Jump to content

Photo

My Acne Scarring Depression

red mark depression

24 replies to this topic

#21 A Repy 4 Decaying

A Repy 4 Decaying

    New Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 1
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 19-March 14

Posted 19 March 2014 - 09:45 PM

Decaying, read:

The Problem of Pain 

by C.S. Lewis

 

It will change your whole perspective!!!!



#22 Decaying

Decaying

    New Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 15-April 13

Posted 22 March 2014 - 10:10 AM

There is absolutely no need to and no it won't - not one iota, for I am unfortunately completely right. C.S. Lewis was a Christian and as I already pointed out so long ago with impeccable logic, Christianity - just like every other religion out there - is a terribly flawed, archaic and outmoded way of trying to make sense out of this business we call living. While I appreciate your intention, the fact is that you and every other religious person out there are totally wrong and have no true understanding of this business we call living. There is no God. Go back to my original posts and actually try to refute the points I made. You won't be able to do it, I assure you. If you do so coldly and seriously then you will see the truth of what I said.

 

It is a sad reality that life is an evil that has been visited upon you by your dimwitted, selfish parents. This is irrefutable fact whether you (and the rest of the world) like it or not. Sure, idiots like Livvie and Veiledxbeauty tried to debunk my points, but it is clear to anyone with even a minor grasp of logic that they failed. When I wrote my original spiel I did so when I was feeling particularly low and had had my fill of retards. Unfortunately, I live in a world full of them, and when the mouth breathers started their responses to me I simply gave up. The saying, which is attributed to Einstein, goes that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. As such I decided it simply wasn't worth the time trying to remove a lifetime of religious indoctrination from the minds of the aforementioned acne.org members. Would you try and debate a rock? They have shown that they are either wilfully ignorant or simply unable to deal with cold hard reality as it is. Excuse me for presuming the same about yourself, but given the fact that you have directed me to a Christian apologist's text, I doubt that philosophy, psychology or science are strong suits. If they were then you wouldn't have written your post. Go back and look at the Epicurean Paradox. These few lines totally annihilate any possibility of an all loving, all powerful God. You can present me with books written by any number of erudite people from days gone by and it won't matter a damn. Reduced to the simplest equation it is a logical impossibility to have an all loving and all powerful being AND a world of evil and suffering. Your God - and all others - DO NOT EXIST. If you're still scratching you head, look at this flowchart. Meditate upon this.


Edited by Decaying, 22 March 2014 - 10:19 AM.


#23 Decaying

Decaying

    New Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 0
About Me
  • Joined: 15-April 13

Posted 23 March 2014 - 05:46 PM

Alright, I couldn't help myself; I'm human too after all. Since getting the email message that 'Repy 4 Decaying' had written me a message and my subsequent answer to him/her, I couldn't resist a peek back at the stupid responses I received last year. Sooo, against my better judgement I've decided to have a laugh and mock the mentally challenged once again. The bulk of this post will be a comprehensive rebuttal of every dumb thing that the member called Livvie spewed forth, but I'll also tackle the other geniuses who weighed in as well.

Firstly, I'll say this to you, Livvie, you do a wonderful job of IGNORING every nuanced point that I make and then bat back with the same tired garbage over and over again. It's a real skill. What is more amusing still is your ability to accuse me of having vices which you yourself are the living, breathing embodiment. Oh, you want examples? Well, let us begin. Hope you're all sitting comfortably! ;-)

[Livvie's stupidity is in bold type and inverted commas. My replies are after the hyphens. Yes, I know there is a proper quoting facility embedded in this message board but that would have taken way too long and there's only so long I can make fun of the mental patients before getting bored, so excuse me this failing.]

"Decaying, I am sorry you are so angry (though you deny it, your comments betray you)" - I never denied it. Please actually open your eyes when you read next time. What I actually said was that I am not angry at a fictitious God, but rather at the fools who try to interpret what this fictitious being's wishes are. That would be idiots like you, Livvie.

"and that your opinions are not based on logic but emotions." - I deconstructed every single one of your sentences. YOU were the one who ignored all my points and came back with talks of 'hope', 'faith', 'belief' and all the emotional claptrap under the sun. Basically you have described yourself and your actions while having the nerve to attribute them to me. How dare you. Apologise when you have the time.

"You are clearly angry at God." - Hellooo, McFly? THERE.IS.NO.GOD. How many times do I have to say this to you??? For crying out loud, Livvie. Read my effing words! There is NO GOD so I cannot be angry at him/her/it! Seriously, did you fall on your head as a child? How can you not understand this simplest of statements??

"You can be angry, yes, and that is your right - free will." - I am angry because you are an idiot who doesn't understand anything, even when I use a crayon and draw it out for you in the prettiest of colours. The prime example is you mention the concept of free will. We've been through this already. I have already shown how there is no such thing as free will in one of my original posts. Why didn't you read it? Or did you read it and not understand it? Because I'm a glutton for punishment I will spell it out again: free will cannot exist because it is a contradiction in terms. Will is the motivation to do something and such motivation is borne from previous experience. Experience is always limited by genetics, geography, social interaction, education, health, the era when someone lived, etc, etc. It is therefore NEVER free. So now that you understand this, will you please stop using the term as if it was a real thing? Please?

"The Bible tells us that those who are in darkness hate the light because they cannot overcome it." - Well bravo, that's one thing it's finally got right. I guess you'll be burning your copy then because if it's your only source of information it's no wonder you still use candles to illuminate your home.

"Ultimately, you will find out the truth." - I already have and I've shown it to you. But then I forgot how much you love darkness. You'd think you'd have remembered considering it was the point preceding this one.

"I just hope you do before it is too late." - You don't need to worry about me. After all, I'm the one who's right after all.

"You have never died and so cannot know that death leads only to oblivion, as you seem to hold with such certainty." - I have never broken a leg either, but I can tell I don't want to and that it would most likely be rather painful. How can I make such a startling claim if I have never personally experienced a certain state? Because, my friend, there is such a thing as observation of the world around me and the scientific principle. I have not personally died, but I have witnessed lifeless bodies, so I know there is an ending to the flesh. I also know that the thing we call the 'self' is actually a fallacy. I spelled this out for you before, but we know you have a brain like a sieve, so here goes again: There is no such thing as 'you'. Not really. Other than the first person pronoun, 'you' don't exist other than as an idea. There is certainly no 'central controller' in 'your' head. Language is constructed in such a way that it makes the explanation of this psychological truth rather difficult and cumbersome. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel, so I will just recycle my original analogy which goes like this... The 'you' of 5 years old is not the 'you' of 15 or of 50. The 'you' who decides to go on a diet is not the 'you' who breaks the resolution half an hour later by wolfing down a cake. 'We' think that there is a central thinker who thinks thoughts, but that is not actually what is going on and 'you' can see this for 'yourself' with a little bit of observation. In actuality, all there are inside 'your' brain are fragments of thoughts. One thought wants cake and the other wants to be thin. One says you should study and the other says you want to watch TV. There is no separate thinker who is divorced from the sum of his or her parts. The you of yesterday is not the you of right now. When you say one day that 'you' are happy and on another day that 'you' are sad, normally this is understood that there is a being who is separate and experiencing these emotions, but in reality 'you' and the emotions are one in the same. So in effect 'you' actually ARE happiness or sadness or grief or jealousy, etc, etc. This is actually what consciousness is composed of. When these states are absent, i.e. when 'you' don't think, then in essence 'you' don't exist. Just like on the occasions that the body experiences deep, dreamless sleep, 'you' are entirely absent from existence. You only know that 'you' are here right now by the fact that you think! So what does this have to do with death, oblivion and so called the so called after life? The central tenet of most religions is that there is a permanent 'you' - a soul - who lives on beyond the grave. If you followed closely and observed the workings of your own mind during this protracted paragraph then you now know there is NO real you right now while 'you' are actually living, so how could there possibly be so after the body stops functioning? In addition to this psychological refutation of the possibility of an after life, we also know from watching anyone who has sustained serious brain damage that the personality and congnitive abilites of said individuals is no longer the same as before. They are in essence 'different people'. So we ARE our minds and minds are complex, but all too physical, things. When the heart stops pumping the fuel that keeps the brain alive then the motors in our heads stop turning. When that happens 'you' in all your myriad forms cease to exist. You return to the place you were before you were born, i.e. oblivion. I do not need to die in order to see the truth of this. As I have shown, all it takes is an understanding of science, psychology and an observation of the world around us. Put down your silly Bible and open your eyes, for crying out loud.

"There have been people, however, who have had these experiences all around the world and have a remarkably consistent report, despite the fact that they have never met each other: they have ended up in one of two places, either one of joy and light, or darkness and pain." - No, there are not. You really ought to read more than those accounts which do nothing but support your already biased beliefs. There are accounts by Christians who claim such things and there are claims by Hindus who claim to see their own particular deities after so called near death experiences (emphasis on the 'near', i.e. their brains are still working). Buddhists and Jains claim other things. Why don't you trumpet their experiences? Oh, right, because they differ from what you wish to hold to and that just wouldn't do, would it? Such people are ALIVE and there are many psychological, biological/neurological explanations for these experiences; you only need to look them up. But then again, you don't want to do that, do you? Here's a book you should read by someone who was clinically dead and who saw NOTHING, heard NOTHING, experienced NOTHING:

http://www.amazon.co...E/dp/B000RZD77Q

Why? Because he actually was DEAD and for much longer than the vast majority of those who claim NDE's.

You then started to number your 'points' in your posts, so I will follow suit:

"1) The claims I made were bold, but far from false." - Every last one of them was false. I picked them apart like a vulture. You haven't rebutted a single one of my rebuttals. All you do is gloss over my demolition of your non-arguments and come out with the same tired and already disproven BS in a slightly different manner.

"God revealed his word to more than just dark age peasants. Was King Soloman, a man who has a historical record as well as a Biblical one, a peasant? No, he was the wisest and perhaps the wealthiest that the world has ever seen." - Says you. Prove it with something other than the Bible. Oh, that's right, you can't! In my last post from a year ago I laughed at your 'using the Bible to prove the Bible' argument. I see it taught you nothing. Sorry my friend, but just because a book says 'one guy' was really smart, means nothing. Leonardo Da Vinci is considered by many to be one of the most intelligent men in history, but he would be perplexed by a cheap digital watch. He'd consider it black magic. You've got to remember that the Bible was a product of it's backward age. The real tragedy is that idiots like yourself tend to breed a lot and keep your dark age beliefs alive with you. They have no validity no matter how often you repeat them.

"2) Do you think I keep God in my pocket, that I might produce him and say, "Here he is, all you atheists! Better guess again!" No. Because then you would have no reason to trust him, if he was on display for all the world to see." - Uhh, okaaay. Wanna run this one by me again?

