The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Asmodean]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

But 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Tautology much?

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.

Another unsupported claim.

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.

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

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.

Again, I have emphasized your baseless claims.

Human 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:

Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

[Achronos]

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.

What 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.

I'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.

[SomewhereInND]

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.

[Achronos]

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

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.

[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.

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)

[Davin]

[...]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.

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?

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.

[Whitney]

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.

[Achronos]

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.

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 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.

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)

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.

[metaed]

God is not, like creatures, made up of parts (snip)

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

Cheers, MetaEd

[Achronos]

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.

[SomewhereInND]

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

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

[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.

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 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.

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 :shake: I'm sorry but repeating your claims doesn't make them any more true than they were the first time.

[Recusant]

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.

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.

[Achronos]

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.