Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

Actually your mixing Wmscott's and my stances together. I never said anything about true peace [actually I touched on it, but didn't make it the crux of my argument. I've been dealing in terms of "more than..."]... that's taking it to the next level. Whoa whoa whoa! Way to manipulate my illustration. The "receiving" of the candy, is portrayed as the mental hope, which is received in both situations (They get the candy). That's the issue at hand here, not whether or not one would actually receive that hope (of life) when it's all said and done (the illustration didn't transcend beyond anything more than mental aspect). If the person never gets the hope, he'll be dead by then, so he'll never know it anyway. And as far as "accepting no candy is coming and no longer desiring," well the initial acceptance would probably result in much "crying." Secondly, take it to the next level, what about someone being denied it their entire life? Dessert is a pleasure to all humans... acceptance would only be manifesting a compensation for a loss--I like that one, you can quote me on it . Bottom line is, you're mixing your own beliefs of clearly not believing in an afterlife, with my beautiful illustration ( ) That is your own personal opinion sir [your assertion of false hope], and is not of the slightest relevance here. And actually I can answer it. If it's true in the mind of the believer, than that's really all that matters as far as contentment.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-05-2005 07:20 PM

Hold your horses, friend. I've manipulated nothing. Did I not assert that I was extending the analogy with thoughts of my own, not quoting your words verbatim? Fake candy, or false hope, is worse than no hope at all. (Aspartame leaves such a bad taste in one's mouth, does it not?) I'd rather be thirsty than drink the artifical sweetened diet soda. How can true contentment come from false hope? And can one truly adopt false hope and completely fool themselves? Don't you think that, on some level, the false believer knows that what they believe is not congruent with the truth? I know I did, when I believed. I'm sorry, but I've already proved that lies can't be as comforting as truths.No matter how content the person who believes the lie is, they'll ultimately be more content when they abandon falsehoods and achieve truth. Thus, we know that the contentment of the atheist is greater than that of the believer. That was certainly my experience when I left belief for atheism.

Well, I can appreciate you sharing your beliefs. I suppose from the mindset of someone who believes as you do, what you're saying is true, only to yourself. It does not, however, hold up the slightest if the opposing side is firmly convinced in something differently. They could be firmly convinced and correct, or they could be firmly convinced and wrong, as you bring out. But what is in the end, "truth", is not the issue, nor does it have a say in my illustration. It's all about a mental state. All about a mental state.Bottom line is, you've totally changed my illustration to fit what you're trying to say, which is merely your beliefs. False hope this, false hope that... well some people wouldn't agree with you. And your saying it's a false hope wouldn't in the slightest take away from their peace. It leaves you incapable of getting the candy, as it were, so I suppose that makes you our young friend who is denied of the treat.If you're content in believing you have the truth in that there is no afterlife, that's fine by me. But there are others, believe it or not, who believe they have the truth in that there is an afterlife. No right, no wrong, just a point of view. Perhaps you need to stop spouting off your beliefs as fact (and if you're just sharing your beliefs, maybe you need to make that a bit clearer), and be a bit more objective here. Without objectivity, we're going to get nowhere. How can you be so pompous. Since when did what Crashfrog thinks become the final truth? Everyone has their own viewpoints on the world. There are no bounds to what we may or may not know. You really need to tone down the self confidence my friend, no one appreciates that.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-05-2005 11:31 PM

But how can that be? How can a false hope be more peaceful than the truth? Hrm, that's the second time you've made that sound like an accusation. Is it your belief that I do not have the right to extend or modify your analogies to suit my purposes? I was under the impression that, so long as I do not attribute to you what you did not say, extension of analogy is an excellent tool for communication. When we operate by extending the same analogy in different ways, we communicate from a common ground.Is that something that you have an issue with? Objectively, life ends at death. I would have thought that was obvious. Certainly some people disagree, but they're fooling themselves, and since it's impossible to truly fool yourself (since you know you're doing it) we know that these people are less at peace than those who do not even try to fool themselves.Exactly how peaceful do you think you can be when you're believing something that you know, on some level, is false?