"3) Science has not proved that the earth could not be formed before the sun, moon and stars. You lack evidence here." - Absolute BS and this is what I am talking about. You try to debate about subjects you don't have the foggiest clue about and do so with repugnant authority! Science most certainly HAS proved that the earth could not have been formed before the sun and the stars. Our planet is a result of accretion from the solar nebula and thus could NOT have been formed before the sun. Here is a link you should read about the age of the earth: http://www.talkorigi..._age_earth.html

You will find several other links contained within the above webpage which will take you to actual scientific papers. Try not to be put off because there isn't any mention of 'bearded old sky guy' or 'poof! that's magic'. I know you'd fervently like to believe it's all so simple as 'God did it', but the really real world that actual grown up people with functioning brains who truly do know a thing or two about reality live in, say differently.

"4) Now you are mixing man's fallen nature with the innerancy of scripture - two separate issues. God did not initially make man fallen, in fact, he was without sin (until the fall) and had complete fellowship with him. But like I said earlier - there was free will and a choice, and that choice resulted in man's mind, heart, and soul being handed over to the power of sin. That explains why mankind is so evil today...it is corrupted and under Satan's power." - This is so full of holes that if it were cheese I'd swear we were in Switzerland. WHY DO YOU NOT READ ANYTHING THAT I HAVE WRITTEN? You say 2 + 2 = 5. I tell you you're wrong. I take painstaking time and effort to show you how it makes 4. You then ignore this completely and then like a bobble headed dashboard toy you repeat the same already disproven gibberish!!!

All you need to do is to read back inside this post and my previous posts to see how free will does not and CANNOT logically exist. BUT, I am even kind enough to play your stupid game and pretend that it does. I do this because I am so totally right in my position that EVEN if free will DID exist (which it doesn't), then it would still be god's fault and prove that he could not be all loving or all powerful. I have repeated this explanation ad nauseum also, but your parents were clearly brother and sister, so please look at the link I provided to the member called 'A Repy 4 Decaying' in my previous post. Oh hell, you're so dumb you won't even be able to follow that direction so here it is: http://i.imgur.com/Dq87K.png

"The next two ones aren't worth answering, since I am not going to apologize on God's behalf." - Don't know what 'ones' you are referring to, but seeing as you haven't answered ANY of my rebuttals yet, the point is moot.

"5) As I said earlier, God can opperate outside of natural laws, creating something from nothing; he is the one who made them to control the universe, not himself!" - So can Mickey Mouse. Believe me because I say so. You have no way to disprove my claim so it must be right. ..... Right? Oh, you object? Why is that? When you have an answer then you will see how asinine your contention is for those of us with brains.

"6) Again, I don't have God in my pocket. I would add that science has never been able to prove there isn't a god...and if you are going to say, "well that would be like trying to prove a negative, something you can't do," I would say, yes you can. I can prove that I can't fly by logical deductions and tests." - You don't have him in your pocket and yet you seem mighty sure that you can talk on his behalf. Not just any god of course, but the one that YOU happen to know is true... even though you can't prove it. As for not being able to prove a negative, you are right there are certain cases where a negative can be proven, but the example you provided is not one of them. Also, the irony is that you state that god cannot be disproven. A DEISTIC god - i.e. one with unknown qualities - cannot be disproven, but a THEISTIC one is another kettle of fish entirely. And as you so rightly pointed out (bravo. It's not often you get anything right, so I feel it only prudent we stop to admire this rare occasion), we can disprove certain statements using logic and the scientific method. Unfortunately for you, if you remain true to such conditions of enquiry then it doesn't bode well for your god or any other gods who author books to backward goat herders. For you see, theistic gods make truth claims and truth claims CAN be examined as to whether they hold water. Much like Noah's ark, you're goddy-poo is in hot water.

"7) I wasn't sure which view you held; I will address something: for us to have evolved from nothing, we had to have something to evolve FROM. It would have to come from SOMEWHERE if it hadn't already existed." - Yes, this is true to a point, but it doesn't have the conclusion you are trying to lead us to. First of all, we DID evolve. This is irrefutable scientific fact. It doesn't matter how many retarded creationists whine otherwise. The evidence is on our side. It's not our fault you and your ilk are too stupid and/or lazy to look at/understand it. In much the same way that science disproved the flat earth theory espoused by the early religious (although there still remain some flat earthist kooks out there to this day. I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of them. I digress...), it has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that we did evolve and every life form in existence is in a perpetual state of evolution. We did evolve from earlier forms and you are going to try and trot out the infinite regress argument of 'so if we evolved from this, what came before it? And what came before that? And that? And that and that and that?' Right? That's what you're going to do and you know it. You want to try and stump me because the SCIENCE of abiogenesis (life formation) is still in it's infancy and due to their not being a complete understanding of life's natural, biological and chemical origins yet, you want to throw up your fist in delight and shout, "yes! I've got you! God did it!!!" Unfortunately, he/she/it didn't. We know that much. What you have proposed is the old standard known as 'god of the gaps', i.e. whatever we currently don't understand you somehow conflate with proof that it god's doing.... YOUR god of course. Such thinking is childish. It answers nothing and does nothing to address origins, because if you claim that god made everything, I will naturally counter with, "and who made god?" You will spew that God was/is/and ever shall be timeless. You do this thinking this is your trump card when in fact it is nothing but mindless gobbldigook. If you can say that god - a being of infinite complexity, who is at odds with all our understanding of the past - was always there then I can just as easily state that the universe or multiverse or 19th parallel dimensional vortex 'was always there'. Do you see why this does nothing to explain anything and just relies on belief for no reason whatsoever other than your own conditioning, and how the conditioning of someone else with a different belief to your own is equally meaningless? No, of course you don't. I forgot who I was talking to. Sigh...

"8) Evolution is not a FACT because you cannot PROVE it. It is a THEORY. You know that a fact is, ahum, "an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true." No body has EVER observed or tested evolution and therefore it cannot be a proven fact. I can hypothesize and form a model that there is a monster living on the dark side of the moon but that cannot make it jump to the "fact" level. There is microevolution, yes, that has been observed, (i.e. the changing shape of bird beaks to fit into rock holes to find food) but never macro-evolution, changing of species (i.e. bird changing into a hampster). And feel free to see the idea of God like the concept of gravity - you cannot directly prove it, but you see its effects on others and in the world around you." - I say something and provide proof as well as logical deconstruction. You on the other hand just spew tired verbiage. Evolution is probably the most tested and proven FACTS in science. As stated so many times, a theory in scientific parlance is different than the laymen's version of the same word. It is a real shame this is the word used because it is so open to misinterpretation by morons such as yourself. Evolution has been observed many times. Fruit flies are a good example and one you should be able to relate to on account of your having a brain of approximately the same weight. The reason for your haughty (but utterly baseless) claim that it hasn't been observed is because for the most part, we are talking about infinitesimal changes over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. Just because we cannot observe it 'in real time' does not mean we aren't capable of deducing it's truth or falsehood by other means. I have to laugh at your puerile attempts at maintaining your position because I could almost quote chapter and verse from the website 'answers in genesis' that you've plucked your ignorance from and then paraded it to the world as if it's got some foundation.

The annoying problem of trying to deal with people of limited mental capacity such as yourself is that you will try to use science (albeit badly) to try and debunk science! It it downright ludicrous as well as very frustrating. Your efforts however are in vain as the truth is the truth is the truth. And the truth isn't the bullcrap you're peddling, that's for sure. The other joke is that in order to answer your assinine statements and questions it requires longwinded and meticulous explanations which you have no intention of reading or accepting anyway. Here is a treatise disproving all your creationist propaganda regarding macroevolution :

http://www.talkorigi...oevolution.html

Now, before you read it, let me fire the same kind of shots back to YOU. I have done so already many, many times and you dodge all of them. You demand answers to questions you don't even understand, but do not apply the same scrutiny and critical thinking to your own cartoon imagination about the way the world works. Tell me how you in light of all the evidence to the contrary that you still believe in something so incredibly ridiculous, arbitrary and vacuous as the particular religion and denomination of said religion that you happen to espouse. You must know in your heart of hearts that you truly don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to a battle of intellect with me, but you keep on spouting the same stuff over and over again. I can only surmise that you have been soooooo invested in this dream world of your own imagining for so long that you'd be left totally psychologically broken if you were to see the emperor's new clothes for what they really are.

"9) If you want to go into all the so-called "errors" of the Bible, I would suggest researching the matter extensively rather than displaying some innacurate youtube cartoon. There are many false misconceptions about certain passages that can be explained, if you will address something specific." - I used the YouTube video for the purpose of injecting some humour into a really very tragic subject. That subject being the one of the incredible credulity of mankind - a disease you are riddled with I'm afraid. Joke or not, the video and many like it on that channel and others show beyond the shadow of a doubt how your so called 'inerrant word of god' is no such thing. See my last paragraph about how you people don't apply the same standards of scrutiny to your own silly beliefs that you try to use undermine actual science. If nothing else then it proves that the Bible is not literally true and that it requires tinpot interpreters such as yourself to try and explain away the laughable contradictions. And naturally, as with everything to do with human nature and egotism, your interpretation differs from the next person and the next person and the next. That's why with Christianity alone there are estimated to be at least 10,000 denominations. Again, that's JUST Christianity. Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shintoim, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, etc, etc, etc, all have multiple sects and offshoots and experts galore. Each one convinced that they hold the true interpretation in their grasp. If you play the meta game however and can stand up on the mountainside watching all these idiots then you realise that religion - ALL religion - is nothing but a pathetic attempt to explain away life and make the cold hard reality of death a little less scary.

"10) It does prove itself true, but science, logic, history and evidence also do as well." - If you're referring to the Bible then no, it doesn't. I showed you this false circular logic the last time, i.e. 'the bible is true because the bible says it's true' is the very definition of circular logic. I can do the same thing. "I am god because I say I am god". See how it is stupid? Sticking your fingers in your ears and claiming not to hear me doesn't change the fact. Science, logic and history also do more to discredit your cherished faith than to give it weight. Reading only the things you want to read will of course shield you somewhat from this unplatable fact.

