The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Cycel]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

B goes by no faith at all.

Are you sure you didn't mix-up A and B?

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.

[Cycel]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[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.

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.

[Achronos]

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?

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.

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.

And 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.

Please 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?

Protip:  Read entire post before responding.

I did. Your point got the counter point it merited. No more, no less.

Gravity brooks no disobedience

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.

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.

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.

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?

I'm happy to let the readership decide.

Agreement at last!

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.

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.

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?

This 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.

[Inevitable Droid]

Faith is what you put your trust is, the lens by which you see the world.

I see the world through Christian understanding.

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.

The 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.

When 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?

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Please 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.

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.

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?

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.

Protip:  Read entire post before responding.

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.

Apparently 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.

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.

You could start with dropping the assumption that your god exists, and demonstrate his existence with evidence.  Until then, you're sledding uphill.

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.

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?

So, 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.

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.

Ah, there you go again, trying to sneak an assertion in without us noticing its lack of foundation.

I speak from personal experience.

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.

I was speaking of your immediate peers.  I'm sorry I didn't make that plain enough.

"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.  

LOL. Sophmores.

I'm the wrong sex anyway, you old goat.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with an American Communist .... ..... 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.

[Achronos]

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.

and 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.

and then have the temerity to call me a parrot.

If it quacks like a duck.

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.

Pointing out that your presentation is trite, pedantic and pedestrian isn't an ad hominem.

Introspection is a valuable practice.  I suggest you take it up.  It isn't my job to teach you about yourself.

Physician, heal thyself.

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.

Believe me, if I thought you were dishonest, I'd say as much.

Projecting, are we?

Fixed.

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.

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?

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.

And what conceptions would that be?

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.

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.

Such 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.

To 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.

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.

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.

It'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.

You 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.

and 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

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?

Liberal Arts degree, and about 20 years of self-education following that.

That's a suprise. So you're not young, just a sophmore.

I speak from personal experience.

So then you are projecting.

I was speaking of your immediate peers.

So was I.

I'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.

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.  

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.

I'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?

I 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.

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.

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.

[Sophus]

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.
 

[Inevitable Droid]

Achronos, please take note of the fact that I've been trying to address you on this thread.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... By the Lord's gift I have the discernment of where and how to cast the pearls.

Read for comprehension:

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.

[Davin]

... By the Lord's gift I have the discernment of where and how to cast the pearls.

Read for comprehension:

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.

[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.

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.
 

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?

[Achronos]

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.

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.

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."

What prompted your decision to stop?

Laziness and curiosity.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Stevil]

Are there any agnostics present who could way in and lend their view?

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

As far as I am concerned Achronos is Agnostic

[Stevil]

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?