Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

In an attempt not to get my words entangled with the words of Wmscott, I wish not to get connected with him. My argument may be quite similar to his, because I actually can see where he's coming from and choose to support what he's saying. I however don't want to produce irrational assertions, or simple conjectures--which I plan on doing--that may somehow end up meshing with the words of WM because of their potential similarity. Now that that's all cleared up, moving on.

quote:

---

One more time:
SHOW EVIDENCE THAT NON-JEHOVAH?S WITNESSES CAN NOT HAVE A SENSE OF PEACE JUST AS STRONG AS THAT FELT BY JEHOVAH?S WITNESSES!

---

Evidence, such a simple thing, and yet at times, such a hard thing to produce. Now, I don't know if there's a classification for it, but I wish to speak of the things which can't be proven true by any gauge of the human measurement system, but which is accepted as such through a "general human concensus," if you will. And although this may at times lie outside the field of science, well to me atleast, science is not the end all, nor should it be the only accepted way to come to a conclusion. Let's say I want to make the assertion that "Citizen Cane" is a better film than "Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigalo." There is no scientific way you could conclude that one is better than the other--professional critics don't count . Any evidence presented would be merely opinion. Yet at the same time, the reasoning masses, if objective, would come to the conclusion that Citizen Cane is a superior film,--sorry Bigalow fans, if your out there--based upon a an inherent taste society has developed for what makes a good film. I could present an online argument much like this-"Citizen Cane is a better film than Deuce Bigalow, Male Gigalo." And recieve warranted replies, "Hah, no it isn't. PROVE IT!" At that point I would have nothing left other than the hope of appealing to the better sense of every human. In the case of a message board, chances are it isn't going to happen. And really, it shouldn't, unless the gap of quality is so prodigious that it merits a "You know what, that has to be the case." The point of this long drawn out illustration is scientific proof shouldn't and doesn't always need to be there, and can't. The better sense of the "general human concensus" should stand for something.Now, it appears that WM has done his best at presenting some sort of "evidence" or proof that true inner peace is something; first, possessed more so by people of religious beliefs, second, only "truly" possessed by Jehovah's Witnesses. People of other religious denominations would cleary take offense to this, for claims such as this would usually be hard to back up with any evidence whatsoever. So to say that true peace is something only possessed by JW's is a bold claim WM, but I feel it does deserve more respect than has been initially granted to it. Which is probably why I'm writing this reply. WM has solely managed to fight off an onslaught of harsh multiple dissenters, something I feel should be acclaimed. It's time he gets some moral support.Firstly, is there any "scientific proof" that someone of a religious faith has more "inner peace" than an atheist? I suppose this is something that is not outside the bounds of science, in a controlled survey. But I suppose unless we start measuring brainwaves, that's all we're going to get; a survey, not exactly cold hard "proof." Now, when we speak of surveys what are you reminded of? Ahh, my initial illustration--Oh, and you thought we were through with that didn't you . A "general human concensus" is the best we could ever expect in order to come to some sort of a conclusion with our Citizen Cane illustration, and a "general human concensus" is the best--sometimes the best has to be good enough, and stand as the deciding factor. Or as the definition of "Proof" puts it:1)The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.I really appreciate that. "Compels the mind", so simple, and yet so profound. A reasoning mind is compelled to accept some things as true, simply in and of themselves. Proof, in the form of scientific studies (What science says is true), or even national surveys (what the concensus says is true) are not always necessary. But what I'm going after is proof that:1st: compels the individual mind2nd: in turn relates to all minds so as to have a "general human concensus"3rd: well there is no scientific study in this proof It's upon this I will beckon to "proove" (relatively) my first point. The person with a religious faith has more inner peace than the atheist.I believe WM has touched on this already, however, I will once and again, showing disregard (not offensive) over repeating points. And as in the case of the inexorable DBMG fan, I hope to appeal to the "better sense," of our brilliant minds. In fact, this isn't even going to take long. The best arguments are the concise ones--boy do I need to listen to myself . The person with faith has more "inner peace" than the atheist. Now, this may be hard for some atheists to do since you're so "firmly convinced," but you must step back for a second and view the world through the eyes of others who are also "firmly convinced." Those who are "firmly convinced" (yes just as much as you're firmly convinced that there is no God) that they will go on to live an eternal paradisaic afterlife surely have more inner peace than those who have come to terms with their mortality. Those who believe they will be with their loved ones forever surely have more inner peace than those who know the ones they love so dearly will not always be with them. Those who firmly believe there is a loving creator (albeit some incongruities) and feel in sync with the maker of the universe, surely have more inner peace than those that believe we're all alone in this "dark cold universe." And the one I love the best is, "I'm truly at peace now that I know the truth, as opposed to the lies that I formerly believed." You know what I say to that. Dunderheads! Sheer and pure