"11) "Jesus was not mentioned by any contemporary writers at the time of the events depicted in the New Testament. The entire historicity of the man is even called into question by many scholars." Sorry, but he was. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish priest in AD 66, wrote the following in his Arabic version of his work, Antiquities:

 

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.  And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous.  And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.""
- 66AD. You do realise that this number means around 33 years after Christ's apparent death, right? Look up the word 'contemporary' again in the dictionary. It is NOT a first hand account, that much is certain. And as stated before, the historicity of Jesus IS up for debate: http://rationalwiki....of_Jesus_Christ

The Jesus story is virtually the same as that of Mithra or Apollonius of Tyana. The flood story from the old testament is stolen from the the Gilgamesh epic which was unquestionably written at an earlier date. What do my points prove? Nothing. What do your points do? Exactly the same - nothing. Even if a historical man called Jesus did actually live, that in itself does nothing to prove divinity. You can dance around this issue till you are blue in the face, my original Epicurean Paradox totally disproves the basic premise of god and his nature at the very roots. You can whack me in the face with a million fake branches and twigs. There is no escaping the falsehood of this ludicrous doctrine and it's tenets.

"12) Yes, the fall was caused by God's creation, but not by God directly." - Ha ha ha. Oh man, you crack me up. "The bullet from the gun killed my wife, your honour. The fact that I made the gun from scratch with my own two hands and then pulled the trigger is irrelevant."hifive.gif  God is supposedly omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all loving), so if these premises are true then the fall COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. PERIOD. AMEN! Check out the flowchart I've referenced several time already. There is simply no getting around the logical fallacy of your premise. I checkmated you at the beginning, but like a spoilt and ignorant child you simply cannot accept that you've lost the game.

"13) There have been times when all of us have made decisions without previous experience. Do you think that an alchoholic had previous experience when he tried his first drink? There are countless other examples. God gave us free will, but ultimately the choice was ours: to obey him or not. He didn't make us all robots and puppets (which is what we would be without free will)." - We ARE robots. That's all we are. Sorry, but that is a fact. Your prior decisions were the result of your experiences up until that point. Determinism doesn't claim that human beings don't make decisions or cannot experience 'new things', but the decision made by you or the hypothetical drunkard-in-the-making are the result of all that came before it. Your insistence on the CHRISTIAN go for instance is probaby the result of having been brought up in a family of other Christians. Just like how someone brought up in an Islamic household is most likely (notice I didn't say 'certainly'?) to call themselves a Muslim. Through their genetic make up, education, socialising, health, an a multitude of other determining factors, decisions are made. Even if I were to flip a coin and you shouted, "heads", as opposed to tails, the decision to do so at that very moment in time is a result of every moment in your life up until that point. There is nothing 'free' about it, no matter how much it may appear so on the surface. That is why my friend that you are indeed a robot. :-) The very fact that you are sticking to the same 'program' that you have 'hardwired' into you, proves this point.

"14) God knew that the fall would happen, but he chose to create anyway. This is a hard concept for some to grasp, but thinking of it from God's perspective, there is a much greater good that will result in the end. He was able to demonstrate his love for us by dying on a cross. He also knew he would have to do that and he could just say, "forget it. I'm not gonna fool with this." But he loves us...that's why he made us. He also knew us before the beginning of the world. "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." - Eph 4:1" - This makes no logical sense whatsoever. Reread the flowchart diagram of the Epicurean Paradox a hundred times until you shake yourself free of this shambolic thinking.

"15) Again, God did not make creation and man faulty. They made a choice. If you have a kid, and give that kid a brand-new car, and that kid decides to wreck the car, it wasn't directly your fault." - It WAS directly your fault because you made the kid and before making the kid you could see the potential that such an outcome MAY in fact happen. If you were loving then you would not make the kid in the first place.Thank you for validating my point that antinatalism is the only moral philosophy which has any weight. Moreover, in this hypothetical scenario, our potential parent doesn't know with certainty what will happen. God has no such excuse. He's all powerful, all knowing, yadda, yadda. He is therefore absolutely and unequivocally to blame for ANY and ALL faults with the human race... if indeed he made us... which he didn't because he doesn't exist.

"16) I didn't say these quotes proved anything - I simply brought up some facts that cannot be refuted. Back to the whole "proving God" thing again...I addressed that." - I have no idea to what you are referring right now, but if past experience is anything to go by, I have done a darn good job of thoroughly trashing each and every 'argument' you have made thus far.

"17) I would argue that you ARE in fact, angry, though you won't admit it directly. Also, I believe that God for that very reason did not place me in a Muslim family, though Muslims, Hindus, and other religious followers do convert to Christianity every day." - The anger part has been covered to death. One more time for people with goldfish-like attention spans: I AM angry - at idiots who claim to speak for a fictitious being or beings. That would be you, Livvie. I am NOT angry at the fictitious entity itself, because that would just be stupid, wouldn't it?

As for your contention that people of other faiths convert to Christianity every day, what on earth does this prove? The same is true of Christian becoming Muslims, Hindus, etc. Changing your football team doesn't mean a damn thing. All it does show is how arbitrary the nature of faith truly is. You believe because you believe. You do not need to believe in things that are true because they are true already. It is because your beliefs have no grounding in reality (or any of the other religions for that matter) that they are inherently false.

"18) You are content if we Christians shut our mouths, keep our religion in church where you think it belongs (or maybe you don't even want that, I don't know) and basically refuse to obey the commands of our Lord, to take the gospel to the end of the world. I am not cramming my religion down your throat; I am voicing my beliefs, which is what we are entitled - nay, as Christians, OBLIGATED - to do. I am not responsible for your reaction, only for my end." - I understand your desire to prove a point which you ardently believe is true. What I won't stand for is when you have been proven to be wrong on any or all points and will either DELIBERATELY dismiss said points because you have to (because your book tells you to!) or are are too thick to understand OR to afraid to alter your life's direction because you have spent so many years cultivating the belief and would be bereft without it. It is therefore MY obligation as a human being who cares about the suffering of other innocent, sentient life, to show to anyone else who happens to be reading our battle of words that I am in fact the one who is right.

An important distinction has to be made here. I am every bit as egotistical and arrogant as you are (I know you won't see yourself that way because you aren't as openly hostile as I am), but I want to be clear that what I am saying is true regardless of ME saying it. 'I' am an irrelevance. A parrot or talking toaster could be making the same points as me and they would stand or fall on the merits or demerits of the words themselves, not on the messenger.

"19) "I am 100% right." This is much more dogmatic than ANYTHING I've said. And I have experienced my share of hardships, way, way worse than acne. I have known incredible pain, sorrow, loneliness, rejection, self-image, and depression. I have struggled with myself, others, and in my relationship with God. I have been saved from death miraculously many times and will not be silent. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I don't still have problems - those do not leave until Satan is finally subdued. Maybe if you allowed your brain to believe, you would not suffer so badly. I would argue that belief is a much better alternative to death." - I apologise for my strident tone and I am certainly not without faults. I would argue that you are probably a much, much nicer person than I am. If I were you I'd probably want to punch me in the face! Ha ha. I am serious. I know I appear like a domineering ass of the biggest kind and I cannot deny it. My personality leaves a lot to be desired and when it comes to a challenge the fire of battle comes into my eyes. Nevertheless, my 100% right comment can be put alongside my parrot and talking toaster comment in the previous paragraph. While there was no doubt personal arrogance in the statement I made, let me ask you this, if Hitler screamed, "the sun is hot!!!", would it make the statement any less true just because a scumbag was the one to say it? I'm afraid that the overwhelming amount of points I have made and continue to do make ARE true. Not because of me, but because of their observable nature. A sublte but terrifically important point. All that I say can be checked either by your own experience or through scientific investigation. It doesn't require personal belief. Religion is so constructed that it starts from a point of 'all knowledge' (or so it would have you believe) and must defend this sacrosanct position at all costs, no matter how much evidence there may be to the contrary. Science on the other hand takes completely the opposite approach. While seeming arrogant to the layman, it starts from a position of NO knowledge whatsoever. All it does is ask questions and when possible answers are given they are subjected to a battery of inexhaustable tests in order to validate or invalidate the accuracy or lack thereof of any given hypothesis. This is why it irks me when you say things like, "it's only a theory." A theory in the scientific vernacular does not mean that it 'just a guess'. It means that we do not know every last conceivable nuance as to why a thing is the way it is. It doesn't mean it's ignorant of the component parts. Such is the way with evolutionary 'theory', gravitational 'theory' and germ 'theory', to list but a few. We can make startlingly accurate and REPEATABLE predictions using our knowledge of these theories. We just don't understand every last thing about their intricate workings. When we DO reach this last stage then we refer to such things as LAWS. A law is the highest stage of a scientific understanding. Until then we are HUMBLE enough to admit that we do not know it all. Religion can make no such concession.

"20) You didn't address the issue at all." - Don't know what issue you are talking about. But you're a Christian so forgive me. ;-)

"21) There are heretics that claim to be Christians. If this man had really studied prophecy, he would know that "no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows." He claimed exact dates and times, showing his Biblical illiteracy." - It's hard to keep track of what points of mine you are attempting to refute, but given the context then I am guessing you are talking about my reference to the late Harold Camping. Sorry if that's not it. If it WAS it then I brought him up to rebut your claim that these are the end times. He, and many others, have specified dates when the apocalypse is supposed to have happened. He did so and had his following. He would have argued with you that he WAS a Christian and the two of you could have fought tooth and nail while I sat on the sidelines eating popcorn. My point was that YOU claimed we were experiencing the signs of the end times. So while you astutely brought out your clause that you weren't specifying a specific date, all this means is that you are more cowardly and sneaky than people like the late Mr Camping, who actually had the nerve to set the date.

A good book is called Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, and in the beginning of it is a quotation attributed to some Chinese emperor from umpteen thousand years ago. The quote basically said the same as you did about signs of the end times being present. It's only after the quote that the time when such a quote was made is presented to the reader. The point being that everyone and his uncle thinks they know when the end of the world is. You are quoting the Bible here, but you last post shows the dichotomy between this statement and your previous assertion.

"22) This is another area where you are wrong. Everything in nature shows evidence of DETERIORATION, not getting better, smarter, and more complex. Time proves this on a small-scale level as well as a large scale. Only advancements in technology can temporarily thwart these effects in our everyday lives. "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." But there is still beauty amid the ugliness, and order among the chaos. The world is not pure, and nothing endures save God's Word. I would agree with you - everything will eventually be destroyed (save the Lord himself and his word), "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." But the Lord will create a new heaven and a new earth that is pure and undefiled - another hope and promise to cling to. "See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."" - This is a complex point (not the god nonsense, obviously) and I would contend that it depends on the fractal viewpoint you are looking at life from. From a historical and evolutionary standpoint then my contention was correct. We ARE getting more complex. I never said better. No, no, no. Never better. But cells duplicate and divide and multiply. That is the basis of evolution, i.e. we start from single celled organisms and those multiply, etc, etc, into the plethora of biodiversity you see today. So, we ARE more complex. Our technology is an offshoot of this complexity. You cannot separate it as something independent of the creatures who made it. BUT, I do see your point also that there is deterioration as well. Taken from the big picture that is indeed our ultimate fate. But there is a full stop there. You don't get to say, "The end.".... and then flip the page and go, "... well, not really. God's still there and he's going to resurrect us all from the dead and we'll all sing kumbaya with him for eternity up on a cloud." Nope, if you make a point then you have to take it to it's logical conclusion. What you don't do is pop in hocus pocus into the mix and expect to be taken seriously.

