Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

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.

quote:

---

Those who are firmly convinced they're going to live forever with loved ones, as opposed to those who are firmly convinced they will perish forever along with loved ones, clearly have more inner peace.

---

I don't believe in an afterlife, but I have great inner peace. I would say more so than most Christians I know.

quote:

---

It's an inherent human quality to wish not to "kick the bucket."

---

Sure if given a choice, but I do think that when the body is dying, whether old age or disease, the mind knows and accepts it without fear no matter what belief is held.Those who believe in an afterlife seem to try just as hard to be cured from deadly diseases as those who don't believe in an afterlife.So what leads you to believe that one group has more inner peace than the other?This message has been edited by purpledawn, 09-07-2005 07:38 PM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

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?

All I'm saying, Crash, is that the debate is eternal. If your "facts" were so solid, the philosophical debate would have ended centuries ago. My "argument" is simply that your "facts" do not constitute an acceptable proof of the non-existence of something outside science.A naive application of Occam's Razor would suggest then that there is nothing other than the objective physical world. But I believe that the application is naive, as it is presupposing its validity outside of the objective science (where it belongs) that is claimed to be the total of reality.This is rather like the simulation argument... it may not be possible to physically prove that we live in a simulation, but that does not stop the argument's point that in all probability, we are in a simulation...In the end, you are arguing from incredulity and you should know that that is frowned upon around here

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?

I'll give you that one Why? If you are correct, you won't. Can you provide evidence that a person, at the last moment of conciousness before death, realises that there is no afterlife... Is this an assumption that beliefs that are true give peace. Can you back this up? Or are you stating that "of those true beliefs, the ones that give peace (assuming these exist)..." I can go along with that. Huh? How would that person know? More to the point, how do you know? You are making claims of that very point from which (as you point out) no-one has returned.Even if it were true, you are making a subjective value-judgement that a moment's face-to-face with cold stark reality outweighs a lifetime of contentment from one's beliefs. Au contraire mon petit frog...

I was thinking of people who are of sound mind.I don't really consider people who are suicidal to be of sound mind.One very depressed young Christian boy (13yrs) we know killed himself to be with his father who had just passed away from a long illness.

quote:

---

Abhorrence to death is certainly a common human emotion, but by no means a universal one.

---

If you asked someone on the street or a tribe far away if they wanted to die in that instant, my guess is they would say no (unless of course you picked the one person who was already on his way to kill himself).Isn't survival our instinctive goal, not death?Therefore, IMO, a normal healthy person would choose life over death if given a choice.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Well if they did, it passed me by. Evolution of the state(wavefunction) is certainly deterministic, but the result of a meaurement made upon that state is statistical. And it's those measurements that make up our sense of reality. You expect me to be able to substantiate something outside science using science? I agree with the last part. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. But this evidence against the afterlife... this is just a restatement of THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.I agree that no-one has come back (well, there was this guy 2000 years ago... no, never mind), and I agree that biological processes end at death, and that memories seem to be tied to brain function, and thus should cease at brain-death... but all of this is examining only the physical. You are not considering the un-physical, so your evidence fails. But you say, there is no evidence of the un-physical, and I agree totally. You are back to THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. There is not "no evidence for" and "lots of evidence against". There is just "no evidence for". If you want to take a minimalist approach and say "no evidence for" therefore doesn't exist, then fine. I have no problem with that. But that is a belief not a proven position. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, but IT IS NOT proof of absence.And don't forget that you seem to be targetting an afterlife here. To many Jews, there is no afterlife. But there is certainly an un-physical element to reality.What did you think of my point about the simulation argument? That is a possible situation of "no physical proof yet almost certainly true"

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.

So you're telling me that God has revealed to you what happens, and then you go around denying that he exists. Oh, are you in for a slapping in your after-life. I haven't, I get my theology from Ghost. Mmmm... Demi Moore and the potters wheel... Christian thoughts, dammit, Christian thoughts. Well, the neat thing about false beliefs is that you can make them really nice You can't do that with true beliefs. You're stuck with what you've got. And the space of false beliefs is certainly way larger than the space of true beliefs.And believe me, I've had many true beliefs that in no way have brought me peace. 300ft below water, 2 miles from air is wonderful with the false belief that everything is ok. When the truth dawned, it wasn't peace that filled my pants... Given that it's 2am, that sensation would lead me to believe that I am entering paradise