I really don't care to hash out every last word in your posts. I get that some people enjoy that, it's not what I come here for. Moving on...

 

[Dogwolf77]

Character is who you are when no one is looking. The true measure of character is temptation resisted. For those who believe in an omnipresent god, someone is always looking. Perhaps a higher power to answer to than the penalty of man’s law, some local government.

That said, it’s so much easier to deny god. To be free to lie, cheat, steal, commit any number of sins without any recourse. Or so you believe.

It’s character. It’s honesty and integrity. It’s compassion and tolerance. That’s the Holy Spirit that lives inside of us. It’s all around us. It’s who we are when everyone is watching or none at all.

Don’t want to believe, want to give the finger to the old man upstairs? Fine, heavens not overflowing. I sincerely doubt anyone will try and save your poor soul. Life is an audition and the world is our stage. How will you act? Will you rise or will you sink?

 

[Danoff]

Character is who you are when no one is looking. The true measure of character is temptation resisted. For those who believe in an omnipresent god, someone is always looking. Perhaps a higher power to answer to than the penalty of man’s law, some local government.

So those who believe have no character.

That said, it’s so much easier to deny god. To be free to lie, cheat, steal, commit any number of sins without any recourse. Or so you believe.

Morality predates god.

It’s character. It’s honesty and integrity. It’s compassion and tolerance. That’s the Holy Spirit that lives inside of us. It’s all around us. It’s who we are when everyone is watching or none at all.

No, that's morality. You don't just get to define morality as a spirit.

Don’t want to believe, want to give the finger to the old man upstairs? Fine, heavens not overflowing. I sincerely doubt anyone will try and save your poor soul. Life is an audition and the world is our stage. How will you act? Will you rise or will you sink?

The concept of heaven or hell is juvenile at best.

 

[Imari]

The difference between things which happened in the past and things which happen in the future may not be as substantial as you think.

Unless you don't believe in absolute determinism. In which case there's a distinct difference between past and future.

 

[Famine]

Nice, mocking me struggling to find the right way to describe how people commonly use words, as opposed to some specific (e.g scientific or philosophical) meaning.

Actually, I was asking you a question...

Please can you teach me a better term or expression instead?

If I knew of - or could recall - one, I'd have put that forward. Hence my asking you...

And... why ask me?

You brought it up. You suggested that "common-speak" (which I'm assuming is everyday language as spoken by laypeople, but still native speakers) terms differentiate between no-longer living and not-yet living, with "dead" in the former slot. I was wondering what the "common-speak" term for the latter was. Which is why I asked.

 

[Scaff]

Character is who you are when no one is looking. The true measure of character is temptation resisted. For those who believe in an omnipresent god, someone is always looking. Perhaps a higher power to answer to than the penalty of man’s law, some local government.

That said, it’s so much easier to deny god. To be free to lie, cheat, steal, commit any number of sins without any recourse. Or so you believe.

It’s character. It’s honesty and integrity. It’s compassion and tolerance. That’s the Holy Spirit that lives inside of us. It’s all around us. It’s who we are when everyone is watching or none at all.

Don’t want to believe, want to give the finger to the old man upstairs? Fine, heavens not overflowing. I sincerely doubt anyone will try and save your poor soul. Life is an audition and the world is our stage. How will you act? Will you rise or will you sink?

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, nor is religion the root of morality, nor has religion ever been particularly good at morality.

In terms of your faith, the book of Leviticus is ample evidence of this, or do you advocate putting children to death for cursing their parents?

 

[TenEightyOne]

That said, it’s so much easier to deny god. To be free to lie, cheat, steal, commit any number of sins without any recourse. Or so you believe.

I do believe that. I am free to do all above the above as much as I like. If I believed in God then exactly the same would be true. Remember that under the Catholic and Anglican systems I'm able to repent anything which the tithe collector priest thinks is sinful.

 

[Famine]

I do believe that. I am free to do all above the above as much as I like. If I believed in God then exactly the same would be true. Remember that under the Catholic and Anglican systems I'm able to repent anything which the tithe collector priest thinks is sinful.

But according to the originators and arbiters of morality, it's only good not to do bad things if you're scared of the consequences, and not because they're fundamentally abhorrent things.

