What am I?

[diosangpastol]

I think the only way you can be an atheist is by praying to a god and telling god how much you disapprove of everything that god does. That means if you have a problem with God whatever god it may be (Abrahamic ones – for example), you have to get down on your knees in prayer and tell that god how ridiculous you think it is and much you despise everything that it stands for. That is how I discovered my strong atheism and it led me to being a Strong – Atheist – Pagan. Since I was raise in a Christian household, that means to forsaken any savior and telling god you don’t need one. That you are your own and if god actually insisted on aiding you in life then life wouldn’t have turned out the way it did. The reason why I am a pagan now is because I hold many different multifaceted beliefs. That could actually send every religion back to the very land it originated from. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in god, it just means I don’t agree with the view many people have of god. I am very rebellious when it comes to religion and if god can’t accept me for that then to bad, that is gods lose.

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m going to select one “point” out of the rambling mess of TR’s last post because it’s somewhat important:

Texas Roofer makes reference to “the evidence only crowd” in his (her?) post, with the implication that there’s something wrong with relying on evidence.

But what else is there to rely upon for believing a claim? Either you have sufficient evidence for the claim, or you’re just deciding arbitrarily that the claim is true. TR proceeds to argue that we don’t really “know” anything:

Yea, I guess I am confused please explain how you know the sun will rise tomorrow?

Because of evidence: the sun has risen every single day in the records of human history. Taking that evidence, we can apply inductive reasoning and determine that it is incredibly likely that the sun will rise tomorrow. In addition, we have a ton of evidence from our observation of and measuring of the sun – we know, for example, that the sun doesn’t really “rise” (that’s a term we employ for convenience) – in actuality, our planet is rotating, thanks to gravity, and the rotation produces the illusion of the sun moving. Given all we know about that, we can determine that it’s even more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow.

And how you know the car will start

Once again – tons of evidence and inductive reasoning. Again, I’m not claiming to know this to an absolute certainty. There could be some problem with my car today, but generally speaking, the odds that my car will start when I turn the key today are so good that I can speak of knowing it to be so for all intents and purposes.

is the moon really 238,897 miles away, do you really know that, did you measure it, or do you believe that?

Evidence doesn’t strictly consist of things you’ve “personally experience.” I have plenty of evidence that China exists, for example, even though I’ve never been there myself, and I have plenty of evidence that the moon is approximately 238,897 miles away from the earth, even though I haven’t gotten out a ruler and measured it with my own hands.

The evidence in each of those cases consists of vast bodies of data collected by multiple independent sources that corroborate each other. So yes, I really do know those things, and so do you, despite how much you want to pretend that the human race is ignorant.

You’re simply confused if you assert that you have to “take on faith” or “believe” (without evidence) anything that you’ve not “personally experienced.” I’ve never personally had a psychic reading or owned a power bracelet that supposedly improves the wearer’s energy, but I know beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, based on evidence, that both of those things are scams (or, in the case of some psychics, misguided false beliefs). Similarly, I’ve never personally collected the measurements that demonstrate that the earth has a spheroid shape, but I have access to plenty of evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.

What you’re trying to do is to pretend that the vast majority of real knowledge is on the same level as faith. This is a common tactic of believers: if you can reduce real knowledge to “faith,” then it all comes down to want you want to believe, rather than what’s really true.

Followed to its logical end, this argument suggests that no one really knows anything – that the greatest scientists are just as likely to be right as the hobo in the street screaming that the alien invasion is about to begin. What you’re trying to do is to suggest that no one has any basis for determining whether or not an idea is true so that any old idea becomes just as likely as any other so that you can just choose to believe whatever you like and not care about whether it’s true or not.

This is not a sensible way to gain knowledge about the world.

Because a total stranger posted on the web, now a total stranger posting on the web is evidence right, better evidence than my personal touch, taste, feel, smell and sight about an expanding or contracting universe.

What in the world are you talking about? No one can “see” the universe expanding. The claim that the universe is expanding is based on evidence collected from instruments that measure distant stars. And there’s quite a bit of evidence for it. A total stranger posting on the web is evidence of something – in your case, your post is evidence that you are trying to put real knowledge on the same level as belief – but when the claim is something about the universe, the more trustworthy evidence is going to be measurements collected from instruments that measure the universe, not some post that came from who knows where.

