Is there any meaning in life without God?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Think about the things that bring you 'happiness'. Are they temporary?

No, not at all. Creating, expressing, finding, learning, wondering, feeling to name but a few. All these things are constant and bring me pleasure. Music brings me happiness. Friendship and conversation bring me happiness. They are not temporary things, they are things I will experience for my entire life. Simply living brings me happiness.

I still do not understand why theists believe that the rest of us are all so unhappy with our lots in life. You do not know anything about my way of life and yet you are sure I am incomplete and yearning to be filled. Why? Who told you I was like that? On what grounds do you claim it is not possible to live a happy, fulfilled existence without god?

Originally posted by Starrman
No, not at all. Creating, expressing, finding, learning, wondering, feeling to name but a few. All these things are constant and bring me pleasure. Music brings me happiness. Friendship and conversation bring me happiness. They are not temporary things, they are things I will experience for my entire life. Simply living brings me happiness.

I still d ...[text shortened]... n what grounds do you claim it is not possible to live a happy, fulfilled existence without god?

No, not at all. Creating, expressing, finding, learning, wondering, feeling to name but a few. All these things are constant and bring me pleasure. Music brings me happiness. Friendship and conversation bring me happiness. They are not temporary things, they are things I will experience for my entire life. Simply living brings me happiness.


Do you mean to say that all these things will last forever? What if you become deaf? What if you lose your friends? What if you lose the ability to create, express, find, learn, wonder, etc? What if you loose your hearing? Will music still bring you happiness? What happens when you die? Do you not think that the chance exists that that will not simply be the end?

I still do not understand why theists believe that the rest of us are all so unhappy with our lots in life. You do not know anything about my way of life and yet you are sure I am incomplete and yearning to be filled. Why? Who told you I was like that? On what grounds do you claim it is not possible to live a happy, fulfilled existence without god?

What if you loose the things that bring you happiness? It's all good and well to say that you are happy when everything is going well. What if you become terminally ill? Will you still be experiencing the same happiness you had before?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]No, not at all. Creating, expressing, finding, learning, wondering, feeling to name but a few. All these things are constant and bring me pleasure. Music brings me happiness. Friendship and conversation bring me happiness. They are not temporary things, they are things I will experience for my entire life. Simply living brings me happiness.

...[text shortened]... if you become terminally ill? Will you still be experiencing the same happiness you had before?[/b]

And what's different if you're a BA?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
And what's different if you're a BA?

You have the assurance of salvation, which means you can face any part of life or death with true happiness. You have fulfillment. You don't need to go out and try out all kinds of things which only bring you temporary happiness. You live for the future as well, not only for the present. And most of all you have true peace in your heart. You know that your sins have been forgiven. And you strive to please God in all that you do. (Which brings the best kind of happiness that you can imagine).

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]No, not at all. Creating, expressing, finding, learning, wondering, feeling to name but a few. All these things are constant and bring me pleasure. Music brings me happiness. Friendship and conversation bring me happiness. They are not temporary things, they are things I will experience for my entire life. Simply living brings me happiness.

...[text shortened]... if you become terminally ill? Will you still be experiencing the same happiness you had before?[/b]

That is a part of being human, the experience is the fun part and when it's over, it's over. If you waste time and experience here by expecting an afterlife, you've missed true happiness in this life and that really is a sin.

Originally posted by Starrman
That is a part of being human, the experience is the fun part and when it's over, it's over. If you waste time and experience here by expecting an afterlife, you've missed true happiness in this life and that really is a sin.

That is a part of being human, the experience is the fun part and when it's over, it's over.

Doesn't the fact that Christ rose from the dead prove that there is life after death?

If you are not open to the possibility of an eternity after death then you are ignorant.

If man ceases to exist then he will be the only thing in the universe that does. Therefore there is the probability that we shall continue to exist. To ignore this possibility is ignorance of the worst kind.

