Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 211 of 300 (240972)
09-07-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Watson75
09-06-2005 8:08 PM


Actually you are avoiding the argument all together
I'm sorry, but I'm not.
You've taken this debate about a simple "conviction of a spiritual realm," somehow, to whether or not a spiritual realm exists.
Because that's very much on point, because false beliefs cannot bring the same peace that true ones bring. Therefore determining what is true and what is false, while not relevant to your argument, is very much relevant to my rebuttal of your argument.
No one knows what happens to you after you die.
So you say, but it seems pretty obvious to me. Firstly there is no "you" after you die, so how can anything happen to you? Furthermore we've often observed the physical transformations that happen to the body after death.
The brain is the organ of thought, of identity. And we know its function ceases at death. If it didn't then we'd build trapdoors into coffins out of the expectation that people would be coming back from the dead. If there's life after death then why is no one alive after death? The cemetaries are filled with the proof of my position - no one "comes back", therefore its most reasonable to conclude that life ends at death, just as the definition of death would have us believe.
A spiritual reality that transcends a physical reality would give you a much different answer.
You still haven't told me what a "spritual realm" would be, or what observations you feel are best or only explained by the existence of one.
Personally, I think the chance of there being a spiritual reality is more likely than life coming about by accident. Do the math.
You've apparently already done it. Why don't you show your work? What is the probability of the existence of the spritual realm?
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.
If I saw it everyday, if we all did, why would it be beyond the capacity of science? Moreover if it didn't exist why would that be a fact that science could not uncover as well?
There may, or may not be, more to this universe than the present conclusions of atheists.
So then present the evidence that there is. I await it eagerly.
Incorrect.
So, then, it's your position that English words do not have meanings?
Maybe in the crashfrog's reality.
So, facts are not facts? I'm not sure on what basis we'll be able to discuss if you're not even willing to grant that facts exist.
But here in actual reality, we don't know whether or not there's an afterlife after you die.
You keep saying that, but it's pretty obvious to me that there's more than sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion about that; I've detailed to you what that evidence is. It includes the logical impossibility of life beyond the cessation of life, the asymmetry of life after death but no life before life, the fact that no credible reports of life after death exist, the fact that the "spiritual realm" of which you speak has no apparent definition and is apparently a meaningless lexical construct, and the lack of any other credible evidence to suggest its existence.
Despite what you may have heard, under empiricism, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, especially for something you assert happens to every human (for we all die.)
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.
But I have refuted it. I've spoken directly to your argument, which is predicated on the assumption that all beliefs, both true ones and false ones, are capable of equal amounts of peace - or even that false beliefs are more peaceful than true ones.
This is obviously false on the face of it. So the question becomes, if false beliefs cannot offer the peace of true ones, then who is correct? The believer or the non-believer?
All avaliable evidence shows that the non-believer is correct; thus, it is he (or she) who must have the greater peace.
It is my argument, a direct rebuttal of yours, that you have yet to grapple with. Instead you've called me names, like a playground child, and asserted that the critical evidentiary support of my position is somehow "irrelevant" to your argument.
I'm through with, "crashfrog says there's no life after death, therefore there is no life after death."
You mean you're through offering that as a cartoonish strawman of my position? It's about time. I've never offered my belief as support of my position (as I would add, you have, on several occasions.)
I've given you the objective evidence that would lead any reasonable person to the same objective conclusion that I have reached. As yet you've been unable to rebut any of that evidence, instead offering only playground insult and invective - clear evidence that you're completely unable to find legitimate fault with my argument.
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.
Then allow me to draw your attention to the forum guidelines which you agreed to follow during your registration at this site:
quote:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
I find your approach neither detatched nor coolly academic, nor that you've treated me with the respect commensurate to the forum rules. Lastly you've consistently failed to address my position, rather misrepresented it and employed ludicrous personal charges of arrogance to conceal your impotence in the face of my arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Watson75, posted 09-06-2005 8:08 PM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 10:37 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 214 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 11:11 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 215 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 6:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 212 of 300 (240995)
09-07-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by wmscott
07-04-2005 5:11 PM


