Better to be sitting in their monasteries with faith and hope in their hearts...searching for knowledge about the promise of light at the end of life's journey...than to be sitting...looking into the darkness...with no faith and no hope that there is anything but darkness at the end of life's journey.

You say potato, I say potahto.

Same difference. Searching for knowledge. And who says that those without your particular superstition are looking into darkness?

The arrogance of people of faith is amazing. they assume that people are doomed to eternal darkness just because they don't share their particular superstition.

I honestly don't spend my time worrying about light or dark at the end of the journey. I'm enjoying the journey. The journey is the destination, and everything else is just mumbo jumbo.

Since absolutely no one, in the entire history of the planet, has actually come back from the end of the journey, no one can claim that there is a destination at the end without a guess. Some people call that "faith" but it is nothing more than a guess.

If it makes you feel better to assume that your guess is true, so be it. Just don't try to sell it to me.

I do understand where you are coping from, because I have heard othis from many Christians, before, but, Giornale, it is only the believer, who assumes that the atheists and agnostics live in darkness, without hope, etc.

Most atheists and agnostics are doubters, but seekers; most are intelligent and educated; most are too busy studying, discussing, learning, 'searching for knowledge' and marvelling at life, etc, to be sitting ~ apparently hopeless and forlorn ~ 'looking into the darkness'.

As will be elaborated upon in the next post, you misintepreted the intended context of my use of the word "darkness" in describing the difference in conceptualization of what happens after organic death between "believers" and non-believers as ususally employed in this and similiar forums.

But to the point of what lies beyond organic death...what is there besides "darkness" in both a literal and physical sense for those who believe only in the scientific explanation that life is the result of Randomness wherein there can be no belief in a reprieve such as by "resurrection" or "rebirth", or "reincarnation", etc., for those believing [1] there is no "God" who created life and therefore [2] no "God" is in place to promise the possibility of an "afterlife" (in the sense of a continuation of cognative abilities, some aspect of continuing "identity", etc.) and thereafter bring that to pass after organinc death?

So...why then @mbas400...object to the word "darkness" (understanding that you misintepreted the intended context of my use of that word to describe what happens after organic death in neither a judgmental nor "religious" sense) unless you believe in something other than "darkness" after organic death wherein your "identity" along with your cognitive abilities will live again?

Do you?

I don't. I also have no problem with various projections as to Earth's age being millions of years older than 6,000 years.

Moving on to the last two responses:





...and with all due respect...you both seem to have misinterpreted that the comment was made in the context of this thread... (i.e. looking at whether life is derived from meteors, oceanic vents, lightening strikes into a pre-biotic soup, whatever)...compared to those @mbass400 held up in derision because they believe and have faith that life came about by intellegent design (represented by those "sitting in their monestaries reading superstitions").

In the context of the thread then, relevent to each of your own expressed beliefs and argumentations:

If (as one of you believes and the other "isn't sure") that there was no "God" involved in the creation of life (whether yours or a one-celled creature)..."life" then is nothing more than the result of random chance...then death offers no future except a return to the amino acids, proteins, RNA/DNA from which you were assembled.

That is the principle of Randomness and/or Chaos Theory.

Based upon your own expressions of what you believe in (and do not)...since there is no "God" involved in the creation of life...no "God" exists who chould promise something beyond organic death.

Thus to those such as yourselves it must by necessity (reflecting your beliefs) follow that there is nothing ("darkness" in that context") beyond death except a return to the elements (even comparative to the "return to dust" statement in Genesis of the Hebrew Text [which BTW also carries no promise or indication of anything beyond death which came later as developed]).

You misunderstood because you presumed a regious meaning in what I said. Simply stated, I didn't do that either by word or inference.

The purpose of the contrast I drew, was to address @mbass400's comment about "readers of superstitions" because they believe in the intellegent assembly of amino acids, proteins, RNA/DNA, etc., into "life", and those like them who hope for a future beyond physical death that includes continued cognitivity and identity. His comment derides al those who believe there is a more of a purpose to life than simply the random assembly of elements after the death of which there is nothing...a.k.a..."darkness".

The belief there is a purpose and intellegent design behind the development of life embody the principles of Determinism.

As already noted, both of you brought a religious-context to bear against my use of "darkness"...again something I did not intend nor do I think there is anything like that imputed in the words of what I wrote which were not intended in any sense of a religiously-based denunciation of some sort. Nothing of the kind was intended - just a contrast of what the difference in concept of what happens at death between those who describe themselves as "believers" (in a religious sense) and those who do describe themselves as non-believers.