You may not rape anyone because you think it's a horrific thing to even entertain the thought of raping someone, but you're not a good person until you want to rape someone but won't because you might get punished by a deity*.

Moral.


*Unless it's your spouse, slave or daughter, or you pay 50 pieces of silver to her dad.

 

[Outspacer]

Ok, apparently you're more interested in setting the record than having a discussion. I really don't care to hash out every last word in your posts. I get that some people enjoy that, it's not what I come here for. Moving on...

Funny, because your attempt to start a discussion just reads like you were trying to set me straight, over something that you misunderstood as a claim and deliberately took out of context.

Actually, I was asking you a question...

If I knew of - or could recall - one, I'd have put that forward. Hence my asking you...

You brought it up. You suggested that "common-speak" (which I'm assuming is everyday language as spoken by laypeople, but still native speakers) terms differentiate between no-longer living and not-yet living, with "dead" in the former slot. I was wondering what the "common-speak" term for the latter was. Which is why I asked.

I'm not sure that there is one (at least not in general use in English) apart from saying "not yet alive", "not yet born" or simply "before ...". I'm thinking that in one sense someone/something which doesn't exist (yet) doesn't have a state to name. If someone says "Mr Smith is dead" then that is also saying that he was alive before that. At some point (doesn't really matter how we define it) it would be fair to say that Mr Smith has returned to 'not existing', but since we know that he did exist we could still say he is dead. It's not quite accurate since he doesn't exist, so can't have a state, but conveys that he did exist and died. I don't think a specific word for not-yet living would have anything like as much general use as 'dead' does for no-longer living.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure that there is one (at least not in general use in English) apart from saying "not yet alive", "not yet born" or simply "before ...". I'm thinking that in one sense someone/something which doesn't exist (yet) doesn't have a state to name. If someone says "Mr Smith is dead" then that is also saying that he was alive before that. At some point (doesn't really matter how we define it) it would be fair to say that Mr Smith has returned to 'not existing', but since we know that he did exist we could still say he is dead. It's not quite accurate since he doesn't exist, so can't have a state, but conveys that he did exist and died. I don't think a specific word for not-yet living would have anything like as much general use as 'dead' does for no-longer living.

I think you're tripping yourself up with wordmisunderstandingation.

 

[Outspacer]

I think you're tripping yourself up with wordmisunderstandingation.

 

[FoRiZon]

To answer title question: Not even by bit.

Enough of absolutely terrible experiences by those people who do.

 

[Danoff]

Funny, because your attempt to start a discussion just reads like you were trying to set me straight, over something that you misunderstood as a claim and deliberately took out of context.

You're delightful aren't you? I still don't have any interested in discussing the above with you. And yet, I'm apparently going to pick up where I left off because you did (again) what you said you didn't.

If someone says "Mr Smith is dead" then that is also saying that he was alive before that.

Unless Mr. Smith is a rock, or a barren landscape. Or Mr. Smith the cold dead expanse of space. We don't call Mr. Smith dead before he was born because Mr. Smith isn't easy to identify before he was born (as you correctly pointed out). It's tough to say "Mr. Smith was dead" when Mr. Smith wasn't a thing.

As I explained before, Mr. Smith, as you're thinking of him, and as this fictional character must think of himself, is a collection of thoughts. What does it means for that to be dead? What is the difference between dead before and dead after when it comes to a consciousness?

I don't think a specific word for not-yet living would have anything like as much general use as 'dead' does for no-longer living.

I've heard children that were not conceived referred to as dead. Perhaps you think that's because they existed in the mind of the would-be parent, but that kinda plays to my point.

 

[Outspacer]

You're delightful aren't you? I still don't have any interested in discussing the above with you.

The feeling is mutual. I don't have any interest in the dissection of about the only sentence that could be deleted from my post without changing the meaning or point of that post.

And yet, I'm apparently going to pick up where I left off because you did (again) what you said you didn't.

No, I didn't...

Unless Mr. Smith is a rock, or a barren landscape. Or Mr. Smith the cold dead expanse of space. We don't call Mr. Smith dead before he was born because Mr. Smith isn't easy to identify before he was born. It's tough to say "Mr. Smith was dead" when Mr. Smith wasn't a thing.

