The Afterlife

[MarkDuffy]

And perhaps when you die, you will simply cease to exist.

That's the point, isn't it? You don't know what will come next. Perhaps you'll be roasted on the fire for believing in some false God and I'll get a pass to heaven for not.

Humans can reach the unreachable by believing in accounts of human witnessing. Today, you don't need to go to Africa to know what happens there. We have reporters/journalists go there to bring us the news of what have happened. What is said by reporters are human accounts of witnessing for us to believe with faith. That's the way how we reach a truth usually not reachable to us. The same as any human history written some 2000 years ago. We can't go back to history to know what could possibly happened. However have documents recorded by historians for us to believe with faith.

We believe in afterlife not without a reason. We believe that the human accounts of witnessing recorded in Bible are sincere and thus believable. Plus that this is the only way we can reach a truth if in the case that Christianity is a truth. The difference between history and Christianity is that history is about the recording of human deeds while the Bible is about the recording of God's deeds.

People throughout history have given accounts of all kinds of things. Alien abduction, JFK & 9/11 conspiracies. Who really built the pyramids. Witchcraft, etc.

The only history of the Bible is IN the Bible.

So?

You can believe. You can choose to ignore those don't concern your life. You can believe those concern your life and get yourself prepared. Christianity is about how we take the warning seriously as the eye-witnesses are said to be willing to martyr themselves for their testimonies to stand. Plus the warning concerns our life.

Yes, all of that is true. You choose!

 

[Hawkins]

Yes, all of that is true. You choose!

The point is why not. If the possibility is there, if the eye-witnesses are said to be willing to die to testify, if it concerns our lives, if it's the only way to reach such a truth. Why not!

 

[MarkDuffy]

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

1. An AI program that is more spiritual than you are? And just how is anyone going to determine that other than each individual? Personally I highly doubt any math program is going to be all that spiritual.

2. My criteria for acceptance of spiritual origins is a bit more than the fact that another person wrote it. It's going to have to make sense to me, have some plausibility to it.

3. "Maybe" is pretty much all we got. How many other explanations of spirituality are there that have so many personal testimonials and tapes of hypnotized individuals by different hypnotherapists all relating the same story about the afterlife? It isn't proof of anything, proof is kinda hard to come by. So, everybody has to decide for themselves, seems to be an awful lot of people who were raised to believe in one thing and after further consideration have discarded it. Some did, some did not, whatever floats your boat.

4. Some people want to believe "X", so they do. Maybe they were raised to believe it and never challenged it, maybe that belief system works for them. Pragmatism sort of. Whatever, if an atheist or agnostic believes or thinks there is no God, I'm good with that. My problem is the effort they make to denounce or detract from the beliefs of someone else who does believe in God, one way or another. It's not really much different from the religious people who are out there proselytizing for their faith to save your soul, the non-believers are trying to convert you to their way of thinking too.

Near death or shortly after "death" experiences can easily be explained as "that is just how the brain works" in such situations.

Things such as the white light and tunnel appear to me to be what I would expect when the brain begins to turn off.

There are countless people who have shared very detailed accounts of them meeting loved ones, etc. in an NDE, you just refuse to accept any of them. Don't worry. God will let you die if that's what you really want.

Tarot Cards, Ouija boards & Psychics, I know.

Then there is science

Near-death experience - Wikipedia

 

[MarkDuffy]

Yes, all of that is true. You choose!

The point is why not. If the possibility is there, if the eye-witnesses are said to be willing to die to testify, if it concerns our lives, if it's the only way to reach such a truth. Why not!

Well, I have been told that there is no sex in Christian heaven and we only worship 24/7.

I need a better afterlife plan.

If I cannot do science (read argue) in heaven, then I'm not interested

 

[MarkDuffy]

In obamacareafterlife I want to be able to keep my doctor of science

This Christian one size fits all is anti-American

It is socialized religion!

 

[K9Buck]

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

1. An AI program that is more spiritual than you are? And just how is anyone going to determine that other than each individual? Personally I highly doubt any math program is going to be all that spiritual.

2. My criteria for acceptance of spiritual origins is a bit more than the fact that another person wrote it. It's going to have to make sense to me, have some plausibility to it.

3. "Maybe" is pretty much all we got. How many other explanations of spirituality are there that have so many personal testimonials and tapes of hypnotized individuals by different hypnotherapists all relating the same story about the afterlife? It isn't proof of anything, proof is kinda hard to come by. So, everybody has to decide for themselves, seems to be an awful lot of people who were raised to believe in one thing and after further consideration have discarded it. Some did, some did not, whatever floats your boat.

4. Some people want to believe "X", so they do. Maybe they were raised to believe it and never challenged it, maybe that belief system works for them. Pragmatism sort of. Whatever, if an atheist or agnostic believes or thinks there is no God, I'm good with that. My problem is the effort they make to denounce or detract from the beliefs of someone else who does believe in God, one way or another. It's not really much different from the religious people who are out there proselytizing for their faith to save your soul, the non-believers are trying to convert you to their way of thinking too.

Near death or shortly after "death" experiences can easily be explained as "that is just how the brain works" in such situations.

Things such as the white light and tunnel appear to me to be what I would expect when the brain begins to turn off.

There are countless people who have shared very detailed accounts of them meeting loved ones, etc. in an NDE, you just refuse to accept any of them. Don't worry. God will let you die if that's what you really want.

Tarot Cards, Ouija boards & Psychics, I know.

Then there is science

Near-death experience - Wikipedia

The science supports a creator, but you ignore the obvious.

 

[task0778]

Parents Think Boy Is Reincarnated Pilot

• By ABC NEWS
  

April 15

Nearly six decades ago, a 21-year-old Navy fighter pilot on a mission over the Pacific was shot down by Japanese artillery. His name might have been forgotten, were it not for 6-year-old James Leininger.

Quite a few people — including those who knew the fighter pilot — think James is the pilot, reincarnated.

James' parents, Andrea and Bruce, a highly educated, modern couple, say they are "probably the people least likely to have a scenario like this pop up in their lives."

But over time, they have become convinced their little son has had a former life.

From an early age, James would play with nothing else but planes, his parents say. But when he was 2, they said the planes their son loved began to give him regular nightmares.

"I'd wake him up and he'd be screaming," Andrea told ABCNEWS' Chris Cuomo. She said when she asked her son what he was dreaming about, he would say, "Airplane crash on fire, little man can't get out."

Reality Check

Andrea says her mom was the first to suggest James was remembering a past life.

At first, Andrea says she was doubtful. James was only watching kids' shows, his parents say, and they weren't watching World War II documentaries or conversing about military history.

But as time went by, Andrea began to wonder what to believe. In one video of James at age 3, he goes over a plane as if he's doing a preflight check.

Another time, Andrea said, she bought him a toy plane, and pointed out what appeared to be a bomb on its underside. She says James corrected her, and told her it was a drop tank. "I'd never heard of a drop tank," she said. "I didn't know what a drop tank was."

Then James' violent nightmares got worse, occurring three and four times a week. Andrea's mother suggested she look into the work of counselor and therapist Carol Bowman, who believes that the dead sometimes can be reborn.

With guidance from Bowman, they began to encourage James to share his memories — and immediately, Andrea says, the nightmares started become less frequent. James was also becoming more articulate about his apparent past, she said.

Bowman said James was at the age when former lives are most easily recalled. "They haven't had the cultural conditioning, the layering over the experience in this life so the memories can percolate up more easily," she said.

Trail of Mysteries

Over time, James' parents say he revealed extraordinary details about the life of a former fighter pilot — mostly at bedtime, when he was drowsy.

They say James told them his plane had been hit by the Japanese and crashed. Andrea says James told his father he flew a Corsair, and then told her, "They used to get flat tires all the time."

In fact, historians and pilots agree that the plane's tires took a lot of punishment on landing. But that's a fact that could easily be found in books or on television.

Andrea says James also told his father the name of the boat he took off from — Natoma — and the name of someone he flew with — "Jack Larson."

After some research, Bruce discovered both the Natoma and Jack Larson were real. The Natoma Bay was a small aircraft carrier in the Pacific. And Larson is living in Arkansas.

"It was like, holy mackerel," Bruce said. "You could have poured my brains out of my ears. I just couldn't believe it.

James 2 = James M. Huston Jr.?

Bruce became obsessed, searching the Internet, combing through military records and interviewing men who served aboard the Natoma Bay.

He said James told him he had been shot down at Iwo Jima. James had also begun signing his crayon drawings "James 3." Bruce soon learned that the only pilot from the squadron killed at Iwo Jima was James M. Huston Jr.

Bruce says James also told him his plane had sustained a direct hit on the engine.

Ralph Clarbour, a rear gunner on a U.S. airplane that flew off the Natoma Bay, says his plane was right next to one flown by James M. Huston Jr. during a raid near Iwo Jima on March 3, 1945.

Clarbour said he saw Huston's plane struck by anti-aircraft fire. "I would say he was hit head on, right in the middle of the engine," he said.

Treasured Mementos

Bruce says he now believes his son had a past life in which he was James M. Huston Jr. "He came back because he wasn't finished with something."

The Leiningers wrote a letter to Huston's sister, Anne Barron, about their little boy. And now she believes it as well.

