[OH-N'omac]

Originally posted by Beewee:
I'm starting to believe that we're all going to Heaven.

If we all go, what's the point of there even being a heaven? Or the point to even living a good life? Is the afterlife like the special olympics where everyone gets a medal at the end regardless of how they did beforehand?

[benign]

Originally posted by capuchin:
There's a great Bill Hicks quote:

"Eternal suffering awaits those who do not accept God's infinite love."

Comedic wisdom in the face of childish irrational fanaticism ;)

[Zimphire]

When I was a non-Christian I hated being around people that talked about it.

I come to release that it was the same reason that I didn't like being told what anything I diid was wrong. Even if I knew it was. I was enjoying myself! How dare anyone say It's wrong.

We are all egotists. We all think we are smart.

We know nothing. Until we come to grips with that, we don't learn.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
If we all go, what's the point of there even being a heaven? Or the point to even living a good life? Is the afterlife like the special olympics where everyone gets a medal at the end regardless of how they did beforehand?

What is the point of this life? Why does it even exist?

[benign]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
you don't see me telling everyone they're "going to Hell in a hand basket" or anything like that...Thanks,
Maury

You just did - you all believe it to be true - it's what
gives you that stink of superior smugness. Like a child
that tells you it's told it's dad about you and he's on
his way.

You all have delusional megalomania - lost in the fairy tale.

[OH-N'omac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We know nothing. Until we come to grips with that, we don't learn.

For someone who doesn't know anything, you sure have a lot to say about where people go after they die.

What is the point of this life? Why does it even exist?

To live it fully, to experience all that it has to offer, to live and die without regret, to get my hands dirty and my brow wet, to explore what is there to explore, to follow my interests, to face challenges for better or worse. That's the point of my life anyway. It exists because it does, and I'm happy to be along for the ride.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by benign:
You just did - you all believe it to be true - it's what
gives you that stink of superior smugness. Like a child
that tells you it's told it's dad about you and he's on
his way.

You all have delusional megalomania - lost in the fairy tale.

I have read that before.. in about 5 other threads you have posted in.

And you still haven't got it right.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
If we all go, what's the point of there even being a heaven? Or the point to even living a good life? Is the afterlife like the special olympics where everyone gets a medal at the end regardless of how they did beforehand?

Because it's not a game, it's about wisdom and understanding. That's how it's easy to tell that some people in this forum are children (not naming names). They haven't found out how little they know and are still dealing with the very basic of concepts... just dealing with the fundamentals of being human. They haven't yet learned how to deal with that through their life (or lives), so that's what they need to concentrate on. At some point though, the reality of "God" will impact their existence and they'll start truly living. Bottom line; it's about reconciliation, not punishment.

Everything that is will be restored, in it's own time.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
For someone who doesn't know anything, you sure have a lot to say about where people go after they die.

I don't know anything. Compared to what I could know. Compared to what I will know.

To live it fully, to experience all that it has to offer, to live and die without regret, to get my hands dirty and my brow wet, to explore what is there to explore, to follow my interests, to face challenges for better or worse. That's the point of my life anyway. It exists because it does, and I'm happy to be along for the ride.

But that doesn't answer why it exists. The reason. Was it just a accident? I find things are put together a bit too well for it to be an accident.

It must take a lot of faith to believe that.

When I was younger I just took it for granted. "It just is" But there has to be more than that. My conscience and brain tells me there is more. I would be lying to myself if I denied that.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What is the point of this life? Why does it even exist?

Why does everything have to have a point? Why do people have to see meaning in everything?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by benign:
You just did - you all believe it to be true - it's what
gives you that stink of superior smugness. Like a child
that tells you it's told it's dad about you and he's on
his way.

You all have delusional megalomania - lost in the fairy tale.

Come on now, benign — one stating one's beliefs in order to share one's beliefs because that's the topic of discussion in NO WAY equals me condemning anyone. Spare us all your attempts at "argument." And once again, you fall to name-calling, once again attacking me (Christians in general, I suppose) because we "stink of smugness" and have "delusional megalomania" about the "fairy tale" I'm lost in.

:yawn:

Maury

[OH-N'omac]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But that doesn't answer why it exists. The reason. Was it just a accident? I find things are put together a bit too well for it to be an accident.

It must take a lot of faith to believe that.

When I was younger I just took it for granted. "It just is" But there has to be more than that. My conscience and brain tells me there is more. I would be lying to myself if I denied that.

Creation and evolution are equally flawed ideas and neither has the force of proof to go beyond mere theory. I don't believe in either yet and doubt I'll come to believe in either.

I don't know how it got started or why it continues to be. You're a fool if you think you know for a fact the answer to either of these questions.

When I was younger, I believed that everything in life could be explained. Now I am able to accept that there are some answers that will likely never be answered in my lifetime. How and why we are here are two questions that I don't expect to know for fact the answer to.

"It just is" a better answer than "god made it so" or "chemical reactions in space made it so" or "aliens from another planet bred us and dropped us here". "It is" can be demonstrated to be true, all else is just speculation.

[hyteckit]

Why was incest so popular in religion? Heard it in Greek myths. Heard it in the bible. That's just nasty.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is exceptions. If they don't know, there is no free will to chose.

Then why send missionaries to them? If they're already going to heaven due to not knowing, it sounds like they're doing fine. But if you tell them, then a bunch will not believe you and will go to hell. So what is the point?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
Why does everything have to have a point? Why do people have to see meaning in everything?

Everything doesn't. But such a grand scheme such as this surely does. IMHO.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
Creation and evolution are equally flawed ideas and neither has the force of proof to go beyond mere theory. I don't believe in either yet and doubt I'll come to believe in either.

Yay, this dumb argument about 'theory' again.

Geocentricism and heliocentricism are equally flawed ideas and neither has the force of proof to go beyond mere theory. I don't believe in either yet and doubt I'll come to believe in either.

Gravity and 'magic fall-downiness' are equally flawed ideas and neither has the force of proof to go beyond mere theory. I don't believe in either yet and doubt I'll come to believe in either.

Alchemy and the law of conservation of mass are equally flawed ideas and...

ARGH!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
Creation and evolution are equally flawed ideas and neither has the force of proof to go beyond mere theory. I don't believe in either yet and doubt I'll come to believe in either.

That is where faith ties in. You have to have faith really to believe in either.

I don't know how it got started or why it continues to be. You're a fool if you think you know for a fact the answer to either of these questions.

I don't know the facts of either one. You are correct. It doesn't matter to me in the "big picture" of things.

When I was younger, I believed that everything in life could be explained. Now I am able to accept that there are some answers that will likely never be answered in my lifetime. How and why we are here are two questions that I don't expect to know for fact the answer to.

"It just is" a better answer than "god made it so" or "chemical reactions in space made it so" or "aliens from another planet bred us and dropped us here". "It is" can be demonstrated to be true, all else is just speculation.

I've just seen and experienced too many things in the past 4 or 5 years to deny there is a higher form of life.

I would be lying to myself if I did.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
Creation and evolution are equally flawed ideas and neither has the force of proof to go beyond mere theory. I don't believe in either yet and doubt I'll come to believe in either.

But I've actually seen evolution occur. I've seen simple bacteria "choose" which genes to pass on to subsequent generations given extreme environmental conditions.

London's peppered moth (Biston betularia) suddenly changed color patterns after the industrial revolution. In biology we call that adaptation. It was a defense mechanism, and it actually passed the mutation on to its offspring. We call that evolution.

Originally posted by CharlesS:
'magic fall-downiness'

CharlesS has to win some kind of award for that. I mean, Dr Pepper did fly out of my nose at a great velocity. Thanks for the laugh.

[Ozmodiar]

Whoa. An omen?

[forkies]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Gravity and 'magic fall-downiness' are equally flawed ideas and neither has the force of proof to go beyond mere theory. I don't believe in either yet and doubt I'll come to believe in either.

which is the very crux of the issue. I can't see hear touch taste or feel gravity, but i have faith that it's there.

I've just seen and experienced too many things in the past 4 or 5 years to deny there is a form of Universal Gravitation.

I would be lying to myself if I did.


BTW, there is a difference between the aims of science and those of religion. One is intended to explain natural occurrences while the other is to scare & control masses of people with things which seem they can never be proved or disproved...you just pick which goes with which.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
How so, and where did my comments allow for that assumption? Nothing I said (I don't think) was bound by our laws or time -

hmmmm. actually when you say, you are either in one place OR another you are a) using language to describe certain places and states, and what is even more "sticky", you describe "souls" being assigned to these specific places on the grounds of what they did, or did not do, while they were "in the body" (which opens a whole nother can of worms). so yes, you are not only describing something that is very much grounded in "real" physical concepts (which is very normal), but you are ALSO using a VERY human and societal concept to describe the condition of how the state of the being (heaven or hell) is described (trial and judgement).

this, of course, is due to the fact that when these stories were invented, people did not have the means to reason in a complex fashion that we can today.