 

[RosaryFan]

Texas Roofer makes reference to “the evidence only crowd” in his (her?) post, with the implication that there’s something wrong with relying on evidence.

But what else is there to rely upon for believing a claim?

Faith.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m going to select one “point” out of the rambling mess of TR’s last post because it’s somewhat important:

Texas Roofer makes reference to “the evidence only crowd” in his (her?) post, with the implication that there’s something wrong with relying on evidence.

But what else is there to rely upon for believing a claim?

but again over and over you tell us of the claims you “accept” rather than show us the evidence. Why don’t you simply show us the evidence the sun will rise tomorrow, or the car will start?

Either you have sufficient evidence for the claim, or you’re just deciding arbitrarily that the claim is true.

Like the sun rise and the car starting? Cars do not always start. And many do not believe the sun always existed, or will exist forever so please just show me the evidence you used

TR proceeds to argue that we don’t really “know” anything:

You may well be surprised at one really knows and how they came to know it, Of course that may be more knowledge than one wants to learn

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Because of evidence: the sun has risen every single day in the records of human history.

Wow, wow, wow like records all through human history show religion?, yet one is accepted and the other dismissed,

Taking that evidence, we can apply inductive reasoning and determine that it is incredibly likely that the sun will rise tomorrow. In addition, we have a ton of evidence from our observation of and measuring of the sun – we know, for example, that the sun doesn’t really “rise” (that’s a term we employ for convenience) – in actuality, our planet is rotating, thanks to gravity, and the rotation produces the illusion of the sun moving. Given all we know about that, we can determine that it’s even more likely that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Once again – tons of evidence and inductive reasoning. Again, I’m not claiming to know this to an absolute certainty. There could be some problem with my car today, but generally speaking, the odds that my car will start when I turn the key today are so good that I can speak of knowing it to be so for all intents and purposes.

can inductive reasoning be wrong? Is that not the same method the rambling hobo and conspiracy people use, or the people who believed and claimed to see the sunrise every morning? But as always why are they wrong when the nonbeliever is clearly right?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Evidence doesn’t strictly consist of things you’ve “personally experience.” I have plenty of evidence that China exists, for example, even though I’ve never been there myself, and I have plenty of evidence that the moon is approximately 238,897 miles away from the earth, even though I haven’t gotten out a ruler and measured it with my own hands.

The evidence in each of those cases consists of vast bodies of data collected by multiple independent sources that corroborate each other…

Careful now, as one might well say 1000 testimonies exist or a 1000 written pages can be believed, and clearly that would be true for god, religion, China and the distance to the moon. And as always some are said to be correct but others are said to be incorrect yet scientifically both produced equal bodies of data, when measured in this way

So yes, I really do know those things, and so do you, despite how much you want to pretend that the human race is ignorant.

oh it is easy for me, see I believe the car will start, and sun will rise so I have faith. I also understand evidence and do not need to confuse the two so it is real easy for me.

You’re simply confused if you assert that you have to “take on faith” or “believe” (without evidence) anything that you’ve not “personally experienced.” I’ve never personally had a psychic reading or owned a power bracelet that supposedly improves the wearer’s energy, but I know beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, based on evidence, that both of those things are scams (or, in the case of some psychics, misguided false beliefs). Similarly, I’ve never personally collected the measurements that demonstrate that the earth has a spheroid shape, but I have access to plenty of evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.

maybe if you just show us how the evidence of the car starting and the sun rising it would be easier

What you’re trying to do is to pretend that the vast majority of real knowledge is on the same level as faith. This is a common tactic of believers: if you can reduce real knowledge to “faith,” then it all comes down to want you want to believe, rather than what’s really true.

that is a mouth full, one can certainly believe in sunrises and car starts but one cannot prove either

Followed to its logical end, this argument suggests that no one really knows anything – that the greatest scientists are just as likely to be right as the hobo in the street screaming that the alien invasion is about to begin. What you’re trying to do is to suggest that no one has any basis for determining whether or not an idea is true so that any old idea becomes just as likely as any other so that you can just choose to believe whatever you like and not care about whether it’s true or not.

actually I am saying little, I would suggest to you based on what you just wrote one could chose to follow the hobo or the scientist, however when that persons suggest both are equal he is more likely to be misleading than honest. The core here maybe who is being truly honest, remember the start Laughcow feels god’s call (like a hobo?), you say that is a false feel. You say there is no evidence of god (like a scientist?), but you say there is evidence of the car starting in the future and the sun rising. Maybe you should show that evidence?