Peace with God is having your sins blotted out
I have read the first five pages of this thread and I may have missed anything that came later, but to that point I am left without a clear idea of what you mean by "peace with God" or what exactly brings it about. Since you seem to equate it with "inner peace" I guess you are referring to an EXPERIENCE, or a "sense of peace?"
Maybe you will clarify your view if I give my understanding of what true Christian peace with God is: Objectively it is the condition of having been forgiven your sins and reconciled with God. Subjectively, then, it is the state of mind of *knowing* that you are forgiven and no longer under God's wrath.
According to the Bible, all are under God's wrath until we seek His forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ:
Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Eph 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
And it is our justification by faith, or being forgiven our sins or cleansed of all unrighteousness, and made righteous through Christ, that is peace with God:
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ ...
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by wmscott, posted 07-04-2005 5:11 PM wmscott has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 213 of 300 (241010)
09-07-2005 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by crashfrog
09-07-2005 7:42 AM


Crash, you crack me up
Since the dawn of time, philosophers, scientists and theologians have debated the existence of god and of a spiritual reality. But today, this very day, on this very forum, Crash has provided the final proof of the non-existence of god and of the spiritual realm. Henceforth, his "facts" will be known as the "Crash of Religion". Several prominent theology departments are already closing down. The philosophers have drawn up multiple law-suits for their loss of earnings. A fatwah was called against Crash, but then immediately revoked as the once-religious leaders decided to go on a cruise instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 7:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:24 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 217 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 6:25 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 214 of 300 (241014)
09-07-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by crashfrog
09-07-2005 7:42 AM


because false beliefs cannot bring the same peace that true ones bring
I'm going to have to call you on that. I've read your arguments, but they don't wash. You're assuming that your own level of intellectual curiosity and rationality can be applid to everyone, and that is blatently false. You appear to assume that everyone holds the same doubts to their faith as you once did. This is a huge assumption, and my experience certainly does not support this. This is not hard to believe when you look at dyed-in-the-wool creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 7:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:30 PM cavediver has replied

Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 215 of 300 (241109)
09-07-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by crashfrog
09-07-2005 7:42 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.
crashfrog writes:
Because that's very much on point, because false beliefs cannot bring the same peace that true ones bring. Therefore determining what is true and what is false, while not relevant to your argument, is very much relevant to my rebuttal of your argument.
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
crashfrog writes:
false beliefs cannot offer the peace of true ones,
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 ...
crashfrog writes:
It includes the logical impossibility of life beyond the cessation of life
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.
crashfrog writes:
I've detailed to you what that evidence is. It includes ... the asymmetry of life after death but no life before life, the fact that no credible reports of life after death exist, the fact that the "spiritual realm" of which you speak has no apparent definition and is apparently a meaningless lexical construct, and the lack of any other credible evidence to suggest its existence.
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.
crashfrog writes:
[In regards to avoiding the argument] I'm sorry, but I'm not.
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.
crashfrog writes:
Despite what you may have heard, under empiricism, absence of evidence is evidence of absence,
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.
crashfrog writes:
So, facts are not facts? I'm not sure on what basis we'll be able to discuss if you're not even willing to grant that facts exist.
--Yes and we really need to determine what they are
Ok, 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.
Watson75 writes:
There may be life after death, and that's a fact.
crashfrog writes:
"That there is no life after death is an objective fact."
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
crashfrog writes:
there is no "you" after you die
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
crashfrog writes:
How can true peace come from false hope?
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...
crashfrog writes:
false beliefs cannot offer the peace of true ones,
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
crashfrog writes:
Furthermore we've often observed the physical transformations that happen to the body after death.
In spite of what I previously made known a few posts back...
Watson75 writes:
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?
and
Watson75 writes:
Your body rots and decays, and you cease to exist.
----
----
crashfrog writes:
It is my argument, a direct rebuttal of yours, that you have yet to grapple with.
Say as you please.
crashfrog writes:
I've never offered my belief as support of my position
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.
crashfrog writes:
asserted that the critical evidentiary support of my position is somehow "irrelevant" to your argument.
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.
Watson75 writes:
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.
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.
crashfrog writes:
Lastly you've consistently failed to address my position, rather misrepresented it and employed ludicrous personal charges of arrogance to conceal your impotence in the face of my arguments.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 7:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:51 PM Watson75 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 216 of 300 (241115)
09-07-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by cavediver
09-07-2005 10:37 AM