Stop. Yes, and maybe you need to look at your modified analogy again. It hinges on that what Crashfrog believes is truth. That is subjective drivel, that holds absolutely no ground in a debate. Just because crashfrog always had doubts (clearly, you abondoned your religion didn't you?) not everyone is crashfrog, or feels the same way as crashfrog, believe it or not. Some people believe fully in what I speak of. And I'm sorry crashfrog, but if you can't get past that, there's no point in continuing. Since when did you become our Encyclopedia to everything that is the Universe? Since when did you experience death, as to know if there's anything beyond it? Since when did you become God, oh omniscient one! Quit being so arrogant and full of yourself and your beliefs.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-05-2005 11:41 PM

This is from the book "Man's Search for Meaning", which I just finished reading. Written by a concentration camp... victim? Pretty powerful book. The guy's a psychologist, so he has an interesting perspective. Here's a relevant quote. The author develops his "logotherapy" from his experience in the concentration camps. He realizes that there is meaning even in a life only of suffering; that it's not a special case--all people have suffering, and all must find meaning within it. And from that, he goes beyond the suffering, to find meaning not by asking what you want from life, but by understanding what life is asking of you.It's a really good read, and only 100 pages. And I've really done a lot of reading in philosophy and cognition, so I'm not just saying that because it's the first time I've read such a thing.Sorry to butt in... and somehow I don't think this will move you off your stance. But I do agree with (Dakta) Watson75, reward has little to do with reality, and much more to do with "inner reality." Taking an objective standpoint (determining what's "true" and "false) isn't helpful in this case.Ben

---

I don't want a large Farva, I want a goddamn liter-a-cola.

Oh, BTW, Crashfrog, not everyone believes that life is an accident. Actually, something around MOST of the world doesn't believe life is an accident. If life's not an accident, than there may be more to life than The All Knowing Entity had originally thought was fact. But can the thoughts of one extremely wise--and good looking I might add--individual not have a towering credence over the thoughts of everyone else alive? Nooo, and who would have thought!Look at what you're doing, now I've stooped.

No, in no way do you have to feel sorry for butting in. I appreciate the support, and wish people would voice their opinions more often. It helps keep me from losing my mind in some debates. And is also why, I feel, it's the duty of someone to support another if they're being attacked from all sides. And yet some keep their mouth shut even if they agree with them. It's the name of the game to help other's out who feel the same as you do.

Certainly.Once you're prepared to address the question. Never. I can, however, read a dictionary, where "death" is defined as "the cessation of life." Life ends at death, by definition, unless it's your position that English words have no meaning. Is it? And you know this because of your capacity for mind reading, or what?Why should I believe you when you assert, essentially, that people can completely fool themselves?I detect much anger in your post. Would it be possible for you to retard your emotional level in your discussions? I'd hate very much for the discussion to be brought down to the level of personal attacks, which is where you appear to be headed, especially in your last remarks.

Fascinating, but I don't see the relevance. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, you know.

