Sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. Let me interpret for you:
Quote:
Here I am saying that your statement, understood literally, is false, and obviously so. My situation after death is distinguishable from having never existing because the effects of my actions while alive continue on even after my death.

Here I am attempting to be charitable and so interpreting your statement in such a way that it is not so obviously false--as referring only to whether death is distinguishable from having never existed in my own experience while dead. I acknowledge the truth of your claim under this interpretation, although I question its significance.

Here I reiterate that I, along with most other atheists, acknowledge the truth of your claim (under the second more charitable interpretation), and so ask how it is that since we acknowledge its truth that we are deluding ourselves about its truth.

You want the services society has to offer though do you not? You want access to a medical practitioner when you get sick, no? You want to use the internet, no?

Don't get me wrong though. I am not agreeing with your point on us being 'slaves', I am simply arguing that if you want the services that society offers, then you must put something back into that society. Otherwise, go start a self-sufficient home/farm and live off the grid. See if that's more enjoyable?

It appears to me that you want everything - without having to do anything/listen to anyone.

This is simply incorrect. Your situation after death is indistinguishable. Other people's situations may not be indistinguishable while they are alive, but that isn't what I said, is it? And after they are dead, their situations will also be indistinguishable from what they would have been if you had never existed. Ultimately, given time everyone will be dead. Then it is truly as if you had never existed.


Not charitable. You are starting to face the actual things I said, so I would say you are attempting to answer my point.

Now at last you admit that I was correct. Again, charity is dishonest. You are simply now addressing my statement.

Thank you for at least conceding that I was correct eventually although all of that nonsense about charity is amusing.

What implications? What implications require delusion on my behalf, to keep living as an atheist?

Thank God my hair is either gone or short or I swear this forum would have me tearing it out.

Before you ask a question like this at least glance at the other posts to see if there is a discussion of your point already underway. Otherwise you just look like a fool.

I am not calling you a fool, just saying that you might look foolish, ok. So no need for the mods to rush to your defence. You can take it, right?

Love, pride, health, just to give you three.

Dare I say huh? Theists and atheists alike can display all of these qualities.

I don't want to put words in VeeDDzz's mouth, but I think he's saying that even if we take "ultimate mortality" as a given (i.e. that nothing really matters in the long run) why should we care, considering it matters now?

Yes, of course.

However, I do know plenty of theists who say life with God is not.

Even if this is true, which it is not, why is this a bad thing that requires delusion on my behalf?

Why does it matter if it's distinguishable or not? Does my life have no real meaning under this implication? Doesn't this implication make me want to live, see, experience and enjoy as much of the world as I can while I am still here?

I am not seeing why you're interpreting this "supposed" implication in such a negative way so as to suggest that it requires me deluding myself, just to live day-to-day?

These things all require delusion in some sense, some may be more delusional than others but it's a question of degree rather than of kind; to bust theists' balls for being delusional while affirming other delusions (for essentially the same reason as theists affirm their delusions) is a little strange.

Once you qualify what you mean by love, pride or health, you can, within those definitions, determine if they exist per a particular individual. This is different than the theist claim, because after they have defined God, they have yet to demonstrate that it exists.

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1

Can anyone find a video online? I'm determined not to spend $1.99 on amazon.

You can try qualifying them but I think that once you qualify them appropriately it is difficult to say that these things resemble what most people (and most atheists) take them to be. And theists of course need not demonstrate that God exists, they only requirement for them is to believe he exists.