Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

False assumption on your part. I seriously doubt that any religious person would ever think of their life as "wasted" as you so put it. I most certainly don't think of my life as "wasted." Would you say Mother Theresa "wasted" her life?

Also, it would seem to me that atheism is ill-equipped to prove that no sort of afterlife exists at all. At best, you can only say you believe there isn't one. That being the case, wouldn't it be really silly if, after not caring about one for your entire life, it turned out that there really was one?

_________________

Well, seeing as atheism has no scripture and was built in such a way to allow people their own ideas of the universe. I suppose it's ill-equipped to allow freedom of thought. One doesn't have to believe in a deity to believe in an afterlife. Life after death is a mystery for everyone. That being th case, wouldn't it be really silly if, after assuming God has His kingdom ready for you after death for your entire life, it turned out that there was none? Or that it was some other form of an afterlife?

Which is why I base my faith on one who has died and returned from the dead. That is, until someone can offer me conclusive data to demonstrate that it didn't take place. But in the mean time, I still don't feel like my life is "wasted" just because I live according to my faith.

_________________

Hey I'd be much happier if I could accept God was real, its the easy way out. Ever heard the idiom "I've never met a happy atheist"?

That question is like asking a homosexual person why don't they stop being gay.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

Maybe, but it has happened. C. S. Lewis was an atheist, as was Josh McDowell. I suppose when you get right down to it, all we can do is continue to learn and study the evidence available to us.

_________________

The reason I don't believe in life after death is because science has proven that there is no tangible soul, and that the way we act (our personalities, likes, dislikes, our sense of self, etc. - everything that would supposedly be connected to the soul) is directly linked to the brain, and can be affected or changed by brain damage.

This would lead me to believe that there is no afterlife, as life and consciousness are connected directly to our tangible bodies.

And let me just say that I would absolutely LOVE to believe in God - i nthe same way I would love to believe in cheer-spreading magical ranbow-colored unicorns. God would certainly make life seem more important, and give me a sense of purpsoe and inner peace as well - but just like I simply CAN'T believe in those unicorns, even though I'd be happier if I did, I can't believe in God.

_________________
"It's not a matter of where he grips it. It's a simple matter of weight ratio!"

That doesn't strike me as a very conclusive argument. At best, all it can demonstrate is that what we experience of the material world is through the material means of sense; it does not prove conclusively, or even demonstrate with any adequacy, that there isn't more to what we are or what we can become. At best, I find such a view of things severely limiting and lacking in potential.

And furthermore, going back to two points I made earlier: first, I still fail to see that this particular philosophy of yours necessarily makes your life fuller and mine - or for that matter, the life of any devout person - "wasted." And secondly, it still does not address the issue that I raised concerning the death and resurrection of Christ, which to me essentially demonstrates his authority to speak on issues regarding the afterlife.

And I will say this: I can appreciate your dilemma of being unable to believe in God, just as long as you don't try to make the claim that this means your belief is inherently more rational than my own. While you may have what you believe to be sound reasons for adhering to your philosophy, remember, I have reasons for adhering to mine as well.

_________________

Give me proof of this. I'm fairly certain science has not proven the existence/nonexistence of a soul.

_________________

The key term, Ace, is "tangible," that is, a thing that can be seen, touched, or put in a test tube. As long as people contend that the soul, or "self", is something transcendent, then the statement is essentially true. The problem is that, if the claim then becomes, "since it is not tangible, then it is not real," then we are leaping far beyond the boundaries of empirical science and into the realm of pure speculation, in which case it never can be proven.

In other words, even if science can demonstrate to some degree that there is no tangible soul, this does not mean that it can disprove the possibility of an intangible (i.e., transcendent) soul.

_________________

Agreed. I very much respect theists, Christians and the like. I'm just trying to defend my own beliefs here. And I'm definitely not as fluent in defending them as you are, Didymus. Most of my arguments make much more sense and are much more convincing in my head than they end up here.

_________________
"It's not a matter of where he grips it. It's a simple matter of weight ratio!"

That's what I thought it meant. I had "I thought a soul was intangible" in the post, but I deleted it for some reason. And because science can't prove that it doesn't exists, isn't that just as much reason to believe as saying they can't prove it does exist is a reason to not believe?

Thus the whole argument "because it's not tangible it doesn't exist and therefore should not be believed in" is null and void.

_________________

Wouldn't your soul be your brain? Your brain is what differentiates you from the other advanced ape-people. If we all acted on instinct we'd all act the same.

Not all animals act purely on instinct. Animals have varying levels of intelligence and the ability to learn, depending on their place on the evolutionary ladder. In terms of brainpower, we are on the top of that ladder.

So would it make sense then that humans are the only animals with "souls", as Christians believe?

_________________
"It's not a matter of where he grips it. It's a simple matter of weight ratio!"

Not quite, there, G-man. It isn't merely the differences of material that differentiates people on a personal level, but also differences of experience, information, and even volition. Even identical twins, who should have identical brain patterns, are entirely different people when you get right down to it. The brain is only hardware; it isn't the sum total of everything a person is.


