Come out of the closet Americans

[Big RR]

Meade--certainly you won't argue there is no difference between making decisions based on bona fide experiences and making decisions based on faith. We all know that when people die they cease to function and exist; while we may believe in the existence of the soul, it is certainly not something that can be observed or measured in the way that a cessation of breathing can. One who chooses to make a decision based solely on his or her experiences and to reject the supernatural (that not subject to ordinary observation or scientific testing) is not making a leap of faith because there are no natural phenomena that lead him/her to believe anything different. Those who choose to believe otherwise, are making a leap of faith.

As the bible reports Jesus told Thomas--you believe because you have seen me; blessed are those who have not seen me and yet still believe. That is the essence of the leap of faith.

[Lord Jim]

I'm asking for your scientific proof that something (humans cease to function forever after death) does exist. You claim an affirmative truth based upon no evidence (pertaining to 'forever') that your statement is true.

We have a bingo...

It seems obvious to me that those of the Atheist Faith, (I like putting it that way because I know how much it annoys them... ) are making an affirmative claim, for which they have no proof, which therefore by definition requires a well, "leap of faith"...

Again, if someone has proof that there is no afterlife, I'd be delighted to see it....

Well, actually I wouldn't be "delighted" because that would be enormously depressing, but I'd certainly be willing to accept it, if it met the standards of actual empirical proof....(He said, knowing that no such proof could possibly be forthcoming...)

[Big RR]

I don't understand that jim; don't we first have to show a reason to believe that there is an afterlife? I think science affirmatively shows us that life ends, by definition, at death. Is there any scientific reason to think there is anything beyond that? IMHO, no.

[Lord Jim]

The belief that there is an afterlife, absolutely, positively requires a leap of faith....

There is no (so far as I am aware) "empirical" evidence for the assertion...

And...

The belief that there is no afterlife, similarly also absolutely, positively requires a leap of faith....

There is no (so far as I am aware) "empirical" evidence for that assertion either...

That's sort of why I choose to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic.

Well that's a shame, because had you chosen to be an agnostic, you could have gotten yourself out of the "leap of faith" box uncertainty requires no leap of faith...

[MajGenl.Meade]

There is no scientific reason to think that a sunset is beautiful (though there are scientific explanations of how it comes to look that way). But that's by the by.

Sometimes I think we talk past each other. I reiterate.... Joe's statement claiming knowledge of what can and cannot ever be is not a scientific claim. It is not science to say that the sun will rise every day for all time (excuse the anthro-view of "rise" and "day" please). It is scientific to say that past experience of the sun rising (or setting) indicates that it will rise (or set) tomorrow - but that one day it will not. Or might not. Or might because who knows?

I am not interested in either Joe or I or anyone else proving the non-existence of something. I am interested in his scientific proof evidencing that he does have positive knowledge of all eternity. It is, on his basis, the same kind of claim he says that I am making. It is invalid for me to take the position that there is a soul - it is apparently not invalid for Joe to insist that there is not. He knows - I only make some leap of (errant) faith. We can pile up dead bodies and watch them decompose for as long as we live - that still has zero bearing on whether or not there is life after death.

To answer sue (I think it was), haven't we been thru this before? Belief in the afterlife never made anyone a "better" person. I am not more or less likely to do good or evil because I think eternity belongs to us all. Salvation is what does it... we are still sinners, still sinning for that matter, but true faith will lead to true works (good ones) as the fruit of God's work in us. No credit to me or any other human. We are to be conformed to the likeness of Jesus... that's the goal.

On a more mundane level perhaps, I have absolutely no way to prove all kinds of things - I believe what I've been told because it seems reasonable.... microchips, mesons, internal combustion, gravity, the magick of electrickery and so on. All knowledge is revealed by someone at some point. The existence of God, the afterlife and so on has been revealed. That's the evidence.

[BoSoxGal]

Richard III didn't have much to say when recently exhumed; haven't heard of any other walking/talking corpses, except on TV/movies - I'm thinking that's pretty good empirical evidence?

[Big RR]

Well I think this is just another one of those times when we'll have to agree to disagree; I see a big difference in limiting one's belief to what science can prove/disprove and choosing to believe in something science has no ability to investigate. Belief is the supernatural is just that, a belief (but that does not mean it is trivial or wrong). But not believing anything lacking empirical evidence for it does not require that leap of faith so far as I can see.

