Well that’s likely true, since your brain registers pain, and when it dies that suggests it will be impossible. However I would phrase that a little differently, I am not “looking forward” to it, however I should be appalled if I thought it went on forever, and I have had my share of chronic back pain as well, so I can empathise.
2 Likes
Well, I think Ricky Gervais spoke for me when he said ‘The best thing about being dead is that you don’t know about it. It’s like being stupid - it’s only painful for others.’
5 Likes
The fear of death is a common human experience, regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof. It’s fascinating to see how each person copes with this fear and the philosophical or existential thoughts it provokes. For those interested in exploring different viewpoints and expanding their understanding, I recommend checking out (text promoting an unrelated website removed by mod). While it’s not directly related to atheism or the fear of death, the resource offers a diverse range of topics that can provide a broader perspective on various subjects.
It’s fascinating to see how each person copes with this fear and the philosophical or existential thoughts it provokes
No. It is not "Regardless of our ‘‘beliefs.’’‘’ This is dead wrong. There are millions of examples of this. I have no fear of death. I have a fear of dying. There is a difference.
If I am in a situation where I can do something to save my life, I am probably going to act in that direction. It is not the fear of death but the struggle for survival that tugs at me. Fear may be a motivating factor, but it is the fear of the situation, possibly of pain, but not of death.
I twice had the privilege of falling off motorcycles at speeds exceeding 60 mph. I was not wearing leathers. I can tell you that my world stopped during my fall. Everything slowed down. I recall looking at my hands sliding on the pavement and thinking “This is going to rip the skin off my palms Roll!” And so, I rolled, And I rolled, and rolled, and rolled, and rolled, for about 30 to 40 yards. At one point, I stopped, looked up, and I was still sliding, so I went back into a roll. I did not have time to fear anything or to think about anything. One thought occupied my mind. ‘Roll’’
My second accident, I had a Suzuki 750 with a turbocharger. The turbo kicked on automatically at some specific RPM. There I was, leaning into the curve, heading onto the freeway, 7AM, and WHAM! The fucking turbo kicked into action. Straightened me right up and sent me over the deciding curb separating the traffic entering the freeway, ME, from oncoming traffic. I drove both foot pegs into the backs of my legs. The bike and I sprawled into the oncoming traffic. The smell of gasoline was the one thing I remember, and my only thought was, “Get that fucking bike up and out of traffic.” I was up and on the bike in seconds. As I was on my way to work, I just continued my journey. When I got to work I took off my jacket and my shirt, inside my jacket was shredded. I was working as a counselor and I could not go through the day with a shredded shirt. I went to my boss and explained my situation. As I got up to leave the office, she shreeked., "You’re bleeding!’ “What? Where?” Sure enough. I had not noticed at the time of the accident, but I had driven the foot pegs of the bike into both legs. I earned 7 stitches in one leg and 4 in the other.
What’s the point of this? During these sorts of traumatic moments, (At the moment.) Some people do not feel pain. I’m saying some people because I have a hunch that we train our bodies to do this. My body was trained to do this through martial arts. If you hit me in the face, I am likely to look at you, allowing that I am still conscious, and ask, “Do you really want to go there?” Now, I am old, and certainly in no shape to be fighting anymore. But I know how to damage. Frankly. I worry about putting myself behind bars for the force I would use. Anyway, my point is Adrenaline masks painIt releases adrenaline when a crash or other traumatic accident occurs, according to CNN. The stress we feel in these situations could mask the pain of an injury for several hours, or even days. This is referred to as “stress-induced analgesia.”
So, not only is the fear of death not common in most humans, but many humans who have been near death have absolutely no fear at all. Then you have the ADRENALINE JUNKIES. Now they are a different breed of human altogether. They actually seek out death-defying encounters to get the adrenaline rush that close-to-death encounters bring.
We can go on with this. The euthanasia movement is full of people who embrace death as a release from pain and suffering. Perhaps some fear it, perhaps not. They don’t fear it enough to want to avoid it at all costs.
The religious zealot who martyrs him or herself does not do so in fear of death. People have died for religious causes throughout history. The same can be said for political causes. The jingoistic patriot is willing to face death without fear.