Since the dawn of time, philosophers, scientists and theologians have debated the existence of god and of a spiritual reality. But today, this very day, on this very forum, Crash has provided the final proof of the non-existence of god and of the spiritual realm.
Look, I'm sorry, but I don't understand why I'm supposed to agree that this "spiritual realm", whatever it is, is somehow "beyond science" just because a bunch of you say it is. I mean, hey! Let's all put on our party hats and pretend that we don't know what we know.
Well, whatever. That's not a game I'm very good at. I realize all the religionists got together and agreed to adamantly demand that science not poke its nose into whatever "spiritual realm" you all are talking about, but I don't understand why you expect me to play along.
If you can explain to to me, fine. But until then what I said to Watson goes to you - try again, but this time substitute argument for playground ridicule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 10:37 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 6:29 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 231 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 7:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 217 of 300 (241116)
09-07-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by cavediver
09-07-2005 10:37 AM


Crash, you crack me up
Since the dawn of time, philosophers, scientists and theologians have debated the existence of god and of a spiritual reality. But today, this very day, on this very forum, Crash has provided the final proof of the non-existence of god and of the spiritual realm. Henceforth, his "facts" will be known as the "Crash of Religion". Several prominent theology departments are already closing down. The philosophers have drawn up multiple law-suits for their loss of earnings. A fatwah was called against Crash, but then immediately revoked as the once-religious leaders decided to go on a cruise instead.
Beautifully put. Seriously, that, is simply put, a masterpiece.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 10:37 AM cavediver has not replied

Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 218 of 300 (241118)
09-07-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by crashfrog
09-07-2005 6:24 PM


crashfrog writes:
but I don't understand why you expect me to play along.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:53 PM Watson75 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 219 of 300 (241119)
09-07-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by cavediver
09-07-2005 11:11 AM


You're assuming that your own level of intellectual curiosity and rationality can be applid to everyone, and that is blatently false.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 11:11 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 6:45 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 234 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 8:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 220 of 300 (241121)
09-07-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by crashfrog
09-07-2005 6:30 PM


crashfrog writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:56 PM Watson75 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 300 (241122)
09-07-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Watson75
09-07-2005 6:00 PM


Crash, you're doing it again--and I did say there would be no need to continue if you continued with this nonsense.
And, yet, here you are. Funny, that. So clearly what I'm posting is not nonsense at all.
There's a heaven because it's the truth, and false believers like yourself can not have any peace!
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.
And I'll be anxiously waiting for you to prove there is no afterlife.
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.
People believe it exists because they have reason to believe it exists.
And I've been waiting for several posts now for you to present those reasons.
There is no logical impossibility
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?
How could you not possibly be avoiding the argument.
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.
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."
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.
I'm sick and tired of debating with someone who holds their beliefs as paramount fact, and chooses to dismiss any other possibilities.
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."
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.
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?
You're whole stance is your belief that there is, without a doubt, as a matter of "fact" no afterlife.
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?
People still have the ability to believe in the afterlife.
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.
Until then, it's over.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 6:00 PM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 7:07 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 226 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 7:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 222 of 300 (241123)
09-07-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Watson75
09-07-2005 6:29 PM


You just have to respect the beliefs of other people
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 6:29 PM Watson75 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 300 (241124)
09-07-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Watson75
09-07-2005 6:45 PM


There is no determining which beliefs are true and which are not.
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?
How would you like it if someone who believed in an afterlife did the same to you, simply shuving their beliefs in your face?
I'd much rather have their evidence, which I've repeatedly asked for, and which you have declined to present.
My argument hinges on respecting the fact that what happens beyond death cannot be determined
Why can it not be determined?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 6:45 PM Watson75 has not replied

Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5670 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 224 of 300 (241131)
09-07-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by crashfrog
09-07-2005 6:51 PM


Watson75 writes:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 6:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2005 7:08 PM Watson75 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 225 of 300 (241133)
09-07-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Watson75
09-07-2005 7:07 PM


There is no determining whether or not there is an afterlife.
Why? Because you say so?
Why would you expect me to believe you?
Sorry friend, it's not happening.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 7:07 PM Watson75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 7:17 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 228 by Watson75, posted 09-07-2005 7:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024