"23) We did share a "common ancestor" - Adam and Eve - but not the one you are referring to, likely some primitive, ape-like human that evolved from acid combinations, bacteria and slime. Again, there is no proof of this. For macro-evolution to occur, you would need the evolving animal to produce NEW, ADDITIONAL GENETIC INFORMATION (which has never been observed or proven in all of scientific studies). Interesting how, after all the millions and millions of years of animals multiplying from amoebas in the oceans all through the food chains, today when we have technology to document this there is no more action. It would only take one day for an animal to be born with new, additional genetic information." - Again, there is an absolute ABUNDANCE of proof of this. You just need to put down your god comics and read something which is not so inspirational and a little more difficult to understand. I know, I know, it's hard and boring. But unfortunately that's the world grown ups live in, else we'd still be living in caves and worshipping sticks.... or carpenters.

This entire spiel is another copy and paste from Answers in Genesis. An amusing site because it's name isn't actually true. We know that we need variation in order for a species to survive. If there was only a single man and woman responsible for the whole of humanity then we'd be nothing but a bunch of inbred, gibbering, brainless... hey, wait a second, maybe you're theory IS true! Ha ha ha. No, I'm just kidding. It isn't.

"24) It proves that they saw something that made them willing to die terrible deaths that would NOT BE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE at all for the Lord they loved. It also proves that the whole "Jesus thing" wasn't a hoax either. Even today there are hundreds that are killed for their beliefs because they refuse to deny the truth. There was a massive movement that spread (and is still spreading) so you can't tell me it was all over nothing." - I did it and I will again. Read slowly: Belief does not equal truth. I can say, the world is square and jump head first into a volcano. It doesn't alter reality one bit. My Oscar Wilde  quote clearly went over your head, as does the fact (agaaaaain) that whatever you claim for Christianity can also be claimed for all the other dimwitted religions out there, i.e. Muslims crashed planes for their desire for 33 celestial virgins. Were they right? No. Are you? No, also.

"25) I double-dog-dare you. :)" - I'm game!!! .... Umm, what was the challenge again? Ha ha.

"26) You are right - a world without Jesus is a world without hope. I do not mean to sound condescending, but I pity you and those like you who have no hope, and still would encourage you to reach out to him." - I would, but you never know where he's been. Can I wear gloves when I reach?

"27) Sin and its effects can be seen today - look around and you won't have to look far." - Evil, not sin.

"28) Jesus did incur loss. He was stripped, beaten to a pulp, whipped, forced to carry his cross, mocked and despised by all around him, separated from the Father, and tortured to the max." - Was/Is he not God? Is God everlasting and beyond death? As stated, a true sacrifice is defined as something someone makes with no reward or get out clause. Just because god was supposed to have taken on human form in order to sacrifice himself... erm... to himself, doesn't mean that he was REALLY going to die at the end of it. So where's the sacrifice? How people like you can try to poke holes (excuse the pun, Jesus, those hand holes look sore) in evolution when you can't see how utterly retarded this sacrifice thing is, scare me. If it was submitted to logic class as an essay it would get a Z minus for all the holes in it.

At this point you paused for a day's rest (was it a Sunday? Ha ha) and then came back with more corkers the next. Everyone still with me? Great! Ha ha ha.

"Alexander J86, to answer your question: because Coppedsynergy999's post suggesting spiritual help for Johnathan's emotional problems was attacked by Decaying." - Nice spin on things. Here's the correct answer, Alexander. Jonathan was very upset and understandably so. Life is brutal. Coppedsynergy came along with fairytales to try and give solace to Jonathan. Unfortunately, said fairytales are just that, fairytales! I was peeved when I saw this and while I did not want to upset Jonathan any further, it was my duty as a right thinking individual to disprove/mock the nonsense being ejaculated by the religious nut. I did so with aplomb, but this Livvie character came up, ignored the evidence and tried to argue in favour of the purveyor of make believe. I once again laughed in the face of such idiocy and took apart Livvie's points, one at a time. Livvie, being one who is devoid of much in the way of grey matter, deflected my truth with more of the same blatant gibberish and childlike sputum. I decided at the time it would be pointless to try and get through to someone so brainwashed and didn't bother replying anymore. However, today - almost a year from my last post - I received an email notification that some other well meaning (but wrong) dolt had responded with a Christian bent. I made the mistake of rereading Livvie's posts and having some free time (which has sadly taken the entire day!) I decided to once again show him/her up for the cretin they are.  There, I hope you understand the complexities of this forum chronology now. Of course you could have just read what we wrote and would have known the answer yourself. But then I'm guessing you too aren't the brightest bulb in the box. ;-)

"Veiledxbeauty, couldn't agree with you more...goes back to my point about how atheists strangely aren't satisfied to reject God and Christianity and pity us "unenlightened ones," but they feel the need to try to demolish our thinking and cast down our God. This displays something underlying that might slip by - atheists are showing themselves to feel threatened. And the side that tries to squelch the other through mockery and intimidation is almost always the weaker one. They grow angry, irritated, and jump to the belittling and name-calling instead of patiently addressing our claims. A pit is never content to swallow just one person if it can get hold of everyone else who walks in the light. According to them, the "tragedy of mankind" is that we have hope as believers...seems a bit contradictory." - I will deal with Veiledxbeauty's comments at the end, but for now let me take YOU to task by agreeing with her.

I do not feel threatened by dumbness. Annoyed, yes. Amused sometimes, yes, also. Threatened, never. Your idea that just because I mock you that I am somehow the one in the weaker position is a total non sequitur. It is in fact an active responsibility to mock something ridiculous. If for instance you were an advocate for the stork theory of procreation then do you honestly think I should treat you with respect? Perhaps the first time, just to be polite, but when you and your ilk are the ignorant majority then something has to be done.

"I've been on vacation, sorry for not finishing more promptly." - I've been playing with my willy for a year, so think nothing of it.

"Back to question 28, I want to add something. Jesus did win the victory ultimately, however. But he did suffer temporary loss. God put the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden because He had already thought ahead. Nobody would be able to blame Him for allowing mindless robots to worship him without giving them the choice. That would be unfair, and God is a God of fairness and justice. He does not approve of compulsory worship, giving, or service. So what was Satan doing in the Garden? The tango? No...again, God had thought ahead. Satan could accuse God of not giving him a chance and therefore sheltering his humans from the power of temptation. A similar thing happened in the book of Job. Job was a wonderful man and walked a blameless life. Satan went before God scoffed, "Job wouldn't be so good and faithful if you didn't put your hedge of protection around him. He would turn his back on you." Job's service to God would not be compulsory if he had a difficult choice before him and was able to prove his love for his maker." - Sigh. I can't stand to see a human being who is so desperate as to actually try to make excuses for such an obviously insane story. I guess that's why they call you Christian APOLOGISTS, i.e. you have to apologise for how retarded your book is at face value and have to create your own elaborate scenarios as to 'god's reasoning'. You mentioned the 'tragedy of mankind' in your previous paragraph. This is another glaring example of just such a tragedy.

"The Godhead is something infinite that humans, with finite minds, cannot grasp. It is something like a triple-braided rope: three separate parts, but all the same thing woven together. We will when we get to heaven, because right now we see "as through a glass darkly, but later, face to face." - If we cannot grasp it then you cannot speak of it. Yet speak you do - a whoooole lot! The rest of your rhetoric is rendered obsolete by your first sentence.

"29) Why did God make Hell? Whether He directly made it or not is debatable (some hold that it was not directly made by him but a result of sin), but assuming He did...let's understand something. God is a loving God, yes. But God is also a just God. Love without justice is not pure love. And God is a pure God. There is punishment for those who reject His offering, and hell can motivate people to accept Jesus. Think about people who have committed terrible attrocities: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin...a just God does not let them slip away into oblivion after they die because then justice would not be enforced. I think most people agree that these individuals deserve the fires of everlasting punishment for the inconceivable suffering they inflicted on others, and what matters is God thinks they do." - No, it's not debatable because god doesn't exist. BUT, seeing as I'm playing your schoolyard game of invisible men, we need to be consistent with the sci-fi premise that you've put forth. As such, if God is the first cause then he is in effect responsible for EVERYTHING. You cannot escape this. It is inconceivable to me how blinkered (and stupid!) you people are! The rest of your loving and just god IS ONCE AGAIN COMPLETELY DESTROYED BY THE EPICUREAN PARADOX. It is simple and ABSOLUTE logic! You keep trying to justify something with elaborate explanations, desperately trying to twist and turn and APOLOGISE for the logical corner you've trapped yourself in. It is an impossible position to maintain. You simply cannot win by dint of the qualities you attribute to this fairytale creature! The bottom line is all powerful, all loving, all knowing god simply COULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS WORLD THE WAY IT IS AND HELL COULD NOT EXIST. That is all there is to it and you are just wrong.

"30) The belittling statements do not alter the truth." - I know, so why do you continue to make them?

"31) There is nothing humorous about God's love, or even about your deflections of it. When you understand what you deserve and then understand that God put it upon himself instead of you, you may be crying tears of joy instead of mocking Him." - More senseless drivel. God doesn't exist. I am mocking idiots like you who believe in such artificial and logic-lacking creations of limited human minds.

"32) Your words are laced with venom when directed at God...you lie to yourself when you say you aren't angry at him. Admit it! You are angry! You are angry because you suffer, and you put all the blame for that suffering on Him for making you and giving you free will. You hurt, you don’t understand why, and you need a scapegoat. And “religion in general” isn’t that scapegoat, deny it as you might. It will free you when you admit this. God can take your anger! And God can take you. He can pick you up out of your mound of ashes and dust you off and make you a vessel of light instead of a vessel of the hatred of the Enemy. He can mend your broken life, mend your broken heart, give you eternity and beyond, give you love and comfort, give you truth and joy." - Seriously, how stupid are you? I mean, how are you allowed to walk the streets being so dumb. I am angry at retards like yourself for remaining in your retardation when confronted by the truth. All I do is repeat myself till I'm blue in the face and this will be no different: THERE IS NO GOD SO I CANNOT BE ANGRY AT SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT EXIST. Of course, if such a creature did exist then I'd still be justified in being angry at him. He's portrayed to be a genocidal douchebag, so why wouldn't I be.