I think fear of death is cultural, and it is learned. There is an Indonesian tradition of Digging Up Dead Relatives. The Ma’nene ritual involves exhuming the corpses of deceased family members periodically, cleaning and re-dressing them. Some even place cigarettes in their mouths before returning them to their graves. They also take the opportunity to clean their relatives’ crypts while the bodies are out. It is a ritual that happens every three or even five years in August.
They certainly do not have the same fear of death we have in the West. Point is, 'Beliefs" matter.
5 Likes
You speak of this fear as if it is an entity to itself, rather than a description of an emotional/mental state born out of a lack of understanding and/or an underdeveloped emotion regulation heuristic.
Having dealt with many deaths in my family, beginning with my father when I was six, I became rather pragmatic about it by the time I was a teenager. (Timothy Leary played a role in this…
)
Therefore, any fear I have experienced in the several occasions when death was a distinct possibility, was not of death, but rather of suffering or intractable pain.
Why fear the inevitable, as death is. It seems rather childish to me.
Fearing pain and suffering is reasonable and rational, at least partially, given the uncertainty surrounding medical care. Fear of death is like fear of a bowel movement.
From my point of view, it is people with strong religious beliefs, or at least god beliefs, who end up wracked with the fear of death.
Those of us who view it as the conclusion of the “play” just hope that our “performance” was of a respectable level.
The “fear of death” as it is usually described, is really an unrecognized and unacknowledged self-preservation mechanism, and like other fears, it can be dealt with effectively.
Given the proper perspective it can just be another aspect of our existence.
3 Likes
Oh, sure. Talking about me behind my back again, I see. Just thought you would “sneak” that in there as if I wouldn’t notice, huh? 
@ashwaganda I’m afraid you will have to overlook Cog sometimes, Ash. For some reason he just can’t help himself by dragging me into his conversations. Lord only knows why. I think he might be infatuated with me or something. Who knows? Anyway, since I am here now, I figured I might as well add my two cents to this whole “fear of death” subject.
Quite frankly, I always figured I would never make it past the age of 25. See, I grew up wanting to be a Hollywood stuntman. Pretty much my whole childhood was centered around trying to emulate just about every stunt from just about every action movie I ever watched. Falling off buildings, parachuting, high speed chases, rock climbing, shootouts, brawls, scuba diving, and so on and so on were all things I actively sought to do in my life. Well, as it turns out, I never got my dream job as a stuntman. What I DID accomplish, however, was spending 20 on patrol with a large city police department, along with 17 years in the military. Translated, that means I got to do all those things I always wanted to do as a stuntman, but with one MAJOR difference. That difference was that out on the streets and within the military, THERE WERE NO SAFETIES IN PLACE. The dangers were REAL and often DEADLY, and there were no directors calling, “CUT!” to allow the scene to be be shot again. In other words, I faced death and saw death on pretty much a daily basis for most of my adult life. Imagine my surprise when I wake up now and find I am still alive over thirty years longer than I expected. 
All that being said, I don’t recall ever being worried about dying. Matter of fact, after surviving a situation in which I should have been killed (and there were many), my typical attitude was, “Ha! You missed me, motherfuckers! Better luck next time.” And for those times when I had close calls that I brought upon myself, I would be like, “Well, that was stupid of me. Next time I will have to do it a different way.” Then I would brush myself off and go get something to eat. Simply never bothered me. Yet, I saw so many others get involved in similar situations where they had close calls, and it would disturb them so much they could no longer function properly. Some of them to the point they had to find a new line of work… (or worse). To this day, I still cannot understand that. It is a feeling/attitude to which I simply cannot relate.
Granted, nowadays I am considerably “less active” than I once was. Obviously, I wasn’t very kind to my body over the years. Therefore, it ain’t quite as agile, durable, or flexible as it once was. Plus, with my life being focused more on my wife and grandson now, my thrill-seeking interests have been replaced with more important and more rewarding endeavors. Overall, I can most certainly say I lived a life most people see only on television from the safety of their living rooms. And here’s the irony: If anybody were to ever make a movie about my life, a stunt double would definitely be needed for many/most of the action scenes. 
