Are there any substitutes for having inner peace?

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

It's sufficient if you're merely sharing your beliefs with us. If you're denying people the capability to receive peace from an afterlife because you say it's "a false hope," (which is what you're doing) it better be something more than a "tentative conclusion." It better be something much more. (Which doesn't mean your subjective and absolute conclusions, which is what you're making, not "tentative conclusions." [see message 244] But still a far cry from fact.)This message has been edited by Watson75, 09-08-2005 01:15 PM

Yeah, I think that would be fun. I once had a considerably involved discussion with my best friend about how we would/would not be able to tell that we were in "The Matrix", that is, being farmed in VR (sheesh, when was the last time you heard that abbreviation?) for energy by robots, like in the movie.While this wouldn't work for your proposal, I believe that sociological evidence, specifically the distruibution of births, would clue us in that we were being farmed - husbanded, in fact - for the sinister purposes of powerful entities.

Well, academically speaking, you're probably right that a person who wanted to die in that situation probably wasn't well.It's not clear to me that a situation without circumstances can exist, however. Which is why I'm not comfortable taking the same conclusion that you do. Probably in almost every case, yeah.

Faith believes absolutely; My conclusions are tenative and unlike Faith, when exposed to new information I adjust my conclusions.But in the sense that neither Faith nor I are willing to give our own conclusions short shrift to avoid stepping on the oh-so-sensitive toes of people who believe wrong things and don't want to know about it, we're very much alike.But my conclusions are tentative. In the face of compelling evidence for God, or the spiritual realm (whatever that is), or life after death, I'll change my conclusions. And in many threads I've already told people what kinds of evidence I would find compelling. I don't remember a single Christian here ever telling me what kind of evidence I could present that would cause them to doubt the Bible or their faith in God.Ever. That's absolutism, My conclusions are now, and have always been, tentative. Many believers like yourself mistake me for an absolutist because you have been unable to prevail against me; what you do not understand is that your failure is not a result of the strength of my beliefs, which are weak in the extreme, but of the impotence and weakness of your own arguments. If you believe that human wisdom is limited then that limitation extends to anything you could learn from the Bible, or from direct revelation from God. If there are epistomological limitations to what we can learn, they are universal to all methods, not just science. And because they're universal they're irrelevant - we're all equally hampered by them - and not worth bothering about, at least not until we're talking to someone who isn't human. Last I checked, we're all humans here. The limit of our minds is irrelevant because it handicaps both sides equally.

I don't recall doing that. People can believe in an afterlife for whatever reasons they choose. They're just not believing in something that we can conclude is real, and that there's every reason (which I have detailed and which have not been challenged) to conclude is not real. Objective? It's a masterpiece of the worst sort of multiculturalism. "Whatever you believe is your own personal truth, nobody can challenge it even if the facts are not on your side, we need to give everybody the same respect no matter how ludicrously wrong they may be."Hey, maybe that sort of ludicrous tolerance works for you, but it doesn't work for me. And how dare you violate your own tolerance by being intolerant of my right to say that people who are wrong are wrong? Sure. There could be an afterlife in some kind of spritual realm. There just isn't. Just like there's the possibility that there's a ready-made ham sandwich in my fridge - there's no logical contradiction that would prevent there from being so, and my fridge certainly has ham and bread in it, and is big enough to hold a sandwich - it's just that there is no sandwich in my fridge. There's the possibility but not the reality.There's the possibility of a non-physical continuance of our earthly life. It's just that all the evidence says that our life ends at death. Once again you're misrepresenting me. I never claimed that a belief in the afterlife cannot give you peace. (Naturally I'm not about to sign an "affidavit" where I admit to things I did not do.)Once again your own behavior is the strongest possible indictment of your position. If your position were fundamentally correct you'd be able to support it with argumentation and not have to resort to ad hominem, playground insult, and now these hilarious legal parlor games.

Here is a person being objective... Here is a person not being objective... Any questions?And so it goes. Once again crashfrog, step out of your delusional reality, and come to accept that no one knows whether or not there is an afterlife. Einstein didn't know. Newton didn't know. Edison didn't know. Darwin didn't know. And guess what? The great mind of our time crashfrog doesn't know!! If there's the possibility, then that implies the potential for a reality. Is it possible that aliens exist? We all know it is. Does that mean that reality just gets thrown out the window? Of course not! Possibility implies a potential reality. Is it possible that there is an afterlife? We all know it is. Because it's possible that there is an afterlife, that also means it's a potential reality. If possibility indicates potential reality for everything else, why not for the afterlife? If you're scratching your head as you should be, well, as far as... "there is not the reality," that is nothing more than classic crashfrog subjective delusional tripe.Because we have now finally gotten crashfrog himself to admit that an afterlife could exist... which was then weakly followed by an 'it doesn't' [which is it?]--a fine example of more of the same rubbish I might add-- then he has also inadvertantly admitted that the peace received may very well be coming from a viable and true source [but it isn't!!, we know]. Therefore-- because as crashfrog has now admitted-- the hope may in fact be true, and the peace received from the hope is in no way deadened. The original 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." still stands. It would take a fact such as the following to tear down my argument Unfortunately, that is not a fact, or anywhere close to a fact. And unfortunately for you, that's the crux of your argument right there.. not much to it eh? It is one person's belief that it is a false hope, and nothing more. Therefore the following is to be held in the utmost contempt and no longer be given the light of day.*- Frankly, whether it's "true" or not, isn't even relevent here. What I'm arguing is that the "peace" in general, received by a believer is greater than the peace received by the unbeliever because not only do you have the peace that goes along with being firmly convinced (or "knowing" as you put it) that you're right, which is the peace you're speaking of (uh uh uuuhh... I'll stop you before you even start saying "but how can you be firmly convinced in what's faaaalse")... but you also have the added peace that goes along with knowing you will live forever in a utopian like state with all the ones you love and care about. It's a simple and unassailable math equation that proves you wrong and finalizes this debate.P.S. (A plea to crashfrog) - Honestly, I don't think it's healthy the outlook you have towards reality. To be subjective is one thing, but to be blinded by your own subjectivity is a whole different issue. A really hope this made some headway in terms of you understanding that just because you see the world in a certain light, that does not make it truth. Apparently, you have this all-knowing persona, that you've got it all figured out. I believe that to be one of the worst traits in an individual. Fine, be firmly convinced in what you believe. Even try to convince others of what you firmly believe. I'll applaud you for it. But don't you dare act like what you believe is fact, which you continue to do. Next time, before you go off and say, "this is NOT the case," try saying, "I don't believe this is the case, and this is why..." It will make you look like a much more mature, and balanced individual. And you'll overall receive much more respect because of it to boot. All in all, I think your stubbornness may have helped you this time.And you thought I was gone.