"33) I never claimed I knew all there is to know. I have been saying the opposite...only God is omniscient. There comes into play an element of trust. Even knowledge of him will only take you so far. Different gods (small "g") were born because PEOPLE KNEW by looking at creation THAT THERE WAS A HIGHER POWER. They just didn't know exactly who it was. Interesting that you bring that up. That there is "not one iota" of reason for belief is utterly false." - By claiming that you know the intentions of a being that is supposedly the cause of all existence and talking on 'his' behalf then you are in effect saying something pretty close to this. Your sanctimony is furthered by the fact that you differentiate other people's fairytale beliefs by referring to them with a lowercase g. This shows once again that you are every bit as arrogant as me and what you really worship is your own ego. The difference between us is that I am smart and acknowledge my own arrogance while you on the other hand incredulously consider yourself humble. You're a joke.

"34) Ha, ha, very funny. I am making a comparison, not saying that God is fallen like human parents. And I think you would agree that the knowledge of a child is much smaller than that of the parent.

Children are not something to be despised either; they are precious in the sight of God and a blessing to their parents (see the book of Proverbs). A society that views children and the weaker members of it as a burden has forgotten why it exists and turned to self-destruction. The demonic thinking that children are something that needs to be eliminated is a byproduct of evolution: the weaker ones die, and only the fittest survive and perpetuate the human race with their “strong” genes. Make it a punishment to be born different. By this logic, people with special needs, mental disabilities, handicaps, or aged bodies should be eliminated. Heck, why stop there? Let’s get rid of the people in society who aren’t productive or useful. Why not eliminate everyone with SKIN PROBLEMS while we’re at it? Then our kids will all look great and be free of emotional trauma that comes with…hmm, acne shall we say? It’s the survival of those who are the most “perfect.”

That’s what this mindset boils down to folks, and that’s scary. It isn’t for man to cull the human race. All people are special and important because God made them, and life is sacred. That’s the plain and simple truth. "
- God doesn't exist. Human parents do. Even if he did exist then he still has to fit within the scope of logic or else there would be no point discussing him. You've tripped yourself up at the first hurdle.

As for despising children, where on earth did I give you that impression? Don't try and twist things again. I am the good guy here, not you. I am dealing with reality as it actually is, whereas you try to explain it in an idiotic, false and childish way. This in itself is evil and wrong. So no, I do not despise children. Quite the contrary, because I have shown that life itself is suffering and that you cannot know if your potential offspring will have a good life or not, then it is morally WRONG to bring them into being in the first place.

"35) There was not a need for suffering - there was a need for a choice. Suffering came about as a result of that choice. But God displays His power in working through that suffering and producing beauty, even in the midst of ashes." - I've already covered this logical fallacy so many time I think my eyes are going to pop out of my head. Go check the flowchart again. Sigh...

"36) I am the deluded fool? "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God." By the way, I didn't make that one up, God did. It is sad that you lament humankind because there might actually be people who have hope and contribute good to society instead of negativity." - Yes, you most certainly ARE the deluded fool, because in light of all evidence to the contrary you are STILL quoting from the same retarded book that I've pulverised into dust a million times now. And I lament humankind for the very reason that people like YOU exist, i.e. imbeciles who actually think they're doing 'good' by regurgitating the same putrid bile like a broken record.

"37) The soul and the conscience are not created out of DNA. When we die the DNA stays here, but not the soul. How do I even know that I exist? A sense of self-awareness points to more than just strands of DNA. Why do I feel guilty when I do something wrong? It definitely ain't DNA bothering me then." - There is no soul. I've shown this (and everything else) to you repeatedly. The 'conscience' is part of thinking and thinking is a part of the brain's function, so yes, conscience does have a down to earth explanation. It has been shown that certain manipulation of parts of the brain trigger anger impulses and others can illicit sympathy, etc. This has been proven. No God required. You ask how you know you exist. This is the old Descartian, "I think, therefore I am", chestnut. It presumes that there is an I who thinks from the get go and this is a mistake, for as I have shown, there is no thinker separate from thought itself. Therefore there are a million 'I's' in 'your' head. What happens when 'you' don't think? Where are 'you' then? It is an impossible question for 'you' to answer because when a response comes, it is coming from thought and thought is you.

"38) You may change as you mature, but that isn't your true identity. You still have the same you, but that you is being pruned and altered, like a tree...same roots, different shapes as it grows. And it is real." - The 'you' IS the change in itself. There is no permanence there; no 'root'. 'You' are defined by your qualities and the qualities are ever changing. While it is true that some take precedence over others and manifest themselves more often, i.e. the thought that 'you' are 'a Christian' is part of the identification process that occurs as part of your physical and environmental conditioning, but there is no 'you' separate from thought. The physical child 'you' were and the adult 'you' you are now can be compared to the tree, but it does not compare when it comes to psychology. There is no yesterday or tomorrow for the psyche. Whatever is manifesting right at this moment is 'you' and one moment it will be a profound thought (although not in 'your' case, obviously) and the next it will be, "cherry cola is nice". You ARE that thought at that very moment and the thoughts themselves form spontaneously. There is nobody there to control them for as stated, you are the very qualities you think you can control. Read some Krishnamurti or Sam Harris if you want to go into this deeper.

"39) Yes it is." - Don't know what this pertains to but seeing as you said it then by default I am guessing the answer is, "no, it isn't." grinwink.gif

At this point you stop your numbered list and just go back to your ordinary brand of BS. I will continue in the same vein, picking apart every last strand of nonsense you spout:

"Let’s look at the two sides of our argument objectively. Let’s suppose, theoretically, I’m wrong." - You are, but do go on.

" What then? “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” Pulled that one straight from the Bible, by the way." - I'd never have guessed. Please continue.

"We foolish Christians have been suckered, and we deserve only pity and scorn for our gullibility." - Correct.

"Guess that whole “evolution-thing” and godless world thinking was right after all." - It is.

"Darn, we busted our tails so many years sacrificing our time, health, money, and even our lives to win people to Jesus." - Yes, such is your tragedy and the tragedy of all the poor unfortunates who were actually taken in by your false beliefs.

"We spent our lives denying our “animal instincts” to try to please our Savior and store up rewards for the next life when we could have been having a party doing whatever we want in a world without a moral law." - I see the old non-argument you are going to try and make with this flawed spiel and it is amusing.

Firstly, if you actually acknowledge that you have 'animal instincts', then you are halfway there to realising that is exactly what you are - an animal. It is human arrogance that we are NOT animals, but we are. Plain and simple.

Also, why would you assume that you would be partying all the time and not have morals simply by jettisoning a God? Atheists don't do that.

"So, here we are. We get the pity of mankind here on earth, and a black nothingness (according to you) after death" - Correct to an extent. You get pity AND scorn here on earth. The black nothingness to which you refer is not something to be frightened or dismayed by, because 'you' won't be there to experience it. That's the whole point! Your inevitable dissolution cannot be experienced because the experience and the experiencer are one in the same. Your returning to the same nothingness is the equivalent of returning to where you were before birth. We don't worry about non-existent children suffering in their non-existence, just like we don't worry ourselves sick over the fact that Mars isn't full of bouncy little Martians. Non-existence is non-existence, so it is only now, while you are ALIVE that facing this reality becomes frightening. 'You' don't want to end (even though as we've seen there is no such thing as a permanent you at all) and so you invent safe havens for yourself where you can dwell everlastingly forever. Such flights of fancy are fine for the infancy of our species, but after centuries of struggle and the amassing of such a magnificent body of scientific knowledge, it's time to put the ideas of invisible supermen to rest for good.

"instead of what we thought we were getting – eternal joy and fellowship with the Lord our Savior, who is now reduced to a figment of our imaginations, an electrical nerve pulse malfunction, a lie. But hey, at least we get the privilege of having our bodies be recycled into the dirt as our legacy, and we can only hope nobody decides to build some construction project on top of us and our “legacy” might be squashed." - Your attempts at sarcasm notwithstanding, what you have said is indeed the way the real world works. So try to have as good a life as you can, but do not inflict it upon others, because your rights end where another's begins. What I am saying is do not impose life on others, which is exactly what you do when you have kids. I love my mother but she committed the greatest crime ever by having me. Not just because I'm a physical freak who has acne, but because suffering and life go hand in hand. There is no reason for it. All we do is pursue pleasure and try to avoid. That is ALL we do. Your wanting to be welcomed into the arms of a loving god is part of the same 'wanting pleasure' principle. NONE of this becomes necessary until the onset of life, so make sure never to procreate and leave the unborn to remain in the bliss of nothingness.

"Sounds like we got the short end of the stick if we’re wrong, but at least we thought the whole “God-thing” was real and thought we were living for a good cause and maybe did some good for the human race, between helping the poor and whatnot." - No, you didn't get the short end of the stick at all. I've explained this in my second to last paragraph. As 'you' won't be there when you die, you will neither get to rejoice at being right or panic in horror at being wrong. The non-existent cannot react either positively or negatively because of what they are - nothing!

"Now, suppose you’re wrong. Theoretically. Make-believe it, if you want. Stretch your imagination." - Ok. Go on.

"Suppose there really IS a God of justice" - Ok. My urge is to jump in with a million responses, but I will remain silent and let you continue...

"A Jesus who died" - Okaaay.

"a heaven" - Uh-huh.

"and a hell" - Mm-hmm.

"As the Bible teaches." - Right.

"Suppose that salvation isn’t earned by “living right” or by not being as bad as so-and-so." - It's hard to keep imagining something so dumb, but I'm hitting myself repeatedly with a frying pan in order to try. Please carry on.

"Suppose that you had the chance to accept Jesus’s payment for your sins, his death on the cross here on earth." - I'd have to imagine in this fantasy scenario that there was such a thing as sin and that I had committed one... and that the god who created me wasn't ultimately responsible for having made such a shoddy object who was capable of sinning, OR for having created a thing called sin in the first place....... but I'm still playing the game and pretending that this is all perfectly fine and feasible - not looney tunes in the slightest. Continue.

"Suppose you tasted of the truth, the living water, had the chance to eat the bread of everlasting life and grace, heard the words that could secure you forever in His presence, all a free gift, a one way ticket to eternity in paradise" - Sounds pretty cheesy to me, but I suppose it might be alright. To be honest though, if you were in the marketing department of my organisation then I'm afraid I'd have to have a little talk to you about your hyperbolic sales technique. Sorry. Do go on.

"And…" - yeees?

"You didn’t." - Gasp!

"You rejected it." - Noooo! How could I be so stupid?!?! Say it isn't so!!!

"So fast-forward now to the not-so-distant future when you have passed on. Kicked the bucket, shall we say. It might be years from now, when Jesus returns in all of his power and glory to judge the living and the dead. It might be tomorrow, if you get in a car accident or he comes sooner." - Right. This is clearly not the end of this far out trippy mind game so hurry up and get to the punchline would ya? I need to pee!!!

