The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Can you please just stop making infinite seperate threads like last one about this? As for Hope - there is always hope! Always!

"Butterflies are God's proof we can have a second chance at life."

Originally Posted by Arcane Can you please just stop making infinite seperate threads like last one about this? As for Hope - there is always hope! Always!

As usual, you did not really read my "question," which answers, there is hope for each of us, when we overcome death.

Preacher-man, why don't you just go and pick a different street corner?

Originally Posted by bluegospel Human life proves there is human hope. ...that proves there is no human hope.

I think one of your "proofs" is wrong.

Greeting to Japan, btw.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Human life proves there is human hope.

Nope, it doesn't. How should it? There are humans out there that live but have no hope.

But as long as we all meet with death, and as long as none triumph over death, that proves there is no human hope.

This is contrary to your former statement and still not logical in itself. Death is necessary for nature and therefore human beings, without death there would be massive overpopulation and no need to procreate, which would mean that there would be no evolution (in mind and physically). Without death there would be less hope than with.

But then, what about this life we still have?

Just enjoy it as long as you can.

Moved to the Megathread.

I think if you were honest and read what I've really said so far you'd say what's true.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I think if you were honest and read what I've really said so far you'd say what's true.

So because someone has a different opinion than you or points out logical mistakes in your argumentation he/she automatically is dishonest? That isn't a nice attitude and especially not one that encourages a civil dispute of any topic.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So because someone has a different opinion than you or points out logical mistakes in your argumentation he/she automatically is dishonest? That isn't a nice attitude and especially not one that encourages a civil dispute of any topic.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And you're not the only one who has said that about bluegospel before.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD So because someone has a different opinion than you or points out logical mistakes in your argumentation he/she automatically is dishonest? That isn't a nice attitude and especially not one that encourages a civil dispute of any topic.

No. I've made two brief statements, neither of which have been handled honestly.

I don't believe in "death". I think it is just something priests came up with to scare people into becoming religious.

Sure, you can observe other "living" things die, i.e. you can see their cognitive and motor functions cease, but you don't know what happens from their point of view.

I think that consciousness is simply the ability to process information, and as such, all information processing systems have it in varying degrees. Your ability to experience, think, "live" is a result of your information processing ability. If you can no longer process information (you die, possibly non-REM sleep), then you cannot experience or think. This means that you cannot experience "death" because you, as an information processing system / a virtual entity, are not online / do not exist at the time.

So then, what can you experience ? only life.

Another way to think about it is two different time lines, one real and one virtual. Each is contiguous when viewed from within, but dis-contiguous when viewed from the opposite point of view.

Originally Posted by bluegospel No. I've made two brief statements, neither of which have been handled honestly.

Sorry, but that's a lie. If you can't see it, that's your problem.

You don't want to engage anyone in a rational discussion, and have NEVER wanted to. If we disagree with you, we're wrong/skeptics/blasphemers/whatever...no matter what proof or evidence is provided. You want to shout and wave your arms about YOUR 'thoughts', but don't seem to want anyone else to proclaim theirs.

Originally Posted by bluegospel No. I've made two brief statements, neither of which have been handled honestly.

Maybe because they were virtually content-free and more like spambot output than actual human thoughts.

Anyway, regardless of the question, can we assume the answer is "Jesus"?

Originally Posted by TB0ne Sorry, but that's a lie. If you can't see it, that's your problem. You don't want to engage anyone in a rational discussion, and have NEVER wanted to. If we disagree with you, we're wrong/skeptics/blasphemers/whatever...no matter what proof or evidence is provided. You want to shout and wave your arms about YOUR 'thoughts', but don't seem to want anyone else to proclaim theirs.

Yet another reason to stop honouring those posts with a reply.

Originally Posted by bluegospel No. I've made two brief statements, neither of which have been handled honestly.

Please point out where I handled your statements dishonest or where my answers to to them where dishonest.

1)
blue: Human life proves there is human hope.
Tobi: Nope, it doesn't. How should it? There are humans out there that live but have no hope.
----------
2)
blue: But as long as we all meet with death, and as long as none triumph over death, that proves there is no human hope.
This is contrary to your former statement and still not logical in itself. Death is necessary for nature and therefore human beings, without death there would be massive overpopulation and no need to procreate, which would mean that there would be no evolution (in mind and physically). Without death there would be less hope than with.
----------

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Please point out where I handled your statements dishonest or where my answers to to them where dishonest.

1) Which humans "have no hope," as you say? Doubtless there are masses not having taken hold of hope. But every human has a chance at life, especially eternal life. I guess the real question is what are you doing now to impart hope to all those "hopeless" ones--materially (which happens to be my favorite part) and immaterially?

2) What did I say? Did I say, "As long as we all meet with death, there is no human hope?" No. That's what you heard. If by choice, then you've betrayed your dishonesty. What I said was, "As long as none triumph over death," there is no human hope.

Perhaps your treatment doesn't betray your dishonesty--but certainly your lack of care with regard to these few words. For that you are not to blame. But if you've handled my few words--which make eternal claims--without care, how could you have ever handled the 66 chapters of the Bible with due care? For that, yes you are to blame.

As educated as you are--in fact, Tobi, you haven't treated the Bible as fairly as you should have, in light of the claims contained within it, and in light of the extent of your liberal education.