From what we know of the sun, I think we can correctly predict that it will rise and set at given times until it burns out; it does not take a leap of faith to say it will not rise 5 minutes after it sets, but it does to say it will because such will only occur via some supernatural intervention; and since the supernatural is not subject to scientific observation and experimentation, only a leap of faith will lead you to that belief. Indeed, I personally think that is what is special about religious faith--we believe event though we have not seen.

[Lord Jim]

Richard III didn't have much to say when recently exhumed; haven't heard of any other walking/talking corpses, except on TV/movies - I'm thinking that's pretty good empirical evidence?

Since we're talking about immortal souls rather than bags of bones or The Zombie Apocalypse, I'd say that's not particularly good empirical evidence....

[Lord Jim]

I am interested in his scientific proof evidencing that he does have positive knowledge of all eternity. It is, on his basis, the same kind of claim he says that I am making. It is invalid for me to take the position that there is a soul - it is apparently not invalid for Joe to insist that there is not. He knows - I only make some leap of (errant) faith. We can pile up dead bodies and watch them decompose for as long as we live - that still has zero bearing on whether or not there is life after death.

We have another bingo....

[Joe Guy]

I have not suggested that you should prove that something does not exist.

I'm asking for your scientific proof that something (humans cease to function forever after death) does exist.

Do you really need proof that a human that has died and been eaten by worms or burnt to ashes is no longer a functional human?

You claim an affirmative truth based upon no evidence (pertaining to 'forever') that your statement is true.

Why don't Christians leave money to themselves in a trust for when they become functional again? They are very short sighted if they're giving it all away.

You and I agree that all humans die and break into constituent atoms one way or another, but you apparently have special knowledge (that you deny I can legitimately have) of conditions beyond the grave...forever.

Yes. I have special knowledge. I understand that a dead body that has rotted will never be a functioning human again. Maybe I should keep it to myself. I don't want to scare or depress anybody.

All I'm saying is that on your terms there is no difference between the basis of our opinions - leaps of faith as some put it.

That's not true. You make a leap of faith by saying that when someone dies they continue to exist in an afterlife. I believe that afterlife is another word for dead. Nobody who has died and rotted has ever come back to be a useful citizen.

We've both been told that trains exist (we all live forever but it's just a question of where) and that train is going to hit both of us. Only one of us will be happy or neither of us....

Are you talking about getting hit by the Love Train? If that's true, tell all your friends in Egypt and Israel too....

[Sue U]

Joe's statement claiming knowledge of what can and cannot ever be is not a scientific claim. It is not science to say that the sun will rise every day for all time (excuse the anthro-view of "rise" and "day" please). It is scientific to say that past experience of the sun rising (or setting) indicates that it will rise (or set) tomorrow - but that one day it will not. Or might not. Or might because who knows?

In an infinite multiverse with infinite time, of course all things are theoretically possible, although some things are very highly improbable. (After all, that was the basis for the Infinite Improbability Drive on the Heart of Gold.)

But more to the pint, Meade, I have no idea what you mean by this, although it seems to be central to your thought:

... true faith will lead to true works (good ones) as the fruit of God's work in us.

Can you explain what this means and why it is important? How is it different than when I, as a non-believer, perform works (good ones) ?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes. I have special knowledge. I understand that a dead body that has rotted will never be a functioning human again

And there's your "belief" or leap of faith if you will, right there...because it did happen but you don't believe it...and because it will happen but you don't believe it.

"And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” Lk 16:30-31

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” Jn 11:25-26

But more to the pint, Meade, I have no idea what you mean by this, although it seems to be central to your thought:
MajGenl.Meade wrote: "... true faith will lead to true works (good ones) as the fruit of God's work in us."
Can you explain what this means and why it is important? How is it different than when I, as a non-believer, perform works (good ones) ?

Sue-wish I had a pint! Perhaps I can back into the first question...take the Westboro people...they claim true faith but their works deny it. It seems clear to me that, whatever they may say, they are not in actual fact followers of Christ at all. This is not because they "sin" since we all have that tendency; it is because their works are actually in direct contradiction of the word of God...of what I read is His will (desire perhaps is a more useful concept). True faith does not lead to evil works - Inquisition please note (and the list goes on). "By their fruits you shall know them". I shouldn't really cherry pick; Matthew 7 in its entirety is key.

