Evidence of Hell.

[Jan Ardena]

You still haven't corrected me.

What makes you think I want to correct you?
I want you to go as far as you can with your remarks. See what you're made of.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is this true? Has God no pride? He has no sense of self-worth that merits a defense on His part against slander?

I'm not sure how you warrant bringing God into this.

If that was true then why would God bother with prophets? If the human opinion of God is worth the worm's opinion of humans then what good would any worship of God accomplish?

There are as many human opinions of God, as there are humans.
If you have to ask what good any worship of God would accomplish, then I would say worship of God is not for you.

If it's true that what people say about God has nothing to do with God then any discussion of God should come to an end.

We love to talk about God, despite our opinions, so why should such discussions come to an end.
Talking about God is better than not talking about Him. IMO.

In the same way, if what people say about element X had nothing to do with element X or any part it plays in molecules or anything then it would stand to reason that there should be no discussion regarding element X. It would by definition be a waste of your time.

We could come to that conclusion, but we will still talk about God, because God is important.
Element X is only important to those it is important to.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What makes you think I want to correct you?
I want you to go as far as you can with your remarks. See what you're made of.

jan.

So you admit to intentionally wanting to provoke me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you admit to intentionally wanting to provoke me.

I wouldn't call it provoking you. You don't seem to need provoking.
I want to know how far you are prepared to go with your remarks, and how long you can get away with saying them before someone asks you to stop.
Consider it and experiment. However if you have said enough about your fantasies with God
the experiment cannot continue. It is entirely up to you.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Answer my previous questions.

They are there.

 

[Great Old One]

I'm not sure how you warrant bringing God into this.

It seemed like the thing to do.

There are as many human opinions of God, as there are humans.

Are you trying to use the existence of a large population to undercut the value of human opinion?

If you have to ask what good any worship of God would accomplish, then I would say worship of God is not for you.

I agree that worship of God is not for me as I wouldn't knowingly worship the Devil.

We love to talk about God, despite our opinions, so why should such discussions come to an end.
Talking about God is better than not talking about Him. IMO.

This is a fair point. However, my comment wasn't to suggest that you shouldn't speak of God but rather to suggest that human opinion of God has merit.

We could come to that conclusion, but we will still talk about God, because God is important.
Element X is only important to those it is important to.

jan.

God is as important as you want.

I like it.

 

[James R]

I think there is sufficient evidence. NDE's for example.

NDE's are another topic. Suffice it to say, I find NDEs to be unconvincing as evidence for the existence of an afterlife.

You don't know that, hence it is only your opinion.

No. There's objectively a lack of good evidence.

Where did this emotional spring from?

Basic human decency?

Oh! I see. Dirty tactics.
I should have guessed.

Have I made a mistake regarding your views?

Do you believe it is appropriate for a religion or "scripture" or people to require a woman to throw herself onto her husband's funeral pyre? Yes or no?

 

[The God]

Do you believe it is appropriate for a religion or "scripture" or people to require a woman to throw herself onto her husband's funeral pyre? Yes or no?

I do not think, there is any religion or scripture justifying or exhorting this. It was more to do with the honor of a widow than to with any religious practice. May be widow would have thought it was better to die with husband rather than surrendering to ignominy. It was more to do with the royals loosing to certain invaders, but then it got degenerated, became a social issue.

 

[Jan Ardena]

NDE's are another topic. Suffice it to say, I find NDEs to be unconvincing as evidence for the existence of an afterlife.

I find them convincing as evidence, which is why such experiences are on topic

No. There's objectively a lack of good evidence.

What would be good evidence? Someone coming back from a state of death and stating it? If not, what would you regard as evidence of the immortality of the soul?

Basic human decency?

Name a religion that has within in tenets, a woman must walk into the flames of her spontaneously combusted husband?

Do you believe it is appropriate for a religion or "scripture" or people to require a woman to throw herself onto her husband's funeral pyre? Yes or no?

I'm not going to dignify that with a response as I am sure you know better.
What interests me is why you would even ask that?

jan.

 

[James R]

What would be good evidence? Someone coming back from a state of death and stating it? If not, what would you regard as evidence of the immortality of the soul?

I can't really think of what kind of evidence could establish the existence of a soul. Souls are defined so as to be essentially immune to falsification, as far as I can tell, and there can't be good evidence for an unfalsifiable claim. For the same reason, there can be no good evidence against an unfalsifiable claim, or it wouldn't be unfalsifiable.

We can't see souls. We can't detect them in any way. If we damage a person's brain, their personality is damaged right along with it. If we kill the brain, the personality vanishes completely, as far as it is possible to tell. Perhaps there might be evidence of a soul if, for example, we could find a literally brainless human being walking around and operating as a normal person. But of course, no such thing has ever been observed, as far as I am aware.

The usual anecdotes told by people in operating theatres who experienced bright lights and a feeling like floating etc. during brief periods where theirs heart were stopped do not seem to me to be evidence for a soul, especially as such experiences can be plausibly explained without reference to any soul.

Some people believe in reincarnation. Possibly if there was enough evidence of knowledge of "past lives" possessed in ways that cannot be accounted for other than by two people sharing the same "soul" after reincarnation, that could conceivably go some way to providing evidence for the soul. Again, the evidence in this regard is weak at present.

Name a religion that has within in tenets, a woman must walk into the flames of her spontaneously combusted husband?

