Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

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.

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

Crash, you're doing it again--and I did say there would be no need to continue if you continued with this nonsense. It's also coming to the point where it seems like you're just not going to get it at all. The extremely subjective nature of your post[s], has become nothing more than a laughingstock--and I say that with the utmost respect. But I'm sorry, it just has to be said. Do you understand how puerile that sounds? And you know what else... There's a heaven because it's the truth, and false believers like yourself can not have any peace! You know why, because And I'll be anxiously waiting for you to prove there is no afterlife. I'll be eagerly awaiting for you to prove there is no spiritual realm. People believe it exists because they have reason to believe it exists. Whether or not you agree with their reasons, no one cares. That is why you're and atheist correct? But you can go on and on and on, about ... and make yourself sound like a drone of some sorts, but it accomplishes nothing. There is no logical impossibility--and for you to call it logically impossible is an insult to yourself as well as everyone who differs with you. That is rubbish that. There are merely beliefs, nothing less, nothing more. Your argument really does crumble on it's own premise. That's all nice and good, but have you in any way proven that a spiritual realm doesn't exist? Have you in any way proven that you know exactly what happens to you after you die? Have you constructed an argument that at initial presentation to every Christan alive, they would be forced to immediately renounce their beliefs, and live life the crashfrog way? I'm afraid you've done none of the above. You've presented a marginally convincing (if that) argument--based upon who's listening-- and my refutation of it is not the slightest bit necessary. You know why? Because you haven't proven (say it with me) anything. Oh there's one thing you have proven. You've proven that crashfrog doesn't believe in an afterlife. That's about it. How could you not possibly be avoiding the argument. Ever since the beginning, you've molded this argument into what you want it to be.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. The best thing you have to offer in any attempt to refute it, is subjective drivel involving what you say is "the false believer" "the false hope." ...the thoughts you have in regard to "there is no afterlife." So far, you've accomplished nothing.You've gone off on a wild tangent--could you have atleast made it an objective tangent--about "false beliefs this, false beliefs that" "false believers this, false believers that" and you expect anyone to take you seriously? You can bask in the glory of your atheistic point of view any time of day for all I care. Just don't take it to the message boards in such a subjective manner. Does it matter if there is not scientific evidence to suggest that there is no afterlife? Not in the slightest. Does the lack of evidence mean it doesn't exist. Not at all. As far as the countless accounts of people spotting and witnesses the effects of apparitions, well I guess we'll simply question the credibility of all of the accounts. And in no way am I using that as the crux of my argument--nor do I want to argue about it with you, I'm just saying I don't know if everyone was lying or not. You shouldn't be so brazen to suggest everyone is lying or mistaken either. I'm saying, I don't have the slightest clue, until I experience it myself. --Yes and we really need to determine what they areOk, you've continually brought up an issue that needs to be settled. I'll call you out on this issue. And you will lose.This, perhaps, will settle the whole debate. This, may once and far all, demonstrate to all just how subjective you're being. I'm sick and tired of debating with someone who holds their beliefs as paramount fact, and chooses to dismiss any other possibilities. Now, let's take that right there. The fact, that there may be other possibilities than what crashfrog so wrecklessly proclaims as fact--and I use the most diminutive example to prove a point.Since, it is not a fact that I will end this debate once and for all. I want all to know that crashfrog's argument hinges on that what he says is fact. It is not fact or anywhere near close to fact. I want all to know that crashfrog's argument hinges on dismantling the current belief system of Christians, and any other belief system that holds true to an afterlife. It attempts, but does not come even close to accomplishing such a goal. I wish to draw everyones attention to crashfrogs original statement That is the meat, believe it or not, of crashfrog's argument right there. By assigning the dissenters belief system the title of "false hope," he actually thought that would accomplish something. He then goes on to present some evidence as to why he believes there is no afterlife. That, however, is not enough to give any credence to the original statement. In order for your original statement to have broken my argument, you would have had to proven without a doubt, that an afterlife doesn't exist. This you have failed to do in any interpretation of the word.Therefore, because it's still possible for someone to believe in the afterlife--because, of course, crashfrog has yet to prove or come close to prove that an afterlife doesn't exist, I will once again present my unscathed argument..."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." Call it a false hope some more. I'd like to hear you say, once again... As I stated in another post, it is so completely and utterly subjective to an atheists point of view, that it tickles my funny bone.I also find it humorous that you're still saying In spite of what I previously made known a few posts back... and ----
---- Say as you please. You've got to be kidding me right? You're whole stance is your belief that there is, without a doubt, as a matter of "fact" no afterlife. It's most definitely irrelevent. Maybe not if you had proved what you were saying. You shared your beliefs with us--I guess we now all know without a doubt what you believe-- but you have failed to weaken my argument in any degree. People still have the ability to believe in the afterlife. Yes, in spite of what crashfrog has said is truth, people still have the ability to believe in the afterlife. Not only that, but an afterlife may or may not be truth. Yes, in spite of any evidentiary support crashfrog provides, and in spite of crashfrog's vehement stance, all of the above is still fact. Bottom line. My original argument still stands, and perhaps you need to move on to another topic, because you're not making much progress here. Objectively. Objectively my friend.---Why don't you allow me to draw your attention to what I had originally said. I had already admitted that I knew it wasn't the best thing. No need to draw my attention to the forum guidelines. Which in fact state...