"The child was so convincing in coming up with all the things that there is no way on the world he could know," she said.

But Professor Paul Kurtz of the State University of New York at Buffalo, who heads an organization that investigates claims of the paranormal, says he thinks the parents are "self-deceived."

"They're fascinated by the mysterious and they built up a fairy tale," he said.

James' vivid, alleged recollections are starting to fade as he gets older — but among his prized possessions remain two haunting presents sent to him by Barron: a bust of George Washington and a model of a Corsair aircraft.

They were among the personal effects of James Huston sent home after the war.

"He appears to have experienced something that I don't think is unique, but the way it's been revealed is quite astounding," Bruce said.

Asked if the idea that James may have been someone else changes his or his wife's feeling about their son, Bruce said: "It doesn't change how we think. I don't look at him and say, 'That's not my boy.' That's my boy."


True? Hard to believe, but just as hard to see how the kid's parents could have dug up all this information, some of which probably wasn't on the web. If anyone doubts the story, that's good cuz skepticism is not a bad thing until the truth comes out. But, keeping an open mind is not a bad thing either.

 

[anotherlife]

Even a totally illiterate orphan arrives at some belief system. This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic.

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

You would be surprised. Mathematically, human consciousness or any biological consciousness has been successfully modeled as a state machine, which alternates between sensory input, search for stored pattern, and saving the input next to the most correlated pattern, circling through these states indefinitely. This can be easily programmed into any machine. Of course machines can have other consciousnesses too. But this proves that even things you never suspect to be conscious can be conscious.

 

[task0778]

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

You would be surprised. Mathematically, human consciousness or any biological consciousness has been successfully modeled as a state machine, which alternates between sensory input, search for stored pattern, and saving the input next to the most correlated pattern, circling through these states indefinitely. This can be easily programmed into any machine. Of course machines can have other consciousnesses too. But this proves that even things you never suspect to be conscious can be conscious.

That's a hard sell, curious if you could provide your idea of what consciousness is. Opinions differ.

 

[anotherlife]

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

You would be surprised. Mathematically, human consciousness or any biological consciousness has been successfully modeled as a state machine, which alternates between sensory input, search for stored pattern, and saving the input next to the most correlated pattern, circling through these states indefinitely. This can be easily programmed into any machine. Of course machines can have other consciousnesses too. But this proves that even things you never suspect to be conscious can be conscious.

That's a hard sell, curious if you could provide your idea of what consciousness is. Opinions differ.

Okay, what do humans do when they are conscious? They do those states that the above model describes. Invariably. Do you find anything different?

 

[K9Buck]

"This is how humans function. Pattern matching as opposed to logic."

Maybe, a human never exposed to logic. That same, illiterate orphan also does not naturally "play the cello", or "plant crops". Humans evolved not to play the cello or plant crops, but rather to do other things.... like, kill large animals, including each other.... like, pick fruit and eat it... You are not making a case for spirituality, you are making a case for materialism! the fact that all humans share so many of the same, general traits and tendencies is completely explained by evolution. there is not a single time or place where spirituality is required to explain ANY of it. All that is left of the word "spirituality" is to use it to describe the behaviors of physical systems, those systems being humans. We can say they have "spiritual" experiences, when reading poetry, or listening to music. we can still speak of 'spirit", but there is no need to enter anything extra-physical into the idea.

This is patently incorrect. Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything. Without that you can look at the fruit in front of you but you don't see it. And that is why the gospel of John was able to write it out directly that first there was the word, and that gods words were made well known for absolutely everything in this universe.

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

You would be surprised. Mathematically, human consciousness or any biological consciousness has been successfully modeled as a state machine, which alternates between sensory input, search for stored pattern, and saving the input next to the most correlated pattern, circling through these states indefinitely. This can be easily programmed into any machine. Of course machines can have other consciousnesses too. But this proves that even things you never suspect to be conscious can be conscious.

Bullshit.

 

[task0778]

" Spirituality is required to explain the modeling capability of all humans and all animals and of al everything."

Says you. I don't need it to explain anything, and science doesn't, either. We can explain something, and then you'll just point at it and say, "Look, spirituality!". People who explain things empirically don't have that luxury. And, when we run into something we (often only temporarily, which should be a red flag for you) don't understand, you say, "look, spirituality!". Empiricists also do not have that luxury. Empiricist have to back up their claims of fact with rigor, and evidence, and mathematics.

But, most importantly, you haven't really explained anything at all, have you? In neither case have you contributed any useful knowledge whatsoever. you have not explained the events, or the mystery you chosen to embed into them.

To everything you say, we could only ever say, "maybe!". And no further. Ever.

