Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

No, not at all. I'm simply making the assumption that everybody dies, which appears to be true.Thus, we all eventually find out the trutth about life after death, whatever that truth may be. Now, beliefs that are true and give peace continue to give peace because the truth does not change; beliefs that are false give less peace, possibly none (and possibly cause distress), when their believer finds out that their beliefs are wrong.So, on one side we have beliefs that always give peace, and beliefs that give peace up to a point where they give no peace, or cause distress (anti-peace). Beliefs that are false give less peace when taken over one's entire life if you eventually find out that your beliefs are false.Now, as we covered, everybody dies. Thus, whoever holds the false belief about death will eventually - for an instant, at least - discover that they were wrong. QED: false beliefs about life after death give less peace than true beliefs about life after death.At this point, which beliefs are true and which are not become very relevant, to determine whether belief in life after death or non-belief in that is the most peaceful belief.With me so far?

And, yet, here you are. Funny, that. So clearly what I'm posting is not nonsense at all. If there is a heaven, then your statement is in fact true. You may present the evidence for your "heaven" any time you choose to. So far, I've presented more than enough evidence to tentatively conclude the existence of no "afterlife", and met with nothing but ridicule, which rather suggests to me that I'm right on, and neither you nor your little buddy Cavediver have any substantive rebuttal. And I've been waiting for several posts now for you to present those reasons. Well, no. Not if you're unwilling to admit that English words have no meaning.I do believe that words in English have meaning, and thus, I conclude that life after death, which means "the cessation of life", is a logical impossibility. If you're alive after death, you were never dead to begin with.Is anybody dead, in your view? By rebutting your arguments, challenging your logic, pointing out your inconsistencies and fallalcious reasoning, presenting contradicting evidence, and defending my arguments against rebuttal.You know, what people usually do when they address the arguments of their opponents. You and Cavediver seem to take a different, novel tack - to ridicule and insult me until either a moderators suspends both of you, or I go away. I'm not sure which of those you expect to accomplish. Certainly I don't plan on doing the latter. Yes, and that's the exact argument that I have refuted, and that you've been unable to defend. I'm not interested in repeating myself so I'll suggest that you re-read my previous posts if you are still unfamiliar with my arguments. You're not debating that person. You're debating me. I've given you the objective evidence that leads me to the conclusions that I hold. You have yet to respond to any of it.The fact that you choose to ignore my evidence doesn't make it go away, or make my conclusion "subjective." You believe, then, that false beliefs can offer as much peace as true ones?What about when the false believer learns that his beliefs are false? Is that generally a peaceful thing? Let's ignore for a moment what beliefs in particular may be true or false. You seem very hung up on that. Just consider the question by itself.Do false beliefs offer as much peace as true ones? (No matter what those beliefs may be.) Is learning that you believe something false generally a peaceful thing for the believer? I never said "without a doubt", which makes me doubt that you're actually reading my posts. Had you read closely enough, you would have seen that my rejection of the afterlife is tenative, in the same way that all my knowledge about the universe is tenative.But just because knowledge is tenative, is it useless? Do I not know something because I know it tentatively, and might have to change my mind later? Is knowledge useless because it is imperfect? Yes, of course they do. According to the evidence, however, they believe so falsely, and I will remind you, that point has yet to be refuted. And false beliefs, as I have proven, no matter what those beliefs are, cannot offer the same peace as true ones. Especially when the false believer learns the truth, which is not generally considered a peaceful occurance. Would that that were true. But no matter what you say you persist in repeating your arguments without elaboration and magnifying your infantile insults against my person. And I predict that you will continue to do so even now.Well, I'm not going anywhere. Anyone can see that my conclusions are tentative and objective, supported by evidence. And that your only rebuttal has been to spew charges of "subjectivity" and "flaming atheism."

Not beliefs that are contrary to the evidence, and supported by no evidence of their own. Those beliefs, to the extent that we can know anything, we know are false.I mean, what are you? Some kind of relativist? "Whatever you believe is your own personal truth"? How do you really expect that to be a position anyone here is going to take seriously?

Why? Because you say so? Or because that's what you heard from some believer, once?Why on earth should I believe such a foolish thing? If I believe that the Earth is flat, would you conclude that there's no way to know if I'm right or not? Or wouldn't you agree that the fact that ships sailing from over the horizon appear mast-first is but one element of evidence that my belief in that regard is inaccurate and false? I'd much rather have their evidence, which I've repeatedly asked for, and which you have declined to present. Why can it not be determined?

Why? Because you say so?Why would you expect me to believe you? Well, let's see. I put forth a convincing argument that supports a tentative belief, and you were not able to rebut the argument - in fact you didn't even try.Not happening? Looks to me like it just did.