For instance, I have read of the practice of killing the Pharoah's wives/concubines upon his death in Ancient Egypt. I'm fairly sure this was done with religious justification.

I'm not going to dignify that with a response as I am sure you know better.
What interests me is why you would even ask that?

Answer:

It's quite simple. She knows the body she possesses is merely a temporary transport. She knows all life forms are essentially immortal. She knows that as a wife , she has duty, and she carries out her duty in full knowledge. What is horrendous about that?

 

[Seattle]

Oh, so don't take me seriously ever again.

God was a good fuck BTW.

How would you describe him? Goodness?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

So answer me.

 

[river]

The evidence of hell is in our attitude towards our fundamental survival . and towards ourselves and the environment.

And to watch it keep growing .

Awareness

 

[Jan Ardena]

I can't really think of what kind of evidence could establish the existence of a soul. Souls are defined so as to be essentially immune to falsification, as far as I can tell, and there can't be good evidence for an unfalsifiable claim. For the same reason, there can be no good evidence against an unfalsifiable claim, or it wouldn't be unfalsifiable.

Then you have to remain as you are until you come to the realization.

Perhaps there might be evidence of a soul if, for example, we could find a literally brainless human being walking around and operating as a normal person. But of course, no such thing has ever been observed, as far as I am aware.

The soul need body suit to experience this material atmosphere, and a conscious body (with brain intact and in skull) is symptomatic of a soul.

The usual anecdotes told by people in operating theatres who experienced bright lights and a feeling like floating etc. during brief periods where theirs heart were stopped do not seem to me to be evidence for a soul, especially as such experiences can be plausibly explained without reference to any soul.

It doesn't matter how it seems to you.
The truth is the truth regardless. I understand why you can't accept it.

Some people believe in reincarnation. Possibly if there was enough evidence of knowledge of "past lives" possessed in ways that cannot be accounted for other than by two people sharing the same "soul" after reincarnation, that could conceivably go some way to providing evidence for the soul. Again, the evidence in this regard is weak at present.

Again... what do you want me to say, other than it's your view.

For instance, I have read of the practice of killing the Pharoah's wives/concubines upon his death in Ancient Egypt. I'm fairly sure this was done with religious justification.

Based n what we've discussed over the years, do you really I could part of such a religion.



jan.

 

[James R]

The soul need body suit to experience this material atmosphere, and a conscious body (with brain intact and in skull) is symptomatic of a soul.

I think a conscious body is symptomatic of a working brain, nothing more.

It doesn't matter how it seems to you.
The truth is the truth regardless. I understand why you can't accept it.

You have the arrogance to constantly privilege your own perception and opinions as "the truth".

What if you're wrong? Do you even admit such a possibility, or do you claim omniscience?

Again... what do you want me to say, other than it's your view.

I don't want you to say anything. I was responding to your direct question. I understand that actually answering questions directly is somewhat out of character for you.

Based n what we've discussed over the years, do you really I could part of such a religion.

I'm just going on what you wrote.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think a conscious body is symptomatic of a working brain, nothing more.

Then we have to agree to disagree.

You have the arrogance to constantly privilege your own perception and opinions as "the truth".

I spent pages with Baldeee explaining my position on what is truth, and it wasn't a ''you're wrong'' ''I'm right'' kind of discussion on my part. Perhaps you should revisit that conversation again.

What if you're wrong? Do you even admit such a possibility, or do you claim omniscience?

The evidence suggests that this is not the end of existence.
It makes no difference just because you don't agree

I'm just going on what you wrote.

Yeah right.

jan.

 

[James R]

Then we have to agree to disagree.

Yes, it looks that way.

I spent pages with Baldeee explaining my position on what is truth, and it wasn't a ''you're wrong'' ''I'm right'' kind of discussion on my part. Perhaps you should revisit that conversation again.

You have a relativist's concept of truth, I take it. There's "true for you" and "true for me", and those can be different, according to you. i.e. truth is subjective.

The evidence suggests that this is not the end of existence.
It makes no difference just because you don't agree

I don't agree, and it makes no difference that you say it makes no difference, 'cos it kinda does.

I'm not big on "true for me" and "true for you", myself. For me, it's more a case of "true" and "not true". That's not to say I never make mistakes, of course. I'm not so deluded that I think I'm infallible.

 

[Baldeee]

I spent pages with Baldeee explaining my position on what is truth, and it wasn't a ''you're wrong'' ''I'm right'' kind of discussion on my part. Perhaps you should revisit that conversation again.

You did?
Where?
This thread?
Please post a link, or details at least, to where you think we've discussed it.
Maybe my memory is fading... but I don't recall spending pages with you explaining your position on what is truth.

The evidence suggests that this is not the end of existence.

What evidence do you think suggests this?

 

[Baldeee]

You have a relativist's concept of truth, I take it. There's "true for you" and "true for me", and those can be different, according to you. i.e. truth is subjective.

If this is Jan's view then it is interesting that Jan, only a few posts above, asserts that "It doesn't matter how it seems to you. The truth is the thruth regardless."
This asserts that truth is not subjective but in fact objective, that "the truth is the truth", that subjective views don't impinge on the truth value.

So if Jan's view is that truth is subjective (and I await a link from him to remind myself of these pages of conversation we apparently had on the matter... I honestly can't recall at this time) then is this "the truth is the truth" comment simply not a further example of his pervasive inconsistency?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

a further example of his pervasive inconsistency?

If nothing else Jan is consistent in the style presented in each and every thread I have followed.
Alex