Happy Atheist Forum

There's a reason behind why heaven/hell/the idea of an afterlife was created, and that's because humans can't handle the idea of being gone for eternity after you die. I remember I was about 6 years old when I experienced my first 'deep' thought - I was sitting on the floor of the assembly hall at my school with a few hundred other kids surrounding me and had this terrifying thought; when I die, the world is just gonna go on and on. Everything is gonna go on forever. I'm never gonna be alive again! In my mind i was panicking, but then I looked around at everyone else and thought 'well, they're gonna go through the exact same thing' and everything was alright again.

My question is.... do you believe us atheists/non-believers in the afterlife are more likely to be scared of the eternal nothingness after death, because we know that's what's gonna happen to us? I've never really been scared of the thought cus I know I won't be aware at the time, but it's just the thought of being dead forever, after you die, that gets me a lil! And when you see it that way, you can really see why people find comfort in believing in an afterlife.

I don't find that b3eing dead will bother me at all.  I'm fairly afraid of dying, but not of being dead.  I'm not to keen on the fact that feeling myself die could potentially be pretty uncomfortable, but after it's over I doubt I'll care.  eternal existence frightens me more than eternal nonexistence.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"I don't find that b3eing dead will bother me at all.  I'm fairly afraid of dying, but not of being dead.  I'm not to keen on the fact that feeling myself die could potentially be pretty uncomfortable, but after it's over I doubt I'll care.  eternal existence frightens me more than eternal nonexistence.

I am the exact, polar opposite to you. I would choose to die in the most gruesome way if it meant prolonging my life.

One quote I remember reading that did help to greatly soothe my fears went along the lines "I have already been dead for billions of years and it did not inconvenience me in the slightest".

Isn't that a quote from Mark Twain?

Quote from: "SSY"One quote I remember reading that did help to greatly soothe my fears went along the lines "I have already been dead for billions and it did not inconvenience me in the slightest".

Probably the same quote I thought of while writing my previous post.  Mark Twain said it.  He said "I hadn't existed for billions of years before I was born and didn't suffer the slightest inconvenience from it" (or something almost identical to that).

Looks like it was from Mark Twain then.

Quote from: "jimmorrisonbabe"My question is.... do you believe us atheists/non-believers in the afterlife are more likely to be scared of the eternal nothingness after death, because we know that's what's gonna happen to us?

I don't know what's going to happen to me when I die. I'll die, that's all I know at this point, and I'd be lying if I said that I'm looking forward to that.

I'm guessing that I've got about twenty more years of life, tops. I figure I'll die when I'm in my late seventies, probably of some kind of cancer. Nice stuff to think about, no?

At this point I just feel pretty indifferent about it. Life is happening now and I've got things to do. Right now I need to go upstairs, get another cold beer and watch the Braves lose to the Giants.

Death bothers me for a number of reasons:

A) I can't control when it comes and how.
B) I probably won't live a long life because of stupid choices I made when I was younger (I've been trying to fix them but not a whole lot of success yet) and my crappy genes.
C) I've wasted a lot of time in this life already, at least partially because I used to think I had an even better one waiting for me. (Though now my brain just goes, "Eh, what's the point in doing anything productive? Might as well enjoy yourself while you can," so I can't really blame religion. )

Rationally I know there's no reason to dread it so much and worry about it so much, but emotions get in the way a lot.

I'm basically holding out for actuarial escape velocity, I hope I live long enough for it to happen, there's a pretty good chance that the first person to live to 1000 has already been born (so I'm told).

... I plan to live through it.

Yeah, I agree - it's the dying part that's scary.

Nobody knows what comes after.

At the very least, your atoms will rejoin the cosmos.

Heck, my skin, hair and nails have been doing that for years.

I wonder how much of "original JoeActor" is left?

Maybe I'm gone already!

Why be scared of something that, by definition, you'll never notice?

Quote from: "elliebean"Why be scared of something that, by definition, you'll never notice?

(dunno why I didn't notice 'till now, but... I used to live in NerkAhia...)

No afterlife means complete nothingness. Being afraid of death is literally being scared of nothing.  

Quote from: "PoopShoot"I don't find that b3eing dead will bother me at all.  I'm fairly afraid of dying, but not of being dead.  I'm not to keen on the fact that feeling myself die could potentially be pretty uncomfortable, but after it's over I doubt I'll care.  eternal existence frightens me more than eternal nonexistence.

Same here.  The thought of being dead doesn't frighten me, but the thought of a long, drawn-out, painful process of dying does bother me.  If it comes down to it, I'll take a life that is a few days or weeks shorter rather than a longer one filled with excruciating pain.

I volunteer at a Hospice House.  All of our patients are "actively" dying (death is probable within days or weeks at most).  None are in pain.  Every effort is made to control pain without make the person unconscious although sometimes it can't be helped. In the past week we have had terminal cancer patients, kidney failure, cirrhosis of the liver.  All can be extremely painful but all of the patients are comfortable. Terminal patients treated through hospice actually live 4-5 months longer than people who are hospitalized or cared for by their usual doctor. Hospice home care nurses are equally well qualified to handle pain and provide comfort care at the patient's home if a doctor has stated that a patient has less than six months to live.   If you are afraid of the pain of death, I suggest you volunteer at local Hospice.  It will help remove that fear.

No one will force religion on you either.

QuoteNo afterlife means complete nothingness. Being afraid of death is literally being scared of nothing.

I like that Sophus. That's a good way to look at it.

The way I see it. Being an atheist for years, you most likely have plenty of time to get used to the fact that when you die it's over. As the years go by you get used to it. It's comes with the territory of being an atheist. I'm so used to believing that there is no heaven or hell that I know what to expect. Nothing. Hopefully I'll be old and tired of living among so many Christians by then that I will be ready. I feel content knowing that I am not deluding myself into believing that I will be going to another place when I die.  

Before we were born, we didn't wait to be alive. While we're alive, why wait to be dead?

Quote from: "tymygy"Before we were born, we didn't wait to be alive. While we're alive, why wait to be dead?

That's a good way of thinking about it.
Sometimes I fear death, not that there's nothing. But the mere fact that I'll never see the people I love again. I've lost loved ones, yet believe there to b nothing after death. Then again, thinking about dying makes that reality all the more real. I usually suppress these fears and focus on the fear that I'll lose more loved ones along the way. That's the greatest fear of all, I'd say.

Usually, I try to focus on not dying though.  

Quote from: "navvelline"

Quote from: "tymygy"Before we were born, we didn't wait to be alive. While we're alive, why wait to be dead?

That's a good way of thinking about it.
Sometimes I fear death, not that there's nothing. But the mere fact that I'll never see the people I love again. I've lost loved ones, yet believe there to b nothing after death. Then again, thinking about dying makes that reality all the more real. I usually suppress these fears and focus on the fear that I'll lose more loved ones along the way. That's the greatest fear of all, I'd say.

Usually, I try to focus on not dying though.  :bananacolor:   :bananacolor:   :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "navvelline"

Quote from: "tymygy"Before we were born, we didn't wait to be alive. While we're alive, why wait to be dead?

That's a good way of thinking about it.
Sometimes I fear death, not that there's nothing. But the mere fact that I'll never see the people I love again. I've lost loved ones, yet believe there to b nothing after death. Then again, thinking about dying makes that reality all the more real. I usually suppress these fears and focus on the fear that I'll lose more loved ones along the way. That's the greatest fear of all, I'd say.

Usually, I try to focus on not dying though.  :bananacolor:   :bananacolor:   :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

Yes, that thought has crossed my mind, loved ones suffering because of my death. But then again, I suppose I don't think about that as much, I just stick to the pain and fears that I know. :-/

I agree about living each day as if it were your last...or at least trying too. It's easier said than done.

I live every day like it's just another day, which is what it is.

My death plan, for when the end is near and I may be suffering great pain, is to have the ready means of at first medicating myself with heroin and then, when I can't take it anymore, putting a bullet through my head.

Of course there's many a slip twixt the cup and lip.

Quote from: "navvelline"Yes, that thought has crossed my mind, loved ones suffering because of my death. But then again, I suppose I don't think about that as much, I just stick to the pain and fears that I know. :-/

I agree about living each day as if it were your last...or at least trying too. It's easier said than done.

Why? I don't think so.

Quote from: "Sophus"No afterlife means complete nothingness. Being afraid of death is literally being scared of nothing.  

^like

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "navvelline"Yes, that thought has crossed my mind, loved ones suffering because of my death. But then again, I suppose I don't think about that as much, I just stick to the pain and fears that I know. :-/

I agree about living each day as if it were your last...or at least trying too. It's easier said than done.

Why? I don't think so.

I suppose it depends on what one considers "living everyday to the fullest", I've never quite mastered the "fullest" bit.

Quote from: "navvelline"I suppose it depends on what one considers "living everyday to the fullest", I've never quite mastered the "fullest" bit.

Oh gotcha  

Take some risks, go get wasted on a friday night, go to hooters and give all the girls nasty looks.

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "navvelline"I suppose it depends on what one considers "living everyday to the fullest", I've never quite mastered the "fullest" bit.

Oh gotcha  :P

Quote from: "navvelline"

Quote from: "tymygy"

Quote from: "navvelline"I suppose it depends on what one considers "living everyday to the fullest", I've never quite mastered the "fullest" bit.

Oh gotcha  :P

Hahaha, I know some girls that do that kind of shit every weekend. They seem to love life.

I just think the only consequences I need to worry about are not going to jail. Anything short of that, I'll do.  

If one can reach the age of 40 and not have serious regrets for things done or not done, then that person is living life to the fullest.

Quote from: "tymygy"Hahaha, I know some girls that do that kind of shit every weekend. They seem to love life.

I just think the only consequences I need to worry about are not going to jail. Anything short of that, I'll do.  :P

Quote from: "notself"If one can reach the age of 40 and not have serious regrets for things done or not done, then that person is living life to the fullest.

I can agree with that. Making it to age 40 without any regrets about the past (would certainly mean you've done something right).

I think this is one of the subjects that really turns people off to atheism. People want some type of reciprocity from life. I think people fear losing their conscience more than anything else. The idea of losing all the information you have collected is devastating. I do not relish the idea but I refuse to waste what time I do have fearing it. Death is a moment. If you got into a car accident, broke every bone in your body, and survived, you would feel lucky to be alive. You would tolerate a greater amount of pain but still be grateful that you did not die. If you had died your pain would have ended much sooner. So if death is eternal rest, you only need to expect the moment that it happens. After that it won't matter. If you somehow retain your conscience then it still won't matter.

One last point. If any of you watched Lawrence Krauss' Universe from Nothing, you would recall him talking about how dying stars made us. He makes the point that the atoms in your right hand came from a completely different part of the universe than your left hand. We will most likely all meet our end one day. But who says that the atoms that once made up you will not breath life into another organism one day, billions or trillions of years from now.

I guess what I am getting at is this. You may die but the process that shaped you will continue on for a very long time. Perhaps long enough so that you might look into the stars a long time from now and ponder if you had existed somewhere else or if you will ever exist again.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"I guess what I am getting at is this. You may die but the process that shaped you will continue on for a very long time. Perhaps long enough so that you might look into the stars a long time from now and ponder if you had existed somewhere else or if you will ever exist again.

Well, but...

I'll be dead in thirty year's time, easy. So how will I be able to look into the stars a long time from now unless I'm still alive?

I'd only be afraid of dying painfully. On the other hand I am not, even safe to say never, worried about the "state" of death.

Quote from: "tymygy"The only fear I have is my loved ones having to suffer without me. Death is not an easy subject, it makes even the strongest of people weak.

Knowing this, I'm going to live every day as if it were my last.

PARTYY :headbang:  :headbang:  :headbang:  :headbang:  :headbang:  :headbang:  

It's a trade-off; we could either of us die tomorrow.  Rather than worry about what is beyond my control, I aim to live in such a manner as to salt their brains with good memories, so that even after I die I can make them smile.  I also aim to see the little things in them so that if they die first, I have a rich, if bittersweet, field of memory.  And I try to tell them those little things so that should death strike soon, one or the other of us will have those words to resonate.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"I guess what I am getting at is this. You may die but the process that shaped you will continue on for a very long time. Perhaps long enough so that you might look into the stars a long time from now and ponder if you had existed somewhere else or if you will ever exist again.

Well, but...

I'll be dead in thirty year's time, easy. So how will I be able to look into the stars a long time from now unless I'm still alive?

The point I was trying to make is that, the pattern that makes you up may die but the building blocks that make you will not. They may one day, billions or trillions of years from now, be part of another organic life form that ponders it's existence. What makes you up could foreseeable be cycled back into the process of life.

Also, I would not just give in to a ticking clock if I were you. Even if you are in your fifties, if you take care of yourself well and are able to adopt developing medical treatments, you could live much longer than 30 years. You could extend your life into the 90s and early hundreds today, with an extreme diet of supplements and exercise. Once nano technology is able to take over many of the functions of our immune system, possibly in the next 25 years, those who have access to it will radically extend their lives.

I think part of the reason that we are even so obsessed with death is because it is the end of what we know and we have never understood enough about it to try and stop it. I think we have been dying for so long that it is hard to imagine extending our lives much longer or not dying at all. However, there is no biological reason that we 'have' to die. We have programmed ourselves to die to make room for the next generation. It would have been a great detriment to our species to have long lives early on.

We have already identified the process that stops cell regeneration and we know how it works. Ever time we have discovered knowledge about a biological process throughout history we have learned to exploit it to our advantage. We already have the beginnings of the technology required to exploit cell death. Me or you may not see that day (or maybe we will) but if our abilities to manipulate biological processes continue at the rate it is going at now, our children or our children's children (at least) will possibly choose when they die.

I don't see eternal life as particularly charming.

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"However, there is no biological reason that we 'have' to die.

?

I often think about what is me.  Supposedly, by the time one is 18, not one atom from your birth is left.  Every particle has been secreted, sloughed off, expelled in some shape or form.  So...why do I continue to be me?  This is where we came up with our idea of the soul methinks.  It's a very simple explanation, and an attractive one at that.  We are after all, conscious meat bags with electrical signals firing off like mad in organized chaos.  Is it possible that once our bodies expire that this energy can be preserved in the ether?  I guess we'll find out when we get to the end.  Personally, I wouldn't mind being a ball of energy.  I could travel the stars easily.  This is the end that I hope for.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"However, there is no biological reason that we 'have' to die.

?

We could clone ourselves new bodies every few years?  Hahah :D

Quote from: "DropLogic"I often think about what is me.  Supposedly, by the time one is 18, not one atom from your birth is left.  Every particle has been secreted, sloughed off, expelled in some shape or form.  So...why do I continue to be me?  This is where we came up with our idea of the soul methinks.  It's a very simple explanation, and an attractive one at that.  We are after all, conscious meat bags with electrical signals firing off like mad in organized chaos.  Is it possible that once our bodies expire that this energy can be preserved in the ether?  I guess we'll find out when we get to the end.  Personally, I wouldn't mind being a ball of energy.  I could travel the stars easily.  This is the end that I hope for.

Given evidence of Neaderthal burial rites, I'd bet that the idea of a soul predates the idea of atomism.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "DropLogic"I often think about what is me.  Supposedly, by the time one is 18, not one atom from your birth is left.  Every particle has been secreted, sloughed off, expelled in some shape or form.  So...why do I continue to be me?  This is where we came up with our idea of the soul methinks.  It's a very simple explanation, and an attractive one at that.  We are after all, conscious meat bags with electrical signals firing off like mad in organized chaos.  Is it possible that once our bodies expire that this energy can be preserved in the ether?  I guess we'll find out when we get to the end.  Personally, I wouldn't mind being a ball of energy.  I could travel the stars easily.  This is the end that I hope for.

Given evidence of Neaderthal burial rites, I'd bet that the idea of a soul predates the idea of atomism.

Yeah I worded that wrong.  I didn't mean to suggest that the idea of soul has only been around for 25 years or so.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"However, there is no biological reason that we 'have' to die.

?

Did anyone else catch the television special with some scientist claiming that one day we would all be immortal?

I kind of doubt it though. We don't even know that the universe is immortal.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "radicalaggrivation"However, there is no biological reason that we 'have' to die.

?

Did anyone else catch the television special with some scientist claiming that one day we would all be immortal?

I kind of doubt it though. We don't even know that the universe is immortal.

That´s a physical reason we have to die-- the universe imploding or whatever it´s going to do.

Obviously, biological immortality does not equate to actual immorality.

I recently watched my mum die from cancer.  She chose Hospice to keep her pain free.  Not only did they choose to hold back all hydration, but constantly tried to push god and jesus on me.  I hope when my time comes, no one will choose hospice for me.  Hers was not a gentle death; she was not able to talk because of the drug cocktail they delivered, but you could tell she was thirsty; she kept smacking her lips.  
  I am so glad I don't believe in an after-life.  I would not want one if it were offered to me.    
  I finally had to call the head of social work in order to put a "gag" on the hospice nurses form thumping their bible at me.

Humans aren't supposed to live much beyond 60 or 70.  Rotting to death for 20-30 years is something I definitely don't want to do.  I think it would be irresponsible to lengthen our lives any more than they already are.  Over population is a serious issue, and that party is going to end badly within the next generation's lifetime.

It is not unusual to withhold hydration from a dying patient.  Fluids can back up in the body causing great discomfort to the patient.  This isn't always the case.  Sometimes patients can handle fluids.  Either way, your mother's treatment should have been fully explained to you especially if you had her health care proxy.

The nurse was way out of line by imposing her religious beliefs on you or your mother.  You should lodge a formal complaint with the administrator.  If they were receiving any federal funds, which most likely they were, they could lose their funding.

The fact of death pisses me off because it means I won't be able to continue doing the things I enjoy doing.  Hence it isn't the absence of an afterlife that bugs me, but the shortness of this life here on Earth, in this body, doing what this body does.  In an attempt to increase the odds of living longer and with better vitality, I have taken up an athletic lifestyle, the centerpiece of which is going to a dojo four nights a week to engage in karate, cardio kickboxing, and the Israeli commando martial art, Haganah.  Adding dietary self-control has enabled me to drop my weight to healthy levels per the Body Mass Index (BMI) and this, in itself, hopefully will increase my statistical longevity.  I want to live!  I like it here!

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The fact of death pisses me off because it means I won't be able to continue doing the things I enjoy doing.  Hence it isn't the absence of an afterlife that bugs me, but the shortness of this life here on Earth, in this body, doing what this body does.  In an attempt to increase the odds of living longer and with better vitality, I have taken up an athletic lifestyle, the centerpiece of which is going to a dojo four nights a week to engage in karate, cardio kickboxing, and the Israeli commando martial art, Haganah.  Adding dietary self-control has enabled me to drop my weight to healthy levels per the Body Mass Index (BMI) and this, in itself, hopefully will increase my statistical longevity.  I want to live!  I like it here!

It's good to take care of oneself, and to make the most of ones time here.  However, you're still going to rot and wither.  Death sucks.

Quote from: "DropLogic"Humans aren't supposed to live much beyond 60 or 70.  Rotting to death for 20-30 years is something I definitely don't want to do.  I think it would be irresponsible to lengthen our lives any more than they already are.  Over population is a serious issue, and that party is going to end badly within the next generation's lifetime.

Didn't us humans only live to around forty or so not that long ago? I'm sure that back then, they thought that we weren't supposed to live much longer than forty. But we do, now. I guess it might be considered irresponsible, but hopefully we can learn to control our population at the same time we learn to lengthen our lives.

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The fact of death pisses me off because it means I won't be able to continue doing the things I enjoy doing.  Hence it isn't the absence of an afterlife that bugs me, but the shortness of this life here on Earth, in this body, doing what this body does.  In an attempt to increase the odds of living longer and with better vitality, I have taken up an athletic lifestyle, the centerpiece of which is going to a dojo four nights a week to engage in karate, cardio kickboxing, and the Israeli commando martial art, Haganah.  Adding dietary self-control has enabled me to drop my weight to healthy levels per the Body Mass Index (BMI) and this, in itself, hopefully will increase my statistical longevity.  I want to live!  I like it here!

It's good to take care of oneself, and to make the most of ones time here.  However, you're still going to rot and wither.  Death sucks.

I don't think death sounds that bad. To me, it sounds pretty peaceful.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Humans aren't supposed to live much beyond 60 or 70.  Rotting to death for 20-30 years is something I definitely don't want to do.  I think it would be irresponsible to lengthen our lives any more than they already are.  Over population is a serious issue, and that party is going to end badly within the next generation's lifetime.

Didn't us humans only live to around forty or so not that long ago? I'm sure that back then, they thought that we weren't supposed to live much longer than forty. But we do, now. I guess it might be considered irresponsible, but hopefully we can learn to control our population at the same time we learn to lengthen our lives.

I think these numbers are slightly skewed because of war and disease.  The longer we extend our lives, the faster our population will balloon even further out of control.  I don't envy Earth's inhabitants 50 years from now.

Medieval Britain    30   
Early Modern Britain      40+   
Early 20th Century        30-45   
Current world average     67.2   2010 est.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Didn't us humans only live to around forty or so not that long ago? I'm sure that back then, they thought that we weren't supposed to live much longer than forty. But we do, now. I guess it might be considered irresponsible, but hopefully we can learn to control our population at the same time we learn to lengthen our lives.

People weren't dying of old age at forty or so.  The mid-40s average came from the averaging of age of death, and that was skewed by an enormous infant mortality rate.  A person who lived through early childhood had a good chance of living to be sixty.  As a result, I doubt that the medical community held the 40-something lifespan as a rule of thumb.

I'm too selfish to give over-population a thought when considering my own mortality.  If offered a life span of a thousand years with good vitality, I'd grab it.  Nor would I begrudge anyone else grabbing it.  We need to terraform Mars.  Or grow gills and take to the sea.  With serious enough intent our species could surely achieve either goal.  Of course, we might opt instead for massive waves of annihilation.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"I'm too selfish to give over-population a thought when considering my own mortality.  If offered a life span of a thousand years with good vitality, I'd grab it.  Nor would I begrudge anyone else grabbing it.  We need to terraform Mars.  Or grow gills and take to the sea.  With serious enough intent our species could surely achieve either goal.  Of course, we might opt instead for massive waves of annihilation. :pop:

You don't think you'll see signs of overpopulation in your lifetime?  What do you think global warming is?

Quote from: "tymygy"Uhmm, growing gills? I'd pass on that.

You don't think it would be cool to be able to explore the ocean depths without any technological apparatus?  We'd need more than gills, of course.  Other modifications would need to be made so we could comfortably handle the pressures and temperatures.  We'd also want our sight, hearing, and tactility adapted more perfectly and powerfully to an aquatic environment.  Fins would help too.  And our vocal chords would need to be adapted somehow so that air wasn't necessary to their function.  I really have no doubt that if humanity doesn't annihilate itself, mer-men will eventually be bred.

But we'll send the robots down there first. :)

QuoteAlso, how long would it take to create this liveable environment?

We won't know until we try.

QuoteWho would go? Who would decide?

I'm sure there would be tremendous warfare over that.  Thus would our numbers be culled.  But eventually the arks would begin to lift off.  Who would be on them?  The survivors.  One might argue from a Darwinian perspective that the survivors would be the fittest and thus are precisely the ones who should go.

A good book called the Atheist Afterlife comes to mind. It's a pretty good read but it's not going to prove that there is an afterlife...
( no book will do that. )

I consider myself an agnostic, only because I do a lot of afterlife research and testing. I look at the afterlife as a definite possibility. Of course, death being the extinguishment of consciousness and mind is also a definite possibility as well.

The Monroe Institute will swear by they're hemi-sync / binaural beats that the afterlife is a fact and supposedly a lot of people with good credentials work with them and also believe they prove the afterlife is a fact. ( Of course the thousand of dollar workshops seem incredibly sneaky to me. )

The Afterlife Experiments done by Gary Schwartz which involved the testing of mediums was an amazing read, and IF there was no funny business involved then these amazing word for word blind tests on the mediums were so accurate one would have to insist that some sort of afterlife or recording of life exists that can be  tapped into.

.....however.... I watched a tv report that apparently involved Gary stealing 3 million dollars from some rich man that wanted proof that his son still existed in the afterlife.... which, if true is really shady and probably takes the validity of his book right out the window. He also wrote 2 more books after that! ( Which I have not read. )

This adds a further question, why would some moron hand 3 million dollars to Gary who is a professor, NOT a medium? There are tons of mediums out there which range in price from as low as $25.00 to even well known ones that only charge $300.00? Meh... it's all really fishy and confusing.

I really liked the idea of taking all of the mediums and putting them to the test, reading strangers they have never met and only receiving yes/no answers. It seems like a very valid way of testing mediums once and for all. In fact, I think mediumistic testing is more relevant than binaural beats from the Monroe Institute which (IMO) can all be construed as IMAGINATION. (I watched Mr. Rogers when I was little so I know the power of Imagination. haha!)

Quote from: "jimmorrisonbabe"There's a reason behind why heaven/hell/the idea of an afterlife was created, and that's because humans can't handle the idea of being gone for eternity after you die. I remember I was about 6 years old when I experienced my first 'deep' thought - I was sitting on the floor of the assembly hall at my school with a few hundred other kids surrounding me and had this terrifying thought; when I die, the world is just gonna go on and on. Everything is gonna go on forever. I'm never gonna be alive again! In my mind i was panicking, but then I looked around at everyone else and thought 'well, they're gonna go through the exact same thing' and everything was alright again.

My question is.... do you believe us atheists/non-believers in the afterlife are more likely to be scared of the eternal nothingness after death, because we know that's what's gonna happen to us? I've never really been scared of the thought cus I know I won't be aware at the time, but it's just the thought of being dead forever, after you die, that gets me a lil! And when you see it that way, you can really see why people find comfort in believing in an afterlife.

There is no reason to be scared of "eternal nothingness".

Not existing is a state of nuetrality.

A person cannot be in a good or bad state if they cannot be.

Therefore, there's no logical reason to be afraid of no afterlife.

Maybe there is something wired wrong in my brain because the exact thought patterns is thus:

#1. It's not okay to die.
#2. I will die.
#3. The afterlife probably does not exist.
#4. I will experience nothing, like sleep, without dreams.
#5. The remains of my body will decay and do gross things (if not cremated)
#6. Since this is the outcome of all life, life itself has no true meaning.
#7. Life should not exist.
#8. Find a way to destroy all life.

I would be interested to see what a psychologist thought of this thought pattern, if it is typical, or if it is a major problem and if they think it is directly related to a chemical imbalance within the brain.

Quote from: "DropLogic"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "DropLogic"Humans aren't supposed to live much beyond 60 or 70.  Rotting to death for 20-30 years is something I definitely don't want to do.  I think it would be irresponsible to lengthen our lives any more than they already are.  Over population is a serious issue, and that party is going to end badly within the next generation's lifetime.

Didn't us humans only live to around forty or so not that long ago? I'm sure that back then, they thought that we weren't supposed to live much longer than forty. But we do, now. I guess it might be considered irresponsible, but hopefully we can learn to control our population at the same time we learn to lengthen our lives.

I think these numbers are slightly skewed because of war and disease.  The longer we extend our lives, the faster our population will balloon even further out of control.  I don't envy Earth's inhabitants 50 years from now.

Medieval Britain    30   
Early Modern Britain      40+   
Early 20th Century        30-45   
Current world average     67.2   2010 est.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Didn't us humans only live to around forty or so not that long ago? I'm sure that back then, they thought that we weren't supposed to live much longer than forty. But we do, now. I guess it might be considered irresponsible, but hopefully we can learn to control our population at the same time we learn to lengthen our lives.

People weren't dying of old age at forty or so.  The mid-40s average came from the averaging of age of death, and that was skewed by an enormous infant mortality rate.  A person who lived through early childhood had a good chance of living to be sixty.  As a result, I doubt that the medical community held the 40-something lifespan as a rule of thumb.

Ah, okay.

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"Maybe there is something wired wrong in my brain because the exact thought patterns is thus:

#1. It's not okay to die.
#2. I will die.
#3. The afterlife probably does not exist.
#4. I will experience nothing, like sleep, without dreams.
#5. The remains of my body will decay and do gross things (if not cremated)

Decaying and gross things happening won't be of any concern to you after you're dead. Your body decaying just means that you're giving back some energy to the system that you've been devouring energy from while you were alive.

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"#6. Since this is the outcome of all life, life itself has no true meaning.

I don't see how this follows.

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"#7. Life should not exist.

Wait a minute, you can't go from life having no true meaning to dictating what should and should not be.

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"#8. Find a way to destroy all life.

Now how does that follow?

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"I would be interested to see what a psychologist thought of this thought pattern, if it is typical, or if it is a major problem and if they think it is directly related to a chemical imbalance within the brain.

I don't know what a psychologist would say, but I don't think it makes any sense at all. From what I can tell from your "thought patterns", is that you're just placing a bunch of random statements that are ordered from 1 to 8 for no particular reason.

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"Maybe there is something wired wrong in my brain because the exact thought patterns is thus:

#1. It's not okay to die.
#2. I will die.
#3. The afterlife probably does not exist.
#4. I will experience nothing, like sleep, without dreams.
#5. The remains of my body will decay and do gross things (if not cremated)
#6. Since this is the outcome of all life, life itself has no true meaning.
#7. Life should not exist.
#8. Find a way to destroy all life.

I would be interested to see what a psychologist thought of this thought pattern, if it is typical, or if it is a major problem and if they think it is directly related to a chemical imbalance within the brain.

Everything in that list seems sensible except for 7 and 8.
I think you're making incorrect connections.  Just because there isn't an answer to the meaning of life doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.  Since we can ponder our surroundings, our lives have meaning.
I think the proper approach is: I exist...now what do I do with it?

I like the way you agree with 1-6 and get what I mean logic.... but in my mind I go right down the line and 7 and 8 pop right in just as strong if not ludicrously strong and powerful emotions which erupt as a result of my thought process which follows said listing. It's definitely raw emotion and an urge to lash out, but I can't really explain why I go that way. I don't even wish to change it really. I just wondered why that is my reaction.

I want to repost the list and attempt to pick facts vs opinions out, I think that may help.

#1. It's not okay to die.   (Opinion)
#2. I will die.  (Fact)
#3. The afterlife probably does not exist.  (Opinion)
#4. I will experience nothing, like sleep, without dreams.  (Opinion)
#5. The remains of my body will decay and do gross things (if not cremated) (Fact)
#6. Since this is the outcome of all life, life itself has no true meaning.  (Opinion)
#7. Life should not exist.  (Opinion)
#8. Find a way to destroy all life.  (Opinion)

Ironically, even if most would agree with 1-6, the reality is in my entire thought process only TWO of the statements are actual FACTS. The ones listed as opinions might be facts, but without 100% certainty they must be listed as opinions.

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"I like the way you agree with 1-6 and get what I mean logic.... but in my mind I go right down the line and 7 and 8 pop right in just as strong if not ludicrously strong and powerful emotions which erupt as a result of my thought process which follows said listing. It's definitely raw emotion and an urge to lash out, but I can't really explain why I go that way. I don't even wish to change it really. I just wondered why that is my reaction.

I want to repost the list and attempt to pick facts vs opinions out, I think that may help.

#1. It's not okay to die.   (Opinion)
#2. I will die.  (Fact)
#3. The afterlife probably does not exist.  (Opinion)
#4. I will experience nothing, like sleep, without dreams.  (Opinion)
#5. The remains of my body will decay and do gross things (if not cremated) (Fact)
#6. Since this is the outcome of all life, life itself has no true meaning.  (Opinion)
#7. Life should not exist.  (Opinion)
#8. Find a way to destroy all life.  (Opinion)

Ironically, even if most would agree with 1-6, the reality is in my entire thought process only TWO of the statements are actual FACTS. The ones listed as opinions might be facts, but without 100% certainty they must be listed as opinions.

I think it would be wise to speak with a professional about your inner turmoil.  I think most would agree with me on that point.
I think every person should talk to a professional actually.  Talking to one helped me to realize the negative impact my mother had on my upbringing.

I don't see that dying robs life of meaning, any more than a period robs a sentence of its meaning.  Meaning is what you put into it while you're alive.

Quote from: "jimmorrisonbabe"My question is.... do you believe us atheists/non-believers in the afterlife are more likely to be scared of the eternal nothingness after death, because we know that's what's gonna happen to us? I've never really been scared of the thought cus I know I won't be aware at the time, but it's just the thought of being dead forever, after you die, that gets me a lil! And when you see it that way, you can really see why people find comfort in believing in an afterlife.

I rather like Woody Allen's comment: “I am not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens.”

For myself the dying part is what I am personally concerned about, so I am with Woody Allen on that count.  Death, itself, is not something I ever worry about.  In one small study it was found that "very religious people fear death the least... [and] total unbelievers take second place for ability to take their mortality in stride. The worst death anxieties haunt those who lie somewhere in between those extremesâ€"who are a little religious" (see: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives ... earfrm.htm (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm)). In a different study I read that Roman Catholics had quite a fear of dying.

As an atheist I have absolutely no fear of death.  There is no afterlife, in my estimation, to concern myself with.  I agree with the sentiment of those who earlier posted Mark Twain's comment: "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."  I think you would do well to keep this quote in mind.  

Quote from: "navvelline"Sometimes I fear death, not that there's nothing. But the mere fact that I'll never see the people I love again. I've lost loved ones, yet believe there to b nothing after death. Then again, thinking about dying makes that reality all the more real. I usually suppress these fears and focus on the fear that I'll lose more loved ones along the way. That's the greatest fear of all, I'd say.

Usually, I try to focus on not dying though.  

I once asked my elderly grandmother, if she could be younger what age she would choose.  Her reply surprised me.  She wouldn't want to be any younger as she wouldn't want to watch her loved ones die all over again.  I know a fellow in his early 60s.  He's an evangelical Christian and he seems genuinely to be looking forward to his own death.  He claims he wants to see his deceased loved ones again.  I wonder now if my grandmother ever harboured such thoughts?

It would be nice to see my deceased family members again.  I just know it's not going to happen.  That's life.  Death I don't dwell on.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't see that dying robs life of meaning, any more than a period robs a sentence of its meaning.

Can I quote you on that?  

Quote from: "WillyBeamish"Maybe there is something wired wrong in my brain because the exact thought patterns is thus:

#1. It's not okay to die.
#2. I will die.
#3. The afterlife probably does not exist.
#4. I will experience nothing, like sleep, without dreams.
#5. The remains of my body will decay and do gross things (if not cremated)
#6. Since this is the outcome of all life, life itself has no true meaning.
#7. Life should not exist.
#8. Find a way to destroy all life.

I would be interested to see what a psychologist thought of this thought pattern, if it is typical, or if it is a major problem and if they think it is directly related to a chemical imbalance within the brain.

Hey!  I use to Play Willy Beamish.  I loved it!

Willy, it seems that #1 and #2 are contradictory; and what do you mean by find a way to destroy all life?  Why would you want to do that?  Life has the potential to be quite wonderful, if we have the means of enjoying it.  If may be that you are suffering depression.  I've been there.  You might want to speak to a family doctor, if this is the case.

Why should life not exist?  Do you mean by this that you think life was only a fluke in the first place?

I agree that life has no true meaning, not in the cosmic sense, anyway; but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy our time here.

The person who stated that life has "no true meaning", could you please clearly define true meaning? Are you talking about a specific scale here? Personal? Planetary? Galactic? Universal?

Why do you feel life needs a meaning on any of those scales in order to justify its existence? Why do you feel life has to justify its existence?

Quote from: "Cycel"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I don't see that dying robs life of meaning, any more than a period robs a sentence of its meaning.

Can I quote you on that?  

Have at it!

I would have a fear of an eternal afterlife.
What exactly are you going to do forever?

As a Christian, if the afterlife does not exist then I would be fine because all my thoughts and memories would be 'erased'. What if there was an afterlife though and you could not enter because you rejected God? While my argument is weak to purport that I am fine believing in God and finding out nothing exists after life, but I will say it's better than not believing in God and finding out He does exist.

My issue would be I couldn't reference any good excuse to not believe God existed. Maybe I can ask the guy behind me for an excuse.

Furthermore is it selfish of me to say that I kind of like the idea that I could live for eternity?

Pascal's Wager doesn't cut any ice with me.  What if you've got the wrong god?

One of the things I had against Dawkin's argument on Pascal's Wager is that he asserts, correct me if I am wrong, that one who lived a life believing in God would be a waste of time versus one that rejects a God leading to a more fuller life. One can easily believe in a God, not to delve deeper into the idea, but still live a full life as one who rejects the existence of God.

Now you say what if I have the wrong God, but we have to discuss the very definition of a God. I'll use Webster's dictionary for this:
1: capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

So if a 'God' were to exist, it must be a being that is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness. So if this 'God' is one of goodness would he reject his creation? But surely there must be justification between 'goodness' and 'badness'; surely a just separation must be made. What justice would it be then for someone such as Hitler or Stalin enter into the gates of Heaven, with no account for the events they caused on Earth? Doesn't that go against the very 'goodness' of God?

Speaking as someone who only recently became a non-believer in the afterlife, this subject was possibly one of the hardest for me to deal with. The very thought of simply being here one day and then not being here the next scared the hell out of me. But I've come to the conclusion that it is the memories of others of my life which are more important.....as per the Terry Prachett quote: A man is not dead so long as

@Thumpalumpacus: This is precisely the major issue with Pascal's Wager. It's not even a particularly good argument for God's existence and even if it were, it does not put forward a case for any specific version of God, and especially the Christian god for which it is supposed to prove, or at least back-up.

Yes it is a poor argument to use for the existence of God, but Pascal's Wager is more so about the existence of an afterlife and the repercussions of choosing one side over another. You would basically believe God exists just because there could be a chance he does exist and you'll be in heaven; it seems selfishly inclined.

As I said earlier I have to accept the wager that it's a 50% chance I'm right or wrong. One of the things I was concerned about with the concept of Heaven was the eternity factor. However if Heaven is unbounded by time, then eternity wouldn't matter for we would have no sense of time.

I guess I wouldn't have eternity to beat God in a game of Chess.

Quote from: "Achronos"One of the things I had against Dawkin's argument on Pascal's Wager is that he asserts, correct me if I am wrong, that one who lived a life believing in God would be a waste of time versus one that rejects a God leading to a more fuller life. One can easily believe in a God, not to delve deeper into the idea, but still live a full life as one who rejects the existence of God.

I really don't care what Dawkins has to say on this matter.

QuoteNow you say what if I have the wrong God, but we have to discuss the very definition of a God. I'll use Webster's dictionary for this:
1: capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

So if a 'God' were to exist, it must be a being that is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness. So if this 'God' is one of goodness would he reject his creation? But surely there must be justification between 'goodness' and 'badness'; surely a just separation must be made. What justice would it be then for someone such as Hitler or Stalin enter into the gates of Heaven, with no account for the events they caused on Earth? Doesn't that go against the very 'goodness' of God?

This does nothing to address my objection at all:  what if you have the wrong god?  What if the Norse sagas have it right and you get doomed because you are a peace-loving Christian?    That is the weakness of Pascal's Wager -- not the PoE and FW.

Quote from: "Achronos"Yes it is a poor argument to use for the existence of God, but Pascal's Wager is more so about the existence of an afterlife and the repercussions of choosing one side over another.

Assumes 2 'sides'; false dichotomy.

QuoteAs I said earlier I have to accept the wager that it's a 50% chance I'm right or wrong.

50% chance per god. How many gods?

Even if it's 50/50 on an afterlife existing or not, we would still rely on some entity to either grant or deny access. You have to take them all into account, including any gods who would, for example, reward skepticism and punish credulity, as well as any would be indifferent, etc.

Quote from: "elliebean"Even if it's 50/50 on an afterlife existing or not, we would still rely on some entity to either grant or deny access. You have to take them all into account, including any gods who would, for example, reward skepticism and punish credulity, as well as any would be indifferent, etc.

This is why, if I were to be a theist, I would be a polytheist - or more precisely, a henotheist, which is someone who accepts the existence of multiple gods but chooses to worship only one.  In ancient Greece my henotheism would probably have fixated on Athena, who probably would reward skepticism and punish credulity.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This does nothing to address my objection at all:  what if you have the wrong god?  What if the Norse sagas have it right and you get doomed because you are a peace-loving Christian?

Those gods would be what I consider to be humanist gods rather than the all encompassing God. There are a few issues regarding the existence of 2 or more gods. For example two gods are supposed to be quite independent and they both existed from eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other is bad. Either we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other, like preferring beer to Coke, or else we are saying that, whatever the two (more more) powers think about it, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, it regarding itself as good. Now if we mean merely that we happen to prefer the first, then we must give up talking about good and evil at all. For good means what you ought to prefer quite regardless of what you happen to like at any given moment. If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other is actually right.

But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to two powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the good 'god': even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children, it is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things like resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.

After all said and done I must ask you what other god could you propose of that fits the very definition of what a God is? If there was such a God that did, I would not be a Christian.

Quote from: "elliebean"Assumes 2 'sides'; false dichotomy.

So essentially there would be endless sides, all in the various degrees of what good and evil people have done are. From what I understand you are implying is that if I did moderately good things in life but could be consistently morally wrong, then I would have some punishment but also some reward for the good things that I have done.

The issue I have with this is people make mistakes, could mistakes not be forgiven then? It would almost seem like you might as well commit suicide just so you don't make any more mistakes again which would hurt your very judgment in the after life. If you say I falsely assume 2 sides, then in its place must be an infinite number of sides for we really don't know how many sides there could be. It itself becomes too ambiguous of a concept.

And one side could not work because it would go against the very righteousness of the definition of a God

QuoteEven if it's 50/50 on an afterlife existing or not, we would still rely on some entity to either grant or deny access. You have to take them all into account, including any gods who would, for example, reward skepticism and punish credulity, as well as any would be indifferent, etc.

But see here is where we have to address these other Gods and of their nature. And as I have stated above, the very definition of God must be perfectly good and in doing so must be perfectly just. Then it becomes would punishing credulity be seen as a perfectly just characteristic or is it something that contains a flawed design.

QuoteBut existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good.

Is that so?  This is a frail reed tying your argument together.  Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

Quote from: "Achronos"There are a few issues regarding the existence of 2 or more gods. For example two gods are supposed to be quite independent and they both existed from eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other is bad.

OK.  Or let there be a whole pantheon, as in ancient Greece.  Homer's Athena and Ares opposed one another.  Homer's Athena represented, among other things, the mental aspect of warfare, the discipline and skill of it.  Homer's Ares represented the physical and emotional aspects of warfare, the force and frenzy of it.  If I were a soldier and a henotheist, I would be faced with choosing between Athena and Ares, and thus choosing which aspects of warfare to give the most prominence in my career.

QuoteEither we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other, like preferring beer to Coke, or else we are saying that, whatever the two (more more) powers think about it, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, in regarding itself as good.

Being a subjectivist, my henotheism would be subjective, which means, I would decide for myself between Athena and Ares, based on my own evaluation of the justice, utility, reasonableness, social appropriateness, sanity, and authenticity concerns, to the extent there were any.

QuoteNow if we mean merely that we happen to prefer the first, then we must give up talking about good and evil at all. For good means what you ought to prefer quite regardless of what you happen to like at any given moment. If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good.

I disagree, but you probably would have guessed that. :devil:

QuoteIn fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

Yes indeed.

QuoteBut existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good.

Presumably from a utility perspective.  I'm fine with that, by the way.  Utility is one of my six categories for evaluating right and wrong subjectively.

QuoteTherefore he must be getting them from the good 'god': even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.

This implies that all good must come from the same source.  Polytheism is grounded in the contrary opinion.  Each god represents something good.  The henotheist merely chooses which good is best from the henotheist's perspective.  Instead of good and evil, then, we have good, better, and best.  Ares is good in his own way and best for some mortals but Athena is better for me.

Christianity, and Zoroastrianism long before it, insisted on good and evil, whereas the Greeks were comfortable with good, better, best.  I side with the Greeks on this.

QuoteAfter all said and done I must ask you what other god could you propose of that fits the very definition of what a God is? If there was such a God that did, I would not be a Christian.

Presumably you mean a God must be the sole source of all good or else it isn't God.  You immunize yourself against the notion of a God who is also the sole source of all evil by insisting that evil is merely the absence of good.  Faith, hope, and charity, as you use the terms, were the natural state of man, until man abandoned them.  Sickness and death didn't exist until man abandoned faith, hope, and love.  Returning to faith, hope, and love is returning to our original nature intended all along by God, and enables the return to everlasting life and health.  It's logically consistent, at least.  Not in the least logically necessary, and very far from empirical, but consistent.

Why does discussing religion  often seem similar to arguing with a drunk person?  (both sides)

I am an atheist, god doesnt exist, using only logic to argue is pointless.

Pascals Wager? Reality is what it is.  Period, doesnt matter what we think.

Schroders Cat?  Reality is what it is, not what we think it is.

I think therefore I am?   Does a rock think?

The above are examples silly logic.....Using logic, without considering reality or reason.

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"I am an atheist, god doesnt exist, using only logic to argue is pointless.

What else would you use, then?

QuotePascals Wager? Reality is what it is.  Period, doesnt matter what we think.

Schroders Cat?  Reality is what it is, not what we think it is.

How do you know what reality is without thinking?

QuoteThe above are examples silly logic.....Using logic, without considering reality or reason.

How does logic differ from reason?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"Schroders Cat?  Reality is what it is, not what we think it is.

How do you know what reality is without thinking?

Nice wordplay, but it doesn't address his point, which is that thinking can go wrong; it can lead us astray.  Reality doesn't bow to logic, no matter how cogent the logic is.  Logic is a useful tool, but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

Abraham Maslow

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 07087.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahammas107087.html)

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Nice wordplay, but it doesn't address his point, which is that thinking can go wrong; it can lead us astray.  Reality doesn't bow to logic, no matter how cogent the logic is.  Logic is a useful tool, but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

I must still be missing the point.  Thinking is the only tool we have for knowing reality.  The situation with a hammer is different, as there are screwdrivers, wrenches, hacksaws.  Reality is what it is, certainly, but I don't know what it is except by thinking.  Isn't knowing what it is, the point?

Quote from: "elliebean"Why be scared of something that, by definition, you'll never notice?

I like noticing things.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Nice wordplay, but it doesn't address his point, which is that thinking can go wrong; it can lead us astray.  Reality doesn't bow to logic, no matter how cogent the logic is.  Logic is a useful tool, but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

I must still be missing the point.  Thinking is the only tool we have for knowing reality.  The situation with a hammer is different, as there are screwdrivers, wrenches, hacksaws.  Reality is what it is, certainly, but I don't know what it is except by thinking.  Isn't knowing what it is, the point?

You're equivocating thinking and logic.  In that sense, you are indeed missing the point: not all thinking is logical, including much processing of sensory data.  When the only mode of thinking you use is logic, you will get achieve GIGO-like results if your premises are flawed, and still make perfectly logical statements.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteBut existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good.

Is that so?  This is a frail reed tying your argument together.  Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

Debaters, humbly requesting your attention:  I am lurking and am very interested in this part of the discussion.  Might I request/suggest a concentrated, directed effort to focus in on this?  I think you have struck upon a key error in the theist's logic.  Do not let him sidestep it.
 

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"You're equivocating thinking and logic.  In that sense, you are indeed missing the point: not all thinking is logical, including much processing of sensory data.  When the only mode of thinking you use is logic, you will get achieve GIGO-like results if your premises are flawed, and still make perfectly logical statements.

OK.  I'm going to ask a serious question.  I'm not debating.  It appears I have a gap in my mental framework and I'd like to fill it.  What kinds of thinking exist that can yield valid information and aren't grounded in logic?  I certainly understand and agree that flawed premises will yield flawed conclusions despite perfectly sound logical form.  What I don't understand is what alternatives we have.

Observation.  Emotional insight.  Subconscious data processing.  Empathic thinking.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"How does logic differ from reason?

Logic gets you shroders cat.
Reason says the cat doesnt care what you think.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Observation.  Emotional insight.  Subconscious data processing.  Empathic thinking.

OK.  Let me think about these.  By which I mean, let me apply logic!

Seriously, I don't see any of the four as distinct from logic.  Observation is logic's first step.  It's the identification of premises.  Emotional insight is interpreting behavior in terms of one's premises regarding emotions and how they operate.  Subconscious data processing is logic performed in a secret compartment.  Empathic thinking is extrapolating how a person must feel, given that person's situation as a set of premises.

I'll have to research this.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Observation.  Emotional insight.  Subconscious data processing.  Empathic thinking.

OK.  Let me think about these.  By which I mean, let me apply logic!

Seriously, I don't see any of the four as distinct from logic.  Observation is logic's first step.  It's the identification of premises.  Emotional insight is interpreting behavior in terms of one's premises regarding emotions and how they operate.  Subconscious data processing is logic performed in a secret compartment.  Empathic thinking is extrapolating how a person must feel, given that person's situation as a set of premises.

I'll have to research this.

Yeah, this seems to me more like a redefinition.  Put another way, how could you falsify your hypothesis?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yeah, this seems to me more like a redefinition.  Put another way, how could you falsify your hypothesis?

Until I poked around on the internet, I was at a loss as to what we could possibly be talking about here.  But now I think we're talking about intuition.  I would have said that intuition was arriving at knowledge without thinking.  Thus one either thinks or one intuits.  To think is to reason, which is to employ logic.  To intuit is to perceive.  But apparently some people view thinking as a set, of which the subsets are logic and intuition.  I don't know why people would use words in this way.  It makes more sense to me to say that either we think or we intuit.

As a Christian, I think we should believe that during our life here on earth our main task is to make the Kingdom which is to come manifest in our midst (that is to say, we should strive to be holy and strive to love as God loves). We (Christians) believe that the Age of the Spirit has arrived, and yet that it is also paradoxically still to come. It is this eschatological tension that should be the foundation of how we live our lives in the here and now. I think that one of the greatest theological and pastoral crises facing the Church today is ignorance of or obscuration of this eschatological tension.  

Many saints have intimated that the life we live now on this earth is absolutely less than nothing when compared to the abundance of life that we will inherit in the Age to come!

"If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen -- nothing else matters." - Jaroslav Pelikan, among others.

Quote from: "Achronos"Kingdom which is to come

After 2000 years, most kingdoms are now republics, governed by elected or appointed figures. What makes you still call whatever "is to come" a kingdom?

After 2000 years, some nice places have become shitholes and some shitholes have turned nice. What makes you think The Kingdomâ,,¢ is not a shithole?

Quote from: "Achronos"As a Christian, I think we should believe that during our life here on earth our main task is to make the Kingdom which is to come manifest in our midst (that is to say, we should strive to be holy and strive to love as God loves).

As an athiest, I think you we should concentrate more on improving humanity.

Quote from: "Achronos"As a Christian, I think we should believe that during our life here on earth our main task is to make the Kingdom which is to come manifest in our midst (that is to say, we should strive to be holy and strive to love as God loves). We (Christians) believe that the Age of the Spirit has arrived, and yet that it is also paradoxically still to come. It is this eschatological tension that should be the foundation of how we live our lives in the here and now. I think that one of the greatest theological and pastoral crises facing the Church today is ignorance of or obscuration of this eschatological tension.  

Many saints have intimated that the life we live now on this earth is absolutely less than nothing when compared to the abundance of life that we will inherit in the Age to come!

"If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen -- nothing else matters." - Jaroslav Pelikan, among others.

Quote from: "Mark, in Chpt 13, vs 26 - 30"13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.   "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory."

13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.   

13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:   

13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.   

13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Quote from: "... and in Chpt 14, vs 61 - 62, he"14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?   

14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke in Chpt 9 vs 27:

Quote9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

... and I could go on; there are quite a few more.

Put shortly, it appears you missed the bus.  Or your messiah did.  Likely the latter, it seems to me.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"

Quote from: "Achronos"As a Christian, I think we should believe that during our life here on earth our main task is to make the Kingdom which is to come manifest in our midst (that is to say, we should strive to be holy and strive to love as God loves).

As an athiest, I think you we should concentrate more on improving humanity.

Being holy is a part of practicing peace, freedom and justice. But while it can be improved, it can never become the place God intended it to be.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Achronos"Kingdom which is to come

After 2000 years, most kingdoms are now republics, governed by elected or appointed figures. What makes you still call whatever "is to come" a kingdom?

After 2000 years, some nice places have become shitholes and some shitholes have turned nice. What makes you think The Kingdomâ,,¢ is not a shithole?

Now why exactly would God's Kingdom ever be a terrible place for His people who He loves?  It would go against the very goodness of God. Now let me guess I'll have to repeat again why God is good...

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteBut existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good.

Is that so?  This is a frail reed tying your argument together.  Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

Debaters, humbly requesting your attention:  I am lurking and am very interested in this part of the discussion.  Might I request/suggest a concentrated, directed effort to focus in on this?  I think you have struck upon a key error in the theist's logic.  Do not let him sidestep it.
 