... charming sarcasm aside, this time you agree! (I said "is dead" not "was dead" in the bit you quoted, BTW).

As I explained before, Mr. Smith, as you're thinking of him, and as this fictional character must think of himself, is a collection of thoughts. What does it means for that to be dead? What is the difference between dead before and dead after when it comes to a consciousness?

To answer the last question first, as it is phrased: no difference, IMO. That's why I included "dead taken to mean 'not living'" in the post you first responded to. The questions regarding what 'self' is and what it means for that to be 'dead' aren't particularly something I have any interest in discussing in the way you seem to want... I mean, where does that end? With 'self' being a figment of our imagination and not something that exists? Possibly true, but not very practical. I still fail to see how it is actually relevant to my post (in its entirety).

I've heard children that were not conceived referred to as dead. Perhaps you think that's because they existed in the mind of the would-be parent, but that kinda plays to my point.

I haven't heard that manner of use, so I'd need more context to think much about it at all. Just to play though, if I did think that, how would that play to whatever point you're trying to make? I haven't ever said that there is only one way to use the word 'dead'.

 

[TenEightyOne]

what it means for that to be 'dead' aren't particularly something I have any interest in discussing in the way you seem to want... I mean, where does that end? With 'self' being a figment of our imagination and not something that exists? Possibly true, but not very practical. I still fail to see how it is actually relevant to my post (in its entirety).

That's where my difficulty lies in your hard-and-fast definition, you seem to think that dead must mean the same thing in all contexts. In fact it's quite normal for people to understand that referring to a person as dead normally (not always) means that they have been alive but no longer are. In deeper consideration we can see that the dead person still exists ("Hello police, there's a dead person in the street"), in our varying cultures we pay homage to the dead person through veneration of the body that their self occupied, and we understand that the body will decay and mostly disperse over time.

The state of life that we accept has ended is mostly a philosophical one - although there are legal precedents for declaring a person dead through lack of brain activity when their organics are still functioning normally. For a person to die means that we accept that a personality which existed inside an organism that we recognise as humanoid has ceased to function electrically. For death to happen requires acknowledgement that a personality was alive at some point. Because it's ridiculous to guess at all the personalities that haven't existed through chance and circumstance is ridiculous so we normally avoid saying "oh I do wish Johnny Bobbins was here, except he was never actually procreated and only exists in this sentence". An exception to that might be couples who can't conceive who feel the absence of a person they wished to create, but that is very rarely (@Danoff's context aside) referred to as death - it lacks the prerequisite life.

Another use of dead referred to earlier in this thread is applied to rocks. We accept that rocks have never been alive and that they never will be. We use dead in that context to express the utterly cold, stillness of those never-alive things.

We might also refer to somebody as dead if we feel they lack character or spark in a certain context, refer to a place as dead despite it being full of living people (Grimsby is a good example), but that's just an interesting aside. To me at least.

 

[Danoff]

To answer the last question first, as it is phrased: no difference, IMO. That's why I included "dead taken to mean 'not living'" in the post you first responded to. The questions regarding what 'self' is and what it means for that to be 'dead' aren't particularly something I have any interest in discussing in the way you seem to want... I mean, where does that end? With 'self' being a figment of our imagination and not something that exists? Possibly true, but not very practical. I still fail to see how it is actually relevant to my post (in its entirety).

Let's talk about how it's relevant to the thread.

People who believe in God (at least most of them it seems) believe that there is something infused when life is first created. A soul, which lives in perpetuity. To them, the question "what's it like after you die" is one of determining where this enduring soul goes and how it experiences. To them, you very clearly cannot be dead before you are a live, because you didn't have a soul prior to that. There is a very clear distinction between prior to living and after living in that your soul exists in one of those and not in the other.

The soul, though, is just a person's collective thoughts and intuitions. It's the name we give to our consciousness. And from the perspective of thoughts and consciousness what existed before is equivalent to what exists after. You're just as dead (not existing) before as you are after. And you seem to agree, which is great.

I haven't heard that manner of use, so I'd need more context to think much about it at all. Just to play though, if I did think that, how would that play to whatever point you're trying to make?

