Evidence of Hell.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
Irrelevant. How do you know?
That is the question put to you.
Irrelevant.
jan.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That must be the "hell on Earth" we've heard so much about...
We could ponder an antonym of irrelevant, i.e. meaningful. 
Wrong again.
A person can't know something that is not an established fact. If the existence of the afterlife is not an established fact, then nobody can know that the afterlife exists. See?
And I answered you. I know that she doesn't know there is an afterlife, because the existence of an afterlife is not an established fact.
Why do you struggle so with simple logic? Or do you just play dumb in order to waste time or try to annoy people?
Wrong again. If you have special knowledge that amounts to a proof of the existence of an afterlife, then you could legitimately start to argue that the woman in your example had a valid reason for believing that her suicide would be worthwhile.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
She was actually very attractive I often thought, keeping this to myself, that she should have been called heaven not hell.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I really do not understand how folk can believe in stuff that has no foundation, zip, ....
Would they bet their life or a loved ones life on any of their made up stuff being real.
How can you believe there is an after life without one single piece of evidence.
How?
How can folk be conned so easily?
And someone like Jan, obviously well read, reasonably lucid, clever and yet there is a... Well its like the needle jump on a record ... we get to a spot and we jump tracks.
I do like Jan because of the basic honesty I sence and I could be wrong but I could not explain if say Jan was presenting beliefs not held as truth.
Jan cant accept stuff can be made up by folk who dont have decent motives.
Alex
Would they bet their life or a loved ones life on any of their made up stuff being real.
How can you believe there is an after life without one single piece of evidence.
How?
How can folk be conned so easily?
And someone like Jan, obviously well read, reasonably lucid, clever and yet there is a... Well its like the needle jump on a record ... we get to a spot and we jump tracks.
I do like Jan because of the basic honesty I sence and I could be wrong but I could not explain if say Jan was presenting beliefs not held as truth.
Jan cant accept stuff can be made up by folk who dont have decent motives.
Alex
Well read? Seriously? Okay, around scriptures possibly, but in the more general realms of philosophy, critical thinking, logic, linguistics? Please, don't fool yourself.
Interesting that you say this yet then go on to say...
While his beliefs may be honestly held (and thus according to him he can't be mistaken about anything), his tactics while discussing are far from honest, including the "jumping needle", the inconsistency, the efforts to define his way out of holes,
Jan can't accept anything that might be contrary to his belief, which is fair enough, no one's asking him to change his belief, but more significantly he can't accept that his argument for holding his belief might be flawed and need revising. Instead he clings to it, and if in danger of being made too obvious even to himself that it's flawed he will nose-dive a discussion into the ground.
So whenever you do see the needle-jump, you can usually rest assured that Jan has reached a point he's unable to counter adequately. Better that, he might think, than admit that he might not have considered something, or might have to reformulate his argument, or even that he might not have expressed himself as well as he could/should have (due to giving misleading implications etc).
Instead he clings to what he has written and must defend it to the last, preferring to nuke the discussion than give such ground.
But enough about Jan.
As for why people believe, trying to understand that is one of my main reasons for being here.
I'm sure that the person has a foundation - i can't think of a belief without - but the question is what is that foundation? How strong is it? Is it subjective or objective? Is it recognisable in my own experience? If so, why did I conclude differently? These sorts of questions.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I guess similar here.
I try to be understanding.
I can not really disagree with anything you say.
But Jan to me presents on the one hand as clever but not clever enough to work out there is no evidence and clearly stuff has been made up.
I really try to understand but I just can not... I dont think I am particularly clever and really not well educated in so far little ever stuck but I am not fooled. So I start to wonder is it me?
Alex
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Have you ever run into any religious person who became religious through logic? I haven't.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
You may like this story.
Many years ago my then next door neighbour became a JW.
I made the mistake of asking how hefound God.
This is his answer as best I recall including the abrupt ending.
"Well one day I was looking at a tree and I just realised how could that tree just grow like that and I realised there could be only one answer God"
And you could find no logic.
Alex
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I think (not sure) that that is part of the Apologetics to keep them content with their decision to stay in the church. I don't think your neighbor was being truthful.
I used to get my hair cut at a place where one of the owners was religious. He wouldn't say that the Earth was only 6,000 years old but he didn't think the idea was silly. Why? His response "Well, how would we know since we weren't there".
He would also look out the window (out of the blue) and say "I know there is a God every time I look out of the window".
I never brought up religion. This was just him trying to convince himself (me?) and had nothing to do with anything that we were talking about.