We can't exactly deduce God from the equation, let me explain.

We observe in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, as they come into existence and pass out of existence. Such things could not always exist, though, because something that could possibly not exist at some time actually does not exist at some time. Thus, if it is possible for everything not to exist, then, at some time, nothing did exist. But if nothing ever did exist, then nothing would exist even now, since everything that exists requires for its existence something that already existed. Yet it is absurd to claim that nothing exists even now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must be something the existence of which is necessary. Now, every necessary thing has its necessity caused by something else or it does not. Since it is impossible for there to exist an infinite series of causes of necessary things, we must conclude that there is something that is necessary in itself. People speak of this thing as God.

Beings in the world have characteristics to varying degrees. Some are more or less good, true, noble, and so forth. Such gradations are all measured in relation to a maximum, however. Thus, there must be something best, truest, noblest, and so on. Now, as Aristotle teaches, things that are greatest in truth are also greatest in being. Therefore, there must be something that is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection that we find in beings in the world. We call this maximum cause God.

We observe in nature that inanimate and nonintelligent objects act toward the best possible purpose, even though these objects are not aware of doing so. It is clear that these objects do not achieve their purpose by sheer chance but rather according to a plan. Any inanimate or nonintelligent object that acts toward a purpose, though, must be guided by a being that possesses knowledge and intelligence, just as an arrow is directed by an archer. Therefore, there must be some intelligent being that directs all natural things toward their purpose. We call this being God.

In contrast to irrational animals, man has the faculty and will of reason. The will, also known as the rational appetite, seeks to achieve both its end and the good, and so all acts, being guided by the will, are for an end. Happiness is the goal of human life, and every human being is on the path toward the complete actualization of his or her potential. Indeed, humans’ actualization and realization of their potential is exactly what constitutes happiness. Humans’ potential, or what humans can be, consists in the contemplation of the Divine Essence. Happiness and the contemplation of the Divine Essence are thus identical and inseparable.

The contemplation of the Divine Essence is not only necessary for happiness, it is uniquely sufficient. Nothing except the contemplation of the Divine Essence can bring happiness. No worldly or material good, such as fame, honor, glory, power, health, or even pleasure itself can bring happiness, as even pleasure is just a component of happiness. A state of happiness can exist only when the will no longer seeks anything. Since the will naturally seeks the Divine Essence, it will continue to seek, and thus to be unhappy, until it finds it.

Human beings have unique intelligence that encompasses understanding, how is that not good?

Quote from: "Achronos"Now let me guess I'll have to repeat again why God is good...

No. Just answer the questions without dodging them.  :raised:  Scratch that last one for the purpose of discussion  

Countries rise and fall in short time sometimes. What makes you think your perfect god's perfect little place with grass he paints green on the side that faces you, apparently, is not long-since fallen?

What makes you think that your god has not fallen ill and died - or developed a mental disorder, or just changed his personality for the worse?

You suggest a premise that God is not perfect which goes against the very definition of such.

Quote from: "Achronos"You suggest a premise that God is not perfect which goes against the very definition of such.

What makes you think the god is still perfect?

What makes you think your god is still the god?

Time to start answering them soon, if you mean to. I'll post at least two more such every time you dodge.

Quote from: "Achronos"We observe in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, as they come into existence and pass out of existence. Such things could not always exist, though, because something that could possibly not exist at some time actually does not exist at some time. Thus, if it is possible for everything not to exist, then, at some time, nothing did exist.

Granting for a moment your premises, there are a couple of unspoken assumptions here.  One is that this non-existence happened simultaneously, which doesn't follow from your argument.    The other is that the possibility of non-existence demands the actuality of non-existence.

QuoteBut if nothing ever did exist, then nothing would exist even now, since everything that exists requires for its existence something that already existed.

And why is your god exempt from this reasoning, other than the inevitable special pleading?

QuoteYet it is absurd to claim that nothing exists even now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must be something the existence of which is necessary. Now, every necessary thing has its necessity caused by something else or it does not. Since it is impossible for there to exist an infinite series of causes of necessary things, we must conclude that there is something that is necessary in itself. People speak of this thing as God.

And how, pray tell, are the qualities of the god you worship derived from this attempt to define him into existence?  Even if your reasoning is solid, which I don't think it is, how do you know that the Christian god is the correct conception?

The short answer is, you don't.

QuoteBeings in the world have characteristics to varying degrees. Some are more or less good, true, noble, and so forth. Such gradations are all measured in relation to a maximum, however. Thus, there must be something best, truest, noblest, and so on. Now, as Aristotle teaches, things that are greatest in truth are also greatest in being. Therefore, there must be something that is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection that we find in beings in the world. We call this maximum cause God.

The argument from perfection was refuted before it was even made, by Euthyphro.  Whether you call an invisible sky-critter "god", or your neighbor, or a vacuum-cleaner, that doesn't make it god.  That makes your name for it god.

QuoteWe observe in nature that inanimate and nonintelligent objects act toward the best possible purpose, even though these objects are not aware of doing so. It is clear that these objects do not achieve their purpose by sheer chance but rather according to a plan. Any inanimate or nonintelligent object that acts toward a purpose, though, must be guided by a being that possesses knowledge and intelligence, just as an arrow is directed by an archer. Therefore, there must be some intelligent being that directs all natural things toward their purpose. We call this being God.

We also observe in nature brutality, mortality, disease, avarice, and amorality.  Why do you not call these things "god" as well?

QuoteIn contrast to irrational animals, man has the faculty and will of reason.

Pity it's so underused, as we can see.

QuoteThe will, also known as the rational appetite, seeks to achieve both its end and the good, and so all acts, being guided by the will, are for an end.

Tautology much?

QuoteHappiness is the goal of human life, and every human being is on the path toward the complete actualization of his or her potential. Indeed, humans’ actualization and realization of their potential is exactly what constitutes happiness. Humans’ potential, or what humans can be, consists in the contemplation of the Divine Essence. Happiness and the contemplation of the Divine Essence are thus identical and inseparable.

Another unsupported claim.

QuoteThe contemplation of the Divine Essence is not only necessary for happiness, it is uniquely sufficient. Nothing except the contemplation of the Divine Essence can bring happiness.

I, and many other atheists, are the living contradiction to this pablum.

QuoteNo worldly or material good, such as fame, honor, glory, power, health, or even pleasure itself can bring happiness, as even pleasure is just a component of happiness. A state of happiness can exist only when the will no longer seeks anything. Since the will naturally seeks the Divine Essence, it will continue to seek, and thus to be unhappy, until it finds it.

Again, I have emphasized your baseless claims.

QuoteHuman beings have unique intelligence that encompasses understanding, how is that not good?

When they use it in promulgating such a disgustingly anti-humane ideology as Christianity, it is sad.  Death-cults always are.

eta: Per Persimmon's request, I ask that you answer this question which you have yet to answer:

Quote from: "Thump"Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

Quote from: "Asmodean"What makes you think the god is still perfect?

God is not, like creatures, made up of parts. God is spirit, without bodily dimensions. Firstly, no body can cause change without itself being changed. Secondly, things with dimensions are potential of division. But the starting-point for all existence must be wholly real and not potential in any way: though things that get realized begin as potential, preceding them is the source of their realization which must be already real. Thirdly, living bodies are superior to other bodies; and what makes a body living is not the dimensions which make it a body (for then everything with dimensions would be living), but something more excellent like a soul. The most excellent existent  of all them cannot be a body. So when the scriptures ascribe dimensions to God they are using spatial extension to symbolize the extent of God's power; just as they ascribe bodily organs to God as metaphors for their functions, and postures like sitting or standing to symbolize authority or strength.

God is not matter under certain form. Firstly, matter is defined by its potentiality to take on forms, while God is wholly realized. Secondly, the primordial source of perfection must be perfect of himself and no mere receiver of perfection; but when matter takes on form it receives its goodness and perfection from that form. Thirdly, things are active in virtue of their form. Since God's activity is underived, he must be essentially form and not part form part matter. Of itself, any form material things assume can be common to many such things; the individualness of the things derives from their matter, which as ultimate assumer of forms  cannot be assumed by anything else. But forms not of the sort material things assume must themselves subsist as things, and since they cannot be identified with their own natures of essences. Essemce or nature includes only what defines the species of a thing; human nature means what defines man, what makes man man, and that does not include this flesh and these bones or this color or anything peculiar to this man. So a man includes more than his human nature, which is conceived of as his formative part making a man of the matter that makes him individual. In contrast, the individuality of things not composed of matter and form does not derive from this or that individual matter: the forms of such things are intrinsically individual and stand on their own as things. Such things are identical with their own natures. So God is identical with his godhead and his life and whatever else belongs to his nature. Notice however that I talk about simple things on the model of the composite things from which our knowledge derives. To refer to God as subsistent we use concrete nouns, since the susbistent things with which we are familiar are composite; to express God's simpleness we use abstract nouns. So when we talk of the godhead of God, the diversity implied is to be attriubuted not to god himself but to our way of conceiving him.

God is not only his own godhead; he is also his own existence. Firstly, properties that do not define a thing derive either from what does define it (when common to a species, like humor in men), or from an outside cause (like heat in water). But existence, if it does not define a thing, cannot derive from what does define it, for that would mean the things depended on itself for existence. So unless existence defines God he must receive it from outside. Secondly, unless existence defines god he will have a potentially existent nature: for it is existence that realizes forms and natures. (I use the verb is to signify both the act of existing, and the mental uniting of predicate to subject which constitutes a proposition. In the first sense we cannot know the existence of God any more than we can define him; but we can say there is a God, framing a proposition about God which we can know to be true by argument from his effects.) God cannot be classified as this or that sort of thing. Firstly, species being based on a different way of realizing the potentiality on which the generic notion is based; but no realizing of potentialities occurs in God. Secondly, it is God's nature to exist, so the only genus to which God could belong would be the genus of existent and that is no genus at all; genera are differentiated by factors not already existed. Thirdly, things sharing a generic nature differ in existence: horses from men, this man from that man; so that the nature and existence of anything in a genus differ. In particular, God is not a substance; for existing independently does not define a substance (existing determines no genus at all), but being a sort of thing that can exist independently, and Gd is not a sort of thing. Finally, God has no properties other than his nature. Firstly, because such properties realize potentialities of their possessor. Secondly, because as though an existent may have other properties as well, existence is simply existence. Thirdly, properties are always derived, either from outside or from what one is oneself.

God is then altogether simple: there is in him no distinction of spatial parts, of form and matter, of nature and individuality, of nature and existence, of genus and difference, of subject and properties. For everything composite is secondary, caused, a realized potentiality. Moreover, no composite and its components can share every predicate in common: no part of a foot is a foot, and though every drop of water is water, the drops are of less volume than the whole. Now things possessing forms may contain elements of otherness, but not forms themselves: white things can have non-white elements, but whiteness can't. God however is form itself, indeed existence itself. whatever derives from God resembles him, but in the way that an effect resembles its primary cause; and effects are of their nature composite, not being their own existence. In our world perfection is built up of many elements; but divine perfection is simple and single as we shall see. God does not enter into the composition of things; he is not the soul of the world, nor the form of all things, nor the ultimate uniformed matter of things. Firstly, the cause of a thing cannot also be its form of matter. Secondly, components derive  their activity from the composite (hands do not act, but men by using their hands). Thirdly, matter is primary only in the sense in which potentiality precedes realization; and the forms matter takes on are seconday to forms that stand by themselves.

Neverthless God's perfection is all-embracing, he exists without limit, we can know him but not comprehend him. Now the final three ideas I have just suggested I will further explain if you want me to.

QuoteWhat makes you think your god is still the god?

The testimony of Jesus Christ. However I would like to make a separate thread on this, if you allow me to do so. I think it would make a good thread.

QuoteI'll post at least two more such every time you dodge.

I apologize if I have dodged questions, if you can humbly post more of the questions I have dodge I can answer them at the best of my ability. There is alot of other discussions going on that I am afraid I look over certain questions members here ask of. All I can ask is that you forgive me for my judgment and I look forward to responding.

All the best.

Achronos,

Obviously you believe in god, and no matter what an atheist says to you, I imagine you don't actually stop and think about what is said.   If atheist tells you something, you just post the standard responses that every atheist has heard before(just my opinion).  Something along the lines God is good, Without god we have nothing, etc...   Usually they are profound words, with  little meaning or thought behind them.

I am trying to understand why you post so much on the atheist form, So why are you here?

I am not saying you shouldn't be here, just wondering why you are here.

Well my first initial reason was I was curious if any other Christians had the endurance to debate with other atheists. I did see 2 (I'm not sure they are active anymore) so I thought I could provide a helping hand in discussing particular issues. However I received a private message, on this board, reaching out to me for guidance and assistance on God/Christ and my own faith. in that regards I guess I have done some good, without being egotistical I guess my perspective created some questions that needed to be answered.

What I had to realize with atheists is that their dilemma is spiritual, not, in any sense, logical. For many young atheists, atheism is just a way to validate or justify their behavior. The postmodern world-view (relative morality) gives the illusion of conscious-free behavior. What this means, of course, is that, during argument, atheists will tend to equivocate and change their position so long as it justifies their activity. When I was in my prime, debating atheists on a near daily basis, I had to contend with this ad-hoc, willy-nilly argumentation style constantly.

Atheists will never stay on point, and I don't expect them too. They'll bring up anything they think might give them an upper-hand, and because they have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation, they don't feel as though they need to adhere to any formal rules of debate. Many atheists contend, almost on a "moral" basis, that they should be able to condescend and insult me as a matter of principle. That's because they find my beliefs ridiculous, ridiculing myself as fair game.

The best thing to do with atheists, from what I have encountered, is let them talk as much as they want. Normal, well-adjusted people (whom compromise the great majority of people) will undoubtedly be unpersuaded by their position. This is primarily because atheism, as a world view, offers nothing of any meaning or value. It's logical ends are nihilism, it rejects the notion of an afterlife, a meaningful life, and all morality, among other things. Any atheist who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

On the internet, it may seem as though there are a disproportionate number of atheists. And you may be keen to think that there are just lots and lots of them. The reality of the situation is, of course, that atheists comprise a tiny majority of the American population, and the internet is one of the few places that anyone will happen to listen to them. Really, the internet is only place where atheism can portend that it has any clout whatsoever.

The old breed of atheism, the kind which tolerated religion to a generous degree, and which promoted friendliness and temperance with religious people is largely dying out. Many atheist organizations (see: Center for Inquiry) are embracing a confrontational approach which is, altogether, hostile to religious people. They see myself as insane people. It wouldn't matter how normal I am, if I believed in a God of any kind, I am are certifiably insane in their eyes (See: Sam Harris). Debate of any kind will be impossible. I know I would be dealing with angry degenerates who consider myself a plague on the earth, and they would have literally no problem with removing from me all my rights and privileges.

My one saving grace is that atheists tend to eat their own, and in-fighting and disagreement among the atheist hierarchy tends to thwart any advancement of a public-policy agenda which seeks to undermine religious people.

This may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but it's not. A close friend of mine recently went to one of the most important atheist conferences in Los Angeles, a conference sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism, and reported that these people are essentially at each-others' throats as to whether or not they should accommodate religious people, or violently attack them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16beliefs.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16beliefs.html)

It's becoming apparent that the "confronationalists' are gaining more traction, and that they regard us with contempt and hatred. Based on the first-hand account that I've heard, the NY Times article is far too generous in it's description of the hostility. My friend basically remarked on how these people were ready to come to blows with one another.

My only point in saying all this is that debating with atheists is almost entirely a waste of time. As atheists become more hostile, and become more persuaded that they are the arbiters of reason and logic, they will only become increasingly occupied with talking down to myself. Even Thump, with whom I've had many conservations, patronizes me constantly. They are fully convinced that they are A. better educated, B. more intelligent, C. less biased, and D. mentally sane. I am none of the above. Nearly every debate I have had with atheists of late has been nothing but frustration and disappointment, for the great majority of them are not interested in genuine debate.

I guess with that being said perhaps I shouldn't be here after all, although it would have been more beneficial of myself to provide assistance with other Christians. Unfortunately it seems those are a dying breed on this board, maybe for good reason.

I find it ironic that Achronos is lumping almost all atheists into the combative atheist camp on a forum where the owner, mod staff, and most members are generally friendly towards religious people as long as they are willing to discuss like a normal person.

I find it offensive that Achronos is saying that we are all atheists because we want to do something morally wrong.  That not only shows a complete lack of having attempted to actually get to know people who are atheists but also illustrates how fundamentalist religion makes followers assume something is wrong with outsiders.

Atheists almost outnumber Jews now (or perhaps already does) yet people still think Jews control the world...small numbers doesn't mean not being influential on society  (and argument from popularity is a logical fallacy...thought you should know since you think we aren't logical and apparently you are)

Quote from: "Achronos"[...]As atheists become more hostile, and become more persuaded that they are the arbiters of reason and logic, they will only become increasingly occupied with talking down to myself.

I think that you're going to find this stereo type more fitting to just a few of the group you're attaching it to rather than to the majority. When one adheres to reason and logic, they're not becoming the arbiter of reason and logic but submitting to process that has been proven to solve problems, ensure that one doesn't assume inaccurately and is a universal way for everyone to be as rational as is humanly possible. When one points out that you're assuming and/or using a fallacy, they're showing you that you're not being rational by referring to centuries of empirically tested methodology, and not just what they think. Which is a far different perspective in contrast to religious people who think that they're own personal/subjective thoughts and feelings some how make them arbiters of truth. What you're accusing all atheists of, appears to be a bit of the pot calling the sun black.

Quote from: "Achronos"Even Thump, with whom I've had many conservations, patronizes me constantly. They are fully convinced that they are A. better educated, B. more intelligent, C. less biased, and D. mentally sane. I am none of the above. Nearly every debate I have had with atheists of late has been nothing but frustration and disappointment, for the great majority of them are not interested in genuine debate.

I have been reading the conversations between you and others and I've seen no such thing, perhaps you could provide some quotes that justify your accusations?

Quote from: "Achronos"I guess with that being said perhaps I shouldn't be here after all, although it would have been more beneficial of myself to provide assistance with other Christians. Unfortunately it seems those are a dying breed on this board, maybe for good reason.

Why would any theist or more specifically, Christian, require any assistance? Several of us here (of course I am making assumptions based on what I've read but at the very least me), are honestly searching for the truth of things. To want to assist anyone against this goal is to stand against the honest pursuit of knowing what is real.

Quote from: "Achronos"to provide assistance with other Christians. Unfortunately it seems those are a dying breed on this board, maybe for good reason.

Yes, the good reason is that Christians are not the target audience for this forum and we have a no preaching rule which the majority of Christians who seek out atheist forums can't seem to bother to follow.

Quote from: "Whitney"I find it ironic that Achronos is lumping almost all atheists into the combative atheist camp on a forum where the owner, mod staff, and most members are generally friendly towards religious people as long as they are willing to discuss like a normal person.

Where have I made that assertion that I lumped all atheists into a combative one? You mean the assertion that atheists will become more hostile, and more persuaded acting as they themselves are the holder of reason and logic? It's already happening, this forum is proof of it. It's quite the delusion to think otherwise.

QuoteI find it offensive that Achronos is saying that we are all atheists because we want to do something morally wrong.  That not only shows a complete lack of having attempted to actually get to know people who are atheists but also illustrates how fundamentalist religion makes followers assume something is wrong with outsiders.

Atheists also have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation and its logical end is based upon nihilism, and as I said before if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. I know this because I was once an atheist.

QuoteAtheists almost outnumber Jews now (or perhaps already does) yet people still think Jews control the world...small numbers doesn't mean not being influential on society  (and argument from popularity is a logical fallacy...thought you should know since you think we aren't logical and apparently you are)

Atheists represent a very small of the population, yet collectively speaking Jews would still outweigh them because it is quite evident all of the in fighting within atheism so it should not be seen as a collective whole.

Also you speak of Zionism and even some Jews themselves would not categorize Jews as being Zionists.

Quote from: "Achronos"God is not, like creatures, made up of parts (snip)

You're just mass quoting Aquinas here, right? Without attribution?

Cheers, MetaEd

Most of my theological/philosophical interpretation derives from Aquinas and Augustine, although I have a few niche ones as well. To answer your question I am basing the perfection of God on Aquinas own writing (which itself can be detrimental due to restrictions in our own translation into English) which he made pretty well. But Aquinas elaborates much further than what I can interpret (His Summa Theologica is comprised of 60 volumes, and it still is not complete.)

Speaking of Aquinas, I think it was hilarious how Dawkins tried to understand Aquinas 5 Arguments for the existence of God, and in turn completely misunderstands him. He never took into account how Aquinas sets up the 5 arguments (or ways) which is so very vital to the 5 ways Aquinas suggests.

I will make a profound statement and say Aquinas was the best philosopher that ever lived, better than Aristotle (who Aquinas himself derived his philosophy from, but there are deviations within it). His output may never be surpassed in this day and age. Had Summa Theologica been completed, it would be the greatest and most important philosophical work of all time. But as it stands unfinished, it is still near the all the time greatest.

If you want another 'book' to consider is Augustine's City of God, which might be the best ever case in the defense of Christianity. That book (or should I say collection of books) itself was completed in only 3 years (I think). It is sheer genius.

Thank you for the response,  here are some of the points of your last response

Quote from: "Achronos"1. What I had to realize with atheists is that their dilemma is spiritual...
2. ...atheists will tend to equivocate and change their position so long as it justifies their activity...
3. Atheists will never stay on point, and I don't expect them too...
4. They'll bring up anything they think might give them an upper-hand, and because they have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation...
5. ...they don't feel as though they need to adhere to any formal rules of debate...
6. ...this is primarily because atheism, as a world view, offers nothing of any meaning or value. It's logical ends are nihilism, it rejects the notion of an afterlife, a meaningful life, and all morality, among other things.
7. The reality of the situation is, of course, that atheists comprise a tiny majority of the American population...
8. The old breed of atheism, the kind which tolerated religion to a generous degree, and which promoted friendliness and temperance with religious people is largely dying out.
9. My one saving grace is that atheists tend to eat their own, and in-fighting...
10. This may sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but it's not...
11. This is getting a little repetatve...I suggest you apply your anti athiesm views to your religion

My answers/questions/counter points to above

1. Why do you think I have a delemma?  I am fully secure in stating that all the gods and devils are creations of our imagination.  I take this to be a fact.
2. I am descent person, I don't tell people what to do, I haven't been sued,arrested, got into any kind of fight, not even serious arguments,  why do you think I need to justify my actions?
3. Thats a problem with humanity in general.
4. Moral behavior is defined by society, it changes from region to region, and over time.  Objective behavior?  Which do you consider more objective faith or science?
5. Sorry, I didn't take debate in school.
6. I dont know what a 'world view' is.  Enjoying life without causing problems for others seems to have meaning to me.  I dont consider myself to have a nihilism view of the world.  What afterlife?  Do you know the meaning of life? Morality, really?  Christianity has only been around for 1500 years, in a very limited pocket of the world.  The heathens of the world seem to have come up with the same morals, without the need for your god.
7. Your version of god, is worshiped by a tiny portion of the world population.
8. How many fanatical athiests groups do you know of?  Me, I cant think of any.  How many fanatical religious groups do you know of?   Hmmm, let me start counting, Ill get back to you.
9. See answer to #8, and apply it to this one.
10. Idont have any policies against religion

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Whitney"I find it ironic that Achronos is lumping almost all atheists into the combative atheist camp on a forum where the owner, mod staff, and most members are generally friendly towards religious people as long as they are willing to discuss like a normal person.

Where have I made that assertion that I lumped all atheists into a combative one? You mean the assertion that atheists will become more hostile, and more persuaded acting as they themselves are the holder of reason and logic? It's already happening, this forum is proof of it. It's quite the delusion to think otherwise.

QuoteI find it offensive that Achronos is saying that we are all atheists because we want to do something morally wrong.  That not only shows a complete lack of having attempted to actually get to know people who are atheists but also illustrates how fundamentalist religion makes followers assume something is wrong with outsiders.

Atheists also have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation and its logical end is based upon nihilism, and as I said before if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. I know this because I was once an atheist.

QuoteAtheists almost outnumber Jews now (or perhaps already does) yet people still think Jews control the world...small numbers doesn't mean not being influential on society :shake: I'm sorry but repeating your claims doesn't make them any more true than they were the first time.

Quote from: "Achronos"I know I would be dealing with angry degenerates who consider myself a plague on the earth, and they would have literally no problem with removing from me all my rights and privileges.

Well, well.  First, since we haven't conversed here before, Achronos, I offer a belated hello and welcome.  Not that it means much, coming as it does from somebody you would characterize as an "angry degenerate." Aren't you  the noble one, offering yourself up to suffer terrible abuse from the unholy, for the admirable purpose of helping other Christians who've found themselves here in a tar-pit of bellicose miscreants! Saintly, that's the only word for you.  You may view this comment as patronizing, because it is.  You deserve it. lol   For the others, well, atheists are human, and faulty self-appraisal is a human failing.

Quote from: "Achronos"I am none of the above. Nearly every debate I have had with atheists of late has been nothing but frustration and disappointment, for the great majority of them are not interested in genuine debate.

I'll restrain myself from any further sarcastic comments regarding your feelings.  I've enjoyed reading many many pages of what seemed to me to be "genuine debate" here at HAF, and flatter myself by thinking that I've participated in such at least a few times here.  That you have a different perception may be the result of people's reaction to the way in which you present yourself here.  I hope you stick around, but I wouldn't blame you for leaving.  Even saints have a limit to their patience.

It was callous of me to describe my conversation with Thump as such, and for that I apologize.

Also my "angry degenrates" was not targeted at a collective whole but a select few that would love to see religion abolished from the world and those included in it. I apologize if that was taken in a context of me putting judgment on all atheists, which it seems it had. However the point I was making where atheists who were once tolerant of religion, are now being more voicerous in their condemnation on religion. This section of the board does just that, now if any of those here take their arguments outside I don't know. You made a comment that atheism is spreading in the UK, obviously you cite indifference towards religion but soon enough those will have to speak up in against establishments such as the monarchy, which adversely would affect the Church of England.

Another correction I must make is when i referred to "talking down to myself" I meant to imply other Christians or other religious people for that matter. I should have added that bit, for it seems I made the imagery of a group of people ganging up only on myself, which isn't true.

Now when I say nearly every debate I have with atheists, that does not mean solely on this forum. I also partake in discussion outside of it, where most of my frustration and disappointment is derived from. It would be nice to see a forum of both equal representation of atheistic and theistic viewpoints, if we are to discuss the merits of religion. I say this because it seems to me the collective consensus of atheists would be in agreement with each other over certain theological ideas that religions express. The main problem with this is it could arise misinterpretation of the religion itself, take for example the Bible which has many literary devices that are employed. Something that should be seen as an allegory would instead be interpreted as literally, and so on and so forth.

In my opinion debating the very existence of God and who/why we are as people is probably, if not the, most important question that must be answered in our lifetime. I guess you could live life not caring, but what good would existence be if we didn't ask questions about ourselves and the world around us. The viewpoint I see of atheism, and I once was, is that it becomes a belief system that is grounded on quicksand. I continually debate with an atheist outside this board that will try anything to debunk what I have said, to the point where his own beliefs become muddled in a sea of such an uncertainty that is indistinguishable. We'll start off by debating his very existence and his purpose, he presents his case and it's a back and forth argument to the point where he loses his own meaning in life by trying to get the best refutation possible just to win the argument, and not to justify one's self.

Not saying that's everybody, but I like to have my own beliefs on solid ground. The turning point for me was when I discovered that my only belief was of myself, but that my own belief will die someday when I myself die. What if my own belief, and considering I am human and at error, was not the truth? What if I was wrong about it? And thus began my search for the truth. It's a longer story than that, but this is where I am today.

If I may, and this will be seen as me ducking from an obvious 'attack' on my viewpoint on atheism, I would like to talk more about the afterlife if possible, since this is what the thread is about after all.

Your doing it again, you just cant  see it.

Apply your complaints to your religion, and in many cases, YOU!

Your view comes across as Atheism is wrong because they do this, they do that.....no....We all do this, we all do that....YOU do this, YOU do that.

Your house is made of glass too, problem is, your throwing stones at my glass house, from inside your glass house, and your doors/windows are not open son.

Where would you like me to begin on my complaints against my own faith?

Quote from: "Achronos"Where would you like me to begin on my complaints against my own faith?

Lets start by opening thine eyes!
Then look at your last few posts, and replace the words 'those atheists' with 'my religion'
Then thou shalt see.

I was being sarcastic.

QuoteAlso my "angry degenrates" was not targeted at a collective whole but a select few that would love to see religion abolished from the world and those included in it.

Here would be a good starting point: not lumping us all together.  After all, I'm not doing that to you.  Certainly you can return the favor.

If you have a disagreement or problem with a particular poster, either address the poster specifically in your post, PM him or her, or file a complaint with Whitney.  

But honestly, when you throw out generalizations like this, you  only reduce your own credibility.

Matter always reassembles.

Quote from: "hunterman317"Matter always reassembles.

... so long as there is an input of energy.

Achronos, I can't help but note that you said the following:

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheists will never stay on point, and I don't expect them too.

This is amusing because it is exactly how I might describe you.

Alright, now that everyone has gotten that out of their system...???  

Back to [one of] the issue being sidestepped...

Quote from: "Thump"eta: Per Persimmon's request, I ask that you answer this question which you have yet to answer:

Quote from: "Thump"Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

I saw you made an attempt at this, but it did not satisfy me nor did it satisfy Thump.

Quote from: "Achronos"Beings in the world have characteristics to varying degrees. Some are more or less good, true, noble, and so forth. Such gradations are all measured in relation to a maximum, however. Thus, there must be something best, truest, noblest, and so on. Now, as Aristotle teaches, things that are greatest in truth are also greatest in being. Therefore, there must be something that is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection that we find in beings in the world. We call this maximum cause God.

You ask me to accept the existence of characteristics which you refer to as "goodness", "nobility".  You must define these qualities before you apply them in any quantity to any creature/object/idea.  Please define them.

What is this "maximum" you assert we can measure those qualities in relation to?  Please define it.  What would maximum "goodness" be?  What would maximum "nobility" be?

Why did you claim we find "perfection" in beings in the world?  To which beings do you refer?  (Surely you did not mean God, because in the next sentence you then claimed he caused these beings -- or were you saying he caused himself?)

Once you define all of this for us, we can continue the discussion about your original statement, and how you will demonstrate the goodness of those qualities/characteristics/ideas which you originally mentioned (in the manner that Thump requested, "without reference to your god"):

Quote from: "Achronos"But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good.

At risk of complicating things, I will nevertheless bring up one other part of the very problematic post you made in your first attempt at addressing the question:

Quote from: "Achronos"We observe in nature that inanimate and nonintelligent objects act toward the best possible purpose, even though these objects are not aware of doing so. It is clear that these objects do not achieve their purpose by sheer chance but rather according to a plan. Any inanimate or nonintelligent object that acts toward a purpose, though, must be guided by a being that possesses knowledge and intelligence, just as an arrow is directed by an archer. Therefore, there must be some intelligent being that directs all natural things toward their purpose. We call this being God.

There is absolutely no reason to suspect some "intelligence" is orchestrating the efforts of every "nonintelligent" object on earth.  I would also need you to define "intelligence" as it relates to the "objects" (animals?) to which you referred--so that I might understand whether you consider the intelligence level of chimps, dolphins, cephalopods, crows, etc, to be low enough to also require "divine guidance in purpose".  Currently I take you to be saying that some external intelligence is guiding the squirrel in my yard to hoard nuts for the upcoming winter; is that what you are getting at?
The above quotation suggests, as has been previously noted by others and myself, that you have very little grasp of evolution.  Have you any interest in filling that gap of knowledge?  At the very least it might help you make a better case for yourself, because the moment you appear to lack even a basic understanding of evolution is the moment many atheists will stop paying much attention to you.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If you have a disagreement or problem with a particular poster, either address the poster specifically in your post, PM him or her, or file a complaint with Whitney.  

I second this and add that a complaint can be filed with any mod as they all have the ability to take care of issues if they feel action is necessary.

Quote from: "Achronos"The old breed of atheism, the kind which tolerated religion to a generous degree, and which promoted friendliness and temperance with religious people is largely dying out.

Or perhaps, the "old breed of atheism" is no longer kept silent by the fear of religious persocution thanks to the positive progression towards being able to freely think for ourselves without as much fear of said persocution. Perhaps what your religious mind viewed as "temperance for religious people" was more the result of your church having more power to control minds than it currently does. Damn the power to think freely!!

And the martyr hat you're wearing in this thread is not becoming on you.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"You ask me to accept the existence of characteristics which you refer to as "goodness", "nobility".  You must define these qualities before you apply them in any quantity to any creature/object/idea.  Please define them.

Good and bad are wider terms than right and wrong. Any lack of good is bad, but only falling short of a goal is wrong, lacking rule. Rule in nature is a thing's natural tendency to a goal, and only those actions go right which accord with the tendency; deviation from this straight path we call a fault. In willed activity (will [no pun intended] get to this soon) the immediate rule is reason and above that the eternal law. So an act on line for its goal according to reason and the eternal law is right, while an act which goes awry is wrong and called a sin. In their turn, the terms right and wrong are wider than praiseworthy and blameworthy; for the latter impute to an agent responsibility for his acts, presuming them voluntary. In the arts reason aims at some particular artistic goal of its own creation, but in moral activity at a goal common to all human living. The artist can sin either as an artist, when he fails his own artistic intentions (and then he is blamed as a bad artist), or he can fail as a man when what he intends fails to accord with the common goal of human life (and then he is blamed as a bad man). The only moral sin is that of failing to aim as the goal of human living, and moral blame is of a man as man. To call an act deserving or undeserving brings in the notion of just deserts rendered to people for profiting or hurting others. When you help or harm and individual both he and the society to which he belongs owe you deserts; when you help or harm society as such society and all its members owe deserts; and when you help or harm yourself the society you belong to owes them. And if you do something that cannot be related to God as ultimate goal you do him dishonor and deserve universe, he has to judge the deserts of every human action. Not everything in man is subordinate to the political community, so not every deed is subject to its judgments; but everything a man has or can have is ordered to God and all human actions merit God's reward or punishment.

Considering various different ways of characterizing voluntary actions: firstly, as actions of the will itself (willing, enjoying and intending goals; choosing, accepting and employing means), and secondly, as actions of other powers controlled by will. Our will is both attracted to what seems good and repelled by what seems bad; but we specially use willing to name the act of desiring good (the act of shrinking from evil we could perhaps call won'ting). Moreover, our will is attracted both to goals and to what serves those goals; but the most basic act of willing is the desiring of what is in itself desirable, namely, goals; we desire what serves a goal not for its own sake but for the sake of the goal, and so what we will in it is in fact the goal. In the strict sense of the word then we will goals, (just as what we understand are premises, and conclusions only when seen as enshrining those premises). Clearly we desire the goal in the means with one and the same act of willing as we desire the means; through there may have preceded pure desire of the goal. Interrupting execution of an action can leave us with a willed goal but no means.

Our psychological powers can act or not act, and, if they act, do one thing or another. So we can ask the cause of the exercise or performance of an act (what moved its subject into action?), and the cause that determined the type of act performed (what gave the at its object?). Moving a subject into action requires an agent attracted by a goal, and since what attracts is goodness as such (by definition the province of the will) is our will that brings our other powers into action: we use our powers as and when we will. But the type of action is determined by conformation to some object, and since conformation to being and truth as such is by definition the province of the mind, it is the mind that determines the will by presenting to it its object. Theoretical grasp of truth without grasp of its practical goodness or desirability will not move us, and more that merely imagining objects without judging them helpful or harmful stimulates animal emotions. Will moves mind to perform, since the truth mind seeks is one good among others and an instance of what will seeks: goodness as such; but mind determines what it is we will, since we know the good we will as one truth among others, an instance of what mind grasps: truth as such. Because what seems good to us must seem congenial, and that depends on our constitution as well as that of the object presented, it is obvious that emotions can so affect our composure that things appear congenial which would not otherwise do so. In this way emotions can affect the will through its object. Besides moving other powers, the will can also move itself to perform; for by willing a goal it moves itself to will what serves that goal. So the will is formed by the mind presenting its object, but moved to perform by itself pursuing its goal. Things in the external world can obviously be objects for hte will and influence it that way, but can anything external move the will to perform? Well, when the will moves itself to perform it starts by willing a goal, and then by a process of deliberation, brings itself to will what serves the goal. But what brought it to will the goal in the first place? Itself perhaps by deliberation based on some earlier willing, and so on. But, as Aristotle points out, the process must start somewhere with an original willing caused from outside, just as natural movement depends eventually on someone setting nature in motion. Things in nature can be set in motion by other things than God, the author of nature, but only God can cause them to move natural; and in the same way men can be set in motion by other things than God, the author of their wills, but only God can set them in voluntary movement. God moves our wills towards goodness as such, the all-inclusive object of the will; and without this all-inclusive movement by the mover of all things men couldn't will anything. But man uses his own mind to determine whether to will this or that genuine or seeming good; though as we shall see later God sometimes moves some people by his grace to will some particular good.

What belongs intrinsically to a thing as such we call natural. If anything is to have properties at all it must first have nature in this sense: thus, understanding presupposes premises which are naturally understood, and willing something willed by nature. For the will (like any power) tends naturally to object defining it, namely goodness as such, and to that ultimate goal desired in all desiring (in the way first premises are understood in all understanding), and in general to all particular goods natural to the person willing: to knowledge of the truth, to existence, to life. The will, as mistress of its own actions, works in a way which transcends the way nature works, following one determined pattern. Nevertheless, what acts by will first exists by nature, and the will's way of seeking must in some way reflect and incorporate nature's. Every nature is determinate, fixed on one thing, but in the case of immaterial powers the oneness is a oneness of generality: the will, for example, responds to all good as such, and the mind to whatever is true or exists. No object can oblige us to exercise our wills, for, whatever it is, we can omit to think about it, and so omit to will it. But if it is presented to the will and is good in every way from every point of view, then, if the will wills at all, it is obliged to accept that thing and refuse its opposite. We are obliged to will happiness in this way (and whatever is essential for happiness, like existence and life). But all other particular goods, since they cannot contain every good there is, can be regarded as not good in some respect, and for that reason can be either refused or accepted. Emotions move the will by predisposing us to judge objects congenial or not. If passion is so great that a man loses all reason, then he becomes like the other animals, deprived of all will; but if something of reason and will remains then passion can always be resisted. The will cannot always stop desire arising, but it can always refuse to consent to it. God irresistibly moves causes to effects in ways suited to the nature of the cause; so he moves wills freely. For the will to move necessarily would rather be to resist God's will. The supposition that God is moving the will to such and such an object necessarily entails that the will is tending to that object; by the tendency is not in itself necessary.

Seeing God is as such an activity of mind, but as the goal of our desires it is an object towards which the will moves the mind, and which the will enjoys when the mind has achieved it. So enjoying is an act, not of the achieving power, but of the power of desire directing the achievement. In things that lack awareness we find power to achieve goals but no power to direct the achievement, since this belongs to a higher power which directs all nature in the way desire directs the actions of things with awareness. Clearly then only things with awareness enjoy the goals they achieve. And of these only creatures with reasons are fully aware of their goals as such, knowing their function as goals; other animals are aware only of the particular things which are their goals, to which their appetites direct them unfreely by natural instinct. So reasoning creatures enjoy in a full sense, animals in a lesser way, and other creatures not at all. The ultimate goal of all life's activity is enjoyable in the fullest sense; whatever exerts a temporary attraction is enjoyable in a restricted sense; and what is not attractive in itself but only serves some other goal (like a nauseous medicine) is not in any sense enjoyable. There is already joy in intending a goal, but not the full joy of really achieving it. Joy in other things differs in kind from joy in God. But joy in moving to God is of the same kind as joy in achieving him, different only in degree.

To intend something is to tend towards it: either actively (the primary sense), or passively under the influence of some active tendency. Since all our powers tend to their goal under the influence of some active tendency. Since all our powers tend to their goal under the influence of the will, intending is primarily an act of will. Reason makes a plan, and will tends to a goal according to the plan. So intending is willing that presupposes a reasoned plan for reaching the goal. Simple attraction to a goal, without further qualification we call willing; resting in a goal reached we call enjoyment, but in order to intend a goal we must will it as the terminus of some action directed at reaching it. Going from A to B by way of C, B is our final destination, C an intermediate one. So we can intend goals that are not yet our ultimate goal. To be enjoyed a goal must be an ultimate goal that we can rest in, but any goal that we can move towards can be intended. Clearly we can intend many subordinated goals (final and intermediate) at one and the same time; and since we can prefer one course of action to another because it serves more than one purpose, we can also intend many subordinated goals at once. Things which are in reality many can be unified by reason into one terminus of intention. When we will something as mean to a goal, one  and the same act of will tends towards goal and means together, the goal making the means attractive; just as we see light and colors together, with light making the colors visible. It is one and the same act of will that wills means as a way to a goal (and in that respect is called choice), and wills the goal as reachable by the means (and in that respect is called intention). Nature intends goals passively, under the active influence of God; and this is the way animals intend goals by natural instinct. But reason intends goals actively.

Actions are like things: that they exist is good as far as it goes, but when they don't exist as fully as they should that is bad. To be fully realized actions, like things, must first be what by definition they should be: things must be rightly formed and actions must have a right object. For the basic moral evil is activity excised on the wrong object (taking something not your own, for example), just as the basic natural evil is misbegotten form. However good the external object of activity may be in itself, it may not be the right object for this or that action. So an action's goodness or badness is first decided by its object. Now this is not a case of effect causing cause. For one thing, human action is caused by desire, and that is an effect of objects rather than their cause. And even when actions do cause their objects, the goodness of the action's effect is not an agent of the goodness of the action, but actions are called good because they are such as to cause a good effect, the balance between the action and its effect being its goodness.

Toe be fully realized things must have properties over and above what defines them, and actions too, to be account good, must occur in the right circumstances. Circumstances lie outside the specific nature of an action and belong to it like non-defining properties do to things, contributing to its moral goodness in the same way that non-essential properties contribute to natural goodness. Finally, just as certain things depend for existence on outside causes, so human actions can depend for goodness on external goals; for activity must contain a right balance to its goal, even though its goal lies outside it.

Four elements therefore contribute to a good actions: first, its generic existence as activity at all: secondly, definition by an appropriate object, thirdly, the circumstances surrounding the act; and fourthly, its relation to a goal. Actions are good in the straightforward sense of the word only when all these elements are present: any defect will make a thing bad; to be good a thing must be wholly good.

Good human actions differ in kind from bad ones. For objects may differ and differentiate activity in relation to one source of activity even when they don't in relation to another: color and sound distinguish two kind of sense-perception but not two kinds of mind. Now human actions are good when they accord with reason and bad when they don't (for reason makes man human), and the difference of object which makes actions good or bad is directly related to reason, namely, whether the object suits or not. So goodness or badness of object must define specifically different kinds of reasoned or human or moral activity. Even in nature natural goodness or badness can diversify species of moral action. Morally bad actions don't lack objects; they have objects lacking reasonable suitability. Thus, in relation to reason, married and adulterous sexual intercourse are two different kinds of act and have different kinds of effect, one earning commendation and the other blame but in relation to our reproductive powers they are one in species and effect. The goodness or badness of actions derived from their goals also diversifies their moral species. Voluntary action is made up of the external activity the will is controlling (defined by the object of that activity), and an interior act of will controlling it (defined by the will's object, namely the goal of the activity). This act of will enters into the definition of the external activity, since only when the body is acting as will's too is its activity morally significant. Human activity therefore is defined formally by its goal and materially by its external object. As Aristotle puts it, stealing to pay for adultery makes you even more an adulterer than a thief. Even if the goal is incidental to the external activity as such it is not incidental to the interior act of will controlling and shaping the external activity. If the object of an external activity is not intrinsically related to its goal (stealing in order to give alms), then the action belongs morally to two disparate species; otherwise (fighting to achieve victory) one species must be subsumed under the other. Which under which becomes clear if we notice the more ultimate goals engage agents of wider scope and such agents lay down more general definitions of what gets done. So goals are what define actions most generally, and further specification is due to objects intrinsically related to those goals; for will, with the goal as its object, is general mover of all those powers with particular objects of activity. The goal is the last thing implemented but it is the first thing mentally intended, and moral acts are defined relative to mind.

Some actions then are by definition good (their object accords with reason(; some are by defintion bad (like stealing, their objects offends reason); whilst others are by definition neutral (like straw-picking, their object does neither). Every object and every goal is naturally good, but this doesn't ensure moral goodness or badness with respect to reason, just as man himself is neither virtuous nor vicious by nature. Actions which are by definition neutral are turned into good or bad actions in individual cases by attendant circumstances, by the intended goal if by nothing else. For it is the function of reason to direct, and any action that proceeded from reason without a due goal would be by the fact itself bad. Only absent-minded action like stroking one's chin or shifting one's feet can be neutral in the individual case, because not moral at all. What we mean by an action neutral by definition is an action capable of being either good or bad, not an actions obliged to be neither: indeed there is no object to our activity that cannot be directed to good or bad by some goal or circumstance. Individual actions may be neither good nor bad in some restricted sense of those words: neither profitable or harmful to others, for examples. But we are here speaking of good and bad in the most general sense of being in harmony or in discord with right reason. Natural things are produced once for all with a defined nature which underlies all supervening modifications. But reason can and must re-examine its products, and what was first treated as a circumstance attendant on the defining object of an action may be reassesd as itself defining the object. The place and time at which you steal are usually circumstances, but if they involve some special contravention of right reason (eg stealing in church) then the very definition of the action may be affected and stealing become sacrilege. Circumstance as such cannot affect an action's definition, but circumstance can change into an essential condition of the object defining the action. Some circumstances affect the goodness or badness of actions only when another circumstance has defined their kind: thus taking more or less of something affects the goodness or badness of taking only when the things is someone else's. Stealing more and stealing less differ in degree of badness, even if not in kind.

QuoteWhat is this "maximum" you assert we can measure those qualities in relation to?  Please define it.  What would maximum "goodness" be?  What would maximum "nobility" be?

It is God, I have answered this question in regards to what you have quoted above. Maximum meaning absolute, and for their to be absolute goodness it must be derived from a cause and we can relate this maximum to God; who by very definition is Himself the perfection of goodness.

QuoteWhy did you claim we find "perfection" in beings in the world?  To which beings do you refer?  (Surely you did not mean God, because in the next sentence you then claimed he caused these beings -- or were you saying he caused himself?)

I am not stating that beings are perfect, rather there must be a cause of being and goodness in beings in the world.

QuoteThere is absolutely no reason to suspect some "intelligence" is orchestrating the efforts of every "nonintelligent" object on earth.  I would also need you to define "intelligence" as it relates to the "objects" (animals?) to which you referred--so that I might understand whether you consider the intelligence level of chimps, dolphins, cephalopods, crows, etc, to be low enough to also require "divine guidance in purpose".  Currently I take you to be saying that some external intelligence is guiding the squirrel in my yard to hoard nuts for the upcoming winter; is that what you are getting at?

I think you have misunderstood what I am saying, what I was saying is that we act towards a goal/purpose. It's not like you say being orchestrated by God; however I argue that our actions and our ultimate goal is to know God. I have touched upon our actions and goals above, but if this isn't a sufficient answer please allow me to further explain.

QuoteThis is amusing because it is exactly how I might describe you.

That's funny I was trying to get this thread back on topic to the afterlife, whereas you want to do the contrary.

BTW PH, I HIGHLY recommend reading The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis, it is quite a prophetic book. The Abolition of Man is a treaty on the importance of Natural law, an objective truth or a moral code that transcends time and culture. Lewis refers to this as the Tao, a system of truth that is embedded in all cultures throughout history. It is not an American or British truth, or even a western one. There are objective truths that all recognize, whether they follow them or not. As he states, he does not like the company of children, but he recognizes that as a default in him, not in children. This is similar to the color-blind man; my inability to see color says something about me, not about the existence of color.

Lewis states that this book is not an argument for the existence of a theistic God, but I think it is a clear apologetic for one. How can we have moral laws and objective truths without a lawgiver and one who exists above the laws? While it is not a defense for a Christian God per se, it does point to a designer of a coherent and morally good universe.

Please excuse the lateness of my response; I've been out of town for a few days.

Quote from: "Achronos"That's funny I was trying to get this thread back on topic to the afterlife, whereas you want to do the contrary.

Is a firm understanding of the concept of "good" irrelevant to your views on the afterlife?

Quote from: "Achronos"Good and bad are wider terms than right and wrong. Any lack of good is bad, but only falling short of a goal is wrong, lacking rule. Rule in nature is a thing's natural tendency to a goal, and only those actions go right which accord with the tendency; deviation from this straight path we call a fault. In willed activity (will [no pun intended] get to this soon) the immediate rule is reason and above that the eternal law....And if you do something that cannot be related to God as ultimate goal you do him dishonor and deserve universe, he has to judge the deserts of every human action. Not everything in man is subordinate to the political community, so not every deed is subject to its judgments; but everything a man has or can have is ordered to God and all human actions merit God's reward or punishment.

So, seeing the emphasis I have added to your quote above, it seems you were unable to go even 4 sentences before hinting at God, and unable to go a single paragraph without directly referring to God.  Allow me to remind you of the original request to which you are supposed to be responding (I have enlarged a key part of it that you seem to be ignoring):

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

If you start to include God in your definition of "goodness", well, it should be obvious that you will not be able to proceed with that foundation to address the original request.  Why not just admit that, and move on?

Quote from: "Achronos"I think you have misunderstood what I am saying, what I was saying is that we act towards a goal/purpose. It's not like you say being orchestrated by God; however I argue that our actions and our ultimate goal is to know God.

I don't think I misunderstood anything.  Once again, here is what you said:

Quote from: "Achronos"Any inanimate or nonintelligent object that acts toward a purpose, though, must be guided by a being that possesses knowledge and intelligence, just as an arrow is directed by an archer. Therefore, there must be some intelligent being that directs all natural things toward their purpose. We call this being God.

You stated that any inanimate or nonintelligent object is being directed toward its purpose by God.  Can you list some specific examples of such "objects"?

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheists also have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation and its logical end is based upon nihilism, and as I said before if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. I know this because I was once an atheist.

Using that logic, this statement is also completely true:

I was a Christian once; I was an asshole; therefore, all Christians are assholes.

Infallible, impeccable, irrefutable evidence that all Christians are assholes.

Asshole.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheists also have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation and its logical end is based upon nihilism, and as I said before if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. I know this because I was once an atheist.

Using that logic, this statement is also completely true:

I was a Christian once; I was an asshole; therefore, all Christians are assholes.

Infallible, impeccable, irrefutable evidence that all Christians are assholes.

Asshole.

Excellent and funny point.

PH you have to understand I am arguing for a transcendental being in terms of goodness and badness; without an appeal to a transcendental presence good and bad are moot.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Achronos"Atheists also have no moral or objective basis for their argumentation and its logical end is based upon nihilism, and as I said before if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. I know this because I was once an atheist.

Using that logic, this statement is also completely true:

I was a Christian once; I was an asshole; therefore, all Christians are assholes.

Infallible, impeccable, irrefutable evidence that all Christians are assholes.

Asshole.

Yet Christians have moral and objective basis for their argumentation, and its logical end is love.

Atheists have no basis for the above, and your 'logical' statement misses the point but I'm not surprised.

Quote from: "Achronos"PH you have to understand I am arguing for a transcendental being in terms of goodness and badness; without an appeal to a transcendental presence good and bad are moot.

The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) fails. Achronos is arguing for the transcendental argument for good and bad [through god} which, also fails.

QuoteYet Christians have moral and objective basis for their argumentation, and its logical end is love.

Atheists have no basis for the above, and your 'logical' statement misses the point but I'm not surprised.

Heh...check you out.
First, Christian theology has no logic. Well, it's logic...but badly used bad logic.
Secondly, Christian theology based on the bible is not 'love' based.
Thirdly, all people have a moral base, both subjective and objective. A Christian's moral base is neither as they are, ironically, puppets of a non existent god whose morals are ancient goat herder morals.

Quote from: "Achronos"PH you have to understand I am arguing for a transcendental being in terms of goodness and badness; without an appeal to a transcendental presence good and bad are moot.

What you were arguing, originally, was that you preferred to be safe with respect to the afterlife (Pascal's Wager).  Believe in God and obey, because if he exists, better safe than sorry.

Thump asked the general question, what if you have the wrong religion?  As an alternative, he threw out a polytheistic example.