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Right, but I don't see what the issue is and what difference it makes to the point of my comments.

are you aware of the concept of "dualism"? think about what makes you, you , and not anybody else. therein lies the answer. is it your soul, or is it your body?

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I don't believe the Afterlife is bound by any type of "timing" or "space" or "volume." Man created such things, remember, to help us better handle the world around us.

heh. no i believe not. time and space do exist...we can observe that. if you want to find out about a very different concept of "space and time", read something about the australian aboriginals and their concept of "dreamtime". eventhough this is a human "concept" as well, it is completely different from ours...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Why was incest so popular in religion? Heard it in Greek myths. Heard it in the bible. That's just nasty.

it's all part of the idea of "brotherly" love.

[OH-N'omac]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
But I've actually seen evolution occur. I've seen simple bacteria "choose" which genes to pass on to subsequent generations given extreme environmental conditions.

London's peppered moth (Biston betularia) suddenly changed color patterns after the industrial revolution. In biology we call that adaptation. It was a defense mechanism, and it actually passed the mutation on to its offspring. We call that evolution.

OK, gravity... I can see for myself that this is there, the name is less important than the persistant demonstration that things fall down, call it magicfalldowniness or whatever, anyone can demonstrate it beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution like the moth story can be seen to exist in some cases as the survival of some species over another under specific circumstances.

however...

The Big Bang/Evolution as a way of explaining how/why we are here takes as much faith as creationism does. It cannot be shown to be true. There are big gaps that can't really be talked around, like if gases formed some reaction, where did the gasses come from? That's why I think the theory has serious flaws.

"It just is" a better answer than "god made it so" or "chemical reactions in space made it so" or "aliens from another planet bred us and dropped us here". "It is" can be demonstrated to be true, all else is just speculation.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
The Big Bang/Evolution as a way of explaining how/why we are here takes as much faith as creationism does.

no, it doesn't! (we've been over this here so many times already)

the "models" that explain it can be applied to other "observable" and "repeatable" tests, reagrdless of ethnocentristic views and biases.

evolution=observable data and faith

creationism=blind faith and NO OBSERVABLE data what_so_ever.

big BIG difference!

[Nicko]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
no, it doesn't! (we've been over this here so many times already)

the "models" that explain it can be applied to other "observable" and "repeatable" tests, reagrdless of ethnocentristic views and biases.

evolution=observable data and faith

creationism=blind faith and NO OBSERVABLE data what_so_ever.

big BIG difference!

Exactly. Besides people seem to forget that just because we don't know something now that we will never know it. That would be a little shortsighted to say the least.

On the other hand, blind faith is alot easier and more convenient for some people.

[OH-N'omac]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
no, it doesn't! (we've been over this here so many times already)

the "models" that explain it can be applied to other "observable" and "repeatable" tests, reagrdless of ethnocentristic views and biases.

Please point me to an observable and repeatable test that demonstrate how mysterious gases can appear from nowhere and form chemical reactions resulting in a universe.

"Charlie is my uncle. Charlie is an ambassador from the planet Pluto." Just because part of this can be shown to be true, does not mean that the whole story is true.

[- - e r i k - -]

Blind faith doesn't need to make sense.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
Please point me to an observable and repeatable test that demonstrate how mysterious gases can appear from nowhere and form chemical reactions resulting in a universe.

not right right now, but i CAN point you to a bunch of observable and repeatable tests where chemical reactions do result in SOMETHING. i can point you to a theory, that is based on scientific principles rather than ethnocentric myth.

can you point me to a "devine being"? let alone one that created the "heavens and the earth"? no?

see, evolution and the big bang theory might not be the final conclusion, but it is still a HELL™ of a lot more than an ethnothentric creation myth.

Originally posted by OH-N'omac:
"Charlie is my uncle. Charlie is an ambassador from the planet Pluto." Just because part of this can be shown to be true, does not mean that the whole story is true.

a) charlie is my uncle.

b) charlie can walk on water, fly through the air, and was born on mars.

both statements could be untrue. which one is more likely to be true, - and why?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
hmmmm. actually when you say, you are either in one place OR another you are a) using language to describe certain places and states, and what is even more "sticky", you describe "souls" being assigned to these specific places on the grounds of what they did, or did not do, while they were "in the body" (which opens a whole nother can of worms). so yes, you are not only describing something that is very much grounded in "real" physical concepts (which is very normal), but you are ALSO using a VERY human and societal concept to describe the condition of how the state of the being (heaven or hell) is described (trial and judgement).

this, of course, is due to the fact that when these stories were invented, people did not have the means to reason in a complex fashion that we can today.

are you aware of the concept of "dualism"? think about what makes you, you , and not anybody else. therein lies the answer. is it your soul, or is it your body?

heh. no i believe not. time and space do exist...we can observe that. if you want to find out about a very different concept of "space and time", read something about the australian aboriginals and their concept of "dreamtime". eventhough this is a human "concept" as well, it is completely different from ours...