This is not a sensible way to gain knowledge about the world.

What in the world are you talking about? No one can “see” the universe expanding. The claim that the universe is expanding is based on evidence collected from instruments that measure distant stars. And there’s quite a bit of evidence for it. A total stranger posting on the web is evidence of something – in your case, your post is evidence that you are trying to put real knowledge on the same level as belief – but when the claim is something about the universe, the more trustworthy evidence is going to be measurements collected from instruments that measure the universe, not some post that came from who knows where.

Well off you go again but that is okay, I tell you an ever expanding universe is illogical and goes against observed natural processes, but that is my belief, and I have faith that a cyclical change will be taught in the future. I only mention this because even when studied men claim their best understanding shows expansion, I can understand that there measurements could be correct and reflect 0.000000000000001% of an individual cycle. But as always that is belief. Of course these scientist should rightly dismmiss contrary evidence as thermal cores in planets, black holes, the spread of matter (last statement is tongue in cheek)

so please just show the evidence of the future - the car starting, the sun rising, and working career to use the education. Then I might learn to reject believes and faith.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Faith.

Faith seems to be a very slippery thing.

Example:

Do you take faith in gravity?

 

[AntiTheist]

Wow, wow, wow like records all through human history show religion?, yet one is accepted and the other dismissed

Yes, because different claims have different standards of evidence.

For example, the claim “the sun will rise tomorrow” can be demonstrated by the observation that there is a consistent pattern of the sun rising each and every day. It can further be demonstrated by the math that demonstrates that gravity will continue to make the earth rotate, producing the illusion of a “rising” sun every single 24-hour period without fail. You keep asking me to “present the evidence” – but that is the evidence, tons and tons and tons of evidence.

Now, the claim “people have believed in supernatural things since the dawn of human history” can also be demonstrated by the observation that all of human history records beliefs in supernatural things.

However – and pay attention, here – the observation that all of human history records beliefs in supernatural things cannot demonstrate that supernatural beliefs are true. That large numbers of people hold beliefs tells us nothing about whether or not the beliefs are true.

can inductive reasoning be wrong?

Of course it can. A person might be performing the operation on too small a sample size or might be incorrectly inducing from the sample. And even if the induction is performed perfectly, it can only provide us with probabilities (that, for example, it’s incredibly likely that the sun will rise tomorrow).

But the fact is that the reasoning process, when applied correctly to evidence, is consistently reliable. In fact, this process of evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of coming to knowledge that humans have at our disposal.

I’m sorry, but you are clearly ill-equipped to have this kind of discussion, not merely because of your poor writing skills but because of your lack of familiarity with methods of evidence and reason. I say this not to be mean or to pick on you, but to inform you that this is the optimal time for you to stop engaging with me on this subject so that you can stop digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Remember this is just for fun

Yes, because different claims have different standards of evidence.

more wows this is a very dangerous statement. Is that really possible. To have different levels of anything you would have to have a judge, which is a person. Different levels of evidence do not exist in nature.

For example, the claim “the sun will rise tomorrow” can be demonstrated by the observation that there is a consistent pattern of the sun rising each and every day. It can further be demonstrated by the math that demonstrates that gravity will continue to make the earth rotate, producing the illusion of a “rising” sun every single 24-hour period without fail. You keep asking me to “present the evidence” – but that is the evidence, tons and tons and tons of evidence.

so testimonials of the past is the standard for now? Oh wait there were testimonials in the past of religion and god, dear, dear, dear. So at this point have you rejected that touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight standard? And for inductive reasoning, you write the sun never really rose, that people using scientific principles as sight, touch to simply failed to obtain the correct understanding. If you can temporally expand your thought try this explain to me how if you were present in 1,000bc you would teach the people how to abandon their belief in a rising sun and learn what you know about the sun.