You then began to argue against all polytheistic religions in general.  Apparently you though this would be a sufficient defense against the general question (hint: it's not).  So, you claimed there must obviously be a single, higher God by which the lesser "gods" would be measured.  As part of this claim, you stated that "existence, intelligence, and will are in themselves good" (and made some pretty absurd statements about how, given that, evil is a "parasite" because it requires these 3 attributes to function).

If in fact you are wrong, and those 3 attributes are not intrinsically good, nothing you said would be coherent.  Your argument would fall apart.  Thump asked you to demonstrate why we should accept that statement.  He asked you to do so without reference to this ultimate God making the rules, because to do so quite obviously makes the argument circular.

You've just shown & admitted that you can't do that.  So we're left with an entirely circular argument as to why there is 1 God: yours.  Is that your final submission on the matter?  If so I don't expect many will find you the winner of that debate.

Here's a flashback to the argument from page 6:
[spoiler:5c5uvamt]

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This does nothing to address my objection at all:  what if you have the wrong god?  What if the Norse sagas have it right and you get doomed because you are a peace-loving Christian?

Those gods would be what I consider to be humanist gods rather than the all encompassing God. There are a few issues regarding the existence of 2 or more gods. For example two gods are supposed to be quite independent and they both existed from eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other is bad. Either we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other, like preferring beer to Coke, or else we are saying that, whatever the two (more more) powers think about it, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, it regarding itself as good. Now if we mean merely that we happen to prefer the first, then we must give up talking about good and evil at all. For good means what you ought to prefer quite regardless of what you happen to like at any given moment. If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other is actually right.

But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to two powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the good 'god': even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children, it is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things like resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.

After all said and done I must ask you what other god could you propose of that fits the very definition of what a God is? If there was such a God that did, I would not be a Christian.

[/spoiler:5c5uvamt]

Well I was wrong in using Pascal's Wager in a negative light. How do I know I don't have the wrong religion, because Christ has risen.

"If Christ is risen - then nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen - then nothing else matters." - Jaroslav Pelikan

I could very well argue for the existence of the Resurrection of Christ without appealing to a Church or Scriptures. Knowing that I do believe the Resurrection occured, then all other religions are wrong. God's full revelation to us is His begotten Son Jesus Christ. I became a Christian (well an Orthodox one) by investigating the Resurrection.

I was primarily convinced about the possibility of its historicity from a presentation given by Dr. Gary Habermas.  He took an approach I had never encountered before, what he called a "Minimal Facts" approach.  What he did was only allow those parts of his argument that would be granted by the majority of scholars who have studied the subject over the last 30 years.  In other words, only those things which no scholar could rightly reject.  They had to meet rigorous standards such as multiple, independent attestation, enemy attestation, early sources and eyewitness testimony.  The main 5 things that meet these criteria were: that Jesus died by crucifixion, Jesus' disciples believed they had seen him risen from the dead, Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed and converted, the skeptic and brother of Jesus, James, had also been suddenly changed and converted, and the tomb where Jesus was buried was indeed found to be empty.

He then supported these assertions with verifiable historical data without appealing to Church authority or the inspiration of the New Testament.  At this point in my inquiry, this was a big help!

So from there I jumped into more detailed and researched works, an important one of which was "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright, a very thick and detailed work.

As I continued to read and think through these things I became convinced that the Resurrection was indeed the only possible explanation for the historical phenomena that we can reasonably confirm.  Being open to this eventually led me to study further the early church as N.T. Wright proposed two questions that I didn't have the answers to:  Why did Christianity start, and why did it take the shape that it took? And it was here that I encountered Orthodoxy for the first time. I can also say that in historical terms that the testimony was so powerful to 12 men (the Apostles) and in the lives of others that became the foundation of an entire civilization.

In the Orthodox perspective, Heaven and Hell are basically our choice to the experience of God - how we are prepared for the vision of God which all people are going to have. We are all saved, whethere we believe in Christ or not, how we choose to experience this vision of God will determine whether or not we are going to spend eternity in Hell or in Heaven. They are both a state of existence. Heaven is when you are prepared for the vision of God, that experience of God. Hell is when you are not prepared for it. It's something everyone will have. We are being warned by God that "I love you all equally, I cannot withold my love from you. Prepare yourselves for that love." This God of Wrath and Punishment and throwing people into Hell and rewarding others is completely alien to the Orthodox Church.

Quote from: "Achronos"I could very well argue for the existence of the Resurrection of Christ without appealing to a Church or Scriptures. Knowing that I do believe the Resurrection occured, then all other religions are wrong. God's full revelation to us is His begotten Son Jesus Christ. I became a Christian (well an Orthodox one) by investigating the Resurrection.

Does this mean you would now like to debate the resurrection, exchanging one circular argument for another?  If so, I'm sure I and others can oblige.

The three attributes which I raised ultimately must be used by a trandescendant being, as I stated I am arguing for it, in my opinion. I cannot argue why those three are good on their own terms without appealing to such a trandescendant being. But I am sure someone could argue those three attributes as being good without appealing to God, unfourtantley I do not have knowledge in everything (although would like to!)

Even taken that statement back further, I would have to argue the case for such a trandescendant being and if we were really to get into it, 2000 years of theological and philosophical debates would simply disagree with you.

The Resurrection is a circular argument? How so?

Quote from: "Achronos"But I am sure someone could argue those three attributes as being good without appealing to God, unfourtantley I do not have knowledge in everything (although would like to!)

Someone could try.  They would fail.

Quote from: "Achronos"The Resurrection is a circular argument? How so?

For starters, you will ultimately rely on a non-verifiable interpretation of scripture to justify your interpretation of scripture.

Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

Quote from: "Achronos"To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

Must have been different evidence than what I've come across (http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm), perhaps you could provide the studies that have shown this?

Quote from: "Achronos"Yet Christians have moral and objective basis for their argumentation, and its logical end is love.

Hello Achronos,

I have no intent to prove that your God does not exist as I cannot prove it. I am not going to spend time reading the literature you are pointing out as I know as yet there is no conclusive proof that your God exists.

What I am interested in is your statement with regards to the logical end of love you have stated with regards to Christians. With this in mind can you please tell me your stance on the following:

Recreational sex
Contraception
Premarital sex
Divorce
Homosexual intercourse
People that perform homosexual intercourse
Euthanasia
Women equality within the Church (let's face it, the top positions are only going to men)

Davin, I'll bring up some studies here in just a moment but before PH responds I would like to bring out the following:

I would like to recommend three books related to the historical Jesus topic that helped me a lot in my own journey, since this was a big issue for me as well.

The first is "The Case for Christ" (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291201626&sr=1-1) wherein an ex-atheist Chicago Tribune journalist tells the story of how his investigations on the historicity of the facts in the Gospel led him to become a believer. Basically he was astonished by the fact that his wife had converted. He knew she was an intelligent woman and couldn't even conceive that an intelligent person could be Christian. The fact that she was becoming even sharper and more intelligent just increased his curiosity that there could be more to it than he imagined. He then used his contacts to talk to some authorities in historical, archeological and other areas of study to enquire about the issue. The good thing is that the book touches all the basic questions related to the historicity of the Gospels and even provides bibliography to study each topic further.

The second book that helped me was "Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost its Way" (http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Gospels-Search-Jesus-Lost/dp/0195156315/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291201888&sr=1-2). The topic here is more restricted, focusing on the historical value of the Gospels and the historiography surrounding them. Basically, it shows how the fringe historical studies of biased minor groups with vested interests is presented by the great media as the status quo on Jesus historical study whilst the real scientific consensus lies far closer to traditional expectations (that the Gospels were written within the life time of the Apostles, if not by them directly at least by first generation disciples registering their narratives).  

The third is my personal favorite  "The Resurrection Of The Son Of God" (http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291205034&sr=8-1) which to me is a masterwork on the Resurrection and perhaps the definitive work on the Resurection. It remains obvious to me that the 1st century Christians really did believe the Resurrection occured and explains the legitmacy of the empty tomb.

Another thing that you may be interested is the criticism of much of the mentality of the modern age that prevents us from even studying these topics in a unbiased way. To have a better perspective on that I would recommend the following books:

C.S. Lewis "Abolition of Man" (http://www.amazon.com/Abolition-Man-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291202469&sr=1-1) and "Mere Christianity" (http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291202501&sr=1-1)
René Girard "The Scapegoat" (http://www.amazon.com/Scapegoat-Ren%C3%A9-Girard/dp/0801839173/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291202331&sr=1-4)
Fr. Seraphim Rose "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age" (http://www.amazon.com/Nihilism-Root-Revolution-Modern-Age/dp/1887904069/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291202393&sr=1-1)

Also, about dealing with post-modern mentality, I recommend the following online articles by and about the Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho:

What is Miracle?
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... le_en.html (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/texts/miracle_en.html)

The Structure of the Revolutionary Mind
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... _mind.html (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/texts/structure_revolutionary_mind.html)

How to read the Bible
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... jb_en.html (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080117jb_en.html)

The Revolutionary Mentality
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... dc_en.html (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/070813dc_en.html)

More on the Revolutionary Mentality
http://www.theinteramerican.org/comment ... ality.html (http://www.theinteramerican.org/commentary/191-more-on-the-revolutionary-mentality.html)

The Revolutionary Inversion in Action
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... dc_en.html (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/080721dc_en.html)

The Collective Imbecille
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/imbecile.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/imbecile.htm)

The Juvenile Imbecille
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoe ... becile.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/juvenileimbecile.htm)

Truth and Pretext
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/pretext.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/pretext.htm)

Apeirokalia
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/apeiroeng.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/apeiroeng.htm)

Metaphysics and the Fundamentals of Objectuality
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoe ... uality.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/objectuality.htm)

The Problem of Truth and the Truth of the Problem
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/truth.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/truth.htm)

Descartes and the psychology of doubt
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/doubt.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/doubt.htm)

Philosophy is not for the timid
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoe ... ytimid.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/philosophytimid.htm)

Epicurus and Marx
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/epicurus.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/epicurus.htm)

The Naïveté of the Smart
http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/ ... smart.html (http://www.philosophyseminar.com/texts/articles/121-the-naivete-of-the-smart.html)
* Although not directly related, I recommend this article in consideration of the studies of the historical Jesus because it explains a lot of the mentality behind the "debunking" many "historical" studies claim to perform today.

Living Free of Guilt
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/ ... 3jt_en.htm (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/990513jt_en.htm)

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Achronos"To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

Must have been different evidence than what I've come across (http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm), perhaps you could provide the studies that have shown this?

I encourage you to check out the following books:

The latest edition of Beyond Death by Dr. Gary Habermas with JP Moreland http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Death-Expl ... 750&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Death-Exploring-Evidence-Immortality/dp/1592445098/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291205750&sr=8-1)

Negative critiques seldom ever address the evidential aspects of NDEs. For one that at least makes the attempt, see British psychologist Susan Blackmore, Dying to Live: Near Death Experiences . http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Live-Experi ... 907&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Live-Experiences-Susan-Blackmore/dp/0879758708/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291205907&sr=1-1)

In regards to the above book, again Habermas claims that we do have at least some of the evidence that she required, however I do not have an online version of the essay. If I do find it, I'll be sure to give it to you Davin.

From one of the top medical researchers over the last 25 years: Michael Sabom, Light & Death: One Doctor's Fascinating account of Near-Death Experiences. (He also had an earlier highly-acclaimed volume, Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation.) http://www.amazon.com/Light-Death-Micha ... 124&sr=1-3 (http://www.amazon.com/Light-Death-Michael-Sabom/dp/0310219922/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291206124&sr=1-3)

Sabom also wrote recently a two-part article where he shares some of his conclusions on NDEs: "The Shadow of Death," parts one & two. Also he discusses it in Christian context. http://www.equip.org/articles/the-shadow-of-death (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-shadow-of-death)

A critical response by a University of Washington Medical School professor: If I Should Wake Before I Die: The Biblical and Medical Truth about Near- Death Experiences. http://www.amazon.com/Should-Wake-Befor ... 308&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Should-Wake-Before-Die-Experiences/dp/0891078916/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291206308&sr=1-1)

Although it is a popular account, prominent New Testament scholar Graham Tweltree tells about his own NDE in: Life after Death http://www.amazon.com/Life-After-Death- ... =1-1-spell (http://www.amazon.com/Life-After-Death-Thinking-Clearly/dp/1854245252/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291206354&sr=1-1-spell)

Although it is older, I assume you have seen the often-reprinted article by well- known naturalistic philosopher A.J. Ayer, "What I Saw when I was Dead," http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-conten ... s-Dead.pdf (http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Ayer-What-I-Saw-When-I-Was-Dead.pdf)

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "Achronos"To try and veer this back on topic, has anyone here researched much on Near Death Experiences? In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically. Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc. This tells me that people seem to live even while their bodies are "dead" and that sometimes they are capable of observing things even while their bodies are incapacitated.

Must have been different evidence than what I've come across (http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm), perhaps you could provide the studies that have shown this?

I encourage you to check out the following books:


[spam]

There is hardly anything that rubs me the wrong way... when you're asked to provide evidence, it is your responsibility to vet that evidence to make sure it's both relevant and accurate. You did not.

You stated "In some cases involve people reporting verifiable things that happened a distance away, but after they were pronounced dead and lying where they couldn't see these things physically." Which cases?

"Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc." Provide these cases.

"Others have correctly described a variety of things even while they had no heart beat, no brain waves, etc." I'd be curious to know how one could describe anything while brain dead.

Do: Provide scientific studies for NDEs that support your claims.

Don't: Spam a bunch links to things that don't even claim to be more than speculations and personal testimonies.

Strobel is a crackpot. I'll show you why when I get home tonight.

Quote from: "Achronos"Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

You originally claimed this verifiable historical data does not appeal to the inspiration of the New Testament.  I took that to mean that the argument does not rest on the Bible being "divinely inspired", not that it does not rest on anything in the Bible.  Are you saying that the Bible is entirely absent from the argument?  If this is true then let's hear your "verifiable historical data".

Quote from: "Achronos"To try and veer this back on topic

Nice try.

I've got two points for you to consider:

1) Read your first post in this thread.  Read the original, #1 post in this thread (which is what traditionally defines the "topic" of discussion).  Then read both again.  And again.  Until it becomes as apparent to you as it is to me that your very own first post was not "on topic" in any strict sense.  Hint: look for the question asked by the original poster and then ask yourself honestly whether your first post was any kind of answer to it.

2) Your self-imposed topic in this discussion, beginning with your first post, has been Pascal's wager.  If you continue to assert that your interpretation of God and the associated afterlife is correct, it will forever remain "on topic" (as far as your position is concerned) to question the basis for that interpretation.  Do you wish to drop this assertion now and contemplate the idea of "life after death" in general, divorced from concepts of God/heaven/hell?  If so, fine -- but that means you can't bring them into your arguments from here on or you will yourself have veered off the topic as you have now redefined it.

Quote from: "Achronos"Davin, I'll bring up some studies here in just a moment but before PH responds I would like to bring out the following:

I would like to recommend three books related to the historical Jesus topic that helped me a lot in my own journey, since this was a big issue for me as well.

If you wish to draw in a specific argument from a particular source, feel free, I will address it.  I'm not going to spend my entire day reading every one of your links & books to piece together your argument by myself, just to further discussion with a person who so far has shown little interest in actually responding to counterpoint.  Note, however, that I have read skeptical evaluations of a couple of the books you've mentioned so far, and I've also listened to some debates on the subject and have read some other things online.  I remain so wholly unconvinced of any kind of verifiable argument for the resurrection that even the phrase "I remain unconvinced" might suggest too high a degree of possible convincedness.

Quote from: "Achronos"Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

Oh. Well if Achronos says it's verifiable, then I -for one- will accept it without question or need to actually see any proof.
 
 

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"Yet Christians have moral and objective basis for their argumentation, and its logical end is love.

Hello Achronos,

I have no intent to prove that your God does not exist as I cannot prove it. I am not going to spend time reading the literature you are pointing out as I know as yet there is no conclusive proof that your God exists.

What I am interested in is your statement with regards to the logical end of love you have stated with regards to Christians. With this in mind can you please tell me your stance on the following:

Recreational sex
Contraception
Premarital sex
Divorce
Homosexual intercourse
People that perform homosexual intercourse
Euthanasia
Women equality within the Church (let's face it, the top positions are only going to men)

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx)
Should be a start, but for your last question
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.akathistofthanksgiving.com%2Fwonderworking_icons_of_the_most_holy_theotokos%2Fprotection.theotokos.jpg&hash=efd688e48e81618fddc7c3bce8639033ea2b0630)

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"If you wish to draw in a specific argument from a particular source, feel free, I will address it.  I'm not going to spend my entire day reading every one of your links & books to piece together your argument by myself, just to further discussion with a person who so far has shown little interest in actually responding to counterpoint.  Note, however, that I have read skeptical evaluations of a couple of the books you've mentioned so far, and I've also listened to some debates on the subject and have read some other things online.  I remain so wholly unconvinced of any kind of verifiable argument for the resurrection that even the phrase "I remain unconvinced" might suggest too high a degree of possible convincedness.

Quit your arrogance. If you can't bother to read a couple of books, there is no reason to respect your claim to have any interest in the subject, and much less your pose of intellectual argumentation. If you want to stand on the ground of reason, intelligence and culture, reading source material is the very least you have to do about any topic. In school, in university, in life. Put your time and effort where your mouth is.

By the way, I was not making a point. I was giving you a study schedule. You obviously lack even the premisses to comprehand an argument in this issue and has to acquire them, a fact that would not have to be addressed explicitily had you not tried to vest your ignorance with a gelatinous mask of intellectual superiority that I doubt that even you believe. Reading just one side of the argument is not "intelligence", is just your laziness showing and you know that. It will not be easy to be the kind of person you're pretending to be. Be humble and get to study.

I can see a trend here, rather than simply answering questions with succinct and to the point answers you simply refer to very lengthy and convoluted published material and put the hones on the questioner to try and find the answers. I could spend a lot of time reading all this just to glean a very small amount of useful information.

What I have found so far is
"the Church does not sanctifies marriages contracted between the Orthodox and non-Christians", "provided the marriage is blessed in the Orthodox Church and the children are raised in the Orthodox faith"
Which shows me that the love of your beloved Faith does not freely accept people of other faiths, and they provide conditions as to the love they have to offer. These conditions would be conflicting with the conditions of other faiths and hence a seeming acceptance is actually a clear statement of nonacceptance.

"The Church insists that spouses should remain faithful for life and that Orthodox marriage is indissoluble"
Your faith is intolerant of the ability for people to change as time goes by, intolerant of people falling out of love and would rather people live in potentially a loveless and unhappy marriage rather than to accept that changes have happened and it is time to move on and find Love elsewhere. The love of your faith does not appear to be concerned or interested in the love that is within the lives of its followers.

"the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, recognised as valid, besides adultery and a new marriage of one of the party, such grounds as a spouse's falling away from Orthodoxy, perversion, impotence which had set in before marriage or was self-inflicted, contraction of leper or syphilis, prolonged disappearance, conviction with disfranchisement, encroachment on the life or health of the spouse, love affair with a daughter in law, profiting from marriage, profiting by the spouse's indecencies, incurable mental disease and malevolent abandonment of the spouse"
So here your faith has overridden the word of God as it is in the bible. I guess either God does not know best or possibly God did not think of these situations and hence a revision was necessary. This revised interpretation still does not consider the love between the two people it affects.

"the Church cannot misconstrue the words of St. Paul about the special responsibility of husband who is called to be «the head of the wife» who loves her as Christ loves His Church, and about the calling of the wife to obey the husband as the Church obeys Christ"
It's nice to know that your faith sticks to the bible when it suits them. Man is the boss, woman is to obey. That is some kind of love.

"Fornication inevitably ruins the harmony and integrity of one's life, damaging heavily one's spiritual health"
Wow, it seems that the churches stance is that Fornication is evil and not part of love. It's a wonder why God gave men and woman such dangerous body parts as penises and vaginas. I guess God has been known to make mistakes, maybe the Orthodox Church can fix God's mistakes by enforcing rules around the appropriate time and nature of using these dangerous body parts.

"mass culture sometimes become instruments of moral corruption by praising sexual laxity, all kinds of sexual perversion and other sinful passions."
Another indication on how intolerant your faith is. Your followers are perverted and sinful they should feel guilt and remorse not love.

"the Church cannot support those programs of «sexual education» in which premarital intercourse and, all the more so, various perversions are recognised as the norm. It is absolutely unacceptable to impose such programs upon schoolchildren. School is called to oppose vice which erodes the integrity of the personality, to educate children for chastity and prepare them for creating solid families based on faithfulness and purity."
Here your faith is advising to deny the realities of life, to ignore what is actually happening and only to support what the church sees as a moral stance. Does this mean that the Church is turning their backs on those that stray, offering no support, help or guidance. To me this seems a very loveless hard line. I for one will support my children whom I love without condition, I will always be there for them as long as I am alive. I will accept them for who they are, for being mortal humans, for making mistakes and I will provide all the love that I have. To me my children will always be pure, their sexual activities do not in anyway impact my perception of the purity of my children. Does this mean I am more accepting, more forgiving, more loving than your church and/or your God? If so, how does one go about applying for a sainthood?

"In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession."
So here we have a statement that a woman who chooses to have an abortion so that she herself can live should be made to feel guilty (above how bad she may already be feeling) and should perform Penance. It also seems if she doesn't already have a child then instead of having an abortion she should sacrifice her life for the possibility of carrying this only child to term. I struggle to see the logic in this one, what does it matter if she has had a child previously or not. It also does not seem to show love by suggesting she should sacrifice her life.

I don't think I will go through the whole page you gave me a link to as I think I have highlighted enough cases that show the love of the Christians especially those following the Orthodox faith.

Quote from: "Stevil"What I have found so far is
"the Church does not sanctifies marriages contracted between the Orthodox and non-Christians", "provided the marriage is blessed in the Orthodox Church and the children are raised in the Orthodox faith"
Which shows me that the love of your beloved Faith does not freely accept people of other faiths, and they provide conditions as to the love they have to offer. These conditions would be conflicting with the conditions of other faiths and hence a seeming acceptance is actually a clear statement of nonacceptance.

First, your wording makes no sense - the Church does not sanctifies...and then...provided the marriage is blessed in the Orthodox Church.

The Church allows Christians to marry.  Therefore, if one partner is Orthodoxy, they are allowed to marry another Christian.  However, not a Muslim, Budhist, Hindu, etc.  Faith should be at the core of your life.  Therefore, if do not share core beliefs, how do you expect that marriage to last?  It's not that Orthodoxy does not accept people of other faiths...it's that Orthodoxy views marriage as a Sacrament.

Quote"The Church insists that spouses should remain faithful for life and that Orthodox marriage is indissoluble"
Your faith is intolerant of the ability for people to change as time goes by, intolerant of people falling out of love and would rather people live in potentially a loveless and unhappy marriage rather than to accept that changes have happened and it is time to move on and find Love elsewhere. The love of your faith does not appear to be concerned or interested in the love that is within the lives of its followers.

"the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, recognised as valid, besides adultery and a new marriage of one of the party, such grounds as a spouse's falling away from Orthodoxy, perversion, impotence which had set in before marriage or was self-inflicted, contraction of leper or syphilis, prolonged disappearance, conviction with disfranchisement, encroachment on the life or health of the spouse, love affair with a daughter in law, profiting from marriage, profiting by the spouse's indecencies, incurable mental disease and malevolent abandonment of the spouse"
So here your faith has overridden the word of God as it is in the bible. I guess either God does not know best or possibly God did not think of these situations and hence a revision was necessary. This revised interpretation still does not consider the love between the two people it affects.

...the Church does not tell anyone they should divorce.  If they are still in love, even if one or the other has committed any of the things you mentioned...by all means, stay together.

However, if one of the two feels their life is in danger, or that their spouse has broken their oath...then, while not recommended, they may still divorce.  There is such a thing in Orthodoxy as Economia.

Quote"the Church cannot misconstrue the words of St. Paul about the special responsibility of husband who is called to be «the head of the wife» who loves her as Christ loves His Church, and about the calling of the wife to obey the husband as the Church obeys Christ"
It's nice to know that your faith sticks to the bible when it suits them. Man is the boss, woman is to obey. That is some kind of love.

Key words..."as Christ loves His Church".  Christ would never do any harm to the Church.  Therefore, the woman obeys her husband only to the point he does no harm.  If for some reason he asks or does things against the Faith, she does NOT need to obey.

Quote"Fornication inevitably ruins the harmony and integrity of one's life, damaging heavily one's spiritual health"
Wow, it seems that the churches stance is that Fornication is evil and not part of love. It's a wonder why God gave men and woman such dangerous body parts as penises and vaginas. I guess God has been known to make mistakes, maybe the Orthodox Church can fix God's mistakes by enforcing rules around the appropriate time and nature of using these dangerous body parts.

Well, let's see..."fornicating" with a different partner each day, with no emotional bonds....yes, I can see how that might be good for a person...NOT!  Are you for real?

Quote"mass culture sometimes become instruments of moral corruption by praising sexual laxity, all kinds of sexual perversion and other sinful passions."
Another indication on how intolerant your faith is. Your followers are perverted and sinful they should feel guilt and remorse not love.

Orthodoxy is most tolerant of things that benefit the soul.  The things you mentioned, don't.  You should feel guilt if you have done something immoral...otherwise you are a psychopath.

Quote"the Church cannot support those programs of «sexual education» in which premarital intercourse and, all the more so, various perversions are recognised as the norm. It is absolutely unacceptable to impose such programs upon schoolchildren. School is called to oppose vice which erodes the integrity of the personality, to educate children for chastity and prepare them for creating solid families based on faithfulness and purity."
Here your faith is advising to deny the realities of life, to ignore what is actually happening and only to support what the church sees as a moral stance. Does this mean that the Church is turning their backs on those that stray, offering no support, help or guidance. To me this seems a very loveless hard line. I for one will support my children whom I love without condition, I will always be there for them as long as I am alive. I will accept them for who they are, for being mortal humans, for making mistakes and I will provide all the love that I have. To me my children will always be pure, their sexual activities do not in anyway impact my perception of the purity of my children. Does this mean I am more accepting, more forgiving, more loving than your church and/or your God? If so, how does one go about applying for a sainthood?

The Church is always there to help everyone. The doors are never closed to any believer. In fact, they can get all manner of guidance and assistance from the clergy for any issues they might be battling with.

Quote"In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession."
So here we have a statement that a woman who chooses to have an abortion so that she herself can live should be made to feel guilty (above how bad she may already be feeling) and should perform Penance. It also seems if she doesn't already have a child then instead of having an abortion she should sacrifice her life for the possibility of carrying this only child to term. I struggle to see the logic in this one, what does it matter if she has had a child previously or not. It also does not seem to show love by suggesting she should sacrifice her life.

The reason for considering "previous" children is not to leave them motherless, if she dies during the current pregnancy.  

Additionally, she not made to feel "guilty"...but, the Church helps her to get over her loss...not repress the loss of the unborn child, but, work through it.

QuoteI don't think I will go through the whole page you gave me a link to as I think I have highlighted enough cases that show the love of the Christians especially those following the Orthodox faith.

The love is there....but, you seem not to see it.  I think you need to do some self examination before you throw accusations on the Orthodox Church.

All your issues are simply with you, not with the Church.  You see them, because you want to see them.  You make issues where none exist.

Praying the negativity you have leaves you, and that you find peace and love.

Take a deep breath....let it out.

Here's a cyber hug!

Quote from: "Achronos"Quit your arrogance. If you can't bother to read a couple of books, there is no reason to respect your claim to have any interest in the subject, and much less your pose of intellectual argumentation. If you want to stand on the ground of reason, intelligence and culture, reading source material is the very least you have to do about any topic. In school, in university, in life. Put your time and effort where your mouth is.

So, because I do not want to spend a tremendous amount of time reading the same tired, regurgitated apologist arguments that you are feeding me in substitute for your own thoughts (arguments which I have already considered), I am ignorant and arrogant?

Your assumption that I have not already read & contemplated enough to be convinced of my own position is entirely incorrect.  I have.  But I am not about to dive in and explain every single angle you might argue preemptively, and why they are all unfounded or circular, because by the time I am finished I'll have written my own book and I don't expect you or anybody else would pay me for it.

I asked you to offer specific points here and then we can address them.  You seem to be attempting to weasel out of an honest debate by putting the burden of understanding your personal position in its entirety upon me and me alone.  You say "well I am right because the Resurrection has been proven as fact and here are all of the resources that will reveal this to you but I don't feel like explaining it myself".  For this, I could similarly make wild accusations about your own ignorance and arrogance -- I could easily suggest you aren't even familiar enough with the material you reference to present it to me yourself, couldn't I?  But I don't assume that, I just ask you to present the important points of your case yourself, directly, here -- not by proxy.  If your answer is "go read all of these books" then what do I need you for?  I could easily refer you to books & articles against your argument, that others have written, but then what do you need me for?  You can do independent research all by yourself.  So can I.  This is supposed to be a discussion between two (or more) individuals on a forum, not a debate by proxy in which we toss books others have written at one another.  You can certainly cite things as you make your case, but to expect me to read a giant list just to have the "honor" of entering into debate with you is ridiculous.

Quote from: "Achronos"By the way, I was not making a point. I was giving you a study schedule. You obviously lack even the premisses to comprehand an argument in this issue and has to acquire them, a fact that would not have to be addressed explicitily had you not tried to vest your ignorance with a gelatinous mask of intellectual superiority that I doubt that even you believe. Reading just one side of the argument is not "intelligence", is just your laziness showing and you know that. It will not be easy to be the kind of person you're pretending to be. Be humble and get to study.

Keep telling yourself all of that.  It won't make it any more true.

Quote from: "Stevil"I can see a trend here, rather than simply answering questions with succinct and to the point answers you simply refer to very lengthy and convoluted published material and put the hones on the questioner to try and find the answers. I could spend a lot of time reading all this just to glean a very small amount of useful information.

Ding!  We have a winner!

Quote from: "Stevil"I can see a trend here, rather than simply answering questions with succinct and to the point answers you simply refer to very lengthy and convoluted published material and put the hones on the questioner to try and find the answers.

Yes. That his MO, so far. And that's why I'm about to debunk Strobel for him.

I noticed, Achronos, that you listed Lee Strobel at the top of your list in a post on the last page. Here's a critique on Strobel's The Case for Christ.
Lee Strobel is an ex-investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who describes himself as a "former spiritual skeptic” and now a teaching pastor. You will find, after reading this that Strobel does not know the meaning of investigating and balanced reporting.

The Case for Christ is a summary of Strobel's interviews with thirteen leading Evangelical apologists. He did not interview any critics of Christian apologetics, even though he attacks them in the book. Strobel devotes a chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd, a  faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar. Strobel does not interview a member of the Jesus Seminar. On the other hand, he repeatedly criticizes Michael Martin, author of Case Against Christianity, but he never bothers to get Martin's responses to his attacks. One may be tempted to dismiss the entire book on this alone.
 
The book asks the reader in the preface to shelve all subjectivity and view both sides of the topic. It then plunges into logical fallacies and spin-doctoring. Not that I mind Strobel presenting only one side of an argument â€" he is after all making a ‘case’. However, to pretend that he had any objectivity at all makes Strobel’s intentions suspect from the first page.
This book is for Christians by a Christian apologist.
Strobel examines five areas of what he believes constitutes evidence:
1) The eyewitness evidence,
2) Documentary evidence,
3) Corroborating evidence,
4) Scientific evidence, and
5) Rebuttal evidence.

Eyewitness Evidence
Strobel devotes two chapters for Craig Blomberg and the four gospels. Blomberg acknowledges that "strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous" (p. 26). Yet, Blomberg turns about face and suggests that the four gospels were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and that the canonical gospels are eyewitness testimony. According to Blomberg, this fact is confirmed by Papias and Irenaeus.  Blomberg dismisses the Q hypothesis as "nothing more than a hypothesis" (p. 31).
Yet the two - source hypothesis-that Matthew and Luke were written with a copy of Mark and Q in front of them - is not just some arbitrary assumption. If the two-source hypothesis is correct, Matthew and Luke are based heavily on Mark. It is therefore unlikely that Matthew and Luke constitute independent accounts. Moreover, the traditional authorship of Mark is open to serious question. Finally, it seems John has been heavily edited.

Blomberg says, "If [early] critics could have attacked it on the basis that it was full of falsehoods or distortions, they would have" (p. 66). Yet Edwin Yamauchi (also interviewed in Stobel's book) gives the decisive objection to this fallacious argument from silence just 48 pages later. As Yamauchi points out, "When people begin religious movements, it's often not until many generations later that people record things about them" (p. 114).
This was certainly the case with early Christianity. Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, notes, "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians] saw the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society."

Strobel asks, "How can we be sure that the material about Jesus' life and teachings was well preserved for thirty years before it was finally written down in the gospels?" (p. 53). Blomberg replies, the disciples lived in an "oral culture, in which there was great emphasis placed on memorization" (p. 53). Yet psychological studies have shown that human memory is often incredibly unreliable, especially when it is memory of an unusual event and the older that memory gets, oral traditions (about Jesus) are more than likely not historically accurate. Either way, Strobel never addresses the point.

Documentary Evidence
Metzger points out, we have many ancient copies of the New Testament than we have of Homer's Iliad or Tacitus's Annals of Imperial Rome. Since I am not aware of any classical scholar who seriously questions the textual reliability of those works, I am willing to accept the textual reliability of the New Testament. What I don't accept is the empirical accuracy of the New Testament.

Strobel asks, "What about allegations that church councils omitted legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed?" (p. 85). Metzger:  "the New Testament contains the best sources for the historicity of Jesus" (p. 87). This next part, Achronos, you're going to like since you're so wrapped up in church history. He (Metzger) says the early church adopted three criteria in evaluating documents for inclusion in the New Testament:
•   Was the book written by an apostle or by a follower of an apostle?
•   Did the book conform with what Christians already believed?
•   Had the book been continuously accepted and used by the church at large? (p. 86)
Metzger admits that "church councils squelched equally legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed!"
Now, consider the implications of that statement:
(i)   Excludes a priori the testimony of non-Christian historians;
(ii)   Rules out the possibility of books that did not conform to what Christians already believed; and
(iii)   Ensures that only books popular with the Church were accepted.
 
The implications of this are obvious. If, say, the first-century Roman historian Suetonius had written a book documenting in intricate detail that the Resurrection was a hoax, the early church would have excluded such a book from the New Testament. Therefore, the criteria for inclusion to the Canon identified by Metzger do not support his claims of historical reliability. To paraphrase a comment made by Strobel, these criteria were "loaded from the outset, like dice that are weighted so they yield the result that was desired all along" (p. 156).
Had enough of Strobel yet? If he's still your hero, read on.

Corroborating Evidence
Edwin Yamauchi for extra-biblical evidence that confirms the New Testament. Yamauchi first mentions Josephus's references to Jesus, stating that both the shorter and longer references provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus (pp. 101-107). I think it is significant that Strobel did not interview someone who rejects the authenticity of both of these references. More important, the references to Jesus in Josephus don't corroborate the central theological claims of Jesus. Josephus does not provide any corroborating evidence for the virgin birth, divinity, miracles, or Resurrection of Jesus.

Yamauchi also claims that other ancient sources provide independent confirmation:
Tacitus,
Pliny the Younger,
Thallus,
the Talmud,
and the writings of the early church fathers.
Frankly, there is no good reason to believe that any of these sources provide any good evidence at all. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Tacitus referred to the resurrection, as Strobel suggests. Indeed, one wonders if Yamauchi rejects that interpretation, given that Yamauchi "ducked" Strobel's request for an opinion (p. 108).
There is no reason to believe that Tacitus or Pliny the Younger relied on independent sources. As for Thallus, the date of his writing is not known and therefore the reference could be based on Christian sources. Furthermore, it is not known that Africanus correctly interpreted Thallus. As the NT scholar R.T. France writes, Africanus does not give Thallus' words, "so we do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus' crucifixion, or whether this was Africanus' interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus."
The Talmud is inconclusive because it is late and much of the Talmudic portrayal of Jesus is a polemical response to Christian claims. Finally, the writings of the church fathers do not provide any independent confirmation; they were late and based on earlier Christian sources. But Strobel finds this as positive proof. Go figure.

Scientific Evidence
John McRay notes that archaeology "doesn't confirm that what Jesus Christ said is right. Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries" (p. 127). However, Strobel argues that archaeology can increase the overall credibility of an ancient text if it shows the empirical claims of the text to be accurate. According to McRay, archaeology provides precisely that sort of evidence concerning the gospels. McRay claims that archaeological discoveries have corroborated several of the incidental details of Luke, and that archaeology has bolstered the credibility of John and Mark. But...

Yet at least three stories of the gospels are suspicious:
1) The census in Luke claims that Augustus initiated a worldwide census; that a Roman census took place in Judaea or Galilee before the death of Herod in 4 BCE and that Quirinius was governor of Syria before 6 CE. Many historians reject these claims, arguing that there is no support for any of these claims and that the idea of an empire-wide tax is contrary to documented Roman practice. As for Luke's claim the authors of Luke simply conflated the death of Herod (4 BCE) and the exile of Archelaus and the incorporation of Judaea into the empire (CE 6).  Historian Larry Taylor writes, "Fitzmyer, in the Anchor Bible, surveys the wreckage of all the attempts to save the accuracy of Luke. All of the approaches are failures."

2) The existence of Nazareth - Although there are no references to Nazareth in any written source outside the gospels before the fourth century, it is possible that Nazareth existed. Even Earl Doherty (a person I admire highly), writes, "It is impossible to 'establish' that Nazareth did not exist in the early first century, since no one tells us this fact. And ... no one makes statements or offers other evidence which would lead us to draw such a conclusion."  The existence of Nazareth is simply not intrinsically improbable.
 
3) Matthew's claim that Herod ordered the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem is unlikely because the Gospel of Matthew is the only source to report this alleged event. McRay offers various reasons why the incident would not have been of interest to other biblical writers. It is more than likely that the Slaughter of the Innocents never happened. Even Strobel admits it is "difficult to imagine" that no other writer mentioned this event (p. 140).

There are many stories completely unsupported by biblical archaeology. Here’s three more: 1) The three hours of darkness during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33 and synoptic parallels)
2) The resurrection of the saints, and their subsequent appearance to many in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53)
3) The Jesus's tomb has never been located.
If some are suspicious, then all must be seen as possibly suspicious until they are not.

Strobel sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by critics (the claim that Jesus was mentally insane). He doesn't address objections the critics do make. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story. One assertion after another is unchallenged. Metzger claims there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, so the reader is left with the impression that each manuscript is evidence of the reliability of Scripture. But Strobel fails to ask how many of those 5000 are actually useful for determining the actual text. Strobel fails to ask how many centuries have passed between the time of Jesus and the time the vast majority of those manuscripts were written.
Notice how many times I said "Strobel fails"?

Donald Carson claims that Jesus fits the profile of God revealed in the Old Testament. Surely not, but Strobel should have asked Carson about Marcion, who found no similarity between YahWeh and Jesus, and in fact claimed they were two entirely different deities.

Blomberg claims that the disciples all died martyrs deaths (except John), giving added weight to their witness of the Resurrection. This assertion by Blomberg was left unchallenged by Strobel. How do we know how any of the disciples died and evidences that we have for their deaths? The reason is that the accounts of their deaths are from legendary sources.

If Christ has a case to be made, that case should stand up against the strongest argument Strobel can build. Yet Strobel is content with the weakest of arguments, leaving any obvious follow-up challenges unasked. And like any good objective book, the fact that it includes instructions on how to ‘receive Jesus into your heart’, leaves Strobel hawking Christianity like bad Amway.  
As far as I’m concerned, Strobel's work is religious propaganda by a journalist who left his professional skills at the Tribune along with any concept of a logical argument. It also makes me wonder if Strobel had any professionalism when he worked at the Tribune.

I'm not done yet. Let's look at Vardaman and the conflict between the date of the Nativity in Luke versus Matthew. Luke 2:1-2 claims that Jesus was born while Quirinus was governor of Syria. Josephus says the birth could have only taken place after Herod died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew 2:1-3 claims that Jesus was born when Herod was alive (See also Matthew 2:7-16).
Since Quirinius was not governor until 6 CE, and Herod died in 4 BCE, these two passages seem to contradict each other.
But here’s how Strobel attempts to resolve the problem. He posits that there was either a second Quirinius, who was proconsul in Syria from 11 BCE to the death of Herod, or that Quirinius was governor on two subsequent occasions, one of which coincided with the rule of Herod the Great.
Well, that’s fairly reasonable. What’s Strobel’s evidence? From the bottom of page 101: “An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call ‘micrographic’ letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod.”  The problem is that Jerry Vardaman is not an “eminent archaeologist.”
Vardaman a complete and utter crackpot, described by other professionals as “insane” and fabricated this story beyond all reasonable belief. Vardaman claims to have found coins from the Roman Empire with teeny-tiny letters inscribed on them - that are otherwise invisible to the naked eye. In these ‘microletters’, seen only by Vardaman, we find the reference to the second Quirinius (and all sorts of other crackpot claims).

Now, there are a few obvious problems with Vardaman’s claims:
1. Vardaman has never published any of his accounts in any peer-reviewed journal, or ever subjected his work on ‘microletters’ to any critical review of any kind by any other party.
2. Probably most damning, Vardaman has never produced any of the coins that he claims contain micrographic letters. Nor has he produced, say, photo enlargements of the coins. Instead, he’s produced hand-written drawings of what he says the coins look like.
3. Comically, those drawings of coins dating back to the first century CE contain the letter ‘J’ â€" even though the ‘J’ was not invented for another nine centuries.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other obvious errors in Vardaman’s so-called “scholarship;” you can read for yourself.

Strobel has been confronted about the Vardaman claims dating back to 2004 from Richard Carrier (another man I admire). Strobel repeated the same claims while appearing on the John Kasich program on FOX. Strobel called Vardaman’s magic-Js-microletters-invisible-two-Quirinius-coins as “the strongest example of archaeological confirmation” that the Bible is true.
Seriously.
 
Now, that statement in red above, by Strobel, is a lie. It’s a lie that any reasonable researcher would have recognized from the moment he was told about it. It’s a claim so indefensible that it even arose the hackles of the folks at the conservative Christian apologists - Real Clear Theology.

The Vardaman example shows exactly the kind of approach Strobel takes to these “interviews.” They are not the critical, hard-hitting questions of an investigation journalist â€" they are the exact opposite; they’re uncritical, unquestioning, sycophantic suck-up questions to people who share only the very narrow ideological point Strobel wants to advance in the first place.

And that is why I think Christians should avoid commending Lee Strobel to anyone.
Oh...
I have very little else to say other than Kreeft is simply…an idiot.

After reading Strobel's book, why on earth would I want to read any off the other apologists books you list?

There's one thing that always gets me when atheists discuss any idea of an afterlife. It's not that I don't undertand their point, it's just that I disagree. The point being, that theists believe in an afterlife because they fear being in a state of not existing anymore, and so the idea of something after death seems like acomfort to us. On the one hand, there is an element of truth in that, but a very small one, and really, there is much more to it. For theists, the idea of there not being something after physical death is simply ludicrous. It should be pointed out that that is the main motivator for believing in life after physical death. much more so than any actual fear of there being nothing. For example, if I felt half convinced that when you die you cease to exist, it would be a bit scary. But it would be scary in the same sense that if anybody were half convinced that the reality which they think is real, is in fact something totally different, they would feel some feart's always uncomfortable to doubt a long held worldview. My point is that for theists, an afterlife makes sense, so naturally, just like with anything else, the thought of what you believe to be fact not being fact, is always scary. It's like if an atheist / materialist were to suddenly feel that perhaps the physical world is not all there is, aside from any excitement or confusion that would occur, there would probably be some fear too. It's just natural when your worldview is challenged (ie, challenged within yourself, as in, you have doubts).

I totally believe in life after physical death. Not because oif fear of no life after death, and not because of any feeling of arrogance. It's just what I believe. In fact I believe it so strongly that I know it. It is a fact as far as I'm concerned. I you have any rules here about theists saying "I know", I suppose I would have to go along with that. But my true thought is always "I know", even if I only say "I believe".

Quote from: "Achronos"By the way, I was not making a point. I was giving you a study schedule. You obviously lack even the premisses to comprehand an argument in this issue and has to acquire them, a fact that would not have to be addressed explicitily had you not tried to vest your ignorance with a gelatinous mask of intellectual superiority that I doubt that even you believe. Reading just one side of the argument is not "intelligence", is just your laziness showing and you know that. It will not be easy to be the kind of person you're pretending to be. Be humble and get to study.

Are you talking about yourself here? What are we to make of someone (you) who makes all sorts of assertions and can't back them up with his own words? Who can read Lee Strobel's books and believe them? You. Belief through faith has got to be more lazy. And you come off claiming that he doesn't read both sides of an argument???

Humble yourself, Achronos...it's the Christian thing to do. Read your apologetic books and sites. It's the lazy Christian thing to do. Don't doubt, close that mind God supposedly gave you...remain virtuous.

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"I totally believe in life after physical death. Not because oif fear of no life after death, and not because of any feeling of arrogance. It's just what I believe. In fact I believe it so strongly that I know it. It is a fact as far as I'm concerned. I you have any rules here about theists saying "I know", I suppose I would have to go along with that. But my true thought is always "I know", even if I only say "I believe".

Your critical thinking skills leave much to be desired...

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"For theists, the idea of there not being something after physical death is simply ludicrous.

I am not incliced to accept that you can speak so generally of all theists.  I'm also not even sure you can be speaking for all Christians...there are a good portion of Christians who think "hell" is simply being away from god and going to hell is ceasing to exist (ie no afterlife).

So...can you explain why a theist ought to consider the idea of no afterlife ludicrous?  I use to be a theist (liberal Christian) and don't get where you are coming from.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Stevil"What I have found so far is
"the Church does not sanctifies marriages contracted between the Orthodox and non-Christians", "provided the marriage is blessed in the Orthodox Church and the children are raised in the Orthodox faith"
Which shows me that the love of your beloved Faith does not freely accept people of other faiths, and they provide conditions as to the love they have to offer. These conditions would be conflicting with the conditions of other faiths and hence a seeming acceptance is actually a clear statement of nonacceptance.

First, your wording makes no sense - the Church does not sanctifies...and then...provided the marriage is blessed in the Orthodox Church.

The Church allows Christians to marry.  Therefore, if one partner is Orthodoxy, they are allowed to marry another Christian.  However, not a Muslim, Budhist, Hindu, etc.  Faith should be at the core of your life.  Therefore, if do not share core beliefs, how do you expect that marriage to last?  It's not that Orthodoxy does not accept people of other faiths...it's that Orthodoxy views marriage as a Sacrament.

The wording that you point out makes no sense comes straight from the page you referred me to. It is not my wording, that's why I have put quotes around it! I could have highlighted the grammar issues as well but I try to work out what the point is that the author is getting to rather than worrying about rules of grammar.
It's nice that the Church allows..., what would probably me more important is what God is happy with, rather than what the church allows. I also don't see how "what the Church allows" has anything to do with being a good and moral person with a goal towards love.

I certainly don't agree that Faith should be the core to your life. I would certainly be more for LOVE being core to my life, but really I try not to say should or shouldn't as it implies I know better than others with regards to what they should or shouldn't do with their lives, which is untrue as I have not lived in their shoes, I try to reserve judgment on such matters.

A couple who are close friends of mine have different beliefs, one is Christian and one is Bhudist. They have four lovely daughters and have been happily married for over 15 years now. I am grateful that the Orthodoxy don't come knocking on their door telling them that their marriage is destined to fail. It seems Orthodoxy doesn't understand how powerful love is and that it can conquer many obstacles, even the obstacles that organised religion thrusts on to people. BTW - it was good of you to highlight that organised religion can be  an obstacle to love between two people. Athiesm and Agnosticism are tolerant and would always put love ahead of the rules and obstacles made up by organised religion.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote"The Church insists that spouses should remain faithful for life and that Orthodox marriage is indissoluble"
Your faith is intolerant of the ability for people to change as time goes by, intolerant of people falling out of love and would rather people live in potentially a loveless and unhappy marriage rather than to accept that changes have happened and it is time to move on and find Love elsewhere. The love of your faith does not appear to be concerned or interested in the love that is within the lives of its followers.

"the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, recognised as valid, besides adultery and a new marriage of one of the party, such grounds as a spouse's falling away from Orthodoxy, perversion, impotence which had set in before marriage or was self-inflicted, contraction of leper or syphilis, prolonged disappearance, conviction with disfranchisement, encroachment on the life or health of the spouse, love affair with a daughter in law, profiting from marriage, profiting by the spouse's indecencies, incurable mental disease and malevolent abandonment of the spouse"
So here your faith has overridden the word of God as it is in the bible. I guess either God does not know best or possibly God did not think of these situations and hence a revision was necessary. This revised interpretation still does not consider the love between the two people it affects.

...the Church does not tell anyone they should divorce.  If they are still in love, even if one or the other has committed any of the things you mentioned...by all means, stay together.

However, if one of the two feels their life is in danger, or that their spouse has broken their oath...then, while not recommended, they may still divorce.  There is such a thing in Orthodoxy as Economia.

You misread my post. I was suggesting the Church is telling people not to divorce. This is the problem I have. There are many circumstances where I have seen people being miserable in unhappy marriages, they have divorced and remarried and have gone on to live happy lives with a loving partner. I am unsure why the Church would rather people continue with an unhappy marriage. Also it concerns me that the Church tries to put much pressure, guilt, eternal damnation pressure on these people to stop them moving on into a more loving relationship.
BTW i wasn't mentioning those things. Please pay attention to the quotes. these bits come directly from the page that you wanted me to read.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote"the Church cannot misconstrue the words of St. Paul about the special responsibility of husband who is called to be «the head of the wife» who loves her as Christ loves His Church, and about the calling of the wife to obey the husband as the Church obeys Christ"
It's nice to know that your faith sticks to the bible when it suits them. Man is the boss, woman is to obey. That is some kind of love.

Key words..."as Christ loves His Church".  Christ would never do any harm to the Church.  Therefore, the woman obeys her husband only to the point he does no harm.  If for some reason he asks or does things against the Faith, she does NOT need to obey.

There is certainly some spin going on here. The fact of the matter is that Atheists and Agnostics most likely agree with equal rights. Men and Women are equal. No-one is the boss and no-one must obey. If this relationship does occur then it is not because of the random gender of the participants. Your Church and possibly your God would be advised to get with the times and learn about the merits of equal rights.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote"Fornication inevitably ruins the harmony and integrity of one's life, damaging heavily one's spiritual health"
Wow, it seems that the churches stance is that Fornication is evil and not part of love. It's a wonder why God gave men and woman such dangerous body parts as penises and vaginas. I guess God has been known to make mistakes, maybe the Orthodox Church can fix God's mistakes by enforcing rules around the appropriate time and nature of using these dangerous body parts.

Well, let's see..."fornicating" with a different partner each day, with no emotional bonds....yes, I can see how that might be good for a person...NOT!  Are you for real?

What's the big deal with sex. It is an enjoyable activity. Of course it would be good if people were fully informed of the dangers e.g. STDs, Pregnancy etc and informed of precautions that can be taken to minimise risk. But really, I don't know what the issue is with informed adults partaking of consentual sex, regardless of how often or with whom they partake it with.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote"mass culture sometimes become instruments of moral corruption by praising sexual laxity, all kinds of sexual perversion and other sinful passions."
Another indication on how intolerant your faith is. Your followers are perverted and sinful they should feel guilt and remorse not love.

Orthodoxy is most tolerant of things that benefit the soul.  The things you mentioned, don't.  You should feel guilt if you have done something immoral...otherwise you are a psychopath.

What if I was feeling particularly randy and masturbated, would that be seen as immoral? If I didn't feel guilty about it then would you label me as a psychopath? Sorry if this seems a stupid question but I am not sure how extreme Orthodoxy is. Does the Church promote love and tolerance or guilt and self restraint?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote"the Church cannot support those programs of «sexual education» in which premarital intercourse and, all the more so, various perversions are recognised as the norm. It is absolutely unacceptable to impose such programs upon schoolchildren. School is called to oppose vice which erodes the integrity of the personality, to educate children for chastity and prepare them for creating solid families based on faithfulness and purity."
Here your faith is advising to deny the realities of life, to ignore what is actually happening and only to support what the church sees as a moral stance. Does this mean that the Church is turning their backs on those that stray, offering no support, help or guidance. To me this seems a very loveless hard line. I for one will support my children whom I love without condition, I will always be there for them as long as I am alive. I will accept them for who they are, for being mortal humans, for making mistakes and I will provide all the love that I have. To me my children will always be pure, their sexual activities do not in anyway impact my perception of the purity of my children. Does this mean I am more accepting, more forgiving, more loving than your church and/or your God? If so, how does one go about applying for a sainthood?