The link to the second question is Ephesians 2:8-10 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Good works do not earn salvation - but there's no earthly difference between one good work and another good work in themselves, no matter who's doing them.

Back to Matthew 7. Jesus distinguishes between those of his followers (vs. 21) who call on him and do God's will and those who call on him but do not do God's will. This is no longer just a question of doing that which is wrong but speaks to failure to do that which is right. Given the message of the Sermon on the Mount, I sometimes (Joe) doubt that I'm really getting it...in which case a good helpful dose of Romans is in order!

I don't know what others think but it appears to me that one of the key issues of the Gospel is the matter of motivation or intent. God's more interested in the why than the what - that is, the heart rather than the self-interested brain perhaps.

Does that make sense (given the paradigm)? And keep up the good works!

[wesw]

yes , its about good and evil, God and Devil, if you will.

also about interpretation of what is said.

the things some of you argue against are not even what I believe anyway. I see things very differently than what people seem to think Christians believe. my idea of everlasting life is my son and daughter surviving and reproducing.
I am reborn everytime a descendant springs to life. I believe the kind and giving will survive and that the violent and selfish will fail.

it is said that the way to salvation is thru Christ, but who am I to say who Christ is or how he appears to others? if you live a good loving, unselfish, life. and are a benefit to humanity who am I too say that you are not beyond where I am?
maybe that sect in india who won t even kill a bug are wiser than me.

the biggest thing for me was realizing I was not as smart as I thought, and was wrong about a lot of things.

I was way too smart and educated to be a Christian. to me, christianity was a crutch or a tool used to control or support people.

its really just about good and evil, its about kindness and courage vs violence and selfishness.

there are things beyond my understanding..., and yours too. we all have different abilities and faculties. different levels of understanding.

its funny that when I was so sure I had no need of god, was indeed beyond that. I still thought about it and tried to understand. the people who dismiss it here sure seem to spend a lot of time on the subject.

none of us completely understands the universe, better to keep an open mind I think.

[MajGenl.Meade]

my idea of everlasting life is my son and daughter surviving and reproducing.
I am reborn everytime a descendant springs to life. I believe the kind and giving will survive and that the violent and selfish will fail.

it is said that the way to salvation is thru Christ, but who am I to say who Christ is or how he appears to others? if you live a good loving, unselfish, life. and are a benefit to humanity who am I too say that you are not beyond where I am?

I dunno wes... Christ said the way to salvation is thru Christ... and his idea of everlasting life is not that "we live on" because we have descendants... (judging by my son, that will be a very short everlasting for me! ) and Christ apparently declared who he is and how he appears... we'll all recognize him the 2nd time around. Who am I to say who Christ is? Don't need to - he already has.

Agreed that people living good, loving, unselfish lives benefitting humanity may well be beyond where I am (in that area). I've known some people who reject Jesus but are much nicer than I am. But being kind and giving doesn't qualify for salvation - being forgiven by (reconciled to) God does. That's what Jesus taught; it's what the Bible says. Those who don't believe scripture are not Christians - they are something else; which I suppose is a judgment, but isn't it rather like saying that those who cheer for the Steelers to win every game are not really Browns fans?

Sensible buggers tho'

[wesw]

really? I feel like a Christian. I feel saved, by jesus. Jesus' path is the one I m trying to follow. Jesus' teachings gave me greater understanding. my path is thru jesus. that doesn t mean jesus, and thus god, has not shown other faces than the one I was shown, or that there are not other paths thru him than the one I m traveling.

I still don t think I m qualified to define jesus, or god. perhaps its beyond my ken.

you sound like you are supporting literal interpretation of the bible, which is full of teaching thru parables and metaphors, and yes, allegory. not to mention all the translations and political manipulations it has endured.

I do believe the message has survived all that, intact.