Now, the claim “people have believed in supernatural things since the dawn of human history” can also be demonstrated by the observation that all of human history records beliefs in supernatural things.

However – and pay attention, here – the observation that all of human history records beliefs in supernatural things cannot demonstrate that supernatural beliefs are true. That large numbers of people hold beliefs tells us nothing about whether or not the beliefs are true.

two guys stand side by side, one says the sun will rise tomorrow because of unbalances forces in nature, the other says the sun will rise tomorrow because god set the earth up that way. The next morning there is a sun in the sky. The guys turn to each other and say “see there is your proof”

Of course it can. A person might be performing the operation on too small a sample size or might be incorrectly inducing from the sample. And even if the induction is performed perfectly, it can only provide us with probabilities (that, for example, it’s incredibly likely that the sun will rise tomorrow).

so is inductive reasoning being dismissed? It would seem to need dismissed since it contains error. If humans used inductive reasoning to “Know for a fact the sun rose” when the sun never rose not a single time then it would seem inductive reasoning is dangerous?

But the fact is that the reasoning process, when applied correctly to evidence, is consistently reliable. In fact, this process of evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of coming to knowledge that humans have at our disposal.

Well I think you are doing better, this is the only logical section of post so far, but it has a single problem which is the word “evidence’. What is evidence?, what evidence do you have? What evidence do you need? If we look at simple items, the sun rising tomorrow, the car starting and the college paying off what evidence exists for these things? If the answer is none, then why should we accept these as beliefs rather than reject these as beliefs?

I’m sorry, but you are clearly ill-equipped to have this kind of discussion, not merely because of your poor writing skills but because of your lack of familiarity with methods of evidence and reason. I say this not to be mean or to pick on you, but to inform you that this is the optimal time for you to stop engaging with me on this subject so that you can stop digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

lighten up you have no reason to be upset, how do you come to know things? It would seem it is only you who rejects a belief system even when all “evidence” points to it.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

~~Antitheist:
I’m sorry, but you are clearly ill-equipped to have this kind of discussion, not merely because of your poor writing skills but because of your lack of familiarity with methods of evidence and reason. I say this not to be mean or to pick on you, but to inform you that this is the optimal time for you to stop engaging with me on this subject so that you can stop digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

Sorry, TR, but AT is both being kind and right on this one. You might wisely consider regrouping.

 

[Pax]

Laughing Crow,

I would simply put you in the class of people that I would call a “searcher.” You are not perfectly comfortable where you are, and that is a good thing. Your mind remains open to possibilities beyond what you already accept and reject.

I find your belief that you have a soul and that there is an after life, but no God to be perplexing. For me, from strictly a logical and philosophical position, it would be easier to believe in God our creator, than it would be to believe in a human soul and after life. This is particularly true for me in terms of one would certainly presuppose the other.

I will pray for you in your quest, and recommend that you get a hold of a book called *The Handbook of Christian Apologetics *by Kreeft and Tacelli. It will go a long way in helping you know and understand the philosophical and logical arguments for and against the existence of God. I will give you one very important conclusion that comes out of that carefully covered topic. Not a single argument against the existence of God stands up to the test of logic. Likewise, many arguments for the existence of God also fail the test of logic. The problem for the atheist to consider, however, is that there are a number of arguments in favor of the existence of God that are completely solid and do stand up to the test of logic. That should give some food for the thought and incentive to move forward in the search.

God bless.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sorry, TR, but AT is both being kind and right on this one. You might wisely consider regrouping.

Thanks for the advice but would it not be easier to answer the question? I have no problem with you answering it, it is really a simple question. We could change it to an endless number of simple questions, and you could pick any single question off that list. It really does not matter what the question is at all. How do you “know”, what evidence allowed you to “know”? The science so far is incredibly elementary but again it does not matter. Simple science, complex science, no science the answer does not change. So help him out and answer the question.