The Church is always there to help everyone. The doors are never closed to any believer. In fact, they can get all manner of guidance and assistance from the clergy for any issues they might be battling with.

OK, so if a young person came to the church and said that they were going to have sex and wanted to know if they did it standing up whether that would avoid an unwanted pregnancy, how would the church respond? Would they simply say to abstain or would they inform the person about Condoms, Diaphrams, the Pill etc?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote"In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession."
So here we have a statement that a woman who chooses to have an abortion so that she herself can live should be made to feel guilty (above how bad she may already be feeling) and should perform Penance. It also seems if she doesn't already have a child then instead of having an abortion she should sacrifice her life for the possibility of carrying this only child to term. I struggle to see the logic in this one, what does it matter if she has had a child previously or not. It also does not seem to show love by suggesting she should sacrifice her life.

The reason for considering "previous" children is not to leave them motherless, if she dies during the current pregnancy.  

Additionally, she not made to feel "guilty"...but, the Church helps her to get over her loss...not repress the loss of the unborn child, but, work through it.

OK, so the church values her life if she is needed to be a mother to her current children otherwise the Church doesn't value her life. Nice!
Penance is to confess to sin or to undergo a punishment in token of penance for sin. This sounds like guilt to me. Don't you think the woman would be feeling terrible enough about having to make such an awful decision. She certainly does not need salt rubbed into her wounds. It does not seem to me that your Church shows compassion and love in this instance.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteI don't think I will go through the whole page you gave me a link to as I think I have highlighted enough cases that show the love of the Christians especially those following the Orthodox faith.

The love is there....but, you seem not to see it.  I think you need to do some self examination before you throw accusations on the Orthodox Church.

All your issues are simply with you, not with the Church.  You see them, because you want to see them.  You make issues where none exist.

Praying the negativity you have leaves you, and that you find peace and love.

Take a deep breath....let it out.

Here's a cyber hug!

Please don't waste your prayer on me. Nice gesture but a waste all the same. Pray for world peace, equal rights, end to world hunger, happiness and love instead. Maybe one more prayer request will be all it takes for God to decide to grant these prayers, I would hate to think you wasted that important prayer on me. If there was a God who fulfilled prayer, I would never be selfish enough to pray for myself when there are much bigger issues in the world to solve. Again, please direct me to the form I need to fill out in order to nominate myself for a sainthood.

It is interesting to hear from you that you think that the problem is me and that I need to be aligned with your church. From your responses it seems that you are totally aligned with them, which is an amazingly good fit, I am truly happy for you. I hope that your church allows its other followers who may have differences to question the church and diverge on matters that are important to the individual followers.

Quote from: "Stevil"Please don't waste your prayer on me. Nice gesture but a waste all the same. Pray for world peace, equal rights, end to world hunger, happiness and love instead. Maybe one more prayer request will be all it takes for God to decide to grant these prayers, I would hate to think you wasted that important prayer on me. If there was a God who fulfilled prayer, I would never be selfish enough to pray for myself when there are much bigger issues in the world to solve. Again, please direct me to the form I need to fill out in order to nominate myself for a sainthood.

It is interesting to hear from you that you think that the problem is me and that I need to be aligned with your church. From your responses it seems that you are totally aligned with them, which is an amazingly good fit, I am truly happy for you. I hope that your church allows its other followers who may have differences to question the church and diverge on matters that are important to the individual followers.

You're anthropomorphizing God. This statement assumes that God can be overloaded with requests. Not to mention that God is ignoring the world. The world is constantly being saved and subsequently trashed by the will of man.

Although I do appreciate you finally showing a sense of humility, but I can see plain and clearly that you are just spinning your wheels, and I have been there, and we are always going through. God is perfect, but not us. We are all flawed, fractured and hurt. We turn to God to continually heal our wounds. We don't doubt Him just because our wounds hurt, just like we don't doubt the love of our mothers when we were children just because it stung when we scrapped our knees. We Christians feel all the pain, and we love you the more so for it, because we truly empathize with you.

By the way, you don't need to be aligned with my Church at all, but it would be best if you aligned yourself with the intuitive Spirit of God to heal your wounds of life and scrapped knees of living, just as we all do, but we ourselves find this healing in the Church. Just as you go to the hospital, and take the treatment prescribed by the doctor for a physical healing, and if you skip your medication or your therapeutic treatment your disease or injury or ailment will not fully heal, so to if we did not follow our Church, our spiritual wounds would only continue to fester, burn and scar deeply. I can only testify to you and others out of love, what good things God has done for us, when we are surrounded by a confusing world of pain, but only Jesus Christ is the healing of the pain, and a clear Light through the darkness of confusion, apprehension and fear.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Stevil"I can see a trend here, rather than simply answering questions with succinct and to the point answers you simply refer to very lengthy and convoluted published material and put the hones on the questioner to try and find the answers.

Yes. That his MO, so far. And that's why I'm about to debunk Strobel for him.

I noticed, Achronos, that you listed Lee Strobel at the top of your list in a post on the last page. Here's a critique on Strobel's The Case for Christ. snip

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... robel.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html)

At least cite your source please.

Furthermore, I am well aware the book won't convert skeptics. I'm not sure a single book could convince a skeptic otherwise.

Quote from: "Achronos"You're anthropomorphizing God. This statement assumes that God can be overloaded with requests. Not to mention that God is ignoring the world. The world is constantly being saved and subsequently trashed by the will of man.

Well, actually I was referring to your prayer more so than your god, sorry if my statement was not clear enough. I doubt you have enough time in your day for work, play, posting on Atheist websites, reading through every Christian literature known to humankind as well as praying for the things that you would like your god to do. I was suggesting that you pray for better things than for me. With so many things out of kilter in the world, you could easily find an endless supply of things to pray for before I became top of your pray priority list. Your God hasn't sorted out world peace for example. There are wars that have been going on for decades, your god has had plenty of time to solve these. It is not like as you suggest being saved and subsequently trashed. If your God can't be overloaded and can do anything and already knows the future then I don't know what the problem is? BTW do prayers influence your god's behavior? Would your god not know what to do if the Christians stopped praying?

Quote from: "Achronos"God is perfect

That's nice, I think my new baby daughter is perfect too.

Quote from: "Achronos"it would be best if you aligned yourself with the intuitive Spirit of God

No thanks, I may not be perfect, but I am quite happy with the way I am. I refuse to align to a sexist viewpoint, to intolerance and to bestow guilt onto others, this seems wrong to me and my moralities I could never agree with the stance of your church or your scriptures.
Just because you think your god is perfect it does not give you the right to judge others, to suggest that others should have guilt, or are psychopaths if they do not have the guilt you suggest they should have.

Quote from: "Stevil"Well, actually I was referring to your prayer more so than your god, sorry if my statement was not clear enough. I doubt you have enough time in your day for work, play, posting on Atheist websites, reading through every Christian literature known to humankind as well as praying for the things that you would like your god to do. I was suggesting that you pray for better things than for me. With so many things out of kilter in the world, you could easily find an endless supply of things to pray for before I became top of your pray priority list. Your God hasn't sorted out world peace for example. There are wars that have been going on for decades, your god has had plenty of time to solve these. It is not like as you suggest being saved and subsequently trashed. If your God can't be overloaded and can do anything and already knows the future then I don't know what the problem is? BTW do prayers influence your god's behavior? Would your god not know what to do if the Christians stopped praying?

There is no God.

Now whom do you blame?

QuoteThat's nice, I think my new baby daughter is perfect too.

QuoteNo thanks, I may not be perfect, but I am quite happy with the way I am. I refuse to align to a sexist viewpoint, to intolerance and to bestow guilt onto others, this seems wrong to me and my moralities I could never agree with the stance of your church or your scriptures.
Just because you think your god is perfect it does not give you the right to judge others, to suggest that others should have guilt, or are psychopaths if they do not have the guilt you suggest they should have.

Congratulations on the new baby. Many years!

That said, I think you mentioned girlfriend rather than wife (or do you have one of those too?), it seems you don't want to be bothered with anything that might disquiet your behavior. Understandable, perhaps.  However, that doesn't make the issues go away

Quote from: "Achronos"There is no God.

Ahhhh, I knew if we communicated long enough we would finally find some common ground.

Quote from: "Achronos"Congratulations on the new baby. Many years!

Thank you very much. She arrived 4 days ago, I delivered her myself as we didn't have time to get to the hospital and the midwife didn't have time to get to our house. Terrifying experience but everything turned out just fine.

Quote from: "Achronos"Furthermore, I am well aware the book won't convert skeptics. I'm not sure a single book could convince a skeptic otherwise.

That's it?  That's all you have to say?  Are you going to ignore all responses to your "near death experience" post?  And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection?  Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?

If one book won't convince a skeptic and you admit as much is this not a recognition on your part that there is nothing of substance in any of them?  If you can find even a single irrefutable fact that is verifiable and would logically contribute to a god hypothesis that would at least be something to a skeptic reader.  Maybe it would not help them unravel the entire story just as any single scientific writing may not, but any skeptic would surely at least take something worth considering from it and perhaps find motivation therein to continue unravelling the whole story.

So can you bring any such facts to the fore from all of your recommended materials for us to consider?  Or are you just giving up and/or still insisting it is our responsibility to scour every apologist writing known to man until we find it ourselves?

It isn't that I, and skeptics like me, don't want to know and believe the truth.  We do.  That's why we are skeptics.  But we need reason to believe it.  If any apologist writing would offer such reason we would give it due consideration.  But not everyone has time to stay current on all the latest attempts, particularly when they all tend to say the same basic things over and over.  So at some point you trust other skeptics (whose reason you tend to agree with) to review them before even considering to read it yourself.  And you also must posit that if any of them had anything worth considering in them there would be a lot more buzz about it everywhere...including among skeptics, scientists (who also tend to value truth), and the mainstream media (read: not the 700 Club or ultra-conservative bloggers and "news" outlets with their own agendas).

So here we are.  You have an opportunity to reach us.  You have the ears of every skeptic in this thread.  If you have read these books and can present to us the worthy content that will give us motivation to reopen the case file of "God", why on earth would you back away from the task?

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Achronos"Furthermore, I am well aware the book won't convert skeptics. I'm not sure a single book could convince a skeptic otherwise.

That's it?  That's all you have to say?  Are you going to ignore all responses to your "near death experience" post?  And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection?  Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?

If one book won't convince a skeptic and you admit as much is this not a recognition on your part that there is nothing of substance in any of them?  If you can find even a single irrefutable fact that is verifiable and would logically contribute to a god hypothesis that would at least be something to a skeptic reader.  Maybe it would not help them unravel the entire story just as any single scientific writing may not, but any skeptic would surely at least take something worth considering from it and perhaps find motivation therein to continue unravelling the whole story.

So can you bring any such facts to the fore from all of your recommended materials for us to consider?  Or are you just giving up and/or still insisting it is our responsibility to scour every apologist writing known to man until we find it ourselves?

It isn't that I, and skeptics like me, don't want to know and believe the truth.  We do.  That's why we are skeptics.  But we need reason to believe it.  If any apologist writing would offer such reason we would give it due consideration.  But not everyone has time to stay current on all the latest attempts, particularly when they all tend to say the same basic things over and over.  So at some point you trust other skeptics (whose reason you tend to agree with) to review them before even considering to read it yourself.  And you also must posit that if any of them had anything worth considering in them there would be a lot more buzz about it everywhere...including among skeptics, scientists (who also tend to value truth), and the mainstream media (read: not the 700 Club or ultra-conservative bloggers and "news" outlets with their own agendas).

So here we are.  You have an opportunity to reach us.  You have the ears of every skeptic in this thread.  If you have read these books and can present to us the worthy content that will give us motivation to reopen the case file of "God", why on earth would you back away from the task?

What you're basically doing is banging your own head against a wall by demanding evidence when you already know that there's no evidence which you'd accept. The clue's in the word "skeptic". It's pretty pointless really. Besides, you're assuming that theists even care about what you believe or what you doubt. There's a very good reason why theists generally don't bother trying to convert anyone who almost certainly doesn't see things, at least in part, as they do, and that reason is that it's a waste of time. As is demanding evidence as a skeptic. As a skeptic, you've already decided that no evidence exists. If you genuinely feel that perhaps there might be something, that's a different matter, but you clearly don't, so you're probably just trying to be a smartass, unless there's another reason for your demands. It's just that it doesn't make sense for somone to ask such futile questions. Some would say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result

 

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"What you're basically doing is banging your own head against a wall by demanding evidence when you already know that there's no evidence which you'd accept. The clue's in the word "skeptic". It's pretty pointless really. Besides, you're assuming that theists even care about what you believe or what you doubt. There's a very good reason why theists generally don't bother trying to convert anyone who almost certainly doesn't see things, at least in part, as they do, and that reason is that it's a waste of time. As is demanding evidence as a skeptic. As a skeptic, you've already decided that no evidence exists. If you genuinely feel that perhaps there might be something, that's a different matter, but you clearly don't, so you're probably just trying to be a smartass, unless there's another reason for your demands. It's just that it doesn't make sense for somone to ask such futile questions. Some would say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result

 

Chandler, did you even read what you quoted from me?  I don't think you did.  If you did, and you still decided to say what you said, then you have apparently assumed I am a bald-faced liar and I would like to know what basis you have for that assumption.  There is certainly evidence that would convince me & other skeptics to give more consideration to the God hypothesis.  I'm waiting for someone to present it.  I've searched some out myself in the past and came up empty, hence how I arrived at my current position on the subject.  I continue to regularly read & listen to skeptical critiques of current apologetic efforts (because I don't have time to read them all directly myself--I actually have a job in an unrelated field, and a life which I prefer not to waste entirely on pursuit of the possibility of the existence of invisible beings).  You could claim this is a one-sided approach to keeping current, but if you had ever listened to many skeptical critiques you might discover that skeptics are quite happy to entertain every last point of the apologist and address all of them, while the apologists themselves tend to refuse to do any such thing.

Achronos has previously claimed to have been one of us and to have since found all the evidence he needs, and furthermore he has claimed he is here on this very forum to share it to us and has made numerous starts at doing so.  Yet when anyone probes beyond his initial, vague, general philosophizing filled with logical gaps and tries to get at any real meat behind his position, he repeatedly comes up empty (actually he just continues rolling with more tangential philosophizing, hoping that he will appear "the winner" of the discussion by sheer volume of text alone).  Here in this very thread he has just recently claimed that he found concrete, verifiable evidence that stands on its own outside of the Bible and of Church authority, but refuses to even give us a single such example.  When Gawen posted a thoughtful critique of his cited book of preference, which even points out what that very book's author claims to be the strongest such evidence, and explains why that so-called specific evidence is completely ridiculous, he had nothing at all to say on the matter.

So I am forced to consider at least two possibilities:
1) Achronos really has no interest in helping skeptics to understand how he arrived at his conclusion, and just likes to appear the "winner" (to himself, anyway) in forum discussions/debates.
2) Achronos was never truly a skeptic to begin with, or never a very good one, lacking sufficient critical thinking skills to properly analyze what he is reading.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"What you're basically doing is banging your own head against a wall by demanding evidence when you already know that there's no evidence which you'd accept. The clue's in the word "skeptic". It's pretty pointless really. Besides, you're assuming that theists even care about what you believe or what you doubt. There's a very good reason why theists generally don't bother trying to convert anyone who almost certainly doesn't see things, at least in part, as they do, and that reason is that it's a waste of time. As is demanding evidence as a skeptic. As a skeptic, you've already decided that no evidence exists. If you genuinely feel that perhaps there might be something, that's a different matter, but you clearly don't, so you're probably just trying to be a smartass, unless there's another reason for your demands. It's just that it doesn't make sense for somone to ask such futile questions. Some would say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result

 

Chandler, did you even read what you quoted from me?  I don't think you did.  If you did, and you still decided to say what you said, then you have apparently assumed I am a bald-faced liar and I would like to know what basis you have for that assumption.  There is certainly evidence that would convince me & other skeptics to give more consideration to the God hypothesis.  I'm waiting for someone to present it.  I've searched some out myself in the past and came up empty, hence how I arrived at my current position on the subject.  I continue to regularly read & listen to skeptical critiques of current apologetic efforts (because I don't have time to read them all directly myself--I actually have a job in an unrelated field, and a life which I prefer not to waste entirely on pursuit of the possibility of the existence of invisible beings).  You could claim this is a one-sided approach to keeping current, but if you had ever listened to many skeptical critiques you might discover that skeptics are quite happy to entertain every last point of the apologist and address all of them, while the apologists themselves tend to refuse to do any such thing.

Achronos has previously claimed to have been one of us and to have since found all the evidence he needs, and furthermore he has claimed he is here on this very forum to share it to us and has made numerous starts at doing so.  Yet when anyone probes beyond his initial, vague, general philosophizing filled with logical gaps and tries to get at any real meat behind his position, he repeatedly comes up empty (actually he just continues rolling with more tangential philosophizing, hoping that he will appear "the winner" of the discussion by sheer volume of text alone).  Here in this very thread he has just recently claimed that he found concrete, verifiable evidence that stands on its own outside of the Bible and of Church authority, but refuses to even give us a single such example.  When Gawen posted a thoughtful critique of his cited book of preference, which even points out what that very book's author claims to be the strongest such evidence, and explains why that so-called specific evidence is completely ridiculous, he had nothing at all to say on the matter.

So I am forced to consider at least two possibilities:
1) Achronos really has no interest in helping skeptics to understand how he arrived at his conclusion, and just likes to appear the "winner" (to himself, anyway) in forum discussions/debates.
2) Achronos was never truly a skeptic to begin with, or never a very good one, lacking sufficient critical thinking skills to properly analyze what he is reading.

Yes, I suppose it is a one sided approach.

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"Yes, I suppose it is a one sided approach.

So, you find my approach to keeping current to be one-sided.  Fair enough.  I, however, disagree, because of what I noted.  Nevertheless, that was not my approach to arriving at my position in the first place and again that was clear in my post.  So is there a point to be found in your post, or what?

Also, a request along the lines of forum etiquette -- could you avoid quoting entire posts, especially relatively lengthy ones, especially when you are writing a one-sentence response?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Stevil"Please don't waste your prayer on me. Nice gesture but a waste all the same. Pray for world peace, equal rights, end to world hunger, happiness and love instead. Maybe one more prayer request will be all it takes for God to decide to grant these prayers, I would hate to think you wasted that important prayer on me. If there was a God who fulfilled prayer, I would never be selfish enough to pray for myself when there are much bigger issues in the world to solve. Again, please direct me to the form I need to fill out in order to nominate myself for a sainthood.

It is interesting to hear from you that you think that the problem is me and that I need to be aligned with your church. From your responses it seems that you are totally aligned with them, which is an amazingly good fit, I am truly happy for you. I hope that your church allows its other followers who may have differences to question the church and diverge on matters that are important to the individual followers.

You're anthropomorphizing God. This statement assumes that God can be overloaded with requests. Not to mention that God is ignoring the world. The world is constantly being saved and subsequently trashed by the will of man.

Although I do appreciate you finally showing a sense of humility, but I can see plain and clearly that you are just spinning your wheels, and I have been there, and we are always going through. God is perfect, but not us. We are all flawed, fractured and hurt. We turn to God to continually heal our wounds. We don't doubt Him just because our wounds hurt, just like we don't doubt the love of our mothers when we were children just because it stung when we scrapped our knees. We Christians feel all the pain, and we love you the more so for it, because we truly empathize with you.

By the way, you don't need to be aligned with my Church at all, but it would be best if you aligned yourself with the intuitive Spirit of God to heal your wounds of life and scrapped knees of living, just as we all do, but we ourselves find this healing in the Church. Just as you go to the hospital, and take the treatment prescribed by the doctor for a physical healing, and if you skip your medication or your therapeutic treatment your disease or injury or ailment will not fully heal, so to if we did not follow our Church, our spiritual wounds would only continue to fester, burn and scar deeply. I can only testify to you and others out of love, what good things God has done for us, when we are surrounded by a confusing world of pain, but only Jesus Christ is the healing of the pain, and a clear Light through the darkness of confusion, apprehension and fear.

When you say things like that, all I hear is a bunch of religious bullshit.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"Yes, I suppose it is a one sided approach.

So, you find my approach to keeping current to be one-sided.  Fair enough.  I, however, disagree, because of what I noted.  Nevertheless, that was not my approach to arriving at my position in the first place and again that was clear in my post.  So is there a point to be found in your post, or what?

Also, a request along the lines of forum etiquette -- could you avoid quoting entire posts, especially relatively lengthy ones, especially when you are writing a one-sentence response?

Jawohl, mein Fuhrer.

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"Yes, I suppose it is a one sided approach.

So, you find my approach to keeping current to be one-sided.  Fair enough.  I, however, disagree, because of what I noted.  Nevertheless, that was not my approach to arriving at my position in the first place and again that was clear in my post.  So is there a point to be found in your post, or what?

Also, a request along the lines of forum etiquette -- could you avoid quoting entire posts, especially relatively lengthy ones, especially when you are writing a one-sentence response?

Jawohl, mein Fuhrer.

Chandler, PH made a reasonable request. Your response to the request is unwarranted.

Request noted. I was just having a laugh, as one does.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Achronos"There is no God.

Ahhhh, I knew if we communicated long enough we would finally find some common ground.

No. And further how can you say that when I asked you a qeustion:

"Now whom do you blame?"

But since you won't address this, let me go back to what you originally said:

QuoteWell, actually I was referring to your prayer more so than your god, sorry if my statement was not clear enough. I doubt you have enough time in your day for work, play, posting on Atheist websites, reading through every Christian literature known to humankind as well as praying for the things that you would like your god to do. I was suggesting that you pray for better things than for me. With so many things out of kilter in the world, you could easily find an endless supply of things to pray for before I became top of your pray priority list. Your God hasn't sorted out world peace for example. There are wars that have been going on for decades, your god has had plenty of time to solve these. It is not like as you suggest being saved and subsequently trashed. If your God can't be overloaded and can do anything and already knows the future then I don't know what the problem is? BTW do prayers influence your god's behavior? Would your god not know what to do if the Christians stopped praying?

You ignored what I wrote. So instead of returning the same favor, I'll point out your logic flaws.

You talk about the 'world' as a single variable. The current population of the world is up to, what, 6,750,000,000 as of last year? That's 6.8 Billion variable wills counter to God's. Some will feel his peace, some will ignore it, but each one is a changing variable. Conflicts alone involve hundreds of thousands of individuals, each one capable of rejecting God's peace.

So yes, it is being saved and trashed between the 6.8 billion people with the revolving door of 350K born a day and 150K dead every day.

QuoteBTW do prayers influence your god's behavior? Would your god not know what to do if the Christians stopped praying?

God desires our freewill for His 'miracles' and Will. Can he act outside of this? Of course. Prayer is opening up your life to His will, making it possible for Him to work WITH you, and not AROUND you. The more people open to His work (read in communion with God), the more effectual our prayer. (This has held up in scientific study.)

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Achronos"Furthermore, I am well aware the book won't convert skeptics. I'm not sure a single book could convince a skeptic otherwise.

That's it?  That's all you have to say?  Are you going to ignore all responses to your "near death experience" post?  And are you admitting there is no good verifiable evidence for the resurrection?  Or are you sticking to the story that the burden is on every one of us to read poorly written apologetics over and over until our brains are so fried by circularism that we finally accept it ourselves?

If one book won't convince a skeptic and you admit as much is this not a recognition on your part that there is nothing of substance in any of them?  If you can find even a single irrefutable fact that is verifiable and would logically contribute to a god hypothesis that would at least be something to a skeptic reader.  Maybe it would not help them unravel the entire story just as any single scientific writing may not, but any skeptic would surely at least take something worth considering from it and perhaps find motivation therein to continue unravelling the whole story.

So can you bring any such facts to the fore from all of your recommended materials for us to consider?  Or are you just giving up and/or still insisting it is our responsibility to scour every apologist writing known to man until we find it ourselves?

It isn't that I, and skeptics like me, don't want to know and believe the truth.  We do.  That's why we are skeptics.  But we need reason to believe it.  If any apologist writing would offer such reason we would give it due consideration.  But not everyone has time to stay current on all the latest attempts, particularly when they all tend to say the same basic things over and over.  So at some point you trust other skeptics (whose reason you tend to agree with) to review them before even considering to read it yourself.  And you also must posit that if any of them had anything worth considering in them there would be a lot more buzz about it everywhere...including among skeptics, scientists (who also tend to value truth), and the mainstream media (read: not the 700 Club or ultra-conservative bloggers and "news" outlets with their own agendas).

So here we are.  You have an opportunity to reach us.  You have the ears of every skeptic in this thread.  If you have read these books and can present to us the worthy content that will give us motivation to reopen the case file of "God", why on earth would you back away from the task?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhodja.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F02%2Fcutepig.jpg&hash=472a7c207ca583c80f1b9beb9b717f82211052f2)
St. Matthew 7:6.

What do you see as the basis of truth?

Also If you adhere to a strictly scientific standard for belief, there will always be a more logical explanation than the supernatural. You will not come to the faith by intellect alone. It is a journey of the heart that must be lived.

Quote from: "Achronos"St. Matthew 7:6.

So let me get this all straight.  You enter into an atheist forum, what, expecting to find some easy converts?  And then for anyone who isn't won over by your sermonizing alone, you whip out that old chestnut and openly liken them to sub-human creatures?  Sounds like the perfect strategy for success to me!

Quote from: "Achronos"What do you see as the basis of truth?

Also If you adhere to a strictly scientific standard for belief, there will always be a more logical explanation than the supernatural. You will not come to the faith by intellect alone. It is a journey of the heart that must be lived.

I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.  You are the very one who himself just said in this very thread that there is verifiable, extra-Biblical evidence in support of the resurrection.  I have said a couple of times now that if you presented any examples that held water you might gain some traction.  And yet here we are, with you still clamming up.  I am forced to add "liar" to possible descriptions of your character.  Next time, if you don't mean it, try not saying it.

Why do I think of this clip everytime I read an Achronos post?
[youtube:2gwxxwzv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZuEMkwF9ZU[/youtube:2gwxxwzv]

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.  You are the very one who himself just said in this very thread that there is verifiable, extra-Biblical evidence in support of the resurrection.  I have said a couple of times now that if you presented any examples that held water you might gain some traction.  And yet here we are, with you still clamming up.  I am forced to add "liar" to possible descriptions of your character.  Next time, if you don't mean it, try not saying it.

Alright alright I'll cave. Well, I know you won't read all of this, but I'll post it anyway, if for any other reason than you might try to say no one came "come up with any responses." Also the following is my collection from various sources.

“If Jesus remained dead, how can you explain the reality of the Christian church and its phenomenal growth in the first three centuries of the Christian Era? Christ’s church covered the Western world by the fourth century. A religious movement built on a lie could not have accomplished that…All the power in Rome and of the religious establishment in Jerusalem was geared to stop the Christian faith. All they had to do was to dig up the grave and to present the corpse. They didn’t.”  -   Henry Schaefer III, Ph.D. (1944- ), Professor of Chemistry and Director at the University of Georgia

“I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”   - Thomas Arnold (1795-1842) Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” - Anthony Flew, Ph.D. (1923-2007) British Philosopher, atheist and author

"I am the resurrection and the life.”
Jesus of Nazareth (3-35) Jewish peasant and prophet

Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
-  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.
-  When the phrase “most scholars” is used, this is accurate and not an assumption.  Dr. Habermas conducted a study of every scholarly work on the resurrection, published since 1975, in French, English and German, creating a table of each scholar, their work, and their position, resulting in a 500-page document.
-  Given that most people reject the Bible, it will not be used in any other manner, than simply being a work of ancient literature.  On top of that, we will only use those portions that are so strongly evidenced historically, that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, skeptic or otherwise.  So if (and when) you come across a biblical reference for something, and your gut says, “Hey, that’s from the Bible, it can’t be trusted,” keep in mind we are only using portions that hardly any scholar publishing works over the last 40 years would reject.
-  Historical data, such as archaeological finds, documents, and eyewitness reports, are all we have to tell us of events that occurred and people who lived in antiquity.  When sifting through all of this, certain principles (seen below) are applied by historians to determine if something is historically reliable:
•   Multiple, independent sources support historical claims.
o   When an event or saying is attested by more than one independent source, there is a strong indication of its historicity.
•   Attestation by an enemy supports historical claims.
o   If testimony affirming an event or saying is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message, or cause that profits from the account, we have an indication of authenticity.
•   Embarrassing admissions support historical claims.
o   An indicator that an event or saying is authentic occurs when the source would not be expected to create the story, because it embarrasses their cause and weakens their position in arguments with opponents.
•   Eyewitness testimony supports historical claims.
o   Eyewitness testimony is usually stronger than a secondhand account.
•   Early testimony supports historical claims.
o   The closer the time between the event and testimony about it, the more reliable the witness, since there is less time for exaggeration, and even legend, to creep into the account.

Basically, since we don’t have a certified video record of what occurred in antiquity, these principles are commonsense guidelines for evaluating the written record of something that is alleged to have happened.  It is all we have to go on…
-  The approach taken can be described as a “minimal facts” approach.  Meaning, we consider only those data that are so strongly attested historically, that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.  The facts presented, in this case, must meet two criteria: (1)They are well evidenced (multiple independent sources) and (2)nearly every scholar (remember Habermas’ laborious study) accepts them.

In reality, no fact or theory finds total agreement or disagreement.  Skeptical scholars are notorious for disagreeing with one another.  Extreme, radical positions can always be found.  If we look hard enough, we will find people who deny that even we exist.  Thus, the “minimal facts” approach includes what nearly all scholars hold as authentic.  Seldom can we speak about what all agree upon, for seldom do they all agree….
So, what are the facts?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

That Jesus was executed by crucifixion is recorded in all four gospels.  However, a number of non-Christian sources of the period report the event as well.
•   Josephus writes, “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified…”
•   Tacitus reports, “Nero fastened the guilt (of the burning of Rome) and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.  Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.”
•   Lucian of Samosata, the Greek satirist, writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this dayâ€"the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”
•   Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to his son from prison, comments, “Or what advantage came to the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?”
•   The Talmud reports that, “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged.”
The highly critical scholar of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, writes, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

Fact Two:  Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.

There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them raised from the dead.  This conclusion has been reached by considering data that suggest 1) the disciples themselves claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and 2) subsequent to Jesus’ death, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution to bold proclaimers of his resurrection.  We’ll take a look at a number of ancient sources that lead to this conclusion.

They claimed it.  Paul provides very strong evidence for establishing the resurrection claims of the original disciples (remember, he wasn’t one).  He reported that he knew at least some of the other disciples, even the “big three” of Peter, James and John.  The Book of Acts reports that the disciples and Paul knew and fellowshipped together.  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that whether “it was I or they, this is what we preach,” talking about the resurrection.  Paul knew them personally and says they claimed Jesus rose from the dead.  Yes, this is from the Bible, but remember in our minimal facts approach, we’re treating the NT as any other book, and beyond that, are only entertaining the data that is well evidenced and accepted.  Virtually no one doubts the authenticity of Pauline authorship here.  Plus, Paul is a source independent of the original disciples.

Aside from Paul’s writings, we have oral tradition.  Remember, the ancients did not have our tools for recording and passing along information, like tape recorders, video cameras, etc., and the individual copies that could be made by hand couldn’t reach very many people, never mind the fact that most of them couldn’t read them if they did.  They relied heavily on oral tradition.  And a key point about oral tradition is that it had to exist prior to the NT writings in order for the authors to include them.  So this takes us back to some of the earliest teachings of the Christian church.

An example of this is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (A.D. 55).  He said, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”  How do we know this was an oral creed of the early church?
•   “Delivered” and “received” communicates that Paul is giving them a tradition he himself was given.
•   It contains indicators of an Aramaic original:
o   Fourfold use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds
o   “Cephas,” is Aramaic for Peter (he obviously knew his real name)
o   The content of the text contains parallelisms
o   The text contains non-Pauline terms (he used words he doesn’t use anywhere else)

Many critical scholars believe that Paul actually received this creed from the disciples themselves (Peter and James) when he visited them in Jerusalem, because he uses the word historesai in Galatians 1:18-19 (his account of their time together), which means, “to get an historical account.”
So we have Paul, oral tradition, and now, the writings of the early church/Church Fathers.  Despite their apparent bias, the Gospels cannot be ignored either.  It is well accepted that all four gospels were written during the first century, which means we have accounts written within 70 years of Jesus at the very latest, containing reports that the disciples believed they saw him raised from the dead.  On top of the Gospels, we have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who are the church leaders directly succeeding the Apostles.  Several apostolic fathers taught that the Apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus’ resurrection.
•   Clement, bishop of Rome (c. 30-100, likely the same Clement Paul refers to in Philippians 4:3) in a letter to Corinth (which is quoted by Irenaeus) says that he “had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, and might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes.  Nor was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles.  In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brothers at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians.”  Tertullian goes on to say, “For this manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers:  as the church in Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the Church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.”  If Irenaeus and Tertullian are correct, Clement had seen the Apostles and had fellowshipped with them, particularly Peter.  I mention all of that, because it lends great historical value to Clement’s writings concerning the Apostles and their teachings.  He actually knew them.  So what does he say they taught?  â€œTherefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.”
•   Polycarp, is in the same situation, having been appointed a successor by John, writing that the Apostles, “did not love this present age, but him who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God.”
Combining this with Paul and the oral tradition, we have 9 sources, in 3 different categories pointing to multiple, very early, eyewitness testimonies to the disciple’s claims of witnessing the risen Jesus.

You might ask yourself why this is so important.  It’s important because we have to establish that the resurrection of Jesus was really what the disciples taught, and more importantly, what they really believed.  They didn’t make it up, they didn’t lie about it.  They were in actuality completely transformed by their experience.  I’m not saying here that this is proof Jesus was really raised, but that the disciples genuinely believed he was.  This is the foundation for the rest of the argument.

As University of Chicago New Testament scholar Norman Perrin (who denies the resurrection) states, “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.”  Jesus died by crucifixion, and the disciples claimed they had seen him raised from the dead.

They believed it.  After Jesus’ death, the lives of the disciples were transformed to the point that they endured persecution and even martyrdom.  Such strength of conviction indicates that they were not just claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them in order to receive some personal benefit.  They really believed it.  Compare this courage to their character at Jesus’ arrest and execution.  They denied and abandoned him, and they hid in fear.  Afterward, they willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen Christ.  These facts are validated by multiple accounts, both from early sources in the NT as well as outside sources.
•   Clement of Rome reports the sufferings (and what appears to be the martyrdoms) of Peter and Paul:
o   “Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contended unto death.  Let us set the good Apostles before our eyes.  Peter, who because of unrighteous envy endured, not one or two, but many afflictions, and having borne witness went to the due glorious place.  Because of envy rivalries, steadfast Paul pointed to the prize.  Seven times chained, exiled, stoned, having become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he received honor fitting of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, unto the boundary on which the sun sets; having testified in the presence of the leaders.  Thus he was freed from the world and went to the holy place.  He became a great example of steadfastness…They are in the place due them with the Lord, in association with him also they suffered together, for they did not love this present age…”
•   Tertullian also reports the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul:
o   “That Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood.  And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem.  We read the lives of the Caesars:  At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith.  Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross.  Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom.”
This quote in particular is interesting in that Tertullian is saying if one did not want to believe the Christian records concerning the martyrdoms of some of the Apostles, he could find the information in the public records, namely “the lives of the Caesars.”
•   Origen, a church father, in his work Contra Celsum relates how the disciple’s devotion to the teachings of Jesus “was attended with danger to human life[and that they] themselves were the first to manifest their disregard for its [death’s] terrors.”
•   Eusebius is called the “first church historian.”  In his Ecclesiastical History he quotes the works of Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, and Origen for the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.  And he sites Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria in regards to the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus.
All of these sources, biblical and non-biblical alike, affirm the disciple’s willingness to suffer and die for their faith.  Obviously, the conviction of the disciple’s that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them does not mean they were right.  But this misses the point.  The disciple’s willingness to suffer and die for their beliefs indicates that they certainly regarded those beliefs as true.  The case is strong that they did not willfully lie about the appearances of the raised Jesus.  Liars make poor martyrs.

At this point you could argue that many people die for their beliefs, such as a Muslim terrorist blowing himself up in public or the Buddhist monk who burns himself alive in a political protest.  Extreme acts do not validate the truth of their beliefs, but willingness to die indicates that they regard their beliefs as true.  But there is an important difference between people like this and the Apostles.  Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them.  The Apostles on the other hand, died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus.  Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true.  The Apostles died for what they knew to be true, from their own experience (whether true or false).

What do contemporary scholars have to say about the disciple’s beliefs?
•   Highly critical NT scholar Rudolf Bultmann agreed that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection” and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus.
•   Atheistic NT scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
•   Paula Fredriksen of Boston University comments, “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus.  That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw.  I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus.  I wasn’t there.  I don’t know what they saw.  But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.”

Going back to that massive undertaking of Dr. Habermas I mentioned early, he says:

“I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975.  I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German and French.  Some of the results of this study were certainly intriguing.  For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus.  A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something.”

Since the original disciples were making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was not the result of myth making.  His life story was not embellished over time if the facts can be traced to the original witnesses, which we have seen is historically believed to be the case.
Moving on, are there any data that will lead us to believe that the disciple’s claims to have seen the risen Jesus were actually true?

Fact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

Saul of Tarsus (now known as Paul), changed from being a skeptic who believed that it was God’s will to persecute and stomp out the church to becoming one of its most influential messengers.  His notorious pre-Christian activities and conversion are attested to by multiple sources.  We have Paul’s own testimony, Luke’s record in the Book of Acts, and a story that was circulating among Christians in Galatia.

What caused Paul to change so drastically?

Both Paul himself, and Luke the Physician, report that it was because he believed firmly that he had experienced an encounter with the risen Jesus.  Paul’s conversion is so interesting because he was an enemy of the church when he claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.  Which, if you’ll recall, is a red flag of historical authenticity because friend and foe are now testifying to the resurrection.

Paul’s experience is affirmed in the works of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth and Origen, as well.
You could ask yourself, “What’s the big deal?  People convert all the time?”  The difference here is of primary versus secondary sources.  Paul believed because he experienced it for himself, rather than relying on the testimony of someone else.

Fact Four:  The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

James, if you’ll recall, was one of at least four brothers of Jesus mentioned in the gospels.  We know James was a pious Jew as Paul states in Galatians that legalistic men were claiming affiliation with James in order to keep the Jewish Law.  Hegesippus reported that:

“James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the Apostles.  He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Savior to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.  He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.  No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the public bath.  He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.  And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.  Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘bulwark of the people’ and ‘justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.”

We don’t have the same wealth of historical information about the life of James (like we do for Paul) but we do have enough information to conclude that after the alleged event of Jesus’ resurrection, James, the brother of Jesus, became a convert to Christianity because he believed the risen Jesus appeared to him.  This conclusion is arrived at because:
•   The gospels report that Jesus’ brothers, including James, were unbelievers during his ministry.
•   The ancient creedal material quoted in 1 Corinthians (which we discussed earlier) lists an appearance of the risen Jesus to James, (“then He appeared to James…”).
•   Subsequent to the alleged event of Jesus’ resurrection, James is identified as a leader of the Jerusalem church.
•   Not only did James convert, he died as a martyr, as is mentioned by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria.
With James, we have another example of a skeptic converting to Christianity based on what he perceived to be a personal appearance by the risen Jesus.  As with Paul, we have to ask ourselves:  What happened to James to cause such a conviction?

Fact Five:  The tomb was empty.

The empty tomb is the one “fact” of ours that does not meet the “minimal facts” approach, because it is not accepted by nearly all scholars, but there is still fairly strong evidence for it.  According to Habermas’ survey, roughly 75% hold this to be true.

Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem.  His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first proclaimed publicly there.  It would have been virtually impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb.  His enemies in the Jewish leadership and Roman government would only have had to exhume the corpse and publicly display it for the hoax to be shattered.  Not only are Jewish, Roman, and all other writings absent of such an account, but there is a total silence from Christianity’s critics who would have jumped at evidence of this sort.
The empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources.  Jesus’ enemies admitted it as well, albeit indirectly.  Rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused the disciples of stealing the body (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).

We also have the testimony of women.  Given the low first-century view of women that was frequently shared by Jew and Gentile, it seems highly unlikely that the Gospel authors would either invent or adjust such testimonies.  That would mean placing words in the mouths of those who would not be believed by many, making them the primary witnesses to the empty tomb.  The empty tomb appears to be historically credible in light of the principle of embarrassment.

The empty tomb is, therefore, reasonably well evidenced for historical certainty.  Former Oxford University historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

Conclusion

We have presented evidence for Jesus’ resurrection using a “minimal facts” approach, which considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that even the majority of non-believing scholars accept them as facts.  We have not appealed to, or even suggested, the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible in order to support the case.

Using the “minimal facts” approach, we considered four facts that meet these stringent criteria and one additional fact (empty tomb) that enjoys acceptance by an impressive amount of scholars, though not nearly all of them.

What we covered:

Shortly after Jesus’ death, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead.  They claimed that he had appeared to individuals among them, as well as to several groups.  Two of those who once viewed Jesus as a false prophet, later believed that he appeared to them risen (Paul, the church persecutor, and James, the skeptic and Jesus’ brother).  Both became Christians as a result.  Therefore, not only do we have the testimony of friends; we also have enemy attestation.  And finally, the empty tomb.

Any opposing theory to Jesus’ resurrection is going to have to account for all of these facts as well as others.  For example, some might speculate that the disciples experienced grief hallucinations, or that they lied, or that they stole the body, or that the whole story is simply a legend developed over time, etc.  But these 5 facts that we have covered accomplish two things:  (1) they provide compelling evidence for Jesus’ resurrection and (2) they stand as data that must be accounted for by any opposing theory.

Since the first reports of Jesus’ resurrection, critics have formulated opposing theories to account for the known data.  These are commonly referred to as naturalistic explanations, because they appeal to a natural cause for the event rather than a supernatural one.  Interestingly, liberal scholars of the 19th century both rejected Jesus’ resurrection and provided refutations of most of these naturalistic theories.  Neo-orthodox scholar Karl Barth was perhaps the most influential theologian of the twentieth century.  Barth pointed out how each opposing theory to Jesus’ resurrection suffers from many inconsistencies and concluded, “Today we rightly turn our nose at this.”  Raymond Brown, a moderate New Testament scholar echoed Barth, writing that 20th century critical scholars had rejected existing theories that oppose the Resurrection.  He added that contemporary thinkers both ignore these theories and even treat them as unrespectable.

Today the prevalent view among sophisticated critics is that the disciples seem to have experienced something, but what it was may not be known, and the general bias is against resurrections.  As Charles Hartshorne articulated in his comments pertaining to a public debate between Habermas and prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew, “I can neither explain away the evidences to which Habermas appeals, nor can I simply agree with Flew’s or Hume’s positions…My metaphysical bias is against resurrections.”

It is fair to raise questions regarding an opposing theory to Jesus’ resurrection.  Aside from the faith factor, when it comes to reports of miracles, the historian must seek a natural explanation before considering a supernatural one.  It’s the responsible thing to do.  Even Christians do this continually in examining reports of miracles in other religions.  Our own faith is not exempt from similar investigation.  When no plausible natural explanation is availableâ€"as appears to be the case with Jesus’ resurrectionâ€"and a historical context with obvious religious implications exists where a resurrection is at homeâ€"for example, if Jesus performed miracles and claimed divinityâ€"there are then no reasons why a supernatural cause cannot be considered.
At times, the skeptic demands that an explanation be so strong that no questions can be raised against it.  If historians took this approach, I think you’d agree, we could know very little about history.

Opposing theories to date simply cannot account for this collection of historically granted facts, thereby leaving Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Why do I think of this clip everytime I read an Achronos post?
[youtube:2g4tujvp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZuEMkwF9ZU[/youtube:2g4tujvp]

Oh come on you post this video and don't bring up the very structure of a banana?



Quote from: "Achronos"Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
- It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.

See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just bullshit.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there,  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."

Quote from: "Achronos"No. And further how can you say that when I asked you a qeustion:
"Now whom do you blame?"

I certainly found your first sentence more interesting and worthy of a response. Your second sentence/question did not imply that you were lying or being sarcastic with regards to the first sentence so I did not think it would be inaccurate to take your first sentence as it was written.

To address your question "Now whom do you blame?". I actually thought your question was rheotorical. There is certainly not one person to blame for all the issues of the world and in some cases the answer is not a whom but a what. I don't know the underlying causes of any of the world's problems actually. But this might be a good question for you to post on the "Ask me anything" thread. Chandler M Bing may have the answer, and I have a hunch you will find his answer quite agreeable and aligned with your thoughts.

Quote from: "Achronos"You talk about the 'world' as a single variable. The current population of the world is up to, what, 6,750,000,000 as of last year? That's 6.8 Billion variable wills counter to God's. Some will feel his peace, some will ignore it, but each one is a changing variable. Conflicts alone involve hundreds of thousands of individuals, each one capable of rejecting God's peace.

So yes, it is being saved and trashed between the 6.8 billion people.

To quote, well, you actually "You're anthropomorphizing God. This statement assumes that God can be overloaded with requests"
I don't believe that everyone in the world is responsible for the continuing war in Burma as an example. There are probably only a handful of influential people keeping this war alive. Given how perfect, all knowing and all powerful I am told your god is (the Christian god I assume as you have not offered the actual name) it would seem that stopping this war would be trivial.

I find it interesting that you state things like "each one capable of rejecting God's peace" this assumes people know that your god exists, know what your god's peace is and is making an informed decision about whether to accept or reject that peace. I for one am not rejecting your god's peace as I have never been propositioned with it and hence have no grounds to accept or reject it. Does peace mean hearding up the sinners and throwing guilt and penance onto them until they are aligned with the Church, but obviously in a non judgemental way as judgement can only be made by your god?

Quote from: "Achronos"God desires our freewill for His 'miracles' and Will.

I love that you brought up freewill. There is an old tv serious which I liked a lot. It was called American Gothic and had a cool phrase "the illusion of freewill".
I truly believe in that phrase. Everyone's freewill is hugely tainted. Some of the causes of these taints are: family upbringing, culture, school teachings, media influence, peer influence, country environment, community environment, role models, life experience, time period alive in, etc.
No-one has freewill. Some are more tainted or constrained than others. I personally see religion and Church as providing both taint and constraint on freewill which is evident by the followers' morals and thoughts being alligned with that of the religion and Church. The problem with taints on freewill is that people are generally unaware of them, hence the term "the illusion of freewill"

I honestly don't know why you guys "debate" with Achronos. He moves the goal posts, claims we do things bad or wrong all the while he does the same, uses spurious claims and sources, back pedals, doesn't answer questions by side stepping them, laughs in the face of good counter evidence and is smug his his alleged righteousness.

I'll no longer be participating. Ya just can't talk to people like that.

I forgot to add,

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.

And you have demonstrated little of either, and this platitude doesn't add to that.

The devil is in the details. Give us some details, because you cite militant atheists and fundamentalist preachers without discretion as equal authorites.  That demonstrates neither reason, nor evidence, but a confused mind.

QuoteAnd then for anyone who isn't won over by your sermonizing alone,

You haven't worked your way up to be the object of sermonzing yet. I've see nothing to indicate you came do anything but take pot shots, and then cry "I'm wounded" when the troops shoot back with better aim and superior weapons.

I haven't found your posts serious, and have responded accordingly. Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Your self proclaimed skeptic friends see a contradiction in that with the preceeding verse, because they lack any sense of discernment. Like Gawn above, cutting and pasting indiscriminately from atheists and fundamentalists, you demonstrate that lack as well.

Quoteyou whip out that old chestnut

An oldie but a goodie.  Stick to the tried and true.

Quoteand openly liken them to sub-human creatures?

If it walks like a duck....

QuoteSounds like the perfect strategy for success to me!

Worked so far.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just bullshit.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there, It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."

LOL...Your knowledge of Jurisprudence is equal to your understanding of Christianity. Not good.

The standard for guilt or innocence is not "Beyond a shadow of a doubt".. it is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

The case for the claims of Christianity are well beyond reasonable with considerable evidence both circumstantial and direct.
We don't have photos but the evidence is strong enough to convince an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person.

Youre just playing around to make yourself feel good about your life decisions...Grow up

Also talk about BS:You are trying to retry a case tried nearly two millenia ago. A little past the statute of limitations.

I Cor. 15:3 Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Don't know what witnesses that weren't even there you are talking about.

Let's give you an event of comparable antiquity and comparable (in worldly terms) as to the Resurrection of Christ: Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.  Tell us, how would you prove that event happened?

Quote from: "Stevil"I certainly found your first sentence more interesting and worthy of a response.

That doesn't suprise me.

QuoteYour second sentence/question did not imply that you were lying or being sarcastic

Neither lying nor being sarcastic. "For the sake of argument...."

Quotewith regards to the first sentence so I did not think it would be inaccurate to take your first sentence as it was written.

Perhaps it was too terse: ["For the same of argument, let's say] There is no God.["]

QuoteTo address your question "Now whom do you blame?". I actually thought your question was rheotorical. There is certainly not one person to blame for all the issues of the world and in some cases the answer is not a whom but a what. I don't know the underlying causes of any of the world's problems actually.

Take a minute and a half and learn
The apple incident
[youtube:30pm9e6u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q5BjtWDHXM[/youtube:30pm9e6u]

Quote from: "Stevil"To quote, well, you actually "You're anthropomorphizing God. This statement assumes that God can be overloaded with requests"
I don't believe that everyone in the world is responsible for the continuing war in Burma as an example. There are probably only a handful of influential people keeping this war alive. Given how perfect, all knowing and all powerful I am told your god is (the Christian god I assume as you have not offered the actual name) it would seem that stopping this war would be trivial.

Each and every person involved in the conflict has a choice. The most influential person, or the most minute, have the same capacity to listen or ignore God.

QuoteI find it interesting that you state things like "each one capable of rejecting God's peace" this assumes people know that your god exists, know what your god's peace is and is making an informed decision about whether to accept or reject that peace. I for one am not rejecting your god's peace as I have never been propositioned with it and hence have no grounds to accept or reject it.

Belief in God is irrelevant to His existence and His influence. Just as my belief in your existence is irrelevant to your action and existance.

QuoteDoes peace mean hearding up the sinners and throwing guilt and penance onto them until they are aligned with the Church, but obviously in a non judgemental way as judgement can only be made by your god?

What on Earth are you talking about? Try goggling the word for "peace" and "love".

Or are you just trolling? I would prefer you cease further attempts of distorting the discussion into cheap polemics.

QuoteI love that you brought up freewill. There is an old tv serious which I liked a lot. It was called American Gothic and had a cool phrase "the illusion of freewill".
I truly believe in that phrase. Everyone's freewill is hugely tainted. Some of the causes of these taints are: family upbringing, culture, school teachings, media influence, peer influence, country environment, community environment, role models, life experience, time period alive in, etc.

Does the media, your peers, experience, or culture 'force' you into action? Free will mean you have the 'freedom' to choose. These are influences, but they do not control you. Show me which one 'makes you act', not influence, 'forces you' to act.

QuoteNo-one has freewill. Some are more tainted or constrained than others. I personally see religion and Church as providing both taint and constraint on freewill which is evident by the followers' morals and thoughts being alligned with that of the religion and Church. The problem with taints on freewill is that people are generally unaware of them, hence the term "the illusion of freewill"

You always have a choice, even if the choice for a given situation in 'difficult'.

Modern American culture enjoys shifting blame, and refusing personal responsibility. It's not surprising that it's popular to 'blame' everything else for personal choices. "It was my mom's fault." "My friends told me to." "He only saw it on TV." "She just made me so mad, I HAD to." You ALWAYS have a choice, anything else is a cop-out.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteI find it interesting that you state things like "each one capable of rejecting God's peace" this assumes people know that your god exists, know what your god's peace is and is making an informed decision about whether to accept or reject that peace. I for one am not rejecting your god's peace as I have never been propositioned with it and hence have no grounds to accept or reject it.

Belief in God is irrelevant to His existence and His influence. Just as my belief in your existence is irrelevant to your action and existance.

My statement was not with regards to belief or existence. I am not arguing whether your god exists or not. I am suggesting that not only can people accept or reject your God's peace but they can also be ignorant of your god's peace, not necessarily by choice but either cause they have never heard or understood it or they have never seen any proof as to what it is. There are many things that people have not chosen to accept or reject.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteDoes peace mean hearding up the sinners and throwing guilt and penance onto them until they are aligned with the Church, but obviously in a non judgmental way as judgement can only be made by your god?

