Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
"There are many atheists who hate our creator"They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.
Clearly it is not just "my belief system", but statements based on empirical facts, and which statements can be considered empirical facts themselves. all of that evidence is quite independent of what you or I had for breakfast, or what of gods we worship. delusions, hallucinations, suspension of incredulity... all are not only extremely well-documented, but are so well-understood as to come, at times, under our control. As in, we can induce them in others. I can make you hallucinate with some chemicals. i can make you suspend your incredulity, and then fool you.
And just because we can't alter the brain to our will yet does not mean it cannot be done.
My point being, there are simpler explanations for people who really, truly believe absurd things (no, I am not including all people who believe in an afterlife). But first we have to agree those things are absurd. And you have so far completely refused to admit that some things CAN be more well-known than others, and, no, the ability of new evidence to arise does not mean we, for instance, jump off our roofs, thinking we will "fall up".
You simply refuse to admit it. You either are very stubborn and don't want to concede this point, or you actually believe that all knowledge is equally subjective."Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die."Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
That is so stupid and wrong-headed. Everyone would love to live forever. Atheists generally just don't accept that they will.
There are many atheists who hate our creator and want nothing to do with him. Where have you been?
They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.Saying all yhe stories are untestable nonsense does, in fact, cover all the stories.But this doesn't cover every story of the afterlife, in fact doesn't cover a large statistics of them.
Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.Saying all yhe stories are untestable nonsense does, in fact, cover all the stories.But this doesn't cover every story of the afterlife, in fact doesn't cover a large statistics of them.
Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.
Clearly it is not just "my belief system", but statements based on empirical facts, and which statements can be considered empirical facts themselves. all of that evidence is quite independent of what you or I had for breakfast, or what of gods we worship. delusions, hallucinations, suspension of incredulity... all are not only extremely well-documented, but are so well-understood as to come, at times, under our control. As in, we can induce them in others. I can make you hallucinate with some chemicals. i can make you suspend your incredulity, and then fool you.
And just because we can't alter the brain to our will yet does not mean it cannot be done.
My point being, there are simpler explanations for people who really, truly believe absurd things (no, I am not including all people who believe in an afterlife). But first we have to agree those things are absurd. And you have so far completely refused to admit that some things CAN be more well-known than others, and, no, the ability of new evidence to arise does not mean we, for instance, jump off our roofs, thinking we will "fall up".
You simply refuse to admit it. You either are very stubborn and don't want to concede this point, or you actually believe that all knowledge is equally subjective.
"Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true.""This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.
Yeah, we make kids believe, we put them into churches, they see all these people around them believing this stuff, so they believe too.
How many of them have actually felt anything? How many of them have actually had any reason to believe that anything they have been told is true?
Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.
Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.
Well, how much of spirituality is to explain away fears, to impose fears, to keep people in line?
If religion actually existed, then surely in different places around the world, the same thing would have evolved, rather than completely different religions.
Now, the most popular ones, Christianity and Islam are kind of polar opposites. Christianity is "oh, shit, I did something wrong" and the Priest or Vicar or Pastor says "don't worry about it son, just say you're sorry and then come back next week when you've done the same thing again, and say sorry again". Islam is "don't do bad shit or we'll cut your fucking hand off bitch".
Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true.
yep.
"If evolution is your question, which is off topic here""Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. "Proof is proof. There's no proof of the paranormal. Zero. Zip. Nada.After you mix it with marketing and organize studies to profit, you have diluted the whole thing to the point that you original question is now just a needle in a haystack. So everything disappears. This is why conspiracy theories are written too, they hide things excellently.
Like 90 % of everything never gets proof. Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. For example, the Volyager space crafts seem to over act the laws of gravity. Proof is always a fragile thing forever.
But again, that comes in degrees. No, certain things, we can be certain, are not going to be completely debased. Your Voyager example (with which i do not agree), even if true, does not debase the greater theory of gravity to any significant degree. Finding footprints of bipeds from 5.7 million years ago does not upend the theory of evolution, nor will likely anything, ever. You have yet to agree with this notion, or the similar notion that NOT all truth is equally subjective. why not? Surely you agree. and if you don't, you are either lying to yourself or to everyone else, because there is no way such a person could even function.