"If it is the former, you are standing before a great white throne, a throne of judgment.  There are books open, and one of them is the Book of Life. Because you have not believed in the one God sent, Himself, your name is not in there. There is no record of you there that would guarantee your affiliation with Jesus, whose blood would have covered you from head to toe with protection and mercy. You would get the same feeling you’d have if you went to the airport and realized you’d left your passport at home – and it’s too late to go back. That feeling, only a million times stronger." - I suppose I would be thinking something along the lines of, "oh crap! That insane, illogical, completely maniacal, laughable, pathetic book was actually real?!?! How on earth could that be?! God better have a good explanation for deceiving me this way, as well as all the pain and suffering he's caused throughout the millennia. He'd better anyway because I will be judging him harshly in just a moment. Thankfully if he is really just then he will see that I had absolutely no reason to believe his stupid book, not in light of the fact there are thousands out there all telling me about different gods - all just as implausible as him. It was a goddamn lottery is what it was! But considering that all of the books which supposedly preached the truth were so chock full of errors, plot holes, contrivances and painted the picture of a morally bankrupt asshole as the creator of this universe, how in the hell CAN I be blamed for not believing it?!?!?!?!" Once I'd had this thought I'm sure any such worries about what would happen to my disembodied ghostly essence would be dispelled.

"Your future now lies in the Lake of Everlasting Fire – you and those like you who spurned Jesus’s painful sacrifice intentionally and chose to rely on yourself instead of God. And now it is too late to go back and undo what you did." - Yeah, yeah. Just covered this. A good, just god wouldn't say that and we'd have a great old chuckle to ourselves that there were pious mental cases out there who actually WERE taken in by the idea that a good god COULD allow a place of total torment and pain and sorrow forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.... meted out for a FINITE crime.... which wasn't really a crime at all.

Sorry my friend. There are some scenarios that are just too dumb even for the imagination. This is one of them.

"The story I told isn’t something I made up. It’s God’s truth." - Ha ha, you almost had me there! We're playing a game of make believe, remember? You even said so at the start. Jeeze, you really need to look up what it means to be consistent in the dictionary.

"But you would you rather die by your religion of death, despair, mindless living, futile suffering, suicide and pride. Yes, you would have to surrender your pride, admit you aren’t perfect and fall short of God’s standard! Still, isn’t that a small price to pay in comparison with eternal punishment? If I you were wrong, of course." - I'm not wrong. You are.

"The good news is - it isn’t too late! You don’t have to continue this crash course! Listen, I appeal to you, while you still have the chance! I say all of this because I care about you and those like you. Yes, I care about you because God does, and I would want you to do the same for me if our positions in life were switched. I’m not on here answering all of your questions because it amuses my whims." - Not too late, huh? Nice to know that the (cough, cough) 'e.v.e.r loving god' gives us a time limit. Mighty good of him.... He is a man, right? I mean, have you seen his wobbly bits to be sure? He might actually be a crossdresser. Seriously, I know you think (excuse the term when applied to you) that what you're saying is the truth, but it really isn't. The sad fact is that I am a whole lot smarter than you and can see clearly things that you can't. I don't mean this in a supercilious way at all. It's just a fact that I live in the real world and can utilise logic and critical thinking skills. You have been unfortunately brainwashed into a stupified wretch who is unable to see beyond the crumbling edifice of your own brainwashing. You talk of absolute loving gods who not only allow, but actively mete out eternal damnation and yet you see no flaw in this most basic - and at the same time, fundamental - of logical inconsistencies. It's dreadful that you and people like you live your entire lives thinking you are mentally healthy. You really need help. Earthly help, for it is the only kind there is.

"Now, which of us has it worse off? Wouldn’t it be the smart thing to weigh the two alternatives and play it safe? Because you can’t know for certain what happens after death. You don’t have anything to lose, long-term, in your world of “oblivion” either way." - What you have presented to me (without realising it of course) is what is known as 'Pascal's Wager'. Go look it up and see why it is not an intelligent question at all. Pascal himself was a fabulous mathematician, but a lousy philosopher. I know you won't look up why this argument fails, so let me give you the short answer: There is no 'playing it safe', because the same question could be put to you, but instead of Jehovah, we replace him with Allah. You spend your entire life believing you're going to Biblical Heaven, but if you are wrong (which you are) and the Muslims are right (which they are not) then you will be spending eternity in Islamic Hell instead. Do you see now why you don't have a leg to stand on?? No, of course you don't. You are blinkered and will just go back on auto-repeat for the gazillionth time.

"Ok, lets flip the equation around and do pros and cons. Suppose you’re right. Suppose death is the end, that life is a tiny burst of existence that launches us into perpetual nonexistence. What are your benefits?" - There are no benefits and why do you continue to pretend as if there is an actual choice, here? It's not a debate! It's not like we're shopping for clothes and wondering what will fit us best. "Hmm, this shirt scratches my neck, so I'll try this one on for size". Reality doesn't work that way. You drop a circular saw in your lap and you're going to go, "ouchy ouch ouch!" and when you die, you end. It's that simple.

"1) You can live your life without worry about accountability to a higher power." - Which is how I live because there isn't one. Not of the supernatural variety anyway.

"2) There wouldn’t be rules, after all, morality, like God is a figment of the imagination, an evolutionary blip, right?" - Whoa there horsey! You don't just say, "I'm not in Kansas, so I must be in Oz." In order for our species to survive somewhat efficiently then YES, we do have rules. Granted, those rules are SUBJECTIVE, but that doesn't mean they are meaningless in and of themselves. Morality (and to a lesser extent, law) is based on the Hippocratic doctrine of 'first do no harm'. Everyone drives on the left in the UK, whereas in America they drive on the right. We all stick to these laws because, while subjectively created, they are still to the benefit of the people who adhere to them. It doesn't mean they're cast in stone and they shouldn't be. There is no 'gospel truth' that's ineffable and unchangeable. You certainly won't find any morals in the Bible, that's for damn sure! It is to society's credit that right thinking people have devised a code of conduct for us all to live our lives by. Sure, it's not perfect, but such is the nature of life.

"3) There is no reason to do anything you don’t want to do unless it benefits yourself." - Utimately that is how we all operate anyway. It's back to the pleasure/pain principle. We do things to make us happy and try avoid things which bring us pain. Don't try to be smart (it doesn't become you) and try to use 'masochists' as an exception to this rule, because while perverted, a masochist derives pleasure FROM pain... to an extent, of course.

"4) You can laugh at all of us “unenlightened” Christians for being the deceived fools we are in your sight and be right, if doing so pleases you." - I try to, in order to keep my own tenuous hold on sanity. But most of the time I pity or am angered by you.

"5) You can spend your life trying to make some sort of impact that lives on after you die to perpetuate your memory. A monument? A contribution to the arts or sciences? An organization? Take your pick. Maybe science – after all, it makes sense of how we got here better than any other explanation – setting aside that crazy one about “creation” anyhow. Guess you owe it something." - The best contribution I can make is to try and cause as least harm to the innocent as possible. That is why I am a vegetarian and advocate that nobody should have children on principle.

"What are your drawbacks?" - I'm sure you're going to tell me.

"1) Though you are almost certain you ARE right, you can never BE certain with 100% certainty. Even IF you ARE right, you wouldn’t know because you have no evidence either one way or the other. And in that case, your existence here on earth would never be completely enjoyable because you’d still have nagging doubts and fears, seeing you have nothing to base your view of death on. Miscalculation would be fatal, and that thought would torment you all of your days. So, you try to escape it in pleasure. But the thought remains." - This has been covered earlier when I brought up the fallacy of Pascal's Wager. Please go back, do your homework and review.

"2) You will never find complete fulfillment in your life, as living for yourself does not constitute as meaningful in a healthy way." - All people live for themselves at all times. There is no-one else you can live for. Your desire for everlasting bliss is the ultimate expression of wanting to have it all.

"3) Your success (or failure) is measured by your money and your contributions to the good of society." - Money is the token we use in place of the barter system. While it is surely better to have more of it than less, it is not a guarantee of a happy life. I'd still rather go and cry in my ferrari than a cardboard box though.

"4) You have no future promise to look forward to in the next life because there won’t be one. Death ends all, and that goes for everyone you know who has died, regardless of their religion. Suffering is futile and there is no reason for it." - Correct. Again, you speak as if we can choose our own reality. While you may be able to hide away inside the confines of your own imagination, at the end of the day the laws of the physical world always win. Your eventual death and the futility of life as a phenomenon ARE truths. They don't rely on your permission or anyone else's. Gravity doesn't stop working simply because you think Jesus will float you away on a safe fluffy cloud if you decide to jump off the roof. Sorry, but reality IS harsh, it IS brutal and it IS unjust. Go watch a nature documentary and see a baby antelope being pounced upon and devoured while still alive by a pack of lions. Did Eve's eating of a frigging Granny Smith justify the agony and terror of that small animal? I suppose in your warped way of looking at things the answer is 'yes'. I forgot that before the fall, lions ate grass, right? I'm sorry but I have to shake my head in disgust at your delusional world view. It is sick and twisted and utterly, utterly false.

"5) There wouldn’t be rules…hmm. This one could be a blessing, but also a curse. A life governed without restrictions may bring temporary joy, but eventually leads to ruin and often suicide. Look at all the Hollywood movie-stars that end up killing themselves even though they have everything they want at their fingertips. Beauty, wealth, fame, romance, right? They aren’t happy. So they turn to drugs, alcohol, sex, crime, and spiral downward. No rules means you can do whatever you want, even if it makes you ultimately unhappy and destroys you." - So you think that atheists would all go on rampant killing sprees if there was no law in place punishing you if you were to murder someone? Insanity! As for the movie stars who kill themselves with drink, drugs, etc, what is your point? They pursued pleasure and it was their undoing. Yet that is what we all do. Some do it to the extreme, while others 'deny' themselves like yogis and monks. They'll still all die, whether it be sooner or later, and those who do penances and live ascetic lives still do so with the goal of getting a reward for their efforts. A Hindu might think he's going to receive a karmic blessing and be born into a better station in the next life, while the Christian thinks he or she will be given god's grace and a place in heavensville. So you see, the motivation is the same for the alcoholic as it is for the so called saint. It's all about pleasure fulfillment. The only difference is the expression that individual desire takes.

"Alright, my turn. Blessings, then curses, of being a Christian. IF I am right. And IF this whole “Christian-thing” is real and NOT made up." - Man, oh man, you just don't give up, do you? Ha ha ha.