What on Earth are you talking about? Try goggling the word for "peace" and "love".

Or are you just trolling? I would prefer you cease further attempts of distorting the discussion into cheap polemics.

I can understand why you thought I was trolling, but actually my intent was pure. Our ongoing discussion has been with regards to the love of Christians. From our discussion, from the link you posted and from my preconceived ideas about Christianity I see that the Church wants its followers to align and obey, otherwise they are labeled as sinners and are made to do penance for their sins. Is this not correct? If this is the case then I see non acceptance and lack of love coming from Christians. If I were to ask a Homosexual what they thought the Christian community thought about them, I would suggest that Love would not be the word the Homosexual would respond with. As is probably evident to you I am not truly understanding what your god's peace is that you are saying people are accepting or rejecting? If I don't know what it is then how can I make an informed decision to accept or reject it?

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteI love that you brought up freewill. There is an old tv serious which I liked a lot. It was called American Gothic and had a cool phrase "the illusion of freewill".
I truly believe in that phrase. Everyone's freewill is hugely tainted. Some of the causes of these taints are: family upbringing, culture, school teachings, media influence, peer influence, country environment, community environment, role models, life experience, time period alive in, etc.

Does the media, your peers, experience, or culture 'force' you into action? Free will mean you have the 'freedom' to choose. These are influences, but they do not control you. Show me which one 'makes you act', not influence, 'forces you' to act.

A person's actions are as a result of their thoughts, morals and values (their will).

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteNo-one has freewill. Some are more tainted or constrained than others. I personally see religion and Church as providing both taint and constraint on freewill which is evident by the followers' morals and thoughts being alligned with that of the religion and Church. The problem with taints on freewill is that people are generally unaware of them, hence the term "the illusion of freewill"

You always have a choice, even if the choice for a given situation in 'difficult'.

Not true, choice is as a result of a person's tainted will. A Chinese person would choose to eat with chopsticks, a Westerner with a fork and an Indian with their hands. Seems to me that the choice converted to action here is predisposed to cultural upbringing.

Quote from: "Achronos"Modern American culture enjoys shifting blame, and refusing personal responsibility. It's not surprising that it's popular to 'blame' everything else for personal choices. "It was my mom's fault." "My friends told me to." "He only saw it on TV." "She just made me so mad, I HAD to." You ALWAYS have a choice, anything else is a cop-out.

I would not want to put such a generalisation onto American culture, many are Christians, a few are Orthodoxy. I am not an American so cannot speak on such matters.

First to address your follow up post filled with unfounded cheap shots at belittling me:

Quote from: "Achronos"The devil is in the details. Give us some details, because you cite militant atheists and fundamentalist preachers without discretion as equal authorites.

I do?  Uhhh…where?

Quote from: "Achronos"You haven't worked your way up to be the object of sermonzing yet.

Just wondering…are you aware that I was raised as an evangelical Christian?

Quote from: "Achronos"Like Gawn above, cutting and pasting indiscriminately from atheists and fundamentalists, you demonstrate that lack as well.

Again, where did I do this?  That sounds more like what you do than anything I’ve done so far.

--------------------------------------------------
Moving on to the real discussion, I am going to redirect your attention to your own words in this thread yet again to clarify the current state of the discussion:

Quote from: "Achronos"He then supported these assertions with verifiable historical data without appealing to Church authority or the inspiration of the New Testament.
…
Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

I am going to examine your post in search of such verifiable data/evidence, which is what I requested you to reveal to me, and see what I find.  Feel free to highlight anything I may have missed.

Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

A fact that Jesus existed and was crucified would have nothing to do with the plausibility of his resurrection.   Such a fact would be irrelevant to your original claim in question.

Fact Two:  Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.

First of all, as you surely know, evidence of belief is not equivalent to evidence of evidence supporting said belief.
Remembering that we are looking for verifiable historical data that does not appeal to Church authority of the New Testament, your “9 sources" are all irrelevant to your claim in question.  

As a side note, I did not count 9 among those you mentioned.  I count Paul, Clement, Polycarp, “Matthew", “John",  and Luke = 6.  I encapsulate two in quotes because I suspect you would contend these gospels were written in their entirety directly by the original disciples themselves (making them perhaps the most important), while in reality all points of that claim are quite open for debate.  The “creed" (or hymn as I’ve heard it called) from 1 Corinthians was recorded by Paul, making him the only actual known source as far as your argument here goes.  I also find it suspicious you would consider a brief “hymn/creed" that had only been alive perhaps 20-30 years (as it refers to Christ’s death in the past tense, describes follow-up events, and as 1 Corinthians was dated in the mid 50’s) to have lived long enough to be referred to as “oral tradition" or particularly “ancient" at the time as you call it in Fact Four.  You seem to be puffing it up to be far more important to the argument than it actually is just so you can add 1 to the small count of sources.  I will say more on this creed later after I have addressed the rest of your post.  I do not count Mark’s gospel because it makes no claims (that I am aware of) about who had visionary experiences.  If I did count Mark and the creed, I would arrive at 8.  What was the 9th?

In your attempt to provide me with historical data in support of “Fact Two" that does not appeal to Church authority or the New Testament, you’ve given me the words of some Church fathers and the New Testament.  Is this correct, or did I miss something?

If you would call these 6/9 sources “independent", your definition of independence is a far cry from what most reasonable people would accept.  You are talking about a small group of contemporaries in direct contact with one another, who derived a common belief system from one another and shared common motivationsâ€"or subsequent students of these whose own writings are merely derivative.

Now, say I grant that there was in fact a group of people, including the disciples and Paul, who truly believed they had witnessed evidence of Christ’s resurrection (be his appearance physical, spiritual, or a little of both).  I suppose I have no problem granting that so that I can continue reading your thoughts about “Fact Two".   You really didn’t have to work so hard to convince me of that possibility.

I wonder, have you ever heard of Hopkinsville Goblins Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopk ... _encounter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopkinsville_encounter))?  Here we have multiple witnesses who truly believed they had an otherworldly experience, and we even have a daughter of a primary witness testifying 55 years later just how much her father truly believed his interpretation of what he had experienced (comparable weight to that of any Clement/Polycarp testimony about Apostle/Paul beliefs).  What do you make of that?

Quote from: "Achronos"Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The Apostles on the other hand, died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The Apostles died for what they knew to be true, from their own experience (whether true or false).

You emphasize a distinction between "believe" and "knew" in these two final statements.  I contend there is none here and you are just playing with words to assign more importance to Apostle martyrdom (which itself is uncertain, historically, but let's put that aside).  Please define these two terms so I can understand your distinction; as I see it now there is none.

You gave two examples involving suicide (Muslim, Buddhist) in reference to non-Christian martyrs.  Committing suicide is altogether different from falling victim to homicide in this line of discussion.  Did any Apostles or early Christians literally commit suicide in support of their cause?  I take it you further consider your two examples as differing from Apostle martyrdom because they both lack first-hand experiences backing up their beliefs (how do you know that?).  Along the lines of suicide I might propose a more apt example that may have been based on some degree of first-hand experience.  That example would be Marshall Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate infamy.  But I won't seriously consider this case because the jury seems out on whether his beliefs first formed as the result of a near-death experience resulting from a heart attack, or due to some degree of insanity.  And yet, this example serves to suggest at least one alternative way in which a person can come to believe something strongly enough to die for it--insanity.

I am actually much more interested in how you would distinguish the martyrdom (as held by LDS) of Joseph Smith from that of Paul or Peter.  So if you could address this it would be appreciated.

Last on this subject, quite normal people die willingly for principle all the time.  Principle.  Belief.  Knowledge.  Closely related, if not identical, concepts.  That’s why I am interested in your definition of “believe" and “knew", that distinguishes them as distinctly separate reasons for assuming a risk of death.

Quote from: "Achronos"Since the original disciples were making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was not the result of myth making. His life story was not embellished over time if the facts can be traced to the original witnesses, which we have seen is historically believed to be the case.

You've made a gigantic leap here.  You’ve asked me to go from accepting that a bunch of people truly believed they all had a similar experience of some kind, to accepting that the supporting story surrounding that belief which has survived until today did not evolve over time.  The latter does not follow from anything you’ve said thus far, that I can see.  Can you clarify the logical progression here?

In summary, Fact Two appears irrelevant to your claim in question, and is also irrelevant as far as legitimate evidence for a “miraculous"/"supernatural" occurrence.  Nevertheless I have posed some questions for you, since you wrote the most about Fact Two.

Fact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

As evidence for Paul’s experience, you’ve again referenced exclusively Church fathers and the New Testament.  Thus Fact Three appears irrelevant to the claim in question.

Nevertheless, not to leave Fact Three echoing around completely uncontested, one can fathom many reason a person might have a change of heart.  And when one does, what better way to gain acceptance among the old enemy than to become convinced one has had a relevant vision from God of one’s own?

Fact Four:  The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

This fact and the evidence supporting it are no different in nature from Fact Two.  I will spare you from me repeating myself here.

Fact Five:  The tomb was empty.

I can’t help but chuckle a little here.  You lay out the definition of the “minimal facts" approach, and then apparently you conclude that 4 (3 actually, since I contend #4=#2) “facts" are maybe a little too minimal so you try to throw in a 5th one while openly admitting it doesn’t even meet the approach.  For this, I am perhaps a lunatic to even respond to it, but I will.

You say the empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources.  Such as?  The only things you list are Christian sources.  You’ve got a couple of New Testament references, you’ve got a Church father, and you’ve got an early apologist.  As you’ve again given me nothing outside of appeals to Church authority and the New Testament, Fact Five would also appear irrelevant to the original claim in question.

What is the reasonable evidence William Wand refers to?  Why did you leave that out and only supply the two things you claimed you would not need to appeal to?

What does the existence of an empty tomb actually prove to anyone, anyway?  

Furthermore I’ll tell you one good reason to attribute the claim of its mystical emptiness to womenâ€"contemporaries opposing the claim might easily shrug it off and say “ah, well, who can trust a woman?" rather than summon & enact hostility toward an actual claimant (or the hostility would be redirected safely upon an imaginary or inconsequential scapegoat).

Conclusion

You have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament.  Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.

Miscellaneous

Some other thoughts raised by your post…

Regarding the "creed" to which you referred, let me summarize something I’ve read lately:

Quote from: "1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NAS)"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

buried -- Greek word "etaphe", meaning "burial". Not "tomb" (mnema), not "sepulchre" (mnemeion).

raised -- Greek word "egeiro, egergetai" - meaning "to wake up, awaken".  Not "resurrected" (anastasis, anistemi).  Egeiro is used throughout the New Testament; when not being used in the literal sense it refers instead to a metaphorical, spiritual awakening, not bodily resurrection.  Romans 13:11.  Ephesians 5:14.  

appeared -- Greek word "ophthe".  Paul & other New Testament writers use this word elsewhere when referring to non-physical appearances, or "visions".  Acts 9:12.  Acts 16:9.  Matthew 17:3.  Paul continues using "ophthe" in 1 Corinthians 15:6-8, finally referring to his own vision which we know was non-physical because nobody with him saw anything.

This early creed of the church thus makes no apparent explicit mention of a tomb or of physical resurrection.  When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, held to be the earliest of the New Testament writings, why would he avoid explicitly mentioning these aspects of the story?  Could it be that the story had not yet developed?

My source on the above is a debate between Michael Horner and Dan Barker (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... orner.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/barker_horner.html)).  Related topics of course include redaction criticism.

Regarding something you quoted of Clement:

Quote from: "Clement"Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.

What do you suppose he meant by "about"?  That was roughly 2,000 years ago.  Many Christians would have me believe the world is 6,000 years old.  At a point on that timeline of 4,000 years, Clement says "about to come".  Yet here we all still are, halfway through another period of similar size to what Clement may well have regarded as the entirety of human history.  Would Clement consider a period of length equal to or exceeding half the entire period of human existence as being so near on the horizon as to be described by the phrase "about to come"?

I haven't been here in a while, and this is probably my first post to this particular atheist forum. I clicked on this topic because it is one that genuinely intrigues me, particularly because both my father and my grandfather passed away this year. I've been thinking about death a lot in the wake of this and also thinking about what it is I would like to accomplish before my time is up.

So, I clicked on this discussion hoping to find an actual discussion about this. Since the discussion is long, I thought I'd look at the latest posts and see if I could jump in. Sadly, I just found that it had devolved into a boring, pathetic, typical, theist vs. atheist debate. Don't get me wrong, there's places where that is perfectly okay, but I really was hoping for a more meaningful discussion about fear of death.

I myself very much waiver between being very afraid of death and not being afraid of death. I see no evidence of the supernatural or of an afterlife and as much as I don't want to cease to exist (this is called survival instinct and most living creatures need it) I sometimes am also okay with it.

One thing I am certainly convinced of, is that if there is an afterlife, if the supernatural exists, the last thing a god (or gods) would do is tell us about it, because, even with fear of hellfire and damnation, I think that many of us would get sick of the utter BS we go through at times in life and decide just to end it and move on to the next stage of existence.

So, I guess where I've really arrived is at a place where I'm not terrified of no afterlife, I assume that if when I die, that that is the end of me, there won't be anything I can do about it and once I'm gone, I definitely will no longer care. And, if there is an afterlife, well, I'll find out when I get there.

QuoteI am going to examine your post in search of such verifiable data/evidence, which is what I requested you to reveal to me, and see what I find.  Feel free to highlight anything I may have missed.

Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

A fact that Jesus existed and was crucified would have nothing to do with the plausibility of his resurrection.   Such a fact would be irrelevant to your original claim in question.

I mention this because there are some that claim Jesus either never existed, or that he didn't actually die.

QuoteFirst of all, as you surely know, evidence of belief is not equivalent to evidence of evidence supporting said belief.
Remembering that we are looking for verifiable historical data that does not appeal to Church authority of the New Testament, your “9 sources" are all irrelevant to your claim in question

I'm not appealing to their belief as if it's evidence that it happened. That would be rightly scoffed at. I'm simply saying we have people who genuinely believed their experience to be real. This plays in later...

QuoteThe “creed" (or hymn as I’ve heard it called) from 1 Corinthians was recorded by Paul, making him the only actual known source as far as your argument here goes.

Actually, it is known to be a hymn/creed precisely because it is not Pauline in its source.  

Did you even read what I wrote?

QuoteIn your attempt to provide me with historical data in support of “Fact Two" that does not appeal to Church authority or the New Testament, you’ve given me the words of some Church fathers and the New Testament.  Is this correct, or did I miss something?

Actually, I did not at any point say I wouldn't appeal to the New Testament but that I would be treating the New Testament as any other historical work from antiquity, granting only those passages that the vast majority of scholars would classify as "historically reliable."  I'm not appealing to the authority of the Church nor to the New Testament as an inspired or somehow "special" document.

I think I'm the one who's missing something...

QuoteIf you would call these 6/9 sources “independent", your definition of independence is a far cry from what most reasonable people would accept.  You are talking about a small group of contemporaries in direct contact with one another, who derived a common belief system from one another and shared common motivationsâ€"or subsequent students of these whose own writings are merely derivative.

If you'd care to back this assertion up, that would be nice.

QuoteI wonder, have you ever heard of Hopkinsville Goblins Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopk ... _encounter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopkinsville_encounter))?  Here we have multiple witnesses who truly believed they had an otherworldly experience, and we even have a daughter of a primary witness testifying 55 years later just how much her father truly believed his interpretation of what he had experienced (comparable weight to that of any Clement/Polycarp testimony about Apostle/Paul beliefs).  What do you make of that?

I'm not familiar with it, no. Do I need to make anything of it? I try to take things on a case by case basis, so I'm not sure what relevance this would have to the Resurrection...

At any rate, my logic was missed by you somehow, because again, you're asserting I claimed something that I didn't claim. I'm not saying we should believe the Resurrection because these people said they had experiences.

QuoteYou emphasize a distinction between "believe" and "knew" in these two final statements.  I contend there is none here and you are just playing with words to assign more importance to Apostle martyrdom (which itself is uncertain, historically, but let's put that aside).  Please define these two terms so I can understand your distinction; as I see it now there is none.

Again, you're missing my logic. I'm not demonstrating their belief for the reasons you think I am. Please, go back and read it again.

QuoteI am actually much more interested in how you would distinguish the martyrdom (as held by LDS) of Joseph Smith from that of Paul or Peter.  So if you could address this it would be appreciated.

I've never researched the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. I'm not interested in it, so I don't think I ever will. It's pretty much irrelevant to the Resurrection. At any rate, I'm guessing the same logic would apply though. There is a difference between dying for something you believe and dying for something you know, even if it's true or not. I can die for my belief that the world will end tomorrow. That is not the same as dying because I saw the risen Christ.

QuoteYou've made a gigantic leap here.  You’ve asked me to go from accepting that a bunch of people truly believed they all had a similar experience of some kind, to accepting that the supporting story surrounding that belief which has survived until today did not evolve over time.  The latter does not follow from anything you’ve said thus far, that I can see.  Can you clarify the logical progression here?

I'm not speaking of the time that has lapsed from then until now. I'm speaking of the time that had lapsed from Jesus death/Resurrection to the time the Apostles made the claims.  If you're implying that it's the claims of the Apostles themselves that have evolved over time, then I'd just have to hope you're comfortable going against the vast majority of scholarship on the subject. Again, I'm only allowing those pieces of data that have very wide support as historically authentic.

QuoteFact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

As evidence for Paul’s experience, you’ve again referenced exclusively Church fathers and the New Testament.  Thus Fact Three appears irrelevant to the claim in question.

I don't dispute this. I have no problem using these sources as they are historically authentic pieces of data. You have no grounds to dispute them simply because they were believers and besides, that's not the reason I'm appealing to them anyway. Again, my logic is lost on you for some reason.

QuoteAs you’ve again given me nothing outside of appeals to Church authority and the New Testament, Fact Five would also appear irrelevant to the original claim in question.

*sigh* I'm beginning to wonder if you read my post at all. How in the world is quoting the New Testament or a Church Father an "appeal to Church authority"? I'm not asking you to consider them because of their source. I'm asking you to consider them because a great deal of historical inquiry and research has been put into these sources and I'm only using that which finds a vast amount of support amongst historians.

In other words, what you're trying to do here is say, "Hey! You can't use that because I don't believe in the New Testament and the Church's authority means nothing to me!" And what I'm saying here is that you could go talk about these sources to the scholars who specialize in them and you'd basically get laughed at because their own research has overwhelmingly concluded that the information is historically authentic and reliable. If that means nothing to you then of course my line of reasoning isn't going to work. But you'd have bigger problems than that...

QuoteWhat does the existence of an empty tomb actually prove to anyone, anyway?

Nothing on its own. It's part of a cumulative case.
 

QuoteYou have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament.  Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.

I'd actually like to ask you to try again because you so obviously did not follow my line of reasoning. How in the world you could finish reading that and think that I appealed to Church authority in any way, completely baffles me. But I also can't say I'm surprised.  

As for your "miscellaneous" thoughts, if you were in any way actually interested in this topic, I'd refer you to the painstakingly researched "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright. If you had any doubts that a literal, bodily resurrection was indeed the exact and only thing claimed by these people, they would be completely obliterated.

Quote from: "Stevil"My statement was not with regards to belief or existence. I am not arguing whether your god exists or not. I am suggesting that not only can people accept or reject your God's peace but they can also be ignorant of your god's peace, not necessarily by choice but either cause they have never heard or understood it or they have never seen any proof as to what it is. There are many things that people have not chosen to accept or reject.

That's true. But belief in God doesn't change His ability to work in the world.

One of the main ways God works is inside us (as corny as that sounds). People, who have zero conception of God, can still feel his calm and love, despite any of they're preconceived notions. This is, for example, how 'dramatic conversions', of the most hardcore atheists happen.

QuoteI can understand why you thought I was trolling, but actually my intent was pure. Our ongoing discussion has been with regards to the love of Christians. From our discussion, from the link you posted and from my preconceived ideas about Christianity I see that the Church wants its followers to align and obey, otherwise they are labeled as sinners and are made to do penance for their sins. Is this not correct? If this is the case then I see non acceptance and lack of love coming from Christians. If I were to ask a Homosexual what they thought the Christian community thought about them, I would suggest that Love would not be the word the Homosexual would respond with. As is probably evident to you I am not truly understanding what your god's peace is that you are saying people are accepting or rejecting? If I don't know what it is then how can I make an informed decision to accept or reject it?

QuoteWhat Is Sin?

There are countless essays and books that deal with human failings under various labels without once using the three-letter word sin. Actions traditionally regarded as sinful have instead been seen as natural stages in the process of growing up, a result of bad parenting, a consequence of mental illness, an inevitable response to unjust social conditions, or pathological behavior brought on by addiction.

But what if I am more than a robot programmed by my past or my society or my economic status and actually can take a certain amount of creditâ€"or blameâ€"for my actions and inactions? Have I not done things I am deeply ashamed of, would not do again if I could go back in time, and would prefer no one to know about? What makes me so reluctant to call those actions “sins”? Is the word really out of date? Or is the problem that it has too sharp an edge?

The Hebrew verb chata’, “to sin,” like the Greek word hamartia, simply means straying off the path, getting lost, missing the mark. Sinâ€"going off courseâ€"can be intentional or unintentional.

The author of the Book of Proverbs lists seven things God hates: “A proud look, / A lying tongue, / Hands that shed innocent blood, / A heart that devises wicked plans, / Feet that are swift in running to evil, / A false witness who speaks lies, / And one who sows discord among brethren” (6:17â€"19).

Pride is given first place. “Pride goes before destruction, / And a haughty spirit before a fall” is another insight in the Book of Proverbs (16:18). In the Garden of Eden, Satan seeks to animate pride in his dialogue with Eve. Eat the forbidden fruit, he tells her, and “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5).

The craving to be ahead of others, to be more valued than others, to be more highly rewarded than others, to be able to keep others in a state of fear, the inability to admit mistakes or apologizeâ€"these are among the symptoms of pride. Pride opens the way for countless other sins: deceit, lies, theft, violence, and all those other actions that destroy community with God and with those around us.

Yet we spend a great deal of our lives trying to convince ourselves and others that what we did really wasn’t that bad or could even be seen as almost good, given the circumstances. Even in confession, many people explain what they did rather than simply admit they did things that require forgiveness. “When I recently happened to confess about fifty people in a typical Orthodox parish in Pennsylvania,” Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote, “not one admitted to having committed any sin whatsoever!”

“We’re capable of doing some rotten things,” the Minnesota storyteller Garrison Keillor notes, “and not all of these things are the result of poor communication. Some are the result of rottenness. People do bad, horrible things. They lie and they cheat and they corrupt the government. They poison the world around us. And when they’re caught they don’t feel remorseâ€"they just go into treatment. They had a nutritional problem or something. They explain what they didâ€"they don’t feel bad about it. There’s no guilt. There’s just psychology.”

For the person who has committed a serious sin, there are two vivid signsâ€"the hope that what one did may never become known, and a gnawing sense of guilt. At least this is the case before the conscience becomes completely numbâ€"which is what happens when patterns of sin become the structure of one’s life to the extent that hell, far from being a possible next-life experience, is where one finds oneself in this life.

It is a striking fact about basic human architecture that we want certain actions to remain secret, not because of modesty, but because there is an unarguable sense of having violated a law more basic than that in any law bookâ€"the “law written in [our] hearts” to which St. Paul refers (Romans 2:15). It isn’t simply that we fear punishment. It is that we don’t want to be thought of by others as a person who commits such deeds. One of the main obstacles to going to confession is dismay that someone else will know what I want no one to know.

One of the oddest things about the age we live in is that we are made to feel guilty about feeling guilty. There is a cartoon tacked up in our house in which one prisoner says to another, “Just rememberâ€"it’s okay to be guilty, but not okay to feel guilty.”

A sense of guiltâ€"the painful awareness of having committed sinsâ€"can be life-renewing. Guilt provides a foothold for contrition, which in turn can motivate confession and repentance. Without guilt, there is no remorse; without remorse, there is no possibility of becoming free of habitual sins.

http://www.antiochian.org/node/16910 (http://www.antiochian.org/node/16910)

This is from an article about the Sacrament of Confession. There is more, if your interested.

The 'peace' I talk about is true 'love'. You can not hate, neglect, reject, subjugate, or the like, if you are filled with 'love'. That's the ultimate Christian message, and who God is.

QuoteNot true, choice is as a result of a person's tainted will. A Chinese person would choose to eat with chopsticks, a Westerner with a fork and an Indian with their hands. Seems to me that the choice converted to action here is predisposed to cultural upbringing.

Yet, a westerner can use chopsticks. Being taught something, doesn't mean you are bound to it.

QuoteI would not want to put such a generalisation onto American culture, many are Christians, a few are Orthodoxy. I am not an American so cannot speak on such matters.

It's not just American culture, I assumed you were American. Spoken in this way, it is synonymous with secular culture.

Quote from: "tetsuo29"I haven't been here in a while, and this is probably my first post to this particular atheist forum. I clicked on this topic because it is one that genuinely intrigues me, particularly because both my father and my grandfather passed away this year. I've been thinking about death a lot in the wake of this and also thinking about what it is I would like to accomplish before my time is up.

So, I clicked on this discussion hoping to find an actual discussion about this. Since the discussion is long, I thought I'd look at the latest posts and see if I could jump in. Sadly, I just found that it had devolved into a boring, pathetic, typical, theist vs. atheist debate. Don't get me wrong, there's places where that is perfectly okay, but I really was hoping for a more meaningful discussion about fear of death.

I myself very much waiver between being very afraid of death and not being afraid of death. I see no evidence of the supernatural or of an afterlife and as much as I don't want to cease to exist (this is called survival instinct and most living creatures need it) I sometimes am also okay with it.

One thing I am certainly convinced of, is that if there is an afterlife, if the supernatural exists, the last thing a god (or gods) would do is tell us about it, because, even with fear of hellfire and damnation, I think that many of us would get sick of the utter BS we go through at times in life and decide just to end it and move on to the next stage of existence.

So, I guess where I've really arrived is at a place where I'm not terrified of no afterlife, I assume that if when I die, that that is the end of me, there won't be anything I can do about it and once I'm gone, I definitely will no longer care. And, if there is an afterlife, well, I'll find out when I get there.

I would completely agree with you.

I used to think that, absent the concept of heaven, death would be a frightening thing. But the terrifying thought for me slowly turned into the concept of an afterlife, instead - I have no desire to live eternally. Besides the obvious question of 'what the hell do you do for that long?' I'm more interested in the two cruelties that such a heavenly belief raises.

The first would be the reduction of life to nothingness, since any finite amount of time divided by an infinite one is basically zero. Which means that your life on earth, everything you do from the moment you're born till you die, doesn't mean anything.

Oh, but wait! It does. That blip of a nothing you call your life? Well, if you were lucky enough to be born in specific sections of the world that believed in Christianity, and didn't lose your faith, you get to go spend your real life, the infinite one, worshiping a god. Not making anything cool, or challenging yourself, or appreciating things in life in face of hardship, or any of the other countless things we humans do with our lives - no, you get to sit at a throne and sing forever. You are a pet.

And if you weren't that lucky?

Well, that's the second cruelty - if you were Mayan, or Incan, or Mongolian or Native American or any of the countless other populations of people who never had the chance to even hear about Christianity - well, you get to spend your life - your real, infinite life, not this mortal loading screen - in hell.

Enjoy!

When I die, my life will end, and will therefore have meaning. That will be all.

I am happy about this.  

I'd like to ask tetsuo and Croaker a question. I won't address Croaker's obvious grotesgue vision of a "Christian Heaven", I must ask what is wrong with believing there is such a thing as an afterlife?

Quote from: "Achronos"But what if I am more than a robot programmed by my past or my society or my economic status and actually can take a certain amount of creditâ€"or blameâ€"for my actions and inactions?

I have a very strong feeling that we are from two very different places. We both seem to be speaking English and yet I feel we are not even close to being able to understand what each other is saying.
I can see the unavoidable issues people have with regards to the barriers to our ability to think objectively. For me the "illusion of free will" phrase needed no explanation what so ever. As soon as I heard the term I could take it on board and interpret a meaning that is so acceptable and obvious that I can see its impact everywhere I go and within everyone whom I interact with. Free will is completely a myth. Maybe one day a scholar will do an in depth study and write an article on it, maybe this has already happened, probably has. I've never looked it up as it is just so obvious to me. It's one of the reasons I am opposed to, and try very hard myself to try never to say "should" or "should not". Everyone's thought patterns are different, based on their environments, their experiences, their health and their chemical makeup. What is right for me is not necessarily right for someone else.

The world is extremely complex and in my mind cannot be taken with a black and white attitude. You could say that murder is a bad thing, but it depends on your definition of the term murder and each individual case. Are we talking about terminating a pregnancy where the mother has a slim chance of survival if carrying to term? Are we talking about ending the life of a serial child rapist who has been convicted and released and committed the same crime again and again. Are we talking about ending the life of a terminally ill patient that lives everyday in excruciating pain?

I know my viewpoint is much more liberal than that of the Christian viewpoint. I have no concept of Good or Evil. I loathe movies that stereo type people this way e.g. the Good hero and the evil villain. The Good vs Evil stance only creates a divide rather than a willingness to understand. Generally there are two sides to a story and generally people believe they are righteous with regards to their own actions. If people are able to sit down and talk and open themselves up to understanding each other then compromises can be made and cohabitation can be possible. I have major problems with stances that are non tolerant and non accepting of other beliefs and thought patterns. For example the intolerance of Orthodoxy to allow its followers to marry non Christians, the stipulated condition that children of mixed faith marriage be brought up Orthodoxy. The statement that women must obey the man. The stance that same sex lovers are living in sin. Regardless how you try to justify these stances, these outcomes reek of non tolerance to me, non equity and do not seem fair. Civilisations do require rules to be functional but I am a firm believer in keeping these rules to a minimum. Creating laws against same sex marriages (for example) is simply not acceptable in my book.

I understand that you come from a Christian background and you likely wholeheartedly agree with your own faith. Due to the taints on your own freewill you struggle to accept that a person can have happiness in having sex with someone other than their spouse. Although you haven't stated this I am sure you have major issues with sexual intercourse between same sex partners. I understand that you will not accept this to be a taint and that you would likely think that your freewill is telling you that these things are wrong. You would probably even show me some quotes or references where in the Bible it states these things to be wrong. I would suggest that the vast majority of Orthodoxy and probably Christians as a whole would agree with your viewpoint on these situations. If you were to look outside Christianity you would likely see a different, more tolerant viewpoint especially from those not aligned with any faith. This would indicate a taint on freewill by Christianity as those not aligned with any faith have not been delivered a common religious based message to shape their thoughts and opinions on these matters. Its not just religion, its culture and the multitude of other things I have mentioned previously as well as a multitude of things I have not mentioned. I am no expert, just highlighting what to me is obvious. But I doubt you will agree.

Quote from: "Achronos"The 'peace' I talk about is true 'love'. You can not hate, neglect, reject, subjugate, or the like, if you are filled with 'love'. That's the ultimate Christian message, and who God is.

If only it were this simple. If this truly were the stance of Christianity then I would applaud the Christian faith, although it would not entice me to join. Most people are likely to hold this message of peace, it is not unique to Christianity.

Quote from: "Achronos"I'd like to ask tetsuo and Croaker a question. I won't address Croaker's obvious grotesgue vision of a "Christian Heaven", I must ask what is wrong with believing there is such a thing as an afterlife?

In a simple answer, it reduces the value of your life as a human to nothing.

Afterparties, trips to IHOP after bar hopping, post-concert burrito eating, these are all true 'afterlives' of larger events. They provide a nice ender, a counterpoint to the activity that came before (except for afterparties, you just keep going   ). They are not greater than the event that came before - a short way to wind down, get a bite to eat, discuss what happened, etc.

"Christian Heaven" is not, I believe, an afterlife. It is your life, as it consumes the majority of your existence (being infinite - all of your existence, really). It reduces your life on earth to 'before-life' and nothing more. Anything you accomplish here as a human is inevitably pointless, since once you get to heaven, you will not need anything, for God is perfection. Heaven removes any need for humans to create, be it more children, art, new technology, love - God, in his perfection, is greater than all of that.

I had an older brother who only lived a week and a half. I had a cousin who didn't live to be born. Christians believe that unborn children automatically go to heaven - they have to, I mean, sending unborn babies to hell is pretty harsh, right? Even though the Bible actually says otherwise, let's just assume that they do all go to heaven, regardless of their parent's beliefs.

What happens next? They can't mature, since there is no environment in heaven which would promote growth. Even if they could 'grow up,' what age would it be to? It is our lives that define us, that give us our characteristics, our sense of humor, our wants and needs. These children will never have a way to define themselves, they will be 'perfect angels' or something similar. Another blank face in the crowd of billions.

I guess my question would be - what do you do in heaven? How do you define your 'real' life, the one that is to come?

For me, my life is here. It will end someday, and people will be sad, and that will mean it had meaning. Christians shouldn't be sad at funerals - it's like they're crying because the beginning credits of a movie are over.

Quote from: "Croaker"

Quote from: "Achronos"I'd like to ask tetsuo and Croaker a question. I won't address Croaker's obvious grotesgue vision of a "Christian Heaven", I must ask what is wrong with believing there is such a thing as an afterlife?

In a simple answer, it reduces the value of your life as a human to nothing.

Afterparties, trips to IHOP after bar hopping, post-concert burrito eating, these are all true 'afterlives' of larger events. They provide a nice ender, a counterpoint to the activity that came before (except for afterparties, you just keep going   ). They are not greater than the event that came before - a short way to wind down, get a bite to eat, discuss what happened, etc.

"Christian Heaven" is not, I believe, an afterlife. It is your life, as it consumes the majority of your existence (being infinite - all of your existence, really). It reduces your life on earth to 'before-life' and nothing more. Anything you accomplish here as a human is inevitably pointless, since once you get to heaven, you will not need anything, for God is perfection. Heaven removes any need for humans to create, be it more children, art, new technology, love - God, in his perfection, is greater than all of that.

I had an older brother who only lived a week and a half. I had a cousin who didn't live to be born. Christians believe that unborn children automatically go to heaven - they have to, I mean, sending unborn babies to hell is pretty harsh, right? Even though the Bible actually says otherwise, let's just assume that they do all go to heaven, regardless of their parent's beliefs.

What happens next? They can't mature, since there is no environment in heaven which would promote growth. Even if they could 'grow up,' what age would it be to? It is our lives that define us, that give us our characteristics, our sense of humor, our wants and needs. These children will never have a way to define themselves, they will be 'perfect angels' or something similar. Another blank face in the crowd of billions.

I guess my question would be - what do you do in heaven? How do you define your 'real' life, the one that is to come?

For me, my life is here. It will end someday, and people will be sad, and that will mean it had meaning. Christians shouldn't be sad at funerals - it's like they're crying because the beginning credits of a movie are over.

No growth in Heaven? Not in the Orthodox understanding, where Heaven is a unending, dynamic growth towards God, constantly becoming better and better, more and more.

Orthodox also don't understand Heaven as being utterly distinct from life on earth.  The Church is Heaven on Earth, although a foretaste, in the sense that the fullness of Heaven can only be experienced after the Final Judgment and Resurrection.  So what we do now has everything to do with what we experience in the afterlife.  What we do now contributes to the quality of our afterlife.  It really is one life, not two utterly different ways of existence separated by a thing called death.  That's why we believe in the communion of the saints as well; they are with us in the Church right now, and Orthodox have countless examples of saints appearing to those still on this earth to show their concern, etc.

As far as creativity is concerned, God created us to be creative, and that is what separates us from animals. Creating is essential to our life.  We do it in a Godly way, but it certainly has an impact on who we are and our eternal destiny, and the quality of that eternal destiny.  1 Cor 3:15 talks about the man  being saved even though his work is burned up; if he had done better work, it would not have been burned up.

As I progress in the Orthodox faith, I have less desire to do pointless, worldly things. I also seem to have a greater and greater appreciation for high culture, art, music, etc.  I believe that God's grace refines humanity, and does not blot it out.  After all, we are still in his image, even if corrupted by sin. And that means we are creative.

Quote from: "Achronos"Actually, it is known to be a hymn/creed precisely because it is not Pauline in its source.
Did you even read what I wrote?

I spent a considerable part of yesterday reading every last word of what you wrote, and more than just that, I performed occasional background research along the way to help verify/understand your words before replying.

As far as whether your creed should be considered a source, it really seems irrelevant to the current discussion we are having (which you've already redefined, and I'll get to that momentarily).  That is why I discussed it in a paragraph labeled "a side note", so at this point let's avoid a debate on the acceptance of oral tradition as a source via the historical method.  You'll note I did say:

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"If I did count Mark and the creed, I would arrive at 8. What was the 9th?

I see no answer to this question.  You seem very disinterested in clarifying your response to me.

Quote from: "Achronos"Actually, I did not at any point say I wouldn't appeal to the New Testament...

Actually, at one point, which I quoted already, you did:

Quote from: "Achronos"Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

It was at this point that I said:

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Are you saying that the Bible is entirely absent from the argument? If this is true then let's hear your "verifiable historical data".

You ignored this question, while I continued to make it clear in my posts that I was personally interested in hearing the data you have found in all of your studies that does not appeal to either:

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"Here in this very thread he has just recently claimed that he found concrete, verifiable evidence that stands on its own outside of the Bible and of Church authority, but refuses to even give us a single such example.
...
You are the very one who himself just said in this very thread that there is verifiable, extra-Biblical evidence in support of the resurrection. I have said a couple of times now that if you presented any examples that held water you might gain some traction.

The reason I want to hear this kind of evidence is because it would stand apart from the usual arguments that ultimately rely on the New Testament as a non-fiction, fully verified source.  Remember what I originally said in the first place?

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Achronos"The Resurrection is a circular argument? How so?

For starters, you will ultimately rely on a non-verifiable interpretation of scripture to justify your interpretation of scripture.

Quote from: "Achronos"...but that I would be treating the New Testament as any other historical work from antiquity, granting only those passages that the vast majority of scholars would classify as "historically reliable." I'm not appealing to the authority of the Church nor to the New Testament as an inspired or somehow "special" document.

I think I'm the one who's missing something...

First, if any of your evidence relies in ANY way, uninspired, non-special, or otherwise, on the New Testament then (per all the above) you are not addressing my actual request.

Apparently you either didn't understand my real request, or you thought I wouldn't notice if you went ahead and redefined the discussion (moved the goal posts).

Nevertheless, moving on...  Whenever you cite the New Testament as evidence for anything, you are necessarily regarding the cited portions as fact.  So you do ascribe "specialness" to it -- the quality of being non-fiction.  So when you tell me that these claims only require that I regard the Bible as a work of ancient literature, you are being disingenuous.  These claims require that I regard the portions highlighted as being wholly factual.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"If you would call these 6/9 sources “independent", your definition of independence is a far cry from what most reasonable people would accept. You are talking about a small group of contemporaries in direct contact with one another, who derived a common belief system from one another and shared common motivationsâ€"or subsequent students of these whose own writings are merely derivative.

If you'd care to back this assertion up, that would be nice.

Back what up, everything you already laid out for me yourself?  Sure, why not?  To whom do you turn in asking me to accept the relevant parts of scripture as fact?

1) Paul - An author of that very scripture!  An eyewitness of his own visionary claim (which he curiously never bothered to describe in any detail himself), but only an indirect witness of the visions of the rest.  "I saw a UFO, these other pals of mine say they did too!"
2) An oral creed - Taken from that very scripture (or do you have other record of it?)!  Recorded by Paul!  And what would it's ultimate source have been...the very pals Paul refers to!
3-6) Authors of Gospels - More authors of that very scripture!  Who the majority of scholars today agree were not themselves the original eyewitnesses!  More indirect reports of what Paul's pals believed!
7) Clement - More indirect reports of what the original eyewitnesses believed!  From a guy who was allegedly ordained by one of them to propagate their beliefs!
8) Polycarp - Again with the indirect reports of what the original eyewitnesses believed!  From another guy who, according to Irenaeus, was ordained by one of them to propagate their beliefs!

So you have one eyewitness, Paul, with his own agenda, who never even recorded the details of his experience firsthand.  The only other ultimate source hiding behind the rest is the same group of original eyewitnesses whose own records of their accounts remain suspiciously absent from the New Testament.  The rest are just people saying "uh huh, yep, I talked to them, they sure believed they saw somethin'!"

And yet you insist these are all "independent sources".  Sources of what, repetition of hearsay?  In that case, who cares?

And so, by these sources you ask me to accept that "they sure believed they saw somethin'!"  Great, I can imagine that, now what?  What they believed they saw, an actual description of it in their words, and when and in what order they saw it, is pretty important in my opinion, but you sweep all that under the rug and say it's not.

All you think is important is that they thought they saw something and later endured strife because of it, which you claim means that their interpretation of what they saw must be so entirely true (yet we have none of them, save Paul, even giving us their interpretation directly) that we must call it "knowledge" and not "belief".

Quote from: "Achronos"I'm not familiar with it, no. Do I need to make anything of it? I try to take things on a case by case basis, so I'm not sure what relevance this would have to the Resurrection...

The reason I wonder what you make of the Hopkinsville Goblins Case is that it is a more contemporary example of a situation which I immediately recalled as being similar to your Fact Two situation:

Similarities to the Resurrection story:
- Multiple eyewitnesses to an event they could only describe as otherworldly.
- Secondary sources (indirect witnesses) attesting to the fact that the eyewitnesses truly believed what they saw.

Differences from the Resurrection story:
- The original eyewitnesses have actually provided, in their own words, descriptions of what they saw.

From what I have read, there seems to be as much (actually, more) reason to believe they saw what they claimed than to believe what the disciples and Paul saw what they claimed.  There seems to be far better definition of what it was they claimed to have seen.  They certainly seem to have endured strife (but admittedly not death) for claiming it, yet continued to claim it.  They seem to have "known it to be true".

I suppose I wonder, would you consider this "fact" equally as meaningful as your "Fact Two", or do you require death over belief for said belief to achieve apparent/relevant truthfulness?  And, I wonder, if you did know about it, what you might offer as counterpoint against its truthfulness because then I might be able to better understand why you would place the disciple/Paul claims at a higher level of truthfulness.  If you have no interest in reading about it I suppose these wonders will remain wonders.

Quote from: "Achronos"At any rate, my logic was missed by you somehow, because again, you're asserting I claimed something that I didn't claim. I'm not saying we should believe the Resurrection because these people said they had experiences.

Again, you're missing my logic. I'm not demonstrating their belief for the reasons you think I am. Please, go back and read it again.

I did read it.  And I read it again just now.  Allow me to expand my previous quotation of your post:

Quote from: "Achronos"Extreme acts do not validate the truth of their beliefs, but willingness to die indicates that they regard their beliefs as true. But there is an important difference between people like this and the Apostles. Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The Apostles on the other hand, died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The Apostles died for what they knew to be true, from their own experience (whether true or false).

This seems to be what you spend the majority of Fact Two building up to!  A distinction between strife resulting from belief in first-hand experience, and strife resulting from belief in in what others have said.  You quite clearly imply this assigns additional truth to their beliefs (and yet you curiously continue to grant that what it was they experienced first-hand is vaguely defined and up for questioning).

If this is not the reason you think that granting their belief is an important, relevant fact, then what is the reason?  I need clarification because I can't find it.

Quote from: "Achronos"I've never researched the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. I'm not interested in it, so I don't think I ever will. It's pretty much irrelevant to the Resurrection. At any rate, I'm guessing the same logic would apply though. There is a difference between dying for something you believe and dying for something you know, even if it's true or not. I can die for my belief that the world will end tomorrow. That is not the same as dying because I saw the risen Christ.

It is not irrelevant to your argument for the resurrection by any means.  Are you at least aware that Joseph Smith claimed to have had first-hand, visionary, God-driven experiences on which his beliefs were founded?  And that he endured much strife and was allegedly killed for adhering unflinchingly to those beliefs, according to the LDS church?  If I replaced "Joseph Smith" with "Paul", and "LDS church" with "Orthodox church" in the above, there would be no difference.  But yet I imagine you would tell me there is a difference because clearly you do not believe Smith's claims to be true while you do believe Paul's to be true.  I'd like to know, for the record, what that difference is as you see it -- to help me understand the distinction you are trying to make between different types of martyrs.

Quote from: "Achronos"I'm not speaking of the time that has lapsed from then until now.

Neither am I.

Quote from: "Achronos"I'm speaking of the time that had lapsed from Jesus death/Resurrection to the time the Apostles made the claims.

I'm speaking of the time that lapsed from Jesus's death/resurrection to the time any pieces of it were recorded and accepted into the New Testament.

Quote from: "Achronos"If you're implying that it's the claims of the Apostles themselves that have evolved over time, then I'd just have to hope you're comfortable going against the vast majority of scholarship on the subject. Again, I'm only allowing those pieces of data that have very wide support as historically authentic.

From what I have read, there is no wide scholarly support today, if you are truly including all biblical scholars, for the idea that the twelve apostles, or any of the others to experience visions before Paul, actually recorded their visions themselves (moreover, Paul never personally detailed the nature of his vision).  Did Habermas claim as much?  So I am implying that by the time anybody got around to writing it down (20...50...70...however many years later) there had been ample time for evolution of the supporting story--any amount of modification to the who/what/when/where of these visions could have occurred.  You've shown no data nor logical thought process which opposes that proposition, that I can find.  If you contend that you have you are going to have to clarify it for me.

Quote from: "Achronos"How in the world is quoting the New Testament or a Church Father an "appeal to Church authority"? I'm not asking you to consider them because of their source. I'm asking you to consider them because a great deal of historical inquiry and research has been put into these sources and I'm only using that which finds a vast amount of support amongst historians.

When you cite the New Testament, you unavoidably ask me to accept some interpretation of the citation to be correct.  The interpretation, and especially in these cases where you are counting up "independent sources", requires consideration of authorship.  From what I can tell, your Church still holds the authorship conclusions of the Church fathers with respect to the gospels to have been correct, am I right?  This, in the face of the majority of contemporary scholars who have concluded otherwise.  If you tell me we can count authors of the evangelist gospels as eyewitnesses in the argument for Fact Two, you are thus appealing to Church authority, are you not?  So, are you telling me that?

Still, maybe I have been loose with the term "authority" because of its special meaning in the phrase "argument from authority".  But you have been loose with it as well--in the second assertion you made that contributed to my request (which I already quoted but will quote again here) you dropped the word altogether:

Quote from: "Achronos"Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

As the Church fathers you mentioned were of course members of the Church and crucial in establishing its sense of authority, and since you seemed to equate "appeals to the Church" with "appeals to Church authority" yourself, perhaps you can forgive me for also equating them in my evaluation of your response.

Yet if we replace "authority" with "fathers" in my post it does not make any of your facts any more relevant to my original request for extra-Biblical, non-circular evidence because no fathers are anything other than indirect witnesses with their own agenda of establishing the church.  The words you cited of theirs offer no new testimonies of the nature, sequence, or distribution of visionary experiences outside of the Bible -- just mere secondary parotting that experiences were had and beliefs were thus held.

Quote from: "Achronos"In other words, what you're trying to do here is say, "Hey! You can't use that because I don't believe in the New Testament and the Church's authority means nothing to me!" And what I'm saying here is that you could go talk about these sources to the scholars who specialize in them and you'd basically get laughed at because their own research has overwhelmingly concluded that the information is historically authentic and reliable. If that means nothing to you then of course my line of reasoning isn't going to work. But you'd have bigger problems than that...

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"You have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament. Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.

I'd actually like to ask you to try again because you so obviously did not follow my line of reasoning. How in the world you could finish reading that and think that I appealed to Church authority in any way, completely baffles me. But I also can't say I'm surprised.

What I've ultimately said, perhaps more clearly now, is that I don't see the relevance of these sources, or of your 5 facts supported by them, to proving the resurrection actually occured as described or interpreted by you.  I stand by the conclusion that you have yet to offer any compelling extra-Biblical evidence for your interpretation.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: "Achronos"As for your "miscellaneous" thoughts, if you were in any way actually interested in this topic, I'd refer you to the painstakingly researched "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright. If you had any doubts that a literal, bodily resurrection was indeed the exact and only thing claimed by these people, they would be completely obliterated.

I'll investigate Wright's book and consider adding it to my reading queue (which I'll admit is pretty long, and which I seldom have time to progress through).  Meanwhile here is a relevant portion of a review I just found (2nd search result in my search for the book) by Robert M. Price, whom I've come to admire a bit.  Maybe you can read the quote and provide some counterpoint to help convince me to read your book.

Hopefully you don't find Price to be a "militant atheist" or I'm afraid you are going to have to belittle me again.  By the way, I see you made no attempt to back up the accusations you made about me before, as I requested.  I suppose now you will just use this post-accusation pasting exercise I am about to engage in as your sole example in support of those claims, but oh well.

Here is the relevant portion of Price's review:

Quote from: "Robert M. Price"Part of Wright’s agenda of harmonizing and de-fusing the evidence is to smother individual New Testament texts beneath a mass of theological synthesis derived from the Old Testament and from the outlines of Pauline theology in general. He is a victim of what James Barr long ago called the “Kittel mentality,” referring to the approach of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, in which articles on individual New Testament terms and words synthesized from all uses of the term an artificial and systematic semantic structure, leading the reader to suppose that every individual usage of the word was an iceberg tip carrying with it implied reference to all other references. In other words, each article in the TDNT composed a “New Testament theology,” topic by topic. In just this manner, Wright first composes a streamlined Old Testament theology of historical and eschatological redemption (akin to that of Von Rad, without the latter’s understanding that much of it was based on fictive saga rather than history); then Wright synthesizes a Pauline Theology, then a New Testament theology, then an early Christian theology; and finally he insists that the synthetic resurrection concept he has distilled must control our reading of all individual gospel and Pauline texts dealing with the resurrection. In short, it is an elaborate exercise in harmonizing disparate data. The implications of 1 Corinthians 15, for example, with its talk of spiritual resurrection, are silenced as the text is muzzled, forbidden to say anything outside the party line Wright has constructed as “the biblical” teaching on the subject.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_ntwrong.htm (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_ntwrong.htm)

Quote from: "Achronos"As I progress in the Orthodox faith, I have less desire to do pointless, worldly things. I also seem to have a greater and greater appreciation for high culture, art, music, etc.

Interesting.  I would say the same has been true of me as I progress in atheism.

Quote from: "Croaker"Well, that's the second cruelty - if you were Mayan, or Incan, or Mongolian or Native American or any of the countless other populations of people who never had the chance to even hear about Christianity - well, you get to spend your life - your real, infinite life, not this mortal loading screen - in hell.

An even if you did hear about Christianity but rejected it, you get to spend literal eternity in infinite torment, just for not believing in one of the thousands of gods.

Yes, Yahweh is certainly a god of love, isn't he?

PH, I want to thank you for your replies and the time it took to do so. I also want to apologize that I won't be able to continue this back and forth with you in such great detail. I started a new job recently and I don't have as much time as a topic of this magnitude deserves. I was able to post my original lengthy post because I had it saved on my computer from some of the research I did when I was investigating the Resurrection a few years ago.

That doesn't mean I'm giving up on the conversation, but it's just so you know why I can't address every single question or point you bring up. I wish I could because it's a worthy conversation!

To address some of the overall points, here's what I'm saying and what I think you're missing. These 5 minimal facts are not in themselves proof of anything. I said that outright and you'll note that the first point I made was that "it's not about proof." I still maintain that. I'm not out to prove the Resurrection to you. What I'm out to do is to answer this question:  Given the sources that we have, the methods that we have, and the scholarly work of credentialed historians on the subject, what facts can we gather that enjoy a wide acceptance as being historically reliable and authentic, by both believer and skeptic alike?

These 5 facts are what we have. These are 5 facts that virtually no honest historian worth their salt would dispute. That's the point. That's why they're used and why, even though you accuse me of it, I'm not appealing to the "inspiration" of the New Testament or Church authority as many others might be tempted to do. I'm saying if you gathered every professional scholar who deals with the subject, who have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals over the last 25 years, and were to ask them, "What can we really know, based on good research and solid history?" more than 90% of them would tell you, "We know that Jesus died by crucifixion, that his disciples genuinely believed they had real experiences of Jesus risen from the dead, that there was a man named Saul of Tarsus who converted because of a similar experience, that there was a man named James who converted because of a similar experience and that there was a known tomb, where Jesus was known to be buried and that it was found empty. And we know these things because we have data that meets the most rigorous of historical standards. We have eyewitness accounts from very early sources, which are multiple and independent, from friend and foe alike, containing all the hallmarks of authenticity."