I believe that's pretty much what he said. No one knows because it's not falsifiable. The original argument was that "it is only on the religious side that true peace can be found" (my emphasis), and that doesn't stand at all unless you have an objective definition of "true peace", and a comprehensive study which somehow proves that atheists and agnostics are incapable of finding this peace. Have you got either? I can't be bothered reading through over a dozen pages to find out.Your reformed argument (which is somewhat toned down by the words "in general") needs similar confirmation. Nobody needs to tear down your agument because the burden of proof is still on you.

As I've stated before, pretty much all you have at this point are personal attacks against myself, and ludicrous legalistic parlor games.If you actually had an argument for your side, you'd have presented it, instead of leveling these ridiculous attacks against me.Your own behavior is the most critical proof that your ideas lack substance. By definition, yes. I've admitted to the potential reality of a spiritual afterlife. There just doesn't appear to be one.Do you understand the difference between the potential reality and the actual reality? The actual reality is, there doesn't appear to be an afterlife, for the reasons that I seem to recall already giving. What do you mean, which is it? If you're reading my posts, it should be obvious. It's both. It could exist, but it doesn't. Just like I could go to the grocery store today, but I won't. (I went yesterday.)Do you understand how there's a difference between a potential and the actualization of that potential? Apparently not. Already disproven via arguments you have yet to rebut. Ah, but wait. You've already accused me repeatedly of being the first guy - the guy who's firmly convinced that he's right - and now you're saying I'm not? So which is it?And furthermore, you're required to support your assertion that the amount of peace you get from belief in the afterlife is greater than the peace of atheism, of accepting the obvious fact that everybody dies, and that there's no reason to conclude that anything goes on after that. Certainly its true that, for many believers, belief in the afterlife you describe is not without turmoil; many believers agonize over the fact that some of their closest loved ones have yet to accept Jesus or whatever, and won't be joining them in that paradise. Or that they themselves will not be found worthy to enter. Does that sound like a peaceful belief to you? Personally, I don't think your outlook in regards to debate is healthy, or condusive to intelligent discussion. Do you really think an endless stream of spittle-flecked personal invective and amateur legal games (yeah, buddy, we've all seen Law and Order too) constitutes effective argumentation? If you still think that's how I'm approaching this, that my conclusions about the universe are predicated on anything but the avaliable evidence, then you haven't read a damn word in 20 posts. I hadn't given you a single thought since you stopped posting. The next time, when you return after several month's retreat, try to remember to bring an actual argument.

Don't bother - no, he doesn't.

Instead of standing in your slop, and adding to it, how about a constructive debate? I can`t see any inner peace in your remarks.Prove me wrong.

The truth is everything. It's all that matters. It would not be honorable to believe something because it made you feel better.My own view, based on the available evidence, is that we are accidental creations of mindless nature.When I die that will be the end of me, and in a little while it will not matter whether I had lived or not lived. It also will not matter what I had done or left undone. It all disappears in the swirl of life.In a sense this is liberating, since I know it doesn't really matter what I do or don't do.In another sense, it's rather depressing. But it doesn't matter if it's liberating or depressing; all that matters is the truth.

I'm going to agree with robin on this one. Truth is all that matters. Believing in something that makes you feel better doesn't change what will happen.My view is the exact opposite of robin's. Based on available evidence I think we are creations of an almighty God and are players on the world's stage of good and evil.When I die I will go on in another form, and what I did on earth will matter.Do I believe that because it makes me feel better or to escape being depressed because I don't want ME to just vanish when I breath my last? No. It is liberating. But in the end, all that matters is the truth.

---

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist

This can only happen to Saints. We are all ordinary people. We always break laws. Have you always kept the speed limits? Following all the rules and regulation cannot give you inner peace. For you , inner peace will be absence of Guilt. Is this the true peace?

I cannot agree more on your remarks. Awake, the mouth piece of Watchtower Organization quotes the Bible. But, gives a totally wrong interpretation. Not a single Biblical scholar has approved the watchtower publications. Therefore, there cannot be any room for further discussion here. Inner peace is not absence of conflict. It is not a product of absolute obedience to Moral conduct. This as human beings will certainly lead to Guilt, anger and Depression. Absolute peace is beyond all these.This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-18-2006 02:29 AM