Look at it from a different perspective. Supposed it is not the end, suppose you reincarnate to this earth again. I'm not buying that for a second but suppose.

Then what?

You only have 2 lives. What is the purpose in that?

So you have 3? What is the purpose in that?

---

Ok, so there is a god, and he says you have been very nice, you can stay here for ever and ever and ever? What is the point in that?

(October 31, 2008 at 12:55 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: So you see no reward. But you see no punishment either. What if you do decide to go on a rampage doing harm to others and get caught? You will go to jail thereby throwing away even more precious time on this earth than by doing good, where you might also be liked.

Even that punishment is useless. I can just go out and do it over again and why have government laws when death is the end result.

Ok, so what is your alternative?

(October 31, 2008 at 12:57 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Look at it from a different perspective. Supposed it is not the end, suppose you reincarnate to this earth again. I'm not buying that for a second but suppose.

Then what?

You only have 2 lives. What is the purpose in that?

So you have 3? What is the purpose in that?

---

Ok, so there is a god, and he says you have been very nice, you can stay here for ever and ever and ever? What is the point in that?

There is no purpose reincarnation, if the end result is death. I can just do the same things over and over again and go no where.

What is a God, people through this word around. Well i do see a point in living for ever and ever. But how would one get to live for ever and ever, what does one have to do?

---

(October 31, 2008 at 1:02 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Ok, so what is your alternative?

That is what i want to know? What do I do? I am stuck here with no out.

What is a god? Beats me, never seen one. Probably never will either.

Quote:But how would one get to live for ever and ever, what does one have to do?

Not a clue, because as far as I know it is impossible. It may not be a comforting thought, but no one ever said life is about being comforted. Life is what you make of it. And if not believing in a god makes you miserable, than that is just tough. It doesn't make a god any more true or false.

(October 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm)S_Truth Wrote: Also if there is no end goal what is the point in life, even though we help ourselves and others live better, they just end up dying and everything just gets repeated over again with our kids and grand kids.

Huh? What is the point if everyone's gonna die anyway? Huh? To try and help the living and dying of course rather than speculating about the already dead, and what happens after death (which I think there is nothingness of course, nothing at all, no experience whatsoever). And to also be good to yourself and enjoy life.

Quote:But how would one get to live for ever and ever, what does one have to do?

I doubt its possible, but if it is its almost certainly not going to be in our lifetime, thats IF it IS possible.
I used to be an atheist like I am now, but still want to live forever. And of course I still would like to if I didn't suffer that much, if overall the eternity thing was a good experience. But I used to more than just want, sort of partly need and crave to live forever, and this all comes from fear of death in my experience, which I no longer have. I don't fear death anymore, I fear suffering, illness and injury. I can't think of what else I fear (at them moment), if anything (I fear many things but they could all very well be connected to these three things, and of course this also includes fearing suffering, illness and injury of others too).

(October 31, 2008 at 12:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: So in my opinion as an atheist you can say that you believe that this or other rational thinking (scientific) theory is right or wrong but you can not say that you have faith without religion because they are one and the same thing.

What belongs to Stalin he thought of himself as a Genius of humanity ,and was in fact hailed as such in the Soviet Union and by commies abroad ,he was in fact a smart guy who outbrained his colleagues but his faith or anti-faith believes are by long thrown to the dustbin of history.

So what would you call someone like Stalin or a much milder example of him if this dogma that he imposed was not faith based nor was it religious?
Would you call it superstition?
What would you call it?

If this issue bothers you I would recommend to read the book published some 2-3 years ago "The court of the red Tsar " by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
I would add from my close knowledge of that issue that Stalin was an atheist.Atheism was thaught in all schools beginning with the kindergarten and Darwinism was in high esteem but only in the field if biology in it's original version.
The soviets did not accept the theory of genetics saying,stupidly,that if the genes determine the behaviour of man then the capitalists will say that the poor are born poor and the rich are rich due to genes so that the revolutionary struggle between classe makes no sense.
But beside that stupidity which kept back Russian science for about 30 years,Atheism was part of soviet official ideology and intensely promoted by education and mass media.
Religion was not officially banned but a member of the Party caught visting a church or a synagogue was exposed to severe consequences.

(October 31, 2008 at 1:13 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: What is a god? Beats me, never seen one. Probably never will either.

Quote:But how would one get to live for ever and ever, what does one have to do?

Not a clue, because as far as I know it is impossible. It may not be a comforting thought, but no one ever said life is about being comforted. Life is what you make of it. And if not believing in a god makes you miserable, than that is just tough. It doesn't make a god any more true or false.

Then we are back to where we started no out and everything is pointless. But life cannot be what you make of it because death is unpredictable. We can very well die sitting here doing nothing and we can die else where without a clue what just happened. It's a scary thought, but I cannot get it out of my mind and the reason to live is no better than a reason to die. I don't know if you see where I am getting at but this is how I feel. So really why are we born?

---

(October 31, 2008 at 1:20 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm)S_Truth Wrote: Also if there is no end goal what is the point in life, even though we help ourselves and others live better, they just end up dying and everything just gets repeated over again with our kids and grand kids.

Huh? What is the point if everyone's gonna die anyway? Huh? To try and help the living and dying of course rather than speculating about the already dead, and what happens after death. And to also be good to yourself.

But that doesn't make a difference to be good to others and myself. Also in one person mind good is seen as something else and in another person's mind good is seen as something else. Who is to say who is doing good and who is to say who is doing bad. So really there is no good or bad and we cannot be punished for anything we do for I can just say I was doing good.