Now, here's the important part of this: You have 5 variables that you must account for, with a hypothesis that must make sense out of all of them; not just some. You have to have a good answer for why Saul converted, why James converted, why the tomb was found empty and why these people genuinely believed they saw Jesus risen from the dead. And I want to make this point very clear because it appears you're not following me here: I'm not saying you should believe the Resurrection because these people said it happened. And there is also a huge difference between believing something happened, and claiming that it happened. These people didn't just make claims and hope people believed them. That's why I spent time giving good reasons for their martyrdoms. They died specifically for this belief that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead.They really believed it, and that's something that we have to account for.  Do you see this important nuance? I'm not offering it as a proof of the Resurrection, I'm offering it as an historical phenomenon that demands an explanation. This is a big difference and the questions you ask imply that it's being missed by you. Let me know if it still doesn't make sense.

Do you see how this works? I'm not saying, "Believe the Resurrection because people a long time ago say it happened." I'm not saying, "Believe the Resurrection because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true." I'm not saying, "Believe the Resurrection because the Church says it's true."

I'm saying, believe the Resurrection because it is the only thing that makes sense out of what we can know.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Croaker"Well, that's the second cruelty - if you were Mayan, or Incan, or Mongolian or Native American or any of the countless other populations of people who never had the chance to even hear about Christianity - well, you get to spend your life - your real, infinite life, not this mortal loading screen - in hell.

An even if you did hear about Christianity but rejected it, you get to spend literal eternity in infinite torment, just for not believing in one of the thousands of gods.

Yes, Yahweh is certainly a god of love, isn't he?

Or you can die, decompose, and the molecules in your body will be used to make a tree grow, and then some guys will knock the tree down, process it to make paper, and make a Bible out of it. (courtesy of Dane Cook)

Choose your mode of infinite torture

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Achronos"As I progress in the Orthodox faith, I have less desire to do pointless, worldly things. I also seem to have a greater and greater appreciation for high culture, art, music, etc.

Interesting.  I would say the same has been true of me as I progress in atheism.

When Christians cry, their cry is no different than the cry of a loved one who will travel elsewhere for a very long time. Can you help it that a friend cries when another friend will leave for a long time even though we try to tell her that you'll see her again some day?

Croaker wrote earlier when you do, people will cry because your life had meaning. This is the problem. Your life HAD meaning. Now, you're just a memory. You don't really exist anymore, you're just merely remembered. The life that you don't take for granted during the time you lived just ended. That too me is a sad tragedy. How can something end that had meaning when in the end, there is really no meaning. There's no difference between you or the one who committed suicide. And when the world or the universe one day ends, and all life is vanished, what then of the lives that were taken for granted? Because when atheists believe they die, they die forever. You will be missed forever. There is no, "till we meet again" in the death of non-believers. This is not only sad, it's depressing.

This is why no afterlife is no life at all.

Quote from: "Achronos"As I progress in the Orthodox faith, I have less desire to do pointless, worldly things. I also seem to have a greater and greater appreciation for high culture, art, music, etc.

For clarification purposes, how would you define worldly things?

I would have to agree with Persimmon Hamster that it was after I had lost faith the arts really spoke to me. The arts provoke many questions and give many different answers to life's questions. With religion there was always one answer: Jesus. I grew rather bored of it. I also didn't have much of a work ethic when I was a young Christian because anything that wasn't pertaining to what I was told my life's purpose was to worship, was not worth my enthusiasm. The world also wasn't worth exploring because it was nothing more than a temporary host and surely there would be time to learn about it in heaven. Anything 'worldly', like working (even now at what I love most to do) was a chore; a distraction from what really mattered. Glorifying God.

I don't mean to say your faith doesn't allow you to appreciate the beautiful things in life such as it did to me. Different paths work better for different people. You're mindset as a Christian may be different than mine was.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Croaker"Well, that's the second cruelty - if you were Mayan, or Incan, or Mongolian or Native American or any of the countless other populations of people who never had the chance to even hear about Christianity - well, you get to spend your life - your real, infinite life, not this mortal loading screen - in hell.

An even if you did hear about Christianity but rejected it, you get to spend literal eternity in infinite torment, just for not believing in one of the thousands of gods.

Yes, Yahweh is certainly a god of love, isn't he?

Or you can die, decompose, and the molecules in your body will be used to make a tree grow, and then some guys will knock the tree down, process it to make paper, and make a Bible out of it. (courtesy of Dane Cook)

Choose your mode of infinite torture

At least when I die my consciousness disappears with me. The atoms that make me were used in who-knows-what for millions of years before I was born, and they'll continue to be used after I die. It doesn't affect my current life in any way.

As to what Sandwich said, I always found it odd how Christians say that 'God is love.'

If I knew my wife would be in a car accident that would leave her paralyzed for the rest of her life, but could actually stop it from happening by calling her on a cellphone, I would do so, because I love her. God doesn't do this. God wouldn't call her on her cellphone. No, he'd call one spot in town that she might be at, say... Wal-Mart, ask if she was there, and if not say 'Oh well!' and let her get involved in the car crash.

I hope I don't have to spell out the allegory for you, but that's not love.

I can almost understand the appeal of heaven, I used to look forward to it myself. But once you step back and question what it actually would be, what it makes the rest of your life into, and the ridiculous number of people who are unfairly denied its gates - well, it's shown as nothing more than wishful thinking.

It's not that heaven is unappealing. It's that the necessary baggage - hell, and the people unfairly sent there - is such a horrid, vile belief.

Quote from: "Croaker"At least when I die my consciousness disappears with me. The atoms that make me were used in who-knows-what for millions of years before I was born, and they'll continue to be used after I die. It doesn't affect my current life in any way.

As to what Sandwich said, I always found it odd how Christians say that 'God is love.'

If I knew my wife would be in a car accident that would leave her paralyzed for the rest of her life, but could actually stop it from happening by calling her on a cellphone, I would do so, because I love her. God doesn't do this. God wouldn't call her on her cellphone. No, he'd call one spot in town that she might be at, say... Wal-Mart, ask if she was there, and if not say 'Oh well!' and let her get involved in the car crash.

I hope I don't have to spell out the allegory for you, but that's not love.

I can almost understand the appeal of heaven, I used to look forward to it myself. But once you step back and question what it actually would be, what it makes the rest of your life into, and the ridiculous number of people who are unfairly denied its gates - well, it's shown as nothing more than wishful thinking.

It's not that heaven is unappealing. It's that the necessary baggage - hell, and the people unfairly sent there - is such a horrid, vile belief.

First off, God searches the hearts. No one is condemning you to hell. I was joking with you that last post.

Things happen here in this world that is out of your control. Your job is to take whatever experience you get and try to conquer it, make the best out of it. I know it's hard, but it's not impossible.

The thing is you are thinking too much about the afterlife as God's character. The afterlife was written with allegory, but there's still not much to understand about it. Those who profess more than needed about it are really not doing God a favor. Even this River of Fire article will not help you and will only just make you turned off even more as you think about it more (at least it did with me [here it is http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm)]).

You have to look at a certain perspective here. It would be understandable that your attack on God's love doesn't make sense for a place of possible eternal punishment. I must also say from my perspective, your love of your present existence also doesn't make sense for an end of sure non-existence. So, it was a matter of choice. For you, because you're so turned off by God, probably angry at God, you made sense out of your present existence without taking the logical leap, it's probably better I wouldn't have been born. For me, because I'm so turned off by any lack of God, and I can't imagine life without having a relationship with this God, a relationship where I can grow, then for me, it didn't matter what afterlife there was. I knew if I at least try and pray, I know I'm heading in the right direction.

I think personally, if you're thinking way too much on the afterlife, I'm trying to ask you have you really seriously thought about your death with your present worldview?

It should be noted that Heaven is earth restored.  It will be life as it was meant to be.  We won't be floating around on clouds somewhere "up there" in "heaven."  

That's why the key is resurrection.  It's not a disembodied existence.  It's the body you have now, raised back to life to a restored creation.  Sounds pretty damn good to me...

Quote from: "Achronos"Or you can die, decompose, and the molecules in your body will be used to make a tree grow, and then some guys will knock the tree down, process it to make paper, and make a Bible out of it. (courtesy of Dane Cook)

Choose your mode of infinite torture

First, Achronos, sincere congratulations on the new job! I hope it is something that you look forward to doing every day. And second, thanks for this bit above. It's really fun. Sure, I know it's a Dane Cook thing, but it hit my funny bone just right, and was a nice insert into the topic.

I hope your job doesn't take you too far from the forum, as I've enjoyed your posts and discussions. Don't be a stranger.

I just realized I didn't actually address PH's statement here, but brought up someone else's response my bad.

I appreciate the warm regards McQ, I'll see how my schedule permits with responses but I may or may not be able to go at great lengths addressing points made. That said let me get to what I wanted to say towards PH.

Quote from: "Persimmon Hamster"

Quote from: "Achronos"As I progress in the Orthodox faith, I have less desire to do pointless, worldly things. I also seem to have a greater and greater appreciation for high culture, art, music, etc.

Interesting.  I would say the same has been true of me as I progress in atheism.

How on earth does one "progress" in the belief that there is no God?

There is no progression in atheism, as it leads to nowhere but nihilism.
[youtube:1vtzwi5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr3sYBqpW9o[/youtube:1vtzwi5c]

Also Croaker I have a question for you which you may choose to answer honestly if you like. How do you feel about the nihilistic world-view? That is, there is no ultimate purpose for living, given that the universe will just end up suffering an eventual heat death and everything you did or ever will do does not matter in the grand scheme of things? I was once like you, a strident atheist, but I eventually realized that this world-view of atheistic nihilism was utterly unnacceptable to me, and rendered all life ultimately meaningless and without purpose.

I kind of chuckled at LegendarySandwich's response again, you want to take Him for granted like an adulterer, and then complain when He leaves you.

What does someones 'world view' ( a made  up term by man ) have to do with reality?

Why would anyones 'view' fit into a man made catagory?

Do our views have any impact on the universe?

From my view, when I die, the universe ends, so I try to enjoy it, while it is still here.

Let's make this practical.  A quote from another topic:

Quote from: "Wilson"It seems to me that at least at the time of dying, on average, atheists and agnostics seem calmer and better able to face the end than religious people, because at that point those who have been believers all their lives must face the reality that an afterlife, when you finally get down to it, looks a little unlikely - and even if it exists, did you make the cut?  Magic is more believable if you don't think about it too much, and as you approach the end of life, you have to think about it.  Atheists, having dealt with the truth for a while - that this life is all we have - are better equipped to let go with dignity and calm.

I found this post particularly compelling, and so reflected on my two years in combat in Iraq and how folks at differing ends of the atheist-theist spectrum dealt with the prospect of death.

Results were mixed, but patterns were nonetheless clear.  Before a particularly harrowing mission, atheists would be what I can only roughly describe as "grim".  Some took on a grisly sense of humor about it, others were quiet and sullen, and still others immersed themselves in the technical details of the mission and were all business.  The theist, remarkably, demonstrated surprisingly less self-orientation than the atheist.  Going from person to person, they tried to cheer up their fellow soldier and engender some sense of hope and purpose.  The chaplains were the most fun of these to watch--with no proselytizing agenda whatsoever, they just went around to groups of soldiers offering an upbeat joke or a word of encouragement.

Quote from: "bandit4god"Let's make this practical.  A quote from another topic:

Quote from: "Wilson"It seems to me that at least at the time of dying, on average, atheists and agnostics seem calmer and better able to face the end than religious people, because at that point those who have been believers all their lives must face the reality that an afterlife, when you finally get down to it, looks a little unlikely - and even if it exists, did you make the cut?  Magic is more believable if you don't think about it too much, and as you approach the end of life, you have to think about it.  Atheists, having dealt with the truth for a while - that this life is all we have - are better equipped to let go with dignity and calm.

I found this post particularly compelling, and so reflected on my two years in combat in Iraq and how folks at differing ends of the atheist-theist spectrum dealt with the prospect of death.

Results were mixed, but patterns were nonetheless clear.  Before a particularly harrowing mission, atheists would be what I can only roughly describe as "grim".  Some took on a grisly sense of humor about it, others were quiet and sullen, and still others immersed themselves in the technical details of the mission and were all business.  The theist, remarkably, demonstrated surprisingly less self-orientation than the atheist.  Going from person to person, they tried to cheer up their fellow soldier and engender some sense of hope and purpose.  The chaplains were the most fun of these to watch--with no proselytizing agenda whatsoever, they just went around to groups of soldiers offering an upbeat joke or a word of encouragement.

Have to point out that this is strictly Argument from anecdote. Unless you knew every atheist and every christian and did a blinded study of them, using proper psychological scientific methodology, and without the considerable observer bias you bring to the observation itself, this tells us nothing more than your own "feelings" toward this. And those are no more worthwhile than mine, Wilson's, or anyone else's feelings on the subject.

So while this is a nice exercise in telling a story, it has no weight. I'll also put my money on the soldier immersing himself in the technical details of the mission any day, since I was one of them. And that was back in the days when I was a born-again christian.

Quote from: "Achronos"Also Croaker I have a question for you which you may choose to answer honestly if you like. How do you feel about the nihilistic world-view? That is, there is no ultimate purpose for living, given that the universe will just end up suffering an eventual heat death and everything you did or ever will do does not matter in the grand scheme of things? I was once like you, a strident atheist, but I eventually realized that this world-view of atheistic nihilism was utterly unnacceptable to me, and rendered all life ultimately meaningless and without purpose.

I kind of chuckled at LegendarySandwich's response again, you want to take Him for granted like an adulterer, and then complain when He leaves you.

I don't think your analogy quite fits, but thanks for trying.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "bandit4god"Let's make this practical.  A quote from another topic:

Quote from: "Wilson"It seems to me that at least at the time of dying, on average, atheists and agnostics seem calmer and better able to face the end than religious people, because at that point those who have been believers all their lives must face the reality that an afterlife, when you finally get down to it, looks a little unlikely - and even if it exists, did you make the cut?  Magic is more believable if you don't think about it too much, and as you approach the end of life, you have to think about it.  Atheists, having dealt with the truth for a while - that this life is all we have - are better equipped to let go with dignity and calm.

I found this post particularly compelling, and so reflected on my two years in combat in Iraq and how folks at differing ends of the atheist-theist spectrum dealt with the prospect of death.

Results were mixed, but patterns were nonetheless clear.  Before a particularly harrowing mission, atheists would be what I can only roughly describe as "grim".  Some took on a grisly sense of humor about it, others were quiet and sullen, and still others immersed themselves in the technical details of the mission and were all business.  The theist, remarkably, demonstrated surprisingly less self-orientation than the atheist.  Going from person to person, they tried to cheer up their fellow soldier and engender some sense of hope and purpose.  The chaplains were the most fun of these to watch--with no proselytizing agenda whatsoever, they just went around to groups of soldiers offering an upbeat joke or a word of encouragement.

Have to point out that this is strictly Argument from anecdote. Unless you knew every atheist and every christian and did a blinded study of them, using proper psychological scientific methodology, and without the considerable observer bias you bring to the observation itself, this tells us nothing more than your own "feelings" toward this. And those are no more worthwhile than mine, Wilson's, or anyone else's feelings on the subject.

So while this is a nice exercise in telling a story, it has no weight. I'll also put my money on the soldier immersing himself in the technical details of the mission any day, since I was one of them. And that was back in the days when I was a born-again christian.

I was not a combat soldier, but I was an Air Force firefighter, and have seen hell break loose a time or two.  I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't be bothered worrying about whether or not Hicks was a Christian when we had a burner near the ready JP-4 storage and an uploaded F-16 on the other side of the apron.  

For that reason, this story doesn't ring true to me.

Quote from: "Achronos"How on earth does one "progress" in the belief that there is no God?

There is no progression in atheism, as it leads to nowhere but nihilism.

Are you saying that belief in a God or Gods helps to give you purpose and a reason for your existence. If this were the case I can understand some Christians struggle with understanding an Atheist or Agnostic view to life and death.

My answer, although of course I can only speak for myself, is that the no God/s viewpoint is liberating, builds independence and helps toward a higher level of free will. In this way it can be extremely fulfilling and rewarding. The progression is the journey of life and trying to make sense of it, finding out what is important and being able to live a fulfilling life.

Quote from: "Achronos"... but I eventually realized that this world-view of atheistic nihilism was utterly unnacceptable to me, and rendered all life ultimately meaningless and without purpose.

QuoteYou have yet to arrive at the understanding that meaning and purpose are self-defined, I see.

Now, now, before you go crying that service to your god gives you meaning and purpose, ponder this: you chose to do those things.  You assigned your own meaning, and purpose.

The only difference 'twixt thee and me is that your choice is self-abnegating, while mine is self-affirming.

QuoteYou have yet to arrive at the understanding that meaning and purpose are self-defined, I see.

Now, now, before you go crying that service to your god gives you meaning and purpose, ponder this: you chose to do those things.  You assigned your own meaning, and purpose.

The only difference 'twixt thee and me is that your choice is self-abnegating, while mine is self-[strike:2qwfd99n]affirming[/strike:2qwfd99n] deluding.

Fixed that for you.

You assume that I have not pondered such things. Few things, of course, are further from the Truth. Indeed, that is why I chose to do them. Take for instance the Creed. The Fathers teach that you cannot say "I believe" (where English gets the term "Credo") until you make it your own.

Of course, one can reject the Creed or just give it lip service, but that changes you, not the Creed. One can choose to obey the Law of Gravity, assign your own meaning and purpose to it. Or you can be self-affirming and jump off the nearest cliff. How's that for self-abnegation?

One thing it took me a long time, and at least two forays into full-blown atheism, to realize is that believers are actually MORE intellectually free than nonbelievers.

Why? Because believers can, and do, freely express their doubts about whether or not God exists, and can expect to receive sympathy and understanding from most other believers, because most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God. Unless we're arrogant and prideful, we know that we don't know everything, and that we could be wrong.

But what happens to an atheist who suddenly starts doubting his atheism? Well, I can tell you from personal experience - he either keeps it to himself, or gets trashed for being "weak", "emitional", "stupid", etc., by his fellow nonbelievers. Doubt is FORBIDDEN - we KNOW there are no deities and anyone who thinks otherwise is just an idiot.

Give me the "shackles" of belief any day.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuoteYou have yet to arrive at the understanding that meaning and purpose are self-defined, I see.

Now, now, before you go crying that service to your god gives you meaning and purpose, ponder this: you chose to do those things.  You assigned your own meaning, and purpose.

The only difference 'twixt thee and me is that your choice is self-abnegating, while mine is self-[strike:27oloa6n]affirming[/strike:27oloa6n] deluding.

Fixed that for you.

Wasn't broken, thanks.  I wish you could have my life.  You'd be happy with yourself.

QuoteYou assume that I have not pondered such things.

No, I can tell that you've given this much thought.  I simply disagree with your results, likely because we input different starting values.

QuoteFew things, of course, are further from the Truth. Indeed, that is why I chose to do them. Take for instance the Creed. The Fathers teach that you cannot say "I believe" (where English gets the term "Credo") until you make it your own.[

Of course, one can reject the Creed or just give it lip service, but that changes you, not the Creed. One can choose to obey the Law of Gravity, assign your own meaning and purpose to it. Or you can be self-affirming and jump off the nearest cliff. How's that for self-abnegation?

Analogy fail.  Gravity brooks no disobedience, nor does it demand obeisance,  nor does it forgive even if you repent your disbelief right before you hit the ground.

You may've thought much about your faith, but you've obviously not thought about gravity that much.

I stand by what I said:  Christianity is a self-abnegating cult of death.

Quote from: "Achronos"But what happens to an atheist who suddenly starts doubting his atheism? Well, I can tell you from personal experience - he either keeps it to himself, or gets trashed for being "weak", "emitional", "stupid", etc., by his fellow nonbelievers. Doubt is FORBIDDEN - we KNOW there are no deities and anyone who thinks otherwise is just an idiot.

In my experience, in the real world people don't talk about religious beliefs. Most people I meet, workmates etc don't let on what their beliefs are, and to me it is quite irrelevant, peoples beliefs are there own personal business. Theists are more likely to talk about religion at church meet-ups etc, but generally people don't discuss this stuff. Atheists don't have atheist church, hence don't generally have a support group with regards to religious belief. But in saying that, I am new to this forum and this forum is the only religious based forum I have visited and I do see some strong elements of some people thinking they are more intelligent than the "stupid" theists. So I kind of agree with you in that aspect.

I'm sorry Achronos, but I've gotten really bored of the atheist makes you a miserable nihilist claim. Trying to caricature us all on Nietzsche's epistemology isn't even an argument anymore, it just shows a huge misunderstanding.

QuoteBut what happens to an atheist who suddenly starts doubting his atheism?

What happens when you start doubting that Zeus doesn't exist?

Ew, that sentence doesn't flow right. You're lucky there's a word - atheism - for a lack of belief. It allows for something to be phrased coherently in the English language that doesn't flow smoothly at all in rational thought.

QuoteDoubt is FORBIDDEN - we KNOW there are no deities and anyone who thinks otherwise is just an idiot.

Actually no. Richard Dawkins made a scale to rank how "sure" one is of their theism or atheism. He himself was only a six, meaning he doesn't claim to know. There was a poll of this on his old forum. Someone on this forum (sorry, speak up whoever you are, this man's memory isn't much use) posted a snapshot of those results. Overwhelmingly most atheists said 6.

Doubt is never forbidden among skeptics, it's simply a question of whether or not it's reasonable doubt. Doubt loses its virtue when it becomes erratic and irrational.

Why is it bad in Christianity to be a Doubting Thomas? But yet "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Jesus doesn't want you to doubt. He doesn't want you to be intellectually free.

Quote from: "Achronos"One thing it took me a long time, and at least two forays into full-blown atheism, to realize is that believers are actually MORE intellectually free than nonbelievers.

What drove you into your two forays?

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "bandit4god"Let's make this practical.  A quote from another topic:

Quote from: "Wilson"It seems to me that at least at the time of dying, on average, atheists and agnostics seem calmer and better able to face the end than religious people, because at that point those who have been believers all their lives must face the reality that an afterlife, when you finally get down to it, looks a little unlikely - and even if it exists, did you make the cut?  Magic is more believable if you don't think about it too much, and as you approach the end of life, you have to think about it.  Atheists, having dealt with the truth for a while - that this life is all we have - are better equipped to let go with dignity and calm.

I found this post particularly compelling, and so reflected on my two years in combat in Iraq and how folks at differing ends of the atheist-theist spectrum dealt with the prospect of death.

Results were mixed, but patterns were nonetheless clear.  Before a particularly harrowing mission, atheists would be what I can only roughly describe as "grim".  Some took on a grisly sense of humor about it, others were quiet and sullen, and still others immersed themselves in the technical details of the mission and were all business.  The theist, remarkably, demonstrated surprisingly less self-orientation than the atheist.  Going from person to person, they tried to cheer up their fellow soldier and engender some sense of hope and purpose.  The chaplains were the most fun of these to watch--with no proselytizing agenda whatsoever, they just went around to groups of soldiers offering an upbeat joke or a word of encouragement.

Have to point out that this is strictly Argument from anecdote. Unless you knew every atheist and every christian and did a blinded study of them, using proper psychological scientific methodology, and without the considerable observer bias you bring to the observation itself, this tells us nothing more than your own "feelings" toward this. And those are no more worthwhile than mine, Wilson's, or anyone else's feelings on the subject.

So while this is a nice exercise in telling a story, it has no weight. I'll also put my money on the soldier immersing himself in the technical details of the mission any day, since I was one of them. And that was back in the days when I was a born-again christian.

It's a nice idea but you haven't taken into consideratin group bias, Mcq.

I think its amusing -- and very revealing -- that even with contrary evidence in front of him -- Achy here is still busy constructing his straw-man atheist, presumably in preparation for the funeral pyre.

It's pretty disappointing, actually; whom I thought was a different sort of believer turns out to be your run-of-the-mill stereotyping apologist.

Unless this changes, I'm not going to pay attention to him anymore.  His shoes don't fit my feet, so I'm not going to wear them.

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"It's a nice idea but you haven't taken into consideratin group bias, Mcq.

What the heck is group bias as it relates to conducting a study? Do you have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about?

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Chandler M Bing"It's a nice idea but you haven't taken into consideratin group bias, Mcq.

What the heck is group bias as it relates to conducting a study? Do you have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about?

He obviously does not know what he is talking about...but he won't be able to not say that for himself for about a week.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Wasn't broken, thanks.

Quite broken. But since you are quite broken, I can see how you miss that.

QuoteI wish you could have my life.

Why? You don't want it?

QuoteYou'd be happy with yourself.

I'm happy with myself now, though always interested in improvement.

QuoteNo, I can tell that you've given this much thought.  I simply disagree with your results, likely because we input different starting values.

I didn't rig my results. I can't speak for you as to what exactly how you fixed yours. Have you answered yet the question about whether you admit of ultimate Truth or how it (we know He) is found?

QuoteAnalogy fail.

Because you don't like it?

QuoteGravity brooks no disobedience

Ever been on an airplane? Seen a rocket?

Quotenor does it demand obeisance,

Jump off that cliff and see how much it doesn't.

Quotenor does it forgive even if you repent your disbelief right before you hit the ground.

LOL. "Analogy fail," but it fails for you. You seem to have a mechanical view of Faith and repentance: were you a "Once saved always saved" Born Againer?

QuoteYou may've thought much about your faith, but you've obviously not thought about gravity that much.

Oh, you didn't mention your PhD in Physics.

QuoteI stand by what I said:

You are stumbling, and quite badly.

QuoteChristianity is a self-abnegating cult of death.

This made me literally laugh out loud. Such intellectual freedom! Such reasoned and thought-out conclusions based on reality! Nope, move along folks, there's no bias or prejudice here at all! This is what any ol' person would find in an honest examination of Christianity! Nothing to see here! I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative!  Carry on!

You seem to be quite confused on Christianity in general and Orthodox Christianity in particular. Since you are in America, maybe you are aware of what a self-abnegating cult of death looks like, like the botox cult.

Quote from: "Achronos"Because believers can, and do, freely express their doubts about whether or not God exists

Don't the majority of Christians hold the belief that one must believe in the Christian god to get into Heaven? Would it be right to say if you doubt that God exists then you wouldn't be a believer? I understand that you are saying that the doubts are momentary. What if you die at a moment of disbelief or doubt?

Quote from: "Achronos"because most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God. Unless we're arrogant and prideful, we know that we don't know everything, and that we could be wrong.

Going by this statement of yours would I be correct in saying that you are Agnostic however tending more toward the possibility of the Christian god?

Quote from: "Sophus"I'm sorry Achronos, but I've gotten really bored of the atheist makes you a miserable nihilist claim. Trying to caricature us all on Nietzsche's epistemology isn't even an argument anymore, it just shows a huge misunderstanding.

There are quite a number of former atheists, myself included, who realize that the nihilist claim is it's only logical end goal. I think you may have misunderstood as to why I 'generalized' the atheistic worldview, you may claim to certain moral derivitives in society (moral relavitism) but from what basis? I can see why it's too easy to say there is no God, considering there is this illusion of behavior which has no 'inherent' consequences and doesn't have a higher 'authority' to speak of. If there is no 'transcendent' being and we place ourselves as that higher authority, then how are we to say life is 'sacred' meaning? Who can say that you cannot take one's life away, when it is yourself who has that claim of authority to take upon such an action. It goes back to the story I posted earlier regarding the courtroom decision, where a lawyer could present a case where molecules are just moving an an inanimate object to 'kill' someone; there is no meaning whatsoever derived from the action nor the actual person itself.

If life was to grow and evolve, and we were to grow smarter and more advanced, by the time we reach a certain level of advancement, we find that the more we evolve the more disease and obstacles in life evolve with us.  We find that in the end, the universe as we know it will end and all evolution and all purpose we struggle for doesn't even matter. We are forced with one goal, that is simply to survive. But why try to survive now when it will all end later, not just your life, but even the life of your progeny? Nobody has ever given me a clear or concise answer to this, and honestly I don't really expect it.

I wish I had the time to delve deeper into this, but these are some of the thoughts I have collected from what I have seen and experienced. While I may speak for myself, I can say that I am not the only one who views the same thing.

QuoteActually no. Richard Dawkins made a scale to rank how "sure" one is of their theism or atheism. He himself was only a six, meaning he doesn't claim to know.

In The God Delusion, p. 73, Dawkins' scale goes:

1. Strong theist. 100 % probability of God. As C. G. Jung said, "I do not believe. I know."

2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist: "I can not know for certain, but I strongly believe, and I live my life as if God is Real."

3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leans toward theism: "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. 50% probability. Complete agnosticism. God's existence is equally probable and improbable.

5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic, but leans towards atheism: "I don't know, but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. Very low probability, but higher than 0%. De facto atheist: "I can not know for certain, but I think God's existence is improbable, and I live my life as if God does not exist."

7. Strong atheist. "I don't believe that God does not exist. I know that God does not exist."

QuoteDoubt is never forbidden among skeptics, it's simply a question of whether or not it's reasonable doubt. Doubt loses its virtue when it becomes erratic and irrational.
Why is it bad in Christianity to be a Doubting Thomas?

Can you show me in patristics where this is described as "bad"?

QuoteBut yet "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Jesus doesn't want you to doubt.

Which is a blessing of those who have faith, not a condemnation of those who doubt. Nice try.

QuoteHe doesn't want you to be intellectually free.

[/quote][/quote]
Perhaps because that freedom is an illusion?

"We desire our freedom. Why? In order to be slaves to our passions."

--Mother Gavriela (Papayannis)

Quote from: "Achronos"There are quite a number of former atheists, myself included, who realize that the nihilist claim is it's only logical end goal.

Precisely. Logically (I am a Nihilist myself). Yet the caricature is extended over from pedantic philosophy of epistemology (I say this only because it encompasses the nihilist view on ethics and value) to our personal lives; how we live. If those who caricature us after Nietzsche had actually invested any time in reading Nietzsche they would know he claimed that no one seeks to live as a Nihilist, and would have noticed what an obvious Romantic he was. That's the point of Existentialism. To create our own value, as he argued we all do, unwittingly or not. Your entire argument is that one should not see value because nothing can have absolute value. From a cerebral perspective that's true but no man can think only cerebral thoughts. So are you also saying nothing can have relative value? If so, on what grounds? What is a bore to some is a life purpose to others. How can you possibly claim that in a world without value defined by an invisible authority or some immeasurable rule set in the universe that value cannot relatively exist among human beings? As the cliché goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So again, merely because we acknowledge that the universe takes no stance of its own on value doesn't mean we can't. There is no rule that value has to be objective in fact it's exactly the opposite.

As far as ethics go I see no reason why something must be pronounced Right or Wrong in order to be demonstrated as detrimental to humanity. I also don't see how an objective reality can exist simply because a creator says it's Wrong. Without the creator being able to prove real consequences in the material world for "immoral" deeds he has no persuasive reasoning.

QuoteIn The God Delusion, p. 73, Dawkins' scale goes:

Yes I know. Most atheists claim to be a 6.

QuoteCan you show me in patristics where this is described as "bad"?

If one Jesus story isn't enough then maybe this will help:

And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. (Matthew 21:21)

QuoteWhich is a blessing of those who have faith, not a condemnation of those who doubt. Nice try.

Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:31)

Does it sound like Jesus is praising the doubters to you?

Or what of these other verses:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones. (Proverbs 3:5-8)

But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

Faith and doubt are not friends.

Sorry Achronos to be using you as a tool for myself to understand these religious labels. It is something I am quite confused about.
I have also been watching the video clip posted by Recusant on the "Ask me Anything" thread
[youtube:xny2509b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk[/youtube:xny2509b]

So it seems that Agnostic means a lack of knowledge about gods, So I too would agree with Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" so I would take this to mean that most Christian Theists are Agnostic, I would also theorise that most Atheists are also Agnostic.
The strange thing about Theist label and Atheist label is that they aren't reciprocal as I have previously thought. I though Theists believe that there is a god and that Atheist believe that there is no god. But watching the video clip it seems that Atheists have no belief in a god. So in that sense I am an Atheist as well as being Agnostic. I find this a bit confusing though because I would have thought that if a person were Agnostic (accepts that there is no known knowledge of a god) that they would also be Atheist because how can you believe in something that you accept there is no known knowledge about? Unless my definition of the term "belief" is incorrect. I take it that belief means 100% certain, so to be a Theist you would need to be 100% certain that god exists. So going back to Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" but tieing that in with my definition of belief would become "most of us (Christian Theists) know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God however all of us (Christian Theists) are 100% certain that god exists" which doesn't make any sense. So I must be going astray somewhere. Can someone please explain where I am going wrong with this?

I would also be keen if someone could tell me if someone has doubts about their belief in god before they die would they go to heaven of not. Does the bible make a statement with regards to this? Would doubts equate to being a non believer (less than 100% certain)?

Quote from: "Stevil"I have also been watching the video clip posted by Recusant on the "Ask me Anything" thread -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk)

Yes.  I agreed with every word of that.

QuoteSo it seems that Agnostic means a lack of knowledge about gods, So I too would agree with Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" so I would take this to mean that most Christian Theists are Agnostic

Agnostic means aknowledging that we neither know, nor can know, anything at all with regard to something which, not of nature, might or might not exist and might or might not have been nature's author.  Something not of nature must forever remain unknown and unknowable to any biological or technological detection apparatus.  But the underlined word is key.  A Christian is agnostic if and only if the underlined word applies to that Christian.  It is theoretically possible for the underlined word to apply to a Christian.  It is also, unfortunately, rare for a Christian to acknowledge not only privately but also publicly the unknown and unknowable status of that which, not of nature, was nature's author.

I am agnostic.

I am also atheist because I refuse to place my faith in something unknown and unknowable.  I am first agnostic, and then, as a direct result, atheist.  It makes no sense to me to place my faith in something unknown and unknowable.  An agnostic Christian would be someone to whom it makes sense to place faith in something unknown and unknowable.  An action only makes sense if it achieves, or is likely to achieve, an objective.  The Christian's objective is to get into heaven.  The Christian has been taught that placing faith in something unknown and unknowable is the method by which getting into heaven is achieved.  The Christian, having the objective, takes up the suggested method and runs with it.

The word agnostic can also be used in a more general sense, to denote the acknowledgement that any claim X is unknown and unknowable.  In this more general sense, I am agnostic toward the existence of heaven, and, even if I were to grant for the sake of discussion the existence of heaven, I would be agnostic toward how one manages to get in.  Since it makes no sense to me to place my faith in something unknown and unknowable, I place no faith in the existence of heaven, and, even if I were to grant the existence of heaven, I would place no faith in any suggested method of how to get in.

The unknown and unknowable is to be set aside and forgotten, unless and until it emerges suddenly as newly known or knowable.  Or so say I.

QuoteSo in that sense I am an Atheist as well as being Agnostic.

You're probably very much like me, then, and found yourself nodding your head when you were reading what I wrote above.

QuoteUnless my definition of the term "belief" is incorrect. I take it that belief means 100% certain

If the probability of X being true is 100% then X isn't merely believed, but known.  If the probability of X being true is less than 100% then accepting X as true would be belief.  Different people have different thresholds with respect to how probable X must be before it can or should be accepted.  My own threshold is pretty high, certainly higher than 50%.

If X is not only unknown but unknowable, then its probability of being true can never be assessed.  It is my position that if the probability of X being true can never be assessed, then the probability of X being true should be treated as if it were zero.

It is also my position that the desire that X be true should never be factored in when deciding whether or not to treat X as true.  Truth is one domain, and desire is another.  The two domains do not at all intersect.  They are 100% incongruent.  Accessing one domain for purposes of ascertaining the contents of the other domain is illegitimate.  Desire does not and cannot determine truth, and truth does not and cannot determine desire.  What is undesirable can be true, and what is untrue can be desired.

Incidentally, the desire for something that is currently untrue but which is deemed possible has a name, and that name is hope.  It is my position that hope should be placed in X only if X is at least theoretically knowable, for if X isn't knowable, then one will never know if X has been achieved or encountered, and hope will never be satisfied.

Thanks very much for your explanation Inevitable Droid, I very much enjoy reading your posts.

One thing though

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If the probability of X being true is less than 100% then accepting X as true would be belief.

It would seem very odd for a person to be able to say I believe in X but I have some doubts

As I take it there are two faucets to belief:
1 - The believer must accept that there isn't demonstrable proof, otherwise it would be fact for all observers
2 - The believer must be 100% certain despite the lack of fact in regards to accepting X as true otherwise a person such as myself would say something like "there is a high likelihood of X being true" rather than saying "I believe X is true".

But definitions of English words can often be different from person to person. Some people may suggest that when they say "I believe..." that this is analogous to saying "there is a high likelihood of x being true". I prefer the more strict approach because otherwise how can the audience know what the speaker is saying if they don't know what the speaker's threshold is and whether that threshold is in effect or not? To me there is a huge difference between saying I know for certain or saying there is a likelihood, and this goes towards my view of the credibility of the speaker with regards to how it relates to me. At least if they say there is a likelihood I can then respond with a "How likely?" question and "What is that based on?" question. If they say I believe, then I just need to accept what they say as their own personal belief which isn't necessarily based on anything tangible.

I just have to acknowledge and thank Sophus for his participation on the forum. And his ability to explain things.
If I had to pick anyone to explain nihilism, or any of those concepts he laid out in the last post, it'd be him.
 

Quote from: "Achronos"Also Croaker I have a question for you which you may choose to answer honestly if you like. How do you feel about the nihilistic world-view? That is, there is no ultimate purpose for living, given that the universe will just end up suffering an eventual heat death and everything you did or ever will do does not matter in the grand scheme of things? I was once like you, a strident atheist, but I eventually realized that this world-view of atheistic nihilism was utterly unnacceptable to me, and rendered all life ultimately meaningless and without purpose.

I kind of chuckled at LegendarySandwich's response again, you want to take Him for granted like an adulterer, and then complain when He leaves you.

Sorry about the delay in responding to your comment, Achronos.

I think, honestly, that I would agree with a few of nihilism's ideas - lack of ultimate purpose being one of them. I feel that I do not need a purpose to live my life - every morning when I wake up, I don't feel a purpose driving me forwards beyond the simple needs of the day. There's no overarching goal for my life, beyond providing for my children, loving my wife and advancing my career and hobbies. I want to see new things, experience new stuff, and that's what drives me forward. I know that the world will end someday, everything I ever made will be gone - but that's what defines us as humans, our lack of permanence. I believe it is the end that gives the whole thing meaning, the border on the painting that gives it a focus. Some people have a drive for their lives to have meaning, but I'm just glad that my genes turned up out of the mind-bogglingly large number of possible DNA sequences.

Quote from: "Achronos"First off, God searches the hearts. No one is condemning you to hell. I was joking with you that last post.

I don't know the exact beliefs of Orthodoxy, but I don't think this is true. The Bible is pretty explicit in stating that you have to know Jesus to get to heaven - John 3:16 and John 14:6 off the top of my head. If we entertain the fact that you can get into heaven without knowing Jesus, then you start to call into doubt the entire purpose of Christianity. If God will just search my heart, than all I have do is live a moderately good life and I'll be cool. If he's searching their hearts, however, for belief in him, though, and not necessarily 'Jesus,' then we still have the same problem, due to the infinite number of potential gods you could believe in.

Quote from: "Achronos"You have to look at a certain perspective here. It would be understandable that your attack on God's love doesn't make sense for a place of possible eternal punishment. I must also say from my perspective, your love of your present existence also doesn't make sense for an end of sure non-existence. So, it was a matter of choice. For you, because you're so turned off by God, probably angry at God, you made sense out of your present existence without taking the logical leap, it's probably better I wouldn't have been born. For me, because I'm so turned off by any lack of God, and I can't imagine life without having a relationship with this God, a relationship where I can grow, then for me, it didn't matter what afterlife there was. I knew if I at least try and pray, I know I'm heading in the right direction.

The logical leap for humans is not to kill themselves - that's a rather odd take of things. I like my life, I like drinking coffee, writing novels, playing video games, laughing with my kids - these things are fun. They'll end someday, sure, that's what happens - and I'm fine with that. It's what makes these moments special, since I can't experience them again. Immortality takes that away - it says, 'Don't worry about doing anything cool now, you've got eternity to do it.' It takes away any motivation to do anything meaningful, because as I said earlier, due to the simple logical nature of immortality, your entire existence is spent in heaven. What's the point of earth? Just because we know some things will end doesn't mean we can't enjoy them. How could you get enjoyment out of anything in life with the attitude that "from my perspective, your love of your present existence also doesn't make sense for an end of sure non-existence". Things end. It's what happens.

Quote from: "Achronos"It should be noted that Heaven is earth restored. It will be life as it was meant to be. We won't be floating around on clouds somewhere "up there" in "heaven."

That's why the key is resurrection. It's not a disembodied existence. It's the body you have now, raised back to life to a restored creation. Sounds pretty damn good to me...

What, then, is life supposed to be, beyond merely my wishes for a life without pain and end? Will my new body 'age'? If it does, to what age? What about unborn children? If I can't age, then they won't either - will I be surrounded by heaps of immortal, unborn fetuses? What about the elderly, what age will they be rewound to? Who picks? At first I though that an earth restored would be a difficult thing (where do you put everyone?) but then I remembered the vast majority of people are going to hell.

I'm not really interested in the specifics of heaven, i.e. what am I doing year 3x10^24, I'm more concerned about the fact that a lot of Christians aren't bothered by the notion of someone still being punished that same year for having had a lack of belief at some point, the duration of which was countless orders of magnitude less than the duration of their suffering. Take it even further - I believe there is no crime possible that would warrant eternal punishment. Sure, people will bring up ridiculous examples, but the point is that eternity is a grossly unbalanced punishment for any crime, no matter how grotesque.

Quote from: "Stevil"The strange thing about Theist label and Atheist label is that they aren't reciprocal as I have previously thought. I though Theists believe that there is a god and that Atheist believe that there is no god. But watching the video clip it seems that Atheists have no belief in a god. So in that sense I am an Atheist as well as being Agnostic. I find this a bit confusing though because I would have thought that if a person were Agnostic (accepts that there is no known knowledge of a god) that they would also be Atheist because how can you believe in something that you accept there is no known knowledge about? Unless my definition of the term "belief" is incorrect. I take it that belief means 100% certain, so to be a Theist you would need to be 100% certain that god exists. So going back to Achronos' statement "most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God" but tieing that in with my definition of belief would become "most of us (Christian Theists) know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God however all of us (Christian Theists) are 100% certain that god exists" which doesn't make any sense. So I must be going astray somewhere. Can someone please explain where I am going wrong with this?

It's a matter of faith.  Faith is the construct by which you put your trust in a certain manner of thinking things through.

Here's how I would group people:

A. People who tend to treat materialistic matters as the only truth.
B. People who are open to the idea that life is more than just what we can sense, but are highly skeptical enough to be agnostic.
C. People who tend to treat materialistic matters as in unity with a more transcendant understanding of the cosmos and themselves.

Therefore, A goes by the faith of what they only sense and the empirical.  B goes by no faith at all.  C goes by a faith of transcendant realms.

You see, you interpret faith and doubt as different things.  In my view, one things leads to another. A faith in something does not let you doubt it. On the contrary, you trust it, especially when it's built out of your own personal experience. You see, atheists don't like the word "faith" and attribute the meaning to something you trust that is supernatural. It's not that at all. When the Scriptures talk about faith, it talks about the Christian faith, that is the Christian way of thinking. Faith is a way of thinking and trusting that thought. B has a way of thinking and has no trust whatsoever. A and C have little to no doubt (perhaps those with little doubt develops more humility in their arguments, and those with no doubt at all tend to be quite arrogant). B is filled with doubt.

Thanks Achronos, you are certainly helping me better understand the Christian side of things.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Wasn't broken, thanks.

Quite broken. But since you are quite broken, I can see how you miss that.

Personal attacks are not only against the rules, they are the surest sign of a defeated argument.  Attack my argument, not me.

Quote from: "Thump"I wish you could have my life.

Quote from: "Achy"Why? You don't want it?

I seem to have found one limit to your understanding, right here.  Perhaps you're smart enough to figure out what your error here is.

Quote from: "Achy"I'm happy with myself now, though always interested in improvement.

Your interest is a good thing.

Quote from: "Thump"No, I can tell that you've given this much thought.  I simply disagree with your results, likely because we input different starting values.

Quote from: "Achy"I didn't rig my results. I can't speak for you as to what exactly how you fixed yours. Have you answered yet the question about whether you admit of ultimate Truth or how it (we know He) is found?

You'll notice that I didn't say you rigged your results.  And I didn't notice you asking such a mundane question.  Please define what you mean by "ultimate truth".

Quote from: "Thump"Analogy fail.

Quote from: "Achy"Because you don't like it?

Protip:  Read entire post before responding.

Quote from: "Thump"Gravity brooks no disobedience

Quote from: "Achy"Ever been on an airplane? Seen a rocket?

Apparently you don't understand aerodynamics.  Gravity is not being disobeyed; it is being outdone by different forces.

Quote from: "Thump"nor does it demand obeisance,

Quote from: "Achy"Jump off that cliff and see how much it doesn't.

That, my friend, isn't a demand for obeisance -- it is not telling me to behave in any particular way; it is merely exerting brute force.

Quote from: "Thump"nor does it forgive even if you repent your disbelief right before you hit the ground.

Quote from: "Achy"LOL. "Analogy fail," but it fails for you. You seem to have a mechanical view of Faith and repentance: were you a "Once saved always saved" Born Againer?

No.

Quote from: "Thump"You may've thought much about your faith, but you've obviously not thought about gravity that much.

Quote from: "Achy"Oh, you didn't mention your PhD in Physics.

That's okay.  You didn't mention you masters in theology.  Or you doctorate in bullshit, for that matter.

Quote from: "Thump"I stand by what I said:

Quote from: "Achy"You are stumbling, and quite badly.

I'm happy to let the readership decide.  

Quote from: "Thump"Christianity is a self-abnegating cult of death.

Quote from: "Achy"This made me literally laugh out loud. Such intellectual freedom! Such reasoned and thought-out conclusions based on reality! Nope, move along folks, there's no bias or prejudice here at all! This is what any ol' person would find in an honest examination of Christianity! Nothing to see here! I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative!  Carry on!

Wait, you came here not expecting an expression of opinion? Really?

I'm unsure how old you are, but I'm willing to bet that I've considered this matter longer than you've breathed air.

QuoteYou seem to be quite confused on Christianity in general and Orthodox Christianity in particular. Since you are in America, maybe you are aware of what a self-abnegating cult of death looks like, like the botox cult.

Agreed, like faith, it is largely a superficial phenomenon, which is performed for the sake of appearance, and doesn't outlive the person.  Also, the two are similar in that they are a result of an overweening concern with conformity and the opinions of others, and an attempt to defy the reminders of mortality.  

This comparison is more apt than you realize.

Carry on!

Quote from: "Achronos"It's a matter of faith.  Faith is the construct by which you put your trust in a certain manner of thinking things through.

Isn't faith a particular type of belief that exists in spite of an absence of physical knowledge?  The word is usually applied to supernatural belief systems and those who have beliefs in such systems frequently speak of faith as if it is a virtue; and the virtue is considered particularly great when there is involved a blind rejection of ulterior possibilities in which the believer seems to proclaim, 'My belief, no matter what!'  I have come up against this wall time, and time again, in which discussion just shuts down.

Quote from: "Achronos"Here's how I would group people:

A. People who tend to treat materialistic matters as the only truth.

This would be me.  I just don't see that other means of acquiring knowledge exist.

Quote from: "Achronos"B. People who are open to the idea that life is more than just what we can sense, but are highly skeptical enough to be agnostic.

There are things that we cannot sense, and perhaps truth is still stranger than fiction, but the only path to discovering the true nature of the world and its life forms is through physical investigation.  We can't do as the Gnostics did, or as St. Paul did, and claim to posses knowledge from beyond ourselves.  Anyone can made such claims, and many do, and some do it convincingly.  Paul may have taken his introspective imaginings and turned them into a new reality for his disciples.  He may have created the Christ, but many who proclaim the importance of faith also eschew even recognizing this as a possibility.  Not doubting becomes a position on faith.  Stubbornness becomes a virtue.

Quote from: "Achronos"C. People who tend to treat materialistic matters as in unity with a more transcendant understanding of the cosmos and themselves.

Does the transcendent only lend itself to investigating the supernatural, or can it be said that it is also a source of knowledge for the material world?  Can it provide us knowledge on Mars and save the expense of sending rovers off-world?  Can transcendent techniques find cures for disease?  Can we do double blind studies to validate the that the results of transcendental investigations are repeatable?  Could we use the results to toss out unvalidated transcendental claims about God?

Quote from: "Achronos"Therefore, A goes by the faith of what they only sense and the empirical.

We obviously don't agree on the meaning of faith. Your A personality doesn't doesn't believe in the validity of faith.

Quote from: "Achronos"B goes by no faith at all.

Are you sure you didn't mix-up A and B?

Quote from: "Achronos"You see, you interpret faith and doubt as different things.  In my view, one things leads to another.

I am not following your meaning.

I think I will take your last paragraph separately, lest this response become too long.

Quote from: "Achronos"A faith in something does not let you doubt it.

This is why having faith is such a problem in my estimation.  Those who take a faith position do see their stubbornness as a virtue.  They will stand by a faith claim even when they lack any way to defend it.  Is it any wonder faith is so often called blind, implying a stubborn rejection of all arguments against the position.  Faith is a matter of belief -- no matter what!

I do not hold my views as matters of faith.  I have on many occasions been compelled to take up a new position because the old one has become untenable.  Persons of faith will not do that.  They always reject any admission that their stance needs modification.

Quote from: "Achronos"On the contrary, you trust it, especially when it's built out of your own personal experience.

Personal experience is subjective.  The interpretive spin we put on experience is based on our belief system.  Two people having a similar experience may draw vastly different conclusions.  It is safe to say that an Ecuadorian native living one thousand years ago would interpret his dream experiences differently than a Catholic nun living at the same time, but in Madrid. A Christian evangelical living in Texas will interpret her dream experiences differently again.  Given that people around the world and through history have come to such vastly different conclusions about the supernatural world, I don't see that anyone can claim that personal experience provides any sort of legitimate insight into these matters.

Quote from: "Achronos"You see, atheists don't like the word "faith" and attribute the meaning to something you trust that is supernatural. It's not that at all.

I am an atheist.  It is not that I dislike the word faith, I dislike the implications of having faith.  Faith means taking a position and rejecting legitimate arguments against that position, and standing by the faith position even when one is incapable of defending that position against objections.  I have encountered this wall on many occasions, where individuals will finally admit that they can't defend their position, but insist they will stand by it as a matter of faith.

I do see Christianity as a belief in things supernatural.

Quote from: "Achronos"When the Scriptures talk about faith, it talks about the Christian faith, that is the Christian way of thinking. Faith is a way of thinking and trusting that thought.

Muslims may not talk as much about faith as Christians but I think they demonstrate a dogged belief in matters of faith.  They, as much as Christians, hold stubbornly to their beliefs, and it could be said they have as much faith in their scripture as do Christians in theirs.  You are not saying otherwise, are you?

Quote from: "Achronos"B has a way of thinking and has no trust whatsoever. A and C have little to no doubt (perhaps those with little doubt develops more humility in their arguments, and those with no doubt at all tend to be quite arrogant). B is filled with doubt.

I should have read on.  You didn't mix up A and B.

When you say that A exhibits little to no doubt, are you talking specifically about lack of belief in God?  When first I read your definition for A -- evolution came to mind, not questions on the existence of God.

Okay, let me give you a different perspective, Cycel. Faith is what you put your trust is, the lens by which you see the world.

You see the world through the lens of what you can only sense.

I see the world through Christian understanding.

True agnostics see the world through no particular understanding necessarily. They doubt a strict materialistic worldview, but they also doubt transcendant worldview.

Faith is something you believe in. It's the precursor to a philosophy. I talk about the Christian faith, that is the beliefs, the theology of our Church, etc. Faith is dogma, and everyone has a certain dogma they live by, whether it be atheists or believers.

The way we attain faith in the Christian understanding is by the trustworthiness and consistency of prayer and spiritual exercises. The way we attain faith in the scientific method is by personal experience of it and its trustworthiness and consistency to attain materialistic data. At one point, I thought faith is only in the supernatural. When I decided to stop prayer and spiritual exercises, I felt the difference in my personal life. A friend of mine asked me how do you know that cussing is immoral. I asked him, have you tried to stop cussing? And he said, "no." Unfortunately he wasn't up for the challenge, and still too stubborn to stop. People who live their whole lives in garbage will not know what smelling good smells like, or have become numb to the bad smell. So at least, faith is not something merely about prayer. It's method of my thoughts and my actions. Even agnostics have some faith to function in this world, but overall the strongest faith are in the extremes.

Other faiths talk about meditation, and how important it is for them. People are realizing that these help find the spiritual part of them. Prayer is not just meditation of a self-realization, but a step up, a bridge with the divine, a self-giving to God.