Repetition of argument is not support. I'm supposed to believe that it's impossible just because you say it is? If it is impossible, why don't you explain why it is?

Actually, not even then. Three people in the US every hour die by suicide; that is, "wishing to kick the bucket."Abhorrence to death is certainly a common human emotion, but by no means a universal one.

Well, the creationism debate continues, does it not?It's not clear to me why you feel that solid evidence necessitates the end of debate on an issue. It should, I agree, but to every indication it does not.Philosphers still debate whether or not we live in a deterministic universe, despite the fact that that was conclusively settled by quantum physicists over fifty years ago. Neither you nor Watson have been able to substantiate that the existence of the afterlife is outside of science. I'm dying to know why you think that would be true. The best Watson can seem to do is repeat himself using different words. You seem much more reasonable so I'm hoping that you can do better. Incredulity? No, simply the observation that there is much evidence against the afterlife and no evidence for it. My own personal incredulity has nothing to do with it - and keep in mind that I would love for there to be an afterlife, sounds great to me. It would really take very little credible evidence for me to believe in it.But there doesn't appear to be any. And there seems to be much evidence against. And the fact that the supporters of the afterlife can offer nothing but ridicule when faced with my ideas, and empty assertions that it's "impossible to know" without any explanation of why anyone should believe that to be so, suggests to me that they're wrong and they know it. And if they don't believe it why should I?

Don't you know what it feels like when you begin to fall asleep? Presumably, an observant person could similarly recognize the early stages of loss of consciousness, which is not supposed to happen according to life-after-deathers - you're supposed to have the angel of death or whatever come down and guide you to your eternal reward. I mean I've seen All Dogs Go to Heaven. An assumption? No, a conclusion. If we already accept that false beliefs can give peace, why not true ones? Isn't a true belief just like a false one except that it happens to be true? (Since you can believe something true without knowing that it is true, I'd say there's no difference in regards to belief between true and false beliefs that is relevant to the capacity to cause peacefulness.) They would detect, in their consciousness, the precursors of death and the sensation of a consciousness shutting down, just as we can detect the onset of sleep.

I'm not comfortable making that kind of blanket assertion, I guess. Do you really believe that no person can desire their own death? What about people with painful, chronic, hopeless conditions? Or persons who believe that their death can benefit others that they love more than their continued life?Is a person who has set aside a durable power of attourney so that a loved one can terminate life support in the event of them being reduced to a vegetative state not of sound mind? To me that seems not just sound but highly reasonable.Do some people commit suicide because of mental conditions or disorders that rob them of mental clarity? Yes. Perhaps even most suicides are like that. But every single one? I simply can't make that kind of blanket statement. In feudal Japan the stated goal of every samurai was to live and die at the pleasure of his master. Was every samurai who killed himself to prevent the stain of dishonor from tainting his family name not of sound mind?I don't believe that death is not something we cannot legitimately, rationally wish on ourselves under any circumstances. That I am an atheist who does not believe in a life after death should speak volumes as to the significance of that belief. It's trivial for the religionist to glorify dying for a cause or for honor; to them it's simply a matter of changing your metaphysical zip code. In my opinion many normal, healthy people have made the exact opposite choice, when they felt that their principles dictated it, or that the choice was between their death and harm to those they loved. And for many other, equally legitimate reasons.

I guess you didn't understand. What I asked you to do was substantiate that it is outside of science.Let me be perfectly clear - I believe that the existence of the afterlife is within science; you do not. I'm asking you to explain to me why you come to the conclusion that you do. Er, no, I've already detailed some of my evidence against, which contrary to your assertion, it was not simply just "no evidence for." Nothing is proof of anything. Proof is for mathematics and certainly not required for tenatitve conclusions about the world in which we live.

When did I assert that belief? No, but what's the relevance of that? Why would an afterlife in a beyond-physical reality be outside of science? So you can reject it offhand and misrepresent me, as you've already done? No thanks. It's there for you to read if you take a look. It's not clear to me yet that I'm discussing with someone interested in taking a genuine look at the evidence. If you were, you already would have. See what I mean? If you were reading my posts you'd already know that's what I was doing.

Oh, really? And that's why your first post to me consisted entirely of infantile, dripping sarcasm?

Why? Because tentative conclusions are useless, in your view? Because I don't know everything, I know nothing?You can keep waiting. Proof is for mathematics and martinis. Are you saying that because I don't know everything, I know nothing?Why would you expect me to believe such a ridiculous assertion?Like I said, keep waiting. In particular please wait to post until you have an actual rebuttal to my arguments that isn't based on the summary rejection of all possibility of human knowledge.

But I can, will, and have, because a tentative conclusion is sufficient. Uh-huh. Now you're speaking for my peers, as well? And I'm the "arrogant" one?