No regrets.
(Edit to interview leading role actors.)
3 Likes
I’m new and the threads that I’ve looked at so far are old but still ongoing. I’m going to comment anyway. I suppose the fear of death is the fear of the unknown. We didn’t fear birth because we didn’t exist and we fear death because we cease to exist.
I suppose one’s belief paradigm is relevant to the subject but also tends to be subjective rather than objective and paradoxical. Rather than a traditional theological approach I tend to take a strict Biblical approach to spirituality, so that would likely be irrelevant to you.
But. You asked an interesting question. Namely, what if you are wrong? The answer from a strictly Biblical perspective is you will likely never know. This because there is a judgement after a temporary period of trial. God’s trial, not yours. Put simply we judge ourselves during our lifetime. So, atheists reject the alleged God and after death they are simply no more. Worm food. The theists judge themselves in a variety of ways, but ultimately, depending upon how they lived their lives and who their God in fact was, have a possibility of resurrection.
So, if you’re wrong you’ll never know, and if you’re right it doesn’t matter. If the theists are right and live accordingly they have the possibility to live forever on paradise Earth without sin, death, aging et cetera.
Possibility needs to be demonstrated not simply asserted, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that a deity, and an afterlife are possible?
1 Like
A deity would be simple enough. A simple definition and quick glance at Wikipedia. The possible afterlife? For the one of which I speak I would reference the Bible. The question of possibility is really ideological, though, isn’t it. Theoretically is it possible to colonize Mars? Then what would be involved in examining the possibility of an after life, specifically as I’ve described? Is everlasting life possible? Paradise earth?
Not sure how you think this evidences they are possible? I can look a mermaid in wikipedia after all.
Well I try not to assume what others are basing claims on, which was why I asked if you could demonstrate any objective evidence for your assertion that a deity and an afterlife are possible. One can adhere to any ideological idea of course, but that wasn’t my question.
I have no idea, why do you ask?
Well I don’t believe in an afterlife, so surely that question is for you to answer?
Again you claimed it was:
I am wondering what you are basing this claim on, if it’s just another claim in the bible then fine, but I can’t base belief on bare subjective claims, only sufficient objective evidence. I wouldn’t worry about the other claims for now, as they are contingent on those two at least being properly supported.
Not sure how you think this evidences they are possible? I can look a mermaid in Wikipedia after all.
Right, so then you see the error in assuming possibility as being strictly literal. Wikipedia will tell you in what capacity a mermaid or god exists. Since there are a myriad of gods that literally exist, and a myriad of gods that exist figuratively possibility doesn’t establish anything outside of the ideological fixation. You aren’t active in any mermaid forums?
I thought you were asking the question because you thought I couldn’t answer it.
Because possibilty is endless and therefor irrelevant. Outside the ideological.
In order to examine the possible you have to believe in it in what capacity? It’s possibility or it’s certainty. Again. Ideological.
And you claim it wasn’t? And atheism makes no claims? I’m confused.
Right, it is a Bible claim. I’m not sure how you distinguish subjective from objective when it comes to the Bible. We keep circling back to ideology. Almost as if there is some other authority. You see? I believe the Bible. You don’t. Subjective. You want the objective ideology?
Nope, not even sure I assumed this, I merely questioned your claim that a deity and afterlife were possible, as I would need to see that claim supported with a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence, you either can or cannot do this, and since we don’t all have the same criteria for belief or withholding belief, then I have no expectations either that you can or cannot do this. However when someone makes a claim I aks, as that is my criteria for belief.
I don’t believe this to be the case, there are innumerable deities that humans have imagined to be real, but that doesn’t mean they exist, and existence reflects objective reality, it’s in the definition.
No, if they start building churches, and telling others what mermaids want, or they bring their claims here though, I will be asking them to support their claims with objective evidence. Since I treat god claims the same as all other claims.
No, I asked the question because you made a claim it was possible. If one accepts bare claims in a debate forum, then there’d not be much to debate.
I don’t agree, but this would make your clai meaningless no? How can you claim or believe something is possible if you don’t think it’s possibility has any relevance? If I said mermaids were real one assumes you’d not just take my word for it, why would deities be any different?