You're missing my point: what we're BOTH saying it accurate, but you seem to be making an argument against my comments and yet I don't see why. You haven't shown me where my comments contradict themselves to "disprove" (for want of a better word) anything I've stated about my beliefs.



Because I feel that the Afterlife is not bound to time and space in the same sense as our current existence is, how does that negate anything I've stated about said Afterlife? Because I don't know the size/volume of the soul, how does that negate my comments about said soul's condition/place after death?

And yes, I'm quite familiar with Dualism — maybe I should have stated that I have degrees in both Theology and Philosophy, and I've studied (for over 10 years) the various religious faiths, beliefs, practices, etc., of people all over the world. But again, Dualism has no bearing on my comments regarding my beliefs and what happens after we die.

And of course Time and Space exist. I never said they didn't. My point is that it's foolish to assume Time and Space is a set condition for everyone and everything — and you seem to agree based on your comments on dreamstates. If people have different interpretations of time on the same rock, why can't there also be different interpretations of time in the Hereafter — or no time at all?

Maury

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
If people have different interpretations of time on the same rock, why can't there also be different interpretations of time in the Hereafter — or no time at all?

well, that is kind of the point that i'm making. for your "view" of the afterlife to be true, you need to have a very concrete "model" of time and space.

[benign]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
... maybe I should have stated that I have degrees in both Theology and Philosophy, and I've studied (for over 10 years)...

Maury

The philosophy degree must have had no impact on you at all.
or you were just going though the motions and reading only
religious apologist rubbish.

As Altix quote earlier :
It is not hardness of heart or evil passions that drive certain
individuals to atheism, but rather a scrupulous intellectual honesty.

[amsalpemkcus]

been there done that. nothing to worry about, believe me or suffer.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by benign:
The philosophy degree must have had no impact on you at all.
or you were just going though the motions and reading only
religious apologist rubbish.

As Altix quote earlier :
It is not hardness of heart or evil passions that drive certain
individuals to atheism, but rather a scrupulous intellectual honesty.

I guess I keep responding to your posts so you don’t think that my silence means you “got me” — but chances are, this will be last time I do comment simply because it has become so tiresome, this “conversation” with you.

For the third time (I believe), I will point out that you contribute nothing to this thread insofar as its purpose. You simply pop in and make base and inane comments about individuals, their beliefs, their positions, their opinions, their education, their ethics, etc., simply because something in your brain is preventing you from having a literal conversation, a literal debate (in the true meaning of the word) about different views.

Do you down-talk Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus? Do you seek them out in these posts and try to show how much more astute and intelligent you must be simply because you see through the veil of Religion and Faith?

Something tells me you don’t. Something tells me you wouldn’t begin to berate a Muslim if a religious conversation were to begin the way you’d berate a “Christian.”

As much as you’d like to stir-up a hornet’s nest, it’s not working — with me, at least. I’m sorry you feel the need to continue attacking me, but that’s your dime, not mine.

Once again: can the adults continue this discussion, or has this thread pretty much dried up?

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
well, that is kind of the point that i'm making. for your "view" of the afterlife to be true, you need to have a very concrete "model" of time and space.

Sure, but what does have to do with ANYTHING insofar as negating my posts regarding my beliefs — or am I interpreting your posts incorrectly?

Maury

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by Ozmodiar:
But I've actually seen evolution occur. I've seen simple bacteria "choose" which genes to pass on to subsequent generations given extreme environmental conditions.

London's peppered moth (Biston betularia) suddenly changed color patterns after the industrial revolution. In biology we call that adaptation. It was a defense mechanism, and it actually passed the mutation on to its offspring. We call that evolution.

Neither of those examples are of evolution (natural selection), only adaptation.

link

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Sure, but what does have to do with ANYTHING insofar as negating my posts regarding my beliefs — or am I interpreting your posts incorrectly?

wow. i really can't explain it any differently.

you are not YOU without your body.

[Logic]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
wow. i really can't explain it any differently.

you are not YOU without your body.