If you waste time and experience here by expecting an afterlife, you've missed true happiness in this life and that really is a sin.

I'd rather say its a sin to waste your life on temporary pleasures, and miss true happiness, when there is an afterlife. Can you prove that there is no afterlife? What do you have to say about near death experiences? What makes you think that there can be no happiness obtained from this life if you live with the possibility of an afterlife?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Doesn't the fact that Christ rose from the dead prove that there is life after death?

No, since there is no proof Jesus rose from the dead, and his entire human existence is also debateable.

If you are not open to the possibility of an eternity after death then you are ignorant.

I am open to the possibilty, but there is absolutely no proof that there is an afterlife. I am open to the possibility of aliens, faeries, dragons etc. But in an absence of proof I do not believe they exist, just so with the afterlife. Should evidence be found, I will be open to it. It is not ignorant at all, far from it.

If man ceases to exist then he will be the only thing in the universe that does. Therefore there is the probability that we shall continue to exist. To ignore this possibility is ignorance of the worst kind.

Nonsense, the Dodo ceased to exist, trees cease to exist, solid radioactive matter ceases to exist after a long enough period of radiation, the death penalty in Britain ceased to exist, water ceases to exist when it is split into hydrogen and oxygen. What exactly are you talking about? Even if your ramblings did make sense, it does not offer any indication that there is an afterlife, saying it is ignorant in the extreme is dangerous because your position is evidently confused.

I'd rather say its a sin to waste your life on temporary pleasures, and miss true happiness, when there is an afterlife. Can you prove that there is no afterlife?

For the millionth time, you claim there to be an afterlife, I am merely refuting your claim bacuse you have no proof. I don't need to prove the afterlife exists, it remains non-existant until evidence for its existence is provided.

What do you have to say about near death experiences?

I'm not sure what you mean by near death experiences, if you mean seeing angels, white lights etc. then I believe that they are most likely either halucinations due to sensory overload, sensory deprivation (depending on the circumstances) or just plain lies.

What makes you think that there can be no happiness obtained from this life if you live with the possibility of an afterlife?

Because you are denying yourself so many experiences because of your belief in the afterlife, that you will never know what living here and now can really be like. Your doctrine tells you not to experience a great many things and because of that, you will never understand what the totality of the possiblities of humanity are.

Part of the essence of being human is the fragility, the chance that tomorrow could end it all. That is a driving factor for creation, the human need to advance and improve, to evolve socially. These things are what being human is all about and it is not a belief in an afterlife that makes these things so precious. In my opinion, people fear death because that's it, over, done, no more chances. That fear is important, it is a driving force, it gives you an extra two seconds of encouragement, it is instinctual. Belief in the afterlife removes that fear and that is taking a part of humanity away.

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Doesn't the fact that Christ rose from the dead prove that there is life after death?

No, since there is no proof Jesus rose from the dead, and his entire human existence is also debateable.

If you are not open to the possibility of an eternity after death then you are ignorant.

I am open to th ...[text shortened]... ecause of that, you will never understand what the totality of the possiblities of humanity are.[/b]

No, since there is no proof Jesus rose from the dead, and his entire huan existence is also debateable.

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been more carefully examined than the evidence for any other fact of history! It has been weighed and considered by the greatest of scholars, among them Simon Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard from 1833 to 1848 who helped bring Harvard Law School to preeminence and who has been called the greatest authority on legal evidences in the history of the world. When Greenleaf turned his mind upon the resurrection of Christ and focused upon the light of all the laws of evidence, he concluded that the resurrection of Christ was a reality, that it was a historical event, and that anyone who examined the evidence for it honestly would be convinced this was the case.

Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists (1847; reprinted., Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker House, 1965), 28-30.

Originally posted by dj2becker
... he concluded that the resurrection of Christ was a reality, that it was a historical event, and that anyone who examined the evidence for it honestly would be convinced this was the case.

Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Ev ...[text shortened]... reprinted., Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker House, 1965), 28-30.

I have not read anything on Simon Greenleaf, but if, as you, say he concluded that the resurrection was a reality and an historical event, then he is a charlatan and a fool. From an historical viewpoint, nothing of a supernatural nature can be proved. If he had claimed that Jesus existed and had the proof to show it, I would openly agree with him, but in terms of the resurrection, he cannot possibly show any historical certainty for it.

Originally posted by Starrman
I have not read anything on Simon Greenleaf, but if, as you, say he concluded that the resurrection was a reality and an historical event, then he is a charlatan and a fool. From an historical viewpoint, nothing of a supernatural nature c ...[text shortened]... rrection, he cannot possibly show any historical certainty for it.

LOL they already sneaked off to "Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ a reality? " and answering you there.

Originally posted by Starrman
I have not read anything on Simon Greenleaf, but if, as you, say he concluded that the resurrection was a reality and an historical event, then he is a charlatan and a fool. From an historical viewpoint, nothing of a supernatural nature can be proved. If he had claimed that Jesus existed and had the proof to show it, I would openly agree with him, but in terms of the resurrection, he cannot possibly show any historical certainty for it.

I have not read anything on Simon Greenleaf, but if, as you, say he concluded that the resurrection was a reality and an historical event, then he is a charlatan and a fool.

You call the man a fool eventhough you have not read his book? I'm afraid your bias is showing.

From an historical viewpoint, nothing of a supernatural nature can be proved. If he had claimed that Jesus existed and had the proof to show it, I would openly agree with him, but in terms of the resurrection, he cannot possibly show any historical certainty for it.

So basically what you are saying is that you disregard the greatest authority on legal evidences in the history of the world, just because there is no way anyone will convince you of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I am happy to continue this in the other thread.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I have not read anything on Simon Greenleaf, but if, as you, say he concluded that the resurrection was a reality and an historical event, then he is a charlatan and a fool.

You call the man a fool eventhough you have not read h ...[text shortened]... way anyone will convince you of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? [/b]

I get a kick outta how an otherwise learned man of the law tosses out the rules of evidence when it comes to biblical stuff.
Hearsay for one.
Just what did he expect to find in te gospels?

He certainly had no clue about how to research history.

btw you overstate his legal expertise a great deal.

Originally posted by frogstomp
I get a kick outta how an otherwise learned man of the law tosses out the rules of evidence when it comes to biblical stuff.
Hearsay for one.
Just what did he expect to find in te gospels?

He certainly had no clue about ...[text shortened]... history.

btw you overstate his legal expertise a great deal.

It was also the case with Frank Morison, a British lawyer who set out to write a book repudiating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He wrote his book, but it is not the book he set out to write. As he examined the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, this sceptical lawyer found it so overwhelming he was forced to accept it and became a believer. The book he did write, titled Who moved the Stone?, sets forth the evidence of the resurrection of Christ, and its first chapter is called "The Book That refused to be Written." Lew Wallace also set out to write a book disproving the deity of Christ and His resurrection and ended up writting a famous book defending it. The book was titled Ben Hur.

If you are the expert on how to research history, tell me have you ever even looked at the evidences provided for the resurrection of Christ?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Lew Wallace also set out to write a book disproving the deity of Christ and His resurrection and ended up writting a famous book defending it. The book was titled Ben Hur.

If you are the expert on how to research history, tell me have you ever even looked at the evidences provided for the resurrection of Christ?[/b]

On what grounds do you claim that Wallace set out to disprove Christ?

From his autobiography he was a Christian through and through:

"In the beginning, before distractions overtake me, I wish to say that I believe absolutely in the Christian conception of God? I am not a member of any church or denomination, nor have I ever been. Not that churches are objectionable to me, but simply because my freedom is enjoyable, and I do not think myself good enough to be a communicant."
Lew Wallace: An Autobiography, Volume I, pgs. 1-2