rubbish is what that is. Truth is bloody subjective don't you know. Who can be as arrogant as to suggest that as a result of accepting atheism, now you know the truth, which puts you at peace. Hello, there's billions of people out there that believe just as (oh yea, the "just as" is critical) firmly that what they believe is the truth. A subjective truth has the same reactions in all individuals, regardless of the nature of that truth. Granted, some may be more inundated in their conviction, but that is besides the point. A subjective truth with perks is clearly better than a subjective truth with a bleak and ominous future. And now I beseech all of you to appeal to your better senses, and agree that what I have said above is true. I promise you, I could conduct a survey and 90% or more would agree with what I just said. Inner peace would be expected to exist more in those who have a hope. How much more, is not to be discussed. Why is it common for atheists to struggle so much with accepting? Because it's something inherently you don't want to accept. Once you accept I suppose you can move on, but the initial struggle stands for everything. Just like with the loss of a love one, a piece of you is surely lost (might we hazard to say part of your "inner peace"), which can surely be patched... but that's the brilliance of the human mind, it overcomes.Now that we've determined the above, we can move on to WM's final claim. That JW's have even more inner peace than everyone. WM apparently believes that Jehovah's Witnesses are the true religion, so if that is the case, than the "true" religion's followers would be expected to have more inner peace than the false religion. One way to determine if WM's claims are correct would be to accurately assess whether or not this is the case. From my research, JW's strict adherence to the Bible, as well as Bible analysis and research suggests a trait that I would expect from a true religion. For the atheistic type, this is neither cogent nor acceptable. A study of some sorts would have to be conducted. WM presents some compelling arguments in reference to the JW's unity, confidence, and unbreakable nature in times of distress, which you would expect from a group which possessed a high inner peace. The resolve and steadfast nature of it's members during the Nazi imprisonment, is something not only to be commended, but also a trait you would accept from a group with true inner peace. As far as comparing religions with a touchy subject like this, JW's definitely have something going for them. I really don't know of another religion which has persevered as one through such trying times, in the face of torture and death. Get a group of atheists together and put them in similar conditions and I highly doubt they'd die with as much peace as would a JW. Peace in a hope and peace in serving their God. As far as comparing JW's to other religions and the comparative "inner peace," I know the JW's have a peace that goes along with a strict adherence to the Bible. And that's something that can be extrapolated with or without a belief in God. JW converts come out of all religions because of one's new and "enlightened" view of the Bible. If this has occurred to one, there was obviously potential for more inner peace in being one with God and the Bible. I know that JW's follow the strict teachings of the Bible, so in a religious sense, if (or since) the Bible is inspired by God, this can't be a bad thing. As far as comparing JW's to other religions outside of Christianity, I can't. Buddhists, for example, are in a whole nother ball park. I do however know, the Bible is esteemed by the "general human concensus" as the most holy book on the planet. So whether or not JW's have the most inner peace, I suppose that is still up for debate. But WM has demonstrated unequivocally that they're without a doubt up there (higher than atheists for sure, and most likely higher than other Christian religions). I just truly have to give much regard to the holocaust example, and the events that transpired. That really shows a lot.So we've made our classifications. Beliefs which contain hope for the future surely provide more inner peace than beliefs which promote a bleak future. Also the conviction of such promises would be an essential factor in measuring levels of "inner peace." Jehovah's Witnesses are surely convinced more so than other religions based on comparison of blatant misteachings, with a strict Bible adherence. (I have a basic knowledge of Christian religions) (And remember atheists, for Christians, the Bible is what it's all about) And a testimony of their inner peace was demonstrated and recorded in WWII, which surely should stand for something. Of all the religions JW's surely stand out as having a high, if not higher than most, level of inner peace. Proof is going to be hard to provide here. A national survey would be nice, but WM is making some worthy claims.Yeah, you're definitely going to have some trouble "prooving" that Jehovah's Witnesses are more at peace than those of other religions. I see evidence to suggest this to be the case, but really, it's such an abstract argument it's hard to definitively say anything. All I really know is that a religion of hope, would offer more inner peace than belief that offered no hope. I suppose the true religion would also provide the most inner peace. I think WM was trying to convince you that JW's are the true religion, therefore offer the most inner peace. That's a whole nother beast in itself. I once again request my points not to be entangled with WM's. Please go on with you argument as if I wasn't even here. Those were just my thoughts, and I hope maybe WM enjoyed the breath of fresh air the ensued from not having another basher. And finally, I appeal to the "Bigalow derision" in all of you. Well, I'm off to bed.P.S.- Please don't pick apart every sentence from my post, which I do expect. Argue the stance, if you must, not the sentence. Actually, I plan on not replying, so do whatever the heck you want.This message has been edited by Watson75, 07-28-2005 05:16 AM

Here's the problem. wmscott, you may be attempting to achieve too much. To convince people that JW's are the only one's with true inner peace, is quite the feat. You may need to step back a bit if this debate is ever going to come to any conclusive end statement. The dissenters are never going to buy into your claims, and that's a fact. Even if they were becoming slightly convinced as they typed, there's not enough solid proof not to refute you, even for fun. However, we should take a look at what you have accomplished, and why it perhaps should be good enough for everyone.1) You've asserted and demonstrated that a higher level of peace would in fact stem from a peace that involved a hope. Therefore, a belief in God would constitute a higher level of inner peace than a lack thereof. Jehovah's Witnesses clearly believe in God.2) You've asserted and demonstrated through evidence of resolve in the face of death that Jehovah's Witnesses have an extremely high level of inner peace. Other religions don't have the "tested and passed" trademark of JW's, which is certainly worth something.That's pretty darn successful if you ask me.3) The third thing you're trying to do is such an undertaking that the debate might never end if you kept on pressing forward. The third thing you're trying to do is more than saying that JW's have the true peace from God. That goes hand in hand with saying these two things...1)There is a God2)God's religion is JW's, therefore they clearly have the highest inner peaceThat's why you're not getting anywhere. Dissenters keep thwarting any statements that have to do with "only true inner peace", because those hurdles must be cleared first. As I stated before, JW's strict adherence to the Bible would not only provide inner peace in and of itself, but it also doesn't hurt their claim towards being the true religion. And the fact they they demonstrated a high level of inner peace in the camps, doesn't prove it's the true religion, but it also surely points to that fact. That of course means nothing to atheists, and why these hurdles can't be overcome. In order for those points to gain their full potential, the debate of, "Does God exist" must be covered.Bottom line is, I think you've proven your point, atleast satisfactorily. The final two points your trying to do, is really, a whole different debate in itself. Good topic.This message has been edited by Watson75, 08-04-2005 04:27 AM

Bigalow proponent are ya? Is the red highlight there to help you prove your unsubstantiated opinions, or does it symbolically represent your rage or something. Could be both I guess.

You can really call it whatever you like. And no, I'm not trying to beachhead. I'm forming a stance and sticking to it. Just because I support part and not all of what WM asserts has something to do, I believe, with us being different people. I'm not trying to insinuate myself further or anything of that nature. People have their own rights to come to their own conclusions. I only hold to things that are "matter of fact."This message has been edited by Watson75, 08-04-2005 05:01 AM

My religious viewpoint is not relevent here. I try my best to remain--and wish to be viewed--as an objective machine.

Amazing. I'm actually quite shocked. I really didn't think anyone would hazard to disagree with my points. Ahh, but who am I kidding. Frankly, I don't even believe evidence is required for this one other than the statement itself. It's the equivalent of denying that a child who wants candy and recieves candy would not be happier than a a child who wants candy and is denied candy. There is no other evidence required.It's an inherent human quality to wish not to "kick the bucket." 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 really don't see an argument here. And the reason people chose to differ with this is reason for pondering on my behalf.

quote:

---

resolve in the face of death that Jehovah's Witnesses have an extremely high level of inner peace.

---

I believe that statement speaks for itself.

quote:

---

This could be easily dismissed as the result of cult brainwashing

---

In this particular case, that is not the issue. I wasn't debating where they received their inner peace from.

quote:

---

evidence that people of other faiths and no faith have also kept to their ideals in the face of extreme adversity under the threat of torture and/or death

---

quote:

---

Other religions don't have the "tested and passed" trademark of JW's, which is certainly worth something... [suggest] extremely high level of inner peace

---

I don't personally know of another case where a religion group was imprisoned by the hundreds (or thousands?), and chose to remain faithful to the point of death. If there is, I will retract my claim. And even if there were, that's not even the point I was making. The fact that they did, is all that's relevent to point to their "extremely high level of inner peace." Good, I'm glad you agree with me on something. And what I was proposing for wmscott to do was not prove the existence of God or JW's truthfullness, but rather, I was proposing "to highly convince" others, as it were. I care to differ. If you wish step back yourself and view what he has accomplished, be my guest. You also have just as much right to step back, as I have, and view what he can't accomplish and what you've proposed he can't accomplish. He can still attempt to convince, and that's what's nice about debates. Even if something is not the end all, it can still make up ground. Likewise, you can attempt to do the same thing. I was actually attempting to act as a referee for this topic. There's perhaps a number of a fouls being committed, on both sides, which required a clean perspective.This message has been edited by Watson75, 08-04-2005 07:40 PM

The Jews had no choice.