Does that mean that if I lose a leg I'm not the same soul/person I was before?

And I'm gonna post this again on how I view who goes to heaven:

And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."
Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to God and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Surah 2 Verses 111 - 112

[ghost_flash]

Allah is dead.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
wow. i really can't explain it any differently.

you are not YOU without your body.

Ahh, well, I totally disagree with that. My body does not make up who I am, rather, my mind, spirit, and soul do — the body is just the wrapper in this “plane” of existence. I’d have to agree with Logic but take it further than he: if I lose all my limbs, am left nothing but an existence on a life support system, am I still not me? Yes, because if I haven’t deid, my soul has not left my body (which opens a new discussion to be had elsewhere).

I apologize for not understanding the point you were trying to make — I hope I didn’t seem “punchy” in my questions. But I don’t believe that the Soul and Body are permanently linked in any way. Case in point, if you believe Scripture (which I do), Paul was “caught up to the third heaven” — his soul was, not his body — and so was Saint John and others. The Bible speaks plainly of the soul leaving the body — and then the soul returning to the body.

They are linked, yes, insofar as each is semblance/form of who we are, but they are not so connected that they cannot be separated, being one without the other. I should also point out that I see theological differences in the Mind, Spirit, Soul, and Body — but that’s another discussion, too, perhaps.

So, rather than say you are not you without your body, I would say you are always you because you have a soul, no matter where you are.

Maury

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Can I put in some basic athiest understandings that inflect that side of the argument? If you're going to argue with an atheist, at least keep these things in mind:

1. Don't bother quoting the bible or any scripture: they don't believe it is the word of god or insipred by the word of god, because there is no god to them.

2. Don't refer to the soul. The athiest understanding is that there is no soul, only the physical function of your body as it relates to all other physical properties.

3. Involve creationism only if you really want to not be taken seriously. Athiests see our universe as the result of un-ideological happenstance and humanity is not the pinnacle. Many athiests believe that creationists attack evolution to defend their faith in the bible, which is problematic (see 1.)

4. Athiests, not believeing in a soul or god, can't take heaven seriously. First, if there is an afterlife, why would certain societies' moral conventions be honoured above others? Why are heaven and hell so intrinsically linked to your actions on earth? Because, athiests will agree, the conception of these tangents inspires people to behave in a certain manner in the present with their lives, which serves earthly societies towards some agenda or another.

5. For everyone: Calling someone childish and immature is a sure fire way to come off as sanctimonious (I'm smarter and more mature than you, aka. holier than thou), which, ironically, seems very immature.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Logic:
Does that mean that if I lose a leg I'm not the same soul/person I was before?

you, never were a "soul" to begin with. and yes, you'd probably wind up being a different person.

if i changed your complete dna make-up and erased your memory, would you still be you?

like somebody already said, after "we" are dead, our "soul" lives in the memories of those who follow us.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
Can I put in some basic athiest understandings that inflect that side of the argument? If you're going to argue with an atheist, at least keep these things in mind:

1. Don't bother quoting the bible or any scripture: they don't believe it is the word of god or insipred by the word of god, because there is no god to them.

2. Don't refer to the soul. The athiest understanding is that there is no soul, only the physical function of your body as it relates to all other physical properties.

3. Involve creationism only if you really want to not be taken seriously. Athiests see our universe as the result of un-ideological happenstance and humanity is not the pinnacle. Many athiests believe that creationists attack evolution to defend their faith in the bible, which is problematic (see 1.)

4. Athiests, not believeing in a soul or god, can't take heaven seriously. First, if there is an afterlife, why would certain societies' moral conventions be honoured above others? Why are heaven and hell so intrinsically linked to your actions on earth? Because, athiests will agree, the conception of these tangents inspires people to behave in a certain manner in the present with their lives, which serves earthly societies towards some agenda or another.

5. For everyone: Calling someone childish and immature is a sure fire way to come off as sanctimonious (I'm smarter and more mature than you, aka. holier than thou), which, ironically, seems very immature.

Those points are moot simply because an atheist, diest, or faith of any other ilk should respect the opinions of others as much as they want their own opinions respected — in an “adult” conversation/discourse. Using your logic, I should as readily dismiss your opinions and beliefs as you do mine because I can’t “take them seriously” (as you put it). Of course, if *I* do that, I wonder: will I be called a closed minded Christian?