 

[Contarini]

See, how can you say ‘god has always existed’ yet ignore the idea ‘the soul has always existed’ or ‘the universe and all reality has always existed’? Why does a ‘God’ have to be behind everything, yet when confronted with the question ‘where did god come from?’ you respond with ‘he has always been’? Im not trying to be belittling or attack your faith, its just i cant understand that reasoning.

Because, as I said, “God” is the name we give “the ultimate reality from which all else derives.” Now maybe there is no such ultimate reality, but if there is then the question “where did it come from” is meaningless.
Furthermore, as I think I said already, if there are several eternal realities, then they are all limited and subject to change. So it’s reasonable to ask–what makes them change? if there is one eternal, unchanging reality, the question does not arise.

But this may be one of those points where folks start from very different basic intuitions about the nature of reality.

Edwin

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Thanks for the advice but would it not be easier to answer the question? I have no problem with you answering it, it is really a simple question. We could change it to an endless number of simple questions, and you could pick any single question off that list. It really does not matter what the question is at all. How do you “know”, what evidence allowed you to “know”? The science so far is incredibly elementary but again it does not matter. Simple science, complex science, no science the answer does not change. So help him out and answer the question.

Actually, I did, in post #40, but you are right. it is a bit obscure.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me? The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

Hi Laughing Crow,

TR pointed out quite correctly that I haven’t directly said anything to you that might be of “material” help to your considerations. That’s probably despite a good hint in post #21 and another in #40. So here it is:

Now while as a method for arriving at an answer AntiTheist might recommend a form of meditation, and I might agree, there is yet another consideration. While the atheist/theist controversy is presented pretty much that way, as an either/or, there is yet a third way that I recommend because of what to me is a practical identity of theism with atheism. Yes, I think that they are pretty much the same thing, although I do in a way label myself a theist. That is because while I cannot accept any rational or intellectual argument as to the existence of God, I have had a life changing mystical experience which informed me of some dynamics of human awareness religions don’t treat of. In fact, it was for this reason that I left the Church. And because you rightfully, as I see it, insist that there is a Soul, the philosophy and method which brought me back to stability after that incident might be of interest to you, given your statements.

I only request that since I don’t wish to put up with flack on the matter, please contact me by PM and I will be happy to answer any questions and recommend some reading at whatever level you might feel comfortable with. In the mean time I congratulate you on your honesty. I know from experience how difficult it can be to be resolute about a line of inquiry when surrounded by dogmatism or scientism. Drop me a line, if you like.

Best,

RF

 

[AntiTheist]

I realize that you said that you don’t want “flack” for your position, but I feel compelled to comment on some of the things you’ve said here in public. Think of it less as “flack” and more as constructive criticism:

While the atheist/theist controversy is presented pretty much that way, as an either/or

Because there is a true dichotomy between “a god (or gods) exists” and “no god (or gods) exists.” There’s further a true dichotomy between “I believe a god (or gods) exist” and “I don’t believe a god (or gods) exist.”

There’s no middle ground between those two positions. They can’t both be simultaneously true. It’s either one or the other.

a practical identity of theism with atheism. Yes, I think that they are pretty much the same thing, although I do in a way label myself a theist. That is because while I cannot accept any rational or intellectual argument as to the existence of God, I have had a life changing mystical experience which informed me of some dynamics of human awareness religions don’t treat of

Mystical experiences are a dime a dozen. As I remarked in the meditation thread, it’s downright easy to get mental fireworks from some of those practices, and it no more demonstrates that anything supernatural is going on than an acid trip does.

The fact is that our brains have all these little weird quirks that we can exploit to give ourselves (completely natural) far out experiences. The experiences themselves have no value whatsoever, and can, in fact, be downright distracting. It’s the training that generates the experiences – the focus on the present moment – that is valuable and that can actually aid your life. Just concentrating on the experience gives you a new story to run around and fool yourself with (“See, I’m really this spiritual being, and I’m one with all and nothing, and other people are an expression of nothingness in different forms, so there are no others, but in another sense there are, and and and and and…”), but that can easily turn into another crutch.

“Inner experiences” – in the sense of meditative hallucinations – simply cannot demonstrate the existence of souls and gods and spirits and other assorted supernatural stuff.