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

You would be surprised. Mathematically, human consciousness or any biological consciousness has been successfully modeled as a state machine, which alternates between sensory input, search for stored pattern, and saving the input next to the most correlated pattern, circling through these states indefinitely. This can be easily programmed into any machine. Of course machines can have other consciousnesses too. But this proves that even things you never suspect to be conscious can be conscious.

That's a hard sell, curious if you could provide your idea of what consciousness is. Opinions differ.

Okay, what do humans do when they are conscious? They do those states that the above model describes. Invariably. Do you find anything different?

Yeah, I find the differences between the awareness of a human being of himself and his environment to greatly exceed that of a machine that is limited to the input from it's sensors and restricted by it's programming. Especially when it comes to spiritual matters, I do not think any computer can be programmed for love, faith, trust, hope, etc. And that is why IMHO no AI program in existence today can be said to be conscious.

 

[anotherlife]

I am a maths student, and I can write an AI program that is more spiritual than you are. Will that pass your criteria of acceptance for spiritual origins? And if you want explanations beyond the "maybe", you have not been specific enough to pick one.

You cannot give the program consciousness.

You would be surprised. Mathematically, human consciousness or any biological consciousness has been successfully modeled as a state machine, which alternates between sensory input, search for stored pattern, and saving the input next to the most correlated pattern, circling through these states indefinitely. This can be easily programmed into any machine. Of course machines can have other consciousnesses too. But this proves that even things you never suspect to be conscious can be conscious.

That's a hard sell, curious if you could provide your idea of what consciousness is. Opinions differ.

Okay, what do humans do when they are conscious? They do those states that the above model describes. Invariably. Do you find anything different?

Yeah, I find the differences between the awareness of a human being of himself and his environment to greatly exceed that of a machine that is limited to the input from it's sensors and restricted by it's programming. Especially when it comes to spiritual matters, I do not think any computer can be programmed for love, faith, trust, hope, etc. And that is why IMHO no AI program in existence today can be said to be conscious.

I can't agree because awareness is only a consequence of having a large enough number of patterns saved about the self. No difference in the model.

Given a database large enough, I speculate that love and hope and all those things will come with it naturally. This is the same type of speculation when an atheist speculates that all after life records can be explained away by existing clinical diagnoses.

 

[anotherlife]

Do you want a repeatable and reliable physical proof of the afterlife? Here is one, check this out.

The deathly stoop chair of Thomas Busby

Busby's stoop chair - Wikipedia

This will cost your life, but ... will be an irrevocable proof to you.

 

[Bonzi]

Most people that don't want to believe there is a God will not seek any kind of evidence.

People that REALLY want to learn will read a lot from both sides.

 

[Taz]

Most people that don't want to believe there is a God will not seek any kind of evidence.

People that REALLY want to learn will read a lot from both sides.

Why should you have to read to find god? That makes no sense. I never had to read about a tree before I could see it and go and touch it... and see that it's real.

 

[Bonzi]

Most people that don't want to believe there is a God will not seek any kind of evidence.

People that REALLY want to learn will read a lot from both sides.

Why should you have to read to find god? That makes no sense. I never had to read about a tree before I could see it and go and touch it... and see that it's real.

Why should God have to show Himself to you? Maybe he wants you to open your eyes. Surely, you don't believe our senses are THAT limited....

 

[Taz]

Most people that don't want to believe there is a God will not seek any kind of evidence.

People that REALLY want to learn will read a lot from both sides.

Why should you have to read to find god? That makes no sense. I never had to read about a tree before I could see it and go and touch it... and see that it's real.

Why should God have to show Himself to you? Maybe he wants you to open your eyes. Surely, you don't believe our senses are THAT limited....

If god doesn't want to show himself to me, then why should I read about him in a made up book? Maybe if you had a scientific paper explaining the whole god thing in a scientific way, that would be interesting, but the people who promote god promote it with a primitive book of myths and nonsense. Like seriously, get a grip.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Funny, many believe that IS THE LIFE! But they call it the after life... anyway.

Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, what do you think it is?
If not, why do you think we are here - or is there no reason?

We are souls, the force that God breathes into things to bring it to life. We are here to learn and to be a companions for God. But once those that has made themselves holy, that they will return to God. But all life will regain their memories of Him on that day. For one thing, that we are all going to be addicted to him, that we will not want to depart from Him ever again.

 

[Bonzi]

If god doesn't want to show himself to me, then why should I read about him in a made up book? Maybe if you had a scientific paper explaining the whole god thing in a scientific way, that would be interesting, but the people who promote god promote it with a primitive book of myths and nonsense. Like seriously, get a grip

You do not HAVE to read a book to find God.
You just have to open your eyes. God reveals himself many ways.
Why is scientific text the only thing you will consider?