I certainly don t claim to be so knowing that I understand every parable or metaphor in the book. perhaps there are things that you have not considered or learned. perhaps there are things you can t even comprehend.

i can tell you that my life has changed completely. faults have disappeared that i was certain were there for life.
rage has just gone, seemingly miraculously. with that self loathing also left.

the journey was hard, the six months after i discovered jesus, and was touched somehow, were the worst of my life. it was hell, and a battle for soul and survival. there were miracles, but i wasn t suddenly saved. it was the culmination of a lifetime battle similar to what older and wiser has described so eloquently. I was totally destroyed in the process. it seems it was necessary.

i hated myself for my failures and weaknesses, i blamed myself for my parents shortcomings.

it was a time where i alternated between talking myself into my destruction, and out of it. the argument that the one good thing i could do for everyone would be to go was almost convincing. i so wanted to do good.
it felt like a battle of good and evil over me and within me.

i read a book called The Robe, that the library was discarding, and my better half brought home. it was in a stack and i almost discarded it when i started to read it. just some shallow story about rich roman elite and their decadence. for some reason i read on, and it was so much more. it was the story of redemption like no other and it made me change and believe i could be forgiven. god always seemed to be there after that, followed shortly by jesus, tho i fruitlessly resisted the idea that i could be a Christian for a while.

i sure feel like a Christian. but who am i to judge?

[Joe Guy]

Yes. I have special knowledge. I understand that a dead body that has rotted will never be a functioning human again

And there's your "belief" or leap of faith if you will, right there...because it did happen but you don't believe it...and because it will happen but you don't believe it.

If you can convince others that anything that anyone believes is a leap of faith it makes it easier to get them to believe in things that aren't real.

[MajGenl.Meade]

wesw - that sounds great; good for you.

Rest easy - I don't support a literal understanding of the Bible such that when Jesus calls himself a door that he actually is made of wood and has a handle.

I do support a literal understanding of the Bible that includes such as you point out: the parables are stories that Jesus literally told about non-existent people and events to illustrate the truth (there was no real "good Samaritan" any more than there really was a prodigal son). I support a literal understanding that the Book of Job is literally an example of literature - a metaphorical examination of our position with God. I'm not all that fond of the allegorical method since in the past church people have carried it way too far*** - seeing non-existent allegories in plain statements. I don't believe (necessarily) in a world-wide flood or creation in six 24 hour days or .....

***Come to think of it - they still do. That old "I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to harm you" from Jeremiah 29 is (to any sane mind such as mine) God's word to the Jews in exile promising that they (as a group and not each individual in the group) will return to Israel. It isn't what some Christians regard it as today - a promise of earthly riches and nothing bad happening "to me, my wife, my kids and maybe the grandkids but I'm not sure about them".

Those are all peripheral to the message of salvation through the redemptive death of Jesus and his resurrection. The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.

The word of God is one of the best attested books in all of human history if not the best. It is accurate and translations have grown more so over time as scholars have gained better understandings of ancient languages and cultures. It is the only basis for faith and belief. All else is commentary (OK I stole that.... sorry sue). I reject statements about mistranslation and manipulation as irrelevant, immaterial and oh yeah... wrong. Atheists make that kind of argument.

If it the Bible isn't truth, then there is no Christianity - only a bunch of deluded grave-bound persons.

Speaking of which, I see Joe you're avoiding admitting the undeniable. That your "knowledge" of the eternality of non-life after death is on the same basis as my own opposite stance - belief. You disbelieve the evidence and believe something else - exactly what you accuse me of. That's fine by the way - I'm not criticizing you for that - just sorry you won't admit it. Still it's nice to have contact with someone who really knows so much about eternity.

[wesw]

I did say that that message of the bible was unaffected by attempted manipulation and mistakes in translation.
the truth, as you say, was unchanged. I may not have made that clear.
I m not so quick to call people wrong as I once was. my understanding is not infallible.

[Gob]

If the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, how can it be the thoughts / message of an omnipotent being? How can it have any relevance?

[Joe Guy]

Speaking of which, I see Joe you're avoiding admitting the undeniable. That your "knowledge" of the eternality of non-life after death is on the same basis as my own opposite stance - belief. You disbelieve the evidence and believe something else - exactly what you accuse me of. That's fine by the way - I'm not criticizing you for that - just sorry you won't admit it. Still it's nice to have contact with someone who really knows so much about eternity.

I haven't seen this evidence of eternal life that you've referenced.

Is it something you read in a book or do you have a dead guy living with you that has you convinced?

In regards to my knowledge of eternity, I'd tell you all I know about it but it would take me forever.