Not anger, just frustration and incredulity over an obtuse stance you've become so relentless with. Here's your question... That is not a question that deserves anyone's time or attention--I've given it far too much. It's your belief, and you crashfrog, have stooped to the level of the very Christians you take objection with. Believe because it's what I think, and this is the truth because I say it's the truth. More or less people so firmly convinced they openly say, "this is the truth, the opposite is false." I don't care what you think or say, this is the truth.I almost bow my head in despair thinking about what your response to this will be. "But how can something that's false bring you hope..." "How can something that is not true bring anyone hope?" If you do anything of this nature again in your next post, I'm done with you. You've done it all too much already. Of course physical life at ends death. Have you not realized that we're speaking of a life beyond a physical one. Isn't that what this whole discussion has been about? You, sir, don't even know if a sprititual realm exists, nor can you disprove its existence. You know why, because it would be beyond your God of "science." Go ahead, say it doesn't exist "because it's not the truth..." I'd really like to hear that one again. I know what it's like to be fully inundated in your beliefs. And I can easily detect it from other people. Just because you never fully believed in what you were taught, doesn't mean that's the case for every other person. People do stay Christian, Muslim, etc... their entire lifetimes. People do give up their lives for their beliefs. It happens all the time. You crossed over to atheism. That's a sign right there that your conviction was never quite the same as everyone else's. Not only are you a subjective candidate for this issue by default, your more than subjective because you obviously never fully believed, or perhaps, never even came close to fully believing. You don't know what it's like to fully believe.You need to be aware that every time you say You're proving that people can easily be fully inundated in their beliefs. Now I know this is going to be tough, but look at this from an objective standpoint. You clearly are so adamantly stuck to your beliefs, that you feel without a doubt that you're correct. So much so, you speak of your beliefs as if they were Fact! (imagine that), and the opposite is without a doubt "falsehoods." They are not fact, however, no matter what wrapping paper and bow you choose to present your beliefs with. Now, there are millions and millions of people from the opposing side that are just as convinced as you. Now just take your unwavering conviction and give it a Christian theme, you'll then understand what it means to be a Christian and convinced. Don't think of them as any less convinced as you sir, you'd only be fooling yourself. The only difference, is what it is you're convinced about. Even you should be able to understand that. Sigh... that would be too much to ask.I said it once, and I'll say it again. Bottom line is, I'm through with putting up with you spouting off your beliefs as if they were fact, and calling everything else false. And asserting that no one else can be convinced in what they believe if it's not what you believe. Why should you believe me? Because you, yourself, are the quintessential perfect example.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-06-2005 06:33 PM

I wouldn't expect you to.

Nontheless, I must ask you to retard your emotional level. If you're having trouble discussing this from the detached stance that characterizes the best debate, then perhaps it would not be prudent for you to continue?I can understand the frustration caused by the fact that I'm able to both rebut your arguments and present unassailable arguments of my own. Nonetheless it would be better for you to control yourself, I think. Then what else is there? Ah, the spiritual realm. Don't know if it exists? I don't even know what it is.Perhaps you can explain it to me? You can start with the evidence that leads you to believe that such a realm exists. This would include any observation who's best explanation would be "the spirit realm", whatever that is. "God of science"? As far as I'm aware, there is no god of science. And perhaps you weren't aware, but I'm an atheist who holds no belief in any god. Ah, the "no true scotsman" fallacy. One of my personal favorites. It was from an objective standpoint that I was speaking. That there is no life after death is an objective fact, as far as anyone is aware. Plenty of people believe differently for very subjective reasons, but what relevance has that to objective fact?None, as far as I can see. It's a matter of simple logic, simple meanings of words, that life cannot exist past death, which is the cessation of life. How could it? And why would it? There's no life before birth (or conception, if you prefer); none of us have memories from before our lives began. Why would we have memories after our lives ended? It's not clear to me what you expect to gain from repeating an ad hominem attack, aside from moderator sanction. Again if it's not going to be possible for you to maintain a detached stance and argue with a minimum injection of unfortunate emotion, then I must respectfully ask you to consider retiring from the discussion.Unless you're just here to sling insults. If that's your intention perhaps you might do me the favor of coming out and admitting to it, so that I may be the one who retires before this becomes a waste of our time. Facts are facts. I'm sorry that you disagree but that doesn't change the fundamental accuracy of my conclusion: there's no reason to believe that life persists after death - and more than enough reason to believe that it does not, for instance the semantic impossibility of life after life ends.Now, on the other hand, if you have facts I'm not aware of, I'd positively love for you to share them with me. By all means, please do so.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-06-2005 06:31 PM

That was unneccesarily snippy. Perhaps you'd like to try again, only this time substituting real argument for thinly-veiled insults?