If evolution is your question, which is off topic here, I am honest enough to admit that I believe in evolution for whatever reason , in the same time as being Christian. As discussed above, logic of various evidences is secondary in every human function.
No, it's germane to my point, which itself, I think, is germane to talking about magical ideas in general. I want to demonstrate that some things are more "known" than others. So, do you think evolution is only as true as someone thinks it is? No. you don't. I think I can confidently say that now, which is good.
Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
"But you can't force a case by case "trend" to predictively eliminate all categories of observations, especially if that category is the afterlife.""Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true.""This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."Yeah, we make kids believe, we put them into churches, they see all these people around them believing this stuff, so they believe too.
How many of them have actually felt anything? How many of them have actually had any reason to believe that anything they have been told is true?
Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.
Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.
Well, how much of spirituality is to explain away fears, to impose fears, to keep people in line?
If religion actually existed, then surely in different places around the world, the same thing would have evolved, rather than completely different religions.
Now, the most popular ones, Christianity and Islam are kind of polar opposites. Christianity is "oh, shit, I did something wrong" and the Priest or Vicar or Pastor says "don't worry about it son, just say you're sorry and then come back next week when you've done the same thing again, and say sorry again". Islam is "don't do bad shit or we'll cut your fucking hand off bitch".
Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true.
yep.
"If evolution is your question, which is off topic here""Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. "Proof is proof. There's no proof of the paranormal. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Like 90 % of everything never gets proof. Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. For example, the Volyager space crafts seem to over act the laws of gravity. Proof is always a fragile thing forever.
But again, that comes in degrees. No, certain things, we can be certain, are not going to be completely debased. Your Voyager example (with which i do not agree), even if true, does not debase the greater theory of gravity to any significant degree. Finding footprints of bipeds from 5.7 million years ago does not upend the theory of evolution, nor will likely anything, ever. You have yet to agree with this notion, or the similar notion that NOT all truth is equally subjective. why not? Surely you agree. and if you don't, you are either lying to yourself or to everyone else, because there is no way such a person could even function.
If evolution is your question, which is off topic here, I am honest enough to admit that I believe in evolution for whatever reason , in the same time as being Christian. As discussed above, logic of various evidences is secondary in every human function.
No, it's germane to my point, which itself, I think, is germane to talking about magical ideas in general. I want to demonstrate that some things are more "known" than others. So, do you think evolution is only as true as someone thinks it is? No. you don't. I think I can confidently say that now, which is good.
Your problem is exclusivity. But you can't force a case by case "trend" to predictively eliminate all categories of observations, especially if that category is the afterlife.
"There are many atheists who hate our creator"They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.
Clearly it is not just "my belief system", but statements based on empirical facts, and which statements can be considered empirical facts themselves. all of that evidence is quite independent of what you or I had for breakfast, or what of gods we worship. delusions, hallucinations, suspension of incredulity... all are not only extremely well-documented, but are so well-understood as to come, at times, under our control. As in, we can induce them in others. I can make you hallucinate with some chemicals. i can make you suspend your incredulity, and then fool you.
And just because we can't alter the brain to our will yet does not mean it cannot be done.
My point being, there are simpler explanations for people who really, truly believe absurd things (no, I am not including all people who believe in an afterlife). But first we have to agree those things are absurd. And you have so far completely refused to admit that some things CAN be more well-known than others, and, no, the ability of new evidence to arise does not mean we, for instance, jump off our roofs, thinking we will "fall up".
You simply refuse to admit it. You either are very stubborn and don't want to concede this point, or you actually believe that all knowledge is equally subjective."Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die."Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
That is so stupid and wrong-headed. Everyone would love to live forever. Atheists generally just don't accept that they will.
There are many atheists who hate our creator and want nothing to do with him. Where have you been?
Which is also dumb. "many" (how many is that?) hate something they don't believe in? Okay. I think even the most cursory glance at any of the material to which you refer would show they may despise some of the dogma, and the canon. but you are way off the mark, here.