Who ever said that? The terms nephesh in Hebrew and psuche in Greek are not exclusively human characteristics. Yes, there are characteristics that do separate us humans from the rest of animals - primarily our abstract reasoning abilities, the drastic difference in our reasoning capability. and the chief one, that we were created in God's own image - and we do believe these are important. But I for one do not remember ever claiming that animals don't have souls.

_________________

But it's still the brain. Remove it and you just have another body. If you'd like I could restate: The brain and its software would be our souls.

Well after a bit of contemplation I have found one reason for atheism.
Atheism allows for one to choose their own life path without any worry of being judged by it. An atheist will live a much more free and full life.

Maybe not a more happy life, but one with more experience a more interesting life. Almost like Limbo in Dante's Inferno.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

I'm not so sure about that. As for the "being judged" thing, a lot of people who really believe in their religion judge atheists as going to hell. And I'm not sure that having a religion really restricts you that much from having a free and full life. Of course, that also really depends on your definition of freedom and fullness.

_________________

I don't see why I would need a reason to be an atheist. I'm just hardwired in such a way that I don't think religion is rational. Whether or not the way I think is right or wrong is up to somebody who has proof.

I'm guessing Teff is really embarrassed when he sees this thread in R&P today.... XD

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Yeah this should win an award for most offensive thread.
What would happen if I started a "What's the point of religion?" thread? It'd probably be locked by didy.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

Ah, but what use is such "freedom" if it is not accompanied by happiness? And I'm not sure that it would be entirely free of worry - and not free of judgment itself.

This line of reasoning seems based on a few assumptions: (1) that all things fun are considered immoral by devout people, and (2) in order to have a full life, it must be one completely dominated by fun.

As for the second, even Epicurus realized that there must be natural limits to the amount of debauchery in which one can engage without actually beginning to destroy the pleasure received. Almost anything of an addictive nature ends up requiring greater and greater investment in order to derive any pleasure, until the pleasure itself is no longer there, and only the habits - and the feeding them - remain. And even with things that are not addictive, one must at some point learn wisdom in balancing them out, lest the pursuit of happiness lead to further and further discomfort rather than to pleasure. In other words, human biology and human society both impose morality on us, regardless of whether we wish to follow it or not. So if you're thinking, "Atheism means I can have all the sex, drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll I want," then you will sooner or later find yourself disappointed.

As for the first, while I do acknowledge that theistic morality does set limits on human pleasure, it does not require the kind of somber, dire asceticism that at least some of you seem to claim it does. If that is what you think, you should attend a Concordia Seminary Oktobeerfest sometime. Furthermore, we believe that the morality we have been given is actually for our own good and the good of society. Granted, it is true that certain extremist religions have forbidden things like dancing, movies, music, beer, and what have you, but for the most part, the Christian religion promotes a lifestyle of moderation rather than strict asceticism, a moderation that actually promotes a full life rather than detracts from it.

_________________

Hey I wasn't talking about adultery drugs and things like that didy.
Simply that an Atheist doesn't have to constantly be looking over his shoulder wondering if what they are doing is wrong. I'm an atheist yet you know well I don't and will never drink, smoke, or have casual sex just out of respect for myself.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

And what makes you think I do?

You see, that's where the cross factors in to all this, that cross that I cited earlier as evidence for my faith. I know I'm going to make mistakes in this life. But I do have the Commandments to guide me in what is right, and I have the Lord's forgiveness on account of his cross to forgive me and cleanse me when I do make a mistake. I only need to fear when I deliberately choose to ignore the Commandments and do what I know is wrong.

_________________

Hey thats just what it would be like for me. To me religion would just be there as big looming doom scaring me into doing whatever some little book says.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

That is what it might be for someone who is of immature faith, of faith that is not fully formed by the love of God at work within them. But, as the Scriptures say, "Perfect love casts out fear."

_________________

Some people just can't live in the fairies butterflies and rainbows land where things like that hold true.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

Just remember that many religions profess the same overall archetype, not just Christianity.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

What makes you think I'm speaking of a "fairies butterflies and rainbows land"? I'm speaking of a land where people are constantly hurting other people, where the innocent suffer at the hands of the guilty, where death and hardship hold reign over all. A land where the perfect demonstration of God's perfect love takes the shape of a bloody cross. God's perfect love - and perfect justice - takes place within one of the cruelest, most unjust acts of human history.

You use the term "fairies butterflies and rainbows land" to imply that I do not live in a real world; if that is your intent, then you are dead wrong.

But at least for me there's hope in this: that bloody cross eventually became an empty tomb, and the suffering, dying, crucified Savior is also a risen and ascended Lord.

_________________

Every point of why I'm an Athiest has been hit. Ha ha, and I was about to make some TL;DR post(although, I doubt Teff still holds the same beliefs).
I love you juyz.

Well you find hope in that, others just find other cult leader being killed by the Roman empire.

And I didn't mean to imply you live in a fake world, just one much different from mine.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES