I know for a fact that there is no such thing as Hell/Heaven or God/s. And even if a God existed then there is no shred of proof that he ever cared about this insignificant planet or about insignificant humans. People must be insane in believing in these things without a shred of evidence. Free will is also an illusion because really there is no shred of proof that humans have or have ever had free will.
How? On what basis do you make this claim? How can there possibly be a shred of proof if, as you say, it is a fact that there is no such thing as God? If God does not exist then necessarily God can not care about anything. They think there is evidence, so that sort of negates them being insane. Certainly if you thought there was no evidence then you would be insane for believing in the thing. But they think there is evidence. Define free will, please?
I believe that there is no such thing as Hell/Heaven or God/s. And even if a God existed then there is no shred of proof that he/she/it ever cared about this planet or about humans. People might have reasons for believing in these things without a shred of evidence but I don't. Free will might also be an illusion but who truly knows? Sorry for editing your post into my views, pluto2.
There's no need to correct it. You should ask Pluto2, and Alex to correct their views. They know for a fact that God does not exist, and they know for a fact that scriptures are made up. That IS knowing everything. jan.
Are you joking again Jan? Maybe in your world having an opinion on each of these matters may represent knowledge of everything but in my world these matters are mere trivia so I reject that your notion that holding any view here is knowing everything. I can understand that God and the scriptures fill your world but in time as you work out for yourself these things are simply made up, you may hopefully discovery the wealth of knowledge available and you will find the more you learn the greater will be your realisation that there is even more to know such that you will realise one will never know everything. Alex
Jan Ardena: I have no idea what you're talking about. One common definition of "knowing" something break it down into three requirements: 1. You must believe it is true. 2. Your belief must be justified. 3. The belief must, in fact, be true. Belief in the existence of an afterlife is not justified, and it might not be true either, so although there is no shortage of element (1) in the world, (2) and (3) are both problematic. This is why your hypothetical woman does not know there is an afterlife. But all of this is just another of your diversions - in this case a distraction from the barbarity of a religious requirement that women (not men, just women) commit suicide.
Does something that has become an established fact, mean it wasn't a fact before it became established? Why isn't it? It doesn't have to be deemed factual for it to be true. How does asserting your opinion affect the truth of any situation, let alone this one? Here's the problem. She does know she is a spirit-soul, and that she is immortal. We only have your word for that. jan.
Jan Ardena: I have very little interest in having another game of dueling definitions with you, Jan. I realise that is a favorite of yours. I have no intention of getting into an argument about "what is a fact", so I'm not going to start on that one. The usual reason. Insufficient evidence. Okay. It doesn't. It can, however, serve to highlight the truth of the situation. No she doesn't. Such a belief is not justified. Well, yes. It is my opinion, drawn from your posts. I certainly make no apology about labeling as barbarous any religion that requires a women to suicide upon the death of her husband. If this is your religion, I want no part of it.
Because you know the fact of something doesn't become more or less a fact upon deeming it a fact. It depends who you ask. I think there is sufficient evidence. NDE's for example. Or to suppress it. You don't know that, hence it is only your opinion. Where did this emotional spring from? Oh! I see. Dirty tactics. I should have guessed. jan.
More meaningful discussion I see. I get the feeling you think I'm offended by this. On the contrary. It is very enlightening for at least a couple of reasons. Let's see what you've got. Also it proves that people can think and say what they like about God, but it has nothing to do with God. Okay James R? jan.
Is this true? Has God no pride? He has no sense of self-worth that merits a defense on His part against slander? If that was true then why would God bother with prophets? If the human opinion of God is worth the worm's opinion of humans then what good would any worship of God accomplish? If it's true that what people say about God has nothing to do with God then any discussion of God should come to an end. In the same way, if what people say about element X had nothing to do with element X or any part it plays in molecules or anything then it would stand to reason that there should be no discussion regarding element X. It would by definition be a waste of your time.