"Better to be sitting in their monasteries with faith and hope in their hearts ... searching for knowledge about the promise of light at the end of life's journey...than to be sitting ... looking into the darkness ... with no faith and no hope that there is anything but darkness at the end of life's journey".

Perhaps if now you re-read my contrast of death equated to "darkness" (representive of the end of life without any continuation of cognitive ability) with its opposite as maintained by those who have "faith" in life beyond organic death that continues cognituve ability..you will better understand my comment in its appropriate context.

Finally...as this has started to degenerate into why I don't usually participate in such forums...I intend to restrict my responses as much as contextually and topically possible to the theme of this thread. Along with that, I will most often not respond to comments that are derisive and pejorative, sarcastic, and/or belitting directed at all who believe in and hope for the fulfillment of promises they hold dear of life after death. I will instead be focusing upon the theories advanced by the scientific community of how life came to be (and which I am working on a little each day as I can) and whether or not they are their own form of "myths"

As an agnostic, I do not know what the after-death future may or may not bring. If it is, indeed, nothing but darkness, then whatever I do or think will make no difference, and, if it is not darkness, but an afterlife or a re-incarnation, then I hope that it will be pleasant, but I don't see how contemplating the unknown, while sitting, for example, in a monastery, believing in heaven, would make that much difference.

Whatever happens, happens, but is, as yet, unknown to us.

I don't think that I was particularly bringing any additional religious inferences to the word 'darkness'. It seemed, to me, that it was being used regarding religious opinions ~ ie. regarding believers living in hope while the faithless have no hope, because of the unavoidable darkness at the end of the unbeliever's journey.

But we do not know about the unknown and we do not have to live in fear of eternal darkness. We can appreciate our own current earthly lives. We can enjoy the light being shone upon us now and not worry about the promise of light at the end of life's journey

Fair enough.

May I remind everyone that we should all be polite and objective at all times.

We should also keep on topic.

OK, so what is the probability that life arrived on earth via meteors?

And what is the probability that evolution is true?

Life got here somehow. Maybe it did start elsewhere in the universe and arrive here as living organisms; or maybe the chemicals arrived here ~ as stardust ~ and evolved into 'life'.

Life got started somehow and I find the various cultural mythologies lacking.

Once life was on earth, it seems clear, to me, that it evolved into what we see now.

I have only a moment before departing (and will not be entering anything for several days).



You also said something similiar in one of your previous responses.

What I wrote does not say the "faithless have no hope"...because in fact most expressing either denial or doubt of the existence of a "divine being" are quite content believing as they do. "Hopelessness" then is not a factor. They do not fear "nothingness" after organic life ends.

The comparison was made to respond to the derision @mbas400 continually employs regarding someone of faith as if they are mentally or intellectually inferior because they have a religious component in their lives.

For those who profess no religious-based "faith"...then there is no "God" to promise and fulfill "life again" after organic death and the following "nothingness" ("darkness") carries no threat nor fear for such ones. They anticipate simply ceasing to exist.

So to state it another way, the term "darkness" as I appled it in contrast to those sitting and reading @mbas400's description of "superstitions"...related to the eventuality a person who has no religious-based "faith" expects.

"Nothingness" (a.k.a. "darkness") after organic life ends.

I hope this finally clarifies your understanding of my choice of words and the comparison drawn in the post to which you and @mbas400 have responded.

I find these discussions pointless as well, since those who believe, believe. Those who don't, don't.

And whether anyone takes offense to another's post is really up to the reader.

The definition of a superstition is belief in something that is felt or cannot otherwise be proven via cause and effect. Walking under a ladder, crossing paths with a black cat, or genuflecting and crossing one's self at the altar are all superstitions.

Some people call their superstitions "faith."

And I'm fine with that. We all need our superstitions.

Trying to prove whether one person's superstition is better than another is a ridiculous task. And futile.

We should all accept that we each have our superstitions about the past, the present and future and leave it at that. I don't have to believe your superstitions, you don't have to believe mine.

Since no one can prove which one is "truth" there is really no point to argue or belittle anyone's particular superstition.

It's all a comfort level really. People are uncomfortable with Muslims and Mormons in the USA, hence they are "wrong" and "cults" while Protestant Christians are visible everywhere so they are considered the "right" ones by many.

As for life after death, I really don't care. I'm more concerned with this life and making my few remaining years count for something.

God doesn't need me to evangelicize for him. He has Tim Tebow for that.