Do you love Zoroaster? Or do you hate Zoroaster?
"But you can't force a case by case "trend" to predictively eliminate all categories of observations, especially if that category is the afterlife.""Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true.""This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.
Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.
Well, how much of spirituality is to explain away fears, to impose fears, to keep people in line?
If religion actually existed, then surely in different places around the world, the same thing would have evolved, rather than completely different religions.
Now, the most popular ones, Christianity and Islam are kind of polar opposites. Christianity is "oh, shit, I did something wrong" and the Priest or Vicar or Pastor says "don't worry about it son, just say you're sorry and then come back next week when you've done the same thing again, and say sorry again". Islam is "don't do bad shit or we'll cut your fucking hand off bitch".
Christianity is popular because it allows people to be free, Islam is popular because it prevents people from being free. Weird, but true.
yep.
"If evolution is your question, which is off topic here""Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. "Like 90 % of everything never gets proof. Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. For example, the Volyager space crafts seem to over act the laws of gravity. Proof is always a fragile thing forever.
But again, that comes in degrees. No, certain things, we can be certain, are not going to be completely debased. Your Voyager example (with which i do not agree), even if true, does not debase the greater theory of gravity to any significant degree. Finding footprints of bipeds from 5.7 million years ago does not upend the theory of evolution, nor will likely anything, ever. You have yet to agree with this notion, or the similar notion that NOT all truth is equally subjective. why not? Surely you agree. and if you don't, you are either lying to yourself or to everyone else, because there is no way such a person could even function.
If evolution is your question, which is off topic here, I am honest enough to admit that I believe in evolution for whatever reason , in the same time as being Christian. As discussed above, logic of various evidences is secondary in every human function.
No, it's germane to my point, which itself, I think, is germane to talking about magical ideas in general. I want to demonstrate that some things are more "known" than others. So, do you think evolution is only as true as someone thinks it is? No. you don't. I think I can confidently say that now, which is good.
Your problem is exclusivity. But you can't force a case by case "trend" to predictively eliminate all categories of observations, especially if that category is the afterlife.
But I am not doing that. I am completely open to evidence of afterlife. But this extraordinary claim would require some very extraordinary evidence. Seeing a ghost would not cut it.
"I did mention the statistics of knowledge and statistics of belief"They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.Saying all yhe stories are untestable nonsense does, in fact, cover all the stories.
Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.Saying all yhe stories are untestable nonsense does, in fact, cover all the stories.
Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.
Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.
It is only your belief system talking here. All those psychiatric medications have a statistics of effects, but there is no connection to the obsercation of the symptom, it is only connected to altering the brain. So what you call magic remains in the picture. It is not magic though, but observed and reported physical events by some of the patients, many not, many hallucinate for real.
Clearly it is not just "my belief system", but statements based on empirical facts, and which statements can be considered empirical facts themselves. all of that evidence is quite independent of what you or I had for breakfast, or what of gods we worship. delusions, hallucinations, suspension of incredulity... all are not only extremely well-documented, but are so well-understood as to come, at times, under our control. As in, we can induce them in others. I can make you hallucinate with some chemicals. i can make you suspend your incredulity, and then fool you.
And just because we can't alter the brain to our will yet does not mean it cannot be done.
My point being, there are simpler explanations for people who really, truly believe absurd things (no, I am not including all people who believe in an afterlife). But first we have to agree those things are absurd. And you have so far completely refused to admit that some things CAN be more well-known than others, and, no, the ability of new evidence to arise does not mean we, for instance, jump off our roofs, thinking we will "fall up".
You simply refuse to admit it. You either are very stubborn and don't want to concede this point, or you actually believe that all knowledge is equally subjective.
I did mention the statistics of knowledge and statistics of belief a few times above, if that's what you mean. I don't need equal subjectivity to my point, various degrees of suvjectivities is what I used but never zero.
Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.
"life came from nothing."Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.
"life came from nothing."Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.
Who says life "came from nothing"? Nobody I know. No science I have seen. You keep making up these imaginary people to complain about.
Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.
Well, a creator created itself and then created the universe is just as logical. That's the problem.
If you say a creator created something, where did the creator come from?
The only answer is exactly the same answer as if you're talking about the creation of the universe from nothing.
"You need to get out more.""life came from nothing."Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.
Who says life "came from nothing"? Nobody I know. No science I have seen. You keep making up these imaginary people to complain about.
You need to get out more.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.
Well, a creator created itself and then created the universe is just as logical. That's the problem.
If you say a creator created something, where did the creator come from?
The only answer is exactly the same answer as if you're talking about the creation of the universe from nothing.
Perhaps our creator will grant your wish and, when you die, you will simply cease to exist. I presume he will. Don't sweat it. Just enjoy what little time you have left. Of course, it won't matter because you won't remember anything anyway.
Dude, that's akin to a 2 dimensional creature trying to define a 4 dimensional being in 2 dimensional terms.Atheists don't want an "afterlife". They just want to die. Perhaps their wish will be granted and, upon their physical death, their soul will also perish and they will simply no longer exist. Our creator is not going to require anyone to be with him if they don't want to be with him.
Maybe atheists don't feel that if you want something to be true, that it is true.
Maybe that's why atheists wouldn't vote for Trump either. Just because he said something, they know it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.
No problem. Perhaps atheists will have a change of heart upon meeting the creator. If not, I presume our creator will allow them to simply not exist. Everybody's happy.
Well, based on simple logic, there can't be a creator. So, maybe they won't change their minds because their mind will be rotting away anyway.
Yea, I know. The universe created itself and life came from nothing. That's logical.
Well, a creator created itself and then created the universe is just as logical. That's the problem.
If you say a creator created something, where did the creator come from?
The only answer is exactly the same answer as if you're talking about the creation of the universe from nothing.
The question of whether or not one believes in an afterlife hinges on the question of whether one believes in God doesn't it? An afterlife means that each of us has a soul, a spirit or non-physical energy that leaves the body when death occurs. Hence, an afterlife. No God, no soul, true? I don't see the possibility of the existence of a soul without the existence of a Creator (God) who made it. So - let's turn the above question around and talk a bit about whether or not each of us has a soul and an afterlife.
There are many people who claim to have had a near death experience where their soul left their physical body and was floating around the room watching what was going on. Might even have tried to leave for the spirit world but were denied. Quite a few accounts of events like that. Then there are the thousands of cases of people who under hypnosis could recall past lives and places they have never been to or spoke languages they were not taught. And of course there are the mediums and psychics who reportedly can contact the spirits of the deceased who can relay messages to their living loved ones. All bunk? Maybe, maybe not.
How do you explain a 5 year old kid who says he is the reincarnation of a US Navy pilot who was killed in the Pacific in WWII? This kid knew the deceased's name and personal information, knew the tail number of the plane he flew, knew the carrier he was assigned to, all sorts of information that you aren't going to find with google. And this is only one case, we're talking thousands of cases here, and not just recently either. Why do you think the Egyptians built those pyramids? Wasn't cuz they were bored. They believed in an afterlife and were working hard to be able to go when the time came.
Ever have a deja vu feeling? Seen, heard, smelled, or felt something that wasn't there? Some people have. Looking back on your life, ever had a feeling at some point that you should or should not do something, and you went with the feeling? And now you're glad you did? There's quite a lot about reality that we don't really know, it ain't like we can prove any of this stuff is true but we can't prove it's not either. But we do have a lot of testimony from a lot of people that say it's real. BS? Yeah, maybe but what about that 5 year old kid?
So - do we each have a soul or not? How about a big, fat maybe? And here's the thing, if we have a soul then that's not something that evolution can explain. Somebody want to try to explain how souls can exist without a Creator that made them? Not talking about religion here, just souls and God. There are thousands of religions out there, maybe none of them are valid. But that doesn't mean there is no God or no soul.
The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.
If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.
So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.
Why not just accept you don't know?
Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.
How many people do you think believe simply because they've been told to believe?
Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.