Well you already claimed it is possible, you could start there, as i suggested. However all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim that something is the case, is true, or that something exists, so when someone claims to believe something it necessarily carries a burden of proof, not the criteria they set for that burden need not be the same as mine, hence when they come here to make the claim I ask them if they can meet the burden of the cirteri I set for belief.
I made no such claim. Are you really confused? Only this is pretty simple, you have come to an theists debate frum, you have a made a claim to believe a deity exists (it’s in your profile) and you made a claim that "depending upon how they (theists) lived their lives and who their God in fact was, have a possibility of resurrection.
So do you have anything to support those claims beyond the bare claims?
So you just believe it because it is in the bible? The bible makes claims that are demonstrably erroneous though, and the claim a deity or an afterlife exist (in the bible or no) are not objectively evidenced in the bible.
Well using their definitions obviously, it’s a scale rather than a binary condition, one can make a claim that is entirely subjective, or that is an objective fact, supported by so much objective evidence that it would be unreasonable to withhold belief.
No, you keep circling back to it, I am as yet unsure why, unless you’re saying all you have is adherence to ideology?
Not at all sorry. I don’t value ideology as evidence for beliefs. Since alone ideology need not be supported by any objective evidence.
That’s a sweeping claim, and thus a little disingenuous, I believe what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, where the claim or belief originates is (on its own) irrelevant to whether it is true.
I want to know if you can demonstrate any objective evidence to support your claims that a deity exists, and an afterlife is possible? Can you?
1 Like
I’ve already presented the irrefutable existence of gods. The problem is that you seem to have a limited definition according to occidental culture. In which case, practically what you are claiming is that God doesn’t exist. That’s a small portion of theism. That’s what you want me to do knowing that I can’t and possessing the ideological notion that that is relevant in some way other than the practical. So, it’s impossible for me to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of the specific deity in question. Having already demonstrated most of the atheistic ideology of said culture is based upon a faulty premise.
As I’ve already stated existence isn’t a criteria for theism. Thus Shinto. I’ve also already stated the literal existence of gods. Thus Zeus as mythological and practical. Rulers. Check your Oxford or other credible source which would defy your occidental ideological limitation.
You’re the one that introduced the evidence of mermaids sourcing Wikipedia. I wouldn’t object to that.
You treat them. Interesting.
It doesn’t seem relevant to me. Is the afterlife possible? Do you think everlasting life is possible without gods? That science and technology could bring about an end to death? It isn’t relevant. It’s conjectural, subjective and most likely only a smokescreen created to discredit faith. Oddly enough since possibility would require faith in any possibility. I believe science might be able to do that. I don’t believe science could do that.
Of course. And the alternative as well. That’s my point.
The possibility is irrelevant in determining anything but the possiblity. Subjective. Conjectural.
They wouldn’t. Not in a general sense, at least. But I’ve already stated that your objection to unspecific deities was impractacal without the unreasonable limitations you would place upon them. Not to mention that their literal existence isn’t necessarily expected. It doesn’t matter if the FSM literally exists or not the question would be is it your God? Thus, again, Amaterasu
If you insist. Glady.
Burden of proof? Faith is burdened with proof to the skeptical? For debate, you mean. I, a believer, am burdened with your disbelief? Because, as you’ve said the criteria isn’t the same. Hypothetically if you say you had mie krob and chicken satay with extra peanut sauce for lunch could you prove it and what would be the point? If I said you didn’t.
Yes. Atheistic ideological fixation always confuses me.
That’s what we are discussing. For debate. I don’t have to prove what I believe. That seems nonsensical to me. Unless it is - what’s the i word I keep using?
No. There’s lots of things in the Bible I don’t believe, ironically, under advisement from the Bible itself not to believe it.
Demonstrably erroneous or misunderstood by the allegedly freethinking skeptical? Big difference. Regarding deities in the Bible. Moses, the judges of Israel, Jesus, and pagan idols are refered to as gods. You may question the historicityy of some or all of those, but they don’t fall under your limited understanding of what a god is or you wouldn’t be making the argument you seem to be making. Let’s say, though, that the people who refered to them as such believed them to literally exist.