"1) I have certainty based on the Bible and personal experience in my walk with God that I will not suffer judgment in Hell or be snuffed into nothingness, that I am washed pure from my sins, that I am going to heaven when I die and it isn’t up to me to work my way there. I don’t have to live my life in fear and uncertainty. I am free from this terror." - Your certainty is still an error on your part. I refer you back to my Oscar Wilde quote. Also, the entire basis of your belief in an afterlife is predicated upon your terror of death. While it may not haunt you on the conscious level, this is actual root cause for the formation of all religion - fear of ending.

"2) I have the promise of Heaven before me, a place where there is no suffering, pain or crying. In heaven I will see my deceased family members who have died in the Lord; maybe even my pets, if God wants it to be so! In Heaven I will have a brand-new body without skin problems or health issues. It will not be limited like my earthly one was. I will have the joy of Heaven, a place of beauty and light, forever, and best of all – I will get to be with Jesus forever too! Therefore, I live my life with a pure hope here on earth and do not sorrow as unbelievers do when someone who knows God dies." - Just say one of your loved ones had a brain and was an atheist. They get flung into hell for eternity while you're in heaven. How then could you BE in heaven (mentally), knowing this person you cared for was being tortured forever and ever and ever? You could just ignore this and be happy anyway? Also, just say you had somebody with a serious mental condition (no, not you, someone else) like Down's Syndrome in your family. They don't know the difference between Jesus and a sack of potatoes - how do they get admitted through the Pearly Gates? If they just get a free pass then it's not fair, is it? And then what? Do they too get magically transformed into a smarty pants ghost? If so then how would you recognise them from their earthly form? The same goes for an Amazonian tribesperson that goes about in a loincloth. They (lucky them) have never heard about your holy joke book. What happens to those semi-naked nutters? Ooooor, what happens if your parents die early, say in their late twenties, whereas you live to 100. Are you older than them when inhabiting cloud city? Do you wear clothes up there or are you all floating around in the scud?... With wings? Where do you live? Fluffy toadstool houses made of cotton candy? What do you do all day? Sit round praising Jesus for eternity? Sounds to me like Hell is the better of the two options! And why the hell is old J boy needing worshipped all the time? Is he really so insecure? Does god have a personal counselor? Does he have a toilet? Do you pee and poop up there and if you ate really good food does it get to go to another 'poopy heaven' all of it's own?

 

You have the temerity to call into question facts like evolution but BLINDLY accept this obvious claptrap. Madness!!!

"3) I have the Holy Spirit within me, the Comforter, who directs my walk in this life and brings me peace. He allows me to pray effectively and testifies of my freedom from the kingdom of Darkness. He lends me confidence." - Sounds like you're possessed to me, matey. Maybe you should see an exorcist?

"4) I have the ability to earn future rewards for Heaven while I am here on earth that “rust and moth” will not destroy. I have the privilege of leading others to the Lord and sharing what He has done for me." - Aww, you always were the teacher's pet, weren't you? Still didn't help when it came to exam time though I bet.

"5) I know that everything that comes to me in this life is controlled and allowed by God for a greater good (Romans 8:28) and that God will not allow me to be tested beyond what I can bear. I have a hedge of divine protection around me, and if God removes part of that hedge, it is for a reason, though I may not understand right away. Suffering has a reason with God in the equation." - You are aware that people commit suicide, right? So people ARE 'tested' more than they can bear all the time. You've heard about wars? The Holocaust? Starvation? Falling in front of trucks? Mental breakdowns? Disease? I'm sorry, but you are a certifiable loon with NO CONCEPTION of reality. I am not joking when I say that I am surprised you even know how to use a computer and the internet.

"I could think of many more, but I’ll keep the number of reasons the same for now." - Ha ha. Sorry, it's just you using the words 'I' and 'think' in the same sentence. Something about it just doesn't seem right. ;-)

"The Drawbacks of being a Christian:" - Being retarded?

"1) I cannot live life like the devil and get away with it. God chastens (punishes) those who disobey him repeatedly because he loves them. Though for an ultimate good, punishment is never pleasant. So, I have rules to follow (though not to be saved by) if I want to please God." - So in other words you are only good because of the fear of punishment? You aren't good simply for being good? You do so because you are a scaredy little coward who really desires to go nuts with a chainsaw and it's only being frightened with the prospect of hellfire which keeps you in check? Sorry my friend, if this is true then you ARE the devil incarnate.

... A dumb one.

"2) I will be persecuted by the world. The world hates Christians and all they stand for, and will stop at nothing to silence them. I may have to endure mental or physical anguish for my faith, though there will be rewards for doing so. “Blessed are the persecuted…”" - Ha ha ha ha ha! I love it. The persecuted Christian bit! Reality check: there are more Christians in this world than any other faith and for centuries upon centuries you and your ilk have killed, raped, tortured and pillaged in the name of your stupid work of fiction. Even now your churches are tax exempt organisations and you wield power and privilege like no other group. So spare me the false 'woe is me' patter. You're an idiot. That's the story.

"3) I will be persecuted by the devil. Satan is ever trying to attack God’s children and draw them after his way." - Which if he existed is allowed to exist by a clearly non-loving god. Because as even the house plants know by now from the amount of times I've effing repeated the same thing, if god is all powerful AND all loving AND the reason for everything which exists, then HE IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING AND A BEING WITH THESE QUALITIES COULD NOT EXIST AT THE SAME TIME AS SOMETHING THAT IS HIS DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE.

"4) I will be pursued by the desires of my sinful nature, which will not die until I die. I will face temptation to do evil and sometimes do it, though I am forgiven of God, I will still have to face (and overcome) guilt. I will have to put up a spiritual struggle against my flesh nature." - Those qualities ARE you. For as I have shown you, all 'you' are ARE your qualities. The you which says, "I really shouldn't have sex with this goat", is replaced seconds later by another 'you' which says, "but look at those horns and that matted fur." There is no true you and false you. There are only fragmentary thoughts. What we consider as good and bad behaviour IS ultimately arbitrary when taken from the perspective of cosmic time, where we are but fleeting grains of dust in the wind. BUT, while we are still here, we base our morality on physical and mental harm. THAT is what is important, not the artificial and downright stupid idea of sinful natures. If you have such a thing it is because your flawed god put it there. But he didn't because he doesn't exist.

"5) My life will be on display to those around me, and I won’t ever have everything “all together.” I will sometimes be a poor witness because I still have a sinful nature, though God can work through my infirmities." - Whatever you say. I really am getting bored again. Thankfully your post was finally winding up at this point and it really is amusing and ironic that after telling me with such detail what your god wants and expects us to do with our lives, that you should then say this next:

"Listen, the truth is – neither one of us know with 100% scientific certainty that we are right." - I am sorry, but I do know with scientific certainty that you are wrong. Absolutely. No question. No waiver. No glimmer of doubt. What I cannot prove/disprove is a DEIST god. Your THEIST one on the other hand is a walk in the park to debunk.

"Why? Because neither one of us has died!" - We've been through this, Livvie...

"We don’t know what’s on the other side from personal experience!" - But we know what 'personal experience' is composed of. We know this with FULL understanding. We know how it comes into being and we know it's requirements. It requires a body that is alive and a functioning brain. When these are removed then experience stops. The television is on and showing moving pictures. I smash it to bits with a sledgehammer and burn the remains and you cannot then tell me that the TV is in a better place and is showing tired sitcom reruns in gogglebox heaven. Sorry, but it needs those parts to work. It needs those parts and the spark of electricity in order to function. We are machines just like the TV. I know you cannot and will not swallow this horrible truth, but truth is what it is. Without your brain and heart and skeleton and nervous system and a whole lotta flesh and blood then little Livvie notta exista? Comprende?

"I have a pretty good guess based on what God’s Word says, and from that point I had to take a step of trust. Still, my logic and certainty could only get me so far. At some point I have to make a choice. But you really don’t have any idea of what lies across the river, only a projection of what you HOPE death is like." - Believe me, I wouldn't trust your logic as a guide as far as I could throw it! Ha ha. Also, why do you assume that just because I see a fact as a fact and a falsehood as a falsehood that somehow I LIKE the way things are? What has given you the impression that I want there to be no afterlife? If even for a moment I thought there was even a shred of credibility to any of this bunkum that you purvey then I would spend my life following the 'word' to the letter. But I'd need more than what is given. And unfortunately there are as many truth claims out there as there are grains of sand on the beach. It takes but a glance to see them for the pathetic lies that they are. Only YOUR hope (as well as a lifetime of conditioning and ability to fit round pegs into square holes) allows you to continue to believe this tripe.

"In a twisted sort of way, you aren’t without a hope, of a kind. You have faith in something you can’t see. You are holding out your arms for death, eager to be pulled out of this world of pain and misery into a state of oblivion and tranquility where your problems would be erased." - I certainly won't deny what you have said here. Knowing that all of this DOES end and ends PERMANENTLY is the only reason that I have not gone off the deep end.

"So I know you can do it – I know you can have faith!" - No. Not for a second can you conflate my desire for peace with the ability to lie to myself that your book (or any other so called holy books being pushed by your competitor religions) holds any water. I hate life, yes. I wish I had never been born, yes. I wish I had the strength to end it all and go against the biological hold that prevents me from killing myself, BUT while I see the futility of this biological nightmare around me, I will never ever EVER succumb to the easy way out. I cannot swallow the religion pill just to give me comfort. I cannot pretend 2 + 2 = 5 when I know in my brain and my guts and my blood that it is not. So I am sorry to disappoint you, but your desire to convert me to the way of the ignorant is a desire which will forever remain unfulfilled.

"So why not have faith in something WORTH having faith in?" - It's not worth it.

"Why not have faith in THE TRUTH?" - Truth requires no faith and what you spew is certainly the furthest thing from truth.

"Not just some pointless, imagined state of nothingness" - That is the reality that living beings face. REALITY, Livvie. It doesn't care for your beliefs or your talismans or lucky rabbit's feet. All of this IS pointless. Life is a momentary blip between two great voids and it would be far the better if the blip didn't occur at all.

"(I say imagined because you have absolutely no reason to believe anything about the nature of death, having never experienced it or heard of it from anyone.)" - Excuse the pun but this has been done 'to death'.

"but in a wonderful future of promise." - It doesn't exist except in your imagination.

"What makes you think you will experience ANYTHING in death if you are non-existent?" - And now we're virtually at the end of the tirade I am reminded why I did not bother answering you (or even look at your mental reply) for a year. You understand nothing, do you? Sigh. You really are one of the dumbest people I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with. I'm sorry this sounds so cruel but it is nevertheless a fact. The very nature of your question says more about you and your comprehension of this business we call living than I could ever say myself. But just for kicks...