See above. "You" exist in the form of thoughts.

I haven't ever said that there is only one way to use the word 'dead'.

I didn't say you did. Please stop trying to turn the conversation in that direction. It's pointless, and nobody wants to read it.

For a person to die means that we accept that a personality which existed inside an organism that we recognise as humanoid has ceased to function electrically. For death to happen requires acknowledgement that a personality was alive at some point.

I don't see the distinction between that point being before or after it exists. In terms of what death is, non-existence, and what it entails (not heaven, or perception), before vs. after has no bearing. After is a return to the state of before.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don't see the distinction between that point being before or after it exists. In terms of what death is, non-existence, and what it entails (not heaven, or perception), before vs. after has no bearing. After is a return to the state of before.

'Death' as we apply it to people refers to the end of life. Applying to a not-existed life is very unusual and incorrect. Things can be dead that have no life and which are never expected to, but we don't refer to the death of a life that never existed. Life is a prerequisite for death in that context.

Or, as Spike Milligan put it, life is a short illness curable only by death. Or something similar.

 

[Danoff]

'Death' as we apply it to people refers to the end of life.

Maybe often, but I don't think it's exclusive. Death (as we're discussing it) is an absence of consciousness. It's consistently applied to rocks, barren landscapes, corpses, Keanu Reeves's acting, and your state of existence before you were born. There is a single unifying theme here, not a bunch of specific uses.

...to contradict myself...

I, of course, ignored the other use of death which is biological death. A cell can die without ever having been conscious.

Applying to a not-existed life is very unusual and incorrect. Things can be dead that have no life and which are never expected to, but we don't refer to the death of a life that never existed. Life is a prerequisite for death in that context.

This isn't how we live, and it's definitely not how we grieve. Death is so much about expectation. But what of the order? Even if you presuppose that life must exist for death to exist, that for something to be dead it must exist at some time, what is the distinction in the order? The lack of existence after is the same as the lack of existence before.

This is also the only thing that matters in the discussion of God, and of souls, and of an afterlife. The distinction between after and before. It's not purely semantic here, it's an understanding of existence.

 

[Outspacer]

That's where my difficulty lies in your hard-and-fast definition, you seem to think that dead must mean the same thing in all contexts. In fact it's quite normal for people to understand that referring to a person as dead normally (not always) means that they have been alive but no longer are. In deeper consideration we can see that the dead person still exists ("Hello police, there's a dead person in the street"), in our varying cultures we pay homage to the dead person through veneration of the body that their self occupied, and we understand that the body will decay and mostly disperse over time.

The state of life that we accept has ended is mostly a philosophical one - although there are legal precedents for declaring a person dead through lack of brain activity when their organics are still functioning normally. For a person to die means that we accept that a personality which existed inside an organism that we recognise as humanoid has ceased to function electrically. For death to happen requires acknowledgement that a personality was alive at some point. Because it's ridiculous to guess at all the personalities that haven't existed through chance and circumstance is ridiculous so we normally avoid saying "oh I do wish Johnny Bobbins was here, except he was never actually procreated and only exists in this sentence". An exception to that might be couples who can't conceive who feel the absence of a person they wished to create, but that is very rarely (@Danoff's context aside) referred to as death - it lacks the prerequisite life.

Another use of dead referred to earlier in this thread is applied to rocks. We accept that rocks have never been alive and that they never will be. We use dead in that context to express the utterly cold, stillness of those never-alive things.

We might also refer to somebody as dead if we feel they lack character or spark in a certain context, refer to a place as dead despite it being full of living people (Grimsby is a good example), but that's just an interesting aside. To me at least.

I'm confused... I don't disagree with any of that, and I'm not sure why you think I'm the one with a hard and fast definition? I started out with two ('was alive' and 'not alive'), which was plenty for the purposes of posting about the duality of life and death. Hardly me implying that dead must mean the same thing in all contexts! What I have mused on is how its use in various ways came about, and it seems quite feasible that most if not all uses derive from dead meaning a person/thing that has died. That isn't to say that it still means exactly the same in each context, of course. As you mention "prerequisite life", are you not falling into the same trap that you accuse me of?