 

[hazcompat]

I realize that you said that you don’t want “flack” for your position, but I feel compelled to comment on some of the things you’ve said here in public. Think of it less as “flack” and more as constructive criticism:

Because there is a true dichotomy between “a god (or gods) exists” and “no god (or gods) exists.” There’s further a true dichotomy between “I believe a god (or gods) exist” and “I don’t believe a god (or gods) exist.”

There’s no middle ground between those two positions. They can’t both be simultaneously true. It’s either one or the other.

Mystical experiences are a dime a dozen. As I remarked in the meditation thread, it’s downright easy to get mental fireworks from some of those practices, and it no more demonstrates that anything supernatural is going on than an acid trip does.

The fact is that our brains have all these little weird quirks that we can exploit to give ourselves (completely natural) far out experiences. The experiences themselves have no value whatsoever, and can, in fact, be downright distracting. It’s the training that generates the experiences – the focus on the present moment – that is valuable and that can actually aid your life. Just concentrating on the experience gives you a new story to run around and fool yourself with (“See, I’m really this spiritual being, and I’m one with all and nothing, and other people are an expression of nothingness in different forms, so there are no others, but in another sense there are, and and and and and…”), but that can easily turn into another crutch.

“Inner experiences” – in the sense of meditative hallucinations – simply cannot demonstrate the existence of souls and gods and spirits and other assorted supernatural stuff.

what if everyone had a simultaneous vision? after all they are a dime a dozen. btw tj is wrong.
peace

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Because there is a true dichotomy between “a god (or gods) exists” and “no god (or gods) exists.” There’s further a true dichotomy between “I believe a god (or gods) exist” and “I don’t believe a god (or gods) exist.”

There’s no middle ground between those two positions. They can’t both be simultaneously true. It’s either one or the other.

Yes, you are right, insofar as discursive thinking about that goes. I am not referring to discursive thinking.

Mystical experiences are a dime a dozen. As I remarked in the meditation thread, it’s downright easy to get mental fireworks from some of those practices, and it no more demonstrates that anything supernatural is going on than an acid trip does.

Yes, I read that post and responded, so yes, exactly. And that is where the large or vast majority of mystical experience happens.

The fact is that our brains have all these little weird quirks that we can exploit to give ourselves (completely natural) far out experiences. The experiences themselves have no value whatsoever, and can, in fact, be downright distracting. It’s the training that generates the experiences – the focus on the present moment – that is valuable and that can actually aid your life. Just concentrating on the experience gives you a new story to run around and fool yourself with (“See, I’m really this spiritual being, and I’m one with all and nothing, and other people are an expression of nothingness in different forms, so there are no others, but in another sense there are, and and and and and…”), but that can easily turn into another crutch.

Yep

“Inner experiences” – in the sense of meditative hallucinations – simply cannot demonstrate the existence of souls and gods and spirits and other assorted supernatural stuff.

Very true. I agree.

 

[brumano]

Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me? The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

ugh first primary school, then high school and now religion, I just DO NOT fit in

Here’s a question that might help you to believe in the real God: What is the greater proof of the existence of God beyond the reality of our own existence; is it life after death or is that a virgin should conceive and bear a son?

 

[Laughing_Crow]

Sorry everyoen for takign so long to respond, my computer died an I only just got it back up and working a few days ago. Damn trojan viruses

Here’s a question that might help you to believe in the real God: What is the greater proof of the existence of God beyond the reality of our own existence; is it life after death or is that a virgin should conceive and bear a son?

OK, im gonna go hide behind my walls because I know this will likely offend ALOT of you, but to understand my views and why i stayed away from religion so long I have to tell you. as an atheist I simply believed the ‘virgin mary’ had an affair and, as in that time adultery was one of the worst crimes someone could commit, she lied about it to save her neck. Now im gonna run over the hills and wait for the s*** storm to die down

… safe to come out?

as for the idea that God is proven through life after death, I think more along the Hindu and Buddhist lines of the wheel of life and reincarnation. Maybe this formula was created by God, maybe it has always exsisted and always will exsist. Maybe we are all sims and the player hasnt gotten bored and sent Godzilla at us