(October 31, 2008 at 1:20 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote:

(October 31, 2008 at 12:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: So in my opinion as an atheist you can say that you believe that this or other rational thinking (scientific) theory is right or wrong but you can not say that you have faith without religion because they are one and the same thing.

What belongs to Stalin he thought of himself as a Genius of humanity ,and was in fact hailed as such in the Soviet Union and by commies abroad ,he was in fact a smart guy who outbrained his colleagues but his faith or anti-faith believes are by long thrown to the dustbin of history.

So what would you call someone like Stalin or a much milder example of him if this dogma that he imposed was not faith based nor was it religious?
Would you call it superstition?
What would you call it?

If this issue bothers you I would recommend to read the book published some 2-3 years ago "The court of the red Tsar " by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
I would add from my close knowledge of that issue that Stalin was an atheist.Atheism was thaught in all schools beginning with the kindergarten and Darwinism was in high esteem but only in the field if biology in it's original version.
The soviets did not accept the theory of genetics saying,stupidly,that if the genes determine the behaviour of man then the capitalists will say that the poor are born poor and the rich are rich due to genes so that the revolutionary struggle between classe makes no sense.
But beside that stupidity which kept back Russian science for about 30 years,Atheism was part of soviet official ideology and intensely promoted by education and mass media.
Religion was not officially banned but a member of the Party caught visting a church or a synagogue was exposed to severe consequences.

There is a section in TGD, incase you don't know all about Stalin and Hitler. Stalin didn't do those things because he was an atheist but because he was a dogmatic leninist marxist. The definition of Atheism is merely for "those who do not believe in a God or gods", it just contains ONE disbelief, now disbelieving in God can stereotypically have effects on people, but I'm not sure if atheism is belief system in and of itself. Hitler is another matter entirely of course.

(October 31, 2008 at 1:20 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote:

(October 31, 2008 at 12:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: So in my opinion as an atheist you can say that you believe that this or other rational thinking (scientific) theory is right or wrong but you can not say that you have faith without religion because they are one and the same thing.

What belongs to Stalin he thought of himself as a Genius of humanity ,and was in fact hailed as such in the Soviet Union and by commies abroad ,he was in fact a smart guy who outbrained his colleagues but his faith or anti-faith believes are by long thrown to the dustbin of history.

So what would you call someone like Stalin or a much milder example of him if this dogma that he imposed was not faith based nor was it religious?
Would you call it superstition?
What would you call it?

If this issue bothers you I would recommend to read the book published some 2-3 years ago "The court of the red Tsar " by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
I would add from my close knowledge of that issue that Stalin was an atheist.Atheism was thaught in all schools beginning with the kindergarten and Darwinism was in high esteem but only in the field if biology in it's original version.
The soviets did not accept the theory of genetics saying,stupidly,that if the genes determine the behaviour of man then the capitalists will say that the poor are born poor and the rich are rich due to genes so that the revolutionary struggle between classe makes no sense.
But beside that stupidity which kept back Russian science for about 30 years,Atheism was part of soviet official ideology and intensely promoted by education and mass media.
Religion was not officially banned but a member of the Party caught visting a church or a synagogue was exposed to severe consequences.

Even stalin, I just did some research and he even killed people while robbing. So how can he be seen as good or bad, he was also ruthless person. In his mind it was good but others might see it as bad, but really does it matter if its one or the other if the end result is death and can you please answer the question, why are we born?

---

(October 31, 2008 at 1:41 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 31, 2008 at 1:20 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote:

(October 31, 2008 at 12:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(October 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm)josef rosenkranz Wrote: So in my opinion as an atheist you can say that you believe that this or other rational thinking (scientific) theory is right or wrong but you can not say that you have faith without religion because they are one and the same thing.

What belongs to Stalin he thought of himself as a Genius of humanity ,and was in fact hailed as such in the Soviet Union and by commies abroad ,he was in fact a smart guy who outbrained his colleagues but his faith or anti-faith believes are by long thrown to the dustbin of history.

So what would you call someone like Stalin or a much milder example of him if this dogma that he imposed was not faith based nor was it religious?
Would you call it superstition?
What would you call it?

If this issue bothers you I would recommend to read the book published some 2-3 years ago "The court of the red Tsar " by Simon Sebag Montefiore.
I would add from my close knowledge of that issue that Stalin was an atheist.Atheism was thaught in all schools beginning with the kindergarten and Darwinism was in high esteem but only in the field if biology in it's original version.
The soviets did not accept the theory of genetics saying,stupidly,that if the genes determine the behaviour of man then the capitalists will say that the poor are born poor and the rich are rich due to genes so that the revolutionary struggle between classe makes no sense.
But beside that stupidity which kept back Russian science for about 30 years,Atheism was part of soviet official ideology and intensely promoted by education and mass media.
Religion was not officially banned but a member of the Party caught visting a church or a synagogue was exposed to severe consequences.

There is a section in TGD, incase you don't know all about Stalin and Hitler. Stalin didn't do those things because he was an atheist but because he was a dogmatic leninist marxist. The definition of Atheism is merely for "those who do not believe in a God or gods", it just contains ONE disbelief, now disbelieving in God can stereotypically have effects on people, but I'm not sure if atheism is belief system in and of itself. Hitler is another matter entirely of course.

Well atheist is a blind belief system because you do good for no reason. The end result is death for everyone and atheist believe doing good for no reason. To say I do good for another is just pointless because even that person dies at the end and his doing good is pointless as your own.