quote:

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate,

---

Notice, the "usually." They don't say either way. And besides, they don't say you "can't." They just say it's not the best thing, which coincidentally, I already confessed to knowing. Your position is your own subjective opinion crashfrog. And maybe that's why I've been a bit harsh with you, but you really need to understand that. I know you think it's the objective truth, but that's why this debate's been such an aggravation ever since the get go. Perhaps you need to look at yourself in the mirror, see that your "so called objective stances" are being skewed by your flaming atheism, and perhaps we can continue this debate when you come to these realizations. Until then, it's over.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-07-2005 06:18 PM

Beautifully put. Seriously, that, is simply put, a masterpiece.

You don't have to play along. No one is asking you to play along. You just have to respect the beliefs of other people, and not consider what you believe as the final "truth." So far, you've yet to show an indication of such a milestone.

There is no determining which beliefs are true and which are not.I respect that fact.You, however, don't, and treat your beliefs as if they are fact. That's what your entire argument hinges on.How would you like it if someone who believed in an afterlife did the same to you, simply shuving their beliefs in your face?My argument hinges on respecting the fact that what happens beyond death cannot be determined, that's why it is unbreakable and objective.I suppose I can admire you for what you're trying to do (if only you were more understanding of others), however, you will never accomplish it so there's no point in continuing.

You can't refute my original argument. You can give evidence that says there is no afterlife, fine. But that doesn't refute my original argument, bottom line. There is no determining whether or not there is an afterlife. Because there is no determining, my original argument still stands. You can fritter life and time away by trying to accomplish that, but atleast go do it in another topic. Sorry friend, it's not happening.I'm done with replying to you point by point, until you can atleast grasp the one most critical point. Therefore, I will leave you with the final "large post" as it were, very confident with where I left my position. I just hope in some way shape or form, whether you admit it or not, you realize how subjective your being. If that's true, well, I accomplished what I set out to do.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-07-2005 07:08 PM

Actually you haven't. And until your refutation is something greater than, (A subjective belief I might add)and then attempting to back that statement up, but not proving that statement, you have not refuted anything.

No, but rather, because it's impossible. You know, as in, you can't do it.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-07-2005 07:18 PM

Now your catching on. I didn't even try because I don't have to try. It's not necessary in proving you wrong.

No, not true. If that's what you were doing, you would have already conceded to the loss (which I'm still waiting for).In fact, I can prove that is not what you're doing based on one of your prior responses. Sure doesn't sound like an 'uncertain conclusion' to me. It sure sounds like an open derision to anyone who believes differently from you; and an absolute conclusion towards so called

quote:

---

objective fact

---

with no room for other possibilities. It seems as if you've been caught in your own web of lies.And aside from this, had everything been merely "tentative conclusions" in your eyes, your original argument of a "false hope" would have had no feet to stand on. I would have simply said..."If that's just a tentative conclusion, you don't know either way if there's an afterlife. If you don't know and can't prove it, you also don't know if the peace that is being received is from a source that's true or false." --End of debate. But that wasn't the end, and you chose to counter with..."It is a false hope [absolutism] therefore is a false peace."That's what you've been doing all along, no equivocation, simply put: "I'm right, and you're wrong."And I continually avoid going over your evidence to prove a point. It does not without a doubt prove anything. Unless it is proof, it's not enough to say there is or there isn't an afterlife. And if it's not enough to prove whether or not there is an afterlife, you can't call everyone else's convictions, "false hopes, and pseudo-peace."And if you can't do that, well, the possibility that an afterlife exists remains, and my argument still stands.And if you can do that, than you're speaking as if what you believe is fact, which is absolutism, which I do believe you said you 'weren't doing.'So pick your poison.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 01:38 PM