For asides, "the dead of night" is one that just popped into my head.

People who believe in God (at least most of them it seems) believe that there is something infused when life is first created. A soul, which lives in perpetuity. To them, the question "what's it like after you die" is one of determining where this enduring soul goes and how it experiences. To them, you very clearly cannot be dead before you are a live, because you didn't have a soul prior to that. There is a very clear distinction between prior to living and after living in that your soul exists in one of those and not in the other.

The uncomfortable question of what happens after death would've sought an answer from the first primitive people to consider it thousands of years ago. The question of what happens before life isn't so uncomfortable. You can surely see the asymmetry without resorting to God.

The soul, though, is just a person's collective thoughts and intuitions. It's the name we give to our consciousness. And from the perspective of thoughts and consciousness what existed before is equivalent to what exists after. You're just as dead (not existing) before as you are after. And you seem to agree, which is great.

Right, I agree that - in that particular sense of the word. I believe that I did not exist (at least not in any way indentifiable as me, physical or spiritual), do now exist (yet am constantly changing), and will not exist at some point in the future. For argument's sake, from my point of view, I'll say that's when I die - cognition, stopped for good. From an external point of view my corpse still bears my name and it may take a while, but eventually there will be absolutely nothing recognisable as what was me.

Your disagreement to my saying "I wasn't dead before I was alive" still isn't valid because I had said how I was using the word at that point, and that sentence was a demonstration of that (more common) definition. Can you not accept that?

 

[Danoff]

The uncomfortable question of what happens after death would've sought an answer from the first primitive people to consider it thousands of years ago. The question of what happens before life isn't so uncomfortable. You can surely see the asymmetry without resorting to God.

It's only uncomfortable because of the perceived asymmetry. People think that death will be a foreign experience - that it will be unlike what they have perceived so far, and they fear it. Fear of ceasing to exist is baked in at a natural selection level. It's irrational, and it fights the way your mind forecasts the future - based on past experiences. There is no past experience which prepares your mind for death.

But symmetry offers comfort here. Because you have been dead before. In every sense that one cares about the experience or state of their own death, they have once been dead. When put in this context, it's easily seen that a fear of death is simply another biological control designed to propagate genes.

Right, I agree that - in that particular sense of the word.

It's this sense of the concept that pertains to the topic. Words are tools to convey concepts into the mind of the person you're speaking with, and it's the concept, not the word, that I'm discussing.

Your disagreement to my saying "I wasn't dead before I was alive" still isn't valid because I had said how I was using the word at that point, and that sentence was a demonstration of that (more common) definition. Can you not accept that?

Do you want me to verify it? I don't feel like checking. Do you want me to agree that you said what you claim you did? I don't particularly care. I'm not claiming you're wrong, and I'm not here to demonstrate that you're somehow inconsistent. I honestly do not care. Can I accept it? Absolutely. Don't know, don't care, sounds good.

 

[Outspacer]

It's only uncomfortable because of the perceived asymmetry. People think that death will be a foreign experience - that it will be unlike what they have perceived so far, and they fear it. Fear of ceasing to exist is baked in at a natural selection level. It's irrational, and it fights the way your mind forecasts the future - based on past experiences. There is no past experience which prepares your mind for death.

But symmetry offers comfort here. Because you have been dead before. In every sense that one cares about the experience or state of their own death, they have once been dead. When put in this context, it's easily seen that a fear of death is simply another biological control designed to propagate genes.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust... you aren't actually hitting on anything new, you know.

Do you want me to verify it? I don't feel like checking. Do you want me to agree that you said what you claim you did? I don't particularly care. I'm not claiming you're wrong, and I'm not here to demonstrate that you're somehow inconsistent. I honestly do not care. Can I accept it? Absolutely. Don't know, don't care, sounds good.

Right. So I guess you just picked me randomly to lecture at in your charming manner. Anyway, good summary of the outcome!

 

[Danoff]

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust... you aren't actually hitting on anything new, you know.

Talk about out of context!

Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.

The context here is eternal life. Couldn't have missed the mark harder if you tried.

Right. So I guess you just picked me randomly to lecture at in your charming manner. Anyway, good summary of the outcome!

Still don't care.