So, I think, in church they are told that they should question their faith and that there are "good" answers to all questions.
Of course, the answers are "good" only to someone who has already drunken the Koolaid.
When I was young, I was a spiritual child. The basic message of Christianity, as inferred by example of Christ, made sense to me. It was better for people to get along and be accepting and patient with each other, and not jump off the handle based on bigotry, bias and pride. This seemed logical even to me as a small child, since observation showed that this resulted in the least conflict and pain and allowed people to cooperate. Jesus was not teaching political divide like is acceptable to the religion of atheism. What I also found was my attitude made me bully proof. I seem to be protected by the bullies.
As a teen into my 20's, I became interested and involved in science and engineering; chemical engineering. Based on the things I learned, I inferred that engineering required a good handle on physical reality. One cannot invent using bad science. To run with the science crowd, who was mostly atheist, you need to fixate on bible claims that do not equate to science observation, instead of dwell on philosophy of love. I adapted myself.
As a child brought up Catholic, it was well known that alchemy, which is one of the precursors on modern chemistry and science, was done by Catholic doctors and Clergy. They showed me that it was not conflicting to seek truth in all things; render onto god and render onto Caesar. Even the Church recognized much of science, even though modern science will conflict with 6000 year old science. I didn't fully understand the irrationality and division atheism tries to create. Even 500 year old science would not make the muster. Why not fixate on that? It has to do with a religious war waged by atheism to create division.
Later on, in my mid 20 and early 30's, I decided to do unique research on my own brain and psyche. It was a way for me to bridge the gap between science and religion, using the premise that the firmware of the brain, which underlies human consciousness, would align with the claims of religion. I also believed it would be something that can be observed by a scientist with good observational skills, and a knack for innovation.
My return to faith reappeared based on scientific observation of how the psyche works. I knew the doubter arguments of atheism and science, and I tried to explain these based on hard data. When I listen to these discussion, I am amazed at the irrationally of those who claim they know the philosophy go science. They have no knowledge of the hard data, yet make bold claims. I call this the atheist religion.
As a teen into my 20's, I became interested and involved in science and engineering; chemical engineering. Based on the things I learned, I inferred that engineering required a good handle on physical reality. One cannot invent using bad science. To run with the science crowd, who was mostly atheist, you need to fixate on bible claims that do not equate to science observation, instead of dwell on philosophy of love. I adapted myself.
As a child brought up Catholic, it was well known that alchemy, which is one of the precursors on modern chemistry and science, was done by Catholic doctors and Clergy. They showed me that it was not conflicting to seek truth in all things; render onto god and render onto Caesar. Even the Church recognized much of science, even though modern science will conflict with 6000 year old science. I didn't fully understand the irrationality and division atheism tries to create. Even 500 year old science would not make the muster. Why not fixate on that? It has to do with a religious war waged by atheism to create division.
Later on, in my mid 20 and early 30's, I decided to do unique research on my own brain and psyche. It was a way for me to bridge the gap between science and religion, using the premise that the firmware of the brain, which underlies human consciousness, would align with the claims of religion. I also believed it would be something that can be observed by a scientist with good observational skills, and a knack for innovation.
My return to faith reappeared based on scientific observation of how the psyche works. I knew the doubter arguments of atheism and science, and I tried to explain these based on hard data. When I listen to these discussion, I am amazed at the irrationally of those who claim they know the philosophy go science. They have no knowledge of the hard data, yet make bold claims. I call this the atheist religion.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Maybe.. This guy was once an auto electrician. Here is one of his little dishonest deeds.
He told me folk would come in because the battery would not charge or similar, and he would tell them they needed a new alternator.
So he would take out their alternator clean it, paint if needed, put in, sometimes, a new belt and charge them for a new alternator (which was theirs cleaned and maybe painted) when all they needed was the belt tightened.
I think he was trying to make peace with God so he could get to heaven.
He became enraged when I pointed out only 144,000 got to go (I dont know where I found that).
But religion took him over, he moved and I later heard he and his wife prayed most of the day. He went crazy from what I could tell from the news that got back to me.
His past dishonestly probably eat away at him or he wanted to pray all day to get in the 144,000.
Alex
So if it is an established fact that children are better educated in same sex schools, were they not doing better before establishing that fact?
So nobody can know anything before the establishment comes in and deems it a fact?
jan.
This is just a blunt disregard of what I say.
At least have the decency to engage me in a discussion, properly, by explaining you claims of made up stuff. Until then you're simply talking bollocks. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is a fact. If you can't explain why it is made up, then don't bring it up.
jan.
Are you being defensive?