Croaker you say you have no purpose. But you in fact do have a purpose. What more important purpose is their than your wife and children? You are performing an act of self-giving for them. Your purpose is sacrifice. Thank God this is instilled in us for the survival of our species. However, the intellect is there also to question our sacrifice. The intellect is there to remind us that there is a higher purpose. We are not merely like the rest of the animal kingdom, where we just do. We also actually analyze what we do, something no other animal can do, let alone care to even do. What's the point of having this faculty to analyze what we do when life is to precious to even to think about it, and just do it? That makes no sense to me. You believe that the world will end anyway, so might as well enjoy it. What's the point of analyzing the enjoyment of this life if it doesn't even matter?

When I see the world through the lens of Christian theology, my actions should reflect it, by self-sacrifice to the world through God, trying to make the world a better place. The world is place for growth, as we said, and God made it essential that we grow here. There's no such thing as "we have eternity to do it."  In order to attain the next stage of growth, we have to go through this one. So this is a purpose as well.

God searches the heart, that is He will understand the struggle you are going through to try to believe. It's not so much as this minimizes the truth of Christianity. But it is a realization that the center of Christianity lies selfless understanding of love and mercy, and openness in understanding the other. In the Trinity lies the selfless eternal love. In Christ lies the selfless sacrifice for all mankind. In the saints lie the selfless examples of what our lives should be. Selflessness is a part of our growth and our understanding of the true and ultimate purpose of our position in the cosmos. We are here on earth to learn and partake of the selflessness Christ taught and performed, and then through that to attain the eternal selfless love Christ has.

If we don't strive for that, we won't be easily able to attain communion with God in a selfless manner. Everything that reminds us of our selfishness, we must sacrifice. And I have to be honest with you. I love atheists when it comes to discussions with them, and I am much more inclined to be friends with them than with believers. But usually they are more selfish than they are selfless, at least the friends I have. The genius of scientists who had spend hours in the laboratory for discoveries many times have to be selfish to attain those important discoveries. What acts of selfless love have they performed for the world than lust for more knowledge? I'm not saying they're unimportant. I'm saying they simply turned their work into their idol sometimes at the expense of the world of suffering people that need help.

I feel that when you do become truly selfless, you open your heart to the divine, and you will tend to be a believer. When you reject faith based on the people not practicing what they preach, and you are correct. Even Ghandi, a believer in something divine at the very least who surpassed Christians in his selfless deeds, taught that if it weren't for the Christians, he would be a Christian. But I think there is merit to the freedom God allows even those who call upon Him as followers of Him. If Christians cheapen the faith for the whole world into disbelief through their hypocrisies, God will be even more merciful in my opinion. It's interesting then how Christians were able to turn the world upside down in the first centuries following Christ. I think by that, we can see truth in Christianity.

I think the Bible is clear upon those who are already believers receive a strict judgment if their actions don't reflect their beliefs, and even more those who are teachers receive a much stricter judgment. Not all who call Him "Lord, Lord" will enter heaven. I think when "you're trying to convert" that means you're struggling to believe, and you have nothing to lose at this point. If you truly want to believe, then consider prayer and consider greater self-sacrifice.  And don't depend on the hypocrisies of Christians, but look at Christ Himself as the greatest example.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Personal attacks are not only against the rules, they are the surest sign of a defeated argument.  Attack my argument, not me.

You would first have to make an argument first for me to attack it. You just made a string of snide assertions that are hardly original.

Your posts are for the most part a confused jumble of parroted lines from atheists preaching to the choir with some incoherent thoughts. It is not a personal attack to point that out.

Since I don't spend much time on your posts, I haven't seen much reason to, can you explain why I shouldn't feel like mud is being thrown at my wall just in the hope that something will stick?

Quote from: "Thump"I seem to have found one limit to your understanding, right here.  Perhaps you're smart enough to figure out what your error here is.

I'm sorry, like Carl Sagan, I have little patience to play games with sophmores. If you have something to say, spit it out.

Quote from: "Thump"You'll notice that I didn't say you rigged your results.

I do note the underlying assumption of your posts that I accept assumptions without a reason and build on from there shines through.

QuoteAnd I didn't notice you asking such a mundane question.

Being underwhelmed by your brilliance, I have to resort to the tedious chore of figuring out a basis for discussion, as you make it clear you won't do that homework.

QuotePlease define what you mean by "ultimate truth".

Christ of course. But you are not ready for Him, so we will have to settle for some agreed common ground of reality, where 2+2=4.

For instance, how do you know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. How do you prove it? Can one prove it? Can it be verified?  And if it is verified, can we also see and verify the consequences?

So is someting real, or is it all make-believe?

Quote from: "Thump"Protip:  Read entire post before responding.

I did. Your point got the counter point it merited. No more, no less.

Quote from: "Thump"Gravity brooks no disobedience

Quote from: "Achy"Ever been on an airplane? Seen a rocket?

QuoteApparently you don't understand aerodynamics.  Gravity is not being disobeyed; it is being outdone by different forces.

I'm quite aware of them. So too, just because when you break God's commandments that He doesn't strike you down then and there doesn't prove the divine law isn't in operation. He has other concerns than just swift punishment.  Just like the operation of areodynamics do not disprove gravity.

Quote from: "Thump"That, my friend, isn't a demand for obeisance -- it is not telling me to behave in any particular way; it is merely exerting brute force.

Brute force is quite within God's reach. But He is not restricted or limited to it. If we were Calvinists, you would know the difference between predestination and gravity. Since we don't know exactly what pre/misconceptions of your own about God that you bring here, don't know how further to go with that at this time.

Quote from: "Thump"That's okay.  You didn't mention you masters in theology.  Or you doctorate in bullshit, for that matter.

PhD in Systematic Theology, University of Edinburgh.

So, where did you cut your teeth on the books, or are you self taught?

Quote from: "Thump"I'm happy to let the readership decide.

Agreement at last!

Quote from: "Thump"Agreed, like faith, it is largely a superficial phenomenon, which is performed for the sake of appearance, and doesn't outlive the person.

Depends on what the person places his Faith/faith in. Or in Whom.

QuoteAlso, the two are similar in that they are a result of an overweening concern with conformity and the opinions of others, and an attempt to defy the reminders of mortality.

Ah, there you go again, trying to sneak an assertion in without us noticing its lack of foundation.

Let's break this down:

"a result of an overweening concern with conformity and the opinions of others"  such was not the case of Orthodox Christianity in the first three centuries, during which it was a capital offense everywhere. Getting yourself executed for your Faith doesn't demonstrate much concern with conformity and the opinion of others, particularly those in power. It is still the case in much of the world: I've spent a lot of time in the Muslim world, where just wearing a Cross can and does get you killed. And then there is the Church under Communism. Again, not an overwhelming concern with conformity and the opinion of others.

"an attempt to defy the reminders of mortality": you obviously haven't read any Orthodox spiritual literature about the remembrance of mortality. You're way not ready for that, so I'll just ask: you characterized Christianity as a  "death cult" or some such nonsense. Explain then how does a death cult attempt to defy the reminders of morality?  If you are supposedly obsessed with death, how do you ignore the reminders of morality?

QuoteThis comparison is more apt than you realize.

Carry on!

LOL. Sophmores.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with an American Communist in between undergrad and grad school at the U of E. The Communist, of course, was from rich priveledged background in Maryland, blue blood family, the whole bit. He was, not suprisingly, an alcoholic. We had friends in common, but never talked much to each other (for a variety of moral failings on his part with several persons, I didn't care too much for him). Anyway, I came by the home of a common friend, and the communist was there, and he offered me a drink. Although far earlier than I was used to (11 AM), I took it anyway.

Well, we got to talking and he started asking about the Gnostic Gospels, which evidently he had just heard of. Somewhere between bottles (he afterword was raving about how I could keep up with him, a sad commentary on his sense of priority) he made some comment about death and that I didn't have to worry about it because I thought that I would live again. I replied that that didn't matter, as I looked at the afterlife like aging and death, and inevitable, and I don't worry about inevitable things. "So you aren't afraid of dying and not existing?" he asked. "No. I think I would tire of existence after a millenium, two at most. Death meaning the end of existence wouldn't bother me a bit, as it would be inevitable" I replied. He then went into his profound fear of death, something that the communism and alcoholism was feeding off of, but he wasn't aware of that.

So no, no opiate of the masses here nor afterlife morphine. Just dealing with the facts.

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is what you put your trust is, the lens by which you see the world.

Quote from: "Achronos"I see the world through Christian understanding.

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is something you believe in. It's the precursor to a philosophy.

Thus Christian faith is your epistemology.  This is what I have tried to get across in various ways on various threads.  This is why you and a scientarian can never get anywhere by debate unless the topic is epistemology itself.  Any other topic is a waste of time.  First the matter of epistemology must be cleared up, if it can be.  If it can't be, then debate remains pointless.

QuoteThe way we attain faith in the Christian understanding is by the trustworthiness and consistency of prayer and spiritual exercises.

Do you agree that self-deceit, depending on the particular falsehoods that constitute the lie, could cause improvements in character, in effectiveness, in success, and in happiness, yet still be self-deceit, still be a lie, still be false?
 
Every last atheist on this message board mentally answered yes to my question.  I know this in advance because they and I have the same epistemology, and our shared epistemology will always answer yes to the question I've posed, because our epistemology places zero, absolute zero, weight on character improvement, effectiveness improvement, success improvement, or happiness improvement, when assessing whether a proposition is true.  Now, I will also say that most atheists (perhaps not all) would find it very interesting that so much improvement resulted from a falsehood, a lie, a self-deception.  Most atheists would want to know the mechanism by which this occurred.  They would want to do science, or they would want someone else to do science in this area.  Hypotheses would spring to mind and they would want these hypotheses tested.

QuoteWhen I decided to stop prayer and spiritual exercises, I felt the difference in my personal life.

What prompted your decision to stop?

This harkens back to another question I asked you, and which I don't think you answered, although maybe I missed your answer, as this thread is dense with sub-threads, and my attention wanders or zooms in, depending on the particular sub-thread.  You said previously that you made two forays into atheism.  What prompted those two forays?

QuoteWe also actually analyze what we do, something no other animal can do, let alone care to even do. What's the point of having this faculty to analyze what we do when life is too precious to even to think about it, and just do it?

Analysis is a survival advantage, hence its ubiquity.  More generally, it's an effectiveness advantage, even in areas where survival isn't in jeopardy.  As effectiveness yields success; and success, happiness; analysis is, finally, a happiness advantage.  But see my next point.

QuoteThat makes no sense to me. You believe that the world will end anyway, so might as well enjoy it. What's the point of analyzing the enjoyment of this life if it doesn't even matter?

I'm sure Croaker will agree that he wasn't saying life doesn't matter, but rather, that it doesn't matter in an absolute, universal sense.  It doesn't matter objectively.  I'm sure he will agree with me that nothing matters objectively, since subjectivity is necessary before mattering can come into being.  To matter is to matter subjectively.  There is no such thing as mattering objectively.  I'm sure Croaker will agree that his life matters subjectively to him.

But here the discrepancy in epistemology comes into sharp focus.  Because Christian faith is your epistemology, you will disagree with me when I say that nothing matters objectively.  This is because you posit an absolute, universal entity.  Because this entity is absolute and universal, everything it does is absolute and universal, which means its thoughts, emotions, desires, preferences, and decisions are absolute and universal, hence objective.  In your epistemology, thoughts, emotions, desires, preferences, and decisions can be objective, if they're God's.

The importance of the above in us understanding one another cannot be overstated.  Nor can the chasm between the two paragraphs directly above be bridged.  One epistemology will come to rest on the first of the two paragraphs.  Another epistemology will come to rest on the second of the two.  The two paragraphs cannot be made to resolve, because the two epistemologies cannot be made to resolve.

QuoteI love atheists when it comes to discussions with them, and I am much more inclined to be friends with them than with believers. But usually they are more selfish than they are selfless, at least the friends I have. The genius of scientists who had spend hours in the laboratory for discoveries many times have to be selfish to attain those important discoveries. What acts of selfless love have they performed for the world than lust for more knowledge? I'm not saying they're unimportant. I'm saying they simply turned their work into their idol sometimes at the expense of the world of suffering people that need help.

Science brings much practical good to the world.  More, perhaps, than any other endeavor man has taken up in six thousand years.  If practical good is our measure, then the scientist must be our hero, our ideal, and yes, our saint.

Quote from: "Achronos"You would first have to make an argument first for me to attack it. You just made a string of snide assertions that are hardly original.

Your posts are for the most part a confused jumble of parroted lines from atheists preaching to the choir with some incoherent thoughts. It is not a personal attack to point that out.

Since I don't spend much time on your posts, I haven't seen much reason to, can you explain why I shouldn't feel like mud is being thrown at my wall just in the hope that something will stick?

Your refused to answer my question, and instead rely on tired apologetics, and then have the temerity to call me a parrot.  That's pretty funny.  Physician, heal thyself.  If I wanted to "throw mud at your wall", I would make personal attacks on you.  That you initiated ad homs and the whine about "mud" is a double-standard.

Quote from: "Thump"I'm sorry, like Carl Sagan, I have little patience to play games with sophmores. If you have something to say, spit it out.

Introspection is a valuable practice.  I suggest you take it up.  It isn't my job to teach you about yourself.

Quote from: "Thump"You'll notice that I didn't say you rigged your results.

Quote from: "Achy"I do note the underlying assumption of your posts that I accept assumptions without a reason and build on from there shines through.

No, the only thing I said is that both our positions differ because we both input different starting values.  Here is a clear example of you assuming a combative stance when an attentive reading of my point reveals no such animus on my part.

Believe me, if I thought you were dishonest, I'd say as much.

Quote from: "Achy"Being underwhelmed by your brilliance, I have to resort to the tedious chore of figuring out a basis for discussion, as you make it clear you won't do [strike:19z6li96]that[/strike:19z6li96] my homework.

Fixed.

Quote from: "Thump"Please define what you mean by "ultimate truth".

Quote from: "Achy"Christ of course. But you are not ready for Him, so we will have to settle for some agreed common ground of reality, where 2+2=4.

1) You must first evidence your lord's divinity.
2) 2+2=4 doesn't strike me a "ultimate", to wit, "final".  Nor, for that matter, does any conception of god  that I've looked into.

QuoteFor instance, how do you know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. How do you prove it? Can one prove it? Can it be verified?  And if it is verified, can we also see and verify the consequences?

So is someting real, or is it all make-believe?

You are equivocating "things" and "events".  Because your god is asserted to be eternal, presumably his is not victim to the exigencies of historical uncertainty.  Such an "ultimate truth" ought to be pretty obvious, it seems to me.  To return to an earlier comparison, gravity has no need for a holy book.

Quote from: "Thump"Protip:  Read entire post before responding.

Quote from: "Achy"I did. Your point got the counter point it merited. No more, no less.

If that's the best you can manage, this conversation is a waste of my time.

Quote from: "ThumpApparently you don't understand aerodynamics.  Gravity is not being disobeyed; it is being outdone by different forces.

[quote="Achy"]I'm quite aware of them. So too, just because when you break God's commandments that He doesn't strike you down then and there doesn't prove the divine law isn't in operation. He has other concerns than just swift punishment.  Just like the operation of areodynamics do not disprove gravity.[/quote]

Unfortunately for you, both gravity and aerodynamics are known and observed properties of the Universe, unlike this god that you worship.  That was the point I was making.  It's a pity you didn't address it.

Quote from: "Thump"That, my friend, isn't a demand for obeisance -- it is not telling me to behave in any particular way; it is merely exerting brute force.

Quote from: "Achy"Brute force is quite within God's reach. But He is not restricted or limited to it. If we were Calvinists, you would know the difference between predestination and gravity. Since we don't know exactly what pre/misconceptions of your own about God that you bring here, don't know how further to go with that at this time.

You could start with dropping the assumption that your god exists, and demonstrate his existence with evidence.  Until then, you're sledding uphill.

Quote from: "Thump"That's okay.  You didn't mention you masters in theology.  Or you doctorate in bullshit, for that matter.

QuotePhD in Systematic Theology, University of Edinburgh.

Why is it that a doctorate in physics makes one a physicist, a doctorate in mathematics makes one a mathematician, but a doctorate in theology doesn't make one a god?

QuoteSo, where did you cut your teeth on the books, or are you self taught?

Liberal Arts degree, and about 20 years of self-education following that.

Quote from: "Thump"Also, the two are similar in that they are a result of an overweening concern with conformity and the opinions of others, and an attempt to defy the reminders of mortality.

Quote from: "Achy"Ah, there you go again, trying to sneak an assertion in without us noticing its lack of foundation.

I speak from personal experience.

QuoteLet's break this down:

"a result of an overweening concern with conformity and the opinions of others"  such was not the case of Orthodox Christianity in the first three centuries, during which it was a capital offense everywhere. Getting yourself executed for your Faith doesn't demonstrate much concern with conformity and the opinion of others, particularly those in power. It is still the case in much of the world: I've spent a lot of time in the Muslim world, where just wearing a Cross can and does get you killed. And then there is the Church under Communism. Again, not an overwhelming concern with conformity and the opinion of others.

I was speaking of your immediate peers.  I'm sorry I didn't make that plain enough.

Quote"an attempt to defy the reminders of mortality": you obviously haven't read any Orthodox spiritual literature about the remembrance of mortality. You're way not ready for that, so I'll just ask: you characterized Christianity as a  "death cult" or some such nonsense. Explain then how does a death cult attempt to defy the reminders of morality?  If you are supposedly obsessed with death, how do you ignore the reminders of morality?

To answer your question, it demands that its members forgo many of the pleasures on this Earth in favor of a delayed reward -- or punishment, if they refuse to make these sacrifices.  In espousing this, they cause many people to die without having truly lived.  This is why I hold that this faith is largely self-abnegatng and a death  cult.  

QuoteLOL. Sophmores.

I'm the wrong sex anyway, you old goat.

QuoteThis reminds me of a conversation I had with an American Communist .... (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi56.tinypic.com%2F2po49kz.jpg&hash=4f6eddffc54de64989d9ccd5a7e871fa4a62127b) ..... and alcoholism was feeding off of, but he wasn't aware of that.

So no, no opiate of the masses here nor afterlife morphine. Just dealing with the facts.

I don't appreciate you insinuating alcoholism on my part by comparing me with one.  So much for civility?

I shall leave you alone for now.  For future reference, you may wish to modify your approach to convincing others of your rectitude.  It's not convincing, at all.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Your refused to answer my question,

I've traced this quote thread (the reason why I always use the quote function), and you didn't ask a question in it. You made a string of assertions, attempts at profundity, without substantiation, and I was not impressed.

Quoteand instead rely on tired apologetics,

I haven't engaged in any apologetics with you, tired or otherwise. Engaging you with them would seem like nailing jello to the wall.

Quoteand then have the temerity to call me a parrot.

If it quacks like a duck.

QuoteThat's pretty funny.  Physician, heal thyself.  If I wanted to "throw mud at your wall", I would make personal attacks on you.  That you initiated ad homs and the whine about "mud" is a double-standard.

Pointing out that your presentation is trite, pedantic and pedestrian isn't an ad hominem.

Quote from: "Thump"Introspection is a valuable practice.  I suggest you take it up.  It isn't my job to teach you about yourself.

Physician, heal thyself.

Quote from: "Thump"No, the only thing I said is that both our positions differ because we both input different starting values.  Here is a clear example of you assuming a combative stance when an attentive reading of my point reveals no such animus on my part.

So far we've mostly seen you piggy backing on the input of others. Not that that is necessarily bad, but 1) you have to recognize you do it; 2) justify and defend who you depend on; otherwise 3) refrain from calling such reliance a weakness in your opponent. Unless they can't justify and defend their authorities.

QuoteBelieve me, if I thought you were dishonest, I'd say as much.

Projecting, are we?

QuoteFixed.

If I wanted to argue with Carl Sagan, Matt Dillahunty etc. I can quote them and do that. I don't have to play cat and mouse with their plagerists.

Quote from: "Thump"1) You must first evidence your lord's divinity.

You're not ready for that yet: remember, you're an atheist. No point proving to you that the Son of Man is the Son of a non-existent God, now is there?

Quote2) 2+2=4 doesn't strike me a "ultimate", to wit, "final".  Nor, for that matter, does any conception of god  that I've looked into.

And what conceptions would that be?

QuoteYou are equivocating "things" and "events".  Because your god is asserted to be eternal, presumably his is not victim to the exigencies of historical uncertainty.

If Christ has not risen, the Orthodox Faith is futile.

But back to the point at hand: the question of the Rubicon is just an opportunity to see how you claim to know truth, as you seem to parrot the denial of things beyond history and the physical.

QuoteSuch an "ultimate truth" ought to be pretty obvious, it seems to me.

IOW, you can't defend your assertions. We're just expected to take your word on it.

QuoteTo return to an earlier comparison, gravity has no need for a holy book.

Neither does the Creator's intelligent design of the cosmos, His will or His moral law.

Quote from: "Thump"If that's the best you can manage, this conversation is a waste of my time.

Garbage in, garbage out. I haven't seen any reason to get the pearls out. I'm just wasting time inbetween serious discussion, like getting a sandwich during the commercials while watching the news.

Quote from: "Thump"Unfortunately for you, both gravity and aerodynamics are known and observed properties of the Universe, unlike this god that you worship.  That was the point I was making.  It's a pity you didn't address it.

See, there you go asserting something you cannot defend, let alone prove.

QuoteIt's a pity you didn't address it.

It's a pity you don't recognize that it was addressed. There is a moral and theological order in the universe. Sir Isaac Newton's works on physics etc. are only about a tenth of his scholarly output. The rest is theological, and he often reiterated that his works on physics were only an adjunct to his theological work. That you seperate the two, or rather, those whom you imitate seperate the two, is the start of your problems.

QuoteYou could start with dropping the assumption that your god exists,

See, there you go again, demanding that we adopt you assertion which you have neither substantiaed nor defended.

Quoteand demonstrate his existence with evidence.  Until then, you're sledding uphill.

LOL. No, I'm just looking from Spaceland on you in Flatland, if not Pontland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland#Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland#Plot)

Quote from: "Thump"Why is it that a doctorate in physics makes one a physicist, a doctorate in mathematics makes one a mathematician, but a doctorate in theology doesn't make one a god?

It makes one a theologian.  You really have to get that analogy thing down. Or are you going to state that a physicist is a mole of gas, and a mathematician a quadratic equation?

QuoteLiberal Arts degree, and about 20 years of self-education following that.

That's a suprise. So you're not young, just a sophmore.

Quote from: "Thump"I speak from personal experience.

So then you are projecting.

QuoteI was speaking of your immediate peers.

So was I.

QuoteI'm sorry I didn't make that plain enough.

You are avoiding the issue. There are plenty of Faithful Orthodox who do not fit your trite marxist and freudian characatures.

QuoteTo answer your question, it demands that its members forgo many of the pleasures on this Earth in favor of a delayed reward -- or punishment, if they refuse to make these sacrifices.  In espousing this, they cause many people to die without having truly lived.  This is why I hold that this faith is largely self-abnegatng and a death  cult.  

Yes, teenagers hate delayed gratification, not having learned yet it virtues and caught up in instant gratification. But if you haven't learned that yet in your forties (is this a midlife crisis?), don't know if you ever will. Jim Morrison "lived" to the ripe old age of 27, OD'd in a bathtub. Actually his live in girlfriend gave him cocaine on which he hemorrhaged, she passed out instead of calling for help while he bled to death. She OD'd 3 years later. I remember his biography "No one gets out of here alive." Indeed.

QuoteI'm the wrong sex anyway, you old goat.

The sophmores I knew were male and female. You don't fit in those groups?
And if you have spent two decades+ in self education after a Liberal Arts Decree (I assume you did it in 4 years), who's the old goat?

QuoteI don't appreciate you insinuating alcoholism on my part by comparing me with one.  So much for civility?

I didn't insinuate a thing about your drinking habits. That was, after all, just a symptom of the same wallowing in existential angst that you demonstrate here.

QuoteI shall leave you alone for now.  For future reference, you may wish to modify your approach to convincing others of your rectitude.  It's not convincing, at all.

Dozens have told me otherwise, and proved it by Chrismation. By the Lord's gift I have the discernment of where and how to cast the pearls.

Quote from: "McQ"I just have to acknowledge and thank Sophus for his participation on the forum. And his ability to explain things.
If I had to pick anyone to explain nihilism, or any of those concepts he laid out in the last post, it'd be him.
 

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-static.weddingbee.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2Ft-20098.jpg&hash=d767a7f493570e72998b13782d7db3f2c35619c2)

Achronos, please take note of the fact that I've been trying to address you on this thread.

Quote from: "Achronos"... By the Lord's gift I have the discernment of where and how to cast the pearls.

Read for comprehension:

Quote from: "Thump"I shall leave you alone for now. For future reference, you may wish to modify your approach to convincing others of your rectitude. It's not convincing, at all.

Perhaps if you leavened your insults with some clarity, you'd make better headway.

eta:  "No, you!" is not cogent argument.

eta2:  This last post of yours was one long ad hom.  Hope you're proud.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Achronos"... By the Lord's gift I have the discernment of where and how to cast the pearls.

Read for comprehension:

Quote from: "Thump"I shall leave you alone for now. For future reference, you may wish to modify your approach to convincing others of your rectitude. It's not convincing, at all.

Perhaps if you leavened your insults with some clarity, you'd make better headway.

eta:  "No, you!" is not cogent argument.

eta2:  This last post of yours was one long ad hom.  Hope you're proud.

Too bad, I was enjoying that, it was very funny. I was interested in what Achronos had to say originally, but when he claimed to have evidence of NDEs being more than just imagery created by a brain deprived of oxygen, but failed to produce a single case of such, I lost interest. I got the impression that Achronos merely accepts things because they validate his preconceptions, without vetting the sources.

I've also been getting a very strong troll vibe. Mainly because Achronos has difficulty answering questions and resorts to ad homs, ignoring and/or saying things completely unrelated. Also because Achronos has been accusing others of doing the very same things he is doing, when they're not.

Anyway, you deserve some props for lasting that long.

Thanks for your reply Achronos.  The time you took is appreciated.  I have chosen to respond to your discussion on faith in a later post.  One problem we have here is that we work from different definitions.  I use a different definition for the words faith and agnostic than you do.  I've decided to address agnostic first, simply because its a bit quicker to answer.

Quote from: "Achronos"True agnostics see the world through no particular understanding necessarily. They doubt a strict materialistic worldview, but they also doubt transcendant worldview.

I think you have reshaped the meaning of agnostic.  You see it as a middle ground between our two positions, accepting neither one: expressing skepticism on both the transcendent and materialist world views, agnostic to both; but that is not the original meaning, nor is it the Oxford dictionary definition.
 

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

To my way of thinking the word agnostic implies skepticism toward the legitimacy of the sources of knowledge used to prove the existence of God.  That is its meaning.  It does not imply skepticism to anything else.  The agnostic may be skeptical of other things, but the only thing you can know for certain is that he remains unconvinced that anything can be known for certain about God. Agnosticism does not imply skepticism toward science, the scientific method or those things examined by this method.

I think you have taken the word agnostic and modified its original meaning so that it implies skepticism toward all things.  I suspect most who call themselves agnostic have no difficulty perceiving materialistic explanations as trustworthy.  I don't think they doubt the 'materialistic worldview.'  I suspect most agnostics see the material world as the only certain source of knowledge that we possess.

*******
Are there any agnostics present who could way in and lend their view?

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Thus Christian faith is your epistemology.  This is what I have tried to get across in various ways on various threads.  This is why you and a scientarian can never get anywhere by debate unless the topic is epistemology itself.  Any other topic is a waste of time.  First the matter of epistemology must be cleared up, if it can be.  If it can't be, then debate remains pointless.

Agreed.

QuoteDo you agree that self-deceit, depending on the particular falsehoods that constitute the lie, could cause improvements in character, in effectiveness, in success, and in happiness, yet still be self-deceit, still be a lie, still be false?
 
Every last atheist on this message board mentally answered yes to my question.  I know this in advance because they and I have the same epistemology, and our shared epistemology will always answer yes to the question I've posed, because our epistemology places zero, absolute zero, weight on character improvement, effectiveness improvement, success improvement, or happiness improvement, when assessing whether a proposition is true.  Now, I will also say that most atheists (perhaps not all) would find it very interesting that so much improvement resulted from a falsehood, a lie, a self-deception.  Most atheists would want to know the mechanism by which this occurred.  They would want to do science, or they would want someone else to do science in this area.  Hypotheses would spring to mind and they would want these hypotheses tested.

In disagreement with the bold part, I think there is at least some truth in something when there's improvement in character for instance.

That science becomes a central faith is the problem. Science is a method, not a faith to me.  It's a method I use that can help me understand the world around me. When science becomes a faith, it makes sense as to why character improvement is not in the picture.  They instead would like to analyze what it is that leads one to believe in character improvement, but they already assume its falsehood from the beginning, and so they've convinced themselves not to be "ensnared" into this "garbage" concerning the validity of things that improve success and character, but understand, let's say, how it sociologically and neurobiologically works, which literally defeats the purpose out of anything really.  Humanity has logic, but it also has emotion. Science by definition is only logic. When humanity follows science alone, you pretty much seek to destroy the emotion out of anything. Slowly, we turn pretty much into programmed robots.

You've probably heard the adage before, "science seeks to ask how, religion seeks to ask why." Those who are rigid in following science as a faith say there's no such thing as a why. It just is. That's terrifying. Instead of making sense out of why, the why in us is sought to be destroyed.

So, it is this "why" that scientists call a self-deception. But if the why is always nagging at me, then I call the rejection of the why a delusion.

I don't know how scientists see this as self-deception. Of course this goes both ways, but I wonder at people like CS Lewis, Francis Collins, Ann Rice, all who were atheists, all who understand what this is, and yet they decided to reject that this is a case of self-deception, that there is validity to asking the question "why."

QuoteWhat prompted your decision to stop?

Laziness and curiosity.

QuoteThis harkens back to another question I asked you, and which I don't think you answered, although maybe I missed your answer, as this thread is dense with sub-threads, and my attention wanders or zooms in, depending on the particular sub-thread.  You said previously that you made two forays into atheism.  What prompted those two forays?

I didn't ignore your question about my previous experiences with atheism. I decided not to respond because I'm not sure why it matters to you, are you trying to get me to convince you of my Christian beliefs?

QuoteAnalysis is a survival advantage, hence its ubiquity.  More generally, it's an effectiveness advantage, even in areas where survival isn't in jeopardy.  As effectiveness yields success; and success, happiness; analysis is, finally, a happiness advantage.  But see my next point.

I'm sure Croaker will agree that he wasn't saying life doesn't matter, but rather, that it doesn't matter in an absolute, universal sense.  It doesn't matter objectively.  I'm sure he will agree with me that nothing matters objectively, since subjectivity is necessary before mattering can come into being.  To matter is to matter subjectively.  There is no such thing as mattering objectively.  I'm sure Croaker will agree that his life matters subjectively to him.

But here the discrepancy in epistemology comes into sharp focus. Because Christian faith is your epistemology, you will disagree with me when I say that nothing matters objectively. This is because you posit an absolute, universal entity. Because this entity is absolute and universal, everything it does is absolute and universal, which means its thoughts, emotions, desires, preferences, and decisions are absolute and universal, hence objective.  n your epistemology, thoughts, emotions, desires, preferences, and decisions can be objective, if they're God's.

The importance of the above in us understanding one another cannot be overstated.  Nor can the chasm between the two paragraphs directly above be bridged.  One epistemology will come to rest on the first of the two paragraphs.  Another epistemology will come to rest on the second of the two.  The two paragraphs cannot be made to resolve, because the two epistemologies cannot be made to resolve.

When you says "objectively" I say, "in the end" or "ultimately" (i.e. in the end, it doesn't even matter). Subjectively means that you can make it up as you go along, whatever you feel is right. In that case, there is no right or wrong, just a competition of morals. In a scientific sense, there is truth to subjectivity. In a broader more sociological sense, I think this would be disastrous. Even atheists agree that there are a certain set of morals to follow when interacting with others. In subjectivity, good or bad, wrong or right is just an opinion of the majority or the strongest that aids in the survival of the fittest. But when atheists agree that there are moral questions that are necessary for the survival of a species, I think then they are heading towards an objective truth. In other words, even though no one is right or wrong, I better compete about fighting for what I believe is right over yours. So, in practice, there is no subjectivity in the world.  When atheists are fighting against believers to tell them that believers are delusional, they throw away their subjectivity completely, fighting for the "objective truth" of no god. Some atheists are simply scientists that wish to others to acknowledge at least the methodology of science.  But even those will fight for perhaps a moral truth, for example fight against tyranny.

So, I'm not really convinced by subjectivity.  It is extremely inconsistent to me.

QuoteScience brings much practical good to the world.  More, perhaps, than any other endeavor man has taken up in six thousand years.  If practical good is our measure, then the scientist must be our hero, our ideal, and yes, our saint.

Doctors do much practical good in the world, but they can be a bunch of arrogant self-worshippers sometimes. They too can be saints and heros in at least the work they do, but a lot of people can agree that they are necessary, but not necessarily good.

In a broad sense, I'm looking for someone more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiC_9RHTvsA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiC_9RHTvsA)

It doesn't require you getting a degree or being super intelligent at something. It requires you to be human, to get in touch with that emotional side of you.

I guess I could also argue in any era science has proved as dangerous as it is beneficial, which implies that some kind of morality must be applied, it does not have to stem from religiousity, but none-the-less blind science as dangerous as anything. Like the machine gun, chemical and biological weapons, excessive consumption of natural resources, oh yeah and the nuclear warhead and the only true prospect of utter annihilation.

Quote from: "Cycel"Are there any agnostics present who could way in and lend their view?

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Quote from: "Achronos"most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

As far as I am concerned Achronos is Agnostic

Quote from: "Achronos"Doctors do much practical good in the world, but they can be a bunch of arrogant self-worshippers sometimes.

Do you challenge these doctors to their face or simply publish critical judgement on public forums?

Quote from: "Achronos"Okay, let me give you a different perspective, Cycel. Faith is what you put your trust is, the lens by which you see the world.

You see the world through the lens of what you can only sense.

I see the world through Christian understanding.

I am going to play the old dictionary game again.  The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) offers two definitions for faith:

Quotei) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

ii) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

When you admit to seeing the world through Christian eyes your are admitting, it seems to me, seeing the world through the doctrines of a religion.  I would think you might also acknowledge basing your beliefs on spiritual convictions, thought I think you are less likely to admit not having proof.  This latter point, I think, is where you might have the biggest hang-up for the definition.  This 2nd definition, for me, is the one that immediately comes to mind when I think of the word faith.  You can see, then, why I would probably object myself to any assertion that I possess faith.

Though I do see the world through a lens based on evidence constructed from the physical world, I don't recognize this as a matter of faith.  Your faith, it would seem to me, precludes change.  You might correct me on this if I am wrong.  Because of spiritual convictions I imagine you are locked into believing the same things over time.  New evidence doesn't cause you to modify your beliefs about God, or does it?  Those, like myself, who rely on physical evidence from the world to establish our perceptions of it, change our views when conflicting evidence comes available.  I don't think that anyone who maintains views of the world based on physical evidence would ever insist they had complete trust in any scientific claim, as per the 1st definition.  My world view prevents me from having complete trust and so is the opposite of having faith.

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is something you believe in. It's the precursor to a philosophy. I talk about the Christian faith, that is the beliefs, the theology of our Church, etc. Faith is dogma, and everyone has a certain dogma they live by, whether it be atheists or believers.

Dogma is tied closely to claiming possession of absolute truth.  Let's look at the dictionary again.

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That -- incontrovertibly true -- part, is an integral part of dogma.  This is what sets scientific theories apart from religious doctrine.  The demand that something is incontrovertibly true is never heard in science.  Conservative Christians frequently make much of the observation that hypotheses in science are often here today and gone tomorrow.  They perceive change in science as proof that scientists don't know what they are talking about.

I recognize that dogma is tied up with faith which is another reason I object to the assertion that I possess faith.  I hold that one species may evolve into something different, but  give me good reason to believe this view is wrong and I will change my mind.  I am not locked into an incontrovertible truth.  My views are not dogmatic.

Message here is requesting that people remain civil.

If you think I'm referring to you, I probably am, but I'd just like to remind everyone that we are trying very hard to make this forum elevated above the standard internet sandbox forums, where people use veiled or overt sarcasm and attacks during what would otherwise be productive discourse. Please give others the benefit of the doubt. Ask to clarify rather than assume things.

This could be an awesome thread, but it is devolving. Also, try to keep in mind that non atheists who come here are already outnumbered, and may feel like people are ganging up on them. Take the high road.

(yes, we get trolls and spammers and jackasses in here, and when we do, feel free to be more "blunt" with them!)

Achronos has been extremely civil, and has remained much calmer than I would have the patience for in this thread.

He has not asked for my input here, but I have read this whole thread from the time it started, and it is not going in a positive direction as far as civility goes.

I'm not asking for anything here other than future posts step it up several levels on the manners and civility scale. Drop the old stuff, and move forward.

Thank you. No one needs to respond to this in the open forum, so let's just get going in a positive direction please.

Just to clarify, not all posts have been bad, and most of this has been ok. Just parts of many posts, some entire posts, and more and more jabs are starting to appear.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Cycel"Are there any agnostics present who could way (sic) in and lend their view?

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Quote from: "Achronos"most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

As far as I am concerned Achronos is Agnostic

Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

Quote from: "Cycel"Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

I am very new at these labels, but as far as I have learned agnostic and believing in god are not mutually exclusive. Remember that belief is not based on proof otherwise it would be fact. Achronos is an Orthodox Christian, not Catholic. I can't speak for him so don't know if he would go so far as to say he was Agnostic but I see his statement as fitting perfectly within the Agnostic description.

I personally don't see it as a bad thing or anything negative on Achronos if he is agnostic I don't see it as contrary or weakening towards his belief in his god. So I certainly hope this isn't seen as a dig! But if he is agnostic then his statements would be relevant to an Agnostic viewpoint. I just thought it would be worth pointing that out.

Quote from: "Cycel"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Cycel"Are there any agnostics present who could way (sic) in and lend their view?

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Quote from: "Achronos"most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

As far as I am concerned Achronos is Agnostic

Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

Agnostics can still believe in God, they just recognize that they cannot be one-hundred percent certain that he actually exists. So, honest theists.

Quote from: "Cycel"Thanks for your reply Achronos.  The time you took is appreciated.  I have chosen to respond to your discussion on faith in a later post.  One problem we have here is that we work from different definitions.  I use a different definition for the words faith and agnostic than you do.  I've decided to address agnostic first, simply because its a bit quicker to answer.

Quote from: "Achronos"True agnostics see the world through no particular understanding necessarily. They doubt a strict materialistic worldview, but they also doubt transcendant worldview.

I think you have reshaped the meaning of agnostic.  You see it as a middle ground between our two positions, accepting neither one: expressing skepticism on botIT Ih the transcendent and materialist world views, agnostic to both; but that is not the original meaning, nor is it the Oxford dictionary definition.
 

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

To my way of thinking the word agnostic implies skepticism toward the legitimacy of the sources of knowledge used to prove the existence of God.  That is its meaning.  It does not imply skepticism to anything else.  The agnostic may be skeptical of other things, but the only thing you can know for certain is that he remains unconvinced that anything can be known for certain about God. Agnosticism does not imply skepticism toward science, the scientific method or those things examined by this method.

I think you have taken the word agnostic and modified its original meaning so that it implies skepticism toward all things.  I suspect most who call themselves agnostic have no difficulty perceiving materialistic explanations as trustworthy.  I don't think they doubt the 'materialistic worldview.'  I suspect most agnostics see the material world as the only certain source of knowledge that we possess.

So you are saying that you have embraced inconsistency: the scientific method is just a method, one which Kuhn has shown has led to often contradictory results. But the agonstic, so you say, will swallow that and put away his doubt, while criticizing the theologians.

By the way, I first came interested in Orthodoxy coming across the statement that Orthodoxy teaches that agonosticism is the natural religion of man, since finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But Orthodoxy does not lead to agnotiscism, because God has revealed Himself.

As for reshaping "the meaning of agnostic," perhaps it would pay to look at its creator.

QuoteI neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter...It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions...

That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can Iâ€"who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deedsâ€"have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"â€"had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticis ... nry_Huxley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Thomas_Henry_Huxley)
Was Huxeley's physics the same as Einstein's?

As I'm typing, in the background I have "The Story of Us," another "History Channel" production, but better than most. They are now talking about Prohibition, and have Bill Maher speaking on it, of course saying "anyone can tell you that you cannot legislate morality." Though he has a BA from Cornell, they couldn't find anyone with more authority (say a historian, ethicist, social scientist, etc. rather than a stand up comedian) to speak on the subject, or did they just need someone to deliver a line?

Does this discussion have a goal or endpoint in sight anymore? I mean it's all very interesting but I don't think we're talking about "the terrifying thought of no afterlife" anymore. Seems to keep branching out into more and more subjects.

Quote from: "Achronos"So you are saying that you have embraced inconsistency: the scientific method is just a method, one which Kuhn has shown has led to often contradictory results. But the agonstic, so you say, will swallow that and put away his doubt, while criticizing the theologians.

If this is the Kuhn's I think you're referring to that was some number of years ago and he was looking at the broad history of science. Though I'm curious about what contradictions you think there are in the method itself.

QuoteWas Huxeley's physics the same as Einstein's?

Huxley was a biologist. Do you mean metaphysics?

Quote from: "Sophus"Does this discussion have a goal or endpoint in sight anymore? I mean it's all very interesting but I don't think we're talking about "the terrifying thought of no afterlife" anymore. Seems to keep branching out into more and more subjects.

I've been trying to bring this up every so often, but it seems the discussion of my own beliefs are far more important than the OP. Which is fine and all but perhaps we should move our discussion to another thread? The afterlife is a fascinating topic all its own in my opinion.

QuoteIf this is the Kuhn's I think you're referring to that was some number of years ago and he was looking at the broad history of science. Though I'm curious about what contradictions you think there are in the method itself.

I didn't say there there was any contradictions in the method itself. Just in the claims made for it.

QuoteHuxley was a biologist.

Yes, I know that. Largely self taught too.

QuoteDo you mean metaphysics?

No. Physics.  Einstein didn't specialize in metaphysics.The conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter can come under metaphysics, but I believe Huxley meant physics.

Wow. A whole post by achro without using the word sophomore. Impressive.  

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Cycel"Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

I am very new at these labels, but as far as I have learned agnostic and believing in god are not mutually exclusive. Remember that belief is not based on proof otherwise it would be fact. Achronos is an Orthodox Christian, not Catholic. I can't speak for him so don't know if he would go so far as to say he was Agnostic but I see his statement as fitting perfectly within the Agnostic description.

I personally don't see it as a bad thing or anything negative on Achronos if he is agnostic I don't see it as contrary or weakening towards his belief in his god. So I certainly hope this isn't seen as a dig! But if he is agnostic then his statements would be relevant to an Agnostic viewpoint. I just thought it would be worth pointing that out.

I was wrong about his being Catholic it would seem.  Not sure where I got that notion.  While I can accept that a person who calls himself an agnostic may lean toward believing, or not believing, in God, I cannot imagine that anyone who declares specific truths about God can justifiably use that term.  I will have to look back to see whether Achronos has made any such declarations, but it seems out of place in my mind that anyone who calls himself orthodox would not make specific claims. The definitions seem at cross-purposes.

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Wow. A whole post by achro without using the word sophomore. Impressive.  

Please read my previous post referring to conduct.

Quote from: "Achronos"Science is a method, not a faith to me.

It's a method to me too.  But it rest on an epistemology, logical empiricism, which I think you would classify as my faith.  Since I place my trust in it, it would be tediously pedantic for me to split semantic hairs with you, so I won't.  Certainly I place my trust in logical empiricism.

QuoteWhen science becomes a faith, it makes sense as to why character improvement is not in the picture.  They instead would like to analyze what it is that leads one to believe in character improvement, but they already assume its falsehood from the beginning, and so they've convinced themselves not to be "ensnared" into this "garbage" concerning the validity of things that improve success and character, but understand, let's say, how it sociologically and neurobiologically works, which literally defeats the purpose out of anything really.

Scientists, and I along with them, would claim a distinction between utility and truth.  A concept can be true yet lack utility in a particular circumstance.  Likewise, a concept can be false yet in a particular circumstance be highly utile.  If a lie is the only, or the best, tool currently available, one may legitimately employ it, but one would hopefully retain some reservations about doing so, and be on the look-out for a truth that one could employ instead, one with equal or greater utility.  After all, lies can be found out, at which point their utility evaporates.  I'm having this exact discussion on my thread about atheism and the 12 step movement.

QuoteHumanity has logic, but it also has emotion. Science by definition is only logic.

True.

QuoteWhen humanity follows science alone, you pretty much seek to destroy the emotion out of anything.

I would say instead that logic and emotion govern separate domains.  Aesthetics is largely emotional for most people, and certainly for me.  Arguments as to why it's illogical for me to like a particular song will fall on deaf ears.  I don't care about logic when listening to a song.  Likewise, I don't care about emotion when assessing a proposition about causality.    

QuoteSlowly, we turn pretty much into programmed robots.

You may have noticed that I'm a big fan of robots.

I also happily view myself, and you, and all living creatures, as automotons, programmed by chemistry and history.

I suspect sapient robots, if they ever emerge, will have logic and will, but no emotion.  Thus happiness will be alien to them.  But purpose and its fulfillment will be front and center in their mental apparatus.  They will do what they must because they must, and in that, they won't be so very different from you and me.

QuoteYou've probably heard the adage before, "science seeks to ask how, religion seeks to ask why." Those who are rigid in following science as a faith say there's no such thing as a why. It just is.

The stream of causality stretches backward into what might as well be infinity, and forward, likewise, into what might as well be infinity.  The difference between past and future is this: the past can be known, whereas the future can only be guessed.  The present, meanwhile, can sometimes be controled.  Science, in its most actualized state, permits us to know the past, control the present, and guess with some confidence the future.  Interestingly, science has always assumed the stream of causality flowed only in one direction, from the past through the present to the future.  Recent experiments in quantum mechanics have yielded data suggestive of backward causality, the reversal of the stream, so that it flows from the future through the present to the past.  I mention this because backward causality is implied in Christian eschatology as some would interpret it.  The Parousia, being foreordained, reaches backward into the past to ensure its own present.  An interesting correlation between the underpinnings of theology and the latest findings in science.  Source regarding the science: Understanding Time and Causality is the Key to Understanding Quantum Mechanics - http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/wharton/time_and_causality.pdf

In any case, when you talk about why, you mean purpose, hence will.  You want the universe to have a will, so you assume it does.  I don't have that particular desire, but if I did, and if I decided to fulfill it by fiat; I.e., by simply saying it was so; I would figure the will of the universe was mutation and natural selection, flux and struggle, innovation and competition, abundance and annihilation, diversity and brutality, since those are what I see around me.  But since those things I see around me would be there any way, willed or unwilled, I am apathetic as to whether will is present.

QuoteThat's terrifying. Instead of making sense out of why, the why in us is sought to be destroyed.

Terrifying to you, trivial to me.  The universe may or may not have a will, but you have a will, and I have a will.  You have reasons and I have reasons.  If the universe has a will, my own must align with it, since I'm part of the universe, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this would likewise fulfill the universe's will.  If the universe doesn't have a will, then my own is as good as any other, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this will make me happiest.  Thus, once again, as is always the case, the question of God's existence is irrelevant, and I am therefore apathetic toward it.
 

QuoteSo, it is this "why" that scientists call a self-deception. But if the why is always nagging at me, then I call the rejection of the why a delusion.

Yet the Earth abounds with purpose, and scientists acknowledge it.  I mean the purposes of earthly creatures.  Everywhere living beings pursue their goals.

QuoteI don't know how scientists see this as self-deception. Of course this goes both ways, but I wonder at people like CS Lewis, Francis Collins, Ann Rice, all who were atheists, all who understand what this is, and yet they decided to reject that this is a case of self-deception, that there is validity to asking the question "why."

Usually what happens is a tap on the shoulder from death.  Suddenly mortality is brought into sharp focus, and up pops fear.

QuoteI didn't ignore your question about my previous experiences with atheism. I decided not to respond because I'm not sure why it matters to you, are you trying to get me to convince you of my Christian beliefs?

No.  I'm trying to understand you.  Not your Christian beliefs.  You.

QuoteEven atheists agree that there are a certain set of morals to follow when interacting with others.

I don't.  But I think we humans can agree to be good to one another for practical reasons.

QuoteSo, I'm not really convinced by subjectivity.  It is extremely inconsistent to me.

That's because very few people are willing to admit that there is no such thing as objective morality, and so they project their subjective preferences onto the universe. and imagine their own wills to be the will of God.  The only reason Christianity makes sense to you is because selflessness makes sense to you.

QuoteDoctors do much practical good in the world, but they can be a bunch of arrogant self-worshippers sometimes. They too can be saints and heros in at least the work they do, but a lot of people can agree that they are necessary, but not necessarily good.

You mean morally good, which to me is irrelevant.  Practical results are what matter.  Help me for selfish reasons and you have still helped me.  I don't need you to be selfless.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"The only reason Christianity makes sense to you is because selflessness makes sense to you.

Are you saying that Christianity is selfless? I have the feeling that Christianity assumes everyone is selfish and hence dangles the carrot of eternal love and happiness for being good and eternal torment for being bad.

With this hanging over a person's head how can they perform selfless acts?

My understanding is that to be selfless you have to have no incentive, no gain from performing your actions.
By my logic (lol) only Atheists therefore can be selfless, this by the way also includes rocks and puppies!

Quote from: "Stevil"Are you saying that Christianity is selfless?

No.  I'm saying it preaches selflessness, different denominations to a greater or lesser degree.  Preaching and praxis can differ and often do.  Achronos is some sort of Orthodox, Greek if I recall correctly.  His denomination, similar to the Roman Catholics, is one that preaches selflessness to a great degree.  His posts certainly glorify selflessness as a virtue.

QuoteI have the feeling that Christianity assumes everyone is selfish and hence dangles the carrot of eternal love and happiness for being good and eternal torment for being bad.

This is largely accurate, so long as you add belief in the Atonement as at least equally important, if not more so, depending on the denomination.  Being good, from a Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic perspective, is largely selflessness.

QuoteWith this hanging over a person's head how can they perform selfless acts?

The usual teaching would be, "Believe and try.  At first your attempts may be inwardly false, but habit will start to make the inside match the outside; plus, more importantly, the Holy Spirit will go to work within you.  Eventually the part of you that is in the divine image will have its Resurrection, and genuine selflessness will begin to manifest."

I don't defend the logic of any of that.  I merely report it, as an anthropologist might.
   

QuoteMy understanding is that to be selfless you have to have no incentive, no gain from performing your actions.
By my logic (lol) only Atheists therefore can be selfless, this by the way also includes rocks and puppies!

Rocks are selfless because they lack the capacity to be anything else.  Puppies, meanwhile, can manifest an instinctive loyalty to the pack, such that, in certain situations, self-sacrifice can occur.  Some humans will demonstrate something similar.  Both atheists and theists are theoretically capable of it.  Moreover, an atheist could preach selflessness without engaging in contradiction.  Lack of belief in a deity doesn't stop us from believing in the moral good, and our concept of the moral good might incorporate selflessness as a proposed virtue, perhaps the central or even the only one.  Whether our praxis matched our preaching would be a separate question, as it is for theists.  I personally don't propose selflessness as any kind of virtue, moral or practical.  I don't propose moral virtues at all.  I propose practical virtues, such as self-discipline, balance, and caution, called out for their utility both to self and to society.  Practical virtues bring earthly benefit to earthly creatures and their earthly neighbors.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Achronos is some sort of Orthodox, Greek if I recall correctly.  His denomination, similar to the Roman Catholics ....

Achronos, just to clarify, are you Greek Orthodox?  You may have provided this information earlier, but I'd appreciate if you could clear this up.

Quote from: "Cycel"Achronos, just to clarify, are you Greek Orthodox?  You may have provided this information earlier, but I'd appreciate if you could clear this up.

Nov. 13 5:51 AM, on the "Does religion offend you?" thread, Achronos wrote, "I go to a Greek Orthodox Church and my friend we could spend at quite a length discussing how important Orthodoxy is and my disdain with the other denominations, such as those which misinterpret Scripture. Greek, Russian, Antiochian, are still the same church but just in different jurisdictions."

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Agnostics can still believe in God, they just recognize that they cannot be one-hundred percent certain that he actually exists. So, honest theists.