 

[Outspacer]

The context here is eternal life. Couldn't have missed the mark harder if you tried.

Nope. I just chose the simpler, snappier version for you. The "dust to dust" expression derives from much earlier scriptures:

The ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul living a full and vital life beyond death, nor of any resurrection or return from death. Human beings, like the beasts of the field, are made of “dust of the earth,” and at death they return to that dust (Gen. 2:7; 3:19). The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally translated “living soul” but more properly understood as “living creature,” is the same word used for all breathing creatures and refers to nothing immortal. The same holds true for the expression translated as “the breath of life” (see Gen. 1:24; 7:21-22). It is physical, “animal life.” For all practical purposes, death was the end. As Psalm 115:17 says, the dead go down into “silence”; they do not participate, as do the living, in praising God (seen then as the most vital human activity). Psalm 146:4 is like an exact reverse replay of Genesis 2:7: “When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his thoughts [plans] perish.” Death is a one-way street; there is no return.

 

[Danoff]

Nope. I just chose the simpler, snappier version for you. The "dust to dust" expression derives from much earlier scriptures:

You mean the bible? That's what I'm talking about too.

Edit:

Also, just btw, not that I care... but your whole quote is the one I found. You just took your simpler, snappier version out of context.

 

[Outspacer]

You mean the bible? That's what I'm talking about too.

Edit:

Also, just btw, not that I care... but your whole quote is the one I found. You just took your simpler, snappier version out of context.

The bible, he says... as if it's a self-consistent tome from one author at one time.

Away from the context of the burial prayer the concept and meaning of "dust to dust" does not change, and it's exactly the same as it was in Genesis. It makes no difference to it that the burial prayer adds a different outcome for the (also added) soul.

 

[Danoff]

The bible, he says... as if it's a self-consistent tome from one author at one time.

Why do you do this?

Away from the context of the burial prayer the concept and meaning of "dust to dust" does not change, and it's exactly the same as it was in Genesis. It makes no difference to it that the burial prayer adds a different outcome for the (also added) soul.

The difference between what I'm saying (the state you didn't exist in beforehand is not distinguishable in a non-arbitrary way from the state you don't exist in afterward) could not be more different from that which is prescribed by Christianity, the Bible, Judaism, or the particular burial quote you chose. Except if maybe you ignore all of the context in order to make a dubious point.

 

[Outspacer]

The difference between what I'm saying (the state you didn't exist in beforehand is not distinguishable in a non-arbitrary way from the state you don't exist in afterward) could not be more different from that which is prescribed by Christianity, the Bible, Judaism, or the particular burial quote you chose. Except if maybe you ignore all of the context in order to make a dubious point.

At this point I don't care to type much... dust to dust, dead to dead... same concept. See post 21564: "ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul", etc. Maybe you prefer to ignore that context to the origin of the phrase.

 

[Vegard]

I always get stuck in what seems like an infinite loop of paradox and contradiction when contemplating the concept of God.

I guess that indicates that I'm an agnostic. Or maybe I'm just dense?

 

[Danoff]

At this point I don't care to type much... dust to dust, dead to dead... same concept. See post 21564: "ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul", etc. Maybe you prefer to ignore that context to the origin of the phrase.

The original phrase was written in the bible. You know... religion? God and Adam and Eve and heaven and all that? Are you arguing with a straight face that the bible does not have a concept of an immoral soul?

Unfortunately, you made me look this up, because it sounded ludicrous and I wanted to make sure (since you're so insistent). The use of the word "soul" as you quote here is not the one we think of. They used it more like "people", as in "the ship carried 20 souls". Maybe this is in your link, I went elsewhere to find it. So the idea of an immoral person was not really an OT idea (aside from really extremely long-lived people like Adam and Eve). The OT did however have a concept of a spirit. Your spirit was breathed into you by god, and returns to god when your body dies (and returns to dust). The OT makes reference to the spirit of people returning to the house of god, or the presence of god, and just in general to the spirit returning to god from which it came. This, of course, is exactly what I've been explaining doesn't exist.

So... as you might expect given that it's the bible, there's immoral soul stuff in there. Again, I don't care about the word here (soul in the case)... I care about the concept.