Actually you are avoiding the argument all together, and taking it to a place where your subjective beliefs are paramount. That's what's getting frustrating. And you can call your arguments whatever you want. You've brought and molded this discussion to a whole different issue, crashfrog. You've taken this debate about a simple "conviction of a spiritual realm," somehow, to whether or not a spiritual realm exists. I'm not here to argue that with you. You can go argue with yourself, or in another topic all day long if you want. Neither you, nor I, can prove either way whether or not a spiritual realm exists. And that's a "fact." But what else is there you ask? There's the potential (sarcasm) that the knowledge we have is limited, especially about something we know nothing about--yes I know (I'll say it for you) the brain ceases to function at time of death. Way to bring up a point I was never arguing, nor did I want to argue. No one knows what happens to you after you die. As far as the physical reality, yes, we do know. Your body rots and decays, and you cease to exist. A spiritual reality that transcends a physical reality would give you a much different answer. You know what Crash, the fact that we're here to begin with leads many to believe in a spiritual reality. You can believe life's one big accident all you want. But you can't disprove the existence of a spiritual reality. Personally, I think the chance of there being a spiritual reality is more likely than life coming about by accident. Do the math. There's no math to suggest that a spiritual reality doesn't exist. The math that suggests that life (and all it's present characteristics) came about by an accident, is a much larger pill to swallow.What if a spiritual realm was presented to you everyday? Would you believe then, or just deny it because it's beyond what science is capable of understanding. Just because a spiritual realm doesn't manifest itself to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you are unaware of it (potentially).Besides, I'm not even arguing with you whether or not an afterlife exists. I'm arguing you the potential to believe fully in an afterlife. We're arguing over an "inner reality" here, and "actual reality" is not relevent. So quit molding this debate into what you want it to be, and quit thrusting what you say is "fact" onto other people. There may, or may not be, more to this universe than the present conclusions of atheists. Incorrect. That is not an objective fact, or anywhere near an objective fact. It's a subjective opinion. No one knows what happens to you after you die. We know what happens to the physical body, no one knows what or if anything happens beyond that. And if we chose not to hazard any thoughts beyond physical reality, that's how it will remain. Maybe in the crashfrog's reality. But here in actual reality, we don't know whether or not there's an afterlife after you die.And to take this back to the original argument, if someone believes there is an afterlife after death--aside from whether or not there is one--that's all that's relevent to my argument."Inner Reality" crashfrog, not what "actual reality" may or may not be.Unlike you, I have never once been pompous enough to say what I claim is fact. I never asked to argue whether or not an afterlife exists, unlike you. I never asserted whether or not an afterlife exists, unlike you. Once again, you're molding this debate into what you choose it to be, and sharing your beliefs about what happens after death is not relevent.The debate was, and always has been, "A person (in general) who believes in life after death has more inner peace than a person who believes (much like yourself) that there is no life after death." That's the bottom line, and you have not even come close to refuting it.Crashfrogs response: 'There is no afterlife so they have a false hope.'That is not an objective debater.You're subjective and atheistic views shine through so vividly, it's almost humorous. Seriously, it actually tickles my funny bone a bit. (I bet that one will get a response ) Sincerely... calling everyone that doesn't believe what you do

quote:

---

"the false believers"

---

is actually humorous. I'd expect better from you. Since when did you know everything about the universe, other than what you perceive? When was the last time? Since when did you become all knowing. You really need to stive towards that. Or I'm going to have to

quote:

---

respectfully ask you to consider retiring from the discussion.

---

And whether or not it is the best thing, it is my right to use some emotion and passion in my debates. You can't take that away from me.1)I'm through with, "crashfrog says there's no life after death, therefore there is no life after death." Can you get any more circular? And yes, the physical reality states "life ceases to exist after death." That is the physical reality my friend. A spiritual reality that exists and yet doesn't manifest itself to us is possible (and may or may not be-that's a fact). The question of why people chose to believe in it, isn't even relevent.2)Whether or not there is life after death, a person can be firmly convinced there is life after death, just as you are that there isn't. And if a person is firmly convinced that there is life after death, that's all that matters. That conviction would provide a hope and peace aside from whether or not there actually is life after death. And especially aside from what crashfrog says is truth. Your whole argument (which is a illogical tangent off of the original argument) hinges on What crashfrog believes about life after death is truth. But it can't be proven as truth. And until you can prove that there is no life after death, there's no point in continuing with you. Neither is there any point in you continuing. What you say is not proven, therefore people will believe the opposite. And until you can come to your senses that you're speaking very much sujectively, there's no point in either of us continuing this debate.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-07-2005 01:34 AM