I DON'T think I will experience anything in death. I WON'T EXIST. That is the whole effing point!!! I will be gone, kaput, finito! When my heart stops beating, that is the end and there will be no positive or negative, no light or dark, no good or bad. It will be total freedom from the opposites. But 'I' won't be there to enjoy it. Try your very best to wrap your head around this. It is something you will not be able to do. Not because you are too stupid (for once), but because NOBODY can fully understand what nothingness is. Any attempts to do so are futile because they fall under the banner of 'thought'. Thinking about nothingness is still somethingness. Yes, you can imagine, but the imagination isn't the reality, just as the word 'door' isn't the object itself.

"Oblivion is a state, and for you to have a state you have to exist." - Ha ha. No. The world existed before you were born, didn't it? You didn't KNOW that UNTIL you existed. Oblivion is a description, but it isn't the described. I've just explained this to you above with my 'the word door isn't the actual door' example.

"It isn’t mere unconsciousness." - Correct.

"According to your view, your death would not be a release from the cares of life – it would be a door shutting forever." - Death is the ending to ALL care for the person that it's happened to. My death will end my personal suffering, but most unfortunately life will still go on as a phenomenon and innumerable other people and animals will have to endure more needless suffering. Thankfully, one day the sun will go into supernova and the suffering of this planet will forever be extinguished. The sickening thought will still linger that the evolutionary spark has taken place on other planets in this universe. We can but, ahem, 'pray' that isn't the case.

"So, there you have it. I hope you give everything I’ve said some thought." - I've certainly wasted a lot of time debunking what you've said. It didn't really require much thought though I'm sorry to say. There DO exist people out there, for example people like the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, who provide better arguments than you do. At the end of the day though they, like you, are still wrong and have been proven so beyond the shadow of a doubt.

"Non-existence is not a state – it isn’t anything, either good or bad!" - Yes. That's nice. We're done now, Livvie. Toodle-oo.wavey.gif

As much as I'd like to end this marathon session here and give my eyes and arms a rest, it behooves me to answer another detractor while I'm still awake, so let me finish by answering Veiledxbeauty's long forgotten response:

"How can you claim to be looking out for the well-being of Johnathan if you yourself have given up on life entirely?" - I was attempting to protect him from the false hope being peddled by someone telling lies about the nature of reality. If for instance Jonathan had been presented with two doors - one of which had snapping crocodiles behind it - I couldn't idly sit by while Coppedsynergy told him to go through the door which I knew would result in the chomping. Does that guarantee the other door is safe to go through? No. But I was still helping by preventing him from taking solace in the FALSE hope that religion offers.

"By the way, this is a rhetorical question, meant to irritate you and satiate my need to be heard, as I presume has been your motivation in writing this load of jibberish." - It's only irritated me now that I've read it (a year on!) and seen how stupid it is. Good job. As for my 'jibberish', point out a flaw in my thinking and back it up then I will concede your point. Otherwise you are just throwing out meaningless ad hominems.

"I mean seriously, what is the point in trying to dissuade someone from believing out of faith in something greater than themselves? Answer: there is no point, only arrogance and cold resolve on your part. " - I've already answered this to the point where you and any poor, unfortunate reader who has made it this far should be able to recite it in their sleep! If not then you are as blessed in the brain department as our pal, Livvie. i.e. not in the least.

"Sure, talk yourself into your miserable little hole of hopelessness, but leave the rest of us who are suffering out of it." - I presented you with reality as I see it. You are welcome to present a different version, but be prepared to back it up, as well as to debunk mine at the same time. I posit that you can do neither. Until then I WILL tell you that ultimately life IS a hopeless venture, because that is exactly what it is.

"You are a prime example of Misery loving it's company." - Yep, that is why I haven't said a word in a year and probably never would have again had 'A Repy 4 Decaying' awakened me from my slumber. I don't LIKE telling people that there is no hope. But it is better than being fed a bunch of codswallop, the likes of which Livvie, Coppedsynergy, et al, vomit by the bucket load.

"Your so called logic is no more than your own lack of worth projecting itself into the emptiness you've carved around you." - Nice try at armchair psychology, but you haven't yet picked a single hole in my actual argument, have you? You're playing the same game as Livvie in your own way, i.e. 'Hitler said we need oxygen to breathe. Hitler is mean so what he says can't be true.'

"Just because you can't see it doesn't mean other's cannot." - You BELIEVE you see something, but until you provide proof for your accusations then you're nothing but another spurious windbag who is guilty of pyschological automorphism.

"I think what irritates you the most is that people can be happy despite their suffering" - Not at all, so stop the projecting, will you? I am not irritated that people can be happy. I WANT people to be happy. There is an asterisk there however and that applies to offering false hope. I wouldn't even care about that so much if it was merely a personal matter, except that when it comes to religion it doesn't stop there. Belief in religion gives people the jurisdiction and license to do things 'in the name of' their god. Look at what Livvie said. He or she is OBLIGATED to talk for their god. Obligated! I am sorry but your 'right' to happiness is no longer a right at all when you try to use your false beliefs to influence others and affect THEIR possibility of the same state. The Bible also talks about going forth and multiplying, i.e. bringing more needless suffering into the world through the act of childbirth. Again, this is an imposition on another's welfare. In this case the welfare of a being who could be totally prevented from all harm simply by not being born. I will NOT stand by and let such idiots spread their false solace when the outcome is still more suffering. Sorry, it ain't gonna happen.

"and find solace in something that no human mind can possibly wrap it's head around" - Maybe YOU can't wrap your head around it, but if you'd stop projecting for 5 seconds and assuming everyone is as dumb as you are then you'd see that others, such as my good self, most certainly can and HAVE wrapped their heads around it.

"(and yes, it actually projects that in the bible, so it's not misleading people)." - Umm, yes, it most definitely is misleading people. Go back and read everything which came before this line. Off you go. Chop, chop.

"I would pity you were it not for your efforts to drag other's down with you" - I am not trying to drag others down. Don't try to pull this one on me. I am the good one here. I am trying to LIFT people out of false hope and false belief. It is you and the religious nut brigade who are trying to drag people down. Consider the following situation: a kid has a malignant tumour. Doctor (A) says, "there, there, kiddywinks. You'll be ok. Just drink your milk and pop an aspirin when it hurts. It will all be gone soon." Doctor (B) says, "I won't lie to you. The chances aren't good. It will take such painful and invasive surgery to remove it, but there's a chance of doing so." Which doctor is the 'good' one in this scenario? Doctor (A) who lies, but probably gives short term peace of mind, or Doctor (B) who tells it as it is and actually wants to help get to the root of the problem? As it is probably too much for you to work out, I am the second doctor.

"but being arrogant in persuasion I'm sure you'd scoff at any attempt to love you as you are." - Oh to see ourselves as others see us. You of course are immune to being arrogant and self righteous, aren't you?...

 

"You must be a sad creature to behold." - ... Hmm, I guess not.wink.png

"BTW, the two types of suffering are distinct because they can be dealt with from different perspectives. We have a choice in the matter. For instance, I can choose to suffer within the reality I've been dealt OR I can choose to think of another's suffering and alleviate it by giving of my time and resources and compassion, therefore no longer focusing all of my thoughts on my own dire needs, instead allowing someone else to do the same for me." - As I have shown, there is no 'you' there to choose. The chooser is the choice. Thinking of another's suffering still emanates from the thought processes inside 'your' head and the desire to help another is exactly the same desire as to help your 'self'. The latter is a more subtle and devious form of self deception, but it is nevertheless borne of the same motivation. My explanation may have been cumbersome so let me try again with this analogy: I have a skinned knee and so does my friend. I have one sticking plaster and I can either use it for myself and help my physical pain, thereby making me feel better inside, OR I can give it to my friend and help his sore leg, thereby making me feel better inside. Anything you do in life is generated from within and for 'selfish' purposes. Everything. The only difference is that society deems one as being good and the other bad. Much like religious thinking, it is in error.

"People are prone to love those who let themselves be loved" - What we call love isn't love. If you truly loved then you'd put the other first in all instances. If such were the case then you wouldn't still be here for you'd have given all your food, drink, clothing and house to other people. And ironically enough, why exactly was I saying in my original post that people should never procreate? I said so because this is the singlemost loving thing ANYONE can ever do for another. The 'other' in this case doesn't yet exist and that is the best state to be in. For the minute the baby draws it's first breath it is GUARANTEED to suffer, wither and die. You cannot guarantee it's happiness, but it's suffering you can bet your bottom dollar on. Sorry, but people don't love. We are demonstrating the constrained hostility between people right here in this very exchange. Our 'argument' is the microcosm; taken to the macrocosm we have world war. Such is the nature of life. We USE one another under the guise of love, friendship and all the other mush, but if you actually looked at the dynamics of all relationship with others then you will find that at it's heart is utilitarianism.

"suffering opens a door through which many find common ground." - Suffering is the common ground of all living things. Therefore do not perpetuate it anymore than is necessary by condoning things like religion which do no more than to prolong the suffering of the species as a whole.

"So, the answer isn't "no life=no suffering" " - that most certainly IS the answer. All other answers are bandaid solutions, Doctor (A).

"but rather suffering=humility=understanding=compassion=love=life." Hallmark card balderdash. And you have the temerity to accuse me of spouting gibberish. Huh!

"Obviously you never worked past the suffering bit oh-wise-and-mighty think-tank. Now who's lazy.." - A meaningless accusation at the end there and one which I shall treat with the contempt it deserves. What I will say is that I have never pretended that I am a loving person as understood in the common vernacular. What is amusing as that people like you piously pretend that you are... until challenged by the likes of me. Then the fire burns within and your words betray you.

Anyway, I have written more than Tolstoy in War & Peace. I'm going to leave you now and will not make the mistake again of having this website contact me by email when there are new replies. It's not because I'm 'lazy', you understand. It's because I KNOW there will be responses and they will all be of the same god awful calibre as the ones which have come before. Life IS hell, but it's worse when spending hours upon hours trying to make dolts see sense when I know from the outset it's a wasted effort.

Adios and good luck with the plooks.sign_topicclosed.gif



 



#24 LuckyDory

LuckyDory

    Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 153
    Likes: 24
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined: 06-October 13

Posted 23 March 2014 - 06:19 PM

I want to see pictures of the scarring you are talking about, there is still hope to keep working on them, there are a lot of other treatments that can be performed. There are a couple people on here getting some good improvements with a multiple treatment approach.

#25 aSADpenguin

aSADpenguin

    New Member

  • Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 12
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Gender:Male
  • Joined: 03-December 13

Posted 24 March 2014 - 02:45 PM

Why the f*ck is there a religious discussion in this topic???

Amen.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)