I accept that within the parameters of the definition an agnostic might lean toward belief in a deity, but the moment he starts making proclamations as to the nature of God he quickly moves from agnosticism toward theism.  The agnostic holds that it is wrong to claim an objective truth about God unless he can produce evidence, but agnostics assert that God is unknowable precisely because they think that nothing can be known about God.  Presumably they don't accept the reliability of the theists' sources for knowledge about God.  I think agnostics, as per the definition below, are 100% certain that nothing can be known about the nature of God, should he exist.  

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God (OED, 2006).

If a person makes the following statement, 'God exists', then have they had already stepped beyond the bounds of agnosticism into theism?  I think they have.  An agnostic is more likely to assert, 'I don't know if God exist.'  He might then add the corollary, '... but I am inclined to think he does/doesn't'; so long as he makes no assertions about the nature of God.

Changing the definition, or adding to it, makes it difficult to carry on a discussion when the discussion makes use of terms that are not agreed upon. The definition above works for me.  

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"I would have a fear of an eternal afterlife.
What exactly are you going to do forever?

Quite. Everything has to have a beginning and an end, even stars.

Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

Quote from: "Achronos"As a Christian, if the afterlife does not exist then I would be fine because all my thoughts and memories would be 'erased'. What if there was an afterlife though and you could not enter because you rejected God? While my argument is weak to purport that I am fine believing in God and finding out nothing exists after life, but I will say it's better than not believing in God and finding out He does exist.

If God does exist, he'll know I've led a good life, and thus will not chuck me out of Heaven. If he would stop me entering Heaven then he's not quite the guy you all think he is - a god shouldn't really hold grudges, being perfect and all? If he'd prevent me from entering his Kingdom, then do I want to know him at all? Nope.

I can go throughout my life not believing in this deity because he is nothing more than a fabrication of men. If he did turn out to be real (not going to happen, but theoretically if) then I can still go throughout life not believing because he should in theory forgive me anyway.

Cheers God!

QuoteMy issue would be I couldn't reference any good excuse to not believe God existed. Maybe I can ask the guy behind me for an excuse.

Furthermore is it selfish of me to say that I kind of like the idea that I could live for eternity?

I'd like to live longer, a lot longer, but eternity is just too long maaaaan. I think fear of death meaning everything ending for ever is quite a frightening concept and therefore a big motivating factor to believe in God and heaven. That does not make it real unfortunately. If It did, I'm sure most people would jump on the bandwagon.

It is hard to accept the finality of it all. Even as an atheist, the ending of it all bothers me somewhat.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "Cycel"Achronos, just to clarify, are you Greek Orthodox?  You may have provided this information earlier, but I'd appreciate if you could clear this up.

Nov. 13 5:51 AM, on the "Does religion offend you?" thread, Achronos wrote, "I go to a Greek Orthodox Church and my friend we could spend at quite a length discussing how important Orthodoxy is and my disdain with the other denominations, such as those which misinterpret Scripture. Greek, Russian, Antiochian, are still the same church but just in different jurisdictions."

Merci ID, that clears up my confusion.  

Quote from: "AverageJoe"Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

Wouldn't you say that depends on the quality of those years though..?

Quote from: "AverageJoe"

Quote from: "SomewhereInND"I would have a fear of an eternal afterlife.
What exactly are you going to do forever?

Quite. Everything has to have a beginning and an end, even stars.

Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

Ditto, ditto, and ditto.

I quite agree.  It doesn't matter how long we are here.  I think few of us want our time to come to an end. I have no fear of being dead, but I don't like the idea of dying -- it might not be pleasant.  I certainly am not terrified at the thought of not living forever, and as the previous quote suggested, what could we possibly do with ourselves in an afterlife that lasted forever?  Even back in the days before I lost my belief in God I couldn't quite imagine what I was supposed to do during the afterlife.  One thing I knew for certain, I didn't want to spend all my time praising God.

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "AverageJoe"Having said that, 70-80 years on earth is not nearly long enough.

Wouldn't you say that depends on the quality of those years though..?

70 quality years could be classed as better than 140 absolutely horrific years - and let us never forget that some people (atheists and theists alike) for one reason or another have a terrible and painful time on earth.

I dunno, we are an intelligent species that is capable of so much advancement scientifically, it bothers me somewhat that Parrots can live as long and Tortoises can live twice as long.

So, just my opinion, 70-80 years, quality or otherwise, just doesn't seem too long.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"So, just my opinion, 70-80 years, quality or otherwise, just doesn't seem too long.

Indeed it is not...

What I am saying is that this time, even if relatively short, can be enough for someone who has lived a fulfilling life - or too much for someone who got nothing but crap out of it.

Quote from: "Cycel"I think agnostics, as per the definition below, are 100% certain that nothing can be known about the nature of God, should he exist.  

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God (OED, 2006).

and to quote Achronos yet again

Quote from: "Achronos"most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

I can understand your confusion Cycel, this is my confusion as well, however I am trying to run with it rather than apply my own logic to it.

The problem with applying my logic to Achronos is that we both operate off a different set of principles (epistemology as Inevitable Droid has highlighted) and word/term definitions, I have had many a discussion with Achronos on this thread. Although not addressing all of my points Achronos has certainly been very forthcoming with much information. In this way I have learnt some things about Achronos. Mostly that I find him difficult to understand and that my logic doesn't apply to him. His principles are based on that of the Christian Orthodoxy and in that world I gather logic is a completely different beast from my world.

With that all said there are two possibilities:
1. We are incorrect in applying our logic to Achronos to deduce that the definition of theory A coupled with statement B from person C means that C belongs to A. Just because someone states that they can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God it doesn't meant that they can't 100% believe that God exists. Belief overrides our logic and fact.
2. Achronos was incorrect in his statement, actually he does know 100% that God exists.

In subsequent posts Achronos stated

Quote from: "Achronos"But Orthodoxy does not lead to agnotiscism, because God has revealed Himself.

This was stated as the stance of the Orthodoxy but is not clear whether this is the stance of Achronos himself

Achronos also went on to post a quote with regards to some details about the person that coined the term Agnostic

Quote from: "Achronos"As for reshaping "the meaning of agnostic," perhaps it would pay to look at its creator.

In my mind this has no relevance with regards to the definition of the term "Agnostic", however potentially in Achronos' logic based on the Orthodoxy principles, maybe this is very relevant and modifies the definition such that Achronos is not Agnostic. I don't know and would simply be guessing here. As far as I can see Achronos has not simply come forth and made a clear outright statement as to whether he is Agnostic.

Quote from: "AverageJoe"I'd like to live longer, a lot longer, but eternity is just too long maaaaan.

I've been trying to think of things you can do, and here's one that would take a while. First, learn how to sculpt stone, then make a representative 'alphabet' of highly intricate statues, each one representing one letter, and each one taking a few years to complete - I'm thinking SUV size or something similar. Then, convert the entirety of humanity's written works into your statue alphabet.

That should take a few solid million years or so.

After that, well, crap, I don't know. I mean, even though it's a few million years, it's a fraction of infinity and you're back at square one - you still have all of infinity ahead of you.

I guess you could then repeat that conversion, once with every possible combination of every other inhabitant of heaven (they're probably looking for something to do, as well) and that'd take an obscene number of millions of years.

But then you're still only using a fraction of infinity and you... ugh, this is getting ridiculous. Can I just opt out of this 'eternity' thing?

If we're talking about immortality on Earth, via reincarnation or transhumanism, then sign me up.  On a planet where new books are continually being written, new movies made, new gadgets, toys, and games invented, and new social constructs attempted, I don't know why I'd want to leave if I still had a strong and agile body, or why I wouldn't want to reincarnate if I could.  Couple that with the possibility of genetically enhancing other species all the way to sapience, developing robots all the way to sapience, and maybe encountering sapient extra-terrestrials, and the mighty cornucopia of books, movies, gadgets, toys, games, and social constructs just spirals into such myriad multiplicities as to transcend the limits of language's ability to describe.  Only some horrific nightmare scenario would make me want to die or not reincarnate.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Cycel"I think agnostics, as per the definition below, are 100% certain that nothing can be known about the nature of God, should he exist.  

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God (OED, 2006).

and to quote Achronos yet again

Quote from: "Achronos"most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

I can understand your confusion Cycel, this is my confusion as well, however I am trying to run with it rather than apply my own logic to it.

The problem will applying my logic to Achronos is that we both operate off a different set of principles...

I've encountered that problem in the past while having discussions with others.  I know what you mean.  This, in large part, is why I like to make the attempt to nail down definitions.  I recognize the effort may not always meet with success.

Quote from: "Stevil"Just because someone states that they can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God it doesn't meant that they can't 100% believe that God exists. Belief overrides our logic and fact.

I do understand the logic of this statement.  An individual might be 100% certain of the existence of God, but less than 100% sure they understand God.

Quote from: "Stevil"In subsequent posts Achronos stated "... Orthodoxy does not lead to agnotiscism, because God has revealed Himself."
This was stated as the stance of the Orthodoxy but is not clear whether this is the stance of Achronos himself.

I was a bit confused when I first read this comment of his.  However, I may have heard other Christians say similar things.  For example, it is sometimes claimed that atheists, who formerly were Christian, were never really true Christians, because had they truly known God they could never have become atheists in the first place.  Is this what Achronos is saying: 'Those who are Orthodox -- ie. true Christians -- can never become agnostic, or atheist, once God has truly revealed himself to them'?  This would imply that Achronos is certain of God's existence, if I'm interpreting his statement correctly.

Quote from: "Stevil"Achronos also went on to post a quote with regards to some details about the person that coined the term Agnostic

Quote from: "Achronos"As for reshaping "the meaning of agnostic," perhaps it would pay to look at its creator.

First, Huxley's definition of agnosticism doesn't match the one Achronos uses.  I'm certain of that.  This morning I read an explanation by Huxley, printed in Britannica, of his understanding of the term he coined to describe himself, and he meant it to apply to the existence and nature of God.  Achronos wishes us to understand agnosticism as a skepticism of both forms of knowledge:  transcendent and materialistic (that is, knowledge derived from the physical world).  Huxley called himself, 'Darwin's bulldog', that's how confident he was in regard the physical data Darwin had collected.  Those are not the words of a man who thought agnostics should not be confident of such evidence.  Achronos may be attempting, through the back door, to legitimize skepticism of science.  Of course I may be wrong.  He might now come forth and declare his acceptance of the theory of evolution. That would blow my theorizing out of the water.  

Quote from: "Stevil"In my mind this has no relevance with regards to the definition of the term "Agnostic", however potentially in Achronos' logic based on the Orthodoxy principles, maybe this is very relevant and modifies the definition such that Achronos is not Agnostic. I don't know and would simply be guessing here. As far as I can see Achronos has not simply come forth and made a clear outright statement as to whether he is Agnostic.

Well then, perhaps now he will.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"If we're talking about immortality on Earth, via reincarnation or transhumanism, then sign me up.  On a planet where new books are continually being written, new movies made, new gadgets, toys, and games invented, and new social constructs attempted, I don't know why I'd want to leave if I still had a strong and agile body, or why I wouldn't want to reincarnate if I could.

I'm with you, except for the reincarnation part.  Don't think I'd want to reincarnate as an untouchable in India.

Appreciate the responses in this thread, I'll have to get back to them at a later time. I do feel I need to address a few of the misconceptions being present. It seems to me that the understanding of "Christianity's" Heaven would somehow negate the wonders of human ingenuity and culture?

Quote from: "Stevil"I have the feeling that Christianity assumes everyone is selfish...

The Church knows that most people will be selfish. The Church also knows that God is merciful and desires the salvation of all.

Quoteand hence dangles the carrot of eternal love and happiness for being good and eternal torment for being bad.

The aim of the Church is not to make bad men good but to make dead men live.

Perhaps a little research would go a long way in dismantling this "feeling" of yours.  This only serves the oft-put-forward notion that you know next to nothing about authentic Christianity/Orthodoxy.

Quoteso long as you add belief in the Atonement as at least equally important, if not more so, depending on the denomination.

The vast majority of Orthodox believers reject Atonement as a false concept.

QuoteMoreover, an atheist could preach selflessness without engaging in contradiction.

To an atheist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of the self into nothingness, aka nihilism. To a theist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of one's self into God, while at the same time revealing the true self.

QuoteLack of belief in a deity doesn't stop us from believing in the moral good,

With no higher power/deity, your concept of a moral good can only be based on your opinion, shaped as it is from your own opinion. You would have no right to force it on others, and certainly no reason to proclaim anything outside your own experience to be right or wrong. Thus, you are left with no possibility of moral outrage at the events which took place at Auschwitz, Dachau, the GULAGs, etc.

Or to quote Jeffrey Dahmer:“If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.”

QuoteIf God does exist, he'll know I've led a good life, and thus will not chuck me out of Heaven.

The issue is that the experiences of Heaven and Hell for each person, are not the fault of God, but of that person. God does not change. He is the same for St John the Theologian as He is for Hitler or Lenin or anyone else. But how a person experiences God is wholly dependent on themselves. You yourself disbelieve in God. You have closed the door and barred it from the inside, refusing to let God in. Your morality hardly factors into it.

QuoteIf he would stop me entering Heaven then he's not quite the guy you all think he is - a god shouldn't really hold grudges, being perfect and all? If he'd prevent me from entering his Kingdom, then do I want to know him at all? Nope.

He does not stop you from entering into His Kingdom. You refuse to enter. He merely accepts your will. God refuses to override what you have chosen for yourself.

QuoteI can go throughout my life not believing in this deity because he is nothing more than a fabrication of men. If he did turn out to be real (not going to happen, but theoretically if) then I can still go throughout life not believing because he should in theory forgive me anyway.

God forgives everyone. The issue is that not everyone thinks they need that forgiveness in order to repent and accept it.

Quote...immortality on Earth, via reincarnation or transhumanism, then sign me up. On a planet where new books are continually being written, new movies made, new gadgets, toys, and games invented, and new social constructs attempted, I don't know why I'd want to leave if I still had a strong and agile body, or why I wouldn't want to reincarnate if I could. Couple that with the possibility of genetically enhancing other species all the way to sapience, developing robots all the way to sapience, and maybe encountering sapient extra-terrestrials, and the mighty cornucopia of books, movies, gadgets, toys, games, and social constructs just spirals into such myriad multiplicities as to transcend the limits of language's ability to describe. Only some horrific nightmare scenario would make me want to die or not reincarnate.

So you are saying that you won't worship God...but you have no problem setting up science, technology and the human mind as idols and worshipping them? Gotcha.

Quote from: "Achronos"The way we attain faith in the Christian understanding is by the trustworthiness and consistency of prayer and spiritual exercises.

I've heard this from others.  I have just never had the experience.  Prayer never worked for me, or perhaps I for it?

Quote from: "Achronos"The way we attain faith in the scientific method is by personal experience of it and its trustworthiness and consistency to attain materialistic data.

You are saying our confidence in the scientific method is derived from our success in attaining data, but I think greater than that is the technological success we see around us.  Every aspect of our modern lives is touched by the fruits of the scientific revolution.  The method by which we gather knowledge of it clearly works.  It has transformed the world and our understanding of it.  What equivalent transformation has prayer brought in the thousands of years its been practiced?  What clear evidence is there that it works?  Everyone, everywhere, can clearly see the benefits wrought by science, I observe nothing equivalent coming from prayer or spiritual exercises.  I can understand how meditative experiences might benefit individuals, but society as a whole sees nothing transformative.  

I must be honest.  I don't see that faith plays a role in science.  We say we have faith in God, but then we don't have physical evidence of God, so we require faith.  I don't require faith in the internal combustion engine, I can see that it works.  It powers my car.  Faith is a requirement if we wish to believe in something for which we lack physical evidence.  The 2nd OED definition defines faith as a "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." This "spiritual conviction rather than proof' is the hallmark of religious faith.  Spiritual conviction does not provide answers to scientific issues.  I have faith, perhaps, that the ISS will remain in orbit, for now, but faith is useless to keep it in orbit -- for that we need to use applications developed by the scientific method.  

There is, however, a larger issue.  If you've attained "... faith in... Christian understanding" through the "trustworthiness and consistency of prayer and spiritual exercises" then how is it that there are so many Christian denominations and sects?  If "prayer and spiritual exercises" provides "trustworthy" results how are all the discrepancies in religious belief around the world and through time explained?  Where is the evidence that transcendent sources provide consistent results?

Quote from: "Croaker"

Quote from: "AverageJoe"I'd like to live longer, a lot longer, but eternity is just too long maaaaan.

I've been trying to think of things you can do, and here's one that would take a while. First, learn how to sculpt stone, then make a representative 'alphabet' of highly intricate statues, each one representing one letter, and each one taking a few years to complete - I'm thinking SUV size or something similar. Then, convert the entirety of humanity's written works into your statue alphabet.

I like your giant alphabet idea, but I think I'd get bored after about two weeks.  Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?  Jehovah's Witnesses, I think, expect heaven to be like Earth, but with all the problems resolved.  Lions will lie down beside lambs -- that sort of thing.  I guess the lions' teeth and gut will be modified to resemble that of sheep and perhaps their paws will be turned to hoves.  What about us?  Will we too be forced to become vegetarians or will we just not have to eat? -- being dead and all.   Aside from that I don't think life in heaven is something Christians give much thought too, or am I wrong?

Quote from: "Cycel"Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?

Hang on for a second there. Are these Christians Orthodox? Does it matter what they say? I could say, if I wanted to, that heaven is a facsimile of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, with no evidence to the contrary. My fantasies over what Heaven could or could not be is irrelevant. What matters is what Heaven is. Heaven is the unescapable presence of God as experienced by a repentant person trodding the narrow path.

QuoteJehovah's Witnesses, I think, expect heaven to be like Earth, but with all the problems resolved.

Does the perception of JWs on matters of theology matter to an Orthodox? I am not a JW, and they are not me.

QuoteAside from that I don't think life in heaven is something Christians give much thought too, or am I wrong?

It seems to be a topic quite popular with people who believe in neither Heaven nor Hell.

QuotePrayer never worked for me, or perhaps I for it?

What exactly were you lacking that would make prayer "work?"

QuoteWhat equivalent transformation has prayer brought in the thousands of years its been practiced? What clear evidence is there that it works?

Prayer is a practice whereupon its effects can only be seen in its absence.

QuoteEveryone, everywhere, can clearly see the benefits wrought by science, I observe nothing equivalent coming from prayer or spiritual exercises. I can understand how meditative experiences might benefit individuals, but society as a whole sees nothing transformative.

Just because you can't perceive something, doesn't mean it's not there. The blind may lack sight, but that doesn't mean all the rest of us are all blind.

Quote from: "Achronos"

QuotePrayer never worked for me, or perhaps I for it?

What exactly were you lacking that would make prayer "work?"

Probably the ability, or lack of will, to fool himself into thinking that he was talking with a supernatural being in his mind.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote...immortality on Earth, via reincarnation or transhumanism, then sign me up. On a planet where new books are continually being written, new movies made, new gadgets, toys, and games invented, and new social constructs attempted, I don't know why I'd want to leave if I still had a strong and agile body, or why I wouldn't want to reincarnate if I could. Couple that with the possibility of genetically enhancing other species all the way to sapience, developing robots all the way to sapience, and maybe encountering sapient extra-terrestrials, and the mighty cornucopia of books, movies, gadgets, toys, games, and social constructs just spirals into such myriad multiplicities as to transcend the limits of language's ability to describe. Only some horrific nightmare scenario would make me want to die or not reincarnate.

So you are saying that you won't worship God...but you have no problem setting up science, technology and the human mind as idols and worshipping them? Gotcha.

I don't see how you're equating "I will use these things to my furthered amusement" to "I will set these things up as idols and worship them."

If you get an artificial heart transplant, do you idolize and worship the doctor, the engineer, and the mechanic? How about the anesthesiologist?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cycel"Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?

Hang on for a second there. Are these Christians Orthodox? Does it matter what they say? I could say, if I wanted to, that heaven is a facsimile of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory, with no evidence to the contrary. My fantasies over what Heaven could or could not be is irrelevant. What matters is what Heaven is. Heaven is the unescapable presence of God as experienced by a repentant person trodding the narrow path.

Hang on for a second there. You just essentially shot down all non-orthodox christian views of heaven. Then, you proceeded to give us your (the orthodox) version of heaven as the truth.

Honest question here: How does that make any sense at all?

Here we go. It doesn't matter to me what other people say the Moon is. If I wanted to, I could say the moon was a giant rock orbiting the Earth. My fantasies over what the Moon is or isn't is irrelevant. What matters is what the Moon is. The moon is a giant ball of cheese in the sky and is the place fairies go to die when you stop believing in them.

I really would like to know how any of that made any sense at all.

And yes, if you're wondering, I do think it's more likely that heaven would be a facsimile of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. Simply because in light of absolutely no proof or even evidence of heaven existing, I'm simply going to go with what sounds good to me. And I'll be damned if I don't like chocolate.

Quote from: "Achronos"The vast majority of Orthodox believers reject Atonement as a false concept.

This intrigued me a great deal so I went googling and found this article, which confirms what you say, Achronos, and fleshes it out nicely, as I hope you'll agree.

Salvation and Atonement - http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/

I recommend the above article to anyone curious about Greek Orthodoxy.  I look forward to hearing Achronos's opinion of the article.

QuoteTo an atheist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of the self into nothingness, aka nihilism. To a theist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of one's self into God, while at the same time revealing the true self.

I agree with all of that.  Rather than the self's dissolution, I pursue its actualization.  I would like to be more me today than yesterday, and more tomorrow than today.

QuoteWith no higher power/deity, your concept of a moral good can only be based on your opinion, shaped as it is from your own opinion.

I agree!  But somehow some atheists satisfy themselves otherwise.  As noted in quite a few posts recently, I reject any notion of objective morality, and since I see no point in a subjective morality, I reject the whole kit and kaboodle, and focus instead on good and evil as defined by practicality rather than morality; I.e., as providing earthly benefit to earthly creatures for the sake of some of that benefit accruing to myself directly or indirectly, and also for the sake of the sense of accomplishment I get from making a positive material difference here in the material world.

QuoteYou would have no right to force it on others

You say that like it's a bad thing.  I, for my part, announce it as a triumph of reason.

Quoteand certainly no reason to proclaim anything outside your own experience to be right or wrong.

Like it's a bad thing, you say that.  As a triumph of reason, I, for my part, announce it.  I want a Yoda icon.

QuoteThus, you are left with no possibility of moral outrage at the events which took place at Auschwitz, Dachau, the GULAGs, etc.

Since moral outrage neither fills my belly nor beautifies my days, I don't miss its absence.

QuoteOr to quote Jeffrey Dahmer:“If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.”

I agree with his statement.  Eating people is grotesque and vile, however.  Yuck.  Incidentally, we don't need morality to deter people from what Dahmer did.  We have legislation and enforcement.  Bullets in a cop's gun and meeting Bubba in the prison shower are prospects more real and sobering by far than any imagined hellfire.
 

QuoteSo you are saying that you won't worship God...but you have no problem setting up science, technology and the human mind as idols and worshipping them? Gotcha.

No need to worship them.  Just employ them and partake of their fruits.

Quote from: "Cycel"Thanks for your reply Achronos.  The time you took is appreciated.

Sorry about not addressing this sooner, and it's my pleasure to respond. May I ask what made you change your beliefs from "strong atheist" to just "atheist" under your avatar?

QuoteI think you have reshaped the meaning of agnostic.  You see it as a middle ground between our two positions, accepting neither one: expressing skepticism on both the transcendent and materialist world views, agnostic to both; but that is not the original meaning, nor is it the Oxford dictionary definition.
 

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

To my way of thinking the word agnostic implies skepticism toward the legitimacy of the sources of knowledge used to prove the existence of God. That is its meaning. It does not imply skepticism to anything else. The agnostic may be skeptical of other things, but the only thing you can know for certain is that he remains unconvinced that anything can be known for certain about God. Agnosticism does not imply skepticism toward science, the scientific method or those things examined by this method.

I think you have taken the word agnostic and modified its original meaning so that it implies skepticism toward all things. I suspect most who call themselves agnostic have no difficulty perceiving materialistic explanations as trustworthy. I don't think they doubt the 'materialistic worldview.' I suspect most agnostics see the material world as the only certain source of knowledge that we possess.

*******
Are there any agnostics present who could way in and lend their view?

By your definition really most atheists are not really atheists in the extreme sense, but agnostics. Nevertheless, they've redefined atheism as a way of thought. Most agnostics also who call themselves agnostic are really atheists.

In the old arguments against atheism, one would say, "It takes much more faith to not believe in God." But atheists today tweek this. Yes, they don't believe in God, but not in the sense that they are absolutely sure. They're simply skeptical, and have a way of thought.

So in the old definition, faith meant a leap in belief without proper investigation. But that's not really how faith I believe has been used in the Church. Faith has been synonymous with theology, or a Christian way of thinking, or as you put it, an epistemology. That really is the more accurate understanding of "faith." Faith is what shapes our actions, and not just merely a belief.  We can say for instance, Satan believes that God exists, but he has no faith.

These definitions change all the time. Oxford dictionary or no oxford dictionary, to be honest, you have to use the word within its context. I think a lot of Christians really sullied the understanding of faith. Therefore, to be consistent, "agnostic" a true agnostic is someone who is skeptical but open to the possibility of the transcendental. For an agnostic to be just skeptical to the transcendental just teeter-totters one on the side of atheistic thinking. Richard Dawkins redefined atheism as a way of thought really, not necessarily a label of firm belief.  So if anything, my definition of agnosticism is really no different than Dawkins' "4 scale."

Quote from: "Stevil"Do you challenge these doctors to their face or simply publish critical judgement on public forums?

I'm working with these doctors. Well actually to be more precise, I am being apprenticed by them. Not all of them of course are arrogant. But the more successful ones usually suffer the God-complex issue, or at least they pretend they care in front of you.

I'll add one more group of people. Christians can be a bunch of Pharisaical arrogant hypocrites.

Since I belong to a group of physician-gonna-bes and Christians, I think I am entitled to give my opinion of my experience.

Quote from: "Cycel"I am going to play the old dictionary game again.  The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) offers two definitions for faith:

Quotei) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

ii) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

When you admit to seeing the world through Christian eyes your are admitting, it seems to me, seeing the world through the doctrines of a religion.  I would think you might also acknowledge basing your beliefs on spiritual convictions, thought I think you are less likely to admit not having proof.  This latter point, I think, is where you might have the biggest hang-up for the definition.  This 2nd definition, for me, is the one that immediately comes to mind when I think of the word faith.  You can see, then, why I would probably object myself to any assertion that I possess faith.

So you don't trust the scientific method?

The second definition stems from a culture of atheistic misunderstanding of what faith really means. It's no different than the bastardization of the word "theory" by creationist groups, misunderstanding its scientific usage. So I'm here to tell you, the second definition is not true, at least for true Christians. Since spirituality is by definition a certain transcendant way of life that materialism is not able to test, then the scientific method is not even valid to judge it to begin with. There's a different way to "prove" it.

QuoteThough I do see the world through a lens based on evidence constructed from the physical world, I don't recognize this as a matter of faith.  Your faith, it would seem to me, precludes change.  You might correct me on this if I am wrong.  Because of spiritual convictions I imagine you are locked into believing the same things over time.  New evidence doesn't cause you to modify your beliefs about God, or does it?  Those, like myself, who rely on physical evidence from the world to establish our perceptions of it, change our views when conflicting evidence comes available.  I don't think that anyone who maintains views of the world based on physical evidence would ever insist they had complete trust in any scientific claim, as per the 1st definition.  My world view prevents me from having complete trust and so is the opposite of having faith.

But you do have faith. You have faith in what you see, hear, touch, etc. I have no problem with that, but the proof for my faith is the incompleteness and inconsistency of such a thought for the general human nature. Human nature is more than an animal. Human nature is a phenomenon that is capable day by day to subdue all other nature around it more and more.  Human nature is an ever-growing powerful force. While Nature may have been taken part in making us, we certainly take part in now shaping it. Therefore, I don't have faith in scientific methodology alone, but also in transcendant force that allows human nature to be quite unique from everything else in this world at least. This allows me to investigate in a different manner the many beliefs that seem to me most compatible with this truth, and how we are connected to a much higher purpose.

QuoteDogma is tied closely to claiming possession of absolute truth.  Let's look at the dictionary again.

Quote from: "ODE, 2006"dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That -- incontrovertibly true -- part, is an integral part of dogma. This is what sets scientific theories apart from religious doctrine. The demand that something is incontrovertibly true is never heard in science. Conservative Christians frequently make much of the observation that hypotheses in science are often here today and gone tomorrow. They perceive change in science as proof that scientists don't know what they are talking about.

There's some truth in what you say, but truly practically, scientists today have now dogmatized many theories.  For one thing, evolution is considered both a theory and a truth. It is now the driving force to learn all biology and other life sciences. It has truly become dogma even if it's considered "falsifiable." The idea now is that evolution occurs and it's definitely beyond a doubt now a TRUTH.  How evolution occurs is the falsifiable part of science, and this is not dogma.

So I don't know about you, but scientists have already dogmatized it whether they want to admit it or not. It has stood the test of time, and it is pretty much have been far more established with better foundations than the theory of gravity. The only way in which one can prove evolution is wrong is if one can prove I am not related to my parents or sister or cousin using the same DNA techniques (which in a sense makes it falsifiable, but at this point, about .0000001% falsifiable). So since that has now been established truth, then you can't tell me there's no dogma in science. There's even dogma in the how life is described, i.e. a degree of homeostasis, organization of cells, metabolism, growth, adaptation and response to stimuli, and reproduction.  Anything mathematical seems to be dogma to people anyway, which leads many to worship the field of mathematics, and probably theoretical physics.

I can say the same about Church dogmas. The Church in a practical sense have already firmly established "theories" that help best explain their faith and spirituality.  Therefore, since the dogmas have firm grounding in our understanding of spirituality, there is truth in them.

QuoteI recognize that dogma is tied up with faith which is another reason I object to the assertion that I possess faith.  I hold that one species may evolve into something different, but  give me good reason to believe this view is wrong and I will change my mind.  I am not locked into an incontrovertible truth.  My views are not dogmatic.

Indeed you might think you're not dogmatic, but practically, you make it impossible for yourself to think in any other way than with the senses. You've essentially dogmatized that life is nothing more than your material senses, and your faith is nothing more than in not taking life for granted, for I will cease to exist eventually.

Quote from: "Achronos"Indeed you might think you're not dogmatic, but practically, you make it impossible for yourself to think in any other way than with the senses. You've essentially dogmatized that life is nothing more than your material senses, and your faith is nothing more than in not taking life for granted, for I will cease to exist eventually.

Empirical evidence is the only proof. That's why faith is defined as believing without proof. Requiring empirical proof can't be dogma because dogma rests entirely on an authority's assertions. I really can't even begin to express how ironic it is to call the scientific method or way of thinking a "faith" as an insult.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"It's a method to me too.  But it rest on an epistemology, logical empiricism, which I think you would classify as my faith.  Since I place my trust in it, it would be tediously pedantic for me to split semantic hairs with you, so I won't.  Certainly I place my trust in logical empiricism.

Ya, we'll get into semantics. I think by now, you understand what I mean when I say science to you is both a method and faith. Science to me is a method, but the faith lies in Christianity.  I suppose when I do science, I do it as a way of praising God. I know it's trivial to you if I in the end end up helping somebody along the way. But this is a form of a Machiavellian philosophy, i.e. that the ends justify the means. As I am reading this message, that's the impression I'm getting.

QuoteScientists, and I along with them, would claim a distinction between utility and truth.  A concept can be true yet lack utility in a particular circumstance.  Likewise, a concept can be false yet in a particular circumstance be highly utile.  If a lie is the only, or the best, tool currently available, one may legitimately employ it, but one would hopefully retain some reservations about doing so, and be on the look-out for a truth that one could employ instead, one with equal or greater utility.  After all, lies can be found out, at which point their utility evaporates.  I'm having this exact discussion on my thread about atheism and the 12 step movement.

Where's this discussion?  What's the 12 step movement?

QuoteI would say instead that logic and emotion govern separate domains. Aesthetics is largely emotional for most people, and certainly for me. Arguments as to why it's illogical for me to like a particular song will fall on deaf ears. I don't care about logic when listening to a song.  Likewise, I don't care about emotion when assessing a proposition about causality.  

Forgive me, I don't mean to say that emotion justifies my faith. Logic justifies science.  Emotion justifies morals. Logic and Emotion together justifies the transcendant in my opinion.  I like what Archbishop Rowan Williams says here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBKL0zHZyc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBKL0zHZyc)

Beauty is an emotion. It is an idea that we cannot prove scientifically, but while there might be some scientific principles of beauty, certainly science can only go so far, and emotion can only go so far as well. I think both combine to develop the sense of the truth of beauty.

I've heard from many Christians, even ancient ones, that the spirit is the intellect. I think there's more to the spirit than just intellect or emotion. It's the means of transcending both, and bridge to the divine. We can scientifically explain intellect and emotion. But we also can see beauty in them. To turn it into something meaningless as long as we can get practical results is essentially ignoring Nature's cry and praise.
 

QuoteYou may have noticed that I'm a big fan of robots. ;)

But this is the point. It's not that I want the Universe to have a will. I truly believe the will is programmed in us. The truth of this will what I investigate. I believe that a lot people seem to bank on living longer as an ultimate purpose. But living longer is only a means of the ultimate purpose, and that is the communion with God. I am convinced that communion with God is an experience that allows me to forget about everything else behind me, a true "high" so to speak, and I seek it because it's the same high I achieve when selfless love is given to me, and I give back. If life was merely about trying to strive to live longer, then really, there's no point in faith in God unless there's no hope for man to achieve this, and even if there isn't hope, as you personally see it, you find no difference in living forever in God or dying forever because you don't understand what communion in God really means and really feels like.

QuoteTerrifying to you, trivial to me.  The universe may or may not have a will, but you have a will, and I have a will.  You have reasons and I have reasons.  If the universe has a will, my own must align with it, since I'm part of the universe, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this would likewise fulfill the universe's will.  If the universe doesn't have a will, then my own is as good as any other, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this will make me happiest.  Thus, once again, as is always the case, the question of God's existence is irrelevant, and I am therefore apathetic toward it.
 
Yet the Earth abounds with purpose, and scientists acknowledge it.  I mean the purposes of earthly creatures.  Everywhere living beings pursue their goals.

If all purposes seem to lead to non-existence as an ultimate end, there's really no point.

QuoteUsually what happens is a tap on the shoulder from death.  Suddenly mortality is brought into sharp focus, and up pops fear.

But Christianity in its essence is totally against this. "Oh Death" says St. Paul, "where is thy sting?" Christians in history, true Christians, have been shown to be fearless to death.

QuoteNo.  I'm trying to understand you.  Not your Christian beliefs.  You.

I don't feel it is relevant to the discussion.

QuoteI don't.  But I think we humans can agree to be good to one another for practical reasons.

You know, the best salesman is one who believes in the product he sells.  If the salesman simply pretends and is indifferent, or worse, actually hates the product, he may be practical for himself for a while, but eventually, when the drive and passion is not there, you tend to hate it or drive yourself crazy.

If life is nothing more than practical, then those who are passionate about it really are just wasting their passion. And certainly, there are those who definitely wish to choose, if won't choose, to do the opposite of what is considered good to certain others.

It seems to me also, the drive to be practical is fear of chaos, and fear of death. I see more fear in this than in believing in the transcendant.

The ultimate reality of a perfect life is a life with no laws, where all truly live with understanding and love and a way to move forward fearlessly. This is not just a spirit of practicality, but in essence a passion that aids in enlivening practicality. Practicality is dead without actually feeling the necessity of its practicality.

QuoteThat's because very few people are willing to admit that there is no such thing as objective morality, and so they project their subjective preferences onto the universe. and imagine their own wills to be the will of God.  The only reason Christianity makes sense to you is because selflessness makes sense to you.

However, for practical reasons, you believe that we should do good to others. First, that's assuming that everyone agrees what good means. I think your intention was believing in the golden rule, "Do unto others as you want others to do unto you." Even the golden rule becomes an objective morality now. Practically speaking, we have to live as if there exists objective truth.

QuoteYou mean morally good, which to me is irrelevant.  Practical results are what matter.  Help me for selfish reasons and you have still helped me.  I don't need you to be selfless.

There's that Machiavellian idea again. The ends justify the means. I know you don't take this idea strictly, because you still believe that there is a "good" man does, and that is this golden rule. But I say practicality can also mean that if I have to kill a few people to get somewhere faster, I think this world would be up for some competition of traits once again. Subjectivity only exists in an abstract sense it seems when looking at the world with its different cultures and rules. Objectivity exists in a concrete sense when looking at the need to survive as a group, and so to make this practical, you also need to make it feel practical. What this indicates to me is not the existence of subjectivity, but rather the existence of true objective rules and false ones, one that can stand out and invalidate all other rules.

I just wanted to add one more thought that came to my mind. It helps a lot at least in terms of practicality that people can help those who are in need. Unless, one believes it's impractical and a waste of time to help them anyway. But assuming practicality, we have to admit, a huge majority, even among the educated masses, are very impractical at best.

Quote from: "Achronos"To an atheist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of the self into nothingness, aka nihilism. To a theist, selflessness can only lead to the dissolution of one's self into God, while at the same time revealing the true self.

Thus an Atheist can perform acts of selflessness as they have nothing to gain in this life, the next life or the after life.
A Theist cannot perform acts of selflessness because their "selfless" acts "lead to the dissolution of one's self into God, while at the same time revealing the true self" hence motive, hence not selfless. I propose that Theism and selflessness are mutually exclusive terms.

With regards to our discussions on freewill

Quote from: "Achronos"God desires our freewill for His 'miracles' and Will

Quote from: "Achronos"Does the media, your peers, experience, or culture 'force' you into action? Free will mean you have the 'freedom' to choose. These are influences, but they do not control you. Show me which one 'makes you act', not influence, 'forces you' to act

Quote from: "Achronos"Faith is what shapes our actions, and not just merely a belief

Interesting responses Achronos, as I've come to expect.  I haven't time this evening except to make a quick reply.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cycel"Seriously though, have you ever heard any talk from the Christians about heaven and what they'd do there aside from offer praise to God?

Hang on for a second there. Are these Christians Orthodox? Does it matter what they say...?  What matters is what Heaven is. Heaven is the unescapable presence of God as experienced by a repentant person trodding the narrow path.

Many Christians are quick to denounce others as false Christians and as an outsider looking in I don't really take sides.  In the matter of the afterlife I see all religions as false.  In essence I see heaven as an imaginary local.  Consequently I think differing views of heaven should be common place.  Given that diversity of belief in religion is a reality I feel pretty safe taking this stand.  What surprises me is that considering the amount of time Christians expect to spend in the afterlife it isn't very well fleshed out. Is there scripture detailing daily life in heaven?  I don't think there is.  There is lots of information on how to get to heaven but not much on what to expect once you get there.

Quote from: "Cycel"Jehovah's Witnesses, I think, expect heaven to be like Earth, but with all the problems resolved.

Quote from: "Achronos"Does the perception of JWs on matters of theology matter to an Orthodox? I am not a JW, and they are not me.

I may be more interested the the Witnesses than most because I have family members who are counted among the 144,000.  My great grandparents were members and introduced an entire branch of my family to the faith.  So what they think matters to me.  My father wasn't converted but my mother told me that many of his religious ideas sounded very similar to that of my great-grandmother, and I got a lot of my early Christian views from him.  So, I am interested in what they think.

Quote from: "Cycel"Many Christians are quick to denounce others as false Christians and as an outsider looking in I don't really take sides.  In the matter of the afterlife I see all religions as false.  In essence I see heaven as an imaginary local.  Consequently I think differing views of heaven should be common place.  Given that diversity of belief in religion is a reality I feel pretty safe taking this stand.

Because you can't tell the difference between the imitations and the real thing?

QuoteWhat surprises me is that considering the amount of time Christians expect to spend in the afterlife it isn't very well fleshed out. Is there scripture detailing daily life in heaven?  I don't think there is.  There is lots of information on how to get to heaven but not much on what to expect once you get there.

LOL. You sure don't know much about Orthoodxy.

Quote from: "Cycel"I may be more interested the the Witnesses than most because I have family members who are counted among the 144,000.  

LOL. Meaningless.

QuoteMy great grandparents were members and introduced an entire branch of my family to the faith.  So what they think matters to me.  My father wasn't converted but my mother told me that many of his religious ideas sounded very similar to that of my great-grandmother, and I got a lot of my early Christian views from him.  So, I am interested in what they think.

Explains a lot.

You can be interested in your family, but as far as interest in what the Bible teaches, the JWs aren't going to help you any.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cycel"Many Christians are quick to denounce others as false Christians and as an outsider looking in I don't really take sides.  In the matter of the afterlife I see all religions as false.  In essence I see heaven as an imaginary local.  Consequently I think differing views of heaven should be common place.  Given that diversity of belief in religion is a reality I feel pretty safe taking this stand.

Because you can't tell the difference between the imitations and the real thing?

If there was one truth writ large across the heavens would it not permit all seekers of religious truth to arrive at a more unified account?  The enormous diversity of belief tells me the many interpretations are arrived at very subjectively.  They are based on personal reflection, introspection, and interpretation of a bewildering variety of religious texts.  One believer's truths are another's false beliefs. It seems believers can't agree.  It should be no surprise that an atheist would shrug and declare them all false.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cycel"What surprises me is that considering the amount of time Christians expect to spend in the afterlife it isn't very well fleshed out. Is there scripture detailing daily life in heaven?  I don't think there is.  There is lots of information on how to get to heaven but not much on what to expect once you get there.

LOL. You sure don't know much about Orthoodxy.

I don't claim to know much about the Greek Orthodox Church, and I don't understand much better what your laughter signifies.  Do you mean to imply that there are numerous accounts explaining daily life in Heaven or do you laugh because the question highlights my ignorance for a different reason?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cycel"I may be more interested the the Witnesses than most because I have family members who are counted among the 144,000.

LOL. Meaningless.

Only because you disconnected the sentence from the following one that it belongs with.  I am not implying that I buy into the Jehovah's Witness theology.  I don't.  I am simply amused by the claim that my great-grandparents are considered, by the Witness, to hold this special honour.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Cycel"My great grandparents were members and introduced an entire branch of my family to the faith.  So what they think matters to me.  My father wasn't converted but my mother told me that many of his religious ideas sounded very similar to that of my great-grandmother, and I got a lot of my early Christian views from him.  So, I am interested in what they think.

Explains a lot.

You can be interested in your family, but as far as interest in what the Bible teaches, the JWs aren't going to help you any.

There isn't any belief system that can teach me anything about God, in my view, but each can inform me what they think their faith's theology reveals.  As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.  I consider some more interesting than others, perhaps, but all are important in the history of Christianity.

I've never really been bothered by the thought of no afterlife. I think it's pretty cool that when I die my remains will be absorbed back into the earth to complete the cycle of life and then eventually what's left will be consumed by the sun when it expands before exploding and seeding the surrounding space with more planet-making stuff. It sounds way more awesome that having to spend eternity with a bunch of relatives I didn't really like to begin with as well as a bunch of religious people I can't get along with.

Though I do hedge my bet a bit by drinking alcohol and fornicating as often as I can, if the mormons end up being right I wanna make sure I'm going to the right place.

Topic split at this point. For continued discussion of afterlife subject matter, feel free to keep posting from this point. If you wish to continue where the topic veered off, go here:

viewtopic.php?p=94319#p94319 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=94319#p94319)

Was just listening to this song recently and I thought of this thread.

[youtube:33un31zf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHRoG_IoEQs[/youtube:33un31zf]

I ain't got no time for forgiven
I ain't got no time be afraid
I ain't got no time to be slowing me down
With one foot in the grave

I ain't got no time for my loving
I ain't got no time to be said
I got no time for the foolish man
When the world treats him so bad

Oh no, here I go
Other sides calling me getting me low
Oh, I always know I'm living till the day I die
Oh no, here I go
The other sides calling me getting me low
Oh, I always know I'm living till the day I die, yeah!

They say there's light in the tunnel
They say there's a name in the book
But I don't care for the rumor mill
That hangs you on a hook

Soon I'll be meeting my Maker
Then I'll deceased and desist
I'll leave my name in the air somewhere
Where I can get some peace
Where I can get some peace

Oh no, here I go
The other side's calling me getting me low
Oh, I always know I'm living till the day I die

Oh no, here I go
The other sides calling me getting me low
Oh no, I always know I'm living till the day I die
Living till the day I die

I don't know if I'm ever coming back
The light in the tunnel might turn to black
Take my chances I won't ask why
I'm living till the day I die
Living till the day I die
Living till the day I die

I ain't got time for forgiving
I ain't got time be afraid
I ain't got time for living my life
With one foot in the grave
One foot in the grave

Afterlife is Big Topic to discuss but we can not reach on perfect or correct answer some people believes that After Life another life available.And others are not believe.I am also believe that after life is available.And according to every religion and religious book after life there has two way first is Heaven and second is Hell.Every person who do bad work or anything wrong in his whole life and not be puniched so after life he has to face the judgment.

Quote from: "cherylfoster"Afterlife is Big Topic to discuss but we can not reach on perfect or correct answer some people believes that After Life another life available.And others are not believe.I am also believe that after life is available.And according to every religion and religious book after life there has two way first is Heaven and second is Hell.Every person who do bad work or anything wrong in his whole life and not be puniched so after life he has to face the judgment.

Spambot has been banned.

I know this is an old topic.
I did see some other topics started by people here who are afraid of death, they would rather live longer.

Personally I'm not afraid of death, whether it's from a religious perspective or not.


Anyway I do want to say something for the atheists here.
If you are afraid of death, then think of the contrary.

What if you would live forever, in eternity on this planet?
Would you enjoy a eternal life?
I personally would freak out, it would be like a never-ending hell.
Our whole society would be destroyed, our whole system of 'living'.

So, even if you are an atheist.
Then see death as the final seal of life..and embrace it fearless, knowing that you are stronger than death.

Quote from: "iSok"I know this is an old topic.
I did see some other topics started by people here who are afraid of death, they would rather live longer.

Personally I'm not afraid of death, whether it's from a religious perspective or not.


Anyway I do want to say something for the atheists here.
If you are afraid of death, then think of the contrary.

What if you would live forever, in eternity on this planet?
Would you enjoy a eternal life?
I personally would freak out, it would be like a never-ending hell.
Our whole society would be destroyed, our whole system of 'living'.

So, even if you are an atheist.
Then see death as the final seal of life..and embrace it fearless, knowing that you are stronger than death.

I would snatch up the chance to be immortal. To hell with our society and our "system of living".

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I would snatch up the chance to be immortal. To hell with our society and our "system of living".

Thank you for the smile on my face you caused Ls, I sincerely mean that.


Reality is..that you do live in a society like ours, it doesn't mean it's bad.
But without death, our society would not exist.
If everyone would live forever, the earth would die because of severe 'over-population'.
Death itself is crucial for the existence of mankind....See it as your final contribution to mankind
from the point of an atheist.

- You leave, to make place for others


 (our planet is already dying..nonetheless..)

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I would snatch up the chance to be immortal. To hell with our society and our "system of living".

Thank you for the smile on my face you caused Ls, I sincerely mean that.


Reality is..that you do live in a society like ours, it doesn't mean it's bad.
But without death, our society would not exist.
If everyone would live forever, the earth would die because of severe 'over-population'.
Death itself is crucial for the existence of mankind....See it as your final contribution to mankind
from the point of an atheist.

- You leave, to make place for others


 (our planet is already dying..nonetheless..)

By the time we're able to make ourselves immortal, I think we'd already figure out a solution to the overpopulation problem.

Christopher Hitchens states that he is not only an atheist, but an "anti-theist".

What he means by this is the following:

Some people are atheists but wish they could believe in an afterlife where they could live in everlasting bliss and be re-united with their loved ones, friends etc. for all eternity. In other words, they wish they could believe in God and Heaven, but simply can't bring themselves to believe it and are thus atheists.

Hitchens, however, goes one step further: He not only doesn't believe in God or an afterlife, he is glad God and heaven do not exist. He states that he doesn't want to exist (via his "spirit" or "soul") in a state that requires one to love a God unconditionally and without exercising one's critical faculties in some dumbfounded paradise where one apparently does not have to do much of anything except revel in the arms of this supreme leader and hang out with all those righteous people who also got a ticket into heaven (though theists seem to have trouble describing what exactly Heaven is like and what one does to pass the time (eternity) there). Overcoming challenges / problems, succeeding using one's abilities and skills, overcoming obstacles, building / creating things, etc. is what makes life exciting and worth living. Would a place where none of this is required be like the retired person who goes to Florida and doesn't know what to do with himself to pass the time....do those in Heaven play games (I guess in which no one loses), party all the time, look at the beauty of God 24/7 for all eternity....? Doesn't sound like much of an existence, does it?

Quote from: "Ken2468"Some people are atheists but wish they could believe in an afterlife where they could live in everlasting bliss and be re-united with their loved ones, friends etc. for all eternity. In other words, they wish they could believe in God and Heaven, but simply can't bring themselves to believe it and are thus atheists.

.... look at the beauty of God 24/7 for all eternity....? Doesn't sound like much of an existence, does it?

Yes if you're going heaven you have to spend eternity praising the holy smiter, so you may as well start practising.

QuoteChaplain: Let us praise God. Oh Lord...

Congregation: Oh Lord...

Chaplain: Oooh you are so big...

Congregation: Oooh you are so big...

Chaplain: So absolutely huge.

Congregation: So ab - solutely huge.

Chaplain: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell
you.

Congregation: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell
you.

Chaplain: Forgive Us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying.

Congregation: And barefaced flattery.

Chaplain: But you are so strong and, well, just so super.

Congregation: Fan - tastic.

Monty Python of course - http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forum ... ber=368416 (http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=368416)

Why are theists the ones who seem to want to cling to life on this earth? After all, if they truly believe there is a Heaven and they will be admitted, why do most of them do everything they can to stay alive as long as possible (even in great pain) and insist that their loved ones (or even people they don't know) do the same? Wouldn't going to paradise where there is the ultimate joy, peace, happiness, and NO PAIN while they wait to be re-united with their family and friends in eternal bliss be preferable to continuing to live on life-support equipment while bed-ridden and/or shot up with pain killers? These are the same people who are opposed to euthanasia when requested by the person in pain, and also to living wills where the individual outlines the circumstances under which he/she would like "the plug to be pulled". Dr. Kevorkian is apparently the Devil incarnate, etc.

Remember the 2005 incident in which Republican US Senator Bill Frist (a heart surgeon, not a neurosurgeon, and I assume a Christian) "diagnosed" Terri Schiavo by watching about one hour of videotape of her lying in a Florida hospital and concluded that she showed signs of life and should continue to be kept alive by artificial means? Hey Bill, why not let her go to her eternal reward instead of lying there in a vegetative state for any longer?

Perhaps the faithful who claim they believe in God and Heaven have their doubts about it?

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I would snatch up the chance to be immortal. To hell with our society and our "system of living".

Thank you for the smile on my face you caused Ls, I sincerely mean that.


Reality is..that you do live in a society like ours, it doesn't mean it's bad.
But without death, our society would not exist.
If everyone would live forever, the earth would die because of severe 'over-population'.
Death itself is crucial for the existence of mankind....See it as your final contribution to mankind
from the point of an atheist.

- You leave, to make place for others


 (our planet is already dying..nonetheless..)

Seriously? You've got to be kidding me, immortality would be simply awesome. Think outside the book for a second, without death the fast pace of modern society wouldn't be needed. You could take the time to become an expert on anything you want, the level of skill that could be achieved in any discipline would be astounding. Can you imagine what a violinist who'd been playing for a thousand years would sound like? A ballet performance with dancers who'd practiced their art for hundreds of years, or a scientist who'd been able to research a given topic for 300 years, what kinds of culinary delights would a chef with 2000 years at his trade come up with? We'd be able to set off on voyages to the stars without first having to develop faster than light travel.

The problems you cite wouldn't be a big deal and would be easily overcome.

Overpopulation? - People would lose much of the drive to reproduce if they don't need to propagate the species. the population would more likely settle at a much more sustainable level with people rarely breeding. Families would be much better since people would take much more time to find someone perfect for them instead of women trying to crank out a kid or two by 30. Even with aging eliminated we'd still lose people to accidents so some reproduction may be needed.

Our society would not only thrive without death but would be much richer for it.

As to your comment about us killing the earth... Simply put, we can't. Even if we decided as a species to put all of our resources and effort into destroying the planet we couldn't pull it off, the best we could do is make it unsuitable for humans and wipe ourselves out. We couldn't even wipe out all life if we wanted to, much less actually obliterate the planet itself. No matter what we do life would march on and the planet would recover.