From a scientific perspective? How would that be possible? Because you either have to base your ideology on theology or science. You don’t seem to have a firm grasp of the theological or Biblical but I don’t see any published science on the subject. That leaves ideology.
I’m saying the atheist vs theist debate is that of ideologues on either side. Atheism, I believe anecdotally to be nothing more than a sociopolitical frustration. An ideological sort of class struggle. It has very little to do with gods, theology, or the Bible. Nor with facts, evidence, truth or proof. Our discussion is an ideological one.
And so what you demand and what you present is pretentious? I used the word smokescreen.
You have to nest your belief paradigm on something. But it can’t be science. Truth is only defined as “a fact or belief that is accepted as true.”
I already have. Repeatedly.
Hey man, you’re arguing with the wrong person on this forum. I’d give up now if I were you.
No objective evidence to support your claims, and nothing beyond the bare claims.
That you have an empty bag, and appear to be trolling, and you’ve utilised the endless rope I gave you to demonstrate this unequivocally. Surely your pretence is wasted now?
Lying troll…
Any integrity, intellectual rigour, or any ability to not troll…or even the ability to give a cursory read of a dictionary?
Quelle surprise…I know I’m shocked at this news… 
Vapid disjointed gibberish, yes we noticed.
You’re inability to troll with any efficacy, is eclipsed only by your execrable grasp of language, and your relentless mendacity.
Thank you, your trolling verbiage is not at all interesting.
Your trolling verbiage doesn’t seem relevant to anyone, or anything, what a glowing tribute to theism they are… 
At last we agree your claim was meaningless.
Your vapid trolling is irrelevant in determining anything but its irrelevance.
So your unevidenced claims about deities, are objectively no different from claims about imaginary mermaids, on this at least we can agree.
Fire extinguisher needed here stat, we have a massive (liar liar) pants on fire. I didn’t object to an unspecified anything, I only asked you for objective evidence specifically for whatever imaginary deity you’re peddling, again mendaciously trolltacular…
COUGH…check the ip address…COUGH… 
It;s a debate forum, maybe take a break from trolling and offer something of value? Your call either way, I’m not bothered. You came to us, see…
Which word is tripping you up trollman?
No indeed, and I can point & laugh at the superstitious snake oil you’re peddling, champ.
Well maybe the stupidity of your posts is not trolling? What am I saying, I have honed these instincts over decades…fnarrr…
Fnarrrrrrr, wait it’s xmas, so lets try ho ho ho… 
No, it is filled with erroneous guff, you’d have to be extremely ignorant not to know this. As the authors undoubtedly were of course, at least by contemporary standards. So the idea it is derived from an omniscient deity is frankly risible nonsense for the sheeple.
You mean your limited understanding of what your god is, I have no god champ. You’re a slow learner…even for a trolling theist…
What about a scientific perspective? How would what be possible?
Nope, that’s a very obvious false dichotomy fallacy.
I struggle with how the spells work in Harry Potter as well, go figure.
Nor on mermaids or dragons, or any non-existent thing, whatever can this mean?
I don’t care, as your vapid bs is unevidenced, irrational and you’re clearly trolling.
No I don’t, straw man allert…
So not just a troll, but a thoroughly mendacious troll.
3 Likes
Well, there is the first assertion you have no evidence for. Are you completely unaware of all those people remembering past lives? Are you not aware of the JW’s. Are you oblivious to Hindu and Buddhist beliefs of reincarnation? Please demonstrate you did not exist before?
This is not a Biblical point of view. It is the ignorant point of view and a believer who has never actually read the Bible. The Bible is a book that was written by men over a period of 8 to 10 thousand years. The simple fact of the matter is that concepts of God, After Life, Heaven, and the emergence of the invention of Hell, are all covered in the Bible. There is not a 'Biblical View." There are in fact “Biblical Views.” There are many views. Given that there are 30,000 different Christian faiths all believing in different dogma, how could you possibly miss this. Hell exists. Hell does not exist. Once saved always saved. Grace can be lost. Saved by grace. Saved by works. Eternal life. Oblivian and cessation of existence. Jesus was a trinity. Jesus was not a trinity. Jesus was god. Jesus was a man. Jesus was a prophet. I have not even scratched the surface of Christian beliefs and the “ABSOLUTE CONFUSION” contained withing the “ANTHOLOGY” (Collection of Books) you like to pretend is (One Book) and cherry-pick your view from,. If you ever took the time to read the damn thing, you would realize that there is NO BIBLICAL VIEW.