You need to read what I wrote again, perhaps slower this time [please stop manipulating my points]. Who's to say [and where did I say] there's not other sources of inner peace? First and foremost, primary inner peace would be associated with things involving our survival [life itself comes first], and the survival of others who we cared for.

quote:

---

People don't just give up hope and live out miserable lives because they don't believe in an afterlife.

---

Who the heck said that? Please don't put words in my mouth. Jews were killed because of their heritage. We're not analyzing whether or not we think a particular group had inner peace. I'm speaking of a demonstration as a whole, of that peace. You're trying to compare apples with oranges. We can speculate all we want with regards to the Jews, as well as any other religious or idealistic group on the face of the earth.Besides, as I already stated, the acts of other groups--even if they do exist--don't take away from the acts of JW's [and the ultimate assertion of their high level of inner peace]. That wouldn't be very fair, would it? Evidence comes in many forms and manifestations. If people could only speak of absolute evidence, life would be amazingly boring. Actually, that's wrong. Please re-read my post to see what he has proven. If what you're trying to say is that he can't prove his ultimate goal, then yes I agree with you. But if you're suggesting he hasn'tA) Demonstrated that those with a hope have more peace than those withoutB)Demonstrated that JW's have an extremely high level of inner peace, whether or not it's the highestThose are two concrete points that can't be broken. The rest is less concrete, and if wmscott wishes to continue on his quest, the more power to him.The fact that people argue points that by their nature can't be argued[just to argue it seems], demonstrates the relentlessness of some of these posters. To even state anything on these forums that's merely a "convincing point," other than a "cold hard fact," seems to be a sin, although it shouldn't be. And if posters are attempting to derail concrete points such as mine, it truly makes me pity those who hazard to go beyond the "facts." This shouldn't be the way we conduct ourselves.I truly am shocked.This message has been edited by Watson75, 08-04-2005 09:29 PM

Well, I've been gone from these boards for a few weeks it seems, being satisfied at the final points I drove home. It seems as if they've yet to be accepted, and If I was in the debating mood, I'd go over the posts, point by point. But actually, we're actually getting to the point where that probably won't even accomplish much. I realize this is a message board, and the purpose is to debate and argue, but when people are being unreasonable with their reasoning skills (as I feel...to avoid conflict), it just begins to become one big waste. I thought we already went over this.... Anyway, if your're going to keep with your defiant stance, which appears to be: "you can't give me any cold hard facts, therefore, I will shove it in your face..." then there really is no point in continuing. Please re-read what I had originally posted. You can't argue that, and that's the thing. Peace is defined as "Inner contentment; serenity." The above is clearly just that. All you can say, is I haven't provided any "statistical data," which is really just a cop-out. You know the above is true, whether or not you can say on a message board, "You haven't proven anything." And if I can't make it past that baby step--no intention at talking down to you, but that was posted a while back--there is no need to continue this discussion.It's actually a good thing that I'm not in a debating mood, because If I were I figure we'd keep going round and round. I imagine--and if I was a gambler I'd put big money on this--that you're still going to be in defiance of the above. And that's fine, you're your own person, and get to defy whatever you choose (It's actually becoming more than evident that the defiance stems from you believing you have no hope after death yourself, and perhaps being in somewhat of a denial over where that leaves you--actually proving my point some more, perhaps jealousy?--... your subjective stance is extremely conspicuous). When it's relentless, however, it can tend to get aggravating, so I'm sure I'm doing everyone a favor. I guess--even though I really hope for your sake (IMO) you're just playing devil's advocate--we'll have to agree to disagree.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-05-2005 05:49 PM

No, WmScott, I am not. I hope that clears some things up for you.It's just some of the egregiously odious stances that were being taken against you, I couldn't let go. When someone is being ganged up upon by others who I don't even feel are in the right, I simply can't stand for that. When you have a message board full of mostly flagrant atheists, you're walking in a dark ally at night. It's not the safest place to get ideas across. I only wish there was one other person to support me, with my conspicuously accurate viewpoint. (And no, I never asked you to agree with my last statement )P.S.- I realize the slightly frequent name calling I used in my posts was wrong, and not proper and mature message board etiquette, so I'm asking for your beforehand forgiveness. I try my best not to use it, but it's really necessary if I want to fully convey how I feel. That's somewhat important correct?I take it everyone here is so pugnacious because they feel that they have just as much inner peace as any Christian? Am I right, or am I right? I'm not saying it's not possible to live a happy, full, and peaceful life as an atheist, but you must accept that what I've stuck to is true. There is no shame in accepting, just living in denial.Take my grandmother for example. She's near her death, and all that gives her comfort is the fact that she has a hope for the future. It keeps her going, very very much so. And this is just one individual example, but it helps to exemplify that as a whole, what I speak is true.This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-06-2005 11:24 PM

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

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

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

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.