Some things don't require proof. However, what you are trying to accomplish requires unassailable proof. If it's not proof, than you can't assert whether or not it's a "false hope," and accomplish anything more than the statement itself. And if you can't proclaim that it's a factually false hope, than your argument is "one big flaw." Your argument is defective at the base, and undermining and breaking it requires nothing more than tapping on it.I'll lay it out for you once again.If what you're asserting is not a fact, your argument falls apart at it's base. It is not a fact, therefore it crumbles at at its very base.It would take a fact for the following statement to have any credence It is not a fact that it's a "false hope", therefore it is not a valid statement. Your reasoning skills should be able to comprehend that.Therefore, because it is not a fact, crashfrog has no grounds in denying people the potential in believing in and receiving peace from a potential afterlife.Because the above is true, in turn, the original assertion of is to be treated as a fallacy, and to be given no credence or respect in regards to a constructive discussion/debate. If the peace that was initially branded as false can not be definitively determined (or proven) as false either way, this peace has the right to remain as: from a potentially legitimate source, and in and of itself, a potentially legitimate entity. This "peace," was always, and still remains, a viable reality. In turn, people can, and still do, receive comfort from this peace. --whether or not an afterlife exists.Because you can't prove an afterlife doesn't exist, the potential for its existence, as well as the potential for an "inner reality" (a source of peace) based on its potential existence, is still in tact.Therefore, you have not broken the original stance, and although you've previously refused, if you wish to gain any respect from your peers, the appropriate course of action is conceding.The original stance of "A person (in general) who believes in life after death has more inner peace than a person who believes that there is no life after death." still stands.P.S.- The fact that you believe/assert it is a false hope is a moot point--and that includes any evidence and arguments of varying effectiveness that you use to support your position--(until the evidence is unassailable proof- meaning we have not even come close to ascertaining that you're beliefs are fact), and will no longer do you any good. (Not that it's done you any good thus far.)This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 02:57 AM

Actually, I was hoping you'd understand it was impossible based upon simple logic.But forgive me, I was incorrect, it is possible. The only way one could determine if there was an afterlife is in the afterlife itself, and in experiencing it themselves. So yes, at one point we may know that it does exist. However, we will never know that it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, at time of death our thoughts will perish forever, and there will be no determining.But aside from that... This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 03:26 AM

This would have been an objective, mature reply from crashfrog, and how the debate should have gone since the beginning."I realize I can't prove (or know) that an afterlife doesn't exist, nor can I take away the right or dissolve the capability of other's potential to believe in an afterlife. Therefore, I in no way can take away from the potential to receive an inner peace that comes from a belief in the afterlife. However, I would like to share with you why I believe an afterlife is [insert word choice here...(not true)] (crashfrog then goes on to explain why he believes an afterlife is out of the question... we all listen, perhaps give a rebuttal, end of argument.Can you see just how much more mature, respectful and objective that is than the following... Sure seems like absolutism to me (Not 'uncertain conclusions'-- are you kidding me?). Or tell me, crashfrog, are you leaving potential for the opposite to be true? Are you leaving the potential for beliefs in an afterlife to be true?If you are, we can end this debate right now. --It will end with the following affidavit: "I crashfrog, on the date of [insert date here] make a formal declaration that the above is not unassailable fact (and is merely 'uncertain conclusions'-- as I crashfrog previously made known in "message 242"), and the potential for beliefs other than mine to be truth are still in order. Therefore, any peace that is received from this dissenting belief can not be treated as a mere fanciful entity. Henceforth, I, crashfrog, retract my claims that individuals can't receive a certain peace from belief in an afterlife, simply because I assert and believe it is a "false hope." Electronic signature here_________.If you're not leaving the potential for what you assert to be considered something other than unassailable fact, than you've clearly gone off the deep end, because, it is in truth, not an unassailable fact.Therefore, I beckon and beseech my fellow discussion board members to join me as witnesses of the above, and crashfrogs impending choice.Now choose.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 05:56 PM