Please provide the scripture for this one. You say you have a biblical view and then assert this nonsense. Is this dogma from your belief system? We judge ourselves? Please quote the verse in which Jesus tells us “WE JUDGE OURSELVES.”
Which is it? No more, or worm food? You can’t be both. Being worm food is a joining of the biodiversity of the lifecycle on this planet. Atoms reform and exist for as long as atoms exist. Being no more has a completely different connotation.
Please share any scripture that supports this idea. You are most certainly NOT following any idea contained in BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE.
Pascal’s wager. Please. In the meantime, you have filled your head with shit and lost the only life you ever had to live. You spend your life in dark rooms lit by candles cowering in fear of all manner of evil which was out to steal your soul. You hid from imaginations by inventing protective imaginations. You call that life? I think I will pass. I have better things to do.
5 Likes
No you presented semantics, and used a false equivalence fallacy, equating imaginary concepts, and metaphors as the same as them existing. If you’re claiming deities only exist in the imagination of humans and as metaphor then fine, change your profile to atheist and we’re done, otherwise your claim to be a theist and your claim an afterlife is possible require you to support those claims with objective evidence, or at least something more than your bare claims, and disingenuous semantics and evasion.
A flat out lie, there is no other way to respond to such blatant mendacity.
Another blatant lie, and I have told you several times I hold no such belief. tell us again that you’re not trolling?
Dishonest evasion again, you have offered two bare claims, that a deity exists and that an afterlife is possible, all I have done is ask you to support those claims.
Theism
noun
- belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Again the sheer dishonesty of that claim is why I believe you are trolling.
More dishonesty, and HERE is a link to the Oxford English definition of theism to go with the one above, knock yourself out, as it states that is is a belief in the existence of a god or gods Note his attempt to spin this away from him evidencing the deity he believes is real, with an irrelevant counter example, false equivalence fallacy anyone. Note also I have not defined any deities, yet he keeps lying that I am defining them with a narrow western bias. He could easily by now have defined and identified the deity he is claiming to believe exists, but instead keeps deflecting.
Yes, in response to his claim that evidencing the existence of deities was easily achieved by looking them up on wikipedia, more dishonesty more evasion. Here is the original exchange for context then:
More dishonesty and evasion, he made the claim an afterlife was possible, now we get semantic gibberish, false equivalences and straw men, in attempt to pretend its possibility is irrelevant. He made the claim it was possible, in a debate forum of course it is not irrelevant to ask someone to support their claims, that’s as absurd as it is dishonest.
Tautological gibberish, he made a claim, now suddenly it is irrelevant when he is asked if he can support the claim, though of course that answer is inferred in his endless dishonest evasion of the question.
More dishonesty, he hasn’t attempted to define the deity he claims exists, or evidence it in any objective way, and is already lying about what I think, despite me offering no concept of deity at all, and very specifically explaining it is for him to define what he has claimed exists several times.
Really? His profile says theist yes, and theism is defined as “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.”
I look forward to more dishonest semantics about the word existence, which incidentally is defined as reflecting objective really, yet the word objective seems to have him running away everytime.
More dishonest evasion…no attempt to offer a cogent honest response.
Breathtakingly dishonest false equivalence again, I said his claim on here carried a burden of proof, now he spins into faith. Obviously faith is a trick people use to cling to a belief and doctrine they can find no objective evidence for, which is up to them, but **when they bring those theistic beliefs here to an atheist forum, yes of course we are going to want more than a declaration of faith.