Maury

[andi*pandi]

does it really matter if there is a hell or who gets to go there?

can we be good people without the threat/incentive of hell and heaven?

isn't living a good life enough?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
you, never were a "soul" to begin with. and yes, you'd probably wind up being a different person.

if i changed your complete dna make-up and erased your memory, would you still be you?

like somebody already said, after "we" are dead, our "soul" lives in the memories of those who follow us.

I think your fist sentence is important: YOU don’t think he was ever soul. Logic may feel different. Who’s correct? Who knows, really — but one should never try and undermine another’s beliefs, nor belittle them, simply because we don’t share those beliefs. My comment here have in no way form or fashion been an attempt to “evangelize” or “convince” anyone of God, heaven, or Hell — I’m merely addressing the initial post as to what people — different — people think/feel/believe.

I may sound as though I'm speaking “factually,” and I am insofar as I speaking what I believe. So it is with you, and I expect that and that’s good. I hope that my language in this forum hasn’t been taken with the perspective of me stating someone is wrong in their beliefs — me stating mine, and all of us discussing ours, in no way automatically infers any of us are stating one or the other is Wrong.

We believe differently. Do you think I’m wrong in my beliefs? Yes. Do I think you are wrong in your beliefs? Yes. Can we not discuss those differences without assuming one or the other is wrong? Yes, we can.

My beliefs are as valid as yours, and yours as valid as mine. I will never tell anyone their beliefs are wrong — I may say I disagree with those beliefs, and I have, but I’m more than willing to discuss differences without tainting my language with the feeling someone else is wrong.

Maury

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by forkies:
One is intended to explain natural occurrences while the other is to scare & control masses of people with things which seem they can never be proved or disproved...you just pick which goes with which.

That isn't what Christianity is about.

[Logic]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I think your fist sentence is important: YOU don’t think he was ever soul. Logic may feel different. Who’s correct? Who knows, really — but one should never try and undermine another’s beliefs, nor belittle them, simply because we don’t share those beliefs. My comment here have in no way form or fashion been an attempt to “evangelize” or “convince” anyone of God, heaven, or Hell — I’m merely addressing the initial post as to what people — different — people think/feel/believe.

I may sound as though I'm speaking “factually,” and I am insofar as I speaking what I believe. So it is with you, and I expect that and that’s good. I hope that my language in this forum hasn’t been taken with the perspective of me stating someone is wrong in their beliefs — me stating mine, and all of us discussing ours, in no way automatically infers any of us are stating one or the other is Wrong.

We believe differently. Do you think I’m wrong in my beliefs? Yes. Do I think you are wrong in your beliefs? Yes. Can we not discuss those differences without assuming one or the other is wrong? Yes, we can.

My beliefs are as valid as yours, and yours as valid as mine. I will never tell anyone their beliefs are wrong — I may say I disagree with those beliefs, and I have, but I’m more than willing to discuss differences without tainting my language with the feeling someone else is wrong.

Maury

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Those points are moot simply because an atheist, diest, or faith of any other ilk should respect the opinions of others as much as they want their own opinions respected — in an “adult” conversation/discourse. Using your logic, I should as readily dismiss your opinions and beliefs as you do mine because I can’t “take them seriously” (as you put it). Of course, if *I* do that, I wonder: will I be called a closed minded Christian?

Maury

"adult" conversation/discourse is not trying to convince someone you're right and they're wrong. That's arguing, which is what my points are for. You are more than welcome to share your opinions in conversation and they will be respected, but making epistomological arguments to an athiest is empty-headed in terms of debate. Also, implying someone is less than mature in terms of argument is an ad-hominem attack that doesn't squirrel away any points.

See mudfights

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by AB^2=BCxAC:
"adult" conversation/discourse is not trying to convince someone you're right and they're wrong. That's arguing, which is what my points are for. You are more than welcome to share your opinions in conversation and they will be respected, but making epistomological arguments to an athiest is empty-headed in terms of debate. Also, implying someone is less than mature in terms of argument is an ad-hominem attack that doesn't squirrel away any points.

See mudfights

Well considering who he is talking about he is pretty dead on. Benign has added nothing to the conversation. It's as if he is trying to convince himself.

It's obvious there is a struggle going on there.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
So, rather than say you are not you without your body, I would say you are always you because you have a soul, no matter where you are.

wow, that's exactly the opposite of what i believe. though i'm not an atheist, i do consider myself an agnostic...

i wonder, how do you feel about memory and the whole "total recall" dilemma?

[Zimphire]

su·per·nat·u·ral __ _P___Pronunciation Key__(spr-nchr-l)
adj

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.