Another dishonest false equivalence, note again he is falsely equating my atheism, that I have several times stated plainly is not a contrary claim or belief to theism, as a contrary claim. The example is also dishonest and irrelevant since I have not made any such claim, and even were I to do so here, then yes it would carry a burden of proof, though of course his example is also a false equivalence as we already know that food and eating it is possible, we can objectively evidence that it is is possible. It is pure dishonest evasion on his part. Though the most hilarious false equivalence is his pretending the claim a deity exists and the claim one had a particular food for lunch are in any way comparable.
More dishonesty, he used a straw man, I pointed out politely I had made no such claim, he ignores his lie, and repeats another lie implying atheism is an ideology.
So he wants to come to an atheist debate forum, make claims that a deity exists, and an afterlife is possible, then refuses to accept this carries any burden of proof. Not much left to debate then is there, he can hold any belief he wants, he can make any claims he wants, but in here those beliefs and claims can and will be challenged.
I shall let this lie speak for itself, it is pure deflection, and also lazy trolling stereotyping. The Genesis creation myth doesn’t even get the most basic chronology right, as one example.
Another blatant lie, where did I define any deity? He keeps repeating this lie even after I have pointed out that have not offered any definition of deity.
I have not made this argument, it is simply the definition of the word theism, again the dishonesty and semantic duplicity is pretty obvious. is he claiming he does not believe any deity exists now?
Unbelievable, even by the mendacious standards he’s already set, he asked how I distinguish the subjective from the objective, note my response, then note the string of straw men and false equivalences that follow. I did not mention science, the bible, theology, or any ideology, he is determined to peddle every assertion as part of an ideology, and all to avoid honestly addressing his claims, that a deity exists and an afterlife is possible, is it any wonder I finally lost patience and labelled it trolling.
Despite being told unequivocally this is not the case, he keeps telling me what I think and believe, given the dishonesty and evasion thus far, I had to call this as trolling.
When I again try to honestly explain why I don’t value ideology that is unsupported by objective evidence, I get baltant ad hominem, there is no response to this but to label it trolling, which is what I did. Note his assertions are entirely unsupported by evidence or rational argument.
More dishonest evasion, note I already explained several times what I “nest my believe on” it is sufficient objective evidence, and note again he introduces the word science, despite me not mentioning it. It’s clear he is trying to deflect and push his agenda against science, and has no interest in debating the claims he made, which by now are the distant memory he was hoping to make them, namely that he believes a deity exists, and that an afterlife is possible. FYI true is defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality. A belief can be an objective fact, it can also be demonstrably wrong, I have encountered people here and elsewhere who hold beliefs that are directly at odds with facts and reality.
Another blatant lie, how often have we seem theists evade requests for objective evidence in this fashion, then later pretend the evidence has already been offered. Though they rarely do it on their first day, and after claiming in the same post that they don’t know the difference between subjective and objective. Though at this point I would have no problem believing he doesn’t understand the difference, based on his responses.
Anyway I had no patience for his dishonesty and evasion last night, and called it as trolling, so now I have given a more detailed response.
1 Like
You will never be happy to die into nothing until you begin living. When you live as you want, death is your companion. You understand each moment in every day could be your last. So each moment in every day, you have made the choice to do exactly what you are doing. If I won the lottery and millions of dollars tomorrow. I would continue working where I am working. I certainly would not buy more stuff than I am willing to travel to the States with. I would purchase the same 3-bedroom house that I am planning on purchasing after my re-contract (Providing it is available). I see no reason to move from where I currently live. My car is absolutely fine for what I need it for. I would not go out and eat or drink because I care about my weight. I can’t imagine what I would do differently. Not right away. I planned on starting a business when I got back to the States and I might still do it. However, I would not be doing it for fun and not for meeting basic needs. Being content, there is very little a million dollars would change. On top of that, I really would not want fake friends, imitation popularity, and gold-digging bullshit that would accompany people knowing that I had money.
Bucket list changes? I would continue taking a vacation once a year. My go-to places have been Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Cambodia, and China. I have not yet tapped into South America. It’s kinda far away. But I can see myself spending winter south of the equator.
It’s not a matter of “In 50 years.” When you wake up to reality, you understand, you don’t have a choice. You find that which is important to you, and you live your life accordingly. Happiness is what you bring to the world, not what you get from it.
4 Likes